Opinion: Runaway Railway is as much of a classic as Pirates of the Caribbean and Haunted Mansion

[Minthorne]

MMRR is a perfect* Disney attraction.

*with a slight imperfection in that the 4th car gets a poor show imo.

 

[HouCuseChickie]

While I know you don't like the argument, I think the flaw in this is using the term classic, as the word typically implies it's historically memorable. Yes, there is the term instant classic, but when I hear that term, I tend to think of ESPN trying to replay a recent game that was good but not epic simply because they have nothing else to show or a movie house trying to boost ticket sales for a new feature that may not even be view-worthy.

It is by no means saying that it's not or couldn't be a classic, but when it comes to Disney, classic almost always seems to involve a certain amount of nostalgia. Nothing this new can carry nostalgia for the vast majority of the fan base, so at the very best, anyone who enjoys it can say it's a really good attraction...and that in itself is a subjective matter. Look at the Great Movie Ride...there are people who still are upset that it's gone and are bothered that anything new is in its place. I myself was never a fan of that ride, so I welcomed the change with open arms, but it's part of the angles you have to consider as far as potential popularity and classic potential. Another is the animation style...as classic as the characters in the ride may be...there are people out there that loathe this new style.

All this being said, it's set up to become a classic simply because it involves classic characters, it's Mickey's first ride, it's a dark ride- and nothing says Disney quite like a dark ride, and it's located in the Chinese theater.

 

[justintheharris]

Where screens work well on traditional attractions is when they are used to give depth or as a background. The underwater section or the fast moving street scene in MMRR work. Other examples would be in Navi River where some of the animals in the back are on screens, or in Alice and Wonderland in Disneyland where there are screens to add more characters in a limited space. Rise of the Resistance also uses screens properly, as the windows in the transport ship as we head to space or for the windows on the Star Destroyer. MMRR loses points by having the first thing being Goofy in the train car on a screen. There is no need for that and an animatronic would have been a better choice. Also in the gear room, that is an obvious place to have real working gears. MMRR is not a bad ride, but it's not something I would consider a classic Disney ride. Also, I don't get your Matterhorn argument, everything in a theme park has to be built, it's how they choose to do it that makes the ride.

First, the reason real gears can't be used is because that scene needs to transform into a park. In regards to Goofy, I agree it is bizarre that he isn't an animatronic but if I had to guess, it may be because he's on what is (at least at first.. sorta) part of a ride vehicle. If they had an animatronic on the front of a ride vehicle and, heaven forbid, it fell off or something went wrong... it may be an expensive problem. It also would have required one for every train.

In regards to Matterhorn, I mention it because I think a lot of people get so caught up in the "oh well Walt would have wanted the real thing or something indistinguishable from it" that they forget to realize that even Walt realized some limits of our technology and abilities. For example, Soarin' is a screen ride and there might be some people out there who think "well if Walt had done it, he would have used real life sets with life size set pieces" which... is an absurd thought. It's the same as someone thinking "if Walt had done Expedition Everest, he would have made it 29,000 feet tall like the REAL one!!" Does that explanation make a bit more sense? It's hitting at the complaint that present day imagineering doesn't make stuff "as real as Walt did."

 

[justintheharris]

While I know you don't like the argument, I think the flaw in this is using the term classic, as the word typically implies it's historically memorable. Yes, there is the term instant classic, but when I hear that term, I tend to think of ESPN trying to replay a recent game that was good but not epic simply because they have nothing else to show or a movie house trying to boost ticket sales for a new feature that may not even be view-worthy.

It is by no means saying that it's not or couldn't be a classic, but when it comes to Disney, classic almost always seems to involve a certain amount of nostalgia. Nothing this new can carry nostalgia for the vast majority of the fan base, so at the very best, anyone who enjoys it can say it's a really good attraction...and that in itself is a subjective matter. Look at the Great Movie Ride...there are people who still are upset that it's gone and are bothered that anything new is in its place. I myself was never a fan of that ride, so I welcomed the change with open arms, but it's part of the angles you have to consider as far as potential popularity and classic potential. Another is the animation style...as classic as the characters in the ride may be...there are people out there that loathe this new style.

All this being said, it's set up to become a classic simply because it involves classic characters, it's Mickey's first ride, it's a dark ride- and nothing says Disney quite like a dark ride, and it's located in the Chinese theater.

I changed the title of the thread last second and probably should have kept the original. The original was "Runaway Railway is more on par with Pirates and Haunted Mansion, not Fantasyland dark ride." This was probably more accurate because it's easy to interpret the word "classic" for nostalgia or something that is established but in my original title, I was more meaning to say it was comparable to the story telling we see in Pirates and Haunted Mansion more so than the format of a Fantasyland dark ride.

 

[marni1971]

Opinion: no.

 

[Tom Morrow]

I don't feel that a transition from the real world to the ride's fantasy world is a checkmark for classic Disney attractions, as there are many classic attractions that don't do this because the attraction itself is an extension of the themed environment it's already in.

 

[Surferboy567]

I haven't ridden the ride, but have seen lots of POV and judging by what I have seen...I'm super impressed. Can't call it a classic since I haven't done it myself but I think it will become one of my favorites. I agree with OP.

 

[JustAFan]

Excellent Disney ride. Way too early to call it a 'classic'.

 

[larryz]

Is this seriously the only rebuttal I'm going to get? It's been open for two seconds so therefore it's not a classic? Has nobody ever heard of instant-classics? But even that aside, could we explore the topic a bit more than shutting it down with a reply that could've been made without reading a single word of what I wrote in the actual thread? You know... why I would already declare this an instant classic?

Merriam-Webster
clas·sic /ˈklasik/ adjective
adjective: classic

1. 1.
   judged over a period of time to be of the highest quality and outstanding of its kind.

So it seems a period of time needs to be considered first. Is two weeks a sufficient period of time? I'd say, given the age of WDW and its representative rides, based on the original Disneyland concept... no.

 

[Pepper's Ghost]

Want to have a drinking game where you have to consume everytime the OP says "classic"?

Great idea!

Yeah, using the word "classic" makes this thread more controversial for lack of a better term. It might be a very good ride, but classics are associated with age. I mean, the definition is "judged over a period of time to be of the highest quality and outstanding of its kind. "

Never having ridden it, I'd say it's probably a very enjoyable ride, but I think time will tell if it's a "classic" . Besides, "classic" is in the eye of the beholder. To me classics include Haunted Mansion, PotC, Space Mountain, Spaceship Earth, Tower of Terror, and Rock 'n' Rollercoaster, etc. However, rides I love like Expedition Everest, Soarin', Test Track to name a few aren't classics yet, and may never be. I dunno why, but as much as I love TT (or used to prior to the 2.0 Tron-ifying of it), I can't bring myself to describe it as a classic .

 

[Pepper's Ghost]

Merriam-Webster
clas·sic /ˈklasik/ adjective
adjective: classic

1. 1.
   judged over a period of time to be of the highest quality and outstanding of its kind.

So it seems a period of time needs to be considered first. Is two weeks a sufficient period of time? I'd say, given the age of WDW and its representative rides, based on the original Disneyland concept... no.

Ha! Great minds... you beat me before I could type out my dissertation.

 

[Cmdr_Crimson]

I just imagine how Mr Toad would have been trackless..

 

[Prince-1]

I rode it. Not a classic but it was good.

 

[RobWDW1971]

Apologies if it came off aggressive but it felt as though the thread title was read and a reply was formed without really reading any of what was written in the actual post.

Yeah, I didn't read all that. Guilty.

 

[THE 1HAPPY HAUNT]

Short Answer: NO. It's not a classic or an instant classic yet. Ride barely opened before the park got shut down. Not enough time has passed. The people determine if it's a classic over time not your criteria.

Long Answer: It is no more a classic than Rise of the Resistance based on your own criteria, which I don't even agree with your criteria that the ride has to transition you from reality to a fantasy world to begin with. As pointed above, many all time classic rides don't do that at all. But RISE meets your criteria even though you dismissed it for some reason. You walk through a forest, then enter the queue that takes you through some real life caves, then you enter a cave hidden base and then from there the adventure goes on. In fact RISE meets your criteria more for it takes you on a ship in space to a star detroyer, then back to a planet at the end from which you came. I would argue RISE will be more of a classic in the long run than MMRR.

Comparing it to PIRATES or MANSION is a insult quite frankly to those 2 rides because when you think of DISNEYLAND or DISNEY WORLD, 2 of the rides that automatically come to mind are PIRATES & MANSION. They have stood the test of time. No one is using MMRR at this point as a benchmark or tentpole when they think of DISNEY WORLD. Sorry but I disagree with your hypothesis in every way.

 

[justintheharris]

I don't feel that a transition from the real world to the ride's fantasy world is a checkmark for classic Disney attractions, as there are many classic attractions that don't do this because the attraction itself is an extension of the themed environment it's already in.

You're right. Peter Pans Flight and Space Mountain all do so. But I think the element of a smooth transition between the real world and fantasy world is something worth considering for the attraction.

Edit: Initially I included Splash Mountain in that short list of Peter Pan's Flight and Space Mountain but actually, I would argue Splash Mountain more or less follows the formula laid out by Pirates and Haunted Mansion. Splash Mountain seemingly begins aboard a log down a river. You get a little foreshadowing with Brer Frog and a few show elements after the second lift but you don't truly enter the realm of fantasy until you drop down Slippin' Falls.

 

[justintheharris]

Short Answer: NO. It's not a classic or an instant classic yet. Ride barely opened before the park got shut down. Not enough time has passed. The people determine if it's a classic over time not your criteria.

Long Answer: It is no more a classic than Rise of the Resistance based on your own criteria, which I don't even agree with your criteria that the ride has to transition you from reality to a fantasy world to begin with. As pointed above, many all time classic rides don't do that at all. But RISE meets your criteria even though you dismissed it for some reason. You walk through a forest, then enter the queue that takes you through some real life caves, then you enter a cave hidden base and then from there the adventure goes on. In fact RISE meets your criteria more for it takes you on a ship in space to a star detroyer, then back to a planet at the end from which you came. I would argue RISE will be more of a classic in the long run than MMRR.

Comparing it to PRIATES or MANSION is a insult quite frankly to those 2 rides because when you think of DISNEYLAND or DISNEY WORLD, 2 of the rides that automatically come to mind are PIRATES & MANSION. They have stood the test of time. No one is using MMRR at this point as a benchmark or tentpole when they think of DISNEY WORLD. Sorry but I disagree with your hypothesis in every way.

I'm not sure I've ever ridden Priates at Disney. And a comparison to a ride must mean these rides are easily insulted.

Now I wouldn't deem Rise of the Resistance a classic on the basis that it starts in fantasy and the transition from reality to fantasy really happens when you walk through the tunnel into Star Wars land. By all means, there's no other way for that transition to happen and it works perfectly fine. But it is... abrupt? Rise of the Resistance is a wonderful wonderful wonderful ride. I consider it more new wave and just a more modern format of a Disney attraction. It still is better than over half of the classic attractions. I just think it breaks with some traditions but for all the right reasons.

 

[UNCgolf]

Where screens work well on traditional attractions is when they are used to give depth or as a background. The underwater section or the fast moving street scene in MMRR work. Other examples would be in Navi River where some of the animals in the back are on screens, or in Alice and Wonderland in Disneyland where there are screens to add more characters in a limited space. Rise of the Resistance also uses screens properly, as the windows in the transport ship as we head to space or for the windows on the Star Destroyer. MMRR loses points by having the first thing being Goofy in the train car on a screen. There is no need for that and an animatronic would have been a better choice. Also in the gear room, that is an obvious place to have real working gears. MMRR is not a bad ride, but it's not something I would consider a classic Disney ride. Also, I don't get your Matterhorn argument, everything in a theme park has to be built, it's how they choose to do it that makes the ride.

I agree with almost all of this, especially as it relates to the use of screens in attractions. The Goofy screen for the locomotive is actually even worse because it doesn't fill the whole opening -- there's a very obvious gap between the top of the screen and the top of the opening in the train car. On the other hand, I assume there are multiple Goofy vehicles, which means it would require multiple animatronics, and if one of them stopped working that vehicle would no longer be usable (and would likely take much longer to fix than a simple screen malfunction). I imagine that's why they used a screen.

The only thing that's wrong is the comment about the boiler room. That whole room transforms into the park scene, so they couldn't have used actual gears.

 

[justintheharris]

I agree with almost all of this, especially as it relates to the use of screens in attractions. The Goofy screen for the locomotive is actually even worse because it doesn't fill the whole opening -- there's a very obvious gap between the top of the screen and the top of the opening in the train car. On the other hand, I assume there are multiple Goofy vehicles, which means it would require multiple animatronics, and if one of them stopped working that vehicle would no longer be usable (and would likely take much longer to fix than a simple screen malfunction). I imagine that's why they used a screen.

The only thing that's wrong is the comment about the boiler room. That whole room transforms into the park scene, so they couldn't have used actual gears.

And it just occurred to me that if Goofy was an animatronic, there may be an issue with people in the front attempting to touch him. Similar to when they had to change the apple in the Snow White ride to a holographic one as people kept trying to take it.

 

[Pepper's Ghost]

I'm not sure I've ever ridden Priates at Disney. And a comparison to a ride must mean these rides are easily insulted.

You know your argument is falling apart when you resort to picking on a person's typos, or semantics of insulting a ride.

You're right. Peter Pans Flight and Space Mountain all do so. But I think the element of a smooth transition between the real world and fantasy world is something worth considering for the attraction.

I agree with Tom and 1Happy Haunt. Honestly, I don't understand why a smooth transition (or any transition) into fantasy world has anything to do with being a classic. Soarin', which I don't consider a classic yet might get that distinction eventually if they every retrofit it with the original Soarin' Over Cali. The update to Soarin' Over the World has been a giant step backwards, but should they go back to the original, I'd say I'd consider it a classic in due time.

Just a thought, at Six Flags Great America there used to be a ride called Cajun Cliffhanger. The ride consisted of stepping into a round "room", standing against a wall, and they shut the entry door. The room would spin faster and faster until you were stuck firmly against the wall, and then the floor would drop out with everyone sticking to the walls. After 30 seconds or so, the floor would come back up, and the spinning would slow to a stop. That ride was removed and there was an outcry because everyone felt it was a "classic" of the park. At no point do you enter a "fantasy world", yet it was a classic in the minds of many. Just sayin'...

For anyone who might not remember or heard of the ride I just mentioned, I found a video of something online that was identical. You can see from the comments below the video how beloved the ride was... to my point.