Rumors. Musings. Casual.

[MatheusPG]

AK needs big attention IMO before the studios, but we’ll take what we can get I guess.

And it needs expansions, not replacements. Keep Dinosaur and It's Tough to be a Bug, and add more rides. The number of rides that the Disneyland Resort parks have compared to WDW is a joke. There isn't a convincing argument as to why WDW needs to replace rides like The Great Movie Ride for Mickey and Minnie's, while DLR get´s to shove a whole new ride building without replacing an attraction like Roger Rabbit (which totally would have been replaced for it if it were located at WDW).

 

[Jrb1979]

For clarity, it's not that I look down on Universal. Our family's had APs there the last two years and we've enjoyed ourselves. Primarily for the ease of transportation, hotel amenities, value for price paid and the refreshing feeling of spontaneity. Our boys loved Hagrids and are looking forward to EU. We also have our staple of favorite attractions which we enjoy.

I actually applaud Universal for more-or-less staying true to its identity. But we've never had a transformative experience there on the level Disney used to deliver on a regular basis.

And that's where my concern with the Disney brand lies. Instead of leaning into their strengths, they've cowered, copied and capitulated to their closet competitor.

Disney guests used to expect more and Disney used to deliver. But there seems to be almost an open resentment among some in Disney management that they've had to uphold these standards while the parks up the street can get away with less. The problem now is Universal is attempting to go big with EU while Disney is cutting corners, raising prices and going out of their way to make the guest experience as miserable as possible. They've spent the last couple of decades watering down their own brand and trying to reshape and temper the expectations of their customer base. Delivering less-than-stellar attractions that take forever to build and cramming IP into every facet of the experience. "A Whole New World" is a good song but do I really need to hear it in Muzak form at Disney Springs?

And that's one of the problems with Disney and IP. "More Disney" can quickly turn into "too much Disney." Paying thousands of dollars to have the same over-saturated media properties shoved down our throats tends to sound a lot less appealing, especially when the experience used to mean a whole lot more.

So long story short, I guess I give Universal a pass because they've been authentic to their brand. But Disney seems intent on turning themselves into Universal 2.0 and that's not who they were or who they should be. Bottom line, Disney is not doing the hard work of offering brand consistency or a quality product. Where it all goes from here is anyone's guess.

I agree. I grew up in the era of Horizons, World of Motion and the original Journey in Imagination. IMO that's when Disney was at its best. Immersive dark rides with great stories.

I don't think they are purposely copying Universal with the direction they are heading. It's just that's what the new generation wants. They want flashy rides. They want the Trons and Guardians and don't want the slow moving dark rides of the past.

I may not like this new direction but if thats the plan they need to be better than the competition at it.

 

[HenryMystic]

I'm also not sure how you go about building a good Simpsons attraction.

I mean, Universal made one in 2008

ETA: the ride system is long in the tooth now, but the actual premise, script, and jokes are A+

 

[UNCgolf]

I mean, Universal made one in 2008

ETA: the ride system is long in the tooth now, but the actual premise, script, and jokes are A+

We'll have to agree to disagree there. I think it's an awful ride, although the ride system certainly doesn't help it.

The script itself is fine, but that's kind of my point regarding making it into a good ride -- TV and a theme park ride are very different mediums, and translating it into a theme park ride isn't the easiest thing in the world.

 

[TalkingHead]

I mean, Universal made one in 2008

ETA: the ride system is long in the tooth now, but the actual premise, script, and jokes are A+

Was under the impression the preshow was well received when it opened. The ride is past its prime but the humor always seemed to land just fine.

Can’t quite reconcile the optics of what can be perceived as Disney taking a Universal cast-off. Some more of that patented Iger brand awareness, I see.

 

[tired_photog]

Family Guy would be a big hit with the Gen Z crowd Disney desperately wants! Soarin' Over Quahog anyone? Don't even need to change the narration track!

Since Star Tours is already kind of on its own being outside of Galaxy’s Edge, I think re-theming it to Family Guy Star Wars would be amazing.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Wikipedia and RCDB both disagree. Sure, it's a controlled spin on a profile which is unlike most (but not all) spinners, but the coaster trains still spin.

Most of the time that GotG:CR is called a "spinning coaster" is by those with an agenda to hate the ride, or the big blue box, or the overhaul of EPCOT, or whatever grievance they have against Disney. They call it a "spinning coaster" to not give it props for the "controlled spin" which elevate it above other spinning coasters that freely spin. This way, they can continue with their scorched earth assessment of the ride without allowing for any upsides that might interfere with totally trashing it.

It's not a freely spinning coaster.

 

[JD80]

That's a fair point.

I've always considered the Halloween episodes as their own separate thing that really aren't connected to the rest of the franchise, but they're definitely famous (and there are people who really only care about the Halloween episodes). While I'm not sure that would really be representative of the Simpsons IP in general (i.e. all the non-Halloween episodes), it would probably work.

No idea, I haven't watched the show in 15 years. But it was an highly streamed show last year I believe.

 

[UNCgolf]

No idea, I haven't watched the show in 15 years. But it was an highly streamed show last year I believe.

It was. I'm just under the impression that's more repeat viewers watching as a background comfort show (like people do with the Office, e.g.) and less gaining younger new viewers.

I'm sure it is gaining some new viewers, but who knows how many.

 

[JD80]

I agree. I grew up in the era of Horizons, World of Motion and the original Journey in Imagination. IMO that's when Disney was at its best. Immersive dark rides with great stories.

I don't think they are purposely copying Universal with the direction they are heading. It's just that's what the new generation wants. They want flashy rides. They want the Trons and Guardians and don't want the slow moving dark rides of the past.

I may not like this new direction but if thats the plan they need to be better than the competition at it.

Yeah I wish WDI made dark rides still.

 

[Jrb1979]

Most of the time that GotG:CR is called a "spinning coaster" is by those with an agenda to hate the ride, or the big blue box, or the overhaul of EPCOT, or whatever grievance they have against Disney. They call it a "spinning coaster" to not give it props for the "controlled spin" which elevate it above other spinning coasters that freely spin. This way, they can continue with their scorched earth assessment of the ride without allowing for any upsides that might interfere with totally trashing it.

It's not a freely spinning coaster.

I never said it's not a great ride. My point was as great as it is, it's not innovative. It's not to hate on it, just adding to the discussion about Disney going with the flashy rides over story driven dark rides like they did in the past.

 

[Jrb1979]

Yeah I wish WDI made dark rides still.
View attachment 766931View attachment 766932View attachment 766933

View attachment 766934View attachment 766935
View attachment 766936

I never said they don't do dark rides. Just the one they they do are not on the same level as Horizons and World of Motion.

I have accepted they aren't going back to what I loved. The problem I have is they want to add some thrill to everything but aren't near as good at it.

 

[MisterPenguin]

I never said it's not a great ride. My point was as great as it is, it's not innovative. It's not to hate on it, just adding to the discussion about Disney going with the flashy rides over story driven dark rides like they did in the past.

I would disagree that it's not innovative -- even if it has close analogues.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

It was. I'm just under the impression that's more repeat viewers watching as a background comfort show (like people do with the Office, e.g.) and less gaining younger new viewers.

I'm sure it is gaining some new viewers, but who knows how many.

I feel, though, this is kind of like suggesting they should only build attractions around IPs that are franchises. I remember back in the day that Iger suggested that, while Ratatouille was successful, it probably wouldn't be a franchise. Whether you like the resulting attraction or not, though, I am glad with Ratatouille they have at least gone outside of the franchises with which they like to hammer everyone over the head.

Most IPs have a peak and, if they're lucky, settle down into a more consistent sort of popularity. I would be surprised, for example, if Disney's Snow White is a more valuable IP than The Simpsons. That wouldn't make me think they should never build another Snow White attraction.

 

[JD80]

I never said they don't do dark rides. Just the one they they do are not on the same level as Horizons and World of Motion.

I have accepted they aren't going back to what I loved. The problem I have is they want to add some thrill to everything but aren't near as good at it.

Huh? You said: "hey want the Trons and Guardians and don't want the slow moving dark rides of the past."

I showed examples of slow moving dark rides. You just don't like the subject matter or you're just looking for an excuse to trash current imagineers?

 

[HauntedPirate]

For clarity, it's not that I look down on Universal. Our family's had APs there the last two years and we've enjoyed ourselves. Primarily for the ease of transportation, hotel amenities, value for price paid and the refreshing feeling of spontaneity. Our boys loved Hagrids and are looking forward to EU. We also have our staple of favorite attractions which we enjoy.

I actually applaud Universal for more-or-less staying true to its identity. But we've never had a transformative experience there on the level Disney used to deliver on a regular basis.

And that's where my concern with the Disney brand lies. Instead of leaning into their strengths, they've cowered, copied and capitulated to their closet competitor.

Disney guests used to expect more and Disney used to deliver. But there seems to be almost an open resentment among some in Disney management that they've had to uphold these standards while the parks up the street can get away with less. The problem now is Universal is attempting to go big with EU while Disney is cutting corners, raising prices and going out of their way to make the guest experience as miserable as possible. They've spent the last couple of decades watering down their own brand and trying to reshape and temper the expectations of their customer base. Delivering less-than-stellar attractions that take forever to build and cramming IP into every facet of the experience. "A Whole New World" is a good song but do I really need to hear it in Muzak form at Disney Springs?

And that's one of the problems with Disney and IP. "More Disney" can quickly turn into "too much Disney." Paying thousands of dollars to have the same over-saturated media properties shoved down our throats tends to sound a lot less appealing, especially when the experience used to mean a whole lot more.

So long story short, I guess I give Universal a pass because they've been authentic to their brand. But Disney seems intent on turning themselves into Universal 2.0 and that's not who they were or who they should be. Bottom line, Disney is not doing the hard work of offering brand consistency or a quality product. Where it all goes from here is anyone's guess.

Quoting for posterity. Well said.

And if you think hearing Muzak versions of Disney songs at DS is bad, try being inundated with them 24x7 on the Wish. I wanted to punch Chapek's bald head after about 12 hours.

 

[Sectorkeeper71]

Huh? You said: "hey want the Trons and Guardians and don't want the slow moving dark rides of the past."

I showed examples of slow moving dark rides. You just don't like the subject matter or you're just looking for an excuse to trash current imagineers?

Yeah it’s wild that we’re gatekeeping dark rides and singling out 2 examples from 40 years ago as the epitome of dark rides. My favorite ride of all time is the haunted mansion, which is over 50 years old at this point. But that doesn’t mean every single new dark ride has to follow that formula and ride system. Technology changes and the ride experience evolves with that. That’s a good thing

 

[HauntedPirate]

The Ratatouille area was well done. In Paris. The shoehorned Epcot version is laughable in comparison.

 

[Sectorkeeper71]

The Ratatouille area was well done. In Paris. The shoehorned Epcot version is laughable in comparison.

I think the Epcot version is fine, but the Paris version is vastly superior. My biggest gripe about the area at Epcot is it’s in such an awkward hidden spot from the rest of the park. It really feels like you’re going into a backstage area until you round the corner

 

[Jrb1979]

Huh? You said: "hey want the Trons and Guardians and don't want the slow moving dark rides of the past."

I showed examples of slow moving dark rides. You just don't like the subject matter or you're just looking for an excuse to trash current imagineers?

While they are slow moving they are in now way similar to the old dark rides. They have some thrill to them, especially those trackless ones and lack the AAs. If you can't tell the difference between Haunted Mansion and Peter Pan and what they put out now than I don't know what to say.