Star Wars: Rise of the Resistance opening reports and using Boarding Groups at Disneyland

[Mickeyboof]

point remains the same.. instead of just complaining... what would you suggest is the better alternative Disney should be pursuing?

Capacity conscious engineered attractions.

 

[flynnibus]

Capacity conscious engineered attractions.

Ok, but what do you think they should do today... and for the coming months?

 

[Mickeyboof]

Ok, but what do you think they should do today... and for the coming months?

I never once said I had a solution.

This is a day one problem. We are now some years past day one.

 

[flynnibus]

I never once said I had a solution.

So glad to see the strict customer POV represented in a discussion about theme park design and what it should be.

Lacking from the 'why don't they build 3000pph' rides arguments is the difference in experience. People just love to demand the same extract attraction somehow had 3x more throughput because they get to ignore all the constraints.

 

[shambolicdefending]

point remains the same.. instead of just complaining... what would you suggest is the better alternative Disney should be pursuing?

I think at this point most of us just hope that lessons are learned from this that stick at the senior decision-making level for a long time. Of course not every ride has to be a people eater, but opening up a generationally groundbreaking E-ticket with Winnie the Pooh-type capacity is just plain bad business.

I think we're also hoping that decision makers realize these problems in the near term, and put resources where they should be to make it better as quickly as they can. I would guess that's probably what's going on behind the curtain, but I don't necessarily blame anyone who's more cynical about it.

 

[el_super]

Capacity conscious engineered attractions.

Is it worth sacrificing show for efficiency? I get it that no one likes waiting in an hours long line (or in this case having to deal with a lottery to even get a chance to ride), but if the results are worth it, why not? Compared to Pirates or the Railroad, Space Mountain's capacity isnt great either, but people are still willing to wait 75+ minutes to ride.

So, sometimes low capacity IS acceptable?

 

[el_super]

Of course not every ride has to be a people eater, but opening up a generationally groundbreaking E-ticket with Winnie the Pooh-type capacity is just plain bad business.

Food for thought: the ride system and preshow that constrain the attraction to a low capacity are exactly what make the attraction "groundbreaking."

So which is perferrable: boring old ride systems that are reliable and have great capacity, or the new cutting edge ride systems that struggles to start up in the morning?

 

[shambolicdefending]

Food for thought: the ride system and preshow that constrain the attraction to a low capacity are exactly what make the attraction "groundbreaking."

So which is perferrable: boring old ride systems that are reliable and have great capacity, or the new cutting edge ride systems that struggles to start up in the morning?

I think you're challenging an argument that no one is really making. I doubt there'd be much complaining if the ride were operating at close to the full capacity it was designed for, and wasn't spending such a high percentage of time 101.

I hope they can get it to that point sooner than later.

 

[shambolicdefending]

Is it worth sacrificing show for efficiency? I get it that no one likes waiting in an hours long line (or in this case having to deal with a lottery to even get a chance to ride), but if the results are worth it, why not?

I have no doubt that my family and I will love ROTR when we finally get a chance to go on it. But I don't live in SoCal so a visit to DLR requires a huge investment of time and money. It's simply not worth it to me to start planning a trip until reliability and capacity for the ride I'm most interested in going on is significantly improved. I doubt I'm alone.

 

[Mickeyboof]

So glad to see the strict customer POV represented in a discussion about theme park design and what it should be.

Lacking from the 'why don't they build 3000pph' rides arguments is the difference in experience. People just love to demand the same extract attraction somehow had 3x more throughput because they get to ignore all the constraints.

Nah! I just think 700 people an hour is a little weak.

But I'm happy you approve!

 

[el_super]

I think you're challenging an argument that no one is really making. I doubt there'd be much complaining if the ride were operating at close to the full capacity it was designed for, and wasn't spending such a high percentage of time 101.

I think the challenge here is understanding that complicated attractions are complicated and have problems. If the audience wants groundbreaking attractions, they have to be willing to work through the growing pains. Disney will be plenty motivated to fix the issues with the attraction and increase capacity as they can, but even if they can't, what recourse do they have? Close the whole thing and try again? This is a tad bit bigger than the Flying Saucers.

 

[Mickeyboof]

I think the challenge here is understanding that complicated attractions are complicated and have problems. If the audience wants groundbreaking attractions, they have to be willing to work through the growing pains. Disney will be plenty motivated to fix the issues with the attraction and increase capacity as they can, but even if they can't, what recourse do they have? Close the whole thing and try again? This is a tad bit bigger than the Flying Saucers.

Hey you're right on the money! Both attractions have almost the same riders per hour capacity!

 

[shambolicdefending]

I think the challenge here is understanding that complicated attractions are complicated and have problems. If the audience wants groundbreaking attractions, they have to be willing to work through the growing pains. Disney will be plenty motivated to fix the issues with the attraction and increase capacity as they can, but even if they can't, what recourse do they have? Close the whole thing and try again? This is a tad bit bigger than the Flying Saucers.

I agree that some growing pains are to be expected. But, the fact is I just don't believe the current amount of accomodation they're asking of me is worth the price tag.

You can believe I'm demanding too much out of a brand new attraction, but ultimately it's my time and money and my choice to make.

If things are rocking and rolling 90 days from now, with close to 1,500 pph getting on and few downtimes, I'll be quite pleased to change my attitude.

 

[el_super]

If things are rocking and rolling 90 days from now, with close to 1,500 pph getting on and few downtimes, I'll be quite pleased to change my attitude.

What if, 90 days from now, the attraction is running at full capacity, but they still have the boarding group lottery to determine boarding? Would you really be content to know they are running at full captacitt, even if you still dont get to ride?

There is the rest of Disneyland still to enjoy...

 

[flynnibus]

I think at this point most of us just hope that lessons are learned from this that stick at the senior decision-making level for a long time. Of course not every ride has to be a people eater, but opening up a generationally groundbreaking E-ticket with Winnie the Pooh-type capacity is just plain bad business.

So is the alternative to instead just have a high capacity average attraction?

Be careful of what you wish for...

 

[Mickeyboof]

So is the alternative to instead just have a high capacity average attraction?

Be careful of what you wish for...

Why do people have to be so polarized here? Why does it have to be one extreme versus another extreme?

How about an E Ticket that has a decent ride capacity (preferably over 700 per hour) that also features great story beats?

I'm sure one day Rise will get to that super sexy 1,700 spot (or hover close to it), but to scream out NOW OPEN while only serving a pitiful fraction of the daily visitors and running for half the day (without breakdowns) is simply unacceptable. And Disney knows it. Thats where they are implementing boarding passes.

 

[flynnibus]

Nah! I just think 700 people an hour is a little weak.

I agree - but this is a Disneyland specific issue so far... If the attraction could do better than what it is.. you'd point would have more credence. But right now you have an attraction running at a fraction of it's capacity for limited hours and ignoring it doesn't have to be that way... it just is at DL at the moment.

If they never get the attraction reliable... then we'd have some stones worth throwing (Re: Yeti) - but we aren't at that point yet.

 

[flynnibus]

Why do people have to be so polarized here? Why does it have to be one extreme versus another extreme?

Because there is such a thing as REALITY and CONSTRAINTS. You know that thing you shy away from when challenged with 'what is the alternative'?

When people want to dream up 'how things should be' but refuse to work through how realities will be addressed... it's just monday morning quarterbacking without having to face any of the realities the designers live with.

Look at what it took to get an experience like MFSR with it's small groups to scale.. you have huge horizontal scaling of the attraction. Look at what it means to have 'its just us' fixed scenes like the AT-AT scene vs rolling into an ongoing cycling scene like the ship/fort interaction at POTC.

Doing some things that are highly desirable come with consequences. Many can be creatively worked around.. some simply can not be. So if you really like those things.. if you mandate hard throughput numbers you'd simply throw out all those show possibilities.

Attraction throughput has impact on what kind of attraction you can have... So be careful what you wish for

 

[shambolicdefending]

What if, 90 days from now, the attraction is running at full capacity, but they still have the boarding group lottery to determine boarding? Would you really be content to know they are running at full captacitt, even if you still dont get to ride?

There is the rest of Disneyland still to enjoy...

The BG system itself is not a huge deal to me. It's probably not my first preference, but it's not the core issue in my mind

 

[flynnibus]

I think you're challenging an argument that no one is really making. I doubt there'd be much complaining if the ride were operating at close to the full capacity it was designed for, and wasn't spending such a high percentage of time 101.

Then why are they damning the ride instead of the operations/building of it? Truth is people are damning the effort and concept while ignoring the Disneyland situation right now is subpar and not necessarily what it 'has to be'. The question really is, will they be able to overcome it without sacrificing too much of the original attraction concepts?