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

[shambolicdefending]

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

Be careful of what you wish for...

IMO, attraction capacity absolutely must be a top priority for any expansions in this day and age.

That doesn't mean everything needs to be 2,500pph plus, but with annual attendance approaching 20 million, and prices increasing at the rate they are, I don't think low capacity D- and E-tickets are justifiable.

As a consumer, the number of major attractions I can go on in a day, and the amount of subsequent time I spend standing in a queue will have a huge impact on where I choose to spend my money.

 

[shambolicdefending]

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?

I can't speak for others, but my criticism basically begins and ends with the horrible capacity and huge amount of downtime.

 

[chadwpalm]

The parks were packed Sunday yet light on MLK weekend Saturday. Not sure what's going on but there was nothing to do after noon without an 8pm return time or 60+ minute wait.

Believe it or not, the parks were pretty light yesterday compared to Saturday.

 

[Mickeyboof]

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?

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

What is the alternative? Go back in time and engineer an attraction that can handle modern audiences that meet modern capacities. The realistic plan is exactly what they're doing everyday- working on it every moment it breaks down to better their situation. They are doing all they can with what they built THEMSELVES. It's their problem, not mine. They should have made better decisions.

I, at least, am damning the engineering of this machine. The product is absolutely wonderful... but only a fraction of people get to ride it a day. Thats a fundamental problem from day one.

 

[mickEblu]

Exactly.

If you had gone back in time 55 years and told Walt and his sharp pencil boys then that they should spend a few hundred million dollars to build a new E Ticket that can only get 1,500 riders per hour at best, but will spend the first few months only getting 700 riders per hour and will only operate for 8 to 10 hours per day, Walt would have fired you on the spot.

And then Walt would turn to Bob Gurr and Marc Davis and tell them to do something with pirates, and so they used slide rules and watercolor paints to design Pirates of the Caribbean for half that budget that easily put 2,800 people per hour through as it hosted 40,000 customers in the average 16 hour Saturday. Back when Disneyland attendance was one third of what it is today.

This is a problem because for at least the past decade, over and over again, the current crop of Celebrity Imagineers and Clueless Park Executives keep designing, approving and paying for these rides that have abysmally low capacity.
The execs who keep making these idiotic decisions are simply not good hosts and aren't doing their jobs well.

Meanwhile, at Disneyland, the ride has been closed for an hour and is stuck on Boarding Group 63. @chadwpalm we're all pulling for you that it reopens shortly and gets up to 77 before 4:30! I think if the ride reopens before 3pm you will probably make it!

Today's latest graph...

Wait Time for Star Wars: Rise of the Resistance at Disneyland - Thrill-Data

Learn what to ride and when with wait times at Disney World, Disneyland, Universal Orlando, Universal Hollywood, Six Flags, Cedar Fair, Cedar Point, and more

www.thrill-data.com

It’s because they re more concerned with something being cutting edge than it being reliable. I mean understand the hard place they re in but I don’t think they have done a great job balancing the need to be cutting edge in the modern theme park industry/ world and having good capacity for modern day crowds. None of the latest E tickets have great capacity except maybe Shanghai Pirates? That’s why I always wish they would go back to basics once in a while. Give us a super repeatable And fun themed roller coaster like BTMRR or Space Mountain with a few modern bells and whistles. I’m obviously right because the rumor is they are considering one for GE now only after the lackluster reaction to the land. Technology has become to much of the focal point of these new projects. They have to reel it back in just a little bit.

Or maybe I ride ROTR on Sunday and say it’s all worth it? Lol

 

[flynnibus]

IMO, attraction capacity absolutely must be a top priority for any expansions in this day and age.

It can't be ignored and there really should be expectations for minimums depending on the target for the attraction. But I want them to be bold too... and not just safe (looking at you navi river...)

 

[flynnibus]

What is the alternative? Go back in time and engineer an attraction that can handle modern audiences that meet modern capacities.

Your generalizations mean nothing. It's like saying "need more money? make more money!" "Broke? Fix it!!" Just words that don't actually move anything forward.

 

[Mickeyboof]

Your generalizations mean nothing. It's like saying "need more money? make more money!" "Broke? Fix it!!" Just words that don't actually move anything forward.

Sorry, let me review the case file and I’ll be back with you! It may take a few months to present a detailed list of my notes on this confidential project.

Be right back!

 

[chadwpalm]

I believe the boarding groups process is simply a way to soft open the attraction without it "officially" being a soft open. They knew they needed another 6 months to perfect it (if that's possible), but already committed to January and were trying to save some face by it already being 8 months past the land opening. By doing boarding group and stating that it's no guarantee you'll even get on it allows them to test and tweek the ride using guests instead of just cast members, and if it breaks down, oh well, their legal department covered that with disclaimers (that still don't show up in commercials).

As been already stated, even RSR and IJA still have frequent breakdowns. Hopefully they can get this attraction to a good capacity with infrequent break downs, but time will tell. I expect this boarding group deal to continue until they think they have it tweeked well enough to start doing a standard queue with minimal closures.

 

[Disney Analyst]

This attraction actually has great capacity by modern ride standards, it just can't get to that capacity...

 

[el_super]

As a consumer, the number of major attractions I can go on in a day, and the amount of subsequent time I spend standing in a queue will have a huge impact on where I choose to spend my money.

But has that really changed between January 16th and today? You've made mention that a visit to Disneyland isnt worth it until you have a better chance of rising the attraction, which on the surface seems like a fair assertion, but nothing of the original core Disneyland experience has changed. All the attractions that were operating on January 16th are still there (although admittedly some closed for refurbishment).

In the broader context of the whole park, the capacity of a singular attraction is mostly inconsequential to the whole experience. The park as a whole has enough to keep the entire audience entertained for the day.

Saying that a day isn't worth the price of admission until you are gauranteed to ride the latest and greatest, fundamentally shifts the entire equation. Simultaneously devaluing every attraction in the park, and almost demanding that every new attraction have a capacity of over 60,000 riders per day. This is the same kind of thinking that validates removing older attractions or updating the classics, because you have to keep chasing what's new.

Aside from the technical aspects of always producing a high thru-put attraction, I don't think Disney is prepared or capable of meeting that specific kind of demand.

 

[shambolicdefending]

But has that really changed between January 16th and today?

After my family's last trip to DLR last winter, we decided we would take a break for 2-3 years and do some other things instead. A year later my young kids keep asking when we're going back. If I had higher expectations for the new Star Wars stuff I could probably be persuaded to start planning another trip again. As it is, I'm not that interested and my kids will continue to get the "some other time," answer.

Like I've said all along, if I'm in the minority in feeling this way, then this is of absolutely no consequence. But, I have a feeling I'm not, and ambivalence was not supposed to be the how guests responded to SWGE.

 

[mickEblu]

This attraction actually has great capacity by modern ride standards, it just can't get to that capacity...

Even if it does get to 1700, it’s not great. They have to find a way to give us modern attractions that can eat 2500 people an hour and still be impressive and fun at the same time. They can do it. They have the money and resources. They just have to want to do it and not cut corners.

 

[thenerdbaker]

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.

Maybe don't rush an opening and test it more and only open it when it is actually working. This was meant to increase attendance but no one wants to plan a trip if they have a very low chance of riding the new ride. I live in Seattle and was going to take a trip early spring but have moved my trip to September because no way I'm spending the money to not be able to do this.

 

[DanielBB8]

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

Be careful of what you wish for...

Yes, the simple way is convert Rise of Resistance into a screen attraction and scrap the problematic Rise of Resistance. Is this why other theme parks don't have the original Twilight Zone Tower of Terror because the drop portion is so unreliable? We have unreliability 10x.

People have no patience, but it is patience that makes great attractions. I believe Disneyland attendance reflects the general reception of the public. They want to go, but wary of ride breakdowns. Another big issue is how Disney handled the Star Wars IP. Rise of Skywalker is pretty much a bust. The sequel trilogy is a creative and merchandising failure. Disney took a competitive IP and broke it in 3 movies (TLJ, Solo, and RoS). The Mandalorians give us some hope.

 

[George Lucas on a Bench]

I just can't believe the ride wasn't designed to push more people through. I mean, the whole thing with this Star Wars expansion from the start was boasting about its size. Largest themed expansion ever. The Rise of the Resistance building is massive. Never in a million years did I think it would have such low capacity. You just assume that biggest = more people, but Galaxy Edge has subverted our expectations from the get-go with the summer of ghost town and now an average of maybe 10,000 people (?) a day who are lucky enough to be able to get on Rise.

 

[el_super]

They are a currently running 12.4 boarding groups per hour. Looks like no downtime (so far).

 

[lumberguy5]

Even if it does get to 1700, it’s not great. They have to find a way to give us modern attractions that can eat 2500 people an hour and still be impressive and fun at the same time. They can do it. They have the money and resources. They just have to want to do it and not cut corners.

2500 actual pph is a major requirement to lean on a ride. For Disney that would mean an Omnimover, a "boat" ride, or multiple "tracks". RotR probably could do 2500+, if they added more rows. Then after resizing the preshows/elements, they would have Shanghai's Pirates without the water.

As much as I would love to see a very high capacity coaster like Dueling Dragons deployed, I suspect that the APs would come out of the walls about how Disney isn't supposed to be Six Flags or Cedar Fair.

Edit: Also since Hagrid's Coaster cost 300 million, I can't even fathom the price tag that RotR ending at.

 

[Atomicmickey]

OK, need advice.

Planning, perhaps, a trip to Disneyland for (ack) Spring Break. So March 21,22 and maybe 23.

We are power park hoppers, usually get up at 5 AM and don't leave until they kick us out, lol.
Have been to WDW about 20 times and DL about 6. So we are not rookies.

BUT the combination of spring break (Touring Plans crowd calendars at a 10!) and this boarding pass thing
has me freaked out.

I know, I know, if we don't get in, we are still at freakin' Disneyland. We would have a great time.

But the point is, to experience ROTR. And I am thinking, maybe we wait. Maybe in the fall?

I just can't see going there, hitting the button on two days and being iced out of the attraction. At 8AM,
you know you aren't on it. Done, thanks for playing. We can be there, we can take all the advice, we will do it, but it seems like
it could happen that we go all that way and don't get to see it.

So. Those who have gone, those who are watching such things closely. If you are there, hitting your Join Boarding
Group button at 8AM on the second, how may disappointed people are there? Do most get in?

I don't know. I just don't know.

 

[el_super]

As it is, I'm not that interested and my kids will continue to get the "some other time," answer.

Honestly, I think the once every 2-3 years schedule is a good one. Hopefully Rise will have settled into a groove by then, and you would get the new Marcel attractions too. Either way you slice it, you will still get the entertainment of a full day at Disneyland.

Like I've said all along, if I'm in the minority in feeling this way, then this is of absolutely no consequence. But, I have a feeling I'm not, and ambivalence was not supposed to be the how guests responded to SWGE.

Different side of the argument, but in a way you're right here. I dont think the ambivalence was a result of the attractions themselves, but the cost of going overall. And rather unfairly, the price increases apply to everyone coming in, whether they experience the new attractions or not. That actually is a big deterrent to going. But since they believed they already had a problem with overcrowding, before SWGE opened, the price increases were justified.

Maybe don't rush an opening and test it more and only open it when it is actually working. This was meant to increase attendance but no one wants to plan a trip if they have a very low chance of riding the new ride. I live in Seattle and was going to take a trip early spring but have moved my trip to September because no way I'm spending the money to not be able to do this.

I generally have come to think that the boarding group lottery isn't all that great. I would prefer a method that would allow people to put in more effort (either waiting super early or paying more money) to be guaranteed a spot, rather than risking everything for potentially nothing.

That's said, I still don't think they opened the attraction too early, or that more testing would have helped anything. I think having 10,000 people a day ride, is still better than having 0 ride. Just need to work out a way of making it more fair.