Consumer
Well-Known Member
This was the first thing I noticed with Frozen and it's also unfortunately true of the Tangled ride, although I think it works better for that attraction. It's a trend that truly baffles me.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
The Miscellaneous Thought Thread
- Thread starter mickEblu
- Start date
donaldtoo
Well-Known Member
Miscellaneous DLR thought…
We need to get back there.
I first visited Disneyland in the summer of ‘68 at age 5, with subsequent visits in ‘70 and ‘72.
Didn’t visit again ‘til ‘87 with my fiancé (now wife of 35+ years), and our one and only family trip with our 3 children was in ‘10.
Been to WDW 10 times.
Man, we really need to get back to DLR.
We need to get back there.
I first visited Disneyland in the summer of ‘68 at age 5, with subsequent visits in ‘70 and ‘72.
Didn’t visit again ‘til ‘87 with my fiancé (now wife of 35+ years), and our one and only family trip with our 3 children was in ‘10.
Been to WDW 10 times.
Man, we really need to get back to DLR.
truecoat
Well-Known Member
I canceled my D+ subscription a while back but after subscribing to HULU for a buck a month around Xmas, I was able to add D+ for 3 bucks. Last Saturday, I was thinking about watching a Star War for May the Fourth, etc. and ended up deciding to watch big scenes from a bunch of Star Wars movies on D+.
I pulled up the walker attack from The Empire Strikes Back first. A commercial starts and I'm like ok, I do remember something about them adding commercials and I now have a cheap 3-dollar add-on plan. 4 or 5 commercials later, I can access the movie and I fast-forward to the attack. As soon as the empire blows up the shield generator, it jumps to another commercial. This infuriated me that they would stick commercials into parts of the movie not just at the beginning and I'm cancelling again. I'm fine with TV shows having commercials throughout or the free movie streaming site apps but I'm not paying to have movies interrupted, especially when they just interrupt big action sequences.
I pulled up the walker attack from The Empire Strikes Back first. A commercial starts and I'm like ok, I do remember something about them adding commercials and I now have a cheap 3-dollar add-on plan. 4 or 5 commercials later, I can access the movie and I fast-forward to the attack. As soon as the empire blows up the shield generator, it jumps to another commercial. This infuriated me that they would stick commercials into parts of the movie not just at the beginning and I'm cancelling again. I'm fine with TV shows having commercials throughout or the free movie streaming site apps but I'm not paying to have movies interrupted, especially when they just interrupt big action sequences.
Consumer
Well-Known Member
The Tangled ride is definitely my favorite thing to come out of Fantasy Springs, but it really feels like it should have been workshopped more. I love how it manages to tell the story of Rapunzel without being beat for beat like Frozen Journey does. However, the glaring problem is just how short this attraction is and as a result there's very little build up.
Fixing this really isn't that difficult because of how solid the bones of the story here are; Rapunzel wants to leave her tower and see the floating lanterns, and we're coming along. Simple, easy. So we know our destination: the floating lanterns. That's there, we're set on that and it's easily the best part of the attraction.
But what about the start? Right off the bat we see Rapunzel in her tower and then she's outside. There needs to be more going on there. First off, the reveal of Rapunzel's tower needs to be more dramatic. Much like how Flynn discovers her tower, guests should pass through an ivy gateway and come upon her valley. That's when we see Rapunzel singing in her tower. From there we could go into the show building and have that wonderful "gif" scene of her swinging around the tree. Although I do think it would be helpful to have Mother Gothel establishing why Rapunzel can't leave her tower, I don't think it's necessary.
With Rapunzel now free, we should hear her voice trembling at the thought of "Ruffians? Thugs?" as a bunny hops out of the bushes before passing by the Snuggly Duckling. Unlike Tokyo's iteration, which is just a flat façade, it ought to be more akin to the Dwarfs' Hut at the end of Seven Dwarfs Mine Train with guests seeing "I've Got a Dream" through the windows of the pub. There we can have Mother Gothel peering through the window, as well. After the Snuggly Duckling, can then get hit with the Stabbington Brothers before we plunge down a small drop into the healing scene, evoking the escape made by Flynn and Rapunzel that ultimately got Flynn injured.
Following the drop, everything could remain exactly the same. Flynn getting his hand fixed (a scene that currently has no bearing on the attraction's story, as beautiful as it is), to the castle, to at last the floating lanterns.
Really, it is a pretty good attraction, but it's just shy of being great. It truly feels like a classic Fantasyland dark ride, not worrying about retelling the story but focusing on a story unique for the ride, but it's just missing a few beats that would help tie everything together. I'd love for an improved version to make its way to Disneyland, taking over Autopia or the Fantasyland theater.
McMickeyWorld
Well-Known Member
waltography
Well-Known Member
Part of the issue with the tower is it's right against the guest path, which makes for a visually striking panorama of the Tangled port but undercuts any chance of a grand reveal. Would've been better if they pulled off a Firewall Falls reveal of the tower like they do on RSR: keep it visible in the distance to guests approaching as a sort of weenie to draw you to the attraction, but once you're in line you can't see it until the moment you pass the bend.
Rich T
Well-Known Member
I was looking something up on the official Disneyland site and was reminded of why I usually avoid it. This made me laugh.
This is how they classify one of my favorites. They’re not just the dark rides, now. They’re the dark, loud, slow rides.
Inaccurate description? No. Corporate and soulless? Yes.
See, this is why I’m not excited yet about Disneyland expanding. It’s because it’s THIS version of Disney doing it.
This is how they classify one of my favorites. They’re not just the dark rides, now. They’re the dark, loud, slow rides.
Inaccurate description? No. Corporate and soulless? Yes.
See, this is why I’m not excited yet about Disneyland expanding. It’s because it’s THIS version of Disney doing it.
Rich T
Well-Known Member
I’m tired of dull, lackluster new rides—based on films that have already been over-marketed— showing up years too late. It’s like being told you get the “privilege” of watching Frozen and Tangled AGAIN. And it will all be even older and more tired by the time it opens. If Disney wants to focus on wealthy parents with small children, fine (“Think of the toddlers! We can’t upset the toddlers! Mean villains are too upsetting!!!”) I can go elsewhere.
Fresh, original ideas and new park-only IPs would be amazing. But that’s not Iger’s Disney.
Although I’m not sure this example quite hits home for me I agree with the sentiment. Most of their new stuff just miss the mark. Don’t care for their new template for dark rides that are poorly executed scene by scene book report rides minus the villain/ suspense. It’s fun to speculate about possibilities but my new MO is “what we’re getting won’t be better than what we got.” I’d love to see them top the West side of Disneyland or make a Fantasyland style dark ride that has the charm of Alice in Wonderland or Mr. Toads Wild Ride. Their lackluster new lands and rides have had a positive effect on my time at the park though. I find myself appreciating all the old stuff even more because of it. Not just the rides but Disneylands intimate and sometimes quirky design with all of its nooks n crannies. It feels so not Corporate-y, lived in and inviting. The history, the charm, the landscaping that hasn't been astroturf'd.
Last edited:
Watch the movie on a moving vehicle vs being on an adventure
Misted Compass
New Member
I mean I'd say that part of the description is just to let people know the type of ride it is to people who might have sensory issues. Not sure I'd describe it as loud, though. Isn't there a short summary of the ride below that?
But I do agree that most modern rides do feel somewhat corporate.
Rich T
Well-Known Member
Nope, that was the whole description (besides height requirements, etc.), and it wasn’t even something I searched for; it was just presented to me randomly when I touch the Attractions and Shows tab.
(Edit: The full description requires clicking in the individual attraction and the presentation is alphabetical.)
It’s just such a strange, clueless way to present the park. I guess it’s helpful for the following situation: “Hey, (insert spouse’s name), do you suppose they have any rides here that are dark, loud and slow? I’m in the mood for something dark, loud and slow.”
I suppose it could be helpful for people with sensory issues, but… warning, this ride is slow???? And putting this info front and center for the entire customer base? Disney, in the way they present themselves these days, often comes across, to me, as being several steps out of sync with the way the public actually thinks and talks… or the way the public has EVER thought and spoken.
Last edited:
Rich T
Well-Known Member
With the added benefit of being a terrible retelling, just a couple minutes long, and being part of an extreeeeeeemly expensive outing.
Mr. Toad and Alice are my two favorite examples of the right way to do IP rides:
1) Mr. Toad: Use the characters, settings, and art style, but don’t retell the story: focus on the one element that lends itself to a fun and/or thrilling ride experience (Mr. Toad is a terrible driver). Hagrid’s is a great modern example of this.
2) Alice: If you’re instead making a book report ride, choose an IP where a journey through interesting/mysterious/threatening lands IS the story you’re adapting. Ariel on a date is not a compelling ride scene. Alice/you fleeing from a playing card executioner IS.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
TP2000
Well-Known Member
Great point. It's troubling how they do things now, and it all seems so corporate and charmless. The people running Disneyland and all of Disney's American parks are not showmen and good hosts, they are lawyers and HR committees.
Here's how they describe Alice In Wonderland on their website in 2024....
Compared to how they described Alice In Wonderland in their Park Guidemaps in the 1980's and 90's....
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
They are categories that people can filter when looking at the list of attractions.
Misted Compass
New Member
For what it's worth, in the app there's a much more palatable description for the ride:
The "Slow, Dark, Loud" descriptors are also listed on the app, but under the "Thrill Type" description.
No idea why it's not on the website but it can probably be chalked down to Disney's IT being infamously bad.
The "Slow, Dark, Loud" descriptors are also listed on the app, but under the "Thrill Type" description.
No idea why it's not on the website but it can probably be chalked down to Disney's IT being infamously bad.
PiratesMansion
Well-Known Member
I don't think it's saying slow to mean bad; there are people out there visiting the park who have no interest in going on anything fast.
It's not an inaccurate description.
If not slow, what would be a better term to get the same point across?
It's not an inaccurate description.
If not slow, what would be a better term to get the same point across?