Tiana's Bayou Adventure: Disneyland Watch & Discussion

[lazyboy97o]

Honestly asking: If guests don't care for high-tech rides, screens/projections, and in-depth backstories, why does Disney keep moving in that direction?

Why did Disney respond to the success of Expedition Everest by prohibiting original attractions?

Are you saying that execs claimed that PatF didn't do as well as they'd liked because of audience attention spans/competing entertainment options/sophistication? I hadn't heard that.

They blamed the “old fashioned” animation. Audience tastes had “changed.”

If the old rides still attract people, why do they update them (besides the social issues around Splash/Jungle Cruise/Pirates)? Why did they re-do/upgrade Snow White at DL (and replace it in MK with 7DMT)? Why add IP dolls to IASM? Why add the interactive nursery room to the queue of Peter Pan if people don't care about new technology? Serious question! Disney is a business––wouldn't it just be cheaper to just leave well enough alone?

I think if Disney opened a brand new ride that was just a ride through mechanical stuffed animals, catchy music, and some great drops, people would be disappointed. This is why they try to add a bunch of tech effects (MMRR, RotR, Frozen, Ratatouille, 7DMT, etc.) I could be wrong, but I suspect that Disney believes this, too.

A motivation does not have to be true. You’re throwing out a lot of different examples that all have different reasons behind them. There is the legacy of plussing, but that doesn’t mean certain technologies have to be used. There also seems to be a desire to work on certain classics which explains why The Haunted Mansion is constantly being messed with while still being popular and while other attractions languish. Nee Fantasyland and NextGen were both their own messes.

 

[BuzzedPotatoHead89]

Honestly asking: If guests don't care for high-tech rides, screens/projections, and in-depth backstories, why does Disney keep moving in that direction?

In all honesty there has to be a balance of innovation and some level of preservation. I’ve said this before in past posts, but in reality the park would stagnate if rides and effects were allowed to stay “frozen in time”. Nostalgia alone will not bring in new audiences which is why parks bring in new rides/attractions. Or why the “upgrade” others. In addition government codes change, social mores change, human dynamics change, and perceptions of what’s “cutting edge” changes. Additionally technology allows designers to be both more cost effective and innovative with effective use of space/budget/surroundings. It’s part of the reason why the old “AA theater show” experience circa CBJ or CoP is unlikely to be built today.

While many on this board (myself included) may have a soft spot for these types of attractions we all know that to the GP TSMM and RoTR bring in far more guests per day and attract greater interest from “casual park goers”. However it is the true fandom that also will take their generations of kids/grandkids back and buy up merch that TWDC similarly cannot turn its back on.

That said, I contend that high quality AA rides and shows are still a necessity as they round out the experience and like anything WDI cannot row the canoe too heavily with one arm or another.

 

[_caleb]

Why did Disney respond to the success of Expedition Everest by prohibiting original attractions?

They blamed the “old fashioned” animation. Audience tastes had “changed.”

A motivation does not have to be true. You’re throwing out a lot of different examples that all have different reasons behind them. There is the legacy of plussing, but that doesn’t mean certain technologies have to be used. There also seems to be a desire to work on certain classics which explains why The Haunted Mansion is constantly being messed with while still being popular and while other attractions languish. Nee Fantasyland and NextGen were both their own messes.

Good point about different rides having unique circumstances and motivations for change. Probably best not to lump everything in together.

I suppose I was thinking big picture. I can't think of a newer ride that doesn't conspicuously employ (however ineffectively) new technology.

For the record, I'm personally pretty old-school in my preferences for rides. My favorite was DL's PeopleMover (and is now TTA at MK). I'm just seeing massive changes in the audience, and I think it makes sense that Disney would respond with the kinds of high-tech changes we're seeing them invest in. In my opinion, they don't always work well, they're not always appropriate for the context, and they tend to be used as a crutch in support of poor storytelling.

 

[Homemade Imagineering]

It’s part of the reason why the old “AA theater show” experience circa CBJ or CoP is unlikely to be built today.

Which is an absolute shame. In fact, this is not only something true to Disney Parks, but also theme parks around the world. Most AA shows which were once apart of other various international theme parks are now defunct. Here are a few examples of this:







All of these are now defunct...

Let's be thankful for the AA shows we have today. It's a shame the technology has been somewhat underutilized in todays world, especially with all the advancements we've made in robotics.

 

[mickEblu]

Wow! Amazing post and book. Is that the Jeff Kurtti/Bruce Gordon one? I don't have it... and copies are quite expensive online. I do have that PDF scan of The Nickle Tour- in fact let me pull it up and find the Splash Mountain ones.

You nailed it with your commentary. For me, Splash Mountain has been there the entire time I've been alive. I've never known a Disneyland without it. I remember sitting out with some of my group while others went off to ride it when I was to short to ride it. I remember being terrified of the drop. I don't think my first ride was until third grade? Maybe fourth. But after that first ride I was hooked. I used to separate from my family to ride it single rider in like fifth grade.

Some attractions are easily replaceable- Pixie Hollow, half of Tomorrowland, Fantasyland Theater. But retheming Splash Mountain feels like sticking Elsa's Castle on the Matterhorn.

To build off of what you said about the importance of Disneyland being believable, here' a passage from The Nickel Tour.

View attachment 541412+

"The Illusions at Disneyland are nothing more than a thin veneer- and it's one that can easily be scratched away. When it's gone, you lose that special sense of reality that makes any fantasy better"

If only WDI understood this. It's why I wish we had more outside vendors on Main Street- if integrated properly having real, tangible shops that aren't hawking Disney merchandise would help the theming of Main Street significantly.

It's part of why New Orleans Square was such an achievement- the entire land is believable. But when you walk into the unassuming building, there's a 15 minute boat ride with pirates. Completely hidden from view. The same applies to Haunted Mansion. Fantasyland's facades are very subdued considering the fantastical attractions they host- but that only increases the believability of what you experience inside. Indiana Jones is the same.

Thanks! Yeah that’s the one. I got it for $125 a couple years ago on eBay and I guess that’s a decent price now.

Same here, I don’t think I actually ride Splash until I was 11 years old and for over my fear of the drop. I like the comparison of re theming Matterhorn to Frozen but I think this is much worse as the majority of the core experience would still be intact with the Matterhorn...as much as I hate the thought of that as well.

That’s a great quote. The reality makes the fantasy better. Its almost like Spielberg’s approach with films. Have the characters doing mundane things. That way when something extraordinary happens it really hits not only because it stands out but because the viewer or rider in this case can relate.

Totally agree on NOS. There was actually a great line on NOS just a few pages before the Splash Mountain stuff I shared yesterday....

“Marc Davis, Claude Coats, Duane Alt, Herb Ryman, and Dorothea Redmond combined their talents to create a remarkable sense of mood, and an authentic place within a very compact piece of real estate.”

 

[_caleb]

Which is an absolute shame. In fact, this is not only something true to Disney Parks, but also theme parks around the world. Most AA shows which were once apart of other various international theme parks are now defunct. Here are a few examples of this:







All of these are now defunct...

Let's be thankful for the AA shows we have today. It's a shame the technology has been somewhat underutilized in todays world, especially with all the advancements we've made in robotics.

This scene seems terribly familiar... bear with me while I try to recall where I've seen something like it before.

 

[Brer Oswald]

1) Honestly asking: If guests don't care for high-tech rides, screens/projections, and in-depth backstories, why does Disney keep moving in that direction?
2) If the old rides still attract people, why do they update them.

Two points I will respond to.

1) Disney is desperately trying to capture the success that Universal set with Spider-Man, and continued with Harry Potter (and now Mario).

But they’re doing it with lesser IPs and with lower creative effort. It’s also worth noting that most of Universal’s big budget “screen rides” contain a lot of action, are fast paced, and don’t dwell on the individual screens for too long. Meanwhile, Disney is doing a lot of the slower paced attractions they are known for, but without the level of detail and physicality they succeeded at in the past. A slow moving ride with screens does not compare to a slow moving ride with detailed physical props and sets.

2) They update them simply to bring new attention to the parks. It’s a lot easier, and cheaper, to update an old attraction and market it as a new attraction than it is to make a new attraction from the ground up.

 

[Homemade Imagineering]

This scene seems terribly familiar... bear with me while I try to recall where I've seen something like it before.
View attachment 541479

Yep... There were quite a few CBJ Ripoffs back then. Imho though, they were all done well, and the figures themselves were very impressive for their time.

 

[_caleb]

2) They update them simply to bring new attention to the parks. It’s a lot easier, and cheaper, to update an old attraction and market it as a new attraction than it is to make a new attraction from the ground up.

I agree that updating a ride is cheaper than building a new one, but I'd think the result might be a little less bang for the marketing buck than a new one.

But if they are going to build a new ride, why not build a classic low-fi dark ride like everyone says they love? Wouldn't that be cheaper than projection mapped faces, throwable stunt robots, and trackless ride vehicles?

 

[Brer Oswald]

I agree that updating a ride is cheaper than building a new one, but I'd think the result might be a little less bang for the marketing buck than a new one.

But if they are going to build a new ride, why not build a classic low-fi dark ride like everyone says they love? Wouldn't that be cheaper than projection mapped faces, throwable stunt robots, and trackless ride vehicles?

I think Disney should move back to the more physically detailed attractions. They don’t have to be “low-fi” like Peter Pan or Pinocchio, you can have some modern technology in there. A little tech can go a long way to make an experience feel convincing.

Disney’s current issue is that they’re focusing too much on the tech and too little on the implementation. Look at Runaway Railway. The 2.5-D tech sounds cool, but does it matter if the scenery is flat and I can easily tell that I’m in a warehouse?

Most of the beloved Disney attractions are loved because of their attention to detail, not their technology innovations. Disney was very successful with that niche. If they’re going to try to copy Universal, that’s fine. But they can’t expect to match the same level of quality if the pacing is weaker and the IPs aren’t as great.

 

[mickEblu]

I think Disney should move back to the more physically detailed attractions. They don’t have to be “low-fi” like Peter Pan or Pinocchio, you can have some modern technology in there. A little tech can go a long way to make an experience feel convincing.

Disney’s current issue is that they’re focusing too much on the tech and too little on the implementation. Look at Runaway Railway. The 2.5-D tech sounds cool, but does it matter if the scenery is flat and I can easily tell that I’m in a warehouse?

Exactly, this isn’t a matter of tech v non tech. It’s about execution and variety.

 

[Brer Oswald]

Just for the record, I don’t think Mickey Mouse and Star Wars are inferior IPs to the likes of Harry Potter and Super Mario. I just think that if they’re going to copy Universal and do the bare minimum in the process, it better be with an appropriate IP that is very popular.

I think the type of ride needs to be chosen carefully depending on the type of property they are using, and this needs to be the case for all theme park companies. For an IP that is known to be action packed, screens are a good fit. For an IP that is more laid back, detailed sets are a natural fit.

From what little I’ve seen of Rise, it seems to capture the success of Universal’s action rides, combining a popular IP with incredible tech and detailed sets. However, it comes at the cost of being an operational nightmare.

 

[lazyboy97o]

But if they are going to build a new ride, why not build a classic low-fi dark ride like everyone says they love? Wouldn't that be cheaper than projection mapped faces, throwable stunt robots, and trackless ride vehicles?

They can’t. Paradise Pier, which was a lot of paint, cost more than Expedition Everest. The Little Mermaid was supposed to be that sort of quaint old school ride and at Disney’s California Adventure it what was supposed to be an already excessive $100 million ride eventually became a $150 million dollar ride.

Contrast that with Justice League: Battle for Metropolis. While it is an interactive ride with screens it is also a rather simple ride. The original cost less than $15 million and has found a receptive audience in coaster parks that it was cloned across the Six Flags chain and is well regarded as a very good interactive dark ride, some considering it the best.

 

[CaptinEO]

They can’t. Paradise Pier, which was a lot of paint, cost more than Expedition Everest. The Little Mermaid was supposed to be that sort of quaint old school ride and at Disney’s California Adventure it what was supposed to be an already excessive $100 million ride eventually became a $150 million dollar ride.

Contrast that with Justice League: Battle for Metropolis. While it is an interactive ride with screens it is also a rather simple ride. The original cost less than $15 million and has found a receptive audience in coaster parks that it was cloned across the Six Flags chain and is well regarded as a very good interactive dark ride, some considering it the best.

Yep, Disney has backed themselves into a financial pit with Imagineering and film making. Their films and rides cost much more than their competitors due to paperwork, red tape, policies, etc, that convolute things

 

[Mac Tonight]

Honestly asking: If guests don't care for high-tech rides, screens/projections, and in-depth backstories, why does Disney keep moving in that direction?

A few things to consider here:

1) It's easy to confuse the average everyday "guest" with us on the forums who tend to "complain" about the direction Disney is going. For a lot of us here, it boils down to a perceived lack of originality/quality or even just a baseline of imbalance with what is coming out of the Glendale offices with regards to IP infusion. The Joe Everyman guest who brings his family once or maybe twice a year, largely just gobbles up whatever Disney churns out without batting an eye. THIS is the type of people Disney builds for.

2) Why are they doing this?? Simply put, their competitors are doing it. New technology in the themed attraction medium is still largely growing and in some ways, catching up with the growing technology in the real world. But, as we've seen with certain things like Mario Kart, it just feels like it's lacking and those of us who cherish Disney for the way they've largely done things, don't want to see things ruined by whatever the new techno trend is. There was a time when Disney used to be the leaders in their field, but now it seems that they've become the followers.

3) Money. Screens and projectors are much easier to implement and swap out/upgrade as opposed to ripping out entire sets, AA's, etc. every time you want to make a change. It was easier for Disney to throw in some projectors on Maelstrom vs. building a new Frozen attraction from scratch.

4) The backstory "issue" is a complex thing. Over the weekend I was listening to the RetroWDW podcast episode on Pleasure Island and it included a lot of relevant anecdotes about things relating to backstories. When it was first unveiled in 1989, Pleasure Island (what is now Disney Springs) contained a very elaborate "backstory" for almost every building complete with a hung plaque to let visitors know the story. The hosts commented that this was largely Eisner's doing and it also happened to coincide with the rise of things like themed restaurants (Rainforest Cafe, etc). All of a sudden, stores and restaurants weren't satisfactory enough on their own anymore... everything needed a reason for being there. But, like the hosts said... no one cared! Pleasure Island wasn't a huge success out the gate and received a major overhaul less than 2 years after it opened.

4.5) Now, I'm not suggesting backstories came into being during Eisner's time (as I've stated elsewhere, virtually everything done at Disney has contained a backstory of some sort) but really for the first time, these extra ancillary bits of trivia were shoved out into the open with the expectation that guests would stop and read a plaque (or in modern cases, be forced to watch a queue video) in order to fully understand what it is they're about to experience. Classic attractions such as HM, POTC, JC were designed in such a way that they didn't need these added elements to bring the guests into their world.

 

[dvclover15]

For all the cost and technology of the projection mapped Seven Dwarves and Anna and Elsa, they just look so corny and fake. It's this character with a bright lit up animated face in a ride taking place with real sets.

Meanwhile a static Snow White figure looks normal and blends in properly with its surrounding.

Having all real sets and ONLY the face be animated of these characters, makes no sense.

It's like a bad Christmas lawn inflatable in terms
of lighting.

My kids still talk about the time that we rode Frozen and Olaf had static black eyes. It was actually a bit frightening. At least if an animatronic stops working it just stands there still while having a face. lol

 

[el_super]

4.5) Now, I'm not suggesting backstories came into being during Eisner's time added elements to bring the guests into their world.

I still believe that the pivot toward codifying backstories as the central part of Imagineering came about when Marty took over WDI.

 

[Mac Tonight]

I still believe that the pivot toward codifying backstories as the central part of Imagineering came about when Marty took over WDI.

Which would have been during Eisner's tenure so I have a feeling they worked closely together on that.

It is interesting though, because in 1991, Sklar unveiled "Mickey's Ten Commandments" (the de-facto, Imagineering guiding principles) and number 6 stands out especially...

6. Avoid overload—create turn-ons (do not offer too much detailed information)

 

[CaptinEO]

My kids still talk about the time that we rode Frozen and Olaf had static black eyes. It was actually a bit frightening. At least if an animatronic stops working it just stands there still while having a face. lol

Oh wow that sounds terrifying! Why Disney put so much random work on a projection mapped face that looks unnatural is beyond me.

 

[SuddenStorm]

It's interesting that even though Disney has chosen not to release Song of the South, it's literally the only Disney movie you can stream online, for free, in high definition.

In fact, it's the top search result if you google "Song of the South HD".

So Song of the South is literally the most accessibly Disney movie out there.