When is it fair to report on the upkeep of New Fantasyland?

[Pixiedustmaker]

I forgot about the Dumbos scraping against the cement when they were first installed in the new Storybook Circus area.

Once again, this is something that the computer models they used to "test" the attractions before production didn't predict would happen...but something I think the old time Imagineers would have foreseen with their practical tests and physical models.

Dumbo is a spinner . . . they have architectural plans, but computer modeling isn't needed as all you do is build the machine and make sure the hole is big enough.

Mermaid's rockwork, computer modeled as they've got a machine that bends the rebar based on the computer model.

Complex roller coaster, computer modeled as this allows them to "pre-vis" what the ride looks like from the guest point of view.

Dumbo is pretty simply, it spins. Guests see the circus tents and trees. No pre-vis or computer modeling need be done.

 

[Patricia Melton]

FLE is great for little kids, but in some respects I think this means less upkeep/meticulously maintained details as TDO thinks that kids won't notice small stuff like Flotsam and Jetsom not working in Mermaid, and given that the ride is not meant to wow adults, I think little stuff will go in, and out, of operation. I've ridden Mermaid at DCA maybe eight times, (could have made it 50 as there isn't much of a line), and I've only rarely seen Flotsam/Jetsom move.

I almost want to put the Little Mermaid ride in its own category of things. There's so much "wrong" with it when compared to other rides. To me it really feels like it was made to delight small children and other people aren't the target audience...as opposed to other rides being for everyone and having a higher standard to them.

The big open warehouse of "Under the Sea" is a good illustration of this...absolutely zero effort was put into the design of that room to hide the catwalks, lights, etc. It's a "use your imagination to remove these things" type thing...and that tells me that the designers behind it really meant it for small kids who really won't notice the lights and the equipment and the ceiling because they are focused on the figures and the music.

Reusing the same figures over and over in the ride is another thing like this...little kids won't notice but it drives adults nuts.

I think this stuff is so apparent in Little Mermaid that it's much more than Disney being cheap with this attraction...but it's that we can notice the flaws with Little Mermaid because we are not the people this attraction was meant for; those people are 4 and 5 years old and the Mermaid ride is really for them.

 

[Patricia Melton]

Dumbo is a spinner . . . they have architectural plans, but computer modeling isn't needed as all you do is build the machine and make sure the hole is big enough.

Mermaid's rockwork, computer modeled as they've got a machine that bends the rebar based on the computer model.

Complex roller coaster, computer modeled as this allows them to "pre-vis" what the ride looks like from the guest point of view.

Dumbo is pretty simply, it spins. Guests see the circus tents and trees. No pre-vis or computer modeling need be done.

Nope. They had a computer model for the Dumbo spinner. I saw the animation for it years ago. It had everything animated in those blocks and shapes, very simplistically, and it showed the spinners spinning.

Your explanation does not explain why the new Dumbo that was built caused the elephants to grind against the concrete but the old Dumbo that was moved from one part of the park to the other didn't grind the elephants against the ground. If it was so simple, then the grinding would not have happened.

Clearly there is more to it than that...which is why they had the computer models showing the spinning and calculating the mechanical stress and the impact of the various forces on the ride as it spun. Someone just got his math wrong with the new spinner and it caused the elephants to scrape on the cement and cause a problem until it was recalculated and fixed.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

I almost want to put the Little Mermaid ride in its own category of things. There's so much "wrong" with it when compared to other rides. To me it really feels like it was made to delight small children and other people aren't the target audience...as opposed to other rides being for everyone and having a higher standard to them.

The big open warehouse of "Under the Sea" is a good illustration of this...absolutely zero effort was put into the design of that room to hide the catwalks, lights, etc. It's a "use your imagination to remove these things" type thing...and that tells me that the designers behind it really meant it for small kids who really won't notice the lights and the equipment and the ceiling because they are focused on the figures and the music.

Reusing the same figures over and over in the ride is another thing like this...little kids won't notice but it drives adults nuts.

I think this stuff is so apparent in Little Mermaid that it's much more than Disney being cheap with this attraction...but it's that we can notice the flaws with Little Mermaid because we are not the people this attraction was meant for; those people are 4 and 5 years old and the Mermaid ride is really for them.

Excellent points, IMHO.

Walt actually wanted to make rides, even those for little kids, to have a lot of details and take the experience to the next level, because in his mind "kids were always reaching." From personal experience, my five year old loves Jungle Cruise, HMH, and Pirates, but doesn't really love Mermaid even though she has seen the film enough times to burn up the DVD.

Walt also said that the company was "dead" if they only aimed for the kids.

Kids love Small World, Peter Pan, and a plethora of dark rides at Disneyland, and I like them too but never feel like they are just for kids.

I rode Mermaid shortly after it opened, and the CMs who rode Mermaid in DCA in the first days of opening gave it a "so-so" rating.

FLE needs an elaborate Beauty and the Beast dark ride . . . and they've got room behind the bathrooms at Gaston, a whole big expansion pad. Belle's village/BoG and no ride . . . I think a B&tB dark ride will eventually get built.

 

[Patricia Melton]

Excellent points, IMHO.

Walt actually wanted to make rides, even those for little kids, to have a lot of details and take the experience for the next level, because in his mind "kids were always reaching." From personal experience, my five year old loves Jungle Cruise, HMH, and Pirates, but doesn't really love Mermaid even though she has seen the film enough times to burn up the DVD.

Walt also said that the company was "dead" if they only aimed for the kids.

Kids love Small World, Peter Pan, and a plethora of dark rides at Disneyland, and I like them too but never feel like they are just for kids.

I rode Mermaid shortly after it opened, and the CMs who rode Mermaid in DCA in the first days of opening gave it a "so-so" rating.

FLE needs an elaborate Beauty and the Beast dark ride . . . and they've got room behind the bathrooms at Gaston, a whole big expansion pad. Belle's village/BoG and no ride . . . I think a B&tB dark ride will eventually get built.

The other thing with the Mermaid ride is that it only hits the points in the film that very small children would remember.

I really think this is how Disney designed that ride: they just got a focus group of about 20 little kids to watch the Little Mermaid movie. Then they had them all draw pictures of their favorite parts that they could remember.

Those 20 pictures then became the storyboard for the ride...and the omnimover system was just built around those 20 scenes.

Think about it. The ride really is like a series of random snapshots of the movie that a little kid could have remembered. It's not really the story of the Little Mermaid...and it's not really an accurate condensation of the movie...it's the somewhat disjointed version of the movie you'd get if a five year old told it to you right after he got home from seeing the movie at a theater with his parents.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

Nope. They had a computer model for the Dumbo spinner. I saw the animation for it years ago. It had everything animated in those blocks and shapes, very simplistically, and it showed the spinners spinning.

Your explanation does not explain why the new Dumbo that was built caused the elephants to grind against the concrete but the old Dumbo that was moved from one part of the park to the other didn't grind the elephants against the ground. If it was so simple, then the grinding would not have happened.

Clearly there is more to it than that...which is why they had the computer models showing the spinning and calculating the mechanical stress and the impact of the various forces on the ride as it spun. Someone just got his math wrong with the new spinner and it caused the elephants to scrape on the cement and cause a problem until it was recalculated and fixed.

No doubt they did pre-vis, on a rough scale, for all of FLE. Likely doing a simplistic Dumbo animation, but a sophisticated computer model would not be needed. Think about, Disney has tons of spinners, the technology is sound/proven, they don't need to rehash the physics. I don't think they even built the thing, they probably farmed it out, and it arrived per specifications, and maybe they added decorations. Likely what happened was a measurement error, the elephants protruded an inch too much, or more likely the hole wasn't constructed to the correct diameter.

No big deal as this isn't a complex ride. Just make the hole bigger. They might not have accounted for the "tile"when they designed the hole.

Similarly, if they put in another train into a future Disney park, they wouldn't need to do a computer model . . . the train specs are there and proven. Same thing with Dumbo. There's a difference between a detailed computer model for construction purposes, and a pre-vis type basic animatic for just what a double spinner would look like.

 

[Figgy1]

I'm curious as to when people think it's fair to give TDO a grade for the upkeep of New Fantasyland and to really get a good feel for how guests are responding to it. I'm writing this on 12/28/2012 and New Fantasyland officially opened on December 6th (I believe). Would one month from its opening be a fair date for people to evaluate how things are holding up?

I ask because in another thread I see that Madame Wardrobe's effects are already not working, there are starfish and other pieces missing from the Little Mermaid queue, and Storybook Circus has some things missing here and there that were originally part of the decorations when that area opened. The addition of the railings around Casey Jr. could also be included in this list of things that have happened since these areas were first revealed to the public.

I'm very interested in watching how TDO maintains everything they built in New Fantasyland. I want to see how on the ball maintenance is being...but I also want to see how smart the Imagineers were in designing things so that they hold up to the constant wear and tear of the public. And I am fascinated by the changes that TDO has to make to things in response to guest use.

Is it too early to be looking at things like this? I think everyone should have a period of "working the bugs out" but I also think a point should come when it's fair to take a look a things and see how well it's all being received.

Is a one-month period after the opening enough or should we wait to grade TDO on upkeep until the springtime? I don't think I ever followed a project as closely as I did New Fantasyland so it's interesting for me as a fan to watch how everything holds up and weathers now that it's mostly been built.

Please wait at least 6-9 months let them work out the bugs and best figure crowd flow. It still looks great even if everything isn't perfect.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

The other thing with the Mermaid ride is that it only hits the points in the film that very small children would remember.

I really think this is how Disney designed that ride: they just got a focus group of about 20 little kids to watch the Little Mermaid movie. Then they had them all draw pictures of their favorite parts that they could remember.

Those 20 pictures then became the storyboard for the ride...and the omnimover system was just built around those 20 scenes.

Think about it. The ride really is like a series of random snapshots of the movie that a little kid could have remembered. It's not really the story of the Little Mermaid...and it's not really an accurate condensation of the movie...it's the somewhat disjointed version of the movie you'd get if a five year old told it to you right after he got home from seeing the movie at a theater with his parents.

No doubt they used the major "songs" from the film for scenes, "Kiss the Girl", "Part of Your World", "Under the Sea", "Poor Unfortunate Souls". The non-song scenes are there as just glue: flatscreen Ariel gets her feet, flat screen Ariel swimming above you, flascreen Ariel kisses Eric and gets her voice back (don't remember this happening in the film), flat cut-out Ursula explodes, and the finale. The ride is just a review of the songs, not like you are on an adventure with Ariel, IMHO.

 

[marni1971]

Please wait at least 6-9 months let them work out the bugs and best figure crowd flow. It still looks great even if everything isn't perfect.

You don't pay $90 for that. A lot of it should be page one.

I dread to imagine the magic mirror breaking. They can't exactly bag that. Nor ignore it.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

You don't pay $90 for that. A lot of it should be page one.

I dread to imagine the magic mirror breaking. They can't exactly bag that. Nor ignore it.

Could they even operate the attraction like that? Even if they just leave the "door" open, you still would have to seperate the groups for the casting section.

 

[Tim Lohr]

How on earth did you get a Teddy Ruxpin three years before they came out? Do you know Simon McKay? Or did your parents perhaps work at W.o.W?!

funny... I guess I rounded up

 

[Tim Lohr]

Yeah, but if you were using your Teddy Ruxpin for 20 shows a day for a month, it might have problems too. Not that I'm excusing TDO on this, especially since there are two Madam Wardrobes after passing through the mirror as there are two identical show areas. Madam Wardrobe is a neat part of the show, but I wouldn't be overly upset if this character was broken and everything else was OK. Lumiere, Belle and the Beast are more integral, and if something was wrong with one of these, the show probably wouldn't go on.

My point is that Disney are the people who invented these things 50 plus years ago, you'd think by now they would know how to do it right
The Tomas Jefferson figure in the Hall of Presidents might not be an integral part of the show, but if they pulled back the curtain and he had a bag over his head it would certainly take away from the experience, and I'm pretty sure the Presidents, and the Country Bears, and all the other AA's have been doing their shows just fine for years.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

I was at this month old restaurant yesterday. I had an expensive meal there. $120 each, four persons.

It was crap.

There is nothing whatsoever that should make me wait six months for them to get their act together before I can criticise them. Uh-uh, no way. They need to serve me a proper meal or else they need to give me my money back. When you charge money, you are open for business, and you get judged as a business.

 

[Magenta Panther]

I'm curious as to when people think it's fair to give TDO a grade for the upkeep of New Fantasyland and to really get a good feel for how guests are responding to it. I'm writing this on 12/28/2012 and New Fantasyland officially opened on December 6th (I believe). Would one month from its opening be a fair date for people to evaluate how things are holding up?

I ask because in another thread I see that Madame Wardrobe's effects are already not working, there are starfish and other pieces missing from the Little Mermaid queue, and Storybook Circus has some things missing here and there that were originally part of the decorations when that area opened.

About the stuff missing from queues...when I rode Mermaid, there was a family in front of me in the queue, and one of them reached out and tugged on everything she could reach. I mean TUGGED. Like she hoped to leave with a little souvenir...I wonder if that's what's been happening with missing starfish and such...

 

[Magenta Panther]

I'm really upset about Madame Wardrobe having problems and them putting a sack on her head to hide her some days...and the attraction has been officially opened for less than one month.

Someone should lose his or her job over that alone...since it's clearly a design issue and whoever signed off on this should be held accountable. I think there was not enough practical testing of the effects and they just relied on what the computers told them would happen.

As an outsider looking in on how they seem to do things, I think Imagineering is suffering by not having someone older and more experienced running the practical testing of things...and I think we're paying the price of having the CGI and computer-dependent guys in charge of the fabrication.

Frankly, I still wonder why some consider Joe Rhoades such a rock star after the Yeti debacle.

Who the heck designed/built Madame Wardrobe?

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

My point is that Disney are the people who invented these things 50 plus years ago, you'd think by now they would know how to do it right
The Tomas Jefferson figure in the Hall of Presidents might not be an integral part of the show, but if they pulled back the curtain and he had a bag over his head it would certainly take away from the experience, and I'm pretty sure the Presidents, and the Country Bears, and all the other AA's have been doing their shows just fine for years.

Point well taken. But they had a hard decision to make: Keep that side of ETwB open, or double the length of the line, meaning that some guests wouldn't get to see Belle. In a perfect world, they'd have repair crews waiting around the clock to repair and evaluate the animatronics. Sometimes something breaks and you can't just wave a wand and make it work.

The audioanimatronics Disney invented decades ago aren't the same type used today. I'm pretty sure that Madame Wardrobe uses electronic actuators, as opposed to a pressurized system, and was probably built by Garner Holt as it is not a very advanced animatronic.

We also don't know that the animatronic "broke", it could be maintenance/construction they delayed with duct tape until after the opening, or perhaps a guest threw something at the animatronic and it needed to be cleaned. Hard to say.

If you don't know about Madame Wardrobe (most first guests to ETwB probably don't), then maybe the face cover they have isn't that big of a sore thumb, making her just another piece of furniture.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

Frankly, I still wonder why some consider Joe Rhoades such a rock star after the Yeti debacle.

Who the heck designed/built Madame Wardrobe?

Yeti is near ground floor, if they wanted it fix, they could close the attraction and fix it. As far as I know, Joe Rohde isn't a structural engineer, his input was creative.

 

[flynnibus]

Clearly there is more to it than that...which is why they had the computer models showing the spinning and calculating the mechanical stress and the impact of the various forces on the ride as it spun. Someone just got his math wrong with the new spinner and it caused the elephants to scrape on the cement and cause a problem until it was recalculated and fixed.

Or simply sloppy construction tolerances... or simple mistakes in surveying, etc.

 

[Lee]

In a perfect world, they'd have repair crews waiting around the clock to repair and evaluate the animatronics.

Doesn't require a perfect world. That was once standard Disney procedure. AA went down, ride closed, call went out, techs came and fixed it, ride reopened. (Like in RCT.)
No reason that can't be the case now, except Disney won't pay for it.

At one time, they kept enough spare parts on hand to practically build a replacement AA or ride vehicle from scratch.
But, in the late '90s someone (I've heard it was a dastardly gentleman named Irby) decided that it was wasteful to do it that way. Henceforth, if a ride broke down and needed a replacement part, it very likely had to be ordered, requiring several days wait for repair to happen.

In any event, the attraction should never open with something as major as the wardrobe down. 101 city.

 

[donsullivan]

I'm not sure what quest the OP is on but the overall tone seems pretty unreasonable to me. To have not experienced New Fantasyland in person but be compiling a spreadsheet of 'what's wrong' seems a little over the top to me. Suggesting someone should loose their job because a part fails prematurely seems a little heavy handed when you have absolutely no factual data at all about why the element is not working.

It is not even remotely uncommon for their to be some kinks with any new attraction where parts don't hold up the way they were intended. Sometimes parts need to be replaced but sometimes it becomes clear that the item needs to be redesigned to be more durable to meet the relentless operating requirements of a theme park.

For all those who want to state that this would never have happened in the past, I suggest you look back at the 'real' history of some existing attractions and not the idealized one some might choose to remember.

One shining example is all the mechanical problems with the ride system on Spaceship Earth when it first opened. The most extreme example was the fact that the rotation of the ride vehicles for the descent sequence didn't work. They had a CM at the top of the attraction alongside the track to push the ride vehicles with their foot to lock them into the reversed and locked position so you could safely complete the descent. There was another one CM at the bottom of the descent to push the vehicle back forward for the unload area. I suspect that today's OSHA laws would not allow such a response to a mechanical problem with the attraction but that's what they did in the early 80's.

The bottom line is that it's not unusual at all to see some some operational kinks that will require different levels of response from a simple part swap to a redesign to improve durability.