News Zootopia and Moana Blue Sky concepts for Disney's Animal Kingdom

[BlakeW39]

I mean they could have, but it was the lowest rated major attraction in the entire resort. I miss it dearly - same with Ellen's Energy Adventure - but guests of today didn't "get" it and it was dragging down the park's overall guest satisfaction scores.

There was also guest demand for a family friendly dark ride with no height limit. Ultimately it is a business and with the cost of attractions ballooning you've got to invest capital in a way that's going to get you a return. Why throw good money after bad?

The simplified way this stuff works is there's a consultancy group within WDI who's constantly running the numbers and identifying what is being asked for by guests that the park isn't delivering/what assets aren't pulling their weight. They partner with menu planning (the blue sky people) and see if there's an attraction they can offer that fixes the "problem". They then pitch that to resort leadership who decide if they want to invest or not. When everything lines up, the attraction gets built.

While I understand the GMR was not popular, it doesn't excuse their solution to that problem. They could have come up with an attraction that was a crowd pleaser while also acting a spiritual successor to GMR and as a thesis statement for the park as a whole. What they chose was a decent dark ride that really has very little to do with the golden age of Hollywood, or cinema as a medium of entertainment.

 

[UNCgolf]

So much better.

I had the opposite thought -- pretty sure I'd enjoy that less than the River Adventure. There are a couple of cool parts, but most of it is just watching videos play on screens around you.

 

[drnilescrane]

thesis statement for the park as a whole

They did come up with an attraction that is a thesis statement for the park as it exists in 2023. You just don't like that statement.

(It's "Live Your Ultimate Adventure", BTW)

Trust me, I want the Hollywood that never was version of the park back too. But if I really meant it I'd go get a job at WDI so I could affect the change I want. But it's complicated - there are so many moving parts. No one person really has control over this.

 

[UNCgolf]

While I understand the GMR was not popular, it doesn't excuse their solution to that problem. They could have come up with an attraction that was a crowd pleaser while also acting a spiritual successor to GMR and as a thesis statement for the park as a whole. What they chose was a decent dark ride that really has very little to do with the golden age of Hollywood, or cinema as a medium of entertainment.

They also could have just left GMR as is, even if it wasn't overly popular, because the park needs the capacity. MMRR as a new build would have been a much bigger help to the park.

 

[UNCgolf]

(It's "Live Your Ultimate Adventure", BTW)

I find this hilariously vague. It could apply to almost anything.

 

[drnilescrane]

I find this hilariously vague. It could apply to almost anything.

Which I think was the goal. DCA has basically become the same thing - "adventure" with the veneer of California.

 

[UNCgolf]

Which I think was the goal. DCA has basically become the same thing - "adventure" with the veneer of California.

I agree that was probably the goal. It's just a bit silly because at that point why even bother with a thesis statement at all?

 

[drnilescrane]

They also could have just left GMR as is, even if it wasn't overly popular, because the park needs the capacity

No, because it was expensive to operate.

The formula is guest satisfaction (which is converted to a dollar value as a fraction of gate revenue) + ancillary revenue must be greater than operating cost.

Even if a ride is heavily trafficked, but people come off really hating it, it starts to "lose" money and also negatively impact overall park sentiment. Which brings us to the new lowest rated attraction, Dinosaur.

 

[BlakeW39]

They did come up with an attraction that is a thesis statement for the park as it exists in 2023. You just don't like that statement.

What in the....no..no, they didn't. What is this myth going around that DHS somehow 'changed' themes? No, it HAD themes, and now it just doesn't. Ride the movies isn't a theme. Nor is "live your ultimate adventure." those are both premises. The park is now a bootleg Universal Studios. I actually never liked the themes of DHS much, but it did have them at least. Now it simply...doesn't?

Trust me, I want the Hollywood that never was version of the park back too. But if I really meant it I'd go get a job at WDI so I could affect the change I want. But it's complicated - there are so many moving parts. No one person really has control over this.

I don't...care about having the old DHS back. Like me personally, I never much cared for the park. But that doesn't stop me from acknowledging that it was creatively superior then to what it is now. Now it's just a random collection of attractions with its own corporate slogan, lol what even is an 'ultimate adventure,' it's so vague, give me a break Bob.

 

[BlakeW39]

I agree that was probably the goal. It's just a bit silly because at that point why even bother with a thesis statement at all?

Well remember Disney loves to cut on show quality because AAs are expensive to maintain. So they let things rot and/or replace them with inferior versions using screens and projection mapping.

 

[UNCgolf]

No, because it was expensive to operate.

The formula is guest satisfaction (which is converted to a dollar value as a fraction of gate revenue) + ancillary revenue must be greater than operating cost.

Even if a ride is heavily trafficked, but people come off really hating it, it starts to "lose" money and also negatively impact overall park sentiment. Which brings us to the new lowest rated attraction, Dinosaur.

I believe that's the formula, but I also think it's wrong and Disney is making an operational mistake. Capacity is important, and it's not like GMR was just sitting empty (like Imagination is most of the time).

The park experience is better with more attractions running. MMRR replacing GMR (instead of being a new build) hurt the park for guests even if they hated GMR and would never ride it.

It's the exact same mistake they're going to make with Dinosaur. They're spending millions (or hundreds of millions) and doing very little to improve the park experience, because the parks were already underbuilt.

There is admittedly a small improvement if the replacement is more popular than the previous attraction (which isn't a guarantee), but it's not the improvement you'd get with a brand new build unless the previous attraction was essentially unused.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I believe that's the formula, but I also think it's wrong and Disney is making an operational mistake. Capacity is important, and it's not like GMR was just sitting empty (like Imagination is most of the time).

The park experience is better with more attractions running. MMRR replacing GMR (instead of being a new build) hurt the park for guests even if they hated GMR and would never ride it.

It's the exact same mistake they're going to make with Dinosaur. They're spending millions (or hundreds of millions) and doing very little to improve the park experience, because the parks were already underbuilt.

There is admittedly a small improvement if the replacement is more popular than the previous attraction (which isn't a guarantee), but it's not the improvement you'd get with a brand new build unless the previous attraction was essentially unused.

And capacity plays a role in satisfaction. When there are fewer things with longer waits people will be less satisfied. An unliked experience has more room to stick out in the crowd.

 

[drnilescrane]

I will absolutely concede that the WDW theme parks have unusually thin attraction rosters (aside from WDS-P) and that is an issue.

But I also strongly believe that WDW has grown to a scale that's really hard to effectively curate and manage, let alone operationalize. I wish the property had 3 strong parks vs the 4 weaker ones we have.

 

[Brer Panther]

Did people really not like the Great Movie Ride? I don't remember seeing anyone trash talk it. Maybe say that it needed an update...

they can always find a way to write the villain back into the storyline...

Isn't the plot of the Zootopia ride going to be that Bellwether escaped from jail and Judy and Nick need the riders' help to arrest her again?

No, it HAD themes, and now it just doesn't.

I thought the new theme was "a salute to all movies, but mostly Star Wars".

 

[doctornick]

Did people really not like the Great Movie Ride? I don't remember seeing anyone trash talk it. Maybe say that it needed an update...

I can't speak for anyone else, but I would rate it really low amongst Disney attractions. Especially after (I think) they stopped having entertainment CMs as the characters in the ride and used operations instead - the relatively poor acting would make it a big drag especially since you knew the "surprise" coming. We literally would do it - especially because when my kids were young - because there was so little else to do in the park and because the wait using wasn't that bad. But I wouldn't have been willing to wait very long for it or been sad to not do it on a day in that park.

To me, it's not even comparable how much better that MMRR is than GMR. I wouldn't argue that MMRR is better themed or more appropriate or anything like that but it's a lot more fun and enjoyable and ultimately that makes a big difference.

I mean, I would have kept GMR for capacity reasons, but I don't really mourn it not being around (I just think DHS needs more overall rides).

 

[DocAlan02]

Especially after (I think) they stopped having entertainment CMs as the characters in the ride and used operations instead - the relatively poor acting would make it a big drag especially since you knew the "surprise" coming.

When did they have entertainment folks do it? I was in attractions in '91/'92. I was about to transfer from EPCOT (Seas/Wonders) to GMR when I switched out of attractions completely. There was an audition involved, yes, but I was in attractions, not entertainment. I would have been playing those roles.

 

[Suspirian]

At the very least you'd think they'd look and say "Let's MAKE a good Dinosaur movie" (though, obviously, not the "Good Dinosaur" movie).

Like . . . choosing to get rid of what is basically your only decent Dinosaur representation anywhere instead of just doubling down and investing in it properly borders on cosmically silly.

Its a hame Strange World was such a flop. Not that the movie had any Dinosaurs, but the whole family of adventurers thing could be applied to literally anything in DAK that they felt was underperforming.

 

[Disgruntled Walt]

Especially after (I think) they stopped having entertainment CMs as the characters in the ride and used operations instead - the relatively poor acting would make it a big drag especially since you knew the "surprise" coming.

I think it depended on the particular CMs who were performing. We had some that really knocked it out of the park, and others who treated it like was their 10th time doing it in a day (which it might have been for all I know).

Do you have a timeframe for when they switched over?

 

[Suspirian]

I totally forgot that part of the plot of Zootopia was a disease that was turning the animals back to their wild selves and how that was a bad thing.

 

[Advisable Joseph]

I totally forgot that part of the plot of Zootopia was a disease that was turning the animals back to their wild selves and how that was a bad thing.

It's a spoiler, but

It turns out the animals were being drugged. The drug made them violent, like bath salts. Yes, that would be a bad thing. It also worked the same and both predators and prey.

The reason it seemed plausible that there was a reversion to their wild state was because they were not human, but rather different species which did retain characteristics of their ancestors.