Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 55
  1. #16

    • Mrs. J. Depp
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    4,089

    Re: What is it about theme parks that supposedly makes originality not an option?

    I might be going out on a limb here, but I think partially it could do a lot with geographic location of more original attractions. For example Tokyo, which seems to have a lot of original attractions and has a great reception to those particular attractions. They did a Tower of Terror based on an original storyline. We have a Tower of Terror based on a TV show. The reason some of the older attractions have survived so well is because they are original and classic. They are still remembered by the people who experienced them in their hey day and have been passed on like heirlooms possibly for generations to come. Sadly I think America expects a certain, shallow level of recognition these days within rides and attractions. If they don't recognize it from somewhere, it will fail. That's the level we're on now.


    Facebook me!
    Join in the Disney fun at MyVMK!

  2. #17

    • Special Agent
    • Online

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,391
    Quote Originally Posted by disneylandfan95 View Post
    I have never seen a single person demand more franchise-based attractions when prices go up. That's ridiculous.
    No but they are willing to pay more money for franchise based attractions. And when folks are already saying your product is too expensive, you have to give them everything you can to convince them it isn't.

    So the question should be, why are folks more inclined to spend money on franchises than non franchises? Maybe Disney only appears to be avoiding the risk of originality because consumers think it is too risky to spend money on it.

    Oblivion is opening this weekend with about a 40 million box office take. Iron Man 3 is expected to hit 150 million on its opening weekend. The franchise is king.
    Last edited by MrLiver; 04-21-2013 at 12:19 PM.

  3. #18

    • " Planet of Puddingheads"
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    In the TARDIS
    Posts
    2,052

    Re: What is it about theme parks that supposedly makes originality not an option?

    Quote Originally Posted by MrLiver View Post
    They never really did.




    US guests aren't willing to pay the higher price of admission those types of attractions would demand.
    The whole park was a risk when it was built.
    As for the US guests, how would you know? Disneyland hasn't had an original idea attraction for some time now so there's no data to back up your assumption. The only thing AP'ers were complaining about was the drastic amount of the recent raise in AP prices.
    “No worries, stay calm, one question. 
Do you happen to know how to fly this thing?”

  4. #19

    • враг народа
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    14,163
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: What is it about theme parks that supposedly makes originality not an option?

    Quote Originally Posted by MrLiver View Post
    US guests aren't willing to pay the higher price of admission those types of attractions would demand.
    Funny that the Asian parks all have lower admission prices.

  5. #20

    • Special Agent
    • Online

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,391
    Quote Originally Posted by Disneymike View Post
    The whole park was a risk when it was built.
    Depends on what version of the story you believe. If you believe the story from Disney's marketing, than yes it was.

    As for the US guests, how would you know? Disneyland hasn't had an original idea attraction for some time now so there's no data to back up your assumption. The only thing AP'ers were complaining about was the drastic amount of the recent raise in AP prices.
    I can tell you that they were pretty upset with how the Country Bears did back in the 70s. I can also tell you that in the late 70s/early 80s that the theme parks in So Cal were much more xompetative today. Disneyland wasn't doing nearly as well as it does now with the film brands in the park.

    And certainly they have enough guests surveys and turn style counts to tell them which rides and shows are most popular and why.

    And whenever anyone brigs up original ideas, one only needs to point to how quickly people wanted DCA changed to show how original ideas are usually rejected by the audience.

  6. #21

    • Special Agent
    • Online

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,391
    Quote Originally Posted by lazyboy97O View Post
    Funny that the Asian parks all have lower admission prices.
    Lower than $15 a month??

  7. #22

    • " Planet of Puddingheads"
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    In the TARDIS
    Posts
    2,052

    Re: What is it about theme parks that supposedly makes originality not an option?

    Quote Originally Posted by MrLiver View Post
    And whenever anyone brigs up original ideas, one only needs to point to how quickly people wanted DCA changed to show how original ideas are usually rejected by the audience.
    People wanted DCA changed because of the lack of quality attractions. Cheap off the shelf rides, a less than charming Sun Plaza, shall I go on? It had nothing to do with original attractions.
    “No worries, stay calm, one question. 
Do you happen to know how to fly this thing?”

  8. #23

    • Nutty about Disney parks
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    2,691

    Re: What is it about theme parks that supposedly makes originality not an option?

    I dunno if I am convinced of the idea that "it's what the consumers" want.

    How else would you explain California Screamin and Expedition Everest being so successful?

    It's just what the suits are pushing infront of us these days. If it was a lot more subtle I could accept it but it's far too in your face now. Plus it's also easier from a creative standpoint, Imagineers don't have to create a source from scratch or imagination. They just need to get a Disney DVD and watch. Harry Potter put Disney into the franchise obsessive mode out of desperation to compete. I find that pretty depressing. I don't want Disney to compete. I want them to outdo. Try as they might with their successful Pixar films but I find most of those movies to be so-so. Harry Potter is the ultimate immersion experience franchise. It's a lost cause, in my mind for Disney to keep trying here. Though to its credit, Carsland is well done and does provide some much needed meat to DCA.

  9. #24

    • враг народа
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    14,163
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: What is it about theme parks that supposedly makes originality not an option?

    Quote Originally Posted by MrLiver View Post
    Lower than $15 a month??
    I was speaking in terms of single day admission, but you are right that there has been a switch in focus to high frequency repeat visits. But either way, your theory of costs being too much is tossed out in the high cost of franchise attractions, including the most expensive single attraction, Radiator Springs Racers. There is no appreciable difference in the costs of original versus franchise attractions. Franchise based attractions are simply easier for everybody involved.

    Quote Originally Posted by Disneymike View Post
    People wanted DCA changed because of the lack of quality attractions. Cheap off the shelf rides, a less than charming Sun Plaza, shall I go on? It had nothing to do with original attractions.
    They made for an easy scapegoat. The lack of "Disney" is also something easy to quantify and measure in surveys.

    Quote Originally Posted by toonaspie View Post
    How else would you explain California Screamin and Expedition Everest being so successful?
    California Screamin' is hardly a triumph of design. It's a roller coaster. Expedition Everest pushed up Disney's Animal Kingdom's attendance by a rather good bit, with the park now no longer being the least visited of the Walt Disney World parks.

  10. #25

    • Senior Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    8,890

    Re: What is it about theme parks that supposedly makes originality not an option?

    Quote Originally Posted by toonaspie View Post
    Plus it's also easier from a creative standpoint, Imagineers don't have to create a source from scratch or imagination. They just need to get a Disney DVD and watch.
    Bingo. Better yet for the beancounters, they don't have to hire, train and maintain a staff of latter-day John Henches, Claude Coatses, Mark Davises and Ken Andersons. Decades of filmmaking experience and deep theme park thinking is no longer required; a vision for Disney theme parks as a separate, innovative medium is no longer wanted. Just the ability to make ride-thru copies of the movies that the suits tell you to make.


    Quote Originally Posted by toonaspie View Post
    Harry Potter put Disney into the franchise obsessive mode out of desperation to compete. I find that pretty depressing.
    Even more depressing is that Disney's franchise-obsessive conversion of Disneyland began long before the first Harry Potter film was released, with Eisner's mandate that "Disneyland is all about turning movies into rides."


    Quote Originally Posted by toonaspie View Post
    I don't want Disney to compete. I want them to outdo.
    Amen!
    "With the acquisition of Marvel and now of Lucasfilm,
    Disney may have finally found the grail. You don't need
    imagination or art. All you need is a brand."

    - Neil Gabler


  11. #26

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    872

    Re: What is it about theme parks that supposedly makes originality not an option?

    The kind of attraction the public demands today is far more technologically sophisticated and expensive today than it ever was when more original attractions were being built. So its sort of a given that when the cost of these things start to go up, the company wants to be sure that they get their money back. I find it pretty fair that if we expect Cars Land quality, we have to understand that our ticket probably doesn't cover the entire thing. It needs to be subsidized like an advertisement.

    The public does demand more characters and familiar franchises. How much so is debatable, but you cannot deny the fact that the majority of guests are drawn to these familiar characters and stories. The proof is in every sequel and remake Hollywood churns out. Its in every one of our friends that says "they should really remake xxxxxxx" or "They should make a sequel of xxxxxxx." Its in every person you see driving a "retro" car or wearing vintage clothes. Its just the times we live in. Familiar sells.

    You also have to remember that the whole mentality of relevance and what is popular has been around since DL first opened. Like another poster said, futurism, space, and the west were extremely popular themes of the times. So was polynesian culture. All of FL was dedicated to fairly recent disney movies. The Swiss family tree house came shortly after the movie. Swing dancing was still popular.

    The root behind all this is not original vs movie based, but of relevance. Disney has ALWAYS been relevant. I'd say even more so in its early days before many parts of the park gained "untouchable" status. Like it or not what's relevant today is the disney brand and all of its franchises.

    Perhaps when the economy bounces back and our confidence and bravery as country has recovered we may see a resurgence of bold, new, risky, and creative ideas. But until then the public will keep on demanding what is safe, familiar and what they know and love. And disney will deliver.
    In the quest for quality, I have no problem with the characters footing the bill.

  12. #27

    • Parking Lot > DCA
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    4,372

    Re: What is it about theme parks that supposedly makes originality not an option?

    Quote Originally Posted by MrLiver View Post
    And whenever anyone brigs up original ideas, one only needs to point to how quickly people wanted DCA changed to show how original ideas are usually rejected by the audience.
    I disagree with you here, and this is why.

    DCA was a "plan b" - WestCOT was officially not happening and the city of Anaheim (who just got through getting majorly played by Disney) and CalTrans were spending millions of dollars to re-theme the surrounding area, and widen the 5 freeway. Eisner and his boys had to think of something and fast. Long story short the question was raised: "Why do people leave Disneyland?" - to visit the rest of California of course! And thus, DCA was born. Add in a little-to-no-budget, no WDI team, and an incredibly slashed timeframe and there you have it.

    To my knowledge, I never heard anyone complain about the attractions at DCA being original. I heard people complaining that everything was off the shelf, seemed rushed, and didn't have that "Disney" feel to it. Which to be fair, I agree with.

  13. #28

    • враг народа
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    14,163
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: What is it about theme parks that supposedly makes originality not an option?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pinrar View Post
    The public does demand more characters and familiar franchises. How much so is debatable, but you cannot deny the fact that the majority of guests are drawn to these familiar characters and stories. The proof is in every sequel and remake Hollywood churns out. Its in every one of our friends that says "they should really remake xxxxxxx" or "They should make a sequel of xxxxxxx." Its in every person you see driving a "retro" car or wearing vintage clothes. Its just the times we live in. Familiar sells.
    This ignores the semiotics of language. Despite our feel good culture, we are not all very creative and imaginative. Referencing existing works is a means of communication that turns the known into a symbol. The known is also, well, known. It is quantifiable and tangible. Comparing to the unknown is not a proper comparison. The wider public is always going to choose the known because they are simply not capable of imagining what else could be that unknown; if they could we'd all be Imagineers.

  14. #29

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Mission Viejo
    Posts
    1,160

    Re: What is it about theme parks that supposedly makes originality not an option?

    As an Imagineer, I would think it would be fun to come up with some original concepts.
    I would think THEY would feel hobbled by relying only on a movie to come up with an idea. Talk about sapping and limiting one's creativity.
    And now there's talk that they're getting public opinion on a Star Wars land? Is that true, or no?
    If so, is that what it's come down to.... using a near 40 year old movie that wasn't even a Disney property to develop attractions around now?
    Oh well, if that's what the masses want, that's what they'll give 'em.

  15. #30

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,605

    Re: What is it about theme parks that supposedly makes originality not an option?

    Thanks for all the replies so far . And now the LONGEST REPLY EVAR!!!!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by explodingboy View Post
    It's simple - you have an attraction and or land based on a popular franchise/movie, it draws folks in. They buy a ticket, spend money in the park on food, merchandise and travel accommodations.

    More people are bound to buy a ticket to a theme park based on what's there that caters to them.

    That's ONE way to draw people in. A very effective way, admittedly. But why does it have to be the ONLY way?

    Attractions need a



    To get people excited about them.

    That hook can be a pre-existing franchise, or new technology, or a widely appealing concept, or a combination of any number of things.

    The reason some of the DCA 1.0 attractions failed is not because they were original, but because they had weak hooks.




    The hook of Golden Dreams was “Whoopi Goldberg!” The hook of Superstar Limo was “Whoopi Goldberg! And Drew Carey! And...um...Cindy Crawford! And...uh...some others! Yeah!”

    Actually, the potential hook for Superstar Limo was great – the experience of being a moviestar on your way to a big Hollywood premiere – people would eat that up. Unfortunately, it was executed with cynicism and cheapness. That's what made it un-Disney. Not the fact that it wasn't based on a Disney movie.


    Quote Originally Posted by Malina View Post
    And it's important to remember that for all that we lament the film-franchise attractions now, there was film, TV and sponsorship theming, as well as attempts to pique the public's notice with popular themes, when the park opened.

    What were the three main lands open when Disneyland opened its doors? Fantasyland (all based on Disney movie properties), Frontierland and Tomorrowland. What were the two huge television/film themes in the 1950s and 1960s? Space and the Wild West. People were fascinated in those things outside of Disneyland (and the space race was a huge deal outside of films and TV) so when they went to Disneyland it was catering to their interests. In the 50s Disney also had the Davy Crockett and Texas episodes on their TV show happening, which went into the Wild West theme of Frontierland. The Mike Fink Keelboats were directly based on the Davy Crockett TV show.

    I never said anything against catering towards the public's interests. This is one of the major confusions of this debate – the idea that an original is automatically going to be something esoteric that only hardcore Disneyland fans will be able to appreciate. This is flat out not true. Every major original attraction in the park's history, the ones that we fans celebrate so much, also worked as popular entertainment (actually, your post kind of alludes to this ). I don't see why it has to be any different now, especially since many of those same attractions are still popular with the general public decades later.

    BTW, while you're right of course about Mike Fink Keelboats, I'd like to point out that the Davy Crockett TV episodes were created in the first place to promote Frontierland, and not the other way around. The runaway success of Crockett caught Disney rather by surprise.

    Also, I'm not sure why you skipped Adventureland.


    Quote Originally Posted by ohmyjustin View Post
    Because when you spend 1.2 billion dollars, you better know for sure that it's going to turn a profit.

    Movies and television are able to cater to millions of people at a single moment. Books can be produced, reproduced, edited, digitized, etc., within minutes and cost relatively little to publish. The parks have a capacity of 150,000 per day (or less?). Gambling with attractions is incredibly risky, because it costs months of labor, space (a premium at DLR), and millions of dollars.

    I'd like to thank you for answering the question I posed in the original post, by pointing out differences between creating new material for theme parks as opposed to other mediums (especially the “premium of space” thing).

    As you may expect, I still disagree. You have to gamble every once in a while, or else you have no Disneyland, no Pixar, no Star Wars, and so on, and so on, to squeeze adaptations out of later.

    Also, while new movies play as stand-alones in theaters full of the competition, the parks have a built in audience who come to see "Disneyland" as a whole, not just whatever the "new thing" is. We know that they enjoy quality Disney attractions, regardless of whether they're based on movies or not. What exactly a "quality original Disney attraction" is can be harder to pin down, but Disney themselves really ought to be able to do it.

    This is also one of the reasons why I'd like the filmmaking divisions (Pixar and WDAS) to develop an original attraction, as in the olden days. Then you could market it as “a unique experience from the makers of Toy Story, Finding Nemo and Cars,” or “...Tangled and Wreck-It Ralph.”


    Quote Originally Posted by ParkHopper1 View Post
    It is to make an emotional connection to an attraction beyond just the physical experience. If you can link a positive emotional memory to a product, you then have brand loyalty and develop the desire to return to experience that positive reaction again beyond..."Hey, that was a fun ride".
    So, is that all people say when they get off Haunted Mansion or Big Thunder Mountain? Actually, I once heard a kid reciting the safety spiel to Big Thunder as he got off the ride. I guess it made some kind of connection.

    It's kind of like saying, “All movies need to be based off of popular books, so they'll have a positive reaction again beyond...'Hey, that was a fun movie.' “

    Disney does constantly use the pre-existing emotional memory thing you're talking about in their fireworks shows, and it is very effective. But remember, they played on the same kind of connection using classic theme park attractions in the 50th Anniversary show, and it was just as effective.



    Quote Originally Posted by DisneyIPresume View Post
    This is actually something that I have been tossing around in my head for quite a long time that I wanted to bring up as a topic.

    Growing up as a kid in So Cal one of the things I always noticed was how everything - and I do mean everything - at Universal was based on one of their movies, while at Disneyland many of their rides had absolutely nothing to do with their movies. It amazed me that Disney was able to create movies and at the same time create a medium that told a told a story that did not rely on movies at all. It is almost as if they came up with an original story to tell and instead of making a movie about it, they decided to make a ride to do the same thing.

    To me, this is what separated Disney from all the other theme parks -- that they were able to create new experiences and new bona fide Disney characters from their rides alone. The hitch-hiking ghosts are just as much Disney characters as Mickey Mouse or Mary Poppins. The same goes for the Tiki Room birds, the pirates, or the children from iasw.

    Things sadly have changed now. Disney has built an original ride in Hong Kong, so there is hope. Hopefully they will bring something like Mystic Manor here some day.



    EXCELLENT POST!!!!!!!!




    Quote Originally Posted by IzzyInWonderland View Post
    ...Sadly I think America expects a certain, shallow level of recognition these days within rides and attractions. If they don't recognize it from somewhere, it will fail. That's the level we're on now.

    What proof do we have that they'll fail? Soarin' is the most popular attraction in Epcot, and no slouch in DCA either. All you need is the



    The virtually universal dream of flying is a GREAT HOOK for an attraction.



    Quote Originally Posted by Pinrar View Post
    The kind of attraction the public demands today is far more technologically sophisticated and expensive today than it ever was when more original attractions were being built. So its sort of a given that when the cost of these things start to go up, the company wants to be sure that they get their money back. I find it pretty fair that if we expect Cars Land quality, we have to understand that our ticket probably doesn't cover the entire thing. It needs to be subsidized like an advertisement.

    So Disney, one of the wealthiest corporations on Earth, can't afford to create a quality product that doesn't act as an overt advertisement for a different product? If that's really the case – and that's just sad and pathetic – then the company needs to find another way to subsidize it. (Imagine, more than one way of doing things!) I'll accept a corporate sponsorship (“presented by _____ “) or some such thing if it'll get me an original attraction.

    What if Walt had said, “Oh well, we don't have the money, so let's just not build Disneyland. What? Use television? That risky newfangled contraption? It'll never catch on!”


    ...
    The root behind all this is not original vs movie based, but of relevance. Disney has ALWAYS been relevant. I'd say even more so in its early days before many parts of the park gained "untouchable" status. Like it or not what's relevant today is the disney brand and all of its franchises.
    Is that really all that is or possibly can be “relevant” today? And if the park gained “untouchable”status, why do they keep touching it?

    In the olden days, there was no need for the distinction between movie-based and original, because both were approached the same way – as an experience centering around the guest. And because there were both!


    Perhaps when the economy bounces back and our confidence and bravery as country has recovered we may see a resurgence of bold, new, risky, and creative ideas. But until then the public will keep on demanding what is safe, familiar and what they know and love. And disney will deliver.
    Perhaps when we recover our confidence and bravery as a country, and see a resurgence of bold, new, risky and creative ideas, the economy will bounce back.




    MORE BRILLIANT POSTS :


    Quote Originally Posted by lazyboy97O View Post
    This ignores the semiotics of language. Despite our feel good culture, we are not all very creative and imaginative. Referencing existing works is a means of communication that turns the known into a symbol. The known is also, well, known. It is quantifiable and tangible. Comparing to the unknown is not a proper comparison. The wider public is always going to choose the known because they are simply not capable of imagining what else could be that unknown; if they could we'd all be Imagineers.
    Quote Originally Posted by CASurfer65 View Post
    As an Imagineer, I would think it would be fun to come up with some original concepts.
    I would think THEY would feel hobbled by relying only on a movie to come up with an idea. Talk about sapping and limiting one's creativity.
    And now there's talk that they're getting public opinion on a Star Wars land? Is that true, or no?
    If so, is that what it's come down to.... using a near 40 year old movie that wasn't even a Disney property to develop attractions around now?
    Oh well, if that's what the masses want, that's what they'll give 'em.
    (BTW, I'm not averse to a Star Wars land because it is a rich universe with a lot of locations to play on. But I also want more originality! )
    Last edited by animagusurreal; 04-22-2013 at 03:24 AM.
    "Happy Working Song" parody for DCA remodel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-TYESfNTP8&feature=plcp

    Retro Rant Review of "The Hunchback of Notre Dame II" (comedy review of direct-to-video
    Disney sequel):
    Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/user/animagus.../1/q1j7FU8QXu0
    Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/user/animagus.../0/sasNTMDRBLU

    Retro Rant Review of "Home on the Range" (comedy review of Disney movie):
    Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7mC-...feature=relmfu
    Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoUie...feature=relmfu
    Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3Vea...feature=relmfu


    Visit my site: http://www.vividgroovy.com



    Pratfall the albatross superheroine visits the Carthay Circle Theatre.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. [Chat] An Accumulation of Details - What I love about the parks.
    By RegionsBeyond in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-30-2011, 01:09 PM
  2. [Question] what type of ride do you think WDW should put in that all the other theme parks have
    By man_eating_plant in forum Walt Disney World Resort
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-11-2008, 09:52 PM
  3. Feb. 1, 2008: Two Urban Legends about Disney Theme Parks
    By Werner Weiss in forum Yesterland
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-04-2008, 05:04 PM
  4. Replies: 86
    Last Post: 06-15-2006, 11:04 PM
  5. What Comes Close to Disney Theme Parks?
    By DL_CRAZE in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 03-10-2006, 10:26 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •