"Don't Just STAND There, DO Something!!"

[fo'c's'le swab]

Attractions in DL are changing--adding dimensions that were technologically unavailable before. I hesitate to use the word evolving, as it implies a beneficial change, and all are not yet convinced this is the case.

We are now seeing many attractions that offer active roles for the Guest. The days of the classic attractions showcasing passive participation are slowly being replaced by thrill rides and 'active' living video games.

It appears that today's guest is thought to require 'customized' stimulation. Efforts are being made to give each guest their own unique experience--whether it be through the manipulation of the ride vehicle (RR's Car-Toon Spin), attractions that generate a 'score' like a video game (BLAB and TSMM), or actual individual interaction through customized attraction character dialog (Crush's TT, Edna in Monsters, Inc., and TSMM's Mr. Potatohead).

The reliance on video/visual effects technology has produced both high praise (Crush, TSMM) and harsh criticism (FNSV). Is the overall immersive quality and thematic coherence of newer attractions being sacrificed for either the visceral thrill, or the 'customized' interactive experience? Is the appeal to the 'cerebral' being overshadowed by the appeal to the 'animal'? Is visual story-telling being replaced by a video screen? Is a guest's imagination an unnecessary luxury in this new DL?

Do recent attractions 'measure up' to similar caliber offerings of the past? Do we see a sort of 'balance' acheived by newer attractions: a diminishing return in immersion and theme, but a significant increase in entertainment value and repeatability? Or is this newer interactive-based philosophy being over-used, and in danger of becoming 'gimmicky'?

Your thoughts, please.

[k_peek_2000]

They're fine.

[Witches of Morva]

ORDDU: My thought is that not ALL interactive attractions are necessarily bad. For instance, I've been proposing the idea of a kissing booth for years! Yes, a Kissing Booth where you could lock lips with your favorite Disney Hunk. I can hardly imagine a more thrilling attraction...

[Dan - Tasmic!]

I'd say, it's different. It makes us feel more apart of the story and more into the magic.

ORDDU: My thought is that not ALL interactive attractions are necessarily bad. For instance, I've been proposing the idea of a kissing booth for years! Yes, a Kissing Booth where you could lock lips with your favorite Disney Hunk. I can hardly imagine a more thrilling attraction...

I second that!! But, with the Princesses,

[sorceress1986]

It's a good thought there, Swabbie!

I was just thinking about this after getting to ride Toy Story Midway Mania with my goddaughter four times in the Annual Passholder preview. Sure, it's fun, but can't there be a ride where you can just sit, relax, and enjoy? Why the constant full tilt stimulation? Don't get me wrong, I LOVE TSMM, and Buzz is ok (honestly, not my greatest thrill), but I don't want a whole park or resort of video game or interactive attractions.

Sometimes I think it's that kids can't or won't just take in information as they used to. I have a cousin who, God love her, always needed to be "entertained". Her sister, whom I am particularly close to on a similar level, wanted to take us both to Disneyland once when we were about 15 (me) and 13(my younger cousin) but knew she couldn't because her sister would need attention and entertainment, while she felt I would just be able to go along and enjoy the moment (yes, I realize this story compliments me, but that is honestly not the point here). It seems more kids are getting to be the "entertain me" type.

Frankly, I like older rides like the train and the Tiki Room to just sit back and enjoy. Just after I graduated, some of my cousins and I were at Disneyland, since my party was at the hotel, and the youngers ones (5, 7, and 12-ish) had never been to the Tiki Room, but loved it and when we were watching the fireworks, the littlest was singing along to the Tiki Room quite happily and had never been on it until that day. I almost think some of these rides underestimate children. Or they just reach for the lowest common denominator.

[mycroft16]

I think both types have their places in the parks. I think they need to continue with more passive rides as well as use active participation. Both have their uses and their benefits as well as drawbacks. As long as both are used judiciously and to their maximum benefit, then I see no problems with either type.

[ah schucks]

My brother, his friend and I went to the new Pirate's Lair at Tom Sawyer's Island and while I've played in those caves with the new interactive elements, I discovered new fun elements and was blown away.

I think these interactive elements in queues and themed areas are amazing and so far the rides are blowing away my expectations.

I do worry about these elements breaking down and not being well maintained like the special effects in the Indiana queue.

That said I see a thriving market for interaction in rides, even rides that require physical participation like peddling, moving, shifting and participating in the movement or scope of the ride.

Years ago I proposed a people mover powered through bike peddles that would power a small generator and move you along the tracks and explore alternative energy along the way.

At the times many folks dismissed the idea but as the culture has shifted, I think it could work and be embraced.

[fo'c's'le swab]

ORDDU: My thought is that not ALL interactive attractions are necessarily bad. For instance, I've been proposing the idea of a kissing booth for years! Yes, a Kissing Booth where you could lock lips with your favorite Disney Hunk. I can hardly imagine a more thrilling attraction...

I don't htink any interactive attraction is 'bad', either. I'm curious to see how MCers view the new direction in many technologies, including exploring the virtual-based attraction, and if it 'measures' up to the more 'tangible' offerings in the past.

Would there be a height requirement for that booth of yours?

[mycroft16]

I do think that current management is very capable of taking this WAY to far though and ruining the future for this new category of rides. They do need to have a care.

[Jordiekins]

The chick in monsters inc is named Roz.


You put edna (like from the incredibles)
just letting you know

[fo'c's'le swab]

They're fine.

Stirring endorsement.

[Goofy Daddy]

It's not the technology that bothers me really. It's how those rides that contain the new tech are fit into DLR that has concerned me. BLAB is a prime example of this. I like that ride. It's one of my son's favorites. The technology is great and is exciting compared to some more static "sit and watch" rides, but the fact that it is a "sopace toy" stuck in Tomorrowland is where I have trouble with it. The same could be said with Nemo...the technology could have been used to bring back the old ride and even improve it if done right...instead we get cartoon fish.

So, in a nutshell...the new types of rides and the technology they use isn't an issue for me at all...it's how those new rides are themed and fit into the park that usually gets my head shaking.

[fo'c's'le swab]

The chick in monsters inc is named Roz.


You put edna (like from the incredibles)
just letting you know

Good catch. Roz (never saw Monsters, Inc.). Thanks.

[Goofy Daddy]

Years ago I proposed a people mover powered through bike peddles that would power a small generator and move you along the tracks and explore alternative energy along the way.

At the times many folks dismissed the idea but as the culture has shifted, I think it could work and be embraced.

Legoland has a ride that is peddle powered.

[fo'c's'le swab]

It's a good thought there, Swabbie!

I was just thinking about this after getting to ride Toy Story Midway Mania with my goddaughter four times in the Annual Passholder preview. Sure, it's fun, but can't there be a ride where you can just sit, relax, and enjoy? Why the constant full tilt stimulation? Don't get me wrong, I LOVE TSMM, and Buzz is ok (honestly, not my greatest thrill), but I don't want a whole park or resort of video game or interactive attractions.

Sometimes I think it's that kids can't or won't just take in information as they used to. I have a cousin who, God love her, always needed to be "entertained". Her sister, whom I am particularly close to on a similar level, wanted to take us both to Disneyland once when we were about 15 (me) and 13(my younger cousin) but knew she couldn't because her sister would need attention and entertainment, while she felt I would just be able to go along and enjoy the moment (yes, I realize this story compliments me, but that is honestly not the point here). It seems more kids are getting to be the "entertain me" type.

Frankly, I like older rides like the train and the Tiki Room to just sit back and enjoy. Just after I graduated, some of my cousins and I were at Disneyland, since my party was at the hotel, and the youngers ones (5, 7, and 12-ish) had never been to the Tiki Room, but loved it and when we were watching the fireworks, the littlest was singing along to the Tiki Room quite happily and had never been on it until that day. I almost think some of these rides underestimate children. Or they just reach for the lowest common denominator.

Good post, and a central question that I think is interesting. Is this newer video interaction technology progress for progress' sake, or a RESPONSE to a perceived attitude change in audiences? Is this change real or imagined?