Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 51
  1. #31

    • Junior Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by The Mad Hatter
    I agree. But then again why do people go on these types of rides/shows time and time again? I know everytime i go to UHS, i ride the backstage tram tour.
    I'm not saying that they aren't worth experiencing. You don't ignore a lolipop just because it is next to a chocolate bar. People will always fill an attraction to some extent, especially if the wait time is worth it to them. People who pay admission to a park might feel obligated to try everything. It takes a special type of attraction (or collection of) to actually lure someone to a park.

  2. #32

    • Senior Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,890
    Quote Originally Posted by junglecruiser
    I'm not saying that they aren't worth experiencing. You don't ignore a lolipop just because it is next to a chocolate bar. People will always fill an attraction to some extent, especially if the wait time is worth it to them. People who pay admission to a park might feel obligated to try everything. It takes a special type of attraction (or collection of) to actually lure someone to a park.
    I think you mean lure someone back to the park

    for instance I go on Indy and it was so encompassing and amazing that I wish to go back and see it again just because I was so impressed by it

    same with the mansion

    however if I go to something and it isn't imerssive/impressive I might still enjoy it but I probably won't activly look to do it again (I would do it again if I liked it and it was convienent for me to do so but I wouldn't go out of my way to experience again)

  3. #33

    • Senior Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    8,797
    I find the queue for TOT is rather short, AND disappointing. It seems once you are run through the library, I don't get the chance to see much and get that "feeling" of immersion. Indy is obviously a winner, Because of the artifacts, waiting area, so on.
    Indy is the last of the great "imaginative" rides at DLr. As long as imagination is stifled at DLR, there will never be another ride like it.

  4. #34

    • Differently clued
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Spokane, WA
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by junglecruiser
    so basically disney should make it's attractions complete, immersive experiences. This is something I can agree with. What keeps rides popular for decades is that they have a timeless quality to them: they aren't centered around cheap thrills or gimicky jokes; they have a strong central story and are original. POTC is designed in many ways to be repeatable. I think it's variety of environment adds to this and helps propell it so much over it's WDW counterpart. Here's an interesting thought. The Great Movie Ride and POTC are both long and elaborate rides with animatronics, music and story. POTC is infinately better. Why exactly is this (I do agree POTC is infinitely better, I'm not implying that it is not.)? Maybe the repetitive narration makes TGMR less repeatabe? Maybe this proves Kevin's article correct?
    Exactly, I think POTC works because it represents pure, raw imagination, and that's something we can all tap into. It has a life all it's own where as TGMR steals its magic from the movies. All the best rides are unique with a story that sometimes have corny jokes, but it's okay because it's part of the ride's personality. Maybe a good ride has a soul?

    By the way, this is the best discussion I've had in a long time. Almost as much fun as riding TOT.
    "Do it for me then. Your gaming buddies are going to be there too. It will be good for you kids to go out and blow the stink off yourselves for one night."

    "Fine. For you. And for the eradication of stink."


  5. #35

    • Santa Barbara, CA
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,624

    Four more Formulas.

    I like MGM better than the Magic Kingdoms as it immerses me in somewhere I have a greater nostalgia for, 1930s Hollywood. It's true that there are thematic conundrums in every Disney park and certainly the Magic Kingdoms (How immersive was Walt's Matterhorn with all the interior scaffolding?). My impression is that Walt was never a "formula" guy and never looked back from his experiments, even the dumb ones like Holidayland. Most of the conceptual betrayals are a result of the audience being uninterested in an attraction and the approach shifts. Backlot tour boring, Tower number one attraction, case closed. At least that's how the decisions are made. Walt had the same issues with the first Tomorrowland. To me, EPCOT merely fails in it's execution, not it's original vision. As you all know EPCOT would never have happened in any form if Walt hadn't coined it.
    "As usual he's taken over the coolest spot in the house"- Father re: Orville 1963

    [FONT=Arial Narrow]

  6. #36

    • New Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    5
    Good article, although I do think AK is more immersive in the general feel of the park than the article leads someone to believe. AK is not meant to be toured with a guidebook in one hand, checking off all the attractions you can get to before noon, commando style. If you rush through it, you miss the attention to detail and the peaceful moments (not many of those at DL anymore). If you spend less than an hour around the primates, you haven't really been to AK.

    I find Dinosaur much less enjoyable than the ride it is based on: Indiana Jones. Same technology. Both have good queues. But for some reason, Indy seems more enjoyable and yes, even believeable. Yet from a logical perspective, Dinosaur is based on real things. And maybe Kevin has touched on the real reason I like the attractions I do ... the lack of a message.

    Dinosaur fails not because it lacks attention to detail, but because it seems to me message-based. "Pay attention, you'll learn something!" is a poor substitute for entertainment.

  7. #37

    • Vehicle rotating backward
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    4,623
    Quote Originally Posted by KevinYee
    Rock n Roller definitely doesn't trick me into thinking I'm on the I-5.
    Except being on I-5 is BORING. An I-5 attraction would be sitting in front of the same diorama of a road stretching to the horizon as props of water towers go by from time to time, with the attraction not letting out until 5 hours after your back aches.

    Something can still be immersive and immerse you in fantasy. The only time that's a bad thing is if it's striving for authenticity.

  8. #38

    • Rock Star Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    13,838
    I don't know if this has been said already, but that immersion starts at the queue. And that skipping the queue in any form leads to a less immersive experience. And that a poorly designed queue will prevent immersion from being attained.

  9. #39

    • Junior Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    77
    Excellent, informative, and entertaining article. Several interesting points.

    Don't you wonder how different things would be today if Walt were still alive? He seemed to be so much about immersing the viewer of his movies and the guest of his parks into another (albeit) temporary reality or fantasy world. For children, this is obviously pretty simple to do, but for adults, it is quite difficult due to the fact that we see "everything". I have to think that we probably would not have a MGM studios, nor so much "behind the scenes" type revealing of the "magic".

    Along these lines, I wonder how he would have reacted to guests going on a tour backstage. Which is sort of why I have not personally taken any backstage tours. Of course, cost is the major reason, but I've thought about it several times and often wondered how it would "effect" me if I went behind the scenes and saw how they did some of it. I'm already a very technically oriented type of person who loves that kind of stuff, and many times find myself watching the technicians who are working to put on the show more than I am the show. Good example, (a little embarassing too) I never made the connection on TOT (WDW) that when the car left the shaft and went horizontal, that we were "transporting" into The Twilight Zone! I just thought it was really cool effect of the whole ride. Realizng it here and now, makes it all the more cool, and improves upon the story-line! Am I alone on this?
    Last edited by GrumpyFan; 01-26-2005 at 11:27 AM.

  10. #40

    • Banned User
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    1,240
    I don't like how people use Walt's name like that.
    We don't know what Walt would have done really.

    Walt, for all we know, could have torn down many things by now. He could have ordered the destruction of POTC or HM or others for newer ideas. Even if he was alive, people would still be the same way though...

  11. #41

    • Junior Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    77
    I wasn't pretending that I knew Walt personally, or what he would do, I was just speculating based on how he did things in the past. He probably would not have agreed with a lot of the things that are currently being done.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheManator
    Walt, for all we know, could have torn down many things by now.
    Aren't you doing the same thing?

    I completely agree with you though. I happen to think that the parks we know today, would be completely different if he were still alive. I doubt there would be alot of duplication of attractions between parks because he didn't seem to like doing the same thing more than once. I also believe, that if he were running the company, he would have been (sadly) removed by the major investors as CEO/President due to his "risky" business practices.

  12. #42

    • is satisfactual.
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Uncanny Valley
    Posts
    2,134
    I doubt there would be alot of duplication of attractions between parks because he didn't seem to like doing the same thing more than once.
    Errr, wasn't it mostly Walt who decided to xerox Disneyland and ship it over to Florida?

  13. #43

    • Junior Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    77
    Sure it was, but I don't think he was planning on an exact copy. I think he had a lot more in mind, bigger, better, as well as different too.

    From "Walt's Florida Film":
    Of course, there will be another amusement theme park in Florida similar to the one in California.
    But the amusement park was only for "entertainment purposes". He had his mind set on something much bigger than this. Something that would have made WDW a completely different place than the way we now appreciate it to be.

    Not to stray too far off-topic, but I think that if Walt had lived longer, he would have bankrupted if not destroyed the company with the "Florida Project" due to it's size and the many many issues it would have undoubtedly raised. But, that's not to say that he wouldn't still have tried to build it. He was a visionary and there was not much stopping him.

  14. #44

    • Senior Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,890
    from what Walt left I think it's safe to say he wasn't planning much of anything for the theme park except that it would be Disneyland East

    he was concentraiting on designing the perfect city and the theme park was just an idea encorperated in that

    he probably planned SOME differences because we already know he wanted to fix the mistake he made with Disneyland in landlocking it

    but I doubt Walt ever thought of the idea of multiple parks or even this huge resort thing we've got going now

  15. #45

    • is satisfactual.
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Uncanny Valley
    Posts
    2,134
    How did that whole "resort" thing come to be anyway? And by "resort" I mean one destination with several themeparks. I mean, it's a whole new way of looking at a themepark. All three Disney destinations that weren't WDW suddenly "became" resorts around 2001, when the second parks were opened and in the case of DL, Downtown Disney as well. I'm just wondering how that all started, as I'm getting the impression that Walt himself didn't actually intend to have more than one park, yet it's a Disney institution now. And when WDW opened, it didn't have a whole lot more than DL, yet the park was called Magic Kingdom and the whole package was "Walt Disney World".

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Zenia Mucha and Disney's Public-Relations Problem
    By PragmaticIdealist in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-12-2007, 01:53 PM
  2. Disney's Mel Gibson problem - CNNMoney.com 11/30/06
    By cellarhound in forum MiceChat News Archive
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-30-2006, 11:10 AM
  3. Solving Disney's Employment Problem?
    By dchun2007 in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 08-08-2006, 08:24 PM
  4. 2/8: Disney’s Reinvention Problem, Part III
    By Al Lutz in forum MiceAge Discussions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 02-13-2005, 08:14 PM
  5. 2/1: Disney’s Reinvention Problem, Part II
    By Al Lutz in forum MiceAge Discussions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 02-02-2005, 12:34 PM

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
  •