Announcement

Collapse
1 of 2 < >

MiceChat Rules

A list of MiceChat's rules can be found at the top of the Disneyland forum.
2 of 2 < >

Ad Blockers

Please do not use ad blocking software when visiting MiceChat. It costs money to keep MiceChat online, and ad revenue offsets this. Thank you.
See more
See less

Does Disney need to keep basing every attraction on the movies?

Collapse

Ad Widget

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Does Disney need to keep basing every attraction on the movies?

    Originally posted by Uncle Bob View Post
    You all need to get beyond thinking that what Disney chooses to put into the parks has anything to do with what is good for the park or what people want, it does not. The choice of what goes into the parks is determined by which IP will generate the most retail sales, period. The parks are nothing more then an advertising venue now.
    How much revenue do Test Track or Tower of Terror related products make?

    In the Test Track gift shop they sell mostly Cars related items. Would it being Cars themed have it sell more Cars stuff likely so but they didn't choose to do that even when it was rethemed.

    ToT store has a lot of generic Disney products. Should they have put Pluto and Alice in the disappearing family on the ride?

    Attractions of any kind bring in guests who then dine or shop, but don't buy something themed to every attraction they ride.
    Be Cool Stay in School!
    Next year I'm trying for a summer internship at Stark Industries.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Does Disney need to keep basing every attraction on the movies?

      Jungle Cruise, Space Mountain, Pirates, Haunted Mansion, and Thunder Mountain are all inherently original attractions, and they are the headliners of the park. It comes to prove that original rides still hold great relevance today with modern audiences. Thus, I believe Disney should invest more time and money developing some more attractions that rely on originality.



      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Does Disney need to keep basing every attraction on the movies?

        Originally posted by swampymarsh View Post
        How much revenue do Test Track or Tower of Terror related products make?

        In the Test Track gift shop they sell mostly Cars related items. Would it being Cars themed have it sell more Cars stuff likely so but they didn't choose to do that even when it was rethemed.

        ToT store has a lot of generic Disney products. Should they have put Pluto and Alice in the disappearing family on the ride?

        Attractions of any kind bring in guests who then dine or shop, but don't buy something themed to every attraction they ride.
        Test Track and Tower were built prior to Bob Iger, he's redirected the focus of the entire company. Plus, it's not just about what people buy in the parks. It's about brand marketing and creating lifestyle consumers. They want you to recognize Cars product on the shelf at Walmart and associate positive feeling with the brand. You should really read more about corporate marketing because it doesn't seem like you really understand it.
        The Mickey audience is not made up of people; it has no racial, national, political, religious or social differences or affiliations; the Mickey audience is made up of parts of people, of that deathless, precious, ageless, absolutely primitive remnant of something in every world-wracked human being which makes us play with children’s toys and laugh without self-consciousness at silly things, and sing in bathtubs, and dream and believe that our babies are uniquely beautiful. You know…the Mickey in us.
        -Walt Disney

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Does Disney need to keep basing every attraction on the movies?

          Here is the part I will never understand. Why does it matter what an attraction is based on? If it's a good story and fun for me I don't care. I don't feel Disney is more or less creative based on their subject matter. Lets look at cars land. Pixar created cars then the land. What's so different about that versus a original idea? They created the back story through their movies and shorts books etc. Now lets look at the attractions in the land. I love RsR and MJJ but I pretty much hate LFT. I would hate Luigi's if it was called the flying saucers and located in TL over at DL. For me it's about execution. Where the story comes from doesn't matter to me as long as the attraction tells me a story by itself and I am entertained.
          These are some of my favorite TRs I have posted

          DL 55th BDAY trip report
          My company had a special night at the park
          WdW trip report with WWoHP
          NYE 2011 trip report
          Mice Chat 7th anniversary
          Leap year 24 hour report
          New DCA trip report
          NYE 2012
          HKDL trip report

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Does Disney need to keep basing every attraction on the movies?

            Originally posted by swampymarsh View Post
            Where are your numbers to support your observation?


            I'm going off what people are now commonly seeing when they visit.
            Some people say I have observed the opposite. Besides, the first person making the assertion must prove their case, not the second to prove the first is wrong.

            Originally posted by Disney Adventure View Post
            If there is some genre that Disney hasn't explored in their parks that you've got in mind, lets hear it.
            Ahhh, but I am not the Imagineer. Surely you are not expecting me to be more creative than they? If so, then Imagineering is in a very sorry state.

            Originally posted by frollofan View Post
            Jungle Cruise, Space Mountain, Pirates, Haunted Mansion, and Thunder Mountain are all inherently original attractions, and they are the headliners of the park. It comes to prove that original rides still hold great relevance today with modern audiences. Thus, I believe Disney should invest more time and money developing some more attractions that rely on originality.
            Yes indeed frollofan, yes indeed.

            Originally posted by biggsworth View Post
            Here is the part I will never understand. Why does it matter what an attraction is based on? If it's a good story and fun for me I don't care. I don't feel Disney is more or less creative based on their subject matter. Lets look at cars land. Pixar created cars then the land. What's so different about that versus a original idea? They created the back story through their movies and shorts books etc. Now lets look at the attractions in the land. I love RsR and MJJ but I pretty much hate LFT. I would hate Luigi's if it was called the flying saucers and located in TL over at DL. For me it's about execution. Where the story comes from doesn't matter to me as long as the attraction tells me a story by itself and I am entertained.
            I am inclined to agree, with some exceptions. When the attraction is based on a property that is not OUTSTANDING, and then the attraction pretty much follows the story in the animated feature (Nemo Subs), or provides little else in the way of supplemental story (BLAB), then I tend to like them a lot less than the headlining original attractions and am not as entertained. I want Disney to do and be better than that.
            Last edited by Sambo; 02-19-2014, 03:25 PM.





            sigpic

            I am Sambo, and I endorse this signature.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Does Disney need to keep basing every attraction on the movies?

              Sadly I think advertising and possible revenue from an attraction determine whether or not it will be built.

              On one side, in the case of Indiana Jones, it worked great using a movie as the subject since we already had a connection with the characters and plot before the ride even started and then the actually ride was a completely new adventure unlike any of the movies.

              On the other side though, for example Finding Nemo, you just watch screens underwater and go through the same story as the movie. However (putting running costs aside) it's pretty obvious that just adding those known fish to the subs created a huge new income for the Company.

              I know its a lot more profitable for Disney to use a movie theme, I guess I just have wayyyy more respect for original rides like any of the mountains.
              "Where would the fun be if we already knew what there is to know?" - Dr. Walter Bishop, Fringe

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Does Disney need to keep basing every attraction on the movies?

                Originally posted by Sambo View Post



                I am inclined to agree, with some exceptions. When the attraction is based on a property that is not OUTSTANDING, and then the attraction pretty much follows the story in the animated feature (Nemo Subs), or provides little else in the way of supplemental story (BLAB), then I tend to like them a lot less than the headlining original attractions and am not as entertained. I want Disney to do and be better than that.
                Yeah that's how I feel for instance Indy is fricken awesome. Based off a IP and tells a seperate story that could easily be added to the Indiana Jones universe. Nemo adds nothing as far as a new story goes. Although I do like the story book rides and they just re-tell a story but they feel different than Nemo....
                These are some of my favorite TRs I have posted

                DL 55th BDAY trip report
                My company had a special night at the park
                WdW trip report with WWoHP
                NYE 2011 trip report
                Mice Chat 7th anniversary
                Leap year 24 hour report
                New DCA trip report
                NYE 2012
                HKDL trip report

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Does Disney need to keep basing every attraction on the movies?

                  Originally posted by biggsworth View Post
                  Yeah that's how I feel for instance Indy is fricken awesome. Based off a IP and tells a seperate story that could easily be added to the Indiana Jones universe. Nemo adds nothing as far as a new story goes. Although I do like the story book rides and they just re-tell a story but they feel different than Nemo....
                  I think Nemo's problem may be that it's the opposite of most rides - usually you're on your way to something relatively benign (Endor, jaunty little trip through the swamp, casual bobsled run down the non-yeti filled mountain) and Something Amazing Happens, usually Something Going Wrong.

                  Nemo's the opposite - you're seeing Something Amazing Happen in your trip through Liquid Space when suddenly you get roped into a completely low stake relatively benign attempt to find the character you can't move five feet without seeing or hearing from.
                  Account abandoned due to trolls

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Does Disney need to keep basing every attraction on the movies?

                    A good ride is a good ride. It makes no difference to me if it's based on a movie or not. Indiana Jones and Dinosaur (essentially the same ride) are both equally enjoyable.
                    Disneyland Cast Member
                    Outdoor Vending
                    1996 - 1999

                    My interview with MiceAge about working at Disneyland:

                    http://micechat.com/blogs/mouth-of-t...ding-crew.html

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Does Disney need to keep basing every attraction on the movies?

                      It appears to me that the non Disney themes rides are the most popular. Also my dad told me back in the 50's you had to pay to go on the rides.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Does Disney need to keep basing every attraction on the movies?

                        Originally posted by biggsworth View Post
                        Yeah that's how I feel for instance Indy is fricken awesome. Based off a IP and tells a seperate story that could easily be added to the Indiana Jones universe. Nemo adds nothing as far as a new story goes. Although I do like the story book rides and they just re-tell a story but they feel different than Nemo....
                        Exactly. Not that I am opposed to using IP as the basis for an attraction, but it must have more than what appears on the DVD in terms of story. Indy is a good example as is Star Tours. Cannot comment on Cars Land as I have not been yet. The classic Walt inspired dark rides have a history with Walt and the development of the park (and my childhood), so they do have a different feel even though they are nearly direct stories from the IP. Where I break from this pattern somewhat is with Little Mermaid. Not the same connections, based in a shortened telling of the exact IP story, but for some unexplained reason - I kind of like it... But there is a limit. I wouldn't want two or three LM attractions, or Indy attractions, or Star Wars attractions. Even for the greats - one is enough. This is why I don't want further StarWars incursion into the park. With Marvel - I enjoy most of the new movies, and the older comics, but think putting them in Tomorrowland is more than ill-advised, it is just plain wrong. Marvel (and more Star Wars) would be better served by a third gate. (Or even their own land as an offshoot of DCA)

                        Originally posted by BogLurch View Post
                        I think Nemo's problem may be that it's the opposite of most rides - usually you're on your way to something relatively benign (Endor, jaunty little trip through the swamp, casual bobsled run down the non-yeti filled mountain) and Something Amazing Happens, usually Something Going Wrong.

                        Nemo's the opposite - you're seeing Something Amazing Happen in your trip through Liquid Space when suddenly you get roped into a completely low stake relatively benign attempt to find the character you can't move five feet without seeing or hearing from.
                        Indeed. I have similar feelings about the cardboard cutouts of Buzz Lightyear.

                        Originally posted by Big D View Post
                        A good ride is a good ride. It makes no difference to me if it's based on a movie or not. Indiana Jones and Dinosaur (essentially the same ride) are both equally enjoyable.
                        Now this is interesting. Even with the same vehicles and layout, it would depend totally on the story being told. That difference would either make or break it for me. For my preferences - a one time, appropriately placed, IP based attraction with a great story would still beat the same physical "ride", inappropriately placed, or with a mediocre story.





                        sigpic

                        I am Sambo, and I endorse this signature.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Does Disney need to keep basing every attraction on the movies?

                          Originally posted by brendonb28 View Post
                          It appears to me that the non Disney themes rides are the most popular.
                          See? Some people say...





                          sigpic

                          I am Sambo, and I endorse this signature.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Does Disney need to keep basing every attraction on the movies?

                            Originally posted by Uncle Bob View Post
                            The choice of what goes into the parks is determined by which IP will generate the most retail sales, period. The parks are nothing more then an advertising venue now.


                            It makes me sad that I think you're right. You can't just make something that's fun, it's got to sell me stuff.


                            Originally posted by biggsworth View Post
                            Why does it matter what an attraction is based on?
                            I want the ride to give me something the movie doesn't. And that's not what they've been building, CarsLand aside.

                            Buena Vista Street- works. Environment, real-life existing things. Something to look at.
                            Indy- works. Immersive environment, immediacy of the action, things happen to you as you ride.
                            Star Tours- Nice to have new updated movies, but it's overly clear when it switches tracks to the new segment. The pieces don't "flow" together well.
                            Nemo- not so much. Movie screens, just underwater. The lava flow and the mines are cool, but that's a small portion of a ride that now, overall, sucks.
                            Pixar- boring. Even the parade doesn't get much further than "Oh, look, characters."
                            Little Mermaid- eh. Briefly cool, but still doesn't do much more than give a Cliff-Notes version of the movie.

                            I pledge allegiance to the Earth, one planet, many gods, and to the universe in which she spins.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Does Disney need to keep basing every attraction on the movies?

                              Originally posted by Uncle Bob View Post
                              You all need to get beyond thinking that what Disney chooses to put into the parks has anything to do with what is good for the park or what people want, it does not. The choice of what goes into the parks is determined by which IP will generate the most retail sales, period. The parks are nothing more then an advertising venue now.
                              This is kind of a backward way to look at it. The reason those things generate the most retail sales, is because those are the properties that people WANT. Obviously the whole basis for having a property generate sales is that it has to be popular first.

                              Take Frozen for instance. I've read complaints on other boards of Disney not keeping the shelves stocked with merchandise and we've had two threads on here recently regarding the dress one of the characters will be wearing and whether it will see more representation in the park. When something becomes popular like Frozen, when you get a fan community actively asking for an attraction to be built, why wouldn't you do it? Why is it a bad thing to make people happy?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Does Disney need to keep basing every attraction on the movies?

                                Originally posted by Big D View Post
                                A good ride is a good ride. It makes no difference to me if it's based on a movie or not. Indiana Jones and Dinosaur (essentially the same ride) are both equally enjoyable.
                                I actually think this has more to do with it than anything else. And I also think that with Nemo, the problem is more related to the Subs themselves than most folks would care to admit.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X