Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rather then Removing Incentive Material, Why Not Just Build New Attractions?

Collapse

Get Away Today

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rather then Removing Incentive Material, Why Not Just Build New Attractions?

    Given how a lot of strong opinions come out when things like updates to Splash Mountain and Jungle Cruise come out, you'd think that the consistent arguing and bickering looks bad for Disney. And no, I'm not defending either side, but when it comes to discussing the merits and responsibilities that people and companies have, it only seems to create a lot of anger and bitterness for the one and another.

    Personally, I don't even know why Disney would announce intentions to update something only to create more inclusivity. This isn't a bad thing, but when your announcement is tied around that reason, then it seems like their openly taking sides. I've never believed in business or corporations taking any political side unless their upfront about it in the beginning.

    Though I also started to consider that rather then updating an old attraction, would everyone be better off if the old ride simply closed for a new attraction or experience? I know what your saying, "CLOSE THE JUNGLE CRUISE!? ARE YOU CRAZY!?", but let's look at it this way.

    Disney announces a closure to the Jungle Cruise. Just a closure, without giving a reason. People would be sad and even be angry that a classic would be shuttered, but now they're sad for a different reason. They don't have to take a stand on which moral side is better. No political argument. No strong opinions. But rather a "It was fun while it lasted, glad for the memories"

    Then they announce some kind of new attraction that continues the jungle spirit that keeps Adventureland alive, but it still feels modern. It can update old ideas without saying "we're doing the right thing".

    What I'm getting at is that the company may feel awkward about certain rides because they contain material thats old fashioned and not something they believe in. They have every right to feel that way, but why would they continue to keep the attraction since it still had the history at one point. I would think they if they simply closed it and built something new, that would at least make them more honest about how they feel without trashing a classic that people really liked.

  • #2
    Couple points:

    A retheme/reskin is much more cost effective then building something new. The closest thing I can think of to your comment about ‘build something in the theme of the attraction’ was the replacement of Mine Train through Nature’s Wonderland with BTMRR. I honestly don’t think anything like that would work in this case, especially with Indy next door.

    There is a already a tradition of “Plussing” at the parks since the beginning, so this isn’t anything new. Change happens at the park all the time, and while many will complain, many will celebrate too.

    JC is an opening day attraction which has its own set of traditions and delicate sensibilities to take into account. Plussing an opening day attraction is for the most part accepted by the Fanbase. Removal is a sin that WDI would have to spend considerable more time defending. Look at Pooh at MK. People still lament the removal of Mr. Toad and that action has caused everyone in the fan base to question how safe anything is going forward, which is more controversial IMO than plussing.
    Mike_M

    Disneyland Trips
    Walt Disney World
    Disneyland Paris

    1980, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1989
    1990, 1992, 1993

    2000, 2001, 2006, 2007, 2009
    2010, 2011, 2014, 2016, 2016, 2017, 2/2019, 11/2019
    2020

    Comment


    • #3
      A retheme/reskin is much more cost effective then building something new. The closest thing I can think of to your comment about ‘build something in the theme of the attraction’ was the replacement of Mine Train through Nature’s Wonderland with BTMRR. I honestly don’t think anything like that would work in this case, especially with Indy next door.
      Oh they could. It doesn't have to be anything as significant as an E ticket. It just has to be good. Theres enough space for a lot of ideas. Plus, cost is something Disney doesn't have much concern with. They make enough with Disney+ alone

      JC is an opening day attraction which has its own set of traditions and delicate sensibilities to take into account. Plussing an opening day attraction is for the most part accepted by the Fanbase. Removal is a sin that WDI would have to spend considerable more time defending. Look at Pooh at MK. People still lament the removal of Mr. Toad and that action has caused everyone in the fan base to question how safe anything is going forward, which is more controversial IMO than plussing.
      The biggest difference is that with Toad gone, people can still be mad, but theres no way to bring that back. With the original JC closed, thats more subjective as their changing it for different reasons. There's a ton of opening day attractions no longer here and people have moved on. People would move on from JC as well

      Comment


      • #4
        I think if they closed something with a controversial aspect, people would guess it was because of that aspect and argue over it anyway.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Dtimeisnow View Post
          Plus, cost is something Disney doesn't have much concern with. They make enough with Disney+ alone
          I'd be very surprised if anyone actually in charge at Disney shared this sentiment.

          Comment


          • #6
            I doubt that many people outside of internet fan groups spend a lot of time thinking about these changes for long after they happen. These debates feel really intense here because we're super fans. Most people take these things in stride.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Co Foo View Post
              I doubt that many people outside of internet fan groups spend a lot of time thinking about these changes for long after they happen. These debates feel really intense here because we're super fans. Most people take these things in stride.
              Agree.

              Here outside of Seattle where I live, not one of my neighbors have ever been to Disneyland or have a connection to the history of the park and its attractions. I run into quite a few people who may have gone once or twice as a kid but haven’t been back in decades.

              People like that (who significantly outnumber us) will never really know the difference.
              Mike_M

              Disneyland Trips
              Walt Disney World
              Disneyland Paris

              1980, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1989
              1990, 1992, 1993

              2000, 2001, 2006, 2007, 2009
              2010, 2011, 2014, 2016, 2016, 2017, 2/2019, 11/2019
              2020

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Mike_M View Post

                Agree.

                Here outside of Seattle where I live, not one of my neighbors have ever been to Disneyland or have a connection to the history of the park and its attractions. I run into quite a few people who may have gone once or twice as a kid but haven’t been back in decades.

                People like that (who significantly outnumber us) will never really know the difference.
                Like many of us, my family has been going to Disneyland together for decades. We love going to the parks and its our favorite thing to do as a group, but I'm the only one who really reads Disney history or goes on sites like these. I bet that my parents will just see the new scenes as another plussed attraction and not spend much time thinking about the social implications or changing scenes designed by Marc Davis.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Dtimeisnow View Post

                  Oh they could. It doesn't have to be anything as significant as an E ticket. It just has to be good. Theres enough space for a lot of ideas. Plus, cost is something Disney doesn't have much concern with. They make enough with Disney+ alone
                  If that were true, I don't think they would have done DCA 1.0 or Pixar Pier the way they did. As well as taking away many of the original concepts for SW:GE. Cost is actually what stops/limits projects because in the end, the benefits have to outweigh the costs. Also corporate budgeting-wise, I think Disneyland has more in common with Disney toys in Target than Disney+.

                  I'm actually all for the changes. I've loved the Jungle Cruise more for the overgrown trees and lush greenery than I did any of the animatronics/jokes, so I'm glad that part's not being touched.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I think Pirates was a great way to test out if people really care....sure online people care but the parks are full so if it doesn't affect the cash then they will do it.

                    To be honest I like most the upgrades...Matterhorn, Big Thunder, Star Tours, Alice, Pan and HM in my opinion are all better today than ten years ago.

                    I think Snow White, JC and maybe Spash will be the same.

                    I will miss the theme of Splash, the music and characters but tech wise im sure the new version is going to blow the old one out of the water.
                    Happy Halloween!!!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      IMO
                      I think some change is "Good"..........and very much needed...
                      Then there other change is "Very Bad".... !
                      That goes along with "Opinions"
                      Only time will tell
                      Soaring like an EAGLE !

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Bad changes--Limiting access to Angel's Court, Changing Tower of Terror to a completely different theme (not plussing current theme), especially since it was to promote a film that has come and gone. Avenger's Campus is being built, and maybe they could have afforded another, better ride for the Campus if they hadn't paid for the Tower change. It still looks so ugly/non Disney to me. Still miss the motorboats for kids, and that area was never really re-purposed. Bug's Land was always really crowded with happy children, but Disney made the decision to go for more bang with Avenger's Campus. I'll accept those changes if they'd give me the first 2 things I mentioned back. Disney also just doesn't have as much space as WDW. If they did, I think they would have kept Bugs Land--it wasn't failing. As for the changes that seem to be PC--I don't feel they were necessary, but the changes have ultimately not destroyed those rides. We'll see about Splash becoming Princess Frog and Jungle Cruise changing some motifs (keep Trader Sam!!!!).

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Like others have said, a retheme/reskin of a ride is far cheaper than building one from scratch. Also, when some of the themes of a ride is a controversial, Disney's going to want to change it before they get hit by a lawsuit from an activist group for portraying a specific group in a negative way or implementing racist or sexist parts in a ride. With Splash Mountain, the fact it remained song of the south for as long as it had is extremely odd since 2-3 years after the ride opened, the controversy truly hit (since the last time Song of the South was released in theaters was in 86). So really, it was only a matter of time, and also why would Disney want to keep a ride around that is themed after a film series that no kid will ever see? As for removing the tribal scenes from Jungle Cruise, as I brought up before, that's very misleading and portrays African tribes in a negative light, ignoring that many African tribes tend to be more open and welcoming towards outsiders who show them respect.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Co Foo View Post

                            I'd be very surprised if anyone actually in charge at Disney shared this sentiment.
                            Yes, especially because Disney+ is actually losing money, as planned, and will be until around 2024.

                            Also, closing the Jungle Cruise would cause way more backlash than removing some offensive African Tribesmen will. Disney likes to overuse expressions, but "world famous Jungle Cruise" is absolutely true. This is a legendary attraction.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Dtimeisnow View Post
                              I've never believed in business or corporations taking any political side unless their upfront about it in the beginning.
                              The fact that you think this is political is the problem.

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                There's only so much room at Disneyland. We're pretty much at the point of needing to get rid of something completely and replace it if you want something new there. "Plussing" the attractions has been how things have been done since the early days of Disneyland to keep the experiences fresh. Walt was horrified overhearing a family in the 50s, when one of the children wanted to ride the Jungle Cruise, the mother said something along the lines of "You've ridden that before, let's do something else", so he decided that the existing attractions should be updated from time to time so there's something new to see fairly regularly. We're overdo for something new on the Jungle Cruise anyway, the last major addition was the exploding barrels and piranhas in 2005.
                                "Have I gone mad?"
                                "I'm afraid so. You're entirely bonkers. But I'll tell you a secret. All the best people are. "

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  Originally posted by equivocatemould View Post

                                  The fact that you think this is political is the problem.
                                  I never said that at all. You took that out of context

                                  I only said that strong opinions can make political "like" sides.

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    I think they announce changes like this specifically is because they want more social currency/good will. Not to say that there is no sincerity at all, but they are a corporation. They don’t have the power to fix society, but they can change their parks. If they don’t take a stand (as OP puts it), then they are “ignoring something” and can be seen as trying to brush its past under the rug (as they have been accused).

                                    You are going to have complaints whether they made these changes are not.

                                    Overall society’s tastes are changing. Thus, Disney’s consumers are changing (overall). Disney wants to be part of that change.

                                    It is easy to get heated and make lines in the sand. The less tame a conversation becomes, the more people draw lines they might not have. These lines are often misleading. Not everyone who likes one change will like every change. If you look at my posts, you would think I endorse every change. I miss the auction scene in Pirates. I miss the saucy red head who owned those Pirates. However, I recognize that I do not speak for all women. I also will not dismiss someone who does not find the scene amusing.

                                    I was told I am hypocrite for enjoying Splash while recognizing it is outdated. Oh well. I also enjoy Gone with the Wind. I’m pretty despicable.

                                    Liking the things Disney takes away does not make anyone a bad person. It’s the way people are mad at the “other side” for being the cause of this loss. It’s the way these things are defended I find questionable.

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      Originally posted by Dtimeisnow View Post
                                      Given how a lot of strong opinions come out when things like updates to Splash Mountain and Jungle Cruise come out, you'd think that the consistent arguing and bickering looks bad for Disney. And no, I'm not defending either side, but when it comes to discussing the merits and responsibilities that people and companies have, it only seems to create a lot of anger and bitterness for the one and another.
                                      I would submit that a company like Disney is not really as emotionally invested in the controversy as many others appear to be. Like the quote in the Godfather, "It ain't personal, it's business".

                                      Originally posted by Dtimeisnow View Post

                                      Personally, I don't even know why Disney would announce intentions to update something only to create more inclusivity. This isn't a bad thing, but when your announcement is tied around that reason, then it seems like their openly taking sides. I've never believed in business or corporations taking any political side unless their upfront about it in the beginning.
                                      Or... "the side" which a for profit corporation appears to take, isn't really "the side" you seem to think it is taking-- or for the reasons they say publicly they are taking, as much as it is what the corporation defaults to as what they feel is the most appropriate "safe harbor" based on the profit bottom line.


                                      Originally posted by Dtimeisnow View Post
                                      Though I also started to consider that rather then updating an old attraction, would everyone be better off if the old ride simply closed for a new attraction or experience? I know what your saying, "CLOSE THE JUNGLE CRUISE!? ARE YOU CRAZY!?", but let's look at it this way.
                                      That may eventually be a decision they would make, but it comes at tremendous expense, which must assure the expected profit return over a number of years for that kind of capital investment. It is therefore also a risk if they don't do it right. DCA for example; the bean counters cheaped out on that investment, and had to redo it later.

                                      Jungle Cruise was never a very expensive ride to create as compared to Pirates, Haunted Mansion, or any ride requiring a show building, especially one which required subterranean construction. Jungle Cruise could have been changed to a "water rapids" style thrill ride in that space. But after Splash was built, and since there is a rapids ride in DCA, I can see why they wouldn't do that. Now a indoor canal boat ride (e.g., PotC, Small World) that is a higher thrill and incorporated higher technology for a Jungle adventure ride would be a GREAT addition there. Put it takes money, and where does that come form, and how much "bang for the buck" will it generate as compared to the series of current tweaks?

                                      JC is still a very popular ride, even before any considered alterations to it. So, for the near future I don't see Disney looking to make a major change there. But what they will do likely is scrap Nemo and Autopia when the Tomorrowland redo is done. Won't matter what people's nostalgia is for the subs or the cars, time for them to head to Yesterland.


                                      Originally posted by Dtimeisnow View Post
                                      Disney announces a closure to the Jungle Cruise. Just a closure, without giving a reason. People would be sad and even be angry that a classic would be shuttered, but now they're sad for a different reason. They don't have to take a stand on which moral side is better. No political argument. No strong opinions. But rather a "It was fun while it lasted, glad for the memories"
                                      I think many people just want to see if a revamp is better than the last version. Is Pirates better? I guess that is a matter of opinion and perspective. If a corporate decision as you indicated is to make a change in order to satisfy some "higher order", then that will ALWAYS end up in a debate. But what would silence all debate comes down to if it is so much better than the last version that everyone ends up on the same page. What

                                      I see with a corporation like Disney is that the "higher order" is actually just the motivation for profit. Nothing wrong with that. Disney is not a government agency or a charity, shareholders have a stake in their investment.


                                      Originally posted by Dtimeisnow View Post
                                      Then they announce some kind of new attraction that continues the jungle spirit that keeps Adventureland alive, but it still feels modern. It can update old ideas without saying "we're doing the right thing".
                                      We aren't allowed to get too deep into the JC discussion, but I would classify what they are doing overall as just a very minor and superficial "tweak" to that ride. The ongoing debate was just over the whys and whatfores over that decision, and I'll just leave that at that.

                                      Originally posted by Dtimeisnow View Post
                                      What I'm getting at is that the company may feel awkward about certain rides because they contain material thats old fashioned and not something they believe in. They have every right to feel that way, but why would they continue to keep the attraction since it still had the history at one point. I would think they if they simply closed it and built something new, that would at least make them more honest about how they feel without trashing a classic that people really liked.
                                      Starting new for some things isn't an option. Splash would be the example. There is no "history" to the log flume part of it anyway. I always hated that ride; too long of a line, and I hate getting wet. Too me the Knotts log ride is way more enjoyable with the logging mill theme. But Disney doesn't think that way now with rides, everything has to tie into films and merch. If I were making the decisions on Splash I would just make it a neutral themed thrill ride and any animals or "characters" would not be tied to any other Disney franchise, and then I'd find a way to monetize critter country another way. Get another ranch BBQ up in that area but sell beer and wine. Have some live entertainment too. That would be my suggestion for upping profits---- adult beverages and profitable food options. Maybe a country fair theme? Fried snicker bars, BBQ, 100 beers on tap, Alternate between county music and rockabilly and forget the lame old tired Winnie the Pooh and this princess frog thing... which will be stale in 5 years too.
                                      Last edited by Chief Leaky War Canoe; 02-11-2021, 10:46 PM.

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        Originally posted by Chief Leaky War Canoe View Post

                                        I would submit that a company like Disney is not really as emotionally invested in the controversy as many others appear to be. Like the quote in the Godfather, "It ain't personal, it's business".



                                        Or... "the side" which a for profit corporation appears to take, isn't really "the side" you seem to think it is taking-- or for the reasons they say publicly they are taking, as much as it is what the corporation defaults to as what they feel is the most appropriate "safe harbor" based on the profit bottom line.




                                        That may eventually be a decision they would make, but it comes at tremendous expense, which must assure the expected profit return over a number of years for that kind of capital investment. It is therefore also a risk if they don't do it right. DCA for example; the bean counters cheaped out on that investment, and had to redo it later.

                                        Jungle Cruise was never a very expensive ride to create as compared to Pirates, Haunted Mansion, or any ride requiring a show building, especially one which required subterranean construction. Jungle Cruise could have been changed to a "water rapids" style thrill ride in that space. But after Splash was built, and since there is a rapids ride in DCA, I can see why they wouldn't do that. Now a indoor canal boat ride (e.g., PotC, Small World) that is a higher thrill and incorporated higher technology for a Jungle adventure ride would be a GREAT addition there. Put it takes money, and where does that come form, and how much "bang for the buck" will it generate as compared to the series of current tweaks?

                                        JC is still a very popular ride, even before any considered alterations to it. So, for the near future I don't see Disney looking to make a major change there. But what they will do likely is scrap Nemo and Autopia when the Tomorrowland redo is done. Won't matter what people's nostalgia is for the subs or the cars, time for them to head to Yesterland.




                                        I think many people just want to see if a revamp is better than the last version. Is Pirates better? I guess that is a matter of opinion and perspective. If a corporate decision as you indicated is to make a change in order to satisfy some "higher order", then that will ALWAYS end up in a debate. But what would silence all debate comes down to if it is so much better than the last version that everyone ends up on the same page. What

                                        I see with a corporation like Disney is that the "higher order" is actually just the motivation for profit. Nothing wrong with that. Disney is not a government agency or a charity, shareholders have a stake in their investment.




                                        We aren't allowed to get too deep into the JC discussion, but I would classify what they are doing overall as just a very minor and superficial "tweak" to that ride. The ongoing debate was just over the whys and whatfores over that decision, and I'll just leave that at that.



                                        Starting new for some things isn't an option. Splash would be the example. There is no "history" to the log flume part of it anyway. I always hated that ride; too long of a line, and I hate getting wet. Too me the Knotts log ride is way more enjoyable with the logging mill theme. But Disney doesn't think that way now with rides, everything has to tie into films and merch. If I were making the decisions on Splash I would just make it a neutral themed thrill ride and any animals or "characters" would not be tied to any other Disney franchise, and then I'd find a way to monetize critter country another way. Get another ranch BBQ up in that area but sell beer and wine. Have some live entertainment too. That would be my suggestion for upping profits---- adult beverages and profitable food options. Maybe a country fair theme? Fried snicker bars, BBQ, 100 beers on tap, Alternate between county music and rockabilly and forget the lame old tired Winnie the Pooh and this princess frog thing... which will be stale in 5 years too.

                                        This is all precisely right.



                                        Comment

                                        Get Away Today Footer

                                        Collapse
                                        Working...
                                        X