Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I think the only reason we don't see any new AA attractions is because they cost so much to build and maintain.>> And you think a new AA attraction would cost more to build and maintain than Mission Space? I doubt it.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<I'm not sure that the "story" is obvious to the casual visitor. Same for HM. I didn't know the HM story until I stumbled onto these boards. I liked HM because it had cool effects.>> It's not story in the sense that it has a beginning, middle and end (although they do for those interested in finding out.) But each scene is a story in and of itself, one that everyone instantly recognizes and appreciates. Not only that, but because each scene in POTC and HM is so brimming with detail, repeatability is high because you are constantly seeing new things even after many trips through the attraction. They hit you on a much deeper level than "mere" thrill rides.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<It's not story in the sense that it has a beginning, middle and end (although they do for those interested in finding out.) But each scene is a story in and of itself, one that everyone instantly recognizes and appreciates. Not only that, but because each scene in POTC and HM is so brimming with detail, repeatability is high because you are constantly seeing new things even after many trips through the attraction. They hit you on a much deeper level than "mere" thrill rides.>> Sorry, but no. We generally hit POTC and HM once each visit to WDW. On the other hand, we generally experience Buzz at least five times each visit. We've seen POTC and HM a hundred times. There is very little detail we haven't seen. Buzz is new every time through. I ask you... which attraction has greater repeatability?
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<It's not story in the sense that it has a beginning, middle and end...>> Correct, linear stories are not mandatory for a story in a ride to be either timeless or successful. <<Sorry, but no. We generally hit POTC and HM once each visit to WDW. On the other hand, we generally experience Buzz at least five times each visit.>> Ride interactivity has always proved successful. Why are Dumbo or the "Rocket Jets or Autopia so timeless? It is that the guests control their ride vehicles. That is a huge reason why Buzz works, especially for the younger guests. Interactivity. BUT, if each Bateux on POTC had a Swivel Canon for shooting back at some of the vignets by guests, then who wouldn't make that a multi visit attraction? AA's are only a part of the experience. Unfortunatly, Disney has lost touch with what necessary story elements were used that have made their classics so endearing over the generations. TOT, Pooh, Binural Lincoln, Super Star LImo, are representative of the shoddy story elements used that guests shun.
Originally Posted By Captain Jack Sparrow <<BUT, if each Bateux on POTC had a Swivel Canon for shooting back at some of the vignets by guests, then who wouldn't make that a multi visit attraction?>> Exactly,the cannon battle with the pirate ship and fortress would be the perfect location to add interactivity. How cool would that be?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<TOT, Pooh, Binural Lincoln, Super Star LImo, are representative of the shoddy story elements used that guests shun.>> Perhaps at DL. At WDW both Pooh and Tower of Terror are both one of the most popular attractions in the park where they reside. But Of course WDW isn’t plagued by the number of Super-Fans that DL is.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<Perhaps at DL. At WDW both Pooh and Tower of Terror are both one of the most popular attractions in the park where they reside. But Of course WDW isn’t plagued by the number of Super-Fans that DL is.>> Not in the least. Everyone I know in Anaheim that has ridden Pooh and TOT in WDW all say that there is no comparison on how "short changed" the DLR was on the final products.
Originally Posted By danyoung >And you think a new AA attraction would cost more to build and maintain than Mission Space? I doubt it.< I don't. What's the price tag on Mission: Space? $100 mil? I've never been able to see why a centrifuge and a mediocre animation costs $100 mil. But I'd bet a new AA attraction along the lines of Horizons or World of Motion could easily eat that up, as well as be a continuing financial drain in maintenance. Whether it would be a draw that would be worth this effort is another question. Personally, I'd love to see it!
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Correct, linear stories are not mandatory for a story in a ride to be either timeless or successful.<< Linear or not, I had never heard of Gracey or his bride until I met you fine folk.
Originally Posted By karlg Re 302 by RoadTrip >>>Sorry, but no. We generally hit POTC and HM once each visit to WDW. On the other hand, we generally experience Buzz at least five times each visit. We've seen POTC and HM a hundred times. There is very little detail we haven't seen. Buzz is new every time through. I ask you... which attraction has greater repeatability? <<< So POTC and HM are not repeatable, but by your own admission you have repeated them “hundreds of times.†POTC and HM are approach 40 years old and still are popular. They don’t always have a long wait, but that is largely due to their huge capacity. What you have “proven†is that you prefer new attractions to ones you have been on hundreds of times. Buzz started as a relatively cheap make-over at WDW but has proven to be very successful due to it’s interactively, but let’s sees how it holds up for another 30 years or so. I would rate it as just “ok†and not nearly as well done as the “Men in Black†attraction at Islands of Adventure. I’m not arguing with success nor am I against makeovers that people like, heck Buzz was the hardest attraction to get into on my visit to Tokyo DL/TDS last year. Certainly interactivity has proven to be a hit. Hey, they had shooting galleries at DL from the beginning. It will take a while to see how it evolves or will it play out the way most flight simulator based attractions seem to have (Star Tours was a huge hit originally, but has been played out for a long time). As the early interactive attractions at EPCOT proved, interactivity is hard to keep up unless the object is very simple; otherwise it takes too much training and people give up.
Originally Posted By karlg Re 291 by RoadTrip >>> Mon 10/10/2005 9:45a <<^^ BTW, it goes to show that they missed delivering the message. While I think it's great, as do many here, it still didn't strike a cord with the overall public... and I'd be the first to admit the ride isn't perfect.)>> Maybe... just maybe... today's audience isn't interested in AA attractions unless they have the nostalgia factor of the DL "classics" working for them. You superfans keep whining about wanting more AA attractions, and I think the majority of theme-park goers could really care less about them. It is yesterday’s technology… why would I want to see it in a NEW attraction? <<< So you have resorted to name calling as in “superfans keep whining?†(implying a negative connotation to “superfans.†This is a sign that you can’t make a reasonable case for your position. If your “theory†was right, then DCA should have been a big hit and Six Flags would be more successful than Disney. DCA would not have had to steeply discount just to get people to go there. DCA with its “new†attractions should have been a big draw without the need to sponge off DL with 2-for-1 tickets. What used to (prior to 1995) make Disney’s Theme parks a step above anyplace else was that they developed an immersive environment. Part of that environment includes AA. When did AA attractions stop being successful? I’m not for AA just for the sake of AA, but they can be effective of creating a environment. I also don’t get why AA attractions should be, adjusted for inflation, more expensive than they where is 1967. With today’s computer technology, they should be much cheaper, relatively, to make. I think that is what makes DL’s Pooh such a disappointment; it could have been so much better in an age where most homes have computers connected to the internet. I think one thing lost at Disney is how make attractions cost effectively. Disneyland has had “superfans†almost since it opened. You might want to consider how and why DL has so very many superfans while DCA has so very few.
Originally Posted By 9oldmen >>I would rate it as just “ok†and not nearly as well done as the “Men in Black†attraction at Islands of Adventure. << Men in Black is NOT at IOA. It is in Universal Orlando proper.
Originally Posted By basas <<Universal Orlando proper.>> Universal Orlando proper? UO includes both parks, IOA, and USF. Men in Black is in USF.
Originally Posted By danyoung >I also don’t get why AA attractions should be, adjusted for inflation, more expensive than they where is 1967.< I don't really think they would be more expensive to build. But they'd be more expensive to maintain than, say, Grizzley River Run, with a water flume and a few moving parts. It seems to be the Disney way these days to try for a thrill that won't cost too much. How else can you explain Paradise Pier?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<So you have resorted to name calling as in “superfans keep whining?†(implying a negative connotation to “superfans.†This is a sign that you can’t make a reasonable case for your position. >> Consider it the flip side to "Disney Apologist", which I have been called numerous times in this thread. Is that a sign they can't make a reasonable case for THEIR position?
Originally Posted By 9oldmen <<Universal Orlando proper.>> >>Universal Orlando proper? UO includes both parks, IOA, and USF. Men in Black is in USF.<< O.K. MIB is in USF proper. Is that correct? I know it's not in IOA.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney ^^^Sometimes its like trying to say which countries of Eastern Europe were considered part of the former Soviet bloc . ONLY us theme parks geeks think about this stuff waaaay too much.
