Originally Posted By irishfan I think this has a big impact as Mission 2 is less popular, but the track has not changed<< It could also be due to the fact that as the years go by that coaster is getting rougher and rougher. The money they wasted on Mission 2, should have been invested into a complete refurbishment on the existing attraction.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo "Actually, no. Fun is fun. " If that is the case, why do so many people get annoyed at Screamin', Maliboomer, the Orange Stinger and MM. They are fun. Personally I think DL and WDW's SpaceMountains (not ridden the newest version at DL) are overrated because they are much ado about nothing. I like my Disney attractions to be immersive - Jungle Cruise, Indy, PotC, HM, even Buzz.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney ^^Okay, I'm confused around here, but I THOUGHT we all agreed that what makes Disney a great theme park and different then most IS the immersion of story and innovation. I think back story is VERY much a part of that, it certainly is in every ride attraction at TDS and just adds tot the place in spades. I love how not one attraction feels out of place there. Maybe that will change in the future of course, but it all just syncs in beautifully. I certainly can't say the same about DL, DCA, EPCOT and etc. DCA is just the WORST than any other theme park in terms of its identity crisis and its SIX years old lol. DL and Epcot are decades old, so its understandable to a degree, but a six year old park and the place just feels so mismatched compare to every other theme park IMO, even the crappier ones like WDS and HKDL is much better in this department IMO. The lack of story and innovation is what hurt the park the most IMO and PP is a perfect example of that. It lacks both of those concepts....BADLY!!!!! They litterally just plunked the most generic boardwalk down they could think of. Of course, 6 years later, NOW what are they doing? They are giving the Pier a new look and time period, they ARE now getting it immersive attractions, detailed dark rides. Hell, they are even giving MM a new story and character (hmmm, what was the whole point of this thread again ). So yeah, the people have spoken and Disney is aware of this....now!! WHY they didn't get this notion they helped pushed for the last 4 decades when they were BUILDING this crappy area, I have no clue. You want to go to a boardwalk and ride unthemed rides, go to Santa Monica, but most people like the story and no it doesn't have to be for EVERY attraction obviously, but something that just hints at a bigger theme or the overall idead like Gadgets go coaster does in Toontown. Its GREAT in that area. Goofys sky thing, while nice they are trying to do something with this ride is too little too late. It has never felt in place and putting a silly story on it just doesn't help much now IMO.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I always felt the HM has a great backstory," It actually has none. You see, what you've done is engaged your own imagination and filled one in for yourself. Same with Pirates, really, although that is a bit more obvious of a story. With all these back stories that they put in, it's as if they open the top of your brain, and pour in stuff. It doesn't give you a chance to get involved, you become a passive observer instead of an active participant. A little is fine, as far as helping these people make these rides, but as with anything, too much and it is not good. If you have to know the back story to something to help you enjoy it, then they have failed in their design task. "I always felt the back story of Space Mountain was entering a space port from a futuristic city for a ride in Space." That is the back story that you have created for it. See how it works? It brings you into the attraction and makes you and your brain part of it. Oh well.
Originally Posted By dshyates "It actually has none. You see, what you've done is engaged your own imagination and filled one in for yourself." What a pompous, condescening, and factually incorrect statement. I can't imagine why your so beloved the internet over.
Originally Posted By jonvn "What a pompous, condescening, and factually incorrect statement. I can't imagine why your so beloved the internet over." What an insulting, childish, and rude post. Nothing I said called for any of that. How do you manage to get through life? Do you just randomly insult people like this? The fact is that HM was built with no backstory. None. If you think it has one, you are wrong. Period. Any backstory you try to tell me it has has been filled in by people who have given it one. It is not part of the design of the ride. At all. Go examine your behavior. You need to grow up.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I don't know that HM has no backstory whatsoever, but it's not much of one. The whole Master Gracy thing certainly was never talked about in 1969, except perhaps among the imagineers as a jumping off point, but to any rider in 1969 it just wasn't there. Backstories are great for certain attractions, but they're actually BEST when they're vague. Pirates' backstory is basically all in the title: you're in the Caribbean, and watching Pirates who have sacked a town. HM's is basically: there's a house, and now it's filled with ghosts. You don't know why exactly. You fill it in with your OWN imagination. Those are the Disney attractions that work best. In recent years, on certain attractions they've tried a little to hard to fill in those details for you. These attractions tend to work a little less well, IMO. This is similar to something we talked about a few weeks ago, in which we talked about the classic FaL-style dark rides, and how the less linear ones work better (again, IMO) than the more linear ones. On Monsters, though I like it, I can see being lost if you haven't seen the movie. That ride basically tries to tell the story of that 90 minute movie in 3 minutes. On Mr. Toad, you don't have to have seen the movie (and most people haven't), but the ride still works. It's quite vague: you're speeding through London with Mr. Toad. That's all it needs, and the ride works all the better for being vague.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I don't know that HM has no backstory whatsoever, but it's not much of one." It really never did. The bride story and all that was kicked around during development, but was abandoned. It was not used as part of the ride. Elements from that idea made their way to the final ride, but the ride itself never had a backstory. Since then, online people have tried to suggest that this is actually the backstory, but it is not. The ride had none. As I said, and dabob has now said, people have filled in the ride with their own backstory, using their own brain and imagination. That actually involves you in the ride more than just having you be there as a passive observer. The more non-existent the backstory is, the less you need to know to understand what is going on, the more enjoyable the ride needs to be and that's what makes for a better ride. Take the Rocket Rods, for example. This thing had a backstory the length of a Victor Hugo novel. Meanwhile, the ride was nothing that special. All this backstory and for what? Almost no one cares. Interesting thing about Mr. Toad. In the film, you don't actually ever go on the wild ride. It's referred to in the movie, but you don't see it. That's why it's called Mr. Toad's Wild Ride, because you get to experience something that wasn't in the movie. Now, do you need to know this to enjoy the ride? No. Does it help you enjoy the ride? I guess, if you have seen the film (all 10 of us) you go "Oh." Overly ornate backstories, and rides that try to cram a linear story in 3 minutes are just more examples of dumbing down. It's as if Disney is saying "You're not smart enough to piece this together into something cohesive, so we'll do it for you." It's not as much fun that way.
Originally Posted By dshyates Sorry jon, I guess I thought you were being pedantic. As I am sure you are knowledgable of the "Bloodmere Manor" backstory. Where the sea captain returns from sea to find out on the day of the wedding that his fiance has been unfaithful, in a murderous rage tosses her out the window, bricks up her lover in the graveyard and then stricken with grief hangs himself in the foyar. You also know that Marc Davis felt that not only were the spooks too spooky but the story to intense. They decided to leave most of the story elements in place but change the narration to a less telling telling of the events. But some of the visual elements still tell the tragic tale. The dead guy swinging in the foyar, bride in the attic with the broken window, they changed the guy in the brick column from a begging hand and pleading narration to bricking himself into the column. Even the sailing ship weather vain on the roof ties in with the story. The story is still there, but no one tells it to you. Your arguement is pretty much the definition of pedantic. Where one uses his knowledge to break down a statement to minutia to disprove what was originally said. The original statement was "I always felt HM has a great backstory". Since you are aware of Walts decision to not actually "tell" the tale and left it up to perception, you can claim they bagged the story while it is still visually told. Pedantic people have a tendancy to be pompus and condescending. I apologize if you were not.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Your arguement is pretty much the definition of pedantic." No. It's not breaking it down. They abandoned the backstory during development, but certain set pieces from that remained in the ride. The ride itself has no real backstory. It's not a claim, they actually did abandon it. This is documented in several places. I was not being pompous and condescending at all. I was saying he was using his own brain and imagination to tell himself a story. I was saying he was SMART ENOUGH to engage what he was seeing and piece together a story out of the images presented. That's not condescending, that's the opposite. It's ok, though. I get obnoxious over this stuff. So forget it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It's also worth noting that the bride these days, far from being the murder victim thrown out the window, has become the murderer - of a succession of husbands! There was never anything to connect the hanging man to the bride, either. In 1969 or any pre-internet year, a rider would never have made that connection in a million years. They abandoned the story pretty much completely, but since they'd developed the ideas (and presumably the tricks) involved in things like the hanging man in the foyer, they included them. But he and the bride and the guy with the trowel were never connected, let alone the other 996 happy haunts you see. And the attraction is all the better for it.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA I feel that I understand what jonvn is driving at here. The 'Taste Pilot's Grill' is a fast food restaurant in DCA, and it has a back story. 'Suppose a group of pilots decided to open a hamburger joint and blah, blah, blah.' All the way down to having music being broadcast on a radio themed to flying. Uh-huh. It would be like creating a backstory for Tomorrowland Terrace or something. Who gives a rip -- let's eat.
Originally Posted By jonvn I had no idea the restaurant had a back story. God....just make a restaurant themed to airplanes. What's so hard about that idea? How much money do you think they spent creating a back story for this place?
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo jonvn - there are back stories for HM and PotC (yes fans have added to them). But remember Walt talking about building a house for 999 happy haunts always looking out for no. 1000. And how Disney will take care of the outside, the ghosts will take care of the inside. These are back stories and have been there since day 1. Also, the other "deeper" stories have been layered by fans, but in DLP, they were totally realised, including the purpose in Frontierland - which makes it sooooo awesome. PotC also has the back stories told by Walt in the documentary before his death (the 10th anniversary show?). Again further fleshed out in DLP. and World Disney, I was being sarcastic about Maliboomer et al. To me it is the back stories and themed emersion that makes Disney special. Not stupid rubberheads and princesses.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <But remember Walt talking about building a house for 999 happy haunts always looking out for no. 1000.> I would disagree that that's a "backstory." Other than putting a cute number on the number of ghosts inside, all that really says is "we've got a lot of ghosts in the house, and be careful or you could join them" (which is pretty much the warning for ANY haunted house). <And how Disney will take care of the outside, the ghosts will take care of the inside. > That's not backstory either, that's an explanation for why the house looks neat rather than rundown. If you want to consider things like that backstory, well okay. If they are, they're REALLY VAGUE backstory, which is usually preferred, IMO.
Originally Posted By jonvn I would not call those backstories. I mean the 999 ghost thing is a one liner joke, and so is the ghost taking care of the inside thing. Anectdotes about construction decisions. A backstory is something like the pirate captain and the bride, stuff like that. Not ever having been on the one in Paris, I wouldn't know how to compare them. I have heard that Phantom Manor is very good. But, again, if I have to know some long winded story in order to get on this thing, or enjoy it fully, it's a bit overwrought. Look at the Flying Saucers ride. What is its backstory? "Flying Saucer bumper cars." People seemed to be able to enjoy to the fullest extent possible this ride with no backstory. Same with Haunted Mansion. Having knowledge of the backstory that has been invented by fans really doesn't add a whole lot to the experience. It's the experience itself that is the entire point of being on the ride. That has to be first and foremost the presentation. Backstories are supplemental material at best. Interesting, but not particularly required.
Originally Posted By Brown Monkey Boy have we gone off this topic! I wonder what the Flying School's back story will be...
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 I personally think that it is story and immersion that seperates a Disney attraction from a typical theme park 'ride.' That said, I don't care about the story if it is much ado about nothing. I'd much rather a great Disney attraction where maybe I need to connect some dots myself. There's nothing wrong with attention to detail ... that sets Disney apart, but it should never be the be all and the end all of an attraction. The Mansion is great with (DLP) or without (DL, at least until the recent attic changes) a 'story' perse. Stitch's Great Escape is not good at all, but it has all the backstory in the world.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Not ever having been on the one in Paris, I wouldn't know how to compare them. I have heard that Phantom Manor is very good. But, again, if I have to know some long winded story in order to get on this thing, or enjoy it fully, it's a bit overwrought." It really isn't all that different from the one in Anaheim. The exterior and grounds are much better, but frankly, the ride was a dissapointment. Pirates and Big Thunder, on the other hand, are phenomenal.
