Originally Posted By leemac The systems used in the EMV attractions (there are only 3) and Test Track/Journey and Rocket Rods (another different system) evolved independently of one another. Those last 3 are not EMV attractions.
Originally Posted By ChiMike -- All Lee Quotes -- >>There are serious dangers ahead if WDI regresses to that type of operation. R&D isn't cheap and should be targeted on achievable goals rather than burning cash on projects that are either impractical or unachievable. The cost of developing technology like EMV (for IJA) and Test Track was hugely expensive and the company hasn't really benefited substantially from that.<< To be fair I quoted your follow-up comments below because I really agree with your recent points Lee. However I was late to the party and want to start over on this comment above. I really, fundamentally disagree with it. The costs for those two examples can be fully justified in my eyes. Disneyland and Epcot would have been in a world of hurt over the last 7 years with so many other Marquee attractions (Space, Splash, Thunder, Horizons/MS, JII versions) down for extended or mega-extended periods of time. What was going to draw consistent crowds into half-operating parks, let alone exceed the attendance forecasts and demands put on these tired operations? I’m going to use a little bit of that WDI branded hindsight you earlier put to use. Without the progression to an experience on the level of Indy for DL and without the offering of an experience like Test Track for Epcot I couldn’t imagine how much worse off Disney would have been. Those two attractions were workhorses for that company (both in marketing and operations) at a time where they were short on workhorses. Now I completely agree, actually it’s the point I have been moaning about for years, that those attractions brought with them a lot of financial waste. Especially Test Track. I think it’s pretty obvious that I’m no fan of TT and I do think Marty & Co were WAY too wrapped up with the ride system. That caused them to miss other issues, as future infatuation with ride systems led to them missing the boat on future projects like DL Pooh & M:S. However, I can’t ignore the reality that both TT and of course IJA are extremely popular attractions. So I must argue that the R&D has a long term payoff that can’t be fully justified with metrics. There is something to be said for those long-term ‘burning cash’ projects. They lead to things like the ’64 World’s Fair (granted, subsidized), WDW 1971, & things like TT and IJA, that Disney has exploited and over-burdened for years. For all the cash WDI wastes on a whole, at least this large R&D chunk translates into certain long-term tangibles. So I disagree with your idea that “the company hasn’t really benefited substantially from that.†I think it’s the complete opposite, a more “OMG it’s good those were operating!!†reaction. I notice you didn’t include the Lucky-type projects as being wasteful? I would be interested to hear your take, because, while not dollar for dollar, I see Lucky as one of many pet projects THAT WERE wastes in this area. If the end-result doesn’t translate onstage for the guests it should be viewed as a more egregious waste than IJA. >> But the true cost of developing that technology was phenomenal (significantly more than the attraction development and construction costs). My point is that spending tens of millions of dollars on one form of technology that is then only used twice in a decade or so isn't the right approach. WDI R&D used to burn cash like it was going out of fashion. A new business model was required that balanced the risks and the rewards.<< Lee, why can’t we agree more often! I think you’re absolutely right. However, the finger should be pointed at Burbank for not wanting to spend money on building more attractions that adopt R&D technology that in a sense is already paid for. You can’t say that EMV development was a waste just because on an opposite front Disney diced the CTX project and wouldn’t bring EMV to MGM, DCA, WDSP, or HKDL. It’s a circular argument. It’s their own fault for not maximizing the technology. As much as everyone might whine about clones, I have no problem with clones if that means the better economics help encourage a better, solid initial design. >>Also ask OLC if they are happy to have an attraction that is as expensive to run at Journey. I can tell you that they aren't. It is a very expensive attraction to run and maintain.<< I’m sure they are not. From the looks of Journey it does not seem to be the Marquee attraction it has the potential to be. It certainly appears to be a step-up from Test Track, however I am still waiting for them to really wow everyone with this ride system. I think if the attraction had a little more umpfh the appeal would trickle down to OLC’s metrics and the exhorborant operating costs would be easier to swallow. No way am I knocking the apparent superiority of TDS, but I do think that if more energy (if that was even possible) could have gone into the dynamics of the ride, this wouldn’t need to be as large a negative. Bringing that thinking to the overall picture I think it bolsters the argument that Disney should go back to giving the guest as much as they possibly can from the outset. This incremental build-out philosophy has really, I think, been proven not to be ideal for the long-term fate of these assets. For how much more of x, y & z would have it taken to make Journey a F-ticket instead of an E-ticket? -and- Would have that initial addition brought a large enough return to help offset the operating costs to more reasonable terms? >>I'm not convinced by the argument that WDI should be building ride delivery systems unless there is a commitment to roll it out wherever possible. The problem with EMV was that it was almost prohibitively expensive to develop and then we have only seen 3 uses of it. Even OLC turned down the opportunity to use the technology at TDL a few years back.<< Déjà vu. Lee, why can’t we agree more often! I think you’re absolutely right. >>I think WDI should be working with outside vendors to develop the ride delivery systems and then layer Disney story-telling and some other tricks on top. Allow someone else to swallow up the R&D costs if they can sell it to multiple vendors.<< Sounds good upon first thought, but in reality Disney can’t follow and the industry is incapable of leading. Wasn’t that the crack always drawn upon Universal Creative? First, Disney shouldn’t follow. It’s their willingness to follow that brought us the problems currently present in Anaheim. They didn’t get to the point were you, I and a million of others feel in love with them by following. Second, everybody realizes, especially our new CEO, that in order to really make money Disney must get back to leading with content. Eisner exhausted the intellectual credit and goodwill held by the consumer by his penchant over his final 7 years of following every fad. The stored-up ability for Disney to “wing it†has already been used up. The tank is on E, and I hope and mildly believe that Bob understands that. Whether via Steve Jobs or not. Please don’t misinterpret this as me wanting to go back to the WDI of the 90’s. I certainly do not. However, there needs to be a medium where WDP&R can innovate efficiently without building the most recent Huss Flat Ride or depending on Sally for dark ride systems. Wading through my rhetoric, I do think I am in agreement with you on general ideas towards a smaller WDI. But… >>But then I also believe WDI should have been used as a profit driver itself ie. third party contracting particularly in the restaurant/retail sector where it had such a good track record. I never understood why they couldn't peddle their services to the highest bidder. It would have saved very expensive redundancy cuts when they had no parks under development.<< While I agree with you on their knack for themed environments and the benefits of keeping WDI busy, I have to say this issue is where we have the largest fundamental difference in POV. An issue where the distinct difference in approach (that we outline) will lead to Disney’s short term failure or success. I just can’t imagine that it would be worth the financial benefit to make Disney design more common, less special & more available to companies operating in Disney’s own vertically integrated marketplace. It goes back to my eclectic workshop comment. They need to stop treating the parks as their client. They need to stop billing projects with their hourly indirect labor involvement. They need to stop doing some things in-house but they also need to slow down and gain the ability to take more ownership over the direction each management group wants to take their property. They can stay more than busy and not rely on outside projects if they went back to their roots as a project group (workshop might have been giving you the wrong impression of my meaning, with a tie to R&D, it just dawned on me). Stop being a breeding ground for careers and executive lifestyle and start being a project group, a nimble think-tank, that can creatively manage & grow the parks - and they will be plenty busy in-house and will put their compensation to good use.
Originally Posted By idleBrain <<Stop being a breeding ground for careers and executive lifestyle and start being a project group, a nimble think-tank, that can creatively manage & grow the parks - and they will be plenty busy in-house and will put their compensation to good use.>> Bravo!!
Originally Posted By TDLFAN >>From the looks of Journey it does not seem to be the Marquee attraction it has the potential to be. It certainly appears to be a step-up from Test Track, however I am still waiting for them to really wow everyone with this ride system.<< ChiMike, I think you missed the point with this particular issue in regards to TT and JTTCOTE. TT is all about the track system because there is hardly a show going on in there. At JTTCOTE, it's about the show because from the technical and artistic point of view, it kicks TT's backseat to detroit and back and even beyond in every aspect of show, story and entertainment value. The track system is not what makes JTTCOTE the great attraction it really is. At Test Track however, yes. No thrills there unless you hit 65mph. Otherwise, you would not pick up speed once you travel thru the backstage parking lot behind Future World. There is no show value in that ride for me. So car have anti-lock breaks... BIG DEAL. That is not exactly 21st century tecnology now is it?
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<First, Disney shouldn’t follow. It’s their willingness to follow that brought us the problems currently present in Anaheim. They didn’t get to the point were you, I and a million of others feel in love with them by following. Second, everybody realizes, especially our new CEO, that in order to really make money Disney must get back to leading with content. Eisner exhausted the intellectual credit and goodwill held by the consumer by his penchant over his final 7 years of following every fad. The stored-up ability for Disney to “wing it†has already been used up. The tank is on E, and I hope and mildly believe that Bob understands that. Whether via Steve Jobs or not.>> Boy, you hit the nail square on the head. I seem to recall a major media guru (no, kids, it wasn't Michael Eisner) touting the 'Content is King' mantra when the whole subject of new media and new methods of delivery became in vogue in the 90s. I don't care what platform you deliver the content by, it has to be quality. It has to grab the consumer. Disney grabs guests with attractions like Indy, Splash Mountain, Expedition Everest, Kilamanjaro Safaris, ToT, Pirates and the like ... it sure doesn't with Pooh's Playground, Stitch's Great Escape, Primeval Whirl and even Mission Space. Techology is all well and good, but it will come and go. (why do I feel like this post will be stolen and wind up in a Disney exec's speech?) Today's platforms will be passe in five years. Nobody loves Indy (or Test Track, which have I mentioned lately I don't like?) because of the technology that propels them. They love it because of the story told and the way they become part of it. Same with the old boats on PoC or the Doombuggies on Mansion. Do you think Pooh at DL is a failure because of its ride system? It's not. Even though Disney could have multi-purposed and put the E-Ticket TDL version with its state of the art conveyancein Anaheim. It's a failure because DL guests, clearly more savvy than the typical tourists in O-Town, see a dark ride that is cheap and not as good as the Fantasyland models. Consequently, Rocket Rods wasn't a smash hit (despite the lines) because of its ride system. People enjoyed the simple Peoplemover more. The true great Disney attraction is a perfect melding of story and technology. That's why the Living Character Program is destined to be a failure in the long term. People go to Disney parks to be immersed in 3D stories, not to sit passively in a theater and interact with Crush, Stitch or Kim Possible. The technology may be wonderful, but unless it's melded into something much more significant it'll just be another blip on the radar, like simulator rides. <<They can stay more than busy and not rely on outside projects if they went back to their roots as a project group (workshop might have been giving you the wrong impression of my meaning, with a tie to R&D, it just dawned on me). Stop being a breeding ground for careers and executive lifestyle and start being a project group, a nimble think-tank, that can creatively manage & grow the parks - and they will be plenty busy in-house and will put their compensation to good use.>> The TOXIC atmosphere that's been allowed to grow like a cancer over the past decade needs to change if any of that's going to happen. WDI today reminds me of Iraq with all these competing factions looking to run the division. When WDI was truly a magic factory, things weren't like that for the most part. The amount of money wasted because of the above is appaling to me as a stockholder and a fan. The 'tudes, the MBA's and the consultants have to go.
Originally Posted By danyoung >Consequently, Rocket Rods wasn't a smash hit (despite the lines) because of its ride system. People enjoyed the simple Peoplemover more.< I agree with most of what you said, Spirit. But I don't think the RR was around long enough to be a failure. The lines were indeed always long. I think they would have tapered off eventually. I liked the RR, but it wasn't the best thing ever to come out of Imagineering. And it may be a bit of revisionist history to say that people liked the PeopleMover better than RR. PM was always a walk on, and not a huge thrill to ride. Don't get me wrong, I always enjoyed it for what it was - a nice, relaxing ride that you could easily do when other lines were way too long. And now there's the nostalgic love which isn't really in synch with its lack of popularity at the time.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>ChiMike, I think you missed the point with this particular issue in regards to TT and JTTCOTE. TT is all about the track system because there is hardly a show going on in there. At JTTCOTE, it's about the show because from the technical and artistic point of view, it kicks TT's backseat to detroit and back and even beyond in every aspect of show, story and entertainment value. The track system is not what makes JTTCOTE the great attraction it really is.<< TDLFAN, I completely agree with you. My comments might not fully convey the points you make, but upon videos, pictures, and reviews, I find it easy to make the distinction that Journey is 10x the ride that Test Track is. In my eyes it finally puts the TT/RR ride system to good use. To blend that system into a mountain is fantastic. My previous point comes from my preconceived notion that Journey might not stand out from the other TDR attractions (incl ToT) -enough- for it's draw to completely outweigh it's operational cost in relation to the other attractions', most importantly when they look at it's operating expense per rider. On the flipside, would OLC management be willing to give up Journey to shed themselves of the operating costs? I highly doubt it, even with Lee saying they are allegedly unhappy. Just because I suggest that it isn't the marquee attraction it has the potential to be, that it isn’t on the level of Hunny Hunt, doesn't mean it's still not integral to the TDS experience. (Once again, a pre-judgment based on 2nd hand exposure). One reason why if DCA gets Cars or any other adoption of the ride system, I would LOVE to see them really execute a show that engulfs the ride system. A show that eclipses the ride system and pushes it into a background role, like IJA. The project would be a huge waste of money for the guests if they cut corners and presented a slim-downed version of TT ala DCA’s ToT. I think if they did it the right way it is what will really bring DCA up to the level where local guests would choose it over yet another visit to DL. And where it would make DLR a must do for tourists. >>At Test Track however, yes. No thrills there unless you hit 65mph. Otherwise, you would not pick up speed once you travel thru the backstage parking lot behind Future World. There is no show value in that ride for me. So car have anti-lock breaks... BIG DEAL. That is not exactly 21st century tecnology now is it?<< It certainly is not. You're preaching the choir! Test Track was the kick-off of the WDI rut present today.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>Boy, you hit the nail square on the head. I seem to recall a major media guru (no, kids, it wasn't Michael Eisner) touting the 'Content is King' mantra when the whole subject of new media and new methods of delivery became in vogue in the 90s.<< Nothing was more uncomfortable yet ultimately redeeming when Bob had to lecture Michael on the value of content during Mikey's boyhood dream of coffee-chat TV. To see Eisner, what 4 or 5 times, keep going back to technology potential and Bob steering the conversation back to content would have been hilarious if it wasn't for the fact that it exemplified the reason Disney has lost hundreds of millions of dollars. A very expensive, and needless, lesson in why these guys should not stay in power positions just because of what they DID years ago, but rather what they are DOING now >cough< WDI >cough<. >>Do you think Pooh at DL is a failure because of its ride system? It's not. Even though Disney could have multi-purposed and put the E-Ticket TDL version with its state of the art conveyancein Anaheim. It's a failure because DL guests, clearly more savvy than the typical tourists in O-Town, see a dark ride that is cheap and not as good as the Fantasyland models.<< Although I would say that the interior of MK's Pooh is better executed than DL's interior. The very idea that these guys did not see the problems with proportion, depth, and enevelop with DL's pooh is completely without defense. DL's Pooh is a perfect example of certain groups at WDI being given too much priority. They were so worried with the ride vehicles and with set lighting that they couldn't even distinguish what mattered to the guest. They are wrapped up in their own little world. Look back at the big-wig pre-opening events with Pooh and you'll see a lot of self-congratulatory photos of them fawning over those EXPENSIVE ride vehicles. To go back to my TDS Journey example above, it's a shame, because for all the money they spent on converting the Bear's show building it is now looked at as a large waste of money, where for a little more dough to get a smaller version of Hunny Hunt, the costs to convert the building would have been MUCH EASIER to justify with the public’s response. Instead we have an oddly placed, sub-par, dark ride that has low ridership. We have this outcome coupled with the fact that much of the budget WAS wasted on lighting, dark-ride vehicles and improvements to existing infrastructure. When a Pooh vehicle costs 75x more than what you can buy a Toad vehicle for on Ebay you need to question how complicated a Fantasyland-type dark ride vehicle really needs to be. >>Consequently, Rocket Rods wasn't a smash hit (despite the lines) because of its ride system. People enjoyed the simple Peoplemover more.<< That's a tough call. The peoplemover is a PERFECT attraction because of what it offers for no wait. Rocket Rods was unpopular because of those lines, not because it was a weak attempt at an outdoor rollercoaster, imo. I agree with you though that the lines are not proof of it's popularity. It was badly executed all-around. As I mentioned with the potential of that ride system coming to DCA, I think it would be very popular if coupled with the quality execution you mention. >>That's why the Living Character Program is destined to be a failure in the long term. People go to Disney parks to be immersed in 3D stories, not to sit passively in a theater and interact with Crush, Stitch or Kim Possible. The technology may be wonderful, but unless it's melded into something much more significant it'll just be another blip on the radar, like simulator rides.<< I couldn't have said it better. It blows my mind that they haven't learned from multiple historical lessons and are rolling this out all over the place. I guess it back-ups Lee’s belief that you must mass-distribute R&D. On a higher level it’s not surprising, the WDI leaders who are in love with 2D-4D virtual entertainment need to keep busy. Which is too bad, the Disney parks have been overwhelmed with these sort of offerings and really need to balance them out and get back to circuit rides.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>And it may be a bit of revisionist history to say that people liked the PeopleMover better than RR. PM was always a walk on, and not a huge thrill to ride. Don't get me wrong, I always enjoyed it for what it was - a nice, relaxing ride that you could easily do when other lines were way too long. And now there's the nostalgic love which isn't really in synch with its lack of popularity at the time.<< While I think a successful implementation of RR would have proven to be more popular than the Peoplemover, I do believe that even in today's world there is a need/place for a peoplemover-type attraction in a Disney park. It really is what makes Disney stand-out from a Six Flags. It is, I think, an ingredient for the endangered Disney Difference. More importantly, I think it is unfair to judge the peoplemover on it's queue length. Like many other attractions that were quickly labeled as antiquated it was designed not to have more than a 5 minute wait. I don't think you can quantify what kind of enjoyment and even relief this attraction brings to the guests and if you must quantify it I would put more emphasis on ride counts not a lack of a queue. Ironic, since Rocket Rodds was deemed a failure BECAUSE of it's queue length!
Originally Posted By idleBrain <<Although I would say that the interior of MK's Pooh is better executed than DL's interior.>> Totally agree. Far more intimate, finer details, story doesn't get lost. <<The very idea that these guys did not see the problems with proportion, depth, and enevelop with DL's pooh is completely without defense.>> I've heard the argument that the larger ride vehicles necessitated the increased depth between the sets and the riders. But proportion does come into play as well, which I feel was not taken into account with the three-row vehicles, versus the smaller, two-row vehicles at MK. This is probably the single most important explanation for why DL's Toad has always been my favorite dark ride. Small, one-row vehicles which can easily navigate tight spaces. Toad's sets are closer, more intimate. The story doesn't get lost, and the illusion of chaotic driving is more believable. Larger ride vehicles for traditional dark rides just doesn't fly in my book. The issue of unreasonable dictates from higher powers regarding the repurposing of the old CBJ show building did put a crimp on these Imagineers' design plans for Pooh, not to mention the capital expenditure. However, those dictates cannot completely excuse the lackluster end results of the show. But they can demonstrate the outrageous level of cost that WDI burdens these projects with. DL's Pooh is a prime argument for outsourcing to other design groups, such as Kirk and Thinkwell. Imagineering overhead forced Pooh to be far more expensive than it needed to be. And those excessive costs ultimately stripped away resources needed for the show. <<DL's Pooh is a perfect example of certain groups at WDI being given too much priority. They were so worried with the ride vehicles and with set lighting that they couldn't even distinguish what mattered to the guest. They are wrapped up in their own little world.>> Well, two of the three principle Imagineers on DL's Pooh are now gone, one for over three years now. Was this particular attraction the reason for their departure? Actually, no. But the comment about being "wrapped up in their own little world" was a large part of why they're no longer with the company. Leemac has previously used the phrase, "not a team player," to describe the remaining Imagineer. Suffice it to say that the phrase was probably more appropriately applied to the two who are gone than the one who remains. <<Look back at the big-wig pre-opening events with Pooh and you'll see a lot of self-congratulatory photos of them fawning over those EXPENSIVE ride vehicles.>> Most likely because that is all they had to tout, given the show was so ho-hum. Placing Pooh inside the old Bears show building was a HUGE mistake. Pooh should have been given a new building in its own mini-land, like the old Motor Boat Cruise area. And even though the attraction from TDL would have been preferable, DL's Pooh could have been plussed up from MK's version, becoming more of a D-Ticket than a weakly executed C. <<To go back to my TDS Journey example above, it's a shame, because for all the money they spent on converting the Bear's show building it is now looked at as a large waste of money, where for a little more dough to get a smaller version of Hunny Hunt, the costs to convert the building would have been MUCH EASIER to justify with the public’s response. Instead we have an oddly placed, sub-par, dark ride that has low ridership. We have this outcome coupled with the fact that much of the budget WAS wasted on lighting, dark-ride vehicles and improvements to existing infrastructure. When a Pooh vehicle costs 75x more than what you can buy a Toad vehicle for on Ebay you need to question how complicated a Fantasyland-type dark ride vehicle really needs to be.>> Spot on, ChiMike. You've nailed it.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>But the comment about being "wrapped up in their own little world" was a large part of why they're no longer with the company.<< Why I was the only 'crazy' nutcase who applauded that Bruce was moving on. >>Placing Pooh inside the old Bears show building was a HUGE mistake. Pooh should have been given a new building in its own mini-land, like the old Motor Boat Cruise area. And even though the attraction from TDL would have been preferable, DL's Pooh could have been plussed up from MK's version, becoming more of a D-Ticket than a weakly executed C.<< I always figured that the best option would have been leaving CBJ alone and take advantage of the massive infrustructure already present w/ the Small World mall. But instead of trying to reclaim the motor boats, build Hunny Hunt where the Fantasyland Theater is, with the entrance facing the SW mall. It would have been ideal for traffic and really bridged the original Fantasyland w/ Small World & Toontown. You wouldn't even have to worry about the showbuilding and sightlines. But they wanted a cheap ride to support a "Pooh complex". My way certainly wouldn't have met that objective, but their way didn't either - while Critter Country offers a pretty setting for M&G's and Pooh's load it's not drawing any more people back there to shop that wouldn't already be there because of Splash. So without having to use any WDI hinsight (TM), my way, while more expensive in the short-term, would have led to more Pooh sales volume here in 2006. It also would be an E-Ticket centrally located that was a must-do for most visitors. But hey, they only had to spend $40 million and they now get 15 more visitors an hour than CBJ did. What's wrong with that.
Originally Posted By TDLFAN >>My previous point comes from my preconceived notion that Journey might not stand out from the other TDR attractions (incl ToT) -enough- for it's draw to completely outweigh it's operational cost in relation to the other attractions', most importantly when they look at it's operating expense per rider.<< Still I don't see why JTTCOTE should stand out over other offerings. TDS is all about total immersive experiences and lavish splendor. All major rides there can be concidered on the same plateau in quality. After all, Disney should be about exceeding expectations and not operational budgets. (I know that is the sad reality, but still.)
Originally Posted By ChiMike And I agree completely. But if I'm going to have this discussion in the realm of financial reality with Lee or anyone else, I have to concede that for the additional cost JTTCOTE should stand out a little above the rest. Like IJA or Hunny Hunt. My point though is that if it's appeal was even larger than what it is now that those upset bean-counters would have less ground to stand on. Otherwise I agree with you, these parks value should come from a sum of all of their parts, from A ticket to E ticket.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I would just like to throw my two cents into the JTTCOTE debate. IMO, it is a great attraction, being a slow moving dark ride through lavish sets. There were several things that I didn't understand (like the swirling lights on the way to the mushroom place or the lightning over the mercury lake) but that didn't mean that it was bad. The lava monster didn't really live up to all the expectations I had gotten from reading things on the internet, but he was still really cool. I think my biggest problem with him is that he is so loud. My other (and biggest) gripe with it is that the ride system is so expensive to maintain, due to the fact that it goes very fast, but you are going very fast in almost total darkness, so you don't really feel like you are moving fast at all. Maybe they are blowing air at you, and don't want you to see how slow you really are, but the effect still works in the mummy chamber over in Indy. Even the lap around the Mysterious Island (where you go outside at either end) was surprisingly dark. But that air time on the drop was something else. I hadn't read anything about it, and figured the drop was closer to Splash, where you are moving very slowly at the top and then speed up, so it really caught me off guard. But overall, it is an excellent ride, and certainly stands out in my mind as probably the top attraction there. And for the intamacy issues on DL's Pooh, a lot of it deals with being ADA compliant. I'mnot sure when the laws went into effect, but Pooh was either the first dark ride built for ADA on the west coast or by Disney in general. I'm sure the length of the vehicles does play a role, but there had to be extra space to allow wheelchair access in case of an evacuation. I'm not saying there weren't better show solutions (like having props and walls on hinges that can be folded back in case of an evacuation but kept out the rest of the time) but it wasn't all Disney's fault.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Nothing was more uncomfortable yet ultimately redeeming when Bob had to lecture Michael on the value of content during Mikey's boyhood dream of coffee-chat TV. To see Eisner, what 4 or 5 times, keep going back to technology potential and Bob steering the conversation back to content would have been hilarious if it wasn't for the fact that it exemplified the reason Disney has lost hundreds of millions of dollars. A very expensive, and needless, lesson in why these guys should not stay in power positions just because of what they DID years ago, but rather what they are DOING now >cough< WDI >cough<. >> I forgot to watch the interview, although a friend does have it taped for me. But there's no doubt that Eisner's leadership began to slide when he put technology above content, above story. For a creative company like Disney, technology MUST always take a backseat to producing content that grabs ... that enthralls ... that moves ... the public. And, just an FYI, it wasn't Iger who first made 'Content is King' his personal mantra. >>Do you think Pooh at DL is a failure because of its ride system? It's not. Even though Disney could have multi-purposed and put the E-Ticket TDL version with its state of the art conveyancein Anaheim. It's a failure because DL guests, clearly more savvy than the typical tourists in O-Town, see a dark ride that is cheap and not as good as the Fantasyland models.<< <<Although I would say that the interior of MK's Pooh is better executed than DL's interior. The very idea that these guys did not see the problems with proportion, depth, and enevelop with DL's pooh is completely without defense. DL's Pooh is a perfect example of certain groups at WDI being given too much priority. They were so worried with the ride vehicles and with set lighting that they couldn't even distinguish what mattered to the guest. They are wrapped up in their own little world.>> You think? TWDC -- and WDI in particular -- has made so many bad moves in recent years that I wonder why things like DL's Pooh fiasco surprise me. You take a huge two-theater building filled with a high technology -- yet CREATIVE and FUN -- AA-filled Bear Band show and spend tens of millions to gut it out for a dark ride that truly isn't as good as some haunted houses that my local high school has put on. I know it's like asking why Disney execs are so paranoid, but why on earth ... how, how, how could anyone greenlight this and think it was a smart use of company funds or was going to be creatively a hit? Maybe it's true. Maybe the exec crop is as bad as I believe it to be ... nah, more than likely, it's worse. <<Look back at the big-wig pre-opening events with Pooh and you'll see a lot of self-congratulatory photos of them fawning over those EXPENSIVE ride vehicles.>> Mike, I don't have to look at the photos. I was at some of those events! <<To go back to my TDS Journey example above, it's a shame, because for all the money they spent on converting the Bear's show building it is now looked at as a large waste of money, where for a little more dough to get a smaller version of Hunny Hunt, the costs to convert the building would have been MUCH EASIER to justify with the public’s response. Instead we have an oddly placed, sub-par, dark ride that has low ridership. We have this outcome coupled with the fact that much of the budget WAS wasted on lighting, dark-ride vehicles and improvements to existing infrastructure. When a Pooh vehicle costs 75x more than what you can buy a Toad vehicle for on Ebay you need to question how complicated a Fantasyland-type dark ride vehicle really needs to be.>> Just a guess, but I'll bet those Pooh vehicles are on ebay a lot sooner than the Toad ones took. >>Consequently, Rocket Rods wasn't a smash hit (despite the lines) because of its ride system. People enjoyed the simple Peoplemover more.<< <<That's a tough call. The peoplemover is a PERFECT attraction because of what it offers for no wait. Rocket Rods was unpopular because of those lines, not because it was a weak attempt at an outdoor rollercoaster, imo. I agree with you though that the lines are not proof of it's popularity. It was badly executed all-around.>> I still remember talking to people at DL in summer of '98 and so many of them would be like 'So that's it?!?! We waited in line for two HOURS FOR THAT???!?!!' I have a hunch people don't say that about JTTCOTE at TDS ... I know they don't say it about Indy at DL or even Dinosaur at DAK. <<As I mentioned with the potential of that ride system coming to DCA, I think it would be very popular if coupled with the quality execution you mention.>> Last I heard, Cars for DCA (at least in Test Track form) was DOA. But things are constantly changing and John Lasseter is on vacation right now, and despite what you may have read here, he will wield considerable power at WDI when he returns. So who knows? I'm kind of ambivalent about the concept anyway. I think there are many other directions they can go ... even in an attraction that appeals to Cal's car culture. >>That's why the Living Character Program is destined to be a failure in the long term. People go to Disney parks to be immersed in 3D stories, not to sit passively in a theater and interact with Crush, Stitch or Kim Possible. The technology may be wonderful, but unless it's melded into something much more significant it'll just be another blip on the radar, like simulator rides.<< <<I couldn't have said it better. It blows my mind that they haven't learned from multiple historical lessons and are rolling this out all over the place. I guess it back-ups Lee’s belief that you must mass-distribute R&D. On a higher level it’s not surprising, the WDI leaders who are in love with 2D-4D virtual entertainment need to keep busy. Which is too bad, the Disney parks have been overwhelmed with these sort of offerings and really need to balance them out and get back to circuit rides. >> They absolutely do. Look at the reliance on 3D movies. Look at how badly they play in Anaheim where you have a large local base. They now have three WDW movie clones and none of them ever attract a full-house and only one (Tough to be a Bug) has any relevance to most of the audience. PhilharMagic will have better 'legs' than the others because of the timeless Disney characters. But doesn't that just go back to my orginal point -- it's all in the STORY!
Originally Posted By danyoung >I agree with you though that the lines are not proof of it's popularity.< Mike, this is like saying the food on the buffet was horrible because everybody ate it all. If there were long lines, and people continued to climb in line and brave that long wait, then the attraction was popular. Doesn't mean it was good, or that it had any longevity. But to say it wasn't popular because it had long lines just doesn't make any sense.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>And, just an FYI, it wasn't Iger who first made 'Content is King' his personal mantra.<< Oh, I know, I know... But like when Ouimet arrived on the scene, I was impressed when he started emphasizing it as soon as he took over. A far cry from being eviserated on CNN while he was trying to hawk Disney-themed computers. >>I still remember talking to people at DL in summer of '98 and so many of them would be like 'So that's it?!?! We waited in line for two HOURS FOR THAT???!?!!'<< Absolutely Spirit! It got to a point where you could be walking into the start of the queue and random guests walking by what openly offer to people entering the queue, "You sure you want to wait 2 hours, it's not worth it!"
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>Mike, this is like saying the food on the buffet was horrible because everybody ate it all. If there were long lines, and people continued to climb in line and brave that long wait, then the attraction was popular. Doesn't mean it was good, or that it had any longevity. But to say it wasn't popular because it had long lines just doesn't make any sense.<< You know, you might be right. I probably shouldn't use the word popular. After reading Spirit's comments maybe a better word might be satisfaction. I think it is reasonable that a guest to a Disney park will get in line for a ride like RR. The real problem was what Spirit said, that most people felt let down getting off. I guess I translated that to being that while the lines were long there was a lot of built up negative sentiment with people who already rode the attaction. I personally liked RR and wished that they had built the track right. I think it's a great concept. But there were flaws all around with the addition of maintenance and capacity. I would only ride it at rope drop though. I do think Peoplemover is all-around a better offering for the park.
Originally Posted By danyoung >I personally liked RR and wished that they had built the track right.< I agree with you, Mike. I enjoy almost all Disney attractions, even the somewhat lamer ones like DL's Pooh. RR was fun for me, but there was so much more they could have and should have done with the track, the effects, the overall experience. I only waited in the long line one time. After that it was single rider time for me. While I did like the ride, it was in no way worth a 90 to 120 minute wait for me.
