Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<The 'Living Character' technology is/was used nicely on 'Turtle Talk with Crush' -- We saw it at DCA, and found it to be very cute.>> Yep. It's a pleasant enough SMALL diversion. No more, despite what some would have you believe. <<But I see 'Turtle Talk' as a nice little temporary exhibit until something permanent comes along. It's certainly nothing I would go back to see a second time. And not a show I would expect to see at DCA 5 years from now.>> Agreed. It has very little repeatability (despite claims that every show is unique) unless you have a 6-year-old who loves hearing DUUUUUUDE over and over again. Call me a cynical spirit but I just don't look at that as some great new techno-creative wonder that will reinvigorate the Disney theme parks. <<Wasn't this same technology done in Innoventions in a show called 'Meet Stitch'??>> Yep. ... And that was the basis for the Stitch Encounter show thrown into HKDL last summer. <<Now, the exact same technology is being used for this new 'Comedy Club' show -- and gee, the reactions have been lukewarm. Duh! Audiences - even theme park guests - aren't stupid -- they've seen this technology before, and it's just more of the same.>> I have heard from WDI people, WDW CMs and regular folks who have seen it in unannounced previews. The nicest thing I've heard is 'It's a harmless B-C Ticket that you might want to do on a busy day.' Is that what you really want for a new supposedly cutting edge attraction? Timekeeper was a whole lot better than that. <<It's like we're not supposed to know that the vehicles and track layout are exactly the same in the 'Indiana Jones' ride at Disneyland and 'Dinosaur' at Animal Kingdom.>> We aren't? Who sez? <<I can hear some of the Imagineers saying 'They're just tourists at a theme park, they'll never know.'>> That 'tude is more prevalent amongst the execs who run the parks than the Imagineers, even the ones I don't like!
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Maybe I'm just smart and handsome and observant. What do you guys think?>> Jim, I can honestly say without a doubt you are the smartest and most handsome dude living in Merced that I know. You also have the best personality. And singing voice too!
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Hmmm... I'm so outside the loop on this I have no real idea what the Spirit is referring to. I guess I was of the opinion that when it comes to recently opened attractions there were considerably more hits than bombs. Hits: Soarin' Mission Space (yes, I consider it a hit) Nemo and Friends Expedition Everest Finding Nemo the Musical Mickey's Philharmagic Lights, Action, Motors Bombs: Stitch Journey Into Imagination Of course I'm not counting cloned attractions, and I'm not counting attractions that Disney clearly saw as 'filler'... Paradise Pier, Pooh Playground, etc. I know that the overall development of DCA is flawed, but that was (I believe) more a matter of budgets than a lack of ability in Imagineering. I'm really not trying to be argumentative here. I would like to know why you believe Imagineering has been such a failure lately. (Assuming that WDI means Walt Disney Imagineering... if it doesn't; never mind...)
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 ^^Trippy, you may consider things like Mission Space (and I like it a lot myself) and LMA (which I can't stand) hits, but most people inside the company don't ... especially the folks whose opinions matter most. LMA has been a huge and costly flop in attracting numbers into the Studios. And Mission Space is widely looked at as a giant black eye for the company due to the amount of bad publicity it has received. And you mentioned things like Stitch and Imagination (two redos now), which are out and out flops and worse than what they replaced. Attractions that are even hits (like Test Track) can still be problematic when they go way overbudget and are plagued by performance issues. WDI has wasted hundreds of millions of dollars of late and the edict has been thrown down: it has to stop. Right now, there are people in WDI who are very concerned Monsters won't even drive sales in merchandise, which Stitch has despite being a creative flop. As to DCA, well, budgets played a huge role in its failure to take off, but the creative vision wasn't there at all. You could have made a park with the same theme and the same general lands and made it better. It's easy to say that money is the issue, but if you only knew how much money was wasted by WDI it would spin your head around like you were possessed by an evil spirit!
Originally Posted By pheneix >>>And Mission Space is widely looked at as a giant black eye for the company due to the amount of bad publicity it has received.<<< Surely the fact that Wonders of Life has been pulling higher counts than M:S since its reopening had nothing to do with it, eh? >>>LMA has been a huge and costly flop in attracting numbers into the Studios.<<< Only a matter of opinion... I don't have to wait in line for Tower of Terror now because no one visits MGM anymore. I consider LMA a great success.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<LMA has been a huge and costly flop in attracting numbers into the Studios. And Mission Space is widely looked at as a giant black eye for the company due to the amount of bad publicity it has received.>> But is that a failure of Imagineering or Marketing? LMA is a great show... far superior to what it replaced (a tram ride through house facades from 70's shows). What's wrong with it?? It is nearly impossible to find and far away from anything else. Disney should have figured out a better way to get people to see the attraction... perhaps even running a shuttle from a convenient location. Imagineers made a great show. It is up to Marketing to bring people to see it. The same problem plagued Mission Space. It is a fantastic attraction... a unique experience unlike anything that has come before. But again Marketing blew it. They found out during the soft opening that a fair number of folks barfed in the sucker. So what did the geniuses in marketing (or maybe it was legal) do? They put barf bags in the capsules and signs all over the place telling people not to ride it. A great way to bring folks to an attraction, huh? Finally someone figured out (my bet is an Imagineer) that by turning off the centrifuge on some of the units you could give people a choice between Mission Space and Mission Space Light. It this had been done from the beginning I'm convinced that MS would not have the reputation it has and would be an unqualified success. Basically when it comes down to it; most of the problems in America are created by Marketing. ;-)
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<But is that a failure of Imagineering or Marketing? LMA is a great show... far superior to what it replaced (a tram ride through house facades from 70's shows). What's wrong with it??>> Both ... but it's also the fault of execs who greenlit it. And, while you may like it, it simply isn't widely viewed that way. Surveys consistently show people place things like ToT, RnRC, Fantasmic and, yes, even MuppetVision and PLAYHOUSE DISNEY above it. Disney didn't get any bang at all for shareholders bucks. I find the attraction very boring. And the Senior Spirit, who loves cars and spy/Bond movies etc ... and should be the target audience for this show, has seen it twice and was not impressed. WaterWorld at Uni Hollywood is better ... and that's not saying much at all. <<The same problem plagued Mission Space. It is a fantastic attraction... a unique experience unlike anything that has come before.>> It's also a creative and numbers failure. Blame marketing all you want (I am not a fan, you may recall!) but MS was a bad concept. If it had been part of a space pavillion with other attractions, it may have worked. But, as is, it has a very limited audience. I love the ride itself, but can clearly see the folly in its construction. Rest assured, Disney didn't install four very pricey centrifuges to have to turn half of them off just to get people into the building. Huge mistake. Huge. <<Basically when it comes down to it; most of the problems in America are created by Marketing. ;-)>> Works for me!
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo "I find the attraction very boring. And the Senior Spirit, who loves cars and spy/Bond movies etc ... and should be the target audience for this show, has seen it twice and was not impressed. WaterWorld at Uni Hollywood is better ... and that's not saying much at all." What, what, WHAT???!!!! This is heresy. Funny, for me, LMA is the best stunt show ever created anywhere. But what do I know. I coubldn't believe the lack lustre response of the audience when we were there. In Paris, it is hugely popular. I think LMA suffers because there is nothing else worth seeing back there.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Come on Dave... we all know the drill... If it isn't happening in the dark and it doesn't involve some department store mannequin turning its head and waving at us, IT IS NOT A DECENT ATTRACTION!! Got that?? I hope so!! I knew that you would.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< I coubldn't believe the lack lustre response of the audience when we were there. In Paris, it is hugely popular. I think LMA suffers because there is nothing else worth seeing back there. >>> But couldn't that be said for all of WDSP? (half a )
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Actually I was talking about nothing else worth seeing in the back of MGM. I have to say, WDSP is almost as good attraction wise as MGM. Paris has a better Tram Tour, Animation Tour, RNR Coaster, Special Effects experience and I slightly prefer the Parisian LMA. If only WDS looked better and had a couple of highly themed table service restaurants, a Great Movie Ride, Muppet Vision 3D and Fantasmic, it would be a better park IMHO.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Basically when it comes down to it; most of the problems in America are created by Marketing. ;-) < why do I have this mental picture of a large group of attorneys clapping and shouting, see I told you it wasn't us ?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 As far as MS -- don't see how it can be considered a hit when they spend that kind of coin for a walk on attraction most of the time.... blame marketing or bored people, or scared people -- the bottom line is ROI is lousy.
Originally Posted By ssWEDguy I know I'll think of it just after hitting the Enter key here -- but what is "ROI?"
Originally Posted By ssWEDguy And I was right -- I figured it out right away -- Post #31's "ROI" is the accounting term for "Return On Investment." My confusion was that I was reading the reference to "ROI" to mean an attraction.
Originally Posted By bayrr326 The reason to me that LMA is boring is the storyline sucks. They really should have dropped the money on the Bond license or even themed it around a new Herbie movie. How much cooler would it have been if they had all the evil sportscars chasing after Herbie and the little bug was doing crazy stunts. The reason the Indy stunt show is still popular is because people still love Indiana Jones. If they would have used a popular character to theme the show around it would probably be alot more entertaining. As far as the living character stuff it works fine with a small audience. I really like Turtle Talk and laugh my ass off everytime because you never know what will come out of kids mouths. If you have a really good actor doing Crush he can really be funny. But i can see why it would not work on such a large scale and with characters that the public doesn't know. Why they didn't use some of the characters from the movie is beyond me.
Originally Posted By bayrr326 The reason to me that LMA is boring is the storyline sucks. They really should have dropped the money on the Bond license or even themed it around a new Herbie movie. How much cooler would it have been if they had all the evil sportscars chasing after Herbie and the little bug was doing crazy stunts. The reason the Indy stunt show is still popular is because people still love Indiana Jones. If they would have used a popular character to theme the show around it would probably be alot more entertaining. As far as the living character stuff it works fine with a small audience. I really like Turtle Talk and laugh my ass off everytime because you never know what will come out of kids mouths. If you have a really good actor doing Crush he can really be funny. But i can see why it would not work on such a large scale and with characters that the public doesn't know. Why they didn't use some of the characters from the movie is beyond me.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<If it isn't happening in the dark and it doesn't involve some department store mannequin turning its head and waving at us, IT IS NOT A DECENT ATTRACTION!!>> Tripster, let's leave what you do at home for fun in the closet where it belongs!
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<I have to say, WDSP is almost as good attraction wise as MGM. Paris has a better Tram Tour, Animation Tour, RNR Coaster, Special Effects experience and I slightly prefer the Parisian LMA. If only WDS looked better and had a couple of highly themed table service restaurants, a Great Movie Ride, Muppet Vision 3D and Fantasmic, it would be a better park IMHO.>> Nah. Even then, it wouldn't. Just compare the entrances. Disney-MGM you walk down an idealized version of Hollywood Blvd. of the 1930s (now let's forget about the BAH for a minute.) Even if you added quality attractions to DSP, you can't get away from the absolute grim-looking entrance ...a brown soundstage with doors?
Originally Posted By MPierce I reread your post three times Spirit, and I'm still not getting it. Why would anybody be fired over this show. My guess is the only reason it received luke warm reviews is because it wasn't funny. That's not WDI fault unless they wrote the script for it. They are working now on improving the show. Turtle Talk with Crush is a huge success, many people might disagree with that. However the lines for it are long even in value season. Why not put a clone of it in MK, I'm sure it will be equally as popular if it's done right. I don't know how much this new show cost to put together, but I'm sure a whole lot less than a big E-ticket ride. If it wasn't to costly, and they get a few years out of it that should make the powers that be happy. If it's a huge hit, then even more so. This will be something that kids drag their parents, and grand-parents to, just like Crush. Now this attraction is not my speed (probably way to sophisticated for me), would I haved liked something else, probably. I believe this was a very logical inexpensive moved based on a short, but sound track record. I'm not saying this was a great decision from my point of view , I just don't see how you could start clearing out desk until the finale product is produced. That is the reason I asked "and why". At least it is not another empty building, and with a rewrite of the script it could be a little gem for the kids. Disney likes to do two things, make a buck, and save a buck (even if it really is only on paper). I'm not ready to say this was a bad idea until all of the finale reviews come in.
