Parks and Resorts- Cautious Change

Change can be tough, even in optimal circumstances, and can spur a lot of anger and resentment. In other circumstances, change can also be a welcome rejuvenation of life into a stagnant entity. At Disney, change is typically viewed at the extreme end of both sides. Disney must be very careful with what and how they make changes; they have had some successes, but they've also had some miserable failures. Conducting change at Disney is a huge and broad topic, so this blog will focus specifically on changing attractions at Disney parks.

The Good.
  Successful ride changes and updates continue the same trend as the original conception of the ride and present a natural opportunity for the change. If these two principles are followed, changing an attraction will be seen as an upgrade or an update, rather than a fundamental shift from its original intent. Disney must ask themselves 1) What is the purpose of this change? 2) Does this change help evolve the story 3) Does this change reenforce the overall feeling the guest walked away with?
If you know the answer to these questions and the change is well aligned with the original story and intent then change can successfully happen. Examples below are attractions that have undergone successful change/transformations

1) The Hall of Presidents (This ride is an example of a natural opportunity for change as each new president makes its debut at Walt Disney World. The company must be careful not to steer the partisan divide too heavily one way or another, but shutting down the attraction to introduce each new President brings a renewed sense of excitement among the guests and makes the attraction fresh).

2) Space Mountain (Resolute Space Mountain fans are often discouraged at how often this attraction is closed, but these fans are quickly appeased as they experience the new attraction and its intricacies. Space Mountain is an evolving thrill ride; with each iteration of the attraction a new element is added such as increased darkness, new music, faster speeds, sleeker designs, etc. The fan still experiences the excitement and joy that have captivated guests for many years, but the added change helps to clarify and enrich the experience. This attraction also was successful in eliminating elements that ruined the experience such as the multitude of FED EX advertisements in the queue. Sponsorship is good, but not at the expense of the rider's experience. When we think of a high speed journey through space we should not be bombarded with images of package deliveries.

3) Haunted Mansion Queue experience (Disney's additions to the Haunted Mansion at Walt Disney World only serve to amplify the experience they are about to have. More active information technology, increased smaller details, and plussed gags all make the attraction experience stronger and more rewarding.

The Bad.
  Bad attraction changes are like a pimple at the prom- that's all anyone notices and there isn't much you can do to fix it. Bad change is often forced change. Disney must avoid the temptation to update an attraction simply because the attendance is stagnant or the ride is older. Disney must avoid adding a level of change that is inconsistent to the overall effect of the attraction. Imagineers must ask 1) Is this change simply so that more people will come to this attraction 2) Is this an older attraction that is perhaps more tired than before so we're doing anything we can to rejuvenate it? Examples of bad attraction change include

 1) The Enchanted Tiki Room: Under New Management (I actually thought this change was clever in that they utilized existing strong branded bird characters and added a catchy song, but the change eroded the overall serene Tiki experience. The Tiki room is not about Zazu and Iago, but is about the nature and the magic coming together. The Tiki room was always about the unexpected; what's popping out next and what else is going to talk. A new song and adding additional animatronic elements may have been needed change, but adding in characters from a different context erode the overall story.

2) Pirates of the Caribbean (Both the 1997 Change and the Johnny Depp change. Some attractions are so iconic that any change will likely be vilified even if it meets all upgrade criteria; Pirates of the Caribbean, the Haunted Mansion, and It's a Small World are probably Disney's most sacred cows in this aspect. Imagineers must expect there to be severe backlash against any sort of adjustments because these are attractions that parents have experienced as a child and hope to experience with their own children. The two Pirates of the Caribbean changes were different in their intent and must be addressed separately.

  - The 1997 change was Disney submitting to outside pressure and ensuring they remained politically correct. The original design called for pirates chasing women around in circle while the revamped version saw the women chase the pirates around in a circle. Is this a drastic change? No, it's a small scene and really does not change the overall effect of the ride, additionally, it adds a level of humor that was not there before in that particular scene. However, many guests left the attraction scratching their heads thinking because they EXPECT PIRATES TO ACT LIKE PIRATES. Pirates were not politically correct and the attraction is supposed to transform the guest to the early nineteenth century. This update was OVERKILL and was UNNECESSARY. The political backlash when showing the ugly truth is usually overestimated as it was in this case.
  - The 2006 refurbishment saw vast additions and changes to the characters of the attraction to include and center the story around the title character of the movies, Captain Jack Sparrow. At multiple points in the attraction, imagineers added Jack Sparrow into the mix, acting as a coy and elusive figure. Additionally, the pirate ransacking the town looks and sounds mysteriously like Captain Barbossa and Davey Jones's face now introduced the context rather than the skull and crossbones. Was this a smart move? It depends. From a BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE this was a very smart move by creating synergy among Disney's products, creating a link between Disney's film franchise to the parks and even aiding in merchandise, etc. Kids today, growing up on the Pirates of the Caribbean films, will EXPECT to see the main characters from the films, so changes needed to be made to the attraction. However, the change had sloppy elements to it. Rather than travel around the pirated town and experiencing an expose of the culture, the new attraction attempts to combine the old premise with a few "where's Jack Sparrow" comments and animatronics. The most vivid scenes in the attraction, such as the overweight woman up for bid "stout hearted and corn fed she be" and the prisoners attempting to lure the dog with the key no longer have any context in this Where's Jack Sparrow attraction. The new attraction is simply a boat ride that follows Jack Sparrow's activities, ending with him with a whole lot of treasure, that just happens to have some extra pirate figures involved. What is the new story? How did he get the treasure? Does the auctioneer know or even care about Jack Sparrow? We don't know. If Disney really wanted to make an attraction based on Jack Sparrow then it would not have looked like this, but Disney also dare not tear down an iconic attraction like this. So what should they have done? Well for one thing it does seem rushed. Timing it with the movies made economic sense, but the story was obviously sacrificed for efficiency, which is very sad indeed.

The Undecided.
  Some attraction changes simply take time to know whether they were done properly or not; initial gut reaction tells a lot, but is not everything. If a revamped and updated attraction can increase the guest experience then it is worth it, even if it is different, but only if it stays true to the original intent. The following changes have yet to prove whether they are better upgrades or simply franchised products linked to former attractions in a futile attempt to peak interest.

1) Submarine Voyage featuring Finding Nemo (Personally, I was never a huge fan of the original submarine voyage, but I know there was a strong following. Additionally, Finding Nemo was a mega-hit and was due for a quality attraction at the parks. However, does the concept of submerging in a submarine and seeing a few characters really give the guest the experience that a real Finding Nemo attraction would? I understand the method to the madness- "people were clamoring for the submarine voyage again and people like Finding Nemo, so let's put them together!", however, this attraction is still weak in many areas, but the amount this attraction resonates with the younger guests is yet to be seen and may actually surpass that of the original.

2) The Seas with Nemo and Friends (The Living Seas was interesting and educational, but EPCOT was never the favorite of the young kids, so Walt Disney World transformed the entire Living Seas into a Nemo themed area. The most significant change occurred with the addition of the clamobiles and the projections of the characters of the Finding Nemo characters INSIDE the actual aquarium. This change is relevant and engaging to the guest, it meshes well, but the only question remains is what purpose do the actual fish have in the tank? They are no longer the stars, but simply background that makes the guest  wonder "how did they do this?". I think this change was conducted thoughtfully, but I still cringe when I see a franchised character used to promote such important concepts like nature or agriculture. Yes, they make the experience more engaging and relevant, but it also leaves it diluted.

Change must be conducted cautiously. Imagineers must know the original intent, the strength of its fanbase, the nostalgia factor, the relevancy of the proposed inputs, and the likelihood of backlash.