Imagineering Theory: But I WANT To Design a Tie-In Ride!

You may have noticed that I tend to come down pretty hard on IP-based attractions around here, especially the newer ones. And maybe you've found that a little...distressing. The great majority of Armchair Imagineering efforts probably take inspiration from Disney films and TV series. It's hard not to go that way when there's so much material to draw on and we have so many examples already in the parks. I know I can come across pretty strong in my opinions, and maybe I've given you cause to wonder if I might be preemptively dismissing your own ideas as unworthy.

Sorry if I did give that impression. I didn't mean to. It would be pretty hypocritical of me, given that most of the items under my own Armchair Imagineering tag use Disney properties as inspiration. Moreover, it would be pointless to discourage the Armchair Imagineers of the world from sowing their seeds of creativity in such fertile soil.* Everyone expects Disney IPs to be adapted as rides in Disney theme parks. It's a legit tradition. It's not gonna stop.

The point of this post is not to tell you not to design tie-in rides. It's to tell you how you can design tie-in rides that are interesting, unique, and even artistic on their own merits. To that end, I've got some Do's and Don't's to offer you. Actually, make that Don't's and Do's—each Don't followed by one or more Do's as alternatives.

Now, if only I could get WDI to take my advice...

DON'T: Choose IP to adapt based on in-the-moment popularity.

Part of the problem with current and recent IP tie-ins, I think, is that they seem to be selected on the basis of opening weekend box-office numbers and/or toy sales. The problem with this is that crowds are fickle. Just about every MCU movie succeeds like gangbusters on opening weekend. It's become a cultural phenomenon and people need their continuity fix. That doesn't mean they're interested in each and every character and subplot beyond that. Theme park attractions take so long to develop and build that there's a good chance the public will have moved on to something else in the meantime, and then a development that cost you nine figures isn't pulling its weight.

DO: Choose IP to adapt based on compatibility with existing themes and potential for great guest experiences.

I'll go into more detail on this with the other Do's.

DON'T: Simply recap the source material.

One of the biggest grounds on which theme park fans criticize recent tie-in rides is the extent to which they simply summarize their originating movies. Monster's, Inc.--Mike and Sulley to the Rescue! and The Little Mermaid ~ Ariel's Undersea Adventure are big offenders here.** Neither ride ever seems to have more than half of its queue space occupied, and it's usually much less. Most people probably don't want to spend their limited vacation time riding something that's so similar to something they already own on video. By contrast, evergreen rides like Peter Pan's Flight or Alice in Wonderland aren't shackled to the verbatim plots of their own movies. Even something like the Indiana Jones Adventure, while hitting most of the most famous beats and iconic images of the Indy trilogy, remixes them into something fresh.

Here are the alternatives, as I see them:

DO: Present a loose/rearranged summary.

Alice in Wonderland plays fast and loose with the sequence of events in Alice in Wonderland. The framing device is entirely absent—nowhere in the ride is there any indication that this is actually a dream. Several signature scenes—the Walrus and Carpenter story-within-a-story, all the growing and shrinking incidents—are completely excised, since the focus is on simply exploring Wonderland. Perhaps most significantly, the Mad Tea Party is chopped out of its rightful place and stuck back on the tail end, in order to finish the ride with a literal bang. It's definitely Alice in Wonderland, but it's edited for effect.

Snow White's Scary Adventures also scrambles film scenes, in order to provide a progression of tones from least to most threatening.

An early plan for a Little Mermaid dark ride would have done something similar, moving “Kiss the Girl” from its position in the film's plot to a point near the end, as a romantic finale after the intense action climax. It really is too bad they didn't make that version of the ride.

DO: Build the ride around a single iconic scene or sequence.

The “You Can Fly!” sequence occupies less than 6% of the runtime of Peter Pan, but a whopping two-thirds or so of the ride time of Peter Pan's Flight. The Casey Junior Circus Train evokes its namesake song and no other part of Dumbo (which has another ride to call its own). Mr. Toad's Wild Ride goes even further, portraying events that never appeared in the film, but were heavily implied by the surrounding plot. If you can zero in on the one scene that everyone was talking about as they left the theater, that's all the basis you need for an equally memorable ride. The rest of the plot is technically extraneous.

DO: Create a new story.

This is, like, the god-tier achievement for IP-based attractions, and isn't feasible for all source materials. This option is exemplified by Roger Rabbit's Car Toon Spin, which not only doesn't replicate the plot of Who Framed Roger Rabbit but limits the vast majority of direct references to the movie to its queue. The ride itself is an entirely new scenario, featuring locations—Spin Street, the Bullina China Shoppe, and the Power House—created just for Toontown.

I would also make the case for Radiator Springs Racers falling into this category. Yes, it relies heavily on story beats from Cars, but it puts them in an entirely new context that makes the guests (or maybe their ride vehicle?) the main characters.

Which brings me to my next point...

DON'T: Stick the guests in a passive role where all they do is watch the characters.

One of the biggest pitfalls of “turning movies into rides” is the tendency to make riding the ride not much different from watching the movie; i.e. you just sit there while stuff happens in front of you. It's an especial danger when IPs are chosen for adaptation because the character exploits are fun to watch—that works fine for a movie or TV series, but theme parks lend themselves so well to active participation, or at least the illusion thereof, that it's a waste not to take advantage of it.

DO: Give the guests a first-person perspective on the action.

The classic dark rides did this by sticking guests in the place of the film's protagonist and letting them undergo the adventure. Rides featuring new stories often place guests alongside the IP protagonist, adventuring with them, sharing in the peril and so forth. Either one works great, although the latter is probably preferred when the film characters themselves are extremely popular—you can have an adventure and meet your hero, all at once!

DO: Focus on the setting of the movie more than the characters.

Another way to make guests feel like a part of the film is to go for broke recreating its environment. This was another cardinal rule of the early dark rides, based on movies where the characters went to exciting places—Wonderland, Neverland, a haunted forest, etc. Three-dimensional sets create a sense of presence in the story, regardless of the perception of a recognizable plot or lack thereof. (And it is very, very hard to convey a solid plot via the medium of a theme park ride.) IPs that offer a fascinating setting to explore are to be preferred over those that only offer likable characters.

DON'T: Plan a tie-in ride specifically as a replacement for an original attraction.

One of the things that peeves theme park fans the most about IP rides is that we so often lose awesome original attractions to make room for them. Adventure Thru Inner Space gave way to Star Tours, the Submarine Voyage was resurrected as the Finding Nemo Submarine Voyage, Tower of Terror (in California) and Universe of Energy (in Florida) were co-opted as sites for Guardian of the Galaxy rides, Maelstrom became The Frozen Moving Meet-And-Greet Experience Frozen Ever After.

Were these rides declining in popularity? Some of them, sure. But while that may be an argument for replacing them, it doesn't mean that the absence of film characters was the culprit and the replacement should make sure to rectify that oversight. Adding IP is not, in itself, an improvement.

DO: Plan a tie-in ride that enhances/develops the theme of the area.

One of the other things that really peeves us about IP rides is that they are often awkward-at-best fits for area themes. The decision of which IPs to include is driven by profitability and marketability, and then they have to find a place to put it. The results are often “two steps removed”—Tomorrowland features (among other things) ideas about space travel, and Buzz Lightyear represents an outer space science-fiction character, therefore...? Monsters, Inc. is even less of a match for Hollywood Land. Both rides are arguably superior to what they replaced, but...couldn't Imagineering have chosen to adapt more appropriate movies for the areas in question?

On the other hand, there are many movies which do slot neatly into area themes, but get passed over for tie-in attractions because they aren't the most popular. Bolt, The Princess and the Frog, Big Hero 6, and many others would have an absolutely natural home in Disneyland Resort, if only Disney would properly own them. Finding space would be a challenge all on its own, especially with how hemmed-in the Anaheim parks are, but it must be better than shoehorning in concepts that don't blend.

To Summarize:

If there's anything all these different pieces of advice have in common, it's that IP tie-in rides should stand out from their source material in some way. They should offer a new story, or a unique take on the existing one. They should make the IP feel like part of a larger world or phenomenon. The closer the ride is to a literal retelling of the movie, the less reason it has to exist.

Go forth and work wonders.

* I am trained in the use of extended metaphors. Do not try this at home.

** Also because of their grotesquely unwieldy names.