Originally Posted By dizkid I'm not that mad about this, but it just seems that whenever disneyland gets a new ride a few months later it is announced that wdw is getting a similar if not exact replica of it. It happened with Buzz Lightyear Astro Blasters, and now it's happening with The Little Mermaid ride and Pixie hollow. A lot of people argue that the reason for this is because they want to give each guest an oppurtunity to expierience all that the parks have to offer, but it's just not fun when I got to the Magic Kingdom and all I see are the rides that I have been on a million times already. That was my rant, sorry if anyone is closely invested with the Magic Kingdom.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Well, it has gone the other way too. And, of all the guests who visit one park or the other...how many do you think have visited both? My guess it is a pretty insignificant number.
Originally Posted By monorailblue Buzz Lightyear Space Ranger Spin opened in WDW's Magic Kingdom in November 1998. It did not open at Disneyland (as Buzz Lightyear Astro Blasters until March 2005, approximately 6.5 years *later*. Also, the artwork for Pixie Hollow at WDW is substantially different that that at Disneyland. Similar? Arguably. Exact replica? Not even close. Also, based on the way it was presented, it is a future plan which is in no way guaranteed. It would be absurd to suggest that the Magic Kindgom parks not share some of the core Attractions.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 At least the Magic Kingdom's Little Mermaid ride is being placed in a land where it actually fits - unlike at DCA.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt dizkid you really need to get over it. Disney is a huge global enterprise and character franchises like TLM are worth millions of dollars in revenue. As much as we all hate cloned attractions it would be silly if Disney didn't take the most popular elements or stories at its parks and duplicate them elsewhere.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: Personally, I think someone should make a duplicate of you, Hans, duckling. I really do need a date for Saturday night, you see...
Originally Posted By doombuggy So if 1 park had it first then no other should? OK then, WDW shouldn't have HM Pirates Jungle cruse Splash Mtn any fantasyland stuff <before pooh> Train Monorail DL shouldn't have Thunder Mtn Space Mtn Country Bear J. <when it was there> It's not like the parks are in competition with each other.
Originally Posted By TMICHAEL >>>At least the Magic Kingdom's Little Mermaid ride is being placed in a land where it actually fits - unlike at DCA<<< AGREE! >>> Is getting a huge kick out of the return of Da Witches! <<< AGREE, AGREE
Originally Posted By oc_dean In the Nickel Tour book that David Mumford and Bruce Gordon worked on (God rest their souls) .. they referred to this as doing "a lazy susan". One attraction got swapped from one park to the other .. and back .. and forth .. and back .. and forth. It started with Walt Disney World getting an original of their own at opening ('71): Country Bear Jamboree ....... then about a year later .. it opens in Disneyland - (1972). Then CoP is taken out of DL in 1973 to be dropped into WDW in 1975. WDW gets Space Mountain in 1975 ... to then be delivered to DL in 1977. It goes on with DL Splash Mountain 1989 to WDW in 1992 ... etc. I don't believe it was a conscious thing to "save money on R&D" like it is now. After all ... WDW was all set to get Western River Expedition by around 1974. But plenty of effort gone in. But what did guests complain? They wanted Pirates of the Caribbean - hence the lesser version raced into production for a 1973 opening. Today .. it's become "normal practice" with now - 5 "Magic Kingdom" parks. But while it's important all 'magic kingdom' parks maintain some familiarity between all 5 of them .. to be recognized as the "classic" park .. with the usual classic attractions one would expect ... INDIVIDUALITY is important ... But apparently .. today's corporate don't see things that way. They probably figure .. if you are west of the Mississippi ... you're going to DL. If you are east of it .. you're going to WDW. Not both. It's one or the other ... So therefore identical offerings are not going to make a difference.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt From the concept art I've seen the two Little Mermaid ride exteriors couldn't look more different from each other.
Originally Posted By oc_dean Someone please explain for me ... how these identical offerings are really "marketing genius". If you are a huge theme park conglomerate .. wouldn't you want each of your parks to have some unique attractions to make ALL the parks most attractive to visit? Does that not make financial common sense? Little Mermaid is to open in DCA in 2011. WDW is to follow by offering about a year later. So .. what else is there to their newer offerings to make me spent a few thousand on a trip there? All those Meet & Greets?
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>From the concept art I've seen the two Little Mermaid ride exteriors couldn't look more different from each other.<< You can have two white cakes ... one with with frosting colored yellow .. the other colored pink. How's an exterior going to make a hill of beans difference?
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt >>Someone please explain for me ... how these identical offerings are really "marketing genius".<< It's really not that complicated dean. The characters are BRANDS, and in many ways so are attractions like Space Mountain, Pirates, and the Jungle Cruise. It's no different than going to McDonald's in Anaheim and seeing a Big Mac on the menu and then going to McDonald's and expecting to see the same thing. What if WDW had Mickey Mouse and DL had Donald Duck? People may not need identical attractions at every location, but they want similar experiences at the parks, and there is nothing new about Disney duplicating attractions at several locations. Didn't Captain Eo open at DL and WDW on the same day? And that was over 20 years ago!
Originally Posted By oc_dean I see your point. Still ... I feel from just a basic marketing perspective ... that..... While it's important to contain "the classics" ... you got to have a good enough mixture of attractions that are unique to that park - only.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt But why can't Little Mermaid be a "classic"? I mean if the E ticket attractions conceived in the 1950's and 1960's are the last classic attractions we'll ever see then I say Disney's parks are pretty much doomed. There were hard core fans who were all bent out of shape when Star Wars characters found a permanent home Disneyland because they weren't "Disney". Now, 20 years later, there are people urging fans to write letters to Burbank in protest because Disney is changing this "classic" attraction. Huh? What?
Originally Posted By oc_dean As far as Little Mermaid goes ... I think it could be considered a bonafide classic. Sounds as though enough detail will go into it - that is of the quality of the classics of the 60s. On Star Tours ... If you've been following that topic at Micechat .... I think calling for keeping the original is a little nutty to say the least. It's not a ride-through with an art direction that just spoke volumes. Back on Little Mermaid ... a ride that has been in development for 20 years ... I think we will be able to count it into the best of the best.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 If you are a huge theme park conglomerate .. wouldn't you want each of your parks to have some unique attractions to make ALL the parks most attractive to visit? Does that not make financial common sense? << You do realize that WDW and DL cater to two entirely different demographics? In other words, most folks that visit DL, don't visit WDW, and vice versa.... So it would make sense to put the same ride in each separate resort to maximize their investment as R&D eats up alot of the costs, and when you build 2 or 3 rides from one design, you are ultimately saving money since you only have to Research and Develop, one ride.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <DL shouldn't have Thunder Mtn> Other way around. DL's Thunder Mountain was first.
