Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<But in both cases, those were new parks without a whole lot of other attractions>> <Perhaps, but the idea is still that those areas point to how popular they thought this show would be. > But park capacity is key to how large the queue areas would have to be. MGM opened with something like 8 attractions, so of course virtually everyone would want to see it. During the AP preview days at DCA, everyone talked about how crowded it was with something like 33,000 people, and the long lines for everything. DL can handle that number of people much more easily, and physically it isn't that much larger - the difference is in park capacity, and in '91 DL had that capacity. They simply would not have had to have the same queue space at DL that they felt they had to have at the smaller-capacity DCA or MGM. <What it comes down to is you can't shut down main street for a constant crowd equivalent to a parade all day long. that is the scenario that was faced, and it was simply not acceptable.> But there would be no reasonable expectation for that to have happened, considering it never happened with Lincoln even at the height of his popularity. They knew from their own history that even with a hugely popular attraction (as Lincoln was in the mid 60's) at that venue that the line rarely overflowed the complex. We got into this because someone told you that the reason muppets didn't go into DL in '91 was because of the queue problem, right? It's quite possible that this person is quite sincere in this belief, but is still mistaken. It simply doesn't ring true for me.
Originally Posted By PetesDraggin "Wait! If The Walt Disney Story is moving to DCA during the revamp and Lincoln left to make way for the 50th. exhibit...what is going into the Lincoln building at Disneyland?" Pretty Good Moments with Mr. Coolidge
Originally Posted By Skellington88 does anyone remember when they repainted that one mermaid in the submarine voyage to look like ariel? That was kewl
Originally Posted By Skellington88 they also repainted one of the mermaids in peter pans flight at WDW (not sure about disneylands)
Originally Posted By jonvn "But park capacity is key to how large the queue areas would have to be." OK, you're not seeming to follow. There is no room in the area at all for excess line capacity. It would block the area up and cause multiple problems. It doesn't need to have 5 or 8 times the capacity in a permanent line. There is no room for nearly any type of excess capacity. "But there would be no reasonable expectation for that to have happened" Any new attraction is going to be very busy for months. If you expect it to be very popular, longer. You don't set up to have your park basically choked for long periods of time. "It simply doesn't ring true for me." Except it's completely reasonable and logical and realistic.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<But park capacity is key to how large the queue areas would have to be.>> <OK, you're not seeming to follow. There is no room in the area at all for excess line capacity. It would block the area up and cause multiple problems. It doesn't need to have 5 or 8 times the capacity in a permanent line. There is no room for nearly any type of excess capacity.> Actually, jon, I think you're not following my point. Which in this case is that they wouldn't need as large a queue capacity in DL as they did in WDW or DCA, simply because the parks in those cases had few attractions, and therefore a greater percentage of attendees would want to see Muppets on any particular day. There was room for probably two theatres full in the lobby. One full theatre's worth used to be at the old lean-rail area. Then there's the whole lobby in front of it. Then if you took out Walt's offices (which would be out of place with the Muppets anyway) and put it switchbacks, probably another theatre's worth. With the great capacity of DL, that would have been sufficient, IMO. <<But there would be no reasonable expectation for that to have happened>> <Any new attraction is going to be very busy for months. If you expect it to be very popular, longer. You don't set up to have your park basically choked for long periods of time.> It didn't happen with Lincoln. And Lincoln was a new attraction once. Not only new, but a true marvel of its day. AND the only attraction in the park to have a free ticket dedicated to ONLY that, practically mandating everyone to see him. If the complex was sufficient for Lincoln in 1965 without choking the park, it would have been sufficient for muppets in 1991 without choking the park. Simple as that. <<It simply doesn't ring true for me.>> <Except it's completely reasonable and logical and realistic.> Not in my opinion.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt Is the Lincoln theater even big enough for Muppets? I don't think so.
Originally Posted By jonvn I understand what you are trying to say, but the thing was back then that they didn't know how popular or not this thing would be, and was expecting to be very popular. If it was very popular, it'd need a line to handle the expected crowds. "With the great capacity of DL, that would have been sufficient, IMO. " In your opinion. Which is not really good enough when you are planning something in a very crucial area like this. Suppose, for some reason, you were wrong. Suppose that wasn't enough capacity for the show, even on some days. Which is a very reasonable thing to assume. Then what? There is no place for people to be put. It was an unworkable location. "If the complex was sufficient for Lincoln in 1965 without choking the park" Assuming what you say is true, they may have expected even higher numbers than what Lincoln got, for a longer period of time. Basically, it all works well and good if things turn out exactly like you say they might. Unfortunately, they can't depend on that. They have to be able to plan for the contingency where the show becomes crowded. And in that case, there is a big problem. And that can't be waved away with "it probably won't get that crowded." You have to deal with the likelyhood of it actually happening.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Assuming what you say is true, they may have expected even higher numbers than what Lincoln got, for a longer period of time.> The crux of this is, that would not be a reasonable expectation for them to have had. So I doubt they had it. They knew how popular Lincoln was when he debuted. They knew there used to be a special ticket good just for Lincoln, which would have increased the guest count even more. And they knew that that theatre handled those crowds at the height of his popularity without wrecking the park. So that would be a more reasonable expectation for them to have had. There are any number of reasons why they could have decided against muppets for Main Street. They could have decided against the expense. The Lincoln theatre would have had to have been retrofitted for the various AA's (Statler and Waldorf box, Swedish Chef in the back, penguins in the (currently non-existent) orchestra pit, etc.) plus the final "wall effect." It wasn't just a matter of swapping out films. Keeping the Lincoln show was, essentially, free. They may well have decided that the muppets in '91 wouldn't be enough of a draw to a mature park that the expense would be justified, so they'd just put it in the new park that was woefully light on attractions as it was (MGM). They could have decided Muppets didn't really fit on Main Street USA (which they didn't). This was before their "characters, characters everywhere in every land" phase, so maybe someone actually decided it didn't fit thematically. They might have had a bunch of people urging them to save Lincoln. They may have worried about queue space. Or any combination of the above. The first (expense) makes the most sense to me.
Originally Posted By jonvn "that would not be a reasonable expectation for them to have had." That is easily said from your position now, not having to make decisions, 15 or so years later. As to the ticket, the thing is that this show would no longer require a ticket. That changes the dynamic. "The first (expense) makes the most sense to me. " That may be. But the only reason I brought the line info up is because this is what I was told was the actual reason the project was killed. It simply was a very boring reason the show did not get put in place. No intrigue, no Machiavellian plots. No twisted financing. It just would not physically fit in the location and so the project was cancelled.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<that would not be a reasonable expectation for them to have had.>> <That is easily said from your position now, not having to make decisions, 15 or so years later.> No, what I'm saying is that at the time, looking at the history of that theatre and the crowds it could handle even with a very popular attraction in it, it was a reasonable expectation AT THE TIME that Muppets in 1991 would be no more a problem with crowds than the wildly popular Lincoln was in 1965. <That may be. But the only reason I brought the line info up is because this is what I was told was the actual reason the project was killed.> I'm sure it was. But people are told things by "in the know" people all the time - sometimes they get posted here. Then someone else posts that someone "in the know" told them someone completely different. And sometimes they're even both good sources, as yours probably was. That person could simply have been wrong. I think we all get it now, jon. You think the queue space issue rings true for the reason muppets got cancelled in DL. I don't.
Originally Posted By jonvn "what I'm saying is that at the time" I know what you are saying, and it is not realistic, and not what happened. "You think the queue space issue rings true for the reason muppets got cancelled in DL. I don't." Sorry. That's the reason, and it is completely reasonable.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Here's pictures of the HongKong Disneyland 'Small World' -- featuring the Disney characters. <a href="http://www.mouseinfo.com/forums/showthread.php?p=17256554#post17256554" target="_blank">http://www.mouseinfo.com/forum s/showthread.php?p=17256554#post17256554</a>
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt It looks very nice. I still don't care for the character stuff, but this looks like a very well done adaptation of the ride.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 Personally, I don't care for this take on the ride - it looks to much like the flat, original Disneyland version. I've always prefered the WDW version with the flooded building and sets that surround you completely. I just don't understand why they would recreate the cheesy flume again in 2008 when we've already had over 35 years of the superior flooded show building version. And I'm sorry, but the characters just look odd, and really don't add much. So what country is Cinderella's fairy tale castle supposed to represent? And I wasn't aware that Agrabah was a real place now.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<"what I'm saying is that at the time">> <I know what you are saying, and it is not realistic, and not what happened.> Of course it's realistic. Lincoln in '65 was easily as popular as muppets in '91. <<You think the queue space issue rings true for the reason muppets got cancelled in DL. I don't.>> <Sorry. That's the reason, and it is completely reasonable.> Sorry, but not just because you say so, or because your friend says so. It simply doesn't pass the smell test.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 < So what country is Cinderella's fairy tale castle supposed to represent? > Probably France, since that's where the story comes from. But Cinderella and the prince don't look right as children. Some of the others aren't too horrible, and blend all right (though I still think they're both unnecessary and detract from the overall vibe), but Cinderella and the prince just don't work as children, IMO.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<Probably France, since that's where the story comes from.>> I agree, and really already knew that. My point was actually about the large fairytale castle that they've built behind them - something that is clearly not from the real world. The same goes for the palace from Agrabah. They've gone from celebrating actual world cultures to celebrating fairy tale kingdoms -- and it just doesn't quite blend.
