Originally Posted By wahooskipper I'm not sure why the 80s and 90s is a litmus test for "good times" at WDW. There was no Animal Kingdom in the 80s and 90s and Disney Studios was half the park it is now. People might point to a lack of a major E-ticket at the Kingdom since the early 90s but when you have the most visited park in the world already...with crowds at high enough capacites that it is often uncomfortable to be in the park...then I would question the strategy of adding another E-ticket (though Disney obviously sees Potterland as the impetus to the Fantasyland makeover). And, I think you could make a pretty strong argument that Epcot is better now than in the 80s and early 90s. Soarin', Mission: Space and even Test Track were pretty good additions to the park since then. Do I see quality decreasing at Disney? I'd say yes, to the extent they were well above the competition back in the 80s and 90s and they have fallen back to the competition in some areas as of late. Customer service (friendliness, cleanliness, and the "pixie dust") does seem to be in a bit of a decline. Not sure where the fault there lies though. Working with today's young employees is quite a challenge that even Disney hasn't tamed yet. Now, it likely won't be admitted here but I think the fact that some of us were 20 years younger in the 80s and 90s might have something to do with our perception of the park today.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Who said I keep going back? Not me. I haven't been to WDW for over three years. I live in SF and rarely travel to the east coast anymore. But the times I do travel to FL, I only visit WDW for three days. I spend the rest of my time at other resorts like Uni. Three days is all I feel WDW is now worth. And FWIW, I don't stay on property and use the savings for a rental car, which is infinitely faster than the damned buses.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Transportation is a legitimate gripe in my opinion. I'm a Florida resident so I'm usually always there with my car. That said, I've heard the stories from folks who stay out at All Star, Pop Century and other places. In fact, when I stayed for a conference a couple of times at the Coronado I didn't even attempt to use the busses because I didn't want to waste that much time. I could go to any of the four Disney parks for a day without even riding a single ride. I enjoy the parks as much for people watching, shopping, etc. So, if I were to spend a week there I'm sure I'd find enough to do. One of my greatest joys was working the College Program and just spending my off days venturing through the various resorts. I'd love to have the chance to do more of that.
Originally Posted By leobloom >> I'm not sure why the 80s and 90s is a litmus test for "good times" at WDW. There was no Animal Kingdom in the 80s and 90s and Disney Studios was half the park it is now. << Because the parks weren't as stagnant as they are today. IMO, DAK shouldn't have been built in 1998. I think a fourth park should have waited until after the turn of the century (2005 or so). The money spent building and operating DAK should've been allocated to 1) beefing up MGM and making it an equal to MK and Epcot and 2) making sure that MK didn't sit there and stagnate. I think MGM has only recently gotten close to being an equal to MK and Epcot. And unless you're loco for stunt shows and an inferior Fantasmic, it's still a substantially lesser park.
Originally Posted By leobloom >> I'm not sure why the 80s and 90s is a litmus test for "good times" at WDW. There was no Animal Kingdom in the 80s and 90s and Disney Studios was half the park it is now. << << Because the parks weren't as stagnant as they are today. >> I should also add this: the new attractions that opened in the 80s and 90s lived up to my expectations for Disney quality: Splash Mountain, Great Movie Ride, Muppetvision, Tower of Terror, Alien Encounter, etc. Obviously new attractions have opened in the past 10 years, but I doubt many people vacation at WDW specifically to experience 'American Idol' or even the quaint Nemo dark ride at Epcot. The new offerings have been either puny (see above) or ill-advised (Tiki Room, Stitch, the Monsters Inc Sequel to Turtle Talk) or ambitious but poorly-designed (Everest) or poorly-executed (Mission: Space, Soarin') or dusty and tired (Captain EO, MSEP).
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I doubt many people vacation at WDW for ANY single E-ticket ride (at least in the whole picture of visitors). A lot of what you mention is about personal taste. I enjoyed Fantasmic at the Studios (having not seen the California version I have nothing to compare it too...like most Florida guest). I enjoy the stunt shows including Lights/Motors/Action. Enjoyed Soarin' (poorly executed?) and Turtle Talk and even enjoyed Nemo. I know it was Walt's baby but the original Tiki Room never did anything for me. The new incarnation isn't any worse in my opinion. You could put Carrie Underwood in there live and I still probably wouldn't enjoy it. (Well, maybe with earplugs and one of her short skirts.) Captain EO doesn't happen without the death of Jackson and the demand by a certain segment of Disney and Jackson fans. Everest was poorly designed? You lost me on that one.
Originally Posted By KatieKate123 Hey cut me a break on my punctuation, I have worked a 8 hour day, followed by studying for my history exam, and I only came on here to give myself a 20 minute break, which then followed by another hour of studying. Do I know how to write properly? Yes!
Originally Posted By A Happy Haunt KatieKate, don't get upset, it's not worth it. Seriously Peace, Love & Mickey Mouse!
Originally Posted By leobloom >> I enjoyed Fantasmic at the Studios (having not seen the California version I have nothing to compare it too...like most Florida guest). I enjoy the stunt shows including Lights/Motors/Action. Enjoyed Soarin' (poorly executed?) and Turtle Talk and even enjoyed Nemo. << Maybe you missed the Soarin' queue which is probably, in terms of design and execution, the weakest of any E-ticket. (Big Thunder at least has some scenery up front and occasion glimpses of the ride.) And I still think the execution of the ride itself is lazy (beginning with the big blue IMAX screen staring you in the face when you load--it'd be the same as having the screen in Star Tours brightly illuminated when you load). Hence, poor execution, IMO. Turtle Talk and Nemo are fine for what they are--but they are very minor and hard to say they are worth the trip to WDW, etc. >> I know it was Walt's baby but the original Tiki Room never did anything for me. The new incarnation isn't any worse in my opinion. You could put Carrie Underwood in there live and I still probably wouldn't enjoy it. (Well, maybe with earplugs and one of her short skirts.) << Just pointing out that the new version of Tiki is already dated, poorly scripted, etc. You might say the same thing for the original show, but consider the new show requires that you have some knowledge of what the original show was. Otherwise you completely miss the point about updating the outdated, hokey, Polynesian show etc etc. >> Captain EO doesn't happen without the death of Jackson and the demand by a certain segment of Disney and Jackson fans. << Doesn't change the fact that it's a relic and was dusty when HISTA replaced it in the early 90s, etc etc etc. >> Everest was poorly designed? You lost me on that one. << Didja forget that the 'star' of the show has been broken for 3 years. Only worked--inconsistently--the first year the ride was open. And there's very little to look at on the ride, scenery is sparse, track is exposed to look like a roller-coaster track, etc etc etc etc.
Originally Posted By leobloom >> I doubt many people vacation at WDW for ANY single E-ticket ride (at least in the whole picture of visitors). A lot of what you mention is about personal taste. << Probably not for any single E-ticket. But assuming the rides hold some sway with the masses, then the aggregate effect would matter. And I'm guessing more guests are attracted to the parks for Mansion, Pirates, Splash, Space, dark rides, the old stuff that has proven more or less to be timeless, than for the Aladdin spinner, Stitch, Monsters Inc, Tiki Room, etc etc etc etc etc.
Originally Posted By GOB >>I went to DL this past fall wanting to be super pleased that not all things Disney are failing. Mind you, I grew up on both DL and WDW, so it wasn't new. But I just can't feel the same about DL. I enjoy it for sure. And some things I like better (Pirates, anyone?), but it is a totally different thing. It's an awesome theme park, but that's it. WDW is a whole fantasy world that I escape to. And TDO is screwing with my escapism! Grrr!<< Agreed 100%. I know Disneyland is a nice, well-maintained park. But it isn't WDW. There's definitely stuff it does better, but I enjoy going to WDW more, and I bet a fair amount of it has to do with the escapism. How messed up is that?
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>IMO, DAK shouldn't have been built in 1998. I think a fourth park should have waited until after the turn of the century (2005 or so). The money spent building and operating DAK should've been allocated to 1) beefing up MGM and making it an equal to MK and Epcot and 2) making sure that MK didn't sit there and stagnate. <<<< Agreed. WDW got too big for itself... But I think the problem started in 1989. MGM's money should have been set to keep EPCOT up to date, I stead of waiting until 1995 to shutter old rides and try and change things through place holders. MGM should have come about in the Mid 90's, with more time and MK ey invested in EPCOT and MK. DAK, if anything should be opening now.
Originally Posted By leobloom ^^You've got a good point. MGM was completely undercooked when it opened in 1989. Everything should've been pushed back, but then again, I guess Eisner's vision (and to some extend it's the vision of the company today) was predicated on wild expansion plans and the idea that vacationers should come to Orlando and never set foot off Disney property.
Originally Posted By Autopia Deb MGM opened when it did in response the announcement by Universal of plans to build a park in Orlando. Disney wanted to be first to open a movie theme park and if it had to open half baked then so be it, as long as it opened before USO.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer ^^^ Right. Fnny how WDW was scared of Universal, even then. Reactionary moves need to be planned out, not just knee jerk.
Originally Posted By Autopia Deb As negative as my previous post may have sounded, I went to MGM the first time when it was barely 2 years old and it was wonderful! The Monster Sound Show, a full backlot tour a fresh and funny stunt show and a beautiful replica of a Hollywood landmark front and center. It may have opened half baked, but it was oh so good!
Originally Posted By leobloom >> It may have opened half baked, but it was oh so good! << And insanely crowded the first summer it was open. I have the scars to prove it.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>As negative as my previous post may have sounded, I went to MGM the first time when it was barely 2 years old and it was wonderful! The Monster Sound Show, a full backlot tour a fresh and funny stunt show and a beautiful replica of a Hollywood landmark front and center. It may have opened half baked, but it was oh so good!<<< Yep. Very cohesive, very well planned. Shame it didn't continue out that way.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper Someone asked why the 90s are lauded as being so good when there was no animal kingdom and MGM was half the park it is now. In the 90s MGM was a park dedicated to an actual theme, rather than a park in the middle of an identity crisis. And I'd give up Animal Kingdom in a heart beat if it meant going back to a quality MK.
