Originally Posted By figgy999 I dont think they are going to build attractions that guests can name from Florida because they are on surveys. I think what Jay meant was that the type of attractions(ie. for children, thrill rides, shows) will be determined by what guests feel what is missing. a bugs land is an example of this. Guests wanted attractions for children and WDI came up with FFF. I believe Disney is going to build attractions that fill needs, for example tomorrowland.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I believe Disney is going to build attractions that fill needs, for example tomorrowland. << But if they asking things like "Is there enough to do for children?" and they add a kiddie-only area in response, that misses the mark in my opinion. Shouldn't they add more fun-for-the-whole-family stuff rather than things geared specifically to tweens, teens and tots?
Originally Posted By MouseBear Salutations All, Mr. Rasulo tours of the Parks seems to indicate that he has the right priorities. It also seems to be intelligent enough to know how to frame the same message differently for different auidences. I'm hopeful about his leadership. We'll just have to see what he actually does. MouseBear
Originally Posted By arstogas >>>The real question is whether Rasulo really thinks TACTICALLY, or whether he thinks like Eisner does. <<< Well, they've dismantled the Synergy Division of the company, so I don't know who's thinking about what these days. Again... in two or three years, we'll have a good idea of what the priorities are BECOMING. It's a big ship, and it'll take time to turn. Most people won't even notice while it's happening. Let's stay optimistic.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "Shouldn't they add more fun-for-the-whole-family stuff rather than things geared specifically to tweens, teens and tots?" Sometimes I wonder if they even know how to do this anymore. Look at Journey into Imagination - here's a ride that could appeal to the whole family if done right (like the original was), and yet, they build something that isn't really appealing to anyone. And when nobody really likes it, they probably look at it and say, "see, nobody wants dark rides anymore, so why bother - build an off-the-shelf coaster instead." Yet, had they built something as innovative and imaginative as the original Journey was when it opened back in the early 80s, people probably would have flocked to it.
Originally Posted By arstogas >>>Yet, had they built something as innovative and imaginative as the original Journey was when it opened back in the early 80s, people probably would have flocked to it.<<< Beauty always has an audience... the first JII wasn't just whimsical and clever, it was truly a beautiful attraction. Sections of it were just beautiful works of art in their own right. There's something very stimulating about that, and only the fact that it was nearly 20 years old, and very familiar as a result, made it less appealing to so many who'd been to Epcot before.
