Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<I give you Buzz, Pooh, Pirates, Bugs Land, Playhouse Disney, Monsters Inc., Nemo subs, and Goofy's Playhouse area as a small list of just the Disnyland resort alone. What more do you want?!>> The "opposition" will say that PotC is not new, Nemo is a re-fit also (with too low a capacity), and the rest are not E-ticket material... which is what is being implied; that Disney hasn't made any new non-thrill E-tickets since forever.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Good question - the only non thrill e-tickets I can think of in the last 20 years (not including shows): DL - Roger Rabbit (maybe a D) DCA - Soaring (still has a height limit) MK - None Epcot - Soaring MGM - the Great Movie Ride, Tram tour? DAK - Kilemenjaro Safari DLP - None (accept the copies from DL) WDS - Cinemagique (I'd call this a D though), Tram tour? TDL - Winnie the Pooh Hunny Hunt TDS - Sinbad HK - Jungle Cruise That's better than a number of other parks, but still, not as many as they used to create. Previous 20 years to that : - People Mover Mission to Mars ATIS America Sings PotC Haunted Mansion Country Bears Hall of Presidents All the MK copies from DL Spaceship Earth The Land The Living Seas Journey into Your Imagination Universe of Energy Horizons World of Motion American Adventure Maelstrom Hmmm, which were the better attractions - IMHO the older ones! I like Indy, I like Splash, Test Track, SM, BTMRR, Star Tours, TOT, RNRC etc. But I prefer to be able to ride with my children and elderly relatives at the same time without splitting up. Ialso don't think dumbing attractions down and building playgrounds is right either.
Originally Posted By cwade <<I agree, when we went on Indian Jones I was expecting something much more like Pirates or Haunted Mansion. I love Splash Mountain because there is so much "story" to the ride. >> Ok, what about the warning signs everywhere????? Bottom line is know your limitations and stay within them, if you are unsure about an attraction, ask a CM, but there are those of us that enjoy thrill rides, let us enjoy them. Now I don't want every ride to be a thrill ride, look at Monster's Inc or Buz, both really good rides, but Mission Space is also good and I might add well themed. Rock n' Roller Coaster at Disneyworld is also well themed and a great thrill ride. Bottom line is you have to know what you can and can not handle.
Originally Posted By CMM1 While it might seem that Disney is doing nothing but trotting out new thrill rides like Expedition Everest in WDW, are they not also adding other, more benign attractions as well? WDW has added recently Soarin, Mickey's Philharmagic, brought Figment back to the Imagination pavilion, tossed out the scary Alien Encounter and replaced it with a funny Stitch show and added a sit down car show at MGM. DL has added a Monsters Inc ride, Buzz Lightyear family attraction, is planning a "family-oriented" return of the subs and has refurbished POTC. Seems to me that Disney is spending a lot of money in trying to cater to the "family" crowd.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Seems to me that Disney is spending a lot of money in trying to cater to the "family" crowd.<< I agree. The closest thing they have to a monster coaster is Califiornia Screamin and RnRC, both of which are pretty tame when compared to what one would find at an average Six Flags park.
Originally Posted By rader22 I don't know why Indy is being compared at all to Mission Space. My 81 year old grandmother rode indy and fell in love with it. We had asked a CM exactly what it did prior to going on. And he told us that it was an off road experience that was jerky and such. So I think a person should ask if they aren't sure about the attraction before going on. now onto Space. I wouldn't go on that ride at all. I had made that decision as soon as I found out what it did. it is definietly a very intense ride and isn't for everyone. Personally I wouldn't go on something like this in any park. I just think it is a little too intense.
Originally Posted By alexbook Okay, I just read the whole thread in one go, and a couple of things jumped out at me: - Matterhorn is "poorly themed" compared to most of the newer rides. It's also one of the most violent in terms of the forces that jerk you around during the ride. But nobody complains about it because it's a "classic." - If Disney builds a new ride and it's a thriller, people complain that there are too many thrillers. If they build a new ride and it's not a thriller, people complain that it's not "an E ticket" (as if that means anything any more). - How anybody can classify Splash Mountain as well themed and ToT as not is a mystery to me. I think it comes down to people loving what they remember from childhood and being distressed by anything new or different--a common reaction on these boards, IMHO. P.S. I agree that there may actually be too many warning signs. It's practically impossible to read them all, and after a while they all sort of blend together. On top of that, most of them are located in queue areas, and when I've actually tried to stop and read one the people behind me start pushing me forward.
Originally Posted By cstephens Alexbook - I totally agree with your first 3 points. I rarely go on Matterhorn anymore because it's so painful - I find that ride to be much more painful and jarring than Indy. ToT is automatically labeled as not being themed because it's in DCA, and for some people, anything in DCA is by definition bad. I figure you'd have to pretty much be blind and deaf to not know that ToT is themed. /cs
Originally Posted By alexbook Just re-read my post and realized that it sounds like I don't like Matterhorn. Actually, I think it's a great "classic" coaster. I rode it again twice this week.
Originally Posted By dlkozy >>>"Basically, it would be nice/great if some new Disney attractions/re-designs/refurbs in the future weren't so dependent on thrills and scares and had more of an entertaining story instead..."<<< I totally agree! What set Disneyland apart from other theme parks was the theming of their rides-not the scream factor.
Originally Posted By nemopoppins I think that, at least the two latest, deaths on Mission Space (among other thrill ride casualties) came to people who did not know of their limitations. I think the victims were found to have underlying conditions that they were not aware of so that the rides may have triggered severe symptoms. Warnings would not have prevented an apparently healthy person from riding. But that's no reason not to have the rides--none of us can tell the future and we do have to have some fun in life. All Disney "thrill" rides are pretty tame. I was really surprised to see Indy called a thrill ride. To me, Indy is a very "storied" attraction. TOT may have a story but in this case it's the story that's tame. It's like the story was contrived to justify the ride.
Originally Posted By DismayingObservation Matterhorn is enough to jar your teeth loose. It's fun, sure. However, it's just fast enough in spots, not fast enough in others and basically beats you into jelly by the time you get off of it. Heck, just the braking as you leave the station and enter the first tunnel is enough to make you eat the grab bar if you aren't careful. You get to the lift and WHAM! Instant backache. It was the first coaster of its kind and feels like it. California Screamin' and Space Mountain are by comparison smooth as velvet, twice as fast and even more thrilling. Neither one makes you feel as if you need a chiropractor after you get off. Even the pre-2005 version of Space Mountain was infinitely smoother than Matterhorn. Shows what 18 years of development can do between attractions, no?
Originally Posted By berol Matterhorn isn't bad when I remember to lean into all the turns, which is about half the time.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<Matterhorn is "poorly themed" compared to most of the newer rides>> If you think it's poorly themed now, you should have seen it in Walt's day... the tarcks were not enclosed and you could see all the steel beams of the interior. FWIW, I don't think it's poorly themed, it's merely a very simple theme... a ride in a bobsled down a snowy mountain.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "SPP: can you handle PotC OK?" The old version I could do, I haven't been on the new version yet, but I would imagine it would okay for me. There's just no telling what triggers this vertigo.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I'm really sorry if some folks don't like thrill rides but why jack the rest of us who love both, by whining that Disney sould tone it down? " Really sorry? Try eliminating the word "whining" later on in your sentence in that case. I would hope as you get older you'll become more understanding of what some of us are saying here. "I give you Buzz, Pooh, Pirates, Bugs Land, Playhouse Disney, Monsters Inc., Nemo subs, and Goofy's Playhouse area as a small list of just the Disnyland resort alone. What more do you want?!" You can't be serious. Pooh and Goofy's Playhouse? It's rather obvious what some of us are wishing for is a new, non-thrill E ticket, you know, kinda like what put Disneyland on the map?
Originally Posted By HyperTyper >>>What I am driving at is if you had read them, why would you think Indy would be like PotC or HM? Well, there are those two, which are basically show rides. Then there is Big Thunder, which is clearly a roller coaster, with all the warning signs. BUT, it's still mild. All but the most frail can enjoy it comfortably. There is a big leap from Thunder to Indy, then to and Mission: Space. My main point isn't that rides shouldn't ever be wild. It's that at Disney, too many rides are splitting-up families, either because they are getting insanely intense or they target preschoolers. This defeats the central purpose of Walt's entry into the park business. People can get plenty of thrills on Pirates, but no one has to sit-out. Same goes for Kilamanjaro Safaris, and Grizzly River Run, and Soarin' over California, etc. It's too bad when many newer attractions are either bone-jarring (like Mission Space) or mind-numbing (like Winnie the Pooh) when enough technical wizardry, gimickry and mild thrills could easily be added to milder rides to accomodate and please all ages and physical conditions. On my family's last trip to Disney, we had to split-up on the following rides: Matterhorn (terrified my 6-year-old niece) Splash Mountain (the drop freaks-out my mom and my niece) Teacups (spinning makes my Dad sick) Indy (after the Matterorn, we won't even try to get my niece on it) Rocket Rods (all of the kids were too short) Space Mountain (Niece and my mom again) Fantasyland dark rides (Niece easily frightened and hates loud noises) My mom has since announced that her neck will now boycott Big Thunder. That left us with Jungle Cruise, Pirates, Haunted Mansion, Dumbo and Small World that we enjoyed together. (Okay, and Pooh, but we were all bored after one ride.) Notice that they are all old, classic rides. Not one new ride in at least a decade over in Disneyland that will please and accomodate all of us. (Buzz Lightyear has since opened, which helps.) Things are looking up. Nemo's Subs will be a nice balance. But that's all I know about. The PeopleMover would be a great all-around family ride, provided they put some great show and scenery in to make the ride more enjoyable. Big Thunder is showing its age, and a family-ride replacement would be nice there. Star Tours can't go on forever either. Maybe some people go to Disney so they CAN split-up and get the heck away from each other for a while. Not my family. We prefer to stick together, and enjoy ourselves most when we know someone isn't getting dragged onto or into something they would rather skip, or isn't stuck waiting at the ride exit. As interesting as audio animatronics are, our family and friends are even more interesting, and we are happiest when we can enjoy each other while we enjoy the things to do at Disney.
Originally Posted By Autopia Deb You went on Rocket Rods and Pooh on the same trip?! Neat trick, do you have a time machine? When I took Kyle on his first post-toddler trip at the age of five he was able to ride (and enjoy) all but Indy as far as the "thrill" rides are concerned. No splitting up required. When we went with his best friend a year later, the only time we had to split up was for Pirates, it was too dark.
Originally Posted By Autopia Deb To be fair K's BF was frightened by Indy, so refused to go on Pirates. He wasn't frighted by the ride system, it was just too dark for him.
Originally Posted By cstephens HyperTyper wrote: > People can get plenty of thrills on Pirates, but no one has to sit-out. That's not necessarily true. Some kids at a particular age find the dark too scary, so they wouldn't go on that ride. It's an individual thing. Just because your particular family doesn't have a problem with that ride, that doesn't mean someone else can't have a problem with it for other reasons. > Matterhorn (terrified my 6-year-old niece) As I recall, this was built in Walt's time, so this would apparently be Walt's fault that your niece was terrified. > Teacups (spinning makes my Dad sick) Also Walt's fault, I believe. > Fantasyland dark rides (Niece easily frightened and hates loud noises) So the Fantasyland dark rides are considered too many thrills and too scary? I'm sorry, but I think that's ridiculous. Those dark rides are too scary but Haunted Mansion is fine? That seems like a total contradiction. There is no such thing as a "one size fits all" ride for every family. As innocuous as Small World might be, there are some who hate the ride and who would have to be forced on it. And some people would find Dumbo to be mind-numbing. /cs
