Originally Posted By danyoung >I think I should have said they have tried everything within a certain budget in a small amount of time to get the park off the ground...< Compare that with Walt himself, who almost buried his company with debt to the point of having to mortgage his own life insurance policy, just to get his park off the ground. Kinda sad, huh?
Originally Posted By bean and the debates will continue. i am sure that wallstreet and Disney's Major shareholders would have loved seeing a few more billions of dollars spent in the first few years of the parks operation just to please everyone else. even if this would have happened it still would not have been done overnight. Planning and dvelopment has to happen and a short four years is not an appropriate time for such a large addition especially when the park is making a profit. Believe it or not. Is it reaching attendance levels they wanted NO but the park is still not fully built and once other areas are expanded then some of the areas with problems could eventually be changed. The park will evolve and eventually could end up being better than even WDW's smaller gates. Believe it or not it pretty much has a better attraction roster than MGM with its only two major attration TOT and RNRC.
Originally Posted By basas <<Believe it or not it pretty much has a better attraction roster than MGM with its only two major attration TOT and RNRC.>> That is debatable. I much prefer the offerings at MGM over DCA.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney ^^Yeah, I do too. I really like MGM for some reason . Also, the fact that it already has about 7 cloned rides from MGM and AK combined (WWTBAM, Muppets, TOT, Animation, ITTBAB, Disney's playhouse and to a lesser extent GRR) doesn't say much about how much stronger its attraction roster is when its pretty much taking a lot of those parks attractions .
Originally Posted By trekkeruss I know it's long-in-the-tooth now, but MGM sported something at it's opening that DCA doesn't have: a headliner AA attraction, i.e. The Great Movie Ride. It's a shame that the budget for Golden Dreams was cut; this may have been the west coast equivalent to Epcot's American Adventure.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>I know it's long-in-the-tooth now, but MGM sported something at it's opening that DCA doesn't have: a headliner AA attraction<< In this age of digital special effects, I'm not sure that an new AA attraction would be very successful.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss ^^It can be, it just depends on the story being told. You can build a great AA attraction or a bad one, just as much as you can make a great CGI movie or a bad one. FWIW, the last AA attraction, Sinbad at TDS, is GREAT!
Originally Posted By leemac ^^ But has such bad attendance that WDI are currently preparing to renovate the entire attraction already.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss ^^ BTW, it goes to show that they missed delivering the message. While I think it's great, as do many here, it still didn't strike a cord with the overall public... and I'd be the first to admit the ride isn't perfect.)
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<^^ BTW, it goes to show that they missed delivering the message. While I think it's great, as do many here, it still didn't strike a cord with the overall public... and I'd be the first to admit the ride isn't perfect.)>> Maybe... just maybe... today's audience isn't interested in AA attractions unless they have the nostalgia factor of the DL "classics" working for them. You superfans keep whining about wanting more AA attractions, and I think the majority of theme-park goers could really care less about them. It is yesterday’s technology… why would I want to see it in a NEW attraction?
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<I think the majority of theme-park goers could really care less about them.>> I don't doubt this at all. Still, I'd like Disney to try, because it's one of the few things that is truly unique to Disney parks.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>It is yesterday’s technology… why would I want to see it in a NEW attraction?<< Exactly. They had a huge wow factor back in the late 60's, but that was almost 40 years ago. This is not to say that rides like PotC don't have theor appeal, but a lot of that is based on nostalgia.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<Exactly. They had a huge wow factor back in the late 60's, but that was almost 40 years ago. This is not to say that rides like PotC don't have theor appeal, but a lot of that is based on nostalgia.>> Sorry people, Technology has nothing to do with a ride attraction's "success-ability". It is ALWAYS and ONLY about STORY TELLING CAPABILITIES! If the STORY fails to CAPTURE an audience, then nothing (read thrills, pretty colors, immersion, catchy tunes) can not and will not pull an audience in, no matter what.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Sorry people, Technology has nothing to do with a ride attraction's "success-ability". It is ALWAYS and ONLY about STORY TELLING CAPABILITIES! >>> It's about both. You could have a great story and a sucky ride system or implementation and end up with a non-so-popular ride. I don't think it's just the classic AA rides that can be popular. Look at Splash Mountain - it wasn't there when I was growing up, yet it's now one of my favorites. It has AA, a nice ride system, a thrill, great music, and a story. You could remove any one of those elements and it would not be quite the ride that it is. I think Splash Mountain falls into the "instant classic" category. I think that it is possible for them to develop more "instant classics" that have AA as one component.
Originally Posted By fkurucz Well, I was knee high to a grasshopper back then, but I remember when PotC first opened. It was the AA's that wowed everyone. That's what the guys on TV talked about. I remember my parents and their friends being amazed at how realistic the AA's where. I don't recall them talking in awed tones about the PotC story. To be honest, I'm not sure that the "story" is obvious to the casual visitor. Same for HM. I didn't know the HM story until I stumbled onto these boards. I liked HM because it had cool effects. The whole jilted bride/Master Gracey story was unknown to me until a few years ago.
Originally Posted By kmovies I found Sinbad to be a very long and boring AA attraction. Very little repeatability (infact, no wait whatsoever either). Sure makes the Mexico boat ride a great Epcot attraction.
Originally Posted By danyoung >Maybe... just maybe... today's audience isn't interested in AA attractions unless they have the nostalgia factor of the DL "classics" working for them.< I'm not sure how you can say this, as there have been no new AA attractions at Disney since Indy, or Splash before that. I think the only reason we don't see any new AA attractions is because they cost so much to build and maintain. I'd love to see an AA attraction with a cutting edge transport system and a fully developed story. And I think quite a few folks would, too.
Originally Posted By arstogas >>>"It was pointed out to you several times, by several people, that your figure was way wrong... and you insisted the financials presented it that way." BS pure and simple.<<< What's BS is the way you continually try to reinvent and revise what's gone on - whether it's real facts about Disney, or your own comments in the past. Go back and look, you kept insisting you were correct, even after the correct figure was offered, and you refused to admit your error for several days. No idea why you're being so bull-headed, Hans. It's unbecoming. I have agreed with you on the occasions when you've been spot-on. Here, you are not.
