Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 "Wow, slamming an attraction years before it is even built... Stay classy..." <<I agree with this.>> As do I, Manny ... but within reason. That is, let's not blow the attraction into something it isn't. It isn't an E-Ticket. It looks like an interesting, short, C-Ticket type of attraction using an interesting ride system. I welcome it. I just think folks need to keep expectations within reason.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<I just think folks need to keep expectations within reason.>> Tell that to our buddy, Epcot Explorer.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>We usually don't see two standing rides based on the same movie/idea in the same park unless there is a specific 'land' devoted to it...... those are the "rules" of Disney Parks.<< Asked and answered (repeatedly) in other threads. Disneyland's Fantasyland features two for Alice and two for Dumbo. No one seems to mind in the least.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros And, for what it's worth, Alice is also represented with a village in Storybookland (also visible from Casey Jr), and she's featured in it's a small world. She's also managed to be featured in several recent featured parades and small-scale shows/encounters (like musical chairs at Coke Corner), as well as being in the current line-up on the Twain at the end of Fantasmic!. Other than her (and all of the other character's) presence in small world, nobody seems to mind that she is all over the place like that. Heck! DCA already has one whole land (a bug's land/Flik's Fun Fair) dedicated to a single film, and they're in the process of building another (Carsland...lame name). I think Fantasyland in WDW can stand to have a pair of Snow White rides...
Originally Posted By vbdad55 "Wow, slamming an attraction years before it is even built... Stay classy..." I agree with this. --- yep, and in case you haven't heard - planned Phineas and Ferb ride in Studios sucks ! New lands in WS 2015 - lame ! Head of WDW in 2042 - idiot ! roll me eyes a lot when reading now.. first off as Spirit already has stated- this is not an E ticket going in..but will be matched against one by some. Should there have been a new E ticket with this for MK- yeah I think the time has come ( and gone) - however anything new is a plus right now. although yes we expect more.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>>And "synergygasm"! That one's a keeper.<<<, You are welcome. >>>Do we have 843 posts talking about the 'new' Fantasyland (that isn't)? Do we have posters proclaiming WDI is working on swapping out nations in the World Showcase (how about Greece for Norway and Belize for Italy)? How about any fifth theme park threads<<<< No, just Monorail Expansion, Beastly Kingdome, and The Adventurers Club.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>That is, let's not blow the attraction into something it isn't. It isn't an E-Ticket. It looks like an interesting, short, C-Ticket type of attraction using an interesting ride system.<<< C Ticket? If it's not a E, which I think it certainly could be, it's definitely a D. Mermaid, meanwhile, that's no E. Definitely could be a C, though, if it's as short as it looks.
Originally Posted By Manfried "It isn't an E-Ticket. It looks like an interesting, short, C-Ticket type of attraction using an interesting ride system. I welcome it. I just think folks need to keep expectations within reason." Yep...
Originally Posted By sjhym333 Actually, I dont think we need to keep expectations within reason. Disney has been very slow in upkeeping the MK and updating the park with new attractions. I think that is reasonable to be disappointed when they finally add something it isnt an E-Ticket level attraction. Now having said that...I was looking at the Fantasyland Expansion pictures over on Screamscape and I found those pictures made the expansion look more interesting than the earlier pictures. I think this expansion will be a nice addition to the MK. I still think that Disney is asleep at the switch when it comes to its flagship park but this is a step at least. FYI, when you look at the picture of the Little Mermaid attraction, check out the cave in the lagoon. It almost looks like there is a 20K sub coming out of it.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<Actually, I dont think we need to keep expectations within reason. Disney has been very slow in upkeeping the MK and updating the park with new attractions. I think that is reasonable to be disappointed when they finally add something it isnt an E-Ticket level attraction.>> That's exactly how I feel too. Why should I "just be happy we're getting something"? Should I be pleased that Disney doesn't even have to try anymore at the MK? That the visitors will still flock to the place even though there hasn't been anything added since Splash Mountain opened of E-ticket quality? I think it sucks that Disney has been able to lower everyone's expectations so much that we're now pleased just to be "getting something new" at MK. Very sad.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper While I think the MK needs to be maintained (paint, lights, etc) I just don't know why people think it MUST HAVE new attractions. If I'm not mistaken it is still the most heavily attended park in the world. I would assume they have to try to find a line between adding new capacity and spreading out the existing crowd. I've been in that park and, as much as I love it, I've been misearable with certain sized crowds. Maybe they do need to add internal capacity without creating a big demand for a larger attendance. I'm not sure that makes any sense in writing but it makes sense in my head.
Originally Posted By sjhym333 Well I could quote Walt...but I wont. I guess my best answer is that when something remains static is becomes a museum, not an amuesement park. I also dont think it is good business. Harry Potter has shown that a park that has never been the hit it was designed to be can all of a sudden have massive crowds with the addition of a great attraction. The fact that Disney has decided over the years to play it safe and not be proactive or creative in terms of additions to its parks says alot about the management of the parks division.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>> just don't know why people think it MUST HAVE new attractions.<<<< Because that's how you keep your product new, fresh, and expanding. If the MK opened in 1971 and stuck with it's opening day roster, would it still be popular? Doubt it. It needed Pirates, for one.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Or, you could try to do something new only to have it backfire. (New Coke, anyone.) Coke was fine before they introduced New Coke to the world. And, they are doing fine without it. sjhym...I'm not sure I follow you. Yes, Potter has helped to really, finally, establish Islands of Adventure...and the need was there. From a financial position, show me the "need" at the Magic Kingdom. Frankly, I for one am happy that capital dollars in Florida brought us improvements at Disney Studios and a new park in Animal Kingdom in lieu of a new E-ticket at MK since Splash opened. And, you can't compare...in my mind...Disneyland to the Magic Kingdom. Yes, Disneyland needs to reinvent itself more often because it is relying much more on "local" tourists than it is on international tourists. Fair or not, I suppose the management in California is faced with the greater challenge.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I think the "need" to introduce new attractions ongoingly is because it also generates a certain buzz and maintains the narrative through the years that Disney is always innovating. That innovation is key to the Disney brand, especially when it comes to their theme parks. Walt taught generations to expect that Disneyland (and the other parks) would never be complete. And it's that promise of ongoing innovation that helps people decide to invest in DVC units.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>I think the "need" to introduce new attractions ongoingly is because it also generates a certain buzz and maintains the narrative through the years that Disney is always innovating. That innovation is key to the Disney brand, especially when it comes to their theme parks.<<< Exactly. Make it a new, different and evolving experience. The parks are not museums.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<From a financial position, show me the "need" at the Magic Kingdom.>> I don't think there's really any way to quantify the "need" in financial terms - and that's half the problem. The current Disney corporation seems to only make decisions based on spreadsheets - no one is at the helm with any vision for the theme parks. I mean, how do you quantify, in financial terms, that over time, if Disney isn't innovating at their parks, they're probably going to start seeing people lose interest? I mean, it's really not something you can put down in specific financial terms - but then again, you really can't run a theme park like the Magic Kingdom strictly on financial terms; there's a bit of art involved too.
