Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>In other words TL opened half done in '71.<< DL's TL also open half done in 1955, yet people celebrate the big additions/redos in 1959 and 1967. To me, an expansion is new land and attractions that were not already part of the park; TL75 fits that. I also wouldn't be surprised if the Big Thunder addition occupied more land and had more hourly attraction capacity than the current Fantasyland work. >>That's all normal promotional stuff. I guess if that's hype then any kind of promotion can be considered hype now.<< That stuff is all normal, but they've just been harping on it for so freaking long now. They announced the project at the first D23 convention 4 years ago, and have been going non-stop ever since. Yes, opening in stages allows them to do this, but they also base a lot of their projects (like NextGen) on a 2-4 year customer return rate, so a lot of 'average' guests have already visited during the FL Expansion promotional barrage, and are returning to get it again
Originally Posted By barboy ///Other than Small World as the single E ticket this has never been consistent for Fantasyland at any Disney park. There are exceptions, of course, such as the old 20,000 Leagues attraction at MK, Matterhorn at DL and the oddly placed HM at TDL./// I don't understand what you're doing? It looks to me like you are trying to disagree with my assertion about the basic 'rules' of lands(or independently themed areas within Universal and Disney parks)but yet are effectively acknowledging that I am accurate.......because you already conceded 3 out of 5 parks have headlining attractions. but also noteworthy: Tokyo: Hunny Hunt Paris: Small World Hong Kong: Small World, Golden Mickey's Bottom line to me is New Fantasy Land is getting the "talkin'" part done but is not giving us a bona fide E experience which is very much standard practice when building a new land.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "DL's TL also open half done in 1955, yet people celebrate the big additions/redos in 1959 and 1967" You're nitpicking now. DL's additions in '59 were not part of that park's original design like the additions were at WDW in '75.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "It looks to me like you are trying to disagree with my assertion about the basic 'rules' of lands(or independently themed areas within Universal and Disney parks)but yet are effectively acknowledging that I am accurate.......because you already conceded 3 out of 5 parks have headlining attractions." I'm not arguing anything or trying be combative. I'm just trying to to have a thoughtful discussion.
Originally Posted By dizneed <<Given the budget, and the double construction technique, I believe that WDI anticipated that Mermaid would do this for DCA and MK. When it opened at DCA, the overall reception was somewhat lukewarm, and that was similar to the reception in WDW. Yes, it has some great AA's and is done on a large scale (with huge capacity) for a traditional darkride, but at the same time it just seems to be missing that magic spark for most people>> I agree. Having done the Mermaid attraction earlier this month for the first time, I must admit that in my opinion it was underwhelming. I think that “that missing magic” is attributed to the technology and theme being such a familiar mixture of other attractions that you’re left with the feeling of “déjà vu”.
Originally Posted By barboy ///'m not arguing anything or trying be combative. I'm just trying to to have a thoughtful discussion./// good, me too """" look what we have here before us. We got the Saracens sitting next to the Jones Street Boys. We've got the Moonrunners right by the Van Cortlandt Rangers. Nobody is wasting nobody. That... is a miracle. And miracles is the way things ought to be. CAN YOU DIG ITTTT!!!!!"""""
Originally Posted By barboy As for Ariel's Undersea being so underwhelming I think it goes back to it not being(sorry, but here we go again)an original and imaginative 'open' story like Pirates or Haunted Mansion. Let's keep the story 'open' instead of force feeding us.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>You're nitpicking now. DL's additions in '59 were not part of that park's original design like the additions were at WDW in '75.<< No, I'm trying to lump everything in one big pot, you're the one nitpicking and saying that they're different! : ) Although DL didn't officially say that it was a Phase 1-type scenario, the early drawings always showed *something* in the northeast quadrant, despite it being empty on opening day. And given how sparse TL was originally, only to get a small trickle of corporate exhibits in the following months, I think it's safe to assume that they weren't ready to open just like WDW's TL. Not a formal Phase 1/Phase 2, but that's effectively what it was To me, regardless of whether it was a part of the original plan or not, if it's not there when the park opens and gets added a couple years later, it's an expansion. Otherwise Epcot, with all of its expansion pads designated before park opening, wouldn't have ever gotten an expansion; it's only by replacing existing attractions (World of Motion to TestTrack, Horizons to Mission:Space, etc) that they would be able to 'expand' (and arguably Wonders of Life, which was shoehorned into its spot). While Morocco, Norway, Horizons, and The Living Seas all opened after the park, they had been planned from the beginning I understand your logic, I'm just not sure I agree with it. I'm also very glad that we can have a thoughtful discussion. So often, things spin out of control since it's hard to determine the tone online, but this has been a really good one!
Originally Posted By sjhym333 I have no particular beef with the Fantasyland expansion and I appreciate CuriousConstance pointing out the scope of the entire project. Once this is done my hope is that the MK will not remain new attractionless for 20 years. I don't thinking the complaining has so much to do with this expansion but rather that lack of ongoing care and expansion at the MK in general. An old daytime parade, a very old (and beloved) MSEP at night, some ho hum entertainment and not much in the way of new attractions. It is kind of sad that the number one theme park in the US is allowed to rest so long on it laurels.
Originally Posted By barboy ///It is kind of sad that the number one theme park in the US is allowed to rest so long on it laurels./// ......assuming by #1 you mean attended, wouldn't that be in the world and not just USA? Why MK is the most highly attended. Is it due to: A)fancy marketing B)its originality or first on the Orlando block C)guest ignorance/lack of appreciation for quality D)subject matter/theme
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "As for Ariel's Undersea being so underwhelming I think it goes back to it not being(sorry, but here we go again)an original and imaginative 'open' story like Pirates or Haunted Mansion." Personally I think it's a much more specific audience than Pirates or Mansion. You aren't going to get a whole lot of macho burly truck drivers to love that attraction, and even if they did they aren't going to admit it. It's a nice ride, but the appeal, unlike Pirates, Indy or Mansion, is mostly limited to families with children and nostalgic Disney fans. "Although DL didn't officially say that it was a Phase 1-type scenario, the early drawings always showed *something* in the northeast quadrant, despite it being empty on opening day." No, WDW was different: the TL at that park was literally half finished on opening day, and the eastern half of the land beyond the two buildings lining the entrance mall was a pile of dirt and asphalt that was specifically intended to be built out as it eventually was a few years later. "To me, regardless of whether it was a part of the original plan or not, if it's not there when the park opens and gets added a couple years later, it's an expansion." Maybe you don't realize just how incomplete TL was when it opened in '71: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://land.allears.net/blogs/jackspence/CarouselofProgress.jpg">http://land.allears.net/blogs/...ress.jpg</a> Note the half completed dead-end Peoplemover track. Disneyland's, for all intents and purposes, was fully built out on opening day. "To me, regardless of whether it was a part of the original plan or not, if it's not there when the park opens and gets added a couple years later, it's an expansion." I'm too lazy to go back and look, but I thought I said that I agreed that the '75 additions were an expansion and that it was bigger than the FLE. If I didn't I'm saying it now.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Why MK is the most highly attended. Is it due to:" You left out the most important one: the global strength of the WDW brand.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance "Personally I think it's a much more specific audience than Pirates or Mansion. You aren't going to get a whole lot of macho burly truck drivers to love that attraction, and even if they did they aren't going to admit it. It's a nice ride, but the appeal, unlike Pirates, Indy or Mansion, is mostly limited to families with children and nostalgic Disney fans." I was thinking the same thing. If you ask your average person on the street if they would be gungho about a Little Mermaid ride, I bet the majority are going to families with little kids. That's an old movie, and I bet the average person hasn't seen it in YEARS, and probably has no desire to either.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Right, and I obviously that was a deliberate choice by Disney since soooooo many people were complaining that DCA lacked Disney "magic". Well, now they have it. And so does the MK. So shut up. lol.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance And since my favorite movie from Disney is The Little Mermaid, I could give a rat's behind what the average person wants!
Originally Posted By Yookeroo Am I the only one who finds the idea that Small World is E-ticket quality laughable? I've always associated Fantasyland with C-ticket quality attractions. If the Mine Train is D, that's just a bonus.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Am I the only one who finds the idea that Small World is E-ticket quality laughable?" Nope, then again I think people's recollection of what an E ticket was has clouded a bit since coupon books were used. Back then the Monorail at DL was an E ticket and so were snoozers like the Country Bears and Hall of Presidents.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost I'd have to say that the biggest reason for the success of WDW is logistics. East Coast...yes the west is big but as far a population the east coast is almost one huge city from Massachusetts to the Tip of Florida. Add to that the closer proximity to Europe and the cost of travel connected, it is pretty obvious that WDW would have to sink into a very deep hole before that would change. The other reasons are purely speculation based on individual opinions. Population base is the key to this one.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Yeah, but if that were the case then Universal would be attracting as many people as Disney. I agree that population is key, but WDW has built an enormously strong and loyal brand since 1971. Can anyone else tell that I'm bored at work today?
