Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>No one likes LMA<<< Untrue, after TOT, it is my fav attraction in DHS. And it is tied with Soarin' as my fav addition to any Disney park in the last 10 years for me. My family love it too.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Indy at DHS sucks and has done since opening day. And I love the films and stunt shows in general.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper ^^Indy is superior, and I was being facetious about no one liking LMA. But it's not very well received in the park overall. Well attended. Not well received.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo See, this is what I do not understand. In Europe it is better received than PotC and Phantom Manor. In fact it seems to be the one attraction that wow my non Disney fans.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<That's the thing, it seems to be that you take popularity as some sort of validity of superior design. Never forget that popularity does fade, and that other more ambitious additions might have been even more popular than the very offering you feel is justified through it's -RT measured- popularity.>> No, I don't mistake popularity with superior design. I just feel that popularity is the ultimate judge of an attraction's success or failure. Yes, popularity of even excellent attractions fades over time. Pirates is almost always a walk-on at WDW. But if it's not even popular when it opens, what good has all that excellent design accomplished? And yes, I'll admit that my beloved Mission Space is not all that popular.
Originally Posted By ChiMike So Jersey Shore's, Real Housewives', and Big Brother's quality and usefulness to the television viewing public can be ultimately judged by their popularity? How about High School Musical or Twilight? Ultimately they were the best of the best, because they were so much more popular than other films. Mary Higgins Clark must be the Shakespeare of our time! See where I am going, RT?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<So, if we go by their standards, we essentially agree that Disney should pander to these "once in a lifetimers." and ignore the rest of the guests and the quality that WDW deserves? I don't buy that.>> I think WDW is looking to more than "once in a lifetime" visitors. As was pointed out, DVC is a major attempt to bring repeat visitors to WDW. But for most of us that still means one visit a year… not one visit a month like you find a Disneyland. Orlando just doesn't have the population base to support the parks by appealing primarily to local AP'ers. So they get by on first-timers and repeat visitors who visit once every year to five years. I usually visit once a year, and even if I experience an attraction twice every time I visit, after 10 years I've only experienced it 20 times... that is still pretty "fresh" as far as I'm concerned. Sure, I still like new attractions as much as anyone. But they don't have the importance to me that they would to a person who visits the parks once a month. I think if you did a survey of WDW guests and ask them what would make them more likely to return the following year... A) A new "E ticket" at the Magic Kingdom. B) Discounted hotel rates and free dining. "B" would be the overwhelming winner. WDW is putting its money where its customer base wants it. Unlike at Disneyland, you can't get a decent hotel room within walking distance for $50 a night. WDW visitors face MAJOR expense for a trip to WDW, and the hotel discounts and free dining mean a lot for a young family trying to vacation there.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<So Jersey Shore's, Real Housewives', and Big Brother's quality and usefulness to the television viewing public can be ultimately judged by their popularity?>> Of course not. You are not reading what I am saying. The popular and financial success of something can be judged by its popularity. I never said popular equals quality. But if something is of great quality but no one sees it, can it really be considered a success? A critical success perhaps, but that doesn't put money in the bank. No entity can survive very long with nothing but critical successes.
Originally Posted By sjhym333 I also agree, but at some point even with a yearly visit you run the risk of the "eh" factor. And that is deadly for an entertainment enterprise. Also, considering how long it seems to take WDI to get something from paper to being opened Disney is not in a position to act quickly if situations change. I think Universal was smart to invest in WWOHP while the economy was in a slump. It put them in a great place the past year or so.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>Of course not. You are not reading what I am saying. The popular and financial success of something can be judged by its popularity. I never said popular equals quality. But if something is of great quality but no one sees it, can it really be considered a success? A critical success perhaps, but that doesn't put money in the bank. No entity can survive very long with nothing but critical successes. << However your premise does not take into account that a critical success with a Disney attraction in a Disney theme park will also be popular among Disney guests.. That's my whole point. If something is criticized, and RoadTrip says, "but.. but.. it's popular!" the reasoning simply doesn't carry weight. Because decisions could have been made, using the same funding or a little more funding, creating something even MORE popular that also is more universally POPULAR. When the mine train ride opens, we will all see that it will be popular. Will it be as popular, as say, Carsland at MGM might have been, JTTCOE at AK? Doubtful. When you are at IOA, you will see what I mean. There is a whole land that is BOTH popular and critically successful. Too a fault, they didn't take into account crowd operations in how popular it was to be.
Originally Posted By ChiMike Sorry. >>creating something even MORE popular that also is more universally considered good design.
Originally Posted By sjhym333 The other thing to remember is that popularity is also dependent on capacity. We could argue that Dumbo and Peter Pan are popular because there is always a line but both have rather small capacities and in the case of Dumbo a very slow load time.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I'm not so sure. I think DCA 1.0 had a strong sense of what it wanted to be and was executed very well. But it is not what people expected a Disney park to be so it was a complete failure as far as popularity goes.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >> think DCA 1.0 had a strong sense of what it wanted to be and was executed very well. But it is not what people expected a Disney park to be so it was a complete failure as far as popularity goes.<< Most past imagineers who are considered masters of their form would disagree with you. Crikes, even Marty has gotten loose enough to admit it clearly in public. So again, not popular nor critically successful
Originally Posted By 3disneylocations Since when? They don't manage any course that I know of that are on roMany here talk about the parks needing an additional "E ticket", but how is that defined? Around here it seems to be defined as an attraction that the fan bois like. Expedition Everest has the size, the footprint and the popularity to make it an "E". But is it one? No... could be if the damn Yeti just worked. Midway Mania is immensely popular and has the longest waits in the Studios... does that make it an "E"? Nope. Toons on video screens, no animatronics. Definitely not an "E". Mission Space... groundbreaking ride system used nowhere else in the world as far as I know. Is that an "E"? Nope. People puke on it. Besides... it isn't Horizons. Test Track... another unique ride system in an attraction that is extremely popular. Is it an "E"? No way. World of Motion was better because it had animatronics. Even if half of them were recycled from defunct Disney attractions. Surely Lights, Motors, Action is an "E". It certainly has the footprint and length of show to be one. Very popular too... when we see it during the off-season the grandstand is always jammed. But alas, not an "E". << All those attractions would be considered "E" ticket attractions, but the ticket system hasn't existed for quite sometime so your point is moot...
Originally Posted By 3disneylocations Just because people watched it doesn't mean they liked it. I've yet to meet someone outside of a Disney message board that actually likes the show.<< My sis & bil (who aren't on-line) insist that they see LMA w/each visit (at least yearly). I always say "have fun" and go do somethime else whlie they sit in a packed 5000 person theatre.
Originally Posted By leobloom LMA is my vote for most boring attraction at WDW, though I never wasted my time with Sounds Dangerous. That said, both of the stunt shows could use some changes.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<My sis & bil (who aren't on-line) insist that they see LMA w/each visit (at least yearly). I always say "have fun" and go do somethime else whlie they sit in a packed 5000 person theatre.>> Yea... and all 5,000 of us are there because we hate it so much.
