Originally Posted By HokieSkipper ^^^I said the replacements of the rides you listed were crap. I explained why they were crap in the second post. Don't see how it's hard to understand.
Originally Posted By sjhym333 Really this conversation is getting silly. One person likes this while another person loves that. Some like Mission Space, some like Horizons more. They are opinions and therefore valid points. Lets be civil about it. Yes, the old attractions are gone and are never coming back. For many the old attractions are what made Disney what it is. Not everyone is going to like the replacements and Disney is in a tough spot when replacing attractions like Horizons. I would venture to say that attractions like Horizons being replaced has a lot less to do with the replacement but rather what it symbolizes for many of us who saw the move to more thrill rides and less family attractions. Personally I think that EPCOT has been a mixed bag. I loved Horizons, rode Mission Space twice and haven't been back on since right after it opened. It's a good attraction in my opinion, not a great attraction and more importantly to me an attraction that falls short on what it could have been...especially post ride. I like the Ellen redo at Energy but it is probably ready for another upgrade. Does anyone today remember who Bill Nye is? I find the attraction humorous while telling the energy story. It at least still symbolizes what EPCOT was originally about. For me Soarin' is a great attraction, one of my favorites actually. I always ride it when I go to EPCOT, though last week the film was so dirty that many guests commented on it...bad show. JIYI was another missed opportunity. If Disney had been smart they would have kept the Dreamfinder beginning of the ride and updated everything after that. It would have been a big improvement over what we currently have and while Captain EO was a nice movie to revisit, it really is time to find something new for that space. Change is a good thing for the parks. They are not museums. I just wish it would come a little faster sometimes and with a little more thought.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 This thread should be dtored as a typical thread these days here-- Disney puts in a 'soft' attraction that no one has to participate in and it's the end of the world as we know it. Chicken Little would love LP these days. Has Kim Possible ruined EPCOT ? Do 1/2 the people there ven know that Kim Possible experience even exists there ? I have some young nieces that love it and while we enjoy the lands in EPCOT in one way- they enjoy them in another way. Money spent-- seriously people - how much do you think this cost ? A blip on the radar screen at best. In EPCOT they have a lampo that turns on and a figure that comes out of a building..geez Louise--this costs nothing literally. But it's fun reading about the end of the world for every LITTLE, and in this case - truly little - change. And to think this is going to take on Harry Potter- just because it's Merlin --now that's really reaching. It's actually entertaining reading when you accept how ridiculous some of this is.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<Change is a good thing for the parks.>> No doubt. But when the change is cheap or low quality, it's the exact opposite.
Originally Posted By sjhym333 I like Kim Possible. Our group is all adults and we have played several of the locations. It has always been fun. I am surprised that despite having visible locations throughout the park that more people don't know or understand what Kim Possible is. I dont think anyone here thinks (or should think) that Kim Possible is supposed to be anything more than an in-park diversion. It is not supposed to be a major attraction. I would say that the monetary investment in Kim Possible would surprise many. No it isn't an attraction with a building a ride system but the R&D and installation wasn't a minor drop in the bucket.
Originally Posted By Mickeymouseclub I would just like to say that post 85 is not representative of my feelings. I wish those words could be removed they seem not very necessary. Does anybody else agree?
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Honestly until I read this thread I didn't even know about Kim Possible being in the parks.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<I am surprised that despite having visible locations throughout the park that more people don't know or understand what Kim Possible is. I dont think anyone here thinks (or should think) that Kim Possible is supposed to be anything more than an in-park diversion. It is not supposed to be a major attraction.>> I don't mind the premise of the attraction, and some of the games are good. But some of it are just way to obtrusive to the WS vibe and atmosphere, and I'm just not a fan of that.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>If you are implying that we could have had a sub ride, you are correct. However, once the lagoon was filled in then it was time to place the head stone. It was done. The timing of filling in the lagoon, in my mind, was completely from having to do another sub ride in WDW. They kept the one in Anaheim too long and had to do something with it. Before we even knew that they were redoing the subs in DL it was nothing but dirt in WDW. << Not quite. The reclamation of the Lagoon was given the green light, I believe in very early 2004. The very same time, in months, coming off of the summer 2003 with the Nemo blockbuster, there were plans to test projections in Disneyland's lagoon. Some say after waiting 10 years, and after trying to reclaim the lagoon multiple times in the past, it was an awfully big coincidence that now the time was right to demo. Perhaps some on the East coast didn't want to see the subs return? As everyone knows, they tested the projections out West, and Nemo and his cartoon friends ended up coming to TLS in Future World rather than MK's Fantasyland. So I don't think it was bad timing, it was purposeful timing.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>It came from the reality that Walt didn't design or require every ride in Disneyworld to be for the family. You could, if you wanted but he himself said that his inspiration came for sitting on a bench, eating peanuts while the daughters rode the carrousel. So what was one of the original rides in DL..The Carrousel. Imagine that. He knew that not everything that children loved would be equally shared by their parents, so he put somethings in that were really just for kids and some things that would be enjoyed more by the parents. That way, both could go to a theme park and find something that they liked to do, thereby, enjoying the parks together. << As I brought up with Dan on the other thread, that's really a reinterpretation. While I agree appeal and ability are two different concepts, during Walt's time, nothing really prohibited the entire family from partaking in attractions together. For Disneyland, it really wasn't until Space Mountain that families were separated. Post Walt.
Originally Posted By WDWVacationer I will be fine with this as long as I can avoid if I want to. It may be something I try once. I'm pretty neutral on it. Though I'd rather see the money and effort not be put in to frivolous things at this point.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Mission: Space is the only solid ride out of the bunch. Love me some Mission: Space.<<< Solid experience, sorry excuse for story, and even worse excuse for a pavilion.
Originally Posted By ChiMike ^ And one of the worst attraction investments Disney has made in modern history barring DCA in totality. A horrible return on investment, sponsor or no.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I would just like to say that post 85 is not representative of my feelings. I wish those words could be removed they seem not very necessary. Does anybody else agree?>> I agree.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<And one of the worst attraction investments Disney has made in modern history barring DCA in totality. A horrible return on investment, sponsor or no.>> Oh definitely.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Even my BF, who had NEVER ridden Horizons and only Space, i showed him Horizons video by Martin and he could not believe they took out Horizons for Space. So even people who have NEVER SEEN Horizons IN PERSON think it was superior to Space!!!!>> Well that PROVES it right there! How can anyone argue with that?
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>I would just like to say that post 85 is not representative of my feelings. I wish those words could be removed they seem not very necessary. Does anybody else agree?<< Not to get into the drama or paraphrase Hokie, but it was kind of a harmless poke. Dave is kind of the Brett Favre of Lp.com
Originally Posted By HMButler79 ""sorry excuse for story, and even worse excuse for a pavilion. And one of the worst attraction investments Disney has made in modern history barring DCA in totality. A horrible return on investment, sponsor or no."" Totally on point. To say that a 15min dark ride WED opus with musical score and theme song with dozens of AAs and special FX is superior to sitting in a simulator the size of a porto potty looking at bad PS2 graphics and pushing buttons is NOT an opinion it's a FACT. M:S is an umitigated failure. Too many deaths, bad PR, horrendous story and theme, Gary Sinise hosting, a theme song that sounds off the radio, and families strewn outside in the blazing sun waiting for others to get off of the ride because it's TOO intense.
