Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<It just doesn't have the longevity that circuit rides dealing with realized 3d environments do. If I was wrong, Mission to Mars would still be with us.>> Then how do you explain the demise of the Carousel of Progress while Impressions de France still draws about the same number of people it always did? I think to say that people always prefer the 3 dimensional stuff is an over-simplification. Frankly, for the last half-dozen years when I experience POTC it is more paying homage to a classic than my enjoying it all that much. When you've seen it 50 times it loses much of its attraction also.
Originally Posted By Charliedontsurf "I guess that would also mean that the boats in Living With The Land should be disposed of as well." Not even close. The Living With The Land attraction is about our interaction with our envirnment and the boats are not the "attraction" and basically have absolutely nothing to do with the point of the attraction--- the boats merely transport us. we could have just as well been on an omnimover or walked along a path instead to get the attraction's message. Also, even IF the boats were out of place what does that have to do with the fact that I find the oceans scene not square with the land theme?
Originally Posted By alexbook >>>>I've never heard anyone at the actual park come off the attraction and complain about any one detail.<< I have. Especially when DCA opened. I would disagree with most criticisms, but to say that it is universally adored is a little to Sweet for me.<< At DCA's Soarin', the main complaints I ever hear are that the line is too long. Not exactly a sign of decreasing popularity. I do think a new film would be great. Maybe rotating films? California in the morning, America in the afternoon, Space in the evening? I know, I know, it's not a practical suggestion, but I can dream, can't I?
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>Then how do you explain the demise of the Carousel of Progress while Impressions de France still draws about the same number of people it always did? << I don't need to. CoP's hasn't experienced a demise, even in spite of Disney's best efforts. It's seeing the same amount of people then it was before it was redone in 1994. According to one insider France (a film I like) is getting a new film because of it's age and declining interest. So, I belive you to be wrong, and your point to be irrelevant. >>I think to say that people always prefer the 3 dimensional stuff is an over-simplification.<< It's not. It's a reality that on a macro level this is the preference. A third example, M:S as a new attraction had a lower avg. daily ride count than TT which was 5-6 years old. >>Frankly, for the last half-dozen years when I experience POTC it is more paying homage to a classic than my enjoying it all that much. << Again, and again, that's you. You are not the typical guest. Most people ride attractions because they derive some sort of enjoyment from them. Most children rather ride POTC then eat at the California Grill. To make these kind of assumptions strictly based on your on habits, and apply them to the country at large is a little too much. >> When you've seen it 50 times it loses much of its attraction also.<< For you.. For someone who has seen it 50 times. How about the person who has only been to WDW once, comes back, and thinks POTC was better? How about the 7 year old boy? How about the person afraid of heights? It just doesn't wash. Using your logic most of Disneyland would be empty. Yet, on most nights one can't find a spot to sit for F! or avoid a long wait on Dumbo. Again, the sun doesn't rise and set on the model railroaders of the world. While a great hobby, not the norm.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>At DCA's Soarin', the main complaints I ever hear are that the line is too long. Not exactly a sign of decreasing popularity.<< During the DCA opening I heard many complaints from the film having hard cuts, to the attraction being sterile, to the bland queue, to the cement nature of the building and theater, to the exposed ride system, etc. Granted these were guests who were already in a bad state of mind upon seeing DCA as a whole. But that's why such matter-of-fact statements are poor. There were people who were expecting more or better from DCA's marquee attraction. Nothing is flawless or protected from Disney Geeks or for that matter, people with design experience. I'm not one of 'em, but I did, in person, see a varied amount of "meh"s
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA The trouble with updating a film-based attraction with a new film? It doesn't happen as often as it should at the Disney theme parks. At EPCOT, you have 'Oh Canada!', 'Impressions of France' -- 360 movies that have been there since Day One. They finally updated the movie in the China pavilion. The movie in Norway is the same as it was when that pavilion opened in 1988. 'Star Tours' at Disneyland -- same movie since 1987? Heck, 'American Journeys' opened in Disneyland in 1984, and played until 1996 for crying out loud. I just don't see 'Soarin' Over California / The Land' changing any time soon.
Originally Posted By ChiMike (And just to point out...) >>They finally updated the movie in the China pavilion.<< Which went unnoticed by the typical guest who isn't on a Disney discussion board once a week. And it was hardly responsible for any increase in the pavilions traffic, even if there was any.
Originally Posted By Charliedontsurf "It's not an ocean you're looking at - it's a coastline!" It is both ocean and coastline--- but I get your point anyway.
Originally Posted By Lake Nona >>>Test Track, with all of it's faults, has maintained it's long lines because of what is offered near it and what the ride experience offers.<<< Breaking news....Test Track has a new sponsor....Mr.Goodwrench.
Originally Posted By WDWs Future "I guess that would also mean that the boats in Living With The Land should be disposed of as well." <<Not even close. The Living With The Land attraction is about our interaction with our envirnment and the boats are not the "attraction" and basically have absolutely nothing to do with the point of the attraction--- the boats merely transport us. we could have just as well been on an omnimover or walked along a path instead to get the attraction's message. Also, even IF the boats were out of place what does that have to do with the fact that I find the oceans scene not square with the land theme?>> ^^ That was just my, I guess, fatal attempt at sarcasm. I completely understand what you mean..I just don't think that the ocean or coastline is out of place or not a piece of "The Land" puzzle. Like you said, Living With The Land is about our interaction with the environment, and I think it's safe to say that the ocean fits into the category of environment..so I do not think that particular scene takes away from the attraction's overall message. I think it's also safe to say that this topic is getting nowhere and fast
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Again, and again, that's you. You are not the typical guest. Most people ride attractions because they derive some sort of enjoyment from them. Most children rather ride POTC then eat at the California Grill. To make these kind of assumptions strictly based on your on habits, and apply them to the country at large is a little too much.>> I don't know that your presumed knowledge of what the average visitor likes is necessarily any better than my knowledge of what I like (though if you have access to rider statistics you obviously would have better knowledge than I). All I know (and again, this is my experience) is that during my WDW visits in the early 90’s I generally waited about 45 minutes to go on POTC. I can't think of one time in the past 4-5 years when I've waited more than 10-15 minutes. Many times it has been a walk-on. Everyone naturally thinks their own assumptions are better than anyone else’s, but I’m not sure that yours are necessarily better than mine, though I certainly accept the possibility they may be.
Originally Posted By danyoung >To make these kind of assumptions strictly based on your on habits, and apply them to the country at large is a little too much.< C'mon, be fair, Chi - you're doing exactly the same thing. And so am I. All we can do is use our own experience, both in the parks and absorbing whatever we can read, and extrapolate what we think people will do or how attractions will fare. And that's why I say it's conjecture time. There's no way for you or anybody else to predict with any accuracy what Soarin' will be doing 7 or 8 years from now. All we can do is make assumptions.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>All I know (and again, this is my experience) is that during my WDW visits in the early 90’s I generally waited about 45 minutes to go on POTC. I can't think of one time in the past 4-5 years when I've waited more than 10-15 minutes. Many times it has been a walk-on.<< Were you going in January in the early 90's too? That might have something to do with it. Even if you were, I think we are really in the weeds and parsing if you are going to argue that rides like ToT, POTC, or Space Mountain are not more popular over time than attractions like Star Tours, Flight to the Moon, Circlevision, Soarin'. No doubt that Soarin' is currently popular, my point is to what things will look like 10 years from now.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>C'mon, be fair, Chi - you're doing exactly the same thing.<< I guess it would look that way, but I am really trying not to. I always try not to. Personally, I don't care for Port Orleans, but I wouldn't assume that based on my judgment that people feel the same way. Personally, I really marvel at the technology behind UoE. But when speaking in forums like this about theme park dynamics and popular culture I am not going to say, "UoE is great, I saw a person who loved UoE so it is great, When I went to EPCOT I waited 40 minutes for UoE so it is VERY popular. My assumptions and observations may be true, those assumptions and observations may be held by other Joe E. Tourist guests, but I still try to step back, look at the big picture, and say, "UoE needs a lot of help and is not very popular. It is currently not a must see like Turtle Talk." >> There's no way for you or anybody else to predict with any accuracy what Soarin' will be doing 7 or 8 years from now. All we can do is make assumptions.<< And in this regard you are technically correct, but like RT said there are degrees at how good assumptions are. Bill Gates assumption on where the Internet will be in 7 years is going to be better than mine. And while I am no Bill Gates of Disney Geekdom, I would say that almost any person who even has just an outsiders view into these parks would be able to tell you that Soarin' isn't going to be celebrating it's 30th anniversary like POTC did. Which is still fine. It's not designed to. So while I too think Soarin' is fun. While I too see the long lines, I can disattach and be intellectually honest when I say that Soarin' is a short-term A-list attraction. It will be joining the Tiki Room and other such fare in a decade. Just as Tiki Room was an A-list attraction when IT'S technology first debuted. Any body who looks at basic history can tell you this. So using what I have experienced I find it VERY easy to make such an assumption. If people disagree, oh well. All I can say is that it is an assumption not based on what I personally think is good or bad.
Originally Posted By ChiMike I'll try to prove my point. Is there anyone currently reading this right now that can honestly say that Soarin's relevance will last longer than Everest's? Typically, attractions last as long as the effort and creativity that went into them. Rocket Rods, JIYIWIEY, Food Rocks, Dreamflight, Stitch, Discovery River Boats, Superstar Limo, Muholland Madness, Dinorama are, or will be, examples of this. While Soarin' is light years ahead of these examples. It helps support the idea that Everest WILL, imo, last longer and be more cherished than Soarin'
Originally Posted By RoadTrip ^^^ EE is a better attraction than Soarin' today. Of course it will also be so in the future. I think to be fair you would have to compare Soarin' against a non-film attraction of similar quality. The only recent addition I can think of that would qualify would be DCA's Monster's Inc. Personally, I think Monsters will remain popular longer than Soarin'. I may be the only one on these boards to think that however.
Originally Posted By ChiMike What makes it a better attraction? Could it be that the actual ride? That it is on a circuit. That it is real and not simulated? That there are sets and real environments rather then video? That's my whole point. For either Monsters or Everest. I bring up Everest because it was a WDW addition around the same time as Soarin'. But Monsters is another great example. Using the same standards I agree with you. Monsters has a greater longevity. So.... My point is correct in saying that Soarin' is a great supporting character in the show that is Disney. It is probably not wise for Disney to make more of these attractions available within the same resort. It's an assumption, but I think a very good one.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<There's no way for you or anybody else to predict with any accuracy what Soarin' will be doing 7 or 8 years from now. All we can do is make assumptions.>> FWIW, DCA's Soarin' is five years old, and still very popular. Somehow I doubt it's going to have a major dropoff in ridership in just two years. But I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Originally Posted By ChiMike Sure .. and when Midway Mania or Cars or Incredibles opens it'll be a different story. With what DCA, even today, still offers in attraction line-up it's no surprise that it is still a top attraction. A much different dynamic than what is occuring within WDW. From only observations I would suggest that the DCA Soarin' is still seeing more first timers than repeat APers since DCA got off to a slow start. The same can't be said about EPCOT.
