Originally Posted By Mr X Well, you bring up a fair enough point William but as for the 1955 stuff it's my understanding that they just couldn't pull off everything for opening day and Tomorrowland ended up suffering most for it (something Walt took care of several years later with the "Tomorrow on the Move" idea which was fantastic...I believe that was in 1959 iirc?)...s As for that Ladies fabrics thing from the mid-60's, I've got no retort...yikes!
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 When I think of theme park attractions, I think of my favorite line from the movie Bad Santa.... "They all can't be winners, son"
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Still would prefer for the original, edutainment slant than another fey offering of Disney synergy (somebody please pass the bucket). Sorry, modern Disney sucks harder than a Dyson.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Dave, there was just as much synergy back then.... Nearly every attraction built was related to something else, just nowadays the synergy seems to be focused on toons only...
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Ok, point taken. But like ifd one only ever ate ice cream, the sweetness of it has made me sick and I don't want to buy it anymore.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Yeah, but eventually they will run out of toons and have to come up with something original....... we hope....
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Still would prefer for the original, edutainment slant than another fey offering of Disney synergy (somebody please pass the bucket). >> This is what competition has brought to the marketplace. Disney used to be able to set their own standards, but now you have Universal, Knott's, and Six Flags all barfing up things that are branded with characters and movie drivel. Nobody takes risks on anything original anymore.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <or the DLP version of Mermaid (as opposed to the DCA version)> Since the former only exists as a concept video AFAIK, and the latter does not exist yet, how are you so certain that one is better than the other? Unlike a lot of people, I didn't find the concept video of LM all that - more like a souped up FaL dark ride. Nothing wrong with that, but nothing that really floated my boat. <something Walt took care of several years later with the "Tomorrow on the Move" idea which was fantastic...I believe that was in 1959 iirc?)...s> That was 1967. The 1959 expansion of TL and FaL brought the subs, the monorail, the FaL Autopia, the Motor Boat Cruise, and the Matterhorn.
Originally Posted By Hista98 I don't see a problem with matterhorn. I think it fits the look of Fantasyland just fine. it's a euro village. And I mean you can see it form anywhere in the park so there is no way to avoid that.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<I didn't find the concept video of LM all that - more like a souped up FaL dark ride. Nothing wrong with that, but nothing that really floated my boat.>> Same here - and it sounds like the ride at DCA will be much more extensive, with fully realized sets and audio-animatronics. While I'm dissapointed that we are getting yet another attraction themed to an animated movie, at least this one will be E-Ticket quality!
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "Unlike a lot of people, I didn't find the concept video of LM all that - more like a souped up FaL dark ride. Nothing wrong with that, but nothing that really floated my boat." Was it even all that souped up? I would've loved it in Fantasyland, say, as a replacement for Toad (that ride is too flat). The coming version does sound better though.
Originally Posted By Hista98 Was it even all that souped up? I would've loved it in Fantasyland, say, as a replacement for Toad (that ride is too flat). The coming version does sound better though. It would have been too small too acomidate this ride. also the building is too old.
Originally Posted By 2001DLFan WilliamK99 "I love how some people are complaining about this ride, asking for more originality from WDI, and davewasbaloo, you said you wish you were born 30 years ago, to experience Disney at it's finest? Well I present to you the following attractions courtesy of Yesterland <a href="http://www.yesterland.com/futu...use.html" target="_blank">http://www.yesterland.com/futu...use.html</a> Hall of Aluminum Fame (1955-1965) Visit the exhibit where Kaiser Aluminum teaches you about... Kaiser Aluminum. Bathroom of Tomorrow (1956-1965) Presented by Crane. Fashions and Fabrics Through the Ages (1965-1966) See the history of women#146;s attire from the stone age to the space age in this exhibit by Monsanto. So yes, Disney did had some stinkers back then and low budget , attractions that make no sense...." Well, davewasbalo indicted that he wished he was "born 30 years ago, to experience Disney at it's finest". Your examples were in the 40-50 year range when the park was still in it's initial growing and developing phase. Disneyl;and's quality had pretty much been established by the 70's-80's.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo William was in the right time frame. Had I been born 30 years earlier I would have been a teen when world on the move opened. I would have ridden the mule pack. And been around when NOS was coming to life. Instead the last 5-10 years has been: 10 print "insert toon" 20 print "insert toon" 30 print "insert thrill" 40 print "insert toon" 50 goto 10
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Instead the last 5-10 years has been: 10 print "insert toon" 20 print "insert toon" 30 print "insert thrill" 40 print "insert toon" 50 goto 10*** There are certainly many exceptions to that, though. You could say Mission:Space = "thrill", but I find it more a "wow" and educational (to a point), plus they have a no motion version that is neither toon nor thrill. Add to that... *20,000 Leagues Under the Sea *Sindbad *Soarin *Jungle Cruise at HKDL (different enough that I consider it an entirely new experience). Not saying you aren't MOSTLY right, but I would say they manage to avoid the dreaded formula now and again (I would almost argue for Everest and Journey as well, though they both are thrill rides to be sure they are also very highly themed, maxed out Disney experiences that appeal to many and are not "hyper-thrill" sorts of experiences that can't be enjoyed by most folks).
Originally Posted By Hista98 Am I the only one who thinks the Little Mermaid ride maybe is a little too close the Nemo ride at Epcot? Then again, they still built TSMM despite having Buzz. How is it anything like Nemo Dae, This does not use projections or glass plate screens or cartoons in real sets. It uses real 3D physical sets and full AA's Just cause it's an omni mover doesn't mean it's anything like Nemo. Thats like saying Imagionation is a carbon copy of Haunted Mansion. They are totally diffrent, so what if it uses the same ride system. plus even if it is similar, nemo is at Epcot Hundreds of miles away from Disneyland.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <*Jungle Cruise at HKDL (different enough that I consider it an entirely new experience).> I'm curious about this; how is it different? Is it something the older parks could use to update their JC's? I mean, I know it's a classic, but these days what was once the ultimate E-ticket is seeming kind of quaint, and if you don't get a good skipper, it's not so good.
Originally Posted By barboy I remember it travels a much wider river and uses much more detailed sets including some geysers and lava/smoldering rock formations. HK Jungle Cruise relies on the same themes as seen in the US but just takes it to a new and exciting level, truly a super enhanced version.
Originally Posted By barboy I forgot if HK had red piranas like Ananheim--- X, SuperDry, Roger55 or World Disney do you know about that? Maybe you know, Spirit?
Originally Posted By FerretAfros If we're concerned about things overlapping, I think we should think about The Little Mermaid and the Subs. They are a lot closer together geographically, and from my understanding will be a lot more similar in scope. I'm sure many of the effects will be copied, and there's really no way around that. However, I have no doubt that they will be presented in a unique enough format that people don't even connect them as being the same. If they use similar underwater illusions in both attractions, I see it as no different than using Pepper's Ghost in the Haunted Mansion and Pinocchio's Daring Journey. Both attractions use it to advance the story and tell you about the characters, but I never think of the other when I'm on the attraction itself. "I don't see a problem with matterhorn. I think it fits the look of Fantasyland just fine. it's a euro village. And I mean you can see it form anywhere in the park so there is no way to avoid that." The only difference is that when the Matterhorn was built, it was considered part of Tomorrowland (I believe that lasted through the early 70's). Also, Fantasyland was much less of a European village than it is now, and more of a castle-based traveling fair look. It looked very temporary, and having a giant mountain next to it didn't really make any sense. As it's done now, it does make a lot more sense, as it is intended to be a part of the European village. That's one of those things that has been worked around to make the whole area better, even though it didn't fit originally, like how iasw has its own little mini-land back there.
