PDA

View Full Version : Opinions on the "El Rio Del Tiempo" theme.


Ariel Mae
03-07-2007, 06:01 PM
I am pissed about it.

No, I'm so mad, I refuse to go on it.

Donald Duck? Sure, it's Mexican, but...okay, cute for kids, but what was wrong with "El Rio"? I loved "El Rio". Sure, the videos were old and in need of update, but the ride was cute, relaxing, calm, and adorable.

Mickmse2002
03-07-2007, 06:11 PM
I am pissed about it.

No, I'm so mad, I refuse to go on it.

Donald Duck? Sure, it's Mexican, but...okay, cute for kids, but what was wrong with "El Rio"? I loved "El Rio". Sure, the videos were old and in need of update, but the ride was cute, relaxing, calm, and adorable.

Why so upset?

Cobra B.
03-07-2007, 06:34 PM
Have to agree. Loved it too. DD hums that song all the time. She's gonna be crushed.

kribit
03-07-2007, 07:14 PM
The music is cute...perhaps they'll leave it.

Epcot242
03-07-2007, 07:24 PM
I agree. But does anyone know to what degree they changed the boat ride? I was thinking that they kept it the same but just had a movie before it and just tossed Donald Duck in a few sections of the boat ride. They better not lose the song though, or change it to have DD sing it. It's such a classic. Plus, it was nice that it never had a line, even in the busiest of times. Now it'll probably be a decent wait to get on, which isn't bad for Disney, but for us El Rio fans?

But who knows, maybe it'll be good? :confused3

Another Voice
03-07-2007, 07:29 PM
Why so upset?
A land of amazing beauty - from lush rain forests filled with increadible creatures to deserts the drop right into seas filled with hammerhead sharks and giant squid.

A land with cultures ancient, dating back thousands of years, mysterious and little known to North Americans - yet so advanced their cities drawfed London, Paris and Rome at the time.

A land with a troubled history, but a mix of cultures from all over the world - each with its own meaning and traditions. A culture that held influnece over a third of the current United States, a culture that now represents the largerst immirgrant group in the U.S.

And of all of this - of jaguars and jade and pyramids and Cortez and the most populated city on Earth - all of this and Disney could only come up with a cartoon duck from a movie no one's seen in fifty years?!?!?!?!

Once again Disney has proven it can't create anything people want to see. All they can create are commericals to sell plush dolls, trading pins and DVDs.

Mickmse2002
03-08-2007, 06:03 AM
Once again Disney has proven it can't create anything people want to see. All they can create are commericals to sell plush dolls, trading pins and DVDs.


Have you seen the new changes to the attraction yet or is this just premature ranting?

DisneyGirl4188
03-08-2007, 09:14 AM
I'm saving my opinion until I see it.

Honestly though I don't think it could have made the ride any worse. It was in terrible need of updating; I think everyone can agree on that. I do love the "fireworks" so I hope those stayed.

Ariel Mae
03-08-2007, 09:36 AM
Why so upset?

Because "The River of Time" was one of my favorite rides.

Now, it's gone. Like with "Horizons", "World of Motion" and the original "Figment".

Take away the classics, take away the beauty.

Ariel Mae
03-08-2007, 09:37 AM
A land of amazing beauty - from lush rain forests filled with increadible creatures to deserts the drop right into seas filled with hammerhead sharks and giant squid.

A land with cultures ancient, dating back thousands of years, mysterious and little known to North Americans - yet so advanced their cities drawfed London, Paris and Rome at the time.

A land with a troubled history, but a mix of cultures from all over the world - each with its own meaning and traditions. A culture that held influnece over a third of the current United States, a culture that now represents the largerst immirgrant group in the U.S.

And of all of this - of jaguars and jade and pyramids and Cortez and the most populated city on Earth - all of this and Disney could only come up with a cartoon duck from a movie no one's seen in fifty years?!?!?!?!

Once again Disney has proven it can't create anything people want to see. All they can create are commericals to sell plush dolls, trading pins and DVDs.

Well said.

Mickmse2002
03-08-2007, 10:10 AM
A land of amazing beauty - from lush rain forests filled with increadible creatures to deserts the drop right into seas filled with hammerhead sharks and giant squid.

A land with cultures ancient, dating back thousands of years, mysterious and little known to North Americans - yet so advanced their cities drawfed London, Paris and Rome at the time.

A land with a troubled history, but a mix of cultures from all over the world - each with its own meaning and traditions. A culture that held influnece over a third of the current United States, a culture that now represents the largerst immirgrant group in the U.S.

And of all of this - of jaguars and jade and pyramids and Cortez and the most populated city on Earth - all of this and Disney could only come up with a cartoon duck from a movie no one's seen in fifty years?!?!?!?!

Once again Disney has proven it can't create anything people want to see. All they can create are commericals to sell plush dolls, trading pins and DVDs.

And you feel the existing ride exemplified all that?

Another Voice
03-08-2007, 10:52 AM
And you feel the existing ride exemplified all that?
Certainly much more than a cartoon parrot chasing after a cartoon duck to get to a concert - yes.

As much as everyone likes Disney, there are millions and millions of well adjusted, normal, job holding, vacation going adults that don't need to see a brand's character in every facet of their lives. There are normal people out there that enjoy the real world as much as the fantasy world. There are real adults out there that can be entertained above the level of an eight-year old.

That is what Epcot was supposed to be about - Disney quality entertainment for older childern and adults. There is no reason to stick cartoon characters in the Mexico pavilion. Sure, it might please the fans who dress up their cats like Tinker Belle, but for regular people there's enough interesting going on in that country that we don't need the phony, the fake and the cheesy.

Plus, it would also be nice - for a change - to see Disney actually stretch their creative muslces once on a while. Having Donald do pratfalls in Cancun is easy and it's lame. Presenting the Aztec's culture would be a challenge and far, far, far more interesting.

Mickmse2002
03-08-2007, 12:33 PM
As much as everyone likes Disney, there are millions and millions of well adjusted, normal, job holding, vacation going adults that don't need to see a brand's character in every facet of their lives. There are normal people out there that enjoy the real world as much as the fantasy world. There are real adults out there that can be entertained above the level of an eight-year old.
This is a pretty good slam on many Disney patrons. Are you suggesting that I am not one of these well adjusted, normal, job holding, vacation going adults?

Ariel Mae
03-08-2007, 01:46 PM
As much as everyone likes Disney, there are millions and millions of well adjusted, normal, job holding, vacation going adults that don't need to see a brand's character in every facet of their lives. There are normal people out there that enjoy the real world as much as the fantasy world. There are real adults out there that can be entertained above the level of an eight-year old.

Very well said, Voice.

There's one thing in entertaining customers, but there's another in separate entertainment values.

Disney is not, nor was it ever, just for kids. It was a family place.

This puts a childlike atmosphere on the ride. Sure, families can still go upon the ride, but those who will truly enjoy it will be the kids.


Certainly much more than a cartoon parrot chasing after a cartoon duck to get to a concert - yes.

As much as everyone likes Disney, there are millions and millions of well adjusted, normal, job holding, vacation going adults that don't need to see a brand's character in every facet of their lives. There are normal people out there that enjoy the real world as much as the fantasy world. There are real adults out there that can be entertained above the level of an eight-year old.


That is what Epcot was supposed to be about - Disney quality entertainment for older childern and adults. There is no reason to stick cartoon characters in the Mexico pavilion. Sure, it might please the fans who dress up their cats like Tinker Belle, but for regular people there's enough interesting going on in that country that we don't need the phony, the fake and the cheesy.


I doeth agree, again.

Plus, it would also be nice - for a change - to see Disney actually stretch their creative muslces once on a while. Having Donald do pratfalls in Cancun is easy and it's lame. Presenting the Aztec's culture would be a challenge and far, far, far more interesting.

I agree!


And you feel the existing ride exemplified all that?

A duck certainly doesn't.

What's next? Mulan in China?

Aladdin in Morrocco?

HarambeGuy
03-08-2007, 02:32 PM
Very

What's next? Mulan in China?

Aladdin in Morrocco?

Just calibrating my sarcasm meter...you're making a disparaging remark about the face characters meet & greets that already exist, yes?

Ariel Mae
03-08-2007, 09:50 PM
Just calibrating my sarcasm meter...you're making a disparaging remark about the face characters meet & greets that already exist, yes?

Far from it. Those are external features, not always around, not permanent.

What is being done is internal and quite 'permanent', or easily undone, not completely redoing a ride and taking away the classic.

What I meant was, "What's next? Changing the China movie to a scene from Mulan?"

wdwguide
03-08-2007, 11:07 PM
I am pissed about it.

No, I'm so mad, I refuse to go on it.



El Rio grew on me over time. I didn't like it at first and really came to enjoy it. I am also not a huge fan of using Three Horny Birds to headline the new attraction. Still, I will go on it when it opens for three reasons:

- This attraction remake has been in the pipe for something like eight years now if I am not mistaken. That was plenty of time to say goodbye to the old ride.
- Disney's track record on new and remade attractions has been fairly decent lately. For every four, one is a huge hit, two turn out to be a nice addition, and one is a huge screwup. That's much better than it was during the Pressler/Eisner dictatorship.
- Boycotting a single ride isn't going to accomplish anything but deprive me of an experience with an incredibly low opportunity cost (a few minutes of my time) that has a small but significant chance of positively surprising me. If it sucks, complain. Negative feedback prompting negative press is how several Disney flops quickly disappeared from the face of the earth.

raidermatt
03-09-2007, 03:10 AM
We saw Chip and Dale frolicking on Disney's replica of China's Temple of Heaven.

So apparently nothing is off limits.

I don't think I agree with the 1 huge hit, 2 nice addition, 1 huge screwup ratio.

Regardless of how they execute this change, I still have a problem with the concept. There is simply no need for them to have become so reliant on characters, other than a lack of confidence in their own creative ability.

EUROPACL
03-09-2007, 07:23 AM
We saw Chip and Dale frolicking on Disney's replica of China's Temple of Heaven.

So apparently nothing is off limits.



I really don't think there is not a place in WDW where you can't spot Chip and Dale. I'm pretty sure they sold me a hotdog and coke once. I think that its the standard backup costume for employees that need one....CM from Tower of Terror spills something on his shirt on break, no problem give him a Chip and now your Elevator operator is Chip.

cybertheo
03-09-2007, 07:46 AM
I am saving my opinion till I ride the new 'one' as well... However, I loved the old ride. I always called it 'El Rio Del Racist' due to the blantant stereotypes and I thought it was just a hoot. Donald is a good choice because he doesn't speak english very well or much and will be somewhat universal and I have always thought the three caballeros were cute.

Ariel Mae
03-09-2007, 08:48 AM
El Rio grew on me over time. I didn't like it at first and really came to enjoy it. I am also not a huge fan of using Three Horny Birds to headline the new attraction. Still, I will go on it when it opens for three reasons:

*reads*


- This attraction remake has been in the pipe for something like eight years now if I am not mistaken. That was plenty of time to say goodbye to the old ride.

To say goodbye to renditions is one thing, but to say goodbye to say hello to a duck is absurd.


- Disney's track record on new and remade attractions has been fairly decent lately. For every four, one is a huge hit, two turn out to be a nice addition, and one is a huge screwup. That's much better than it was during the Pressler/Eisner dictatorship.

Okay, fair enough.


- Boycotting a single ride isn't going to accomplish anything but deprive me of an experience with an incredibly low opportunity cost (a few minutes of my time) that has a small but significant chance of positively surprising me. If it sucks, complain. Negative feedback prompting negative press is how several Disney flops quickly disappeared from the face of the earth.

Boycotting is a form of negative feedback.

If the flops were to disappear, we'd be seeing the originals, which we are not.

Mickmse2002
03-09-2007, 09:00 AM
I just get amazed by the level of anti-Disney vitriole over something no one has even seen yet. Short of bringing Walt out of his cryogenic stupor is there anything that will be seen as a positive?

EUROPACL
03-09-2007, 09:07 AM
I just get amazed by the level of anti-Disney vitriole over something no one has even seen yet. Short of bringing Walt out of his cryogenic stupor is there anything that will be seen as a positive?

I don't need to eat a poop sandwich to know that it will taste bad.

Mickmse2002
03-09-2007, 09:18 AM
I don't need to eat a poop sandwich to know that it will taste bad.
Thanks for the intelligent reply, helps to prove my point.

Another Voice
03-09-2007, 10:01 AM
So I suppose you see each and every movie that's released into a theater? How do you know you're not going to like the movie until you see it. I evny you all that time - rushing out each Friday and watchin six, seven, eight new movies! You must be so morally superior to the rest of us with your ability not to pre-judge anything.

Entertainment always involves making a judgement before you watch it. That's the whole reason behind movie trailers, movie posters and Entertainmnet Tonight "exclusive" interviews with the bimbo of the weak - they're all designed to give a good impression of the the movie before you see it.

Yes, it's fun to the do the morally upright "don't knock it until you see it" tap dance, but it's not how normal people operate in the world. A huge percentage of the audience isn't interested in seeing a duck wander through Mexico City (unless he was in one of those Mayan heart-ripping-out movies that Disney just made).

But then again, there were lots of people screaming "don't critize California Adventure until to you see it". They turned out to be right - it was far worse than anyone had imagined.

EUROPACL
03-09-2007, 11:29 AM
Thanks for the intelligent reply, helps to prove my point.

Nice to finally talk to someone that Bambi II, Mulan II,Atlantis: Milo's Return were produced for. How many copies of each did you buy? Did you get the snowglobes that go with each one?

Mickmse2002
03-09-2007, 11:33 AM
So I suppose you see each and every movie that's released into a theater? How do you know you're not going to like the movie until you see it. I evny you all that time - rushing out each Friday and watchin six, seven, eight new movies! You must be so morally superior to the rest of us with your ability not to pre-judge anything.

Entertainment always involves making a judgement before you watch it. That's the whole reason behind movie trailers, movie posters and Entertainmnet Tonight "exclusive" interviews with the bimbo of the weak - they're all designed to give a good impression of the the movie before you see it.

Yes, it's fun to the do the morally upright "don't knock it until you see it" tap dance, but it's not how normal people operate in the world. A huge percentage of the audience isn't interested in seeing a duck wander through Mexico City (unless he was in one of those Mayan heart-ripping-out movies that Disney just made).

But then again, there were lots of people screaming "don't critize California Adventure until to you see it". They turned out to be right - it was far worse than anyone had imagined.


I'm sorry you opt to condemn everything Disney does and those who choose to make up their own minds, without taking the time to see for yourself. Do you believe every movie critic or do you use your own mind to make your own decision. So you can continue to take your vitriole out on any poster who doesn't share your view or you can do something novel.....like open your mind to the possibility, however slight, that perhaps your wrong.

Michael623
03-09-2007, 11:36 AM
I think it's kind of funny that this ride has all of a sudden become an untouchable classic. I though the only reason everyone went on this ride is because it is sitting down, out of the sun and the line is always short. I've heard this ride called a lot of things but "classic" isn't the first thing that comes to mind. I understand the point everyone is making about Disney management but come on, this ride is only slightly better than a carnival tunnel of love as it is.

Michael623
03-09-2007, 11:43 AM
A question for AV, when you wrote "bimbo of the weak," was that misspelling an intended pun (which I rather enjoyed) or just a spelling error?

Mickmse2002
03-09-2007, 11:56 AM
Nice to finally talk to someone that Bambi II, Mulan II,Atlantis: Milo's Return were produced for. How many copies of each did you buy? Did you get the snowglobes that go with each one?
Sorry to disappoint but never saw any of them, didn't buy them and don't own a snowglobe. But I am sure am glad a lot of people did to earn the company some nice returns. Old Roy would love the revenue stream.

Mickmse2002
03-09-2007, 12:00 PM
I think it's kind of funny that this ride has all of a sudden become an untouchable classic. I though the only reason everyone went on this ride is because it is sitting down, out of the sun and the line is always short. I've heard this ride called a lot of things but "classic" isn't the first thing that comes to mind. I understand the point everyone is making about Disney management but come on, this ride is only slightly better than a carnival tunnel of love as it is.
Nah, the real issue here isn't the ride or even the changes. The real issue is someone has the audacity to challenge the errant assumptions of frequent posters who perceive themselves as guardians of the "true Disney".

Another Voice
03-09-2007, 12:26 PM
I've heard this ride called a lot of things but "classic" isn't the first thing that comes to mind.
I agree. My comments are because they’re changing “a classic”, only that Disney is taking a cheap and easy out instead of even attempting to make an interesting or better attraction. One of the key attributes of Disney had been the creed to continually improve all of the attractions. Throwing in a cartoon duck feels less of an “improvement” and more of a gimmick.

So you can continue to take your vitriole out on any poster…
Re-read my post. Entertainment follows a different set of rules. A movie, a show, an attracation has too look interesting and enjoyable before you experience – it has to draw in an audience.

My vitriol is directed at Disney because they have chosen a cheap and pointless gimmick (a cartoon duck) to lure in the audience instead of making a true Disney attraction – one that brings in an audience because there is an expectation of seeing something they had never seen before.

Yes, there will be people who want to see the duck. I’m sure there are lots of five year old that will be thrilled by the experience. But toddlers are much easier to entertain than adults; I don’t give brownie points to a company that does the cheap and easy.

Why can’t Disney do something that an adult would find interesting? THEY HAVE AN ENTIRE NATION TO PLAY WITH! Look at what ‘Soaring Over California’! – Why not try something as unique, as interesting as that attraction for Mexico. Are the Maya and the Aztec that much more boring than Napa vineyards? Is the Sea of Cortez less scenic than downtown Los Angeles?

My vitriol is also directed at those who’s only support of Disney seems to be constant demands that everyone lower their expectations. Why shouldn’t we expect a good, a better ride from Disney – they tell us they “make magic”. Yet on the Internet all we hear are demands to shut up and except whatever we’re given.

The "old methods" aren't important because they can from Walt, but because they worked for the business. Sure, they took a lot of hard work and talent to follow - that's why there are so many people opposed to them now. The lure of cheap money is very strong to poor businessmen; it's much easier to bully the consumer than to honestly impress them. That's the attitude that made 'California Adventure', 'Journey Into YOUR Imgaination', 'Stitch Encounter' and others the flops, failures and wastes of resources they are.

I expect more from Disney than film strips of a cartoon duck in a sombrero. People see through con jobs, half heated entertainents, and cheap efforts to raid their wallet. Disney would see far more success from exceeding their guests' expectations than by pandering to them.

P.S. – I wish I could say it was planned, but “weak” was just a typo.

DisneyGirl4188
03-09-2007, 12:48 PM
Do some of you mean to be insulting? I'm stupid because I have my doubts as to whether or not adding Donald is going to ruin this ride?

Mickmse2002
03-09-2007, 12:50 PM
Do some of you mean to be insulting? I'm stupid because I have my doubts as to whether or not adding Donald is going to ruin this ride?
Yes, some here do mean to be insulting. I say good for you for choosing to keep an open mind about these changes.

raidermatt
03-09-2007, 01:21 PM
Do some of you mean to be insulting? I'm stupid because I have my doubts as to whether or not adding Donald is going to ruin this ride?

The problem being pointed out isn't whether any one person will enjoy it or not. That will be a matter of personal taste, and nobody is being insulted for that.

If you want to keep your part in the discussion to that level, that's fine. No, you are not stupid for it.


What's being questioned is the DECISION which has been made. If you do want to engage in a discussion over that decision, you have to get beyond the question of whether or not you will personally like the attraction when you ride it. Otherwise there is absolutely no reason to discuss any rumors since we obviously haven't personally rode the attractions, and any discussion after the fact can only amount to "I liked it." "I didn't like it."

What IS being insulted is the IDEA that you cannot form opinions about how and why decisions are made.

Think about it. If the president decides to go to war, should all debate be shut off until we find out how the war turns out?

(insert joke here)

The how's and why's of the decision are far more important than the end result. A bad process is still going to yield good results sometimes. But if the only focus is on the result, and the process is off limits, how do you ever address the problem.

But again, if you don't care to get into all of that, and you just want to ride attractions and see if you like them, that's fine. It's just that's not what the debate is about.

EUROPACL
03-09-2007, 01:30 PM
Sorry to disappoint but never saw any of them, didn't buy them and don't own a snowglobe. But I am sure am glad a lot of people did to earn the company some nice returns. Old Roy would love the revenue stream.

Wow so the quality of the product really dosen't matter to you as long as Disney makes money off of it. Wow...just Wow!. So is this concern for Disney profits tied to your job posting here or a large amount of stock that you own?

Mickmse2002
03-09-2007, 01:37 PM
Wow so the quality of the product really dosen't matter to you as long as Disney makes money off of it. Wow...just Wow!. So is this concern for Disney profits tied to your job posting here or a large amount of stock that you own?
Of course quality matters to me and I have never posted anything to the contrary. Your idea of what quality is and the opinions of others may differ dramatically. Doesn't make you right, doesn't make you wrong. To demean others for enjoying these products is rude and insulting.

YoHo
03-09-2007, 01:53 PM
Nobody is demeaning others for what they enjoy. Nobody has and nobody will.

We're discussing whether Disney is proceeding with a correct corporate culture, whether it's doing things for the right reasons in the right way.

EUROPACL
03-09-2007, 01:57 PM
Of course quality matters to me and I have never posted anything to the contrary. Your idea of what quality is and the opinions of others may differ dramatically. Doesn't make you right, doesn't make you wrong. To demean others for enjoying these products is rude and insulting.

Only people looking to be insulted are insulted. Many people "enjoy" plenty of stuff that I consider crap, bad, poor quality, discusting even (considering some of the videos you can buy-read: Adult) and that is their choice and if they want to toot their horns over how great Peter Pan IV is.... that's fine. I still get to put my two cents in the mix as well. You seemed to skip over the point that AV,myself and others are trying to make. If you're not allowed to prejudge anything then how do you find the time to sample every movie, DTVD, ride, attraction, new restraunt, .... or any other product that Disney puts out?

Mickmse2002
03-09-2007, 02:11 PM
Only people looking to be insulted are insulted. Many people "enjoy" plenty of stuff that I consider crap, bad, poor quality, discusting even (considering some of the videos you can buy-read: Adult) and that is their choice and if they want to toot their horns over how great Peter Pan IV is.... that's fine. I still get to put my two cents in the mix as well. You seemed to skip over the point that AV,myself and others are trying to make. If you're not allowed to prejudge anything then how do you find the time to sample every movie, DTVD, ride, attraction, new restraunt, .... or any other product that Disney puts out?
On the first point you are incorrect. People can be insulted without looking to be insulted and continuing to say the same thing over and over doesn't make it true.

I never skipped over the point you and others are trying to prove. I think if you actually go back my very first post was an honest question as to what was so wrong. I still haven't seen any cogent arguments that this was a bad cfreative or business decision. I think there is a tendency among many regulars here to not have an open mind. That's why I challenge the way I do in some posts. At least have the intellectual honesty to actually consider someone else's point of view befor eyou accuse them of being part of the "snowglobe set".

And of course everyone can prejudge things, we call that human nature. But you also have to be smart enough to consider the source of either criticism or glowing endorsements and make decisions based on fact.

Is adding Donald Duck to a poorly conceived, tired attraction a bad business or creative decision? I don't know.

YoHo
03-09-2007, 02:30 PM
What makes you think El Rio Del Tiempo was poorly conceived to begin with?

Mickmse2002
03-09-2007, 02:35 PM
What makes you think El Rio Del Tiempo was poorly conceived to begin with?
Good question. I always thought it had the feel of a cheap knock-off of It's A Small World and the aprt with the street vendor trying to hawk wares wasn't that great of an idea, I think it pandered to stereotypes. I rode the thing every time I go as it's a great sit-down, air-conditioned break from the heat.

Another Voice
03-09-2007, 02:56 PM
A.
Any form of entertainment must be appealing on its surface to attract an audience. People make choices about how they will spend their time and money; people don’t randomly select a movie to see, they go see one they think (based on what they’ve seen and heard) is the one most interesting to them. It could be the story, it could an actor, it could be any number of reasons – but there is a “hook” there to draw in the audience.

B.
Disney has an attraction at Epcot that shows off the culture and history of Mexico. They have selected to use Donald Duck as the “hook” to make the show appealing to the audience.

C.
I believe this is a poor artistic choice that will weaken the show for several reasons:

- Donald Duck has nothing to do with Mexico, save for a single appearance in a WWII propaganda film that few have seen and was mainly about “South America” instead of Mexico anyway.

- I think there are more adults interested in the real Mexico than those wanting another brand experience with a cartoon character.

- Mexico as a subject is filled with truly amazing elements. Any of those would have made a more interesting and exciting attraction that anything one can do with a cartoon duck.

- Centering the show on an existing character is artistically cowardly. It would have been more challenging to present Mexico itself instead of using it merely as a backdrop.

- Disney has built its reputation on innovative and one-of-a-kind presentations. Lots of people have created travelogues of California, but only Disney could create an experience like ‘Soaring’. That attraction has proved immensely popular. Unique attractions are not only better shows, but they are a better business investment.


D.
I have no special love of ‘Rio’, but I expect Disney to at least try to improve an attraction rather than simply change it. That too has been a tradition at Disney. But in recent years we have seen an emphasis not on presenting better shows, but on shows that highlight Disney characters and merchandise. These shows have been of indifferent quality; that only leads me to suspect the real reason behind decisions being made.

E.
As a consumer of Disney products, I expect more from Disney than I do their competitors. I am willing to pay their premium if I my expectations are met.

F.
Instead, I am being told my expectations are not important. That I should accept what ever the company offers to me. Only after I have purchased the item or entertainment am I allowed to think about its appeal. The “try it, you might like it” rationale might work when you’re trying to get a eight year old to eat broccoli, but it doesn’t not work on Joe and Ethel Tourist trying to decided on their $1,600 “affordable” vacation.



For Disney to be successful, it must "wow" guests again. It's not a matter of the budget or the size of the ride - it's the talent, the imagine, the thought that goes into it. Inserting Donald into a ride doesn't take a lot of thought nor does it take a lot of effort. People can see that even on the surface.

Disney used to be able to do so much more. It would be nice to see them try agian, even on a small boat ride in World Showcase.

Mickmse2002
03-09-2007, 03:14 PM
Any form of entertainment must be appealing on its surface to attract an audience. People make choices about how they will spend their time and money; people don’t randomly select a movie to see, they go see one they think (based on what they’ve seen and heard) is the one most interesting to them. It could be the story, it could an actor, it could be any number of reasons – but there is a “hook” there to draw in the audience.

ok, got that.


Disney has an attraction at Epcot that shows off the culture and history of Mexico. They have selected to use Donald Duck as the “hook” to make the show appealing to the audience..

Which attraction is that?


I believe this is a poor artistic choice that will weaken the show for several reasons:

- Donald Duck has nothing to do with Mexico, save for a single appearance in a WWII propaganda film that few have seen and was mainly about “South America” instead of Mexico anyway.

- I think there are more adults interested in the real Mexico than those wanting another brand experience with a cartoon character.

- Mexico as a subject is filled with truly amazing elements. Any of those would have made a more interesting and exciting attraction that anything one can do with a cartoon duck.

- Centering the show on an existing character is artistically cowardly. It would have been more challenging to present Mexico itself instead of using it merely as a backdrop.

- Disney has built its reputation on innovative and one-of-a-kind presentations. Lots of people have created travelogues of California, but only Disney could create an experience like ‘Soaring’. That attraction has proved immensely popular. Unique attractions are not only better shows, but they are a better business investment..

I wonder how many people at an amusement are really interested in the "true" Mexico? I bet not many.



I have no special love of ‘Rio’, but I expect Disney to at least try to improve an attraction rather than simply change it. That too has been a tradition at Disney. But in recent years we have seen an emphasis not on presenting better shows, but on shows that highlight Disney characters and merchandise. These shows have been of indifferent quality; that only leads me to suspect the real reason behind decisions being made..

I don't think they are sitting around looking to change attractions without giving thought to "improvement".


As a consumer of Disney products, I expect more from Disney than I do their competitors. I am willing to pay their premium if I my expectations are met..

I am too, but many are not. Look on these boards at all the posts that exist to beat Disney on prices. Many, many consumers want a bargain and are not willing to pay for quality.


Instead, I am being told my expectations are not important. That I should accept what ever the company offers to me. Only after I have purchased the item or entertainment am I allowed to think about its appeal. The “try it, you might like it” rationale might work when you’re trying to get a eight year old to eat broccoli, but it doesn’t not work on Joe and Ethel Tourist trying to decided on their $1,600 “affordable” vacation..

But you have to agree that Disney excels at marketing and us diehards may not respond to the current promotion but in todays Walmart world I bet it works.



For Disney to be successful, it must "wow" guests again. It's not a matter of the budget or the size of the ride - it's the talent, the imagine, the thought that goes into it. Inserting Donald into a ride doesn't take a lot of thought nor does it take a lot of effort. People can see that even on the surface.

Disney used to be able to do so much more. It would be nice to see them try agian, even on a small boat ride in World Showcase.

EUROPACL
03-09-2007, 03:20 PM
And of course everyone can prejudge things, we call that human nature. But you also have to be smart enough to consider the source of either criticism or glowing endorsements and make decisions based on fact.


Treating opinion as fact makes zero sense.

[quote]

Is adding Donald Duck to a poorly conceived, tired attraction a bad business or creative decision? I don't know.

Thats the whole point some of us already know and we don't need to taste the poop sandwich.

Mickmse2002
03-09-2007, 03:25 PM
[QUOTE=Mickmse2002;17467331]
And of course everyone can prejudge things, we call that human nature. But you also have to be smart enough to consider the source of either criticism or glowing endorsements and make decisions based on fact.


Treating opinion as fact makes zero sense.



Thats the whole point some of us already know and we don't need to taste the poop sandwich.
Well maybe some day, if we're lucky, we can achieve the same level of all-knowing consciousness that you have. You have a terrible burden in life to bear, knowing how to run the Disney company better then anyone else. You get my vote to replace Iger.

EUROPACL
03-09-2007, 03:36 PM
[QUOTE=EUROPACL;17468633]
Well maybe some day, if we're lucky, we can achieve the same level of all-knowing consciousness that you have. You have a terrible burden in life to bear, knowing how to run the Disney company better then anyone else. You get my vote to replace Iger.

I douobt you will... anyone that seems to think that Disney stamp stands for quality or at least is paid to say so will never reach that level. I can tell you for sure that if I were running the company it would not be pushing , direct to video crap, bad movies, cheap attractions to keep the season ticket holders out of Guest services, plush dolls and cheap marketing of something that Disney use to do as a regular part of the day.

raidermatt
03-09-2007, 04:10 PM
I don't disagree with what AV is saying, but for me, it comes down to an even simpler reason. Here are my non-cogent comments from the last Rio thread where this was discussed:

I'm saying that there are other reasons to try to create attractions that do not rely on character tie-ins, and those reasons should outweigh the plusses of using characters in every section of every park, as is quickly becoming the case.

Looking at it another way, its not about whether Nemo's Living Seas is "good", for example. Its about whether character tie-ins make sense given a park's or land's "charter", and given the need for variety across the resort.


Since then, I realized there's another irony to this. On the one hand Disney is still trying to capture those family members who think Disney is kids stuff (pre-teens, teens, young adults, macho dads), and on the other they are sending armies of the very source of that kid's stuff, characters, out into attractions in every land of every park.

I wonder how many people at an amusement are really interested in the "true" Mexico? I bet not many.
Depends on how its presented. Disney always knew that entertainment came first, education second. But that didn't mean it was wise to skip the education (perhaps discovery is a better word).

Remember, despite long periods of little to no investment, Epcot remained WDW's 2nd most popular park, even as the supposedly smarter Disney built two more parks. Despite stagnant attractions and pavilions, people STILL chose to go there over MGM's thrills and ABC synergy, and AK's supposedly better approach to education/entertainment.


Note that all of this has absolutely nothing to do with how they execute a particular ride, which is why its we can legitimately discuss Rio/Gran without worrying about whether anybody has actually been on it.

Sure, if they do it well, poeple will like it. If they do a poor job, it'll be a complete waste of money. But the issues being discussed are bigger than that. A well-executed attraction that keeps with WS's vision is better for the park and resort overall than a well-excuted character driven attraction in WS.

Of course, it's also harder to do...

MrsJackSparrow
03-09-2007, 04:27 PM
I really hope they retain three elements of the original attraction:

1. The opening phrase "Ahhh, Mexico" :sunny:

2. The cheesy swim-up bar scene where it looks like the guy is naked :scared1:

and

3. That fabulous song in the ending scene. :dance3:

raidermatt
03-09-2007, 04:31 PM
2. The cheesy swim-up bar scene where it looks like the guy is naked

For some reason, I just don't think nature boy is gonna make the cut.

raidermatt
03-09-2007, 04:32 PM
But, keep in mind that Donald doesn't wear pants...

Another Voice
03-09-2007, 05:09 PM
I wonder how many people at an amusement are really interested in the "true" Mexico? I bet not many.
Yes, all those mega cruise ships lined up in Cancun are there for the great south-of-the-boarder deals you can get on Donald Duck plush.

I don't think they are sitting around looking to change attractions without giving thought to "improvement".
Go watch ‘Stitch Encounter’ and get back to us, okay?

But you have to agree that Disney excels at marketing
Yes – ever since they opened Disney’s California Adventure the freeways around here are packed. I mean, it’s damn hard to get through the traffic that’s headed to the park. But look who I’m talking to – the mobs that storm Epcot’s gate every morning to get to ‘Mission: Space’ – it’s like those crazy times back when Chicken Little caused all those riots in the theaters. Seriously, if Disney had only called everyone on their ESPN Mobile cell phone, the crowds would have been as well behaved as the guests at the Disney Institute. Or if they had just put a banner on the GO.com homepage – I mean everyone visits there first time in the morning. How else are we going find when the next epidsode of The Jason Alexander Show is going to be on mega-rated ABC Family?

You’re so correct – marketing is much more important than quality anytime.


You have a terrible burden in life to bear, knowing how to run the Disney company better then anyone else.
The quality of my life makes up for the pain, thank you. Unlike Disney executives, I don’t have to sit in a theater at the premiere of The Santa Claus 3 with the knowledge I have helped bring that into the world.

Nor do I have to waste moments of my life watching film loops of a cartoon duck run from screen to screen chasing after a run away burro.

mrsR123
03-09-2007, 05:55 PM
for the diet pepsi all over my keyboard! :lmao:


"Yes – ever since they opened Disney’s California Adventure the freeways around here are packed. I mean, it’s damn hard to get through the traffic that’s headed to the park. But look who I’m talking to – the mobs that storm Epcot’s gate every morning to get to ‘Mission: Space’ – it’s like those crazy times back when Chicken Little caused all those riots in the theaters. Seriously, if Disney had only called everyone on their ESPN Mobile cell phone, the crowds would have been as well behaved as the guests at the Disney Institute. Or if they had just put a banner on the GO.com homepage – I mean everyone visits there first time in the morning. How else are we going find when the next epidsode of The Jason Alexander Show is going to be on mega-rated ABC Family?

You’re so correct – marketing is much more important than quality anytime."

You've nailed it again. (But what about that Character Caravan hotel lobby experience I asked for?)

tjlovespooh
03-09-2007, 07:21 PM
I'm not going to debate anything here, I probably won't even check this thread out again, but I just wanted to give my OPINION about "El Rio Del Tiempo".
IMHO DW is an amusement park, a place to go for fun, many of us bringing children. That being said, although EPCOT is supposed to encompass a more "educational" perspective one must remember that this ride is just that - a ride! I mean it's disney, should you expect to go and recieve a history lesson, or do you expect to see your 5yo laughing at donald duck? If you seek the former then perhaps you should research where to find a good museum and if you're in search of the latter then GO TO DISNEY WORLD:thumbsup2

EUROPACL
03-09-2007, 07:52 PM
for the diet pepsi all over my keyboard! :lmao:


"Yes – ever since they opened Disney’s California Adventure the freeways around here are packed. I mean, it’s damn hard to get through the traffic that’s headed to the park. But look who I’m talking to – the mobs that storm Epcot’s gate every morning to get to ‘Mission: Space’ – it’s like those crazy times back when Chicken Little caused all those riots in the theaters. Seriously, if Disney had only called everyone on their ESPN Mobile cell phone, the crowds would have been as well behaved as the guests at the Disney Institute. Or if they had just put a banner on the GO.com homepage – I mean everyone visits there first time in the morning. How else are we going find when the next epidsode of The Jason Alexander Show is going to be on mega-rated ABC Family?

You’re so correct – marketing is much more important than quality anytime."

You've nailed it again. (But what about that Character Caravan hotel lobby experience I asked for?)


The best one yet is that ad they've been running for Year of a Million fastpasses and Mouse Ears marketing thing they've got now...

"$1,600 is that for all 4 of us" ....."gosh no honey.... one of the kids is going to have to stay in a foster home while the other gets to go with us after all we need at least one kid for Child Swap".

raidermatt
03-10-2007, 02:49 AM
I mean it's disney, should you expect to go and recieve a history lesson, or do you expect to see your 5yo laughing at donald duck? If you seek the former then perhaps you should research where to find a good museum and if you're in search of the latter then GO TO DISNEY WORLD:thumbsup2

My kids laugh on the playground at the local park.

Guess Disney should have put that in the Mexico pavilion.

Heck, they laugh at me when I wear a Donald Duck shirt.

Guess Disney should put ME in the pavilion.

angelmav
03-10-2007, 09:52 AM
I am a little shocked by some of the vitriol being expressed here. This is a pretty lame ride that is not a draw. Are there two more bashed rides than this and maelstrom? Well besides stitch, the fact of the matter is that they need better draws in world showcase, if Donald is the hook that leads to this becoming a decent ride and pulling a few more visitors over to the mexico pavillion, then that is good for the entire park as a whole.

cristen
03-10-2007, 11:42 AM
I mean it's disney, should you expect to go and recieve a history lesson, or do you expect to see your 5yo laughing at donald duck? If you seek the former then perhaps you should research where to find a good museum and if you're in search of the latter then GO TO DISNEY WORLD


You're right. Walt was an idiot for putting in Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln.

I was just reading this today, maybe you should too. I really don't know why you can't have both.

http://www.matterhorn1959.com/blog1/lincoln17.jpg

NeverEnufWDW
03-10-2007, 02:37 PM
Here's a simple solution for the OP. Don't do the new ride. Don't even go to the Mexico pavilion. Hell, don't even go to Epcot. You'd be one less person taking the enjoyment out of my vacation.

TheDogbots
03-10-2007, 04:41 PM
i got tired of skimming through the "You suck" posts... some good points in there... but we don't really need to be lashing out at other posters to get our points through... anyway... sorry if i repeat something on page 4 , which is where i stopped reading and just posted.


I agree with AV... Why not do something more artistically challenging than showing Donald with Mexican backdrops? The amount of different cultures Mexico has could make a ride as long as IASW... There is no need for a "Mickey Mouse" version of Mexico. We don't need to dumb down a country... And whoever said that most guests don't want to see the "True" Mexico anyway... what the heck are they in World Showcase for?

Although, I do see why Disney may have added Donald... it gets away from the initial idea to make a more adult park, but it gives reasons for smaller children to want to go to world showcase... a horrible reason, but i think that it could have had something to do with the change. oh yeah... not to mention the darn donald plushes that will sell like hotcakes...

Boycotting rides will not work, enough people will ride it that it won't matter. Look at the lines for Stich on normal days. Despite what the majority of Disboard people say about the ride.... enough people do go on it to make it a good way to capture crowds, and to draw people to the park.

TheDogbots
03-10-2007, 05:00 PM
You're right. Walt was an idiot for putting in Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln.

I was just reading this today, maybe you should too. I really don't know why you can't have both.

http://www.matterhorn1959.com/blog1/lincoln17.jpg


do you have the top link of that? i would like to know what that is from... I am giving a paper on Disney's influence on how we perceive history next weekend, and would love to find what that source is, since its a direct quote.

____

also... defending that point... as any biography of Walt says, even the negative ones, Walt had always had an interest in edutainment.

dunnhorn
03-10-2007, 05:08 PM
[QUOTE=Ariel Mae;
What's next? Mulan in China?

Aladdin in Morrocco?[/QUOTE]


Wow, these are great ideas....:wizard:

dunnhorn
03-10-2007, 05:11 PM
[/QUOTE=Ariel Mae;17460791]



Boycotting is a form of negative feedback.

[/QUOTE]


I'm not sure Disney would notice if anyone boycotted the ride. The last time we rode it, nobody was in line. I rode it 3x with DD and DS without getting off.

dunnhorn
03-10-2007, 05:14 PM
I don't need to eat a poop sandwich to know that it will taste bad.


Let me see if I got this straight... we're all WDW fans and NOW we're worried about cheese?

cristen
03-10-2007, 11:43 PM
do you have the top link of that?


http://matterhorn1959.blogspot.com/

It is someone's blog. Every Saturday he posts Disneyland's SOP's. This one happened to be on Mr. Lincoln.

EUROPACL
03-11-2007, 09:11 AM
Let me see if I got this straight... we're all WDW fans and NOW we're worried about cheese?

What?? Can you dumb that down for me.

lewis_family
03-11-2007, 01:28 PM
All of this is kinda funny for this reason. In 2004 I learned that Mexico was the orgianl place Pirates of the Caribbean was suppose to be placed. As most know, when Disney opened in 1971, they had no plans to build a Pirates ride in the Magic Kingdom, but at the same time desgins were in place for Pirates to be a part of Epcot. The very very very very early design stages that took place for Mexico were for Pirates to be placed there. As carzy as this sound, if you think about it hard enough it makes sense.

DancingBear
03-11-2007, 01:55 PM
That really doesn't sound right. Pirates opened at WDW in 1973. How far along were the plans for Epcot's Mexico pavillion at the point when they decided to put Pirates into MK?

YoHo
03-11-2007, 02:29 PM
IMHO DW is an amusement park, a place to go for fun, many of us bringing children.

If Walt were alive, he probably would have started crying if he heard you say this.

You need to learn some Disneyland/Disney World history if you think it's "Just" and amusment park. And your comments about Epcot fly in the face of what the people that BUILT EPCOT have said.

YoHo
03-11-2007, 02:31 PM
I am a little shocked by some of the vitriol being expressed here. This is a pretty lame ride that is not a draw. Are there two more bashed rides than this and maelstrom? Well besides stitch, the fact of the matter is that they need better draws in world showcase, if Donald is the hook that leads to this becoming a decent ride and pulling a few more visitors over to the mexico pavillion, then that is good for the entire park as a whole.

The MAelstrom is Awesome and Always has been. I rode it the first year it was open. I KEEL YOU FOR DISPARAGING IT!!!!!!!!!!!


(How's that for Vitriol?)

YoHo
03-11-2007, 02:37 PM
All of this is kinda funny for this reason. In 2004 I learned that Mexico was the orgianl place Pirates of the Caribbean was suppose to be placed. As most know, when Disney opened in 1971, they had no plans to build a Pirates ride in the Magic Kingdom, but at the same time desgins were in place for Pirates to be a part of Epcot. The very very very very early design stages that took place for Mexico were for Pirates to be placed there. As carzy as this sound, if you think about it hard enough it makes sense.

This isn't possible, the MExico pavilion wasn't even remotely fleshed out in the early 70's. Prbably you got to rumors mixed up.

MK was originally supposed to get a ride called the Western River adventure that would have been built underneath Big Thunder Mountain. It would have been the same format as Pirates, but longer and with the switchback that ended up in Maelstrom. When WDW Opened, People kept asking where that Pirates ride they had heard about was. Disney got scared and put in an abreviated version of Pirates and scrapped Western River.

boomhauer
03-11-2007, 05:24 PM
Back to the original question, I'm disappointed. For 2 reasons:

1.I thoroughly enjoyed the ride as it was.
2.I think putting Donald Duck in the ride (though he's may favorite character) is insulting and just dumbing down the attraction.

Couldn't it have been rehabbed but kept a bit more integrity than it will have with Donald Duck being the spokesperson for the Mexico pavillion?

Arvandor_Ilfirin
03-11-2007, 06:31 PM
Whew, skimming through all of that angst gave me a headache!

All manner of forum-crusading aside, I won't competely hate this ride until I've ridden it...However, I do have some issues with the way the 'Gran Fiesta Tour starring The Three Caballeros' seems to be shaping up.

- Why the character gimmick??
I really want to hear their intelligent reasoning behind this...I mean, you've just loaded us up with all the Pixar we can handle (I love Pixar, but it's becoming more than I can take...If I see another half-baked Pixar ride, I'm going to gag.) and now you take away an older ride to replace it with a poorly contrived story about Donald getting lost in Mexico? Walt pushed creativity to it's limits, and the best we can get now is a plotline a two year old could make? Maybe it will be a nice ride...but a weak foundation is not a good start...

-Yo hablo--what?
We're taking an educational narrative on Mexico from a trio containing only one Mexican? Maybe it's just me, but that seems to make as much sense as Godzilla teaching us about China... Asian=/ all the same country... Hispanic=/ Mexican. My father is Cuban, try telling him he's Mexican and see what happens. popcorn::

I love El Rio De Tiempo...My brother and I put up our feet, enjoy the atmosphere, and have a great laugh at the cheesy puppets...I'm sure I'll still enjoy the 'Gran Fiesta Tour starring The Three Caballeros', (whew that's a mouthful) but I doubt that I'll be experiencing anything more spectacular than it's predecessor.

Ariel Mae
03-11-2007, 07:16 PM
A note on the earlier reference to characters in the parks.

Rarely do you see characters in Epcot of the Disney variety. Pooh, Timon, Cinderella, they're found in Magic Kingdom, placed accurately in such a park. Epcot's Countries are more about the...country histories than the characters. You may see Aladdin in Morocco, Jasmine, too, but that is rare. Epcot is not the place for Disney characters. That's a Magic Kingdom/MGM Studies thing.

Ariel Mae
03-11-2007, 07:19 PM
Nah, the real issue here isn't the ride or even the changes. The real issue is someone has the audacity to challenge the errant assumptions of frequent posters who perceive themselves as guardians of the "true Disney".

It's not about the 'true' Disney, it's about keeping to what Walt set. We're slowly taking away the 'family' gap. The 'all families can spend time together' setting Walt introduced to us with the Land and the World. With this, we're placing a generation gap between the parents and kids.

The issue IS the ride changes. The issue IS the fact that, though slow, "El Rio Del Tiempo" was a relaxing ride both children and parents could enjoy. Now, with Donald, it's appealing to one over the other.

Ariel Mae
03-11-2007, 07:21 PM
I'm not sure Disney would notice if anyone boycotted the ride. The last time we rode it, nobody was in line. I rode it 3x with DD and DS without getting off.

There's always a wait when I have gone. Maybe not a long wait, but a line, nonetheless. We go during the May/June season, and sometimes we went during the Winter season, and there were always kids excited to go on the ride, always kids coming off it with smiles on their faces.

I don't think the boycott would be numerous, but it would be noticeable.

Another Voice
03-11-2007, 10:50 PM
Disney was certainly quick to attempt a fix on 'Journey into your Imagination' when they came out with that horrible gutting of that attraction and the public let it be known loud and clear they disliked the ride. And Disney was very quick to slam shut the doors on 'SuperStar Limo' at California Adventure when the public told them in no uncertain terms the ride was horrible.

Granted we've suffered with 'Tiki Room - Under New Management' and 'Stitch Encounter' for longer than should be legally allowed (aren't their child abuse laws we can apply?), but those are pavilion centerpieces like 'Imagination' and 'Rio' are. Remember the ride is there only to bring in people to eat, drink and shop. If no one goes on the ride, there will be many fewer sombaros and churros being sold.


By the way - the success of Walt Disney World is because it appeals to people with more than a five-year old's menality. Dumbing the place down to the level of people looking for "an amusement park" would pretty much be the end of things. Besides, more people go to the Smithsonian than go to the Magic Kingdom. If Disney wants to grow as a business perhaps it ought to ignore the five year old and their like-minded parents.

DisneyGirl4188
03-12-2007, 11:50 AM
IMHO DW is an amusement park, a place to go for fun, many of us bringing children. That being said, although EPCOT is supposed to encompass a more "educational" perspective one must remember that this ride is just that - a ride! I mean it's disney, should you expect to go and recieve a history lesson, or do you expect to see your 5yo laughing at donald duck? If you seek the former then perhaps you should research where to find a good museum and if you're in search of the latter then GO TO DISNEY WORLD:thumbsup2

I agree. I do like that Epcot is educational; however, people do want to have fun on their vacation.

Adding a character to draw in more people might not hurt the ride (I am still reserving my opinion until I experience this ride myself). I can think of several kids that don't want to learn about Mexico while at WDW. They would be bored to tears (especially during the original version of this ride). Now, you bring in a character and they get a little more interested.

Teachers are constantly doing things to make learning fun. What is the difference between them doing it and WDW?

A note on the earlier reference to characters in the parks.

Rarely do you see characters in Epcot of the Disney variety. Pooh, Timon, Cinderella, they're found in Magic Kingdom, placed accurately in such a park. Epcot's Countries are more about the...country histories than the characters. You may see Aladdin in Morocco, Jasmine, too, but that is rare. Epcot is not the place for Disney characters. That's a Magic Kingdom/MGM Studies thing.

Every time I have stepped foot into Epcot, I have seen characters. From the opening ceremony to walking through the countries, I see TONS of characters.

It's DISNEY; everywhere is a place for characters.

There's always a wait when I have gone. Maybe not a long wait, but a line, nonetheless. We go during the May/June season, and sometimes we went during the Winter season, and there were always kids excited to go on the ride, always kids coming off it with smiles on their faces.



I have been in April, Nov, and Dec. Never once has there been a wait to ride. Most times we were alone in the boats. The only smiles I saw were from the people that were laughing at this ride.


People that may never have ridden this before may decide to try the new version. How is that a bad thing (well, besides making longer wait times).

I know Disney isn't perfect (although I do like several of the rides mentioned that others seem to despise). I am fully aware that they make mistakes, but I am not going to slam them on something I haven't even seen yet.

Another Voice
03-12-2007, 12:14 PM
Teachers are constantly doing things to make learning fun. What is the difference between them doing it and WDW?
I remember having lunch, many years ago, with a young suit from a major studio. He was bemoaning his fate, certain his studio was about to go out of business and that he would loss a job he worked very long to get.

He couldn’t get over how stupid his studio was. They had just sunk $200 million into a sure-to-fail movie about a long ago event. There wasn't a single person under the age of sixity that even remembered the stupid event. It was a stupid history leason about stupid people wearing stupid hats. His studio was stupid – today’s kids are hip, they don’t care about learning any thing, they don’t care about education or history or any of that stupid stupid stuff. People wanted excitement and “now”, not olde tyme stuff.

The movie was, of course, Titanic – a movie that made a billion dollars from teenagers who refuse to be educated at the movies. “Education” is all how you present things.


There is no reason education and entertainment can’t be one in the same thing. That’s the entire point for Epcot. It takes skill, talent and hard work – all in short supply at Disney these days – but it is possible.

People demanding the duck are letting Disney off the cheap and easy way. People who can’t take a bit of learning in their vacation are taking the cheap and easy way in their lives. Disney used to stand for more, they used to try for more. I don’t intended to give them a pass because they can’t be bothered, and I’m certainly not going to listen to people who struggling to hold onto their ignorance.

HarambeGuy
03-12-2007, 12:14 PM
A note on the earlier reference to characters in the parks.

Rarely do you see characters in Epcot of the Disney variety. Pooh, Timon, Cinderella, they're found in Magic Kingdom, placed accurately in such a park. Epcot's Countries are more about the...country histories than the characters. You may see Aladdin in Morocco, Jasmine, too, but that is rare. Epcot is not the place for Disney characters. That's a Magic Kingdom/MGM Studies thing.

Well, there IS the permanent meet & greet in the back of Morocco, where you can find the Aladdin characters virtually all day long. However, the point as I see it is that they have not been made the focus of the pavillion. They are tucked away in the back - available to people that want to see them and easy to bypass for others. And I think this discussion really is about more than just the one ride. It's the philosophy that leads to branding the Living Seas with Nemo, and things like that.

Personally, I'll go see it just to see what it's like. I've ridden the original maybe twice, and it's been on my "miss" list for a while now - other priorities. I've never thought it was nearly as good as Maelstrom. This will at least get me back into a boat one more time, and I guess that's the whole point (because they need be to enter the pavillion in order to sell me the sombrero-wearing Donald). Problem is, they seem to have decided that getting me to come back once is sufficient. I'd like to see them try to put together something that makes me keep on coming back based on quality rather than newness.

But even though I am giving the benefit of the doubt (that's just in my nature), I do reserve the right to be disappointed.

DisneyGirl4188
03-12-2007, 01:14 PM
The movie was, of course, Titanic – a movie that made a billion dollars from teenagers who refuse to be educated at the movies. “Education” is all how you present things.

The one with Leonardo DiCaprio?

If that's the case, they didn't just give a bland explanation of what happened. The created a story and used some pretty big stars to do so.

Do we know that Disney completely took away the education aspect of this ride? If not, then they updated the ride and added their own "big star".


There is no reason education and entertainment can’t be one in the same thing. That’s the entire point for Epcot.

I agree.

People demanding the duck are letting Disney off the cheap and easy way. People who can’t take a bit of learning in their vacation are taking the cheap and easy way in their lives. Disney used to stand for more, they used to try for more. I don’t intended to give them a pass because they can’t be bothered, and I’m certainly not going to listen to people who struggling to hold onto their ignorance.

You don't mean to come off as condescending, do you?

I never said people shouldn't learn on vacation (however, what's it to you if they don't want to?) I simply said that some people may be more drawn to riding this now that Donald is there (I for one am drawn to it, not for the duck, but because I want to see the update).

Again, no one has seen the ride yet. How do you know it's going to be bad?

raidermatt
03-12-2007, 01:24 PM
This is a pretty lame ride that is not a draw. Are there two more bashed rides than this and maelstrom? Well besides stitch, the fact of the matter is that they need better draws in world showcase, if Donald is the hook that leads to this becoming a decent ride and pulling a few more visitors over to the mexico pavillion, then that is good for the entire park as a whole.

On Rio I can't really disagree about the popularity. But "fixing" the problem is a two-step process. One, get rid of the old ride, and two, put in something else. All things considered, I don't have a problem with the first step. Its the concept behind the second that is the problem.

Maybe it will be executed well, but regardless of how it turns out, they could have started with a stronger and more appropriate, concept.

Maelstrom is a different story. Its not an E-ticket of course, but it does frequently have lines, and is generally well-received.

The movie afterwards that 75% of the people skip is a different story.

DancingBear
03-12-2007, 01:43 PM
You don't mean to come off as condescending, do you?Well, I don't think A-V's staying up nights worrying about how others take his posts.

Another Voice
03-12-2007, 01:45 PM
How do you know it's going to be bad?
No one is saying the ride is bad. We're saying that by putting Donald into the ride that it won't be as good as it should be given the reputation of Disney and the goals of Epcot. The ride might not be bad, but Disney is taking a quick and easy way out that will prevent the attraction from being great, unique and truely innovative.


You don't mean to come off as condescending, do you?
Only to people who tell me I can't go to WDW.

raidermatt
03-12-2007, 01:54 PM
Again, no one has seen the ride yet. How do you know it's going to be bad?


I don't. We don't. There's concept and execution.

We're talking about the concept. It could, and should, be better.

Mabye they'll execute it well, and maybe they'll "Stitch" it. Nobody knows yet. Regardless of that though, it doesn't change the issues with the concept.

DisneyGirl4188
03-12-2007, 01:56 PM
No one is saying the ride is bad. We're saying that by putting Donald into the ride that it won't be as good as it should be given the reputation of Disney and the goals of Epcot. The ride might not be bad, but Disney is taking a quick and easy way out that will prevent the attraction from being great, unique and truely innovative.

Forgive me, but I thought several people went on and on about how the ride is ruined.


Only to people who tell me I can't go to WDW. :laughing:

JimB.
03-12-2007, 05:00 PM
The movie afterwards that 75% of the people skip is a different story.

It's not the MOVIE silly, it's the SEATS!!! Those things are just plain (adjective, adjective, expletive, expletive) awful.!!


ANY dark, air conditioned space is a plus in my book!

TheDogbots
03-13-2007, 07:17 PM
AV - do you have a source for the claim that more people go to the Smithsonian every year then WDW? Most articles and books on the subject of Disney Edutainment seem to claim the opposite.


And to another poster's claim that Epcot world showcase is not about characters, when was the last time you were there? Lets just look at a few countries: france... every day there is atleast four sets with one or multiple of the following characters Belle, Beast, Cinderella, Aristocats... Morocco hosts the cast of Aladin every day for about five hours or so, this is out front of the pavilion along the walkway unless it is too hot. Germany: Snow White and Dopey have scheduled sets everyday. China: Mulan and friends for most of the day. Canada: Brother Bear the only pavilions without characters that I know of is Italy and Japan.

YoHo
03-13-2007, 07:24 PM
I would say there's a difference between meet n' greets and having them being a part of the attraction.

Having said that, Epcot was initially not supposed to have ANY Disney Characters.

I've got kinda mixed feelings about the whole thing. I like the Morocco setup where the characters are generally in back.

dunnhorn
03-13-2007, 07:39 PM
Having said that, Epcot was initially not supposed to have ANY Disney Characters.

I think I read somewhere that EPCOT is 25 years old this year. I think 25 years ago it was a very cool idea to go around country to country in a "worlds fair" type of atmosphere. However today, that schtick holds less true, and up until recently EPCOT has been the forgotten park. (Gee, they are "forgetting" to celebrate the 25th anniversary!) Anyway, the river ride had turned into a dud - and lets face it, this and Listen to the Land are the ONLY rides (before Nemo) that are appropriate for preschoolers. The Mexico ride was a little spooky at the beginning too... it is what it is (a slow moving boat ride) so in order to be more effective in drawing in crowds it needs to really appeal to the target audience of the slow moving boat rides - either the very young or the old enough. Sad to say (IMHO) the ride in its former state didn't do that.

angelmav
03-14-2007, 04:47 AM
I am still trying to figure out which boneheaded executive AV had lunch with that thought Titanic was going to sink Fox/Paramount and put him out of a job. Did Eisner ever work their? :lmao:

MrsJackSparrow
03-14-2007, 08:57 AM
the only pavilions without characters that I know of is Italy and Japan.


Actually, Italy sometimes features Pinocchio characters Gideon and Foulfellow and Gepetto.

And don't forget Princess Aurora in France.

Even the Outpost has had Jane from Tarzan.

United Kingdom features Alice, Mary Poppins, the Penguin, Bert, Pooh, Piglet, and Eeyore, albeit inside the toy store, but in their own designated meet and greet space.

MrsJackSparrow
03-14-2007, 08:59 AM
But, keep in mind that Donald doesn't wear pants...

:lmao: The cheesy bar scene may be somewhat MORE disturbing if Donald were to replace that studly guy! :rotfl:

raidermatt
03-14-2007, 09:25 AM
I think 25 years ago it was a very cool idea to go around country to country in a "worlds fair" type of atmosphere. However today, that schtick holds less true, and up until recently EPCOT has been the forgotten park.

The reason they gave up on the world's fair concept has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the schtick had grown old. In fact, when they gave up on it (not long after Eisner took over), the park's performance was fine.

The problem, as they saw it, was that they would have to update the pavilions every 10-20 years as technology moved forward. While the management team that built Epcot had planned to do that, the management team that took over not long after it opened had not intention of doing that.

So, yeah, when your world's fair atmosphere hardly changes year after year after year, the schtick will get old.

That doesn't mean the concept was flawed.

But that horse has left the barn as like I said, the company hasn't been using that concept for a long time.

WS is really a separate park, and was never intended to be a World's Fair type of place. Still, it also wasn't meant to be a static selection of the same countries and attractions year after year. It's been almost 20 years since a new country was added. The films some of the countries have are allowed to get WAY out of date before they are replaced. The last ride added was Maelstrom almost 19 years ago.

So, yeah, when you allow ANY park or area to stagnate like that, it's going to start getting old. But again, there's no evidence that there is anything at all wrong with concept.

JimB.
03-14-2007, 11:54 AM
Maelstrom has been around 19 years??

Ick. I am now officially old.

As to the OP, I will withhold judgment until I see the ride. I liked the "old" one (very much in the "If You Had Wings" vein IMHO..... ), but change is not necessarily bad.

BTW - attendance at all of the Smithsonian venues combined was 17.5 million through the first 9 months of 2006. A 10% decrease...........

TheDogbots
03-14-2007, 12:36 PM
BTW - attendance at all of the Smithsonian venues combined was 17.5 million through the first 9 months of 2006. A 10% decrease...........

Now whats 3/4 of annual attendance to WDW? lol

--- I don't think the world's fair idea is a bad one, but they did need to keep up with the update plan, they still have spaces for new pavilions, They should really look to put them in in the next five years, and then move to refurbishing other pavilions. update rides, add rides, new movies, etc... I wouldn't really want to see them change the architecture, but its not like they can really add more to each pavilion without getting rid of something... Actually Future World keeps up nicely with the WF tradition, though we lose "classics" we are given a new ride or attraction in each of the pavilions, it makes it new to alot of people, thus doing what they intended... bringing people back to the parks. The problem with WS is that each country actually doesn't have a "show area" where it can update its presentation on a regular basis... that would also require participation from the actual countries to keep new material coming in. by show area, a mean a small museum in the back or something... many countries have small exhibits in their pavilions, but they also never change... if there were an additional attraction area that was ever changing... then it would be a larger draw to the adult crowds perhaps... interestingly enough, they have a traveling exhibit from Cornell University in Innoventions right now... I don't see why they could not do this in WS also.

YoHo
03-14-2007, 12:46 PM
The guesstimated annual attendence for Magic Kingdom at WDW, the worlds most visited themepark for 2005, the last year that guesses were made was 16.1 Million guests.


3/4 of that is 12.075 million. Nobody attempts to guess WDW's total attendence. Epcot was 9.1, MGM and AK were both in the mid 8 millions, but much of that is hopper passes. Those pesky multiday passes and hopping ability make it hard to guess.
It's probably safe to just use the MK number though. The number of people that went to WDW and didn't go to MK is probably minescule.

So, yes, the Smithsonian has higher attendance.

raidermatt
03-14-2007, 01:05 PM
It's probably safe to put the annual Smithsonian attendance at minimum 20 million based on those first 9 months of '06. I'm assuming attendance is higher in the summer months. As YoHo noted, the last MK estimate was for '05 and was 16.1 million. Based on Disney's general statements about attendance changes, MK is still short of 20 million.

The statement was "more people go to the Smithsonian than to the Magic Kingdom."

It would appear there is no disputing that, is there?

Of course there are many factors that make direct comparisons difficult, but I think the point was that there is a pretty significant market out there that doesn't mind some education.

Throw Disney's full creative weight behind that idea, and that would seem to have the makings of a winner.

And whataya know... when Disney did that, Epcot was extremely successful without needing character based attractions.

YoHo
03-14-2007, 01:24 PM
If somebody doesn't post an "Oh Snap" in the face of those numbers, I'll be highly disappointed.

Euphscott
03-14-2007, 02:07 PM
Well then "Oh snap"


:lmao:

Keyser
03-14-2007, 04:45 PM
The guesstimated annual attendence for Magic Kingdom at WDW, the worlds most visited themepark for 2005, the last year that guesses were made was 16.1 Million guests.


3/4 of that is 12.075 million. Nobody attempts to guess WDW's total attendence. Epcot was 9.1, MGM and AK were both in the mid 8 millions, but much of that is hopper passes. Those pesky multiday passes and hopping ability make it hard to guess.
It's probably safe to just use the MK number though. The number of people that went to WDW and didn't go to MK is probably minescule.

So, yes, the Smithsonian has higher attendance.

That was attendance at Smithsonian venues combined. I expect plenty of people visit the Air&Space museum, the American History museum, and the Natural history museum on one trip. Just like people visit MK, Epcot, AK, MGM on one trip.

In other words, to give a fair comparison, you need to either count unique visitors (i.e. somehow eliminate "hopping" at both WDW and the Smithsonian - as you said, this is tough to figure), or take the combined attendance. By your numbers, the combined attendance gives something like >41 million/year for WDW, vs. maybe 23 million/year at the Smithsonian (and that assumes that the last 3 months had visitation rates the same as the first 9 - not likely since summer is by far the most attended there).

So no, the Smithsonian does not have higher attendance than WDW. If you want to claim that the Smithsonian has greater attendance than just MK, you need to figure out how many unique visitors there were to the Smithsonian. As one example, the Air & Space museum had 9.4 million visitors at its peak in 2003, but was down to 5 million last year**. I don't know that you're going to have any more luck figuring out the unique attendance at other locations. But, it's not clear to me that the Smithsonian unique attendance numbers are going to be higher than MK's.



** See: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2007-02-20-space-museum-attendance_x.htm

YoHo
03-14-2007, 05:56 PM
You're answering a question that was never asked.

How many days does one spend at WDW versus the Smithsonian? You can't just generalize the way you're trying to do. We don't have enough figures to do it. We either need to draw a very broad comparison, or we need to draw a very narrow one.

And, none of that matters, because it's NOT THE FRACKIN POINT!!

The point is the frickin millions of frickin people go outto Frickin Museums on Vacation, so the idea that somehow they don't want to be educated, they want to be entertained is a great big stinking pile of bull poop.

TheDogbots
03-14-2007, 06:48 PM
lol... it is like comparing apples and oranges. Because they also cater to different groups... So it would just be too hard to compare. I only asked for a clarification because I have read so many articles and books that listed WDW having more visitors than the smithsonian, which meant in their eyes, WDW had more of a cultural output on how we perceive history...

raidermatt
03-14-2007, 06:50 PM
The comparison was to MK, not WDW, so that piece can be dropped.

As for the Smithsonian, the number was actually 17.4 million attendees during the first 8, not 9, months of '06. That makes 21 or 22 million a more reasonable estimate, and that's in a down year.

If the question is unique visitors, I don't think its all that fair to claim so many duplicate visitors at the museums. I doubt many people take the effort to go there, then try to fly through 5 museums in a day. But sure, there are some duplicates I'm sure, just as there are at MK. Really, how many people go to WDW and only spend one day at MK the whole year? Certainly the vast majority of AP holders and DVC owners don't. MYW tickets of anything more than 4 or 5 days almost certainly includes multiple admissions to the MK for individuals. Then there's locals who go a couple of times (or more per year).

No, they both have there fair share of repeat visitors I'm sure.



The Smithsonian had 17.4 million visitors through August this year, down from 18.3 million in the same time period this year.


http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2006-09-20-smithsonian_x.htm

Regardless, as YoHo said, a buch of people apparently are willing to be educated with minimal entertainment.

Imagine what Disney could do with that market using their creative capabilities and resources?

If Edutainment is dead, its only because Disney quit trying.

raidermatt
03-14-2007, 06:53 PM
lol... it is like comparing apples and oranges. Because they also cater to different groups... So it would just be too hard to compare. I only asked for a clarification because I have read so many articles and books that listed WDW having more visitors than the smithsonian, which meant in their eyes, WDW had more of a cultural output on how we perceive history...

Again though, the claim was vs. MK, not WDW.

I think there is quite a bit of overlap between the groups, but your comment is important. Having an Epcot that focuses on that group broadens WDW's overall appeal.

After all, isn't that what Disney is trying to do with the Four Seasons idea? Expand its market to acheive growth?

If you make every park and land essentially a different version of Fantasyland, aren't you narrowing your focus?

Keyser
03-14-2007, 07:02 PM
You're answering a question that was never asked.
I'm not answering a question. I was replying to your post (which might lead back to the original claim by AV) that used attendance figures in a way that I don't think is valid.


How many days does one spend at WDW versus the Smithsonian? You can't just generalize the way you're trying to do. We don't have enough figures to do it. We either need to draw a very broad comparison, or we need to draw a very narrow one.

I'm not the one generalizing from these numbers. Yes, if you wanted a real comparsion, you'd need to account for a lot, including things like people who go to the Smithsonian (on field trips/class trips) and WDW (e.g. for band/cheerleading competition) not of their own "free will." In other words, it's tough to compare the two and you shouldn't go around saying things like the Smithsonian clearly has higher attendance, or that this relative attendance between the two really says much of anything. If you want to use the numbers to say "lots of people still go to museums", that's fine.


And, none of that matters, because it's NOT THE FRACKIN POINT!!

OK. But again, I'm not the one who brought it up...


The point is the frickin millions of frickin people go outto Frickin Museums on Vacation, so the idea that somehow they don't want to be educated, they want to be entertained is a great big stinking pile of bull poop.

Seriously, it's not necesssary to get so worked up about it!

Museum attendance was brought up to point out that people are interested in being educated. I don't want to argue that basic point that people like to learn. But, to play devil's advocate, the article I linked to above states that museum attendance has flattened out (and declined at the Smithsonian) recently. This might be an indication that the public is in fact becoming less interested in being educated, and more interested in being entertained.

Of course, Disney used to be one of the best at using entertainment to educate. I don't know if the company even has that interest anymore, though (which is sad). And, if their only motivation is "give people what they want", then less education and more entertainment might be the response.

Another Voice
03-14-2007, 07:35 PM
But, to play devil's advocate,
Yet attendance at WDW is down too. And the Smithsonian lacks the luxury of offering free food, hotel discounts and a hundred million dollar markerting campaign screaming how "affordable" they are. Imagine were WDW would be at this point without the giveaways.

The point is that the average tourist is interested in a lot more than character dinners and rollercoasters. People travel for all kinds of reasons, far more reasons than the average Disney fan wants to understand.

Disney used to make a point to go after these people. That was the whole reason behind EPCOT Center, to entertain adults and older childern using the techniques developed for the Magic Kingdom.

But instead of continuing along that line, Epcot was dumbed down for the "my five year old laughs" crowd. Disney did it because it seemed like easy money on the surface. But the result has been to narrow the market for WDW - and that is never a good thing. WDW's recovery from its high in 2000 and the downturn of 9/11 has lagged far behind what other destinations have seen.

It can all be summed up in what one person told me about a trip to WDW - "Too crowded, too expensive, too childish".

MJMcBride
03-14-2007, 07:44 PM
Yet attendance at WDW is down too. And the Smithsonian lacks the luxury of offering free food, hotel discounts and a hundred million dollar markerting campaign screaming how "affordable" they are. Imagine were WDW would be at this point without the giveaways.



Thats not a fair comparison. The Smithsonian is but a part of travelers DC vacation. And it has more of a local crowd.

A trip to WDW may be too crowded, its certainly too expensive. But "too childish". I don't buy it.

raidermatt
03-15-2007, 02:38 AM
But, to play devil's advocate, the article I linked to above states that museum attendance has flattened out (and declined at the Smithsonian) recently. This might be an indication that the public is in fact becoming less interested in being educated, and more interested in being entertained.


The article also provides a number of other hypotheses on why that is happening. Regardless, its a very short term trend. To say this has all of a sudden happened in the last couple of years just doesn't seem nearly as plausible as the other reasons given.

Besides, Disney started moving away from Edutainment long before this recent blip in museum attendance.

A trip to WDW may be too crowded, its certainly too expensive. But "too childish". I don't buy it.

Why not? It's always been one of the problems Disney has faced, both at DL and WDW. Pre-teens start to see Disney as kid's stuff, and that continues in many cases until they eventually have children of their own. It's long been a market Disney has struggled to get, and that's hardly a secret.

Then you have adults who just don't like cartoons and Disney's "Magical" aspect never has and never will do anything for them. Some of these people will still make the trip "for the kids", but still, Mickey Mouse, cartoons, etc. will always be kids' stuff to them.

Epcot provided a form of family entertainment that didn't hit you over the head with the "kids' stuff". Again, it went after a different segment of that family market, and it did it well.

When you start putting those characters everywhere, yeah, the people who like them and already love WDW will be happy. But really, there is already PLENTY of things at WDW for them. The people that don't want to be inundated with characters, however, will find fewer and fewer places in the parks that pique their interest. Again, its a narrowing of focus at a time when Disney is trying very hard in other area to expand their markets, not narrow them.

And as far as "edutainment" specifically, we need to remember that Disney's philosophy on that was still entertainment first, education second. It's not like Epcot or Tomorrowland were meant to be museums. But Disney used to believe, and rightfully so, that they could entertain people in different ways. At the very least, they have clearly lost some of that belief, and now feel they need to use characters in order to entertain, which is unfortunate.

Buzz2001
03-15-2007, 02:57 PM
The point is that the average tourist is interested in a lot more than character dinners and rollercoasters. People travel for all kinds of reasons, far more reasons than the average Disney fan wants to understand.And there are many locations outside of WDW that already exist that fit the bill. WDW isn't for everyone.

Disney used to make a point to go after these people. That was the whole reason behind EPCOT Center, to entertain adults and older childern using the techniques developed for the Magic Kingdom.Wasn't EPCOT tanking until they changed it after Eisner arrived by adding rides?

Another Voice
03-15-2007, 03:08 PM
And there are many locations outside of WDW that already exist that fit the bill. WDW isn't for everyone.
One of those reasons why those locations are setting records while WDW hasn't even recovered to its 9/11 levels, let alone it's highs in 2000. Disney is on the verge of becoming a marginal attraction of interest only to parents of five year-old and the adults with Tinker Belle "issues". WDW didn't really become a vacation destination until the opening of EPCOT Center - and attracting more than families.

Wasn't EPCOT tanking until they changed it after Eisner arrived by adding rides?
http://www.disboards.com/showpost.php?p=17424428&postcount=7

DancingBear
03-15-2007, 03:30 PM
Wasn't EPCOT tanking until they changed it after Eisner arrived by adding rides?EPCOT Center opened in 1982--no, it wasn't tanking in 1984 when Eisner arrived. Under Eisner, however, the place was largely neglected, and the entire theme of Future World was lost in the shuffle.

DC7800
03-15-2007, 05:03 PM
Wasn't EPCOT tanking until they changed it after Eisner arrived by adding rides?

Uh...put simply...NO. This is nothing but revisionist history - if you repeat the fiction long enough and with conviction, it may become accepted as fact.

Even if the park's 1980's attendance didn't belie such statements, just where are all these attractions Eisner brought to the place? Yes, Epcot did eventually became stagnant - solely because of the lack of investment in the place. That happens when you don't add much of anything new (or even make major changes) for fifteen years or so.

CanadianGuy
03-15-2007, 05:37 PM
This thread was an interesting read.

I'm certainly an active complainer about certain attractions. I've complained loudly about Stitch and continue to do so .. actively and openly on the boards and sometimes even at guest relations when I am at the parks.

All that said.. If you were to rate Epcot attractions on the old A thru E ticket scale from years past.. El Rio might have rated a B ticket in my ticket book... maybe. Right now Mission Space, Soarin and Test Track are Epcot's E ticket attractions.

Does any change to El Rio necessitate something that would bring it to a C or D ticket level? I dunno. They can't ALL be E-Ticket level attractions.

When you stop and think about it .. Splash Mountain .. while fun for the log-drop alone .. doesn't have much else going for it. It's a ride through a few audio animatronic scenes from a 40 year old movie that isn't even available for viewing anymore... Those scenes are lushly built and well displayed with a big drop that sometimes gets wet at the end.

It's hardly 'groundbreaking' by today's standards. I still like it tho.

Does Epcot need one or two more things (in addition to the Nemo/Crush stuff) of interest to small children besides a character greet -- in my opinion yes.

Is this the best place to put it?

Uhhh.... my gut says no. I just think if you want to do something for kids, there is a giant pavillion waiting for a rehab (WoL) that would be a great place for something for smaller children.

As for El Rio... I'm reserving judgement till I see it. Might be a tough comparison tho.. I haven't been on El Rio since 1998. I barely remember it. It ranked just above "complete waste of time" -- for me.

I recognize my tastes don't reflect those of the universe at large. For some people it may have been just what they wanted. Fair enough.

Knox

DancingBear
03-16-2007, 07:22 AM
When you stop and think about it .. Splash Mountain .. while fun for the log-drop alone .. doesn't have much else going for it. It's a ride through a few audio animatronic scenes from a 40 year old movie that isn't even available for viewing anymore... Those scenes are lushly built and well displayed with a big drop that sometimes gets wet at the end.Uhhhhh, it's those scenes that make this an immersive Disney storytelling ride, and not just another log flume ride. And those aren't just scenes from a 40 year old movie (I don't know why the age of the movie matters anyway), they're from a classic American folk tale.

CanadianGuy
03-16-2007, 10:18 AM
They are immersive and it is a story telling ride. Yes on both counts.

But I've never seen that movie and I've never heard of that folk tale anywhere but Disney. Must be a Canadian/American difference I suppose. And the age of the movie is less important than the fact that its nearly impossible to see if you haven't seen it already.

I'd like very much to see the movie.. before I die, but because of it's content (or whatever reason), I likely never will unless I buy a Japanese laserdisc on EBay.

All points well off the beaten path.

I guess my post came about in part because I just had my eyes opened by going to Disney with a newbie last month who... while appreciative of some aspects of the parks... wasn't nearly as wowed by the place as I always have been.

He asked a lot good questions about things like Splash Mountain and some other attractions with individual histories and backstories that may not be clear to the casual first-time visitor. And it really made me think about the relevance of some historical attractions in the grand scheme of the parks to the newbie visitor.

I know the history and backstory of a lot of the attractions and appreciate them on a much different level than he did. I tried to explain some things.. but you can't explain everything in the middle of the park.

Now it IS worth noting that we didn't spend a lot of time in queue areas for rides because non-existent lines.. so a lot of the theme-ing leading into certain attractions was lost on him.

Sorry for hijacking the thread off the topic of Rio.

Knox

DancingBear
03-16-2007, 10:26 AM
Some folks don't get it. So what, I don't want the parks designed around their viewpoint. If they think those "few animatronic scenes" are just a waste of time before the drop, I don't want their approach to prevail. Pirates of the Caribbean and Haunted Mansion weren't based on any movies, 40 years old or otherwise, and they did just fine.

CanadianGuy
03-16-2007, 10:32 AM
He didn't think they were a waste of time.. (apologies if I inferred or implied that) he just didn't understand because he did not know the story.

And I'm not suggesting changing anything. It was just eye-opening that's all.

Knox

HarambeGuy
03-16-2007, 10:51 AM
I thought of this the other day. Let's see, if the description of the rehab is correct we've got a collection of scenes where Donald Duck goes madly chasing through in pursuit of something. Maybe they should change the name to Mickey's PhilharMexico? :confused3

raidermatt
03-16-2007, 04:55 PM
I thought of this the other day. Let's see, if the description of the rehab is correct we've got a collection of scenes where Donald Duck goes madly chasing through in pursuit of something. Maybe they should change the name to Mickey's PhilharMexico? :confused3

I like it.

Though I'm not clear if Donald is the chaser or the chasee in this one. "Finding Donald" has also been suggested.

I guess my post came about in part because I just had my eyes opened by going to Disney with a newbie last month who... while appreciative of some aspects of the parks... wasn't nearly as wowed by the place as I always have been.


This is a good point, and I think the comments on Splash specifically made the whole thing sound a little different than intended.

I agree about the ground-breaking part, to the extent that it wasn't necessarily technologically groundbreaking. But the things that were done were done to a far greater degree than what had been done before. In addition to the mountain itself and all of interior and exterior scenes, I think the drop was the steepest around or close to it at the time it opened.

But you're right that there are a lot of people out there, including the majority of the guests at the parks, that are not Disney Fanatics like most of us. To them, WDW is a reasonable choice for a vacation, but its not some magical or mystical place. Sure, they generally have fun, but they don't see Disney as the keepers of all that is Magic and they really do just evaluate the place based on the value they get for their dollar.

That's a lot of what I/we are trying to get at when we take Disney to task for things. It's often said that the average guest doesn't notice the details like we do, but I don't buy that. They may not view it in the same context, but an empty Coke bottle is litter to them just as it is to us. Burned out lights are burned out lights. Audio that doesn't work properly is hard for them to hear just as it is for us (Harder probably, since they can't fill in the gaps from memory). The difference is they won't complain, they'll just let what they see impact their decision about when/if they will come back, same as they do when they visit somewhere else.

To bring this back to Rio/Gran, those average guests want creativity and originality just like we do. Clearly they were interested in the original concept of FW/WS. The park continued to draw well for years despite having most of its expansion and updating plans vaporized.

Edutainment worked. The only reason Epcot's attendance eventually waned was that those expansion and updates largely never materialized. Even then, the new parks, built to entertain the "modern" guest, never caught it in terms of attenadance.

That average guest may not know or care about the inner workings of the company, or about most of its history. But some of them enjoyed Disney's ability to entertain without a cartoon duck (or mouse, or princess, etc.) as much as we did.

If Disney really wants to appeal to a broader market, how does it make sense to convert so many areas and attractions to character-based? Those guests are already coming to WDW, and they already have lots of what they want. Its the guests that are just never going to buy into the "magic", but want family entertainment that is more than "kids stuff" that are going to be turned off by this.

annie1995
03-16-2007, 09:13 PM
I for one am really excited about the change to this ride! We didn't like the original version, so I am happy for the change and can't wait to ride it!

mamaprincess
03-17-2007, 09:01 AM
I think it was time obviously time to update the attraction but I don't agree with the direction they chose. It's all about selling merchandise I suppose but what does it have to do with Mexico as a country. I for one am not ready to see Mulan in the China movie because she is not part of their history.

We will ride it with the kids, but it isn't my idea of a world showcase attraction. The 3 Callaberos belong in Fantasyland.

CanadianGuy
03-17-2007, 05:34 PM
I think we can all be very thankful that Disney doesn't own the Speedy Gonzales cartoon character.

;)

Knox

rocketriter
03-17-2007, 07:30 PM
I was always a bit uneasy about the Rio ride. I'd float past those cheerful, dancing Aztecs and I'd think to myself, "Human sacri...what?" I think the Aztecs were a great nation, but it's necessary to look at them clearly without silly sugar-coating.

Bella the Ball 360
03-18-2007, 08:16 AM
Because "The River of Time" was one of my favorite rides.

Now, it's gone. Like with "Horizons", "World of Motion" and the original "Figment".

Take away the classics, take away the beauty.

I could not agee more!! LOVED all three that you mention and the replacements are a disappointment. NEW and different is not always better if it were then they would not make reading Shakespere and Dickens manditory in high school English.

Another Voice
03-18-2007, 10:34 AM
I'd float past those cheerful, dancing Aztecs and I'd think to myself, "Human sacri...what?"
It was a problem from the beginning - but it's not like any of the nations in the World Showcase haven't had their "issues" with history.

raidermatt
03-19-2007, 01:13 PM
All except these United States of course!

raidermatt
03-19-2007, 01:14 PM
(yes, that was a joke)

angelmav
03-19-2007, 02:24 PM
I could not agee more!! LOVED all three that you mention and the replacements are a disappointment. NEW and different is not always better if it were then they would not make reading Shakespere and Dickens manditory in high school English.

I dont know, I kinda liked New Coke :rotfl2:

raidermatt
03-19-2007, 04:00 PM
I think we can all be very thankful that Disney doesn't own the Speedy Gonzales cartoon character.


Well said!

magicalmickey
03-23-2007, 01:04 PM
I like it that they're adding "The Three Caballeros" and Donald Duck to the theming. I like to see classic Disney movies incorporated into some of the rides. It helps Disney to retain the magic. I also think Epcot could use a little bit of the classic character influence.

sotoalf
03-23-2007, 02:25 PM
I could not agee more!! LOVED all three that you mention and the replacements are a disappointment. NEW and different is not always better if it were then they would not make reading Shakespere and Dickens manditory in high school English.

Dickens never invented stereotypes as eye-opening as the ones on display in the old ride. I'm uneasy about a lot of WDW changes, but there were a few attractions – like this one – flawed upon conception.

CanadianGuy
03-23-2007, 04:31 PM
Dickens never invented stereotypes as eye-opening as the ones on display in the old ride. I'm uneasy about a lot of WDW changes, but there were a few attractions – like this one – flawed upon conception.

I agree with this statement.

It may be flawed again when it re-opens. But hopefully in a completely new and different way! ;)

Knox

raidermatt
03-23-2007, 04:45 PM
Just to be clear, for me personally, the issue isn't that they are revamping the ride, it's just the concept behind it. Whatever issues there maybe with the Rio version don't make what they are doing to address it ok.

MJMcBride
03-23-2007, 09:15 PM
I agree with Raidermatt. This is a ride that desperately needed a re-do. Not sure if they made the right choice. I'll probably like it more than what was there, but if it was an average ride it would beat the old El Rio by a wide margin

k5thbeatle
03-31-2007, 09:18 AM
Interesting thread.

Walt Disney is dead and his concept of Epcot is but a shadow of his original ideas. How he would have Epcot be now in 2007 can only be guessed at.

Everything Disney does now(and for some time) is strictly guided by the affect on the bottom line($$$).

Not saying good or bad but these are the facts.:coffee:

MJMcBride
03-31-2007, 05:03 PM
Walt Disney is dead

no he's not. He works at a 7-11 near Cleveland with Elvis

YoHo
03-31-2007, 07:03 PM
He doesn't work there, he's just stuffed in the Ice Cream Freezer there.

And WHo cares what Walt would have wanted?

I'd settle for What WED corp wanted.

MJMcBride
03-31-2007, 08:25 PM
And WHo cares what Walt would have wanted?



Its a good thing these people don't know your name and adress

annie1995
03-31-2007, 08:43 PM
He doesn't work there, he's just stuffed in the Ice Cream Freezer there.

And WHo cares what Walt would have wanted?

I'd settle for What WED corp wanted.

That is just harsh. I need to assume from your siggy picture, that you really don't like Disney that much. But you have several thousand posts. SO i am confused by that:confused3 . Are all your posts aimed at slamming Disney? Or do you just have a mean streak that likes to stir trouble?:stir: If you can't say nothin nice, don't say nothin at all:rolleyes:

GOOFY11
04-01-2007, 10:52 AM
It is amazing to hear some of you discuss this issue. Some of you don't even sound like true Disney fans to begin with. I am a fan of the old ride, but I will admit that it did need a fix up. This donald duck thing might return it to its original glory or it might sent it to be the next figment, where it will be redone over and over again. The one thing that is for certain is that none of us know. I believe that you can't knock it to you try it. I guess we will all have to wait until April 2nd.

GOOFY11

YoHo
04-01-2007, 11:20 AM
Ah, the old Disney made it, so it must be good defense. A classic. That sure is working out well for Stich huh.

Hey, I was at Disneyland last night, it's amayzing I didn't just spontaneously combust.

Also, Some of the people here do have my name and address.


Anyway, my point was that yes, Walt's Dream was never realized, but WED, Imagineering created Epcot and a plan for what it would become. I'd like to see them go back to that.

YoHo
04-01-2007, 11:23 AM
That is just harsh. I need to assume from your siggy picture, that you really don't like Disney that much. But you have several thousand posts. SO i am confused by that:confused3 . Are all your posts aimed at slamming Disney? Or do you just have a mean streak that likes to stir trouble?:stir: If you can't say nothin nice, don't say nothin at all:rolleyes:


I don't like "The Disney Corporation" much. I think they're idiots, I think they're ruining everything that made Walt Disney productions an incredible American company.

On the other hand I LOVE "Disney." From Steamboat Willie to Lion King to Finding Nemo, everything that is in the spirit of the company, I'm all about. I'm sorry you can't see the distinction.

cristen
04-01-2007, 01:11 PM
That is just harsh. I need to assume from your siggy picture, that you really don't like Disney that much. But you have several thousand posts. SO i am confused by that . Are all your posts aimed at slamming Disney? Or do you just have a mean streak that likes to stir trouble? If you can't say nothin nice, don't say nothin at all



LMAO!!!!!!!!!




No, really, I don't know if I should laugh or cry at this.

YoHo
04-01-2007, 03:02 PM
Well, I do have a meanstreak as you well know ;)

crazy4wdw
04-01-2007, 03:14 PM
Hello All: Just a friendly reminder regarding rules on the disboards. Please refer to the highlighted area below. There are seveal threads, including this one, where people are fairly close to being warned regarding the content of their posts. I'll be consulting with sarangel regarding some of the posts here and on the thread regarding "Meet the Robinsons" which I closed down earlier today.

NO FIGHTING/SARCASM: While we'd like to think that a Disney fan site is always lighthearted, there are times when there are disagreements. Let's face it, there are certain topics that can transform any of us into a raging "Donald Duck." When you sense this is happening, we ask that you step away from the discussion before it escalates into a fight. Just like Mom always said about fighting, we don't care who started the argument and we don't want it on the DIS. (Okay, she didn't say the part about the DIS, but you know what we mean.) No attacking others and no sarcasm please. Either will result in an infraction.

YoHo
04-01-2007, 03:27 PM
mnph.......mnpgggflff.......

Gah, I can't hold it in.
If we got rid of all the posts on the Rumors board that involved sarcasm.......we wouldn't have any posts at all.

annie1995
04-01-2007, 03:58 PM
mnph.......mnpgggflff.......

Gah, I can't hold it in.
If we got rid of all the posts on the Rumors board that involved sarcasm.......we wouldn't have any posts at all.

Sad but true!

crazy4wdw
04-01-2007, 04:10 PM
The quote was taken directly from the board guidelines, http://www.wdwinfo.com/guidelines.htm I am most concerned about some comments that are close to being personal attacks.

NO FIGHTING/SARCASM: While we'd like to think that a Disney fan site is always lighthearted, there are times when there are disagreements. Let's face it, there are certain topics that can transform any of us into a raging "Donald Duck." When you sense this is happening, we ask that you step away from the discussion before it escalates into a fight. Just like Mom always said about fighting, we don't care who started the argument and we don't want it on the DIS. (Okay, she didn't say the part about the DIS, but you know what we mean.) No attacking others and no sarcasm please. Either will result in an infraction

annie1995
04-01-2007, 04:25 PM
I don't like "The Disney Corporation" much. I think they're idiots, I think they're ruining everything that made Walt Disney productions an incredible American company.

On the other hand I LOVE "Disney." From Steamboat Willie to Lion King to Finding Nemo, everything that is in the spirit of the company, I'm all about. I'm sorry you can't see the distinction.

I see where you are coming from now! I guess when you mentioned about him being stuffed in the Ice Cream Freezer there, and who cares what Walt would have wanted, I just took that the wrong way. And it kinda shocked me that someone would put that here. I am sorry if I offended you in any way:flower3: :goodvibes

YoHo
04-02-2007, 11:32 AM
No offense taken.

99% of my posts are Hyperbole.

annie1995
04-02-2007, 12:16 PM
No offense taken.

99% of my posts are Hyperbole.

:goodvibes

raidermatt
04-02-2007, 05:59 PM
The real question is, if Walt were stuffed in an ice cream freezer, what flavor would he be?

ASilmser
04-02-2007, 07:20 PM
The real question is, if Walt were stuffed in an ice cream freezer, what flavor would he be?

I say butter pecan:

very sweet, slightly nutty, and very rich.

GOOFY11
04-03-2007, 08:59 AM
The reopening of the ride, scheduled for yesterday, has been pushed back to an undetermined date. Many speculate that it will be later this week.

GOOFY11

Ariel Mae
04-03-2007, 09:43 AM
The date has been set back to April 6, according to this forum's news bulletins.

MJMcBride
04-07-2007, 11:01 AM
Having seen the video of the ride, I would say its an upgrade from the rather lame original

MJMcBride
04-07-2007, 11:03 AM
Also, Some of the people here do have my name and address.


Nothing like living dangerously eh? I would assume only others of the Element fit into that category though.

dunnhorn
04-07-2007, 07:32 PM
I say butter pecan:

very sweet, slightly nutty, and very rich.


What about Chunky Monkey? You got to have some bananas in there.:banana:

tink2020
04-09-2007, 03:53 PM
I'm not going to debate anything here, I probably won't even check this thread out again, but I just wanted to give my OPINION about "El Rio Del Tiempo".
IMHO DW is an amusement park, a place to go for fun, many of us bringing children. That being said, although EPCOT is supposed to encompass a more "educational" perspective one must remember that this ride is just that - a ride! I mean it's disney, should you expect to go and recieve a history lesson, or do you expect to see your 5yo laughing at donald duck? If you seek the former then perhaps you should research where to find a good museum and if you're in search of the latter then GO TO DISNEY WORLD:thumbsup2

I'm not really ready to chime in on the Rio... discussion until I finish reading the thread. I do have opinions on it, but this just jumped out at me.

You do realize that there are a boat load of people in the world, and on the DIS that go to Disney World sans children, right? And you do realize that part of the wonderful draw of Disney World is that adults CAN enjoy it sans children, right?

My husband and I are DVC members, and I know there are several others that don't have children. We will, but we don't yet. And we still go, frequently, and love doing so.

Just checking. It's been a while since I read (on the DIS anyway) that WDW was just for kids.

tink2020
04-09-2007, 04:09 PM
Ok.... so now that this is bumped back up, any opinions on the ride since it's OPEN?!

I can't wait to see it in May. After living in Mexico for one summer + one month the following year (a non-touristy, culturally rich part of Mexico nonetheless), I have a huge soft spot for El Rio de Tiempo.

I had hoped to read opinions on the ride rather than assumptions, but I realize this thread started a while back, before the opening. I know there are several opinions - several STRONG opinions - on "classic" Disney World. Need I point out threads on the wand or sorcerer's hat? I won't, don't worry. I certainly don't spend any time chiming in on those, because - regardless of which side I'm on - it's a lost cause around here as far as civil discussion goes.

I'd still love to hear thoughts on the ride after someone has ridden it -- especially the naysayers! My biggest pet peeve is people freaking out about something without giving it a chance. (That's why I was sucked in to reading the whole thread, you know :rolleyes: )

Maybe it sucks. Maybe I'll cry real tears over the fact that my beloved ride has nothing to do with Mexico. Maybe I'll be annoyed that it's only about Donald Duck. Maybe I'll love it. Either way, I'm afraid I'm going to have to hold back a real opinion until I ride it. I think it's entirely possible that they refreshed the ride, added a few birds, made a few people more interested in it (just for argument's sake, I have definitely been one of few on it most times I have ridden in the past!).... and somehow maintained the culture and experience that is Mexico. To whoever retorted to a similar argument: "you must go out and see every movie ever made" when confronted with the idea of pre-judging an attraction, film, whatever. I think the only point made throughout this whole thread by people on "this side" of the argument, is that if you DON'T see every movie ever made, fine. That's your choice. I for one see very FEW movies that are made. But I also don't go around throwing a fit and boycotting all of the rest of them that don't look appealing to me.

So.... any takers? Or will we have to wait until I come back in May for more opinions on the new theme? :teeth: :goodvibes

YoHo
04-09-2007, 06:22 PM
Nothing like living dangerously eh? I would assume only others of the Element fit into that category though.

No, Only people that I've been posting on the Dis with for the past 8ish years.

Only most of them are in the Element.

ASilmser
04-09-2007, 09:29 PM
Ok.... so now that this is bumped back up, any opinions on the ride since it's OPEN?!

So.... any takers? Or will we have to wait until I come back in May for more opinions on the new theme? :teeth: :goodvibes


I have seen the video on youtube, and I think it is an improvement. I must admit, however, that I was never impressed with the original.

The thing about it that makes sense to me is that the original film--3Cabelleros--was made as a more-or-less "educational" film to honor Mexico and South America. It seems fitting that they would incorporate elements of the film into the Mexico pavilion.

The New Ride is much more upbeat and "fun" than the old one, and it looks like they were going for a broader appeal--not just for adults, but for kids too (probably not your average teen). From what I have seen they succeeded. Of course, in doing this, they may have sacrificed some of the informative elements. That doesn't really bother me, because I thought that the original was only good for a break from the sun and heat. It was also a good "tunnel of love" :love:

At any rate, it looks good. I like the music, it looks visually appealing, and it doesn't go too far off the path of being a showcase for Mexico. Aside from gutting the whole thing and starting over with a totally different attraction, they have done about as well as they could do.

Am I allowed to have an opinion if I have only seen the video? Please give me a break--I'm stuck up here in cold Minnesota.

raidermatt
04-10-2007, 03:23 AM
I'd still love to hear thoughts on the ride after someone has ridden it -- especially the naysayers! My biggest pet peeve is people freaking out about something without giving it a chance. (That's why I was sucked in to reading the whole thread, you know )


I've said it before, and I'll say it again... How it's executed is a different issue than the concept behind the change. Regardless of how its executed, I am against the concept. That's not "naysaying", its an opinion on their direction.

That said, I've only seen the video so far. I would say that yes, from what I can see it's an improvement. But at the same time, given how long it had been since the ride had been updated (never), I am confident they could have also improved it without using characters. So whether it's an improvement isn't really the point.

It doesn't look like they really tried to hit a home run with this, it was more just a quick and easy way to change a stale attraction, and as that goes, it appears to hit the mark.

But it really doesn't look like they did enough to keep it from being a walk-on again in a year or so. I could be wrong though, and it's also impossible to get a complete feel from just a video. I'm just basing my opinion on what I've seen so far. If that changes when I actually ride it in a few months, I'll say so.

LuvDuke
04-10-2007, 01:57 PM
I just watched the video on YouTube.

Oh my God, it was almost painful to watch. Who in their right mind thought this was a good idea? I'm speechless. :scared:

tink2020
04-10-2007, 02:05 PM
I have seen the video on youtube, and I think it is an improvement. I must admit, however, that I was never impressed with the original.

The thing about it that makes sense to me is that the original film--3Cabelleros--was made as a more-or-less "educational" film to honor Mexico and South America. It seems fitting that they would incorporate elements of the film into the Mexico pavilion.

The New Ride is much more upbeat and "fun" than the old one, and it looks like they were going for a broader appeal--not just for adults, but for kids too (probably not your average teen). From what I have seen they succeeded. Of course, in doing this, they may have sacrificed some of the informative elements. That doesn't really bother me, because I thought that the original was only good for a break from the sun and heat. It was also a good "tunnel of love" :love:

At any rate, it looks good. I like the music, it looks visually appealing, and it doesn't go too far off the path of being a showcase for Mexico. Aside from gutting the whole thing and starting over with a totally different attraction, they have done about as well as they could do.

Am I allowed to have an opinion if I have only seen the video? Please give me a break--I'm stuck up here in cold Minnesota.

That sounds fair to me! Thanks for your opinion. I might break down and search for the video on You Tube, but our trip is coming up quickly... hopefully I can hold out until then! We have family in Minnesota... I hear the weather is finally supposed to break soon! :goodvibes

tink2020
04-10-2007, 02:07 PM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again... How it's executed is a different issue than the concept behind the change. Regardless of how its executed, I am against the concept. That's not "naysaying", its an opinion on their direction.

That said, I've only seen the video so far. I would say that yes, from what I can see it's an improvement. But at the same time, given how long it had been since the ride had been updated (never), I am confident they could have also improved it without using characters. So whether it's an improvement isn't really the point.

It doesn't look like they really tried to hit a home run with this, it was more just a quick and easy way to change a stale attraction, and as that goes, it appears to hit the mark.

But it really doesn't look like they did enough to keep it from being a walk-on again in a year or so. I could be wrong though, and it's also impossible to get a complete feel from just a video. I'm just basing my opinion on what I've seen so far. If that changes when I actually ride it in a few months, I'll say so.

Good points all around... I can't wait to see it in person. I too would be thoroughly disappointed if they just threw something together.