Passive no longer in DAK's future?

[larworth]

Couple DAK related articles. Sure makes it seem like rides and not animals are in the parks future.
rohde (http://orlando.bizjournals.com/orlando/stories/2002/04/29/story7.html)
weiss (http://orlando.bizjournals.com/orlando/stories/2002/04/29/story8.html)

Animal Kingdom may start to see some after-dark action such as private parties or themed entertainment events. Lighting fixtures now dot the park, which traditionally has closed at sunset. Says Disney's Potrock, "Right now we do special events in the other parks. We're trying to figure out what's right for Animal Kingdom."

Unlike Disney's other three Orlando theme parks, Animal Kingdom's appeal has hinged on its decidedly low-tech offerings: the chance to glimpse wildlife in a natural setting. However, although Disney does not release attendance figures, Amusement Business magazine estimates Animal Kingdom's 2001 attendance at 7.7 million, the lowest of the Florida parks.

That's one reason behind Disney's decision to inject a little thrill ride technology into the park. Newly unveiled is Chester & Hester's Dino-Rama, which features a smaller-scale roller coaster called Primeval Whirl. In a departure from Disney's 50-year tradition of creating its own custom-built system, the ride uses "off-the-shelf" technology.

It's part of a second phase for the park's DinoLand U.S.A., which employs a roadside carnival theme. The technology appears to be working. Weiss credits the new area for extending the length of stay for Animal Kingdom visitors.

Joe Rohde, the vice president of Walt Disney Imagineering who spearheaded the design of Animal Kingdom, also was bullish on the new rides. "This is what we need more of," Rohde says, "More big excitement, things that move and go fast. Big ideas. Kinetics."

Rohde would not comment on specific expansion plans, such as a rumored gigantic indoor roller coaster with a fire-breathing, audio animatronic dragon and a unicorn-themed dark ride offering a tamer experience. "We design new things and then we present them, and then we do them over again." As for future plans, Rohde says, "We have 70 acres to expand into and plenty of ideas for the space."Q: What's next here in Animal Kingdom? A: I don't think we know exactly what's next. We're really focused on Chester & Hester's Dino-Rama. We found out over Easter and spring break that it really did extend guest length-of-stay and ride-per-capita in the park, and that was a good thing. Animal Kingdom's length of stay is still shorter than the other parks, and we want to continue to look at that.Seems pretty obvious. Did they really think people wouldn’t give them a try. Let’s hope they don’t read too much into the results other than people do want more to do.

[Bob O]

Rhode sounds like a great guy!!!!!! he has true vision!!! " i love hearing things that move and go fast"!!!! Now combine that with great theming and a 54" height limit and their is the making of a true great thrill ride!!!

[barreloflaughs]

Mr. Rhodes of Disney apparently said:

This is what we need more of," Rohde says, "More big excitement, things that move and go fast. Big ideas. Kinetics."

If Primevial Whirl = 'Big Ideas' then please include me out!!!

carl
barrel of laughs

[All Aboard]

Hmmm, a dragon themed full scale roller coaster and a tamer unicorn themed roller coaster.

Gosh, this all seems really familiar. Almost as if I've experienced this somewhere before. Yes, it's coming back to me now. They were together, in the same theme park... side by side as a matter of fact. Seems like it was in Central Florida somewhere. Why can't I put my finger on it. Why oh why...O...A can't I think of where it was? :) :)

BobO, gotta disagree with you, a 54 inch attraction is not what Disney needs nor what the vast majority of it's guests want. If you are going to try to attract the crowd that won't go to WDW because of a lack of MAJOR thrill attractions, you ain't gonna do it with just one roller coaster. It'll take more than that, and I don't see WDW investing in a stable of thrillers.

I'd bet that the attraction will have broader appeal and a greater range of guest accessability. I'd bet on 48 inches. That will be a more successful attraction for WDW.

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by gcurling
Hmmm, a dragon themed full scale roller coaster and a tamer unicorn themed roller coaster.

Gosh, this all seems really familiar. Almost as if I've experienced this somewhere before. Yes, it's coming back to me now. They were together, in the same theme park... side by side as a matter of fact. Seems like it was in Central Florida somewhere. Why can't I put my finger on it. Why oh why...O...A can't I think of where it was? :) :)


Ummm...sounds French. Le Dragons De duel?

[OnWithTheShow]

Rhode has been the creative executive of Animal Kingdom since the park ewas in its conceptual stages. He does know that the focus of the park is the animals and hopefully he wont allow the suits to force the park in a different direction.

[DC7800]

Originally posted by larworth
Joe Rohde, the vice president of Walt Disney Imagineering who spearheaded the design of Animal Kingdom, also was bullish on the new rides. "This is what we need more of," Rohde says, "More big excitement, things that move and go fast. Big ideas. Kinetics."

I don't have time to explain the many ways in which this statement is so wrong. Dinorama is clearly NOT what Animal Kingdom needs more of! Big ideas and big excitement accurately describe AK in general, but Dinorama exhibits neither. Additional rides that merely "move and go fast" (like Primeval Whirl), without immersive theming and a cohesive storyline, are the last thing WDW needs.

[Bob O]

Primeval Whirl doesnt go fast in the least for a coaster!!! It doesnt meet his definition in the least!!!! PW was a cheap stop gap measure to put something in the park quick and cheap.
And a 54" attraction is most defitinely what WDW needs!!!! The ankle biters may not be able to ride but most everybody 10yrs or older would meet the height requirement and disney has nothing like it!! A 48" attraction limit will be unlikely to meet the moves faster unless the rid is over 200" tall. Otherwise it wont be much different in speed than RNRC whci his average at best IMHO. How do we know it wont be successful if its not tried. Other parks add coasters of similiar size and the rides have lines that are hours long and increase park attendance and revenue, so no reason it wouldnt work the same for disney if applied properly!!!

[DisDuck]

Other parks that have the 'gut wrenching' coasters do not attract the same audience as WDW or DL. I am only one family (of 3) but after going twice to IOA it is not on my scope anymore. I spend less time there than at AK. To me thrill coaster dominated parks are 1/2 day parks.

This June I will be at WDW with my nephew and his sisters. IOA is not on our list. In fact I am probably dropping Busch also because a good portion of the rides are 'thrill' and I know that no one in our group will go on them.

Give me a ToT or RnR type coaster, themed up the wazoo at AK with a 48" height restriction and I believe that will draw more people (more revenue) than any killer coaster with a 54" restriction. Think hard about the image of WDW, it is a 'family' destination not a 'thriller' destination. A ride that only appeals to the 'thriller' crowd will turn off the 'family' crowd.

[raidermatt]

DisDuck, we are also a family of three in a similar situation. We typically travel with friends, making our group anywhere from 5-10 at a given time. This only includes one "ankle biter", but for me, that's enough. Also, there are adults out there, including some in our group, who by choice generally don't ride true thrill attractions.

We had originally planned to go to IoA and/or USF during our upcoming 2 week trip in May/June. However, after looking at all of the rides that we would have to split up for, its just didn't make sense.

Disney, like everybody else, has a limited amount of capital. Using chunks of it on 54" rides is not in keeping with the philosophy that has made them so successful. If they do move even further in this direction, it would be a blatant money grab, not true Disney magic.

(Actually, my preliminary opinion of PW is that it is a blatant money grab, but its still a small blip on the radar screen, and I haven't seen it in person...)

[Bob O]

Now my family of 5 loves IOA as well as WDW!! And with one growing ankle biter left in the family i would love wdw to add a true thrill ride and not the watered down ones they have added!!! I think a true thrill ride if built with a 54" height limit would immediatlyresult in atenedanceat the park that added it, even at disney and would result in lines that would be very long and increased merchandise sales!!! Some families may not go on the ride due to the height limit but their are thousands upon thousand who would!!!
One thriller ride wont make families leave the park in "terror" at all! And a true thrill ride is also a family ride!!! Not every family has people that are under 54" in height!!

[DC7800]

Originally posted by Bob O
And a true thrill ride is also a family ride!!! Not every family has people that are under 54" in height!!

No, it isn't. Further, height restrictions have nothing to do with it, except for children. The reason I - and a lot of other people - don't ride thrill rides is because of the "thrill" part; too fast, too scary, induces cardiac arrest, etc. Even if you build an attraction that most individuals can ride - say 80% - probably the vast majority of families will still have someone who cannot ride, or who just puts up with the thing for sake of the group. Even something with a 48" requirement excludes too many people.

More importantly, what so many people seem to be longing for are not ever faster thrills, but rather classic Disney attractions (you know, the kind of ride only Disney can create), in the style of Pirates of the Carribbean or maybe Journey into Imagination. These are the attractions you need if you want to attract families, who drop a lot of cash, into your theme park. Thrill rides have their place, perhaps, but that's just not the reason people go to WDW. We expect higher standards from Disney. Anyone with the $ can build a super-coaster; only Disney can sprinkle us with pixie dust in Fantasyland or on Spaceship Earth.

[Bob O]

Of course a thrill ride is a family ride!!!! At parks all over the country i see families gpoing on thrill ride/world class coasters!!!!
A higher standard from disney would be a thrill coaster with great theming!!!! Their is no reason pixis dust cant be added to a world class B&M hyper/inverted thrill ride and give some thing for everybody who goes to a disney park!!!!
I also would love a POC or a HM type attraction, but their is no reason both cant be done!!!!Ppeople who love thrill rides also drop a lot of cash at wdw(as i have) and their is no reason they shouldnt also have the enjoyment of a true thrill ride!!!!!

[Horace Horsecollar]

People travel thousands of miles for great, immersive "shows" like Pirates of the Caribbean, the Jungle Cruise, and the Haunted Mansion.

People travel dozens of miles to ride roller coasters at their local Six Flags park.

Should parks that attract 10 million or more visitors per year emulate parks that draw 1 or 2 million per year?

And regarding the verb, to theme... Imagineers should theme the queues and the signing and the FastPass machines. But the ride itself isn't something to be themed. The Pirates of the Caribbean ride is not a boat ride that's been themed. It's an immersive work of art and entertainment that guests happen to experience from a boat.

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by Horace Horsecollar
People travel thousands of miles for great, immersive "shows" like Pirates of the Caribbean, the Jungle Cruise, and the Haunted Mansion.

People travel dozens of miles to ride roller coasters at their local Six Flags park.

Should parks that attract 10 million or more visitors per year emulate parks that draw 1 or 2 million per year?



Now lets think about Cedar Point. Only open a few months of the year and it attracts guest from all over the country and world for that matter. Currently they get 3 million a year and are basically open from May to September Now what if they were in a location where they could stay open year round? Suddenly they would be drawing the 10 million or more guest you speak of. All of that from non-themed Trill rides or mostly thrill rides.

Trill rides have there place in Disney just as much as Haunted Mansion does. The key is balancing the rides so that you have something to offer everyone. So we got the new Kiddie area in AK now we need somthing for the larger folks.

[CM Tinkerbell]

I can understand why people who love thrill rides would love to see more of them at Disney. However, my personal feeling is.....there are sooooo many parks who offer these type of attractions that to fill that "need" could easily be met by visiting any of these.

When you visit IOA, although it is themed very well, there's a completely different feel to this park. Disney offeres "immersive" attractions that, for the most part, everyone can enjoy together. After all, that is what Walt wanted for his parks. Disney is about the magic, about transporting you to another place. I never looked at Disney to provide a thrill, unless it was part of the show.

I too wish that we would see more of the classic Disney type attractions being added to the parks.

But that's just my opinion. For me personally, I never want Disney to turn in to an IOA. The day it does, my Disney addiction will most likely end.

[EUROPA]

" immersive attractions "
Funny I don't get that feeling from Teacups, Dumbo, Aladin, or the Speedway just to name a few.

Disney has no chance of becoming a Thrill ride type of venue. They are way to far behind. They have one attraction that might be considered a thrill ride ( Tower of Terror) maybe Rockin Roller Coaster( tame consdering others). Thats it. All of Disney other attractions are very tame considering other types of rides today. I love the stuff that Disney does espically with attarctions like HM, POC, the 3-d movies...Fantasmic...those are pure Disney and can only be found at Disney. I guess what we are saying here is that we would love to see what type of attraction Disney could do with a thrill ride. We seen what Universal can do with money alone..and a limited theme, they came up with Spider Man one of the best attractions in the world right now. Maybe that is what Mission space is going to be? Who knows until its done..and we see what corners they chose to cut. One thing is for sure though...Universal is not standing still and AK needs a major E ticket attractioin or two before it can be called a full day park.

[CM Tinkerbell]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by EUROPA
" immersive attractions "
Funny I don't get that feeling from Teacups, Dumbo, Aladin, or the Speedway just to name a few. [QUOTE]

Of course not. Every park needs some filler between their main attractions. But you can't deny that overall, that's what many of Disney's main attractions have been.

Spiderman at IOA is a great ride and not along the lines of what I would consider the typical theme park thrill ride. I could see Disney incorporating something like that easily.

[All Aboard]

Europa & BobO,

It's just not Disney's "thing". And, I believe the vast majority of their best customers don't want it to be. I think the point about limited capital and the direction it's spent is very on point. Drop $200 mil on a major thrill attraction with a 54" height requirement that cuts out most kids under the age of 9, almost all late baby boomers, all seniors, many women of all ages, and heck, lot's of men as well. Just to try to satisfy a segment of thrill seekers who already have so many choices around the country.

Major league financial error in my opinion.

I'd much rather see that $200 mil go into an unbelievable experience like Indy or Spiderman. Those are not 54" super high speed, major g pulling attractions, yet are quite thrilling and exciting to those who experience them. AND, they permit a much bigger chunk of the WDW travellers to enjoy them.

[EUROPA]

I think its all perception. I'm going to use Cedar Point here again...becuase it is the "Thrill Captial of the World ". Out of 70 attractions they only have 2 rides where you must be over 52" tall... and Millennium Force is not one of them. The 52" requirment, I think has more to do with the seat design than any other reason. Both the 52" attraction use the same seat. I'm not saying build a ride that 90% of the people will be too scared to get on. Just throw us a bone.

[larworth]

It is clearly in their best interest to have rides that appeal to as broad an audience as possible. I think Disney has been doing a good job in the thrill balance area.

I wonder how much thrill inflation is at work. Are a higher percentage of adults willing to ride RnR today than would have 10 years ago, making more thrilling rides more acceptable to more adults. It will really be interesting to see where SPACE falls on the thrill exclusion (who won’t ride it) meter.

I’d love to see Disney create an E ticket (high quality, immersive experience) around a state-of-the art inverted, flying, or x type coaster. Given the popularity of ToT, RnR, Space, etc there surely is an audience for a ride that is “kicked up a notch or two”, but understand the best use of funds concern.

It sounds like too bold an investment risk for today's Disney to even consider, but is the dual path option someone(?) proposed at all workable. A good length common show followed by an exit option of the 2 minute more intense thrill ride or a longer/slower way to complete the story. Instead of being a cost inflator, could it be a cost effective way of adding a higher thrill ride by sharing common infrastructure (something for everyone?)

[raidermatt]

Personally, I love hypercoasters. But my son is too small to ride them, and if we are so lucky as to have another little ankle biter come along, it will be quite some time before I can ride with my children. My wife? Forget it. ToT is too much for her. We have a limited amount of family vacation time, and want to spend it somewhere that we can stay togehter most of the time.

No amount of theming added to a hypercoaster will accomplish that.

I know, this is only anecdotal data, but I think we truly are right in the middle of Disney's target market. If they spend $200 million on a "radical", immersive coaster, its pretty much wasted money on us, and most of the remainder of Disney's core audience.

That's why I think if Disney really wants to get into the thrill market, their best option would be to build it as a separate gate, and market it differently. MAYBE even brand it differently, a la Touchstone.

I'm not saying they don't have the ability to compete in the thrill market, but there's just no way to do it in the current parks without alienating their very profitable core audience.

This quote from gcurling says it very well:

Major league financial error in my opinion.

[doubletrouble_vb]

I don't necessarily go to Disney for a thrill ride...unless it has an immersive story line then I love it...that's why I lover RnR...it gives a nice sensation of driving through LA while doing the latest designer drugs. Of course its got the wrong rock group to go with the ride but hey that's a small thing.

If they want to expand Animal Kingdom into a night park then they should build a "things that go bump in the night" section close to the parking lot. Combination of enclosed & exposed areas featuring nocturnal animals and plants. A dark ride that features surprises, breezes and varying scents. Perhaps you occasionally step into squishy items while going through a darkened cattle pen. To reduce the impact on the animals they could close off the sections of the park that are for day use only but leave open things like the tree of life, dinoland etc...but to make it worthwhile they do need a new section.

[Bob O]

People alspo travel tousands of miles to ride great coasters!!! Apparently some havent heard og groups like ACE etc that travel thousands of miles go to Japan/Europe to ride what they believe are great thrill rides.
And i have seen no evidence in the least that the vast majority of guests at WDW wouldnt ride a thrill coaster or one with a 54" limit!! The few rides they have that are considering thrilling are the most popular with the longest waits(TOT/TT/RNRC as examples) and their is no reason to believe that the vast majority who ride thos rides wouldnt ride a pure thrill ride!! And why would it cost 200 million???? Six Flags isnt spending anywhere near that on any thrill coaster they have and putting in theming wouldnt cost 160-175 million as if what i have read is true that the thrill rides they havre built have toped out at 25 million, its also proven technonlogy that will work rather than the TT fisaco.
Who thinks that RNRC is anywhere near the experience of riding in traffic in LA????? The ride is a example of taking a rather medicore coaster and adding some cheap billboards/neon lights, very minimal theming in the ride itself!
Give me one example that any park lost money with the addition if a thrill ride????? Just one??? When parks add good quality thrill ride, be it TOT or a coaster at a non-disney park attendance ALWAYS spikes so the conjecture off a financial error isnt proven by any facts!!

[Safari Steve]

There is a distinct reason for that: The Disney Parks have always been, and always will be (touch wood) places where "Parents and Children can have fun TOGETHER"
Someone really smart said that, who was it?... oh, right, WALT DISNEY (maybe you've heard of him?)

Bob, you are perfectly entitled to your opinion of what WDW should do, but I think you're mistaken to assume that that is a goal of the company. It simply has never been a priority, although you keep pushing the concept that it is/was/should be. It isn't.

Also, remember that the suggestion of a Dragon rollercoaster and a Unicorn ride (not a coaster) in that context was mentioned only by the interviewer, not by Rhodes or Weiss.

[Bob O]

Well Safari Steve disney hasnt followed that model for decades have they??? Or can everybody ride Splash Mountain/TOT/TT/RNRC or SM as a few examples. Even in Walts time when they built the Matterhorn Ride and i doubt babies were riding that ride?? Or in Walt times could babies ride every attraction??? Walt pushed the envelope with the Matterhorn ride as it was unqiue for its time and the fact he always used tecnology to push the enevlope.

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by Bob O
Well Safari Steve disney hasnt followed that model for decades have they??? Or can everybody ride Splash Mountain/TOT/TT/RNRC or SM as a few examples. Even in Walts time when they built the Matterhorn Ride and i doubt babies were riding that ride?? Or in Walt times could babies ride every attraction??? Walt pushed the envelope with the Matterhorn ride as it was unqiue for its time and the fact he always used tecnology to push the enevlope.

Exactly...times change..what was thrilling 20 years ago is tame by todays standards. TV and Movies are the same. Look at what was popular 20 years ago on TV and compare it to a show on TV today. St. Elsewhere compare that with ER. Now St. Elsewhere was the medical drama of the 80's..but it does can't hold a candle to ER. Just look at all the people that love RNR and TOT and swore they would never get on it.

Walt loved technology and impoving on what he had just acomplished. I don't think he would have stopped at the Matterhorn.

Times change. Its clear that companies like Universal understand this. I don't like comparing Disney and Universal because of the "MAGIC" factor that people assoicate with Disney...it usally makes it impossible. Clearly though Universal is close on the heels of Disney. With 3 new major attactions planned for the parks..and rumors of a Third gate Universal is doing just fine with the guest that Disney does not seem to want. What is going to happen when all those kids who did not grow up on Disney start deciding where the family spends its money ?

[Werner Weiss]

Originally posted by Bob O
People alspo travel tousands of miles to ride great coasters!!! Apparently some havent heard og groups like ACE etc that travel thousands of miles go to Japan/Europe to ride what they believe are great thrill rides.
Sure, I've heard of ACE. They're die-hard roller coaster fans who travel thousands of miles to ride the biggest, fastest, newest roller coasters. There are also bagpipe fans who travel thousands of miles to listen to bagpipe competitions. My guess is that there are far more die-hard roller coaster fans than die-hard bagpipe fans -- but both numbers are small compared to the numbers of families and couples who visit WDW to be immersed in the carefully Imagineered fantasy realms that WDW offers.

I like the Rock'n'Roller Coaster. I disliked Space Mountain at Disneyland Paris and I hated the Indiana Jones coaster at Disneyland Paris. I've been to Islands of Adventure twice, but I avoided the big hyper coasters which have absolutely no appeal to me. But Men in Black and Spiderman are great attractions as far as I'm concerened -- the type of attractions that Disney should be building.

[raidermatt]

Universal is close on the heels of Disney? Universal does more discounting of both its parks and hotels, yet still trails by a significant distance in attendance. WDW attendance and Universal attendance both fell by roughly the same percentage amount last year. In 2000, WDW had record attendance, despite IoA being new.

Walt loved technology, and I'm sure he would want WDW to continue to use new technologies. However, he also believed his rides and attractions should be able to be shared by most families together. True, WDW has strayed somewhat from that with some of its newer rides, but there is a huge difference between the 34" requirement on the Matterhorn and building a 54" coaster. Geez, there are a lot of full grown adults who are only 60-62".

Its not that there isn't a place for those rides, but its not at Disney. Technology and innovation does not have to mean hypercoaster.

I find it very ironic that many of those who chastise current management for straying from Walt's vision are now encouraging them to stray from his vision of family entertainment. 54" rides may be YOUR vision of family entertainment, but it wasn't his. A core concept he believed in was keeping families together (yes, including those with small children).

[EUROPA]

Lets give Universal another two years and see what the new owners can do. So far I like what I see. Of corse Universal is on the Heels of Disney. You have MGM/Disney studios right? You have AK right. You have the rumored 5th gate. Now why is that again? Oh yeah Universal.

Why is everyones vision of a faimly always those of a Mom and Dad who are afraid of thrill rides with two kids under 24" inches tall?

Geez there many familys out there that have..gasp..teenagers. There are many familys out there with no kids. There are many babyboomers out there that love thrill rides. There are many mom and dads out there that love thrill rides. Let not forget that Walts visions did not always include the whole family. Remember EPCOT? Do you remember what group he was planning on leaving out? I leave that as a triva question.

Diseny has plenty to offer the kiddies...now throw the thrill seakers a bone.

[Werner Weiss]

Originally posted by EUROPA
Let not forget that Walts visions did not always include the whole family. Remember EPCOT? Do you remember what group he was planning on leaving out? I leave that as a triva question.
Walt Disney wanted to build the Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow (EPCOT) -- a real city, "in which tens of thousands of people could work and live -- and enjoy the latest technologies produced by American corporations." See EPCOT at the Walt Disney Family Museum (http://disney.go.com/disneyatoz/waltdisney/maincollection/masterworks/epcot.html). The city would not have excluded children.

In November 1965, Walt Disney announced "Project Florida," with enough land to build a city -- because that's what he intended to do. Walt Disney died in December 1966.

Then, in October 1982, EPCOT Center (now called Epcot) opened. Yes, it was less "kid friendly" than the Magic Kingdom, but that's not because "Walt's visions did not always include the whole family." The EPCOT Center of 1982 had almost nothing in common with Walt's vision except for the name and the commitment to showcasing American corporations.

If EUROPA is trying to say that Walt Disney's vision of EPCOT is a justification for rides that only appeal to a limited segment of the population, then I would disagree.

[raidermatt]

Geez there many familys out there that have..gasp..teenagers. There are many familys out there with no kids.

Very true. However, no park pleases everybody. Disney is geared towards the most profitable theme park market segment. Nobody can match what Disney does (or at least won't). Why build the ultimate thrill ride, which will only be topped within a year or two? The problem with going after the big thrill market is that the competition is intense, and the only way to keep up is to keep adding new thrills every year or two.

Look at Pirates of the Carribbean. It was built over 30 years ago, yet it can be argued that NOBODY has matched it. What thrill ride that was built even 5 years ago can make that claim today?

If you want a recent example, look at Splash Mountain. There are flume rides that are taller, faster, steeper and wetter. Yet a large portion of Disney guests consider Splash to be the best. Do you really think that increasing the thrill-quotient and therefore increasing the height restriction would make this ride more popular at Disney? Nah, all that would do is further limit the number of guests who can ride and are willing to ride.

Disney dominates their niche in the theme park market, and has rode that domination to be the most successful theme park company in the world. Nobody even comes close and the numbers prove it. There's just no reason to get into a "spitting" contest with the parks that have found a different niche that is not as profitable even if you are successful.


Diseny has plenty to offer the kiddies...now throw the thrill seakers a bone.

Again, there is a limited amount of capital to spend. Throwing a bone to one group is always at the expense of another. To stick with the canine theme, building hyper-thrill rides would be similar to Disney biting the hand that feeds them.

[EUROPA]

Walts EPCOT...and Kiddies were fine. Thats not the segment he was going to limit.

Listen we all agree that its impossible for there to be a ride that everybody will like. Heck "Its a Small World" makes me want to go on a axe welding rampage though the ride and .....wait I think I've said too much ....hahah :eek:

POC ...umm...something makes me think that Spiderman is a little better than POC. Tell me another ride that puts the guest in middle of the actioin like Spiderman? POC when built was a pure technolgy ride with a weak story. I dare anyone to ride POC once without knowing the history or ever riding before and try to understand what is going on.


Do you guys/or girls really think that Walt Disney would be spending money on another spinner?

Who is saying that a "thrill ride" has to be 300ft tall and only for a limited segment of the family? Your just limiting youself with that thinkning.

[All Aboard]

Who is saying that a "thrill ride" has to be 300ft tall and only for a limited segment of the family?

BobO.

[larworth]

Taking the lift hill in a different direction..

Rohde says the park needs more kinetics. I've often heard people describe DAK as a lower kinetic experience, by design. Something people often fail to appreciate in their hurry to do things. Being the creative director (than and now) does this signal a shift in thinking about DAK's design, or did people mis-read the original intent?

If BK was added to the current park (as many of us want) would it really be that much of a departure in design from an MGM. A similar mix of attractions, shows, movies, parades, and passive entertainment experience (backstage tours versus jungle treks) just on a different stage?

[Bob O]

Gcurling- Now a 300" thrill ride at wdw would be great!!!! Just think of the potential!!! And cedar Points 300ft coaster has a 48" height limit and is considered one of the best coasters!
Raidermatt POC is a great ride and does stand the test of time but i think if you do a poll for the younger generation and people who will make up disney's future guests as we get old they will like that ride but will perfer rides like Spiderman/MIB.While i love POC it cant be ridden as often as the rides i mentioned which at least equal if not surpass it.
Thrill rides like Magnum XL at Cedar Point is a old/Classic coaster but is still rated by coaster enthusiats as one of the best Coasters, as is the Beast at Paramounts Kings Island both are older thrill rides but still considered among the best of it kind in yealy lists that are released by various groups.
Why would putting in a thrill ride be biting the hand that feeds them??? It would increase park attendance/merchandise sales and give people who want a true thrill ride a bone!!! Every other park patron has been catered too, no reason the thrill segment shouldnt get something as the parks are over-run with spinner/passive type rides. Or will a thrill ride cause families to flee the parks in sheer terror???

[All Aboard]

BobO, Spidermand and MIB are distinctly different than Millennium Force and Hypersonic XLC. Certainly from the perspective of who can and who is willing to ride them. Yes, WDW needs Spidey and MIB-like attractions, no it doesn't need Mill Force and XLC type attractions. I still think that WDW will continue to maintain it's competitive advantage by NOT building hypercoasters.

You brought up the Beast at KI. Remind me sometime to tell you the story about how I came "this close" to falling out when working there in the summer of 1982. I'll just say that being skinny enough to wiggle out of a lap bar and being a stupid 17 year old don't go very well together.

Landbaron and Pirate (two who have seen me - and those who will next week) no jokes about the skinny thing! Needless to say, 20 years and 100 pounds later, there's no fear of repeating that event.

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by Bob O
Gcurling- Now a 300" thrill ride at wdw would be great!!!!

Wait 300" or 300 FT? Big difference. heeh:cool:

[EUROPA]

OH yeah the EPCOT info I was talking about...Walt plans for EPCOT did not include room for this demographic....


http://www.waltopia.com/
"
It will be a planned, controlled community, a showcase for American industry and research, schools, cultural and educational opportunities. In EPCOT there will be no slum areas because we won't let them develop. There will be no landowners and therefore no voting control. People will rent houses in stead of buying them, and at modest rentals. There will be no retirees. Everyone must be employed. One of our requirements is that people who live in EPCOT must keep it alive. "

[Bob O]

Gcurling i would agree that Spiderman/MIB are different than the coasters you mentioned. I was using them in comparsion to POC as the rides are different but also similiar in that they would probably be considered dark rides. As much as i love POC i dont know if it will fare well in the future with the generations coming up behind us as they may find rides like that boring compared to Spiderman/MIB. But i hope im wrong on that.
The thing is i would love to see a new attraction like that, excellantly themed with a large capacity as well as a thrill type coaster, when you have hypercoasters/flying coasters their is alot that can be done with that technology to create great guests experiences.
And i would enjoy your Beast Experience and glad you didnt fall out!!! Ive only had the pleasure to ride it twice and i really enjoyed it!!! But i had plans to ride it often. I wnet on a Ace event at the park and we were supposed to have exclusive night rides after closing which is great from what i have heard as the ride is almost totally in the dark. But just before clsoing the ride malfunctioned so instead we got ride time on Vortex/Racer so it was a bummer! We may go this year and from what ive heard they have reduced the braking on the beast to improve the ride!