PDA

View Full Version : New AK Ride In The Works


mauijim
03-19-2003, 10:50 PM
Found this news item on www.mouseplanet.com ==>


At the March 19th, 2003 Walt Disney Company Annual Meeting in Denver, during the Question and Answer section, somebody asked what is Disney planning to do to improve Disney's Animal Kingdom.

Michael Eisner responded with the fact that a ride dealing with Climbing Mt. Everest and "is the biggest, and the best, and the most amazing ride thru the Himalayas..." is "on the boards and has been approved"... "A Testosterone driven ride for the boy in the family..." Then Michael turns to Bob Iger to ask when the ride should be completed, and Bob says "You just made a couple of hundred people on the internet happier than they ever been in their life." Basically confirming Michael let the cat out of the bag before the official announcement.

Source: The Walt Disney Company Annual Shareholder's Meeting Audio replay. (Approximately at 1 hour and 48 minutes into the presentation)

d-r
03-20-2003, 06:27 AM
Micheal's just ticked off because I said April 22, and he is trying to show me up now.

"a couple of hundred people on the internet" I think they have us pretty much pegged.
DR

airlarry!
03-20-2003, 07:45 AM
I listened to the audio show, and did a quick transcript. I think it is pretty accurate...but the MP report seems to be in error. It was the questioner (IMO) who replied to Ei$ner with the "Happy Internet People" remark...we can't hear Bob's reply on the audio portion because he didn't seem to have his microphone on:

http://www.videonewswire.com/event.asp?id=12939

Q: It’s like the only park that you haven’t built a moat around is the Animal Kingdom…are you guys going to do anything there any time soon…like Beastly Kingdom or something like that?”

A: We have on the boards and approved…and I don’t know whether we’ve announced it so I’m always in difficult territory here…but an attraction called something Climbing Everest…or…Mt Everest is in the title…and it is the biggest, and the best, and the most amazing ride through the Himalayas, (and it is) consistent with the topography and the spirit of the Animal Kingdom..We want the Animal Kingdom to be an equally attractive park to our guests as the other 3 parks in Florida and even though it is so unique and so swonderful having a testosterone driven ride for the boy in the family that finds himself in the ak with his sister and his parents is something that has been approved and is on the agenda to open…to begin construction actually… to begin, when do you think?

Q: You just made a couple of hundred people happy on the internet then they’ve ever been in their life.

a: Don’t tell them…don’t tell them (because) I don’t think we’ve announced it yet

Eyesnur
03-20-2003, 07:50 AM
I believe you questioned my sanity recently over my belief that this would be built. Is this enough of a positive indicator for optimism or do you stilll need more?

larworth
03-20-2003, 08:09 AM
Airlarry you beat me to the punch. Your account is accurate.

It was the questioner, not Iger, who made the "happy" comment. I could not tell if anyone tried to answer Eisner when he asked when it was to be open? Too bad, I guess we will get the full details in April.

The guy got to ask a second question and he wasted it on some nonsense about Kimmel and Mickey Mouse???

It appears Forbidden Mountain was just a working title.

Any comment on Eisner's framing this as something needed to appear to the boy that finds himself in the AK... the connotation being he doesn't really want to go there?

KNWVIKING
03-20-2003, 08:24 AM
By "he" are you refering to ME or young boys in general. If you mean ME, I didn't get that impression. If you mean boys in general, I think that's an accurate statement on his part. There have probably been enough surveys taken that show that young boys/teens don't like AK because it's lacking in thrills. Count Down and River are all they offer.

larworth
03-20-2003, 09:44 AM
The "he" is the yound male. We've talked about this demographic many times. It just got me thinking about segmentation and guest percpetion.

Is it the lack of rides with a thrill component that is the issue, or is the quality of these rides (Dino, Kali, PW) the problem. On a percentage basis they represent a high percent of DAK's attractions.

Everest does sound like it will be a notch higher on the thrill scale. If will be interesting to see if this helps or hurts the parks identify problem.

crusader
03-20-2003, 11:24 AM
The AK needs more thrill in general. Disney needs more coasters. If the AK puts in a coaster, the attendance figures will instantly climb. It makes sense and it will work.

raidermatt
03-20-2003, 11:51 AM
Anything of quality will help AK, whether its a coaster or a show, or whatever.

As larworth pointed out, on a percentage basis, AK is actually thrill-heavy. The problem isn't that there are only three thrill rides, its that the three thrill rides (out of something like 6 total rides, + 6 or 7 trails/shows), aren't very good. The highest praise from anyone on PW is that its fun, and we know how many negative comments have been made. The attendance figures tell us that the addition of PW, TS, and re-institution of a parade, did very little to help AK's drawing power.

Kali has the automatic appeal of being a water ride in a hot park, but most feel it is weak when compared to other rapids rides.

Dinosaur is OK, but lacks the scope and effort of comparable rides like Indy.

Its the quality that counts, not the quantity.

So, if this new coaster is really a quality effort in terms of story and themeing, then yes, it will help.

But of course, so would a quality family ride.

Is this enough of a positive indicator for optimism or do you stilll need more? Similar to M:S, I think we have to see the results before we make that call, don't you? We know that Disney has to build SOMETHING every few years...even Eisner knows that.

So until we see more details on this, and consider what else is being planned for the resort, its difficult to draw any real conclusions.

KNWVIKING
03-20-2003, 12:39 PM
"Is it the lack of rides with a thrill component that is the issue, or is the quality of these rides (Dino, Kali, PW) the problem. "

I don't think that age group cares about quality,theming,etc. They want to have their guts ripped and ready to puke. I think a lot of the success of IOA is due to this.

raidermatt
03-20-2003, 01:20 PM
I don't think that age group cares about quality,theming,etc. They want to have their guts ripped and ready to puke. I think a lot of the success of IOA is due to this. And therein lies the problem with trying to provide for every conceivable market segment...sometimes what they want is mutually exclusive.

kenman
03-20-2003, 01:27 PM
I hope this ride isn't to WILD! There is getting to be way to many rides my family don't go on, It soon don't pay me to take them to Disney any more, including myself!

KNWVIKING
03-20-2003, 01:35 PM
"And therein lies the problem with trying to provide for every conceivable market segment..."

This is a fairly sizeable market segment. If you lose the kids now, you may not get them back when they get older. I think WDW could stand to have a few rides for these kids.

crusader
03-20-2003, 01:44 PM
Its the quality that counts, not the quantity.

No, it's both - neither of which the AK has.

This is a fairly sizeable market segment. If you lose the kids now, you may not get them back when they get older. I think WDW could stand to have a few rides for these kids.

This is exactly true. Once an initial impression is made it is hard to convince someone otherwise. The young person attending WDW grows up and considers their particular experience when weighing the decision to revisit.

There is plenty of room for this "market segment". There has to be more thrills at WDW to liven up a young audience and help justify the price of this trip to the average family.

All Aboard
03-20-2003, 02:32 PM
Crusader, why then am I a captive WDW customer? My first experience (as a 12 year old) there was with just a single thrill attraction - Space Mountain. I lost some interest in WDW in the intervening years, but it was restored whole hog as I moved into early adulthood and then burst wide open when I became a parent.

That's the kind of appeal WDW needs to retain. The segment that keeps getting described above is fickle and fleeting. One day they like you, then they look to the next guys whose is taller and faster than yours.

Cedar Point customers decided that 100mph and 310feet is neither tall enough or fast enough. Hence, Dragster. What's it's shelf life?

crusader
03-20-2003, 02:49 PM
gcurling -

I know it may sound as if I am only describing someone having a negative experience and not returning but I am speaking of everyone here.

You losing your appeal as a young person and then regaining it is probably similar to most of us. I myself loved space mountain and rode it over and over again with my brother when it was literally the only thrill going at the parks. I have often felt that invisible appeal to go back! But it really is an illusion anymore.

Today what I see are alot of parents raising their children as participants in the decision making process. What often happens is that young man or woman will whine and complain that they are bored more often than not and won't willingly participate in a vacation. This is where the "magic" becomes work. Relaxation is gone and you start to rethink the cost.

Put in a few more thrills more in line with todays standard and you have something to offer your entire family.

airlarry!
03-20-2003, 02:50 PM
M. Curling is correct.

Why go for bigger, faster, stronger? That's not Disney's niche and its not their market.

Go for longer lasting, better show, widest possible ridership. Family rides...with an occasional teen ride to get big bro or big sis about the family trip.

crusader
03-20-2003, 03:07 PM
The parks are loaded with large capacity rides and shows already. They need more thrills. It does not mean they need to build an "X" or "Top Thrill Dragster" (although it sounds good to me!).

The themed rides eventually lose thier luster if there is no thrill element. For example, look at the draw for PoTC today compared to Space Mountain. Which ride continues to generate lines? The one with more thrill - the coaster.

KNWVIKING
03-20-2003, 03:08 PM
"Go for longer lasting, better show, widest possible ridership. Family rides...with an occasional teen ride to get big bro or big sis about the family trip."

Your agreeing with Curling, but your quote is exactly what me and Crusader have been saying. guess I'm misreading something ?!?

KNWVIKING
03-20-2003, 03:08 PM
"Go for longer lasting, better show, widest possible ridership. Family rides...with an occasional teen ride to get big bro or big sis about the family trip."

Your agreeing with Curling, but your quote is exactly what me and Crusader have been saying. guess I'm misreading something ?!?

raidermatt
03-20-2003, 03:19 PM
This is a fairly sizeable market segment. If you lose the kids now, you may not get them back when they get older. This is not a new issue for Disney. The simple fact is, a coaster, while great for the segment you speak of, does little to nothing for the larger segment of Disney's guests that would prefer family-inclusive attractions (we've covered this before, family-inclusive does not mean a Pirates clone...)

With the limited amout of capital Disney is willing to spend, it makes little sense to use it on a smaller segment you are trying to capture, rather than a larger (and higher spending) segment you have but need to keep satisfied.

Further, a truly innovative and creative family attraction would still have value to the thrill-seekers.

Its the quality that counts, not the quantity.

No, it's both - neither of which the AK has Again, AK has three thrill attractions. That's the same number as MGM, and only one less than MK.

If quantity is the problem, its an equal problem in the better drawing parks.

The young person attending WDW grows up and considers their particular experience when weighing the decision to revisit. Same story, different day. What actually happens is the young kids grow-up, and have more young kids who can't ride thrill rides. So they go to the place that caters to them. Its been happening for decades.

I think WDW could stand to have a few rides for these kids. Its not so much that there is NO place for these rides, its that they now make up the vast majority of the major additions and replacements.

When you have a philosophy of providing family entertainment with creativity and quality, you end-up with attractions like Pirates, HM, SE and even the recently discussed KS.

When you have a philosophy of capturing market segments, you look for things to provide that market segment. So, you provide something to keep group A happy, something for B, and something for C. But you don't provide much for A, B AND C.

Its the easy way out. Yes, you can make money at it, like Six Flag's has, but you don't make Disney money.

KNWVIKING
03-20-2003, 03:29 PM
After all the past threads/post dealing with how US/IOA "gets it" and throw in the negatives about Cal Screamin in DCA, it seems strange to read so much resistance to a ride we really don't know much about, but from the few details we have sounds like it will be done properly. I doubt very much Everest will be a coaster on the level of Nitro or Dragster or even Hulk, (after all, if ME says it's going to be great,doesn't that really mean okay). We all agree AK needs more, and that doesn't mean more Dino, and it appears now we're going to get it. The fact that young males will like it is just a bonus,IMHO.

All Aboard
03-20-2003, 04:17 PM
Vike, my position in this post really has nothing to do with Beastly Forbidden Everest. Rather, I was just responding (again) to the notion that some folks have the WDW needs to add more and more thrill attractions.

WDW needs more attractions that can appeal to the largest portion of the (as much as d-r will hate this) family as possible. That's been their success factor and I don't see why this needs to change.

I'm in agreement with the occaisonal teen ride that airlarry mentioned. But, I feel that the teen ride is becoming the norm. We've been down this road before, but since the end of 1998, it seems that every attraction that has been added to WDW has either been a thrill attraction with a height requirement, or a hub and spoke spinner. Nothing in between. No modern day Pirates or Haunted Mansion or 20,000 leagues or Jungle Cruise or Enchanted Tiki Room. Not clones of those, but modern day versions that have the effect of drawing in the entire family of today. Is that impossible?

Testtrack321
03-20-2003, 04:20 PM
:D :D :D :D :D

I'm happy.

I don't want to make any guesses untill I see pics, but I have a feeling that Mikie was a little more open to say this since Universal down the street is building their new coaster.

BTW, oh Landbarron?

What did you say before? ;)

KNWVIKING
03-20-2003, 04:31 PM
Point taken Scoop. "gets it" was just the my way to communicate all the good spin US/IOA seems to get.

raidermatt
03-20-2003, 05:00 PM
Viking, gcurling covered my position as well. Its not about whether this attraction is well-done, with true story and themeing or not. That's a separate execution issue, and frankly, its one we have no real info about.

We all agree AK needs more, and that doesn't mean more Dino, and it appears now we're going to get it. Before making this judgement, it might be prudent to go back and look at some of Disney's statements about Dino, DCA, etc.

The truth is, we really don't know what we are getting yet.

The fact that young males will like it is just a bonus,IMHO. But see, this IS the point. Its a bonus, but there's the negative that younger males won't be able to ride it. Many adults just simply don't ride these either, for a variety of reasons.


As for US/IOA, I think you'll find we have varying opinions on them. I don't think anyone really thinks they "get it" in the true "Walt-like" sense. I think where they get praise, is that on a per-park basis, they seem more willing to expand and enhance with new attractions. Further, they understand their market is more teen-oriented, and while they are trying to become a family resort, they are not ignoring their base.

Disney is more family oriented, and in its efforts to reach out to teens, they seem to be neglecting their base.


ADDED IN EDIT: I didn't see the Viking/Scoop exhange before posting this.

crusader
03-20-2003, 05:02 PM
WDW needs more attractions that can appeal to the largest portion of the (as much as d-r will hate this) family as possible. That's been their success factor and I don't see why this needs to change.

The attractions with "appeal" being referred to here were always few and limited - even back in the day. I keep reading over and over again about the need for a modern day pirates or haunted mansion or 20,000 leagues (which by the way was really not very good!). That's it. Did I miss something? There are four parks last time I counted and these are the best you can come up with? So if my calculations are correct, WDW hasn't given us anything in the past 35 years. This doesn't seem to have anything to do with the present regime, it is a standard practice for this Co.

So why continue to regularly patronize an organization which has left you with less and less. There must be something driving the regulars there besides outdated technology.

raidermatt
03-20-2003, 05:15 PM
Spaceship Earth, Hall of Presidents, American Adventure, Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln, Tiki Room, Horizons, World of Motion, Energy Adventure, Journey into Your Imagination, Fantasmic, Illuminations, Food Rocks, The Living Seas, Great Movie Ride, Kilaminjaro Safaris, People Mover, Railroad, Monorail, Jungle Cruise, Cranium Command, Maelstrom, Rio Del Tiempo, Skyway, Peter Pan, Its a Small World, and others that don't immediately come to mind.

Some are more tame than others, and of course they don't all appeal to everyone, but to say Pirates, HM, and 20K is it is a *slight* exaggeration.

KNWVIKING
03-20-2003, 05:17 PM
"Before making this judgement, it might be prudent to go back and look at some of Disney's statements about Dino, DCA, etc."

My statement wasn't just based on what ME just said. Mostly it was based on recent posts here about leaked info on Forbid/Beast/Everest. Combining those posts along with ME statement led me to state " and it appears now we're going to get it".


"But see, this IS the point. Its a bonus, but there's the negative that younger males won't be able to ride it. Many adults just simply don't ride these either, for a variety of reasons."

There will always be rides that not everyone will ride. My DW won't get on TeaCups, makes her sick. Height requirements will always be there for certain rides, as I assume Everest will have, but since basically every coaster ride will have a height guide,why not make this one a little edgier for the sake of those-young & old- who appriciate rides like that. There are people that won't get on any coasters, building a more thrilling one will not affect cheat them out of a new ride any less then building a less thrilling one.

pheneix
03-20-2003, 05:31 PM
>>>I can't really think of anyone around here who thinks Universal "gets it" as we use that term.<<<

Having seen the influence that the new management team in Orlando has had over the past year I can uinequivocally say that Universal "gets it" in spades.

>>>I think where they get praise, is that on a per-park basis, they seem more willing to expand and enhance with new attractions.<<<

A lot of it is that, but there have also been great strides in guest service and entertainment at their parks too. For anyone to claim overwise really says a lot about someone's ignorance of Universal's theme parks.

>>>I have a feeling that Mikie was a little more open to say this since Universal down the street is building their new coaster.<<<

I second that, but I think Mikey is going to be floored by what they are putting Mt. Everest up against.

crusader
03-20-2003, 05:32 PM
Some are more tame than others, and of course they don't all appeal to everyone, but to say Pirates, HM, and 20K is it is a *slight* exaggeration

OK maybe - now where's the list of thrills. There aren't enough. And as I read your list I am reminded of how much has been installed for the slow riders. .

There are people that won't get on any coasters, building a more thrilling one will not affect cheat them out of a new ride any less then building a less thrilling one.

I agree. There's plenty of room for a real coaster at AK and I am certain it will drive the numbers up. This does not deter the theme element of WDW at all. It will simply be a welcome addition to the mountain attractions they have held for years.

d-r
03-20-2003, 05:36 PM
y'all are so funny.

Eyesnur
03-20-2003, 05:43 PM
Is it true that Universal is testing actual teleportation for their new rides? I hear 'Back To The Future' will be updated to really transport us back to the future...Man that Universal sure is the best...

crusader
03-20-2003, 05:51 PM
I second that, but I think Mikey is going to be floored by what they are putting Mt. Everest up against.

Now I am curious.

pheneix
03-20-2003, 06:32 PM
Well, here is a little taste of what is going on in the halls of Universal Creative:

Link (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6220171.WKU.&OS=PN/6220171&RS=PN/6220171)

It should be pretty obvious that the patent filed was for the Apollo 13 themed ride that Universal damn near built in the late 90's, and is not directly related to the current project(s) going on at Universal right now.

However, to say that the ride system patented is still "alive" would be QUITE the understatement, and several years of advancement in design and technology can cook up some interesting things...

KNWVIKING
03-20-2003, 06:38 PM
Just curious on the Mt Everest abbreviation, isn't ME already taken ? Seems very familiar.

raidermatt
03-20-2003, 06:57 PM
My statement wasn't just based on what ME just said. Mostly it was based on recent posts here about leaked info on Forbid/Beast/Everest. Combining those posts along with ME statement led me to state " and it appears now we're going to get it". All we've really heard is some info on where the idea came from. I'm not saying there is any proof that the ride will stink, just pointing out that plans are constantly changed, and more importantly, scaled back from the original ideas we hear about.

Height requirements will always be there for certain rides, as I assume Everest will have, but since basically every coaster ride will have a height guide,why not make this one a little edgier for the sake of those-young & old- who appriciate rides like that. So if you're going to eliminate X percent of your base, why not elminate X+Y percent?

OK maybe - now where's the list of thrills. There aren't enough. Why is 3 or 4 enough for MK and MGM to draw 14 million and 8 million respectively last year, while AK only drew 7.3? Epcot only has 2 and drew 8.3 million.

Again, the quality of those three attractions is far more important than whether there's three or four.

Or forget all that, and just explain why Disney outdraws every thrill park on the planet... There seems to be more to it than just the number of thrill rides.

It will simply be a welcome addition to the mountain attractions they have held for years. In business, everything carries an opportunity cost. The tighter the reigns on spending, the more important this concept becomes. In this case, the question becomes, will you get more benefit from those who will like this attraction than you would from an attraction that appeals to a wider section of your base.

Of course, it is easier to provide a coaster, since even if you skimp on story, themeing and show, some will still like it. Skimp on that stuff in a family ride and you've got something of little value.

But of course, that wouldn't have anything to do with Disney's decision-making, would it?

petecaler
03-20-2003, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by raidermatt
Or forget all that, and just explain why Disney outdraws every thrill park on the planet... There seems to be more to it than just the number of thrill rides.? [/B]

Disney outdraws for one simple reason. Theming. Nobody drops thousands to go to six flags and ride all the pre-packed thrill rides. Sure,they're fun, but they are'nt anywhere near the totally immersive experience that you get at disney. DCA is a good example of disney forgetting the formula.

crusader
03-20-2003, 07:40 PM
pheneix -

I want to thank you for that link. Absolutely great read!!!


Why is 3 or 4 enough for MK and MGM to draw 14 million and 8 million respectively last year, while AK only drew 7.3? Epcot only has 2 and drew 8.3 million.

I think I might be a bit lost here.

MK draws record numbers for so many different reasons - mainly because it is the true icon of Walt Disney World.
It is where "magic lives" and that is what every guest purchased.

MGM has two main thrill rides without which would probably do considerably less in attendance.

EPCOT has a marginal 1 thrill right now soon to be replaced by M:S.

AK has none that really fit this category.

Now look at these numbers carefully - MK draws over 40% more visitors than any of the other parks. There will be several theories here on the why but consider this - it is where "all" the rides are and isn't that what everybody wants in a theme park?

DisneyKidds
03-20-2003, 10:22 PM
I believe you questioned my sanity recently over my belief that this would be built.
it seems strange to read so much resistance to a ride we really don't know much about
Welcome to my world guys ;).
There will always be rides that not everyone will ride. My DW won't get on TeaCups, makes her sick. Height requirements will always be there for certain rides, as I assume Everest will have, but since basically every coaster ride will have a height guide,why not make this one a little edgier for the sake of those-young & old- who appriciate rides like that. There are people that won't get on any coasters, building a more thrilling one will not affect cheat them out of a new ride any less then building a less thrilling one.
...........and well said Viking :).

I'm sure that whatever they call it, whatever they do with it, this ride will get beat up around here. I think it will be a good addition. I think themeing is what makes people want to come to Disney. I hope they theme this coaster well. Can't wait to hear more details.

ohanafamily
03-21-2003, 07:16 AM
On-Topic:
Do you think Everest could be a pay-for extra climbing wall like we are seeing at low end parks? I am not totally serious, but with the way things are going at WDW right now, I wouldn't dismiss the possibility...

Off-Topic:
I like US/IOA, but I've been there and done that. Unless they do some serious additions we won't have a desire to go back for several years.

At WDW, there is always something new and different happining...

JMHO...

:bounce:

HB2K
03-21-2003, 11:30 AM
At WDW, there is always something new and different happining...

JMHO...

Like what? Parades? Marketing? Carny rides?

Or by different do you mean the hours, cutbacks & costs?

Bob O
03-21-2003, 12:17 PM
AK has no thrill rides at all!!! They have some that try to be like Dinosaur but they fail as such.
This new wride would be a excellant addition to the park, but they also need other types of rides, a dark ride would be great!!!

Eyesnur
03-21-2003, 12:23 PM
And yet your last visit was when, HBK?:confused:

Testtrack321
03-21-2003, 02:10 PM
Many will find me praising Universal odd, but here it goes guys.

They built IoA correctly. I'm not saying its the best park, but they built it correctly. It hasn't needed a new E-Ticket because all their rides were built. No second phases, no 'wait and see' scenarios. Where as AK needs to add more rides, they didn't build the park correctly.

Now back the the main question: When Walt said 'A place for the family to have fun together' did he mean as a group going on all attractions, or where some times they split up, other times they stay together?

Eyesnur
03-21-2003, 02:38 PM
Testtrack, while IOA was built more "wholelly" it has never been very succesful. Even now with some increased attendance they still aren't hitting what their original projections were (remember, they didn't even outdraw the 'lowly' AK last year). So it is really hard to say if this was the right way to do it or not, IMO...

Also remember that a lot of these recent attendance figures for IOA are a result of virtually giving the park away to locals. Only time will tell if this strategy (hoping the 'freebie crowd' periferal expenditures) will pay off.

HB2K
03-21-2003, 02:39 PM
And yet your last visit was when, HBK?
December 2003.

Please illuminate me as to what "new & exciting" has been added over the past 2 years? How about 5 years?

And Testtrack hit the nail on the head....IOA was built complete straight out of the gate. It's held up for it's age MUCH better than DAK has.

It may not be everything to everyone, but it's one damn good park. Slap a Disney sticker on it, and opinions bantered around here would be much different.

HB2K
03-21-2003, 02:40 PM
Also remember that a lot of these recent attendance figures for IOA are a result of virtually giving the park away to locals. Only time will tell if this strategy (hoping the 'freebie crowd' periferal expenditures) will pay off.
And Disney's gimmickry with DAK & Florida passes isn't a bit of the same?

ohanafamily
03-21-2003, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by HB2K
Like what? Parades? Marketing? Carny rides?

Or by different do you mean the hours, cutbacks & costs?

Exactly, there is something different, whether it is a food and wine festival, a flower/gardening tropiary, acrobat show..This is just in Epcot.

What they do is change things up just enough to keep it interesting. These changes will probably go away with the other cutbacks...

There really is so much to do and see that each trip out there is a new experience.....

(OK, I am still in car 1)

:bounce:

BRERALEX
03-21-2003, 02:45 PM
Please illuminate me as to what "new & exciting" has been added over the past 2 years? How about 5 years?

darn it i really wanted to jump at this and list a whole bunch of things but......im having trouble.....if you would have said...."what bad things have happened well then hey we could start backwards with my chicken finger.

millenium village was cool.

pheneix
03-21-2003, 02:49 PM
>>>Even now with some increased attendance they still aren't hitting what their original projections were<<<

Here lately they have...

>>>Also remember that a lot of these recent attendance figures for IOA are a result of virtually giving the park away to locals.<<<

That is ABSOLUTELY NOT taking place. None of the discounts have put Universal into a loss scenerio like in California (then again, a very different management team oversees the day to day operations out there), and they have been paying off very well for them.

>>>Slap a Disney sticker on it, and opinions bantered around here would be much different.<<<

Truer words have never been spoken...

Eyesnur
03-21-2003, 03:01 PM
Nobodys' talking or bragging up Disney's attendance guys, it's only IOA that some people want to pump up. Sure the Florida annual passes bump attendance some but they aren't at the giveaway level that US/IOA is. Most Florida/Georgia passholders come and spend a night or two and lots of money. Pricing built around locals may not provide this (Although they may very well, after all DL is predicated on the local). But at WDW I think Disney would lose money by offering 2 years for one in the long run. Sure the local Orlando crowd would snap it up but again these are not the real money spenders. Meanwhile the huge number of out of town AP'ers just saved a bundle. I doubt it would be recouped...As for US/IOA not being bumped by the locals, I'm not buying it. Attendance is up just enough to indicate that this is exactly what is pushing US and hurting Disney.

Listen, I have no problem with IOA. My daughter likes it just fine, although she doesn't love it. I am not enthused about going because I have no doubt that I couldn't ride Hulk or Dragons. Take these two out of the mix and Spidey is all I'd really be looking forward to...And believe me I'd like to ride it, but not for the cost of admitance...See I believe IOA to be a 1/2 day park...

As for the slap a Disney sticker on it comments...This is silly. I have no qualms with US/IOA, in fact if you'll remember I am the one who thought Disney should have bought them when they had the chance. But these parks are not the same quality through and through and as was mentioned earlier, park location weighs heavily into this as well as employee quality...

HB2K
03-21-2003, 03:04 PM
Exactly, there is something different, whether it is a food and wine festival, a flower/gardening tropiary, acrobat show..This is just in Epcot.

What they do is change things up just enough to keep it interesting. These changes will probably go away with the other cutbacks...

There really is so much to do and see that each trip out there is a new experience.....

(OK, I am still in car 1)



At least you can admit it. Personally it takes a little more than a new bush or trash can to excite me, but to each their own :)

darn it i really wanted to jump at this and list a whole bunch of things but......im having trouble.....
Let me get you started...

Early Entry!

Doh!

BRERALEX
03-21-2003, 03:08 PM
Let me get you started...

early entry uhuh i forgot...

we spoke and they listened......wait...no that was for Caracterrrrrrrr ooops my bad

HB2K
03-21-2003, 03:14 PM
As for the slap a Disney sticker on it comments...This is silly. I have no qualms with US/IOA, in fact if you'll remember I am the one who thought Disney should have bought them when they had the chance. But these parks are not the same quality through and through and as was mentioned earlier, park location weighs heavily into this as well as employee quality...
If IOA isn't the same quality as a Disney park, where does that leave Animal Kingdom and California Adventure?

You're right, it's not the same quality, it's better.

Sure the Florida annual passes bump attendance some but they aren't at the giveaway level that US/IOA is. Most Florida/Georgia passholders come and spend a night or two and lots of money. Pricing built around locals may not provide this (Although they may very well, after all DL is predicated on the local). But at WDW I think Disney would lose money by offering 2 years for one in the long run. Sure the local Orlando crowd would snap it up but again these are not the real money spenders. Meanwhile the huge number of out of town AP'ers just saved a bundle. I doubt it would be recouped...As for US/IOA not being bumped by the locals, I'm not buying it. Attendance is up just enough to indicate that this is exactly what is pushing US and hurting Disney.
Please send me some links backing this statement up. I disagree with you whole heartedly.

NEVER has Disney given access to ANY of their theme parks during blackout periods on seasonal passes. But now they will let you get into Animal Kingdom at will. How's it different?

And don't even get me going on the discounts in Anahiem. It's not the same, so I won't bring it up for this arguement.

I'd just like to see some evidence that the AP market is night and day different between UO & WDW.

Doing that time travel thing again, eh?
Oops. December 2002. Based on your re-do of week old posts I thought the time travel thing was your deal scoop....

Thanks for telling me my opinion again.
I know my opinion would change....If IOA was build within WDW and AK was built at UO, I'd be in car 2 (the cutbacks bring me down a notch). That's a change of opinion :)

HB2K
03-21-2003, 03:16 PM
I'm still waiting for the list of new and exciting things added to WDW over the past 5 years (other than shrubs & trash cans).

BRERALEX
03-21-2003, 03:24 PM
technically didnt test track open within your five year period? or did i miss by like a month.

man if only pop century had opened last year you'd be in trouble trying to explain how PC aint cool, new and exciting.:o

But really at least they do have things on the horizon, like MS and now FM. (I'm still not in car #4 hopin to jump to #1 some day again.)

If they take my other chicken finger there will be hell to pay

HB2K
03-21-2003, 03:28 PM
If they take my other chicken finger there will be hell to pay

Alex,

If they decide to take your other chicken finger away, it will just be because they're worried about your diet....hey, now that cut is magical!

All Aboard
03-21-2003, 03:30 PM
Just some thoughts on the investment structure differences between UO & WDW. UO's infrastructure cost is much less than that of WDW. They have fewer hotel rooms to fill and fewer road dollars and bus gas dollars to recoup. Theirs is a simpler model. If they can keep the three hotels full and draw enough guests to keep their attendance fairly high, they just might be making decent money on their investment.

WDW has the potential to make much more money. But, it relies much more on a guest travelling to WDW, staying in one of their resorts, spending all of their dining dollars in WDW restaurants, etc. They've built such an expensive capital base that they require tremendous support.

So, while a local annual passholder spending an afternoon at a park doesn't deliver more $ to UO (as opposed to that same guest spending the day at WDW) WDW needs a greater portion of its guests to be the all-in type in order to not just pay for the theme park capital and operating budget, but for all of the other infrastructure as well.

Of course, UO has moved in that direction with the addition of CityWalk and the three resorts. But, think of it this way. Parks like Busch Gardens, Paramount & Six Flags survive on a very high percentage of local traffic. They need only cover the costs of a theme park and nothing more. So it seems that they can do that on mostly annual passes, plus one day tickets and food and merchandise purchases. That's one extreme. WDW is at that other.

So, what I am trying to say is that it's not likely that UO could survive on nothing but local annual passholders, their business model is one that permits success at a place closer to that on the continuum than where WDW is.

Demosthenes
03-21-2003, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by HB2K
I'm still waiting for the list of new and exciting things added to WDW over the past 5 years (other than shrubs & trash cans).


According to Disney.com, the following items have been added in the last 5 years. It seems like there math is a little optimistic, and that some of this is older than 5 years, but here it is:

Walt Disney - One Man's Dream

Playhouse Disney – Live on Stage!

Primeval Whirl!

TriceraTop Spin

Mickey's Jammin' Jungle Parade

Disney Stars and Motor Cars Parade

Share A Dream Come True Parade

The Magic Carpets of Aladdin

Who Wants To Be A Millionaire - Play It!

The Villas at Disney's Wilderness Lodge

Disney's Animal Kingdom Lodge

Buzz Lightyear's Space Ranger Spin

Disney's Animal Kingdom Park

Fantasmic!

DINOSAUR

Kilimanjaro Safaris

DisneyQuest Indoor Interactive Theme Park

Disney's Coronado Springs Resort

Disney's Wide World of Sports complex

Disney's BoardWalk

BRERALEX
03-21-2003, 03:36 PM
I've been fortunate enough to gain some access and insight into some of the technology measures at WDW used to aid security. While I won't share the precise measures because I was asked not to, I can assure you that the resort guard posts and park baggage checks are, at best, diversionary tactics and good ways to slow down crowds enough to allow technology to analyze guests in ways humans simply can't do as efficiently.

that was from scoops security post on another thread.

If they decide to take your other chicken finger away, it will just be because they're worried about your diet....hey, now that cut is magical!

sonofagun how did they know i needed a diet!!! scary thread.

UO is just trying to steal guests from their 7-10 vaca at WDW. And so not having so much hotel space isnt hurting them.

BRERALEX
03-21-2003, 03:40 PM
ok then i have problems here....

BUZZ is defitnaly exciting is becomming my sons fav ride at 5 yrs old.

WWTBAM i got to the 125000 questions im still savoring the feeling

listing AK can be good and bad i mean its a 1/4 day park.

that list is fluffed up a bit lisitng AK then most rides in AK is like cheating kind of

ONE mans dream is cool.

space42
03-21-2003, 04:11 PM
Intercot has posted a picture of the model.

http://www.intercot.com/features/images/forbid.jpg

pheneix
03-21-2003, 04:12 PM
I'm shocked that a ride of this caliber actually got greenlit. I wonder what was slipped in the Mr. Coffee machines out in Burbank...

space42
03-21-2003, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by pheneix
I'm shocked that a ride of this caliber actually got greenlit. I wonder what was slipped in the Mr. Coffee machines out in Burbank...

attendance figures ;)

hopemax
03-21-2003, 04:20 PM
Perhaps 2 years of looking at DCA's numbers was enough to make them put something in their coffee on purpose, and then things got out of control. :)

ohanafamily
03-21-2003, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by thedscoop
However, if you put IOA into a nice buffered place with Disney-caliber CM's, then I'd make regular return visits. My biggest frustration with IOA isn't the number or even in most cases quality of its rides, it's the execution of the park and the park's employees by and large.

Scoop, I will disagree on some of this.

Buffered is a definite need,
Disney Caliber CM's, I have met an awful lot of disgruntled Disney CMs, and UO hired a good bit of the ones that were trimmed from the WDW heard. UO has some good CMs.
Also, the hotels try harder to get my business. I have one friend who tokk his entire family of six to WDW for 2 weeks a year. He now goes to US because of the quality of service.

There are a few rides that are themed "better" than the Disney equivalent. I would put Bluto's Barge (the rapids ride, whatever it is called) well over the one in AK. The AK ride is too short, and themed apropraitely for AK, I just like the bright colors and the fact that it is a much longer ride. Waiting in line that long for a 3 minute ride...just to get wet and cool down (remember the lack of shade in AK)

As far as Hulk and Dragons, WDW doesn't do the big outside coasters. They go for a more subtle, themed coaster. There really isn't any comparison.

I like Buzz Light Year A lot better than MIB.

I would put Spider man (when the ride is working right) up against any thrill ride at WDW. The problem is that they did not make the ride as stable as WDW would. I remember TT when it first opened was down most of the time for around 6 months. Now they don't have the huge problems with it that still plague Spidey.

The AP's are a give-away at US. $100 a year, compared to 400-600, but then again, if you stay on property you can do both parks in a day. They are hoping for return visitors, staying on property for the FOTL pass.

The US shows are worth it, but the MGM shows you can go to more than once....I would go to Lion King every trip until they clsed it, but I don't think I need to go to Twister more than once.

Jurasic Park? well, before the redisigned the restraints I bruised/cracked a rib on the ride a year ago, and it ruined my vacation.

EOR

:bounce:

ohanafamily
03-21-2003, 05:04 PM
BTW SPACE42, I couldn't open the picture.....

:bounce:

hopemax
03-21-2003, 05:11 PM
Intercot crashed not long after the link to the picture started making the rounds. I did get it to load once, though.

It does look cool, but DH doesn't ride things like that, so I don't know if I should be happy or not. ToT used to be my favorite, but riding alone sucks big time.

Testtrack321
03-21-2003, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by pheneix
I'm shocked that a ride of this caliber actually got greenlit. I wonder what was slipped in the Mr. Coffee machines out in Burbank...

The same thing BRERALEX found in his chicken fingers... :p

I have the pic on my desktop if anyone wants to see it, but now it's up again.

KNWVIKING
03-21-2003, 08:37 PM
"I would put Bluto's Barge (the rapids ride, whatever it is called) well over the one in AK. "

Are you refering to the flume ride that is/was the Dudley DoRight theme ride ? If so I have to disagree with you on this one. Unless it's been greatly improve since we were there two/three years ago I thought the theming was very poorly done and the big splash at the end was nothing more then concelled water cannons designed to absolutely soak all the riders, regardless of the ambient outside air temp. Part of the excitement of Rapids and even Splash is the degree of dampness you may receive.

If Bluto's Barge is a different ride....... Never Mind :-)

luvindisneyworld
03-21-2003, 08:45 PM
I cant get the site to load:(

pheneix
03-21-2003, 09:21 PM
>>>If Bluto's Barge is a different ride....... Never Mind<<<

Yeah, Bluto's is an entirely different ride...

http://www.thrillride.com/bilgeratbarges/barges.html

KNWVIKING
03-21-2003, 09:36 PM
Otay... I remember this ride. It wasn't open when we were there, may not have been completed,not sure. We're head down in June for a week of Orlando Flex Pass fun so I'll hit it then.

DVC-Landbaron
03-21-2003, 09:40 PM
I cant get the site to loadNeither can I!! And I ain't none too happy about it!!:mad: :mad:





Note: To the Pirate and the Captain:

Some knucklehead earlier in this thead (I forget who at the moment) chided me about this thing! Sort of a "Nah! Nah! I told you they were going to build it!!"

All I have to say is: It ain't built yet, pal!! ;)

KNWVIKING
03-21-2003, 09:42 PM
BTW, Intercot is back up.

Testtrack321
03-21-2003, 10:01 PM
Tehehehe, I guess it might be because I posted it on CoasterBuzz...

anyway...

glad to see you here barron, let me just say that I hope it's build too, and we don't get a Western River!

But since some are angry it isn't loading, I'll just post the pic on another site and link it to there.

I'm just that nice...

http://www.coasterforce.info/download.php?id=282

DC7800
03-21-2003, 10:14 PM
I'm shocked that a ride of this caliber actually got greenlit.

All I have to say is: It ain't built yet, pal!!

The project probably hasn't seen its last budget cut yet either. :D :D :D

The Intercot picture does look impressive. I really wasn't expecting something anywhere near this scale, although I'm concerned at the addition (now a definite pattern) of yet another thrill ride into WDW. Indeed, a major E-ticket for the whole family is long overdue. While Everest will be a valuable addition to AK, the park needs more than a single new attraction.

ChrisFL
03-21-2003, 10:14 PM
Wow, a Disney/US thread without any bashing or backstabbing...I'm impressed!

IMO, I've heard both things from CM's/Employees for both parks. I would say in the past Disney CM's were higher quality, had more stringent requirements, etc. but I think it's evening out from what I've seen.

I would say it's correct that IOA is a complete park as it was built, and there was 2 attractions added to it after it opened, though relatively minor....Storm Force and the Flying Unicorn (family coaster).

Both were more family oriented than most other rides at IOA, and that's the entire separate philosophy than Disney. UO knew there was a huge market base being "neglected" by Disney, and that's the thrill-lovers market. Let's face it, there was no real rollercoaster in Orlando since Boardwalk & Baseball.

Now UO is expanding to try to suit the more family attractions, and the opening of Shrek and Jimmy Neutron will help.

IOA is still caught in marketing problems. I constantly hear people say "Islands of Adventure? you mean the water park?" because I'm near Tampa and Busch Gardens's water park is "Adventure Island"

I don't believe Disney can keep going without having more thrilling attractions, but I really believe they need to also concentrate on updating or creating new versions of the classics as well.

I would think they could spend $100 Million on Everest and $25 million on another family attraction for AK would be a better idea, IMO. Instead they're "putting all their eggs in one basket" it seems, like M:S they have to pray it raises attendance on it's own, even if the rest of the park isn't drawing good figures.

I don't go around worrying about if they spent $50, 100, or 150 million on an attraction, just like Hollywood, some of the highest budget movies can be horrid.

If I heard that AK had 2 or 3 new quality attractions, I'd be more inclined to go there than just one rollercoaster.

DVC-Landbaron
03-21-2003, 10:53 PM
glad to see you here barron, Thank you!! Glad to see you here too!! And thanks for the link. Yes!! You are that nice!! :bounce:


let me just say that I hope it's build too, and we don't get a Western River!What have got against they best attraction(s) ever conceived, even if it wasn’t built!?!?!

ohanafamily
03-21-2003, 11:23 PM
Hi Barron, I finally got the picture to load from the first link (the second link said I was not authorized)

COOL!!!!!!!

Another Mountain!!!!

-----------------------------

BTW, Blutos Barge is not the Dudley Do Right ride, But I do like that ride for other reasons; it is a hybrid Coaster, and I like them, not to mention I grew up watching Dudley on Saturday Mornings...

I was never a big Popey fan, but I love the theming for Bluto's ride. I heard a rumor that it, Dragons, and a few others were concepts that came with "Displaced" imagineers... Any Thoughts Mr. Scoop?

:bounce:

larworth
03-21-2003, 11:35 PM
For some reason the design of the mountain is not my favorite, but it looks to be quite a ride. I assume the external sections of the ride are going to be a whole lot better themed than shown here.

I'm really curious what we will be treated to inside the mountain. This seems to be the key to whether this is a much grander Matterhornesque attraction, or something extra special.

Maybe it is the black and white picture, but the ride layout made me think about the concept art for the coaster that was onetime going into the toon section of MGM sans the mountain.

hopemax
03-22-2003, 12:42 AM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
let me just say that I hope it's build too, and we don't get a Western River!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What have got against they best attraction(s) ever conceived, even if it wasn’t built!?!?!

Read what he said again, LB. :) Testtrack doesn't want Forbidden Mountain to become the next Western River, ie. a great attraction that doesn't ever see the light of day. He was agreeing with you :)

DVC-Landbaron
03-22-2003, 11:05 AM
YIKES!!

Thanks Hope!! You see what can happen when you read too fast!! I misplaced the comma (or even a word or two) in my mind and came away with a totally different meaning!!

Sorry Mr. Track!! I misunderstood!!

KNWVIKING
03-22-2003, 11:09 AM
What was Western River to be ?

Testtrack321
03-22-2003, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
What have got against they best attraction(s) ever conceived, even if it wasn’t built!?!?!

I have nothing against it, I just this ride dosn't end up having tons of hopla and then dosn't get built. And your forgiven, we all do it. ;)

As for the ride itself, go to JimHillMedia.com and look for the story in his archives.

daannzzz
03-22-2003, 12:39 PM
You know. There is a picture on intercot where the mountain has been digitally dropped onto the banks of the river at the AK. There is something about this mountain that doesn't work. It looks like an iceburg!!! I am sure it will be big and impressiv ebut I think it looks like it will be hard to make it look realistic. It reminds me of the mountains they use to build around coasters in the early part of the century. Maybe if the whole mountain isn't painted white it would work. I know these are preliminary and the mountain may have been altered from this model but I am still hesitant about it...aside from it being a coaster that I will probably ride only once.

daannzzz
03-22-2003, 12:39 PM
You know. There is a picture on intercot where the mountain has been digitally dropped onto the banks of the river at the AK. There is something about this mountain that doesn't work. It looks like an iceburg!!! I am sure it will be big and impressiv ebut I think it looks like it will be hard to make it look realistic. It reminds me of the mountains they use to build around coasters in the early part of the century. Maybe if the whole mountain isn't painted white it would work. I know these are preliminary and the mountain may have been altered from this model but I am still hesitant about it...aside from it being a coaster that I will probably ride only once.

Testtrack321
03-22-2003, 04:08 PM
A short story description:

"The ride starts outdoors in an abandoned tea plantation where the villagers have all been frightened away by the yeti from the mountain. The trains will be similar to BTMRR. Trains enter the mountain, and travelers are harassed by the yeti. At one point the trains will run backwards. They are looking to open the ride in the summer of 2005. We are hearing construction sounds behind the Jungle Trek."

crusader
03-24-2003, 07:10 AM
Just some thoughts on the investment structure differences between UO & WDW. UO's infrastructure cost is much less than that of WDW. They have fewer hotel rooms to fill and fewer road dollars and bus gas dollars to recoup. Theirs is a simpler model. If they can keep the three hotels full and draw enough guests to keep their attendance fairly high, they just might be making decent money on their investment.

UO's model reminds me of something - WDW when it first opened!

They will make decent money on their investment. It used to be that once someone arrived at WDW for a vacation they stayed there. Now more and more UO is included in the trip which takes money and attendance away from the "world".

The trains will be similar to BTMRR.

I hope this is not true!

UO knew there was a huge market base being "neglected" by Disney, and that's the thrill-lovers market.

Absolutely

AK has potential. It could bring in the numbers if there was more to offer. A mountain ride is a worthy first step.

All Aboard
03-24-2003, 11:06 AM
UO's model reminds me of something - WDW when it first opened! Sort of, but not really. Think about the vast amount of land, the creation of bodies of water, the cost of putting in your own utilities, the roadways, etc. So, even early on, WDW had major infrastructure.

Planogirl
03-24-2003, 12:01 PM
OK, so Universal made the mistake of not buying enough land just like Walt did when he built Disneyland. But I tell you what, in my opinion Disneyland is the best American theme park and the Universal parks are super too. Seeing the outside world is unfortunate but does not make any of these parks bad places. I guess that it all depends on what a person is looking for in a vacation. I want a good park!

We just returned from Florida and spent a few days at Universal for the first time ever. We saw super theming, VERY nice employees and enjoyed good food. We saw Twister, Earthquake and Terminator more than once and there is no way that Buzz compares to MIB! Of course, this is all subjective. :) The worst part was my 4th grader asking if we HAD to leave Universal to go to WDW and telling me on the way back that he preferred Universal. Is he atypical? I wonder. :(

However, it is great news to hear about this new ride. That is if it's truly built and not budget-slashed to a spinner of some kind. The Baron is a good driver but I could use a scenery change by finally moving to Car No. 2.

Oh by the way, someone commented that Disney did not built visible outdoor coasters. Did someone forget about a little ride called California Screaming?

YoHo
03-24-2003, 12:08 PM
Early on in this thread, A comment was made that we needed more Thrill rides, because Rides like Pirates never had lines (and thus weren't popular and thus new ones of that type should not be built.)



This is incorrect. Pirates of the Caribbean is still the most popular attraction at Disneyland in Ca. (according to CM who do the daily figures) I don't know that it is in Florida, but I think its safe to assume its still up there.

The reason Pirates has very short lines is that it is an extremely efficent ride to load. Each Boat holds 22 people. Two boats come in at the same time. It takes what 20 seconds to load a boat and send it out with good CMs and able bodied guests. That makes a potential of what 132 people every minute? or 7920 an hour.

That's phenominal capcity.

Now those were just some guesses based on experence although the 22 people per boat is completely accurate.


This ride looks and sounds like a fancy combination of Big thunder Mountain and The Matterhorn (which includes a yeti already)

The inclusion of Yeti would be a delve into Beastly Kingdom wouldn't it.

Oh and Matterhorn looks great and its largly snowcovered.

That mockup probably lacked detail. it looked like a basic uncolored cardboard one.

DisneyKidds
03-24-2003, 12:23 PM
You see what can happen when you read too fast!! I misplaced the comma (or even a word or two) in my mind and came away with a totally different meaning
Psst..........................Baron............... ..........you ALWAYS read too fast :tongue:. Now if you'd just cool the engines* a bit you might actually make some sense...............Finally!!! :eek: :crazy: ;).

* can anybody name the band?

Testtrack321
03-24-2003, 04:48 PM
Unlike Disneyland, Universal didn't have the choice of buying more land (although you could say the same about Disneyland). Most land was already bought, developed, being developed, or way to expensive compared to WDW.

All Aboard
03-24-2003, 05:18 PM
The Baron is a good driver but I could use a scenery change by finally moving to Car No. 2.I have a flawless driving record! Anyway, there are plenty of seats - since the majority of posters are in #1 or #3. I'll reserve shotgun for you.

DVC-Landbaron
03-24-2003, 07:30 PM
OH!! MY!! What happened to that Plain’o Girl’o mine!!??

So, this is the end? Is that all there is? Humph!! And after I gave you the best years of my life!!! ;) The Baron is a good driver but I could use a scenery change by finally moving to Car No. 2.Ah! Your head is being filled with nothing but spin! Sure he looks dapper! Sure he has command of the situation. And sure he whispers sweet nothings into your ear! But I assure you THAT is exactly what they are! NOTHINGS! In other words, “It ain’t built yet!”

The worst part was my 4th grader asking if we HAD to leave Universal to go to WDW and telling me on the way back that he preferred Universal. Is he atypical? I wonder.No! He is certainly NOT atypical. It is one of the main reasons I’m in car #3!! (Where you should be!! ;) )

Oh by the way, someone commented that Disney did not built visible outdoor coasters. Did someone forget about a little ride called California Screaming?Is that a Disney ride? Oh! Of course it is! I can see the not-so-hidden Mickey! But other than that it could have been anyone’s ride! Another reason for my car choice!!!

Testtrack321
03-24-2003, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
No! He is certainly NOT atypical. It is one of the main reasons I’m in car #3!! (Where you should be!! ;) )

You're in car 3 because of someone's preference? People prefer to be neo-Nazi, but that dosn't make them right or cuase the whole world to come crashing down. Just becaue someone dosn't like the pixie dust dosn't mean you have to have a hissy fit and say Disney should build more dark rides, since that's what everyone really wants, and build more monorials, since everyone wants to ride those too.

HB2K
03-24-2003, 09:17 PM
You're in car 3 because of someone's preference? People prefer to be neo-Nazi, but that dosn't make them right or cuase the whole world to come crashing down. Just becaue someone dosn't like the pixie dust dosn't mean you have to have a hissy fit and say Disney should build more dark rides, since that's what everyone really wants, and build more monorials, since everyone wants to ride those too.
I know on of the reasons I'm where I am because I see more and more customers giving Universal a chance, and a good chunk of those get a decent taste from the place and keep going there.

When these customers start to wean themselves off of the "Disney only" vacation, that hurts your WDW vacation due to budget cuts, slower expansions, etc. Sound familiar?

And to sum it all up, this all brings me into the car I'm in because it didn't have to be this way. By Disney deciding that they no longer have to strive for excellence, by settling for what the other guy is doing, they encourage their customer base to see what the other guy is doing.

Pity.

P.S. I'd be royally pissed if I was a DVC owner who purchased in years ago when the place was expanding and there was no talk of these budget cuts. Makes your real estate interest lose it's value....

YoHo
03-24-2003, 09:18 PM
can see the not-so-hidden Mickey! But other than that it could have been anyone’s ride!

My good Landbaron, Nobody else could have built California Screaming. It is approximatly average as far as expensive fully exposed rollercoasters go and Most other coaster purchasing companies have the common sense to build something at the edge of Technology. So not only did Di$ney fail to make a Disney ride. They failed to make even a 6 Flaggs ride. DCA would have been 100% more appealing to me if they removed that thing and turned it back into parking.

DVC-Landbaron
03-24-2003, 09:25 PM
You're in car 3 because of someone's preference?Mr. Tracks!! Please!! Now it’s you’re turn to send in one of those, “I read a little too fast” posts. (unless there’s some sarcastic humor there that I didn’t catch. Sometimes I’m not too quick!!) :crazy:

I am in car #3 because the current management allowed Universal to catch up with them in every market segment!! I’m in car #3 because although Disney certainly had (and I stress the word had) the resources and the talent to capture, and captivate Planogirl’s 4th grade child and snare that young mind to Disney forever, they chose instead to go after the fast buck. I am in car #3 because Disney’s current regime just doesn’t put forth the effort it takes to secure long term loyalty through exceeding expectations and simply WOWing them into submission!

Just because someone doesn’t like the pixie dust doesn’t mean you have to have a hissy fit and say Disney should build more dark rides, since that's what everyone really wants, and build more monorials, since everyone wants to ride those too.And just for the record I have NEVER said that Disney needed more dark rides. The closest I ever came to a stance like that is saying that Disney is dangerously close to having too many “Adult” only and “Kid” only rides. Also, I never said they needed more monorails (although I personally don’t think it would hurt). What I want to see is innovative transportation. So innovative in fact, that if I could think of the concept, it isn’t nearly innovative enough!!! Does that make sense?

ChrisFL
03-24-2003, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
I am in car #3 because the current management allowed Universal to catch up with them in every market segment!! I’m in car #3 because although Disney certainly had (and I stress the word had) the resources and the talent to capture, and captivate Planogirl’s 4th grade child and snare that young mind to Disney forever, they chose instead to go after the fast buck.

And where did those out-of-work Imagineers go?.....One guess....and it starts with the word Universal....

That's part of the reason why IOA is so amazing, along with the input and design from Steven Spielberg.

So I agree that Disney should either build as many dark rides for families as thrill rides, or make more thrilling family rides, without making it a "spin'n'puke" attraction.

One thing to note is that you need much less theming for a ride going 50mph than one going 5mph. Less theming=less imagineers=less cost.

On Average, rollercoasters cost between $3-$20 million. ToT probably cost $100 million.

I will be really intrigued to find out how they would use $125 million on a rollercoaster.

Then again Universal seems to be making a huge deal out of the new Mummy attraction which is also a rollercoaster. Maybe we'll be surpised by both. Can they include theming and a rollercoaster at the same time, without being like RnRC?

lrodk
03-24-2003, 10:33 PM
Can they include theming and a rollercoaster at the same time, without being like RnRC?

That's an intriguing thought Chris. A coaster like the one you descibed would need to have the ability to brake at certain points and be able to cruise at low speeds through certain segments in order to take in the various details and/or storyline, then shift into high gear at a moments notice. At speeds as high as 55mph(as Eisner eluded to at the meeting), it's simply never been done before. If the budget exceeds $100 million however I think it would be safe to assume that Disney is going for something truly unique.

DisneyKidds
03-24-2003, 10:54 PM
Mr. Tracks!! Please!! Now it’s you’re turn to send in one of those, “I read a little too fast” posts. (unless there’s some sarcastic humor there that I didn’t catch. Sometimes I’m not too quick!!)
Sheesh, my good Baron. Either you have read too quickly again, or you have completely lost your sense of humor :confused:.

As for the statement about Universal completely catching up in "every market segment" - well that just proves you've completely gone off the deep end. Read that one as fast or as slow as you like, it is true either way ;).

ChrisFL
03-24-2003, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by lrodk
That's an intriguing thought Chris. A coaster like the one you descibed would need to have the ability to brake at certain points and be able to cruise at low speeds through certain segments in order to take in the various details and/or storyline, then shift into high gear at a moments notice. At speeds as high as 55mph(as Eisner eluded to at the meeting), it's simply never been done before. If the budget exceeds $100 million however I think it would be safe to assume that Disney is going for something truly unique.

Luckily, with the advent of launched rollercoasters, it is becoming easier and easier to do something like that. There are already some coasters with more than one launch during the ride...and they could make it where you see a show scene, then launch to 30-40 mph, then do some dives, etc. then slow it down again for another show scene....could be really interesting.

DVC-Landbaron
03-24-2003, 11:11 PM
Sheesh, my good Baron. Either you have read too quickly again, or you have completely lost your sense of humor Where? Where is the humor? I'm not truing to be obtuse. I really don't see it. Evidently HB2K didn't see it either. So we're both dense.

OK! Let us in on the joke. Spell it out. What was the intent of the post?

A coaster like the one you descibed would need to have the ability to brake at certain points and be able to cruise at low speeds through certain segments in order to take in the various details and/or storyline, then shift into high gear at a moments notice. THAT would be cool!!!!!!

DisneyKidds
03-24-2003, 11:44 PM
Where? Where is the humor? I'm not truing to be obtuse. I really don't see it. Evidently HB2K didn't see it either. So we're both dense.

OK! Let us in on the joke. Spell it out. What was the intent of the post?
Either we are talking about two entirely different things, or you have lost me. Either way, sorry :wave:.

ps. I assumed your “I read a little too fast” post was in reference to my post.........
Psst..........................Baron............... ..........you ALWAYS read too fast Now if you'd just cool the engines* a bit you might actually make some sense...............Finally!!!
..........but I must have been wrong, or else you are making much ado about nothing :(. I don't see an HB2K comment regarding this post, but maybe I read too quickly ;). Anywhoo...............I hearby recant my (unsuccessfully) lighthearted (and multiple smilied) attempt to needle my friend about why he is often so WRONG!!!!! Oh well, over and out........................

pss...........unless you want to talk about meaningful things like "every market segment". With regard to that you couldn't be more WRONG!!!!

HB2K
03-25-2003, 04:41 AM
Originally posted by DisneyKidds
Either we are talking about two entirely different things, or you have lost me. Either way, sorry :wave:.

ps. I assumed your “I read a little too fast” post was in reference to my post.........

..........but I must have been wrong, or else you are making much ado about nothing :(. I don't see an HB2K comment regarding this post, but maybe I read too quickly ;). Anywhoo...............I hearby recant my (unsuccessfully) lighthearted (and multiple smilied) attempt to needle my friend about why he is often so WRONG!!!!! Oh well, over and out........................

pss...........unless you want to talk about meaningful things like "every market segment". With regard to that you couldn't be more WRONG!!!!
That made no sense...

crusader
03-25-2003, 06:24 AM
And to sum it all up, this all brings me into the car I'm in because it didn't have to be this way. By Disney deciding that they no longer have to strive for excellence, by settling for what the other guy is doing, they encourage their customer base to see what the other guy is doing.

I disagree - somewhat here.

Disney held the monopoly for years - they controlled every facet of theme park construction at WDW by owning thier own little municipality. This gave them a great initial advantage.

UO was not simply a concept, it was to be their closest competition and they knew it was coming years ago. There is no way they could have prevented it. The only thing they could have done was try and stall it as long as possible. Which is in essence what happened.

Disney did not hold the monopoly on the motion picture industry and could not stop the money the competition had to invest in the themepark market using cutting edge advancements in technology. They could only continue to finance and participate in similar future prospects. They failed in one common thread - they thought their "patent" on mickey would be enough to continually dominate this industry. But just like everything else, Mickey Mouse got older and made less of an impression to each new generation.

Families today have more experience with Disney than any other theme park. They are ready to see more in this industry - and UO delivered. It is a ripe market and the customer base will continually respond.

DisneyKidds
03-25-2003, 08:44 AM
That made no sense...
Then please tell me what the heck Baron is talking about :confused:. Maybe I have been reading too quickly and I missed something :crazy:.

Baron seems to have his nose out of joint and I'm trying to ascertain if it is over something I said, something I thought he alluded to. I could be wrong. I'd really like to know. I was ribbing him, in a joking kind of way, about always being wrong (did you ever notice he and I don't always agree on things ;)) and that it could be due to his admitted propensity ;) (see the smiley - don't get your undies in a wad) to 'read too fast'. It was harmless and not intended to offend him. He and I used to be able to joke around like that. It appears as though it may have offended him, so I 'apologized'. I'm still trying to figure out if that was needed, or if he is talking about somethiing entirely different.
Evidently HB2K didn't see it either.
Again - what is he talking about :confused:. I didn't see you weigh in on my comment, or maybe you did and I missed it?

ohanafamily
03-25-2003, 09:18 AM
Baron, if it helps, I will apologise as well, but I sincerely hope you are wrong about the ride; I may be edging into car 2 by saying that I agree budget cuts will probably have an effect. I hope it will be minimal, the ride sounds way cool!

BTW, I can't wait for the remake of AE at MK...from what I heard it will give Stitch fans a big thrill. I also heard that Space Mountain was going to get him added in.

I Guess with Fedex gone....

:bounce:

HB2K
03-25-2003, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by Testtrack321
You're in car 3 because of someone's preference? People prefer to be neo-Nazi, but that dosn't make them right or cuase the whole world to come crashing down. Just becaue someone dosn't like the pixie dust dosn't mean you have to have a hissy fit and say Disney should build more dark rides, since that's what everyone really wants, and build more monorials, since everyone wants to ride those too.

Kidds,

This is the post I replied to, and I'm guessing this is the one that has the Baron's "nose out of joint".

DisneyKidds
03-25-2003, 11:23 AM
This is the post I replied to, and I'm guessing this is the one that has the Baron's "nose out of joint".
Thanks HB :). That does help - and Baron and I are talking about two different things :crazy:. Baron thought I was saying that there was humor in the TT321 post you referenced, and that you and he didn't see it. All the while I thought Baron didn't think my 'You read too fast' post (the one he alluded to) was all that funny ha ha. Sorry I confused the issue. I guess I really was reading too fast :tongue:.

Oh well, back OT...................................

WEDWAY100
03-25-2003, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by lrodk
That's an intriguing thought Chris. A coaster like the one you descibed would need to have the ability to brake at certain points and be able to cruise at low speeds through certain segments in order to take in the various details and/or storyline, then shift into high gear at a moments notice. At speeds as high as 55mph(as Eisner eluded to at the meeting), it's simply never been done before. If the budget exceeds $100 million however I think it would be safe to assume that Disney is going for something truly unique.
This idea intrigues me, and I have been thinking about it for at least a year. (Way too much disposable time).

Now, combine your ideas of a coaster that launches quickly and slows down for e-ticket type scenes with the ability to rotate the car, like in SSE.

Using this system, think what RnRC could have been:

You initially launch as the current ride does, through the first loops, but then begin to slow down. It’s dark, you slowly pull into a banked curve and the train stops. The cars rotate 90 degrees (so that you are sitting facing sideways relative to the train). The lights come on, and you are in an arena, at an Aerosmith concert. Steven Tyler is on stage, screaming away. You hear about 20 seconds of that song, when your car rotates again 90 degrees so that you are now facing backward relative to the train. You begin to launch again (forwards for the train, but backwards for you), Steven looks up at you and says, “Hey, where you guys goin’? I’m not done yet!!”. A couple of inverted loops backwards, then maybe stop for parking on Mullhuland (sp?) Drive. A whole new meaning is established for “Love in a Rollercoaster”.

Think about all of the potential for a ride system like this. I’m no imagineer, but there could be a lot of applications for something like this.

Testtrack321
03-25-2003, 01:44 PM
My post was never to be humorous. It was serious. Disney can't 'wow' everyone and some just prefer other places, no matter how many hours are brought back, rides opened, or other things.

HB2K
03-25-2003, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by Testtrack321
My post was never to be humorous. It was serious. Disney can't 'wow' everyone and some just prefer other places, no matter how many hours are brought back, rides opened, or other things.

But many wouldn't even give the other guy a chance if Disney didn't give them a reason to. That's the epitome of my stance anyway.

DVC-Landbaron
03-25-2003, 04:57 PM
Baron, if it helps, I will apologize as well, but I sincerely hope you are wrong about the ride;There is no need for anyone to apologize!! And for the record, I can’t be wrong about the ride, as I have stated no opinion one way or the other (other than a “that would be cool” comment to ChrisFL and lrodk regarding their conversation)!!

I know that some would automatically think I would dismiss it, but I don’t. All I’m saying is that it is my personal experience that people who listen to early Disney rumors get burned very badly more often than not! Be careful not to get your hopes up too high!! I have rarely been disappointed in the concept far exceeding reality!

Mr. Kidds!!!
Baron thought I was saying that there was humor in the TT321 post you referenced, and that you and he didn't see it.YES!!!! My goodness!! That’s why I use soooooo many quotes!! And still there is confusion!! I guess I need to use even MORE quotes in every post!! :crazy:

ohanafamily
03-25-2003, 05:08 PM
But Scoop, with cutbacks it would be the "Walk out into the center of the Ice wearing sneakers because I couldn't afford new skates after airport security confiscated them. :eek:

:bounce:

TiNkErBeLl51
09-11-2003, 07:56 PM
So is Forbidden Mt. another name for Everest? and what is Excavator? I do agree that AK could do with another e-ticket ride since they toned Dinosaur down and Kali is fun but not very high on the excitment factor for us teens. Will Everest be going upside down..because i have read on sites that there will be "two inverted turns outside the MT." I have seen the picture of the model on the internet and the turns just look like they are very sharply banked. (does that even make sense?) The are reports that the YETI in the MT> is supposed to be one fo the biggest anamotronics ever created..and the ride will go both forwards and backwards...hmm sounds very enticing for people on my age group. I can't wait!! :bounce: