I miss the Maelstrom ride so much.

[rteetz]

Not to kick the nest...but I'm gonna...

Do any of us believe their budget numbers?

First - it's usually "speculated" - not confirmed...

And we've seen them underestimate during overages and vastly exaggerating during slashes...

They are not required to tell us the truth...they simply have to balance the books and certify them weeks/months/years later. That is not a stockholder problem/issue.

They tell us what they feel will extract maximum money from our pockets...that's a fact. (Yeah...I'll stand on that)

In the case of "new fantasyland"...that was a vast exaggeration - according to reports that they have no duty to validate.

I understand I'm just going off what people with inside knowledge have said. To me tho 75-100 would make sense for a redo of a ride and comparing it to what mermaid cost in NFL which was a clone. Disney doesn't really ever say how much exactly something cost.

 

[eXo]

It's odd. It seems almost everyone here sees that Epcot is suffering (other than a few comments earlier about how attendance was fine there and they would leave it alone because of this).

I can't argue with the fact that money is better spent on Future World. But uh... Disney doesn't have such a great record with the concept of "future". Tomorrowland is a good example. I'm speaking totally out of conjecture here, as I have never seen Stitches Escape or Monsters Laugh floor.. but they don't have the best reputations around. Looking back at the early history of Disneyland, future world was primarily a showcase for vendors. Monsanto, the house of the future, chemical companies, plastics - you know, back when they could say we would all be living like the Jetsons in the far flung year of 2015.

I don't know as much about Epcot as I do about Disneyland, but it does seem they have had trouble keeping sponsors. Whether its the governmental sponsors at some of the showcases or the corporate sponsors in futurworld. One might argue they don't need sponsors when they are charging daily prices of $100 per person, but if the business model is built that way, then so be it.

I don't think Disney had any reason to revamp anything for the past 10 years. What competition did they have? Where else was a family going to take their kids? 6 Flags isn't even in the same ballpark as Disney, and they were going bankrupt left and right. Universal was sitting on 2 parks that were fairly outdated themselves. In 2005 Universal Studios was pretty beat up. And IOA hadn't changed much at all from the day it opened (apart from shutting the boats and the interactive tricertops down).

maybe I'm wrong, but I think harry potter changed everything. When Wizarding World opened it brought so much money to Universal that it totally changed their business plans. The theme parks became a cash generator rather than just a big gift shop. Suddenly the resorts were packed, merch was flying out of the park, and people were flying in from across the ocean. Then came Diagon Alley. And all of this was built in the time frame of new fantasy land and a mine train.

Disney would have had to be blind to not see what was going on just down the interstate. Harry Potter, Simpsons, Transformers, and now a new King Kong all in a matter of a few years. The new JP & Kong movies are bound to help rebuild interest in that section of IOA as well. Suddenly it wasn't enough to just keep serving up DHS as it stood. Or to let Epcot leech off of the world showcase to stay relevant. Universal is expanding, and they are expanding fast. A new waterpark is in the works, rumors of a sea world acquisition, they bought Wet N Wild last year, they have several resorts currently planned in addition to their new Cabana Beach resort, and they have committed to a brand new attraction every single year with another giant in park expansion on the table and a know plan for a third gate (set for 2020).

If you look at the rest of the Disney corporations actions for the past 10 years, it is clear they have been focused on IP's and movies. They have literally saved Marvel from itself (there was a time when Batman was the only comic book movie worth a damn), they got the rights to use Spidey back, they have seemingly unified the Star Wars fanverse after Lucas did his best to run those into the ground, and their original IP's (along with Pixar) are as popular as their 1990's golden age.

I totally agree that the frozen boat ride and soarin's new screen are temp fixes. They simply can't afford to ignore the park. And I think the big picture, as illustrated above, shows why.

As far as the notion that the Frozen ride is 3 years too late? Hate to break it to you, but Ariel was about 20 years late... and that ride seems to be doing just fine. I'm sure that girls who loved Ariel went through a phase where they didn't think she was cool anymore as well. But guess what? They grew up, and they love it again. For all the talk of "my daughter is already over it"... well, all the anecdotes in the world do not change the fact that Disney is a sea of blue elsa dresses right now. And has been for over a year.

 

[Andrew015]

If Little Mermaid is the benchmark by which the Frozen ride will be measured, then may the Viking gods help us.

 

[rteetz]

If Little Mermaid is the benchmark by which the Frozen ride will be measured, then may the Viking gods help us.

The ride is still supposed to still be a flume. They also have combined the load and unload portion creating space for two new scenes. The ride will still be short tho.

 

[gizzoid]

they definitely should have kept it...
disappear
disappear

 

[eXo]

My point with the Little Mermaid is not about the ride itself, but the fact that people still love the character and therefor want to experience the ride.

A rides quality does not necessarily relate to it's popularity. I was simply speaking towards the fact that those who shoot down the Frozen ride because its either 'too late' or their daughter doesn't like it aren't taking into account that essentially everything Disney builds is "too late" and that there are hundreds of thousands of little girls who won't be sick of Elsa any time soon. Especially with the second movie in the pipeline.

If we are going to debate the quality of a ride, then why would anyone here stand up for the viking ride? I rode it one time shortly before it was closed. I suppose I have no rose colored glasses to consult, but with no nostalgia in mind, it seemed like a slow ride with poor quality scenes, several sections with no scenes, and a horrid movie at the end. It felt like the only reason people lined up for it was because there wasn't any other rides over there. I can't imagine that ride would have been successful anywhere else in Disney World. Set it next to Pirates and see how well it would have done....

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Little mermaid hasn't been that well received in Orlando...it's wait times based on the surrounding rides in Fantayland has been lagging...which would indicate limited acceptance.

That's actually encouraging to me - as it shouldn't be treated other than an updated filler ride and it shouldn't be mobbed like the skippy dippy coaster next door and the erector projector over in EPCOT.

The girls probably like it... My kids like it. So it's fine. It of course NEVER would have been there if it hadnt been a clone...not for one second.

Disney used to build these things every couple of years with ZERO fanfare...you know...it was just part of owning and running a park with really high priced stuff and hotels being sold...

But that never worked to make money... Except of course...it did

 

[skier_pete]

My point with the Little Mermaid is not about the ride itself, but the fact that people still love the character and therefor want to experience the ride.

A rides quality does not necessarily relate to it's popularity. I was simply speaking towards the fact that those who shoot down the Frozen ride because its either 'too late' or their daughter doesn't like it aren't taking into account that essentially everything Disney builds is "too late" and that there are hundreds of thousands of little girls who won't be sick of Elsa any time soon. Especially with the second movie in the pipeline.

If we are going to debate the quality of a ride, then why would anyone here stand up for the viking ride? I rode it one time shortly before it was closed. I suppose I have no rose colored glasses to consult, but with no nostalgia in mind, it seemed like a slow ride with poor quality scenes, several sections with no scenes, and a horrid movie at the end. It felt like the only reason people lined up for it was because there wasn't any other rides over there. I can't imagine that ride would have been successful anywhere else in Disney World. Set it next to Pirates and see how well it would have done....

All good points. It is always funny that people pre-judge a ride before it's even built. People have been slagging off on Avatar for 4 years. I was won that said Frozen has passed my daughter, but that doesn't mean I don't think the ride will be popular. In fact I've posted several times that it will likely give a 5-10% boost in attendance at Epcot single-handedly. We went to a Disney concert at the Buffalo Philharmonic that had nothing to do with Frozen, and all the little girls were dressed as Ana or Elsa and were crushed they didn't hear Frozen music. (Our DD was relieved at no Frozen.)

In fact, I would argue that they are putting a Frozen ride in in record time. Only the Nemo ride, and maybe 1 or 2 others came in so quickly after the Movie. (Nemo took about 4 years, this will be right around 3.)

And I also agree Maelstrom is a less than impressive very outdated ride. That doesn't make it less disappointing that they aren't keeping it cultural, though.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Pete...

Record time?
Boy...my recommendation is that you not eat at a restaurant where there's only one thing on the menu...

Splash mountain was built at wdw in about 18 months...granted a clone but a much larger undertaking...

Tower in 2 years flat and that was seat of the pants...

Rockinroller coaster...albeit an off the shelf ride system... Was like 15 months...

This is just the policy of stall tactics...Disney has enough capital to meet almost any schedule...they just don't want to to keep expectation to a low, almost "undisney" level that's become the norm.

Perhaps if they didnt make webcast "anmouncements" when they had nothing...like avatar...and try to fool us into thinking 7 years for a ride pavilion is the norm?

You know better than that. Your other option is to join the "be thankful we're getting anything...they just announced they're adding a Bibbidi to the Disney Dream!" Crowd...

And I'd hate to lose you to the Sith

 

[Weev]

Sometimes it just makes sense to put something in the park that makes Imagination, Living with the Land, and Turtle Talk attractive choices again.

 

[Andrew015]

A rides quality does not necessarily relate to it's popularity.

I'm not even going to touch this one...

I was simply speaking towards the fact that those who shoot down the Frozen ride because its either 'too late' or their daughter doesn't like it aren't taking into account that essentially everything Disney builds is "too late" and that there are hundreds of thousands of little girls who won't be sick of Elsa any time soon. Especially with the second movie in the pipeline.

My point with the comment about the timing was to illustrate this as a knee-jerk reaction to Frozen's popularity (and in Disney speed, 3 years truly is knee-jerk...). In other words, I was poking fun at their "speed"...

If we are going to debate the quality of a ride, then why would anyone here stand up for the viking ride? I rode it one time shortly before it was closed. I suppose I have no rose colored glasses to consult, but with no nostalgia in mind, it seemed like a slow ride with poor quality scenes, several sections with no scenes, and a horrid movie at the end. It felt like the only reason people lined up for it was because there wasn't any other rides over there. I can't imagine that ride would have been successful anywhere else in Disney World. Set it next to Pirates and see how well it would have done....

It wouldn't make sense to put a factual / educational ride in a fictional land... ;-) Sorry, couldn't resist.

Just to play devil's advocate for a second, Maelstrom 2.0 (aka Frozen) is going to be the exact same boat track re-themed with Anna and the talking snowman. In other words, the only thing different about the Frozen version is going to be the addition of Frozen characters and some catchy music. Otherwise, it's still going to be the same, short boat ride. If you think Maelstrom was a crappy ride platform to begin with, how do you expect Maelstrom 2.0 (Frozen) to be drastically different? My point with this comment is that it furthers the argument of this entire project being a short-sighted, poor decision from the get go. Frozen no doubt deserves a place in WDW. Personally, I think it deserves much more than it's getting (a shoe-string makeover of a ~30 year old ride is a slap in the face to the highest grossing animated film in history). I actually feel bad for those who are looking forward to Frozenstrom, as I think they're getting the shaft every bit as much as those of us who loved Maelstrom.

I believe I recall from another post that you've only recently gone to WDW for the very first time. I can't recall ever seeing another member who has formed such strong opinions over one visit (not saying this as being good or bad ... just an observation as I admire your passionate responses). Coming from someone who's visited dozens of times dating back to the late 1980's, there is a very significant portion of the WDW going population that does have a soft spot for the nostalgic. Unfortunately for those of us on that side of the tracks, TWDC has determined that we'll spend our money there regardless (and they're right).

 

[Planogirl]

Exo, you listed three amusement park companies. There are slews more and many of them are real good. Personally, I'd go to Busch Gardens or Kennywood if I'm on the east coast and Knotts in the west.

Also, the lines for the Little Mermaid have dropped considerably and did so quickly. It was practically a walk-on when we were there last month.

 

[Jing]

Kitchen Kaberet? - you've been gone a while huh? That closed 20+ years ago. Are you thinking of Food Rocks, which was basically the same thing, and closed in 2004?

I would agree that Future World is such a shambles it is really sad. (Though I personally have a great fondness for the Nemo overlay of the Living Seas, as my daughters love for animals can be a lot credited to that pavillion.) Regardless of my semi-defending Disney for what's going on in Epcot, I think it's a complete shame the state of about 60 % of that theme park.

However, I have less of a problem with the Frozen ride than most. I personally have a bigger complaint about them adding a third theater to Soarin'. My thought there is maybe they'd be better off spending the money on actually adding/revamping all these falling apart attractions then just adding capacity to one of the few good ones.

I missed the Food Rocks years, but have been 3-4 times since Soarin opened. I also missed the imagination sans-figment time period, and most of the other mid90s-early 2000s stuff and things. Vegas called louder than the mouse

 

[rteetz]

My point with the Little Mermaid is not about the ride itself, but the fact that people still love the character and therefor want to experience the ride.

A rides quality does not necessarily relate to it's popularity. I was simply speaking towards the fact that those who shoot down the Frozen ride because its either 'too late' or their daughter doesn't like it aren't taking into account that essentially everything Disney builds is "too late" and that there are hundreds of thousands of little girls who won't be sick of Elsa any time soon. Especially with the second movie in the pipeline.

If we are going to debate the quality of a ride, then why would anyone here stand up for the viking ride? I rode it one time shortly before it was closed. I suppose I have no rose colored glasses to consult, but with no nostalgia in mind, it seemed like a slow ride with poor quality scenes, several sections with no scenes, and a horrid movie at the end. It felt like the only reason people lined up for it was because there wasn't any other rides over there. I can't imagine that ride would have been successful anywhere else in Disney World. Set it next to Pirates and see how well it would have done....

Pirates now or pirates after the refurb because pirates now is really not very good.

 

[skier_pete]

Pete...

Record time?
Boy...my recommendation is that you not eat at a restaurant where there's only one thing on the menu...

No, I'm saying from the time the movie came out to the time there was a ride in the park. Not the time to build the ride. Disney is obviously dragging out much of its construction, though in this case I would argue they will be rebuilding the ride and adding a new building in < 18 months, which is relatively fast for a lot of what Disney does. But no, I didn't mean it was record time for construction, just record time to get a movie into a ride. Something under 3 years, which again I can't think of any true RIDE that was implemented that quickly after a movie.

 

[eXo]

Just to play devil's advocate for a second, Maelstrom 2.0 (aka Frozen) is going to be the exact same boat track re-themed with Anna and the talking snowman. In other words, the only thing different about the Frozen version is going to be the addition of Frozen characters and some catchy music. Otherwise, it's still going to be the same, short boat ride. If you think Maelstrom was a crappy ride platform to begin with, how do you expect Maelstrom 2.0 (Frozen) to be drastically different? My point with this comment is that it furthers the argument of this entire project being a short-sighted, poor decision from the get go. Frozen no doubt deserves a place in WDW. Personally, I think it deserves much more than it's getting (a shoe-string makeover of a ~30 year old ride is a slap in the face to the highest grossing animated film in history). I actually feel bad for those who are looking forward to Frozenstrom, as I think they're getting the shaft every bit as much as those of us who loved Maelstrom.

I believe I recall from another post that you've only recently gone to WDW for the very first time. I can't recall ever seeing another member who has formed such strong opinions over one visit (not saying this as being good or bad ... just an observation as I admire your passionate responses). Coming from someone who's visited dozens of times dating back to the late 1980's, there is a very significant portion of the WDW going population that does have a soft spot for the nostalgic. Unfortunately for those of us on that side of the tracks, TWDC has determined that we'll spend our money there regardless (and they're right).

Err... I never said Frozen would be good. I said it would be popular. There seems to be a tendency here that if someone disagrees with someone else, than person A must stand for everything that person B disagrees with. It leads to a lot of words being shoved in people's mouths. I'm not accusing you personally of this. I've just noticed a high tendency in my replies to restate my original position and shed all the sentiments that have been tacked on to it.

I also never said I was looking forward to it either. But I also don't think it's the downfall of Epcot. Looking at it from a completely objective business perspective, it *will* drive up attendance. Just because I'm saying that I see more of this coming in the future does not mean that is the Epcot of my dreams. It means I am being pragmatic.

You are correct, I have only been to MK once. However I've been following theme\amusement parks for the better part of 2 decades. I had a very low opinion of Disney for most of that time. It didn't speak to my interests. Now that I have a young family however, Disney suddenly has something I want: a place to take my kids. I am also quite aware that nostalgia plays a big part in the responses here. Sometimes it is so strong that it borders on lunacy. I have read posts where a person decides that the entire park has gone down the toilet because a restaurant no longer serves a chicken strip meal that they have gotten on every single visit. The irony was, iirc, it was raining reall badly on that first visit so they popped in unexpectedly and happened to order this meal and loved it so much that it became "tradition" to order it every time. It makes me wonder how many people miss out on experiencing new things at Disney because they spend so much time trying to recapture old memories. Not that they are doing anything wrong by following this blueprint... but they are bound to be disappointed eventually. Things change.

Disney is different from other parks in that it changes a LOT slower than your typical family destination. I actually did go once before, but I was like 3 and I don't really remember much. What I do remember was waiting in line with my dad at Space Mountain, the one ride he wanted to do for himself. He has been gone for a long time now, and so when I went back as an adult it was pretty neat to be able to go ride that and know that in many ways, it was quite similar to what he rode back in 1982. I totally understand how people can get attached to a certain ride, or a certain restaurant, or even a certain bench. But it also means that every single thing that happens in the parks is scrutinized and ultimately always has at least some vocal contingent that is against it because it mares their particular memories. Of the millions who have attended Epcot since the Norway pavilion opened, I'm sure there are a significant number of folks who have had a really great memory on that ride. Statistically speaking, at least one couple has to have gotten engaged on it, others shared a first kiss, and maybe for a small child it was the first time they decided to get on a ride. And still others just enjoy it on principal. By itself it may not have held a ton of meaning, but as one of the cogs that defined the world showcase it was a key experience for some. I'm not defending Disney by saying Frozen belongs there. I'm not saying the last ride was crap and had to be demolished. I'm just saying it's not the end of the world, and I can see why Disney made the decision to do what they are doing. It's a natural reaction to the "sky is falling" nature of some of these topics.

 

[rteetz]

Err... I never said Frozen would be good. I said it would be popular. There seems to be a tendency here that if someone disagrees with someone else, than person A must stand for everything that person B disagrees with. It leads to a lot of words being shoved in people's mouths. I'm not accusing you personally of this. I've just noticed a high tendency in my replies to restate my original position and shed all the sentiments that have been tacked on to it.

I also never said I was looking forward to it either. But I also don't think it's the downfall of Epcot. Looking at it from a completely objective business perspective, it *will* drive up attendance. Just because I'm saying that I see more of this coming in the future does not mean that is the Epcot of my dreams. It means I am being pragmatic.

You are correct, I have only been to MK once. However I've been following theme\amusement parks for the better part of 2 decades. I had a very low opinion of Disney for most of that time. It didn't speak to my interests. Now that I have a young family however, Disney suddenly has something I want: a place to take my kids. I am also quite aware that nostalgia plays a big part in the responses here. Sometimes it is so strong that it borders on lunacy. I have read posts where a person decides that the entire park has gone down the toilet because a restaurant no longer serves a chicken strip meal that they have gotten on every single visit. The irony was, iirc, it was raining reall badly on that first visit so they popped in unexpectedly and happened to order this meal and loved it so much that it became "tradition" to order it every time. It makes me wonder how many people miss out on experiencing new things at Disney because they spend so much time trying to recapture old memories. Not that they are doing anything wrong by following this blueprint... but they are bound to be disappointed eventually. Things change.

Disney is different from other parks in that it changes a LOT slower than your typical family destination. I actually did go once before, but I was like 3 and I don't really remember much. What I do remember was waiting in line with my dad at Space Mountain, the one ride he wanted to do for himself. He has been gone for a long time now, and so when I went back as an adult it was pretty neat to be able to go ride that and know that in many ways, it was quite similar to what he rode back in 1982. I totally understand how people can get attached to a certain ride, or a certain restaurant, or even a certain bench. But it also means that every single thing that happens in the parks is scrutinized and ultimately always has at least some vocal contingent that is against it because it mares their particular memories. Of the millions who have attended Epcot since the Norway pavilion opened, I'm sure there are a significant number of folks who have had a really great memory on that ride. Statistically speaking, at least one couple has to have gotten engaged on it, others shared a first kiss, and maybe for a small child it was the first time they decided to get on a ride. And still others just enjoy it on principal. By itself it may not have held a ton of meaning, but as one of the cogs that defined the world showcase it was a key experience for some. I'm not defending Disney by saying Frozen belongs there. I'm not saying the last ride was crap and had to be demolished. I'm just saying it's not the end of the world, and I can see why Disney made the decision to do what they are doing. It's a natural reaction to the "sky is falling" nature of some of these topics.

I wouldn't say the last ride was crap. It's wasn't the best of course but it did tell a bit of a story of Norway which is what was intended. Disney actually also had plans to refurb the ride prior to frozen but of course that changed.

 

[rteetz]

I'm not even going to touch this one...



My point with the comment about the timing was to illustrate this as a knee-jerk reaction to Frozen's popularity (and in Disney speed, 3 years truly is knee-jerk...). In other words, I was poking fun at their "speed"...



It wouldn't make sense to put a factual / educational ride in a fictional land... ;-) Sorry, couldn't resist.

Just to play devil's advocate for a second, Maelstrom 2.0 (aka Frozen) is going to be the exact same boat track re-themed with Anna and the talking snowman. In other words, the only thing different about the Frozen version is going to be the addition of Frozen characters and some catchy music. Otherwise, it's still going to be the same, short boat ride. If you think Maelstrom was a crappy ride platform to begin with, how do you expect Maelstrom 2.0 (Frozen) to be drastically different? My point with this comment is that it furthers the argument of this entire project being a short-sighted, poor decision from the get go. Frozen no doubt deserves a place in WDW. Personally, I think it deserves much more than it's getting (a shoe-string makeover of a ~30 year old ride is a slap in the face to the highest grossing animated film in history). I actually feel bad for those who are looking forward to Frozenstrom, as I think they're getting the shaft every bit as much as those of us who loved Maelstrom.

I believe I recall from another post that you've only recently gone to WDW for the very first time. I can't recall ever seeing another member who has formed such strong opinions over one visit (not saying this as being good or bad ... just an observation as I admire your passionate responses). Coming from someone who's visited dozens of times dating back to the late 1980's, there is a very significant portion of the WDW going population that does have a soft spot for the nostalgic. Unfortunately for those of us on that side of the tracks, TWDC has determined that we'll spend our money there regardless (and they're right).

While yes the ride is staying virtually the same with a frozen overlay, they have combined the load and unload stations and added two new scenes where the former load station was creating a total of 11. As I said in the other post disney did have plans to refurb maelstrom prior to frozen but that changed.

 

[jec6613]

Little mermaid hasn't been that well received in Orlando...it's wait times based on the surrounding rides in Fantayland has been lagging...which would indicate limited acceptance.

In California it also had short lines, but I'd attribute that to ride capacity, which (presuming FL is the same as CA) is massive as a continuous loader compared to the most other Fantasyland rides. Not that I'm complaining, I like the CL rides just for that reason - the line always moves!

 

[skier_pete]

Sometimes it is so strong that it borders on lunacy. I have read posts where a person decides that the entire park has gone down the toilet because a restaurant no longer serves a chicken strip meal that they have gotten on every single visit. The irony was, iirc, it was raining reall badly on that first visit so they popped in unexpectedly and happened to order this meal and loved it so much that it became "tradition" to order it every time. It makes me wonder how many people miss out on experiencing new things at Disney because they spend so much time trying to recapture old memories. Not that they are doing anything wrong by following this blueprint... but they are bound to be disappointed eventually. Things change..

This is SOOO true it is almost comical, but some of it is also based for many on childhood memories, which tend to be bent anyways. Even I will admit to it. My favorite attraction of childhood was the Enchanted Tiki Room. When they changed it wih the "Under New Management" thing I was SOOO angry and offended by it. My daughter - on the other hand - while she didn't love the old show, really misses Iago in the "new" show. "It's a Small World" is considered a classic by many people, and Walt original, and a trip to Disney wouldn't be complete without it, but it's really just a boat ride through a bunch of dolls chanting the same thing over and over again - which means that some people HATE it.

I think most of here in this conversation are actually all on the same side, but arguing by degrees. Most think that Maelstrom wasn't a great ride, but for some it had nostalgia going for it. Most think that Frozen isn't really the right fit for Epcot/WS, just again we very on how opposed we are by degrees, where I fall on the side of "why bother fighting, Epcot was taken over by characters 20 years ago". Most think it will be popular, and most think it is unlikely to be great.

But here's some facts to face people: They are building a dark ride based on a movie. Anytime they put in a dark ride based on a movie, people b*tch that it is "not a great ride". But here's what you have to realize about dark rides - they are not directed at YOU Mr and Mrs adult Disney fan - they are directed at kids. In fact, 80% of what Disney puts in is directed to appeal to kids. People *****ing about the 7DMT ride being too mellow and too short - Gee why do you think that is - it's a FAMILY ride!

I had this realization back when they put in the Nemo ride at the seas. I rode it for the first time, and was disappointed in it. "Boy, that's kind of meh" I thought. But after riding it again with my daughter (who was 3 at the time) I realized that to HER it was amazing and magical.

So, yeah, it's too bad that they are getting rid of Maelstrom in favor of a Frozen-themed dark ride. But that doesn't mean it won't be a good ride, and that doesn't mean that thousands of little girls and boys won't LOVE the experience of the ride. And hopefully they can also sprinkle in some impressive technology to make it a little more fun for us adults.

In the end, it always comes down to if you think that Disney is doing such a horrible job and ripping you off and you hate it there - maybe it's time to, you know, spend your vacation dollars elsewhere. There are other places in the World besides Disney.

Me - I've yet to have a bad trip. I look forward to our Disney trips as much if not more than any others, which is why we keep going. Removing Maelstrom and replacing it with Frozen makes almost no significant difference in my view, it's hardly worth this giant post I've written. I hope that Avatarland is amazing, I hope they come through with the Billion dollars for the studios, and I hope another 5 years down the road some puts their foot down and says Epcot gets the money it deserves to rebuild properly. But even if those things don't happen, there's a good chance I'll still be going and having a good time.