Discussion in 'Theme Parks Attractions and Strategies' started by gtitian, Jul 26, 2012.
Yes, I agree. And i feel bad that i never went to the Adventurers club before it closed.
Log in or Sign up to hide this advert.
Same here. I noticed the same post on a different thread a little while ago. I always wondered why the Earful Tower wasn't given a more prominent place in the park. It never seemed to get the same acknowledgement as the other park icons got. Poor thing.
I know!! They could put the hat on top of the Earful Tower!.
I like the hat and infact get upset when they have a stage set up in front of that hat so I can't get a good pic of it.
If you would like to make changes you will need to get on the board.
it is a business not a democracy ... just saying
I just scowered the internets and many places cite that both the Earful Tower and the Chinese Theater were the icons of the Studios. Not sure if this is correct or not, I'll own up to it if I am in fact wrong and won't get mad at you guys for pointing that out
But even if it wasn't the official icon, I still stand by the fact that the hat takes away from the original beauty that was the Chinese Theater and how it contributed to the theaming of the whole place.
Firstly, I was not trolling at all, it was a genuine question. And it seems that someone finally hit the nail on the head with the Earful tower being the original park icon and not the theater, which was just the "weenie" at the end of the main street there. If memory serves the dreadful hat was built around roughly the same time as the horrendous wand that used to dangle over the top of Spaceship Earth... And I point to that wand as justification for a petition... I may be wrong, but my impression has always been that the general public opinion of the wand was the justification for finally tearing it down.
As to the monorail issue... every time this comes up people cite the figures relating to the construction of the Las Vegas monorail, and while it is the same ALWEG technology, the costs of two installations and systems are not likely to be related at all... Firstly the Las Vegas monorail construction and expansion required land to be purchased, but the land at WDW is already owned. With the Vegas monorail there were multiple stages of city board and ordinance review, each round of which cost millions of dollars... seeing as WDW owns the Reedy Creek Improvement District and writes it's own codes, I don't really see this being an issue. As to the WDW monorail not being a money-maker you're missing a couple of key issues... firstly, they DO in fact charge for it's use, even though the hotels are based on three tiers, (value, moderate, deluxe) the deluxe tier is actually split into monorail loop prices and non-loop prices. You'll notice a stay at the monorail loop hotels will cost you considerably more. A monorail expansion wouldn't necessarily need to go everywhere on property, from a pricing perspective connecting AK and DHS and one value resort and one moderate resort would make sense I think. You could build a station between Pop Century and Art of Animation, and perhaps a station at Port Orleans. A station at Downtown Disney might also make sense. You would then increase the price for staying at these new monorail loop resorts as is already the case with the existing loop resorts. The increased ease of access to Downtown Disney may also inspire more spending. You also need to consider the cost of operating all of those buses, the drivers, the maintenance, the fuel (the monorail is electric, to correct someone who mentioned otherwise). Additionally if Disney can show that their newly expanded and green monorail system takes buses off the road there are carbon credits to be had, which can be used to offset their taxes or can be sold. There are many angels to consider beyond simply the cost of installing a monorail in LasVegas.
Do I expect the CEO to personally read a petition signed by 100,000 people and respond? No of course not. But if you distribute the petition to every voting stockholder they might start asking about this stuff at stockholders meetings. Additionally I imagine there are people in parks management and imagineering that wouldn't might having a bit of public opinion on paper to use as ammunition the next time they make a proposal.
Online petitions have just about as much impact on corporate decisions as online forum threads.
Agreed. And based on this thread, I'm not even sure you could get 100K signees to these petitions. And regardless of which side of the hat debate you're on, I doubt it ranks in the top 10 things most of us would like to change.
I don't know if I am correct or not, but I thought I read the land for the Vegas monorail was owned by the casino owners and they all "donated" it's use because they knew it would only increase traffic to their casinos.
There have been several ideas from the fan community that turned into petetions start by googling Mr Toads Wild Ride closing. Some more recently ones include Fix the Yeti (my favorite still hasn't worked see my avatar <-----), save Flynn Ryder, and don't stop the monorail ealier than the parks close.
None of them worked. The only seemingly 'fan demanded' change that has been made in recent history was the re-adding of "Tom Morrow" to the TTA. And WDW tried to play that one off like it was a mistake they left it out and it's not in the original place or voice or script.
Good luck in your quest.
LOVEEEEEEEEEE the hat
Of the 4 issues I mentioned in my letter, 2 were things that were needed in the parks and 1 involved a new operating procedure. 1 was improving the food and service at a particular restaurant which never happened.
HEY?!?! Did you petition them to start enforcing FP times?
Replace the hat with a pair of Goofy's pineapple underpants. now that would be a conversation piece
~You lost me after the hat. I love the hat, if it comes down, then I'll have to start another petition.
But still clearly different than pitching a new attraction or sending in a script for a new character show. It's those types of ideas that are not accepted unless solicited.
Separate names with a comma.