Are People Getting a Bit E-Ticket Obsessed?

[Eoghann]

Any time anything new is announced or even discussed, all I see is demands for more E-Ticket rides.

Yet in terms of both logic and logistics, you can't build nothing but E-Tickets. There have to be "lesser" rides and attractions. I would argue for example that one of the issues with Hollywood Studios is that it was big ride heavy without enough smaller stuff to balance it out.

It doesn't help that E-Ticket is a poorly defined term. Some use it almost exclusively to mean thrill rides, others just mean the top drawing rides in a park.

Just curious, what are considered to be the E-Ticket rides for Disney World these days?

 

[circus4u]

I prefer the Pirates of the Caribean type rides vs. the roller coaster style. I wasn't all that impressed by Everest or Rockin' Roller Coaster. Contrary to what most people on the board prefer, I enjoyed the Primeval Whirl in Animal Kingdom, probably because it is a ride where you can see what is coming and prepare yourself from being jerked and thrown around. Same with Big Thunder Mtn RR. Personal opinion is WDW was never intended to be a roller coaster park which is why I keep going back.

 

[StarWarsJez]

I think it's interesting that some of the 'classic' E Ticket rides from 3 or even four decades ago still hold up well. To me, rides like POTC and Big Thunder outshine similar type modern day rides like the Little Mermaid and 7DMN (although appreciate BTM is more of a thrill ride)

Most of us understand that Disney doesn't do thrill rides, but we do expect innovation and great theming. However, since Disney seem to be too cost-conscious we end up with so-so experiences.

I look at what Universal did with the Harry Potter lands and just wish Disney had that that kind of passion and commitment.

 

[Eoghann]

I look at what Universal did with the Harry Potter lands and just wish Disney had that that kind of passion and commitment.

Well I think that is what Avatar and Star Wars both have the potential to be and it's what Disney are selling it as. We'll see (in 2 and 5 years respectively) whether they follow through or not. Toy Story is probably a "lesser" land in some respects but again they did imply heavy theming.

Again it just feels to me like. "Not an E-Ticket" is thrown out there as a casual dismissal far too often.

 

[rteetz]

People want Disney to go big because that was the Disney of old. In walts days and early on when they built MK and Epcot everything was amazing. Disney hasn't necessarily done amazing things in Florida as of late.

 

[StarWarsJez]

Well I think that is what Avatar and Star Wars both have the potential to be and it's what Disney are selling it as. We'll see (in 2 and 5 years respectively) whether they follow through or not. Toy Story is probably a "lesser" land in some respects but again they did imply heavy theming.

Again it just feels to me like. "Not an E-Ticket" is thrown out there as a casual dismissal far too often.

I think the key word you used there was 'potential'

When people say 'E Ticket' - to me that means 'classic' quality ride in Disney's best traditions . I think the concern many people has is that Disney has been pretty lacklustre in building quality, classic rides over the last couple of decades. Let's face it, despite all the hyperbole and the time it took, New Fantasyland was disappointing.

 

[Eoghann]

I think the key word you used there was 'potential'

When people say 'E Ticket' - to me that means 'classic' quality ride in Disney's best traditions . I think the concern many people has is that Disney has been pretty lacklustre in building quality, classic rides over the last couple of decades. Let's face it, despite all the hyperbole and the time it took, New Fantasyland was disappointing.

See I wouldn't agree with you on that. I'll say the Little Mermaid Ride was nothing to write home about, but overall I loved the area.

Was it hyped to the heavens and back? Oh yeah. But I never buy into that sort of stuff anyway. As far as I'm concerned that expansion delivered. It's not Potter and quite frankly it never could have been given what park it was in and what it's function was (moving people around). I just think people's expectations diverge from reality a lot.

Of course it also makes very little difference to me how long stuff takes. I only go every 2-3 years anyway.

 

[3DisneyFanz]

Times are changing and technology is as well. With all of the entertainment options people have at their disposal it's harder to get people amazed. I don't know that everything has to be a thrill ride but things like the Little Mermaid ride don't knock people out like they once did.

 

[StarWarsJez]

See I wouldn't agree with you on that. I'll say the Little Mermaid Ride was nothing to write home about, but overall I loved the area.

Was it hyped to the heavens and back? Oh yeah. But I never buy into that sort of stuff anyway. As far as I'm concerned that expansion delivered. It's not Potter and quite frankly it never could have been given what park it was in and what it's function was (moving people around). I just think people's expectations diverge from reality a lot.

Of course it also makes very little difference to me how long stuff takes. I only go every 2-3 years anyway.

But that's defeatist to say 'it never could have been' and 'expectations diverge from reality'! Just look at what Disney Imagineers did in the 60's and 70's with rides like Pirates if the Caribbean. Do you think they one thought 'oh this is just going to be a pirate water ride'?

This isn't about huge/fast roller coasters, it's about Disney having the ambition (and investment) to create great experiences. Whereas POTC was a simple ride big ride with huge vistas, Little Mermaid was a simple, dull ride with no inspiration - it felt like you were travelling down a long corridor!

 

[Josh Hendy]

I and my family really like theming, landscaping, music (live and ambient) and everything else that you find in a great theme park, but more than anything else it's the rides that matter.

So, yes, you could say we're "ride obsessed". Either a park has a sufficient number of exciting/interesting rides, or we won't go.

It doesn't have to be huge, monster rides. It can be a wonderful coaster like Everest or BTMRR or it can be a fun dark ride like Pirates.

Rides are the main criteria by which I judge park news. There is no film property which by itself is enough to get me excited about going to a park.

 

[amg35]

I'm the opposite. I love rides, don't get me wrong, it's that I'm just as happy riding Living With the Land as I am Everest.

For me Animal Kingdom as a whole is an E ticket attraction. I can go there and its so well done you feel like you are in the game Tomb Raider or you are Indiana Jones!
So my excitement for the details and "feel" of Pandora keeps growing at this point. The rides are just icing on the cake.

As you can imagine, I have the same hopes for Star Wars Land.

 

[jcnewton]

I'm the opposite. I love rides, don't get me wrong, it's that I'm just as happy riding Living With the Land as I am Everest.

For me Animal Kingdom as a whole is an E ticket attraction. I can go there and its so well done you feel like you are in the game Tomb Raider or you are Indiana Jones!
So my excitement for the details and "feel" of Pandora keeps growing at this point. The rides are just icing on the cake.

As you can imagine, I have the same hopes for Star Wars Land.

As much as I love the big rides, I need something to balance it out. Something I don't have to wait in line an hour for or book way in advance with FP+. Living with the Land, People Mover, Gran Fiesta Tour....all of those are nice, relaxing rides to sprinkle in between E-tickets. In fact, Living with the Land is one of my favorites in all of Disney.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I think it's dangerous as a consumer to go this route... Disney is all about the theming, so the theming is all that matters.

First, they have shown that they have this ability to downgrade, cut and slash all "breathtaking" addition projects.

Second, this is NOT Disney's history...while not putting in steel record breakers every year like six flags or cedar point... They were never afraid to use excitement in the right circumstances before.

Just because you don't like high thrills...whatever the reason... Doesn't mean it should be only flats or sims going forward.

They charge too much already... Frankly...for that.

 

[DDLand]

I think people are naturally beginning to want an E Ticket attraction. Every decade+, Disney goes on a building spree that results in multiple new E Ticket Attractions. Back in the mid 2000s, we got one of the most prolific periods of consistent new E Ticket building. Expedition Everest, Soarin, and Mission Space all opened in a few short years. *

This particular boom phase helped support a massive increase in Ticket Prices over the last decade or so.

However, it's been nearly ten years since Everest Opened. Guests have had to bear a pretty strong increase in the price. For the last few years, WDW has been coasting. That's fine, but it's in sharp contrast to their competitors who have been moving at lightening across their Resort.

Once again, I don't begrudge them for wanting to get ROI. I just don't think it's sustainable for much longer. Disney can't keep going at this trajectory. That's why, starting in 2017, we're going to be getting a new burst of E Tickets.

While at first I was rather dismissive of the Slinky Coaster, it looks like it should be near E Ticket Caliber (admittedly optimistic) upon further inspection of the concept art. It really does look awesome.

So Avatar/Slinky for a 2017 debut is great. That will start the ball rolling in the right direction. SW will hopefully debut with two new E Tickets in 2020ish.

Now there is a question I'm starting to ask...
Is it enough to sustain WDW on another course of ticket price increases into the 2030s? That I'm less confident of.

As for the roller coaster v. Other types equaling E Ticket, I think you'll find lots of people who are sympathetic to your point. Rides like Pirate of the Carribean or Haunted Mansion could be considered Es. I don't think any Disney fan thinks that Roller Coasters exclusively represent E Tickets.

I would say that they're the predominate E Ticket being built today though. When a big budget project is approved, they will typically spend that on a roller coaster because it has wide ranging draw.

Also Disney, sadly, has been less willing to spend big money on dark rides. Which is a shame. That's beginning to change to an extent though. Disneyland has just reinvested into their lineup of Dark Rides, and Disney built Little Mermaid. While it has been criticized for that attraction, it's still solid. I think it has a place in the park. It was overhyped though.

I also think that a lot of the complaints come from people who have seen the Tony Baxter version dreamed up for Paris...

*some like to dispute whether those are really "E Tickets." While I do agree that criticisms can be levied there way, especially in their implementation, no one can deny that they were significant draws that have become some of the most important attractions at their hosts.

 

[Eoghann]

I think there are several very different arguments happening here.

But what pretty much no one seems to have addressed is the logistic and logical impossibilities of all E-Tickets. You can't simultaneously demand all E-Tickets and then complain there are "only two" rides in the land. Of course there are... they're E-Tickets. What you think all the Dumbo's are going to be replaced by Pirates or Space Mountain level rides? Similarly you can't complain "there's nothing to do" in a park and then complain "that's not an e-ticket" when lower tiered attractions are added.

Looking at DHS I think could argue that the majority of rides are E-Ticket (not GMR perhaps, but certainly an argument can be made for Star Tours, Rockin Roller Coaster, Toy Story and Tower of Terror), although again the problem is what do people mean when they say E-Ticket. It's the lack of less rides that is the major gap in the park, one that's almost exclusively filled by shows. Even the much derided spinners have their place.

A separate issue may be lack of new rides in general.

I'm not arguing against building thrill rides, even if they are wasted on me personally, I'm questioning the obsession with E-ticket, E-ticket, E-ticket and everything else is dismissed as worthless.

 

[ArwenMarie]

I wish they would build longer rides in the future, like they did with the older rides. For example, 7DMT, as cute and well-themed and fun as it is, is too short. There's something about getting on a ride and not jumping right back off.

 

[DDLand]

I think there are several very different arguments happening here.

But what pretty much no one seems to have addressed is the logistic and logical impossibilities of all E-Tickets. You can't simultaneously demand all E-Tickets and then complain there are "only two" rides in the land. Of course there are... they're E-Tickets. What you think all the Dumbo's are going to be replaced by Pirates or Space Mountain level rides? Similarly you can't complain "there's nothing to do" in a park and then complain "that's not an e-ticket" when lower tiered attractions are added.

Looking at DHS I think could argue that the majority of rides are E-Ticket (not GMR perhaps, but certainly an argument can be made for Star Tours, Rockin Roller Coaster, Toy Story and Tower of Terror), although again the problem is what do people mean when they say E-Ticket. It's the lack of less rides that is the major gap in the park, one that's almost exclusively filled by shows. Even the much derided spinners have their place.

A separate issue may be lack of new rides in general.

I'm not arguing against building thrill rides, even if they are wasted on me personally, I'm questioning the obsession with E-ticket, E-ticket, E-ticket and everything else is dismissed as worthless.

No one on here thinks other rides are "worthless." I'm sure that there are people on these forums that love a journey on the Jungle Cruise. Really love beating their family at a game of Buzz Lightyear Space Ranger Spin. Even still enjoy a relaxing trip aboard the TTA.

I know I fit the criteria above.

Those rides are so beloved, that I don't think anyone would say they're fillers. I happen to think that's how all rides should be. No ride should play second fiddle to an E Ticket. It's true that they may not be as expansive, expensive, or as technologically advanced, but each of the attractions can stand up on their own. They each can be a draw.

I feel like the flat ride concept (aka filler) is something pioneered by the carnival/amusement park industry. It's so backwards and pretty much inconsistent with WDI values.

I feel like that's a dangerous route that Disney has been taking recently. Build a massive immersive land, plop down one big attraction and then some flats too. Instead of creating lesser draws, they just build something that takes up space and enhances numbers. They're not great.

If Disney wants me to be happy about the scope of additions, they need to make the D and C tickets worthwhile. Not junk.

Because after 5 minutes of riding the big ride, I want more. I want something besides the spinners. I want more high quality attractions.

They don't have to be E, but they do have to be great.

So yeah, I'm fine with not building only E but I'm not satisfied with them being content building a plethora of A. That makes me unhappy.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

No one on here thinks other rides are "worthless." I'm sure that there are people on these forums that love a journey on the Jungle Cruise. Really love beating their family at a game of Buzz Lightyear Space Ranger Spin. Even still enjoy a relaxing trip aboard the TTA.

I know I fit the criteria above.

Those rides are so beloved, that I don't think anyone would say they're fillers. I happen to think that's how all rides should be. No ride should play second fiddle to an E Ticket. It's true that they may not be as expansive, expensive, or as technologically advanced, but each of the attractions can stand up on their own. They each can be a draw.

I feel like the flat ride concept (aka filler) is something pioneered by the carnival/amusement park industry. It's so backwards and pretty much inconsistent with WDI values.

I feel like that's a dangerous route that Disney has been taking recently. Build a massive immersive land, plop down one big attraction and then some flats too. Instead of creating lesser draws, they just build something that takes up space and enhances numbers. They're not great.

If Disney wants me to be happy about the scope of additions, they need to make the D and C tickets worthwhile. Not junk.

Because after 5 minutes of riding the big ride, I want more. I want something besides the spinners. I want more high quality attractions.

They don't have to be E, but they do have to be great.

So yeah, I'm fine with not building only E but I'm not satisfied with them being content building a plethora of A. That makes me unhappy.

Wow...this weekend is making strange bedfellows...

As we usually "cordially disagree" but I'm in near total agreement with you on this front.

The idea of an "e" ticket I think is completely off - at least for
Wdw.
The term was meant as a reflection of demand - and guests picked the most quality, exciting, technologically impressive...naturally...no steering necessary.

The ridiculous Florida customer base and a LACK of investment...of any kind...on the agregate compared to guest influx over the Iger era
Has thrown it off...

What am I saying?

The premise is: that Iger has greenlit no e tickets for Florida. As in ever. The last two by design were everest and
Mission: space. Eisner.

Missions space didnt result in e ticket usage. Everest does despite a big flaw.

Soarin is a d...if we're honest. Midway mania is a c/d. Mine train is a c - if you're honest and based on the context of the term.

You're delusional if you think the maelstrom overlay is anywhere close... That's basically small world or little mermaid 2.0.

But - its out of whack because those rides have 1-2 hour waits. It is easy to accept them as "e tickets"...but again that's a bad/dangerous thing. It lowers the bar on what customer expectations should be...let alone what they should be in the proud tradition of Disney parks.

It's not that anybody is demaning "e tickets"...it's that theres a general (finally!) rumbling for new things...becaus that's what happens when you coast and let stagnation creep in.

Since Iger took over in 2004...at an "every other year" investment schedule...4 parks would need 15 solid additions over that span.

As discussed damn near all the time around here - we are near net zero.

I'm not asking for 12 new splash mountain caliber rides...just "quality". Of any type.

Studios is half gone/never completed...future world is a wreck and it's going to get worse (notice no imagination redo - which was heavily speculated for awhile now) and they have been sooooo slow to do anything in animal kingdom over its history...near 20 years for a park that needed help since day uno.

Balance all this against continual price escalation... And we are just getting started there.

Need I remind everyone that we are exposing our soft underbelly to the tiered pricing if we go ga ga over all this stuff they've announced...but not promised... For us?

The announcement will be in the fall... If I'm a betting man.

 

[DDLand]

Studios is half gone/never completed...future world is a wreck and it's going to get worse (notice no imagination redo - which was heavily speculated for awhile now) and they have been sooooo slow to do anything in animal kingdom over its history...near 20 years for a park that needed help since day uno.

Balance all this against continual price escalation... And we are just getting started there.

Need I remind everyone that we are exposing our soft underbelly to the tiered pricing if we go ga ga over all this stuff they've announced...but not promised... For us?

The announcement will be in the fall... If I'm a betting man.

Nah, we disagree on many topics but some of the most critical we agree on. It is interesting that the events are all converging to make us agree right now. Says something about these expansions...

We're honestly looking at what will amount to the biggest ticket price increase in Disney Parks history. In some cases it will cost 25% more to get inside the same park. Has the product improved enough to support that level of price increases year after year? Nope. Is Universal going to respond with an increase of similiar caliber? For the first time I'm not sure if they'll follow suit. It very well may be that pretty soon a day at Epcot or DAK will cost around 25$ more then a day at Universal Studios Florida. Is ROL, Frozen, and a new Soarin enough to justify that? It's getting to be a more and more easy to for someone to say nope.

Because Disney hasn't been investing widely for the last few years, they are years behind on their development track. The choices they're making could leave them in trouble for years.

 

[whiporee]

They charge too much already... Frankly...for that.

I don't know. I spent a weekend at Winter Park, Colorado, where they had a "Fun City" set up. $53 for a full day pass for a very good alpine slide with a half-hour turnaround first thing in the morning that turned into 90 minutes as the day went on, a rock-climbing wall with a half-hour wait all day, a trampoline jump with a half-hour wait all day and a maze. And a ride to the top of the mountain.

Elitch Gardens here is $46 for the day for a dirty, sort of beaten down park with hour-long waits for all the big coasters, two of the major rides out of service and chipping paint everywhere, where you weren't allowed to even bring in your own water bottles. Water World here is awesome, but it's $44 for the day and everything has at least a half-hour wait unless you pay another $25 for an express pass, and that only helps with three rides.

Theme parks are expensive. I don't think WDW is out of line when it comes to value.

As for new experiences, I think that's natural for people who have been to the parks more than once, and are old enough to write on message boards. But when I think about it, the most amazing innovations they've had have been the queued M&Gs. I hate them because I don't care, but kids do, and it's an experience they can't get anywhere else -- the chance to shake the hand and interact with one of their heroines or favorite characters. I may lament that it used to be special and just a part of the experience to run into them on the street, but my kids positively beam when they get the chance to hug one of those princesses, and it's a feeling that lasts longer than the excitement of any of the Mountains.

My wife has a friend who just got back from DL, and she summed it all up -- the trip was maddening, but the pictures are wonderful. Because I'm starting to believe that's what all the Disney Resorts are about -- getting great pictures and fun memories. It's never been about a constant state of thrill -- it's a way to spend a day and give kids chances to do things they can't do anywhere else. The new lands may not be perfect or even all that exciting to us, but they will be unique, just like US and Harry Potter. The rides may not be heart-rendering, but they aren't meant to be -- they are about good pictures and all-encompassing memories.