Well, the lamest attraction award goes to Sounds Dangerous with Drew Carey...I didn't get that one at all! Why did they make it...and why is it still there haha? An audience member in June summed it up as the lights came on and he said, "WHAT WAS THAT?"
We rode HISTA last year...and thought that was the most boring one there (but thought it was cooler the last time we were at Disney world 15 years ago...needs updating).
We then rode EO this summer and thought that could tie with HISTA as the top "do one time only" Disney attraction (but we got a good laugh at both)!
Then we rode Sounds Dangerous this summer and cannot imagine any attraction could be worse than that one! But once again we left laughing!
That is the fun of amusement parks....some rides are great and some rides are not!
It is obvious that the intent of the attraction has been missed completely by most people. They leave scratching their heads and say stuff like, "boring" or "what was that".
Those of you that are older than dirt, like myself, understand that it was trying to pay tribute to the radio era. The days when you sat in front of the radio and listen to the show and imagined everything that was going on. Having done both, I have found that my imagination was much better then the camera recorded images. I could make them as elaborate or as simple as I wanted. It could be anything that I could see with my mind. For that reason, I always went to Sounds Dangerous and except for the dialog it was always a little different then the time before.
Everything in the parks is an attempt by Disney to exploit something or another for its own profits---nostalgia, "magic", and even the King o' Pop.
That is a little different than running out a dust covered film strip only because the public in it's ultimate taste and culture, would flock to it to remember something that no longer existed, and hadn't for a very long time. More out of morbid curiosity then for the entertainment value.
But Disney never said it wasn't, did they? They never tried to make it anything else. I thought it was pretty clear from the start that Disney was looking to re-install it
because Jackson had died. It's not like they positioned it any other way.
And if the Guest comments from the re-opening of the attraction had come back that way, then it would have been closed the next day (or not opened at all). But people lined up at 5am in California to be first in line to see it when it reopened, and Florida had a huge fan base as well. There was pretty much no scandal about it at all. No conservative religious group threatening a boycott ... no protests from angered parents ... Nancy Grace didn't even jump on it. If people were disgusted, that certainly didn't make it too far into the press.
Oh, but they did...but by that time Disney had already put it in place and it was going to run through it usefulness come hell or high water.
To carry this a touch further even if MJ was innocent and pure as the driven snow in how he interacted with children. He had gone from a popular, loved, talented star to a weird manifestation of something that I cannot even define. He certainly, by then, would not have wanted him to have any influence at all on my children. He needed help but never got it. He, in his mind, was fine. His fans enabled that particular notion and helped bring him to his death in many ways.
I've heard it said many times that they loved him for what he had been, fair enough! But does that make it OK to use him as a roll model? Heck, when Charles Manson was a young man, he was pretty likable as well. That doesn't mean that I want my children to think he was pretty cool back then so lets have a park attraction that featured him. Title it...Charles Manson, the early years (when he was kinda nice)