Look around at nearly every theme park including the fine offerings at Tokyo Disney Seas and Universal and that's all the evidence you need.
Disney parks were the only parks who ever took seriously the notion that rides could be exciting/thrilling without using the latest in whirl and hurl technology.
Its always been hard to do, and, since Disney was the only one doing it and doing it well, their financial success was beyond what any other park could even dream of. Its why Disney is competing with all of the other destination resorts in the world and Coney Island or Six Flags is not.
Now, Disney has become lazy and prefers to compare themselves to their "competition", instead of to their own mission and standards. Most of us, including you I believe, agree with this. The disagreement usually comes on what the impact of this change is, and if there is any real reason to believe it will move back towards the original direction.
But regardless of our opinions on that, you can't use the fact that Disney stopped trying as evidence that it doesn't work anymore.
Of course if they put minimal effort into a minimally exclusive attraction it will most likely fail, or at least not be the big draw they need. That was always the case. If the Haunted Mansion were only a step above the local fun house at the State fair, it would have failed as a draw as well.
No, if you want evidence, you need to point to the attempts to create a truly exciting, "drawing card" type attraction without physical thrills, that FAILED.
To suggest that AK needs a non-height restricted ride for than one that includes a height restriction for safety purposes, is to basically refute the years of claims that BK needs to be.
I think you'll find that those who insisted that BK was the only solution are not the same who are insisting the only solution now inovolves height restrictions.
That's malarckey. Nobody said it when Splash was built, Tower was built, Indy was built, or Journey was built.
True, and if the more recent additions had the quality of the attractions you named, it would be malarckey. But they don't. Check out Soarin'... the show is practically non-existent.
So using your above logic, the fact that Disney is no longer producing Splash/Tower/Indy quality height restricted attractions, it would follow that these type are no longer successful, and only bare bones thrill attractions, like Screamin', Soarin', and PW are successful.
THAT would be marlarckey, and I'm sure you wouldn't agree with it.
For whatever reason, Disney has become reliant on the same physical factors other theme parks use in order to thrill their guests. As such, they will need to begin accepting financial models more in-line with other theme parks, and be willing to invest in the physical thrill arms race they seem so willing to join.
Unless, of course, they are truly returning to making the story the most important factor.....but it'll take more than a drawing to sell that.
Yes there is a demand for the slow moving/heavy show attraction that wows the audience like pirates or haunted mansion.
I don't know how many times this has to be said before it gets through, but I'm going to keep saying it until it does get through....if you look at Pirates or HM as they stand today as examples of what the "more inclusive" crowd is talking about, you are completely missing the point.
If you look at the reactions they generated WHEN THEY OPENED, you are getting the point.
The attraction does not have to be a slow-moving omni-mover based attraction with scenes developed using 1960's technology.
Just look at movies as an analogy. Did movie effects stand still since 1969? Of course not. Then why do we have to assume that ride effects, other than those involving physical effects, have stood still since 1969?
.
