Expedition Everest is Official

[DisneyKidds]

But, in the end all you really need are two variables:

I think there is really only one..........................and that is, regardless of what the capacity is, how many people are actually riding.

You guys have been having an interesting discussion regarding ride capacity. However, capacity is irrelevant unless it is used. That is why my original questions had to do with the % of capacity that rides operate at.

On the average, over the course of a day, week, or year, RnR or Pooh has a capacity of x but only operates at y% of that capacity, the ride services z people. If x times y% of capacity equals a larger z for a particular ride, it would mean that that ride, in general, had longer sustained lines and was more "popular". One could even argue that a ride that has a larger y% would have the longest sustained lines, and by one of the measures I believe crusader supplied would be more 'popular'.

Ultimately, and all I have is an orifice to pull from and no hard numbers to back it up , I think Pooh has longer sustained lines over the course of an entire day/week/year. Sure, RnR might have the time measured longest line at a particular point during that day/week/year, but on the whole I usually see longer sustained lines on Pooh. BTW - I do think that RnR and Pooh are good contenders if we want to match a thrill ride and non thrill ride head to head. Pooh is one of the newer and perhaps most popular non thrill kid ride, while RnR is one of the newer and perhaps most popular thrill rides. So what does it all mean? Well, I'm not old on the concept that what the WDW public REALLY wants is thrill rides.

Matt makes a potentially decent point, but I'm still not sure I agree. I believe he implied that even if RnR didn't have the longest sustained lines, it might be a draw that brings people to WDW. However, thrill rides have never been the weenie when it comes to WDW so I'm not buying. I'm also not sure that is territory that Disney wants to get into.

Ultimately, Disney has determined that a lower thrill, higher theme, 42 to 44 inch height restricted E ticket will be the biggest draw for the AK. I happen to agree.

 

[YoHo]

I agree DK, Thrill rides were never the Weenie in the past.

Further, RnRC exists in a park with only 2 particularly popular attractions (I PERSONALLY prefer Star Tours, Muppets and TGMR, but then, I'm a Star Wars nerd, and look at my Avatar) Look at line lengths across the rest of MK compared to MGM and I think you'll find that a larger percentage of MGM guests are in line for RNRC then MK guests in line for Pooh.

There are just so many ways to manipulate the numbers, that's why the numbers can be seen as largly useless in determining park direction.

 

[April76]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds

Matt makes a potentially decent point, but I'm still not sure I agree. I believe he implied that even if RnR didn't have the longest sustained lines, it might be a draw that brings people to WDW. However, thrill rides have never been the weenie when it comes to WDW so I'm not buying. I'm also not sure that is territory that Disney wants to get into.

Ultimately, Disney has determined that a lower thrill, higher theme, 42 to 44 inch height restricted E ticket will be the biggest draw for the AK. I happen to agree.

I think it's the "WOW" that draws the crowd - whether it's a "white knuckle" thrill or just really terrific story with special FX's....

I really believe that if you took RnR out of it's building, took away the lights, music, etc.... you wouldn't see the same lines. If you took away the "wow" take-off, you'd see even fewer people. That's not to say that it wouldn't be popular, but I don't believe it would be AS popular.

If you took away the Pooh theme and just had a car running around the track; it certainly wouldn't be worth a parent's wait in line with their children. It's the story/characters that draws the crowd (too bad they told it with cutouts).


Just my two cents.

 

[YoHo]

too bad they told it with cutouts

While I agree that Pooh isn't exactly a reason to jump up and down for joy, The ride is as solid a fantasyland ride as Pan, Snow White, Alice or Pinochio.

The biggest complaint has been that what it replaced, Mr. Toad's had a fanatical following. Still does in Anaheim. Well, also that Tokyo got a better one, but I think that wouldn't have been as big an issue if Pooh had been an add instead of a replace.

 

[Sarangel]

There are just so many ways to manipulate the numbers, that's why the numbers can be seen as largly useless in determining park direction.

I believe that it was Mark Twain that said there are 3 types of lies: "Lies, Dang* Lies, and Statistics"

Sarangel



* Edited for the censor, please supply correct expletive as needed.

 

[Mr D]

My first thought when news of EE was released was that it would be a copy of the Tokyo DisneySea mountain, it would be using the same ride etc. but rethemed just like the difference between Indy and Dinosaur, they have different queues but the ride is the same.
Disney does have a history of copies in other parks.

 

[crusader]

Ultimately, Disney has determined that a lower thrill, higher theme, 42 to 44 inch height restricted E ticket will be the biggest draw for the AK. I happen to agree.

you have to admit anything new at AK with any level of ingeniuity will be a big draw so this is a stretch.

I want a real coaster built in this mountain #@%* it! There are alot of people who aren't going to these parks because they have not built anything in the coaster arena considered really fantastic in a long time! This is too great an opportunity to ignore and I hope they don't try to please us with another mild mannered uni-ride.

 

[DisneyKidds]

you have to admit anything new at AK with any level of ingeniuity will be a big draw

I agree.

so this is a stretch.

What makes you say this? Why is it such a stretch to think that a ride like Splash Mountain will be a bigger draw than a ride like RnR?

I want a real coaster built in this mountain #@%* it!

I know what you want , and I would love it too. But the key question for Disney is what would a larger set of guests love more. For whatever the reasons (and I'm sure they looked at it closely) they decided to go with the lower thrill route. I doubt that it was a $$$ based decision. What do yo think their reasoning was?

There are alot of people who aren't going to these parks because they have not built anything in the coaster arena considered really fantastic in a long time!

Perhaps. Curious, you say that Disney hasn't built anything fantastic in the coaster arena in a long time. What is the last fantastic ride that you feel Disney built in this area?

This is too great an opportunity to ignore and I hope they don't try to please us with another mild mannered uni-ride.

Once again, I completely agree. However, are you saying that the only thing that you would consider not to be a mild mannered uni-ride would be a 48+ inch restricted, shoulder retrained, thrill coaster?

 

[eeyorefanatic]

again-

I think they should just make it a 2 track ride. One at 40" one a "thrill" coaster.


Or a smaller dark ride within the mountain ala space mountain, just more thrilling than tta
This way everyone would be happy (yeah right!)

 

[raidermatt]

Isn't this the interval cycle?

gcurling correctly pointed out the only two things you need, but if we don't have interval (meaning length between cars), we can find the load capacity by using the cycle length, number of vehicles in use, and capacity of each vehicle.

Cycle length is different than ride length, because ride length does not include the time it takes the vehicle to go from the unloading area to the loading area.

As DK points out, capacity alone doesn't tell us much about value, but it only came up because lines were being used as an indication of value. If lines are going to be used, then capacity DOES become important. (Unless we somehow get our hands on real ridership numbers, which seems unlikely)

Matt makes a potentially decent point

Oh, stop with the praise! You're embarassing me!

I believe he implied that even if RnR didn't have the longest sustained lines, it might be a draw that brings people to WDW.

That's pretty much it, but again, not so much the lines as ridership. Meaning that ridership alone does not tell us NECESSARILY what has the most value, i.e., what actually played the biggest role in getting folks to visit.

For example, a rather un-exceptional attraction that has a high load capacity will actually draw some riders simply because it has a short line. Looking at ridership alone won't account for that.

That doesn't mean ridership doesn't matter, or even that I'm saying RnRC IS a bigger draw for the resort than Pooh, just that it must be considered when making the judgement.

However, thrill rides have never been the weenie when it comes to WDW so I'm not buying.

Agreed that it never was before, but it seems that DISNEY believes they are now. Geez, you're actually sounding like me...that thrill rides are not what necessarily brings folks to WDW, so therefore thrill rides shouldn't be the only option for major attraction investment.

However, judging by the fact that the major recent and upcoming (that we know of) attractions are thrill attractions, and that our insiders tell us that Disney does believe thrill attraction are what draws people to the parks, it would seem Disney does not care what the weenies were in the past.

That's not to say I agree that its the best option, mind you. But when they spend $100+ million on a thrill attraction, and nothing close to that on other attractions, it seems pretty clear what they think brings in the money, and what doesn't.

There are alot of people who aren't going to these parks because they have not built anything in the coaster arena considered really fantastic in a long time!

There are a lot of people who never went to Disney parks for a lot of reasons, not having the greatest coasters being just one of them.

Build one of these 54"+ coasters and sure, you'll make some people happy. But they would need three or four of them to compete with many individual parks. Its also not the most important consideration when trying to draw families for vacations, when the competition isn't other parks, but other places that don't have ANY coasters.

Meanwhile, the people who are at WDW because of what WDW DOES offer, get little or nothing new, more than offsetting those that want the monster coasters.

I certainly don't think Disney is doing everything right when it comes to the types of attractions they are adding, but that doesn't mean they couldn't do a lot worse.

 

[raidermatt]

Eeyorefanatic, your point is an intersting one. Its actually something I suggested could have been done with M:S...offer an alternative to the flight simulator for those who want to take a longer look around in space without the physical stress of a watered down spaceflight. (And I'm sure I wasn't the first to raise the suggestion).

But doing this would make a ride more expensive, which is a big factor in what Disney creates these days.

I think it's the "WOW" that draws the crowd - whether it's a "white knuckle" thrill or just really terrific story with special FX's....

For the most part, I agree April. However, I think the folks who are most looking for the white knuckle thrill are largely a different group than those most looking for a non-white knuckle thrill. Hence the way Disney's demographic does not synch-up with Six Flag's.

 

[crusader]

Why is it such a stretch to think that a ride like Splash Mountain will be a bigger draw than a ride like RnR?

Sorry - poor choice of words. I'm not sure if Splash would be a bigger draw. Flume rides have long lines for various reasons. For the non-coaster person it may be the only "drop" they will endure. Weather also plays a significant factor, not to mention at WDW it is one of the few really "big" rides.

Again, Everest is going to be a coaster - and right now the parks need the next mountain to be this - not another water ride.

they decided to go with the lower thrill route. I doubt that it was a $$$ based decision. What do yo think their reasoning was?

I know what the rumor is purported to be. Hopefully this will not be the case when the attraction is built which would be a mistake in my opinion. They need something great to be able to advertise beyond the fairy tale youth/senior type park premise and a mild coaster just plays right into the stigma.

What is the last fantastic ride that you feel Disney built in this area?

I can only speak domestically here but in the coaster arena Space Mountain is it.

However, are you saying that the only thing that you would consider not to be a mild mannered uni-ride would be a 48+ inch restricted, shoulder retrained, thrill coaster?

Forget the shoulder restraint but yes for a coaster - 48" raises the bar just enough to design the ride with more thrill and intensity.

Now, if you are asking me if I think there can be a thrill type ride designed for the general audience? Probably, but since thrill is typically linked to the the adenaline factor, there would have to be some degree of intensity incorporated into the show element here because the ride vehicle would not be equipped with any speed.

 

[Peter Pirate]

Again, Everest is going to be a coaster...

I was certain that the official Disney release said the attraction would have "some coaster like thrill elements"...This doesn't sound like it will be a coaster to me...

But irregardless, we're back to the coaster vs. non-coaster argument. I don't mind coasters but anything bigger than California Screamin' and I'm done and this (CS type thrills) won't please you fanatics.

I hope Disney uses its talent and spends its money on a 'WOW ride' much like they did with Soarin' or Indy or IOA did with Spidey.

 

[crusader]

Its also not the most important consideration when trying to draw families for vacations, when the competition isn't other parks, but other places that don't have ANY coasters

Disney uses it's theme park enticement as the main distinguishment when competing with other vacation destinations. They now are faced with an added dilemna - another theme park is advancing further in the attraction arena. They can no longer sit back and argue that this is not in direct competition with their venues because the general public is looking at what each park is offering when deciding where to purchase tickets.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Sorry - poor choice of words. I'm not sure if Splash would be a bigger draw. Flume rides have long lines for various reasons. For the non-coaster person it may be the only "drop" they will endure. Weather also plays a significant factor, not to mention at WDW it is one of the few really "big" rides.

My turn to say sorry, as I wasn't clear enough. I know that Splash and RnR are different animals. What I was getting at was the difference between a ride like Splash (relying on story line, themeing, and attention to detail rather than thrills - the journey along with Brer Rabbit IS the real attraction, not the adrenaline producing drop at the end) and a ride like RnR (relying on rocket launches, loops, and corkscrews to provide the thrill, with the back story being fill rather than THE attraction). So let me ask again, why is it such a stretch to think that a ride like Splash Mountain will be a bigger draw than a ride like RnR?

I can only speak domestically here but in the coaster arena Space Mountain is it.

And what exactly is Space Mountain? It certainly wasn't anywhere near being a real coaster, as coasters went back at the time. I'm positive there were much more thrilling coasters elsewhere, with 48+ inch height restrictions. Space did something new. It put this very tame coaster indoors. It immersed the attraction in incredible themeing. It relied more on story, themeing, and detail than thrills to provide the WOW. What the ride lacks in speed and intensity it makes up for in many other ways. It is still one of the most popular rides in WDW and is widely considered to be a classic. Even you think is was/is fantastic.

Are you saying that this couldn't be done today?

a mild coaster just plays right into the stigma.

Perhaps the Pirate is right. You may have to stop looking at this as a coaster and allow Disney to try and WOW us with something that is different from what the rest of the theme park world is offering, just as they did with Space Mountain. Yes, we don't know that Disney will accomplish this with Everest, but I'll give them a chance to try.

48" raises the bar just enough to design the ride with more thrill and intensity.

Yes, it would allow for more of one kind of thrill and intensity, but there are other ways to deliver a WOW factor. Hopefully Disney will accomplish that with Everest.

 

[crusader]

OK - admittedly my position during this debate has been stalwart re: the coaster issue because of Everest.

That aside, I agree the company should consider the "WOW" and "SHOW" needs heard so vehemently in the appeals of Pirate, Matt and Mr. Kidds.

I have stated before that Space Mountain delivered on a very big level - it was a coaster in the dark back in the 70's - complemented with shooting stars and cool sound effects and a great open air feel while racing through space which made it all the more spectacular.

This is the signature trademark characteristic of traditional Disney and it shoud apply to all big ticket attractions thrill or non-thrill.

Back in the 70's SM was the only thrill ride vs many other greatly themed omnimovers. Then came Splash and ToT. That's it.

I agree Splash is signature Disney and RnRC is not. I agree there is a need for a new general audience "wow" attraction. I also believe that there has to be something offered which grabs today's generation the same way Space touched us and a flume ride won't be enough no matter how greatly themed it is. Everest has the potential to be that and should look to deliver on that level.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Everest has the potential to be that and should look to deliver on that level.

Amen to that!!!!

P.S. Crusader - if Everest isn't the kick-a** thrill you want it to be I hope the next E-ticket announced is (so long as it is done 'Disney-style') . I hope M:S is enough to tide you over .

 

[airlarry!]

Mr. Pirate:

I agree with you wholeheartedly (and this from a guy who WILL ride anything as fast as Bob O can make it).

I just don't need rides like that at WDW. This is just my personal take, but that's why we have Six Flags around every corner (there are literally 4 of them within 6-7 hours of my house.)

Remember when we debated the drag racer coaster a couple of months ago? I forgot to say back then that I would take Western River Expedition or the GPS Tokyo Pooh ride or Soarin' over Somewhere before a hypercoaster anyday.

I don't get a vote of course but if Cou$in Mike is asking, please design a big ride with a great queue (break it up into stages if you are worried about fastpass destroying it), themes that don't hit you over the head but take multiple rides to totally appreciate, throw in some hidden stuff for the internet crowd, make the ride exciting enough for pre-teen but yet little Sammy can still ride, and do some kind of great wrap-up that exits into a photo area.

Take Splash Mountain and top it.

 

[d-r]

Originally posted by Mr D
My first thought when news of EE was released was that it would be a copy of the Tokyo DisneySea mountain, it would be using the same ride etc. but rethemed just like the difference between Indy and Dinosaur, they have different queues but the ride is the same.
Disney does have a history of copies in other parks.

The "mountain" at TDS is "Journey to Center of the Earth," a "copy" of WDW's Test Track - just rethemed like the difference between Indy and CTX. Everest isn't.

DR

 

[crusader]

I hope M:S is enough to tide you over .

Thanks Kidds - it will be. Looking forward to the experience this October as a matter of fact.

I just don't need rides like that at WDW.

Again - I am disconnecting here. Why would it become a six flags coaster simply because it has more intensity than Goofy's Barnstormer?

make the ride exciting enough for pre-teen but yet little Sammy can still ride,

pre-teen being prior to age 12 and little sammy being what? age 4? This should not be the target for an attraction like this. This should be the target for a general audience e-ticket ride which is arguably needed as well - but not a mountain coaster. I sincerely hope the measurement is not a pre-schooler here or they will be making a mistake by investing in an attraction not magnanimous enough to successfully launch an advertising counterattack against their competitor down the road.