Is Disney at fault for disappointment?

[MrInfinity]

I didn't miss the point, actually. I know that it will be the new most sought after FP+. You're missing the point that the other poster and I were trying ot make.

Your point - that it's adding capacity of rides people want - only works if Maelstrom's capacity was never used. Maelstrom wasn't deserted. It had lines, its capacity was used. I remember waiting in quite a long line for it myself. Frozen's FP+ will be more coveted, yes, but the actual number of riders the attraction takes through in a day is not going to be significantly different than Maelstrom was. There will be some increase, yes, as I did say before (coming from potential more efficient ride system with newer technology, and the ride running at full capacity more often than Maelstrom did). But it isn't going to be an increase in actual # of bodies moved through the ride to the huge extent it's being made out to be.

No one said it's going to be an increase in the number of rides. It's the SAME TRACK. So the fact that you're emphasizing this shows you're not on the same page as me here. What is going to be different is people will actually want FP+s to this ride. So this WILL alleviate the Tier-1 FP+ situation. Before you had people trying for Soarin and Test Track. (Maelstrom was at best a consolation prize if you couldn't get one of the other two!) Now, they will be trying for Frozen, and of those who can't get Frozen, they'll be happy with Soarin or Test Track. There will be more availability for S/TT because many people will be CHOOSING Frozen. The capacity of the ride remains unchanged (or, if like you say the mechanism is improved then that will be even better) but the impact to the guest experience and availability of Tier-1 rides will be improved.

 

[Angel Ariel]

No one said it's going to be an increase in the number of rides. It's the SAME TRACK. So the fact that you're emphasizing this shows you're not on the same page as me here.

I understand what you are saying. You're not understanding what I am saying. The poster who started the conversation about attraction capacity was in fact actually talking about increasing attraction capacity - increasing the total number of rides.

You then responded with a list of additions that Disney has made.

That poster then responded to you with:

As I noted, since I assume you are talking about my post as no one else mentioned the lack of capacity build, I am happy that Disney is moving forward and adding more stuff, though when we will actually see this is anyone's guess.

However what you fail to note is what has been closed to add the things you are pointing to, how much actual capacity has been added ? What is the net change in Capacity on rides from 2001 - 2015 ? Not much.

I am very excited for the stuff in HS for instance, I am sure there will be quite a net gain, but a lot has also closed, things closed in MK as well, EPCOT we are just exchanging one ride for another, Downtown Disney isn't a park people are paying a ticket price for to compete for ride demand (in fact its a great example of the stress on increasing profits by squeezing more money out of people).

This poster is very much talking about the actual number of rides.

You then responded, asking him:

I'm not asking for a list of what's closed, I'm asking more personally, what has been closed there, that you genuinely loved in terms of rides... attractions that were materially influential in your choice to go to Disney World, which are not there now or replaced by something better.

This above quote (and the post it came from) is where the conversation turned from talking objective attraction capacity to subjective what ride will be more popular.

My response to you was an attempt to bring the conversation back to the topic of objective attraction capacity.

Please do not mistake my attempts to return the topic to the question of whether actual total attraction capacity has been increased as an inability to understand what you were saying. I fully understand what your point was. It just wasn't what I was attempting to discuss. It's clear that you're not interested in the discussion I was attempting to have, and that's fine.

 

[littleblackegg]

Sorry, I read this and I couldn't help thinking of Veruca Salt..

Exactly. Sometimes I am baffled. I watched a very angry 400lb woman on a scooter ***** out an nice cast member all of 18 years old about the construction at Disney Springs. It was way crazy! As she drove away, I approached the poor dude and said (LOUDLY), "And for GOD'S sake man, I requested the Sun be moved over there in the sky to meet my person needs!" Scooter lady turned around and scowled at me. Poor dude.

 

[MrInfinity]

I understand what you are saying. You're not understanding what I am saying.

Ok.

 

[WillAustin]

Before you had people trying for Soarin and Test Track. (Maelstrom was at best a consolation prize if you couldn't get one of the other two!) Now, they will be trying for Frozen, and of those who can't get Frozen, they'll be happy with Soarin or Test Track. There will be more availability for S/TT because many people will be CHOOSING Frozen. The capacity of the ride remains unchanged (or, if like you say the mechanism is improved then that will be even better) but the impact to the guest experience and availability of Tier-1 rides will be improved.

Many, if not most, people who will be choosing the Frozen ride most likely wouldn't have been in Epcot in the first place.

 

[3DisneyFanz]

Wouldn't adding Frozen in as a Tier 1 just make things worse for the tiering? As it is now people are picking one and doing the other on SB so now they're going to pick 1 and do the other 2 SB. This doesn't even include the very possible scenario that the M&G could be a tier 1 as well.

 

[JimmyV]

Whether or not someone liked The Backlot Tour, or Snow White's Scary Adventures, or LMA (there are more) is immaterial to the point re: overall attraction capacity.

I think this is critical to an understanding of what is frustrating most people....crowds. And don't forget to add in American Idol/Who Wants To Be A Millionaire. Like it or not, it ate the crowd. And so did Backlot Tour. Animation Academy, only to a much lesser extent. So no, none of those things was the most desirable attraction at DHS. But get rid of all three at once and you put way too much outward pressure on the rest of the park. As for Norway, shifting over from Maelstrom to Frozen will only change how much people enjoy the attraction and will do little to shift how many people ride the attraction. Maelstrom was running at full capacity most of the day.

The bottom line is that if Disney removed all the rides that I don't care about, and replaced them with 3 rides that I will love, it would still be a net negative for me, in terms of crowding.

 

[Angel Ariel]

I think this is critical to an understanding of what is frustrating most people....crowds. And don't forget to add in American Idol/Who Wants To Be A Millionaire. Like it or not, it ate the crowd. And so did Backlot Tour. Animation Academy, only to a much lesser extent. So no, none of those things was the most desirable attraction at DHS. But get rid of all three at once and you put way too much outward pressure on the rest of the park. As for Norway, shifting over from Maelstrom to Frozen will only change how much people enjoy the attraction and will do little to shift how many people ride the attraction. Maelstrom was running at full capacity most of the day.

Thank you. This is the point I was trying to make

 

[MrInfinity]

Wouldn't adding Frozen in as a Tier 1 just make things worse for the tiering? As it is now people are picking one and doing the other on SB so now they're going to pick 1 and do the other 2 SB. This doesn't even include the very possible scenario that the M&G could be a tier 1 as well.

Well, there are at least two scenarios that I see as likely...

1) Frozen is Tier-1, M&G is Tier-1, while Soarin and TT remain Tier-1.
In this case, it has the effect you say. Intense competition for Frozen, like SDMT. But the alternatives of TT/S being good too. But because so many people will pick Frozen, that means fewer people will pick S/TT, which will actually improve the FP situation for these two rides, maybe enough that there are some available as seconds, later. Standby line for these rides would move faster too, for the shift of FP+ pulls from their lines to Frozen.

2) Frozen is Tier-1, M&G is Tier-1, while TT remains Tier-1 and Soarin is dropped to Tier-2.
With the added capacity at Soarin, this is possible. The real quesition here, is whether there is enough capacity between Frozen, M&G, TT, and maybe Illuminations, such that all guests can get one of these. If there is the capacity to handle the attendance, then we just might see Soarin drop to Tier-2 which would be awesome (but then the negative impact is Soarin would be FP+'d to the hilt as everyone would take it as a Tier 2... thereby leading to the lines at Figment, SE, etc moving faster again.)

I'm sure there are many more possibilities. There is a whole ripple effect here of such a big-draw ride going in.

 

[JimmyV]

1) Frozen is Tier-1, M&G is Tier-1, while Soarin and TT remain Tier-1.
In this case, it has the effect you say. Intense competition for Frozen, like SDMT. But the alternatives of TT/S being good too. But because so many people will pick Frozen, that means fewer people will pick S/TT, which will actually improve the FP situation for these two rides, maybe enough that there are some available as seconds, later. Standby line for these rides would move faster too, for the shift of FP+ pulls from their lines to Frozen.

Only if overall park capacity remains constant. But if Frozen attracts a whole host of families that heretofore skipped Epcot because they found nothing of interest there for their 1-5 year olds, and those people start showing up along with all the other people who used to show up, then you haven't relieved any of the pressure on S/TT. I suspect that we will see a fair bit of this phenomenon. After Frozen opens, the number of threads titled: "Will my little kids enjoy Epcot" will dry up to nothing.

 

[3DisneyFanz]

I want a FP for the new EPCOT RD Rush observation area once Frozen opens. That's going to be a blast.

 

[MrInfinity]

Only if overall park capacity remains constant. But if Frozen attracts a whole host of families that heretofore skipped Epcot because they found nothing of interest there for their 1-5 year olds, and those people start showing up along with all the other people who used to show up, then you haven't relieved any of the pressure on S/TT. I suspect that we will see a fair bit of this phenomenon. After Frozen opens, the number of threads titled: "Will my little kids enjoy Epcot" will dry up to nothing.

But then if these guests are going to EPCOT that would have gone to the MK instead, then you should see it cause shorter lines at the MK or whatever park they would have gone to had Frozen not been there. Or are you saying that Frozen will cause families to be able to in general afford longer vacations?

I think what would fix this is if every disboard post had an automatic disclaimer: Warning: crowds will be higher in the future than they are today.

 

[JimmyV]

But then if these guests are going to EPCOT that would have gone to the MK instead, then you should see it cause shorter lines at the MK or whatever park they would have gone to had Frozen not been there.

I think this has to be the case, unless Frozen causes people to go to WDW who otherwise would not have gone at all, which I doubt. Any family that loves Frozen that much is already in the fold. So I agree that the line at Frozen might be comprised of people who were in line for ETWB and Pooh and the Carousel and Small World. But I don't think that the load capacity for the Frozen type of boat ride is enough to make a measurable dent in the rides at the MK unless they were all being pulled from the same attraction.

 

[dlavender]

Only if overall park capacity remains constant. But if Frozen attracts a whole host of families that heretofore skipped Epcot because they found nothing of interest there for their 1-5 year olds, and those people start showing up along with all the other people who used to show up, then you haven't relieved any of the pressure on S/TT. I suspect that we will see a fair bit of this phenomenon. After Frozen opens, the number of threads titled: "Will my little kids enjoy Epcot" will dry up to nothing.

This. This is what will happen. EPCOT's attendance will double. The great thing, for me, is that it will make it possible to ride every ride in the MK from RD until noon, while everyone else is battling to ride Frozen at EPCOT. I can't wait!

 

[WillAustin]

But then if these guests are going to EPCOT that would have gone to the MK instead, then you should see it cause shorter lines at the MK or whatever park they would have gone to had Frozen not been there. Or are you saying that Frozen will cause families to be able to in general afford longer vacations?

I think what would fix this is if every disboard post had an automatic disclaimer: Warning: crowds will be higher in the future than they are today.

Your disclaimer is the real answer.

Regarding wait times, a family spending their time in Epcot usually couldn't care less what the situation is in MK, more so if crowds are up in all the parks.

 

[mickeyluv'r]

Interesting turn. I've been to AK in the company of a child under 3-ish. (I'm saying -ish because WDW goes by height, not age) Though a child under 3 can look at a great many things in AK, there's really only two RIDES they can do: the safari and Dino-Dumbo.

Epcot also lacks some balance where rides are concerned. There is much to SEE in the WS, but nothing remotely thrilling to ride - even after Frozen opens.

As many folks as WDW attracts, there's a reason crowds are concentrated in MK.

Disney is CERTAINLY responsible for not doing a better job of balancing the number of attractions in each park. That isn't to say all the parks have to be homogenous to be appealing, or that a better balance isn't in the works - more the current state is a bit unbalanced. I am cwertain a great number of guests are put off when they discover

It is high time the ENERGY and IMAGINATION pavilions offered attractions that showcase both concepts. An attraction called Energy shouldn't be best known as a place to nap.

 

[3DisneyFanz]

Interesting turn. I've been to AK in the company of a child under 3-ish. (I'm saying -ish because WDW goes by height, not age) Though a child under 3 can look at a great many things in AK, there's really only two RIDES they can do: the safari and Dino-Dumbo.

Epcot also lacks some balance where rides are concerned. There is much to SEE in the WS, but nothing remotely thrilling to ride - even after Frozen opens.

As many folks as WDW attracts, there's a reason crowds are concentrated in MK.

Disney is CERTAINLY responsible for not doing a better job of balancing the number of attractions in each park. That isn't to say all the parks have to be homogenous to be appealing, or that a better balance isn't in the works - more the current state is a bit unbalanced. I am cwertain a great number of guests are put off when they discover

It is high time the ENERGY and IMAGINATION pavilions offered attractions that showcase both concepts. An attraction called Energy shouldn't be best known as a place to nap.

But doesn't that boost your energy level?

 

[WillAustin]

It is high time the ENERGY and IMAGINATION pavilions offered attractions that showcase both concepts. An attraction called Energy shouldn't be best known as a place to nap.

This is great.

 

[Angel Ariel]

Interesting turn. I've been to AK in the company of a child under 3-ish. (I'm saying -ish because WDW goes by height, not age) Though a child under 3 can look at a great many things in AK, there's really only two RIDES they can do: the safari and Dino-Dumbo.

Epcot also lacks some balance where rides are concerned. There is much to SEE in the WS, but nothing remotely thrilling to ride - even after Frozen opens.

As many folks as WDW attracts, there's a reason crowds are concentrated in MK.

Disney is CERTAINLY responsible for not doing a better job of balancing the number of attractions in each park. That isn't to say all the parks have to be homogenous to be appealing, or that a better balance isn't in the works - more the current state is a bit unbalanced. I am cwertain a great number of guests are put off when they discover

It is high time the ENERGY and IMAGINATION pavilions offered attractions that showcase both concepts. An attraction called Energy shouldn't be best known as a place to nap.

As a parent of a 3 year old, I couldn't agree with you more.

 

[ThistleMae]

I have made reservations all over the world. In not one place did I need to make one more than a week in advance unless I wanted a specific time, not just a table. I grew up in Miami which definitely runs on tourism. Reservations for even the most popular restaurants in South Beach don't need to be made more than a week or two in advance unless you're planning to try to dine during major holiday. I am not sure how common sense factors into 180 day advance reservations. It's an EXTREME.

Perhaps it's because Disneyworld is the most Magical Place on Earth! It's practically like booking a flight to the moon! Six months out is a steal....LOL!