New Sub Ride ??

[Onthebay]

They talked about it today on the Christmas show . Finding Nemo ??
In Fla or Calif. ??
Thanks

 

[crazy4wdw]

They talked about it today on the Christmas show . Finding Nemo ??
In Fla or Calif. ??
Thanks

Disneyland in California

 

[DepCor0311]

In CA...It replaced the old 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea submarine ride.

 

[wdwdancerwannabe]

But didn't there used to be a sub/ocean ride many years ago at MK???

(like 20 years ago?)....I went in 1980 as a child and remember this ride...

but now that I've been back as an adult it's not there anymore

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

In CA...It replaced the old 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea submarine ride.

Actually, at Disneyland in California, the only attraction that was called "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" was a walk-through.

The old "Submarine Voyage" will "resurface" in 2007 as the "Finding Nemo Submarine Voyage."

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

But didn't there used to be a sub/ocean ride many years ago at MK???

(like 20 years ago?)....I went in 1980 as a child and remember this ride...

but now that I've been back as an adult it's not there anymore

Yes. The ride in the MK was called "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea."

The lagoon has been filled in, so there's no chance that "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" at the MK can be restarted.

 

[wdwdancerwannabe]

Yes. The ride in the MK was called "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea."

The lagoon has been filled in, so there's no chance that "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" at the MK can be restarted.

Thanks for the info!!

Nut if they filled it in.... what's there now?

 

[Mecha Figment]

grass. and a few remaining walls of the show builiding. the Pooh playspot now sits on what was was the loading and unloading area of the attraction.

 

[Onthebay]

Wish it was in Fla , I remember going on the sub when I was young.

 

[MJMcBride]

Wish it was in Fla , I remember going on the sub when I was young.

I do to, but I think the old 20,000 leagues kind of ran its course

 

[dbm20th]

I do to, but I think the old 20,000 leagues kind of ran its course

It also had the worst capacity problems you can imagine. I remember being there at slow times and that taking an awful long time to load. Also, the line was outside

 

[Another Voice]

I do to, but I think the old 20,000 leagues kind of ran its course.

Yet the DVD release continues to sell well - a remarkable feat for a 50 year old movie. And attendance at the ride was still very strong when it was axed - the "no one rode it anymore" is another corporate fib used to pubically justify a decision made for another reason.

The real problem is that there are too many rides in the Magic Kingdom. Disney believes that getting on 9 rides in a visit is a "full day". Any ride above that 9 is "wasted expense": unlike “ye olden days” when you paid for each ride with a ticket, today the operating costs of all the attractions are balanced against the price of your pop hopper. Disney is trying the maximize the raw profit out of every ticket sold, whether you have a good time or not.

Therefore, it’s in Disney’s interest open as few rides as possible to get most people on 9. And rides that cost more to operate – such as 20K with its large staff and high maintenance costs – are juicy killings than a dark ride that only takes one ride operator. And since anyone who wanted to ride 20K could easily find another ride to make their 9, no one has a right to complain. It’s the same logic that killed the Keel Boats, Wonders of Life at Epcot, Superstar TV at the Studio and a host of other attractions.

Lack of popularity or operation problems didn’t kill ’20,000 Leagues’ – the ride was killed so WDW could send more cash back to Burbank.

 

[dbm20th]

Lack of popularity or operation problems didn’t kill ’20,000 Leagues’ – the ride was killed so WDW could send more cash back to Burbank.

Are you certain about the operation problems here? If memory serves, there was a serious potential for a long term problem with the tank itself. I was told that it was leaking into the utilidors. No?

 

[Another Voice]

The lagoon is - was - a giant swimming pool. It was built well and as far as I have ever heard, there were no problems with it. You might as well say that 'It's a Small World' or the Rivers of America is leaking into the ulitidors too.

It's really amazing how people give Disney "selective perfection" - that everything they do is perfect, until they need a justification to make a cost saving change. No one would beleive you if you said that Typhoon Lagoon was causing a sink hole - becuase Disney's engineering is "perfect". But Disney shuts down a ride, and the justificiation is that they could build a simple retaining wall?

It's all part of the corporate fibbing that goes on all the time. "It's not really our fault, we were forced into it". Yea, right.

 

[dbm20th]

no,no,no,no! Maybe I asked that wrong, AV. A CM told me that this particular "swimming pool" was leaking, and that the ground under it was feared to be unstable as a result. Therefore they drained it, and determined it wasn't worth the cost to fix...not that they couldn't. This was not an official stance, mind you. Just something I was told.

 

[EUROPACL]

no,no,no,no! Maybe I asked that wrong, AV. A CM told me that this particular "swimming pool" was leaking, and that the ground under it was feared to be unstable as a result. Therefore they drained it, and determined it wasn't worth the cost to fix...not that they couldn't. This was not an official stance, mind you. Just something I was told.

Yes swimming pools do leak from time to time nothing that a little shockcrete can't fix. Remember this was an Ei$ner era screwjob he just didn't want to spend money on the parks only milk them. The "ground" under was so unstable they filled it in with an even heavier substance more concrete and now let kids play on it?

 

[DC7800]

no,no,no,no! Maybe I asked that wrong, AV. A CM told me that this particular "swimming pool" was leaking, and that the ground under it was feared to be unstable as a result. Therefore they drained it, and determined it wasn't worth the cost to fix...not that they couldn't. This was not an official stance, mind you. Just something I was told.

Were that the case, why then would they have left the leaking "pool" (filled with water) sitting there and neglected for years after the attraction closed? Perhaps a leak actually had developed during the time the area was abandoned, but that certainly does not explain why the attraction closed years earlier.

 

[Another Voice]

And that all sounds similar to the urban legend out here that said Disneyland's submarine lagoon was leaking - they had to keep it filled with water all the years after the sub ride close otherwise a sinkhole would open up and the Materhorn would tip over.

Well, the sub lagoon has been drained for a long time and the mountain's still there.

Both parks are huge and complex operations staffed by thousands of people. Disney's corporate culture is extremely hostile to any kind of communication - especially about plans or from management down to the front-line workers. That kind of environment breeds rumors and speculation. Things get even worse when major changes are made with no notice, no reason, and that run counter to common sense. People want to believe there's a logical reason for every move - so if they don't hear one they beleive what (they think) is the best one they can get.

Shutting down both subs was a pure cost cutting decision - reducing the most expense with a moderate cut in capacity. Whether or not the guests liked the attraction didn't matter - Disney has other priorities.

 

[MJMcBride]

Shutting down both subs was a pure cost cutting decision - reducing the most expense with a moderate cut in capacity. Whether or not the guests liked the attraction didn't matter - Disney has other priorities.

don't tell me people actually liked that thing. If it was truly popular, it would have stayed

 

[dbm20th]

Were that the case, why then would they have left the leaking "pool" (filled with water) sitting there and neglected for years after the attraction closed? Perhaps a leak actually had developed during the time the area was abandoned, but that certainly does not explain why the attraction closed years earlier.

I thought that too. Remember, I'm not agreeing with the CM, I'm just pointing out what he said to me. I thought it terrible that they didn't fix it as well, or at least replace it with something else. The only reason I brought this up was that AV said operational issues were not at the core of the problem, and I was under the understanding that it was the core, and WDW was too cheap to do anything about it.