New Sub Ride ??

[raidermatt]

All I said was Monterrey was the best aquarium in the world. And how are DAK animal exhibits "so far below" whats done elsewhere? Where are you referring to? And I agree that I prefer the older Living Seas when they had the small animal exhbits, but the Nemo ride is more interesting than the original elevators and ride to me

There was a discussion here (several times over the last 5 years or so) about whether the AK exhibits really are world class. My question is directed at those who think AK's exhibits are world class, but don't have a problem with having far less than that with The Living Seas. Why can they do one and not the other? Why does one make sense for them to do, while the other doesn't?

 

[dbm20th]

Do you honestly think the point was to build the world's greatest aquarium? Do you think they EVER thought that AK would bury every zoo in the world when it opened? Or were they using these ideas to expand the overall experience of the parks?

Seriously, what is the reason Disney can't even match what the MBQ is doing? Not necessarily in scope, as I'm not saying they should have a facility the size of the MBQ in Epcot, but for the exhibits they do have.

What does that accomplish for WDW? Are people going there to see the world's greatest aquarium? Or are they there to see a great aquarium and Nemo?

Is that why Disney's animal exhibits over at AK are so far below what is done elsewhere?

KS, Maharajah, and Pagani are not FAR BELOW anything. You were making good points, but this is such a gross exaggeration...

I would suggest that Disney's Previous exhibit, when it worked, appears to be markedly superior to the current one.

I don't agree at all. There are aquariums all over the world that offfer a better experience. What we have now, TT and Nemo along side a HUGE aquarium is something different and fun. But I understand you don't like it, so there is no sense in arguing about that...

It's so much easier for Disney to pay plants on the Internet to lower expectations than it is to build first-class attractions, isn't it.

What does this mean? Someone here thought at one point that AK was going to be the greatest zoo ever built and Disney needed to convince us it wasn't? Or we all thought the Living Seas was the greatest aquarium and we needed a mole to make us think different?

 

[raidermatt]

What does that accomplish for WDW? Are people going there to see the world's greatest aquarium? Or are they there to see a great aquarium and Nemo?

Well since the acquarium itself is rather mundane, I sure hope they aren't going to see the world's greatest acquarium.

Now, if The Living Seas actually contained world class marine exhibits, the answer could be different.

KS, Maharajah, and Pagani are not FAR BELOW anything. You were making good points, but this is such a gross exaggeration...

Of course I was exaggerating, and as I said, that was the point. If it makes sense to build world class exhibits for AK, why wouldn't it make sense to do the same for The Living Seas?

I don't agree at all. There are aquariums all over the world that offfer a better experience. What we have now, TT and Nemo along side a HUGE aquarium is something different and fun. But I understand you don't like it, so there is no sense in arguing about that...

Its not that I don't like it. I've seen TT and its ok. Definitely a kiddie oriented deal that only introduces marine life if one of the kids is astute enough to actually ask a question about marine life. But it was cute. I can't say that I have a desire to repeatedly watch little kids freeze-up when a microphone is placed in front of them, but like I said, its ok.

Haven't seen the newer Nemo ride, so I'm not really too critical of that. From what I've heard, even the positive reviews, it doesn't sound like anything special, but I'll see for myself later in the year.

But regardless of how they Pixarize the pavilion, there's no excuse for the exhibits to be the level they are.

 

[MJMcBride]

I submit when it opened the Living Seas was a top notch facility. It was the largest single tank in at least the US and had the only ride thru a tank I know. The side exhibits were nicely done. I would say, particulrly for the room they had, it was well done. They have detracted from the experince with the removal of some of the smaller exhibits.

Since then aquariums have come a long way. In fact, there has been a boom of aquariums in this country and tech is getting better and better.

 

[raidermatt]

Since then aquariums have come a long way. In fact, there has been a boom of aquariums in this country and tech is getting better and better.

Ok, but why are people saying Disney's marine exhibits aren't even as good as they used to be? Shouldn't they be getting better and better?

 

[Another Voice]

I submit when it opened the Living Seas was a top notch facility. It was the largest single tank in at least the US and had the only ride thru a tank I know.

It was - and it was even then only half of what it was supposed to be. The entire 20 minute ride through (which was to have included the largest Animatronic ever created and indoor waves) had been scrapped by Michael Eisner.

'The Seas' was the last time Disney thought about "building the best". Each time Disney opened a facility it was unique and different. 'Pirates', 'Mansion', 'Space Moutatain'. Even something like River Country - the world's first real water park - was unique and different.

Starting with Eisner, Disney began to think safe and small. The Disney/MGM Studios is nothing but a cut-rate Universal Hollywood, the Animal Kingdom offers nothing truely unique or "the best in the world". At every level, Disney has been afraid to take risks.

That thinking has lead to inferior products and mundane offerings. It's a shame to see that spreading now to those areas that were once unique. Yes, the Living Seas was the largest aquirium when it was built. So why not expand it with an addition that would had made it another "best in the world" facility.

Instead we get a cheesy ride-through for toddlers.

 

[MJMcBride]

Ok, but why are people saying Disney's marine exhibits aren't even as good as they used to be? Shouldn't they be getting better and better?

Agreed. Although it is easier to upgrade zoological exhibits as opposed to marine ones. Its hard to take all the fish out and redo. But if they have room, they could expand.

 

[YoHo]

I've said it before, but the average Aquarist that does reefkeeping is more technologically stunning and environmentally progressive then the Seas. It really bugs me that Disney, a company known for it's innovations would let that lapse. And I'll be honest when I say that without a major technological/Teaching upgrade, the Seas could not have been satisfactory, because it wouldn't be what Epcot is about.

I hope and pray that the Submarines offer more. Supposedly they have more story then The Seas, but we shall see.

 

[MJMcBride]

I've said it before, but the average Aquarist that does reefkeeping is more technologically stunning and environmentally progressive then the Seas.

thats an exaggeration. Having been to mahy aquariums in my days I can say that Living Seass better than many but not the best. Like I said before, when it opened it was one of the better marine exhibits but time has passed it by to a degree

 

[YoHo]

Unless you've been to people's houses to see what the home aquarist is doing, then you've not in fact got anything to base your exaggeration statement. There are only a handful of public aquariums in the US that are as technlogically innovative as Home aquarists. Europe is better.

Disney used to set these kind of standards.

 

[MJMcBride]

Unless you've been to people's houses to see what the home aquarist is doing, then you've not in fact got anything to base your exaggeration statement. There are only a handful of public aquariums in the US that are as technlogically innovative as Home aquarists. Europe is better.

Disney used to set these kind of standards.

the problem is you're talking apples and oranges when comparing a large public aquarium and somebody's fish tank

 

[YoHo]

Yes, but the technology is making it's way slowly into the public realm.

My point is that The Seas doesn't offer much anymore, because the world has passed them by. Instead of fixing that, they put Nemo in to distract the kiddies.

 

[raidermatt]

My point is that The Seas doesn't offer much anymore, because the world has passed them by. Instead of fixing that, they put Nemo in to distract the kiddies.

I didn't know Aquarist was a word, but I do agree with the point.

Agreed. Although it is easier to upgrade zoological exhibits as opposed to marine ones. Its hard to take all the fish out and redo. But if they have room, they could expand.

I don't pretend to know if that is really true, but given the amount of time we are talking about, and the kind of capital Disney can and does invest in its various businesses, I don't think its really a relevant point. If we just ask why Disney has done this type of thing in the last year, ok, but this situation has developed over a couple of decades and now across two management regimes.

Its also not just an expansion issue. They could do much more with what they have. Sure, the large exhibits at a place like the MBA are impressive, but many of the smaller exhibits are excellent at well. And perhaps more to the point, they are consistently upgrading/enhancing. That's how you keep from getting to a point 20 years later where the world has past you buy.

 

[YoHo]

Heck, Sea World is constantly enhancing their exhibits and they have significantly more infrastructure that they need to work with.

 

[Sarangel]

I didn't know Aquarist was a word

Aquarist

 

[MJMcBride]

Heck, Sea World is constantly enhancing their exhibits and they have significantly more infrastructure that they need to work with.

They don't really "enhance" their current exhibits all that much. Besides, I didn't say it was impossible, juts not as easily performed as a zoo exhibit

 

[YoHo]

Do you go to Sea World, cause I do and they do enhance their exhibits. They also put a huge amount of money into research and preservation (mainly because they were so offensivly bad in the past)

 

[hyzdufan]

I also read that the ride was not handicap accessible, and therefore could not continue. Remember how cramped it was in that little submarine?

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

I also read that the ride was not handicap accessible, and therefore could not continue. Remember how cramped it was in that little submarine?

When the Finding Nemo Submarine Voyage opens at Disneyland in a few months, the ride will use the same submarines as the old Submarine Voyage.

 

[hyzdufan]

Yeah, the cramped-ness of the subs didn't mean they weren't accessible, it was that you had to climb down the little ladder to get into them since they were lower than the entry point. I'm sure they'll remedy this.