WDW's Coaster Phobia

[JoshuaShaw]

This a bad idea and to understand why you have to understand Roller Coaster Junkies!

I'm roller coaster JUNKIE!!! I'm about 5 -6 hours from Ceder Point and 2 hours from Six Flags Great Adventure NJ. I can't help but enjoy coasters.

Us Roller Coaster enthusiast are wired a bit different than the normal person. Roller Coaster enthusiast CRAVE coasters. But NOT JUST ONE. We want variety. We want to jump off one coaster and go right to the next heart-racer.

So for Disney, in order to please the group of people who would really appreciate a true trill coaster, Disney would have to build MULTIPLE coasters. Essentially, the WDW parks would start to resemble IOA. I love Disney for what it is (although as of late they've been dropping the ball) which is a great place for families. No Coaster Junkie would go to Disney for ONE coaster. Disney would just waste space trying to please the hardcore people like me.

I actually think EE, SM, and RcR are perfect coasters for Disney. I want to be able to take my son on his first Coaster and Disney offers the perfect types of coaster for that occasion.

Besides... could you image THIS thing in a disney park?
http://youtu.be/1iD6gxLEbNU

Roller coaster enthusiasts represent a severe minority of vacationers, particularly families flocking to Orlando. There's no reason to think Disney should maintain an "all or nothing" attitude in regards to roller coasters because, as you've already mentioned, they have some. Offering a new roller coaster in line with what they have is a fairly reasonable thing to want.

 

[Iowajes]

I agree. (Although a thrill ride 5th gate might be cool with all the kicked-up rides being in one place, out of the way of all of the haters.) But let's save this discussion for a thread where someone suggests turning Disney into "thrill coaster parks" instead of a thread that asks if one, single, solitary adult coaster might be a good idea.

I would not like to see a fifth gate. Rather, I'd like to see all the existing parks get a good coaster or two.

A fifth gate would either mean a) families have to split up entirely and go different places for the day without being able to say "You go ride the coaster, and we'll meet back for lunch and go on the river rapids" or b) People who can't ride are in for a very long painful day with their families. (Yes, when I was in high school I'd pay to go to Six Flags and do nothing but stand in line, jump over the seat, wait for my friends to exit, and do it again; just to spend the day with friends. But the annual pass cost like $50. I would not do that today at the price of amusement park tickets. Imagine doing that with a 2 year old, who can't do anything at all in the thrill ride gate)

A Disney fifth gate of thrill rides would mean I don't get to enjoy Disney with my family at all; either I have a crappy day or a no-family day. Adding roller coasters to existing parks, means they can enjoy high thrills, and I can do other things while waiting for them, and in between rides.

 

[JimmyV]

Us Roller Coaster enthusiast are wired a bit different than the normal person. Roller Coaster enthusiast CRAVE coasters. But NOT JUST ONE. We want variety. We want to jump off one coaster and go right to the next heart-racer.

So for Disney, in order to please the group of people who would really appreciate a true trill coaster, Disney would have to build MULTIPLE coasters.

Well, the jumping off point of this thread was not to shift course to the point where the U.S. Roller Coaster Enthusiasts pick up and have their annual convention at WDW. It was in reaction to the posted disappointment of some (many?) who hoped for and wanted the 7DMT to me "more". If people wanted more, (leaving aside whether their expectations were justified or warranted), then there would seem to be room for a higher level (both literally and figuratively) of coaster.

I want to be able to take my son on his first Coaster and Disney offers the perfect types of coaster for that occasion.

Nothing would change here. You would still have Barnstormer, BTMRR and now the 7DMT, any of which would serve the purpose of creating that perfect parent/child moment of their first coaster. So why can't Disney also serve as the place where junior first topped 70mph on a coaster? Why does it have to be one but not the other?

 

[MakiraMarlena]

I'm not saying they don't offer something for everyone, but the amount of people who seem down on the idea of Disney introducing even one attraction that may not be suitable to a four-year-old is alarming. They claim that Disney should be a park that appeals to anyone, but by not offering more than just kids fare, they're no longer appealing to everyone. It becomes a park aimed primarily at young children, which ironically, is what Walt Disney was initially trying to combat.

WDW has several coasters and attractions that are not suitable for 4 year olds. I don't get saying that WDW is just for little kids and everything they have should be for little kids. Maybe it's because the biggest thing they've built in awhile is New Fantasyland which is perceived as being for little kids. It's Fantasyland, they aren't going to plop a huge steel coaster in there.

Folks here aren't looking for stuff that isn't for little kids, WDW has plenty that isn't for little kids. They're looking for what they consider to be bigger and better rides. Like a coaster that can compete for thrills with the ones on the top thrill coaster lists, with very high hills and very high speeds.

Personally I think the best bet for WDW is to build a 5th park, put in some "thrill" rides and get the people who want big rides off their backs. I do want that 5th gate. Now posters are suggesting huge coasters in each park so the families don't have to split up and go to different parks. So maybe the 5th gate wouldn't have ALL thrill rides. They can still follow Walt's lead regarding including some experiences that everyone can have, together.

I like coasters myself but I won't ever ride Rip Ride Rockit again. I've ridden it about 3 times and that's enough. I don't like that vertical hill. So I'll take one that doesn't have that, if you're taking requests, thanks WDW.

 

[Hummingbird]

This a bad idea and to understand why you have to understand Roller Coaster Junkies!

I'm roller coaster JUNKIE!!! I'm about 5 -6 hours from Ceder Point and 2 hours from Six Flags Great Adventure NJ. I can't help but enjoy coasters.

Us Roller Coaster enthusiast are wired a bit different than the normal person. Roller Coaster enthusiast CRAVE coasters. But NOT JUST ONE. We want variety. We want to jump off one coaster and go right to the next heart-racer.

So for Disney, in order to please the group of people who would really appreciate a true trill coaster, Disney would have to build MULTIPLE coasters. Essentially, the WDW parks would start to resemble IOA. I love Disney for what it is (although as of late they've been dropping the ball) which is a great place for families. No Coaster Junkie would go to Disney for ONE coaster. Disney would just waste space trying to please the hardcore people like me.

I actually think EE, SM, and RcR are perfect coasters for Disney. I want to be able to take my son on his first Coaster and Disney offers the perfect types of coaster for that occasion.

Besides... could you image THIS thing in a disney park?
http://youtu.be/1iD6gxLEbNU

I'm a roller coaster junkie and I have and would travel to a place for just ONE coaster. Traveling around to find that one ultimate ride is part of the beauty of being a coaster fanatic IMO.


Again, while the few coasters Disney have right now are great introductions for little ones and folks who cant handle the more intense coasters, there is a whole section of my family that feel like they aren't thought about in the grand scheme of things at Disney.

A lot of families have huge age ranges and for that tween/teen/young adult demographic that want more thrills its kind of sad that they are the forgotten bunch. It's either tell them to suck it up and try to make the most of it OR split your vacation with another park costing you more money.

 

[JoshuaShaw]

WDW has several coasters and attractions that are not suitable for 4 year olds. I don't get saying that WDW is just for little kids and everything they have should be for little kids. Maybe it's because the biggest thing they've built in awhile is New Fantasyland which is perceived as being for little kids. It's Fantasyland, they aren't going to plop a huge steel coaster in there.

Folks here aren't looking for stuff that isn't for little kids, WDW has plenty that isn't for little kids. They're looking for what they consider to be bigger and better rides. Like a coaster that can compete for thrills with the ones on the top thrill coaster lists, with very high hills and very high speeds.

If you'll re-read my post, perhaps you'll notice that I was suggesting quite the opposite.

 

[MakiraMarlena]

If you'll re-read my post, perhaps you'll notice that I was suggesting quite the opposite.

I didn't say it's what YOU were suggesting. In fact you mentioned that you have seen others suggest this very thing.

 

[JoshuaShaw]

I didn't say it's what YOU were suggesting. In fact you mentioned that you have seen others suggest this very thing.

My mistake. Since it was my post being quoted, I took it to mean you were refuting what I was saying. Apologies.

 

[mummabear]

I think Busch Gardens does a great job at catering for families while having many high ranking thrill coasters, in fact I would rate BG above all WDW parks except MK.

I think you could build a 5th park or you could adapt an existing one-imo DHS since it already has RnR and ToT and built another 3. Have an area similar to BG Sesame St place for the younger families. Having a mix with thrill coasters, family friendly shows and rides geared towards whole families and a younger kid play area would be excellent for the whole family.

While WDW may have a target demographic they still want to keep people on site, keep people returning to them not to Orlando for a US/IOA trip.

 

[fla4fun]

I am not a coaster or thrill ride fan. There are quite a few rides at Disney I don't ride, but I still have a good time. If Disney wanted to add one or two well themed super-coasters to their parks, I wouldn't care. Just don't take away the real family rides to do so. I wouldn't want to see them take out PP or IASW to put in a super-coaster. They have plenty of land around their parks (any of them) to make that kind of addition. The key would be in the landscaping. Most super-coasters are kind of ugly because they just sit there with nothing to blend them in with the surroundings. I remember when I was a kid and the Beast at Kings Island opened. It was surrounded by trees, which not only helped to blend it in with the surroundings, but according to my friends who rode it (I didn't ) made for a great ride atmosphere as well.

I think Disney probably looks at the bigger picture. They probably have people who have studied whether the thrill junkies spend as much money on hotels and souvenirs and food as the families with young children. Then they are basing their plans accordingly. I agree that I don't feel Disney wants or feels the need to compete with amusement parks that lean more toward thrills and less toward the theme park model. What they want to be is unique - so that if you want the "Disney" experience, you go to a Disney park.

 

[Brian Noble]

The reasoning is clear.

• It is in a Disney park.
• It is bigger than anything at WDW.
• It is not "themed" in any way, and stands out as a coaster through and through.

Okay, fine. It is all of those things. But, what it is NOT is "a modern thrilling coaster." 108ft. is not particularly tall. Cedar Point launched the coaster wars of the '90s by breaking the 200ft barrier with Magnum XL-200 in 1989---25 years ago!

There are other coasters in the Screamin' ballpark for height, but they are much more aggressive. An easy example of this also comes from Cedar Point in Maverick. It's a little shorter than Screamin', but much MUCH more thrilling. As in, not even in the same league. Maverick came in at #6 on the enthusiast poll I linked to above.

So, Screamin' might be among the more thrilling of Disney's domestic offerings, but in the grand scheme of things, it's at best "a nice ride." Even so, what it is also NOT is a big draw at DCA. Even with in the Brave New World where DCA draws much better overall, Screamin' doesn't generate anything near a serious line for most of the day. It's right about the upper end of the tolerance level of Disney's guest demographic.

In short, while Screamin' is a "bare coaster" (as is Primeval Whirl) it's not evidence that Disney could or would build something that would compete with the serious thrill rides in other Central Florida Parks.

Edited to add: for those who have never been on it, here's a POV of Maverick to give you a sense. Note that the first drop is slightly *past* "straight down"---it curves back towards the lift hill just a little bit. That means you are thrown up and out of your seat with quite a bit of force. The second hill has another strong pop of airtime, and the inversions are both close to zero-G rolls. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbyB9N4mvq4&feature=kp

 

[Disney_Princess83]

Simple = Disney doesn't want to make huge thrill rides. Their focus is more gentle rides that families can ride together. Yes there are rides with height restrictions but the majority of rides can be ridden as a family. Kids, the ride "chickens", almost everyone.

I'm a "ride chicken". I'm not exactly scared, I just don't enjoy the big drops on coasters. With the exception of Splash, RnRC and ToT I go on everything else at WDW and love it. At SW and Universal we go on very few rides. WDW is more suitable for us so we can ride everything together. I'm sure we aren't the only ones that feel that way.

 

[MaryKatesMom]

Modern thrilling roller coasters are big and ugly and can't tell a story!!!! Hope that helps!!

How many trips have you made to Universal?

Plus, WDW puts most of its coaster in mountains.

 

[maxiesmom]

It's just not their thing. They can't be all things to all people.

That is what I think too. I also don't think it would make sense to drop a thrill ride in the middle of Fantasyland--the part of the park that is very much geared towards the very young. It wouldn't blend in next to the meet and greets, Winnie the Pooh, and the carousel.

Also, didn't Walt want the parks to be ones that families could do all together? I know there are some families that all ride extreme coasters, but I don't think they are the majority.

 

[MaryKatesMom]

Modern thrilling roller coasters are big and ugly and can't tell a story!!!! Hope that helps!!

How is that helpful? I think your exclamation point key is stuck on your keyboard. It only types multiples. Hope that helps!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Exactly. Disney is for families and you don't stop being a family when your kids are 12 & 15. If they had some true coasters it may stop these families from heading over to US instead.

Just because some of you wouldn't want to ride it doesn't mean it shouldn't be built, it being there wouldn't stop you from going to WDW but it will attract new people, retain existing people who are outgrowing the parks or get people to add more days.

It's just not their thing. They can't be all things to all people.

No one should "outgrow" Disney. I'm sure someone can dig up a quote or you tube video of Walt saying he wanted a family park.

On another thread there someone posted the availability of FP+ and "everything" was available of course..... except the mountains. My first thought great for your little ones but my teenagers can handle maybe two days of the nostalgic "family" rides but that is it.

I don't ride SM much since it bothers my back but watching my DD's come up the escalator with big smiles. I don't mind waiting for that.

I used to be a bit of a Disney snob and did no other Theme Park except Hershey Park (lovely but not WDW). Then the WWoHP opened and my tween begged to go despite the fact that we had PAP's and I'm all about the theming. I am not a ride junkie. But we went and let me tell you I went with a BAD attitude and my nose in the air. Universal and Portofino Bay Hotel floored me with how wonderful they were. The Forbidden Journey in WWoHP is the single best ride I've ever been on.

So now we split our vacations and do 3 or 4 nights at Portofino Bay and visit Universal. Epcot will always be my favorite park but I've made room for Universal and am seriously excited for Diagon Alley to open.

 

[MaryKatesMom]

That is what I think too. I also don't think it would make sense to drop a thrill ride in the middle of Fantasyland--the part of the park that is very much geared towards the very young. It wouldn't blend in next to the meet and greets, Winnie the Pooh, and the carousel.

Also, didn't Walt want the parks to be ones that families could do all together? I know there are some families that all ride extreme coasters, but I don't think they are the majority.

I disagree with you. He wanted a park all families could enjoy together as a family. If you can find anywhere that he wanted all families to be able to ride all attractionsthen maybe I will reconsider.

No one is saying it has to be dropped in the middle of the hub in MK or even be "extreme." There is plenty of space behind or next to parks not to mention no one does a better job at hiding or disguising what they don't want you to see than WDW.

For years WDW has listened to mothers of sons complain there wasn't much for them to do and I certainly never said "I have girls so I don't care." I thought they had a valid point. So WDW listened and more "boy" stuff appeared, good for them.

If WDW doesn't listen to mothers of tweens/teens who are now saying an Expanded Fantasy Land is great but what our demographic, I would be surprised.

 

[disnut8]

My take on this is that Disney World is a place for lots of people. Some will not like huge roller coasters, some will. Some like attractions that are suitable for their entire families, some don't and want more thrills. But that's the point - Disney World should have something for everyone and I think they do.

Here's the tricky part. What is the most popular attraction at Disney World right now? Toy Story Mania. An attraction that just about every single family member can ride and can ride together. Is it a thrill ride? No, but it packs in the guests quite well. And, it's an attraction that can change quite rapidly. Did anyone even blink when it changed over to the new screens? Nope, because it was done literally overnight. So, Disney did something for the entire family grouping.

That said, there's no reason for Disney not to have a huge roller coaster. But, I would like to see it themed very well to where it will be. And it might be a good idea to have other things around it so the younger crowd and the non roller coaster crowd can have something to do while the thrill riders have their fun. That's the tricky part - how to make everyone happy.

 

[Cyrano]

Folks time to take a chill pill and relax

Please keep this coaster on the rails and on topic

 

[Davey Jones II]

Screamin', RnR, EE are coasters, but they are mild compared to the metal monsters at true coaster parks like Six Flags. Those thrill machines are really for teenagers and young adults (and certain die hard coaster veterans such as myself). Disney simply cannot exclude the majority of their guests (parents with young children) from a ride, and that's what would happen with a truly intense thrill ride.

 

[OfTheWind]

It's just not their thing. They can't be all things to all people.

Personally when I think of family parks I don't think of (mostly) steel coasters. Those types of rides are suited at US and Busch Gardens where teens and rowdy 20 year olds can hang out. WDW is for families but it's also full of princesses and lovable characters. Who do you think Disney believes they should cater to: the family of four with a 3 year old girl and 5 year old boy who book dinner in Cinderella's castle and pay to look like a princess and pirate, or the family of five with teenagers who don't spend extra on princess or pirate paraphernalia?