Whats wrong with rollercoasters?

[Yup I'm Goofy]

I have read with interest many posts complaining that a 5th gate of rollercoasters and thrill rides would be "un-Disney" and out of place. I respectfully disagree. My 6 & 8 year old nieces love rollercoasters and my teen age sons hate them, so to say that a gate like this would not be for the whole family cannot be said. It will not be for some families and it will be for others.

I personaly don't think that AK is much of a park, but that is my opinion.

I think a rollercoaster/thrill type park could be very "Disney" and would add a lot to the World. More choices, better time for all.

I could personally sit at the end of Main Street for a week and have a great time, but I would enjoy a great rollercoaster from time to time.

Time to go to work, have to save for next trip.


WL June 2001

 

[swinginevilmike]

I think a rollercoaster/thrill type park could be very "Disney" and would add a lot to the World. More choices, better time for all.

I agree. If it was done right it could be very "Disney" If we can have a ride like RnR I think it's feasible to have a coaster park. I would also like to know what people consider a coaster park. Some consider IOA a coaster park and that's the farthest thing from the truth 4 coasters (Hulk, Fire, Ice, Unicorn) out of 50 attractions does not make it a coaster park.

 

[johare]

I don't think it would be smart for Disney to build a 'coaster park'. Instead they should add a trill ride here and there to the existing parks.

First of all, AK needs Beastly Kingdom along with the good coaster it was supposed to have.
Epcot could use a Switzerland pavilion along with a Matterhorn type coaster attraction.
MK could fit some sort of themed coaster into either Adventureland or the 20K lagoon in Fantasyland.
MGM is probably OK with thrill rides for now, but the addition of a ride like Indy would be nice...though I would still prefer to see them create something new and unique.

 

[All Aboard]

Some consider IOA a coaster park and that's the farthest thing from the truth 4 coasters (Hulk, Fire, Ice, Unicorn) out of 50 attractions does not make it a coaster park.

All right, all right. Since Johare called me to the carpet on my claim that there were 110 attractions at WDW. I'm doing the same on there being 50 attractions at IOA. My math says 21.

In any event, I agree - IOA should not be considered a "coaster park".

I have no problem with WDW opening a park that is geared more toward thrills. And if that includes a couple of great coasters, then that's great. I think there is a great, untapped market out there for WDW to pursue. But, instead of doing in a fifth gate, I think sprinkling the attractions around the current four is much wiser. I'd prefer the fifth gate to wait another 10 years.

 

[All Aboard]

Gee whiz, Johare and gcurling typing essentially the same post at exactly the same time. What is this world coming to?

 

[wdwguide]

A coaster park, while cheap, would be a risky venture for Disney, because it won't draw much of an audience (many kids won't be able to ride, many people of all ages are too scared to), it won't generate much revenue from food and merchandise sales (people don't typically have fancy dinners before riding coasters, and there is really not much merchandise other than T-shirts that tie in to a coaster theme), plus it would be incredibly boring to have only one type of attraction in a park.
I would much rather see more coasters integrated into the existing parks. Fire Mountain and Space Mountain 2 at the MK, a Matterhorn of some sort either there or at Epcot, and Dragon/Unicorn Tower and the Excavator at the AK, and you have a superb lineup across the four parks.

 

[johare]

gcurling,

...and we agree that they need to distribute the thrill rides among the current parks before building a new one. Amazing! Pretty soon we'll be having a drink at the Enchanted Oak tavern!

IOA has about 22 attractions depending on how generous you are with counting them (ie, does Duelling Dragons count for 1 or 2? Is the Mystic Fountain an attraction?) so your 21 figure is pretty much right on.

I think I came up with 70-80 attractions across the Disney parks and that was being fairly generous with the description of attraction. The WDW website considers some ridiculous things to be attractions like 'Pin Trading', a Pizza restaurant and fireworks.

Anyway, I think a coaster park would be sort of 'un-disneylike'. You can go on nearly all the Disney attractions regardless of age or height and once you hit 40" you're down to only 3 that you can't go on across all 4 parks (you already know this, right! ). The one complaint I've had with IOA is that there are stretches where there really aren't many attractions for the little ones. Adding the Flying Unicorn and Storm Force helped a lot, but one or two more rides for the kids wouldn't hurt...especially in Toon Lagoon.

 

[All Aboard]

Well, we've taken this thread off to another tangent. Seems par for the course on news and rumors.

As to the IOA height requirements. The three big coasters are 54 v. 48 for RnR. Fear Fall is 52 v. 40 for ToT. Ripsaw is 44 and Jurassic is 42 v. 40 for Splash. Barges is 48 v. 38 for Kali. I'm sure safety engineers worked overtime on getting these right, and I'm guessing that each of the IOA offerings is more "extreme" than the WDW equivalent. Any thoughts?

 

[YoHo]

There are 2 reasons I think a coaster park is a mistake for DIsney (BTW, I agree with Johare and gcurling that they should be distributed, but I want to talk more in depth about why a devoted park is a bad idea.)


1: Thrill Coasters are extremely competitve. Disney Even in its current anemic state likes to get involved with projects that it thinks it can do better then anyone else. Do you really think Disney could do better then Cedar point or IOA? More importantly, even if they could, they'd get to wear that crown for maybe a year before another park builds a better coaster and Then Disney needs to build another coaster and so on. ITs a tough competitve buisness that would offer Disney little oppertunity to shine.

2: Disney Parks do one thing better then most (I'll give IOA its dues even though I haven't been there) and that's sticking to the theme. (Well, MGM is having issues, but I suspect that's because its too easy to mess with.) Sticking to the theme means rides have a story. Oh it may be a very simple story, but each one has it and Disney does a good job of making the themeing elements stick.
The problem is, an emersive Story= lots more development time and lots of themeing. Building a new coaster every year puts a strain on creative resources. AND, the added costs and construction times to do it right mean once a year is darn near impossible. Heck, that's why most SF and the like have mainly exterior coasters, they wouldn't be able to get them built in time if they were of the caliber of a Space mountain, a BTMRR, or even a RNRC.

So as long as Disney maintains its theme park goals, a SF like Thrill park simply doesn't fit.

NOW, we can turn to the West Coast and see a Park where Thrills of a limited sort can take precidence.
I've had my assumptions about DCA and Paradise Pier corrected, but none the less, the Theme of the pier allows for open coasters (albiet wooden ones) and a few more Thrills. If executed correctly, (and moved more then 100 odd miles from the real deal) this could be a Disney Themed more thrilling park, but Paradise pier either needs to be Tacked on to the Studios, or MAde a lower price gate in its current state. And I can't figure out a way to make it more then that.

 

[YoHo]

Now see, Spidey is a Thrill ride, but it doesn't have the same level of competition that coasters do. Indy and SPidey and Pirates and Dinosaur are the kinds of rides that have an extremely long shelf life, because they aren't built by everyone, and they're hard to build.

 

[johare]

gcurling,

All the big coasters at IOA, SeaWorld and Busch Gardens were designed and built by Bollinger & Mabillard (B&M) and they are the ones who set the minimum height requirement. From what I've seen they pretty much have a standard 54" height requirement.

Disney seems to see 40" as the magic number for most of their more thrilling attractions and might even make this a requirement when they put out a contract to design a new attraction. I'm not sure that all the IOA attractions are necessarily more extreme than the WDW counterparts (though the coasters definately are)...I just think that WDW plans from the beginning to allow for smaller riders.

 

[Yup I'm Goofy]

YoHo and all, I guess I stirred some feelings. No offence was intended, we have a SF here if St. Louis and it has some great rollercoasters but of course it is nothing close to WDW.

My thought was since there is a lot of talk on these boards about a 5th gate, why not use that to capture the thrill crowd.

I personally don't think there is the need for another theme park. I also agree with Johare & gcurling that these types of rides should be added to existing parks, AK could really use some help and the other parks could benefit from expansion, spread people out to the corners of the parks.

 

[YoHo]

No offense Taken, I just think that Disney operates on a different principle then your local Six Flags and thus, what works for them in terms of rides and park structure doesn't necessarily work for Disney. Even Spreading it out amongst current parks, I suspect Disney will never have a derth of Open air thrill coasters.

 

[COMPSPEED]

I once heard a CM say that if you took into account all the coaster type rides @ WDW (Big Thunder & Space Mtn) that there was no drop on either of these greater than 12 feet. Why? Because Walt Disney's idea for any ride was that the whole family would be able to ride together (barring some height restrictions for the real little ones). Also the idea of a theme for a ride certainly was a big concern in relation to "classic" Disney rides. It seems that Disney purists would prefer to keep the idea of theming a ride and not just pull a canned coaster or carnival ride off the shelf, dress it up a little and try to make it a Disney attraction. I certainly understand this. I think Disney did a great job of a thrill/theme ride with the RNR coaster @ MGM (not to mention Tower of Terror). It might not be what Walt would have done with all the loops and speed but the theme idea certianly is Disney. However, I can see that some of the rides at DCA and AK matter tend to lean toward a canned ride or copy from other parks. Raft rides for example. How many of these are there? One in every park you go to in the country? Just about! I say stay away from the canned rides. Let Six Flags and Universal have those. Yes, 13 to 19 year olds love thrill rides and that's great. But don't sell the Disney dream for a few loops and drops witn no style. And some, not all, but some of those thrill ride junkies will still come to Disney because Disney is different from those thrill ride type parks and still has that magic about. It's not just the rides but the total park experience that made Disney what it is. Sadly, some of this appears to be slipping away (i.e. attraction hours, rehab. such as painitng during park hours. etc.). But even on my last trip this past April the Magic is still there. Let's hope that it remains and can be rekindled.

 

[Quentin Disney]

Should Disney build a 5th park in Florida, I think they should have a stronger emphasis on thrill rides, but not simple coasters. You are dealing with a type of ride that for the most part have the same type of function - speed. With high tech simulators, they could create something totally thrilling and still be within the means of Disney class.

Personally, I think rides like these are very important for Disney's future. The middle aged people who enjoy WDW a lot are obviously not going to be around forever. They need to attract the youth because these will be the people that will eventually become adults (and bring along their children). If they don't associate with the Disney brand now, it could really hurt the company in the future.

 

[Wantogo]

Has anyone ever heard of Cedar Point? I think Disney could have a coaster park that would do very well. Coasters are very popular.

However, Disney would have to keep it Disney. Theming would be essential. Have 7 or 8 super coasters, a number of simulator rides (i.e. IOA's Spiderman) and a dozen or more rides that the entire family could ride. Also an IMAX would be good.

Have 5 good sit down restaurants too.

And since i am dreaming, charge only one dollar for a bottle of water instead of $2.50

Yes this would be a change in Disney's thinking to have more then a handful of good attractions at one time in one place in a new park, but change can be good.

Remember not all families have small children.

Let me see.... where did i leave my medication.

 

[disrailfan]

Personally I consider Cedar Point and Kings Island Roller Coaster parks. Any Theme park that my DW hates and I love is a Roller Coster Park. She will not ride them at all.

 

[YoHo]

I will say again, The COsts and profit margins of a coaster park are vastly different from what Disney has been doing. Capital expenditure on a yearly basis is much higher, because you need to build a new Coaster ever year or so to keep them coming back. That's a lot of money and it would be impossible for Disney to make a Coaster of the themeing level of say a BTMRR every year. Not only would the have time constraints, but they would have extreme budget constraints. it would make the RNRC look pricey.


SO while I think it is possible, it would require an entirely different managment philosophy.

 

[Andrew015]

No offense to any of the opinions that are posted above, because as we all know, we are intitled to our own opinions. And for that very reason, I'm going to give you mine. I like a good roller coaster every now and then. I live by Cedar Point, which is the roller coaster capitol of the world, so when I come to WDW every year, I don't expect it to top CP. WDW doesn't come close to matching any of the coasters at Cedar Point Ohio. But my point is that WDW isn't meant to be a coaster park. It never was, and as far as I'm concerened, it never will be. And that's what I like about it. Walt's vision of an amusement park was a place where the young and the "young at heart" could have fun. Most of his attractions make you use your imagination, or bring back memories from your own childhood. And it is nice to have a little blend of these types of rides, along with a good thrill ride here and there. But for you people that just want to throw up these rides among the exsisting rides, or for those of you who would rather convert exsisting rides into thrill rides, forget it. That really agrivates me when a ride is changed into something new. World of motion for example: I loved the ride. It was corny, yet interesting. WOM was a type of ride that made you think about your past and where you came from. But because people want a thrill ride, they change it and throw up test track. What about us people that liked WOM???? Tough luck??? I guess so. I admit, Test track is fun and thrilling. It's a great ride. But why must disney CHANGE things constantly? Imagination is another one, but that just agrivates me, and I won't get into that one. My point is this: Disney has only developed on something like 2/3 of its property. There's an intire 1/3 left to build on. If you want to throw up new "thrill rides", or new rides period, that's fine and dandy. But do it on the 1/3 of the property that hasn't been touched yet. Build new parks, but don't change the exsisting parks. Maybe there's someone there that feels the same way I do. I'm only 17, and you would think that I would be all for the coasters. Actually, I am. But leave the old rides the way they are!

 

[YoHo]

Andrew015,
I understand your pain, but you must understand, Epcot was intended to be constantly changing, and I don't know the time of your last visit to the old Journey, but the thing made so much noise you couldn't here Dreamfinder at ALL. Change is the only constant in the universe.

Personally, I'm all for Test track and the new mission space, As long as you keep the theme of Epcot which is Discovery and learning, Epcot is a Worlds Fair. Test Track Fails the Epcot THEME Test. (IMHO)

I think there would be far less complaining if the replacements had been more fitting. Thrill ride or not.