Will WDW ever make a parl like IOA?

[crusader]

DCA certainly failed on the "wow" factor. My point was that once the approval was handed down and it became obvious this was going to be an amusement park the failure wasn't imminent until they had tried to apply the "uniride" philosophy.

It could have worked even if it did "buck" tradition if they had properly identified the competition in consideration of the demographics. Now that it is what it is.............they have to stop trying to pretend it isn't. Introduce some intensity; get some thrill seeking endorsements; put in a good concert series and liven up the place. OR Revamp it entirely along the lines of TDS.

Baby rides" as you call them is what Disney is predicated on and as soon as they enter the 'coaster wars' where you're only as relevent as the latest, greatest ride you've provided, they are doomed.

Entering the coaster wars is the opposite end of the spectrum. To remain "baby ride" induced is equally as stagnant at the other end. There had better be some movement away from that mindset or most families aren't going to consider a theme park vacation without the theme park. It is not enough to have great shows anymore or slow moving themed attractions. There are too many individuals willing to pay money for far more than this.

 

[Peter Pirate]

I think we disagree, but thats ok. I agree that Walt would have built a Park with IOA type rides...I also think Walt would have applauded Dino-Rama and the use of carny rides at DCA IF (and it's a BIG if) it were a feasible option. Walt never minded borrowing or buying off the shelf, whch doesn't mean that when he really wanted to do someting "right" that he would compromise (we know he wouldn't) but current Disney failed to see that simple machinery without going the whole 9 yards just wouldn't work in today's environment.

I still think the majority of people do not want WDW to even remotely resemble a thrill park. What they have with Disney (thrill-lite) is what Disney is good at. These rides, like GTMR, ToT, RnR are what folks (like me) who can't seem to stomach (pardon the pun) full fledged coasters want and I believe there are way more wimps than thrill seekers out there. These "thrill-lite" rides bridge the gap somewhat and leave the extreme thrills to the competetion.

Lastly, I believe M:S, E:E, Philharmagic & Mike Pezz's rumor about Epcot and numerous other indicators point to a Disney making a turn. It may be a big wide turn but who knows at this point...

 

[crusader]

Are we really so afraid that an invasion of thrill will destroy the sanctity of the "World"?

I am not sure what the real consensus is regarding the desire for more ride intensity but I do know what the wait times seem to imply.

If you can ride ToT you can handle a decent coaster drop. The speed would be the primary deterrent. My philosophy is - if you build it we will ride!!!!!! Maybe I am surrounded by a lobby of quease and feel outnumbered here - but is this a true enough random sampling to determine what constitutes the norm?

I doubt it or IoA wouldn't be selling the amount of tickets they are to the same group.

There really is plenty of room for one or two big guns without threatening the ambience.

 

[Peter Pirate]

It's the 'big guns' that I am worried about. How could Hulk or DD fit into a (current) Disney landscape without millions upon millions of infrastructure to hide it? I mean Disney can't just put those big metal loops (that can be seen for miles) in, can they?

Certainly a new park is a dfferent queston (as with DCA & 'Screamin')...But as stand alone additions to current parks I just don't see it. Many people have a cow that the Swan & Dolphin are visible from Epcot, what would a steel coaster track do to them?

 

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by Peter Pirate
But as stand alone additions to current parks I just don't see it. Many people have a cow that the Swan & Dolphin are visible from Epcot, what would a steel coaster track do to them?

How did/does everyone feel about the Ski Lift attraction (forget the name) that used to be right over the entire MK. Did they complain about being able to see that track and cables and supports?

What about the Monorail? Yes its a neat form of transportation but really nothing pretty to look at and no attempt to hide it.

A good portion of Test Track is visable from the outside.

 

[crusader]

How could Hulk or DD fit into a (current) Disney landscape without millions upon millions of infrastructure to hide it?

Good question. Maybe a ton of camouflaged landscaping complemented by some brilliant construction. This shouldn't wreak too much havoc on the infrastructure - especially with the growth factor over time.

The question is: Is this really a threat to the preservation of the world or is it that this is the one area Disney's mild mannered fans feel the most vulnerable because it looks so much like a real ride they couldn't pretend otherwise?

 

[Peter Pirate]

Well, IMO 'Kraken' really screwed up the look and feel of Sea World despite the fact that it's supposed to be a great attraction.

I think the resistence to the big thrill ride is twofold from two different perspectives. First is the look, as I mentioned. A huge steel coaster poking hgh into thie sky visible from everywhere is vastly diffrent than the once futuristic monorail or the 'Test Track' buzzing around its own building. These steel behemoths are huge and eye catching! This is why I support the mountain attraction idea and I think 'E:E' will be great. But due to constraints it certainly cannot be of the same scale or magnitude of 'DD', for instance (my opinion). Secondly is the family factor. As I pointed out there is a huge following for the complete family element s to a ride. Disney has strayed somewhat with attractions like 'ToT' & 'RnR' but the majority of famlies will still ride together or at least consider it. With a huge multi loop massive 'g' coaster there are many, many, many folks who will not even consider it. Note: I'm very interested to see the overall impact and acceptance of M:S.

As long as Disney is upgrading at the slow pace they currently are these issues will always be argued. I have no doubt that if Disney were to announce another addition, say 'Indy' to MGM and then a supercoaster (appropriately themed, of course) to MK (or certainly DCA) for example, there'd be little hue and cry based on the number of attractions covering quite a gamet currently on the table.

But I still suspect that the big steel coaster will have a very hard time coming to fruition in a current park (other than DCA)...

 

[crusader]

Sure - any steel behemoth is going to look displaced in a park without open air attractions. Kracken may appear overbearing at SeaWorld but it has had absolutely no adverse affect on business.

I believe Disney can enjoy relative success with a great thrill ride and am remaining optimistic that Everest will categorically deliver. (despite preliminary specs.) There are far more options available to explore beyond the looping steel monster which would easily accomodate the need. If you're going to name your ride "Everest" you had better build something with relative height or you're wasting your money. Considering the fact that it is a coaster there is an implication here which a mild hill won't satisfy.

 

[DisneyBoy2000]

Well I have been in IOA and it's ok. But I get borred once I ride "the Thrill Rides". It doesn't have the magic as Disney Parks does. But I don't think that Disney should create a Thrill Park. I know that Disney needs more e-ticket rides. What Disney needs to give the green light for the Proyect Gemini. Epcot needs lots of help.

 

[MELSMICE]

Why would you put all the thrill rides in just one park, when you can spread them out over 4 different parks & have people want to visit all 4 of them. Don't you get more revenue by having people visit all 4 parks instead of just 1 or 2?

This is why I think Disney will never open an "all thrill rides" park. They will continue to add thrill rides to the individual parks. Not everyone is there for the thrill rides. Disney is catering to a wide array of individuals.

I don't think a family would take a 3-yr. old, 16 yr. old, a set of parents & a set of grandparents & all be able to enjoy US/IOA, but they could all go to any Disney park & find something to enjoy, meaning, Disney profits on all of them in buying the entrance ticket plus anything they spend in the park. The parents (or maybe only 1 parent) may take the 16 yr. old to the thrill ride park, if that's all they have. Therefore, less money is spent on admissions and also on extras in the park.

JMO, but I think it would be a bad idea and not a good business decision to open an "all thrill rides" park. You want to attract everyone, not just a group.