Lee
Adventurer
Nope.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Iger Says No to Rat Ride
- Thread starter jt04
- Start date
Nope.
darthjohnny
Active Member
It could totally work in my opinion. Hiding through all the nooks and crannies, being nearly stomped on by giant feet, probably could add some water effects as if you splashing through soup or sink, audio of screams etc....
The tracks don't necessarily have to be invisible. I'm sure they could do something with it. Also, think of Dumbo. It's obviouis you are connected to the mechanism, not actually flying in the air.
Being a roller coaster, there doesn't have to be as concrete of story as say Dinosaur, but more like Barnstormer. It doesn't have to be a super involved giant coaster.
I think you might be more against the idea of the execution of the ride (the character cars you mentioned) or maybe the fact that it is another ride from a Disney-Pixar film, I don't know.
But whatever, Iger said we won't see a Ratatouille ride.
I don't think I'd mind the Crush Coaster from Paris, though I would wish that the seats all faced foward than having them sit back to back.
VT GAL
Member
Thank you for the link!!!! :wave:
It was a very interesting article! It is not often that you get that candid of a glimpse of both the business and the man that runs it.
It was a very interesting article! It is not often that you get that candid of a glimpse of both the business and the man that runs it.
For Radiator Springs Racers, yes, but they may not need too.
Disney attractions are NOT "merchandise-driven". That's just ridiculous.
I don't have the numbers in front of me, but consumer products is one of the least revenue-generating aspects of Disney parks. Don't get me wrong, it is still a big money-maker. But the profit margin of, say, a Nemo plush is much much lower than a hotel room, or a theme park ticket, or even a slice of pizza.
C'mon, do you really think Imagineers are ordered to design an attraction for big $$$ with the primary goal of selling some stuffed animals? It would take YEARS to sell enough merchandise to recoup the attraction's construction costs.
Or, doesn't it make more sense that the formula is REVERSED, with the decision to build an attraction is made BECAUSE certain merchandise sells better.
For a time, Stitch was one of Disney's most profitable merchandise characters. If shoppers are scooping up Stitch merchandise like crazy, wouldn't it make sense to build a Stitch attraction, which would presumably lure Stitch fans to buy profitable park tickets, hotel rooms, and hot dogs?
If the Nemo makeover at The Living Seas was merchandise-driven, why is gift shop only slightly larger than the one that existed before the rehab?
Where's the Monsters Inc gift shop? I've seen a few Three Caballeros items, but if the Mexico refurb was done simply to sell trinkets, the merchandise folks really screwed up their part of the deal because I don't see any big flashing signs that say "BUY YOUR THREE CABS GEAR HERE!" Will TSM have a gift shop? If so, is that really proof that the attraction was merchandise-driven? Expedition Everest and even Soarin have gift shops, but I highly doubt those attractions were green-lighted soley on their merchandise potential.
I think Bob Iger's remarks basicaly prove this point. Ratatoulle did not become a franchise because it just didn't have the legs to sell merchandise, video games, and other spin-offs. However, you can't go into any store in America without finding items with Cars
characters on them. Those stores sell them because people are spending money on them. People like Cars characters.
So why not build a Cars attraction at DCA (or DHS) that already has a guaranteed widespread audience that is sure to fill hotel rooms, restaurants, and ticket windows?
Or do you think they're building the multi-million dollar CarsLand just to sell a few more $15 t-shirts and toys you can find in any Walgreens or Target?
I don't have the numbers in front of me, but consumer products is one of the least revenue-generating aspects of Disney parks. Don't get me wrong, it is still a big money-maker. But the profit margin of, say, a Nemo plush is much much lower than a hotel room, or a theme park ticket, or even a slice of pizza.
C'mon, do you really think Imagineers are ordered to design an attraction for big $$$ with the primary goal of selling some stuffed animals? It would take YEARS to sell enough merchandise to recoup the attraction's construction costs.
Or, doesn't it make more sense that the formula is REVERSED, with the decision to build an attraction is made BECAUSE certain merchandise sells better.
For a time, Stitch was one of Disney's most profitable merchandise characters. If shoppers are scooping up Stitch merchandise like crazy, wouldn't it make sense to build a Stitch attraction, which would presumably lure Stitch fans to buy profitable park tickets, hotel rooms, and hot dogs?
If the Nemo makeover at The Living Seas was merchandise-driven, why is gift shop only slightly larger than the one that existed before the rehab?
Where's the Monsters Inc gift shop? I've seen a few Three Caballeros items, but if the Mexico refurb was done simply to sell trinkets, the merchandise folks really screwed up their part of the deal because I don't see any big flashing signs that say "BUY YOUR THREE CABS GEAR HERE!" Will TSM have a gift shop? If so, is that really proof that the attraction was merchandise-driven? Expedition Everest and even Soarin have gift shops, but I highly doubt those attractions were green-lighted soley on their merchandise potential.
I think Bob Iger's remarks basicaly prove this point. Ratatoulle did not become a franchise because it just didn't have the legs to sell merchandise, video games, and other spin-offs. However, you can't go into any store in America without finding items with Cars
characters on them. Those stores sell them because people are spending money on them. People like Cars characters.
So why not build a Cars attraction at DCA (or DHS) that already has a guaranteed widespread audience that is sure to fill hotel rooms, restaurants, and ticket windows?
Or do you think they're building the multi-million dollar CarsLand just to sell a few more $15 t-shirts and toys you can find in any Walgreens or Target?
If they were to remove the backlot tour than there would be room for Carsland which from what i've heard was briefly talked about. However, I highly doubt DHS will get Carsland for many reasons. Same reasons why we didn't get the Indiana Jones ride from Disneyland. It costs too much and theres already a similar ride (stupid test track).
VillanovaBlue
Member
Let me explain to you
how this works.
You see, the corporations
finance Team America.
And then Team America goes out,
and the corporations sit there in their...
In their corporation buildings,
and, see, they're all corporation-y,
and they make money.
:drevil:
TubaGeek
God bless the "Ignore" button.
Let me explain to you
how this works.
You see, the corporations
finance Team America.
And then Team America goes out,
and the corporations sit there in their...
In their corporation buildings,
and, see, they're all corporation-y,
and they make money.
God bless you and everything you stand for.
America... yeah!