Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
I didn't say that I was disappointed that it didn't go fast. I actually stated that I liked SSE. I simply said that seeing the amazing structure, boarding the ride...and ascending the dark tunnel led me to believe that it was going to be a fast, fun, thrill ride..and I was disappointed when I got to the top and realized it wasn't. The attraction itself didn't disappoint me, the build-up in my own head disappointed me because I was expecting something fast and thrilling...and got slow and learning. Some of my earliest memories are the smell of "The Dark Ages" and Michaelangelo painting.
A 45-minute slow-moving attraction isn't going to cut it in today's world. You can say it will until you're blue in the face but there's a reason why it hasn't been duplicated. Did it work in 1982? Sure. Will it work today? Doubt it. Even back then, when my family would visit, if there was an attraction to skip, it was UoE due to its length.
Do Disney parks need to be thrill driven? I never said that. I said that you need some thrills. When you hear of people coming back from WDW and talking about their trip, do they talk about how great The Jungle Cruise is or how awesome Tower of Terror is? A mix of everything is needed in this day and age. It's called "balance." You just said it, Space Mountain. It never became a popular attraction because you saw a starfield and were in the dark...it became popular because it was a fun thrilling attraction.
Again, read my post and what my favorite attraction in EPCOT was...Imagination. Figment and Dreamfinder are awesome, but, like I said, they are characters used to convey the message. How is it any different than having current characters that are already well-known do it? By what you're saying, they could've had an updated Horizons with a character specifically designed for Horizons and cross-promoted it on TV, Film, Books, etc...but doing so with a pre-existing character and cross-promoting that character back with the attraction is a "crutch." I'm saying, if a pre-existing character fits the idea of the attraction, use it...if you're just shoehorning a character in to have "the name," then it's wrong.
Rat fits the theme of the pavilion. It utilizes an existing IP to fit seamlessly into an existing pavilion. It's not replacing something from "old EPCOT Center" and will be a fun addition to the park. If you don't like it, Impressions de France will have plenty of seats available for you while you wait for your party to get off. The charm of France will still be there for you...and an additional attraction will be available as well.
Rat isn't a replacement...it's an add.
To be honest, I prefered the Jeremy Irons version of SSE over the Walter Kronkite version (don't remember the original before WK). The Living Seas (as an area) was better as SeaBase Alpha but the current version with Nemo and Turtle Talk is better now (IMO...but I could see how others would disagree). The Land is better with Sunshine Seasons and Soarin' replacing Kitchen Kabaret (although I did love that show...but not Food Rocks). Imagination's, Honey I Shrunk the Audience was better than Captain EO (Again, IMO) but the rest of the pavilion stinks now. On the other side, UoE is still unknown, WoL is vacant, Horizons' replacement was a big downgrade, but I think Test Track was a major step up and required replacement.
It's clear we disagree in our thoughts but that's what makes this world so interesting
You keep saying "today's generation" needs short rides. Based on what? As I said, the short attention span nonsense is spouted about every generation. What cultural shifts occurred between 1982 and today that have destroyed attention spans?
As to needing "some thrills," particularly at the expense of more elaborate, classic rides - for twenty years Disneyland had one coaster. It still doesn't have a looping coaster. What cultural change took place that Disney parks NEED conventional, physical thrills? The Magic Kingdom is the most popular park in the world and its most thrilling ride is a (poorly maintained) wooden coaster from the 70s. Or... is the whole "thrills" thing just convenient malarky being pushed by execs?
I am fully in favor of adding Rat. I only used that because it's an example of the "new tech" with which they're upgrading EPCOT - and MGM, and so on.
And I am fine with some IPs, but it HAS become a crutch and Disney's understanding of synergy across media is hopelessly narrow.
I strongly disagree with Soarin' being better than Kitchen Kabaret, especially the new one. And man... TT much better than WoM? I mean, I love vacant parking garages as much as the next guy, but I can drive 60mph on my own.
What's weird is that you loved a lot of the classic rides, but are somehow convinced people today wouldn't love them. You're buying the crud that WDW execs are shovelling. The "kids need thrills" - "kids need short rides" - "kids are used to screens" - is all garbage that the PR department is using to cover their cost cutting, margin increasing motives. It has NO basis in reality.
) It would be nice to share the trackless love with WDW. 
