News 'Beyond Big Thunder Mountain' Blue Sky concept revealed for Magic Kingdom

[James Alucobond]

Part of the issue is that Disney seems to have forgotten the art of the mid-range attraction - they have to start delivering quality attractions that land between Journey of Water and Flight of Passage in terms of scope. Right now we mostly get things towards the extremes and have mostly lost the full spectrum of new and satisfying B, C, and D-Tickets.

Alien Swirling Saucers and Cosmic Rewind have their places in the fold, but the disparity between them is too wide for those to be the main levels of attraction we get.

I think it’s a combination of the fact that they seem to be completely uninterested in creating animatronics that aren’t state-of-the-art ultracomplex monstrosities and that any new simulator automatically gets scaled up to the size of Soarin’.

 

[monothingie]

And if they expanded capacity with just C and D attractions and no big E ride, they'd be crucified on these boards.

I get the opposite impression. I think most here recognize that crowding and capacity issues are more of a negative. But for Disney, it seems like they're constantly swinging big for home runs, when a couple of good singles or doubles would win the game for them.

Thrill rides are great, but generally lower capacity and not appealing to the younger (less than age 10) demographic. Adding 2 or 3 *GOOD* C/D tickets per park would go a long way to improving the park experience. The disincentive is of course they can't monetize a C/D ticket as well as an E-Ticket and any added capacity will diminish the profitability of monetizing rides via G+ or ILL.

 

[Brer Oswald]

Part of the issue is that Disney seems to have forgotten the art of the mid-range attraction - they have to start delivering quality attractions that land between Journey of Water and Flight of Passage in terms of scope. Right now we mostly get things towards the extremes and have mostly lost the full spectrum of new and satisfying B, C, and D-Tickets.

Alien Swirling Saucers and Cosmic Rewind have their places in the fold, but the disparity between them is too wide for those to be the main levels of attraction we get.

They need to go back to making attractions on the level of Disneyland’s Pinocchio and Alice rides. It’s not like they’re incapable: Snow White’s Enchanted Wish is basically half of a new ride from Scary Adventures and, some questionable decisions with the lights aside, they did a pretty good job.

 

[monothingie]

People were hardly excited for Poppins and still attack Swirling Saucers even though it’s a great flat ride. We all want Flying Carpets in a dumpster.

It's amazing that some 50 years later, they still can't or won't duplicate something on the order of HM or Pirates. (Even though the DLR versions of both are far superior)

 

[Brer Oswald]

It's amazing that some 50 years later, they still can't or won't duplicate something on the order of HM or Pirates. (Even though the DLR versions of both are far superior)

They did, but they closed it last year.

 

[monothingie]

They did, but they closed it last year.

I was referring to large capacity people eater attractions. But I certainly don't disagree with your perspective.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

I think it’s a combination of the fact that they seem to be completely uninterested in creating animatronics that aren’t state-of-the-art ultracomplex monstrosities and that any new simulator automatically gets scaled up to the size of Soarin’.

It’s very strange. Some of their most popular and best people-eating attractions rely on methods they’ve now very largely rejected. How many classic attractions offer(ed) few or no significantly advanced animatronics? How many have managed to entertain and move guests for literal decades while also maintaining intimacy to the vehicle and ride path? Meanwhile the biggest and most expensive new ride systems seem to offer sub-2000gph throughout as the rule more than the exception, with show high show quality they are not always willing to maintain.

I’m highly grateful that Tiana’s has so many complex and ambitious figures forthcoming, especially since having multiples of those within one attraction is VERY rare. But I do wish they’d also remember that figures need not be multimillion dollar A-1000’s to entertain. Even Mermaid (which doesn’t use A-1000’s) falls prey to the disparity issue I mentioned before - the very best figures there are great, but the simpler figures are *too* simple, and there’s very little in the midrange to ease the transition between them, and the guests notice.

 

[doctornick]

People will never get over the lack of a drop.

I don't think that's the main complaint, at least it's not one I've seen.

I think the big issues are that it is too short ("over before you know it") and "nothing happens" (it's also just watching scenery without much of any story). I do think adding some smaller AAs could help but fundamentally views of the ride wouldn't change unless they made it 50-100% longer.

 

[Disgruntled Walt]

I don't think that's the main complaint, at least it's not one I've seen.

I think the big issues are that it is too short ("over before you know it") and "nothing happens" (it's also just watching scenery without much of any story). I do think adding some smaller AAs could help but fundamentally views of the ride wouldn't change unless they made it 50-100% longer.

I would have no issue with NRJ if there were more to do in the land and in the park in general. A ride like that can certainly have its place in the park, but when an attraction shortage makes it one of the headliners, then you have a problem.

 

[Dr.GrantSeeker]

There was also a proposal to move guest parking over there with a new tram bridge routing around Fant and the lake and connecting to the main entrance.

That seems like it would have been a very long walk

 

[doctornick]

That seems like it would have been a very long walk

Hence when he said "tram bridge" - they would use a tram to move guests from parking to the entrance, not expecting them to walk.

Seems to me to be more hassle than it is worth though.

 

[Timothy_Q]

People love simpler B / C / D tickets when they already *exist* at the parks, but for some reason people get angry when Disney builds them

 

[FigmentFan82]

Dear WDW Executives who lurk on these boards. Do not get scared of "Beyond Phase II" and please put villains land in there and do it right. People will love RSR in DHS! All of this will print money for you long term.
Thank you

 

[UNCgolf]

Part of the issue is that Disney seems to have forgotten the art of the mid-range attraction - they have to start delivering quality attractions that land between Journey of Water and Flight of Passage in terms of scope. Right now we mostly get things towards the extremes and have mostly lost the full spectrum of new and satisfying B, C, and D-Tickets.

Alien Swirling Saucers and Cosmic Rewind have their places in the fold, but the disparity between them is too wide for those to be the main levels of attraction we get.

I know I basically already said this above, but this is why I'm such a big fan of Na'vi River Journey. It's probably the best mid-range attraction they've built this century, at least in the US.

I've wanted them to look to it for inspiration/guidance for how to build well-realized modern mid-range attractions but that doesn't appear to be happening.

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

People love simpler B / C / D tickets when they already *exist* at the parks, but for some reason people get angry when Disney builds them

Peter Pan, Mr Toad and Snow White were/are C ticket attractions. If modern imagineers could pull off new rides similar to those (and not overhype them as something they aren't), I think people would be a lot more receptive.

Look at Little Mermaid. Aside from a small handful of decent AA's, it's a C ticket at best, and still manages to rank below a number of the classic Fantasyland C ticket dark rides due to artistic lapses. To make matters worse, Disney internally classifies it as a D ticket, but then they tried to market it more like an E to the public. So you've got this bizarre mess of an experience that mostly C or below, to a few elements from a D and a tiny handful of elements that fit with an E.

I'd consider the Mickey Mouse ride to be a somewhat more "successful" modern variant of a C ticket when judged on its own merits. But the problem is that it's a replacement for a far superior E, and Disney tried to market it as an E experience when it just doesn't deserve that designation by any stretch IMO. Had Mickey been designed as its own separate attraction in a smaller and more intimate building, AND marketed as a C ticket dark ride, I would have considered it a solid addition to their lineup. Its inclusion at Disneyland seems to have gone over much better.

 

[marni1971]

That seems like it would have been a very long walk

Hence when he said "tram bridge" - they would use a tram to move guests from parking to the entrance, not expecting them to walk.

Seems to me to be more hassle than it is worth though.

It would have freed up the surface parking for expansion ( an option to decked parking)

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

It’s very strange. Some of their most popular and best people-eating attractions rely on methods they’ve now very largely rejected. How many classic attractions offer(ed) few or no significantly advanced animatronics? How many have managed to entertain and move guests for literal decades while also maintaining intimacy to the vehicle and ride path? Meanwhile the biggest and most expensive new ride systems seem to offer sub-2000gph throughout as the rule more than the exception, with show high show quality they are not always willing to maintain.

I’m highly grateful that Tiana’s has so many complex and ambitious figures forthcoming, especially since having multiples of those within one attraction is VERY rare. But I do wish they’d also remember that figures need not be multimillion dollar A-1000’s to entertain. Even Mermaid (which doesn’t use A-1000’s) falls prey to the disparity issue I mentioned before - the very best figures there are great, but the simpler figures are *too* simple, and there’s very little in the midrange to ease the transition between them, and the guests notice.

That's sort of why i'm still nervous about Tiana. There's a distinct possibility that we'll have maybe 20 or so (give or take a couple) high end AA's, but then the remainder will be relegated more to simple Mermaid-caliber props that do one or two repetitive motions. The skins will probably look a bit better than Mermaid at least, but it'll still look fairly off putting up against the more complex figures.

Splash had a variety of motion to its figures as well. But most of the simple ones were tiny (like the hanging possums), and the scenes that packed a large number of characters together generally did a good job of using "proper" animatronics. There were very few instances where a couple of impressive and complex figures were placed next to a large handful of overly simple ones. The finale in particular mostly had figures with a fairly impressive and dynamic range of motion.

That Beaver character in Tiana has me concerned due to how basic it is. Despite their age, Splash's animatronics in the finale scene still moved far more than that Beaver. And if the most of the other critters are of a similar caliber, they'll look very "off" when placed next to the likes of the humans and Louis.

I'm curious what sort of money it would cost to build all electric AA's with roughly the same sort of range as the old America Sings figures. Because even a lot of these now ancient designs still have a really good range of dynamic motion. Especially if they can be outfitted with Compliance tech to make them less jerky.

 

[Yellow Strap]

Peter Pan, Mr Toad and Snow White were/are C ticket attractions. If modern imagineers could pull off new rides similar to those (and not overhype them as something they aren't), I think people would be a lot more receptive.

Look at Little Mermaid. Aside from a small handful of decent AA's, it's a C ticket at best, and still manages to rank below a number of the classic Fantasyland C ticket dark rides due to artistic lapses. To make matters worse, Disney internally classifies it as a D ticket, but then they tried to market it more like an E to the public. So you've got this bizarre mess of an experience that mostly C or below, to a few elements from a D and a tiny handful of elements that fit with an E.

I'd consider the Mickey Mouse ride to be a somewhat more "successful" modern variant of a C ticket when judged on its own merits. But the problem is that it's a replacement for a far superior E, and Disney tried to market it as an E experience when it just doesn't deserve that designation by any stretch IMO. Had Mickey been designed as its own separate attraction in a smaller and more intimate building, AND marketed as a C ticket dark ride, I would have considered it a solid addition to their lineup. Its inclusion at Disneyland seems to have gone over much better.

I find Remy's to be an absolute delight of a ride.

 

[J4546]

It's amazing that some 50 years later, they still can't or won't duplicate something on the order of HM or Pirates. (Even though the DLR versions of both are far superior)

rise is on that scale imo. But I do agree Disney is not making the 7-8+ minute long, and massively scaled dark rides as much anymore.

 

[UNCgolf]

It's amazing that some 50 years later, they still can't or won't duplicate something on the order of HM or Pirates. (Even though the DLR versions of both are far superior)

They had several rides similar to HM or Pirates at EPCOT; they're just all gone now except Spaceship Earth.