Does Disney do it on purpose?

[wizards8507]

I was thinking about WDW as I got ready for work this morning, and I was wondering what everyone thought about this. There have been a few threads lately about the "most thrilling ride" at WDW and rides that would "fit well in Cedar Point." I'm sure anyone here who is high school through 20-something has non-Disney friends who cite the lack of rollercoasters or "big thrills" as reasons why WDW parks are "for kids." In fact, many on these forums have voiced concerns over the lack of big thrills at WDW. My theory, which I think would be interesting to discuss, is that Disney keeps the "thrill" scale at a maximum of 80% for their attractions as a form of preventative maintenance and crowd control. Relatively tame attractions, combined with extremely high ticket prices, foster an atmosphere from which mainstream young adults and teenagers stay away. The less "big thrills" and the higher the ticket prices, the less spring breakers, tour groups, and unsupervised teenagers they have running around the parks. I'm only 21 years old myself, and it's embarassing to see the way my generation carries themselves at Six Flags, water parks, etc, especially when I'm traveling with my parents and/or younger sisters. If 80-something dollar tickets and the lack of the latest and greatest in rollecoaster technology is what it takes to keep these folks away, then I'm all for it.

Thoughts?

 

[Grizzly Hall 71]

I was thinking about WDW as I got ready for work this morning, and I was wondering what everyone thought about this. There have been a few threads lately about the "most thrilling ride" at WDW and rides that would "fit well in Cedar Point." I'm sure anyone here who is high school through 20-something has non-Disney friends who cite the lack of rollercoasters or "big thrills" as reasons why WDW parks are "for kids." In fact, many on these forums have voiced concerns over the lack of big thrills at WDW. My theory, which I think would be interesting to discuss, is that Disney keeps the "thrill" scale at a maximum of 80% for their attractions as a form of preventative maintenance and crowd control. Relatively tame attractions, combined with extremely high ticket prices, foster an atmosphere from which mainstream young adults and teenagers stay away. The less "big thrills" and the higher the ticket prices, the less spring breakers, tour groups, and unsupervised teenagers they have running around the parks. I'm only 21 years old myself, and it's embarassing to see the way my generation carries themselves at Six Flags, water parks, etc, especially when I'm traveling with my parents and/or younger sisters. If 80-something dollar tickets and the lack of the latest and greatest in rollecoaster technology is what it takes to keep these folks away, then I'm all for it.

Thoughts?

Universal has around the same prices and I see a whole lot more of the "six flags" crowd over there.

Truth is I have no clue why they do it. I would love to see some more thrills in WDW but I guess that'll be awhile. I enjoy what they have right now. As I do universal.


But I don't think more thrills would really bring in the teens. It would bring in more families who have all boys (staggs fam) or are big thrill junkies.

 

[Grizzly Hall 71]

Also Walt wanted a place where everyone can have fun. So I don't think so.


But maybe you are right because if Disney wanted more visitors to their parks (and more money) they would invest in a thrill ride.

 

[dreamfinder]

On purpose to try to market themselves to the entire family? Yeah. I definitely think so. But as far as trying to keep out the thrill seeking teenagers? Nope. Look at DLR. They get slammed with local teenagers who just hang out there. WDW just has a different market than DLR does, so not really worth it for teens to chill. No easy transportation, fairly isolated, etc. But I think the bigger reason why thrill rides keep popping up is that Disney hasn't been Disney of late. Their recent additions had been all thrill based for a while. Soarin, Mission Space, Test Track, etc. If you look at most of the classic rides that still pack in crowds, they aren't really thrill based. They are theme based. By created a low key ride that has outstanding theming, you can create something that the whole family can enjoy for generations. I.E. PoTC and HM. Both aren't thrill rides by any standard, but still pack in crowds. The problem with thrill rides is that they are trendy. You are always trying to outdo the existing crop of rides with something that is bigger, better, faster, higher, whatever. For most coasters and other thrill rides, 5-10 years after they are built, they are outdated and end up getting replaced. Example, look at the "Boomerang" style coaster. I waited 2 plus hours for that when it first opened at Hershey Park. For a sub 30 second ride. 2 hours!! And I now have 2 or 3 local level parks within an hour drive or so that have the same coaster, with a 15 minute wait maximum! Cedar point, the coaster capital of the world, tears em down and builds new ones every so often. The local Six Flags New England, their Superman coaster is friggin awesome, but they still felt the need to retheme it after 10 or so years to bring back crowds. Now look at how many of the theme based rides at WDW that still have long lines every day. Peter Pan, HM, PoTC, Jungle Cruise, Small World etc. Small World? Seriously? There is no thrill factor at all, but yet it still has a decent line. BTMRR is a small thrill, but has solid theming, has been in there for ages, and still packs them in. 5 years after Soarin' opened, everyone is asking where is the new Florida, America, whatever film? They rode it, but now want something new. When people talk about upgrades at Peter Pan, they don't want to rip it out and use the ride for say Pinnochio, but look for the existing ride to be maintained and upgraded so it reflects the best it can be. There is a huge difference in the two.

And you think the current set up keeps away tour groups? Yikes. I would hate to see how many groups from around the world would invade WDW if the ticket prices dropped and they built a coaster park if what is currently there is low tour groups.

 

[garyhoov]

I don't get what's "thrilling" about rollercoasters.:shrug:

They're a dime-a-dozen. There are probably 8 places within a relatively short drive from my house at which I can ride rollercoasters.

If anything, I'd say Disney World has TOO MANY roller coasters. They're just a big yawn to me.

. . . but they also always seem to have lines at those roller-coasters, so I guess there is a good chunk of the population that is asking from them.

 

[Grizzly Hall 71]

On purpose to try to market themselves to the entire family? Yeah. I definitely think so. But as far as trying to keep out the thrill seeking teenagers? Nope. Look at DLR. They get slammed with local teenagers who just hang out there. WDW just has a different market than DLR does, so not really worth it for teens to chill. No easy transportation, fairly isolated, etc. But I think the bigger reason why thrill rides keep popping up is that Disney hasn't been Disney of late. Their recent additions had been all thrill based for a while. Soarin, Mission Space, Test Track, etc. If you look at most of the classic rides that still pack in crowds, they aren't really thrill based. They are theme based. By created a low key ride that has outstanding theming, you can create something that the whole family can enjoy for generations. I.E. PoTC and HM. Both aren't thrill rides by any standard, but still pack in crowds. The problem with thrill rides is that they are trendy. You are always trying to outdo the existing crop of rides with something that is bigger, better, faster, higher, whatever. For most coasters and other thrill rides, 5-10 years after they are built, they are outdated and end up getting replaced. Example, look at the "Boomerang" style coaster. I waited 2 plus hours for that when it first opened at Hershey Park. For a sub 30 second ride. 2 hours!! And I now have 2 or 3 local level parks within an hour drive or so that have the same coaster, with a 15 minute wait maximum! Cedar point, the coaster capital of the world, tears em down and builds new ones every so often. The local Six Flags New England, their Superman coaster is friggin awesome, but they still felt the need to retheme it after 10 or so years to bring back crowds. Now look at how many of the theme based rides at WDW that still have long lines every day. Peter Pan, HM, PoTC, Jungle Cruise, Small World etc. Small World? Seriously? There is no thrill factor at all, but yet it still has a decent line. BTMRR is a small thrill, but has solid theming, has been in there for ages, and still packs them in. 5 years after Soarin' opened, everyone is asking where is the new Florida, America, whatever film? They rode it, but now want something new. When people talk about upgrades at Peter Pan, they don't want to rip it out and use the ride for say Pinnochio, but look for the existing ride to be maintained and upgraded so it reflects the best it can be. There is a huge difference in the two.

And you think the current set up keeps away tour groups? Yikes. I would hate to see how many groups from around the world would invade WDW if the ticket prices dropped and they built a coaster park if what is currently there is low tour groups.

Soarin' is not a thrill ride.

Besides that what thrill ride in Wdw you see people begging for a update besides Space Mountain.


Disney's thrill rides are timeless. The mattehorn when first opened was through a non themed mountain. It still packed them and still does today.

What I'm trying to say is if done right, a thrill ride can be a timeless classic. Cyclone at Coney Island has been opened for years. AND STILL PACKS THEM IN.

 

[Grizzly Hall 71]

I don't get what's "thrilling" about rollercoasters.:shrug:

They're a dime-a-dozen. There are probably 8 places within a relatively short drive from my house at which I can ride rollercoasters.

If anything, I'd say Disney World has TOO MANY roller coasters. They're just a big yawn to me.

. . . but they also always seem to have lines at those roller-coasters, so I guess there is a good chunk of the population that is asking from them.

To many? Roller coasters were for WDW to appeal to the young adult demo. Granted you don't like them but to bash them and say Disney has to many, well that's a little far-fetched. You have to understand what you nay not like someone else may LOVE. so maybe it wasn't designed for you in mind. But that doesn't mean judge them.

 

[HouCuseChickie]

I've always felt that Disney was more conservative with the traditional thrill rides to deter certain rowdy stereotypes. Conservative rides and an overly wholesome atmosphere tend keep certain people away. As a previous poster mentioned, cost is not the issue because Universal certainly attracts more of that element, but Universal is also a very different environment. I have not been to the Orlando park since Islands of Adventure opened, but I went to Universal quite a few times when I lived in FL and had a handful of friends who worked in the park. Compared to my three college friends who did the Disney internship, the Universal employee friends were quite different than anything you'd see in a Disney cast member. They'd speak openly about Disney being too uptight and wholesome (to the point of brainwashing CMs)...and I guess when you compare MNSSHP to Universal's Halloween Horror Nights- they certainly have a point with the wholesome factor.

OK- so after my long winded story :lol: - yes, I feel Disney intentionally holds back on the thrills- as well as manipulates everything in the Disney atmosphere to be hyper wholesome - to keep out as many of the undesirables as possible.

 

[devoy1701]

There are plenty plenty PLENTY of teens and young adults hanging out at Disneyland. So I don't think your theory works.

 

[Grizzly Hall 71]

There are plenty plenty PLENTY of teens and young adults hanging out at Disneyland. So I don't think your theory works.

I was just saying the same thing. 2 or more thrill rides to the world won't attract the whole "six flags" crow but it'll boost attendance for sure.

 

[wizards8507]

There are plenty plenty PLENTY of teens and young adults hanging out at Disneyland.

Right and WDC hates it. They don't spend money and they irritate other guests. The annual pass weekenders at Disneyland are a major strain on capacity.

 

[Grizzly Hall 71]

Right and WDC hates it. They don't spend money and they irritate other guests. The annual pass weekenders at Disneyland are a major strain on capacity.

Well they do have the right to enjoy the place. As long as they aren't trying to cut off Donald duck's feet or worse I think they're fine.

I think whoever wants to visit a place should be allowed to and a company shouldn't stop someone from having fun.

 

[wizards8507]

Well they do have the right to enjoy the place. As long as they aren't trying to cut off Donald duck's feet or worse I think they're fine.

They sure do. I'm not suggesting they be banned or kicked out or anything like that. However, a more expensive annual pass, for example, might reduce the number of unsupervised kids and could encourage other guests who are turned off by the weekenders to make more frequent trips.

 

[garyhoov]

To many? Roller coasters were for WDW to appeal to the young adult demo. Granted you don't like them but to bash them and say Disney has to many, well that's a little far-fetched. You have to understand what you nay not like someone else may LOVE. so maybe it wasn't designed for you in mind. But that doesn't mean judge them.

I don't get what's "thrilling" about rollercoasters.:shrug:

They're a dime-a-dozen. There are probably 8 places within a relatively short drive from my house at which I can ride rollercoasters.

If anything, I'd say Disney World has TOO MANY roller coasters. They're just a big yawn to me.

. . . but they also always seem to have lines at those roller-coasters, so I guess there is a good chunk of the population that is asking from them.

I'll stand by what I said. Not sure where I bashed or judged anything.

I only bash and judge people who use "to" when it should be "too".

 

[Grizzly Hall 71]

I'll stand by what I said. Not sure where I bashed or judged anything.

I only bash and judge people who use "to" when it should be "too".

Bash my grammar fine cool whatever. But I'll stand by saying there's only 4 in WDW. DL has 5 there's no real difference. Another roller coaster won't bring the "bad people to WDW".

 

[Grizzly Hall 71]

They sure do. I'm not suggesting they be banned or kicked out or anything like that. However, a more expensive annual pass, for example, might reduce the number of unsupervised kids and could encourage other guests who are turned off by the weekenders to make more frequent trips.

I see what you mean.

 

[garyhoov]

Bash my grammar fine cool whatever. But I'll stand by saying there's only 4 in WDW. DL has 5 there's no real difference. Another roller coaster won't bring the "bad people to WDW".

I apologize for the grammar bash. I shouldn't have done that. I just can't resist being a smart-a$$ sometimes.

 

[raven]

My theory, which I think would be interesting to discuss, is that Disney keeps the "thrill" scale at a maximum of 80% for their attractions as a form of preventative maintenance and crowd control. Relatively tame attractions, combined with extremely high ticket prices, foster an atmosphere from which mainstream young adults and teenagers stay away. The less "big thrills" and the higher the ticket prices, the less spring breakers, tour groups, and unsupervised teenagers they have running around the parks.

Disney will always be a family oriented place no matter what we wish it to be. Building more attractions that only a small percentage of their guests would be able to experience would definately kill that theory. And I think that if they ended up swinging that way it would be detrimental to their demise with their current guests. A risk no one wants to take.

But maybe you are right because if Disney wanted more visitors to their parks (and more money) they would invest in a thrill ride.

I don't think guests numbers have ever been the problem.

Attendances for 2009:

1. MAGIC KINGDOM at Walt Disney World (17,233,000)
2. DISNEYLAND (15,900,000)
3. TOKYO DISNEYLAND (13,646,000)
4. DISNEYLAND PARK at Disneyland Paris (12,740,000)
5. TOKYO DISNEY SEA (12,004,000)
6. EPCOT at Walt Disney World (10,990,000)
7. DISNEY’S HOLLYWOOD STUDIOS at Walt Disney World (9,700,000)
8. DISNEY’S ANIMAL KINGDOM at Walt Disney World (9,590,000)
9. UNIVERSAL STUDIOS JAPAN (8,000,000)
10. EVERLAND (6,169,000)
11. DISNEY’S CALIFORNIA ADVENTURE (6,095,000)

By the way, Sea World was #12, Universal Orlando came in at #13, IOA at #18.

Soarin' is not a thrill ride.

Soarin' had a 98% guest satisfaction rate for 2009. It was voted #1 in all of WDW from guests of all ages.

"Thrill Rides" can be in many forms. Guests can get a thrill on POTC or HM even as I do. So something thrilling to teenagers is obviously going to to contain more a a visual impact, as far as the ride itself goes, and something to turn your stomach. But Disney isn't just catering to teens. They have to keep the whole family happy.

 

[Grizzly Hall 71]

Disney will always be a family oriented place no matter what we wish it to be. Building more attractions that only a small percentage of their guests would be able to experience would definately kill that theory. And I think that if they ended up swinging that way it would be detrimental to their demise with their current guests. A risk no one wants to take.



I don't think guests numbers have ever been the problem.

Attendances for 2009:

1. MAGIC KINGDOM at Walt Disney World (17,233,000)
2. DISNEYLAND (15,900,000)
3. TOKYO DISNEYLAND (13,646,000)
4. DISNEYLAND PARK at Disneyland Paris (12,740,000)
5. TOKYO DISNEY SEA (12,004,000)
6. EPCOT at Walt Disney World (10,990,000)
7. DISNEY’S HOLLYWOOD STUDIOS at Walt Disney World (9,700,000)
8. DISNEY’S ANIMAL KINGDOM at Walt Disney World (9,590,000)
9. UNIVERSAL STUDIOS JAPAN (8,000,000)
10. EVERLAND (6,169,000)
11. DISNEY’S CALIFORNIA ADVENTURE (6,095,000)

By the way, Sea World was #12, Universal Orlando came in at #13, IOA at #18.



Soarin' had a 98% guest satisfaction rate for 2009. It was voted #1 in all of WDW from guests of all ages.

"Thrill Rides" can be in many forms. Guests can get a thrill on POTC or HM even as I do. So something thrilling to teenagers is obviously going to to contain more a a visual impact, as far as the ride itself goes, and something to turn your stomach. But Disney isn't just catering to teens. They have to keep the whole family happy.

I understand but the OP stated does Disney keep thrill rides low to keep out the teens.


I never said attendance was a problem but the more the merrier right? TDO wants money.

Soarin' is still not a thrill ride sorry. You fly up and sit in front of a screen. Yes I like it but it's still not a thrill ride.

 

[Tigger1988]

According to the Oxford dictionary a thrill ride is "a ride at an amusement park that makes you feel very excited and frightened at the same time"

Soarin' can do just that. It may not be a thrill ride to YOU, but it can be for others (especially those with a fear of heights).