Gusey
Well-Known Member
Thanks, forget they were both 2001. Still, that's 4 flat rides in 27 years
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
MK Stitch's Great Escape Replacement— Don’t Hold Your Breath
- Thread starter Magic Feather
- Start date
Purduevian
Well-Known Member
Rides opening since 2000
E-Ticket:
E-Ticket:
- Tron
- Tiana
- Cosmic Rewind
- ROTR
- Everest
- Flight of Passage
- 7 Dwarf
- Remy
- Toy Story Mania
- SDD
- MFSR
- MMRR
- Mission Space
- Soarin
- Frozen
- Little Mermaid
- Primeval Whirl
- Navi
- Figment (current version)
- Grand Fiesta Tour
- Magic Carpets
- Alien
- TriceraTops Spin
Splash4eva
Well-Known Member
Cant charge $20 a pop for a dark ride or can they
TheMaxRebo
Well-Known Member
Guess not a ride, but Journey or Water too which is meant to function like a C ticket or so/walk up no wait/filler attraction
DarrenD
Member
Don't forget all the shows that have been added over the years would also fall somewhere in the B/C/D ticket grouping.
Larger shows like FNTM and smaller shows like Philhar, Turtle Talk, and the redone CBMJ should be considered.
The list is a little skewed when you're saying that the parks need to add fewer major attractions and focus on smaller things, but then we don't look at things that aren't rides.
Larger shows like FNTM and smaller shows like Philhar, Turtle Talk, and the redone CBMJ should be considered.
The list is a little skewed when you're saying that the parks need to add fewer major attractions and focus on smaller things, but then we don't look at things that aren't rides.
James Alucobond
Well-Known Member
That's the point. They haven't built many of the small-scale dark rides people are wondering about in this topic because they mostly abandoned them for other things a long time ago. Rides are generally all massive productions and have been for ages, sometimes even if they're flat rides. That doesn't mean other things aren't designed to plug the resultant holes, but it does mean that you're probably not going to see many if any things like classic Fantasyland again.
JMcMahonEsq
Well-Known Member
It boggles my mind why people still try to fit some outdated concept of "ticket level" rides into consideration of current WDW rides/park structure.
The grading of rides on a "ticket" basis phased out in I believe 1982....that's 40 years ago!!! WDW has had a no ride ticket structure for far longer than it ever had it.
Nor does it play any role in the modern WDW structure. The ticket structure let people buy rides, based upon the popularity of ride itself, with the bigger, more popular rides being more, and the less popular rides being less. Now a park ticket lets you ride every ride (virtual que rides being the expectation to the rule.) People are paying a high price for a park ticket for ALL the rides and attactions that the park has to offer. It's no longer an a la carte type experience. Under that theory, why in the world would WDW now, given the high expenses of designing and constructing rides, purposely spend significant amounts of money on rides that aren't popular, or to put in an even worse way, are not intended to ever be popular so that they are walk ons/or little wait time rides? I mean is the argument truly you want WDW to spend money designing and building rides that people don't want to go on, so that there aren't any significant lines so that people will have the option to....ride the ride that has no line because people didn't think it was worth riding in the first place?
If you want to argue that WDW should be building higher capacity/quick throughput attractions such that the lines move fast, sure I can see the logical argument for that. If you are saying they need MORE attractions so that there are more things people want to do in the park, spreading out the crowd, sure that's a logical path. OR if your saying rides are getting old and WDW needs new attractions to keep people interested and coming back, again valid business argument. But if you are saying they should spend money on less attractive rides so that the lines aren't very long....why in the world would anyone do that?
Are people arguing for that?
To try and put this thread back on course, I'm of the mind that Stitch Great Escape should have remained open. It was another "C- ticket" that would have further padded out the land. Was it great? No. But it had it's place in the fandom. Unfortunately, Disney felt it wasn't up to their standard and financially beneficial to just shutter it.
Tomorrowland still needs attractions. It needs attractions in existing vacant spaces and it needs improvements. Hopefully, the SGE building will once again be guest-facing and house a "C-ticket" or comparable quality attraction. LLs or otherwise.
DisneyHead123
Well-Known Member
A few reasons I can think of:
- Appeal is very, very much relative. The equivalent to the dark rides that thrilled people in the 80s are low wait time rides now (Mermaid, Nemo). If Disney builds 10 Guardians and Rises, it risks devaluing those rides to an extent. They need to be top tier relative to the other rides available.
- Just because a ride doesn’t have lines, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s poorly attended. I bet the railroad, COP, and People Mover actually have tons of riders over the course of a day, helping a lot with crowd management.
- The most sought after rides tend to be the most stimulating. By way of analogy - it’s great to eat the triple fudge cake for dessert sometimes. Have it for every meal and snack, though, and it’s too much. It’s something that should pop as a highlight, not be a baseline level of stimulation all day. Low gear rides add a lot of charm to the parks. There need to be places to unwind, for the elderly and small children, the overstimulated, etc.
- E-tickets tend to be complex and vulnerable to a lot of downtime.
JMcMahonEsq
Well-Known Member
Yes they are. The whole format of the x-ticket system, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth in ancient history, was classifying the rides based upon popularity. Not throughput, or riders per hour, but the popularity of the ride. Ticket prices were set lower for some rides bc they were less popular. So by arguing that WDW should be building rides based on the imaginary lower ticket level scale, you are arguing to build less popular attractions. People in the very thread have even cited to the idea of wanting rides that are walk on, no lines....which would only happen when the popularity of the ride is low enough that people aren't queuing up for it.
As to your point (which is related here) even you are trying to relate Stitch to the not applicable C-Ticket standard, not based on ridership numbers, throughput, ect., but on an admittedly subjective level of was it good or not. No company is going to want to expend money, either in operations costs, upkeep, or new construction costs, for rides that are not great. Disney should be spending money on high quality rides that people want to experience.
As to needing rides in existing spaces....maybe. While sure it could make sense in certain circumstances to use existing facilities. You get cost savings hopefully and potentially time saving in not having to build out a new attractions from the ground up. But renovating/retrofitting existing properties for new/different purposes can be limiting on scope of what the new thing is, and sometimes cost/time to retrofit can be even higher than just starting with an open plot of land.
James Alucobond
Well-Known Member
The argument is that people want lands where the budget is used wisely to provide a variety of experiences of appropriate density that adequately handle demand. The current trend of blowing the whole budget on two D/Es per land with a flat if we're lucky doesn't do that; it just induces demand without providing a holistic experience that can adequately satisfy it and without utilizing the footprint of each space wisely. Traditional C dark rides are typically smaller, more cost-efficient experiences that satisfy the itch for a classically Disney-styled ride without decimating the project budget and overindexing on demand.
JMcMahonEsq
Well-Known Member
I can't agree with food analogy, because a trip to WDW out of someone's year is the dessert to their normal balanced meal. WDW is the highlight trip of many people's year (if not a longer period of time.) For many people this is an event. The rides should all POP (to the level of the person, i am not saying each ride needs the thrill level of guardians, but each ride should strive to be a highlight event for the class of person its appealing to)
That is not to say a highly popular ride has to be tron/guardians. Haunted Mansion, Pirates are each huge draws with long lines every day. They aren't over stimulating and are available for anyone of any age to ride. Don't build towards one group, but go out to build a ride you think everyone will want to ride.
Line length i think does have if not a 1-1 correlation, a higher one to a rides popularity than i think you are portraying here (although this is an area of some subjectivity.) I happen to be a giant fan of people mover, but i think the numbers of people riding it are more a factor of throughout put per hour than popularity. As for CoP, again while i like it, i can't remember the last time i have seen a wait for it, or had the theater be full when i was on it. My personal experience is way too small a sample size to be meaningful, but i don't see the numbers there vs other rides.
Finally, to your first point, I again disagree, Appeal as applied to a customer base, is not relative. Your customers are either using a product/watching a show/riding a ride, in large numbers, or they are not. If one ride is getting X percentage of your customers per day and another is getting 5X percent of customers, then that ride is objectively more appealing than the other. Now what an individual finds appealing, is both relative and subjective. I totally agree ride types need to be diversified, and that building the same type/format of ride would be redundant and reduce value. Its what you get at a six flags or other "coaster park" But i don't see any real comparison between guardians and rise as far as rides go. My point is if you want a trill ride (well thrill for WDW standards) you build guardians, or Tron. If you want a flat ride, you build Rat not another Pooh ride. If you want a youth type coaster you build Wandering Oakens, not barnstormer.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
The ticket designations are still used by Disney. They’re even used by Universal and the rest of the industry. The leaked drawings for Pandora very clearly label the boat ride as the C-Ticket attraction.
Last edited:
Tha Realest
Well-Known Member
I’m not sure you can say this when the various FP tiers lived on until just recently, only to be replaced by Genie Plus, then Individual Lightning Lane, Lighting Lane Premium, etc. If anything, they’ve functionally reverted back to a ticket/pay as you go system for the more high-end (D and E-ticket) attractions. By all accounts expected LL revenue is factored in in approving new attractions.
JMcMahonEsq
Well-Known Member
not really. Had certain tiers, which is true, but they still aren't at a pay to ride model. Other than a virtual que ride there isn't a ride that you can't get on once you by the general admission ticket. There isn't a pay to ride system anymore. There is a pay to skip the line, or pay to set your time to ride, but that's different than an a la cart process that doesn't let you ride something unless you by a specific ticket for it.
Brer Panther
Well-Known Member
Guardians of the Galaxy should not be the standard we set all new attractions to.
DisneyHead123
Well-Known Member
Maybe I’m biased because my son only likes rides like Speedway, Barnstormer, and the train. But my thought is still that:
- You don’t build every single thing to appeal to the biggest majorities, because then you exclude a sizable minority of park goers.
- Experiences should be considered as a whole, not as a jumble of unrelated parts. If the design plan is “smash the dopamine button as hard as possible on every isolated piece”, you’re going to end up with old school seedy Vegas or Six Flags in terms of overarching design principle. You need a lull for the crescendos, a quiet reflective moment with the family on the train after a fast paced day. Nothing can be all peak highs all the time, a narrative requires contrasts.
Just my two cents, of course.
Charlie The Chatbox Ghost
Well-Known Member
The thing that makes this inevitable box office success sting more is that Snow White bombed so spectacularly that Disney cancelled the Tangled remake and said they were reconsidering others, and if Stitch bombed it would’ve slayed the live action remake beast for good. But since Stitch is like crack to millennials and moms, it’s gonna do well and we’ll be stuck with more remakes until audiences stop taking the dangling carrot.
It’s also worth noting the remake is completely erasing the theme of “how tourism has affected Hawaii for natives” that the original had (which was subtle but was there), solely because between the original and now, Disney has built a resort in Hawaii and they don’t want to lose business there.
Agent H
Well-Known Member
As a stitch fan I hope it’s a success. A few more live action remakes for a Stitch attraction would be worth it IMO.
Bocabear
Well-Known Member
I just wish they would stop making live-action remakes....
There are so many better ideas out there... Everything doesn't have to be a sequel or a remake in another format...
they could start doing the reverse next and start doing more animation versions of their live action films...
they could start with 20000 Leagues but build SEA into the storyline....Which could then be a full franchise... Using SEA as the mechanism to tell multiple adventure stories.....Then a thriller about Harrison Hightower III..... A story about Lord Henry Mystic and Albert... and on...
They need to do an animation film about Sinbad and they already have style points and a theme song they could lift from the attraction in Tokyo....
There are so many better ideas out there... Everything doesn't have to be a sequel or a remake in another format...
they could start doing the reverse next and start doing more animation versions of their live action films...
they could start with 20000 Leagues but build SEA into the storyline....Which could then be a full franchise... Using SEA as the mechanism to tell multiple adventure stories.....Then a thriller about Harrison Hightower III..... A story about Lord Henry Mystic and Albert... and on...
They need to do an animation film about Sinbad and they already have style points and a theme song they could lift from the attraction in Tokyo....