Because replacing stuff is cheaper, apparently?
From what I recall, the idea of the Tony Baxter pitch was for the attraction to be two-level, with the underwater scenes on the lower level. There was no way Iger's Disney was gonna do that, though - too expensive and probably too complicated for them as well.
They went with a bigger, more expensive ride…
Yeah I don't think they'll be building 10,000-12,000-sq.ft. dark rides anymore (sadly, because I'd rather have 8 of those instead of a Shanghai Pirates or Fantasy Springs Frozen), but Little Mermaid was the closest I could think of.
It costs money to operate everything. Endless expansion without any thought to utilization or existing operational costs is unwise. That doesn't mean their mix of expansion versus replacement is right at the moment given attendance, but the answer shouldn't always be holding on to things as they were forever and just ringing the parks with more and more clutter, all of which has to be staffed and maintained.
What do you mean that it would be too expensive or complicated? Both the proposed ride and the current ride made use of known systems, and the final design still has you changing levels with the omnimover, going underwater at the beginning and emerging after Ursula. As @lazyboy97o said, they actually went with the more expensive and less compact option.
Implicit in their various metrics on their 1987 report (disneydocs.net....based on 1986 activity), seems to be a constant evaluation of the performance of each attraction, shop, restaurant, and [even!] cart based upon a plethora of factors.
Attraction-wise, I only knew of the spinner no one wanted.
Was the version we can find on that old DVD never seriously considered?
It also probably would have been better as a World Showcase pavilion rather than randomly being thrown into DAK. EPCOT is about human culture while DAK is supposed to be about animals, right?
It’s the ride that was announced for Disneyland Paris as an expansion that was supposed to follow shortly after opening.
My biggest issue with modern day Disney ^^^^
You just summarized something I didn't say. In fact, I explicitly said that the current mix of new capacity and replacement is wrong. I just said that endless new build with no assessment of existing capacity for timely replacement is also wrong, which is what it seems many here would rather have.
Honestly I think that's my favorite thing about Runaway Railway is that it shows how good a ride Disney can make in a limited space. Personally wish instead of a Monsters inc show in the future monsters land we got a second monsters inc ride in that space for families. Or even a ride replacing stitch or Laughfloor. And don't get me started about every single EPCOT would showcase pavilion. All of those smaller areas I wish had rides in them.
It looks like they intend to cover it with so much vegetation that the quality of the rockwork will be less important. I'm honestly hoping he's on Piston and Villains, though. The rockwork seems integral over there.