“Something major” coming to DHS???

[djkidkaz]

Villains Land at Studios replacing Animation Courtyard and encompassing RNRC and ToT who both get rethemes to finally remove the liscensing rights.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

Villains Land at Studios replacing Animation Courtyard and encompassing RNRC and ToT who both get rethemes to finally remove the liscensing rights.

The licensing Disney pays for those attractions is a pittance compared to how much the rides make them.

Conversations have been had about retheming RNRC and Tower at DHS, but cutting the licensing wasn't the driving force and so far the idea hasn't gone anywhere.

 

[Disgruntled Walt]

The licensing Disney pays for those attractions is a pittance compared to how much the rides make them.

Conversations have been had about retheming RNRC and Tower at DHS, but cutting the licensing wasn't the driving force and so far the idea hasn't gone anywhere.

Thank goodness, at least regarding ToT. But I do fear Scarlett Johannsen's film, that might be an opportunity they won't want to pass on.

 

[doctornick]

Villains Land at Studios replacing Animation Courtyard and encompassing RNRC and ToT who both get rethemes to finally remove the liscensing rights.

That sounds like a truly awful idea.

There is nothing wrong with either ToT or RNR. No reason to waste money to re-theme either of them when the park needs a ton of help to increase capacity.

 

[SplashJacket]

It's not a bad thing on the surface, but if all the money is spent on big headliner attractions instead of 3-4 more rides, it's not fixing the problems the park has. If it's a headliner along with smaller attractions, that is great. But 3-4 more E tickets and 1 smaller is not a recipe for making the parks more enjoyable.

Here’s my take.

If you make a new modern headliner, if it’s fantastic today, it’ll be at least great 20 years from now (see Disneyland’s Indy).

If you make a mediocre filler ride, if it’s good at opening, it’ll be bad 20 years from now (see WDW’s Buzz).

In terms of filling out a park for quality and capacity, if you build new E-tickets/headliners, you’re resetting the goal post. The old top rides drop down a peg, the next top rides drop down a peg and so on and so forth.

E-tickets generally have higher capacities than Cs and Ds due to their larger scale.

And I know people will cry foul “but Es make people want to come! So it’ll counter any capacity net.”

And like, okay… I’m a parks fan… I want to do things I want to do. I want to do things that are good, not simply filling my time.

I have nothing against flats or Cs or Ds they match the execution and vision of the ride experience, but the cries for almost exclusively mid-tier experiences are silly.

The price per capacity added for a C or D ticket is not that far off from an E. The barrier of entry for creating a project of any scale is very high, that if you’re going to make a project, you might as well make it good, or save until you can actually afford to make it good.

 

[Splash4eva]

Here’s my take.

If you make a new modern headliner, if it’s fantastic today, it’ll be at least great 20 years from now (see Disneyland’s Indy).

If you make a mediocre filler ride, if it’s good at opening, it’ll be bad 20 years from now (see WDW’s Buzz).

In terms of filling out a park for quality and capacity, if you build new E-tickets/headliners, you’re resetting the goal post. The old top rides drop down a peg, the next top rides drop down a peg and so on and so forth.

E-tickets generally have higher capacities than Cs and Ds due to their larger scale.

And I know people will cry foul “but Es make people want to come! So it’ll counter any capacity net.”

And like, okay… I’m a parks fan… I want to do things I want to do. I want to do things that are good, not simply filling my time.

I have nothing against flats or Cs or Ds they match the execution and vision of the ride experience, but the cries for almost exclusively mid-tier experiences are silly.

The price per capacity added for a C or D ticket is not that far off from an E. The barrier of entry for creating a project of any scale is very high, that if you’re going to make a project, you might as well make it good, or save until you can actually afford to make it good.

There is no reason we cant have both. 1 E and 2-3 C/D rides/ attractions. Is Buzz the way it is because they have showed no love for it or because the ride is no longer good? To me the ride is still fun even in its current shape.

 

[SplashJacket]

There is no reason we cant have both. 1 E and 2-3 C/D rides/ attractions. Is Buzz the way it is because they have showed no love for it or because the ride is no longer good? To me the ride is still fun even in its current shape.

I think the fantasy springs ratio is good.

Two headliner E-tickets and a D and C.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Here’s my take.

If you make a new modern headliner, if it’s fantastic today, it’ll be at least great 20 years from now (see Disneyland’s Indy).

If you make a mediocre filler ride, if it’s good at opening, it’ll be bad 20 years from now (see WDW’s Buzz).

In terms of filling out a park for quality and capacity, if you build new E-tickets/headliners, you’re resetting the goal post. The old top rides drop down a peg, the next top rides drop down a peg and so on and so forth.

E-tickets generally have higher capacities than Cs and Ds due to their larger scale.

And I know people will cry foul “but Es make people want to come! So it’ll counter any capacity net.”

And like, okay… I’m a parks fan… I want to do things I want to do. I want to do things that are good, not simply filling my time.

I have nothing against flats or Cs or Ds they match the execution and vision of the ride experience, but the cries for almost exclusively mid-tier experiences are silly.

The price per capacity added for a C or D ticket is not that far off from an E. The barrier of entry for creating a project of any scale is very high, that if you’re going to make a project, you might as well make it good, or save until you can actually afford to make it good.

Let me think about this for a second…

…mmm…no

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I think the fantasy springs ratio is good.

Two headliner E-tickets and a D and C.

Whens the last time they came anywhere close in the US?

 

[MisterPenguin]

Something Major indeed.

 

[Disgruntled Walt]

View attachment 783005

Something Major indeed.

I haven't heard any Colonels of information about this yet.

 

[LSLS]

Here’s my take.

If you make a new modern headliner, if it’s fantastic today, it’ll be at least great 20 years from now (see Disneyland’s Indy).

If you make a mediocre filler ride, if it’s good at opening, it’ll be bad 20 years from now (see WDW’s Buzz).

In terms of filling out a park for quality and capacity, if you build new E-tickets/headliners, you’re resetting the goal post. The old top rides drop down a peg, the next top rides drop down a peg and so on and so forth.

E-tickets generally have higher capacities than Cs and Ds due to their larger scale.

And I know people will cry foul “but Es make people want to come! So it’ll counter any capacity net.”

And like, okay… I’m a parks fan… I want to do things I want to do. I want to do things that are good, not simply filling my time.

I have nothing against flats or Cs or Ds they match the execution and vision of the ride experience, but the cries for almost exclusively mid-tier experiences are silly.

The price per capacity added for a C or D ticket is not that far off from an E. The barrier of entry for creating a project of any scale is very high, that if you’re going to make a project, you might as well make it good, or save until you can actually afford to make it good.

I'm not sure I agree it drops other E tickets down a peg. I don't think Everest wait times dropped when FoP opened. Rock and Roller Coaster and ToT I believe have also gone up since Slinky and Rise have been added. I'm pretty sure Test Track rose with the opening of Guardians as well. Also, I think we may consider E ticket rides differently (which is why I hate using that language somewhat). I'm much more thinking of the big rides that are kind of individualized from other rides with a ton more detail (i.e., a type of coaster not or ride not seen elsewhere, some sort of super elaborate preshow, etc.). I'm thinking of E tickets more like FoP, Rise, ToT, etc. I mean, if we are saying anything that is done really well is an E ticket, then fine, make everything an E ticket, just don't drop all your budget on one lynchpin attraction and one other thing, give us 4-5 to really spread some crowds out.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I'm not sure I agree it drops other E tickets down a peg. I don't think Everest wait times dropped when FoP opened. Rock and Roller Coaster and ToT I believe have also gone up since Slinky and Rise have been added. I'm pretty sure Test Track rose with the opening of Guardians as well. Also, I think we may consider E ticket rides differently (which is why I hate using that language somewhat). I'm much more thinking of the big rides that are kind of individualized from other rides with a ton more detail (i.e., a type of coaster not or ride not seen elsewhere, some sort of super elaborate preshow, etc.). I'm thinking of E tickets more like FoP, Rise, ToT, etc. I mean, if we are saying anything that is done really well is an E ticket, then fine, make everything an E ticket, just don't drop all your budget on one lynchpin attraction and one other thing, give us 4-5 to really spread some crowds out.

That’s not how it works at all.

They need levels…purposefully built to handle people in different ways.

The “E ticket” strategy has not worked. Mainly because they don’t want to actually increase the seat counts and staffing…on purpose…and now it’s also about upsells.

It’s just not working. The attendance decline is because there isn’t enough value in the parks and that is Increasing.

Taking 5 years to build an E ticket that doesn’t ease the strain on the day to day parks doesn’t work.

 

[LSLS]

That’s not how it works at all.

They need levels…purposefully built to handle people in different ways.

The “E ticket” strategy has not worked. Mainly because they don’t want to actually increase the seat counts and staffing…on purpose…and now it’s also about upsells.

It’s just not working. The attendance decline is because there isn’t enough value in the parks and that is Increasing.

Taking 5 years to build an E ticket that doesn’t ease the strain on the day to day parks doesn’t work.

Right, which is kind of my point. I mean, if we are considering Spaceship Earth or the Seas an E ticket, then fine, build away (again, why I have issues with this E ticket thing, I have no idea what one is). But if it's about something like GotG, then no, far from what is needed. Spend less, add a bunch more, and take some strain off elsewhere (but yes, will need more workers, which is not something I have a feeling they are keen on).

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

There is nothing wrong with either ToT or RNR

RNRC is nearing the end of it’s useful life and will probably need a complete track replacement sooner rather than later.

 

[SplashJacket]

Does Forbidden Journey have a higher or lower wait now that Hagrids has opened…

And yes, Everest does have lower waits than it did.

And yes, SSE was built as an E-ticket and is still an E-ticket, but because it’s become dated, it functions now as what you all want C and D tickets to do (absorb crowds and add capacity without being a real draw).

Same with Pirates in Magic Kingdom. When it opened, people would’ve just come for it, but realistically, now it functions as D and C tickets function.

I think you’re also kidding yourself if you think a C-ticket Coco ride is not going to draw more guests than its capacity adds. Might as well make it something worth vacationing for.

C and D tickets are good to round out a land or add something smaller in between major additions, but it’s silly to want less Es in place of more C and Ds even if it’s not a 1:1 ratio.

 

[eddie104]

Here’s my take.

If you make a new modern headliner, if it’s fantastic today, it’ll be at least great 20 years from now (see Disneyland’s Indy).

If you make a mediocre filler ride, if it’s good at opening, it’ll be bad 20 years from now (see WDW’s Buzz).

In terms of filling out a park for quality and capacity, if you build new E-tickets/headliners, you’re resetting the goal post. The old top rides drop down a peg, the next top rides drop down a peg and so on and so forth.

E-tickets generally have higher capacities than Cs and Ds due to their larger scale.

And I know people will cry foul “but Es make people want to come! So it’ll counter any capacity net.”

And like, okay… I’m a parks fan… I want to do things I want to do. I want to do things that are good, not simply filling my time.

I have nothing against flats or Cs or Ds they match the execution and vision of the ride experience, but the cries for almost exclusively mid-tier experiences are silly.

The price per capacity added for a C or D ticket is not that far off from an E. The barrier of entry for creating a project of any scale is very high, that if you’re going to make a project, you might as well make it good, or save until you can actually afford to make it good.

I wanted to point this out earlier for those clamoring for flat ride type attractions.

The fanbase in general don’t seem to favor those and prefer more bombastic experiences like ROTR.

give us 4-5 to really spread some crowds out.

I definitely agree with this.

 

[flyerjab]

Taking 5 years to build an E ticket that doesn’t ease the strain on the day to day parks doesn’t work.

This is what has become truly egregious to me in terms of impact to the average park goer. I love great theming - my enduring love for DAK pretty much proves that. But even I will never scrutinized the minutiae like some are want to do here. But many forum members are not average fans. What the average fan might notice - those that come every year or so - is how long construction walls have been standing. I mean how long has that cake bake shop been standing there? Ridiculous! And the walls in Epcot were (and in some cases still are) an embarrassment. And it shows that numbers are more important than guest satisfaction in this case. They spread out cost over YEARS - great for them but not the park goers. It would make me so happy if some of the new construction on the horizon was done on a faster time line. But there is no way I’d place money that.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

This is what has become truly egregious to me in terms of impact to the average park goer. I love great theming - my enduring love for DAK pretty much proves that. But even I will never scrutinized the minutiae like some are want to do here. But many forum members are not average fans. What the average fan might notice - those that come every year or so - is how long construction walls have been standing. I mean how long has that cake bake shop been standing there? Ridiculous! And the walls in Epcot were (and in some cases still are) an embarrassment. And it shows that numbers are more important than guest satisfaction in this case. They spread out cost over YEARS - great for them but not the park goers. It would make me so happy if some of the new construction on the horizon was done on a faster time line. But there is no way I’d place money that.

The Swiss guard defending pope Iger (usually fed bad information) swear that what you’re saying is imagined.

It REALLY takes 5 years to construct a ride?

But it does not. It’s a deliberate way of slow rolling the cost and trying to extract an unnatural level of “coming soon” and “new” out of everything

People talk of midway mania, mine train and avatar as “new”

15, 11 and 7 years ago.

The only thing that may change the game now is the inroads Comcast is full bore making.

They are

 

[Splash4eva]

RNRC is nearing the end of it’s useful life and will probably need a complete track replacement sooner rather than later.

They cant weld it together like Space Mountain?