Additional Info on "The Laugh Floor" storyline

[PurpleDragon]

Wow you know what? I don't see how hamburgers fit into the tomorrowland theme, they should only serve space food, like freeze dried stuff, that would fit into the themeing better.:brick:

I mean come on people, if its not "Too much pixar" its "It doesn't fit the theme" or "To much character tie ins". Why not be happy with the fact that Disney still makes an effort to update the park and bring in new exciting attractions? As others have said, tying into a recent Disney movie is good for business and attracts new visitors to the parks. Is that not a good thing?

Change is always good, WDW should not stay stagnant forever or the only peple who would ever visit would be those who are members at this site.

For people who "Love Disney" so much, many of you sure are quick to insult and complain when they make changes.

 

[CaptainMichael]

Change is always good, WDW should not stay stagnant forever or the only peple who would ever visit would be those who are members at this site.

But even that would stop when tickets became unaffordable because of low attendance.:lol:

 

[dxwwf3]

Change is always good

Always?

Just kidding PD

 

[wannab@dis]

Change is always good, WDW should not stay stagnant forever

I understand your point, but I will make an additional statement with that point.

Attempting change is always good. However, it's not a guarantee that the outcome will always be perfect. They should make every effort to TRY to affect positive change, but unfortunately things don't always end up perfect.

I will say that I believe Disney is extremely successful with their attempts and I hope they never let a couple of misses keep them from continually trying to improve the parks.

 

[wannab@dis]

Always?

Just kidding PD

Ok.. you beat me to the point. And much more succinct. :lol:

 

[PurpleDragon]

I understand your point, but I will make an additional statement with that point.

Attempting change is always good. However, it's not a guarantee that the outcome will always be perfect. They should make every effort to TRY to affect positive change, but unfortunately things don't always end up perfect.

I will say that I believe Disney is extremely successful with their attempts and I hope they never let a couple of misses keep them from continually trying to improve the parks.

Couldn't agree more. :sohappy:

 

[Yen_Sid1]

I understand your point, but I will make an additional statement with that point.

Attempting change is always good. However, it's not a guarantee that the outcome will always be perfect. They should make every effort to TRY to affect positive change, but unfortunately things don't always end up perfect.

I will say that I believe Disney is extremely successful with their attempts and I hope they never let a couple of misses keep them from continually trying to improve the parks.

But it also depends on why the change was made. Was it to provide more enjoyment? Or to give a better quality show? Or to increase the number of people per hour? Or just to save money? and to save on the overhead and upkeep? Or to increase safety? There are always a lot changes that are made that the guests never will see.

 

[dxwwf3]

But it also depends on why the change was made. Was it to provide more enjoyment? Or to give a better quality show? Or to increase the number of people per hour? Or just to save money? and to save on the overhead and upkeep? Or to increase safety? There are always a lot changes that are made that the guests never will see.

:sohappy: :sohappy: :sohappy:

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Some changes have been made with none of those reasonings behind them.

 

[dxwwf3]

Ok.. you beat me to the point. And much more succinct. :lol:

:lol:

The power of a picture

 

[dxwwf3]

Attempting change is always good.

I don't know if I agree with that completely. There are some things that do not need replacements or certain additions. For example, Splash Mountain doesn't really need anything done to change the ride experience right now. The same thing could be said for many other attractions. I think Yen_Sid's post sums up my feelings completely. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. However, most changes at the parks are needed and they turn out well. But I did say MOST and not ALL

I will say that I believe Disney is extremely successful with their attempts and I hope they never let a couple of misses keep them from continually trying to improve the parks.

However I agree with this all the way.

 

[JRawkSteady]

Is Toy Story not a classic? To me it is. Name a classic Disney film that would better fit these attractions. Example please? Really, what has Disney made in the past 10 years that is attraction worthy besides Pixar??? PotC is the only one I can think of, and they are already doing it.

So only Disney movies in the last 10 years are eligible for rides? Even if that was true, there is no representation of Mulan in a ride or attraction (besides the extinct parade in MGM). Why don't they work on something like that? But by classics I mean older Disney films, including Jungle Book, Aristocats, Sleeping Beauty and even going further into the future with Beauty and the Beast, a BETTER Aladdin ride, an actual Lion King ride (not just shows), or even Nightmare before Christmas! Disneyland has a Nightmare based Haunted Mansion for 30 days, but WDW has nothing at all!

It seems like ever since Iger took crown, the only things in the wings are Pixar-related. Those 7 films are going to eventually take over the parks, which is pretty sad, since Disney has films with a lot more "magic" than Monsters Inc., Finding Nemo, or Cars... ...

 

[Timmay]

But it also depends on why the change was made. Was it to provide more enjoyment? Or to give a better quality show? Or to increase the number of people per hour? Or just to save money? and to save on the overhead and upkeep? Or to increase safety? There are always a lot changes that are made that the guests never will see.

I would say that each and every one of those reasons are considered when changes are planned and made.

 

[Timmay]

So only Disney movies in the last 10 years are eligible for rides? Even if that was true, there is no representation of Mulan in a ride or attraction (besides the extinct parade in MGM). Why don't they work on something like that? But by classics I mean older Disney films, including Jungle Book, Aristocats, Sleeping Beauty and even going further into the future with Beauty and the Beast, a BETTER Aladdin ride, an actual Lion King ride (not just shows), or even Nightmare before Christmas! Disneyland has a Nightmare based Haunted Mansion for 30 days, but WDW has nothing at all!

It seems like ever since Iger took crown, the only things in the wings are Pixar-related. Those 7 films are going to eventually take over the parks, which is pretty sad, since Disney has films with a lot more "magic" than Monsters Inc., Finding Nemo, or Cars... ...

What is popular to you may not be to the majority of folks in the park. Do you really think more people would enjoy and get more out of a Mulan or Aristocats attraction than a Toy Story attraction?? Probably not.

I am not sure how any person can make a leap and say the Pixar stories will "eventually take over the parks".

 

[PurpleDragon]

:sohappy: :sohappy: :sohappy:

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Some changes have been made with none of those reasonings behind them.

How do you know that? It all goes back to the simple equation Wannab@dis pointed out a few pages back "Popularity + Growth/Marketing Potential + Revenue (Merch) - Investment = +/-Success" If any part of that equation makes the success of an attraction 0 or below, then a change is needed to balance out the equation. Disney does not make a habit of making pointless changes to attractions just to make changes. Each change is made for a reason, weather you understand the reasoning or not, there is always a reason.

Going back to the topic of this thread as an example. Timekeeper was not drawing in the crowds, so it was closed down. The number of visitors in the Tomorrowland area is less than in other areas, so a new attraction for the Tomorrowland area is needed. Given its such a small footprint, a show type of attraction is needed. Seeing the populatiry of Turtle Talk, they felt that would be the best type of show attraction to install. Monsters Inc was chosen probably cause it was a very popular movie and it has no respresentation at all in WDW outside of a photo spot in MGM. So there are numerous reasons why descisions are made. Just because you don't agree with a change doesn't mean there isn't a reason for it.

 

[CaptainMichael]

So only Disney movies in the last 10 years are eligible for rides?
Even if that was true, there is no representation of Mulan in a ride or attraction (besides the extinct parade in MGM). Why don't they work on something like that? But by classics I mean older Disney films, including Jungle Book, Aristocats, Sleeping Beauty and even going further into the future with Beauty and the Beast, a BETTER Aladdin ride, an actual Lion King ride (not just shows), or even Nightmare before Christmas! Disneyland has a Nightmare based Haunted Mansion for 30 days, but WDW has nothing at all!

No, but from a business standpoint, recent hits are a smarter investment. Aristocats....who remembers them? I would be totally open to a Lion King attraction at DAK, and I think it could happen especially since the park could use something like that. I could see such an attraction being built in Africa when they finally decide what they want to do with Camp Minnie-Mickey and do away with FotLK.

Right now, none of the movies you specified could fit the attractions that are currently being built. Nemo is a perfect for the Seas, Toy Story can fit MM, and for me, Monsters Inc. fits Tomorrowland.

It seems like ever since Iger took crown, the only things in the wings are Pixar-related. Those 7 films are going to eventually take over the parks, which is pretty sad, since Disney has films with a lot more "magic" than Monsters Inc., Finding Nemo, or Cars... ...

Hate to say it, but I'm pretty sure most of these things were in R&D before Iger became the CEO.

 

[wannab@dis]

I don't know if I agree with that completely. There are some things that do not need replacements or certain additions. For example, Splash Mountain doesn't really need anything done to change the ride experience right now. The same thing could be said for many other attractions. I think Yen_Sid's post sums up my feelings completely. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. However, most changes at the parks are needed and they turn out well. But I did say MOST and not ALL



However I agree with this all the way.

I apologize for not prefacing the statement as I thought it would be a basic assumption. When necessary, attempting changes is good. The problem is that there are many "fans" that will not acknowledge that it's necessary to update an under-performing attraction. I believe PurpleDragon summed it up nicely. (and even used my formula) Truly a nice gesture!

How do you know that? It all goes back to the simple equation Wannab@dis pointed out a few pages back "Popularity + Growth/Marketing Potential + Revenue (Merch) - Investment = +/-Success" If any part of that equation makes the success of an attraction 0 or below, then a change is needed to balance out the equation. Disney does not make a habit of making pointless changes to attractions just to make changes. Each change is made for a reason, weather you understand the reasoning or not, there is always a reason.

Going back to the topic of this thread as an example. Timekeeper was not drawing in the crowds, so it was closed down. The number of visitors in the Tomorrowland area is less than in other areas, so a new attraction for the Tomorrowland area is needed. Given its such a small footprint, a show type of attraction is needed. Seeing the populatiry of Turtle Talk, they felt that would be the best type of show attraction to install. Monsters Inc was chosen probably cause it was a very popular movie and it has no respresentation at all in WDW outside of a photo spot in MGM. So there are numerous reasons why descisions are made. Just because you don't agree with a change doesn't mean there isn't a reason for it.

 

[JRawkSteady]

Actually, Eisner ousted "our guys at Pixar." They wanted nothing to do with him and the feeling was mutual. They may have been ideas, but they never would never have been approved.

Based on the amount of people that request a Nightmare ride with nothing but profit... once they get rid of the "waste-of-space" playgrounds in Fantasyland, they will have more room.

 

[CaptainMichael]

"waste-of-space" playgrounds in Fantasyland

Would little kids agree with that statement?

(To be continued...after lunch)

 

[dr_teeth90210]

once they get rid of the "waste-of-space" playgrounds in Fantasyland, they will have more room.

You do realize there is enough space behind Pooh's playground to build two Splash Mountains.

 

[CaptainMichael]

You do realize there is enough space behind Pooh's playground to build two Splash Mountains.

I do...I'm well aware of the possibilities.