Are Disney execs looking at the success of cars land to create future projects on that scale?

[WDW1974]

50-60 days out of the year is nothing compared to some of the people in SoCal who visit the parks 5 days out of the week, every week.

Yes, there are far more disturbed people out there.

You mean like people who move to O-Town and spend every day of the week at WDW (mostly at MK and EPCOT as those parks seem most likely to feed the addiction)?

Or people who beg, borrow and steal (and I'm not kidding!) to become Social Media Disney Lifestylers?
I know some folks think I'm kidding about writing a book on Mental Health and the Disney Fan Community: How Pixie Dust Destroys the Brain ... but I am very much considering it.

There are way too many people who don't visit WDW (or DL) because they enjoy great theme parks, but because they are trying to escape from life ... like they are searching desperately for the childhood that never was and never will be.

It is scary and it is sick.

 

[WDW1974]

It's called obsessive - maybe someone wouldn't wanted to be called that but when someone does something 250 times.. Or almost everyday..when an average person may do it 10 times. That's not 'like' - that is a cumplusion

Yes, it is.

People may not like how it sounds. But as someone who was dangerously close to that myself in the 1990s and early 00s, that is absolutely the case.

 

[maryszhi]

i would love if they brought it to disney world

 

[dreamscometrue]

I am so glad I got over the WDW addiction, even if I still have a Disney theme park addiction and a UNI theme park one and a SW/BG one etc. ... But before Y2K I had never been to DLP, TDL or HKDL (which was just a construction site) and I've now been to all of the above ... and have had APs in Paris and Hong Kong multiple years. I've also traveled to all kinds of places that I hadn't been either (both in the USA and internationally). I doubt I'd have done that if I wa still spending so much time and income on WDW.

But you are right, WDW is no longer what it once was and that it very sad to me because I do love the place. And while I can enjoy myself there, it is generally because of the people I am with ... it absolutely is very rarely because of the product.

I can understand why you said that. I've travelled some, and there is no doubt that you see everything in a different light, after you've been exposed to new poeple and places.

It does seem that, on these boards, the people who are most discouraged are those who have been going to WDW for many years and no longer see the quaity that they remember. I did not get their in the 70's or 80's, so I am in no position to judge that. In my case, some of the 'issues' I read about on here are concerns I too have, while others I believe to be trivial and don't bother me in the least. What's interesting to me is which things bother me and which don't. It's not as simple as the 'size' of the issue. For example, the stationary ceiling mounted 'trolley' in the Confectionary Store, bothers me more than the Yeti not working. I feel that the former a simple, kinetic element that could be kept moving for practically no money. 'Little' things like that not working perplex me.

I wanted to comment, and ask you a few questions about your statement, "WDW is no longer what it once was...".

That statement, of course, suggests that WDW has changed, and it is the change that I'd like to address. I believe that, while we can debate the need for change, when it does occur, it can be good, bad or indifferent in peoples' eyes. To illustrate, the change from The Living Seas circa mid 90's to The Seas with Nemo and Friends made the attraction less appealing to me (although I understand the rationale of doing something to try to get people back into that pavillion). I still visit and enjoy it once per trip, but I liked it better in it's previous incarnation. The Haunted Mansion refurb a few years back, on the other hard, made the attraction even more appealing imho. And some changes, like Living with the Land with its switch to pre recorded audio, makes no difference to me.

Here are the things I'd like to ask you...

1. Are there any changes at all within the parks, to attractions, restaurants or shops, that you believe improved them from their original state?

2. Do you believe that some changes to, or perhaps replacement of, attractions are necessary because those attractions have become stale or get no traffic? (As beloved as Horizons and World of Motion were, could these attractions have remained and attracted new fans-not just we nostalgic old fogies-while other theme parks add new attractions? In other words, regardless of your enjoyment or lack thereof of M:S and TT, do you think the change to newer attractions was, and continues to be, necessary?)

Cheers

 

[misterID]

I can understand why you said that. I've travelled some, and there is no doubt that you see everything in a different light, after you've been exposed to new poeple and places.

It does seem that, on these boards, the people who are most discouraged are those who have been going to WDW for many years and no longer see the quaity that they remember. I did not get their in the 70's or 80's, so I am in no position to judge that. In my case, some of the 'issues' I read about on here are concerns I too have, while others I believe to be trivial and don't bother me in the least. What's interesting to me is which things bother me and which don't. It's not as simple as the 'size' of the issue. For example, the stationary ceiling mounted 'trolley' in the Confectionary Store, bothers me more than the Yeti not working. I feel that the former a simple, kinetic element that could be kept moving for practically no money. 'Little' things like that not working perplex me.

I wanted to comment, and ask you a few questions about your statement, "WDW is no longer what it once was...".

That statement, of course, suggests that WDW has changed, and it is the change that I'd like to address. I believe that, while we can debate the need for change, when it does occur, it can be good, bad or indifferent in peoples' eyes. To illustrate, the change from The Living Seas circa mid 90's to The Seas with Nemo and Friends made the attraction less appealing to me (although I understand the rationale of doing something to try to get people back into that pavillion). I still visit and enjoy it once per trip, but I liked it better in it's previous incarnation. The Haunted Mansion refurb a few years back, on the other hard, made the attraction even more appealing imho. And some changes, like Living with the Land with its switch to pre recorded audio, makes no difference to me.

Here are the things I'd like to ask you...

1. Are there any changes at all within the parks, to attractions, restaurants or shops, that you believe improved them from their original state?

2. Do you believe that some changes to, or perhaps replacement of, attractions are necessary because those attractions have become stale or get no traffic? (As beloved as Horizons and World of Motion were, could these attractions have remained and attracted new fans-not just we nostalgic old fogies-while other theme parks add new attractions? In other words, regardless of your enjoyment or lack thereof of M:S and TT, do you think the change to newer attractions was, and continues to be, necessary?)

Cheers

Anyone who's spent any time on these boards should know that the "declining by degrees" is the problem. It's not just WDW changed from how it was in the 70s and 80s, but also in the last 10-15 years. The 90's is widely considered WDW's golden age. This isn't about complaining about napkins, but the over all experience. TDO just quit trying.

Change is good, if we're talking about the same type of "change" as in evolving. That's understandable. That's not what's going on.

EPCOT was scoring low on polling questions. It was always considered a boring park. Making thrill rides was very understandable, and it was exciting when they announced it. The problem is, they had Imagineers who didn't "get" EPCOT. I was excited about the prospect of M:S. What they created was lame. TT wasn't much better. The problem is, they could have done better. They had plans that were better. They blew it. Investment is great, not when the replacement pales in comparison to what it replaced. Right now, the only evolution to those replacements was the ride tech, not the most important thing to an attraction: Story and heart. M:S and TT had neither of those things.

On top of it, they destroyed the best attraction in EPCOT, and replaced a 15 minute, deeply imaginative, endearing attraction with a 4 minute fart joke.

Change is good when done properly. You can bring up the HM refurb, and I can bring up three more that were awful.

 

[Kuhio]

On top of it, they destroyed the best attraction in EPCOT, and replaced a 15 minute, deeply imaginative, endearing attraction with a 4 minute fart joke.

Change is good when done properly. You can bring up the HM refurb, and I can bring up three more that were awful.

The original Journey into Imagination was a classic: a long, detailed, colorful, and entirely original ride with a catchy (but not trite) theme song by the Sherman Brothers. It pulled off something relatively rare: it was endearing and effortlessly charming; it evoked a sense of childlike wonder and the "magic" the parks so often purport to sell without veering over the line into syrupy sentiment.

If interest in the original attraction had waned over the years, the solution was to find a way to improve it to make it fresh and exciting again -- not to tear it down (metaphorically, at least) and replace it with something wholly lacking the unique spirit of the original. At the time the original JII was shuttered, Pooh's Hunny Hunt was already in development; replacing the ride system with the Hunny Hunt's trackless ride vehicles would have been one way to revive interest in the attraction. (That's just an example of something that could have been done off the top of my head; I don't know if the OLC had any sort of exclusivity agreement that would have prevented the ride system from being implemented elsewhere contemporaneously.)

The bigger point is this: when you have something whose fundamental concept and execution are solid, change can be good if it further enhances the product without taking away from its underlying appeal. In contrast, if an attraction is inherently flawed and can't be salvaged through enhancement, then the best kind of change is one that does away with it entirely -- even if it might fly in the face of nostalgia.

The hard part is discerning the difference between the two -- then keeping and improving what ought to be kept, while replacing with a better product what ought to be replaced. Over the years, TDO has made a number of poor judgments in this regard, consistently erring on the wrong side of the equation.

 

[RSoxNo1]

You mean like people who move to O-Town and spend every day of the week at WDW (mostly at MK and EPCOT as those parks seem most likely to feed the addiction)?

Or people who beg, borrow and steal (and I'm not kidding!) to become Social Media Disney Lifestylers?
I know some folks think I'm kidding about writing a book on Mental Health and the Disney Fan Community: How Pixie Dust Destroys the Brain ... but I am very much considering it.

There are way too many people who don't visit WDW (or DL) because they enjoy great theme parks, but because they are trying to escape from life ... like they are searching desperately for the childhood that never was and never will be.

It is scary and it is sick.

Our Kingdom of Dust?

 

[Tiggerrules]

The original Journey into Imagination was a classic: a long, detailed, colorful, and entirely original ride with a catchy (but not trite) theme song by the Sherman Brothers. It pulled off something relatively rare: it was endearing and effortlessly charming; it evoked a sense of childlike wonder and the "magic" the parks so often purport to sell without veering over the line into syrupy sentiment.

If interest in the original attraction had waned over the years, the solution was to find a way to improve it to make it fresh and exciting again -- not to tear it down (metaphorically, at least) and replace it with something wholly lacking the unique spirit of the original. At the time the original JII was shuttered, Pooh's Hunny Hunt was already in development; replacing the ride system with the Hunny Hunt's trackless ride vehicles would have been one way to revive interest in the attraction. (That's just an example of something that could have been done off the top of my head; I don't know if the OLC had any sort of exclusivity agreement that would have prevented the ride system from being implemented elsewhere contemporaneously.)

The bigger point is this: when you have something whose fundamental concept and execution are solid, change can be good if it further enhances the product without taking away from its underlying appeal. In contrast, if an attraction is inherently flawed and can't be salvaged through enhancement, then the best kind of change is one that does away with it entirely -- even if it might fly in the face of nostalgia.

The hard part is discerning the difference between the two -- then keeping and improving what ought to be kept, while replacing with a better product what ought to be replaced. Over the years, TDO has made a number of poor judgments in this regard, consistently erring on the wrong side of the equation.

Interestingly, I played Martins video of Journey into Imagination for my grand-daughters (5 and 8 yrs.), both of their responses were " I wish I could have seen that, it is way better than what is there now" and "Why did they change it?". Unfortunately, I had no good answer to the question. Especially since they really downgraded the attraction to almost nothing. Change for the sake of change is not good, change to improve or better something is good. By the way, thanks for the videos Martin, my Grand-Daughters love watching them.

 

[spacemt354]

Anyone who's spent any time on these boards should know that the "declining by degrees" is the problem. It's not just WDW changed from how it was in the 70s and 80s, but also in the last 10-15 years. The 90's is widely considered WDW's golden age. This isn't about complaining about napkins, but the over all experience. TDO just quit trying.

Change is good, if we're talking about the same type of "change" as in evolving. That's understandable. That's not what's going on.

EPCOT was scoring low on polling questions. It was always considered a boring park. Making thrill rides was very understandable, and it was exciting when they announced it. The problem is, they had Imagineers who didn't "get" EPCOT. I was excited about the prospect of M:S. What they created was lame. TT wasn't much better. The problem is, they could have done better. They had plans that were better. They blew it. Investment is great, not when the replacement pales in comparison to what it replaced. Right now, the only evolution to those replacements was the ride tech, not the most important thing to an attraction: Story and heart. M:S and TT had neither of those things.

On top of it, they destroyed the best attraction in EPCOT, and replaced a 15 minute, deeply imaginative, endearing attraction with a 4 minute fart joke.

Change is good when done properly. You can bring up the HM refurb, and I can bring up three more that were awful.

I agree that change is good when done properly. There are some things that I like when they are changed, and there are others that I scratch my head at. I feel a lot of the updates recently to the "classic" attractions such as HM, PoTC, Space Mountain, and others have improved them from their original states. People already enjoy those classic rides, so unless you just completely makeover the ride in a bad way, (Journey Into Imagination), I think for the most part people are going to be gerenally impressed with the updates to the classics.

Now, World of Motion and Horizons I feel are a little different when it comes to that change. I had remembered my family had recorded those two attractions when I was younger. So I went back and viewed those rides on the tape, and I have to say I thought they were fantastic dark rides, and I think they even surpass that dark ride definition. The detail in both of them, especially Horizons for me, was incredible, and I'm really sad to see them go. But there was something else I noticed about both of those rides. We also filmed the queues as well, and I found it strange that we walked right on both of them in the middle of july. That's typically a crowded time of the year for disney world, especially if some call the 90's Disney's "golden age," So if those two attractions had remained, I don't know how Epcot could have restored it's "boring" reputation.

So Disney decided to change the attractions, and update them to something more thrilling to please the masses. Mission: Space and Test Track.

In regards to Mission: Space, and this is just my opinion, but I think it has one of the best build-ups of anticipation to an attraction I've ever experienced. For me, M:S is on par with ToT for the attractions that provide me the most realistic sense that I'm actually going into space, or that I'm actually in the twilight zone. For me it's something different, and it's a change. If you compare it to Horizons which would I want? I'd take either really. I don't think it was a downgrade and I don't think it was an upgrade. I think it was something entirely new, and it answered to the people who were calling for more thrill rides at Epcot. Test Track did this as well. I will agree with you on the story and heart for Test Track because you're basically riding around a warehouse the whole time. Nothing of story or heart whatsoever when compared to WoM. The ride of TT is fantastic, but not on par with the detail in World of Motion. However, I don't know what the new upgrade to Test Track will bring in the fall. Maybe it will bring more story and heart into an attraction that needs it. Who knows? From the past few refurbs disney has done, I would say they have improved a majority of those attractions. So I just hope that pattern continues with TT, and they don't revert to the Journey into Imagination updates ever again.

 

[Beholder]

I think the problem, for me anyway, is that dark rides are such a great way of putting you into the narrative of whatever story or message there're trying to convey, and when you change/replace it with a more "thrilling" ride, you lose that.

Perhaps Disney felt that Horizons or WoM weren't getting it done capacity wise, or the popularity wasn 't there, but I miss them so much. If Mission Space were replaced, I wouldn't miss it nearly as much. I'm not saying MS is bad or anything, it's just the narrative that I get from a truly detailed and unique dark ride isn't
there. And it was those elements of well done and brilliantly crafted attractions that made EPCOT so different and so great.

And may I live to see the day when Figment and Dreamfinder are reborn in all of their glory!

 

[choco choco]

Perhaps Disney felt that Horizons or WoM weren't getting it done capacity wise, or the popularity wasn 't there

Here is a recent anecdote from Brian Phillips, a writer for Grantland, talking about a trip he had to Epcot as a kid. I thought it was hilarious.

"Well, before we could eat we of course had to ride the rides, I mean the Epcot rides, which at that point were (and maybe still are) right on the continuum between "film credits" and "grocery shopping" in terms of entertainment value. Also in terms of aesthetics, come to think of it. I have the vaguest memory of inching through Spaceship Earth in the slowest ride-car of all time, watching what looked like department-store mannequins go through the motions of making toast on the moon, or whatever. "Harnessing the power of Science" — dry authoritative smoker's newsreel baritone — "it will one day be possible for our mothers and wives to iron a pair of trousers in just five-eighths of the time." There was a room in which, I think, they were growing plants upside-down? Even today I feel like an hour in that place would leave me pretty excited to leave for a burger restaurant."

Source

The complaint that Epcot is boring has always been there. I remember nearly engaging a kid in hand to hand combat way back, when he insulted The Living Seas ("boring"), which I loved. But now that I look back...recently watched one of those ride thru's of World of Motion and couldn't stop guffawing a couple minutes in..."inching along the slowest ride car of all time" indeed....

 

[Beholder]

^^^Perhaps the rides were slow (been awhile, don't remember this being a problem), but I actually like the pace that allows you to take it all in. But then again, I enjoy movies that employ tension or suspense through a deliberate pacing of time and story.

Perhaps a happy medium between full on story telling and instant thrill can be made, but seldom is. Splash Mountain, maybe the refurbed TT, ToT, and a few others are able to get it right, but it's too easy to take the easy way out and do away with any real pretense to a story.

I like story. I like classic dark rides. I miss the ones that are gone and hope that at least some element (the better ones) somehow finds it's way into whatever new things come down the line.

 

[ChrisFL]

The complaint that Epcot is boring has always been there. I remember nearly engaging a kid in hand to hand combat way back, when he insulted The Living Seas ("boring"), which I loved. But now that I look back...recently watched one of those ride thru's of World of Motion and couldn't stop guffawing a couple minutes in..."inching along the slowest ride car of all time" indeed....

Obviously I disagree with his assessment, although I'm sure there was a segment of the population that thought so.

These days we live in a massively "instant gratification" world, so our perspective looking back now has probably changed a lot.

I think overall the problem is that EPCOT Center opened and ALL of their rides were slow-moving dark rides, and I will say that if you rode, say, Spaceship Earth, Horizons, World of Motion, The Land and Imagination before the afternoon you'd could be overwhelmed the amount of slow rides and show scenes you're just passing through, the message could become blurred.

So with that understanding in mind, Disney could really have added more thrills while keeping the education and forward-thinking of its attractions, but it failed miserably.

 

[c-one]

I'd love to see:

* "Tomorrowland" acquire a vibrant and permanent soul. By that I mean, finally figure out what the "Tomorrow" in the land is supposed to mean and make it a permanent thing that does not become dated after a few years. The key to that is to pick an era and theme the land to what people at that time thought "Tomorrow" would look like. The most logical thing to do would be to utilize the fact that Main Street is the jumping off point to Tomorrowland. Main Street is Victorian themed...so there's a very natural, logical, and beautiful chance to look at Tomorrowland as what someone walking down Victorian Main Street would have thought the year 2300 would have looked like...which would have been 400 years in that person's future.

* Jules Verne theming/steampunk is the logical choice here. Folding in things from the old Discovery Bay abandoned land would be great too. There could be a really inspired transitional area where you come off Main Street and there's this Bridge to the Future taking you into a Vernean Tomorrowland....and then the transition from Tomorrowland to Fantasyland makes sense too as you'd really be going from a Vernean Tomorrowland to an Alice in Wonderland attraction like the Teacups (or Alice ride at DLR), and the area around that could reflect the transition from the Victorian view of the future to the Victorian fantasy of Alice. There'd be a logical and beautiful theme transition on both entrances to Tomorrowland then.

* Tomorrowland as the 60s' vision of the future or the 80s' vision of the future or the 2012 vision of the future will keep failing...but the vision of the future imagined by the Victorian people living on Main Street is kind of timeless. We'll never achieve this but it's so beautiful and full of possibilities that it would make a gorgeous and inspired land that has rich Streetmosphere potential.

As a last note on all of this, I am kind of reminded of how Disney had to yank all the "extreme sports" stuff out of DCA and all those "hip" pop culture references from Hollywoodland over there...because they got stale so quickly. BVS is such a success because it's a deep theme with great Streetmosphere potential. A steampunk/Victorian Future for Tomorrowland would have that sort of potential too. It would be very Disney. I can very easily see men in bowler hats with steampunk gadgetry in their costumes walking the land to staff an attraction the same way I see the Jungle Cruise skippers walking to their posts in Adventureland. Adventureland is supposed to be set in the 30s or so. Frontierland is the late 1800s, pre-Victorian. Let Tomorrowland be the year 2300 as imagined by the people who lived on Main Street...and embrace the steampunk theming that has developed into its own subculture in the last decade or so. I think the 1930s theming of Adventureland is gorgeous and won't be going anywhere. I think what they did with the 1920s at BVS is also gorgeous.

I think it's finally time to nail down a Tomorrowland theming that can be an instant classic and won't need to ever really be updated again -- because it won't go out of style and will always convey that image of a "future" with space and mechanical touches.

We tried that already. Disneyland Tomorrowland 1998-2005. It didn't really go well, partially because Space Mountain looked like a gigantic dog turd sitting the corner of the land.

I've said this before, but I think it's still true -- the current over-the-top, chrome-and-neon, science fiction city of the future look suits Tomorrowland just fine, and is far more based in fantasy than an actual future depiction. The problem is that the attractions largely suck.

 

[c-one]

Obviously I disagree with his assessment, although I'm sure there was a segment of the population that thought so.

These days we live in a massively "instant gratification" world, so our perspective looking back now has probably changed a lot.

I think overall the problem is that EPCOT Center opened and ALL of their rides were slow-moving dark rides, and I will say that if you rode, say, Spaceship Earth, Horizons, World of Motion, The Land and Imagination before the afternoon you'd could be overwhelmed the amount of slow rides and show scenes you're just passing through, the message could become blurred.

So with that understanding in mind, Disney could really have added more thrills while keeping the education and forward-thinking of its attractions, but it failed miserably.

Yeah, I think this is true. I'm pretty nostalgic for the old-school EPCOT but there's no doubt it wasn't all that diverse. Change was needed, but the wrong kind of change happened. TDO replaced two of the classic dark rides with unpopular thrill rides, and kept three other dark rides but made them substantially worse.

That said, a theme park (or at least half of one) about science, technology and ideas is bound to be divisive. Of course some people found it boring, and in the anti-science climate we live in, those posing as hip will call it boring. But if you're going that route, you have to COMMIT TO IT. A brainy theme park experience won't appeal to everyone, but it doesn't need to. Now we've just got a watered-down headscratcher of a park that pleases few on either side.

 

[c-one]

More like.. how does anyone have 50-60 days worth of holiday per year.. if so, what proportion of their total holiday do they spend at Disney. 50-60 days is spending one day EACH WEEK at WDW.. or almost 2 full months of the year at Disney.

Unless you are retired.. that seems extreme to say the least and doesn't seem to leave any time for anything else.

Pardon my series of replies but there a lot of parallel threads going on in here...

Anyway, look -- I don't mean this to come off as mean-spirited or judgmental, but the simple fact is that the more parts of this world you see and the more people of diverse cultures you meet, you end up a more well-rounded person. Not everyone is fortunate enough to travel the world, and that's fine. Lord knows I would do more travelling if I was in a better position, but even as it is I'm very lucky to travel as much as I do. If you have the means to spend two months a year at WDW, I think you owe it to yourself and to the world at large to see more of the world. World Showcase is fun but it doesn't count.

I don't know what the "right" amount of Disney vacations per year is, but I do think it shouldn't be all you do on your travels. Or even MOST of what you do! Taking a trip somewhere in Africa or South America is more challenging mentally, no doubt, but it's vastly more rewarding in the end. Everything has its place -- it's all about balance.

 

[flavious27]

Obviously I disagree with his assessment, although I'm sure there was a segment of the population that thought so.

These days we live in a massively "instant gratification" world, so our perspective looking back now has probably changed a lot.

I think overall the problem is that EPCOT Center opened and ALL of their rides were slow-moving dark rides, and I will say that if you rode, say, Spaceship Earth, Horizons, World of Motion, The Land and Imagination before the afternoon you'd could be overwhelmed the amount of slow rides and show scenes you're just passing through, the message could become blurred.

So with that understanding in mind, Disney could really have added more thrills while keeping the education and forward-thinking of its attractions, but it failed miserably.

Which is why epcot has been evolving from that. WOM is now TT. Horizons is now M:S. And we have Soarin. Part of the problem is that you are being entertained in a different way than when epcot was opened. They can change TT to show a bit more about the process of getting a car from a designer's mind to a consumer's driveway; focusing on transportation through the years starts to touch on what SSE already has. M:S could also be changed to look at how we could get to planets and live there.

 

[ChrisFL]

We tried that already. Disneyland Tomorrowland 1998-2005. It didn't really go well, partially because Space Mountain looked like a gigantic dog turd sitting the corner of the land

honestly, I don't think that tomorrowland represented the Jules Verne vision at all.....it was a loooooong way from the way Paris was done

 

[dman1373]

How about you just go to places you like. I mean people are getting into this that an the other, but really who cares. If you want to go to europe or africa than thats cool, but dont act as if going their makes you a better person than anyone else. And this is coming from a guy thats been to europe more than he has been to disney world. I mean if you like disney world cause it has some type of nostalgiac feeling linked to it then why shouldn't you want to go there. Thats why i like disney world so much, its 25% rides/theme, 25% friends and family i go there with, and 50% nostagia.

 

[coachwnh]

Pardon my series of replies but there a lot of parallel threads going on in here...

Anyway, look -- I don't mean this to come off as mean-spirited or judgmental, but the simple fact is that the more parts of this world you see and the more people of diverse cultures you meet, you end up a more well-rounded person. Not everyone is fortunate enough to travel the world, and that's fine. Lord knows I would do more travelling if I was in a better position, but even as it is I'm very lucky to travel as much as I do. If you have the means to spend two months a year at WDW, I think you owe it to yourself and to the world at large to see more of the world. World Showcase is fun but it doesn't count.

I don't know what the "right" amount of Disney vacations per year is, but I do think it shouldn't be all you do on your travels. Or even MOST of what you do! Taking a trip somewhere in Africa or South America is more challenging mentally, no doubt, but it's vastly more rewarding in the end. Everything has its place -- it's all about balance.

Why Africa or S America? Why not Hawaii, The desert SW of the US, Alaska, the badlands, the Great Lakes, the great cities along the east coast? Sure I would love to see other parts of the world, but not before i explore all 50 of our great US!!! We choose to spend time in WDW because we can. We also choose other areas as well. As i said before, we are very fortunate to have these opportunities, but my goodness, is it really anyone else's business how much time I care to spend in WDW? And did I ask for suggestions as to where else i should go? By the way, Arizona and SoCal were spectacular a few weeks back! We enjoy coming here to WDW. It seems so many other negative nancys on here should be looking to go elsewhere. If you dont like WDW and the pace at which they update attractions, dont go.