Are we on the cusp of major attraction announcements??!!

[Crazy Harry]

i'm thinking Camp Minnie and Mickey needs a ride over there, I mean all they have is The Lion King Show, so that draws crowds, but then they basically have to walk across the park to get to another big attraction..., i didnt read your whole artical b/c i'm off to school i'll read and comment more later!!

MickeyMan101

Well, I have a lot of ideas concerning what can be done with AK, but with camp minnie mickey I thought instead of include a ride just scrap it all together and make an AK fantasyland type area with a Jungle book and a tarzan ride, but I agree that right now it is not an effective use of space.

 

[Crazy Harry]

Agree with everything but the COP comment, that is a staple of the parks. I was not around on its debut but I love it to this day. There are still many people out there that love the nostalgic quality about it. In my OPINION, it should stay right where it is. But thats me......:wave:

I think it should stay too. I was just saying that there have been some heavy rumors that COP would be replaced by a flying saucer attraction, why not keep COP and build that attraction in another section of Tomorrowland, although with the current influx of characters COP is starting to not fit in as well as it used to.

 

[mousermerf]

Epcot has Living Seas and SSE both with rehab walls (SSE's post-show currently) but neither has been announced/official.

I assume during the Everest opening or sooner we'll get word on those two projects and some surprises too.

 

[Crazy Harry]

Isn't it a bit early to be calling it a huge success when it hasn't even offiially opened yet? Sure it's getting lots of preview crowds, but what doesn't when it first previews/soft opens. If it's still pulling those kinds of crowds a couple years down the line AFTER other things have been built (like Test Track for instance) THEN I'd call it a huge hit. Not prior to it's grand opening.

I suppose I am a little premature. It's easy to forget EE is not offically open yet, however the prospects are pretty promising.

 

[mousermerf]

Everest is well recieved, M:S on the other hand, was not, and now is struggling. Same for Stitch.

Everest will do well and bolster AK attendance (already has actually)

 

[brkgnews]

On second thought... maybe we should just supersize Drew Carey Sounds Dangerous!
:lookaroun

 

[speck76]

It is hard to say.....either way.

In WDW's last big round of expansion (94-99) it seems like major attractions were added yearly.......but the same can be said about the 2002-2006 timeframe.

We already "know" that something is happening with TLS, and that Tarzan ROCKS! is being replaced. We also know that PotC is getting upgraded, and if tradition follows, The Jungle Cruise and Haunted Mansion will see upgrades too.

Beyond that, I am not sold on additional major attractions for the next few years.

If you look at the last few years, the rate of expansion and renovation has been huge at MK and Epcot, and significant at DAK.

MK:
Philharmagic
SGE
Cinderellabration
Wishes
IaSW upgrades
PotC upgrades

Epcot:
Mission Space
Soarin'
Turtle Talk
Unannouced TLS Attraction
New Exhibit in Earth Station

MGM:
Lights, Motors, Action
Narnia Walk-through

DAK:
Dino-Rama (entire mini-land)
Everest

What is missing is significant investment in MGM.....which is really the park that needs the investment the most. On one hand, MGM is the ONLY park at WDW that has competition within the city. IoA and SeaWorld do not compete for the same crowds as MK, Epcot, or DAK.....but MGM and Universal are both similar themed, and seem to target the same core audience. In addition, MGM's attendance remains down the most from the 90's peak attendance years......the park is simply under-visited, and much of that is due to the lack of "current" attractions and shows (IMO).

So....IF there is an announcement that goes above and beyond "what we already know", I would expect it to be an addition to MGM, or new shows, parade, or something....anything, to bring this park back to being relevant.

 

[Crazy Harry]

Everest is well recieved, M:S on the other hand, was not, and now is struggling. Same for Stitch.

Everest will do well and bolster AK attendance (already has actually)

Is M:S really doing that bad? I know it experienced a little turbulence (pardon the pun) early on with bad press do to the intesity of the ride and later with the death of that child, but it didn't think it was flaundering. I personally love the ride, almost as much as I loved Horizons which is saying a lot.

 

[George]

I've looked at mousemerf's mission space poll a couple of times and 60-65% of forum members like the ride and the rest either don't like or get sick on it (or don't ride it due to warnings, feel neutrual, etc. mousemerf gave us a lot of choices). I don't know if 60-65% is normal, but I have a feeling its a bit low. Also, there has been some discussion over the last day or two about how M:S's lines are much, much smaller than Test Tracks. In my case, this is good news since I like M:S and might be able to ride it multiple times on future visits.

 

[Horizons78]

Also, there has been some discussion over the last day or two about how M:S's lines are much, much smaller than Test Tracks.

I think we may have read some things out of the same thread - but don't I remember someone stating that part of the line issue is that MS's rider capacity is large? I was under the impression it was more of a perception issue than actual low ridership...but I dunno.

 

[George]

I wondered the same thing (about the line capacity). The only way to really get to the bottom of this is to see rider numbers for each of the attractions for a year. It would be eye opening if twice as many people went on TT. Either way - higher ride capacity, lower popularity or a combination of the two (the most likely answer) its sweet for me since I like M:S a lot better than TT and can ride it more often when I visit.

 

[speck76]

I wondered the same thing (about the line capacity). The only way to really get to the bottom of this is to see rider numbers for each of the attractions for a year. It would be eye opening if twice as many people went on TT. Either way - higher ride capacity, lower popularity or a combination of the two (the most likely answer) its sweet for me since I like M:S a lot better than TT and can ride it more often when I visit.

I agree that it is most likely a combination of the two issues (lower ridership and higher capacity)

One point that I feel is important is that a ride does not have to have mass appeal for it to be good for the park.

If Mission Space only gets 1/2 the daily ridership as Spaceship Earth.....that is not a problem......If the riders that do on Mission Space are "new customers", the ride has done its job.....attracted more revenue to Epcot. Perhaps people are visiting Epcot now for the "thrill ride" experience, which prior to the attraction opening, they would have never visited Epcot, or at least not as often.

If Mission Space attracts more people to Epcot.....it is a good investment....even if it is not the most popular attraction in the park.

On the other hand, this is always why renovations to older attractions, upgraded AA's, or new "non-feature" (i.e. Philharmagic) movies are not always a good investment......people don't take additional vacations to see a more realistic AA, a new paint scheme, or a new Circle-vision film......these attractions are not "sexy"....they don't have the marketing impact of a Mission Space or EE....even though, in the long run, they might be more enjoyable to a great number of people.

 

[GothMickey]

I agree that it is most likely a combination of the two issues (lower ridership and higher capacity)

One point that I feel is important is that a ride does not have to have mass appeal for it to be good for the park.

If Mission Space only gets 1/2 the daily ridership as Spaceship Earth.....that is not a problem......If the riders that do on Mission Space are "new customers", the ride has done its job.....attracted more revenue to Epcot. Perhaps people are visiting Epcot now for the "thrill ride" experience, which prior to the attraction opening, they would have never visited Epcot, or at least not as often.

If Mission Space attracts more people to Epcot.....it is a good investment....even if it is not the most popular attraction in the park.

On the other hand, this is always why renovations to older attractions, upgraded AA's, or new "non-feature" (i.e. Philharmagic) movies are not always a good investment......people don't take additional vacations to see a more realistic AA, a new paint scheme, or a new Circle-vision film......these attractions are not "sexy"....they don't have the marketing impact of a Mission Space or EE....even though, in the long run, they might be more enjoyable to a great number of people.

Isn't that the reason certain rides are classified as e-tickets and others a,b,c,d tickets? E tickets bring the people in while A-D keeps the people there...

 

[speck76]

Isn't that the reason certain rides are classified as e-tickets and others a,b,c,d tickets? E tickets bring the people in while A-D keeps the people there...

E-tickets bring people to the park....although they may not be as "ridden" as an A-ticket. E-tickets are for marketing.....pure and simple.

I would venture to guess that one of the most ridden attractions at the MK is the Train.....its capacity is huge, and its lines are short......but I don't think a large percentage of people visit the MK just for the train.....and marketing the train is not about to bring many additional guests to the park.

 

[Horizons78]

...I would venture to guess that one of the most ridden attractions at the MK is the Train.....its capacity is huge, and its lines are short......but I don't think a large percentage of people visit the MK just for the train.....and marketing the train is not about to bring many additional guests to the park.

I think the TTA would probably be up there for many of the same reasons. Again....I would agree with you that not too large a percentage go there simply for that though. Then again...ya never know.:lookaroun

 

[MartyMouse]

If Mission Space attracts more people to Epcot.....it is a good investment....even if it is not the most popular attraction in the park.

On the other hand, this is always why renovations to older attractions, upgraded AA's, or new "non-feature" (i.e. Philharmagic) movies are not always a good investment......people don't take additional vacations to see a more realistic AA, a new paint scheme, or a new Circle-vision film......these attractions are not "sexy"....they don't have the marketing impact of a Mission Space or EE....even though, in the long run, they might be more enjoyable to a great number of people.

Would you say the Buzz Lightyear ride is an E-Ticket attraction? It uses the same track as a free attraction did, it’s just now you can move and shoot, yet people go to Tomorrowland to ride Buzz. I think Philharmagic is a large draw as well, after all Disney did market the heck out of it as they did with the Lion King Puppet show. Disney for years, in all of their marketing had always focused on Mickey Mouse (as a character in the park) and old people riding the tea-cups, neither is an e-ticket attraction. The marketability of Disney is in its brand name, new attractions give people something to talk about but the little things Disney does protects the brand and that’s what they are selling.

 

[speck76]

Sorry...I meant that Philharmagic is an "E-ticket movie".....whereas Impressions de France would be a "non-feature"......re-reading my post, this was not clear.

Buzz, I think is E-ticket.....it is not the the ride system that makes it so, but the tie-in with the movie, and the overall experience.

For years, Disney marketed "the magic", as fast as the parks have changed, so has the message that the customers want to hear. Remember that WDW, from 1971 until maybe 7 or so years ago, was still a "child"....it was still growing its base of visitors, and growing as a resort. Today, we have a mature resort, with almost every activity available to the guests.....so while in the past the message was "come see what we have", now the message is "come back and see what is new".

 

[wannab@dis]

I agree that it is most likely a combination of the two issues (lower ridership and higher capacity)

One point that I feel is important is that a ride does not have to have mass appeal for it to be good for the park.

If Mission Space only gets 1/2 the daily ridership as Spaceship Earth.....that is not a problem......If the riders that do on Mission Space are "new customers", the ride has done its job.....attracted more revenue to Epcot. Perhaps people are visiting Epcot now for the "thrill ride" experience, which prior to the attraction opening, they would have never visited Epcot, or at least not as often.

If Mission Space attracts more people to Epcot.....it is a good investment....even if it is not the most popular attraction in the park.

On the other hand, this is always why renovations to older attractions, upgraded AA's, or new "non-feature" (i.e. Philharmagic) movies are not always a good investment......people don't take additional vacations to see a more realistic AA, a new paint scheme, or a new Circle-vision film......these attractions are not "sexy"....they don't have the marketing impact of a Mission Space or EE....even though, in the long run, they might be more enjoyable to a great number of people.

Very good post, Speck. I think you nailed the jist of theme park development.

I would like to add one thing. I think they need to focus on the smaller attractions for one major reason. Enduring magic. While a romp through M:S or EE is great, I find the experience of the smaller attractions to be as fulfilling, if not more so. So sure, the Train at MK may not pull the crowds to the door, but it goes a long ways to create that wistful feeling that you want to go back and see again.

Even more so, I think people would agree that it's not just attractions that create this desire to go back. The view down Main Street after walking through the entrance is talked about all the time. So a new E-Ticket may have spurred a guest to book the trip, every time they walk through the gate, they encounter the view that keeps the magic alive.

It's a careful balance of providing a hook to get people to the parks and then bringing them back with the magic of the experience. That's the reason that I don't think a new E-ticket HAS to be built every few months. They can take advantage of the hook for a long period of time, but they need to have changes to overall experience (i.e. smaller attractions, shows, streetmosphere) to keep it fresh and inviting for return visits.

 

[Ghostbuster626]

Would you say the Buzz Lightyear ride is an E-Ticket attraction? It uses the same track as a free attraction did, it’s just now you can move and shoot, yet people go to Tomorrowland to ride Buzz. I think Philharmagic is a large draw as well, after all Disney did market the heck out of it as they did with the Lion King Puppet show. Disney for years, in all of their marketing had always focused on Mickey Mouse (as a character in the park) and old people riding the tea-cups, neither is an e-ticket attraction. The marketability of Disney is in its brand name, new attractions give people something to talk about but the little things Disney does protects the brand and that’s what they are selling.

Im sorry but Buzz lightyear is most certainly not an eticket. You would put Buzz, with its loveable cardboard cut outs and cheaply thrown together queue, in the same category as HM, POTC, Space Mountain, Splash Mountain, Star Tours, Big Thunder, and Tower of Terror?????

 

[speck76]

Im sorry but Buzz lightyear is most certainly not an eticket. You would put Buzz, with its loveable cardboard cut outs and cheaply thrown together queue, in the same category as HM, POTC, Space Mountain, Splash Mountain, Star Tours, Big Thunder, and Tower of Terror?????

At TDL (which just got rid of the old ticket system with TDS opened) the Mark Twain riverboat was an E-ticket.....