ToTBellHop
Well-Known Member
That was the other $250m that kept this from making money.And the scary cheekbone implants.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News 'Beyond Big Thunder Mountain' Blue Sky concept revealed for Magic Kingdom
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
GhostHost1000
Premium Member
They are trying so hard to make encanto and coco more popular to Disney fans than they really are vs other ideas for sure
neo999955
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
I think this is more of a generational difference. For the kids whoa are growing up now, these movies (plus Frozen + Moana) are going to be as nostalgic and beloved as the movies we grew up loving. Not that they'll replace the other Disney classics, but they're betting on future generations and their ability to become full-on classics over time. Personally, of course, you may disagree - we won't really know for decades.
Timothy_Q
Well-Known Member
I appreciate Disney being (relatively) quicker to turn succesfull movies into rides this time around than they were in the last animation renaissance.
Little Mermaid and BatB took 20+ years to get rides, and Aladdin and Lion King never got anything better than spinners/shows
The Frozen lands in comparison will have been 10 years after the movie, and Moana, Encanto and Coco will likely be around 10 years also
Little Mermaid and BatB took 20+ years to get rides, and Aladdin and Lion King never got anything better than spinners/shows
The Frozen lands in comparison will have been 10 years after the movie, and Moana, Encanto and Coco will likely be around 10 years also
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
I was going to argue that the Frozen ride is really bad and doing it quickly maybe wasn't a good idea -- but then I remembered the Little Mermaid ride is pretty bad too. I do think it's better than Frozen Ever After (not that that's saying much) but it's also a D instead of a C so it benefits just from the additional length/scale.
On the other hand, while The Beauty and the Beast ride looks disappointing compared to what it could/should have been, it's dramatically better than those two and also better than almost everything else they've built at WDW in the past decade.
Timothy_Q
Well-Known Member
I would say the quality of a ride comes down to just budget and the taste level of the people in charge
Fido Chuckwagon
Well-Known Member
Little Mermaid is fine for what it is. We need more C-ticket omnimovers, not less.
James Alucobond
Well-Known Member
It's fine, but they should be shoring up some of the deficiencies in it to attract more people since it's a good people-eater.
Yeah, that's not what happened. I said:I know...I thought I remembered it being successful enough, but someone else on here disagreed with me.
Mal1 got only fair to good reviews and made not too much at the B.O.
I acknowledged the movies was profitable, but... with a $230M budget, it only profited $34 (that's what *it made* -- I wasn't talking about gross revenue). And my point included its bad reviews. It was not a *really big* success. Just a modest one. I would agree it was "successful enough". But was it good enough to warrant a sequel?
And given that Mal2 got worse reviews and lost money...
You are demonstrably wrong. They are really that popular. Frozen and Moana popular.
Mermaid ride has non-articulating, rigid plastic fish either glued to a wall or turning slightly back an forth mounted on visible sticks.
And that's in its best scene.
It is bad in so many ways.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
I think that more or less goes without saying -- more the latter than the former. Of course budget matters, but we've seen several attractions with large budgets that did not turn out very well (the aforementioned Little Mermaid being one, and I'd argue Guardians too if talking solely from a storytelling/theme perspective). A really skilled designer will likely build a better attraction with a smaller budget than a less skilled designer would build with a larger one.
Last edited:
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
It was supposed to be a D ticket and cost over $100 million.
Thing is, even as a C ticket it wouldn't be very good. While I don't think FEA is good at all, it has better AAs than Little Mermaid as a C ticket (even with the handicap of the terrible projected faces). NRJ is a C ticket with a setting/detail that's 10000x better than anything in the Little Mermaid.
Last edited:
ToTBellHop
Well-Known Member
And what it has was largely broken last month. It was shameful.
Villains0501
Well-Known Member
Oh, it was you, yeah, not sure why you're splitting hairs about this, or implying that I'm misconstruing something.
The quality of the film was not my point, so whether the film was "good enough" to warrant a sequel had nothing to do with it. I didn't care for either film, so that's where I stand.
My point was merely that the original Maleficent film did well enough to warrant a sequel. Films that don't do well enough in their initial outing do not usually get sequels (i.e. John Carter).
Centauri Space Station
Well-Known Member
Better than Pandora? Guardians? ROTR?
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
I don't think it looks better than ROTR (one of the reasons I said almost). I do think it looks better than Guardians and FoP, though. Guardians is a fun coaster but fails pretty hard at theming/story and that really knocks it down for me; I don't think it's anything special. Since they missed so badly on the story aspect it's essentially about the physical thrill, and sheer physical thrill alone doesn't do that much for me (I know I'm a weird outlier here; usually people that don't like coasters don't like them because of stuff like motion sickness but that's not a problem for me -- I just don't find them very engaging). While I'd take it over something like Incredible Hulk or Velocicoaster, which basically elicit a shrug from me, I think Revenge of the Mummy, Expedition Everest, BTMR, and Hagrid's are all better.
I like FoP and think it's about as good a simulator as you could possibly build, but the fact that it's just a simulator puts a ceiling on how interesting it can be for me. I feel like I can get about 90% of the experience just watching the ride video in 4K on a big screen at home; I never feel like that on rides with tangible elements and physical depth (that doesn't mean having physical sets automatically makes something better, though -- FoP is better than plenty of rides with physical sets).
Last edited:
Fido Chuckwagon
Well-Known Member
Not every ride needs to be Rise of the Resistance. My kids love Mermaid and always have. It is. A fun ride with a decent ride time, and decent queue that eats a ton of people. Disney’s problem is that it only tries to make ROTR type rides now, and they are too expensive to mass produce.
Tha Realest
Well-Known Member
Yes. And the newer ride experiences have less CAPACITY. Great Movie Ride could push through 2400/hr, whereas MMRR does about 1660/hr. FOP does about 1500/hr, whereas ROTF (when it works) has a theoretical capacity of 1700/hr.
Pirates? Haunted Mansion? Those are workhorses.
I've found the queue to be mostly empty because people avoid it. It contains interactive windows with Sebastian that are too high up for children to see and obviously, holds up the line. Last time I went thru it, the roof was leaking.
A D-level dark omnimover needs to be appealing to adults, too. It's not a Dumbo spinner or the Goofy child's first coaster ride.