Cheap thrill rides...Possible future?

[bearboysnc]

Originally posted by isnet396
If you want to take it that far, then everything is off the shelf. RnR was custom designed. Splash and Thunder are original ideas. Just because they are/were enormously popular at a different park and rebuilt elsewhere doesn't make it off the shelf.
Ian

You're right. DUMBO is an "off the shelf ride" it was has been lavishly upgraded to a wonderful Disney classic.

These days ALL rollercosters are custom designed to some extent to fit the elevations they are placed in. They just don't build a coasters and wait for someone to buy it.

 

[Small_Worldboy]

Here's something that just "popped into my head".....

Walt Disney was the First man/the first company to EVER make a teel-tube/rail/whatever rollercoaster..they had ALL been Wood bnefore that..so technically Disney made the first one...which was all-THEMED.....so Once again....IAO, and 6 Flags, and Cp, and all that have/had taken that idea from Walt.....and The Big Float Flumes...from POT, and IASW, were their idea, and teh Omnimover....

So what I'm trying to say is that Many of these "cheap" rides thta u see at Cp, and 6 Flags, and the like, are actually Disney's Original rides, but because they are constantly used, and look cheap/are not themeed and all that...so..(it's hard 2 explain this)
but like they all made these things look cheap, and 'cuase of that I think that they would look stupid, because people have become "immune" to seeing these things in cheap parks, w/ out all the themeing, and Magic that Disney has, so when ever someone sees one, they think..."oh well look at that"...Disneuy is making themeselves cheap...o that's why they should not put one in their park w/ out at least themeing, because, even though Disney made them....the other company's gave them the "reputation of looking cheap"...so it's kinda like Disney can't even use their own ideas ne more....(i know thta this is long and confusing, but it's always hard for me too explain things like this )......Thank u for ur time

 

[DisneyKrazed]

First off. If your not a Disney Nut then you don't think anything at Cedar Point (esspecialy) or Six Flags "cheap". Dirty most likely, cheap I really doubt that. Second. NO ONE in this post implied that there would be no theming! No theming = Not up to Disney's Standards. Once again, Dueling Dragons with more theming during the ride section equals Disney quality, most thrilling ride on property, one less resson to to go Universal, and a whole lot more teens will want to go to the park! Look at what ToT and RRC did for MGM! Now picture those ride but twice as thrilling and with better theming. Coasters don't have to be about height or speed, just a fun exciting ride that leaves you wanting more. Now I'm in the mood for Dueling Dragons. :animwink:

Now I feel better. Sorry for ranting

 

[DisneyKrazed]

Sorry about the double post.

 

[jmarc63]

Personally, I think a coaster is to easy of an idea to use for attractions. The reason is that I have a Six Flags near me and every new ride they intall every few years seems to always be a coaster, very few if any new non-coasters get built, thats whats makes disney diffrent was they didn't sucumb to the "lets put a coaster every few yards ' kind of thing. Meaning don't build a coaster just for the sake of building one. It took to a few years for them to do a coaster with the matterhorne at DL and untill 75 to do SM at WDW.

 

[MrNonacho]

Originally posted by Small_Worldboy
Here's something that just "popped into my head".....

Walt Disney was the First man/the first company to EVER make a teel-tube/rail/whatever rollercoaster..they had ALL been Wood bnefore that..so technically Disney made the first one...

Hate to burst your bubble, but Arrow Dynamics gets the credit for the Matterhorn. They also played a big part in creating many of the classic Disney ride systems.

 

[Cliff]

R&RC at MGM IS a "pre-fabricated" roller coaster....( a "custom one" )

Ever ordered a car/truck from General Motors? You ask them for specific features you want bolted on? Same thing...sort of.

The tracks are the same ones designed for many other coasters around the world. They are just welded into the shape Disney wants it in....nothing out of the ordinary for these Caoster builders.

I think that big fast, steel thrill rides...."can"...work if they are made properly.

"Work" meaning cost realitively low amout of money and most importantly, draw NEW crowds.

Anyone know how much Rockin' RC cost? This is a bit too fancy for the "cheap thrills" rides I'm talking about.

Hmmm.

How many people would go straight to Animal Kingdom tomorrow if they had a new looping steel coaster in Asia AND a new stand up one in Dinoland?

I'd go to AK more often

 

[ucf disneyfan]

I'd hate to be rude (considering that I've never bashed anyone on here) but I think something needs to be said. In my opinion 10021982 is an idiot! If he wants cheap thrills he should go to Busch Gardens. The reason people go to Disney World is because they know they are getting a quality ride. If Disney starts building outdoor coasters with little to no theming I will be very dissapointed. Why would they continue to have Imagineers? If this were the case they would need five guys to think up names of the different coasters. I'm excited to see more rides like TT and ToT. They are the most unique rides ever. I hope that Disney makes the right choice and doesn't go the cheap and easy way.

 

[Natelox]

incase ya'll don't know... <A HREF=http://www.rcdb.com/installationgallery769.htm?Picture=2>here</A> is an EXACT clone of rockin roller coaster

i think disney should put in major roller coasters. all the parks in orlando (with the exception of WDW) have themed their roller coasters very poorly i must admit, but, take a <A HREF=http://www.rcdb.com/installationgallery776.htm?Picture=11>look</A> at what good themeing can do! (I must admit that there are better pics, but i didn't feel like finding an excelent one.)

IMO, disney really screwed up with the themeing of primevil whril, it looks SUEPR ugly, but if they could actually take the time to theme it, it would increase intendance and would still fit the disney profile.

 

[DisneyKrazed]

Originally posted by ucf disneyfan
I'd hate to be rude (considering that I've never bashed anyone on here) but I think something needs to be said. In my opinion 10021982 is an idiot! If he wants cheap thrills he should go to Busch Gardens. The reason people go to Disney World is because they know they are getting a quality ride. If Disney starts building outdoor coasters with little to no theming I will be very dissapointed. Why would they continue to have Imagineers? If this were the case they would need five guys to think up names of the different coasters. I'm excited to see more rides like TT and ToT. They are the most unique rides ever. I hope that Disney makes the right choice and doesn't go the cheap and easy way.

No one every said that Disney would become a "cheap" (if thats what you want to call it) park! One or two coasters that are highly themed, once again very heavy themingwill not make it a cheap park. Don't have such a closed mind, just think of what A coaster or TWO would do for Disney World! Imagineers would sure still have a job. Did you see the pictures of nemesis? Does that look like a cheap easy way out. Put a coaster like that in Animal Kindom and increase its popularity by 25% sure is a easy way out. It's not like there going to become a Six Flags!

 

[Cliff]

ucf disneyfan:

I started with a "rude" reply....but then decided against it. Because, Just like you, I hate to be "rude" as well. Only , I hate it so much that I won't do it.

So, I'll take the high road here.

I LOVE the work that WDI aspires to do as much as everyone else...if not more....maybe MUCH more. WDI is the single largest reason that I love the parks.

I'm only playing "devils advocate" here on what options Disney has in dealing with the company's revenue problems.

Unfortunatly, Disney is faced with the problem of needing to do more with less...MUCH more with MUCH less.

In the past ten years, WDW is now faced with VERY stiff competition that is slowly eroding ticket sales. This competition gets stronger and more creative every day. (look at Spiderman...I'm sure that ride humbled our best Imagineers when they rode it.)

I am a WDI "purist". If Imagineering was a religion, I would be a priest and missionary. People find my appartment to be a very scary shrine and altar for WDI.

Dude, I'm only tossing these idea's into the ring for us to smack around a bit. If I had MY way, I'd build one epic scale, mega-themed, proprietary technolgy, Mission Space caliber attraction in every park.....every year....complete with their own custom symphony orchestra scores!!!

Sadly, MY way would break the company in half!

So, don't fu.......No, .....I won't do it.

I truly do hate being ....well,....."rude".

CT



:hammer:

 

[wed050499]

Hey everyone,

I'm going to throw a few points of consideration out to all of you.

First, after working at WDW and participating in Guest Satisfaction Measurements quite often and taking classes in why Disney has and is still doing better than all the competition (from a financial standpoint at their theme parks), two major points came up.

-One- People love our themes, love our stories, love our atmosphere leading up to a ride (call it the queue theming if you want, but it's much much more when you throw the technicals of the measurement in there), and simply love how we do our rides. The main reason for all this is that, as is said numerous times in Lilo & Stitch, nobody gets left behind. Meaning that we don't have that many rides that everyone can't go on. Sure we have RnR, TOT, SM, but to complement them we have Muppets, Star Tours, Buzz Lightyear, just to name a few. IOA doesn't have that complimentarity right next to their thrill rides.

-Two- People love the fact that there are things to do when it rains. The largest complaint I would here about IOA was that everything was closed when it rains. A few things, Spiderman for example stay open, but coaster like Hulk and Dueling Dragons shut down.

Second, I love roller coasters as much as anyone else. I've been to a few Six Flags parks, am going to CP soon, and been to a few other amusement parks with good coasters and I enjoy myself. But even at BG Williamsburg where the theming on Lochness or Big Bad Wolf is awesome, it's not something that sticks with me after I get off it. That's what doesn't do it for me. Now that's a personal preference, but I believe it's shared by a good number of people. I really enjoy getting off POTC or Peter Pan's Flight and remember that I had an experience, not just a thrill. Same goes with Disney thrill rides. Disney is very careful that when you get off, you go away with an experience, hence TOT.

Well, again, thanks for the time, talk again soon,
Brian

 

[cookiee_munster]

...

"I think Air at Alton towers cost £10 million with very little themeing, but its a great ride, that placed in the correct location with a theme built around it would be excellent."

air actually cost 12m and beleive me us alton towers fanatics dont know where the hell this money has gone.

I and many of us would prefer a really expensive disney ride cus let me tell u us in england are deprived of disney standard rides.

As for duelling dragons i think its done terribly well if your all saying its not upto disney standards. I was blown away by its theming and ride. I would be upto having one of these rollercoasters in Disney as long as disney themes it twice as well!

 

[FourFourSeven]

Hi all. Newbie, first post, long-time Disney fan.

First off, I LOVE big roller coasters. I visit my local Six Flags each year or so. When I happen to be near parks with well-known coasters, I will often visit them.

That being said, if there were a bunch of roller coasters in the Disney parks in plain view with people screaming, I would scream myself. Why? It would take away from the attention to detail and themeing that makes Disney feel "magical." Just imagine: "Oh, look, I'm in Frontierland! And here go some people screaming by me on a roller coaster!" It just doesn't fit.

Also, big roller coasters do not a far-away vacation destination make. I'm not going to fly 3 hours to go on big roller coasters, when I've got essentially equal attractions nearby.

I agree that some cheap coasters might help draw some of the local crowd from other parks. But will that make a major difference for them? I figure the people who make it a vacation destination account for the lions share of the revenue, and tend to spend far more than locals, as well (spending $$$ on lodging, 3 meals/day, souveniers, and so on).

Let me put it this way - which would make you more likely to take your next trip to Disney - Mission: Space, or 5-10 unthemed coasters like you'd find at a local Six Flags, sticking out like sore thumbs? I'd pick Mission:Space.

 

[Ash]

After reading through all these posts, I've found that many of you have made valid, logical points. Here's my opinion.

A few thrill rides WILL attract the teenage audience and compete against parks like Universal IOA, for example. But some people will always prefer parks with many thrill rides over a family oriented park like WDW. Let's face it: not everyone cares about the "magic". Still, an outdoor roller coaster probably would seem tacky (the screaming), even if it is themed wonderfully.

So why not make another indoor roller coaster that is up to par with Disney's other rides as far as theming goes, but is up to par with competing amusement parks as far as the thrill factor goes? Indoor, thrilling rides are very popular - they get you out of the heat and/or rain temporarily while also pleasing the thrill-seekers that feel most of Disney's rides just aren't exciting enough.

One or two indoor thrill rides that are uninstrusive to the rest of the park's calm atmosphere can only increase the attendance. WDW is supposed to be family oriented, right? Well where are the rides for today's teenagers (besides TOT, RRC, TT)? They're part of the family as well... and they're the ones who probably convince mom & dad to take a trip to IOA instead of going to Disney for another day when they go on vacation.

 

[FigmentDream]

Ummmmm, who ever said you can't have incredibly well themed high thrill coasters?

Why couldn't Disney put a mostly thrill ride park and still keep it up to the high themeing standards that they have?

THey do call the people that build their parks Imagineers for a reason they are not just your ordinary egineers. There is no reason to think that any mosntrous coaster could not be themed just as well as say, Big Thunder Mountain, tracks can be incorperated into landscapes of hills, forests and mountains, coaster trains can be shaped and molded to look like anything to fit a storyline and any expereince can be made incredible wiht a little Disney Magic, thrown in coaster or not.

I think that adding a park with a more of a teen focus would be smart, I mean teens are part of a family too, let there be a park that is more centered around say 12+ in the thrill department but let it have the emense and emmerxive themeing that Disney has home grown, and you never know you might start to get teens hooked onto Disney Magic and even appreaciate the slower rides in other parks.

 

[DisneyKrazed]

Originally posted by FigmentDream
Ummmmm, who ever said you can't have incredibly well themed high thrill coasters?

Why couldn't Disney put a mostly thrill ride park and still keep it up to the high themeing standards that they have?

THey do call the people that build their parks Imagineers for a reason they are not just your ordinary egineers. There is no reason to think that any mosntrous coaster could not be themed just as well as say, Big Thunder Mountain, tracks can be incorperated into landscapes of hills, forests and mountains, coaster trains can be shaped and molded to look like anything to fit a storyline and any expereince can be made incredible wiht a little Disney Magic, thrown in coaster or not.

I think that adding a park with a more of a teen focus would be smart, I mean teens are part of a family too, let there be a park that is more centered around say 12+ in the thrill department but let it have the emense and emmerxive themeing that Disney has home grown, and you never know you might start to get teens hooked onto Disney Magic and even appreaciate the slower rides in other parks.

Exactly! I agree with many of yoru points with the exception of a brand new park deticated to thrills. Disney is a family destination and a thrill park isn't all that family "like". Besides theres plenty to do to the parks built already. Anyway I don't know what half you people are thinking saying big roller coasters in Frontierland would ruin themes. I mean they will be THEMED up to Disney standards and my bet is Disney won't go to Intamin and ask for a Giga Coaster. Although a teen like me appreciates the dark slow rides along with the thrill rides in Disney many of my peers do not agree with this point. Just intergrated another thrill ride into all the parks will make a diffrence in attendance, that I can assure you.

 

[cymbaldiva]

Another park? I really do not think that would be wise!

There is already SOOO much to do at WDW that it makes the mind spin...I really do not feel that yet another park is the answer to anything.

 

[wed050499]

Hello again all,

I just wanted to post some information I found out during my time working at WDW about such an idea as a thrill park targeted towards teens. Essentially, IOA was built with the intent to draw the thrill seeker, teenage crowd. Not to say that everyone that goes there is a teen or thrill seeker, but primarilly that's who the target market is. Anyways, this, along with some management issues, is the reason why IOA is losing money in rather large amounts. I am not by any stretch of the imagination a public psychologist, however, I had the chance to see how teens reacted after visiting both Disney parks as they stand now and Universal parks. Predominately, they tended to like both sites equally as much. For me, in that respect, makes the idea of a thrill park on Disney property seem unnecessary. Instead, it seems a more logical idea for Disney to do just as they are and pour the money from a fifth park into the existing parks, improving existing attractions and areas, with adding a few e-rides every couple years to keep their repeat guests coming back. Again, looking at the figures, 85% of Disney guests are repeat visitors, let's make them happy first.

Just my thoughts,
Thanks again,
Brian

 

[FourFourSeven]

Originally posted by FigmentDream
Ummmmm, who ever said you can't have incredibly well themed high thrill coasters?

You can. I think RnR and ToT are perfect examples. But these sorts of themed thrill-rides are incredibly expensive. I thought this discussion was around building some "cheap" thrill rides. There's no such thing as a "cheap, incredibly well themed thrill ride," is there?

Originally posted by FigmentDream
There is no reason to think that any mosntrous coaster could not be themed just as well as say, Big Thunder Mountain. . .

I thought I read somewhere once that Thunder Mountain cost more to build than many entire amusement parks. Needless to say, not cheap.

Originally posted by Ash
One or two indoor thrill rides that are uninstrusive to the rest of the park's calm atmosphere can only increase the attendance

I agree. However, then you're dealing with cost issues, once you put the ride indoors. Again, not "cheap." Are more indoor thrill rides the best use of capital (i.e. will they generate the greatest return in the form of more visitors who spend more $$$)? Perhaps, but it's not a simple "cheap" solution.

Originally Posted by DisneyKrazed
Disney is a family destination and a thrill park isn't all that family "like".

Neither is a nightclub spot where they have waiters walking around offering shots of various high-potency alcoholic beverages. But Disney's got that.

Nevertheless, to those who suggest a new Disney "thrill" park - again, I just don't know if it's the best use of capital. IOA decided not to compete head-on with Disney. For the most part, they're not going for the family with young kids - they picked a different target segment (teens and young adults). Now, will Disney see the best return by competing in this crowded segment? Or by shoring up its strength (families, especially with young kids, and older people)?

Yes, I would love to see a Disney's take on a "carnival park." But, (granted with a limited amount of data), it just doesn't seem to make economic sense.