Club 32 Lounge

[spacemt354]

Toad's going to be a coaster, so it has to be a D at least, but Pan could be a D.

Alright -- well can we just focus on one attraction

Alice for example...why is it an E-ticket? Or if we don't want to use the ticket system...why is it a big name attraction?

What is the facade? The plot? The ride vehicle? The scenes?

 

[Brer Oswald]

The only ones I personally have big ideas for are Pan and Alice. I'm on the same page as you guys now DW. If anyone wants to join me, feel free to!

 

[Brer Oswald]

Alright -- well can we just focus on one attraction

Alice for example...why is it an E-ticket? Or if we don't want to use the ticket system...why is it a big name attraction?

What is the facade? The plot? The ride vehicle? The scenes?

Alice is a trackless. It's an E solely based on the expense that would be required to make the complex scenes of Wonderland and the ride system.

 

[Daveeeeed]

Alright -- well can we just focus on one attraction

Alice for example...why is it an E-ticket? Or if we don't want to use the ticket system...why is it a big name attraction?

What is the facade? The plot? The ride vehicle? The scenes?

Whatever we use ticket system or not I just mean the grandest scale attraction.

I'll make it if you guys are okay with that.

I think it's just to have an idea of what makes sense. We don't want to accidently have a dozen headliners.

 

[spacemt354]

Alice is a trackless. It's an E solely based on the expense that would be required to make the complex scenes of Wonderland and the ride system.

Okay -- well if we really want to consider realism..if Disney is investing this much into Alice, then other areas will have to be demoted and budget restricted.

If an Alice E is what we want to do -- we now need to address some areas that should be in the realm of more classic style dark rides and or family coasters

 

[spacemt354]

Whatever we use ticket system or not I just mean the grandest scale attraction.

I'll make it if you guys are okay with that.

I think it's just to have an idea of what makes sense. We don't want to accidently have a dozen headliners.

That's what I'm trying to avoid as well - while this is all blue sky it is more fun to think that this could actually happen -- and with Disney I've never seen a land that had more than 2 E-tickets.

So if Alice is an E -- and we are sticking to realism, than only one more can be an E.

 

[Daveeeeed]

Does everyone understand when I'm using the ticket system I don't mean the original demand based way... I mean the scale of the attraction whether it's popular or not. Like Pirates is an E even though its wait times are usually less than Peter Pan which is a C.

 

[Brer Oswald]

Okay -- well if we really want to consider realism..if Disney is investing this much into Alice, then other areas will have to be demoted and budget restricted.

If an Alice E is what we want to do -- we now need to address some areas that should be in the realm of more classic style dark rides and or family coasters

The issue with that is that more classic style dark rides don't cut it in 2017 (unless you are just referring to 4 minute track ride, and not low tech ride). One thing we cannot do is make a ride with static figures like what FL has now. It's painfully showing it's age. Also, the whole idea behind this project is having the best of the best. Multiple headliners aren't realistic, but this doesn't have to be realistic.

 

[Daveeeeed]

That's what I'm trying to avoid as well - while this is all blue sky it is more fun to think that this could actually happen -- and with Disney I've never seen a land that had more than 2 E-tickets.

So if Alice is an E -- and we are sticking to realism, than only one more can be an E.

True, but this Fantasyland seems to be more like a mega land -- sort of like World Showcase except with regions not pavilions. Obviously much smaller, but this is more like two lands in one than just one. So for that reason I think 3 should be the limit.

 

[Brer Oswald]

What my intent for this project was to create a "best of" Magic Kingdom park in which we created whatever rides we wanted that fit within the theme. Maybe our issue is treating this as a realistic park, and not just a bunch of attractions and lands.

 

[spacemt354]

The issue with that is that more classic style dark rides don't cut it in 2017 (unless you are just referring to 4 minute track ride, and not low tech ride). One thing we cannot do is make a ride with static figures like what FL has now. It's painfully showing it's age. Also, the whole idea behind this project is having the best of the best. Multiple headliners aren't realistic, but this doesn't have to be realistic.

Yeah, but to be honest, that's too easy creatively to just make an entire land of large scale attractions.

I think I mentioned this before -- but I would recommend a timeline of events.

Perhaps this park opened in 1971 (same as the Magic Kingdom in WDW) -- hypothetically let's say this is a new version of the MK in WDW.

The opening day attractions would be the classic dark rides, with static AAs. As time goes on, maybe we have a 90s dark ride (Beauty and the Beast), and then an expansion in the early 2000s with a trackless ride vehicle. And then further expansions in the 2010s.

A timeline would really help this project. You are right, Disney won't make static figure classic rides anymore -- but if we are taking today's climate into account, you'd never see this kind of land being built all at once.

 

[Brer Oswald]

Yeah, but to be honest, that's too easy creatively to just make an entire land of large scale attractions.

I think I mentioned this before -- but I would recommend a timeline of events.

Perhaps this park opened in 1971 (same as the Magic Kingdom in WDW) -- hypothetically let's say this is a new version of the MK in WDW.

The opening day attractions would be the classic dark rides, with static AAs. As time goes on, maybe we have a 90s dark ride (Beauty and the Beast), and then an expansion in the early 2000s with a trackless ride vehicle. And then further expansions in the 2010s.

A timeline would really help this project. You are right, Disney won't make static figure classic rides anymore -- but if we are taking today's climate into account, you'd never see this kind of land being built all at once.

Space, stop taking all of these realistic limitations into account. We are coming up with fake Disney attractions that will never exist on a Disney fan message board. I just want everyone to express their creativity. Maybe let's not make a park, but just individual lands. Say the Ultimate Fantasyland, or the Ultimate Tomorrowland. Then, if we want to make a realistic park, we just pull the best ones. I just want to see the maximum creative ideas from everyone.

 

[spacemt354]

What my intent for this project was to create a "best of" Magic Kingdom park in which we created whatever rides we wanted that fit within the theme. Maybe our issue is treating this as a realistic park, and not just a bunch of attractions and lands.

Well -- see I didn't know this. I believe this is where the vision disconnect has been coming from. I think a lot of us have been viewing this through (somewhat) of a realistic lens, and that influences our opinions/choices for rides and placements.

Personally, I don't see what's wrong with you creating an amazing Alice or Peter Pan attraction, to be included in a more realistic land. Basically writing you a blank check to do whatever you want with your attraction if you could compromise on the overall scope of the land -- and be comfortable with a more realistic approach to it. Does that sound good?

 

[Brer Oswald]

Well -- see I didn't know this. I believe this is where the vision disconnect has been coming from. I think a lot of us have been viewing this through (somewhat) of a realistic lens, and that influences our opinions/choices for rides and placements.

Personally, I don't see what's wrong with you creating an amazing Alice or Peter Pan attraction, to be included in a more realistic land. Basically writing you a blank check to do whatever you want with your attraction if you could compromise on the overall scope of the land -- and be comfortable with a more realistic approach to it. Does that sound good?

Sure. I'm not going to keep arguing and make myself look like an idiot. I respect you too much as a friend to do that.

 

[spacemt354]

Space, stop taking all of these realistic limitations into account. We are coming up with fake Disney attractions that will never exist on a Disney fan message board. I just want everyone to express their creativity. Maybe let's not make a park, but just individual lands. Say the Ultimate Fantasyland, or the Ultimate Tomorrowland. Then, if we want to make a realistic park, we just pull the best ones. I just want to see the maximum creative ideas from everyone.

If this is the direction you want to go in that's fine. However, I wasn't aware that this was the objective of the project and we are 40 something pages in. I've always assumed (and we've had several conversations here) taking realism into account.

I've gotten lost in the last dozen or so brainstorming pages, so I'm going to end for tonight and just come back tomorrow.

 

[Brer Oswald]

If this is the direction you want to go in that's fine. However, I wasn't aware that this was the objective of the project and we are 40 something pages in. I've always assumed (and we've had several conversations here) taking realism into account.

I've gotten lost in the last dozen or so brainstorming pages, so I'm going to end for tonight and just come back tomorrow.

No it's okay. Let's just do what everyone has been doing. Honestly I'm more of an obstacle than a help with this project and I should probably just leave.

 

[spacemt354]

No it's okay. Let's just do what everyone has been doing. Honestly I'm more of an obstacle than a help with this project and I should probably just leave.

Can you please not jump to leaving. Nobody is mad at you.

All that I'm trying to do here is find some middle ground where everyone can add to the project. That's the point of this thread really. Everyone can participate, whether it's a small or large contribution it doesn't matter. A never-ending brainstorming thread.

But when we all are contributing to one big mega project, that doesn't work when we can't find compromises.

 

[spacemt354]

@kap91 what's your opinion on this?

I have a solution but I want to hear your opinion first just to gauge your thoughts.

 

[kap91]

This project hasn't been realistic for about most of the thread. And that's ok. We left realistic behind when we said this wasn't a redo but of WDW but our own land. A land like this, with the scale and amount of attractions, would only be built in modern times and even then only about 1/3 of it would be present at opening day. Taking probably 20 years to fill out. Unless you drastically want to change the types of attractions we've talked about.

This is a dream/blue sky project whether that was the intention or not. If individuals want to try to make a realistic compromise - maybe you can figure out the opening day attractions and what would be built later? Keeping in mind that in the real world phase 2 often never happens or changes.

 

[spacemt354]

This project hasn't been realistic for about most of the thread. And that's ok. A land like this, with the scale and amount of attractions, would only be built in modern times and even then only about 1/3 of it would be present at opening day. Taking probably 20 years to fill out. Unless you drastically want to change the types of attractions we've talked about.

This is a dream/blue sky project whether that was the intention or not. If individuals want to try to make a realistic compromise - maybe you can figure out the opening day attractions and what would be built later? Keeping in mind that in the real world phase 2 often never happens or changes.

For the sake of the project I'm willing to just accept this and move on. It wasn't my initial thoughts when starting this project, but I really don't care just as long as everyone is happy and wanting to contribute concepts.

I do wonder if this has been blue sky though... I don't understand why we've had conversations about size constraints and such over the last week or so. Why even bother if it's all blue sky?

I'm fine with "Ultimate Fantasyland" and with that -- eliminate the hindrance of placing it in a park or anything. It's just a practice land.

 

[kap91]

For the sake of the project I'm willing to just accept this and move on. It wasn't my initial thoughts when starting this project, but I really don't care just as long as everyone is happy and wanting to contribute concepts.

I do wonder if this has been blue sky though... I don't understand why we've had conversations about size constraints and such. Why even bother if it's all blue sky?

I'm find with "Ultimate Fantasyland" and with that -- eliminate the hindrance of placing it in a park or anything. It's just a practice land.

I mean I guess because it's still trying to be somewhat realistic in terms of "well it could be built technically".

Idk. It's a good conversation to have. Maybe we go down a more realistic road (we're only a week into brainstorming after all). Maybe our park owner is the OLC and they have a ton of money lol. I just don't think we should take ourselves too seriously or have hurt feelings and such.

Ultimately though it's up to the people who started this thread and project - which isn't me. I'll be happy to go with whatever the decision is.