Continued: Nobody at IOA Am I daydreaming?? lol..

[MrPromey]

Okay, here's a question that might possibly turn this discussion into something a little less nit-picky than we've all made it: Rides like Hulk and DD cost CONSIDERABLY less expensive than traditional e-ticket style rides and a large number of people in this group seem to really, really like them. Do you guys think that Disney (and Universal in their other park) should start to build these types of rides? If so, in all the parks and where in each park do you think would be a good place for it? Since they are a lot cheaper and easier to develop, Disney could put a few of these in for the price of one ride like Test Track which would stretch their money a lot further both in terms of development and maintenance and if there is a large enough audience for these kinds of attractions (which contrary to what some who really like the steel monsters is a validly questionable point when you look at attendance records for parks with and without them) to offset the people that don't care, can't ride (not tall enough, pregnant, back or neck problems, too old to even think about it) or might actually be upset about the effect their presence has on the atmosphere of the park, then it would only make sense for Disney to go full force into this, wouldn't it? Just a new question for debate - I'm going to try to make this my last post in this thread, honest!

 

[The Mom]

Originally posted by MrPromey
and if there is a large enough audience for these kinds of attractions (which contrary to what some who really like the steel monsters is a validly questionable point when you look at attendance records for parks with and without them) to offset the people that don't care, can't ride (not tall enough, pregnant, back or neck problems, too old to even think about it) or might actually be upset about the effect their presence has on the atmosphere of the park, then it would only make sense for Disney to go full force into this, wouldn't it? Just a new question for debate - I'm going to try to make this my last post in this thread, honest!

I will have to state that if you are someone who enjoys various types of "thrill rides" , are in the Orlando area, and want to ride as many rides as possible in as short a time as possible, IOA is better than WDW. If you're like a lot of us, and have a family with a wide variety of tastes and physical limitations, WDW is a better choice. I've been with different family members at different times, and have faced all of the limitations Mr P has listed. I would never think of bringing my 81 year old mother to IOA. However, she can have a great time at WDW. Of course there are certain rides she'll have to skip, but there are enough other things for her to enjoy. The same thing held true when my children were little, and when I was pregnant.

And if you took the drop out of Splash, the number of people who could then go on it would make up for the number who would be "bored" by it. My mother would enjoy the ride, except for the drop. I wish they had designed it with 2 different endings!!

 

[MrPromey]

Originally posted by The Mom


I will have to state that if you are someone who enjoys various types of "thrill rides" , are in the Orlando area, and want to ride as many rides as possible in as short a time as possible, IOA is better than WDW. If you're like a lot of us, and have a family with a wide variety of tastes and physical limitations, WDW is a better choice. I've been with different family members at different times, and have faced all of the limitations Mr P has listed. I would never think of bringing my 81 year old mother to IOA. However, she can have a great time at WDW. Of course there are certain rides she'll have to skip, but there are enough other things for her to enjoy. The same thing held true when my children were little, and when I was pregnant.

And if you took the drop out of Splash, the number of people who could then go on it would make up for the number who would be "bored" by it. My mother would enjoy the ride, except for the drop. I wish they had designed it with 2 different endings!!

Why do I even bother trying to say I'm not going to post anymore? So what do you think then? Should Disney be adding these rides to it's four parks? They have a lot of other rides already which as you pointed out, accommodate for a wide range of guests. Do you think the general public would mind? Do you think most people would find something wrong with a roller coaster track being visible somewhere behind Cinderella's Castle? Sure, we all think it's cool that RnR and ToT are indoors but should Disney have just saved the money of developing the track layout for RnR themselves and putting a building around it when they could have probably made it bigger and taller for less money as an outdoor track without the lighting and on board sound systems? Is the cost of doing things in what we think of as the "Disney way" worth it or is Disney just wasting time and money on things that most people don't even take notice of? Would they have been better off with one of the off-the-shelf free fall rides instead of Tower Of Terror? They could have saved a bundle on the custom ride system they had to develop and construct along with the construction costs of the building facade. I know that in most of the rest of these forums, the answer would be what I myself think which is "Of course people would notice. These are the reasons people go to Disney"... Well, truthfully, these are the reasons that I go to Disney and I could be very, very wrong in thinking that the majority of visitors feels the same way. The people in this section, could probably better answer this question without bias. I know that from time to time, I'm guilty of ambushing people on here with seemingly innocent questions (like this one) only for it to end up being a trick for me to prove my own point with but I'm going to try really hard not to debate answers to this one because I really want to know what you all think. That's probably what I should have said in the last post rather than saying that I was going to try not to post anymore.

 

[The Mom]

I guess I didn't make myself very clear, Mr P! If I want coasters, etc. I'll go to IOA. If I have people who can't tolerate that sort of thing, I'll go to Disney. At least there are a few coasters for those who want them. I don't see the need for more coasters...I would like more innoventive, interesting rides, but not more "thrill" rides. I suspect I might be in the minority around here, but I don't know about the population at large.

I've never been on ToT or RnR, and still manage to enjoy myself at WDW! (of course, I've heard that certain people are going to take care of that...drag me on kicking and screaming, or publicly humiliate me here! )

So no, I don't want a metal coaster, etc. plopped down in front of Cinderella's castle. If they put it out of the way, like PW, I don't mind (as much)

 

[FantasiaBish]

I like them all, and if Disney were going to these tyep of "bare bones" coasters, they should just add another gate, and base in on the villians. That way if you wonted to do the coasters you could and still have the Disney atmosphere. I agree with with the mom about there being more for everyone at MK, last trip we took was everyone in my family, including my 2 yr old neice, my pregnant sister, and my 84 yr old grandmother, and we all had a great time and got to experience the whole park.

 

[ToTBellHop]

just to let you know, I love thrill rides and I still love disney over any other park...FOR their thrill rides. They have the best thrill rides I have ever been on despite arguments that IoA has bigger coasters. Cheap thrills do not excite me as much as roller coasters in the dark with extraordinarily fast LIM launches and Aerosmith music in the background. I'm sorry, but that makes for a far superior experience, in my mind. Then you can compare that joke Fearfall to the Tower of Terror...NO CONTEST. Splash Mountain is a much better experience than any of IoA's water rides...I am all for the entire experience, not cheap thrills...IoA basically has two poorly themed coasters, a joke of a drop tower, far too many water rides, and spidey. I'll take disney over that any day.

 

[MrPromey]

Originally posted by The Mom
I guess I didn't make myself very clear, Mr P!

No, it was probably me. I didn't have a lot of time to read or respond when I posted my reply to you earlier so I probably didn't read your post as carefully as I should have.

 

[David]

As others have stated, I go to WDW for the ENTIRE package, not just the rides. Now don't get me wrong, I love thrill rides, and I think that Spiderman is the best ride in Orlando---I wish Disney had a ride that could match or surpass it. But that old cliche, "Magic" is sorely missing from Universal. And as strange as it may seem, while the smaller crowds make it easier to enjoy the attractions as Disney, at Universial, I feel that the smaller crowds cheapen the entire Universal visit. It's as though everyone is there, but wanting to be at Disney instead.

 

[MrPromey]

Originally posted by DogsRule!
just to let you know, I love thrill rides and I still love disney over any other park...FOR their thrill rides. They have the best thrill rides I have ever been on despite arguments that IoA has bigger coasters. Cheap thrills do not excite me as much as roller coasters in the dark with extraordinarily fast LIM launches and Aerosmith music in the background. I'm sorry, but that makes for a far superior experience, in my mind. Then you can compare that joke Fearfall to the Tower of Terror...NO CONTEST. Splash Mountain is a much better experience than any of IoA's water rides...I am all for the entire experience, not cheap thrills...IoA basically has two poorly themed coasters, a joke of a drop tower, far too many water rides, and spidey. I'll take disney over that any day.

Personally, I agree with you but you are way entrenched in the Disney camp. Do you think most people would mind if Disney changed? BTW, when I said the part about the a track being visible around the castle, my point was that Disney takes great care in almost all cases to preserve the look and feel of an area. To me at least, the castle is pretty rather than corny because it's done with taste. The proportions are not cartoonishly exaggerated and it's meant to look like something larger than life but at the same time real... That's my opinion of it, though. Maybe others don't appreciate that kind of stuff in a park as much. A coaster track would ruin some great pictures and put a real damper on weddings in front of the castle but do you think most guests would regard it as being tacky?

 

[goofyguy]

Originally posted by MrPromey


I know that in most of the rest of these forums, the answer would be what I myself think which is "Of course people would notice. These are the reasons people go to Disney"... Well, truthfully, these are the reasons that I go to Disney and I could be very, very wrong in thinking that the majority of visitors feels the same way.

I think that the atmosphere at Disney is the reason most people go to WDW, they just don't realize it. I know several people who would never describe themselves as Disney enthusiasts, but every few years they spend a few thousand dollars to take the family to WDW. Why? Afterall we're only about a half hour from Six Flags over Texas. Because there is a feeling you get from WDW that you can't get anywhere else.

Those of us that frequent this board know why that is: It's because there's not a roller coaster looming over the castle, it's because of the theming, it's because of the attention to detail, it's because of the service. The average park goer may not notice the reasons, but I do believe they'll notice if it's gone.

 

[Luau Cove]

Originally posted by DogsRule!
MGM'S THEME IS ENTERTAINMENT!!!

I asked if you really could debate that MGM is better themed than IoA, which is impossible since MGM is not themed at all, it's a studio with many attractions, backstages and they are not united as you believe it is: they are singular themed attractions. So in yourd words that doesn't make a theme park.
You tend to say the "THEME PARKS" icons need to be seen all throughout the park. Well, I cannot see the EARFEL TOWER from anywhere in MGM, for example, but I don't complain. I think you just defend Disney for fanatism more than facts, which is nonsense. I love Disney , but I'm impartial.

-->LuAu

 

[ToTBellHop]

the Earfel Tower is not the park icon. The Sorcerer Mickey Hat is. I have no idea where you get the idea that MGM is not themed. It is THEMED as a studio. Notice that Rock 'n' Roller Coaster is housed in a STUDIO. Notice that everything is either house within a studio or is a movie set. THAT is theming. You get to live out your favorite scenes in movies and TV shows and see how Hollywood produces it's magic. Tower of Terror lets you "experience your very own episode of The Twilight Zone". Rock 'n' Roller Coaster lets you explore music. The Great Movie ride pulls you into scenes from movies. Star Tours pulls you onto a space ship blowing up the Death Star. The list goes on...how this is not a themed park, I don't know. It is extremely well-themed, every detail perfect...from the California palm trees to the stucko walls. Am I biased? Yes. But you cannot tell me disney parks don't have an obvious theme. You don't feel like you are in Florida when you visit Disney parks.

 

[Tom Morrow]

I gotta step in here, MGM Studios is very much a theme park. Even though it isn't really a studio now, its themed so you feel like you're in a studio in Hollywood. IMO, Universal Studios can never match the great "feel" of MGM Studios

 

[Billdis86]

It's still Animation!

 

[Luau Cove]

Originally posted by DogsRule!
the Earfel Tower is not the park icon. The Sorcerer Mickey Hat is.

Is this some kind of joke?

The MGM icon is and will always be the Earfel Tower. The Sorcerer's hat is just a contemporary icon which was made due to the 100 years of Disney , like the 2000 at Epcot or the Castle Cake, but it's NOT the park icon, and will not last after the celebration is over.
I thought this was pretty obvious.

-->LuAu

 

[Tom Morrow]

MGM Studios has never really had an official icon, and it still doesn't. They switch between using The Earfel Tower, The Chinese Theater(GMR), that archway, the Tower of Terror, and now, the hat. I guess it could be any of those.

 

[ToTBellHop]

look at the t-shirts that show the four park icons. MGM's is the Sorcerer Hat. The official statement where the Sorcerer Hat was "sworn in" as the park icon was on this website...it happened in December, the same time they declared the hat as a permanent structure. It's not the Earfel Tower because you cannot see it when you enter the park (notice, this is why Walt Disney Studios Paris put the tower at the entrance). It's not the Mann's Theatre front b/c it's now blocked. It's not the Tower of Terror because it's facing the wrong direction...that's why they built the Sorcerer Hat front and center, and that's why it is now displayed along with Cinderella Castle, The Tree of Life, and Spaceship Earth.

 

[FantasiaBish]

However the park icon was the Earfel Tower because on the bokk I got in 2000 "A Souvenir for the Millennium" it has the 2000 logo with the four icons underneath: Cinderella's Castle, Spaceship Earth, The Earfel Tower, and The Tree of Life.

 

[ToTBellHop]

oh...yes...the Earfel Tower was the park icon from 1989 to 2001.

 

[Luau Cove]

If the Sorcerer's Hat stays forever, I think people will still feel more identified with the Earfel Tower as an icon to the park. The fact they changed the park's icon goes with the many spoiling changes they keep doing in some places at WDW. If it's something momentanious, well, it's ok, but replace the Earfel Tower...mmm...I wouldn't dare.

-->Luau