Proud Member Since 2016
I agree with you on most of your points... they should definitely continue to make non IP attractions. To me, that has defined Disney just as much as the movies. With RR, I think that the main point was to make Mickey’s first attraction the focal point of the “retheming” of Hollywood Studios. I would’ve loved to see GMR get updated rather than removed, but I can see Disney’s logic for why they removed it; I just don’t like it. And I believe that the reason that they’re leaning on IPs more is the competition from parks such as Universal. Disney still controls the theme park industry for the most part, but Universal is becoming increasingly popular, and they solely use IPs. Families that make these once-in-a-lifetime trips may be weighing which resort gives their children more familiar characters and content. If Disney hadn’t started making the IP push, some may start to believe that they were falling behind. Hopefully after the 50th anniversary, WDI will spend a few years developing non-IP attractions after this massive splurge on IP attractions.The once in a lifetime guests have always gone to WDW regardless of what kind of attractions Disney is building. Many (dare I say most) of them loved the iconic attractions that have been closed recently, and since their first visit to WDW is a blank slate, many of them don't know exactly what it will be like, so Disney should not just assume they want to go to WDW to "see Mickey" or "see Elsa". Perhaps a guest visiting for the first time in 2019 would have loved Great Movie Ride, or Horizons, or Flights of Wonder.
As for the "new style" fans, there should be a balance. Include IP attractions where appropriate, and make sure they have staying power so that they can stick around and still be popular for many years, but also don't replace attractions just for the sake of doing so. For example, there is no reason Great Movie Ride had to close for Runaway Railway. RR could have been built in Launch Bay, AND they could have updated GMR. They should also continue to build non IP attractions that people will love regardless, such as Everest, Haunted Mansion, and even things like Test Track. All of those rides are still very popular and none of them rely on IP.
Naw, I have no problem with folks who want to live in nostalgia land (hey maybe that could be a new park) until they call me "ignorant" and claim I don't give a "crap"This is a thread that needed to be made. Now hopefully it doesn't get trashed by the same people you referenced trying to shove "Change is Good" and "Nothing is sacred" down our throats.
Here's the thing with those, though, we could have had it both ways - Disney had been designing a new iteration of the Maelstrom that turned it into something more heavily focused on Troll lore, and there's no reason Frozen - a billion dollar property - couldn't have had a purpose built ride where it belonged in The Magic Kingdom, or at worst Hollywood Studios. Then Frozen would have gotten its due and Norway would have a better attraction that still spoke to its culture. Turning Epcot into a festival of Disney Characters cheapens the rich experience of World Showcase - not to mention that Arendelle isn't a real country.I also always admit, I don't do this deep psychological analysis to theme park placement. I can see how frozen ever after clashes with world showcase, but imo the maelstrom ride sucked big time so yeah I'd rather have an new inappropriately place fun ride than something is two days older than christ and boring. The great movie ride was tired, complain to the heavens but for many it was simply 15 minutes to sit down and get out of the heat. Now sure it could have been updated and again I don't know why that wasn't considered. I have heard it was because of the cost of getting rights to the movies but again, it was time for it to go. (just my view)
Most people maybe soft on criticizing Disney because we recognize one thing, we are the consumers and at any time we do not like the direction of the parks, we criticize in the most effective way known to business. we simply stop giving them our money. Old timers can bemoan the lost of whatever they want all the live long day but REALITY is often far different. The parks are still packed to the gills.
Thanks...we will have a great trip.The dessert party plays into the OP point. Why should there be an up charge for something that was good to begin with?
wait when was the Dessert party free?? I literally went to the second one ever offered at MK and there was always a charge. Is there a new upcharge?The dessert party plays into the OP point. Why should there be an up charge for something that was good to begin with?
Also, have a great time in April (I'm not being sarcastic)
Here's the thing with those, though, we could have had it both ways - Disney had been designing a new iteration of the Maelstrom that turned it into something more heavily focused on Troll lore, and there's no reason Frozen - a billion dollar property - couldn't have had a purpose built ride where it belonged in The Magic Kingdom, or at worst Hollywood Studios. Then Frozen would have gotten its due and Norway would have a better attraction that still spoke to its culture. Turning Epcot into a festival of Disney Characters cheapens the rich experience of World Showcase - not to mention that Arendelle isn't a real country.
The Great Movie Ride could have used updates to feature newer movies and newer technology - we've certainly had plenty of both come along in the last 30 years. That's true of any ride that's been around 30 years, even the most classic of Disney attractions don't go untouched for that long. The Great Movie Ride added new clips to its reel at the end, and that was all it ever really tried. It didn't get a fair shake. The good in the ride was good enough that it's a shame to have lost it, it just needed some propping up where things sagged a little. With some respectful love in the form of a good, in depth refurb, the ride could have sparkled again. It's not like the "Ride The Movies" concept is in any way outdated -- one could argue that's more the mission of DHS now than ever before. Reportedly what did it in was that it was expensive to run and Disney thought they could build a new ride that fared better in that sense. Hence the new Mickey Ride . . . but rumor has it the new ride will have less capacity than the GMR did. So we get a shorter ride at the heart of the park that acts as less of a mission statement and will handle crowds less well . . . but is better for Disney's bottom line.
It's another situation that could have been had both ways - throw a little cash at the Great Movie Ride to get it back up to speed, replace some of the more expensive elements with different show pieces that are still exciting but less costly over time (the Tour Guides and the Flame effects seem to have been the most expensive parts, and the ride could have survived a new version without either), and then build the new Mickey ride over in the Animation Courtyard which has been begging for real investment since the Animation Tour closed. That would have set the park up to better handle the mass of people incoming for Star Wars (there is a point where the parks being packed to the gills gets to be a problem) and let the park maintain its most classic attraction while giving us a new attraction to be excited about.
Disney can afford to do all of the above - now more than ever - and I bet they'd make that money back from having investing properly in the parks. It's worked for decades, which is why so many of us care about 'The World' this much in the first place. The commitment to spectacular guest experience and service. I don't expect them to put every dollar they make back into the park, but there's a lack of wisdom in the way they keep replacing older rides with new instead of building new attractions instead. That's how you get to DHS' 30th anniversary with only a few more attractions than it had at opening. Could you imagine how exciting the park would be if they'd kept most of what they had updated and built the more recent attractions brand new? DHS would have never hit the slump it's been in over the past 2 years because the lineup would have been sturdy even before Toy Story and Star Wars Lands came online, and would be totally thrilling to visit once it was all open. It's not brain surgery, but they've been out of balance with doing what works for them and serving the guest and the effect of that can be seen in the parks. They could be doing even better business if they found that balance again.
Change is inevitable, and it's true...nothing IS sacred. Everything can be replaced. If Disney wanted to retheme Splash Mountain to a Zootopia ride tomorrow, they would. The people who complain about every little thing being changed are just as bad as the ones that claim that change is good.This is a thread that needed to be made. Now hopefully it doesn't get trashed by the same people you referenced trying to shove "Change is Good" and "Nothing is sacred" down our throats.
If you are referring to GMR as the Headliner... that hasn't happened since the early 1990's. If anything ToT had become the headliner as soon as it opened. GMR was on life support and I don't see how any amount of pumped oxygen would have revived it. It stopped being relevant as soon as they closed the studios to film making. I loved it, but, it was time to give it a proper burial. They hoped that after all the complaints about the BAH were satisfied by tearing it down, they thought with the new sponsorship it would revive, it didn't. It would be nice to think that they would continue to run a very expensive attraction that only a few went too and even fewer enjoyed, but, we all know that life is not like that. As for Ellen, it was another that lost it's pull. Even though I felt that Ellen was a vast improvement over the original, it just wasn't pulling people in anymore. The concept really wasn't all that great. It was a short display of AA's dinowise, after that it was just screens. I find that entertaining, but, so many think it is a crime to use screens. The replacement looks like a winner and will take in many more guests then GMR would have.To clarify, I'm not against change. It's when you close the headliner attraction of a park, and close classics like UoE (Preparing for a flame of people to all at once tell me it wasn't popular at the end of it's life ) for attractions that admittedly don't fit where they're going, that's when I have a problem. Another huge problem is closing classics for absolutely no reason. Look at Image Works or Wonders of Life, they've been closed for years on end with no replacement in sight. Both sit abandoned year round, and surprisingly both only use their main room when they are open. Even attractions that sucked like Circle of Life. Nobody cared about it, but it was there and rather than be replaced, it was just abandoned. This isn't exclusive to Epcot either. Look at Stitch. It's closed, dismantled, and abandoned, with no change to it in sight. All of you people blindly accepting change to anything should do a double take and look at this stuff. Why close operating attractions that people enjoy when you have empty buildings EVERYWHERE to put new attractions in first? Change is inevitable, it should just be proper change instead of Intellectual Property drivel plastered everywhere over the course of a park that meant something. End rant.
Sad, but, very true. That's why the "never change anything" have to lose so that the majority can move forward.The thing is...
Disney doesn’t update experience—-people complain there’s nothing new
Disney updates or changes experiences—-people complain they shouldn’t have changed.
As someone who's been around various Disney message boards for 15+ years, I think this really gets to the core of a lot of the issues and explains why the shift has been so dramatic in the last 2-4 years. Prior to that, the only people who were really paying attention to the parks were people who went out of their way to seek out the information and sources; it was a much smaller community, but one that had more invested in it. Today the online fan community is much larger, which naturally leads to a much wider array of interest levels and preferences.So what changed? My theory is the fanbase.
With the rise of social media over the past several years, literally anybody, anywhere, can get behind a screen and voice their opinion, no matter how misguided it may be. This has caused lots of tension in society in general, not just among Disney fans. Before the rise of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, etc, Disney fans would congregate almost exclusively on forums such as this one. We were relatively unnoticed, and Disney had no reason to change their ways of doing business, because what they had been doing for decades worked extremely well. But now, Disney fans use new platforms to discuss the parks, with Twitter becoming the main hub for people to voice their thoughts. Unfortunately, a small group of people that had little understanding of what made the parks great began to grow, and they began to compete with each other for YouTube views, Twitter likes, and Instagram follows. These people often fight to be the first to purchase the newest popcorn buckets, review the newest cupcake flavor, or experience new attractions, without fully enjoying the experience because they are standing behind a smartphone camera and posting their location on the internet in real time for bragging rights.