deleted

bpadair32

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
People hate upcharges because Disney has removed value from tickets with the upcharge events. The after hours events used to commence after the park closed for the day to regular people. Now they close the park early for the events, taking time away from other people. They’ve extended the party seasons as well, also taking value away from the regular tickets those days. Most people don’t mind upcharges when they don’t effect them, but when they do they get upset. People don’t like when their options shrink.

They’ve cut back on hours to charge for bonus time now.
It still doesn't have to affect you, there are not parties every night. Go on days that don't have them if you don't want to participate.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
You've got to be kidding...............no, I guess you really are serious. WOW
Do you deny that it has impressive effects and high-quality animatronics? To be clear, that's not the same as asking whether you like the ride or approve of its placement in World Showcase.
 

Cheekylittlerobot

Active Member
I keep seeing people going back and forth about whether a change is right or wrong, which is indeed subjective. What isn't subjective, however, is general common sense and logic. Here's how attraction idea is "right" or "wrong":

1. What is the mission statement/overall theme of the park you want to place the attraction in? Does it fit this theme? Yes: continue on to number 2. No: Try a different park or start over.

2. Does the attraction fit the theme of the area and not clash with its surroundings? (IE Tomorrowland, Future World, Hollywood Blv. , etc) Yes: It's the right attraction. No: Chose a different area, revise the concept or start over.

3. (For replacement attractions) Is it on par with the previous attraction or better? Does it fix any previous issues if applicable? Does it meet the other two points I made above? If Yes: It's the right replacement. If no: Go back, revise or start over.

Fixed. ;)
 

eliza61nyc

Well-Known Member
I keep seeing people going back and forth about whether a change is right or wrong, which is indeed subjective. What isn't subjective, however, is general common sense and logic. Here's how attraction idea is "right" or "wrong":

1. What is the mission statement/overall theme of the park you want to place the attraction in? Does it fit this theme? Yes: continue on to number 2. No: Try a different park or start over.

2. Does the attraction fit the theme of the area and not clash with its surroundings? (IE Tomorrowland, Future World, Hollywood Blv. , etc) Yes: It's the right attraction. No: Chose a different area, revise the concept or start over.

3. (For replacement attractions) Is it on par with the previous attraction or better? Does it fix an previous issues if applicable? Does it meet the other two points I made above? If Yes: It's the right replacement. If no: Go back, revise or start over.

Fixed. ;)
well by this logic, they need to simple tear down all the parks except MK. How does Pandora fit into Animal kingdom or Soarin in Epcot?? or for that fact space ship earth?? Isn't Haunted mansion in liberty square??
 

networkpro

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
Yes
I keep seeing people going back and forth about whether a change is right or wrong, which is indeed subjective. What isn't subjective, however, is general common sense and logic. Here's how attraction idea is "right" or "wrong":

1. What is the mission statement/overall theme of the park you want to place the attraction in? Does it fit this theme? Yes: continue on to number 2. No: Try a different park or start over.

2. Does the attraction fit the theme of the area and not clash with its surroundings? (IE Tomorrowland, Future World, Hollywood Blv. , etc) Yes: It's the right attraction. No: Chose a different area, revise the concept or start over.

3. (For replacement attractions) Is it on par with the previous attraction or better? Does it fix any previous issues if applicable? Does it meet the other two points I made above? If Yes: It's the right replacement. If no: Go back, revise or start over.

Fixed. ;)
Not fixed as it's your subjective reasoning and valuation.

1. Make something interesting that people are willing to pay to see. Yes stay in business, no go out of business
2, Do people come back to spend more money ? Yes stay in business, no go out of business
3. Do people come to see your new attraction ? Yes or no.
 

bigrigross

Well-Known Member
You've got to be kidding...............no, I guess you really are serious. WOW
This is a pathetic response. Maelstrom was terrible. It was a boat ride with a splash. What they turned the ride into with what they had was impressive regardless of how you feel about IPs. It was an easy change over for them and actually enticed children to want to come to Epcot. Cause trust me, no one in mass was going to Epcot because its fun. You go for food festivals and thats pretty much it.
 

bpadair32

Well-Known Member
1. What is the mission statement/overall theme of the park you want to place the attraction in? Does it fit this theme? Yes: continue on to number 2. No: Try a different park or start over.
Who decides if it fits the mission statement? The park owner.

2. Does the attraction fit the theme of the area and not clash with its surroundings? (IE Tomorrowland, Future World, Hollywood Blv. , etc) Yes: It's the right attraction. No: Chose a different area, revise the concept or start over.
This is subjective.

3. (For replacement attractions) Is it on par with the previous attraction or better? Does it fix any previous issues if applicable? Does it meet the other two points I made above? If Yes: It's the right replacement. If no: Go back, revise or start over.
This is also subjective.

It's essentially same attraction, in the sense that Alien Encounter --> Stitch's Great Escape are the same. The latter version of both examples have been redirected at kiddies.
FEA was IMO far superior to Maelstrom. SGE is IMO one of the worst attractions ever. Notice that I did not present either of those opinions as fact.
 

xdan0920

Think for yourselfer
This is a pathetic response. Maelstrom was terrible. It was a boat ride with a splash. What they turned the ride into with what they had was impressive regardless of how you feel about IPs. It was an easy change over for them and actually enticed children to want to come to Epcot. Cause trust me, no one in mass was going to Epcot because its fun. You go for food festivals and thats pretty much it.
Meet today’s WDW fan everybody.
 

Nezumi Fan

New Member
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"
then "houston we have a a problem".
But I will address a few points.

I will say this simply, one of the problems is as time moves on, many of the guest simple never experienced all these wonders. so for me it's like the old guy who swears that things were much better during "his day". maybe it was, I suspect it had it's issues just like any other time but as you guys get older and die off, the newbies simply didn't experienced the old stuff.

I actually kind of feel a bit sorry for those living via nostalgia simply because it's an exercise that can only lead to frustration. there is no going back.

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.


It's funny that you said this is a thread that needed to be made, really? seems like every time there is an announcement about something new it turns into this type of thread. Almost everyone of the threads on the news forum has morphed into "Epcot sucks, too much IP and the old rides were better".
"two days older than Christ" omg lol
 
Top Bottom