DHS CARS LAND

[Cosmic Commando]

Bringing a 6-month old baby to Disney World is, in fact, a waste. They do not have the mental capability to understand any of it and more often than not, it is far too over-stimulating and scary. What you are doing is projecting your knowledge and experience onto the reaction of the child similar to how dog owners think animals understand what they are saying. They don't.

So you're saying more than 50% of children are scared of Disney World? I think the word would have gotten out by now if that was true. As for the dog thing, artificial selection is very powerful. You obviously haven't watched Dogs Decoded on NOVA

 

[Ignohippo]

You're using a ridiculous slippery slope fallacy. Obviously you should spend quality time with your children and make sure they are happy kids. Schlepping out on a very, very expensive vacation is a little different than going to the local playground which judging by home video of me as a child I enjoyed quite a bit more than being dragged onto rides that I couldn't understand. I wanted to play in the sand box, not sit on a moving bench while big things jumped out at me. There is no need to get offended about this. Bringing a 6-month old baby to Disney World is, in fact, a waste. They do not have the mental capability to understand any of it and more often than not, it is far too over-stimulating and scary. What you are doing is projecting your knowledge and experience onto the reaction of the child similar to how dog owners think animals understand what they are saying. They don't.

Since you conveniently left out the main point of my post, I'll repeat:
Life is about experiences. Little kids may not remember, but that doesn't mean that those experiences aren't meaningful to them or their development. My son was six months old when I took him for his first time (we had free tickets through my wife's work and I thought I'd bring him for just a couple of hours). Ya'know what? He LOVED it!! I had never seen him so happy.

And as far as it being "scary", there was nothing scary about it to him.

I totally agree with your point that no one should base an expensive vacation around a 6 month old, but no one besides yourself has ever mentioned anything like that.

So, Andy are you going to answer the question that others have asked? Do you have children yourself? Because you're making a lot of assumptions about children and parenting that it sounds like you are unqualified to make.

 

[AndyMagic]

Since you conveniently left out the main point of my post, I'll repeat:
Life is about experiences. Little kids may not remember, but that doesn't mean that those experiences aren't meaningful to them or their development. My son was six months old when I took him for his first time (we had free tickets through my wife's work and I thought I'd bring him for just a couple of hours). Ya'know what? He LOVED it!! I had never seen him so happy.

And as far as it being "scary", there was nothing scary about it to him.

I totally agree with your point that no one should base an expensive vacation around a 6 month old, but no one besides yourself has ever mentioned anything like that.

So, Andy are you going to answer the question that others have asked? Do you have children yourself? Because you're making a lot of assumptions about children and parenting that it sounds like you are unqualified to make.

I think it's pretty clear that I don't have children. If I had a child I would most likely be blinded by my love and think that a smile or laugh means he/she has, "never been so happy." I have a cat that I would probably jump out of a window to save so just imagine how illogical I would be if I had a bond with a child. I'm not making any assumptions about parenting when I say that a 6-month old won't get much out of a trip to Disney World. This is not an invitation for those of you that bring your young children to theme parks to tell me how totally wrong I am and how, "insert kids name here" is the smartest kid in town and can write a thesis on Cinderella. Those of you that choose to bring your young kids, more power to you. I think doing so would be a huge chore with very little benefit for the child but opinions are what make the world go 'round and everyone is free to disagree. Also, let's remember that my original post was a defense of rides with height requirements and not some sort of rant about babies in the parks.

 

[misterID]

Yeah, in jt's defense I have been told that not only JL didn't want Carsland > DHS, but that the guys over at Epcot don't want it @DHS either. But I was told that one of the main reasons JL didn't want it in DHS was that TDO only wanted pieces parts of Carsland and that JL was against parting it out.

Is that because of TT? I'd take RSR and JTTCOTE at WDW. Suck it up EPCOT!

...and make better attractions.

 

[spacemt354]

Since you conveniently left out the main point of my post, I'll repeat:
Life is about experiences. Little kids may not remember, but that doesn't mean that those experiences aren't meaningful to them or their development. My son was six months old when I took him for his first time (we had free tickets through my wife's work and I thought I'd bring him for just a couple of hours). Ya'know what? He LOVED it!! I had never seen him so happy.

And as far as it being "scary", there was nothing scary about it to him.

I totally agree with your point that no one should base an expensive vacation around a 6 month old, but no one besides yourself has ever mentioned anything like that.

So, Andy are you going to answer the question that others have asked? Do you have children yourself? Because you're making a lot of assumptions about children and parenting that it sounds like you are unqualified to make.

I think this debate doesn't have a concrete right or wrong answer to it. It all depends on what parents feel is best for them and for their children.

My parents started my siblings and I off very young taking trips to Disney. We loved it. Do I remember anything before the age of 4 or 5? Not at all. But my parents still thought it was worth the trips down for the photos, their memories, and to expose us as young children to things that made us smile, laugh, and have fun. Although our comprehension of those experiences at that moment was minimal, those experiences translated into us picking up attraction names, characters, and other things that made us happy at a very early age. By age 3 we knew all the parks, all the characters, and most of the attractions. Maybe I'm assuming too much about the psychology of the mind, but the exposure and experiences we had as very young children at Disney had to have effect on us enjoying Disney as much as we do today, even if we don't remember those early experiences. To our family, the trips with us at very young ages was worth every penny.

Yet other families feel that there is no point to any of that. They want to wait till their children are old enough to consciously be aware of their whole environment during the vacation. But to me personally, there really is no right age for this transition. Most of our trips go by in a whirlwind, and sometimes afterward I look back at the pictures and say "wow we did that?" A month later, I can't even recall all of our trip detail by detail. And I'm too busy planning the next trip anyway to be focused on the other trips.

So really, my point is that the Disney trip provides fun and happiness in the moment. That's why we go to Disney World. It's to enjoy every second that we are down there. We don't worry about if 6 months from now we will remember everything, or if our 1 year old child is going to understand all of what surrounds them. Laughter, smiles, enjoyment, and the realization that you and your family are having a great time together is what truly matters.

And to an extent yes, babies smile at alot of things. Babies smile at funny faces. Babies smile at poop. Babies smile when they poop. So if you compare those things, if you're spending thousands of dollars to travel to Disney just simply to see your baby smile, I would tend to agree that is a waste of money.

However, it's up to the parents' discretion whether it's a waste of money, which is why I feel this debate doesn't have a concrete right or wrong answer to it. If Disney has brought enjoyment to your family for generations, then there is something special about continuing the tradition with your young child. Seeing them have a good time at th eplace you've enjoyed makes you feel really good. I'm not a parent, but I've seen the look in my parents eye when we took my youngest sibiling down for the first time. Just the expression at the moment on my brother's face while riding Dumbo was enough to make the whole trip worth it. I've never seen a more happy baby. And unlike when he poops, my parents and I were smiling along with the baby. That moment on Dumbo is something that only happens once, and can only happen at that young age, which is why I think it's worth it to go to Disney early.

Edit: I realize this post has nothing to do with Carsland in DHS. So to make my post somewhat on topic, I'll say that I hope Carsland comes. it will truly help in re-inventing a park that really needs a shot in the arm.

 

[flynnibus]

Schlepping out on a very, very expensive vacation is a little different than going to the local playground which judging by home video of me as a child I enjoyed quite a bit more than being dragged onto rides that I couldn't understand

Funny.. I don't remember my local playground having things like River Country.. or the Balloons... or big fuzzy characters running around. But maybe 20 years later in your childhood they had those types of things in your neighborhood playground...

Bringing a 6-month old baby to Disney World is, in fact, a waste

No, it's your uninformed opinion with little reference to watching a child develop. What's the saying.. "no one knows a child better than the mothe.. er AndyMagic"

I'm not making any assumptions about parenting when I say that a 6-month old won't get much out of a trip to Disney World

That's right, because you have such a vast library of interviews you have completed with developing children to base all your knowledge on.. no assumptions at all. Each post shows a greater and greater lack of experience, let alone knowledge, of child development.

I think doing so would be a huge chore with very little benefit for the child but opinions are what make the world go 'round and everyone is free to disagree

Another telling post.. because obviously you have no clue what a struggle it is to LEAVE a child behind.. both emotionally and practically.

I think we can sum this up as you are someone who is bothered by disruptions of babies, and you don't understand why anyone would bother bringing one to WDW... so you state it as a fact that to do so is a waste, and the kid doesn't get anything from it. All while being completely oblivious to why the child are likely there, what the tradeoffs are, and what the parents see from their child's behavior. I can't think of a more solid, logical, fundamental argument ever on this site...

You won't find many families with a 6m old saying 'Wow, now we should book Disney so junior gets his first taste of mickey!' - but rather a family going to WDW who has a 6m old that can also benefit from the experience.

 

[Atomicmickey]

I wish there was a thread for talking about Cars Land.

 

[jt04]

Really, jt? The land is unsuitable?
That's a good one.

Are you?

The land at DHS is just fine.

Didn't say it wasn't fine. I just have my doubts that it could support something as massive as a clone of RSR at anything approaching a reasonable cost. I think a scaled down version should be built. That is what I said. Helps if you skip the spin some try to put on my postings.

 

[doctornick]

You won't find many families with a 6m old saying 'Wow, now we should book Disney so junior gets his first taste of mickey!' - but rather a family going to WDW who has a 6m old that can also benefit from the experience.

This. I don't think anyone goes to Disney with a 6 mo old because they think it's the perfect place for the 6 mo old to be entertained. It's more like mom and dad want to plan a vacation where it is fun for them and can also be accommodating and enjoyable for their baby. And WDW definitely fits that bill -- in fact, it's hard to find someplace that is as fun for adults but still accessible for young children.

Also, it's worth noting on the "cost" issue that the marginal cost of bringing an infant or toddler to WDW on top of whatever adults are going is virtually nothing. No additional cost for the room, no park ticket cost, they probably don't eat much and are free at buffets if you go that route. On a flight, if they are small enough, they can be in your lap. I actually encourage my friends to take their children to WDW before age 3 so they get all the perks of going to Disney for far less cost.

Regarding height restrictions, so back to the area which is relevant to this thread, the issue is more for 3-4 year olds who haven't hit that magical 40" mark. And that's a group that certainly can have a blast at WDW overall, but I'd submit that overall DHS is not that captivating for them overall (though ironically , it's the location of the Disney Jr show and character meal). I just think it would be important in any large scale improvements there that some family friendly rides are added to balance things out. I don't think it's an odd request to want to see another 2-3 rides that anyone could go on. And it would take some of the stress and wait away from TSMM.

 

[misterID]

Didn't say it wasn't fine. I just have my doubts that it could support something as massive as a clone of RSR at anything approaching a reasonable cost. I think a scaled down version should be built. That is what I said. Helps if you skip the spin some try to put on my postings.

You know, just because you add IMO, doesn't mean you are free of criticism when you're wrong.

No, I am saying that a clone of the DCA version is highly unlikely if not impossible. It is my opinion that the land is not suitable for such infrastructure. The cost of the foundations alone would make it impossible IMO.

 

[GoofGoof]

On the subject of cost, we were there in January, two adults, two teens and an eleven month old. Total cost of transatlantic flight, cot in our hotel room and tickets for Disney and Universal for the eleven month old was around $70 for two weeks. I recommend taking them along, they're a bargain.

Hit up the buffets too. They are free as well if your kid is under 3. My 2 year old shoveled down more food than anyone else with us at no cost. Of course, theyare going to be getting me for his food for the next 20+ years.

 

[GoofGoof]

I think it's pretty clear that I don't have children. If I had a child I would most likely be blinded by my love and think that a smile or laugh means he/she has, "never been so happy." I have a cat that I would probably jump out of a window to save so just imagine how illogical I would be if I had a bond with a child. I'm not making any assumptions about parenting when I say that a 6-month old won't get much out of a trip to Disney World. This is not an invitation for those of you that bring your young children to theme parks to tell me how totally wrong I am and how, "insert kids name here" is the smartest kid in town and can write a thesis on Cinderella. Those of you that choose to bring your young kids, more power to you. I think doing so would be a huge chore with very little benefit for the child but opinions are what make the world go 'round and everyone is free to disagree. Also, let's remember that my original post was a defense of rides with height requirements and not some sort of rant about babies in the parks.

You probably should have just started with this post. Would have saved about 5 pages of negative responses. It may not have been your intention, but your posts did seem like some sort of rant about babies.

In answer to your actual point. I have no problem with rides having height restrictions. My boys are tall so by the time they hit 3 both are/will be over 40 inches. I was not even paying for their tickets prior to that so I am way ahead with all of the rides that they can do for free.

 

[Beholder]

Regardless of the exact details or a specific timetable, the fact that Burbank, TDO, or Walts ghost is starting (it seems as if) to think about DHS in terms of expansion or even a semi-makeover, is great news. Clone, no clone, Pixar place, Lucasland, new shows or out with the old, it's good news that something seems to be going on. I trust the insiders when they say that projects/proposals are discussed and details worked out. I like to believe that someone, somewhere has their head on straight, and realizes that the status quo isn't working. I'm looking froward to the next few years. Should be fun.

 

[danlb_2000]

Didn't say it wasn't fine. I just have my doubts that it could support something as massive as a clone of RSR at anything approaching a reasonable cost. I think a scaled down version should be built. That is what I said. Helps if you skip the spin some try to put on my postings.

The LMA grandstand is a pretty substantial structure especially when it's complete filled with people and the land back there doesn't seem to have a problem support that.

 

[gonnichi]

I dont ask many questions here so please be kind. DHS seems to be a very small park. What is its attendance capacity? If carsland and monsters coaster get built is the park big enough to handle the crowds? How about dining capacity too?

 

[GoofGoof]

I dont ask many questions here so please be kind. DHS seems to be a very small park. What is its attendance capacity? If carsland and monsters coaster get built is the park big enough to handle the crowds? How about dining capacity too?

I have never seen Official numbers from Disney on capacity. Maybe some insiders have a feel for it. The number I have seen thrown around is 100,000 people for MK with DHS being much less. Maybe 50K to 60K. This is more due to parking limits and lack of attractions than actual size of the park. A few years back I remember reading about them sending cars to EPCOT to park and take buses over. DHS is more total acres than MK so they could cram more people in if they added more attraction space and/or expanded the park.

 

[gonnichi]

Thanks. It would be nice if they expanded into the backstage studio area where guests are not allowed. It would make the park much bigger, But that area is being used for other purposes now I guess.

 

[unkadug]

Thanks. It would be nice if they expanded into the backstage studio area where guests are not allowed. It would make the park much bigger, But that area is being used for other purposes now I guess.

Not really for much anymore. I feel confident that it will be re-purposed soon.

 

[Fe Maiden]

Didn't say it wasn't fine. I just have my doubts that it could support something as massive as a clone of RSR at anything approaching a reasonable cost. I think a scaled down version should be built. That is what I said. Helps if you skip the spin some try to put on my postings.

But if the area is fine, why do you still have doubts?

 

[unkadug]

Didn't say it wasn't fine. I just have my doubts that it could support something as massive as a clone of RSR at anything approaching a reasonable cost. I think a scaled down version should be built. That is what I said. Helps if you skip the spin some try to put on my postings.

How is the land any more unsuitable than the land in Anaheim?