DHS CARS LAND

[GoofGoof]

There is nothing wrong with some form of height restriction on rides that appeal to the entire family. Rides like Indiana Jones, Spider-Man, and Dinosaur have height restrictions but I would still say they are "family" rides. I'm of the opinion that theme parks are best enjoyed by children who are old enough to appreciate them anyway. I'm always puzzled by parents who bring their 2 or 3 year-olds to Disney World. My parents did that and I have ZERO memory of it. Five years old and up is the ideal for visiting theme parks and many 5 year-olds are tall enough to experience rides with height restrictions in the 40'' range.

Bringing children to WDW is completely inappropriate. Vegas on the other hand is a different story... No wait. I got that backwards.

 

[GoofGoof]

Seems like a good enough reason for me to want to do fun things with my kids.


And this line of thinking leads to Casey's Splash Craptacular.

Doesn't your second point contradict your first? If kids and families are having fun at Casey's then what harm is there in it?

 

[englanddg]

Well, I hate the water feature play places. But, my kid loves them, so we induldge. The only major issue I have with them is that they routinely don't put shady places for the parents to sit at while the kids soak themselves to the bone. There is the wall at Caseys, but on a hot day those trees just don't provide much relief. And at EPCOT, it's worse.

 

[AswaySuller]

What is the word on Carsland or at least RSR coming to WDW?

I had the privilege of riding RSR last week and it is the best Disney attraction I have ridden since TOT was built.... Possibly even since Splash!

 

[Cosmic Commando]

If rides are the only things that matter, then DCA's ratio of height restriction/no height restriction should be addressed. Out of the ridable attractions (not shows/walk throughs) DCA has 11 rides with height restrictions and 9 rides with no height restrictions. I haven't heard any complaints regarding this ratio. Adding rides with no height restriction to DHS for the sake of adding them I think would have a negative effect. I can't see any justification for bringing in an attraction on caliber with Heimlich's Chew Chew Train, simply to increase the ride count and offer something for everyone. I feel alot of people (me included) would be thinking that were creating Dinorama 2.0 if that happened.

Personally any rides, height limit or not, would be welcome, but DHS is not all about the rides. The shows are a main part of it. People can go to DHS only for the rides, but they will probably have completed the park by lunchtime. Those are the people who claim it is a half-day park, and by those figures they are correct. But they are missing out on a major part of the park. The live shows. The Little Mermaid is fantastic. So is BatB and Indy. Now, I wouldn't mind seeing LMA, Indy, or American Idol being removed in favor of attractions, but I also feel there needs to be a presense of shows in DHS. A lot like Epcot and Animal Kingdom, I don't just go from one ride to the next. I like to take advantage of the unique qualities of the park like the themes, the music, the walk through attractions, the food, and the shows. Do I hope for some more attractions? of course. I would love to see Carsland, a Monsters Inc Coaster and maybe an Indy ride one day in DHS. That would be awesome. But to be honest I'd take anything that will make the overall appeal of the park better, whether that be height restrictions or no height restrictions.

I think the thing to take away from that is that DCA has more rides without height restrictions than DHS has rides, period. I don't think shows are meaningless: I'm pretty sure if you asked my 5YO what his favorite thing at DHS was, he would tell you the Indy Stunt Show. But, even with a new show like Finding Nemo: The Musical, how often do you see it on a billboard on World Drive? Or on a TV commercial? American Idol is the exception, but only because of the tie-in with the TV show. I'm not sure how to quantify it or what the ratio is, but I do think rides are more important. We're arguing about this because we're probably going to get one or two new rides, period. DHS could use two rides of both types. It will still be lacking compared to MK or Epcot or the West coast resorts. You wouldn't hear the same argument for MK; there are as many no restriction rides in Adventureland as in all of DHS.

BTW, if they carved out a well-themed area next to a rethemed HISTA play area for Heimlich's Chew Chew Train, that would be awesome!

 

[Fe Maiden]

Doesn't your second point contradict your first? If kids and families are having fun at Casey's then what harm is there in it?

No. And there's no harm in Casey's, but areas like this seem cheap to me. Just because a 2 year old would love it, it including my own, doesn't mean they should settle for it.

 

[englanddg]

No. And there's no harm in Casey's, but areas like this seem cheap to me. Just because a 2 year old would love it, it including my own, doesn't mean they should settle for it.

The irony that Walt was inspired to make Disneyland because of attractions like this, where the parents are largely spectators, is not lost on me.

 

[GoofGoof]

The irony that Walt was inspired to make Disneyland because of attractions like this, where the parents are largely spectators, is not lost on me.

That is the most over used Walt quote on this board in my opinion. Walt never intended that every single ride or attraction would appeal to every single guest. He noticed that at other amusement parks the parents would give the kids ride tickets and let them go on their own. He wanted families to be able to enjoy rides and attractions together as a family. I didn't see any kids by themselves at Casey's Splash Zone when I was there. Even if you don't run into the water with your kids it is still a lot of fun to watch them enjoying themselves. Most of the parents seemed to be enjoying watching as much as the kids were running through. I have no issue with people saying they just don't like Casey's or even if they think it looks cheap or tacky. That's an opinion that everyone is entitled to.

 

[englanddg]

That is the most over used Walt quote on this board in my opinion. Walt never intended that every single ride or attraction would appeal to every single guest. He noticed that at other amusement parks the parents would give the kids ride tickets and let them go on their own. He wanted families to be able to enjoy rides and attractions together as a family. I didn't see any kids by themselves at Casey's Splash Zone when I was there. Even if you don't run into the water with your kids it is still a lot of fun to watch them enjoying themselves. Most of the parents seemed to be enjoying watching as much as the kids were running through. I have no issue with people saying they just don't like Casey's or even if they think it looks cheap or tacky. That's an opinion that everyone is entitled to.

Good point. I don't mind it (the details are a lot of fun), and it's certainly a million times better then Donald's boat (the floors there had mold, it was just disgusting). I just wish they had better shaded waiting areas for adults around them.

Water feature play places are like the vendors with bubble guns for my kid. She can't stay away from them!

 

[RSoxNo1]

And this line of thinking leads to Casey's Splash Craptacular.

This is exactly the type of thing that caters to children though, and this is far more elaborate than any of the other fountains that have existed in Disney Parks for decades. I don't see the problem with the Casey Junior's at all.

 

[GoofGoof]

Good point. I don't mind it (the details are a lot of fun), and it's certainly a million times better then Donald's boat (the floors there had mold, it was just disgusting). I just wish they had better shaded waiting areas for adults around them.

Water feature play places are like the vendors with bubble guns for my kid. She can't stay away from them!

A little more shade would be nice. It was low 90s when we were there. I have to admit I lingered a little longer than necessary when "pulling my kids out". It was refreshing. We were heading back to the hotel anyway so by the time we walked back we were completely dry. I forgot about Donald's boat. I agree Casey's is much better.

 

[flynnibus]

Taking a 2 year-old to see Santa is a little different than spending thousands of dollars to bring them to a theme park. That said, I've seen countless young children PETRIFIED of Santa at the mall while their parents forced them to participate.

how many children have you raised AndyMagic? Your cousins, siblings, etc don't count either in that question.

Kids may not remember stuff decades later - it doesn't mean they didn't enjoy it at the time. I never go out on a Friday night thinking.. you know what, 20 years from now this night will be so worth it... you partake in entertainment to be entertained now. Lasting memories are just icing on the cake.

 

[englanddg]

Heh, I know my kid remembers. Disney is practically all she wants to talk about. She's already planning out our next trip, and she doesn't even know we are going yet.

 

[Beholder]

Speaking for myself, part of the whole "take your child to Disney when they might be to young" is partly based on family tradition. My parents liked camping, but they didn't stop just because I came along and might not remember. You do things as a family, not necessarily because everybody experiences things the same way or gets 100% out of everything, but because (in my case), that's what families do. You do things together. A child, age 2,3, or 12 will have a great time, regardless of their ability to recall a certain detail or experience. And make no mistake, children remember far more than we sometimes give them credit for. My daughter and I both remember things from our respective childhoods that kind of defy the "to young to remember" school of thought. Families doing things together create shared experiences, memories, and bonds that trumps any kind of age boundary. I enjoy being with my daughter regardless of her age or what she's doing. It's about the time spent together, not so much where its spent, but if it happens to be at Disney, then that's great also.

I'm sorry. I'm done now.

 

[GoofGoof]

Speaking for myself, part of the whole "take your child to Disney when they might be to young" is partly based on family tradition. My parents liked camping, but they didn't stop just because I came along and might not remember. You do things as a family, not necessarily because everybody experiences things the same way or gets 100% out of everything, but because (in my case), that's what families do. You do things together. A child, age 2,3, or 12 will have a great time, regardless of their ability to recall a certain detail or experience. And make no mistake, children remember far more than we sometimes give them credit for. My daughter and I both remember things from our respective childhoods that kind of defy the "to young to remember" school of thought. Families doing things together create shared experiences, memories, and bonds that trumps any kind of age boundary. I enjoy being with my daughter regardless of her age or what she's doing. It's about the time spent together, not so much where its spent, but if it happens to be at Disney, then that's great also.

I'm sorry. I'm done now.

Agreed 100%. It's about the whole family. If you have 4 kids and there is a 10 year age difference between the oldest and the youngest if you wait for the youngest to be "old enough" then the oldest would be at least 14. You would miss so many good times waiting for everyone to be old enough. Sometimes you have to bring along the younger kids for the benefit of the whole family.

 

[englanddg]

Agreed 100%. It's about the whole family. If you have 4 kids and there is a 10 year age difference between the oldest and the youngest if you wait for the youngest to be "old enough" then the oldest would be at least 14. You would miss so many good times waiting for everyone to be old enough. Sometimes you have to bring along the younger kids for the benefit of the whole family.

Is like to toss in that memory isn't static, or at least its not for me. While some moments stand out, over the years it blends into a general memory in practice.

Maybe I have issues with me memory, but if you asked me to recount, step by step everything I experienced from 20 to 30, I could not.

Kids are no different. At 5, if you ask them about something at age 3, they may remember it, or not. You really can't tell what others will or will not remember, and its a silly reason not to go, imho.

 

[nytimez]

Seems like this thread about Cars has taken a detour...

 

[doctornick]

Question about DHS attractions: anyone know whatever happened to the idea of putting Jedi Training Academy into the former Sounds Dangerous space? I think they do sign-ups there now, but there was speculation about that being the show area for Jedi Training including an AA Yoda. Is that dead? Tabled? Possible?

 

[Ignohippo]

Why do you ride off those films for little kids? I think they're for all families

Huh? I believe you mean "write off" and, if so, you missed the entire point of my post.

What I'm saying is, rides that are based on movies, etc. that appeal to children (not to say they don't appeal to ALL age groups), like Cars or Snow White, shouldn't have height restrictions.

As a father of young children, and one being a boy that lives and breathes the Cars movies, it would break my heart if I took him to CA and he were told he was too short to ride RSR.

Rides like Tower Of Terror, RnRCoaster, Space Mountain, etc. are totally understandable. But when you create an attraction from a movie that appeals so much to young kids, it should be a given that the ride should be made for ALL ages.

The same goes for Fantasyland, IMO. Fantasyland has always been a place for all ages. It simply ought to be a place where height restrictions shouldn't factor in.

 

[Ignohippo]

There is nothing wrong with some form of height restriction on rides that appeal to the entire family. Rides like Indiana Jones, Spider-Man, and Dinosaur have height restrictions but I would still say they are "family" rides. I'm of the opinion that theme parks are best enjoyed by children who are old enough to appreciate them anyway. I'm always puzzled by parents who bring their 2 or 3 year-olds to Disney World. My parents did that and I have ZERO memory of it. Five years old and up is the ideal for visiting theme parks and many 5 year-olds are tall enough to experience rides with height restrictions in the 40'' range.

So, given your logic, should we just let our children sit in a corner all day drooling on themselves because "they won't remember"?

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.

Since then, we've been Annual Passholders and have gone frequently. Literally, at least once every two months. I remember when he was three and we stayed overnight for the first time. And believe it or not, he remembers it too. He's 7 now and loves to talk about the time he saw Donald and was so excited to see him that Donald fell over. We have the photos to remember the trips and they're some of our most precious memories of his childhood.

Btw, saying Dinosaur, Spider-man, etc. are "family rides" is crazy. Those rides were never intended for young kids. They're entirely too intense. 5+ maybe, but that isn't the entire family. Peter Pan, Pooh, The Little Mermaid are family rides.