The WiFi at Rachels must be down. Perhaps why we haven't seen much from the excuse dept. in the last hour or so.
I'm trying to understand your logic, I really am. But you're essentially saying that Disney is making a poor decision by building something that will be wildly popular.
The poor decision lies in the operational aspect. Try and forget about popularity for just a moment and think about the cluster bomb of a nightmare Norway pavilion will become.
I'm saying that putting something that they know will be wildly popular into a ride system that everyone already knows is low capacity, is idiotic. Team that nightmare up with the long lines at the meet and greet, and just to see the new Frozen stuff will require Herculean patience.
No matter where Frozen is placed, it's going to be a cluster bomb, can we agree on that? I hope so.
No. Because if they were to build from the ground up, I am absolutely positive they would use a much higher capacity ride system. What they are doing now is going to create lines at guests services almost as long as the ride queue. Watching this development is like watching a train wreck in slow motion.
I'm holding out hope for a DCA-caliber redo at DHS. If that's what we end up getting, I'd much rather see that than Frozen.
I might be wrong about this, but I think you're misinterpreting the Frozen fanbase. I think it's more small and passionate than broad and casual. Frozen doesn't need to be high-capacity because it has a limited audience and that audience is hardcore. The hardcore audience is exactly the one you want directed towards a low-capacity attraction because they're the ones willing to wait two hours for a ride. If "Frozen fans" are willing to wait three hours for a meet and greet, then let them wait three hours. The non-Frozen fans will happily skip it. Contrast that with something like Big Thunder Mountain. There aren't that many hardcore Big Thunder Mountain railroad fans, so it requires a capacity that keeps waits low enough to entice casual fans to ride. Frozen needs no such incentive because those little princesses are riding come hell or high water.
Sure. But those "more ideal" choices would have come at the expense of even more more ideal choices. i.e. it would be a bigger loss for Frozen to get in the way of Star Wars at DHS than for it to replace Maelstrom at Epcot.
So your saying that because it WILL be a cluster, that it doesnt matter where they put it? Thats just plain lazy. And to then put it in one of the lowest capacity attractions is flat out moronic. I cut my finger earlier today, should I just cut it off instead of just using a band aid?
That's a poor analogy. A better one would be... if you're going to cut off one of your fingers, it's better to cut off your ring finger than your thumb.
Not sure I totally agree, but that is a very interesting perspective. Nice!
