Does anyone else find Rise of the Resistance and Runaway Railway underwhelming?

Do you think Rise of the Resistance and Mickey and Minnie's Runaway Railway are overrated?


  • Total voters
    131

LastoneOn

Well-Known Member
Trackmaster! Don't be sad for those of us that don't care about canon etc.
Its only since the prequels that all this fandom canon thing all of that came into being.
Back in the Original days there wasn't an internet and all this chatter that led people to create these deep back stories and stuff. We had one movie. Then 2, and a 3rd. Canon was something that fired canon balls (or laser bolts) not some Planet of the Apes style "This is the law!!" that everyone freaks out about now.

Back when movies were fun.
 

Raineman

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
I'm not exactly sure if I agree with your point, but I was giddy that you were talking about upstop wheels.
I have to say, I have always found coaster enthusiasts and their fandom kind of fascinating. It's such a niche fandom-they can walk into a park they have never been to before, take a quick look at a coaster and say "Oh, that's a Zamperla, that's a Vekoma, that's an Intamin with the same track layout as XXX at..."
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
So what do you think about them announcing that they're gutting all of those old flat rides that nobody ever rides recently? Apparently a lot of the old school fanboys were up in arms about that.

I don’t love it but I get it.

Can’t cater to the 20th century forever in a park such as that. It doesn’t have the ambience backbone that planned, megamoney behemoth Parks do
 

Trackmaster

Well-Known Member
I have to say, I have always found coaster enthusiasts and their fandom kind of fascinating. It's such a niche fandom-they can walk into a park they have never been to before, take a quick look at a coaster and say "Oh, that's a Zamperla, that's a Vekoma, that's an Intamin with the same track layout as XXX at..."

Yeah, I know its not always the most rational thing to be into, but I love that my interest and niche forces me to be outside and traveling across the country. For most people, the highlight of their week is watching Netflix or going to a restaurant down the street or something. I love how kinetic my interest niche is. I find myself shaking my head at the people who paid $140 to go to Epcot just so they can have the right to buy overpriced food and drinks. I just shake my head and go for the rides.
 

Trackmaster

Well-Known Member
I don’t love it but I get it.

Can’t cater to the 20th century forever in a park such as that. It doesn’t have the ambience backbone that planned, megamoney behemoth Parks do

My philosophy on Kennywood is that the park is way too small and the customer base is way too local to be like Magic Kingdom where they need to plan on keeping everything around forever. Without a doubt, you would be crazy to get rid of Racer, Thunderbolt, or Jack Rabbit -- I would never dispute that. But outside of those three, I don't think any should be safe once their service life is up. You need to give people a reason to keep coming back and you need to keep rotating in and out. I think that keeping the three woodies forever and maintaining them to a high level and re-tracking when needed is a good compromise.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
I have to say, I have always found coaster enthusiasts and their fandom kind of fascinating. It's such a niche fandom-they can walk into a park they have never been to before, take a quick look at a coaster and say "Oh, that's a Zamperla, that's a Vekoma, that's an Intamin with the same track layout as XXX at..."

Manufacturers are notorious for similar designs. If it’s a box track...it’s B&M...if it’s a stubby rail arm on a wide, thick spine...it’s vekoma

Yeah, I know its not always the most rational thing to be into, but I love that my interest and niche forces me to be outside and traveling across the country. For most people, the highlight of their week is watching Netflix or going to a restaurant down the street or something. I love how kinetic my interest niche is. I find myself shaking my head at the people who paid $140 to go to Epcot just so they can have the right to buy overpriced food and drinks. I just shake my head and go for the rides.

Coaster/ride system fandom is always a “no downside” thing...it’s fascinating, it causes you to consider things in a park you may not have prior...and it is a way to combine learning and fandom.
 

Trackmaster

Well-Known Member
Manufacturers are notorious for similar designs. If it’s a box track...it’s B&M...if it’s a stubby rail arm on a wide, thick spine...it’s vekoma
And if you see track that was placed down from the heavens, weaving beautifully and perfectly through a wooden support structure, you know that the coaster gods and Alan Schilke are smiling down on you, and you're about to get on an amazing RMC and your life will never be the same again.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
And if you see track that was placed down from the heavens, weaving beautifully and perfectly through a wooden support structure, you know that the coaster gods and Alan Schilke are smiling down on you, and you're about to get on an amazing RMC and your life will never be the same again.

I haven’t been to cedar point in about 20 years...but I hated Mean streak so I’d be interested in the new mongrel coaster

I was also a huge gwazi fan...so I’m intrigued there too
 
Last edited:

Poseidon Quest

Member
Original Poster
also, if the story is good, we shouldn’t be noticing the details like whether Kylo’s AA casts a shadow. As another example, I thought Navi River Journey was terrible due to poor story. It looked like a lot of people had worked very hard for a very long time to get the details just right, but they lost the forest for the trees.

I think the issue with Navi is how constrained it was by budget. As far as I've heard rumor-wise, it was almost cut because the entire land went so overbudget and you can really feel it in this attraction. I'm actually fine with Navi as a calm boat ride, even if it is short, but doesn't warrant more than a 20 minute wait. Considering how new Pandora is, I understand it's going to be quite a while before that ever happens, but if it became the Living With the Land of Animal Kingdom, I think I could appreciate it better.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
I think the issue with Navi is how constrained it was by budget. As far as I've heard rumor-wise, it was almost cut because the entire land went so overbudget and you can really feel it in this attraction. I'm actually fine with Navi as a calm boat ride, even if it is short, but doesn't warrant more than a 20 minute wait. Considering how new Pandora is, I understand it's going to be quite a while before that ever happens, but if it became the Living With the Land of Animal Kingdom, I think I could appreciate it better.

Of course the land was way over budget.

Joe Rhode. That park is basically his private monument to blown budgets
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
I think the issue with Navi is how constrained it was by budget. As far as I've heard rumor-wise, it was almost cut because the entire land went so overbudget and you can really feel it in this attraction. I'm actually fine with Navi as a calm boat ride, even if it is short, but doesn't warrant more than a 20 minute wait. Considering how new Pandora is, I understand it's going to be quite a while before that ever happens, but if it became the Living With the Land of Animal Kingdom, I think I could appreciate it better.

This is the point I've made on here multiple times. NRJ is lush and detailed; most other recent Disney rides have completely failed at that. It's too short and has very little story, but it's very good, relaxing ride if you just take it for what it is. You can calmly float along and take in the beautiful detailed scenery and feel like you're actually on a jungle river on an alien planet.

The wait times are the problem. I think I'd be willing to wait 30 minutes (and maybe up to 45 depending on the day) for it because I do really enjoy it, but the regular wait times of well over an hour (and sometimes over 2) are insane and completely throw off expectations. When people wait that long they think they are going to be riding a major E ticket and so of course NRJ is a massive disappointment.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
At least his blown budgets produced something memorable, unlike most (although not all) of Disney's other recent projects.

My point isn’t the quality of the work...it’s that there isn’t enough of it. Still an incomplete/limited park after 20 years because of bad budget management
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
My point isn’t the quality of the work...it’s that there isn’t enough of it. Still an incomplete/limited park after 20 years because of bad budget management

I don't know that I buy that -- my guess is with better budget management there might have been more stuff, but of a lower quality. I'd rather have the high quality Animal Kingdom than a mishmash like current Hollywood Studios.

I don't think there's any way we would have had both high quality across the board (and we didn't even get that considering Dinorama exists) plus a significant number of attractions. The park's budget probably wasn't big enough to begin with considering it wasn't just a standard theme park but also had to account for all of the animals and their care.

Basically I don't think adding 2 or 3 mediocre to bad attractions to Animal Kingdom would have made it better. I still understand your point, though.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
I don't know that I buy that -- my guess is with better budget management there might have been more stuff, but of a lower quality. I'd rather have the high quality Animal Kingdom than a mishmash like current Hollywood Studios.

I don't think there's any way we would have had both high quality across the board (and we didn't even get that considering Dinorama exists) plus a significant number of attractions. The park's budget probably wasn't big enough to begin with considering it wasn't just a standard theme park but also had to account for all of the animals and their care.

Basically I don't think adding 2 or 3 mediocre to bad attractions to Animal Kingdom would have made it better. I still understand your point, though.

You don’t need to buy it...it just is. Many things limited during construction and lack of reinvest because of high longterm
Costs.

Enough money was blown on the facades in harambe to pay for a good c/d ticket.

DAK is closer to Epcot as far as cost to profit/yield than magic kingdom. All the praise on detail doesn’t make it not so.
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
You don’t need to buy it...it just is. Many things limited during construction and lack of reinvest because of high longterm
Costs.

Enough money was blown on the facades in harambe to pay for a good c/d ticket.

DAK is closer to Epcot as far as cost to profit/yield than magic kingdom. All the praise on detail doesn’t make it not so.

We weren't discussing the profitability ratio.

Your opinion was that he spent too much money on stuff like those facades and should have built an additional ride or two instead. I disagree. I'd rather have the detailed facades in Harambe than cheap junk with an additional ride, even if it was a very good ride. That's why original EPCOT and Animal Kingdom were Disney's two best parks in overall quality.

I don't think the budget Disney gave Animal Kingdom was nearly enough to do what they were trying to do with it, and I think he made the right choice to focus on details and overall quality. That's the area that would never be improved if it wasn't done initially. Disney would be willing to eventually spend more money to add attractions because the park needed it, but they were never going to spend money to go in and re-do facades or make the animal enclosures look more natural/realistic. That's the kind of stuff that had to be correct from the start.

I understand your point and it certainly wasn't great from Disney's financial perspective, but from my personal perspective as a guest attending the parks, I'd happily trade a couple of attractions in the short term to ensure everything else in the park was high quality at the start.

Otherwise we would have ended up with something like California Adventure or WDSP.
 
Last edited:

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
We weren't discussing the profitability ratio.

Your opinion was that he spent too much money on stuff like those facades and should have built an additional ride or two instead. I disagree. I'd rather have the detailed facades in Harambe than cheap junk with an additional ride, even if it was a very good ride. That's why original EPCOT and Animal Kingdom were Disney's two best parks in overall quality.

The cost overruns and reductions in construction are well known. But even beyond that...the slow attendance/high maintenance of what was built limited investment for Nahtazu...

The design team really is responsible for that to a significant degree. It just is what it is.

Disney isn’t an “art house”...effective design and operation is a must. So says the NYSE
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
The cost overruns and reductions in construction are well known. But even beyond that...the slow attendance/high maintenance of what was built limited investment for Nahtazu...

The design team really is responsible for that to a significant degree. It just is what it is.

Disney isn’t an “art house”...effective design and operation is a must. So says the NYSE

Sure, although I don't think there was anything ineffective about the original design or operation. There just wasn't enough of it, which is definitely a problem. It's just a different one.

I'm certainly not saying Rohde did things perfectly (he did not), regardless of the budget he and his team had. I just think that the detail etc. is the foundation of the park and is very difficult to fix once the park is open for operational and budgetary reasons, along with a lack of will. Adding additional attractions is easy in comparison. He wouldn't be my absolute first choice to design a new park from scratch (that would probably be Tony Baxter, although there are some other options), but I'd prefer him to anyone currently doing design work for Disney, at least from what we've been able to see.
 

doctornick

Well-Known Member
I don't know that I buy that -- my guess is with better budget management there might have been more stuff, but of a lower quality. I'd rather have the high quality Animal Kingdom than a mishmash like current Hollywood Studios.
I always found that to be an interesting thing about DCA. A lot of west coasters tend to hype how DL has as many rides as the four parks of WDW - and with DL it is a totally valid commentary as it is just packed with high quality and quaint rides. But at DCA, yeah it has more rides than any non-MK park at WDW, but that's because the ride count was propped up by a number of unremarkable off the shelf type rides in Paradise Pier and Bug's Land. The headliners and real park draws were few and far between. Obviously much better now since they added stuff over the years but I think it really shows had looking at the number of rides is a poor shorthand for park quality.

To your point, DAK is fantastic because the headliners are all quite good and the complimentary stuff all works well. Sure, it actually could use a little more "filler" to round things out but it's hard to argue that what is there isn't a fantastic theme park.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Top Bottom