Epcot & DHS rumors from Screamscape

WDWDad13

Well-Known Member
I read Screamscape everyday simply because it's a half decent aggregater of theme park news. Saves me from having to individually follow a bunch of different news sites.
check wdwrumors for aggregated Disney news....I like their format... then you can discuss on wdwmagic forums too...the best of both worlds! haha
 

ctxak98

Well-Known Member
Although I still think DHS needs some help On the back portion...I may be the only one here that likes the park as it is right now??? I know I'm weird but its still a Full day park IMO. I like the show element it brings rather then slamming rides into your face, and I know that's just my opinion and not everyone is like ME, But I love the shows. Personally, by adding a carsland, I think DHS will be an even bigger mess in cohesiveness. Its too big to be considered a part of Pixar Place and oddly not like the rest of the park. IDK. just my perspective I guess
 

Rodan75

Well-Known Member
Based on the first post, the Planes/Soarin' thing was total speculation by Screamscape (and stupid speculation at that). Why anyone takes that site seriously is beyond me.

And seriously, the whole RSR wouldn't work because of TT thing is beyond stupid. There are multiple instances of the same ride systems throughout the WDW parks.

In all fairness the speculation on Planes/Soarin' was originally speculated at another blogish Disney site and I don't think it was ever meant to be anything more than speculation.

I know some folks really seem negative on Screamscape, but I think it serves its purpose. It connects your average person with this insanely whacky world of Theme Park enthusiasts. I would not have found WDWMagic without Screamscape and I sense I'm not the only one.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
And seriously, the whole RSR wouldn't work because of TT thing is beyond stupid. There are multiple instances of the same ride systems throughout the WDW parks.

But one has to admit.. it's more than just the same ride system.. it's also the same ride vehicle concept, dressed to be the same thing too (yes I know the RSR cars are different..). It's not just 'two roller coasters in the same park' it's like having 'two train-styled roller coasters in the same park'. Both relying on the notion that you are in a car.. experiencing the attraction around the car concept.

That's a lot more similarities than saying.. HM and Nemo are both omnimovers.. and IASW and POTC are both boats.
 

doctornick

Well-Known Member
But one has to admit.. it's more than just the same ride system.. it's also the same ride vehicle concept, dressed to be the same thing too (yes I know the RSR cars are different..). It's not just 'two roller coasters in the same park' it's like having 'two train-styled roller coasters in the same park'. Both relying on the notion that you are in a car.. experiencing the attraction around the car concept.

That's a lot more similarities than saying.. HM and Nemo are both omnimovers.. and IASW and POTC are both boats.

Totally, completely disagree. Yes, you are "in a car" but the similarity ends there. In one, you are "in a car" testing safety features. And the other, you are "in a car" going through a town populated by leaving autobiles and engaging in a race versus another car. The theme and experience is totally different between the rides.

By your argument, one could say for IASW and POTC, they are the same because you are "in a boat" and experiencing the attraction around the concept of traveling in water to various scenes. How is that any different?
 

GiveMeTheMusic

Well-Known Member
But one has to admit.. it's more than just the same ride system.. it's also the same ride vehicle concept, dressed to be the same thing too (yes I know the RSR cars are different..). It's not just 'two roller coasters in the same park' it's like having 'two train-styled roller coasters in the same park'. Both relying on the notion that you are in a car.. experiencing the attraction around the car concept.

That's a lot more similarities than saying.. HM and Nemo are both omnimovers.. and IASW and POTC are both boats.

I don't quite follow your logic, but I do disagree. The same logic would mean that the Fantasyland dark rides are redundant - at DLR, Mr. Toad, Snow and Pinocchio all share very similar layouts/ride systems/themes in the same courtyard. Doesn't bother anyone.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
I don't quite follow your logic, but I do disagree. The same logic would mean that the Fantasyland dark rides are redundant - at DLR, Mr. Toad, Snow and Pinocchio all share very similar layouts/ride systems/themes in the same courtyard. Doesn't bother anyone.

What you are missing is the ride vehicle is basically 'inert' in the show concept for those FL dark rides. They are stylized to fit the attraction, but in themselves really are of no consequence to the show design except for to move you along a specific path. Here, the integration is much more advanced and central to the show concept.
 

Bolna

Well-Known Member
What you are missing is the ride vehicle is basically 'inert' in the show concept for those FL dark rides. They are stylized to fit the attraction, but in themselves really are of no consequence to the show design except for to move you along a specific path. Here, the integration is much more advanced and central to the show concept.

Not having been on RSR I am not sure about this, but to me it seems like it does tell a very different story. Test Track is something about sim cars or something similar now (to be honest, I truly did not get what it was from riding it recently, it was mainly shiny, but also even more boring than before) while RSR seems to be about visiting Radiator Springs. Also I think the racing aspect of RSR adds something special which TT lacks. I would think that EE and BTMRR are about equally related, if not more.
 

GiveMeTheMusic

Well-Known Member
What you are missing is the ride vehicle is basically 'inert' in the show concept for those FL dark rides. They are stylized to fit the attraction, but in themselves really are of no consequence to the show design except for to move you along a specific path. Here, the integration is much more advanced and central to the show concept.

I still disagree. And even if that were an issue, TT is in another park entirely. This would be like saying EE shouldn't be in DAK because BTMRR is at the MK.

This post needs more acronyms.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
Not having been on RSR I am not sure about this, but to me it seems like it does tell a very different story

The stories are very different of course - I am talking only about the ride system/ride vehicle similarity.. and pointing out that they are far more similar in use.. than simply saying both are self-powered vehicles along a slot track... or that different attractions both use water powered flumes.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
Totally, completely disagree. Yes, you are "in a car" but the similarity ends there

And I wasn't trying to make them any more similar than saying 'you are in a car' in an attraction centered around.. a car.

I never said the shows are the same.. I'm saying the ride systems share similarities beyond both being vehicles that ride along a slotted track.

By your argument, one could say for IASW and POTC, they are the same because you are "in a boat" and experiencing the attraction around the concept of traveling in water to various scenes. How is that any different?

1) you completely missed the point if you think it applies to IASW and POTC as similar.. in fact it points out why they are DIFFERENT even tho they both use boats
2) To see this... consider this.. if IASW were you just sitting in a omnimover... would the basic premise of the attraction change? Would the story, message, or the way it was told radically change if you weren't in a boat? No.. it wouldn't. The boats are basically 'inert' to the story/purpose of the attraction.
 

Little Green Men

Well-Known Member
The elephant in the room here is the simple fact that DHS doesn't need a couple of new rides, it needs over A DOZEN new rides and it needed them yesterday.

DHS is a 25 year old theme park with only 15 major attractions, of which six of those attractions are actual rides. Six. And three of them have height requirements.

When Cars Land opened, DCA was an 11 year old theme park that had 25 major attractions, and 18 of those attractions were actual rides. Eighteen. Cars Land opened and added three new rides to that total, bringing DCA to 21 rides before its 12th birthday. Plus seven popular theater attractions and a really good activity area. (Aladdin, Disney Jr., ITTBAB, MuppetVision, Turtle Talk, Animation Academy, Redwood Creek Challenge Trail)

6 rides at DHS after 25 years, and 21 rides at DCA after 12 years. Think about that.

You could add an exact clone of Cars Land to DHS and get 9 rides, but you still need to add a dozen additional rides to DHS to make it a full day park.

Anyone have any peanuts for that giant elephant here in the room with us? :D
That's true, but don't forget that 12 of those attractions at DCA are basic amusement park style rides. Bugsland has 4: Heimlich's Chew Chew Train, Francis' Ladybug Boogy, Flik's Flyers, and
Tuck and Roll's drive 'Em Buggies. Carsland has 2: Mater's Junkyard Jamboree, and Luigi's Flying Tires. Finally Paradise Pier has 6: Golden Zephyr, Goofy's Sky School, Jumpin' Jellyfish, King Triton's Carousel, Mickey's Fun Wheel, and Silly Symphony Swings. Now that's not to say they aren't well done rides, DHS could certainly use some of these rides to up the attraction count and give families more rides to go on.
 

Rescue Ranger

Well-Known Member
I am happy about this. I'd rather RSR stay in Cali...let them have something unique. Thats how the Parks should be.

I'd rather they just ditch it all together and bring in a different themed land. Be it Star Wars, Incredibles, Bug's Life, Aladdin, Monsters Inc, or most of all VILLAINS!!! Worst case, at least Art of Animation offers a Cars Land for absolutely free for those wanting a taste.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom