It actually works great. Now instead of the 5 -14 year old girls complaining about going to EPCOT and crying they only want to go to MK the parents can go to EPCOT and there is something for the kids to do. FOP could of been put in DHS, it works at AK.
And that’s the problem. It’s run like any other Fortune 500 business. It used to be run like The Walt Disney Company.
Was this really a thing?
Why?
Age and gender probably was not that sharp a point, but as far as families with younger kid, up to middle teens more then likely had to force the kids to go to EPCOT, especially in World Showcase. It was considered a crashing bore to be tolerated only because the parents insisted and you knew that you just got it over with and move to a place that was more fun and lacking in any degree of conscious learning. Since WDW or any Disney Park, for that matter, is considered a family destination it therefore did indeed have a lot of influence on the length of stay in the park, if at all. They didn't like fine dining, they didn't give a rats behind about what the countries represented and it was a lot of walking. Not exactly the place the kids want to be.
I was going to respond , but you nailed it really. And before Maelstorm, that 5 years I think it was, my wife and I would go to the countries with the my wife's parents and the kids and even my wife' s younger brother stayed on the other-side. They saw the countries once and the 360 degree movies and they had enough at that age. Now my youngest kids even at 19 want to go to Frozen. I wish they would proceed with Mary Poppins and heck, even a family a roller coaster on that side couldn't hurt at this point.
I honestly can't tell whether or not this is satire.
It is not satire, it is the way it was back then. As I said those that did find it fascinating are not the majority. I loved it but I was in my 30's at the time. They had coloring stations for kids because there was nothing else there that interested them. It was a great park but missed it's primary audience by miles.
I'm in the minority here but IP has never been a draw for me. My favorite attractions at the parks are the ones with no IP attached to them. My favorite parks that aren't Disney are Cedar Point, Dollywood and Silver Dollar City. All 3 have very little IP in the parks. With the exception of Snoopy in the kids area. I'm more impressed with original attractions than those slapped with IP
I seem to recall teenagers complaining the most, in the admittedly small sampling of people I knew.
“But used-to-be’s don’t count anymore; they just lay on the floor ‘til we sweep them away…”
Well I suppose if you go on the ride not knowing the story and thinking pre ride "I hope there's a story that I can follow in every scene" there could possibly be some confusion, it's just never crossed my mind till you mentioned it. On a personal level I think it's far more enjoyable than Maelstrom was and I make more effort to ride it now than then. But that's just subjective, it's no problem that you see it differently.
"Back! Back! O-ver the falls!"
So it's more personal taste that any massive upset based on some thought that every idea must be absolutely original to Walt and the Seven old men. Which is silly because they and particularly Walt used IP's constantly. Does anyone think that Peter Pan, Sleeping Beauty, Davy Crockett, Cinderella, Snow White, the characters in Splash Mtn. and particularly Mary Poppins was a Disney original creation? In fact isn't Frozen a Disney original, how can that be not part of a Disney basic and therefore incorporated in a theme park attraction seamlessly? Is there really any difference between a Disney built attraction that contains an idea from a paid Disney "cast member" or an idea obtained by someone paid by Disney for use of their idea? And where exactly is the line that defines what IP is acceptable since even ideas generated by a Disney employee is an IP.
