Golden Ticket Awards 2006

[AndyMagic]

the best way to judge the parks is the cash comin' in...... and we all know who TRULY wins

Yes because we all know profit = quality. Lord knows brilliant films like "Hot Chicks" and "Little Man" are better than such stinkers like "Eternal Sunshine" and "The Royal Tenenbaums" because the former two made more money. :zipit:

 

[cmatt]

Yes because we all know profit = quality. Lord knows brilliant films like "Hot Chicks" and "Little Man" are better than such stinkers like "Eternal Sunshine" and "The Royal Tenenbaums" because the former two made more money. :zipit:

dont get me started on the machinist :lookaroun

 

[darthjohnny]

At one point, Dudley Do-Right's Rip Saw Falls was dangerous. I remember my father was riding behind me and when we hit that camel hump at the bottom of the big drop, my head collided with his chin. But we didn't make a big fuss over it. Now, the logs have backs to the seats, and can only sit 5 instead of the original six. I can't see how it got #1 water ride. It isn't even brand new anymore.

 

[Spaced Out Dude]

I can imagine though that Everest & Rock 'n' Roller Coaster would make it to the list.

 

[nyy102]

Yes because we all know profit = quality. Lord knows brilliant films like "Hot Chicks" and "Little Man" are better than such stinkers like "Eternal Sunshine" and "The Royal Tenenbaums" because the former two made more money. :zipit:

As a movie buff I could not pass on responding to your comment, though I will be bringing my own thread slightly off topic in doing so. In Hollywood today, I think there is a link between quality and profit, but more often than not they are inversely related as opposed to directly related. I think that, in most cases, the more money a film makes, the worse it truly is, as the box office is ruled by a demographic of 13 - 25 year olds that visit the movies more often than anyone else and see some real crap. None of my friends wanted to come see Capote or Munich with me, yet each and every one of them has seen Talledegga Nights and Scary Movie 4. The fact that this demographic is what rules the box office though is why quality and profit are inversely related. The theme park demographic, outside of Six Flags which is ruled by teens, is ruled by a much older demographic, especially when it's vacation spots like Florida or California or even Ohio. Families tend to go to these places together, as most teens can't afford to go themselves, and there is much more of an investment to be made here. Movie prices have gotten steep lately (I can't believe it's now $10.50 at the local theater), but that pales in comparison to even a short vacation at the lowest price resort at Disney or Universal. Since the prices are so much higher, people expect a much higher quality, especially since they will be spending more than an hour and a half to two hours on vacation. These adults, who often have higher quality standards than teens, expect to get what they pay for, and they overwhelmingly choose Disney year after year to meet that requirement. In that case, that leads me to believe that quality and profit are directly linked in the theme park industry, and it is proven because, unlike Hollywood were the crappy movies make the most money, the well-run parks like Disney attract 10 million plus a year and turn profits while the not-so-well-run parks like Six Flags attract a million or two people at best a year and just so happen to be in $2.1 billion worth of debt at the moment.

 

[AndyMagic]

As a movie buff I could not pass on responding to your comment, though I will be bringing my own thread slightly off topic in doing so. In Hollywood today, I think there is a link between quality and profit, but more often than not they are inversely related as opposed to directly related. I think that, in most cases, the more money a film makes, the worse it truly is, as the box office is ruled by a demographic of 13 - 25 year olds that visit the movies more often than anyone else and see some real crap. None of my friends wanted to come see Capote or Munich with me, yet each and every one of them has seen Talledegga Nights and Scary Movie 4. The fact that this demographic is what rules the box office though is why quality and profit are inversely related. The theme park demographic, outside of Six Flags which is ruled by teens, is ruled by a much older demographic, especially when it's vacation spots like Florida or California or even Ohio. Families tend to go to these places together, as most teens can't afford to go themselves, and there is much more of an investment to be made here. Movie prices have gotten steep lately (I can't believe it's now $10.50 at the local theater), but that pales in comparison to even a short vacation at the lowest price resort at Disney or Universal. Since the prices are so much higher, people expect a much higher quality, especially since they will be spending more than an hour and a half to two hours on vacation. These adults, who often have higher quality standards than teens, expect to get what they pay for, and they overwhelmingly choose Disney year after year to meet that requirement. In that case, that leads me to believe that quality and profit are directly linked in the theme park industry, and it is proven because, unlike Hollywood were the crappy movies make the most money, the well-run parks like Disney attract 10 million plus a year and turn profits while the not-so-well-run parks like Six Flags attract a million or two people at best a year and just so happen to be in $2.1 billion worth of debt at the moment.

As a film major and someone who has worked for studios, I share your frustration. However, there are some small little movies that are so good they end up surprising the studio. "Little Miss Sunshine" which began opening in wider release is an example. Don't give up faith. As for the rest of your post regarding the parks, I agree as well. My comment was just my hope of injecting humor into the thread.

 

[Scar Junior]

Those are...interesting:veryconfu Never really cared for the golden tickets.

Now, here's a category that gets me:

Best water ride:

1. Dudley Do-Right's Ripsaw Falls
Tie for 4th: Splash Mountain and Journey to Atlantis

Are you kidding me? Splash Mountain is TONS better than Journey to Atlantis, and I can't see why DDR Ripsaw Falls got #1.

Perhaps the age of the attraction is a factor? While Splash is way better than Atalntis, it is about a decade older. Also, Dudley Do Right is very fun and in my eyes underrated by most (and represents MN) - but I have only ridden it a few times (as opposed to the dozens and dozens of times I, and possibly the judges, have ridden Splash). Thus, Duddley Do Right's re-ridability is much higher than the almost 15 Year old Splash Mountain.


Arguable.... but this could be used in a discussion why Disney needs another water ride. --- which in my opinion is in the top 5 of things needed (MGM, then Epcot to be considered).

 

[Scar Junior]

IOA slips through the cracks because, though it doesn't have a collection of 8 or 10 world class coasters, it has two (or three, depending on how you look at it) in the Hulk and Dueling Dragons, and that alone attracts people. Since those people are already in the park, they ride things like DDRSF, and thus think its a better ride than Splash Mountain, which they may have never ridden because MK does not have a world class coaster or two to attract these coaster enthusiasts in with. It's this group of people that pushes DDRSF past SM and all others, and since SW has Kraken, its this group that makes Journey to Atlantis look like it can compare to Splash Mountain.

Again, another world-class post.

Most of my friends don't care much for Disney and theme parks in general (I'm a 22 year old college student at one of the country's biggest metropolitan universities). Infact, many of our CP presentations have been protested by annoying activists. However, many of the guys I know love rides (esp. when they learn that I worked in Orlando), I always get asked if I have been to IOA. They know Hulk by name (and Dueling Dragons as "the other one with two twisting rollercoasters"). The more educated ones know that these are Bolliger & Mabillard coasters (the most famous/respected coaster architects in the world).

With that said, these guys have little-to-no intention to visit Disney World (except when they mention ToT, RnR, M:S, EE, and they know of Splash). That's all they remember/talk about/ want to return for.

Take a look at ToT and RnR... they make up 80% of DS/MGM's population at any given time. This is not a call for thrill rides amok.... but it is an indication of national trends. I feel that for every E ride, there should be a C and B-A kids' ride with it. Imagine a B-A kids ride near the exit of ToT... it would work VERY well with Disney family vacation plans. I have spent a lot of time there over the years for various reasons... Usually women and children are there. A B-A attraction would almost make the kids forget that they are missing out.

There are lots of conclusions that can come from this post. However, I feel the focus lies in the concept of placement of E/thrill rides. It has little to do with the amount. Imagine one (at most two) E/thrill ride(s)... a coaster and another great ride near the Hunchback Theater (theoretically)... and the regard that this dead park would recieve.

 

[nyy102]

As a film major and someone who has worked for studios, I share your frustration. However, there are some small little movies that are so good they end up surprising the studio. "Little Miss Sunshine" which began opening in wider release is an example. Don't give up faith. As for the rest of your post regarding the parks, I agree as well. My comment was just my hope of injecting humor into the thread.

As an aspiring film major, I hope you are right. As for Little Miss Sunshine, I had the chance to see that the other day and it really was a very good movie, and I think it allowed Steve Carrell to cement himself as a great comedic talent.

 

[nyy102]

Again, another world-class post.

Most of my friends don't care much for Disney and theme parks in general (I'm a 22 year old college student at one of the country's biggest metropolitan universities). Infact, many of our CP presentations have been protested by annoying activists. However, many of the guys I know love rides (esp. when they learn that I worked in Orlando), I always get asked if I have been to IOA. They know Hulk by name (and Dueling Dragons as "the other one with two twisting rollercoasters"). The more educated ones know that these are Bolliger & Mabillard coasters (the most famous/respected coaster architects in the world).

With that said, these guys have little-to-no intention to visit Disney World (except when they mention ToT, RnR, M:S, EE, and they know of Splash). That's all they remember/talk about/ want to return for.

Take a look at ToT and RnR... they make up 80% of DS/MGM's population at any given time. This is not a call for thrill rides amok.... but it is an indication of national trends. I feel that for every E ride, there should be a C and B-A kids' ride with it. Imagine a B-A kids ride near the exit of ToT... it would work VERY well with Disney family vacation plans. I have spent a lot of time there over the years for various reasons... Usually women and children are there. A B-A attraction would almost make the kids forget that they are missing out.

There are lots of conclusions that can come from this post. However, I feel the focus lies in the concept of placement of E/thrill rides. It has little to do with the amount. Imagine one (at most two) E/thrill ride(s)... a coaster and another great ride near the Hunchback Theater (theoretically)... and the regard that this dead park would recieve.

Again, thanks for the compliment. You mentioned the lack of proper parkgoer distribution in MGM and I could not agree more. I honestly feel like most parkgoers take an imaginary shuttle that runs directly fromt he park gates down Sunset Blvd. to ToT and the RnRC, and then they get back on the shuttle and directly leave the park. If RnRC was built where the remains of the Backlot Tour currently are, and in retrospect that doesn't look like a bad decision if they had made it, parkgoers would at least have to travel not only across the park, but to the back of the park as well. As it is, they can go straight to RnRC and ToT and back again without encoutnering any attractions, and since the Sorceror's Hat was put up in front of the GMR, they do not even have an attraction within their range of vision while on their "shuttle". Epcot formerly had a similar problem with TT right next to MS, but at least they were both towards the back of Future World, and now Soarin' has been added. The different for MGM is that I don't think just any E ticket would draw people across the park. If current attractions can't pull them across the park, which are some of the more intense on Disney property, though still not as intense as RnRC or ToT, I don't think an $80 million E-ticket that was amazingly themed and brilliantly executed would necessarily draw them across the park either unless it was just as thrilling as the other two. If not, the serious thrill seekers would feel it was completely skippable, as they do the rest of the park. Everytime I am on the line for either one of those rides I hear multiple groups in the immediate vicinity talk of how they are leaving the park after that ride, and I usually ride them before 10 AM! An E-ticket would, however, get the majority of those people who leave after just those 2 rides to travel across the park, and those people would also be willing to experience the attractions that were along the way, the same way they would probably experience the attractions bettween the front gates and those 2 rides if those attractions weren't so nonexistant.

 

[JROK]

According to Universal books and stuff that talk about the ride, Fire supposedly "ravages the town of Merlinwood" while Ice stalks Merlin's Castle. Neither one comes even remotely close to that castle, nor go into it, once the coaster has left the station, except for when they reenter the station, and there is nothing that could even be mistaken for a town or even a house within site of the coaster, which to me makes the theming pretty poor, especially since Universal falsely advertises that the theming is greater than it truly is.

Just to correct you a bit... The Ice coaster actually has a near miss with the castle wall where it does a boomerang before turning back to corkscrew with the fire coaster... just thought i'd share that with ya...

 

[nyy102]

Just to correct you a bit... The Ice coaster actually has a near miss with the castle wall where it does a boomerang before turning back to corkscrew with the fire coaster... just thought i'd share that with ya...

Now that you mentioned it, I do remember that specific part of the ride, but the fact is that I still cannot imagine consider that "stalking" the castle. If anything, Ice and Fire stalk each other since those 2 share 3 near misses instead of one.