Guardians of the Galaxy - Mission: BREAKOUT! Reviews, Photos, Info

TROR

Well-Known Member
Although Disney has already stated publicly that DCA saw attendance increases which they attribute to GOTG:MB
And how many of those were not AP's? How many of those were out of state? I doubt very many.

...and that the attraction had (has?) the highest guest satisfaction scores of the entire resort...
Based on what? People who just got off the ride on opening day and were just excited to ride something new? Google Reviews of the attraction show it's less well received than Tower of Terror so that doesn't make very much sense.
 

Disney Analyst

Well-Known Member
And how many of those were not AP's? How many of those were out of state? I doubt very many.


Based on what? People who just got off the ride on opening day and were just excited to ride something new? Google Reviews of the attraction show it's less well received than Tower of Terror so that doesn't make very much sense.

Angry people typically are more likely to write a review online vs those who enjoy something. I do believe Disney has publicly stated that their guest satisfaction surveys have GOTG in a favourable light, and I would assume they have a better pool of information then google reviews.

Now we are all free to like or dislike something artistically etc... but I think spreading misinformation over success just because you don't like something is wrong.
 

dweezil78

Well-Known Member
Google Reviews of the attraction show it's less well received than Tower of Terror so that doesn't make very much sense.

You're being a bit of a stickler don't you think? Even if ToT did have better reviews, which it very well may have (all I can find are the DHS reviews @ 4.8), it only could have been marginally better than this -- which isn't bad at all if you consider any negative reviews from angry/bitter ToT fans that may have dragged it down.

mb.jpg
 

oo_nrb

Well-Known Member
Wait times are not an accurate measure of an attraction's popularity. Wait times are an excellent measure of how efficient an attraction is. You would not say that Pirates of the Caribbean, which features 6 row behemoths of ride vehicles and a 15 minute ride length, is unpopular simply because its wait times only go above 20 minutes when the park is very busy.

If we were using wait times as a measure of the popularity of an attraction, then Finding Nemo Submarine Voyage should be considered one of the most popular attractions in the park thanks to its 30-60 minute waits at all times of day, even though the number of people in line/inside the attraction pales in comparison to a much more efficient attraction like GOTG:MB. Other attractions also have the same problem, where inefficiency leads to long lines; see Astro Orbitor (long periods of waiting between cycles leading to consistent 30+ min waits) or Storybookland Canal Boats (horribly inefficient loading means 20-30 min waits on low attendance days).

With its 6 loading areas sending 19 Guests every 2.5 mins or so, GOTG:MB is one of the most efficient attractions at the Resort (when each shaft is working, of course). It shouldn't be penalized for its sometimes smaller wait times just because it's efficient.
 

TROR

Well-Known Member
We should just base our opinions on if something is fun or not tbh. That's all movies theme parks attractions need to be, is fun.
 

Disney Analyst

Well-Known Member
We should just base our opinions on if something is fun or not tbh. That's all movies theme parks attractions need to be, is fun.

No one is saying that... I think our point is you are using your own opinion to spout out fake facts about success... You are being very disingenuous and your bias shows.
 

TROR

Well-Known Member
No one is saying that... I think our point is you are using your own opinion to spout out fake facts about success... You are being very disingenuous and your bias shows.
It's not fake facts that MB only really brought in SoCal AP holders and not people from out of state. It's also not fake facts that Tower of Terror consistently had a 45 minute wait time and so does MB. It's not fake facts that people are easily pleased by what Disney puts out no matter how bad it is.
 

dweezil78

Well-Known Member
It's not fake facts that MB only really brought in SoCal AP holders and not people from out of state.

Just out of sincere, honest curiosity -- a) did anyone ever indicate that was the goal of MB (to bring in out of state guests vs increase AP sales or AP visit frequency) and b) are there facts somewhere that back this up?
 

mickEblu

Well-Known Member
Wait times are not an accurate measure of an attraction's popularity. Wait times are an excellent measure of how efficient an attraction is. You would not say that Pirates of the Caribbean, which features 6 row behemoths of ride vehicles and a 15 minute ride length, is unpopular simply because its wait times only go above 20 minutes when the park is very busy.

If we were using wait times as a measure of the popularity of an attraction, then Finding Nemo Submarine Voyage should be considered one of the most popular attractions in the park thanks to its 30-60 minute waits at all times of day, even though the number of people in line/inside the attraction pales in comparison to a much more efficient attraction like GOTG:MB. Other attractions also have the same problem, where inefficiency leads to long lines; see Astro Orbitor (long periods of waiting between cycles leading to consistent 30+ min waits) or Storybookland Canal Boats (horribly inefficient loading means 20-30 min waits on low attendance days).

With its 6 loading areas sending 19 Guests every 2.5 mins or so, GOTG:MB is one of the most efficient attractions at the Resort (when each shaft is working, of course). It shouldn't be penalized for its sometimes smaller wait times just because it's efficient.

It is an accurate measure when you re comparing it to the same exact ride system and capacity that was there before under a different theme.
 

GiveMeTheMusic

Well-Known Member
Wait times are not an accurate measure of an attraction's popularity. Wait times are an excellent measure of how efficient an attraction is. You would not say that Pirates of the Caribbean, which features 6 row behemoths of ride vehicles and a 15 minute ride length, is unpopular simply because its wait times only go above 20 minutes when the park is very busy.

If we were using wait times as a measure of the popularity of an attraction, then Finding Nemo Submarine Voyage should be considered one of the most popular attractions in the park thanks to its 30-60 minute waits at all times of day, even though the number of people in line/inside the attraction pales in comparison to a much more efficient attraction like GOTG:MB. Other attractions also have the same problem, where inefficiency leads to long lines; see Astro Orbitor (long periods of waiting between cycles leading to consistent 30+ min waits) or Storybookland Canal Boats (horribly inefficient loading means 20-30 min waits on low attendance days).

With its 6 loading areas sending 19 Guests every 2.5 mins or so, GOTG:MB is one of the most efficient attractions at the Resort (when each shaft is working, of course). It shouldn't be penalized for its sometimes smaller wait times just because it's efficient.

The difference is that the ride had the same efficiency and capacity in its previous incarnation, Tower of Terror, which routinely had longer wait times.

So in this instance, yes, a pattern of shorter overall wait times indicates lower popularity.
 

TROR

Well-Known Member
Just out of sincere, honest curiosity -- a) did anyone ever indicate that was the goal of MB (to bring in out of state guests vs increase AP sales or AP visit frequency) and b) are there facts somewhere that back this up?
APs don't bring in cash like out of state visitors do. APs come to the park for an afternoon and leave. Out of state guests will spend more on merch, food, tickets, and possibly Disney hotels. Spending allegedly $100 mil to overdo an already popular attraction just to bring APs to DCA makes no sense unless the goal was to take them out of Disneyland. If that was the goal, though, it didn't work because they rode MB and went back to Disneyland.
 

dweezil78

Well-Known Member
APs don't bring in cash like out of state visitors do. APs come to the park for an afternoon and leave. Out of state guests will spend more on merch, food, tickets, and possibly Disney hotels. Spending allegedly $100 mil to overdo an already popular attraction just to bring APs to DCA makes no sense unless the goal was to take them out of Disneyland. If that was the goal, though, it didn't work because they rode MB and went back to Disneyland.

Again, this may be all true, but where exactly are you getting data from to base these assumptions on? Are 2017 attendance #s even available or is this all hearsay? How do you know any of this?
 

GiveMeTheMusic

Well-Known Member
The goal was to quickly and cheaply get Marvel into DCA. Chapek was stunned to learn that WDPR had been sitting on the Marvel treasure chest for years with no action. He was also stunned to see how slipshod WDI is with money.

GOTG checked a lot of boxes. Popular IP, making over a ride that very few in WDI were happy with, cheap (it wasn’t $100 mil), fast, got Marvel in a park. They knew fans would hate it and they don’t care. Fans are looked at as petulant and dumb.

So the goal wasn’t necessarily attendance alone - the goal was to provide a “new” attraction at used prices while promoting priority IP.

Evidently, it’s enough of a success that Pixar Pier got the greenlight next for similar reasons.
 

mickEblu

Well-Known Member
The goal was to quickly and cheaply get Marvel into DCA. Chapek was stunned to learn that WDPR had been sitting on the Marvel treasure chest for years with no action. He was also stunned to see how slipshod WDI is with money.

GOTG checked a lot of boxes. Popular IP, making over a ride that very few in WDI were happy with, cheap (it wasn’t $100 mil), fast, got Marvel in a park. They knew fans would hate it and they don’t care. Fans are looked at as petulant and dumb.

So the goal wasn’t necessarily attendance alone - the goal was to provide a “new” attraction at used prices while promoting priority IP.

Evidently, it’s enough of a success that Pixar Pier got the greenlight next for similar reasons.

WDI had problems with it? Everything else makes sense but this one is hard to believe. Makes more sense that the mandate came down and it did the best they could. If WDI had a problem with TOT then they should have issues with about half of the Resort at a minimum.

When you say they knew fans would hate it, do you mean us hardcore fans or fan/ DL guests in general? I’m guessing the former.
 

TROR

Well-Known Member
WDI had problems with it? Everything else makes sense but this one is hard to believe. Makes more sense that the mandate came down and it did the best they could. If WDI had a problem with TOT then they should have issues with about half of the Resort at a minimum.
Tony Baxter has said he hated the exterior of the old Tower but I find it hard to believe he seriously thinks this new one is somehow an improvement.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom