Is WDW's Soarin better designed than DL's?

[ZapperZ]

Well, the one in California has a much better qeue line, that's for sure. Atleast it has something to look at, unlike WDW's long blank walls. But other than that, they're about the same.

I wrote about this in my mini grand tour trip report.(*) I much prefer the queue line for WDW Soarin'. It is slicker. The one at DCA tries to make it look like an airplane hanger with picture of flight pioneers - it makes it have more of a "fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants" type feel. This just simply didn't match the well-tailored outfit that Patrick wears and the slick and polished look inside the theater. On the other hand, it matches more closely with the decor of the ride at Epcot, even with the widescreen flatpanel displays.

The only problem that I have with both rides is that they load SO SLOWLY. They could have built another set of theaters at Epcot.

Zz.

(*) http://forums.wdwmagic.com/showpost.php?p=1662883&postcount=5 ; http://forums.wdwmagic.com/showpost.php?p=1671949&postcount=27

 

[ClemsonTigger]

As has been posted, they are the same. We here at DL were actually disappointed b/c we were REALLY hoping that WDW would fix the infamous "non 1st row" problem. i.e. the best seat in the house really is the first row of a glider. A friend agreed that there's no design reason why they couldn't have separated the gliders a little more. We were all surprised they didn't do that in Florida since it wouldn't have required much effort, at least according to the friend.

For me, and this has probably been talked to death so not trying to rehash any ancient arguments, it's just weird to have "Soarin'" be an airport theme. Aside from the fact that we all know the original theme and the nexus around which Soarin' and the film were constructed, I don't quite get an airport being in "The Land". To me, just kinda sticks out like a sore thumb with the rest of the pavillion. I'd really like to eventually see Florida get its own film. I'm sure it would work much better than borrowing our very DCA-centric film.

While I agree that that fix would have been nice...it is a major one. Consider that you would have to add about 2ft added spacing for the middle and back row, you would have to make the building bigger and the screen.

I personally like the building theming better in DCA, but the theming may work better in Florida with a second generation movie whenever that might come.

 

[tirian]

Actually, DCA isn't that much of a failure because when I went it was more busy than Disneyland. It isn't viewed as a corperate failure because if it was, WDW wouldn't have gotten as much work for the Happiest Celebration-considering that they would have gone the extra mile to fix any "errors" with DCA (And the only one that they fixed was turning Ssuperstar Limo into Monster's Inc.)

Ummm...

I work for the Company, and can guarantee that DCA in its current state is viewed as a corporate failure. Only the WDS in Paris is considered to be a worse park.

Also, WDW had much more money poured into it because WDW--not DCA or even DL--is the Company's flagship resort. With millions more Guests visiting WDW than any other Disney resort, it made sense to add attractions to WDW for DL's 50th anniversary. Don't forget that all of DL was refurbished for its anniversary; the majority of California's budget was spent fixing Pressler's mistakes.

:wave:

Regarding Soarin', the mad rush will eventually die down within the next few years, similar to how you can often still get a FP for Test Track well into the afternoon. I'm more interested in seeing whether or not Soarin' enjoys immense popularity again when the film is changed.

...and yes, Epcot's queue is MUCH better than DCA's.

 

[CSUFSteve]

Also, WDW had much more money poured into it because WDW--not DCA or even DL--is the Company's flagship resort.

But I think you can agree that this isn't the whole story, right? Yes, WDW may be the cash cow of WDPR, but Disneyland's capita per square inch is nothing to be dismissed it. In Florida, it takes 47 square miles to generate the revenue. That is not proportial to the revenue DLR generates in 700-some acres. Granted, costs of business are much higher in CA, but still. And also, with the 50th, corporate was taken by surprise at just how well DL grew its attendance. WDW grew in the low single digits, DLR in the low double-digits. If DCA can be turned around, DLR actually has significant profitability potential vs WDW. We'll never compete revenue-wise, but profitability we definitely can.

With millions more Guests visiting WDW than any other Disney resort, it made sense to add attractions to WDW for DL's 50th anniversary. Don't forget that all of DL was refurbished for its anniversary; the majority of California's budget was spent fixing Pressler's mistakes.

And thank gawd it was!! I'm so happy with the money poured into making Disneyland look fresh again. Like someone on another board said, Disneyland feels alive like it hasn't in years (since before Pressler/Harriss). As for WDW getting attractions, haha, it always irks me that these are always attractions WDW was getting w/ or w/o a big celebration and yet they're always packaged as thought it actually was for the celebration. Cinderellabration was totally cheap, Soarin'... the development costs were paid for by CA so not really expensive either, and it's a film-based attraction, always cheaper... Stunt Show, not expensive... really the major one is EE.

...and yes, Epcot's queue is MUCH better than DCA's.

Haha, definitely personal opinion there. Like I said, DCA's actually themes to, I dunno, the area it's in maybe!!! You actually LEARN something in DCA's queue about CA's aviation history. The Land's doesn't theme at all with the rest of the pavillion and is a sterile, cold, aluminum queue.

 

[CTXRover]

^^One big section of Epcot's queue contains ever-changing facts that guests can learn from as they wait as well. Below each of the large landscape murals are monitors that display constantly changing Q&A style facts about each of the biomes that the large mural above it represents. I personally like the look and feel of Epcot's queue better myself. It looks modern and nice, especially the mural hallway and the blue neon lighted hallway with cloud-like light fixtures. DCA's does a great job at its theme as an airport hanger, but it seems less visually interesting to me.

 

[MadameCheshire]

I've been on both.. they are the same thing. Except in the beginning of the WDW one.. but the skip where they took out "over California" is pretty hilarious.

 

[abian]

...and yes, Epcot's queue is MUCH better than DCA's.

and NO, epcot's queue sucks...... DCA's is way way better.

 

[PhilosophyMagic]

Disney didn't fix the large problem of extreme wait times by building extra theaters. Now, they are stuck with having 2 and half hour waits just for one ride. I'm sorry, but I'm going to be bold when I say that Soarin' isn't worth that much of a wait....:lookaroun

That's what amazes me... DCA has a lower daily attendance than Epcot, and the capacity for Soarin was already a problem there. It seems insane to allow such a low capacity e-ticket in Epcot... as an Epcot CM, I have heard a LOT of guest complains about the wait for Soarin, and a LOT of guests just aren't riding, which MUST bring down the overall guest satisfaction for Epcot, at least to some extent. It does make sense, though, that it was just too tempting for Disney to keep the budget much lower by just cloning the original, instead of spending so much more doing engineering redesigns.

 

[PhilosophyMagic]

Also, by the way, I assume that it would be very safe to assume that the eventual film change for WDW's Soarin will be toward a theme fitting more closely with The Land, such as over wilderness areas around the world, which, by the way, would be much better theme-wise. Obviously.

 

[tirian]

But I think you can agree that this isn't the whole story, right? Yes, WDW may be the cash cow of WDPR, but Disneyland's capita per square inch is nothing to be dismissed it. In Florida, it takes 47 square miles to generate the revenue. That is not proportial to the revenue DLR generates in 700-some acres. Granted, costs of business are much higher in CA, but still. And also, with the 50th, corporate was taken by surprise at just how well DL grew its attendance. WDW grew in the low single digits, DLR in the low double-digits. If DCA can be turned around, DLR actually has significant profitability potential vs WDW. We'll never compete revenue-wise, but profitability we definitely can.

I agree that it's not the whole story. My statement was directed at people who whine that DL didn't receive enough for the 50th when, in fact, they basically received a whole new park! (Or at least a fully refurbished one.) That's HUGE!

If you're referring to Gross Margin, or even the labor/revenue ratio, as "profitability," you're halfway right. While DL did see an enormous increase in traffic for its 50th anniversary (and rightly so), WDW still produces far more revenue with its parks and resorts. Despite their enormous labor costs (~57,000 CMs!), the entire resort still produces enough money to be the most profitable one Disney has. And the fact that California only has two parks doesn't make too much of a difference: WDW was the cash cow even when it had only the MK and Epcot. It simply attracts a more international audience.

But that's not what I was talking about. The fact is simply that WDW is driven by international tourism, while DL is mostly locals. Therefore, since WDW reaches a broader audience, Disney decided to focus the new attractions here in an attempt to over-market DL's 50th. New attractions were more important at WDW than at DCA. Did it work? According to reports I've heard, about the only things WDW Guests cared for were the new attractions and the golden Mickey ears. Most of the merchandise didn't sell, since the majority of Guests visiting WDW simply didn't care about DL's 50th as much as those in California did.

This unnecessary thread drift basically means that WDW could have opened Soarin', LMA, or E:E without the 50th gimmick and Guests wouldn't have cared either way. :lol: Disney just promoted the attractions for DL's celebration because more Guests visit WDW than DL. But DL turned out to be the biggest winner after all! The 50th celebration attracted far more people to DL than to WDW. We'll have to wait to see whether or not those Guests continue returning to DL, or if it becomes a "Mostly AP" park again.

p.s. Yes, the Soarin' queue is definitely a matter of opinion; but the ride itself is the same... for now...

EDIT: This post is too long! Sorry!

 

[CSUFSteve]

One big section of Epcot's queue contains ever-changing facts that guests can learn from as they wait as well. Below each of the large landscape murals are monitors that display constantly changing Q&A style facts about each of the biomes that the large mural above it represents. I personally like the look and feel of Epcot's queue better myself. It looks modern and nice, especially the mural hallway and the blue neon lighted hallway with cloud-like light fixtures. DCA's does a great job at its theme as an airport hanger, but it seems less visually interesting to me.

Yes, I guess I'll have to concede the point that Epcot's is educational. But I guess I dunno how to explain it. I mean, it just feels so quickly thrown together in terms of queue. Like how can we spend the least amount of time and money in barfing up a queue and show building to get this thing open. I mean, the quote-film is not original - they do that in Circle of Life already. And I still say the airport theme is just odd for the Land. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad Epcot has it and I agree that once/if there's a new film in place, I've no doubt the attraction will be much more appropriate for the Land. I just feel like DCA's has heart and originality; Epcot's stale and cold. But really I guess at this point it's just a religious debate - probably a lot like the MK vs DL debate: depends on what you're used to and/or experienced first.

I agree that it's not the whole story. My statement was directed at people who whine that DL didn't receive enough for the 50th when, in fact, they basically received a whole new park! (Or at least a fully refurbished one.) That's HUGE!

No disagreement there! I did like the concept of re-working classic attractions for the 50th but we're really getting that anyway with the Mansion and Pirates so I'm still happy.

...the entire resort still produces enough money to be the most profitable one Disney has. And the fact that California only has two parks doesn't make too much of a difference: WDW was the cash cow even when it had only the MK and Epcot. It simply attracts a more international audience.

Yes, I've no doubt WDW still remains the resort with the highest profit margin. My only point, and this might be difficult to explain in type, is that I doubt the increase in profit margin over DL's profit margin is directly proportional to their respective attendance levels, certainly I would guess not over their land size areas. For example, if you say DLR's total attendance is around 20 million and Florida's is, what, 45 million, then is FL's profit margin more than 2x that of DLR's? Or, following the other argument, if you say DLR's total acreage is roughly 700 acres, and FL's developed area is, assuming 25% of the total acreage has been developed, roughly 7000 acres, then is FL's revenue per sq ft (forget the name of that metric) 100x DLR's? I have no idea if that made any sense.

Now, I completely realize more comparisons are little unrealistic in that you also have to take into account cost/value of the land between FL and CA. Obviously in CA you'd never put a giant lake in front of a theme park b/c the return on investment would be infintessimally small compared to the cost of the land. Not to mention EIR fees in CA vs FL, regulatory differences, yadda yadda yadda. I'm not suggesting DLR can overcome FL's profit margin by next year. My only real point is that I don't think DLR would ever need to reach the same attendance levels as WDW to be as profitable as WDW. I think we could achieve it with less attendance and with ultimately less expense. Consider, it's not just that we have fewer CM's, we also have less euqipment cost. No transporation costs other than trams and our pueny monorail. But as I said, yes, I realize our labor costs are higher.

But that's not what I was talking about. The fact is simply that WDW is driven by international tourism, while DL is mostly locals.

Definitely no arguing with that. And this is so very obvious by being in the Magic Kingdom vs Disneyland. I've said it before: Disneyland is in the difficult position of having to be everything to everyone. Magic Kingdom squarely appeals to the family demographic. Of course, the other parks need to and do as well, but to a lesser extent. They have a bit more latitude b/c MK takes that pressure off. It's so interesting to watch MK's operation. Everything really is geared toward the classic Disney experience that families expect. You can almost see it being geared toward the family that comes every 4 or 5 years. How long has the Share A Dream parade been running now??

Therefore, since WDW reaches a broader audience, Disney decided to focus the new attractions here in an attempt to over-market DL's 50th. New attractions were more important at WDW than at DCA. Did it work? According to reports I've heard, about the only things WDW Guests cared for were the new attractions and the golden Mickey ears. Most of the merchandise didn't sell, since the majority of Guests visiting WDW simply didn't care about DL's 50th as much as those in California did.

Well, I guess it depends on how you interpret those numbers, right? I mean, yes, that's one way to read it: that WDW guests didn't care about DL's 50th. Another way to read it would be that WDW guests weren't fooled by Disney's "broad definition" of the 50th and realized the FL park wasn't the proper place to celebrate it. Another religious debate I'm sure. But I suspect that part of the reason we got such a big bump is b/c if people wanted to celebrate the 50th, they wanted to go the Park that was, in fact, 50, not FL. Hmm.. so maybe we're both right

This unnecessary thread drift basically means that WDW could have opened Soarin', LMA, or E:E without the 50th gimmick and Guests wouldn't have cared either way. :lol: Disney just promoted the attractions for DL's celebration because more Guests visit WDW than DL. But DL turned out to be the biggest winner after all! The 50th celebration attracted far more people to DL than to WDW. We'll have to wait to see whether or not those Guests continue returning to DL, or if it becomes a "Mostly AP" park again.

I sometimes wish WDW wouldn't have a celebration every year. They didn't used to and in some ways, I think it lessens the "oh cool" factor when every year we're celebrating one thing or another. If celebrations become the norm, do they remain effective marketing tools? I remember overhearing a family in FL this year comment, "Wasn't it the 100th anniversary of WDW just a few years ago?" I assume WDW isn't doing much for its 35th (what with this new Dreams promo and all) and it's next big thing will be Epcot's 25th? (for which I will definitely be there front and center!!) At least I don't see much need for park cross-promotion anytime soon since WDW's 50th won't easily tie-in to a celebration at Disneyland.

Anyway, interesting discussion. I'll also apologize for the length of this post!

 

[tirian]

Yes, it's a long post, but I'm enjoying the conversation. It's fun to hear other opinions on the same topic and say, "Hey, good point."

The funny thing is that we agree and used different arguments to reach the same conclusion.


...and we're both apparently too long-winded.

 

[shmmrname]

Does DL's Soarin' have a Seinfeld character in the Pre-Show?

 

[jedimaster1227]

No disagreement there! I did like the concept of re-working classic attractions for the 50th but we're really getting that anyway with the Mansion and Pirates so I'm still happy.

They should have brought back the Rocket Rods as a promotion for the 50th! :lol: Maybe then their international attendance issues would be solved! :lol:

Actually, I really enjoyed Disneyland when I went, but it wasn't as amazing as Walt Disney World-during the day. At night Disneyland and DCA are an incredible sight, and candy for the eyes. Just being able to see Disneyland and DCA at night is enough for me to pay to fly to California and visit.

 

[Chape19714]

Does DL's Soarin' have a Seinfeld character in the Pre-Show?

That's Patrick Warburton, who played Puddy on Sienfield. Puddy was Eliane's Boyfriend in several episodes. He appears in both versions. He was also the voice of Kronk in the emporer's new groove and Kronk's New Groove, and also has a voice on Family Guy.

 

[jedimaster1227]

That's Patrick Warburton, who played Puddy on Sienfield. Puddy was Eliane's Boyfriend in several episodes. He appears in both versions. He was also the voice of Kronk in the emporer's new groove and Kronk's New Groove, and also has a voice on Family Guy.

He plays Joe in Family Guy and he also had a minor role in Men in Black II.

He adds a special touch to Soarin' and I can't help but laugh when seeing his preshow bit.