News Lightning McQueen's Racing Academy (New Show for 2019)

[MisterPenguin]

Remember the days where 3 rides was counted as a mini-land.

Now were lucky if we get 3 rides in a land.

• Storybook Circus: 1 new ride; 2 converted
• TSL: 2 new rides; 1 converted
• Hogsmeade: 1 new ride; 2 converted
• Diagon Alley: 2 new rides (one of which shared with Hogsmeade)
• New Fanatasyland Extension: 2 new rides
• Cars Land: 3 new rides (one a dud that had to be replaced)
• Pandora: 2 new rides

Three brand new rides in a new land is indeed quite rare.

 

[danlb_2000]

• Storybook Circus: 1 new ride; 2 converted
• TSL: 2 new rides; 1 converted
• Hogsmeade: 1 new ride; 2 converted
• Diagon Alley: 2 new rides (one of which shared with Hogsmeade)
• New Fanatasyland Extension: 2 new rides
• Cars Land: 3 new rides (one a dud that had to be replaced)
• Pandora: 2 new rides

Three brand new rides in a new land is indeed quite rare.

It was even rare when parks first opened. If I counted right, the only land that had more then one ride on the opening day of WDW was Fantasyland. Animal Kingdom still only has one or two rides in all it's lands with the exception of Dinoland. Except for Cars Land I can't think of a time where there was any sort of addition to a US park that included more the two new rides. Two rides in a land might not be the norm, although it's not far from it, but adding more then two rides to a park at one time definitely is rare, so opening a new land with only two rides should seem that strange.

 

[beachlover4444]

Galaxy's Edge will have two rides not one.[/QUOTE

I've only read about flying the millennium falcon. I did find something about a second attraction planned that puts you in the middle of a battle between the first order and the resistance but it doesnt sound like its a ride, there isnt much info on it.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

It was even rare when parks first opened. If I counted right, the only land that had more then one ride on the opening day of WDW was Fantasyland. Animal Kingdom still only has one or two rides in all it's lands with the exception of Dinoland. Except for Cars Land I can't think of a time where there was any sort of addition to a US park that included more the two new rides. Two rides in a land might not be the norm, although it's not far from it, but adding more then two rides to a park at one time definitely is rare, so opening a new land with only two rides should seem that strange.

That's part of the problem with Disney's contemporary park building practices - new parks are chronically underbuilt from the beginning with the promise that there's "lots of room to grow", but they only ever add one or two attraction at a time, and at a pace that doesn't keep with the aggressive expansion that Disneyland and Magic Kingdom saw in their early days - a pace that is responsible for them being the busiest parks in the nation. There is SO much to do!

That was part of my fear when attractions started closing in the advent of the big DHS redo - the more attractions they close, the more they have to build to outpace the amount of offerings the park had before shovels started moving, and when it comes to expansion they typically only ever build one or two things at a time. No doubt Star Wars Land will be more popular than anything that ever occupied that space before, but for all the money they're spending the park will have roughly the same amount of things to post-overhaul as it did pre-overhaul. There wasn't a better way to use what they had in that park than raze much of it for the land it stood on? The park will do better business, but the amount of guest offerings will still be insufficient when compared to a park like MK. They'll have built 5 new attractions in the park, a massive amount to add at once, and it the park will still feel small because none of them are true expansion, they're replacements.

It's as if they have no idea why MK is always doing gangbusters while the other parks fight for a very distant second place. Guys . . . it was built out pretty well from the beginning and hardly stopped growing for 25 years. The other parks have never been poised to catch up to MK in its array of offerings, and even now that they're pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into them they STILL aren't even on track to trend that way.

Parks that were comparably well built out would probably fare more comparably.

Epcot has been closing attractions for years with either no replacement or unsuitable ones and *SURPRISE*, it's fallen to the bottom of the list in terms of guest satisfaction. Did someone actually think that kind of practice would help the park do great business like the MK? And now their solution is to try to shove properties that belong in MK in Epcot where they don't belong, as if THAT was what it was missing.

Anyone know how many attractions MK had on opening day vs. how many it had in it's 20th year? What about the same for Animal Kingdom?

 

[ThemeParkTraveller]

I've only read about flying the millennium falcon. I did find something about a second attraction planned that puts you in the middle of a battle between the first order and the resistance but it doesnt sound like its a ride, there isnt much info on it.

Although nothing much has been officially announced, we know enough from insiders that the Battle Escape attraction will be a very large-scale trackless dark ride. By all accounts, it will be the headliner of Galaxy's Edge and more impressive than the Millennium Falcon attraction (which will be a simulator akin to a fusion of Mission Space and Star Tours).

 

[DisneyDodo]

That's part of the problem with Disney's contemporary park building practices - new parks are chronically underbuilt from the beginning with the promise that there's "lots of room to grow", but they only ever add one or two attraction at a time, and at a pace that doesn't keep with the aggressive expansion that Disneyland and Magic Kingdom saw in their early days - a pace that is responsible for them being the busiest parks in the nation. There is SO much to do!

That was part of my fear when attractions started closing in the advent of the big DHS redo - the more attractions they close, the more they have to build to outpace the amount of offerings the park had before shovels started moving, and when it comes to expansion they typically only ever build one or two things at a time. No doubt Star Wars Land will be more popular than anything that ever occupied that space before, but for all the money they're spending the park will have roughly the same amount of things to post-overhaul as it did pre-overhaul. There wasn't a better way to use what they had in that park than raze much of it for the land it stood on? The park will do better business, but the amount of guest offerings will still be insufficient when compared to a park like MK. They'll have built 5 new attractions in the park, a massive amount to add at once, and it the park will still feel small because none of them are true expansion, they're replacements.

It's as if they have no idea why MK is always doing gangbusters while the other parks fight for a very distant second place. Guys . . . it was built out pretty well from the beginning and hardly stopped growing for 25 years. The other parks have never been poised to catch up to MK in its array of offerings, and even now that they're pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into them they STILL aren't even on track to trend that way.

Parks that were comparably well built out would probably fare more comparably.

Epcot has been closing attractions for years with either no replacement or unsuitable ones and *SURPRISE*, it's fallen to the bottom of the list in terms of guest satisfaction. Did someone actually think that kind of practice would help the park do great business like the MK? And now their solution is to try to shove properties that belong in MK in Epcot where they don't belong, as if THAT was what it was missing.

Anyone know how many attractions MK had on opening day vs. how many it had in it's 20th year? What about the same for Animal Kingdom?

THIS.

With Epcot, DHS, and AK, Disney has conditioned guests into believing that it's completely fine for a world class theme park to have a single-digit number of rides. None of these parks are anywhere close to being up to snuff. The recent additions and announced projects are certainly a step in the right direction, but Disney will need to continue developing at this pace for many years to get these parks where they need to be. The good new is, at least they all have ample space.

 

[MisterPenguin]

THIS.

With Epcot, DHS, and AK, Disney has conditioned guests into believing that it's completely fine for a world class theme park to have a single-digit number of rides. None of these parks are anywhere close to being up to snuff. The recent additions and announced projects are certainly a step in the right direction, but Disney will need to continue developing at this pace for many years to get these parks where they need to be. The good new is, at least they all have ample space.

The purpose of the other three gates was to purposely be light in rides because they had other attractions which weren't rides: Epcot has the World Showcase, DAK has a zoo, and DHS has shows.

And just because there are rides, doesn't mean they're good rides. It's not that a ride is inherently better than any and all non-ride attractions. Get A Horse is more entertaining and a better visual treat than Soarin'. FotLK beats the two rides at DinoRama. American Adventure beats Nemo Ride. HEA beats half the rides at the MK.

Now, are all the shows and non-ride attractions top notch? Nope. But they are really good ones that complete the theme park experience without it being just going from ride to ride to ride.

I do welcome the addition of more rides. I'd also welcome the addition of new top-notch shows (or at the very least, replace the old tired ones). But it would be wrong to say that there is any conditioning on the part of WDW for people to accept parks with a low number of rides because WDW was counting the number of *attractions* and not just rides.

DAK wasn't built for the repeat customer there every week who's grown tired of the zoo and the Nemo Musical and just want's to ride a thrill ride over and over again every trip.

 

[danlb_2000]

That's part of the problem with Disney's contemporary park building practices - new parks are chronically underbuilt from the beginning with the promise that there's "lots of room to grow", but they only ever add one or two attraction at a time, and at a pace that doesn't keep with the aggressive expansion that Disneyland and Magic Kingdom saw in their early days - a pace that is responsible for them being the busiest parks in the nation. There is SO much to do!

That was part of my fear when attractions started closing in the advent of the big DHS redo - the more attractions they close, the more they have to build to outpace the amount of offerings the park had before shovels started moving, and when it comes to expansion they typically only ever build one or two things at a time. No doubt Star Wars Land will be more popular than anything that ever occupied that space before, but for all the money they're spending the park will have roughly the same amount of things to post-overhaul as it did pre-overhaul. There wasn't a better way to use what they had in that park than raze much of it for the land it stood on? The park will do better business, but the amount of guest offerings will still be insufficient when compared to a park like MK. They'll have built 5 new attractions in the park, a massive amount to add at once, and it the park will still feel small because none of them are true expansion, they're replacements.

It's as if they have no idea why MK is always doing gangbusters while the other parks fight for a very distant second place. Guys . . . it was built out pretty well from the beginning and hardly stopped growing for 25 years. The other parks have never been poised to catch up to MK in its array of offerings, and even now that they're pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into them they STILL aren't even on track to trend that way.

Parks that were comparably well built out would probably fare more comparably.

Epcot has been closing attractions for years with either no replacement or unsuitable ones and *SURPRISE*, it's fallen to the bottom of the list in terms of guest satisfaction. Did someone actually think that kind of practice would help the park do great business like the MK? And now their solution is to try to shove properties that belong in MK in Epcot where they don't belong, as if THAT was what it was missing.

Anyone know how many attractions MK had on opening day vs. how many it had in it's 20th year? What about the same for Animal Kingdom?

It all comes down to money. Rides/attractions are expensive to build and operate, so from a pure money standpoint it's best to have as few rides as you can get away with.

 

[Disneylover152]

Anyone know how many attractions MK had on opening day vs. how many it had in it's 20th year? What about the same for Animal Kingdom?

This took a solid two hours of my life, much longer than I thought. But I had fun and learned a lot.

I will be counting "Attractions" as anything that Disney would classify as an attraction in 2018.

I made a chart on Word. So here are my discoveries:

 

[DisneyDodo]

The purpose of the other three gates was to purposely be light in rides because they had other attractions which weren't rides: Epcot has the World Showcase, DAK has a zoo, and DHS has shows.

And just because there are rides, doesn't mean they're good rides. It's not that a ride is inherently better than any and all non-ride attractions. Get A Horse is more entertaining and a better visual treat than Soarin'. FotLK beats the two rides at DinoRama. American Adventure beats Nemo Ride. HEA beats half the rides at the MK.

Now, are all the shows and non-ride attractions top notch? Nope. But they are really good ones that complete the theme park experience without it being just going from ride to ride to ride.

I do welcome the addition of more rides. I'd also welcome the addition of new top-notch shows (or at the very least, replace the old tired ones). But it would be wrong to say that there is any conditioning on the part of WDW for people to accept parks with a low number of rides because WDW was counting the number of *attractions* and not just rides.

DAK wasn't built for the repeat customer there every week who's grown tired of the zoo and the Nemo Musical and just want's to ride a thrill ride over and over again every trip.

I can't agree with the general sentiment of your post. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to knock the non-ride forms of entertainment Disney offers. I love the shows and 3D movies and animal exhibits, etc. My issue is with these options serving as replacements for rides, rather than complements. MK has plenty of non-ride attractions - 4 animatronic shows, Philharmagic, MILF, ETwB, FoF parade, Sawyer, etc. But they also have a ton of rides.

You are right that a ride is not guaranteed to be better than another form of attraction (though I believe 99% of Epcot's guests would disagree with your preference for GAH over Soarin'). But there is something unique about a ride that other forms of entertainment don't offer. In fact, I would argue that having rides is the defining characteristic of an amusement park (of which "theme parks" is a subset). In other words, if it doesn't contain rides, it's not an amusement park. The same cannot be said of shows, movies, games, dining, or shops, which are really separate categories of entertainment in their own right that are used to help fill out an amusement park.

It's certainly true that not all rides appeal to everyone, which is exactly why there needs to be a large quantity. Storybook Circus and Dino-rama have similar ride offerings, but way more people complain about the latter because they don't have alternatives at AK. What makes MK better than the other parks is that there is enough to do for just about everyone.

But you don't have to take my word for it - the attendance numbers prove that the shows at DHS, animals at AK, and WS at Epcot are not doing enough to compensate for those parks' lack of rides. You love to point out that the shortcomings of those parks are a major factor behind the overcrowding at MK. I absolutely agree, and that's why they need to continue adding more rides.

 

[MisterPenguin]

This took a solid two hours of my life, much longer than I thought. But I had fun and learned a lot.

I will be counting "Attractions" as anything that Disney would classify as an attraction in 2018.

I made a chart on Word. So here are my discoveries:
View attachment 305573
View attachment 305574

Charts are *tight*!!

 

[Disneylover152]

Charts are *tight*!!

Don't know what that means, but ok.

 

[Princess Leia]

Don't know what that means, but ok.

It’s a compliment, roll with it

The charts do look great, btw

 

[MisterPenguin]

Don't know what that means, but ok.

Or, watch this laudable series to see it used in context...

 

[Disneylover152]

Ok, thanks! Seriously, I'm 16 and have never heard that word used like that before ever. lol

 

[PorterRedkey]

View attachment 305655

Or, watch this laudable series to see it used in context...

Love the Pitch Meeting series of video!!!!

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

This took a solid two hours of my life, much longer than I thought. But I had fun and learned a lot.

I will be counting "Attractions" as anything that Disney would classify as an attraction in 2018.

I made a chart on Word. So here are my discoveries:
View attachment 305573
View attachment 305574

Amazing! I certainly wasn't suggesting that someone go to all this trouble to figure things out, but you did and it's super informative. Thank you!!

It does seem to draw pretty clearly in focus that The Magic Kingdom started strong and then didn't let up, where the other parks started less strong and after 20 years still didn't have as many attractions as MK did on day one.

MK hasn't added an E-Ticket in 26 years and still does great because its foundation is SOLID. Every non-Main Street land (which I feel fairly earns exemption) has at least one E-Ticket and/or at least 1 ride that is a cultural icon. Pirates and Jungle Cruise, Splash Mountain and Big Thunder, The Haunted Mansion, Small World and Peter Pan, Space Mountain . . . that lineup is no joke!

Where else do you see that many amazing attractions all in one place? Disneyland, and nowhere else stateside. Not another park even comes close. Epcot came closest in its heyday, and we all know what happened there.

 

[Disneylover152]

I know MickeyViews sources are iffy, but I thought this is important to discuss / think about.

 

[mikejs78]

This took a solid two hours of my life, much longer than I thought. But I had fun and learned a lot.

I will be counting "Attractions" as anything that Disney would classify as an attraction in 2018.

I made a chart on Word. So here are my discoveries:
View attachment 305573
View attachment 305574

Awesome chart. Only nitpick is that I believe DHS had a few more attractions on opening day - Magic of Disney Animation, Monster Sound Show, and Superstar Television, if my memory is right.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

Awesome chart. Only nitpick is that I believe DHS had a few more attractions on opening day - Magic of Disney Animation, Monster Sound Show, and Superstar Television, if my memory is right.

You are correct. Disney-MGM Studios opened with 5 attractions and had Star Tours and Indy Stunt Show opened within 7 months after the opening.

They rushed the opening date to beat Universal to the punch.