New thrill rides

[Langdonj]

I work with a fellow who went to Disney Land, and said he and his Family (two teen girls) didn't stay long because they were bored. Another fellow I know took his family (two middle school boys,and a little girl) to WDW and didn't think much of it, preferring Universal.

I don't understand either of them, but I have been a Disney lover all my life. I find Universal (and IOA) fun, but feel really beat down by the end of the day.

I think the dark rides help you to relax and refresh, both mentally and physically. I think new dark rides are in need, though I love all the new thrill rides, with the theming around them critical.

Recent attendance problems are probably both because of 9/11 and the subsequent drop in the economy.

Bottom line: If new thrill rides keep the parks going so that we can keep enjoying the Magic of Disney, then I'm all for them. I hope Eisner's replacement can find the balance to keep people coming in.

 

[Piebald]

I think Disney is just putting out rides that will grab the attention of a wide variety of people, and if thrill rides will do that, then that's what they will put out. While there are a bunch of internet weenies who still cry over the loss of Mr. Toad, there are millions of guests who probably rode it and it thought it was a waste of 10-30 minutes of their day. I'm sure when Horizons opened, it was considered an amazing state of the art ride. Same with a lot of the dark rides now. But over the years people begin to care less about them and they want something new and fresh. You guys should see how many kids don't want to go to Grad night not because it costs a lot of money, but just cause "it's Disneyworld!" I asked a kid in my class if he was going, and his response was "no man, why the he-ll would I wanna go to disneyworld? It's boring. I'd rather go to the Keys with my friend instead". You don't want the general public to think that about Disney. I think people should stop being selfish and realize that this is what the regular Joe Schmo wants when he goes on vacation. I know we all have that attachment to all the classic rides, but sometimes we just need something new. Besides, Disney doesn't put out crappy rides for lack of a better term. TOT and M:S are fun for everyone yet they have that Disney themeing that they do best. I have faith that they will put out awesome rides in the future and try to cater to everyone's enjoyment.

On a side note, a friend of mine told me they have the worst ride at Busch Gardens where you go on a safari and they have cheap AA animals. He also said that you go over a bridge and it begins to "shake". I remember this effect at Kilamanjaro when I went to AK for the first time when it opened, but the second time this didn't happen. What's the deal? Did Disney not want to seem like they were copying BG or what? (Even though we all know BG copied AK)

 

[cloudboy]

Bottom line: If new thrill rides keep the parks going so that we can keep enjoying the Magic of Disney, then I'm all for them. I hope Eisner's replacement can find the balance to keep people coming in.

But where is the balance? Everything is turning into one type of ride (not technology, just one type - a physical sensory shock experience). It seems that a lot of people here think that it is either new thrill rides or keep old rides. And that is not what I am trying to get at. Why has there been only two dark rides in the past - well I don't know how long, but all I can even think of is Winnie the Pooh and Buzz Lightyear, both of which are geared torwards children.

Why couldn't they update Horizons? Why take out Spaceship Earth? The new rides seem to lack the staying power of the old ones. I think Tower of Terror has sstaying power, Test Track will be around for a while but I think that the very nature of being car industry related is going to cause it to age a little prematurely. Spalsh and Big Thunder seem to be the only major attractions that have true staying power that have been built somewhat recently. Star Tours is the same concept as Body Wars but only with a different film.

Sure Disney is atrracting a different customer - one that normally goes to Universal and Six Flags and all that - so why are they bringing themselves in competition with everyone else?

 

[cloudboy]

OK, let me try this a different way. Maybe this will get my point across better.

Some people, like myself, simply can not do the rides that have any kind of major up and down movement, that have lots of things thrust out at you and that have lots of flashing strobe lights. It's not something we choose - this is just the way our brains are wired.

Epcot Future World was, for us, and enjoyable park. The Magic Kingdom was great in that you could really experience an environment, but it was, to be honest, geared torwards kids (in general, I am talking). Epcot Future world offered really good rides that had the full "being somewhere else" feel to them, that did not have the stuff that we could not handle. But they had enough of an interesting storyline and subject to them.

Then they went away. At least Spaceship Earth is still there. But what else is there for that type of guest? The other Epcot pavilion rides lack the quality and impact of rides like Horizons, and they have constructed nothing new that is of that type of ride.

I guess we are getting a bit defensive because it seems that other people think that these types of rides have no place at Disney, and that threatens us because it is really the only place we have that offers something we enjoy. It's not just the themeing inside the ride that matters to us. Those rides we can't go on may as well have no themeing - it's totally unavailable to us. We are stuck wandering around this plaze of locked up buildings.

We don't hate the notion of people enjoying roller coasters. But when they get all the attention and we get stuck with a ride of cardboard cut-out video store displays, that is when we feel we deserve some attention, too.

 

[SirGoofy]

Originally posted by Piebald
While there are a bunch of internet weenies who still cry over the loss of Mr. Toad, there are millions of guests who probably rode it and it thought it was a waste of 10-30 minutes of their day.

Hey buddy, the last time I checked Toad wasn't replaced by a thrill ride.

 

[Abercrombie Kid]

I love thrill rides! but only if they have heart and story. For example space mountain and rockin roller coasters but both have a story and tons of theming. that makes the ride! i think it's awesome when disney designed new rides that blend technology (indy jones, tot, and E:E are all examples or thrill rides that mix new technology w/ special effects, story, theming, and heart to make an E ticket.) Everyone seems 2 not like the simulators but i think they are cool i don't even really like star wars and star tours is one of my faves at MGM. Disney could do a little better balancing out the rides but everyone knows that the magic is there....

 

[cherrynegra]

I think we can all agree that we expect more from Imagineering. Like I posted earlier, please don't just plop a thrill ride down with no thought to theming. We can get that anywhere. We expect a little bit more from Disney only because we've been raised to expect a little bit more. That's what makes Disney so different and special from the other amusement parks.

 

[Dizknee_Phreek]

Originally posted by cloudboy
But where is the balance? Everything is turning into one type of ride (not technology, just one type - a physical sensory shock experience). It seems that a lot of people here think that it is either new thrill rides or keep old rides. And that is not what I am trying to get at. Why has there been only two dark rides in the past - well I don't know how long, but all I can even think of is Winnie the Pooh and Buzz Lightyear, both of which are geared torwards children.

Why couldn't they update Horizons? Why take out Spaceship Earth? The new rides seem to lack the staying power of the old ones.

Right on!! :sohappy:

 

[Dizknee_Phreek]

Originally posted by Lores
But what I don't like is Disney to take out classics and replacing them with thrills so forgettable that they will be changed again in ten years or less.

For example, they want to take out SpaceShip earth ¿what for? to replace it with a thrill. Thrills come and go with the technological advances, now that "X" is there in magic Mountain, other rollercoasters look and feel tame and old.

Pirates of the Caribbean, Haunted Mansion, etc... They stay, thay do not become old with the time. It's like the movies: Today a great special effects movie may look incredible, and uhhh! and ahhhh!, but in 10 years it will look old. Movies like "2001", "Amadeus", "Lord of the Rings" will prevail not because their special effects, but because of their "magic".

That's why Six Flags needs to be changing/building new thrills all the time and disney just refurbishes. That's why Disney is the only park in wich a ride 20 years old can be today's favorite.

And, about the new thrill rides in Disney parks (fast and without the magic where magic could definetively be), you can see what is happening with Disney. The company is in an internal war, and many people are blaming the CEO for some terrible decisions that are bringing the company down, and some of those decisions are building cheap and short-term attractive rides.

great post! and i agree!
like you kind of said...it's not like there's no magic at all in these thrill rides...it's just that it's lacking magic where magic could/should be!

 

[Dizknee_Phreek]

Originally posted by grandmath
Most yesterday ride's success relies on the narrative and let's face it, nostalgia (and the feel-good sensation it gives you). They DO become old, many AA and sfx are cheesy compared to today's standards. Do you really believe you're flying over London in Peter Pan? (no offense here, I love this attraction) In my case, a ride like Soarin over California is much more magical, because the illusion is better rendered. And I'd take Expedition Everest over Matterhorn a million times, but we yet can't say anything bad about Matterhorn because, yes, it is a "classic" and more important, oversaw by Walt!! Same for Space Mountain: it is cheesy and outdated, so why are we loving it so much? "classic" and it remains fun. Why couldn't we love Mission:Space like it in 15 years, it will still be as fun. Why should Tower of Terror be replaced? Why shouldn't we love the free fall drops or the intense g-forces in 15 years? Even if those technologies are elsewhere, it is the Disney magic and universe built around those rides that will make them special.

yeah, i agree that it partially has to do with nostalgia. but only for us Disney-folk who frequent the parks. what of those who have only gone 1 or 2 times, but still love the old dark rides? and in particular, those dark rides that Walt had little to nothing to do with? that's why they're classics because vets and new comers alike enjoy them. you said, ""classic" and it remains fun."...that pretty much sums it up...they're still fun, and that's why they're classics!
you're not supposed to feel like you're actually flying over London on PPF. it's an attraction based on a cartoon...i mean, that's the whole thing...it's all make-believe, just as all of Fantasyland is based on make-believe. little kids might think they're flying over London, but that's it. Soarin, on the over hand....it's designed to make you feel like you're actually soaring over CA. are you seeing the difference, cause i'm not sure if i'm explaining it well enough.
just curious, but since when has Space Mtn. been outdated? are you talking about the track/coaster itself and how it doesn't use the technology that RRC uses? cause if you are, then that wouldn't really make it outdated. the way i see it, the roughness of Space makes it more like a wooden coaster, which are coming back into style. i guess for those who only enjoy the new steel coasters, it is outdated.
ToT has pretty much already stood the test of time. it's already 10 years old. but it was an instant classic because of its combo of thrill/magic/dark ride (slightly)/GREAT plot. so therefore, it'll be around a LONG time.
RRC, i think, will be around a long time as well. the technology may become outdated within 10 years, but i think they'll keep it around.
Why shouldn't we love the free fall drops or the intense g-forces in 15 years? I guess the same reason why the 'majority' doesn't seem to really like Body Wars all that much anymore. and yeah, i remember when the wait for Body Wars was like 50 min. to an hour long. that was less than 10 years ago...and look at it now...10-15 min wait at the most, when it's open! Star Tours doesn't seem to have the wait time/appeal that it used to have either.
k, this is just my opinion/speculation. but i don't see how the AA rides are outdated (other than how the AA move/look) because no one has even attempted to update that technology. nowadays people seem to look only for the bigger and the more knock-your-socks-off thrill. so, how can a dark ride become outdated when there doesn't seem to be any dark rides that are better?

 

[grandmath]

Originally posted by cloudboy


Some people, like myself, simply can not do the rides that have any kind of major up and down movement, that have lots of things thrust out at you and that have lots of flashing strobe lights. It's not something we choose - this is just the way our brains are wired.

I understand your point totally. But I think at Disney slow rides are the vast majority. They were truly lacking on thrill rides, so now they are adapting to people tastes. Some slow rides have been removed, and I don't understand it myself. But point is, you still have plenty to do at WDW, when people who seek a little more exctiment (we NEED to UNDERSTAND and ACCEPT that the world evolves and that people are looking for more intensity, they are more used to it, that's the way of life, Mr Toad at DL in 1955 was so thrilling at its time!!) are not yet enough fed with what they want.

But, Disney Magic can remain. Test Track will of course one day go and be renovated, just as the old dark rides, and some people won't understand it either. But it won't be because of the ride systeme, but because of the world it depicts that will be out of date. The example of Body Wars compared to TOT of Mission:Space is a joke! It was already a bad ride when it opened, a copy of Star Tours with a bad film, badly synchronized with the movments. I think it got old because of the enveloppe, the theme... whereas Star Tours still packs in crowds (some days ) and still is remembered. In my case, I LOVE Star Tours and I HATE Body Wars It is not the technology tat makes the ride, it's what you do with it. Space Mountain is outdated...how to explain? It is great fun alright, but everything is cheesy, from the look of the rockets, to the costumes of the CM, to the sound effects, to the queueline etc. The ride is jerky... At the opening I'm sure it was state of the art but now...

I truly think the future of attractions will be more and more elaborate thrill rides, that will push the enveloppe of a credible story. The trend began with Indiana Jones Adventure, then Spiderman, then Return of the Mummy, then Expedition Everest... those rides are basically what POTC or HM were in the 70s, but with more excitement, more implication in the story to reflect guests's tastes. And I'm sorry to truly think that the future of slow rides will be more and more films and shows and small dark rides... I don't think we can now expect a new MAJOR slow moving dark ride like Spaceship Earth anytime soon... it would cost too much and didn't appeal to that much of guests. Sad isn't it?

 

[imagineer99]

Originally posted by Piebald

On a side note, a friend of mine told me they have the worst ride at Busch Gardens where you go on a safari and they have cheap AA animals. He also said that you go over a bridge and it begins to "shake". I remember this effect at Kilamanjaro when I went to AK for the first time when it opened, but the second time this didn't happen. What's the deal? Did Disney not want to seem like they were copying BG or what? (Even though we all know BG copied AK)

The bridge only shakes some of the time. It adds to the ride's reride value because you never know if it will shake or not.

 

[JBSLJames]

Originally posted by Abercrombie Kid
I love thrill rides! but only if they have heart and story.

Best ride I have ever ridden is "The Beast" at PKI. What little themeing they used to have has almost been entirely removed, however, it is still the best coaster I have ever ridden and I have been to quite a few parks. Is there anything at WDW that will change my mind? We shall see, but I don't anticipate that happening. A ride like the Beast with Disney's themeing would be the ultimate coaster experience.

 

[testtracker]

I love most of WDW thrill rides, and really miss the great ones that they replaced too. But I think that people who have never been there before and don't alot about disney, might just begin to see disney as a "rollercoaster type rides" and "White Knuckle" simulator park. Oh yea, I guess Pooh and those other boring rides were just ok.

 

[cloudboy]

I don't think we can now expect a new MAJOR slow moving dark ride like Spaceship Earth anytime soon... it would cost too much and didn't appeal to that much of guests. Sad isn't it?

A very good point. There is such a focus on gaining attendance from a small group of adrenaline junkies that they are forgeting a majority of the current guests, who they somehow forget still can make a decision not to come back to Disney. They need to invest the kind of money that they do in these thrill rides into somethign else, too.

It was already a bad ride when it opened, a copy of Star Tours with a bad film, badly synchronized with the movments.

Actually, when they first opened Body Wars was the bigger of the two. There was that film with Martin Short (I can't remember much about it) that drove it. Body Wars was getting better reviews and more people liked it because it had a unique theme, and wasn't just a copy of a Disneyland ride.

you still have plenty to do at WDW

Oh boy, I am going to get my head chopped off after this, but here goes... you know what? At least in Future World, no we don't have a lot to do. What is left? They have yet to get Journey Into Imagination right (it has never had teh popularity it deserved), the land was only good for little kids until Soarin', The Living Seas really offered no rides, and now is becoming another kids attraction. Spaceship Earth is still there, but there is only so much of the Ellen Degeneres show you can watch. The fact is, no there isn't a lot to do there.

Oh, and there is a big difference between a "slow ride" and a non-thrill ride. Us old fuddy-duddies are not looking for something so boring and innofensive - it's that the physical movements and heavy sensory intrusions are upsetting.

 

[grandmath]

OK so Horizons & World of Motion are gone... but the rest is pretty much the same. Don't tell me you'll regret Food Rocks for years! World Showcase has been virtually unchanged for more than 20 years (well, not exactly, they added some pavillions and slow rides, but that is good!), Walt Disney World is not just Futureworld is it? I still think the majority of rides on property can appeal to everyone and that thrill rides are in the minority. Epcot is in my opinion finding a good balance.

And you say there is a difference between a slow ride and a non thrill ride. Tell me about a fast ride that is not a thrill ride then? Can you handle subtle movments and a relaxing film though? If so then you should enjoy Soarin over California, this really isn't a thrill ride to me.

 

[Dizknee_Phreek]

Originally posted by grandmath
Can you handle subtle movments and a relaxing film though? If so then you should enjoy Soarin over California, this really isn't a thrill ride to me.

it may not be a 'typical' thrill ride, but for those with motion sickness, it'll be hell! my mom is in that boat...she couldn't even ride Horizons without getting nauseous! so Soarin and M:S are totally out of the question for her.

 

[andre85]

Originally posted by Dizknee_Phreek
it may not be a 'typical' thrill ride, but for those with motion sickness, it'll be hell! my mom is in that boat...she couldn't even ride Horizons without getting nauseous! so Soarin and M:S are totally out of the question for her.

It’s a good thing Disney doesn’t cater to the lowest common denominator.

 

[cloudboy]

How exactly is Soarin? I have not been to California. It's not necesarilly motion, it's certain types of motion - I wish I could explain better but I can't. For instance I myself have a big problem with up and down, especially jerky movements (that second drop in Splash when I tried it nearly did me in). I also have a proble with hights if I am at all tipped forward (wierd that it is a position thing, isn't it?). So I am not sure. I want to get an idea because all in all I love flying. I ronically I could stay on something like teacups all day, where I was surprised to find a lot of people find that discomforting.

I was surprised to find that Kali River Rapids was not overly discomforting to me - I wouldn't be excited about it but I didn't nearly have to cut my trip short on that one.

As far as the fast versus slow ride, perhaps I was misunderstanding you. I was not thinking speed so much as activity.

PS What new ride have they added to World Showcase? I wander around there all the time but rarely go on anything - there very well could have been something added that I missed.

Speaking of which, why didn't they add a thrill ride to World Showcase instead? They need one there.

 

[Dizknee_Phreek]

Originally posted by cloudboy
PS What new ride have they added to World Showcase? I wander around there all the time but rarely go on anything - there very well could have been something added that I missed.

Speaking of which, why didn't they add a thrill ride to World Showcase instead? They need one there.

they haven't added any new attractions to WS lately. but they did update the China 360 movie.

i don't really think they need a thrill ride in World Showcase. well, let me rephrase that...i don't think they need a coaster-type attraction in WS. maybe something like Maelstrom (sp?). but i think WS stands well enough on its own.