Indeed... but just like there are people who don't want to ... or can't experience thrill rides... there are JUST as many who simply WON'T ride something boring and dated.
Once again....EPCOT IS STAGNATING!!!!
Nowhere have I said that Epcot should stay as it is, with no changes or updates. I've said it earlier in the thread, and I'll say it again....Epcot needs updating, it needs an infusion of energy. It has been neglected for far too long.
So, now, can we get beyond the "boring and dated" arguement, since we all seem to agree something needs to be done?
If your logic holds true.. then why are ALL the thrill rides without a doubt the most popular rides at WDW? Why aren't there more people riding The Land instead of Test Track?
When was the last time Disney built a non-physical-thrill attraction of the scope of rides like Test Track, Tower of Terror, or Rock 'n' Roller Coaster?
You're comparing modern thrill attractions to 20 and 30+ year old non-physical-thrill attractions.
Disney's recent efforts at non-physical thrill attractions have been extremely limited over the last 10-15 years or so. They've done 3D movies, which have been very successful. They've also done Kilamanjaro Safaris, which is one of the most popular attractions in AK.
However, its harder to thrill people with creativity and imagination than it is to thrill them by turning them upside down, and today's Disney loves to take the easy way... (look at DCA, animated sequels, the programming of Millionaire, etc.)
What you have done is state that if a ride has height restrictions, that pregnant women and those with back problems shouldn't ride.
I have stated what the warnings on the rides themselves say. I didn't make this up. It's not MY opinion. Further, if you ask a doctor what rides a pregnant women should avoid, they will recommend you at least follow the warnings provided.
All of you who are so sure that the supposed "rainforest coaster" would be the end of EPCOT as we know it should actually think about this and not just reflexively attack it. I'm concerned about what it would look like myself, but I don't dismiss things out of hand.
What was it about my comments that have been reflexive and out of hand? What have I not explained? Further, where have I said a rainforest coaster would be the end of Epcot? The truth, in fact, is that I said Project Gemini as it stands would be better than doing nothing. In other words, its a positive, not a negative.
My problems with it are that it is a CONTINUATION of Disney's near abandonment of significant, family-inclusive attractions. The concept of family-inclusive entertainment was the primary reason behind the building of Disneyland in the first place. Disney has slowly moved away from that concept over the last 20 years or so. Now, they are beginning to pay for this move, and it doesn't look like they are learning anything. They are losing the differentiation between themselves and the Universals of the world because they have chosen to compete in a realm (physical thrills) that many others have proven very capable of succeeding in.
In the process, Disney will lose ground in the area where they have been the unquestioned leader, which is again, family inclusive entertainment. They are providing very little in the way of new attractions for this group because they have slashed their investement in existing parks, and what investment they do have is targeted at other groups.
Earlier in this thread, someone mentioned being an economics major. I suggest asking your profs about the wisdom of a market leader in a high margin segment choosing to use its capital to go after a more competitive, and therefore lower margin, segment. You see, it takes far less talent to provide physical thrills with coasters and such. Therefore, more companies do it. With more competition comes lower margins. Further, thrill-seekers, ON AVERAGE, spend less on other things like food and souvenirs than families. Of course there is overlap between the groups, but when you look at who Disney loses by focusing on thrill rides vs. who they will gain, they will be losing the higher spending group.
You may disagree with my assessment, but I don't think its fair to call it out of hand or reflexive.
