Space Mountain track replacement questions

[Lee]

Oh, yeah...I found the better photos of DL's new track. Easier to compare to what they had, and MK has now.
Disneyland's new track being delivered from AMEC.

MK's current track. Kinda different, huh...

 

[RSoxNo1]

What was planned for new Pirates of the Caribbean show scenes? I've said a few times on here how the improved audio in the graveyard was probably the best part of the Haunted Mansion rehab. How expensive would something like that cost for Pirates of the burning village scene in Pirates of the Caribbean? I went on the ride with some newbies recently and they hated it because they couldn't understand it. I would think improving the audio system wouldn't be too expensive or time consuming.

With the Haunted Mansion, I was under the impression that the imagineers found cheaper ways to come up with cool effects. The big example I remember was that they found rolls of the wall paper and came up with the new blinking eye effect. Does anyone have the comparative budgets for some of the recent refurbs?

As for Space Mountain, what are we likely not getting that would have contributed to "blowing Disneyland's out of the water"?

 

[Lee]

What was planned for new Pirates of the Caribbean show scenes? How expensive would something like that cost for Pirates of the burning village scene in Pirates of the Caribbean?

I haven't been cleared to be specific about what was proposed, but I will say "going up the waterfall" like at DL came up, and much of what is now the gift shop would...ummm...not be there.
As far as audio...wouldn't have cost all that much, but would have added quite a bit to the down time. Keep in mind, that they are using early 1970's speakers and cables. Go find a stereo speaker from 1972 and see how it sounds today. DL, of course, got an all new audio system.

Does anyone have the comparative budgets for some of the recent refurbs?

Nope. They don't release those figures, and I'm not privy to them.

As for Space Mountain, what are we likely not getting that would have contributed to "blowing Disneyland's out of the water"?

There were some amazing blue-sky proposals I heard about. One long mega-track. Two tracks, differenty layouts, one more thrilling. A launch. A launch from outside the current building....lots of stuff.
Actually an outside launch was at one time proposed for DL. That would've been sweet.

 

[Enigma]

So you think that the rise of the internet has nothing to do with Disney losing its magic and mystique for some folks .

Your wrong because everyone praises tokyo disneyland/disney sea and that opened in 2001 way after the internet was around.

People praised Matt Ouimet when he started making improvements to Disneyland.

People praised and approved of Lasseter joining.

When Disney decides to do the rgiht thing there is plenty of praise to go around. But I, along with others, will not/CAN NOT defend the poor decisions that have been made by Team Disney Orland and key disney executives over the past ten years.

 

[imagineer boy]

You've helped make my point. Walt wasn't all knowing and neither is the current management at WDW.

That may be true, but Walt was certainly a hell of a lot more wise than the current management and cared far more for giving guests the best quality possible at the parks rather than how much money he made.

 

[CaptainMichael]

That may be true, but Walt was certainly a hell of a lot more wise than the current management and cared far more for giving guests the best quality possible at the parks rather than how much money he made.

Walt was a rare breed that much is certain. He was really good at understanding what people wanted and a clear vision of the future.

Walt saw money as a means of making more of his dreams become reality. He lived the majority of his life broke because he continually used whatever money he had to reinvest in his business ventures.

I understand that WDW does need to turn a profit, and it most certainly does. There will never be another Walt, but the Disney formula for success is clear. Provide an unparalleled guest experience and reinvest in the parks to keep them continuously updated and relevant. Never rest on your laurels, there is always room to improve upon what you've done. It's not rocket science.

 

[T-1MILLION]

You are missing my point.
When I say I am judging them on past efforts, I mean that I have seen what they are capable of (Tower of Terror, Splash, AK, Mansion refurb) and so I hold them to that standard. Hence my disdain for Tiki Room, Stitch and Monsters.
It's not about making decisions that don't work out as planned (Saucers, Viewliner). It's OK to be wrong.

I'm talking about having clear options and taking the easy or cheap way out.

Like the PotC refurb. Management was offered the chance to swing for the fence on that one. New lighting, new audio, new show scenes. Did they do it? No. They took the easy/cheap way out and did "just enough".

Mansion turned out better, even though it was an easier refurb to begin with. But, never the less, it turned out fantastic because they chose to go all the way with it. No expense was spared, and nothing of any significance was cut from the proposals.

So...Space Mountain. This refurb has been in development for nearly 5 years. Countless man hours and tons of money have been spent in order to come up with a complete makeover for the ride, much like what was done at Disneyland. In fact, several of the concepts proposed would have blown DL's Mountain out of the water.
So...now...what are we getting? A watered down, just a bit more than they had to do refurb. Why? Because they are taking the easy/cheap way out.

That's not about shooting for something great and having it not pan out, it's about making a conscious choice to do as little as possible. That is what I have a problem with.

This is a post that sums up exactly how I feel about Disney's effort in the theme parks these days. Thank you for putting it that way.

 

[tirian]

I assure you, it happens.
The reason they turn it down is so that they will look good to their bosses in Burbank. They can say, "Look! I only spent x amount on Pirates and the guests still seem to like it! My numbers are up and my expense is down! WooHoo...promote me!"
It is nothing but corporate/management bottom line thinking.
Another example. Letting lights burn out on Main St. For years it was a point of pride at Disney that you couldn't find a burned out bulb, and if you somehow did, it would be replaced before the next night. Now, they don't seem to give it much thought. It keeps costs down, and guests don't stay away because of it, so why not let lights burn out?

I'm not pessimistic. I am Mr. Brightside. However, I am realistic. I would probably be happier living blissfully unaware....

:lol: I'm laughing because I'm the same way. My friends know I'm a very positive person. Yet it's hard to find anything good to say about current resort leadership. From Rasulo down to individual park VPs, it's a mess right now, and nobody seems to be proud of what they do for its own sake. IMO this is the result of the big-business corporate culture that swallowed the company from 1994 onward; any company that loses sight of its roots and focuses solely on the bottom line is going to develop problems.

Oh, and POTC (for those wondering): yeah, it was supposed to have at least one new show scene upstairs. Imagine additional AAs (next time you ride, look at all the empty spots throughout the attraction). Don't forget about the brand new audio system. The refurb turned out all right, but that's the problem: it was only half-finished, and it shows.

 

[jt04]

Walt was a rare breed that much is certain. He was really good at understanding what people wanted and a clear vision of the future.

Walt saw money as a means of making more of his dreams become reality. He lived the majority of his life broke because he continually used whatever money he had to reinvest in his business ventures.

I understand that WDW does need to turn a profit, and it most certainly does. There will never be another Walt, but the Disney formula for success is clear. Provide an unparalleled guest experience and reinvest in the parks to keep them continuously updated and relevant. Never rest on your laurels, there is always room to improve upon what you've done. It's not rocket science.

The facts show people still believe they do. I am not an apologist for WDW management as some have suggested but they get much more right than wrong and the number of visitors, even in tough times, makes that very clear. And how 'bout that new AK DVC? WOW!:sohappy:

 

[jt04]

:lol: I'm laughing because I'm the same way. My friends know I'm a very positive person. Yet it's hard to find anything good to say about current resort leadership. From Rasulo down to individual park VPs, it's a mess right now, and nobody seems to be proud of what they do for its own sake. IMO this is the result of the big-business corporate culture that swallowed the company from 1994 onward; any company that loses sight of its roots and focuses solely on the bottom line is going to develop problems.

True, but I don't see it to that extent. AK opened in 1998 and it can hardly be said it is not full of Disney magic. So, from my perspective, I have no idea what you are talking about.:shrug:

Oh, I forgot to mention the Disney cruise lines and many other examples of Disney magic developed since 1994. I really have no idea what you are saying.

 

[CaptainMichael]

True, but I don't see it to that extent. AK opened in 1998 and it can hardly be said it is not full of Disney magic. So, from my perspective, I have no idea what you are talking about.:shrug:

Oh, I forgot to mention the Disney cruise lines and many other examples of Disney magic developed since 1994. I really have no idea what you are saying.

In fairness, DAK was in the planning stages long before 98, and it was Eisner's idea. Also, while great, DAK is still far from being a "complete" park. We did lose Beastly Kingdomme, a larger Kali, and who knows what else.

DAK is like a supermodel, great to look at, wonderful features, a natural beauty, but beyond the peaks and shrubs, there's not much there.:lookaroun I will say that Kilimanjaro Safaris and to an extent, Everest are enough of a reason to spend time at DAK and enjoy yourself. It has great potential.

 

[jt04]

In fairness, DAK was in the planning stages long before 98, and it was Eisner's idea. Also, while great, DAK is still far from being a "complete" park. We did lose Beastly Kingdomme, a larger Kali, and who knows what else.

Tirian mentioned 1994 and plenty of good has happened since. Not as much as should have happened but a lot of good has happened.

This is not aimed at you but when some are accused of being cynical on these boards they are quick to claim they are just being "realistic". I promise those "realists" that if you think a publicly owned company is not first about keeping it's financial house in order than there is no reality in that position. And if those "realists" think whinning and fussing on an internet forum will change anything, then I would suggest "realist" is not an apt self description.:ROFLOL:

 

[Mr.EPCOT]

True, but I don't see it to that extent. AK opened in 1998 and it can hardly be said it is not full of Disney magic. So, from my perspective, I have no idea what you are talking about.:shrug:

Yes, Animal Kingdom has that Disney touch even though it is lacking as a full-day destination, but I believe it is also extremely superfluous. It strained resources and thus reduced quality all across Walt Disney World. There is no reason that many of DAK's experiences couldn't have been built elsewhere to help increase quality and attendence at the other parks. Kilimanjaro Safaris could easily be attached to Adventureland (better yet, imagine it intertwining with the Jungle Cruise!), I'm sure there are many (including myself) that would much rather have the Indiana Jones Adventure than Dinosaur, Expedition Everest could have a similar ride in World Showcase or Fantasyland, Finding Nemo and Festival of the Lion King could go in Magic Kingdom or Studios (although I know that park is approaching overloaded with shows), I think Studios could use a good water ride in the style of Kali River Rapids (and probably end up more fun, too), and Discovery Island and several other areas around WDW could easily be plussed to the caliber of quality that you find at Maharajah Jungle Trek and the Pangani Forest Exploration Trail.

Oh, I forgot to mention the Disney cruise lines and many other examples of Disney magic developed since 1994. I really have no idea what you are saying.

Of course plenty of good things have happened since 1994, there wouldn't be a Walt Disney Company now if there hadn't been, but that doesn't negate the overall drop in quality at the parks. Even Disney Cruise Line, as amazing as it is, isn't quite perfect. They could do something really revolutionary with that.

 

[LordHelmut]

So, back to the topic....

Since I'm too lazy to go back & quote...

"Six Months" ????

We've had 20k as a nice (large) koi pond for how long ? I'm missing the reasoning as to why there is such the rush to be operational.

Lets just say "what if"

If the 'occasional' (once every couple of years) visitor is what is being targeted ... 1+ years is nothing, they might miss seeing SM on one trip, but come back to find it better than ever, not just.... slightly better that they wouldn't detect anyway. More frequent visitors (once per year or more :lookaroun (3 times a year)) would be the most impacted. Hasn't the point been thru this thread that there is not an effort to impress those that would 'be able to tell the difference', but rather the occasional guest ? So isn't the current refurb contradictory (as outlined by others in terms of scope)

Costs - heck, I can't think of a better time to be working on (if you have $$$) a project that requires significant raw materials. Material prices have been retreating from bizarre highs. Heck you might be saving enough on material costs to enable some deleted/modified items ! (yes folks, steel is expensive, within the last couple of years it's up 80-150%) well within the planning an design cycle for something this big....

And a random reply for the flying saucer/circus item from a dozen posts back... Yes, these items did not work out, but the point (I believe) is that when things didn't work out, and could not be worked out.... they went away. Trying a new idea (and those ideas were *not* a huge land/capital investment (DCA ) as history shows, they were replaced with something else, and within a fairly quick timeframe.

 

[RSoxNo1]

I'm guessing logistically Kilimanjaro Safaris couldn't work as part of Adventureland. Can someone verify whether or not setting up something of this size anywhere adjacent to the Magic Kingdom could work?

I would also have to guess that with all the animal structures, land prep, and constant maintenance (of the grounds/feeding animals), that Kilimanjaro Safaris has to be the most expensive ride Disney has made anywhere. Can someone confirm this? It would seem that a ride like the Safaris could only exist if it was the centerpiece of a new park, and would never be added to an existing park.

 

[djkidkaz]

Since I'm too lazy to go back & quote...

"Six Months" ????

We've had 20k as a nice (large) koi pond for how long ? I'm missing the reasoning as to why there is such the rush to be operational.

Lets just say "what if"

If the 'occasional' (once every couple of years) visitor is what is being targeted ... 1+ years is nothing, they might miss seeing SM on one trip, but come back to find it better than ever, not just.... slightly better that they wouldn't detect anyway. More frequent visitors (once per year or more :lookaroun (3 times a year)) would be the most impacted. Hasn't the point been thru this thread that there is not an effort to impress those that would 'be able to tell the difference', but rather the occasional guest ? So isn't the current refurb contradictory (as outlined by others in terms of scope)

Costs - heck, I can't think of a better time to be working on (if you have $$$) a project that requires significant raw materials. Material prices have been retreating from bizarre highs. Heck you might be saving enough on material costs to enable some deleted/modified items ! (yes folks, steel is expensive, within the last couple of years it's up 80-150%) well within the planning an design cycle for something this big....

And a random reply for the flying saucer/circus item from a dozen posts back... Yes, these items did not work out, but the point (I believe) is that when things didn't work out, and could not be worked out.... they went away. Trying a new idea (and those ideas were *not* a huge land/capital investment (DCA ) as history shows, they were replaced with something else, and within a fairly quick timeframe.

Flying Saucers were not replaced by anything.

 

[djkidkaz]

Yes, Animal Kingdom has that Disney touch even though it is lacking as a full-day destination, but I believe it is also extremely superfluous. It strained resources and thus reduced quality all across Walt Disney World. There is no reason that many of DAK's experiences couldn't have been built elsewhere to help increase quality and attendence at the other parks. Kilimanjaro Safaris could easily be attached to Adventureland (better yet, imagine it intertwining with the Jungle Cruise!), I'm sure there are many (including myself) that would much rather have the Indiana Jones Adventure than Dinosaur, Expedition Everest could have a similar ride in World Showcase or Fantasyland, Finding Nemo and Festival of the Lion King could go in Magic Kingdom or Studios (although I know that park is approaching overloaded with shows), I think Studios could use a good water ride in the style of Kali River Rapids (and probably end up more fun, too), and Discovery Island and several other areas around WDW could easily be plussed to the caliber of quality that you find at Maharajah Jungle Trek and the Pangani Forest Exploration Trail.



Of course plenty of good things have happened since 1994, there wouldn't be a Walt Disney Company now if there hadn't been, but that doesn't negate the overall drop in quality at the parks. Even Disney Cruise Line, as amazing as it is, isn't quite perfect. They could do something really revolutionary with that.

None of Disney has ever been perfect. So why are they being held to this perfect standard now? When they installed Pirates at MK, we got the shaft back then. Disneylands is what, 16 minutes long and ours is approximately 8 minutes, missing scenes, etc. Or if we want to get into the details on AK not being a full day park, look at the Studios. When it opened it had two attractions, Catastrophe Canyon and Great Movie Ride. That lasted for quite some time and even to this day you can knock out the whole park in half a day if you don't plan on staying for Fantasmic. And in regards to putting all of AK into the other parks, why stop there? They could have just put Future World in Tomorrowland!

 

[djkidkaz]

I'm guessing logistically Kilimanjaro Safaris couldn't work as part of Adventureland. Can someone verify whether or not setting up something of this size anywhere adjacent to the Magic Kingdom could work?

I would also have to guess that with all the animal structures, land prep, and constant maintenance (of the grounds/feeding animals), that Kilimanjaro Safaris has to be the most expensive ride Disney has made anywhere. Can someone confirm this? It would seem that a ride like the Safaris could only exist if it was the centerpiece of a new park, and would never be added to an existing park.

Seeing as Kilimanjaro Safaris is bigger than the whole Magic Kingdom, I can say it wouldn't work.

 

[Lee]

If the 'occasional' (once every couple of years) visitor is what is being targeted ... 1+ years is nothing, they might miss seeing SM on one trip, but come back to find it better than ever, not just.... slightly better that they wouldn't detect anyway. More frequent visitors (once per year or more :lookaroun (3 times a year)) would be the most impacted. Hasn't the point been thru this thread that there is not an effort to impress those that would 'be able to tell the difference', but rather the occasional guest ? So isn't the current refurb contradictory (as outlined by others in terms of scope)

You have it kinda backwards. Management is reluctant to have a major ride down for a couple reasons.
1) It hurts capacity. They haven't added an E-Ticket to MK since Splash, so one of the other ones going down puts them in a pinch. Oops...maybe they should have thought about that a little more.
2) They have a fear of guests from Anytown USA making their "once in a lifetime" trip to WDW and finding a signature attraction down. Seriously. That gives them nightmares. They know regular visitors will just shrug their shoulders and move on. The "once in a life-ers" will pitch a fit. Happens all the time.
So they find themselves in a Catch 22. Painted into a corner.

Costs - heck, I can't think of a better time to be working on (if you have $$$) a project that requires significant raw materials.

Yep. Excellent point. It's like they could get a new Mountain at a sale price, almost. Contractors need the work. Vendors need to move parts. Seems like the perfect time to go all out, especially when attendance is already going to be down and the "once in a life-ers" will likely be at a low point.

 

[Lee]

One last thing I want before I move on...(we really need to drag this thread back on topic)...
I am not a complainer, nor a hater, or a nit-picker. I have never said, nor will I say, that Disney does nothing right. On the contrary, I feel that as a company they get far more right than they get wrong. Look at Disneyland....great. DCL...wonderful. AK...great park and getting better. There are plenty examples of them doing things right, and I am the first to recognize it. Like I said, I'm Mr. Brightside. It takes a seriously blatant misstep (in my opinion) for me to speak out against the mouse.
Just so happens, I fear SM may be one...

Now...about that Space Mountain...