Space Mountain track replacement questions

[EPCOT Explorer]

Any word on Spacship Earth?:lookaroun


Why are all these things SPACE related?:lookaroun:lol:

 

[djkidkaz]

Lets all shake hands and agree to disagree! :wave:

I was just thinking, what effect do you guys think this is going to have on the Yeti work? I can't imagine that Disney will take down another roller coaster this year if they will have Space down. I would think if they are going to be removing him, they need to get him out before Space goes down, then they could work on the ground structure in the off hours of the night and won't have to have both coasters down at the same time.

 

[marni1971]

None of Disney has ever been perfect. So why are they being held to this perfect standard now?

Indeed they have never been perfect - but the standards missing today arn`t perfection, rather the self imposed Disney standards of 20 years ago.

I was just thinking, what effect do you guys think this is going to have on the Yeti work?

None. The planned work won`t involve closing the attraction.

 

[jt04]

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...

See Lee, I believe this is why you have so much credibility here in that you are even handed. You praise the good stuff and critisize the stuff you don't agree with while offering your solutions. You don't bash just for the sake of it.

And I agree with you 100% on Space Mountain. Managements fear of having it closed should have been lessened by being able to offer RnRC and E:E on this refurb. That is a major deal.

They are being a bit paranoid and besides the "once-in-a-lifer" guests are not coming back anyway. Disney should fear losing AP folks more by not doing proper rehabs.

 

[stitch2008]

I was just thinking, what effect do you guys think this is going to have on the Yeti work?

None. The planned work won`t involve closing the attraction.

Any idea on when the work on the Yeti could begin? I'm just wondering if the work will happen at the same time as Space Mountian's rehab.

 

[Mr.EPCOT]

Flying Saucers were not replaced by anything.

They were replaced by Space Mountain, weren't they?

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.

If I remember right, there is plenty of land directly west of the Magic Kingdom. I'm sure Disney could work through any further logistical issues that would come about of attaching it to an old park rather than building it as part of a brand new one.

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

Kilimanjaro Safaris is bigger than the whole rest of Animal Kingdom, so how would that apply to the Magic Kingdom if there is (once again, if I'm correct) enough land out to the west. And that's not even considering that it doesn't have to be the exact same attraction (layout, etc.) verbatim, especially if you perhaps used the Jungle Cruise area for a new hybrid Jungle Cruise/Kilimanjaro Safaris.

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!

The point though is that building Animal Kingdom put a strain on resources that could have been better delegated between the existing facilities in Walt Disney World, and you wouldn't have lost the ability to still build the individual great experiences that are in Animal Kingdom now. Disney wouldn't be as desperate for Cast Members, for example, let alone good ones, if they didn't have to worry about filling several hundred more at that park. There would be more money to go around, maybe, say, they'd still have that no-burnt-out-light bulb policy.

As I remember, Disney-MGM Studios wasn't intended as a full day experience from the start. They were intending it as a fully functioning studio with a theme park attached, much in the fashion of Universal Studios Hollywood.

And we all know the story behind EPCOT Center.

 

[imagineer boy]

They were replaced by Space Mountain, weren't they?

I believe the spot they once occupied was replaced by the Tomorrowland theater (which is now HISTA) which is directly in front of Space Mountain.

 

[djkidkaz]

They were replaced by Space Mountain, weren't they?

They were actually just replaced by a stage.

As far as the other stuff, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. :hammer:

 

[marni1971]

As far as the other stuff, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. :hammer:

Agreed. And we`ll all still enjoy the World.

 

[WDW1974]

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

You really want to toss a softball like that right down the middle of the plate?

You really think a comparison can be made between Walt Disney and the likes of Al, Meg, Erin, Phil, Rilous, Val and Co?

Neither of them will make every correct decision, they just make decisions on what they think is correct.

Correct for whom?

You see that is at the crux of why WDW disappoints so often with its new, replacement or rehabbed attractions.

What's correct for exec careers under the current management structure at TWDC is almost always not going to mesh with what's good for fans, guests, cast and LONG TERM shareholders.

How about when Walt put up the Viewliner and then replaced it a year later? Or how about the flying saucers which were extremely problematic, one might even say that they were the "Test Track" of their day. Maybe the Disneyland circus? Oh yeah, that was a failure as well! The parks have NEVER been perfect and never will be!

Perfection doesn't really exist except perhaps in a test situation. In the real world? Nope.

But the examples you cite all tend to back up my POV and not your own. Walt and the people who worked with him occassionally made mis-steps. The difference is that they didn't keep foisting them upon guests year after year. Now, I'm going to keep this discussion WDW-centric so I won't even go into huge park mistakes in DCA, DSP and HKDL.

The Viewliner ... the Mickey Mouse Club Circus ... the Flying Saucers ... they all had their 'issues' ... mostly that they weren't very good and/or they weren't what folks traveled to Anaheim to experience. So they got axed ... very quickly.

Now, let's look at similar things at WDW today ... stuff like SGE ... Imagination 3.0 ... Pooh's Playground ... Dino-rama, hell, basically all of Toontown Faire ... what happens when these things get put in the parks of WDW today?

Yeah, they sit and 'entertain' for year upon year ... no matter how bad, no matter how wrong ... because when all is said and done the biggest difference between the way Walt and his successors ran the parks and the way they are run today is that the guest experience isn't the top priority.

Quality or crap, it doesn't matter to the people running the parks. The only thing that matter is the bottom line ... and the short term one at that.

 

[WDW1974]

So in your eyes, 94 was the start of the decline?

That's as good a time as any. But mid-90s, certainly.

I knew when WDW's 25th anniversary was all marketing magic and a pepto-pink castle and very little substance that something had changed. Some corner had been turned.

That also coincides to the time when the internet was really starting to take off and people were now able to get deep inside the inner workings of the company more-so than they should have.

Some people perhaps. But many of us have ties to the company that go back decades and we don't rely on Internet fan sites to tell us what is going on at Disney. We know it because many of us live it in one way or another.

Back in 74 or even 84, unless you were working at Imagineering, you'd have had no clue as to what attractions were discussed as being additions or how big different cutbacks might have been on projects.

I've never worked at Imagineering (never applied either) and I've known what was being worked on even as a child back in the 70s and into the 80s because back then Disney had preview centers in its parks that showed what was planned (some got built, some didn't). There were also publications like 'Disney News' that many of us got. So, plenty of folks knew what was going on.

In addition, the first many years you are going to WDW, your not walking around looking for mold on Space Mountains internal structure, or for bulbs that are burnt out on sign. Your just happy to be there and excited for the day. So sure, I can see how after 20 years of visits and the addition of the internet to that equation, you may start to take a different look at it, but don't kid yourself and think that these "issues" you like to talk about didn't exist before that.

I don't walk around looking for any of the above now and I never have. When I see something, though, I do make a mental note of it I don't just say 'Oh, that railing is rotting through due to neglect ... who cares though? Dole Whips is mighty tasty. Hey ... wanna trade pins?'

After visiting Disney parks worldwide for over three decades and having an AP at WDW since they started selling them, I don't need the Internet to tell me that things aren't the way they were in 1979 or 1989 or even 1999. I see the reality everytime I visit WDW.

And, many of the issues simply didn't exist years ago. Things like upkeep, cleanliness, show quality ... those have all fallen drastically from the way they were in the 70s, 80s and 90s.

One comparison I can make is that during your so called "Golden Age" Eisner spent lots of money on building resort hotels. Im sure back then had we all been on this message board, there would be complaints that too much money was being spent on resorts and not enough at the parks. Well, looks like history is repeating itself as we are now witnessing the DVC resort hotels being built like crazy and people complaining on here about that money not going towards the parks.

Again, that's not the case. One of the smartest decisions Eisner made was to open many resorts at WDW. Some of them are incredible and they all add something ... even the value motels aren't what I'd term crap.

But you assume money is allocated in an either/or fashion and it isn't ... it's not we get BLT or the Fantasyland redo ... it isn't either we get Villas at DAK Lodge or we get a Tokyo-inspired import at DAK ... it isn't we either get Treehouse DVC at SS or we get something new at WoL.

My issue with DVC expansion isn't because it is taking funds away from the parks, it's because it is overkill in a terrible economy and because it seems to be the only thing Burbank seems to care about building at WDW. But that's a mindset, MK money isn't DVC dollars.

 

[WDW1974]

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.

Lee!!!! Why didn't I read this post before typing up my response above?

You really nailed it, my friend. Perfect. Bullseye!

It really all comes down to doing the bare minimum and for years that's what WDW has gotten largely.

1991 parades and shows based on Playhouse Disney and American Idol ... cartoons anywhere and everywhere ... marketing might over making magic.

It's all LCD stuff ... let's do the least we possibly can in the parks, while cutting the Disney Details and raising the prices. They're tourists, what do they know?

 

[WDW1974]

No - it coincides with the death of Frank Wells and Eisner loosing his way. Funny conincidence?

Sadly, it wasn't coincidental.

And it spread throughout the company as other execs left or were forced out ... replaced by those who either were total behind-kissers or had no particular fondness for Disney or its properties.

As much as I liked/like Michael, he should have left as soon as DAK opened. He really did a lot of damage in his latter years because he lost focus and let ego get in the way as well.

 

[WDW1974]

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

I do believe it can. When you have fanboys going and taking videos of new attractions and placing the entire thing on the web, sure ... it can take things away.

When people take 100 pictures of something new at WDW and place it on a web site, sure it takes some surprise away.

I tend to ignore those threads and those sites, myself.

But I don't think that's what you were alluding to.

If I didn't have internet, I'd have no idea what Space looks like with the lights on and if it has mold, or to what the extent of a refurbishment is going to be, etc. I'd just go and enjoy what is being offered.

That's you. Many people have been inside when the lights are on. Heck, many have gotten stuck when the ride has gone 101 and the lights have come on ... and you see the ugly side of space.

As to what a refurb is going to be, many of us do want to know. My rides aren't going to be ruined if I find out we're getting new trains or onboard sound. You can take this to a ridiculous degree too.

At some point if you don't want to know what goes on behind the scenes at Disney, you likely should never visit any Disney site on the web.

You guys may have some connections on the inside, but obviously those people aren't too deep inside the WDW company as you can't even find out whats going on with the refurbishment for sure. How do we know that maybe in the board meetings they've made an agreement to scale back on Space to get approval to do something grander in scale elsewhere? Its not just an endless supply of money. Maybe concessions had to be made with Space so that money could be used for something better for Mermaid? Whats annoying is that rather than try and be positive when noone on this board really has a clue in hell what is really going on, many of you prefer to be pessimists.

Some of us have connections that simply aren't involved. I know no one who is working on Space Mountain (at least no one I am aware of yet), so I can't say I know a thing. That's why I read these threads because maybe others do know. On the other hand, I do know what's going on in other parts of Disney that no one here seems to have much interest in ... like DCA ... and China ... and ABC, as well as other aspects of WDW.

And Mermaid, as of now, isn't happening at MK (down the road? maybe) so no, Disney didn't say take $20 million off of Space MTn and add it to that. Again, not how it works.

What's annoying as hell to some of us is that by simply being realists (and not overdosing on pixie dust and Disney marketing and PR) we're labeled as pessimists.

 

[tirian]

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:

Nope, I don't think that at all.

I also have more things to do with my time than argue with people who know what they're talking about because "I" don't agree. Some people insist the moon landing was faked, too.

It's odd that everything I've said is 100% in line with Lee and Marni, yet this suddenly bothers you. I'm not claiming the magic doesn't exist anymore—I'm stating a fact that the mediocre management really escalated after the New Tomorrowland opened in 1994. That doesn't mean everything since then has been a bad idea, and I have never suggested that.

Please excuse me as I momentarily step away from the boards and return to my real, professional, highly paid life.

 

[WDW1974]

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.

Lee, I don't buy that excuse for a second. I know that's how Phil, Dan and Co view things, but it's BS.

Disney has had once-in-a-lifetime guests since 10/1/71.

For many years, they only had ONE park, Then, two. Now, it's four. And most of those one-timers are going to be park-hopping and doing so for days.

If Space Mountain closes for a year or two, big deal. They have plenty of major attractions spread over the four parks to cover for it.

Years ago, Space Mountain would close annually in January for just typical rehabs. Now?

DL gets plenty of those one-timers too (no, not as many as WDW, but still a significant number) ... and a few years ago I recall being there in January when Space Mountain, Splash Mountain, Mansion and Pirates were all closed at the SAME time.

Imagine that.

I didn't see a line stretching out of City Hall and down Main Street with people demanding Mickey write them a check for $5,000 to make up for ruining their lives.

This excuse just so gets on my nerves because Phil and the MK managers use it like an award around their necks to prevent needed work from being done.

When things need to be closed, you close them. Sure, you try and inconvenience the fewest number of people but, ultimately, you do what needs to be done.

It is this mindset that keeps making Orlando home of the stalest MK of them all.

 

[WDW1974]

If I remember right, there is plenty of land directly west of the Magic Kingdom. I'm sure Disney could work through any further logistical issues that would come about of attaching it to an old park rather than building it as part of a brand new one.



Kilimanjaro Safaris is bigger than the whole rest of Animal Kingdom, so how would that apply to the Magic Kingdom if there is (once again, if I'm correct) enough land out to the west. And that's not even considering that it doesn't have to be the exact same attraction (layout, etc.) verbatim, especially if you perhaps used the Jungle Cruise area for a new hybrid Jungle Cruise/Kilimanjaro Safaris.

There are many logistical reasons as to why that wouldn't have worked.

But the whole discussion is kind of ... how do I put it gently? ... Ah ... dumb.

Disney was never going to add live animals to the MK and, for lack of a better term, zoo-up the place.

It wouldn't have made any sense of so many reasons.

DAK exists because it is an amazing concept and a viable stand alone one. Its numbers have proven that. It's also one of the things that Disney has done so very right at WDW of late (even though it opened 11 years ago now!!!)

The point though is that building Animal Kingdom put a strain on resources that could have been better delegated between the existing facilities in Walt Disney World, and you wouldn't have lost the ability to still build the individual great experiences that are in Animal Kingdom now. Disney wouldn't be as desperate for Cast Members, for example, let alone good ones, if they didn't have to worry about filling several hundred more at that park. There would be more money to go around, maybe, say, they'd still have that no-burnt-out-light bulb policy.

And that point has merit and legs ... the same could be said about DD Westside or the last 10,000 resort rooms built too.

And I agree with it, largely in theory. If WDW hadn't of built DAK its resources would not have been stretched so thinly. ...touchdown Eagles! ... oops, back to the post ... there's no doubt WDW is too big for its own good.

But since DAK is the second major reason I go to WDW (EPCOT being first), I am glad they built it.

As I remember, Disney-MGM Studios wasn't intended as a full day experience from the start. They were intending it as a fully functioning studio with a theme park attached, much in the fashion of Universal Studios Hollywood.

And we all know the story behind EPCOT Center.

Well, Disney-MGM was also rushed into completion in order to beat Universal to the punch.

Because while some fans don't feel Universal is competition, rest assured Disney does and did even back then.

 

[Lee]

Please excuse me as I momentarily step away from the boards and return to my real, professional, highly paid life.

Highly paid? Working there?
D@mn....I need your job.:lol:

Lee, I don't buy that excuse for a second. I know that's how Phil, Dan and Co view things, but it's BS

Agreed, it is total BS. But that is how they look at/justify it. Every decision is based on how it will reflect on them, either at their bottom line or by how many complaints might come in that make them look bad. They want to fly way under the radar.
To misquote Steve King, "All things serve the Jay." So long as Rasulo is looking down at them and smiling, they feel safe and confident that they are doing a good job. But, heaven forbid numbers drop, or they go a little bit, not over budget, but not far enough under budget....then they fear the wrath.
Of course I wasn't there, but I would bet anything that at some point in the last few years, there was a power point presentation that showed how WDW management came in under budget, but kept profit and attendance up. This no doubt earned them pats on the back and a nice bonus check.
Thereby reinforcing the bad behaviour.

One day it will come back to bite them...hopefully not in the form of an improperly maintained axle on Big Thunder.

 

[WDW1974]

Agreed, it is total BS. But that is how they look at/justify it. Every decision is based on how it will reflect on them, either at their bottom line or by how many complaints might come in that make them look bad. They want to fly way under the radar.
To misquote Steve King, "All things serve the Jay." So long as Rasulo is looking down at them and smiling, they feel safe and confident that they are doing a good job. But, heaven forbid numbers drop, or they go a little bit, not over budget, but not far enough under budget....then they fear the wrath.
Of course I wasn't there, but I would bet anything that at some point in the last few years, there was a power point presentation that showed how WDW management came in under budget, but kept profit and attendance up. This no doubt earned them pats on the back and a nice bonus check.
Thereby reinforcing the bad behaviour.

One day it will come back to bite them...hopefully not in the form of an improperly maintained axle on Big Thunder.

I agree.

I'm hoping against hope that Phil's own 'use by' date is drawing to a close.

How many years has it been since he replaced Erin? 6-7 now?

That's usually about the time execs either resign to spend more time with their families or are either promoted/demoted/moved around.

The MK desperately, of all the FLA parks, needs fresh blood.

 

[T-1MILLION]

I know Disney is a business and it has been said before, even though money making is the key to a business...A lot of times more recently they are not sticking with their quality that has been in place since the start. Not in all areas of course, but a lot of it is on a slippery slope.

Nemo (two major attractions based on the property open within one year,...ok popular property but Nemo has its own Pavilion at one park and amajor show at another.

Monsters Inc. Some people are mildly entertained and that's good because it is not meant to be a major E-ticket but let's look back in time...Monsters inc is a digital puppet show...a screen attraction as people are starting to call them. Now instead of arguing the theme in question for the quality of the attraction let's look at some of the older Non E ticket attractions.

Crainium Command: a show featuring jabs and laughs with many screens, special effects that were mostly practical in theatre gags and animatronics to help the story along.

Or even going back to Tiki Room, practical effects and animatronics.

The digital puppet show concept of a living character is neat, but it is really more post how or preshow feeling with just a screen and not much practical to it...as main show it often falls and is not what Disney would of given us. Heck, even Timekeeper had AAs, hologram, a time machine prop with moving parts and fog.

Now onto what we have lately

Pirates, the refurb was just enough to add in the movie tie ines. Guests wanted to see Sparrow so that is what they gave them. Sure some touch ups but that should be expected..it should not take a multi million dollar film property to upkeep an attraction.

Haunted Mansion- yes some new neat things were added and brought to today's sound standards, awesome stuff. No tie ins that could date it...but a lot of it should of already happened through general upkeep of the most visited theme park in the world.

Space Mountain Refurb?

Star Tours 2.0?

Spaceship Earth done yet?

Wonders of life- An entire building with attractions just sitting there empty while it only opens the center area for private events?

Country Bear Jamboree Christmas? Whatever happened?

American Idol- Ok, Karoke contest...not my cup of tea but at least it fits the production theme, still don't care to see it and wonering how 'Disney' are going to feel it is or how well it will stand up in five years when the show is dead.

Jungle Cruise Refurb?

Toy Story Mania- A shooting attraction..based on Toy Story...wait a second? Ok, its a bit different but out of all the things to theme it after..all the Disney properties and ones they work close with...we get another Toy Story shooting attraction? That does not seem creative at all. And got a priority for Synergy with Toy Story 3.

Fantasmic Shows cut?

Now look back at the stuff that needs to be done and is in need of shaping up around the resorts and look at what they lay their attention on.

But look forward to yet another Monsters Inc based attraction possibly in the works.

Yeah.


I know I sound bitter but I am being honest.