RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
Why would it be in Disney's interests to have an attraction a fair number of people don't want to ride?
Look at it this way: IF the cannon is actually a change, do you think the number of people who won't go on anymore or who will be upset afterwards outnumbers the number of people who will now ride and ride happily?
Whether or not there was fair warning is irrelevant. If enough people didn't like it -- and it's every bit as reasonable for them not to as it is for others to like it -- then it doesn't matter if there was fair warning or if people should expect to get soaked on a water ride.
Further, people may be willing to risk getting quite wet on an attraction that says "you may get wet," but getting shot by a cannon at the start is not quite the same as spending the whole ride wondering how wet you'll get in the big plunge.
Also, it's funny that people being happy about something has been termed being a debbie downer. . .
For me, this keeps me off Kali River Rapids on most days.