JoeCamel
Well-Known Member
Then they ginn up their own version right Mr Eisner?The only thing you will probably get in the mail is a letter from the Disney Legal Department advising that Disney does not take outside unsolicited ideas.
Then they ginn up their own version right Mr Eisner?The only thing you will probably get in the mail is a letter from the Disney Legal Department advising that Disney does not take outside unsolicited ideas.
So the same letter they sent to Universal when they built MGM. I'll frame it and hang it on the wall.The only thing you will probably get in the mail is a letter from the Disney Legal Department advising that Disney does not take outside unsolicited ideas.
Conflict would certainly work with the PatF ride, build the conflict throughout the ride with a sense of dread rising, to be relieved after the drop
It could be done so well with Dr. Facilier.
Perhaps, they'll still use some rising conflict? I don't know...
But the Dr. would have been such a great way to do it.
But what if they make another princess ride like FEA and keep it giggles and sparkles? Building dread may not play well with that crowd.
I know which way I think they went
I think it comes down to who the target audience is for this
It didn't help that was Bob I's target demoFantasyland already ruines the magic kingdom. I don’t mean in the ride sense I mean in the demographic that visits the MK when I had passes for years I dreaded the MK avoided that stroller filled place like the plague.
Yeah, as a father of sons there was never much in Fantasyland for them anyway.Fantasyland already ruines the magic kingdom. I don’t mean in the ride sense I mean in the demographic that visits the MK when I had passes for years I dreaded the MK avoided that stroller filled place like the plague.
I doubt thatI hope Disney is going to add an element of impending dread to PatF.
Our MK is thought of as a "kiddie park". Its one of the reasons AE got killed.Fantasyland already ruines the magic kingdom. I don’t mean in the ride sense I mean in the demographic that visits the MK when I had passes for years I dreaded the MK avoided that stroller filled place like the plague.
It’s interesting to me that we are getting TRON for this reason. I would not have expected a 48” height requirement in MK 10 years ago.Our MK is thought of as a "kiddie park". Its one of the reasons AE got killed.
Tron never made sense to me for MK. The placement right next to SM is off to me. Plus, MK needs capacity. Not something that will draw another 2M a year into an already crowded and mostly miserable experience.It’s interesting to me that we are getting TRON for this reason. I would not have expected a 48” height requirement in MK 10 years ago.
Which puts you at odds with the Disney suits. They are only interested in things that draw more people.Tron never made sense to me for MK. The placement right next to SM is off to me. Plus, MK needs capacity. Not something that will draw another 2M a year into an already crowded and mostly miserable experience.
You mean the way they took Maelstrom out for so long? Almost the same, right?Yeah, I hang all hopes for expedited downtime the incontrovertible fact that taking a headlining attraction out of the parks for more than 3 peak periods is just fundamentally bad business. Same reason I can occasionally tell myself they will assemble a good show in the attraction; permanently kneecapping this ride with a bad show would be difficult for people to ignore whether returning or first time guests. This is one of the 5 attractions everyone tells you to do in 2 of the most venerated parks in the world; blowing it would hard to hide.
True Tron would fit better and make more sense, say, at HS rather than at MK. It's too late now though and only time will tell what the impacts will be to MK. As to the quality of the MK experience it never seemed unenjoyable but rather fun (to varying degrees dependent on many factors) still "miserable" has never been my experience.Tron never made sense to me for MK. The placement right next to SM is off to me. Plus, MK needs capacity. Not something that will draw another 2M a year into an already crowded and mostly miserable experience.
If you are equating Maelstrom to Splash Mountain, that’s certainly a choice you can make.You mean the way they took Maelstrom out for so long? Almost the same, right?
Which is why I think it is super-odd that they put a new covered rollercoaster next to another covered rollercoaster, based on an IP that has never been a moneymaker for Disney...but that's a whole 'nother topic LOL.Which puts you at odds with the Disney suits. They are only interested in things that draw more people.
It was a joke.If you are equating Maelstrom to Splash Mountain, that’s certainly a choice you can make.
based on an IP that has never been a moneymaker for Disney...
Oh, absolutely.If there wasn't already a TRON coaster designed and operating at another Disney theme park, WDW would certainly not get one.
It was greenlit for SDL before Legacy was released.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.