SplashJacket
Well-Known Member
Don’t count GMR because its coming back in a week...
Don't count losing the Stunt Show because it came back in December with Rise...
Don't count losing Backlot Tour because it came back in the summer with Falcon...
If a ride is replaced without any major modifications to the show building that does not make it the same. Mr. Toad's Wild Ride and 20,000 Leagues are both defunct attractions.
Anyway you look at it, it’s a massive net positive in the list of thing for guests to get drawn to.
It is a massive net positive, there's no denying that.
The land used by the Backlot tour and Stunt Show were put to very good use, insanely positive net gain. I do not think anyone can actually go into Toy Story Land and Star Wars Land and say they wanted actually what was there before instead of what is there now.
As for Great Movie Ride, the reviews are mixed. A lot of people are saying Mickey is a great ride but its not a worthy replacement of GMR.
Had GMR gotten an extensive refurb and Mickey gotten a ground-up show building, there would be no complaints. The park as a whole would be extremely solid and have a substantial capacity. Don't get me wrong HS is a great park now, but it still needs more in certain areas, and definitely needs more capacity to counteract the crowds.
Saying that replacing GMR with a ride with a similar capacity does not matter is naive. If Mickey follows the typical Disney budget it probably costs $250 million. GMR would have needed at most $100 million (probably a bit much) to switch out a lot of the scenes and bump up a clearly aging ride to exceptional status.
As a guest, would you rather have a refreshed GMR one year and MMRR the next?
MMRR will always be compared to the GMR as it replaced it, there's no way to ever change that. From Disney's standpoint, they could have saved money in the future by keeping GMR and MMRR as it lessens the need for further expansion. Replacing it really doesn't make sense from the perspective of the guest or from Disney.