Rumor Stitch's Great Escape Replacement— Don’t Hold Your Breath

[ᗩLᘿᑕ ✨ ᗩζᗩᗰ]

I'm just going to turn that around a bit and sub Wall-E for Tron. I forgot that the Wedway won't be going through Tron.

With MILF being a part of Tomorrowland, it just makes sense to me to include a Mike AA somewhere in the Peoplemover.

I can live with that. lol
(Although... still don't think Monsters belongs in Tomorrowland)

 

[Princess Leia]

I can live with that. lol
(Although... still don't think Monsters belongs in Tomorrowland)

They don’t... but I doubt they’ll be moving to DHS anytime soon

 

[Cesar R M]

Um... what? The only scenario where anything other than dispatch interval or vehicle size would change the attraction's hourly capacity is if there was another bottleneck in the attraction. I'll give you an example:

What I was talking was exactly that, a bottleneck when loading. Aka not enough boats to satisfy loading and unloading speed.

 

[Cesar R M]

No way to know that until WDW stops guessing what they're going to do with the space and pulls a trigger on a specific plan.

But who will, and who will have to live with the consequences?

 

[Purduevian]

More Math with Capacity!

Assumptions:
1) Numbers from This Thread are accurate
2) Wait times from MDE are accurate ( I know they are not, but these are the best numbers I have)
3) 50% of the people "in line" are actually fastpass+ and not eaten from the park
4)Formula for total people eaten: People on ride+ (People Per Hour [people/hour]* Wait time [mins]/60[mins/hour]/2[accounting for FP+])

Top 10 People Per Hour:

Top 10 Cycle Times:

Top 10+ Wait Times:

Top 10 Total People Eaten by Attraction:

 

[PorterRedkey]

Possibly expect multi IP scattered around the Peoplemover. Not just a single theme.

Possibly.

What can you do to make this idea go away?
Will the IP fit even a little bit?

 

[PorterRedkey]

The Incredimover

Funny, but hits a little too close to home.

 

[WDWTank]

Is it true Iger is against original concepts created for the Parks? Why?

 

[MaximumEd]

Because synergy.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Is it true Iger is against original concepts created for the Parks? Why?

He learned from the best...

I'm afraid I agree with this completely, at least in the stateside parks, no matter how much I'd like to see unique new park experiences. Barring a complete sea-change in corporate, synergy is the name of the game. But synergy has, to a strong degree, always played a significant role in the original park and beyond. They just had fewer IPs adaptable to the park experience back then. I expect most people will have seen these early days diagrams, but I'll post them here anyway.

From 1957:
View attachment 196512
And from 1967:
View attachment 196513

 

[rle4lunch]

He learned from the best...

These two illustrations COMPLETELY destroy the IP saturation argument and that WDC is being lazy with their current park(s) development... They should be posted at the beginning of every single thread as a sticky note.

 

[Dunston]

These two illustrations COMPLETELY destroy the IP saturation argument and that WDC is being lazy with their current park(s) development... They should be posted at the beginning of every single thread as a sticky note.

Thank you common sense man

 

[ᗩLᘿᑕ ✨ ᗩζᗩᗰ]

Because synergy.

Someone needs to inform Iger that synergy can be achieved by working the formula in reverse. Build a unique, original attraction (one that's wildly popular) and launch it as a new blockbuster tentpole movie.

 

[MaximumEd]

Someone needs to inform Iger that synergy can be achieved by working the formula in reverse. Build a unique, original attraction (one that's wildly popular) and launch it as a new blockbuster tentpole movie.

Sounds good, but for every PotC you get a Country Bears, ToT, and Tomorrowland movie. I’d settle for original IP that just stayed in the parks. Not every movie has to be an attraction and not every attraction needs to be a movie, but I do see your point and tend to agree.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Sounds good, but for every PotC you get a Country Bears, ToT, and Tomorrowland movie. I’d settle for original IP that just stayed in the parks. Not every movie has to be an attraction and not every attraction needs to be a movie, but I do see your point and tend to agree.

Don't forget the Haunted Mansion movie.

Still, they should at least try for a Figment short.

 

[Lensman]

Sounds good, but for every PotC you get a Country Bears, ToT, and Tomorrowland movie. I’d settle for original IP that just stayed in the parks. Not every movie has to be an attraction and not every attraction needs to be a movie, but I do see your point and tend to agree.

PotC as a movie franchise was, as they say, one in a million. Not only was its blockbuster success a surprise, but it also wasn't what I'd call original IP in that there are over a hundred pirate movies and before then, countless pirate novels. Also, PotC was a blockbuster because Johnny Depp made Jack Sparrow into an unforgettable and mesmerizing character, not because people had fond memories of the ride.

I don't mind IP in the parks, but what I don't like is using IP as a crutch to not spend the money to do the creative engineering to make an attraction independently engrossing and effective. Attractions need a hook, and it's inadequate to just have the use of character IP as the hook.

I want attractions to be original and delightful regardless of whether they have original IP, movie IP, or comic book IP. Heck, for all I care they could have no IP, whatever that might mean!

 

[WowFactor]

Don't forget the Haunted Mansion movie.

Do you know if is this still in developing it with Del Toro?

 

[Indy_UK]

Do you know if is this still in developing it with Del Toro?

I thought it was axed as they couldn't get a good enough script

 

[MisterPenguin]

I thought it was axed because Del Toro has other fish to fry.

 

[Indy_UK]

Del Toro always commits to about 100 projects at a time then goes with whatever sticks