I agree with much of the initial post. I don't like hearing the negative things about paint, bulbs and the like. We Disney visitors are like an army of ants that descend on the park daily. Most try to be considerate and mindful of the amount of time, planning and money that goes in these productions and take care not to leave our mark, to let Disney leave it's mark on us. I think we can ALL agree Disney doesn't do anything the cheap route, they give us the best money can buy. There are others who feel the need to tear down, either physically or with their words, Disney Magic. I don't like it so I try to ignore it. I am a 43 year old mom from Oklahoma. I have been to Disneyworld 5 times. Our family saves money to treat ourselves to this experience every 3 or 4 years. I am NOT ashamed to say when I hear the beginning music of the "The Lion King" I am very likely to shed a tear. It has that effect on me. I love Disney and am raising, and have raised, Disney loving kids. Our oldest daughter is 23 and recently bought her first home. She says when she has children, they too will vacation in Disneyworld. Oh, and by the way, 42 DAYS !!!!:sohappy:
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
The Worst Thing to Happen to Walt Disney World
- Thread starter Enderikari
- Start date
speck76
Well-Known Member
dxwwf3 said:
DL's version has probably always been more popular....WDW's has never been as popular.....and probably never will be. Part of it may be that WDW's Adventureland is the least popular area of the park.
I disagree with the bold comment. How many people rushed to see IaSW at WDW after its redo. Personally, I never liked IaSW, and would have never gone on it again if I had a choice....yet the redo had me interested in seeing what exactly was changed....which like the Tiki Room, was nothing major.
Newer is not always better, but it is needed for marketing purposes.
If WDW replaced CoP with a bumper-car attraction, the bumper-car attraction, being new, would be more likely to draw guests to the park than a marketing campaign for the CoP ever would. Once their, people might not care for the bumper cars.....but they already did their job.....the got people interested in visiting WDW.
dxwwf3
Well-Known Member
speck76 said:
At least I got that out of you :lol:. Some would never say the first 5 words of that sentence.
speck76 said:
I see your point. But at the end of the day, doesn't overall park satisfaction have to kick in at some point? Before the movie was released, POTC wasn't exactly creating any wait time for a long period of time. And really Disney could have replaced the whole thing, but they didn't. Now I'm not trying to compare PotC to CoP, so don't get me wrong. But wouldn't the short term effect of the bumper cars be outweighed by (possible) long term uninterest by the general public (Meaning that the attraction doesn't get crowds after the first year or so of operation).
I hope you know what I'm trying to say. It's kinda hard to explain. I know that change has to happen to bring people back and believe me I'm not against the majority of it, but sometimes I question the long term effects of some recent changes (or rumored changes).
dxwwf3 said:
Then I will say it too...
Newer is not always better....
But change is good.
I don't think that I am that radical... I just am a firm believer in preserving the magical guest experience... Because, to me, that magic means something. It means something special
speck76
Well-Known Member
dxwwf3 said:
but if the same attractions keep getting replaced, they never get old.
And even the best attractions lose people's interest.....ToT does not get the lines it did when it first opened.
Perhaps part of it is the ability for adaptive re-use......rides like Dreamflight, Mr Toad, AE, Timekeeper and basically much like mall stores.....false fronts and movie-type sets that are easily changed.....as with Flight to the Moon / Mission to Mars / AE / SGE.....the building has remained the same, while the scenery and story has changed. With attractions like ToT or The Jungle Cruise, they were built for 1 purpose, and could never be used for a different purpose without major modifications.
If WDW starts creating "disposible attractions", the park gets more frequent upgrades, and nothing ever gets old.
Not that I like that idea.....as to be feasible, the attractions would have to be cheap......(but I also do not think this would ever happen.)
dxwwf3
Well-Known Member
Enderikari said:
I was simply having fun above. Don't worry about that.
But read what you just said there. I think a lot of people with VERY different point of views would say the same thing. And I'd say that's how most of the "armchair imagineers" feel and how some of the "chipped paint" people feel too. It's just being shown in a different way.
No matter what, this thread has sparked some great discussion and I thank you for that :sohappy:
dxwwf3
Well-Known Member
speck76 said:
Great post.
So I guess it comes down to this:
What is better for the guests and what is better for business? Older, more enjoyable attractions or newer, less enjoyable attractions. (And yes I'm overgeneralizing here big time).
I guess there's really no right or wrong answer here, to be honest.
speck76
Well-Known Member
dxwwf3 said:
Like everything, it is a balancing act.
In addition, how many times can the same attraction get a new theme. If we refer to SGE simply as the "Tomorrowland 3-phase circular theater attraction", it has seen 4 incarnations......all 4 were popular from the start, but attendance declined, as it does on every attraction. So, when version 4.0 sees the attendance drop, will we see version 5.0, or 1.0 of something new?
When Buzz Lightyear falls from favor, will we see "Tomorrowland Omnimover attraction v6.0", or 1.0 of something new?
"Tomorrowland Circlevision Theater" has recently close version 4.0, and will never see a version 5.0, as it appears that it is being converted to "Tomorrowland Interactive Theater Show v1.0"
Now, if Disney were to create "Tomorrowland Interactive Theater Show v1.0", a 1.0 in the space formerly held by "Tomorrowland 3-phase circular theater attraction", and a 1.0 in the space formerly held by "Tomorrowland Omnimover attraction" within a short period of time, the costs would be HUGE. But if in creating the "Tomorrowland Interactive Theater Show v1.0", they create a "Tomorrowland 3-phase circular theater attraction v4.0" and perhaps a "Tomorrowland Omnimover attraction v5.1 (with small upgrades)" the costs would be more reasonable, while at the same time giving guests a large amount of new attractions.
rdour@techminds
New Member
This is quite the topic, and I can't just sit back and read the whole thing without posting something.
1. Before I rediscovered wdwmagic and podcasts about WDW, I would probably have not spent the cash to go down there in November. Not only did I go in November, but the potential to ride Everest displayed on these very boards and the discovery of more secrets to find caused me to go again in February. I would have never taken the time to find talking garbage cans or stick around for Off Kilter. I would have never run to the sound of a bunch of garbage cans if I didn't hear them on a podcast (Inside the Magic and Window To the Magic). Most importantly, I could have never become the helpful tour guide for my girlfriend the first time we went down there. I could have never helped some of my friends get the most magic packed into their short trips without the internet. I am not an expert, and neither is anyone else. We pool our resources here and all grow our knowledge equally.
2. The internet gives everyone the ability to speak just about anything they want to speak about. Just like in real life, we all need to remember that everyone reading posts are people. Imagine if we all rented some huge ballroom somewhere and crammed into it. We all hold up signs with our thread names. Would you say half the stuff you say on boards if you had to say it to someone standing right next to you? I keep that in mind every time I post a thread.
3. It is sad, some people just can't afford to go to the parks. Sometimes things like old age or illness may keep someone from ever going to a Disney park. Why not bring some of that magic to them with videos and audio from the net? Why not use these media resources as encouragement for those whomay wish to skip the magic for a week s__________g up the sun on a boring beach. Show people that Disney isn't just for the kids or when you have your own family with kids. I've got plenty of friends that needed that extra push. WHen they learn how detailed an atrraction can be, they're hooked.
4. If we all could afford to live there, wouldn't that be great? Well, that's never going to happen. But this internet thing just may be the next best opportunity.
Ryan
1. Before I rediscovered wdwmagic and podcasts about WDW, I would probably have not spent the cash to go down there in November. Not only did I go in November, but the potential to ride Everest displayed on these very boards and the discovery of more secrets to find caused me to go again in February. I would have never taken the time to find talking garbage cans or stick around for Off Kilter. I would have never run to the sound of a bunch of garbage cans if I didn't hear them on a podcast (Inside the Magic and Window To the Magic). Most importantly, I could have never become the helpful tour guide for my girlfriend the first time we went down there. I could have never helped some of my friends get the most magic packed into their short trips without the internet. I am not an expert, and neither is anyone else. We pool our resources here and all grow our knowledge equally.
2. The internet gives everyone the ability to speak just about anything they want to speak about. Just like in real life, we all need to remember that everyone reading posts are people. Imagine if we all rented some huge ballroom somewhere and crammed into it. We all hold up signs with our thread names. Would you say half the stuff you say on boards if you had to say it to someone standing right next to you? I keep that in mind every time I post a thread.
3. It is sad, some people just can't afford to go to the parks. Sometimes things like old age or illness may keep someone from ever going to a Disney park. Why not bring some of that magic to them with videos and audio from the net? Why not use these media resources as encouragement for those whomay wish to skip the magic for a week s__________g up the sun on a boring beach. Show people that Disney isn't just for the kids or when you have your own family with kids. I've got plenty of friends that needed that extra push. WHen they learn how detailed an atrraction can be, they're hooked.
4. If we all could afford to live there, wouldn't that be great? Well, that's never going to happen. But this internet thing just may be the next best opportunity.
Ryan
CaptainMichael
Well-Known Member
*strokes imaginary beard* very interesting...speck76 said:
good post Speck!
dxwwf3
Well-Known Member
speck76 said:
Say what? j/k
I agree with everything, except why are you using "Tomorrowland 3-phase circular theater attraction 4.0"'s attendence drop sound like it hasn't already happened :animwink:
Actually I might just start calling it that. It does have a nice ring to it, don't you think? :lol:
wannab@dis
Well-Known Member
I'm glad you admitted that you were "overgeneralizing" in your statement! :lol:dxwwf3 said:
AE vs Stitch... you know where I stand. I liked AE better.
JII vs JIYI+Fig... I like the latest version best, plus I think it's much more "family friendly" since toddlers would get scared on the first.
In fact, I like most of the changes in Epcot more than the old attractions. While I'd love to see a new dark ride added, I think they should be changed more often than they are. That's a lot of expense, but a new dark ride now and then would help market to the loyal fanbase.
Mission to Mars was ok, but not that great. Dreamflight wasn't that great to me. TK was ok. Buzz on the other hand, is a great attraction that I'll jump back in line for. All the mountains are great, but I would LOVE to see SpMtn updated.
As for the shows in all parks, they are great and I love to catch them. I would, however, like to see them updated more often. The show I would least want to see changed would be FotLK. I loved the Lion King show in MK, but Philharmagic is just as good or better.
There are many attractions that I think were worse than the current lineup while I think there are a few new ones that aren't quite as good. However, I'm not going to pine away for them or get uptight over a change. The CHANGE is what keeps me going back and it's what keeps me looking to the future. If everything stayed the same, I wouldn't make the trip nearly as often and may not return until a new crop of attractions sparked my interest.
I know people have their favorites. I do to. However, my favorites may not line up with the general guests nor should I think my views should take precedence. The continual complaining about Horizons, WoM, AE (sorry), and other replaced attractions is a little narrow minded in my view. Like I said, I understand it, but it seems misinformed at best, and, more than likely, just selfish.
That's why I think the 'armchair imagineers' need to think outside the box. Not outside the design box, but outside their narrow viewpoint. They need to figure out that WDW is about business and it's about entertainment of millions of people... not one.
My views on the paint chips, light bulbs, etc is generally known, and to me it's just one of primary things that cause more problems than good. It's also interesting that the ones that scream loudest about paint chips are the ones that bemoan the loss of Horizons the most. It's almost like they see an attraction change as a personal afront and decide the best way to work through their selfish anger is by attacking management for paint chips. Everytime I see a trip report or post about the little issues like that, I cringe and hope that a trip is not cancelled. We've all seen the posters that have said... "if it's really that bad maybe we won't go until they get things fixed." Well, that only feeds the problem, not the fix since loss of revenue will cause it to only get worse. Hence, those posts cause more trouble in the long run.
dxwwf3
Well-Known Member
Oh I was being completely hypothetical there. I didn't mean that old=good and new=less quality. Purely hypothetical for comparisons sake.
I don't really see complaining that much. Sure you'll hear "I don't think M:S is as good as Horizons", but that's hardly complaning. And if you think I'm still in my complaining phase about AE, I hate that it still comes across that way.
And if you do see people talking favorably about their favorite extinct attractions, it might seem selfish. But I don't think it's ment to be that way by most people.
wannab@dis said:
I don't really see complaining that much. Sure you'll hear "I don't think M:S is as good as Horizons", but that's hardly complaning. And if you think I'm still in my complaining phase about AE, I hate that it still comes across that way.
And if you do see people talking favorably about their favorite extinct attractions, it might seem selfish. But I don't think it's ment to be that way by most people.
speck76
Well-Known Member
In addition, a cost-benefit analysis would be looked at.
Let's say it costs $50 million to uprgrade for 4.0 to 5.0, and $100 million to change the concept completely (and start back at 1.0)
In addition, the average PEAK popularity span for an upgraded attraction is 5 years, while a new concept is 7 years.
Now (hypothetical),
Tomorrowland Circlevision Theater Version 1.0's peak popularity lasted for 11 years, and was replaced after it's 12th season
Tomorrowland Circlevision Theater Version 2.0's peak popularity lasted for 8 years and was replaced after it's 10th season
Tomorrowland Circlevision Theater Version 3.0's peak popularity lasted for 6 years and was replaced after it's 7th season
Tomorrowland Circlevision Theater Version 4.0's peak popularity lasted for 4 years and is now 5 years old.
Now, would it make sense to spend $50million to upgrade an attraction that did not have a trend of lasting a long time? If the overall "vehicle" of the attraction has lost its popularity, as the above situation illustrates, would any addition upgrade (new film) give benefit to either the company or the guests.....no.
Now, although it would be twice as expensive to replace the entire purpose of the building, would the company have a better opportunity as seeing both financial benefit, along with seeing more guest benefit.....yes/maybe*.
*There is always the chance (and it has happened) where an unpopular attraction is replaced with an attraction that is as bad, or worse......this is what happens when risks are taken.....but at the same time, anything new and creative is a potential risk......so to say we want WDC to be very creative, not clone, and create new attractions is to say "we want them to take risks"
Let's say it costs $50 million to uprgrade for 4.0 to 5.0, and $100 million to change the concept completely (and start back at 1.0)
In addition, the average PEAK popularity span for an upgraded attraction is 5 years, while a new concept is 7 years.
Now (hypothetical),
Tomorrowland Circlevision Theater Version 1.0's peak popularity lasted for 11 years, and was replaced after it's 12th season
Tomorrowland Circlevision Theater Version 2.0's peak popularity lasted for 8 years and was replaced after it's 10th season
Tomorrowland Circlevision Theater Version 3.0's peak popularity lasted for 6 years and was replaced after it's 7th season
Tomorrowland Circlevision Theater Version 4.0's peak popularity lasted for 4 years and is now 5 years old.
Now, would it make sense to spend $50million to upgrade an attraction that did not have a trend of lasting a long time? If the overall "vehicle" of the attraction has lost its popularity, as the above situation illustrates, would any addition upgrade (new film) give benefit to either the company or the guests.....no.
Now, although it would be twice as expensive to replace the entire purpose of the building, would the company have a better opportunity as seeing both financial benefit, along with seeing more guest benefit.....yes/maybe*.
*There is always the chance (and it has happened) where an unpopular attraction is replaced with an attraction that is as bad, or worse......this is what happens when risks are taken.....but at the same time, anything new and creative is a potential risk......so to say we want WDC to be very creative, not clone, and create new attractions is to say "we want them to take risks"