Splash4eva
Well-Known Member
They removed arguably one of if not their best attraction for what?!? The ride was perfect…This doesn't even crack the top 10 of bad decisions, especially if the attraction itself manages to not disappoint.
They removed arguably one of if not their best attraction for what?!? The ride was perfect…This doesn't even crack the top 10 of bad decisions, especially if the attraction itself manages to not disappoint.
Absent the context of the capacity issue, there is nothing inherently wrong with re-theming a ride. Perfection is subjective, and it certainly wasn't in perfect condition; one of the bad decisions that tops the decision to re-theme would be the decision to allow it to get to the state it was in prior to this work beginning (alongside the general lack of maintenance on multiple attractions).They removed arguably one of if not their best attraction for what?!? The ride was perfect…
I’m tired of this argument.Absent the context of the capacity issue, there is nothing inherently wrong with re-theming a ride. Perfection is subjective, and it certainly wasn't in perfect condition; one of the bad decisions that tops the decision to re-theme would be the decision to allow it to get to the state it was in prior to this work beginning (alongside the general lack of maintenance on multiple attractions).
Do you think the ride will be less popular after the change? Do you think related gift shops will be pushing less merchandise? You might not like it as much from an artistic, thematic, or animatronic perspective, but making an old ride into something shiny and new is a sight better than allowing spaces to sit empty—like Stitch's Great Escape, Wonders of Life, Cranium Command, Body Wars, Primeval Whirl, and Voyage of the Little Mermaid—or watching as things slide steadily into decay or obsolescence with no update in sight—like Imagination, Speedway, Carousel of Progress, or Spaceship Earth. Oh look! That's 10.
I didn't say they would maintain it. I said there is nothing inherently wrong with re-theming a ride, and that I would quite simply not place most re-theming decisions among the "top ten worst decisions" in Disney World history when we instead have plenty of examples of legitimate negligence and failure to re-develop prime, attraction-ready real estate.I’m tired of this argument.
What in the name of modern day Disney suggests they are going to maintain this ride after the first year?
So we should replace a ride because it didn’t receive proper maintenance with another ride that won’t receive proper maintenance.
Pixie dust logic.
So you wouldn’t place most re-theming decisions into top 10 worst.I didn't say they would maintain it. I said there is nothing inherently wrong with re-theming a ride, and that I would quite simply not place most re-theming decisions among the "top ten worst decisions" in Disney World history when we instead have plenty of examples of legitimate negligence and failure to re-develop prime, attraction-ready real estate.
They are replacing a ride that was a classic & wasting money that could have been spent elsewhere…I didn't say they would maintain it. I said there is nothing inherently wrong with re-theming a ride, and that I would quite simply not place most re-theming decisions among the "top ten worst decisions" in Disney World history when we instead have plenty of examples of legitimate negligence and failure to re-develop prime, attraction-ready real estate.
As if they don't "waste" hundreds of millions everywhere on even worse wholly unnecessary changes. Again, I am not saying that people can't be upset about it, just that it's a bit dramatic to rank this among the worst decisions ever, though I should probably just leave it at that given the fact that people obviously feel very strongly about the ride.They are replacing a ride that was a classic & wasting money that could have been spent elsewhere…
I think you may be right…the worst is about to close right outside HWD…As if they don't "waste" hundreds of millions everywhere on even worse wholly unnecessary changes. Again, I am not saying that people can't be upset about it, just that it's a bit dramatic to rank this among the worst decisions ever, though I should probably just leave it at that given the fact that people obviously feel very strongly about the ride.
Where progress photos can't be posted without everyone reliving their apparent collective trauma on a weekly basis?And yet here we are
Everything lost is missed, even moreso if it doesn't get replaced or what replaces it is especially disappointing. But maybe let this one play out first? Not directed at you in particular as I know you are letting it play out.We still have tons of people (myself included) who gripe about the loss of Mr Toad, DL's Peoplemover, Imagination v1, Horizons, World of Motion etc. The idea that Splash will be any different is absurd. Splash was also far more popular than any of those other examples too, and there's a vast crowd of younger audiences who will remember it and have access to decent quality recordings of it.
I’m tired of this argument.
What in the name of modern day Disney suggests they are going to maintain this ride after the first year?
So we should replace a ride because it didn’t receive proper maintenance with another ride that won’t receive proper maintenance.
Pixie dust logic.
I am letting it play out. But honestly, how many times are we going to go through this cycle again and again before we say no more and stop giving them the benefit of doubt? The most reasonable and educated assumption IS that they're going to screw this up, and many of the warning signs are already present. It's Disney's job to prove people otherwise, they have not earned any better than extreme doubt and pessimism.Everything lost is missed, even moreso if it doesn't get replaced or what replaces it is especially disappointing. But maybe let this one play out first? Not directed at you in particular as I know you are letting it play out.
Here's what happened, according to some insiders on this thread:As for the real reason of cost savings, while yes, its a costly re theme, but consider that all the technology in Splash was very old, maybe they had no more spare parts, many replacement parts perhaps needed to be custom made, very costly, perhaps they lost all institutional knowledge needed to maintain the very old Splash technology etc. Who knows, maybe there are accounting tricks because this is entire project is cost reduction maintenance.
I am guessing Splash did not get maintained because it was simply TOO EXPENSIVE to fix and or maintain.
I am guessing Tiana's new systems and hardware will be easier to maintain, therefore will get maintained.
Figment, Horizons, Maelstrom, World of Motion, the Great Movie Ride, and yes splash.I would quite simply not place most re-theming decisions among the "top ten worst decisions" in Disney World history
This is where ill disagree…. Who cares how it plays out. We removed an attraction that needed tlc not removal. Even if this overly is good. It could have gone elsewhere. Prime example. I loved the GMR and i think MMRR is an excellent ride. But that doesnt mean it should have replaced it. Especially with all the capacity issues they haveEverything lost is missed, even moreso if it doesn't get replaced or what replaces it is especially disappointing. But maybe let this one play out first? Not directed at you in particular as I know you are letting it play out.
Saving money on maintenance costs was certainly the intent early on when the project was announced. It was going to see a mass removal of animatronics and be almost purely video based outside of maybe a few new ones in the quantity of single digits or teens at most (probably face projected). The price tag was in the ballpark of $30-$40 million. However, they definitely gave up on that idea. The budget is much higher now. By how much, I don't know, but I know it's substantially more than it was. Demolition alone has ended up costing them the same amount as that originally proposed budget.Here was my thinking from the moment they announced the re theme of Splash.
I thought real reason in the inside was COST SAVINGS. And t to the outside world it was social justice.
The can kill two birds with one stone; cost savings and social justice.
As for the real reason of cost savings, while yes, its a costly re theme, but consider that all the technology in Splash was very old, maybe they had no more spare parts, many replacement parts perhaps needed to be custom made, very costly, perhaps they lost all institutional knowledge needed to maintain the very old Splash technology etc. Who knows, maybe there are accounting tricks because this is entire project is cost reduction maintenance.
I am guessing Splash did not get maintained because it was simply TOO EXPENSIVE to fix and or maintain.
I am guessing Tiana's new systems and hardware will be easier to maintain, therefore will get maintained.
It's up there that's for sure. Closing TGMR for Runaway Railway is another bad decision.This doesn't even crack the top 10 of bad decisions, especially if the attraction itself manages to not disappoint.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.