• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Unpopular WDW Opinions

Frontierland's Finest

Active Member
I'll debate you on the 7DMT, the best use of AA figures that include projection faces that I've ever seen. The only shortcoming is that it's too short (see what I did there?).
The AA figures are impressive, but the length of the ride really do take away from the overall experience of the ride. The way I view it, I put the same 7DMT in the same category as Nav'i River Journey. It has some impressive tech, but the length takes away from it.
 

Sonconato

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
I wish they'd bring back the second touch points. I'm really tired of the people cutting in the fast pass line.
 

Mr_Bernard

"Um, Miss Bianca?"
Premium Member
I wish they'd bring back the second touch points. I'm really tired of the people cutting in the fast pass line.
I didn't know they'd been removed. I wonder, though, did you ever see anyone turned away because they didn't pass through the second touch points? I know I never have. I wonder, sometimes, how rigid Disney is with people prone to... escalation.
 

Sonconato

Well-Known Member
I didn't know they'd been removed. I wonder, though, did you ever see anyone turned away because they didn't pass through the second touch points? I know I never have. I wonder, sometimes, how rigid Disney is with people prone to... escalation.
I agree that Disney does try to avoid confrontation with these people, and most of the time the cast members do ignore it. However, I have seen people turned away back when they did have the second touch points and on rides that still do like Thunder Mountain. I always compliment the cast members that do.
 

Paper straw fan

Well-Known Member
I used to think exactly as you do, until I visited Disneyland with my brother, his wife and their 2 year old daughter. We just had a blast, basically living the day through her eyes, and boy was she wide-eyed! When she got tired we found a shady area and my brother laid her stroller back on its handles, and we enjoyed a quiet 1/2 an hour just chatting and people watching. It was a very fun day.

That said, I've seen more than my share of freaking-out kids being dragged from ride to ride, terrified of pirates or Monstro or even of giant Mickey. So my take is that you should know your child, and if he/she is prone to temper tantrums or the like, then maybe it would be better to wait a couple years.
Oh yeah, there’s exceptions to every rule, I saw some kids younger than that which were more pleasant than I was last night. I think that’s just the age I’d wait until, kind of the age where I feel kids will try enough things, have enough energy and be able to get enough value out of taking them there.

I mean, until say 10 or so, all I cared about was if there was a pool and arcade at the hotel. You could have taken me to the Grand Canyon, and if the hotel didn’t have those things, the trip was a complete dud to me.
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
I am about to express a large degree of selfishness here. I have never thought that Disney was just for kids. I go for my own enjoyment and brought my family and enjoyed sharing my joy and love for the place with them. My theory of waiting until they were 6 was not because kids being around was something that annoyed me. It was because bringing my own and at earlier age would have seriously cut into the parts of Disney that I thought was the most important. That was the thought that Walt himself said... "a place where parents could go and enjoy it along with them" (paraphrase, but, the same) It didn't mean going someplace with my wife and kids where one of us had to sit outside while the other rode it. Where we as a family couldn't share our experience and do it without anyone having to sacrifice anything. Many children above the age of two are perfectly capable of being a bigger part of the experience and sharing the fun with the people that love them and that, hopefully, they love as well. Newborns to any age that still required diapers, special food, half a household of supplies to get through a day or unable to even ride with their parents and not really consciously participating.

My idea of enjoying the place is not dragging a household of supplies or trying to kid myself that if they put a series of bright lights flashing in their faces wouldn't get the same gap mouthed fascination at home or that smile wasn't just trying to pass a gas bubble among other things. It was selfishness. I loved having my kids with me, but, I wanted to experience with them on basically the same level. I wanted it to be the same experience as myself and my wife at a time when reason and ability to get enjoyment that was more sophisticated then a mobile above a crib. They had to be, at least, out of diapers and able to walk and not have to be carried as well. I loved my kids, but, walking miles carrying or pushing, parking and locating a wheeled vehicle is not my idea of a vacation. It is just different work that I am not only not getting paid for, but, is costing me an arm and a leg (perhaps literally).
 

MickeyLuv'r

Active Member
I'm dating myself perhaps, but I have a number of distinct memories from my WDW visit at age 3.

I have even more memories from the next visit after that. Much of what I recall from the later trip was that I had already been on all the rides, so I didn't need to be scared of any of them. I knew I had liked all of them. (though I was a little worried they might have been changed.)

(Alas, I don't think WDW understands this perspective, with the way they keep changing details of PotC. I hope they will stop changing the beach scene! Argh!)

I also remember Minnie Mouse coming up behind me and putting her hands over my eyes when I was three. I was startled for a second, but quickly realized that I recognized that the fabric of her gloves against my cheeks. Before I turned to look, I knew a character was behind me (though I wasn't sure which character). I hoped it was Minnie, because I she was my favorite, and I hadn't yet seen her. I was absolutely thrilled that Minnie chose me!

I also recall how much I disliked the 360 theater: too much standing, and I couldn't see much from my 3-year old height. I hated being too short to see/reach stuff. To me, it felt like too much of WDW was at adult height.
 

TwilightZone

Well-Known Member
I think a lot of people forget that Walt era attractions were IP based too. Sure, not all of them, but there's a lot that are.
 

geekza

Well-Known Member
I think a lot of people forget that Walt era attractions were IP based too. Sure, not all of them, but there's a lot that are.
Nothing wrong with IP-based attractions. With that said, attractions didn't used to be limited to strictly IP-based creations. Plus, if an attraction was going to be IP-based, the attraction that was built was designed to complement and enhance the story or experience that the Imagineers wanted to convey. It's the notion that non-IP attractions are off the table and that the newer attractions are often focused on the ride type, with the IP pasted on that I don't like. Not all of them. FoP seems pretty great (except to us larger folks), and I'm a defender of both the Little Mermaid and Frozen dark rides (except for the location of Frozen). The upcoming Galaxy's Edge has immense potential. Things like the dismal Incredicoaster, lazy Alien Swirling Saucers, and a Guardians coaster in Epcot chap my behind, though. There needs to be a mandate for creating attractions because they would be great and connect with the theme of the park and land where they are constructed. They should be able to be IP-based or original. A great attraction is beloved because it is a great attraction, not because it features popular characters.
 

MickeyLuv'r

Active Member
A great attraction is beloved because it is a great attraction, not because it features popular characters.
Not sure about this statement.

Then how do you explain the MANY folks who take a *flash* (Grr!) photo of Captain Jack Sparrow on PotC?

I tend to think popularity = a mix of: a.)newness B) great ride C.) character popularity D.) nostalgia E.) intensity

oh, and F.) how annoying it is (A certain song about the world being small comes to mind)

(though one could readily lump D, E and F under B.)

I also know many kids ask to see their favorite characters at WDW. If a kid loves Ariel, the family will go on the Little Mermaid, even if Dad finds it boring.

Otherwise, how do you explain folks waiting 3+ hours in line to see the Frozen Princesses when they were initially located only in Epcot? It was ONLY a character greet; no ride.
 

geekza

Well-Known Member
Not sure about this statement.

Then how do you explain the MANY folks who take a *flash* (Grr!) photo of Captain Jack Sparrow on PotC?

I tend to think popularity = a mix of: a.)newness B) great ride C.) character popularity D.) nostalgia E.) intensity

oh, and F.) how annoying it is (A certain song about the world being small comes to mind)

(though one could readily lump D, E and F under B.)

I also know many kids ask to see their favorite characters at WDW. If a kid loves Ariel, the family will go on the Little Mermaid, even if Dad finds it boring.

Otherwise, how do you explain folks waiting 3+ hours in line to see the Frozen Princesses when they were initially located only in Epcot? It was ONLY a character greet; no ride.
I'm not saying that characters aren't popular, but there are many attractions that are popular that aren't IP-based. Pirates was popular before Captain Jack. While the inclusion of the character initially boosted popularity, I firmly believe it was because it was a new addition and his removal would not decrease its popularity at this point. There are still lines for Haunted Mansion, Jungle Cruise, It's a Small World, etc. While they aren't as long as for something like FoP, they are still present almost 50 years later at WDW. If these attractions weren't beloved and popular, they wouldn't still have lines.
 

MickeyLuv'r

Active Member
I'm not saying that characters aren't popular, but there are many attractions that are popular that aren't IP-based.
Actually, that is what you said earlier:
A great attraction is beloved...not because it features popular characters.
It REALLY doesn't matter to me personally, I'm just trying to help you out. Attractions can be popular (or unpopular) for multiple reasons.

And well, technically, HM is a 2003 movie starring Eddie Murphy. If you want to get even crazier, there was an ADDITIONAL HM movie-set tie-in attraction over in Disney's Hollywood Studios theme park, back when it was still called MGM Studios. ( https://www.wdwmagic.com/attractions/haunted-mansion-movie-sets.htm )

But yes, a number of non-movie attractions are popular rides.

Then again, it might be funny if WDW tried to make a movie based on say, the Peoplemover.
 

geekza

Well-Known Member
Actually, that is what you said earlier:


It REALLY doesn't matter to me personally, I'm just trying to help you out. Attractions can be popular (or unpopular) for multiple reasons.

And well, technically, HM is a 2003 movie starring Eddie Murphy. If you want to get even crazier, there was an ADDITIONAL HM movie-set tie-in attraction over in Disney's Hollywood Studios theme park, back when it was still called MGM Studios. ( https://www.wdwmagic.com/attractions/haunted-mansion-movie-sets.htm )

But yes, a number of non-movie attractions are popular rides.

Then again, it might be funny if WDW tried to make a movie based on say, the Peoplemover.
You misunderstood what I wrote. Perhaps I should have said a great attraction is a great attraction regardless of whether or not it contains IP.
 

geekza

Well-Known Member
How many IP based attractions opened in Disneyland opened in Disneyland through the entire decade of the 1960's. ONE
I never thought about that, but you're right. It was a busy time for Disneyland. They had the big update in '59 and then another big influx of attractions because of the World's Fair. They had the Tiki Room and Pirates. I guess the only IP-based attraction that opened during the decade was the Swiss Family Treehouse. To be fair, though, Disneyland had a bunch of IP-based attractions when it opened and added things like the Alice ride during the 1950's. The 1960's was a decade of Walt wanting to push attraction technology forward at a rapid pace and it seems like not having them beholden to particular IP let them have a pretty broad scope of possibilities. I do think it's important to remember that the World's Fair attractions were work for hire and were created to promote particular companies and organizations. Iger just prefers to promote his own company. ;)
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
How many IP based attractions opened in Disneyland opened in Disneyland through the entire decade of the 1960's. ONE
A Disney IP is still an IP. A lot of the things at Disneyland were either Disney Movies or TV shows.
And well, technically, HM is a 2003 movie starring Eddie Murphy. If you want to get even crazier, there was an ADDITIONAL HM movie-set tie-in attraction over in Disney's Hollywood Studios theme park, back when it was still called MGM Studios.
I may be misreading this and if I am I apologize. HM the attraction isn't based on a movie. The movie is based on the attraction just like Pirates of the Caribbean except not as good. As far as having anything tie in, Peter Pan, Cinderella, Snow White, 20K Leagues, Dumbo, Lion King and Frozen were all Disney movies or built in advance to tie in with a Disney Movie.
 

TimeDuck

Member
I'll just hide this in here:

Figment is a bad "mascot" (if you can even call him that) for EPCOT and is probably all but completely irrelevant to 90% of the people who walk through those gates. And also emblematic of the real problem that EPCOT faces on a whole.
 
Top Bottom