Voyage of the Little Mermaid is done, won't reopen with the parks.

[lazyboy97o]

And I can't entirely fault Disney for paying closer attention to what they thought would play in Mainland China after they got burned for making arrogant assumptions about their audience in both Paris and Hong Kong.

This is a bit backwards. Disney’s ”assumptions“ and “adaptations” for Hong Kong Disneyland involved a lot of ex post facto justifications for the massive cuts made to the park that was originally announced. If anything, Shanghai Disneyland doubles down on some of these excuses.

 

[TrojanUSC]

BatB opened in the original Theatre of the Stars in the hub before moving to the backlot. Then it moved to Sunset in 1994 in an abridged form and stayed ever since. Pocahontas then Hunchback ran in the backlot theatre at the same time as Beast on sunset so they certainly had variety.

Mermaid replaced Here Come the Muppets, which wasn’t originally planned but they needed to add quick capacity. So they built a new WD Theatre for the tour finale, and used the original finale theatre for Muppets then Mermaid. Like a lot of DHS, having a stage show in this location was unplanned.

Can we just bring back Superstar Television?

 

[WondersOfLife]

Shouldn’t we expect the best?

Not in Florida's parks. Personal opinion.

 

[WondersOfLife]

Maybe cause I only go to parks is for rides but Disney does need more rides. More thrilling too.

Get a park hopper pass.

Some of us like shows.

 

[SourcererMark79]

[QUOTE="Marc Davis Fan, post: 9181649,

I think NFL was also a solid expansion for MK, with many beautiful areas... although they should have cut The Little Mermaid in favor of making 7DMT a true e-ticket
[/QUOTE]
There was a lot that could/should have been done with both attractions. Personally, we enjoy under the sea, and it's usually a walk on.
The journey is walking the queue, not the ride.

 

[UNCgolf]

BatB opened in the original Theatre of the Stars in the hub before moving to the backlot. Then it moved to Sunset in 1994 in an abridged form and stayed ever since. Pocahontas then Hunchback ran in the backlot theatre at the same time as Beast on sunset so they certainly had variety.

Mermaid replaced Here Come the Muppets, which wasn’t originally planned but they needed to add quick capacity. So they built a new WD Theatre for the tour finale, and used the original finale theatre for Muppets then Mermaid. Like a lot of DHS, having a stage show in this location was unplanned.

That's what I remembered; that early on they had new stage shows relatively consistently. Something new every couple of years.

Did they stop doing that because of the cost or were there other reasons?

 

[WondersOfLife]

Unless you believe that something like half of the people who visit Disney are extremely harsh critics, it's pretty demonstrably false.

It's a ride that was built to draw huge crowds, and it just doesn't.

1). Just because you surround yourself with the negativity on these forum boards doesn't mean the general public thinks like us. Forum users are not WDW's main customer base.

2). Where are the statistics you have for how many people are riding the attraction per day? Because every time I've gone on this ride, the line is at least a half hour long, or on slow days, there's a walk-on, but the amount of people is consistent, hence the beauty of an omnimover.

 

[lazyboy97o]

1). Just because you surround yourself with the negativity on these forum boards doesn't mean the general public thinks like us. Forum users are not WDW's main customer base.

2). Where are the statistics you have for how many people are riding the attraction per day? Because every time I've gone on this ride, the line is at least a half hour long, or on slow days, there's a walk-on, but the amount of people is consistent, hence the beauty of an omnimover.

You don’t spend an additional 50% over several attempts to try to fix an attraction that is working.

 

[bryanfze55]

I think the argument could be made that the last traditional (some might read that as "real") castle park was Paris. But I'm not necessarily against them evolving the overall castle park concept in newer markets, like Hong Kong or Shanghai, AS LONG AS they respect the heritage and tradition that already exists at the older four castle parks. The issue is not, IMO, that the newer parks try something different, but that apparently they are incapable of respecting each park/resort as its own entity with its own needs. Instead, now every park is basically treated like Shanghai Disneyland, which isn't necessarily Shanghai's fault but is symptomatic of other problems within WDI and the directives from the top.

To be honest, Shanghai is the park I'm least eager to return to, and part of that is the different feel of it vs the other resorts, but part of that aren't necessarily the resort's fault (one of them being that getting in and around China is a bit more of a process). In park, however, it wasn't that big of a deal. I still maintain that experiencing a park in person vs judging it from a computer is very different and that every Disney fan with the means should go to all of them, instead of going back to WDW or DLR for the 30th time.

What resonates as important within the framework of a castle park is going to be different for each person, but for me the greater losses at SDL are the lack of a train and an IASW. While you (and I) value many of the attractions you listed, it's also true that Disneyland Paris gets by just fine without a Tiki Room, Jungle Cruise, or Splash Mountain. And I can't entirely fault Disney for paying closer attention to what they thought would play in Mainland China after they got burned for making arrogant assumptions about their audience in both Paris and Hong Kong.

In terms of some other points:
-We both agree that there is no such thing as a good Toy Story area and that 7DMT in any context is underwhelming (though WDW did get the better version).
-The WDW Pooh is their default for whatever reason (Pooh makes $$ in most markets, relatively cheap cost to build). If I was in charge, it'd be Hunny Hunt or another ride. But at any rate, it's hardly the first time they've stuck direct clones of existing rides in the international parks and it won't be the last. From their perspective, they have save money somewhere, hence direct cloning.
-I'm ok with the Hunny Pot Spin in place of the tea cups. It's still functionally the same ride. And is it fair to penalize Shanghai for having two Pooh rides next to each other when DL has two Alice rides next to each other? At any rate, we can all enjoy the irony of two Pooh rides in a country where WTP is banned!
-Sure, new Soarin' is mediocre. No argument there. But I can't blame them for building it and it plays like gangbusters to the Chinese audiences. And while I'm sure it doesn't live up to Tokyo's version in terms of polish, the presentation of the attraction and queue is much nicer than either of the US parks.
-Given a choice, I would have preferred a Main Street, BUT 1) The Chinese have no context for and no reason to be nostalgic for 1900s small town America, and 2) Disneyland Paris' Main Street is so exceptional that I'm not sure it's possible to top it. If a concept has already been executed to its best possible level, it should be acceptable to move on to something new (much in the same way that if a TV series has hit its peak, it should be allowed to end and not be forced to meander on for another five years). And in person, Mickey Avenue works better than I would have expected.

There are a lot of legitimate reasons to critique Shanghai, but I get tired of reading critiques (not from you specifically, but in a general sense) that basically penalize International Park X for not being exactly like Disneyland or Magic Kingdom when they have different needs and serve different guests, cultures, and Disney directives. More often then not, they were designed as their own thing, even if they borrow from existing experiences, and should be treated as such. As long as Disney gives the same level of service as it does in the other parks and provides a great experience and great attractions, that's what matters.

Well your last paragraph is what’s important to remember: it doesn’t really matter what I think about Shanghai Disneyland. I’m not the target audience. Disney altered the park for Chinese culture, and I applaud them for trying something different. But that “different” isn’t going to be for everybody. I think two principles apply here:

1. Different isn’t always better. Sometimes the tried and true formula works. Paris and Hong Kong altered the traditional park somewhat to fit local sensibilities (I.e., no Haunted Mansion in Hong Kong). But it remained Disneyland. I don’t think Shanghai does, but that brings me to my next point...

2. Don’t knock it till you try it. I can’t objectively say Shanghai Disneyland is bad, only that it’s missing way too many things I prefer in a Disneyland park. I can absolutely look at photos and videos and say “this Tomorrowland looks cold and dystopian to me.” I don’t have to be in the park to do that. But what I do have to be in the park for is to determine the atmosphere and general feeling I get walking around the place and soaking it all in. That’s half the experience of a Disney park to me. Maybe I would enjoy that, who knows?

Unfortunately, with kids in tow, going international isn’t really on the radar. When you’re paying for multiple people, you have to make sure you’re getting your money’s worth, and we’ve yet to tire of Disneyland (a little moreso of WDW). We’ve only been 3 times to Disneyland, and we’d like to go more as well as experience more in California generally. It would be cool to visit all the Disney parks someday, and I might. But Shanghai would be last on my list, and I won’t feel like I’m not cultured or I missed out on something if I never make it. When my kids are older, I really want to go to Japan... not just for Disney, but just the whole country seems wonderful. It will probably cost me twice what a domestic Disney trip would, but it’ll be worth it... Just waiting until my kids can handle a 15 hour flight and get a greater appreciation out of an international trip.

 

[UNCgolf]

1). Just because you surround yourself with the negativity on these forum boards doesn't mean the general public thinks like us. Forum users are not WDW's main customer base.

2). Where are the statistics you have for how many people are riding the attraction per day? Because every time I've gone on this ride, the line is at least a half hour long, or on slow days, there's a walk-on, but the amount of people is consistent, hence the beauty of an omnimover.

I'm not basing it on this forum; I'm basing it on friends and family I know who have gone to WDW once or twice (i.e. not big fans), none of whom had anything especially good to say about the Little Mermaid ride. That's not to say they all hated it or anything like that, but none of them were very impressed nor was it something they'd make any special effort to ride again. I think they all had it among their least favorite rides at the Magic Kingdom. There's also the fact that there's almost never a long line. I've only been on it once, but almost every other ride in the park had a 60+ minute wait that day and LM was a walk-on with numerous empty ride vehicles -- it wasn't posted as walk-on, it was posted as a 25 or 30 minute wait, but that wasn't real (as is often the case with Disney wait times). I don't doubt a decent number of people ride it every day, but I think that's specifically because it's so easy to ride. I don't believe there are enough people interested in riding it for it to ever have a really long line, because most people would go elsewhere if it was going to be a 60+ minute wait. Even when I do see people saying they like it, it's almost always conditioned with "because I never have to wait".

The only real information you need to prove the ride isn't performing the way Disney hoped is the size of the queue. Disney built a massive queue that takes up a tremendous amount of space (and cost quite a lot of money), and the vast majority of it is never utilized. You can say that's because the ride is an omnimover (which certainly helps) but that doesn't explain why Disney wasted all that money and space there. They probably could have built another complete attraction in the space used by the queue.

I'm also apparently one of the few people on this forum who thinks NRJ is a pretty good ride weighed down by outlandish wait times, so I don't think I'm that critical.

 

[gerarar]

If true, I’m glad my family and I were able to watch this during our recent Christmas trip. While waiting for our ROTR BG to be called early in the morning, we watched the Frozen sing a long and Little Mermaid.

There definitely is a place for productions and shows like these to exist in DHS (and WDW in general), they just need to be updated (properly) and kept fresh in a way.

A show that I wished would be brought over would be Mickey and the Wondrous Book from HKDL, as since its theme song became the inspiration to HEA in the Magic Kingdom.

If Fantasmic! goes away at DHS, I’ll be very sad. It’s one of my favorite nighttime spectaculars and still holds a place in my heart. However with the number of performers it requires, it would be foolish to not think it’s on the chopping block, or at least being looked at to be downgraded in some way, in the meantime.

 

[Magenta Panther]

Eh, Mermaid was showing its age. So is the Beauty and the Beast show. But I'd rather both be majorly updated and allowed to stay open, rather than be closed forever.

 

[PiratesMansion]

Well your last paragraph is what’s important to remember: it doesn’t really matter what I think about Shanghai Disneyland. I’m not the target audience. Disney altered the park for Chinese culture, and I applaud them for trying something different. But that “different” isn’t going to be for everybody. I think two principles apply here:

1. Different isn’t always better. Sometimes the tried and true formula works. Paris and Hong Kong altered the traditional park somewhat to fit local sensibilities (I.e., no Haunted Mansion in Hong Kong). But it remained Disneyland. I don’t think Shanghai does, but that brings me to my next point...

2. Don’t knock it till you try it. I can’t objectively say Shanghai Disneyland is bad, only that it’s missing way too many things I prefer in a Disneyland park. I can absolutely look at photos and videos and say “this Tomorrowland looks cold and dystopian to me.” I don’t have to be in the park to do that. But what I do have to be in the park for is to determine the atmosphere and general feeling I get walking around the place and soaking it all in. That’s half the experience of a Disney park to me. Maybe I would enjoy that, who knows?

Unfortunately, with kids in tow, going international isn’t really on the radar. When you’re paying for multiple people, you have to make sure you’re getting your money’s worth, and we’ve yet to tire of Disneyland (a little moreso of WDW). We’ve only been 3 times to Disneyland, and we’d like to go more as well as experience more in California generally. It would be cool to visit all the Disney parks someday, and I might. But Shanghai would be last on my list, and I won’t feel like I’m not cultured or I missed out on something if I never make it. When my kids are older, I really want to go to Japan... not just for Disney, but just the whole country seems wonderful. It will probably cost me twice what a domestic Disney trip would, but it’ll be worth it... Just waiting until my kids can handle a 15 hour flight and get a greater appreciation out of an international trip.

I hope I'm not coming across as saying that people who don't go to the internationals are not cultured, or don't have valid opinions, though I do stand by my assertion that something can only truly be experienced in person. My visits to the internationals largely been a result of lucky chance, and I understand that most people, myself included, cannot just go to them on a whim whenever we want (although undoubtedly travelling in parties of two or fewer, as I do, is very helpful from an airfare perspective).

I just see a broader trend of many people who mostly frequent 1 of the Disney properties and, consciously or not, start to internalize how that particular resort runs things, and the more they visit that resort, the stronger that internalization grows. And then, that becomes the "correct" way for all Disney properties to operate, and any deviation from that is automatically wrong or inferior, losing sight that all of the Disney resorts were built with and operate under different principles. Even in the US, you see this when people used to going to DLR make all sorts of generalizations about how WDW could never live up to it because Walt, or when people used to WDW dismiss DLR because it only has two parks. And it bothers me because it's a fallacy, it's tunnel vision, and it steers so many conversations into different = bad/wrong, and because Shanghai is so different, it tends to receive a lot of this sort of talk. So my entire basis for these conversations re: different & especially international resorts is to encourage open minds and multiple perspectives, because too often that's not what I see from boards like these as a collective.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

I hope I'm not coming across as saying that people who don't go to the internationals are not cultured, or don't have valid opinions, though I do stand by my assertion that something can only truly be experienced in person. My visits to the internationals largely been a result of lucky chance, and I understand that most people, myself included, cannot just go to them on a whim whenever we want (although undoubtedly travelling in parties of two or fewer, as I do, is very helpful from an airfare perspective).

I just see a broader trend of many people who mostly frequent 1 of the Disney properties and, consciously or not, start to internalize how that particular resort runs things, and the more they visit that resort, the stronger that internalization grows. And then, that becomes the "correct" way for all Disney properties to operate, and any deviation from that is automatically wrong or inferior, losing site that all of the Disney resorts were built with and operate under different principles. Even in the US, you see this when people used to going to DLR make all sorts of generalizations about how WDW could never live up to it because Walt, or when people used to WDW dismiss DLR because it only has two parks. And it bothers me because it's a fallacy, it's tunnel vision, and it steers so many conversations into different = bad/wrong, and because Shanghai is so different, it tends to receive a lot of this sort of talk. So my entire basis for these conversations re: different & especially international resorts is to encourage open minds and multiple perspectives, because too often that's not what I see from boards like these as a collective.

Very well put. We definitely tend to view things we care about through our own lens.

 

[bryanfze55]

I hope I'm not coming across as saying that people who don't go to the internationals are not cultured, or don't have valid opinions, though I do stand by my assertion that something can only truly be experienced in person. My visits to the internationals largely been a result of lucky chance, and I understand that most people, myself included, cannot just go to them on a whim whenever we want (although undoubtedly travelling in parties of two or fewer, as I do, is very helpful from an airfare perspective).

I just see a broader trend of many people who mostly frequent 1 of the Disney properties and, consciously or not, start to internalize how that particular resort runs things, and the more they visit that resort, the stronger that internalization grows. And then, that becomes the "correct" way for all Disney properties to operate, and any deviation from that is automatically wrong or inferior, losing site that all of the Disney resorts were built with and operate under different principles. Even in the US, you see this when people used to going to DLR make all sorts of generalizations about how WDW could never live up to it because Walt, or when people used to WDW dismiss DLR because it only has two parks. And it bothers me because it's a fallacy, it's tunnel vision, and it steers so many conversations into different = bad/wrong, and because Shanghai is so different, it tends to receive a lot of this sort of talk. So my entire basis for these conversations re: different & especially international resorts is to encourage open minds and multiple perspectives, because too often that's not what I see from boards like these as a collective.

That’s a good way of putting it, and I agree. I think a big issue is that these experiences are very expensive, particularly for people who don’t live close and have an AP. Because of the expense, I think there’s a defense mechanism that comes into play in which we want to defend the parks we’re able to go to. It’s an emotional rather than logical response, but Disney is able to price what they do because it’s an inherently emotional experience. I’m sure if I lived in Shanghai, I would be defending that park!

Anyways, this original discussion boiled down to rides. I’m sure Shanghai Disneyland has plenty to offer when taken in as an overall experience, and I’m not stubborn enough that I’d refuse to go if given the opportunity. But on the ride front, I don’t think it’s a sign of bias to say it only has a small handful of good rides (that’s understandable, it’s a brand new park). And cost considerations being what they are, one may get more “bang for the buck” doing DL or WDW again... on the other hand, if someone tried saying they were better than Tokyo Disney, that’s probably a sign of bias and a closed mind.

 

[WondersOfLife]

You don’t spend an additional 50% over several attempts to try to fix an attraction that is working.

50% spent on what?

 

[WondersOfLife]

I'm not basing it on this forum; I'm basing it on friends and family I know who have gone to WDW once or twice (i.e. not big fans), none of whom had anything especially good to say about the Little Mermaid ride. That's not to say they all hated it or anything like that, but none of them were very impressed nor was it something they'd make any special effort to ride again. I think they all had it among their least favorite rides at the Magic Kingdom. There's also the fact that there's almost never a long line. I've only been on it once, but almost every other ride in the park had a 60+ minute wait that day and LM was a walk-on with numerous empty ride vehicles -- it wasn't posted as walk-on, it was posted as a 25 or 30 minute wait, but that wasn't real (as is often the case with Disney wait times). I don't doubt a decent number of people ride it every day, but I think that's specifically because it's so easy to ride. I don't believe there are enough people interested in riding it for it to ever have a really long line, because most people would go elsewhere if it was going to be a 60+ minute wait. Even when I do see people saying they like it, it's almost always conditioned with "because I never have to wait".

The only real information you need to prove the ride isn't performing the way Disney hoped is the size of the queue. Disney built a massive queue that takes up a tremendous amount of space (and cost quite a lot of money), and the vast majority of it is never utilized. You can say that's because the ride is an omnimover (which certainly helps) but that doesn't explain why Disney wasted all that money and space there. They probably could have built another complete attraction in the space used by the queue.

I'm also apparently one of the few people on this forum who thinks NRJ is a pretty good ride weighed down by outlandish wait times, so I don't think I'm that critical.

I literally can't agree with the queue wait at all because, again, every time I have gone (Mid-May, Mid-October, Mid-November) I've waited 25 to 30 minutes. Like I've said several times. That queue line gets used up sometimes. Is it ever at the entrance? No. But it shouldn't be because it's an omnimover.

 

[lazyboy97o]

50% spent on what?

It was a $100 million attraction when it opened at Disney's California Adventure. Then over several refurbishments Disney spent an additional $50 million trying to fix it. You don't do that for an attraction that is working.

 

[UNCgolf]

I literally can't agree with the queue wait at all because, again, every time I have gone (Mid-May, Mid-October, Mid-November) I've waited 25 to 30 minutes. Like I've said several times. That queue line gets used up sometimes. Is it ever at the entrance? No. But it shouldn't be because it's an omnimover.

It still doesn't make sense that they spent so much money and took up so much space building a gigantic queue if it's almost never used. It's one of the biggest queues anywhere at WDW in terms of space used.

Also, despite the omnimover status, it may not have that high of an hourly capacity? It's hard to find good numbers (maybe @lentesta or @marni1971 knows?), but what I can find suggests it can move about the same number of people per hour as Splash Mountain and Space Mountain, and less than both the Haunted Mansion and It's a Small World (much higher than Pooh and Peter Pan, though). I have absolutely no idea if that's accurate, but it sounds plausible based on the size of the ride vehicle and length of the ride. In my experience the wait is usually less than the wait for IASW, but even if it was comparable IASW doesn't take up nearly as much space for the queue.

 

[bryanfze55]

It was a $100 million attraction when it opened at Disney's California Adventure. Then over several refurbishments Disney spent an additional $50 million trying to fix it. You don't do that for an attraction that is working.

The Little Mermaid ride cost $100 million?!