• 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.

What Do "Average Guests" Think About Each Park?

Trackmaster

Active Member
Still, the average in the non-Disney amusement parks is longer coaster rides (2 - 3 minutes), while Disney seems to think riders will be content with a 1 minute ride wedged into 15-30 minutes of pre- and post-shows... With all the money they have, I'd like to see Disney approach a 5-minute launch-to-brake coaster experience!
Well, friction is a b----. That's why its hard to have extremely long coasters without multiple lift hills or launches. Multiple lift hills kind of defeats the purpose of a "long coaster" and takes a lot of people out of the experience. It can work if there's a theming purpose for it (like mine trains) but from a design stand-point its usually avoided. We've seen more multi-launch approaches now with Maverick and Full Throttle, but as they're launched coasters, the ride time is still pretty short.

I think that you'll find that if you had 10 minute long coasters, people would get bored and wonder what's the point? They would get bored with being dragged along at 4 MPG by flywheels and with the excessive lift hills. And going back to my first point, friction hits you a lot harder than you would think. Its tough to complete over 5,000 feet without a 75 MPH+ top speed without grinding to a halt in the end. And if you want a mid-course block for 3+ train ops, its going to make the train even slower coming into the final brake run.
 

larryz

Well-Worn Member
Premium Member
Advertisement
Well, friction is a b----. That's why its hard to have extremely long coasters without multiple lift hills or launches. Multiple lift hills kind of defeats the purpose of a "long coaster" and takes a lot of people out of the experience. It can work if there's a theming purpose for it (like mine trains) but from a design stand-point its usually avoided. We've seen more multi-launch approaches now with Maverick and Full Throttle, but as they're launched coasters, the ride time is still pretty short.

I think that you'll find that if you had 10 minute long coasters, people would get bored and wonder what's the point? They would get bored with being dragged along at 4 MPG by flywheels and with the excessive lift hills. And going back to my first point, friction hits you a lot harder than you would think. Its tough to complete over 5,000 feet without a 75 MPH+ top speed without grinding to a halt in the end. And if you want a mid-course block for 3+ train ops, its going to make the train even slower coming into the final brake run.
The technology is there today. I wonder how long the ride portion of GotG will time out to be...
I'd be happy with a 5 minute ride (think the Beast) as long as I still have my kidney and liver at the end of it.
Mummy was where I was introduced to the "show coaster" concept... and done properly, could easily hit 10 minutes with a mix of show scenes and track maneuvers without boring people to death.
 

Trackmaster

Active Member
The technology is there today. I wonder how long the ride portion of GotG will time out to be...
I'd be happy with a 5 minute ride (think the Beast) as long as I still have my kidney and liver at the end of it.
Mummy was where I was introduced to the "show coaster" concept... and done properly, could easily hit 10 minutes with a mix of show scenes and track maneuvers without boring people to death.
I was talking one of the guys managing the construction project the other day at a bar and he was disappointed with how short the ride will be, and how low capacity it will be. He thinks it will bring a ton of people to the park, but will do very little to push guests through. Said the onride audio system should be awesome though.
 

jaklgreen

Well-Known Member
You can tell how important pure thrill rides and screens are by just looking at how crowded Sea World is! They have great rollercoasters with low waits and a penguin screen ride basically like the Rat ride and a cheaper gate price!

The thing is, a couple of thrill rides can be great, a ton of people want to do them and spend the rest of the day doing (fill in the blank). Whether you fill that blank with dark rides, or shows, or dining experiences, or meet and greets, practically everyone has some other aspect they like just as much or more as the thrill rides. I might plan my day around getting on mine train out of necessity, but there are probably 10+ other attractions in MK I would favor over it if one had to go. If the park focuses too much on the lowest common denominator it loses its strength and becomes just another Six Flags. Just because a few Six Flags fan types walk out of shows occasionally does not mean that Disney needs to emulate the competitors they’ve been crushing for decades by being different.

Mine Train is fun, but I can get a thrill 300 miles closer to my house, Haunted Mansion, Space Mountain, Splash Mountain, Pirates, Jungle Cruise, Small World, CoP, Pan, Tiki, and others are what keep me coming back. That list is I’m sure different guest to guest, but while thrills aren’t bad, the reason Disney has like 9 of the top 10 parks worldwide in attendance is because people are more coming for the theming and immersion of the Disney experience.
This is exactly right. Disney has never been in the thrill ride industry, but has always been a family park. If what the majority of consumers wanted where thrill rides then Disney and Universal would be switched, with US having 4 parks and 25 resorts and 2 water parks, etc and Disney being the smaller of the 2. The consumers have spoken and they want some thrill rides, but mostly they want entertainment for the whole family.
 

pjkdog

Well-Known Member
Pathetic story and themes?!?!
Any chance you can elaborate a bit on that?

And very few outdoor thrill attractions? Do you know about: Dr Doom, Hulk, Storm Force, Dudley, Bluto, River Adventure, the recently removed Dragon Challenge/Dueling but soon to open forest Hagrid coaster, Rip Rocket. And another bona-fide fully themed out raptor coaster coming aound.
Furthermore why is outdoor important to you enough to call Universal out on it? Indoor attractions are way better positioned anyway.
I have to agree it could use a few more outdoor rides or at least ones that are less screen based but it has plenty of story. Both Harry Potter sections honestly beat anything WDW has going(though maybe Pandora is different, I will see it this spring!) in terms of story and immersion into a land, at least in my opinion. DL's Car's land would be right with it but that is in Cali.
 
Last edited:

pjkdog

Well-Known Member
You can tell how important pure thrill rides and screens are by just looking at how crowded Sea World is! They have great rollercoasters with low waits and a penguin screen ride basically like the Rat ride and a cheaper gate price!

The thing is, a couple of thrill rides can be great, a ton of people want to do them and spend the rest of the day doing (fill in the blank). Whether you fill that blank with dark rides, or shows, or dining experiences, or meet and greets, practically everyone has some other aspect they like just as much or more as the thrill rides. I might plan my day around getting on mine train out of necessity, but there are probably 10+ other attractions in MK I would favor over it if one had to go. If the park focuses too much on the lowest common denominator it loses its strength and becomes just another Six Flags. Just because a few Six Flags fan types walk out of shows occasionally does not mean that Disney needs to emulate the competitors they’ve been crushing for decades by being different.

Mine Train is fun, but I can get a thrill 300 miles closer to my house, Haunted Mansion, Space Mountain, Splash Mountain, Pirates, Jungle Cruise, Small World, CoP, Pan, Tiki, and others are what keep me coming back. That list is I’m sure different guest to guest, but while thrills aren’t bad, the reason Disney has like 9 of the top 10 parks worldwide in attendance is because people are more coming for the theming and immersion of the Disney experience.
I was just saying this the other day when talking about Uni. My family loves it, but it is very hard to do the park together as so many rides are too intense for the younger ones. And that's ok, it's how they are built I just wish they would put a few more family rides in the mix. It's also why the park is 2 to 3 days visit vs a week needed at Disney.
 

Trackmaster

Active Member
This is exactly right. Disney has never been in the thrill ride industry, but has always been a family park. If what the majority of consumers wanted where thrill rides then Disney and Universal would be switched, with US having 4 parks and 25 resorts and 2 water parks, etc and Disney being the smaller of the 2. The consumers have spoken and they want some thrill rides, but mostly they want entertainment for the whole family.
I hate to clue you, but every amusement park or theme park gets most of its business from families and they all try to sell out for families. Its a business, so they do what sells. There isn't really a park out there that really caters to young professionals and adults. If anything, Disney and Universal pretty much are the only parks that even attempt to cater to childless adults on the capacity that they do. So they're all family parks.

So its a misnomer to say "Disney isn't a thrill park, its a family park." Maybe a more accurate thing to say is, "Disney isn't a thrill park, it a... something else park."

And, this may come as shocking information to learn, but kids don't abhor thrill rides, and there's no reason that kids can't ride them if they reach the height requirements. If anything, kids can probably handle the more extreme elements more easily than adults can.
 

jaklgreen

Well-Known Member
I hate to clue you, but every amusement park or theme park gets most of its business from families and they all try to sell out for families. Its a business, so they do what sells. There isn't really a park out there that really caters to young professionals and adults. If anything, Disney and Universal pretty much are the only parks that even attempt to cater to childless adults on the capacity that they do. So they're all family parks.

So its a misnomer to say "Disney isn't a thrill park, its a family park." Maybe a more accurate thing to say is, "Disney isn't a thrill park, it a... something else park."

And, this may come as shocking information to learn, but kids don't abhor thrill rides, and there's no reason that kids can't ride them if they reach the height requirements. If anything, kids can probably handle the more extreme elements more easily than adults can.
You know that there are different styles of theme parks. Some promote their big thrill rides over family friendly rides. Of course most of them have stuff for the whole family. But they are not built around it as Disney is. If WDW shrunk it's family friendly rides and started just building thrill rides, they would loose business. I am not saying that there are no other family style parks, but maybe I should say no one does a family park as well as WDW. You have parks that are more all generation,family parks and you have more thrill ride parks. Universal is not trying to copy WDW with the family aspect. They have gone for the thrill ride aspect of amusement parks. And I am not saying that kids will not ride thrill rides. I am saying that Disney parks are built more around rides that all generations can ride together. Have you not been there?
 

darrelljon

Member
They were staying off site and thought that they could just walk to MK because the hotel said it was "main gate". Oi vey
I don't think that's too unreasonable an assumption for two reasons. I've never heard of anywhere called Maingate before until I heard of the one near Disney, so it's not unreasonable to assume it is near the main gate. And two, I've never been but can't you walk to Disneyland (and other Disney parks worldwide) main gate from off site?
 
Last edited:

Trackmaster

Active Member
You know that there are different styles of theme parks. Some promote their big thrill rides over family friendly rides. Of course most of them have stuff for the whole family. But they are not built around it as Disney is. If WDW shrunk it's family friendly rides and started just building thrill rides, they would loose business. I am not saying that there are no other family style parks, but maybe I should say no one does a family park as well as WDW. You have parks that are more all generation,family parks and you have more thrill ride parks. Universal is not trying to copy WDW with the family aspect. They have gone for the thrill ride aspect of amusement parks. And I am not saying that kids will not ride thrill rides. I am saying that Disney parks are built more around rides that all generations can ride together. Have you not been there?
And I'm saying that at the moment, all parks sell-out completely for the under 18 demographic. From a target standpoint, the adults are just chauffeurs. Name me a single park that focuses on adults over kids. Universal? Completely kid focused. Tons of kiddie rides, screen rides, Harry Potter rides, etc. Something being fast and intense and exciting has nothing to do with if the target is a kid or an adult. Kids can take the intensity more than adults. Really, when content is adult focused, it means that there is objectionable content - strong curse words, nudity, violence, mature themes, drug usage, etc. To ever see a true adult ride at a park, think what the X-Men did with Deadpool and Logan - bringing a R rating to a kid centered comic book series. I think that in Europe the parks tend to be less PC and have some more violent themes. But in America, companies are very conservative and really just do what can sell to the most people.

Really, the most adult park that I can think of in America is EPCOT... and that's DISNEY! And even that has a bunch of stuff that only kids could like. No other chain has a true adult park.
 

JohnD

Well-Known Member
Average guest while already inside WDW:

MK: I'm going to Disney World today.
Ep: The golf ball looks cool but there is nothing else to do there.
HS: I haven't been to MGM in a long time. Where is the big Mickey hat?
AK: It's just a zoo. I could do that at home.
 

jaklgreen

Well-Known Member
And I'm saying that at the moment, all parks sell-out completely for the under 18 demographic. From a target standpoint, the adults are just chauffeurs. Name me a single park that focuses on adults over kids. Universal? Completely kid focused. Tons of kiddie rides, screen rides, Harry Potter rides, etc. Something being fast and intense and exciting has nothing to do with if the target is a kid or an adult. Kids can take the intensity more than adults. Really, when content is adult focused, it means that there is objectionable content - strong curse words, nudity, violence, mature themes, drug usage, etc. To ever see a true adult ride at a park, think what the X-Men did with Deadpool and Logan - bringing a R rating to a kid centered comic book series. I think that in Europe the parks tend to be less PC and have some more violent themes. But in America, companies are very conservative and really just do what can sell to the most people.

Really, the most adult park that I can think of in America is EPCOT... and that's DISNEY! And even that has a bunch of stuff that only kids could like. No other chain has a true adult park.
I was never talking about adult vs kids, I was saying the WDW is a family focused theme park. So they focus on rides that the whole family can enjoy together and not just big thrill rides.
 

jaklgreen

Well-Known Member
I don't think that's too unreasonable an assumption for two reasons. I've never heard of anywhere called Maingate before until I heard of the one near Disney, so it's not unreasonable to assume it is near the main gate. And two, I've never been but can't you walk to Disneyland (and other Disney parks worldwide) main gate from off site?
That is why research is so important. If I was going to France and the hotel boasted a view of the Eiffel Tower, and that was important to me, I would sure as heck verify what kind of view it was. For all I know it could be 10 miles away and you can just barely see the top. We all know that places say things like this all the time to make them sound enticing. I always assume a company is exaggerating. Look at the commercials that Disney themselves put out. Talk about puffing.
 

darrelljon

Member
That is why research is so important. If I was going to France and the hotel boasted a view of the Eiffel Tower, and that was important to me, I would sure as heck verify what kind of view it was. For all I know it could be 10 miles away and you can just barely see the top. We all know that places say things like this all the time to make them sound enticing. I always assume a company is exaggerating. Look at the commercials that Disney themselves put out. Talk about puffing.
And that's why the average person doesn't research these things otherwise businesses would never bother making the claims.
 

aliceismad

Well-Known Member
I don't think that's too unreasonable an assumption for two reasons. I've never heard of anywhere called Maingate before until I heard of the one near Disney, so it's not unreasonable to assume it is near the main gate. And two, I've never been but can't you walk to Disneyland (and other Disney parks worldwide) main gate from off site?
There are hotels that use main gate in their names near DLR, and you can walk to the parks. I believe at WDW there are booking sites that call a certain region main gate. When we were contemplating a WDW vacation several years ago, DH was pushing for an off-site hotel or vacation rental until I showed him how many miles it really is between parks, etc. He had only been to DLR one time and that’s the only experience he had with Disney. I get why someone who hasn’t done any research would be taken aback.
 

ppete1975

Well-Known Member
Sadly if you are new and treated it like any other amusement park you are going to be frustrated and confused. You have to do research and planning well ahead nowadays. Most parks you show up and you are on an even playing field. So you’d probably be awed by the castle, the ball, the theming. Get a feeling of nostalgia from seeing things you saw in books your whole life. Then totally confused and irritated that you should have had reservations and fast passes months ago and studied which rides you should do first. Because six flag doesn’t do that lol
 
Top Bottom