Just a thought on ride rehabs and new rides.

[samuraiblue]

I have no problem with rehabbing old rides and making them better. I just hate to see something good made worse. Take the Imagination pavilion: the sole reason that it was rehabbed in the first place was because it was one of the most expensive pavilions to operate. The object of the rehab was not to make it better, but to make it cheaper to run. Disney really gave their customers the raw end of the deal on this one.

With some of the other rehabs, though, I'm of two minds. The Seas With Nemo and His Computer-Generated Friends doesn't fit in with my idea of what EPCOT should be, but when I visited in 2007 the new Seas pavilion was more crowded than I've seen it since 1986 when The Living Seas first opened. I don't like Test Track, but I'm definitely in the minority there, since it seems to be pretty popular. And anyway, the blame for that one can be laid at GM's feet, since it was their clueless management who insisted that World of Motion 2.0 be a more automobile-centric attraction.

As for the Magic Kingdom, it's pretty much Licensed Character land. The Monsters Inc. Laugh Floor is probably the best show ever to occupy that space, and it's obvious that Disney spent a serious amount of money on it--a halfway job it was not. I'm not crazy about Stitch's Great Escape, but it's more family-friendly than Alien Encounter. Honestly, I preferred Mission To Mars, but for today's audiences it'd be a real snoozefest.

As for the Horizons thing, I think that the sinkhole story is pretty credible. Why else would Disney go to the expense of tearing down the building? Most rehabs are simply worked into an existing building and ride system, after all. The Mission:Space building is considerably smaller than the Horizons pavilion was; it probably doesn't rest on the sinkhole at all.

True... unfortunately, I think we're seeing a lot of rehabs to the benefit of operation costs. I'm also, not too crazy about stitch, but it took an attraction that was hit or miss for some guests, and made it family friendly. Monsters, Inc. definitely created magical and memorable moments for guests during the year of a million dreams, which was definitely what they were shooting for...

As for Horizons, yeah, I know its a rumor, but sinkholes happen quite often in this state. The swampy marsh that Disney is built on, coupled with the weight of a heavier than average building, built before strict codes probably just warranted a rebuild in their eyes. I'd believe that was (at least one of) the reasons for the rebuild. Plus, some site somewhere on the net has the satellite image timeline of the Mission:Space Build, and I can tell you from experience that the Machinery for the attraction was built a level below the park level. They could have filled in the hole, supported it to todays building codes, then built a much smaller building on top of it.

[Captain Schnemo]

Honestly, I preferred Mission To Mars, but for today's audiences it'd be a real snoozefest.

Well, sure, if you used 1950s technology to tell a 1970s story. But there's nothing less interesting about Mars or space travel now. Of course, now the attraction wouldn't fit, since they've decided Tomorrowland is just a dumping ground for various movie characters with no real theme.

As for the Horizons thing, I think that the sinkhole story is pretty credible. Why else would Disney go to the expense of tearing down the building?

The theory that made more sense to me was that the Horizons building had an odd structure due to the Omnimax screen. The only reasonable way to demolish and remove it involved taking off the roof, at which point it became easier just to flatten the thing.

Additionally, the death of Horizons was largely political (due to the loss of the sponsor), so it's reasonable to assume that a new sponsor wouldn't want the old baggage and wouldn't want their money associated with the stink of decay.

All of this is just speculation though. Personally, I think the sinkhole story is, if not complete hogwash, perhaps based on some small kernel of truth. But the idea that a sinkhole specifically manifested itself under the one attraction they wanted to completely remove is more than a little suspicious.

[theBIGyowski]

Disney is at their best when they "plus" their attractions. I think one of the best examples of this is the Haunted Mansion. They used today's technology to enhance the ride/attraction experience. The same thing can be said about SSE. I don't know if anyone has seen what the imagineers did with Sleeping Beauty's castle walkthrough in Disneyland...but it is the supreme example of preserving something with current technology. I think something like this could have been done with Horizons had it survived a little longer. There are some amazing things that the Imagineers can do today that would have enhanced Horizons without taking away from the theme or wow factor.

Personally, I think adding Nemo to the Seas was genius. The utilized great technology and made the ocean something tangible that a small child could understand. Coupled with the real fish and sea creatures that you see at the end is just perfect. I honestly think this is something Walt would have wanted and he is no doubt proud of.

[samuraiblue]

Personally, I think adding Nemo to the Seas was genius. The utilized great technology and made the ocean something tangible that a small child could understand. Coupled with the real fish and sea creatures that you see at the end is just perfect.

I've got to agree... While it is painful to see what happened to SeaBase Alpha and the hydrolators, It makes the Ocean and Sea Life relevant to a younger and fresher Disney Audience.

Additionally, the death of Horizons was largely political (due to the loss of the sponsor), so it's reasonable to assume that a new sponsor wouldn't want the old baggage and wouldn't want their money associated with the stink of decay.

It's true. When General Electric pulled out their sponsorship, that buildings future was uncertain. That's part of what makes people wonder how Wonders of Life stood so long, without MetLife. Granted, it became seasonal, then just as a "convention" or special event space.

[Captain Schnemo]

I honestly think this is something Walt would have wanted and he is no doubt proud of.

I think he would have been embarrassed and fired everyone involved. That's a moot point, I guess, since he would never had let the project get that far along.

I've been through this line of thought many times now, so I'll spare you all, but it's just another failure of Disney not paying attention to the big picture. They just don't think (or care) about why they do things any more.

It makes no more sense than putting Soarin' in The Land.

Ugh.

[theBIGyowski]

How would Walt have been embarrassed? He taught us about Africa and Asia by putting us on a boat and looking at animatronics. We learned about innovation through rose colored glasses that had GE and Ford written all over them. Walt figured out ways to entertain us while he taught us things. He did the same things with his cartoons and films. I think that is something the imagineers have focused more on over the past 25 years...using cartoons to teach. They decided to bring that to the parks and it has been a great success. Does it p*** off the older folks? Yes. Does it reach out to the youth of today and make them want to learn more about the ocean, land, space, etc? Yes. Essentially...they have used the model for teaching via cartoons and applied that to the parks.

I will agree with you that they have dropped the ball on a lot of things, but they have also been quite successful on other things in my opinion.

[Captain Schnemo]

I've been through this many times in various threads, but, in short, The Living Seas was not simply about "fish". If Nemo wants to teach kids about fish in the Animal Kingdom, that would be OK (although I'd still prefer that they keep the characters out of it). That park could use an aquatic section anyway.

But Epcot is the wrong place for it. There is nothing futuristic (I hope) about singing fish.

It's the same superficial line of thinking that makes them think putting Disney cartoon characters into it's a small world makes sense. Only if you really, really, really don't think about it.

I'm not saying the attraction is bad (although the "Where's X?" theme has become tiresome), just that putting it there makes absolutely no sense, and suggests that the current management doesn't understand their own product. Or that they don't care, which is no more encouraging.

[theBIGyowski]

I see your point. I just think it's something we have seen over and over again since Walt opened Disneyland...using films to teach and entertain. They probably just have a little more liberty in Orlando since they have more real estate to work with.

Nemo fits better in Fantasyland than Epcot...which is where he is in Disneyland.

One thing I will add though...if they worked over Imagination the way they did the Living Seas...and incorporated new technology and real imagineering...they could resurrect the original ride and make it a fan favorite again.

[Jacca5660]

While I was listening to the original Journey into the Imagination I was thinking about the fiasco when it was rehabbed and Figment was removed. Then it was redone again and Figment was added. I was just thinking about how fans of the "classic" ride were mad about this. Personally, I am all for having classic rides stay the same, but at some point some things need to change. WDW keeps people coming back by adding new attractions that people want to see. For example, my family was really excited to see the rehab on Spaceship Earth. After riding it we thought it was great. I think WDW Imagineers really know how to make a ride new, but at the same time keep the same nostalgic details.

What does everyone think Disney did great and Disney screwed up as far as ride referbishment/replacement goes?

The WDW Imagineers may have thought the SSE rehab up, but it was the EPCOT techs that made it work. I have a life long friend who's been a tech at WDW for almost 20 years and he spent months riding SSE all day long (literally) fixing it. Disney now has what they call Lee fixes (there are over 15). He had to reconfigure the on board computers to make them work. The Imagineer in charge ordered the wrong type of computers for the cars and they failed on install. My buddy had to remove everyone and modify them so they would work in the cars. So if you really enjoy the ride now, (He's gonna kill me for this) While you at future world, thank Lee for all his hard work or better yet go to the Customer Service desk at SSE and write LEE a happy gram. All Disney gave him was two free movie passes. Mind you he saved them MILLIONS!!

[theBIGyowski]

I'll have to remember Lee the next time I am down there!

[packwingfn]

One rehab that bothers me is El Rio to Grand Fiesta Tour. I think that characters should not be a part of World Showcase. Now I haven't seen KP yet but I can't critique that yet but I think the whole "where's donald" is embarassing when telling the story of Mexico.

[secondstar]

Regarding Nemo in Epcot, I think there may be another unexplored reason why that character was seemingly placed in a park where he "apparently" doesn't belong.

If you look at the other parks, they each have familiar "hooks" for the younger children. The Magic Kingdom has them throughout. At Animal Kingdom, you have Festival of the Lion King, the Nemo Musical, Camp Minnie-Mickey, and the Jammin' Jungle Parade. Even Disney-MGM has the Muppets, Beauty and the Beast show, Playhouse Disney, Little Mermaid, Fantasmic, and Toy Story. These are all characters familiar to preschoolers.

Prior to Nemo and Turtle Talk with Crush, there was ABSOLUTELY NO ATTRACTIONS in Epcot that I could state to my daughter (4) and she'd recognize and want to see. On our last trip, when my wife and I wanted to go to Epcot, we did not ask our daughter if she wanted to go to that park. We asked if she wanted to see "Dude Crush" tomorrow.

For parents with young children out there, they know which parks their children prefer. And I'm sure many parents, wishing to go to Epcot, sold the park to their kids as "Do you want to see Nemo and Crush tomorrow?" And not "Do you want to stand up on Circlevision 360 and watch Wonders of China tomorrow?"

[Captain Schnemo]

Prior to Nemo and Turtle Talk with Crush, there was ABSOLUTELY NO ATTRACTIONS in Epcot that I could state to my daughter (4) and she'd recognize and want to see.

Throwing characters into an attraction to get kids (or anyone, really) interested in an attraction is the cheap way out. Maybe this is just the way entertainment for the ADD generation goes, but I'm sure it has a lot more to do with the people generating the content than the kids themselves.

Look at that other thread where people are picking their favorite attractions from the MK. The majority of the top entries don't have movie tie-ins (or at least didn't begin with them) at all. They are memorable experiences because they are so unique.

It's insulting to have an attraction that merely tells you the story you have already seen many times in a park that allegedly celebrates the triumph of human creativity. Fantasyland was just one area of the original MK, and even there it's a small world was designed to open minds.

Walt never wanted to feed people exactly what they've come to expect, he wanted to continually try new things and challenge people. If someone isn't willing to try something because he's never heard of it before, he's going to miss out on a whole lot in life.

And if they do try something new and it turns out to be a fantastic experience that will stick with them for the rest of their lives, then that's an important lesson that hopefully they will learn from.

[secondstar]

Look at that other thread where people are picking their favorite attractions from the MK. The majority of the top entries don't have movie tie-ins (or at least didn't with them) at all. They are memorable experiences because they are so unique.

I don't think there are any 4-year-olds responding to these threads. And I didn't like taking my entire family to WDW, then going to spend two or three days at Epcot that had virtually NOTHING for my daughter to get excited about. I think there are other parents out there that share my view and that may have played a part in Disney's decision to add Nemo to Epcot.

Personally, I LOVE Epcot. On our first two trips down there with my wife and daughter, there wasn't a Nemo attraction. I actually felt selfish on the second trip because she wanted to see characters she knew. (She was too young the first time.) So, personally, I'm glad they added Nemo. And I'm glad they added the Donald to El Rio del Tiempo. As soon as we got home, we had to run out and buy Saludos Amigos.

[mdk010]

I'm wondering what everyone's thoughts on the Newer Tikiroom as opposed to the original? Personally, I liked the original and could do without Zazu and Iago.