I didn’t mean it this way. What I meant was that the WDW are not necessary to keep intact for purposes of historical preservation. There is no reason everyone needs to have a Dumbo within driving distance, just to point out an extreme example.
WDW will always be there. The question is, what attractions should it offer? Which ones are untouchable. This is an important question, actually, because eventually some of these attractions could literally become historical monuments that can’t be bulldozed.
And yet there’s plenty of space to put a new thing somewhere without replacing the historical monument.
I definitely have a problem yanking a Dumbo or Pooh so another LL E ticket ride can take its place. That’s Disney being cheap instead of sticking in an E and D ticket (5th) park on property while constantly adding rooms.
I would love this. Space Mountain is one of my favorite rides, but the “ride” itself is notoriously bumpy. Disneyland’s version is much better. But they could plus it even more than just cloning Disneyland’s track.
(Side note: I’m still confused about this because I’ve heard claims the tracks are identical. But they feel completely different.)
I think the CMs are trained to say this, because they don’t want people messing up their directing people which way to go. When it isn’t busy, I’ll just say, “Can I go to the right side?” and they will let me. But I’ve also been told that they are “exactly the same” and force me to continue to the left. Which bums me out because the left side is FAR worse than the right side.
A couple years ago, I rode both sides back-to-back because it was almost a walk-on. I can attest that they are NOT “exactly the same”.
Yes. Is it shocking that someone would have an attachment to band/music of their teen/adult years? I am a weird age that missed most of the muppet years. Most likely, those were the wild years that Aerosmith was blasting in the background. The change is a loss to me.
This point resonates with me. As I understood the podcast discussion, they were coming from the perspective of increasing revenue–because people will show their increased satisfaction with the ride offerings by what they are willing to pay for with LLs. But then I think about my first trip to WDW as a relatively young parent of just one child, then 3 years old. Our time was, of course, magical, and we didn’t do a single E-ticket ride. It was all the family rides and shows and energy and characters. That kind of trip was so foundational to the AP-holding, DVC-owning, LL-purchasing, take-my-$$-Disney adult I am now.
I recognize my post was provocative (intentionally so), though no more provocative than what Len said in the episode.
I think it is a very fascinating and important question. For Disney it is a very real question. A lot of times, their decision comes down to money – they don’t have the funds to demolish and replace an attraction that is drawing crowds.
But philosophically, what should drive whether a ride is untouchable? Is it just because people like it or are attached to it? Is it because it’s historically significant or unique? Is it purely based on capacity and value of land used?
The answers to these questions could lead to different conclusions. If people just want to keep Winnie the Pooh because they love the character, maybe they’d be ok getting rid of the current attraction as long as there was an equal or greater WtP attraction built in its place or elsewhere. This is sort of the calculus that went into the decision to move the Muppets from the theater to RnRC.
Yeah, lots to consider. For me, it is less about it being WtP specifically (although it is a cute ride IP), and more about making sure that WHATEVER ride IP is there, or even ride concept is there, it will still have the appeal to families with young kids in the same way within similar or better ride capacity.
But even the ride capacity issue is problematic. Disney actually would probably prefer to have rides with LESS ride capacity (but still have lots of queue space for the people to wait in) because if the ride is truly a people pleaser, lower ride capacity means they are MORE likely to sell LLs for that attraction. Disney is incentivized to have fewer people go. Kind of a supply and demand scenario. Of course, if the wait is TOO long, it becomes problematic. But look at PPF. Honestly, the only cool part of that ride is the flying aspect of it. But there isn’t much to it at all. And yet, due to low ride capacity, people are willing to rope drop it or make it a primary LL choice. That means having low ride capacity, even for an arguably “poor” ride, benefits Disney.
So, I’m not sure how much Disney WANTS to build more “people eaters”. It is probably good to have some…so rides like PM and IASM are worth keeping around…but if they found they needed to close, say, PM, could they want another 3000+ PPH ride? Tron earns them lots of revenue with a much lower PPH capacity.
This is easier to say for those in the West Coast. West Coasters have the rides at DL, so saying WDW should just be able to jettison their rides is probably a little selfish.
This. The family has to be considered. It’s an investment.
On another but similar point of view is the guest that is unable to experience rides like Space Mtn or Tiana or BTMRR. When my 60 somethings yo cousin and DH were joining us for a few days, those attractions were off limits due to old injuries. So I focused on the attractions closest to Walt himself - yes, @ryan1, including Tiki Birds.
My cousins were in the World for 2 days, so MK one morning and AK another with Epcot each evening. They had a much better time than they expected thanks to those experiences.
Hopefully the Disney execs will feel profit is not more important than inclusion.
The question I’m getting at is “what is untouchable.” If something is untouchable because people love it and want it nearby, fair enough.
But if there was something equally good replacing it, is that acceptable?
In a very few cases, replacing a ride is unacceptable under any circumstances. I think it should basically be illegal for Disneyland to demolish Pirates of the Caribbean due to historical significance alone.
That doesn’t automatically mean that MK’s PotC is disposable, but it does mean that if MK keeps its PotC, it would be for different reasons (including, perhaps, that it is itself historically significant even though it is not the first of its kind - but that argument would have to be made on its own merit).
To me, your list implied that you are more willing to see these changes at WDW. Which is easy, when you have the originals closer and more accessible. Would you feel the same about your list if you had little to no access to DL?
You must be around the same age as me. My childhood exposure to the Muppets was the Muppet Babies show and a Christmas movie that I never saw all the way through.The late 80s/early 90s was a dry time in Muppetland. I’d get much more excited about a Fraggle Rock attraction.
And Aerosmith was huge in the mid to late 90s, which is when those of us in that age group were starting to discover music outside of what our parents listened to. I will call those the “Alicia Silverstone Years” lol.
My list is basically all attractions that are unique to WDW or built first and worthy of preservation. It is not necessarily attractions I would choose to demolish. I love all of them and actually hope none of them are taken away.
The purpose of posting the list was to generate a lively discussion, which it appears to have succeeded in doing.
I think this actually bolsters my point. It is easy to say the attractions can be replaced when someone on the West Coast won’t lose access. I believe the viewpoint for those on the East Coast is very different.
The WDW Space Mountain actually opened first, so should the DL version be demolished to make way for something new?
Oh I forgot about this! I would actually include Space Mountain as untouchable then.
I’m not saying anything should be demolished. I’m just asking what makes something untouchable. I phrased my question to be intentionally provocative, which I recognize can generate strong reactions, but I assure you no offense was intended to anyone.
