PDA

View Full Version : Chance for Frontierland E-Ticket!



ErikBsandiego
09-22-2003, 02:30 PM
With the New York Post reportedly running stories about Disney's Death Train I wonder if Disney isn't going to have to think about a much bigger solution to the BTM since I wonder if the Park can take the negative publicity that would surround a straight "re-opening" of the ride.....

Perhaps they could take this as the opportunity to dust off the massive E-ticket ride Jim Hill reported on some time ago that was planned back in the 70's and contemplate making that the next "big deal" for the Park (after TOT and Buzz for 2004).

Captain Josh
09-22-2003, 02:32 PM
What, converting much of the BT Trail into the lost "Discovery Bay"? I liked the theming concept of that. 1800's boomtowns are cool.

innerSpaceman
09-22-2003, 02:45 PM
I think the O.P. is alluding to Western River Expedition, an elaborately themed dark ride on a boat system similar to Pirates and Small World. At one point in its development, it was to share an area called Big Thunder Mesa with a roller-coaster, runaway train ride (much like early concepts had Indiana Jones sharing some space with the Jungle Cruise).

In the end, the attraction was reduced to just the runaway train ride. Now that there are runaway rumours about the death train, perhaps it's time to bring the discarded dark ride to life at last.

Andrew
09-22-2003, 02:56 PM
Jim Hill's excellent ten-part series (http://www.jimhillmedia.com/legacy/index.htm?../articles/archive.0003-1.1.htm~contentFrame) (which originally ran here on MousePlanet, in its previous incarnation as the DIG) is available on his site (http://www.jimhillmedia.com/). It's fascinating reading. I hope you have a few days.

PapiBear
09-22-2003, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by G-Hawk
What, converting much of the BT Trail into the lost "Discovery Bay"? I liked the theming concept of that. 1800's boomtowns are cool.

I always liked that one, too. I thought the designs for it looked really rather interesting (and any "Jules Verne-inspired" attractions could go there instead of Tomorrowland).

I always thought Frontierland needed a bit of retheming after a while, anyway. Not to say it needed to be remade completely, I just wish it was a little more.....frontier-like. I bet if you made a comparison between Frontierland in 1955 and Frontierland in 2003, there'd be a HUGE difference, and not just because they got rid of the stagecoach (and by the way, why was Knott's stagecoach able to operate for so many years when Disney's wasn't? I never quite figured that out...)

I dunno, I guess I just always thought Knott's did the Western thing a lot bigger and better (of course, nothing beats the Mark Twain, but in a way that ties in so much with New Orleans Square....Mississippi River and all that....).

By the way, if we're sticking to themes, I'd have to say that Splash Mountain, fun flume ride though it is, and the Pooh dark ride really don't belong in that section of the Park, but rather in Fantasyland. The theming connection between the attractions and the area just aren't quite as compatible. Indiana Jones certainly FITS in Adventureland, as does Tarzan's Treehouse (although I personally preferred the treehouse when it was owned by the Swiss Family, before they sold it to Tarzan and bought a condo in Palm Springs). In some ways, it could be argued that the Matterhorn didn't really belong where it is, either, sandwiched between Fantasyland and Tomorrowland, but it was part of Tomorrowland for several years, then suddenly was annexed by Fantasyland in a controversial midnight committee vote led by the Mad Hatter; Tomorrowland was powerless to defend its interests, as the Submarines were not armed, so they caved in and accepted the new border agreement after the Storybookland Treaty of 1967; prior to being part of Tomorrowland, the Matterhorn was briefly an independent nation, not unlike Switzerland itself; I wonder why David Koenig never wrote about the secret history of the Matterhorn?

There's really only two directions the Park can logically expand -- west and north. North's been done most recently by Mickey's Toontown. Ever since I was a kid, I imagined that if they were going to expand Disneyland, they'd have to expand westward, because with Harbor Boulevard, they're pretty much stuck, and the same with Katella (although I never imagined they'd take over the parking lot and put a whole new park there; to me it's just, I dunno, sacrilegious to put a park IN FRONT of the Disneyland main entrance (especially one of specious quality like DCA).

jrad32
09-23-2003, 07:32 AM
Well they certainly have the room for the Western River Expedition, all they need to do is use some of the space where they currently have the Festival of Fools Theater. Heck maybe they could eve bring back the BBQ.

dshimel
09-23-2003, 08:47 AM
There is no budget for a major attraction for Disneyland. DCA is getting Tower, then will get RnRC, then may actually get a real dark ride, then will need to do something with Route 66 and the arcade bay....

Disneyland may get a Pooh priced attraction every 3-5 years, but every E-Ticket attraction for the next 10 years will go into DCA.

ErikBsandiego
09-23-2003, 11:00 AM
Disneyland may get a Pooh priced attraction every 3-5 years, but every E-Ticket attraction for the next 10 years will go into DCA. [/B][/QUOTE]

Perhaps. But as Al has outlined at www.Miceage.com DL is facing a SERIOUS ride capacity issue that they must address. The entire resort provides a sufficient ROI ONLY if they can put "heads in beds" in the three properties. Otherwise the investments (and the depreciation) on the DLH, GC, and PP sit as a drag on the books). They must, therefore, convince families that DL and DCA are worth investing 3-4-5 days at. Right now, they have a difficult sell in doing that.

Moreover, they have to make a convincing reason to the overnight markets for why they have to come back to DL (and why to come to DL and not WDW). Cloning WDW rides is a short term fix (but which is not sustainable over the long term)

In sum - Buzz "helps" as it will have decent ride capacity. So could "space mountain ii" depending upon what they may rework to try to add capacity to the ride. But if they "lose" BTM (the premise of my posting) they have a real ride capacity problem on the West Side. Moreover, they will have a huge amount of acreage (anybody know a rough number) of available land between TMR and the Festival area to design ride capacity. Finally, they would have an opportunity to do that redesign in a way that avoided huge disruptions.

But of course, if this isn't a viable scenario that they will radically redevelopment that part of the park - you need to lay out how they manage the PR problem of reopening a ride that is going to show some sort of "mechnical accident" (since it was a warm sunny southern California day with no earthquakes reported I think we can rule out acts of god) and safety records that suggest other bumps and bruises. (the only other categories of possible reasons are "rider error" or operator error). If it actually turns out that regulators find fault with DL then they really are going to have to do some creative work to reopen the ride essentially "as is".

jerhow
09-23-2003, 11:27 AM
In my opinion, the ride will eventually re-open as is. What would that do to the confidence level of tourists at the other Thunder Mountains throughout the world?

The ride will quietly open and people will eventually forget.

Re. new E-Tickets, it is a shame that the Disneyland Resort has provided 2 separate parks but is forced to deal with the two as if they were one, i.e.: E-Tickets in DCA but not in Dland.

You don't see this problem at the Tokyo Disney Resort because of DisneySea's enormous success. Separate budgets, separate goals - they each handle their share of the weight.

But it's shocking to me that the suits would allow Dland to suffer because of DCA's shortcomings. Dland needs an E-Ticket. Badly. Now more than ever.

DCA needs 3 more E-Tickets and a detaild D-Ticket dark ride. Badly. Now more than ever.

And then everything will be in good shape.