Rumor: DinoLand, USA to become Indiana Jones Land?

[RedSox68]

It may have been explained and I didn't see it, but what exactly defines an "E-ticket" ride?

 

[RedSox68]

So what will happen to the Muppet show since it seems to be caught in the Star Wars area?

 

[Phicinfan]

So what will happen to the Muppet show since it seems to be caught in the Star Wars area?

Muppets remain outside the Star Wars area, and are being incorporated to the pre-SW:GE area called grand avenue... thus the name change of the theater and such.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

It may have been explained and I didn't see it, but what exactly defines an "E-ticket" ride?

Back when you used to need individual tickets to ride each ride (vs just paying to get in and then having access to each ride) the rides were tiered in levels A through E with 'A' being the lowest / least popular attraction and 'E' being the best/most popular attractions. Overtime, it became a term that means a big major attraction - so something like when adding "Splash Mountain" that was adding an "E-ticket". people will debate what truly qualifies as an "E" (vs a "C" or "D") but the idea is that if they are planning to put in an "E-ticket" attraction it means it is a big, major attraction

 

[RedSox68]

Back when you used to need individual tickets to ride each ride (vs just paying to get in and then having access to each ride) the rides were tiered in levels A through E with 'A' being the lowest / least popular attraction and 'E' being the best/most popular attractions. Overtime, it became a term that means a big major attraction - so something like when adding "Splash Mountain" that was adding an "E-ticket". people will debate what truly qualifies as an "E" (vs a "C" or "D") but the idea is that if they are planning to put in an "E-ticket" attraction it means it is a big, major attraction

Oh, thanks -- great explanation. I remember when they had tickets, but didn't go there during that time.

 

[Ambehnke]

I do think those rides / that area could be better ... though I am starting to get worried about this focus on nothing but "E-ticket" attractions ... and every new land seems to just have a couple of big rides. Maybe I am just more aware/focused on this as I have little kids, but there is some value in having some smaller rides with less wait that kids can get on, etc. .... I know we have gone on Triceratops spin as something to do with the little kids when the older ones/parents take turns on the bigger rides. If they replace those two rides with one E-Ticket with a height restriction than the only thing in that area little kids can do is the boneyard - which is weird for an area based on dinosaurs which most kids love

Exactly! I'd rather see them add some B, C, D attractions I think!

 

[ShadeDK]

It may have been explained and I didn't see it, but what exactly defines an "E-ticket" ride?

The basic definition is that E-Ticket applies to the newest, most popular and/or most advanced rides. Which is to say it's mostly subjective - and always has been even when Disney was using it for the coupon books. Today's E-Ticket is tomorrow's A or B ticket (for frame of reference, It's a Small World was an actual E-Ticket for at least part of the 1970s - I don't think anyone would suggest it's been an E-ticket for decades, though). Despite phasing out the coupons about 40 years ago, the term "E-Ticket" has stuck around. Even though there's no clear definition, I think most of us could agree on what those rides are at any given time based on how new the ride is and/or its popularity as measured by wait time (although that's not always perfect - I have a hard time calling Peter Pan an E-Ticket even though the wait times are high, no thanks to the limited capacity).

 

[ucfknight]

though I am starting to get worried about this focus on nothing but "E-ticket" attractions ... and every new land seems to just have a couple of big rides

Na'vi River Journey certainly isn't e-ticket. Nor is either of the rides in Toy Story Land.
Can't help you on each land only having a couple rides, though. It seems to me they should be able to build at least 3 rides in these new lands when each land costs between $500 million and a cool $billion, but they seem to be sticking with 2 per land.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

Na'vi River Journey certainly isn't e-ticket. Nor is either of the rides in Toy Story Land.
Can't help you on each land only having a couple rides, though. It seems to me they should be able to build at least 3 rides in these new lands when each land costs between $500 million and a cool $billion, but they seem to be sticking with 2 per land.

Guess can debate what is "E-ticket" - but both Pandora rides are major rides and at least the Slinky Dog Coaster I think will be a popular ride ... but with Toy Story Land - why can't they add in a few small rides for kids on top of the two big things they are building? Like in A Bug's Land in DCA they could have some little spinner rides and stuff that look like toys (maybe one that looks like those rubberband power planes, or something like that). Maybe just because we just got back from Busch Gardens, but they had a ton of those smaller rides and my kids loved them and you'd think they could fit a couple of them into Toy Story Land

 

[ShadeDK]

Guess can debate what is "E-ticket" - but both Pandora rides are major rides and at least the Slinky Dog Coaster I think will be a popular ride ... but with Toy Story Land - why can't they add in a few small rides for kids on top of the two big things they are building? Like in A Bug's Land in DCA they could have some little spinner rides and stuff that look like toys (maybe one that looks like those rubberband power planes, or something like that). Maybe just because we just got back from Busch Gardens, but they had a ton of those smaller rides and my kids loved them and you'd think they could fit a couple of them into Toy Story Land

Toy Story Land was a great opportunity to do something like this on a small scale while providing more ride options. I'm not a fan of the current trend of creating new lands with only two rides (one thrill ride and one all-ages ride), a dining option and a gift shop. No matter how good the theming is, there's just not that much to see and do in these "micro-lands".

 

[dreiwhit]

No matter how good the theming is, there's just not that much to see and do in these "micro-lands".

I agree with you. I would like to see more attractions than just two in each of the lands. There needs to be more to see and do.

For my family and I, having a couple of new rides in a park where we have seen an done everything multiple times doesn't really justify us going there and burning up a day of our non-hopper tickets. If we sprang for hoppers, it may not be such a big deal, but hoppers for us would be an addition $300+ that we really can't justify to ourselves paying.

 

[Liljo22]

Guess can debate what is "E-ticket" - but both Pandora rides are major rides and at least the Slinky Dog Coaster I think will be a popular ride ... but with Toy Story Land - why can't they add in a few small rides for kids on top of the two big things they are building? Like in A Bug's Land in DCA they could have some little spinner rides and stuff that look like toys (maybe one that looks like those rubberband power planes, or something like that). Maybe just because we just got back from Busch Gardens, but they had a ton of those smaller rides and my kids loved them and you'd think they could fit a couple of them into Toy Story Land

On the original plans that were leaked for Pandora listed FOP as a E ticket and NRJ as a C Ticket attraction. I would probably guess they would put Slinky Dog as a E or D level and Alien Spinners as a C level.

 

[tlmadden73]

Guess can debate what is "E-ticket" - but both Pandora rides are major rides and at least the Slinky Dog Coaster I think will be a popular ride ... but with Toy Story Land - why can't they add in a few small rides for kids on top of the two big things they are building? Like in A Bug's Land in DCA they could have some little spinner rides and stuff that look like toys (maybe one that looks like those rubberband power planes, or something like that). Maybe just because we just got back from Busch Gardens, but they had a ton of those smaller rides and my kids loved them and you'd think they could fit a couple of them into Toy Story Land

I think the main problem with "little" rides like that is just simply capacity potentially.

Honestly, Disney could use an area for little "kiddie" rides (rides for toddlers, K-2nd grade .. rides that ONLY they can ride while parents watch) We went to Legoland on the trip with a group of children ages 3-11 and they had a lot more fun on the rides there than any Disney Park (it helped the park was empty and every ride they could just hop off and then back on). The parents didn't go on much, but we all enjoyed watching the kids have fun. My son loved a ride that he simply rode a horse that rocked and went around on a track. LOVED it. His favorite ride all trip (including Disney).

We also went to a small family theme park in Wisconsin that had nothing but refurbished, old carnival "kiddie" rides that go in a circle - helicopters, ride a boat in a circle, ride a truck in a circle (and ring the bell, etc.)

The problem with those types of rides is they handle 10 or so kids at once and like Dumbo, Aladdin's carpets, carousel, it takes a while to load/unload and that if there is any sort of crowd, the lines are way too long .. which would happen at Disney, so they opt for high capacity rides.

 

[jkh36619]

Toy Story Land was a great opportunity to do something like this on a small scale while providing more ride options. I'm not a fan of the current trend of creating new lands with only two rides (one thrill ride and one all-ages ride), a dining option and a gift shop. No matter how good the theming is, there's just not that much to see and do in these "micro-lands".

I agree also, we spent more time in the gift shop than touring the rest of Pandora. Beautifully done, but not a lot to look at or do.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

I think the main problem with "little" rides like that is just simply capacity potentially.

Honestly, Disney could use an area for little "kiddie" rides (rides for toddlers, K-2nd grade .. rides that ONLY they can ride while parents watch) We went to Legoland on the trip with a group of children ages 3-11 and they had a lot more fun on the rides there than any Disney Park (it helped the park was empty and every ride they could just hop off and then back on). The parents didn't go on much, but we all enjoyed watching the kids have fun. My son loved a ride that he simply rode a horse that rocked and went around on a track. LOVED it. His favorite ride all trip (including Disney).

We also went to a small family theme park in Wisconsin that had nothing but refurbished, old carnival "kiddie" rides that go in a circle - helicopters, ride a boat in a circle, ride a truck in a circle (and ring the bell, etc.)

The problem with those types of rides is they handle 10 or so kids at once and like Dumbo, Aladdin's carpets, carousel, it takes a while to load/unload and that if there is any sort of crowd, the lines are way too long .. which would happen at Disney, so they opt for high capacity rides.

I know there is a rumor that they will close A Bug's Land in DCA to make way for more Marvel stuff - but I will be sad/worried if they do that as I found that park didn't have a ton that my younger kids could do - and if you take out A Bug's Land there really isn't much for the younlings

 

[amberpi]

The problem with those types of rides is they handle 10 or so kids at once and like Dumbo, Aladdin's carpets, carousel, it takes a while to load/unload and that if there is any sort of crowd, the lines are way too long .. which would happen at Disney, so they opt for high capacity rides.

Interesting points. Capacity would be an issue for sure. Of course any additional capacity would be welcomed at WDW, even for those of us with 0 need, interest, or desire for such, but it'd keep those kids off the streets and rides, I'm all in

Those types of rides also aren't unique. You can get them tons of places, so I'd think it wouldn't draw people to WDW if they advertised "little kiddie" land, folks could get that cheaper and closer to home. They could do unique rides/attractions like the Alice hedge maze which would be cheap and serve all kinds, and you don't see those at the local county fair/small local park. I'm sure WDW could come up with all kinds of unique family friendly offerings, I just don't think it's a sexy marketing campaign that will draw additional park guests.

This said by someone with no children (thank heavens) - but would that actually make anyone plan an additional trip? If it won't move the needle, why would WDW do it?

 

[ShadeDK]

I think the main problem with "little" rides like that is just simply capacity potentially.

Honestly, Disney could use an area for little "kiddie" rides (rides for toddlers, K-2nd grade .. rides that ONLY they can ride while parents watch)
***
The problem with those types of rides is they handle 10 or so kids at once and like Dumbo, Aladdin's carpets, carousel, it takes a while to load/unload and that if there is any sort of crowd, the lines are way too long .. which would happen at Disney, so they opt for high capacity rides.

Capacity is definitely a problem with the smaller kiddie rides - particularly at the Disney parks, which have much higher crowd levels than the regional parks where you usually find these. To manage capacity, Disney would have to keep loading and ride times short, impose maximum height requirements, and - most importantly - have enough of these rides to spread out the crowds. I don't think you could put 2 or 3 rides in without expecting an unmitigated wait time disaster.

Another fair criticism is that these are not the types of rides one should find at Disney, which specializes in bigger and better themed rides. That argument isn't the strongest, however, when you look at DinoLand and Toy Story Land - which don't have any rides you couldn't similarly find in your local amusement park (or even carnival). All things considered - I'd be curious to see what the Imagineers could do with "traditional" kid's rides and how they would improve on them. It might be a spectacular failure, but it couldn't be worse than DinoLand as it currently exists (I think we've set the bar here, folks).

 

[amberpi]

I know there is a rumor that they will close A Bug's Land in DCA to make way for more Marvel stuff - but I will be sad/worried if they do that as I found that park didn't have a ton that my younger kids could do - and if you take out A Bug's Land there really isn't much for the younlings

In Socal, its a local park, and the demand is very different I'd think. And those kids are rarely spending big $ on fancy dinners and booze

 

[TheMaxRebo]

In Socal, its a local park, and the demand is very different I'd think. And those kids are rarely spending big $ on fancy dinners and booze

I guess, but it is still a park that was built by Walt Disney (well, next to that park) who wanted someplace to go and have fun with his kids - and their parents spend money on dinners and booze (I say that as one of those parents) ... and also princess dressed

 

[amberpi]

I guess, but it is still a park that was built by Walt Disney (well, next to that park) who wanted someplace to go and have fun with his kids - and their parents spend money on dinners and booze (I say that as one of those parents) ... and also princess dressed

Its not about what Walt wanted, its about what's good for share holders. A marvel land is going to be a huge draw. I reckon it's about that simple. Personally, I'll take an extra trip to DLR just to visit it, but I love a reason for a hop to Vegas and then a quick flight to Anaheim, so it's really not a huge stretch