JT3000

Not to mention he's bringing up threads over a month old.

They reach the same maximum speed (during launch). They launch at different accelerations. Hulk launches to 40 mph in 2 seconds. I don't know the exact number for Mummy, but it takes longer than that.

Pro-Universal site? Hardly. USOInfo is a companion to WDWInfo, a huge Disney site. If you look at that page, there's even a link to WDWInfo with a big banner. The only reason it exists is because they wanted to be able to supply information for Universal as well as Disney. It doesn't have anything to do with being open minded, or being pro or anti anything. That's simply unbiased history. And I do like both companies. I visit all the parks on a regular basis. Some more than others, but I visit them nonetheless. It's just my opinion that Disney has been lacking in quality ever since they gave Eisner the wheel. I used the fact that his first action with Disney was to unsucessfully spoof Universal as an example. And this is a comparison thread, and it has been since the first post, for whoever said I was trying to turn it into one. MK and Epcot are fine. But I think MGM and AK are the epitome of quantity over quality. I guess my point is, Disney is widely considered the best theme park company in the world, but the last 15 years haven't exactly proven it.

MGM was Eisner's brainchild. And like I said, it was the product of him being shown the plans for USF. Disney did not have an entire studio park planned beforehand (although there were rumors of a planned "studio pavilion" at EPCOT). This, combined with the fact that he purposely rushed to have it open before USF, is the reason MGM opened with so few attractions. http://www.usoinfo.com/Parkinfo/guides/usf/USF-history.htm

Err, what's with the people insinuating Disney is the only one with a quality product? And when did Universal become all about quantity? If anything, it's been the other way around ever since the day MGM opened. (Which, btw, is just the product of Eisner ripping off Universal's plans for USF.)

I think someone got up on the wrong side of bed today. I honestly have no idea how you got the impression that I think these big budget thrill rides are perfect for everyone, or that I'm stuck in a "coaster bubble world", which is utterly rediculous to say since I don't even like big looping coasters, which were never even brought up. In fact, you quoted my comments on the current mindset of major theme park companies regarding "dark rides", and how these big budget thrill rides with new technology are considered the current standard. I myself not once said anything along the lines of building new traditional dark rides being a bad thing. I know just as much as anyone that these parks are lacking new family rides. I never said otherwise. What I did say is that the definition of dark ride, whether you want to accept it or not (it's not my problem either way), has stretched to include these new thrill rides, and they are what the theme parks are now urged to build. I commented on nothing else BUT that, in reply to your question regarding the current definition of "dark ride". And for the record, a "dark ride" does not automatically equal "kiddie ride", like you seem to think it does. Do I think these new thrill rides are an improvement over Disney's old, tamer rides, speaking in general (all ride types considered)? For me personally, yes. They are newer, flashier, and overall much more fun. And I don't have kids to worry about. So do I percieve this as improvement from my perspective? You bet I do, and I don't see how anyone can attack that opinion, or say I have a "presentist attitude". They are simply using the technology they have to create experiences that are now possible with it. I'm not exactly sure what a "presentist attitude" is, but if we hadn't applied this concept in other ways throughout history, we'd still be using rocks to start fires and writing on cave walls with chalk. And the fact of the matter is, our society is much more likely to accept a cutting-edge thrill ride than they would, say 30 years ago, which is another reason traditional dark rides are dying. I'm only 18, so you'll have to excuse me if I'm not overly impressed with more primitive experiences. I grew up during the revolution of thrill rides, and these newer experiences are what I enjoy more. BUT I also realize family rides have their place, and there aren't nearly enough tamer dark rides being built. I wholeheartedly agree with that. I would have commented on that, but like I said before, I was simply commenting on the current definition of dark rides (which HAS changed), not the thrill/family dark ride ratio in parks today. I would still want to see innovative technology used in these tamer, more simple experiences however. There is simply no need to completely "go back to basics". It has nothing to do with sensitivity to adjust. Or really creepy, completely fake towns for that matter.

I can tell you haven't been to WDW recently. In all seriousness though. Disney will always be the most popular theme park chain in the world, simply because of their brand name. But I wouldn't be too sure about them remaining the highest quality product.

That depends. What type of indoor thrill ride are you referring to? Because expensive, modern indoor thrill rides that run on a track, like Spider-Man and Dinosaur, are a natural progression from the older, cheaper, more basic rides you mentioned. And they take place in the dark. So I think they fit the definition perfectly, if not in a traditional sense, then in a modern one. Because as we all know, the major theme park companies are not going to start backtracking & creating them the traditional way, with older, unexciting technology, except for once every now and then (the most recent examples I can think of are Pooh & Cat in the Hat). Then there's the hybrids, like ROTM & ToT, which should be referred to as such.

It's a long list, some of which I just pointed out in the dark ride thread.

Well, which would you rather soar over: Yosemite, Mount Whitney, and Big Sur, or Lake Okeechobee, a pancake-flat coast filled with high-rise hotels, and the strip malls on International Drive? And I'm curious: what's perceptibly cheapie about M:S? The fact that it doesn't take place in Florida isn't my beef (although they could show FL's cities like they do CA's). I'd just rather see something more diverse than a bunch of California locations, considering EPCOT doesn't have a California theme, and the fact that it ends at Disneyland irks me. M:S is a simple centrifuge that makes people sick, something any company with enough money could buy. It completely lacks the imagination that Disney's classic rides have. You aren't going to Mars, you're in a training simulator. Yipee! Then there's the ride video which has poor graphics, even if it is supposed to be a simulation. Then there's the fact that I could already experience this kinda stuff at Kennedy Space Center if I wanted to.

"What's Kraken?" Ok, that wasn't funny. Kraken, the one coaster where the "I can see my house from here!" gag is more of a statement than a joke, because I actually can. Good thing SeaWorld doesn't stay open very late, I can hear the screams from all the way over here. I get a chuckle out of it everytime I hear the seals, or whatever they are, making their loud noises quickly followed by screaming. I don't blame them though. That first drop doesn't seem nearly as steep from the ground as it does when you're about to go down it.

Uhhm.... what? They don't build new E-tickets just to rip them out when the year is over. As much as I wish that were the case with Mission: Space, that would be rediculous.

With the exception of once or twice, in history, Disney is ALWAYS the first one to price hike. SW is usually last. I can't remember the last time SW price hiked first. You may think they did it first because they waited so long to match the others. And WDW promptly raised their price even more. Neither Universal or SW has ever had prices above WDW, at least as far back as I can remember.

.... Huh?

Of course. That's how WDW already works. They don't want the tourists stepping off of their property. They want them staying on property for the entire time they are in the area, as if WDW is the only thing here. And they want them using all their high priced services to boot.

Haha. Disney cuts corners every chance they get now. I mean, how can you watch them open a Soarin' clone in Florida with the California movie, and call that effort? I won't even get started on M:S.

Funny thing is, even Disney seems to be shying away from them lately. Now they're making nothing but simulators, coasters, and other types of shows. At least in the American parks. Have they admitted defeat at the hands of Spider-Man or something?

Amusement parks and theme parks are two very different things. Most of the parks on that list are amusement parks. Disney is a theme park.

It's the same movie. I went to the cast member preview the other day, and everyone left with a confused look on their face. I even overheard "I thought Thunder Mountain was on the other side of Magic Kingdom? And I don't remember it being that tall...."

Okay, Disney doesn't even belong on a list of "Amusement parks", but if it's there, it's rediculous if Universal isn't.

But Rhino Rally sucks. And Kilimanjaro Safari is the same thing as well. (except it doesn't suck)

If coasters are what you want, I'd have to second Busch Gardens. They have a lot more than any other park in Florida. However, the overall park experience as a whole is dreadful. It gets worse by the day. Sorta like a Six Flags Florida.

Haven't you ever heard of April showers?

How did you get under Test Track?

That's putting it as lightly as possible. I think that thing re-arranged my brain.