Why aren't there more dark rides?

[CoasterFanatic]

Well I for one love dark rides, and I am very lucky that I have a home park that has 2 (used to be three one burned down about 4 years ago).

 

Ahhhh. La Cachot. A personal favorite of mine. The cars were moved to Bushkill's Pretzel Ride and were all but destroyed in last year's flooding.

 

Other notable dark rides from Kennywood's past

Ghost Ship

Laff in the Dark

Tornado

Daffy Dilla

Tut's Tomb

Hilarity Hall

13 Spook Street

Daffy Club

Enchanted Forest

[shepp]

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.

 

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?

[Jeezus Juice]

^ I wouldn't mind soarin' over IOA

 

What happened to Kennywoods mine themed dark ride? I remember riding it in 2002.

 

USF's ROTM is the best darkride I've ever been on, Indy and Spidey included.

 

-Jeeze

[Guest]

 

What happened to Kennywoods mine themed dark ride? I remember riding it in 2002.

 

Omg, I completely forgot about Gold Rusher. The only reason why is because I hate the ending. The last time I rode that thing as a kid, that huge spider at the end, FORGET IT!!! I am completely afraid of them and will refuse to ride that til the day I die!!! LOL!!

[Jeezus Juice]

Since were on scary dark rides, what the crap is up with airhorn/bus gag on Bell's dark ride. That thing was far too loud for it's own good. It put me off ghost trains for awhile.

 

Anyone who bought my 2004 DVD can witness my real scream of terror.

 

-J "Still shaken" J

[nev]

Funny what you guys are saying about cost... SeaWorld on the Gold Coast in Australia has built its last two dark rides "in house" - where SeaWorld engineers designed and built the attractions themselves.

 

The first ride, Lassiter's Lost Mine, was re-modelled in 1994 and re-opened as the Bermuda Triangle. LLM costed only $AU3mil to build, and Bermuda Triangle, if I remember correctly, was only a few million more.

 

Bermuda Triangle is an excellently themed dark boat ride, featuring two drops inside huge volcanoes, a reversing section through a flooding room much like the subway sequence at USH's Studio Tour, and some rather cool illusions, animatronics and pseudo-launch sections throughout the ride. The ride is great value, lasting around 8 minutes. You can see some photos here - http://www.roller-coaster.com.au/gallery.php?gid=20

 

Dark Rides are unique in the way that the mechanics behind propelling a boat down a channel of water, along a conveyor boat or along a short rail section doesn't require as much engineering and scientific know how as building a coaster.

 

As is the case with most dark rides I've been on - it seems that there's no limits as to what you can do with fibreglass, UV lighting and a little hill at the end!

 

Cheers

Richard

[JT3000]

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.

 

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.

[Jose Eber]

I think anyone arguing about cost of attraction here is missing the point.

 

The next attraction to be completed by Imagineering is Expedition everest -- now, is this only a 100 million attraction or two? I think only 1....MILLION. Wasn't Mission Space 200 million?

 

Also -- since when did the definition of dark ride extend to a 120 million dollar indoor thrill ride? Sorry-- dark ride, disney style is Snow White, Mr. Toads, HM etc.

 

So, how can Disney be cheap here? Its hardly been the case. Do you want half a billion dollar rides people?

 

What is lacking is first and foremost ENTERTAINMENT FACTOR then innovative qualities.

 

When the omnimover came out-- that was wicked -- it was NOT intense -- it was innovative and extremely entertaining -- you basically were in a 3d movie set. Even pirates was innovative, you had a completely surrounded experience -- a first -- and the story is fun (OMG A FUNNY STORY!)

 

All you Mission Space lovers -- that attraction is boring and intense to a majority of people (much like Dinosaur).

 

A bunch of nerds designed these rides...guys with pocket protectors who think all people should get are excessive details the bore you to death and bleeding ears and shock treatment (newer Disney attractions are waaay too loud and physically violent).

 

These huge attractions (even Soarin) have

 

a) NOTHING innovative about the ride system -- centrifuges have been around for ages and the Dinosaur ride system is just a total knockoff of Indiana. Omnimax screens (like Soarin's) are so 1970's. And sticking a seat in the middle of the theatre is about as imaginative as a car race arcade system with moving seats -- whop de woo.

 

b) NOTHING entertaining about this stuff. Where's the anger 'Hooks got Wendy!' and opportunity for empathy 'oh the lost boys'.

 

Seriously, imagineers have their heads up their butts -- its rare that a great attraction comes out. Since MK at WDW opened -- I can count few attractions that (like a great entertaining film) I can go on (and watch) over and over.

 

Tower of Terror (WDW), Splash (DL) are two off the top of my head -- both had innovative ride system (moving elevator/ coaster/log ride) and great stories.

 

I swear to God, how can these imaginneers be so stupid as not to 'get it'.

 

Imagineers say cost is the issue, but that's total crap. Cost is NOT the issue here folks $200 million on Space still yielded a dull-a$$ ride- if Peter Pan didn't have a such a friggen line, I'd be on that just as much as Space Mountain, TOT or Splash (DL).

 

Jose 'don't even get me started' Eber

[ChrisFL]

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.

 

thank you, someone agrees with me about M:S. It's the same basic effect you get on a gravitron at the local fair, except a bit faster, you have some cheap graphics and controls that do the work for you and don't actually change what happens, there's no real storyline and it's short because you get sick too easily already and it would be worse if it were longer. 2 people were taking full use of the large garbage cans they have directly outside of the ride when I was on it

 

That's not a Disney quality ride, IMO

[JT3000]

Also -- since when did the definition of dark ride extend to a 120 million dollar indoor thrill ride? Sorry-- dark ride, disney style is Snow White, Mr. Toads, HM etc.

 

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.

[Movieguy]

I don't really care what defines a dark ride, but i do agree that dark rides these days have become by and far much too loud and physically violent, so eager to make us jump every five seconds.

 

I know this sounds hypocritical coming from a coaster lover, but as a fan of most of the original EPCOT, I have to say, are we really this over-stimulated as a culture,that we can't even enjoy a nice little darkride anymore?

[Jose Eber]

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.

 

Gawd -- arguing through definition adjustment? Please.

 

This is why some parts of our culture are in decline -- because it thinks its 'ahead'. Your presentist attitude really needs to be in check.

 

Going back probably is exactly the wisest choice right now -- look at the town I live in -- Disney builds neo-classical homes - - in the last 11 years, some of these homes have tripled in value -- there is a HUGE market for going back to basics - but people like you are too sensitive to want to adjust.

 

There is no such thing as 'modern' or 'traditional' dark ride. There are kid safe venues, typically your dark ride, and your more adult attractions like full blown mega coasters. You are missing the forrest for the trees.

 

What people are arguing here is where are those kiddie rides with great stories that disney did where adults can take their kids and still feel its a quality environment not some trashy midway experience.

 

Where are the attractions where everyone is entertained, not some exclusive sect of thrill ride junkies (typically, as you can see on this board in the teen/adult demographic). Don't get me wrong -- really looking forward to riding Kraken -- never would do it if it weren't for this board.

 

The reality is, there are fewer and fewer kids these days, so there is less of a market, unlike the 50's and 60s'. When children outnumber adults 3-1, 5-1 or 9-1, guess who 'wins'?

 

To argue semantics JT is to completely miss the point and be oversensitive about your position.

 

A lot of us who are planning families or are wanting to take vacations somewhere are looking for attractions that are entertaining and family friendly (i.e. NO height restrictions).

 

You can stay in your own little coaster bubble world, which is totally cool, i like being in that bubble myself at times, but I'm not going to visit IOA or SFMM with my kids until they are a) tall enough and b) mature enough (not crying or freaking out) to handle such rides.

 

Get the big picture -- lots of people are unhappy with what you perceive as a trend of improvement.

 

For some -- we see it as a serious decline in thought and heart, thus quality. For some this 'progress' is really only regress.

 

Someone will come up with an entertaining environment. As it stands, I don't like visiting Disneyland at all because its very rough at times and not kid friendly. WDW -- its getting there, but might take a big push (Disneyland seems to have throngs of locals).

 

Accept our position JT3000 -- to argue and say we don't have a point is to sort of tick us off.

 

Jose 'Disney has more adults than kids at their parks" Eber

 

p.s. I'd kill to see this: Horizons being built again. Even though I think Epcot is in the wrong direction -- at least its not some intense jarring experience fulfilling a niche crowd's appetite (I can't even ride the attraction with my fully adult wife -- not everyone handles claustrophobic environments). What a waste of money M:S is. This top down business management style is just the worst way to run an entertainment company. Blech

[Three]

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?

 

Dude, you seriously need to look around Florida a bit more.

 

- The Everglades

- Cape Canaveral

- Key West and all the other keys

- St. Augustine

- The miles and miles of beaches.

 

I'm sick and tired of people talking about how a Florida movie for Soarin' would suck. There's plenty of awesome places all over the state that would work perfectly for the format. I don't know where people get this stupid conception in their heads that Florida is full of old people and oranges; there's plenty of potential to show off in a Soarin' movie.

 

Soarin' over Florida would rock.

 

Soarin' over California at an attraction in Florida is lame, and a little bit insulting.

 

The reason Disney didn't make a Florida version is because they're cheap and lazy. Period.

[shepp]

Dude, you seriously need to look around Florida a bit more.

 

- The Everglades

- Cape Canaveral

- Key West and all the other keys

- St. Augustine

- The miles and miles of beaches.

.

 

I think, dude, the problem is "Soarin'," not "Florida." I have indeed been to the Everglades. To appreciate them, you have to get out of your car and walk. From 100 feet up, they'd look like a featureless expanse of grassland. And the miles and miles of beaches are nice to lie on, but from above, they sure lack the drama of Big Sur or the San Francisco Bay. Cape Canaveral would be cool to be above during a launch; otherwise, you'd just be looking down on giant warehouses. California has rocky shorelines, the wonders of Death Valley, and the highest mountain in the lower 48. The tallest mountains in Florida were built by Disney. "Flat" from above is "far off and flat."

 

That being said, Disney might well have invested in "Soarin' Over America." But that didn't happen.

[JT3000]

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.

[SharkTums]

I always kind of wanted Epcot's Soarin to be 'Soarin over America' and have landmarks from all over the country.

 

Elissa "and Florida does have enough for a movie!!!" Alvey

[maliboomer]

Lol, I can't freakin stress this enough! You can't just fly around filming, it would take YEARS to get the permission! Everything beautiful in America is pretty much in a National Park and for you quaint little idiots, the air inside national parks it PROTECTED! They don't want some fuel-emitting helicopter whizzing around inside it, just like you wouldn't want someone in your yard smoking and filming. You can't really ask them to get off their fat asses and start filming, cause they probably have! Why do you think its called Soarin' and no 'Over California'? 'Cause they are going to c-h-a-n-g-e it! It makes sense to open it while they film as its economic (people hear about it=people going to park=money!).

On a lighter note it's good how they built Soarin' just behind the Land Pavilion insteade on destroying everything like they did for the last two installations. On that, everyone keeps sayin how TT barely uses the WOM building, well it pretty much fills it, as those white areas remember are the queue.

 

 

Please no one say TT is just like driving down the Highway, cause unless you expirence 140 degrees then 40 Degrees and are covered in Corrosive, nearly hit a polystyrene board, go on largly banked turns and get themarly analyised on the way to your job at McDonalds, it's not.

I do miss the omnimovers though and the only instance of them still in WDW that I can take from the top of my head is the Haunted Mansion, which travels at half a mile a hour, proving it's what's around you is more important then whats your MPH is or feels like.

[BarryH]

Aren't there omnimovers in Buzz Lightyear?

[CoasterFanatic]

WDW Omnimovers:

Haunted Mansion

Buzz Lightyear

Spaceship Earth

Living Seas' Sea Cabs (Still there? It's been awhile)

 

Past:

World of Motion

If You Had Wings

 

My brain is a vast wasteland of .....

[Three]

Lol, I can't freakin stress this enough! You can't just fly around filming, it would take YEARS to get the permission! Everything beautiful in America is pretty much in a National Park and for you quaint little idiots, the air inside national parks it PROTECTED! They don't want some fuel-emitting helicopter whizzing around inside it, just like you wouldn't want someone in your yard smoking and filming. You can't really ask them to get off their fat asses and start filming, cause they probably have! Why do you think its called Soarin' and no 'Over California'? 'Cause they are going to c-h-a-n-g-e it! It makes sense to open it while they film as its economic (people hear about it=people going to park=money!).

 

I've been to more national parks than you could probably name. Hell, I've probably been to more than I could name. You go to most of 'em, they have a movie showing off the sites. Most of the time, there's copter footage included.

 

Yes, they monitor the skies. Yes, they won't just let anybody in with a helicopter. But there are special circumstances where helicopters can fly through and film. I'm sure Disney could pull off such a feat.

 

Similarly, you're not allowed to take pictures of famous paintings in museums, but there are special photographers around who are allowed to under special circumstances (how do you think they get the pictures in their brochures?)

 

Hell, you can take helicopter and plane tours of the Grand Canyon flying right over it!

 

So, you can stress whatever you're trying to stress all you want. You're still wrong.