- Jul 27, 2015
A rational response! Double likes for you!While I do love Mummy, one just has to take a step back and take a look at several things to realize that it shouldn't be any kind of shock that it'll eventually be replaced, and yes that does include being replaced before KZ.
First off, Mummy has some legit prime real estate when it comes to future attractions due to it's size. If U.C. comes up with a new major attraction that needs some space, chances are they're looking at Mummy or MIB for it.
Second, a beloved attraction getting replaced in Uni isn't new...at all. Yes, I really enjoyed Jaws, BTTF, Dueling Dragons, Twister, BJ etc...doesn't change the fact that they've all been replaced. An I don't see the likes of Mummy and MIB being the exception.
Third, it shouldn't be a surprise that Mummy would be replaced before KZ since the reasoning is rather simple. In order to replace Mummy, you just need one major attraction. KZ on the other hand, you need a land with multiple attractions to replace it. An considering the planned replacement for KZ was moved to EU...Uni's "back to the drawing board" on what to replace KZ with. That's gonna' take some time, and in the meantime I doubt Uni's gonna' keep the studios the way they are until then. They're going to put in new attractions to draw guests, and if they have to take down a ride like Mummy, so be it.
This thread has jumped the shark more times than I can count. Unethical? Really? A theme park closing an attraction is unethical? Disney and Universal working with a human rights abusing government to build theme parks? Yeah unethical. This ride closing before another? No.Unethical.
A Barney show.So. Any idea of what might replace it? As long as it's not a screen ride I can stomach it.
The fact that F&F (and in the eyes of some--myself included--Fallon) is still fresh in everyone's mind is a big reason for the anger.This thread has jumped the shark more times than I can count. Unethical? Really? A theme park closing an attraction is unethical? Disney and Universal working with a human rights abusing government to build theme parks? Yeah unethical. This ride closing before another? No.
Add this to the garbage fire heap of “Fluffy’s skin looks too shiny”, “but the paths!”, and “why isn’t the spike covered” from the past few months of forum hang wrangling. Spelling the doom, fear mongering, and FUD of the whole resort based on Revenge of the f-ing Mummy. It’s not unethical, it’s unreal.
Right. Which is why I’m trying to tell y’all relax. You’re getting an EU with a reworked Mummy as part of a Monsters Land. By then, the coaster will be 20 years old; so they may start to look at options to replace an antiquated coaster system in a prime attraction spot. As fun as the Mummy is, it’s not a crazy line of thinking. Hence the “make peace” comment.So EU is opening before Mummy closes?
EU seems like sooooo far off.
Sure. I still miss Jaws and wish we never lost it - but I understood why it had to go. It’s one thing to dread the inevitable loss of an attraction. It’s another to go on random, unfounded tangents based off literally no information.The backlash to the backlash in here is interesting.
The park's history has shown us that anything is possible. I don't think any of us would be surprised to see Revenge of the Mummy get the axe. The issue is whether or not we think that would be a good thing. And I don't think being worried about it (to the extent that anyone should be truly "worried" about anything related to theme parks) makes a person unreasonable.
When it comes to comparing lost attractions and their replacements, Jaws is such a dilemma to me. Jaws was a classic, practical, and creative attraction, while Escape From Gringotts is a bland, mediocre, and forgettable one. But the queue and surrounding area might have made it worth it. Quite possibly the best themed area outside of Japan (which I likely will never visit mind you).Sure. I still miss Jaws and wish we never lost it - but I understood why it had to go. It’s one thing to dread the inevitable loss of an attraction. It’s another to go on random, unfounded tangents based off literally no information.
Exactly. Hollywood put SLOP in their Shrek. Why can't we do the same? And before anyone says it's surrounded by the park, Transformers says hi.Everyone should realize that at some point, if you can’t get replacement parts or fabricated ones are cost prohibitive, you have no choice but to close an attraction. That would be a valid reason.
@Tobias brought up several good reasons as well, namely one attraction vs a land when looking at kid zone. But I would argue two of his points.
1) If it’s a “prime real estate” issue, that’s a load. Kidzone is needed to draw people to that side of the park and would be a much better area to create a new attraction. New York certainly doesn’t need it. That area is always jam packed. Likewise, shrek and DMMM are significantly more valuable plots of land; albeit not as large.
2) Single attraction vs land. Shrek is a single attraction. As is FFL. Both need addressed more than Mummy.
So yes, there can be valid reasons. But the list of valid reasons that should escape ridicule is extremely short. Specially; repair costs, maintenance or lack of replacement parts.
If it’s something as simple as “SLoP needed to be in New York, not production central”- then that deserves every ounce of criticism one can muster.
MiB and Mummy can both be replaced. That’s not the issue. The issue is timing of when they should be replaced. If the timing is before Shrek, Kidzone and FFL and if the reason isn’t that it’s falling apart and they can’t fix it (a la Disaster!), then it’s a bonehead decision.