Rocket Jets

[Kevie]

I don't want to make anyone mad but whenever I cook up a little rant on an old ride or something, I feel the urge to post it. Please don't get mad.

Everyone thinks Rocket Jets should go back up to the platform. I do NOT totally agree, but I do NOT disagree really either.

I just wonder: How many adults, without kids, besides nostalgia hounds (like people here - NO OFFENSE!), are really going to bother riding it? I can understand: awesome view, sense of motion, more exciting than your average spinner, but still - it's a children's ride.

The Observatron is very, very ugly. I do not like it at all. It looks so awful compared to the rather pristine Rocket Jets. I just think that people miss having something not ugly up there rather than missing the actual ride (which, despite the high-up thrill, is still kiddie).

I think the platform would look totally fine with some sort of white, futuristic pylon like Space Mountain's. It would look totally clean, and add a focal point.

The thing about kinetics in the distance makes sense, but it's a bit outdated. Most people come to Disneyland rushing to a ride. I don't think they really care if something is moving in the back or not. They'll run to the ride, period, and they really don't care.

The general public probably doesn't care that the Observatron is functionless and a piece of junk. They will rush to whatever ride they want without worrying "why isn't that moving?".

I am not attacking anyone here. I think Astro Orbiter looks nice but is awful because it adds alot of congestion. Still, that thought is a bit overrused. Seriously. The entrance is more clogged than before, but it's not *THAT* bad.

All in all, I think that if the Rocket Jets don't go back up, and the Orbiter remains at the entrance, simply widening the paths a bit at the entrance will solve the problem.

I'm sorry if I made anyone mad with this thread. I had to let it out.

[Tom Chaney]

I hope no one on MiceChat gets anyone mad at them by merely expressing an opinion. Even if it turns out to be an unpopular opinion, if it's presented thoughtfully and with some reasoning, what more can you ask?

As it turns out, I do disagree with you. Here's why:

In its present position, the Astro Orbitor is merely a kiddie ride. It's really nothing special that can't be found at any good county fair thrill zone. Disney usually tries to be much more than that. Besides, Fantasyland already has Dumbo which is essentially the exact same ride. When the Rocket Jets were up high, they were still just a kiddie ride... but one with a twist. Nobody had ever done that before. Now a genuine sense of flying high was generated and added to the experience. A little imagineering created that famous Disney magic. In addition, it was really pretty up there. Spinning rocket ships evoked a feeling of the future much more than a static pile of satellite dishes. It also looked like a lot of fun! More fun that riding them close to the ground. More fun than the Observatron, certainly. I'm still not clear why there would be any objections to them being up there. Certainly a nice white pylon sculpture would be prettier than the Observatron... but not as much fun as a ride! I think you'll find a lot of adults without kids in line for it. Stroll around Fantasyland and watch adults surrender to the kid inside and climb on some really juvenile-oriented rides. (Actually, there are no adults in Disneyland... just kids of all ages.)

You're probably right that the general public doesn't much care that the Observatron is a dud. They just walk by and look at other stuff. You probably don't give a lot of thought to the roof of your house. But... if there were rocket ships up there, you would be plenty intrigued.

I've heard that Paul Pressler wanted the ride put on the ground because he didn't want to pay maintenence on the elevator. That's a little hard to believe, actually, since the original ride mechanism is still up there where it always was... with the rockets replaced by tacky satellite dishes. The Astro Orbiter is a whole new machine. Seems to me the cost of the conversion could have paid elevator maintenence for decades to come.

Anyway... a ride that was a Disneyland icon... that was better than it really was due to it's high elevation... that was themed to the future... that was attractive and intriguing... that was unique... that possessed the extra "something" we call Disney Magic... was dumbed down to a carnival ride.

So... that is, respectfully, why I disagree with you. The Rocket Jets should go back up where they belong.

[JiminyCricketFan]

First, I want to say I think that the Rockets need to go back on top of the platform for all the same reasons above... BUT

I don't like just restoring an attraction. I think it should go to the next step, push the envelope. Walt hated repeating himself too. So, while I think that it is terrible having it on the ground, something more needs to be added.

How about making the spokes longer so you got a higher ride? How about having random drops added to make some unexpected moments on the ride?

Something needs to be added to make it just a little more than the original ride.

[Tomorrowland Tourist]

While Tom Chaney summed it up perfectly, I'll just add some more thoughts.

Congestion with the Astro Orbiter is a problem. When you consider the footprint the ride takes up (including the queue line), having it removed from that area would help a lot with traffic flow. The widening of the paths wouldn't be a simple task. We have the Buzz Lightyear queue (which I still wish was an indoor queue), and the rocks are part of planters, which probably wouldn't be touched. The only option would be the removal of the Star Tours Fastpass distribution.

Furthermore, while there may be people who want the Rocket Jets back based on nostalgia, that ride really was a thrill, and I think it will continue to be. I remember being terrifed of that ride, and I wouldn't exactly call it a kiddie ride! Especially when 2 year olds are terrified of the Astro Orbiter.

Also, when visitors from other states and countries visit and see the functionless Observatron, they probably wonder what it is and why it is just sitting there. Even if it did move, there was no innovation behind it except to salvage the old structure and make it another "attraction" to Tomorrowland '98.

While it is true that most people don't marvel at the "world on the move" theme, it adds to the awe of the land, and it draws people in, which as you know was the whole point of having the "weenies" of Tomorrowland (if my information is correct).

I would really like to see the Rocket Jets up on the platform again, I would make it a point to ride it as much as I can.

[Tom Chaney]

First, I want to say I think that the Rockets need to go back on top of the platform for all the same reasons above... BUT

I don't like just restoring an attraction. I think it should go to the next step, push the envelope. Walt hated repeating himself too. So, while I think that it is terrible having it on the ground, something more needs to be added.

How about making the spokes longer so you got a higher ride? How about having random drops added to make some unexpected moments on the ride?

Something needs to be added to make it just a little more than the original ride.

Now you're talking! OK... let's spend a little more of Walt's money. Add hydraulics to the spokes to you can extend them with your "joystick." Forward=up, Back=down, Right=out, Left=in. When you descend, the rocket nose points downward. When you ascend, the rocket nose points upward. Now you've got a genuine sensation in three dimensions! This might not actually be possible since it would create a balance nightmare on the attraction, but the Imagineers have a pretty good track record for doing the impossible. And maybe make the rockets just a hair bigger so two adults fit inside a little better!

[Disney Analyst]

That would be cool, another reason why it needs to go back up on the platform is this: It fit in well and gave tomorrowland such motion. Tomorrowland lost it's always moving self motion feeling when subs left, rocket jets went to ground. Now that subs are coming back, this would be the cherry on top of the sundae! *plus People mover *

[PragmaticIdealist]

The Rocket Jets began on the ground and were only placed on top of the platform when the PeopleMover was added.

Pointless carnival rides with no apparent purpose, fictitious or otherwise, ultimately weaken Disneyland. If Imagineering keeps the attraction and reconfigures it, the group will need to explain the reason for the existence of the spinning jets beyond their providing of a cheap thrill.

[Disneyfreak]

Why do you care so much? You would not go on that attraction anyway, you have motion sickness.

[Spalding]

Now you're talking! OK... let's spend a little more of Walt's money. Add hydraulics to the spokes to you can extend them with your "joystick." Forward=up, Back=down, Right=out, Left=in. When you descend, the rocket nose points downward. When you ascend, the rocket nose points upward. Now you've got a genuine sensation in three dimensions! This might not actually be possible since it would create a balance nightmare on the attraction, but the Imagineers have a pretty good track record for doing the impossible. And maybe make the rockets just a hair bigger so two adults fit inside a little better!

I agree. I can't even begin to imagine why they got rid of this attraction and made a lame one so low to the ground and in such a poor area!!!! Bring back to rocket jets. and PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE bring back the PEOPLE MOVER! OH I MISS THE PEOPLE MOVER!!!!!

dustin

[Tom Chaney]

The Rocket Jets began on the ground and were only placed on top of the platform when the PeopleMover was added.

Pointless carnival rides with no apparent purpose, fictitious or otherwise, ultimately weaken Disneyland. If Imagineering keeps the attraction and reconfigures it, the group will need to explain the reason for the existence of the spinning jets beyond their providing of a cheap thrill.

Cheap is good.
Thrills are good.
Cheap thrills are very good!
Cheap thrills that look great, are unique and imaginative are very very good!

Dumbo was a "C" ticket.
Rocket Jets were a "D" ticket.

[Kevie]

I do get motion sickness and wouldn't ride it up high, you're right...but it doesn't mean I don't have an opinion on this!

[Disneyfreak]

I do get motion sickness and wouldn't ride it up high, you're right...but it doesn't mean I don't have an opinion on this!

I guess you are right about that. But I just cant see why someone would care if they were not going to ride it in the first place. Sorry just being curious.

[Disney Analyst]

It's something kids can do in tomorrowland, let the kids have it!

[Kevie]

Again, what happens if the kids are afraid of heights? Around age 6 or so I don't think I'd want to go about 70 feet in the air on a little plastic rocket. Just my opinion though.

[Tom Chaney]

I'm terrified of heights and I can't wait to ride those rockets up there again! It actually makes it just a little more thrilling... but you're in Disneyland so you know your safe. (well, unless your rocket flies off or something.)