Jason Garcia of the Orlando Sentinel, the man with the world’s greatest journalism job, writes this morning on the paper’s terrific website The Daily Disney about the changes we reported on yesterday over at the Magic Kingdom’s Space Mountain. They report the details of the refurbishment rather extensively and also expand a bit on the idea we discussed yesterday that this project may have fallen somewhat short in the scope of changes anticipated by Disney fans.

Like I said yesterday, I am on the fence a bit about this one. While I felt resources would be better spent in a down economy on problem areas at Walt Disney World and not on a perennial favorite like Space Mountain, after the work began I was perhaps hoping for more dramatic and exciting changes. But as Garcia reports, big changes to Space Mountain, like the ones completed in Disneyland’s version of the ride, just may not be the way things are done at Walt Disney World.
At Disneyland, which caters heavily to its Southern California population, executives are more willing to take down a popular attraction for an extended stretch of time because so many of its guests make multiple visits each year.
But at Disney World, attendance is driven in large part by out-of-state and international guests, many of whom may visit the resort only once every three to five years. And so executives don’t want to risk souring their experience — and losing out on any future return trips — by having a marquee attraction out of commission.
“An attraction like Space Mountain is on everybody’s short list. It’s a big consideration to have it up and running,” said Alex Wright, a senior show designer with Walt Disney Imagineering and creative director of the Magic Kingdom’s Space Mountain rehab.
Quite frankly, this sounds like a little Disney damage control, and that the folks at WDW may feel as though I am not the only one who was hoping for a little more. Sure, in some respects this rational is true. Perhaps Disneyland guests are somewhat more open to having closures since they go back more often than the average Florida traveler, but that seems like such a silly reason to not change something if you think the end result is better.
Honestly, I just am not buying this line. So are we really expected to conclude that no Disney World E-Ticket will ever be drastically remade because guests might get cranky with the time it takes to complete the work? That’s just nonsense. Maybe this comes into play to some small degree, but I would imagine cost is a far greater influence on making this kind of decision than potentially disappointed guests. I mean, Disney just went through a very busy summer without Space Mountain, and in recent years they did the same with the Haunted Mansion and Spaceship Earth. It is somehow okay to disappoint those people who came for their once-every-five-years trip during a blistering summer, but a few more months to really wow the guests would be just too much for the Customer Relations folks to bear? Please…