Originally Posted By idleHands "I'm thrilled to finally see that those folks apparently were wrong and Imagineers have proven themselves once again." While I agree with you about this ToT not being an ultra-cheap knock-off... I wouldn't necessarily give all the credit to Imagineering for its success. Imagineering is at constant odds with the "sharp pencil guys" to get their fabulous, blue sky designs funded adequately. Much of what "goes wrong" in theme park projects stems not from weak creative concepts, but a lack of funding to make strong creative concepts reality. Witness the removal of the lower level exit. We now have a two-tiered boiler room and that extra "hidden hallway," instead of a one-story boiler room and separate exit at a lower level, as in MGM's version. This was NOT an Imagineering decision per se, but an accounting decision, to save costs on transporting empty vehicles from the exit level, back up to loading, and to reduce labor costs by eliminating the need for additional CMs at the separate exit level. While most folks who've already ridden this ToT don't mind that hidden hallway, it does compromise the overall atmosphere of the theming. The loading platform at MGM, with the "working" lift motors next to the elevator doors, combined with the immediate accessibility of the ride vehicle right behind those doors, is great theming. It adds to the realism, instead of detracting from it. But back to the topic at hand... had this ToT been less stellar, the fault would have been mostly with the accountaneers, and not the Imagineers.
Originally Posted By tangaroa >I mean would you think it is fair for >a film critic to review a movie he has >only seen parts of against a movie, >made by his favorite director, that he >has watched more than once, go out and >tell people the latter movie is better >and edges out the former? I wouldn't >give that critic much credibility. Would you give a movie reviewer more credibility if he worked for the studio who made the movie and got to see it for free? Go read Ebert's review of Alamo if you want a good laugh. He gave it three and a half stars and the thing bombed. Oh well.
Originally Posted By CTXRover ^^The main reason I give Imagineers the credit for creating what seems to be a well-received attraction thus far is BECAUSE they had to work within given budgets. So many people harped that DCA's version would be a simple cheap knock-off because of "apparent" budget guidelines/cuts and the loss of the 5D room. But even if budgets were a huge problem for them, they've created what seems to be one heck of a new version. I truly believe that had it not been done so well, there would be more complaints from those who rode both that it wasn't at all on par with the original. Thus far, that doesn't seem to be quite the case. Their are people who think DCA's is actually better and, vice versa. I was almost under the impression and sort of expecting people to say it was nowhere close. ------------------------------------- Its kind of funny. IF the reviews were coming in that it was fun but not great and far from being in the same league as the original, some people would be jumping right on to say, "told you so" and how Disney is so cheap these days. No that its getting some impressive reviews, those folks say its because their just Disney fans and it means nothing yet. I guess we will just have to be patient and see. It amazes me how some people will try to find the negative in everything.
Originally Posted By idleHands "The main reason I give Imagineers the credit for creating what seems to be a well-received attraction thus far is BECAUSE they had to work within given budgets." Then why weren't these same Imagineers able to create a "well-received" DCA when it first opened? There were budget constraints back then as well. I'm suggesting that the purse strings were finally loosened up a bit with ToT, compared to the financial constraints Imagineering faced with creating DCA originally. Unless, of course, you're pointing to a particular team of Imagineers, and their ability for producing excellent results on shoestring budgets, as compared to other teams in Imagineering? Is that your implication?
Originally Posted By CTXRover ^^^Actually, I don't know really how to answer your questions/comments since you bring up some interesting points/points of view that I hadn't quite gave much thought to. The reason I said "apparent" budget cuts above is because folks still want to use that as the reason TOT does not have the 5D room and two seperate shafts for the show scenes and the drops. If that is the case, then from that point of view the credit goes to the Imagineers. However, I have always kind of believed in the back of my head that the replacement with the mirror scene and the new version's layout had less to do with budgets than Imagineer's desires for what they wanted to "improve" upon in DCA. Which brings me to the fact that ultimately, I guess believe they used their given budget extremely well. I also believe though they were given a decent budget to work with. Either way, give credit to the accounters for providing the cash or give credit to the ones who designed and built it from the ground up, its still being very well-received.
Originally Posted By Kimmy Kay World of Disney - No need to apologize...as you saw at the end of my post, I did the "punchline" on myself. I set it up on purpose. ) Tangaroa - From now on, since I know where you are coming from, I will refrain from getting into too many wordy bantering type posts. It will just waste our time.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Kimmy Kay-- I REALLY appreciate your responses today. The cynical posts from a few people in here have been simply unbelievable.
Originally Posted By berol I don't mind how people arrive at their opinions or what those opinions are. I don't believe I've ever told anyone here their opinion was nonsense or 'attacked' it, argued against it, kinda silly to do cuz it's all opinion. If others are always negative/positive or arrive at opinions with few facts/lots of facts, (un)biased, it's all the same to me cuz it's not my life.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>>offer a "definitve" review on the basis of an on-line amateur video is really pretty silly, isn't it?<<< Go back and reread my post. Nowhere did I day it was a definitive review. In fact, my words were actually "somewhat informed look," which means that it is not final. In fact, my numerical grade has a big fat "if" in front of it, which means that it is not final, it's just what I would think it deserves if I saw it in person.<< Oh. OK. (But wouldn't it be just easier to say "I guess I was overreaching, and got called on it?")
Originally Posted By tangaroa >Then why weren't these same Imagineers >able to create a "well-received" DCA >when it first opened? There were >budget constraints back then as well. Because we all know that these people couldn't design their way out of a paper bag. These are the same people who designed DCA and SuperStar Limo and the only reason anyone would even consider TOT successful at all is because the designs were done 10 years ago by different people.
Originally Posted By pheneix >>>The fact is, from just the reviews across the net, Imagineers have once again proven why they are the top theme park attraction designers.<<< He he, magic mirrors are nice, but animatronics still rule the world. Especially animatronics that launch fireballs... >>>But wouldn't it be just easier to say "I guess I was overreaching, and got called on it?"<<< That's thirty trips on Stupidstar Limo for you! Now you're forgiven.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Oh, Tangaroa. Why? >>>And that's your sorrow, my friend. To >offer a "definitve" review on the >basis of an on-line amateur video is >really pretty silly, isn't it? No. And we're gone over this only a zillion times before.<< And yet, you still get it wrong so often... >>People make opinions based on whatever information they have all the time. They don't have to experience something to form an opinion on it, otherwise people would never go to the movies, would never go on vacation, and never decide that something is worth doing. It's simply rediculous to think the world works otherwise.<< And if the information is WRONG, the OPINION is WRONG. My issue with Pheniex (and you) is that the opinion (or "review," as Pheniex termed it) was based on a pretty poor example of what ToT has to offer. We've gone over this many, many times. (But not QUITE a zillion.) Tang, I have disagreed with you in the past, but usually I can respect your point of view. This thread seems to have pushed you into a new level of negativism. I, for one, utterly resent the idea that "Disney fans" are packing the boards with positive opinions. When I went to the ToT, there was a mixed bag of people, most of whom were in no way connected to Disney. And, amazingly, everyone had a great time. DCA and Light Magic were given raves by the drooling fan boys, until the public came along and proved otherwise, you say? No, not at all. I was saddened by the Annual Passholder's reaction to the first public airing of Light Magic. They booed. I was sad for the cast that was working hard. But that show was a stinker, and caused me to write a lengthy, critical letter. I was just that disappointed. And as I have said repeatedly about DCA: it was cynically conceived and poorly executed. But that's only the opinion of this Disney fan. I wouldn't presume to speak for all of them.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>That's thirty trips on Stupidstar Limo for you!<< Ah, Pheniex-- you do make me laugh...
Originally Posted By tangaroa >Its kind of funny. IF the reviews were >coming in that it was fun but not >great and far from being in the same >league as the original, some people >would be jumping right on to >say, "told you so" and how Disney is >so cheap these days. DCA's TOT is a cheap knock off and that was apparent from day one. The videos and reviews only prove that - the only problem are the reviews are coming from a group of highly biased individuals. What else could you expect - sure it's a lot shorter than the original - sure it's less immersive than the original, and you're just looking at TV screens instead of actually being immersed in a room - sure there aren't as much props and gags in DCA's version than in Florida's - sure the illusion of boarding a real elevator is totally destroyed by the exit hallways - sure the queue has been cut in half and there's no barrier between the TOT and the rest of Hollywood - but despite all those obvious shortcomings, it's suppose to be better than MGM's? Or maybe the bar has just been lowered so much that people are willing to except even a little glimmer of old Disney Imagineering as the greatest thing since sliced bread? That's my guess. And we all know what's going to happen. Two months or so of glowing positive reviews from the fans, Three months of long lines at TOT while all the APs ride multiple times and the rest of the park sits empty, and by the end of summer you won't hear another thing mentioned about it. Just like Flik's, Just like Aladdin, Just like everything else added to DCA. And when the 2004 attendance numbers for 2004 are down or flat because of increased admission prices, we will all be left to wonder what kind of impact TOT really had. The debates will all begin again. It's a never ending circle.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>...these people couldn't design their way out of a paper bag. These are the same people who designed DCA and SuperStar Limo and the only reason anyone would even consider TOT successful at all is because the designs were done 10 years ago by different people.<< Astounding! I cannot begin to figure out where to start with what is wrong here. >>...these people couldn't design their way out of a paper bag.<< Noted. (P.S. Exactly what "people" are these. I want names. If only to rescue them from a paper bag.) >>These are the same people who designed DCA and SuperStar Limo...<< Um, I think those people have been moved out of state into Witness Protection Programs. >>...and the only reason anyone would even consider TOT successful at all is because the designs were done 10 years ago by different people.<< So DCA's Tower is dreadful because it ISN'T the one at WDW, or it's great because it IS, is that it? Just want to be sure I understand the impeccable logic here before I throw my hands up in frustration and concede all future discourse.
Originally Posted By Kimmy Kay Well, Thanks Doug. I just get tired with negativity. I guess mostly if it is from people who are vehemently negative over something they haven't experienced. It is almost as if they are just going to be negative for the sake of being negative (of course some admit that is the case)...so then, there really is nothing to discuss at that point. At any rate, I don't know why I get worked up...it is the part of me that wants everyone to be happy and enjoy things to the fullest I guess. Life is too short to waste on negativity. So, I ask myself, why am I still posting and talking about negativity. hahahaha. Berol, I don't mind opinions based on limited resources either. Discussion is very cool. It is conclusions and statements that get me upset when both sides to something haven't been weighed in the same light. When someone writes a review that others may read before riding (with no actual experience of the ride), stating that not only is the ride not up to par but the "other" ride is better...well, then, that is stating facts and coming to a conclusion without full knowledge of both experiences. However, I suppose we could start a whole other thread on how reviews are just basically opinions anyway. So....really we are just back at square one. *thinks* Hmmm it occurs to me that I would be quite good at bantering with myself. p
Originally Posted By berol "I suppose we could start a whole other thread on how reviews are just basically opinions anyway." yes! come to the liiiiiight
Originally Posted By tangaroa >And if the information is WRONG, the >OPINION is WRONG. Opinions aren't wrong - that's the problem here. You're trying to tell Phoenix that his opinion is wrong, if for no other reason, than it just differs from yours. >My issue with Pheniex (and you) is >that the opinion (or "review," as >Pheniex termed it) was based on a >pretty poor example of what ToT has to >offer. I've been on lots of rides, and seen lots of ride videos, and usually the experience isn't that different, contrary to what everyone else wants to think when their opinions are challenged by those who have only seen video. The only time this isn't true, is when the ride experience is directly related to movement of a ride vehicle - and unless I'm mistaken, Phoenix never made any comments regarding the drop profile of DCA's TOT. >And, amazingly, everyone had a great >time. How many of those people paid 49 dollars and waited two hours in line to ride? This is exactly what happened with the DCA previews - people got in for free, loved the experienced, and wrote glowing reviews about the place. >DCA and Light Magic were given raves >by the drooling fan boys, until the >public came along and proved >otherwise, you say? No, not at all. I >was saddened by the Annual >Passholder's reaction to the first >public airing of Light Magic. But see that proves my point. The Cast Members working on the show flooded the boards with positive things about the show for months - and when the APs (who actually paid for the privilege of seeing the preview) got to see it, they were peeved. Of course there were technical issues that night and some APs thought the show would be much better over the summer after the bugs were worked out, but the crowds never warmed to the show. >Tang, I have disagreed with you in the >past, but usually I can respect your >point of view. Doug I have more respect for you than will ever be conveyed on these boards - but you have to admit that everyone here is talking with a bias. People decided to like or dislike this ride months if not years ago. I've been invited to go see it next weekend, but I'm still unsure if I want to bother, since it's pretty obvious my mind has already been set. As long as I can admit that, I don't see why anyone else would not.
Originally Posted By tangaroa >Noted. (P.S. Exactly what "people" are >these. I want names. If only to rescue >them from a paper bag.) Braverman and Engle. You'll probably find Braverman still hiding under his desk. >So DCA's Tower is dreadful because it >ISN'T the one at WDW, or it's great >because it IS, is that it? Yes to both.
Originally Posted By pheneix >>>we will all be left to wonder what kind of impact TOT really had<<< DCA's daily attendance is so FUBAR'd by the AP crowd that the only measureable impact that the ride will probably have is in length of stay and food and merch sales. Now, there it can do a LOT of good, especially if they can throw the doors open on that Hollywood and Dine joint next to Hyperion. Then again, a lot of first-timers are gonna get lured in by this ride, so who knows. It should be a success for all parties involved.
