Originally Posted By barboy "the ride(JTTCE) is also rather short." a very common complaint as it truly FEELS short. Why does this ride feel short but not IJ?--- I never read complaints about IJ's duration or lack thereof. Here is my theory: The JTTCE is done so well that it leaves us wanting more---like a great movie that we don't want to end. I, too, feel it is short considering just how ambitious and extravagantly the Volcano, queue, ride vehicles, sets, AA's and effects are done. So considering the scope and scale the ride's duration is short.
Originally Posted By barboy "Bean, that's a good point and thanks for mentioning it." It might well be a good point but it seems misplaced with me. I know Cars will be done properly with attention to detail(I can say this with confidnece because of the proposed budget)but the problem is the theme itself not the execution of the theme. Look, the one and only one absolute known or given about the attraction is the Cars theme---clearly Disney's most painfully unimaginative approach yet. Before, I said on these boards that it is the execution of a theme and not the theme itself which determines how good the attraction will be---- I think that I have to reconsider my previous position after all.
Originally Posted By barboy barthol, I hear you with your #30. Thanks, maybe I need to settle down a bit and be thankful. The truth is I am very excited about this 1.2 billion infusion. The park when done will be beautiful--- can't wait.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <deserts are still boring> Many people, myself included, think the desert is beautiful.
Originally Posted By danyoung >In other words the cartoon environment is just too obvious for being fiction thus it keeps us from "getting into character". < I simply don't believe this. In fact, it's absolutely the antithesis of what Walt was trying to accomplish right from the beginning - the infusion of personality into his characters. There was great fear back in '37 that Snow White would bomb, as they just didn't know if the public would accept a cartoon character and "feel" along with her. Obviously those fears were unfounded, as the audience accepted Snow just like they would another "real" actress. Pixar has taken this same philosophy and gone even further with it. While I don't think Cars was Pixar's best film, the characters in it are just as real as anything Tom Hanks or Julia Roberts have brought to the screen. I don't see even a tiny bit of difference between an attraction based on a computer generated car and an attraction based on a swashbuckling explorer and collector of antiquities. They're both creations for the screen. It all comes down to execution. And while I haven't seen Journey (yet!), I can't wait for the new Cars attractions, and am hoping that they'll do their part to bring DCA up to "full park" standard.
Originally Posted By TDR_Fan <<Again, very good to hear that because anything that can one up Journey To Center has automatically got my vote>. I still doubt that claim, as the proposed motion for the "Radiator Springs Racers" seems to follow Test Track albeit with a bit more refining to avoid the numerous problems associated with the ride system. Journey to the Center of the Earth still seems to use the more advanced ride system because of the sloped acceleration with the banked edges, plus the sudden drop. I don't think the design of the ride vehicles for Cars will have as many functions as Journey to the Center of the Earth if it's anything like the Test Track vehicles. <<Many people, myself included, think the desert is beautiful>> I agree, but I can also see why many people find them bland and ugly.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt “And even if I grant you the "realism" involved with using the Cars theme(which I don't)deserts are still boring; cars are even more boring; and the two together make for a colossally horrific theme..." While I'm tired of the Pixar cartoon stuff that Disney keeps squeezing into its parks, I think your analysis of the new Cars attraction is a bit harsh. The premise of this attraction is fine. Deserts are far from boring, and cars, like anything else, can be entertaining if given the right creative treatment. Aside from the annoyingly obligatory Pixar tie-in, the new Cars attraction at DCA looks to be a pretty solid and immersive E ticket thrill ride. "Now that the LA times decided to release another of the concept arts shown to them does everyone realize that it is basically a lushly themed outdoor darkride with many visual elements" Thanks Nobody for posting the link. Judging from the concept art Mater looks like a very creatively designed attraction with lots of detail. The more I see of Carsland, the more I like… it’s just too bad that it’s yet another cartoon based area. Nevertheless, this is definitely on an entirely different level than the Pixar area that was recently built at DSP.
Originally Posted By bean "<<the only real comparison between both attractions is its technology and Cars will actually have a more sophisticated advanced one.>> Will the Cars attraction have banked upward slopes, a large drop, and the ability to simulate rough terrain like Journey to the Center of the Earth? If not, I hardly see how it is more advanced. I certainly have no problem saying it uses an advanced version of Test Track's technology, but its utilization of the ride system just looks too different from Journey to the Center of the Earth to compare either of them. The Cars will be much more comparable to Test Track and hopefully superior too." again read what i said. Didn't i just mention in the sentence i quoted of myself that the only comparison between both attractions is the technology? That has nothing to do with steep drops and banked upwards slopes. That is all in track layout and how the technology is used. I do not see a reason for a steep drop in the Cars attraction obviously it fits the storyline and surounding theming in JTTCOTE. The technology has been improved from its last three incarnations and can be used many diferent ways with many diferent track layouts and designs depending on what is needed to tell the story
Originally Posted By barboy "Many people, myself included, think the desert is beautiful." If by "many people" you mean a good percentage of the population here in the US I think you are really off or just trying to take the opposing view. What I mean is I'm sure you do find deserts beautiful but most do not as proven by how many want to move there and the price of desert real estate. But yes, to each his own of course. Just to be fair Utah's Bryce and Zion and Arizona's Grand Canyon are breathtaking--- although I am not sure if they are deserts per se--- I know that they have some desert like features.
Originally Posted By dshyates Don't tell all those resorts in Sadona that people don't like the desert.
Originally Posted By barboy "Test Track albeit with a bit more refining to avoid the numerous problems associated with the ride system" ---how fitting that I hold the perception that GM builds junk and that the most break-downing attraction(not including Rocket Rods)that I can think of is Test Track.
Originally Posted By bean jovn, i agree with you here "Thanks Nobody for posting the link. Judging from the concept art Mater looks like a very creatively designed attraction with lots of detail. The more I see of Carsland, the more I like… it’s just too bad that it’s yet another cartoon based area. Nevertheless, this is definitely on an entirely different level than the Pixar area that was recently built at DSP." Although i find that the land will be extremely details i also feel that the three attractions could have been built without the "CARS" characters built into them. Lets take for example the Mater attraction. I am sure that if we were to leave most if not all of the elements in the attraction and just changed the tractors to look like real tractors, the attraction would had been just as fun as it will be. I am sorry Barboy but this really does not make sense "If by "many people" you mean a good percentage of the population here in the US I think you are really off or just trying to take the opposing view. What I mean is I'm sure you do find deserts beautiful but most do not as proven by how many want to move there and the price of desert real estate." you do realize that the fastest growing area in the country is Riverside county and San Bernardino county and its mostly all surrounded by desert. Also some of the most popular destinations of the state are also right smack the middle of the Desert. Take Palm Spring for example. The area has become one of the most visited "non tourist destinations of the state just because of its location (guess what the desert)
Originally Posted By bean I really think you need to get out and take some trips outside of Orlando or Anaheim and explore the diferent environments that this world has to offer. A desert vacation could be just as enjoyable as a vacation Yosemite
Originally Posted By barboy You have got to be kidding! The only reason dry/arid/desert communities are the fastest growing areas is because all of the DESIRABLE areas(coastal, lake front ect.ect) are either too expensive or have been physically taken already. Did we really need to go through that pointless excercize?
Originally Posted By barboy bean, I don't want to give you a hard time, hionestly. I read your offerings and you bring some high quality stuff to discussions. So I will relent.
Originally Posted By TDR_Fan << That has nothing to do with steep drops and banked upwards slopes. That is all in track layout and how the technology is used. I do not see a reason for a steep drop in the Cars attraction obviously it fits the storyline and surounding theming in JTTCOTE. The technology has been improved from its last three incarnations and can be used many diferent ways with many diferent track layouts and designs depending on what is needed to tell the story >> Then how does Cars' ride technology present itself as more advanced if it does not take the opportunity to show it off? Unless it really has some defining features, I'm sure most people won't even be able to tell the difference between the technology for it and Test Track. Or are these changes simply functional improvements to reduce breakdowns and such?
Originally Posted By bean Programability is usually the main reasoning for upgrades in technology. I understand your point that what good is the advance in technology if people do not know the diference. Also when I first starting discussing the unreasonable comparisons of both attractions I said that both were unique in their experience sharp drops do not make one surperior than the other.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Just to be fair Utah's Bryce and Zion and Arizona's Grand Canyon are breathtaking--- although I am not sure if they are deserts per se--- I know that they have some desert like features.> Yes, they are deserts. And they are gorgeous. So is Sedona, as dshyates points out. And try camping for a night or two in Anzo-Borrega and not being impressed with the beauty. Dare ya'. Desert areas have been largely unpopulated until fairly recently in human history for the obvious reason: humans need water. Even today they present problems as water must be gotten from elsewhere. This doesn't mean they are not beautiful.
Originally Posted By bean "Did we really need to go through that pointless excercize?" not sure, remember you were the one that brought up this ridiculous assumption "If by "many people" you mean a good percentage of the population here in the US I think you are really off or just trying to take the opposing view. What I mean is I'm sure you do find deserts beautiful but most do not as proven by how many want to move there and the price of desert real estate." how does people moving in those areas or the price of real estate prove that deserts are boring so tell us was it worth bringing up this pointless arguement. Maybe if you wroded your phrases to say that you and only you find deserts boring and want nothing to do with them then we would take you more serious. But all you keep saying is that deserts and cars are boring and it is proven because people are moving there because housing is cheap. Obviously thats not right and if cars were so boring to everyone then i wonder why auitopia still packs them in while star tours sometimes sits empty
Originally Posted By TDR_Fan ^ Agreed, though I'm curious what the newer ride system can achieve vs the previous ones. I do see no point in adding more variety to what the ride system can do if it is basically following the basic functions of the first generation system. And you are spot on in that there is no point in comparing the two attractions, as using similar technology is hardly a reason to declare one superior/inferior over the other automatically. Both are far too different in their experiences and theme.
