Originally Posted By TDR_Fan My post was in resonse to #57. Didn't know two responses would pop out in the time it took to type out my response .
Originally Posted By bean Let's take for example the ill fated rocket rods. That attraction was actually an improved version of testrack but its capabilities were not up to standards because of the bad decisions made by a group of people. WDI took that technology and made some minor improvements to give the attraction in Japan the needed boost in storytelling. Sometimes its just a matter of changing software.
Originally Posted By TDR_Fan <<Sometimes its just a matter of changing software. >> So in theory, it would be possible to upgrade or reprogram the older attractions without any dramatic changes to the ride itself (not saying that they do need reprogramming). It would be interesting to see if they could change around the functions and movements of the vehicles without any hassle.
Originally Posted By Nobody My observation is that perhaps barboy is confusing (his) opinions with universal facts.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Now I know you're not telling me that one actually has to see the movie, ride the ride or eat the meal to know whethter something is worthy or not. Many times one doesn't need to experience things first hand to easily make safe conclusions:>> No, I'm not telling you that. I'm telling you that you at least need to wait until something is completed and someone has experienced it who can provide a meaningful review. Prior to that time any judgment you arrive at is nothing but conjecture.
Originally Posted By BrnardM << 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. >> Almost off topic at this point but I feel it's worth examining. While guests may feel that they want more at the end of JTTCE, the difference between it and Indy is in the pacing. Both have the most immersive queues ever designed by WDI, but there is one thing that Indy's line accomplishes in terms of story that JTTCE's doesn't. By the time you board the jeep in Indy, you have already explored the temple. The remainder of the ride is an action sequence, virtually from the moment you leave the station to the moment you return. In JTTCE the you have yet to visit the center of the earth until you are actually on the ride. From that point it takes roughly half the ride to build to that "something goes horribly wrong" moment. I would venture to say that the abrubt change in action, or rather two different experiences in the ride, make the entire experience feel shorter. To sum it all up, one half of the Indiana Jones adventure is experienced on foot, while the climax takes place in a jeep. Tower of Terror is set up the same way. From what I have seen (sadly I've never ridden JTTCE ) the JTTCE queue is amazing, but the actual story does not begin until you are on the ride. That is where the difference lies
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "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." Wow, bean, I like the way you talk. I haven't heard the word story in conjunction with Disney imagineering in a long, long time. Especially not at DCA.
Originally Posted By bean "TDR_Fan Tue 11/27/2007 12:02p <<Sometimes its just a matter of changing software. >> So in theory, it would be possible to upgrade or reprogram the older attractions without any dramatic changes to the ride itself (not saying that they do need reprogramming). It would be interesting to see if they could change around the functions and movements of the vehicles without any hassle. " in theory yes a program upgrade could be done to the existing attraction. Of course if the upgrade is for a specific vehicle function then the vehicle needs to be able to perform that function.
Originally Posted By bean "Hans Reinhardt Tue 11/27/2007 1:28p "jovn, i agree with you here" Actually, bean, that was me. " sorry about that
Originally Posted By bean "67 Hans Reinhardt Tue 11/27/2007 1:26p "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." Wow, bean, I like the way you talk. I haven't heard the word story in conjunction with Disney imagineering in a long, long time. Especially not at DCA." well i was talking in generally not just DCA. I have to say that DCA does have some good attractions but it lacked the storytelling. That of course does not mean that everything needs to have a backstory to work. Soarin for example, nice simple attraction that works well without a story. Then you have grizzley rapids which actually has a story behind it but people normally have to really pay attention to its surroundings to understand it. Scattered thruought the land are various pieces of the story that help explain the reason for the mountain being shaped as a bear. A story that spread out sometimes does not work because only a few would bother noticing it. Other attractions like Indiana Jones are self explanatory from the moment you arrive to the queue. It also does not hurt that it is based on a very popular icon. Another perfect example of great storytelling is the JTTCOTE attraction. Its name and surrounding pretty much explains the story at the same time you have Mermaid lagoon which is pleasant and well done but as afr as i know does nothing to explain to us why a large underwater empire is sitting above sea level next to a volcanoe. Maybe someone that is familiar with that land could help us out on that. Are there any references as to why the land exists? Or is it as simple as we just need to imagine that we are going underwater and come across the empire?
Originally Posted By TDR_Fan << From what I have seen (sadly I've never ridden JTTCE ) the JTTCE queue is amazing, but the actual story does not begin until you are on the ride>> The story actually begins before you even step foot into the queue, in the entrance caverns of Mysterious Island. Upon entering the queue, we first go through Captain Nemo's makeshift laboratories and equipment in Magma Sanctum- a series of tunnels dug by his double spindle boring machine. Using the volcano's natural energy, he was able to power up the whole base and build several terravators to descend to the subterranean level at the speed of sound. It is here that Base Station was built, along with the subterranean mining vehicles. Powering Base Station is a dynamo and a giant vent carrying oxygen down for core workers. By this point, before you even board the vehicles, the story has very much begun. We are explorers wishing to learn more about the Earth's secrets and that journey just happens to conclude with a live trip through the center of the Earth to see everything in person. But everything before you board the vehicles is very important and valid to the storyline.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt “Or is it as simple as we just need to imagine that we are going underwater and come across the empire?†Most of the time a back story isn't needed. For me the story is what guides the theming, or dressing, of the area from the design perspective. For example if Main Street USA is to represents a small mid western town at the turn of the last century, then there are certain things that need be included (from the architecture to cast member costumes) that convey the convey being in that place during that time. More often than not, complicated back stories (ie: Rocket Rods, Big Thunder) only seem to bog down the attractions with a bunch of useless information that most people don't care about or pay attention to.
Originally Posted By barboy "My observation is that perhaps barboy is confusing (his) opinions with universal facts" I have a good grasp on fact vs opinion. It is a fact that my opinion is I don't like deserts--- although I find places like Bryce stunning. Now, the one response I did present as "fact" is the reason why the fastest growing areas just happen to be in very hot dry places. This is due to Supply and demand/ rules of economics and or the physical land availability. Cheaper and or availble housing drives the masses to places like Arizona and Las Vegas. Most of those communities have newer homes which is another pull factor to get people to the desert. Trust me on this most people are not going there to look at cacti, mojave rattlesnakes, desert turtles, mirages and sand rings. And I know I'm right because even America agrees with me with their song "Horse with no name"
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <It is a fact that my opinion is I don't like deserts--- although I find places like Bryce stunning. > So you don't like the desert. Except when you do like the desert. Yeah, that makes as much sense as the rest of it. By the way, there's more available land in a place like North Dakota than there is around Phoenix, say. But people aren't flocking to North Dakota.
Originally Posted By barboy "Cheaper housing in North Dakota too." And where is the employment or job opportunity? Like I said it's economics and not sand rings that get people to move to those dry hot places--- but you know that(I hope).
Originally Posted By barboy You know what else gets people to move out to the hot spots? Health and comfort like what some of the elderly have done--- again it is not desert beauty that attracts the masses.
Originally Posted By bartholomewneff Hey bean, Are there any plans later in the phase to update the film in Soarin'? I know they've talked about turning the Golden State area into a turn of the century Yosemite type park, which I love, by-the-way. I know most of that as well as AA's along the GRR has been put off until a phase 2, should the first phase be a success, but... If the area was around the turn of the century it would be awesome to have the Soarin' over California be around the turn of the century... to see what it looked like before so many people came westward. Any thoughts?
Originally Posted By bean "Hans Reinhardt Tue 11/27/2007 4:11p “Or is it as simple as we just need to imagine that we are going underwater and come across the empire?†Most of the time a back story isn't needed. For me the story is what guides the theming, or dressing, of the area from the design perspective. For example if Main Street USA is to represents a small mid western town at the turn of the last century, then there are certain things that need be included (from the architecture to cast member costumes) that convey the convey being in that place during that time. More often than not, complicated back stories (ie: Rocket Rods, Big Thunder) only seem to bog down the attractions with a bunch of useless information that most people don't care about or pay attention to." I agree.
