Originally Posted By vbdad55 Can Disney create true magic just by creating an inventive introduction to what turns out to be an otherwise-standard thrill ride experience? --------------------- let's think for a minute-- the most revered rides at Disney are peoplemovers/boats etc..where the experience is visual ( and sensory)- not thrill related at all.... huge difference between Uni and Disney...each has their own audience.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 BTMRR and Splash are very ordinary from a thrill ride perspective are they not--? HM and PotC are not even on the charts as thrill rides - yet wonderful so I think that answer is yes. Not however for thrill ride seekers - because they will always want more from that category. Nothing wrong with that but a different park experience is what they seek.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Interesting. That's a perspective to think about, and it poses a fascinating question: Can Disney create true magic just by creating an inventive introduction to what turns out to be an otherwise-standard thrill ride experience?<<<< I think that's what NEXGEN is all about...
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 I haven't experienced any form of EE yet, but I'll offer these thoughts anyhow... ...I have one set of expectations when I ride a roller coaster at Cedar Point, Six Flags, or Las Vegas and a noticeably different set when I ride a coaster at a Disney Park. In the former, g-forces alone can make me happy. At a Disney Park, though, I need consistent and complete theming -- thanks in no small part to Disney's own promotional materials. For Disney Parks, my expectations for g-forces are lowered, but my standards for "story" are increased. I don't believe I'm the only tourist who makes this distinction. Disney needs to deliver the magic to the level it promises. ...For me, being exposed to any part of an attraction that's "broken" can ruin the whole experience, no matter how good the rest of the experience was. What percentage of the riders of EE hear, "Ya know, the Yeti is supposed to move, but it hasn't done that for years. It's broken."? My guess is that the MAJORITY of WDW guests hear that the attraction is... ...already not what it once was ...not working right. ...a fraction of what they were supposed to experience. Jeez. What a magic-killer.
Originally Posted By Manfried Some immersion in a queue space is fine. Kind of like the Star Tours one. But they make them longer and more involved, yet it is still a line. So, spend just enough to make the guest buy into the suspension of disbelief, but don't spend an inordinate amount of time and money on it. Basically the designer should state the tone, the producer set the budget. The two decide the amount of space, then let a new Imagineer work it out. It makes for good training and you get a lot more for your buck.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<the most revered rides at Disney are peoplemovers/boats etc..where the experience is visual (and sensory)- not thrill related at all...>> <<HM and PotC are not even on the charts as thrill rides - yet wonderful>> Perhaps I didn't phrase my question very well. I was NOT asking, "Can a non-thrill ride be more satisfying than a thrill ride?" Heck, I already know the answer to that one. I love thrill rides. But my favorite attractions ever are probably Disney's The People Mover and It's A Small World. My question is more about: Can Disney take a standard amusement park thrill ride and make it better by adding theming? (FWIW, my answers would be: "NO" [Mulholland Madness, California Screamin']; "SOMEWHAT" [Big Mountain Thunder Railroad, Grizzly River Rapids)] and "YES!" [Space Mountain, Splash Mountain].) But MORE specifically, my question was: Can Disney create an overall magical experience by designing a back-story and installing a fabulous queue that then dumps you into what turns out to be a pretty-much generic and non-themed thrill ride?
Originally Posted By TDLFAN ^^^NO, they can't. That is why EE is a big fail. While the mountain itself is a great themed icon, the ride is as flat and ordinary as any coaster. Compare to TDS' JTTCOTE.. full immersion all around. Not the case at EE.
Originally Posted By CDF1 I wouldn't call EE a big failure - its somewhat iconic from a distance, it has a very developed and well-themed queue, it has a certain thrill factor with the backwards element and the outside drop. Of course, the mechanical yeti really makes the ride truly "Disneyesque" with its unique and extreme functions. Seems to me that with the full-functioning yeti its a decent ride on a par with Big Thunder Mountain or DLR's Indiana Jones.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<Seems to me that with the full-functioning yeti its a decent ride on a par with Big Thunder Mountain or DLR's Indiana Jones.>> Whoa...no. Not even close.
Originally Posted By ChiMike I would argue that BTMR is a fully realized attraction. The sum is greater than its parts. Everest is made up of a bunch of disjointed sequences that surely do not, imo, come off as polished. That is what is so terrible about the broken Yeti, with the failure of that sequence, you have this missing finale, but one where Disney feels that with the strong queue and the other coaster elements, the ride is still presentable to the guests. It's just one sequence...
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn Sorry... haven't paid attention to a moving or non-moving Yeti. Been spending time in Hogwarts Forbidden Journey
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer ^ That's the way to go! With a moving dragon, and spiders, and dementors to boot!
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Usually the first thing everyone is thinking when they get off EE is, boy that was a short ride! I asked a CM once why they didn't make EE longer and his responce was they didn't want to turn DAK into a "coaster" park. You mean like DHS? I'm somehow trying to grasp the concept on how that would be a BAD thing.... thinking... still thinking..... nope sounds like a winner to me!
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom What was wrong with my post? EE is a short ride. I much rather prefer BTMRR.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom If you take out the final "drop" sequence on EE all you have left is an experience of smelling creosote soaked railroad ties.
Originally Posted By ReelJustice <<Usually the first thing everyone is thinking when they get off EE is, boy that was a short ride! >> You can hardly not notice the abrupt stop right after you see the yeti. EE failed way before the yeti broke. It failed when they designed the coaster with the bare minimum of track needed to slow down at the end. The end should be just as long as the beginning slow portion IMO.
