Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <"Dean, it's a nice white water raft ride. It wasn't intended to be a showstopping spectacle."> To write this when discussing a Disney theme park ride is what makes it rather sad.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>GRR is receiving some nice updates. It doesn't need and intricate, character-based storyline.<< It doesn't need an intricate, character-based storyline. Some of Disneylands best attractions don't outline a specific "Story" laid out like "turning the page" per each scene. Pirates and H.M. are the best examples. What GRR needs is some random special effect scenes to make it more interesting. And not just a boring romp through a large rock with trees dotted along the side. btw - continuing my read through this topic .. I realize now IOA's raft ride gets you more wet than GRR? uhhhh .. maybe I'll pass.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Grizzly River Run is basically as if Journey to the Center of the Earth did not have fire, weird little monster critters, lightning and, oh yeah, that huge animatronic dragon. It'd be a ride through detailed rock work. Grizzly River Run is basically as if Expedition Everest was hollow inside and only featured an un-themed steel roller coaster in the dark, like the original Matterhorn. GRR is missing the extra oomph that the two attractions above got.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Hell, they could have even paid homage to the Jungle Cruise and featured a raft that crashed into some rocks, leaving its riders to scurry up a tree to escape a huge bear that is taking swipes at them. It's something!
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <GRR is missing the extra oomph that the two attractions above got.> I've said that from the start. Glad to see that some others agree.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>"Dean, it's a nice white water raft ride. It wasn't intended to be a showstopping spectacle."<< Yeah .. and the rest of the park was not intended to be the "show stopping theme park" either.... as it turned out. Hence the 1.2 billion dollar changes to reverse that way of thinking - "Doesn't have to be showstopping" - Look where that got them?
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones The only problem I see is that the raft ride experience is not as conducive to viewing show scenes, which leads me to believe that the raft ride gimmick was meant to make up for the attraction's lack of substance. But it's also possible that there could have been both rapids sections and calmer sections that would allow you absorb some wildlife or something. After all, this is the company that brought us True Life Adventures and the Mine Train Thru Nature's Wonderland.
Originally Posted By oc_dean How many acres does GRR take up? Does it not sit in the center of DCA? To say this should not be one of DCA's finest "CENTER-piece" showstoppers is ludicrous. Sorry Hans. I mean no offense. But for an attraction site taking up so much room in the center of the park .. it most certainly should be something worth everyone's attention. And not just on warm days - but throughout every hour of park operating hours ... no matter what the weather is.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "To write this when discussing a Disney theme park ride is what makes it rather sad." It has never ever been true that every Disney park ride isn't a spectacle. Gee, I thought I'd win you over by agreeing that the ride could use some show scenes. "To say this should not be one of DCA's finest "CENTER-piece" showstoppers is ludicrous." Actually, ironically, it IS one of the park's finest showstoppers only because DCA is short on elaborate Disneyfied E ticket attractions. "Sorry Hans. I mean no offense. But for an attraction site taking up so much room in the center of the park .. it most certainly should be something worth everyone's attention." No worries Dean, I'm not offended at all. I'm wondering what the center of the park has to do with this. Let me ask you something, how much precious space does the Autopia take up? How about those loops in the Monorail above it? Or what about Storybook Land. Do you consider those attractions legitimate showstoppers?
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt arrg.... It has never ever been true that every Disney park ride IS a spectacle.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Where does the notion come from that you can't get wet on GRR while wearing a poncho? I wore a DLR poncho on GRR during the AP previews, and got SOAKED. And I mean, SOAKED. Our raft got caught in the wake of the raft in front of us, which created a HUGE wave above my head. The hood of the poncho blew back, and water entered from directly above me through the poncho opening. I was drenched from head to toe underneath the poncho. A most uncomfortable feeling. Ponchos really only protect you from water that comes at you from the sides. It does nothing to protect you from water above your head if your hood is blown off. And it's difficult to keep your hood on and hold on to the handrail at the same time.
Originally Posted By oc_dean And ponchos do nothing to keep the pouring waters from getting shoes and socks wet to the core - As I learned this .. the hard way! And I've tried to prop up my feet on the center piece .. with 8 other people trying to find room for their feet too, on this little ring. And the one thing I didn't anticipate the first time I went on it .. is almost loosing my prescription glasses on the 360 spin drop. All these posts later.. along with the other similar topic .... Ponchos, lockers, changing clothes, trying to prop up feet from the sloshy floor ..... all this ridiculous rigmarole. It should be no more complicated to ride this ... than anything else DCA or DL has to offer.
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance Dean are you a cat or something? You seem terrified of water.
Originally Posted By mousermerf Seriously, chlorinated water, why are people so afraid of it? What do you do at the water parks?
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<Seriously, chlorinated water, why are people so afraid of it?>> Why is it so hard to understand that some people don't want to spend hours walking around a theme park in wet clothes??
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<Let me ask you something, how much precious space does the Autopia take up? How about those loops in the Monorail above it? Or what about Storybook Land. Do you consider those attractions legitimate showstoppers?>> Is that really a legitimate example though - all of those rides were added before the Imagineers had designed something as elaborate as Pirates or Mansion. I know we've had this discussion before, but I really think that Disney of 2010 can do better. Sure, there might be a few simple "side" attractions, but the main rides should really all be major showstopping spectacles. And to be perfectly honest, I think the monorail should be moved and made into a true transportation for the Resort, Autopia should either be updated or bulldozed, and Storybook Land should get some updates to liven' up those sets. But that's just a personal wish list!
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>And I've tried to prop up my feet on the center piece .. with 8 other people trying to find room for their feet too, on this little ring.<< Silly goose. Next time try tucking your feet back, up and under. Those clever designers at Disney have provided each guest with their own little foot rest. It's well above the water line, too. Just hook your heels on it. >>What do you do at the water parks?<< Um, get wet. And I stay dry at theme parks. So far I've managed to figure out which was which, too.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Dean are you a cat or something? You seem terrified of water." LMAO!!
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Is that really a legitimate example though - all of those rides were added before the Imagineers had designed something as elaborate as Pirates or Mansion." I think it's perfectly legitimate because Disney continues to clone these attractions at their parks around the globe. Every Magic Kingdom park has an Autopia type ride, and there are versions of Storybook Land and Monorails at other resorts that were built many decades after the first ones were introduced at DLR. Moreover, the attractions I mentioned are an integral part of the DL experience and remain quite popular. So yes, it's a perfectly valid argument. The point is that not everything at a Disney park is going to be as spectacular as Spaceship Earth. The expectation that everything they build has to be on that level is simply unreasonable. "I know we've had this discussion before, but I really think that Disney of 2010 can do better. Sure, there might be a few simple "side" attractions, but the main rides should really all be major showstopping spectacles." Well they can always do better, which is why I said that a little plussing wouldn't hurt.
