Originally Posted By dshyates Rumor has it that it will go in the big empty spot between Simpson's and MiB.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I love Spidey. It's by far the best thing at IOA ( pre-HP, which I haven't seen) but to me it's too "noisy" (as is Indy for that matter) to be in the same class as the quieter, simpler, but more evocative POTC and HM. Spidey is certainly more technologically advanced, but hell-- Armageddon has way more impressive tech than Casablanca, but there's no question that the latter is the better movie.
Originally Posted By HMButler79 if it's built from sratch i won't have a problem. However i had no idea they had that much room there. They've been using that space for Horror Nights for years now, so if they built there, that would definatly affect HHN operation.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt <<"What's your hang up with the Spiderman quote? It is one of the greatest rides in theme park history, is it not?" Well so is Star Tours,>> "No...not really." Why are you so combative? Of course it is. So is Pirates, The Haunted Mansion, and so on.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "What I most dislike in this whole line of conversation is the relentless emphasis on comparison. Uni does something egregious, one of us calls it, and we are immediately informed that Disney does it worse." This.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "I've ridden many simulators that look and move like Star Tours, so I wouldn't say it's one of the best theme park attractions. On the other hand, I've never seen an attraction like Spider-Man." So if you did would that make Spiderman any less amazing?
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Spidey is certainly more technologically advanced, but hell-- Armageddon has way more impressive tech than Casablanca, but there's no question that the latter is the better movie." Which makes me wonder how many boys are in this conversation versus girls. Boys love loud explosions.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I'm a boy and I like explosions. But I like things that touch what it means to be human more.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I suspect that if Mission Space had opened at Uni instead of Epcot people would still be raving about it. It used cutting edge technology, Uni guests expect the occasional attraction that induces a little fear and panic, and no one at Uni is looking for a 20 minutes attraction like the fan boys do at Epcot.
Originally Posted By leobloom >> So if you did would that make Spiderman any less amazing? << I would be less impressed with Spider-Man if there was a similar attraction at every theme park in Orlando. As it is, there isn't, so it appears unique. Can't say the same for Star Tours (minus the 3D, of course).
Originally Posted By brotherdave I do realize that there are some fairly large sets in Spider-man, and I do appreciate those, but those large movie screens in every room spoil it for me, especially when I see a lot of double images from the 3-D glasses. I realize that it's probably me and my visual ability to see the 3-D effects, but it just spoils the ride for me. I do like the fire and fog effects thrown in with the real sets, but overall, it's not a "must ride" for me at IOA. If the line's short, I'll certainly ride. I don't hate it by any means, but to me it's not THE quintessential theme park dark ride. I still give that to immersive attractions like Pirates, Haunted Mansion, and even Men In Black. Since I haven't rode Harry Potter yet, I can't compare. Perhaps that one WILL blow me away, even with all the film effects. I just prefer "real" (i.e, animatronics in sets) vs. "film/digital", and especially if it doesn't use the 3-D gimmickry.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<Why are you so combative? Of course it is. So is Pirates, The Haunted Mansion, and so on. >> Pirates? Yes. Haunted Mansion? Yes. Star Tours? No. It's a flight simulator. Simulators in general are boring. Save for Mission: Space, which turns the genre on it's head and knocks it out of the park.
Originally Posted By Bob Paris 1 After reading a lot of the last few comments I had a good think about just WHY I found Spidey so damned good and, conversely, what was it about the Disney attractions I LOVE that also appealed to me. It is a combination of several things. I have ALWAYS said on these boards and elsewhere that, for me, the IMMERSION is of ULTRA importance. I need to feel that either I am IN the depicted environment or that, if it doesn't quite succeed that a suitable amount of effort was made. That last part(intention)is VERY important! Of course, lumped in under the heading "immersion" are all the tools used to create it - scene setting, lighting, music, sound effects, smells and aromas. AAs are also something that REALLY appeal to me. They just scream "Disney" or "Disney quality"(circa last century!)and AAs within themselves just make me think of Walt - the man who wanted to use space age robotic technology to create depictions of characters from history and other places to entertain and educate. The final factor is the reason I include Indy, HM and PoTC as three of my all time favourite Disney attractions but not Star Tours(and also why I WOULD NOT put ST up with them) - MOVEMENT along a track or flume. I want to "GO SOMEWHERE(stupid!)". I want to travel through an ancient temple, float down a river, pass through a bayou or meander through a haunted mansion. I can sit in a seat in a cinema in ANY city or town on the planet. And these days, unfortunately, I can see just about ANY film in 3D, be it the latest super hero cash-in, errrr, movie or even the latest Jennifer Aniston piece of crap. I CANNOT travel through a pirate plunder of a village or look over a haunted ballroom anywhere(effectively)but in Disney park. Thus ANY stationary, non-linear moving simulator is INSTANTLY in a tier below attractions that travel along a track, flume or through a show building. And THIS is why Spidey is SO amazing to me - and yes, I KNOW it doesn't have animatronics. What it DOES have in place of AAs is the seamless integration of a digital 3D film with the very large sets, along with effects like the Liberty setpiece and the fireball. Add the thrill of moving quite fast through the showbuilding and, for me, it was a "BLOW ME AWAY" experience. I feel sorry for people that have problems experiencing the 3D in the attraction because it would go a long way towards ruining it. For me, however, I cannot see how ANYBODY could deny that the ride lifts Disney's own standards to a new level - their intentions were to take the traditional dark ride experience and PLUS it through the roof into something people had NEVER seen before. Sure you can see 3D films at Disney(some might say TOO MANY!)but NONE of those films are projected into sets, viewable as you careen swiftly through said sets, immersed in a story that involves tactile effects using heat and water. I just think it is obtuse, bordering on "blinkered-mindedness" to claim otherwise.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo I agree with you on all counts Bob. Sadly my wife cannot see 3D properly, so most of the new innovations are lost on her. However, she claims she can see Spidy, and that is amazing. I don't even think Indy is that great to be honest. The sets are quite plain with the exception of the bridge room and the vehicle is painful to be in. So I do think it an overrated attraction (though I love Star Tours - the queue line with C3PO and R2, and having Rex in the cockpit (well we still do in Paris), pushes it over the top, making it better than Back to the Future (which I loved the theme of), the Simpsons, Escape to Atlantis etc. But yes. the use of characters (toon or otherwise) and films are not enticing to make me spend 1000's and fly 1000's of miles to experience something that frankly is not that great. But immersive experiences are worth it. Kilemenjaro Safari, Spaceship Earth, spidy, Potc, HM - these are worth it, and I would love more of that. Not screens and video games, I can do that at home. Heck, I could buy a 3D TV for the cost of two nights in a Disney hotel (excluding food, tickets and flight costs). Now negativity aside, the Star Wars geek in me really wants to try the reboot out.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Can't say the same for Star Tours (minus the 3D, of course)." I get your point. I guess I don't necessarily say that just because two rides use similar ride systems that they are equal. Buzz Lightyear is not Spaceship Earth even though their rides systems are the same.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I cannot see how ANYBODY could deny...> Not to pick on you, Bob, but this is the kind of attitude that drives me nuts sometimes. Different strokes for different folks, you know? I loved Spidey, so much I turned right around and rode a second time immediately after my first. The first trip, everyone seemed to like it, but after the second, on the walk out of the ride, a 30-something guy said to his girlfriend/wife: "We waited an hour for THAT?" His gf/wife agreed. The thing is, I didn't take it personally. I liked it, they didn't. Their reaction was just as valid as mine, and that's what makes the world go 'round.
Originally Posted By Bob Paris 1 I understand that the attraction may not be for everybody. Also I was not saying it should be number one for YOU or anybody else. The quote of mine you referenced was in regards to Spidey being a next generation dark ride from something(hell, ANYTHING)Disney has given us since Indy in 1995. Can you say the introduction of seeing 3D film integrated with real sets from within a moving vehicle was NOT a new thing when the attraciton opened at IOA? Can you say the thought and effort to realize Spidey was the same that went into making the new Pooh dark rides or even Buzz? THAT was the point I was saying is irrefutable, NOT that everybody should love it because of said effort and intent. Of course some people won't say it's their top ride and that OF COURSE is their right. Some people look at a parachute drop ride and salivate because that's THEIR thing(cannot stand them personally and consider them at best placeholders until something better comes along, at worst they are complete wastes of space). As I said in my lengthy post above, I had a good think about exactly WHY I love the attractions I love and rather than simply saying, "SPIDEY IS TEH BEST AND ROXXORRRZZZ!!!!!1!!!", I wanted to define WHAT about them appeals to me.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Has anyone ridden Spidey recently? Are all the effects and everything working as they were when the ride first opened? I'm curious because Universal doesn't have the best record of maintaining their attractions.
Originally Posted By brotherdave I certainly would give Spidey credit for being innovative. I've heard so much praise for the attraction over the years that when I first experienced it in 2001, I was fairly underwhelmed. Perhaps it was the overhype that I read before I rode it, perhaps my trouble experiencing 3-D fully, or just the noticable large screens through the ride, but I was fairly let down after my first ride. Again, I didn't hate it, and I can see why it is popular with so many, but it just didn't live up to the hype in my opinion. On the other hand, Revenge of the Mummy blew me away. Not so much for the plywood cutouts during the mediocre coaster portion of the ride, but the theming and sets through most of the ride, not to mention the incredible "fake out" section of the ride. After repeat rides, it wasn't quite as good as the first time through (especially through the plywood mummies and demons), but the rest of the ride did blow me away. And the best ever, at least in my opinion, of the merger of dark ride and immersive thrill ride is Tower of Terror. Nothing comes as close to perfection as that attraction. Truly one of Disney's crowning achievements! I'd rather repeat ride ToT many times more than Spidey. Spidey is "ok", Tower is just plain awesome!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "Can you say the introduction of seeing 3D film integrated with real sets from within a moving vehicle was NOT a new thing when the attraciton opened at IOA?" Sure, it was new. And when the Matrix invented that Matrix-move effect, that was new. All I'm saying is that new technology by itself doesn't impress me personally all that much. It has to be in the service of something. And in Spidey it was indeed in the service of something good. But let's say that the Indy vehicles (which were innovative) had been introduced not with Indy, but with Dinosaur. In that case it would have been great technology, so-so ride. New tech for me is fine as far as it goes, but overrated in and of itself.
