Originally Posted By leemac <<then have duplicate show scenes on each side?>> It would have to be like Sub Voyage - otherwise you would have a situation where guests could see 2 Sulleys, 2 Mikes etc. That is a definite no-no. It was a nightmare to program the Monsters Inc. attraction at TDL as there are several scenes where there are multiple characters popping up and out of vision. The various Nemo attractions work hard to make sure you only ever see one of him.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I must admit that I'm struggling to grasp how that might work - but then I'm no engineer. Dark ride elements to coasters seem to work best when the vehicle is stationary and the action is above your head (like the Yeti animation on Everest and the mine explosion at HKDL's Runaway Mine Cars). The final Yeti worked well just due to the sheer size and scale of him. The two other scenes in the HKDL coaster also work - the first is at a relatively slow portion of the coaster and the third is as the brakes are gunning.> What I'm imagining is a ride where the show scenes with any sort of involved visuals are during the slow sections of the ride (like RSR). The vehicles are moving slowly enough here that both sides can see what they need to see, no matter which side of the track the primary focus is on. This could be helped by having the scenes essentially below the vehicles, at least somewhat, rather than on the same level (like Peter Pan) - you're getting a "door's eye view" of these scenes. Then in the fast section, which would be the big cavernous "door warehouse" scene as in the first Monsters movie, you really don't NEED to visuals to be detailed. As with Space Mountain, and the fast section of RSR, it's enough that there ARE some visuals out there (the other doors flying by - perhaps some real, some CGI, and maybe aided by mirrors), because the primary thrill here is the fast coaster-like ride itself. <I can't remember a single occasion where a height test was carried out for a specific approved attraction. They are almost always done in blue sky conceptualisation to determine what is possible.> Exactly. I have no problem believing that these concepts are in SOME stage of development at WDI (along with many others), but it doesn't mean they're imminent. I'd have to read the Miceage piece again; I'm not sure if they strongly implied they were imminent, or if some readers are just inferring that they did. (Flashing back to high school English and the classic "imply/infer" dichotomy.)
Originally Posted By leemac <<Then in the fast section, which would be the big cavernous "door warehouse" scene as in the first Monsters movie, you really don't NEED to visuals to be detailed.>> That is sort of the premise of WDSP's Crush's Coaster - there is some visuals in the coaster section of the EAC but nothing to make the experience too disorientating. The issue with visuals below the coaster vehicle is the impact of the overhead restraint which will limit head movement. It is why a lap bar is so much better for this type of attraction experience. Obviously that isn't possible for a suspended coaster.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It's a challenge, but not one I don't think couldn't be overcome. There would be no loops (which every other stand-up coaster I've ridden- with the track below - has had), so I don't know why there would necessarily have to be overhead restraints, if they could figure out a way to do adjustable chest-level restraints in addition to waist-level. Just thinking out loud.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "No." You're kidding, right? Are you new to Disney fandom? There are fans who so revere Walt that anything that varies from (their perception of) his vision is anathema. "If Yookeroo knows of a better vision lets hear it!" I'm not being paid by Disney to come up with ideas. But, hey, turning Tomorrowland into Star Wars Land is alright with me. Or a Sci-Fi land. At least those are concepts that won't be outdated in 5 years. Shoot, the whole futurism idea was outdated years ago.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>There are fans who so revere Walt that anything that varies from (their perception of) his vision is anathema.<< For our purposes, that would be Bellella, and she's not the one you've been casting aspersions on. Your position has been that people opposed to Star Wars Land = people who don't like deviating from "Walt's vision". And you aren't going to get away with that. Even by trying to change the subject. And I have a prediction for you: There's a very good chance that Star Wars WILL be outdated in the near future, after Disney is done milking it to death. As I noted before, there has been precious little to come out of that franchise that's worthwhile to the average moviegoer since the early 1980s.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>And this contradicts MiceAge, how?<< Maybe I severely misread the MiceAge article, but it sounded to me like a list of things that *will* happen, rather than some ideas that are being tossed around. In writing, it's a subtle difference (and they don't seem to be too keen on anything subtle) so maybe it's something that they missed in the edits, or that I misread >>The final Yeti worked well just due to the sheer size and scale of him.<< You lost me after "Yeti worked well"... : ) >>I've not seen photos of the recent one at DCA but I'm struggling to understand the point. Those HPB soundstages are big ugly boxes that are visible from the esplanade.<< Perhaps it's to make sure that whatever it is they're considering won't be seen from other areas within the park. They just spent a lot of effort to gussy up Buena Vista Street, and it sounds like they'll be doing something similar to the main thoroughfare of the Hollywood area, so I would guess those were the sightlines they were checking. Given the visible metal framework on the backside of Carsland, it's pretty clear to me that they don't care too much about what the outside world sees
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>...I don't know why there would necessarily have to be overhead restraints, if they could figure out a way to do adjustable chest-level restraints in addition to waist-level. Just thinking out loud.<< It's been done before, and I think could work for Disney. The Nickelodeon Flying Super Saturator (or whatever it's called these days) at Carowinds uses a suspended coaster system with essentially a lap bar to contain guests. Actually, looking at the vehicles, it would be pretty easy to retheme them so the panel between the seats is a door, without obstructing any views. The obvious drawback to this configuration is that it would have a pretty low capacity, since they would need a high dispatch rate with 4-person vehicles (see also: Fantasyland dark rides & Crush's Coaster), so it might not be ideal for a high-profile attraction <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.coasterimage.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/091308.jpg">http://www.coasterimage.com/wp...1308.jpg</a>
Originally Posted By leemac <<The Nickelodeon Flying Super Saturator (or whatever it's called these days) at Carowinds uses a suspended coaster system with essentially a lap bar to contain guests.>> I think that one closed a few years ago. Canopy Flyers at Uni Singapore might be a decent model to follow as that has a lap bar - it is different to the Uni Florida one although all 3 have the same manufacturer. It is pretty gentle though as far as an experience.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Perhaps it's to make sure that whatever it is they're considering won't be seen from other areas within the park.>> Guess so - although the proximity of the structures to the walkways would mean it would have to be pretty huge to dominate that area.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Okay, I was thinking of a stand-up version with the riders more flush to the door, but that's the general idea. If you worked the visuals right (especially if the other doors were moving in the opposite direction as you), you could make it seem like it was moving faster than it actually was.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Maybe I severely misread the MiceAge article<< My point exactly. You did. Here's the link to the article for your convenience: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://micechat.com/34900-miceage-disneyland-tomorrowland/">http://micechat.com/34900-mice...rowland/</a> Most of the alleged "predictions" in the article start with some variation of "right now the plan is". IIRC, Al used to always include some sort of disclaimer about plans changing, and I don't see that on this update. Probably wouldn't kill 'em to put that back in, ne?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Reading that again, I can see where some people would read it as Miceage strongly implying "this is probably going to happen." The author goes to great pains to say how rare it is for the Board to tour a park, but that they did so just before the plans to expand DCA were finalized so they could sign off on the expenditure. He/she then says "The reason behind this rare show of corporate force was Bob Iger’s next big push for the Parks & Resorts Division of the company, and Bob needed to convince the Board to approve the increased spending he has planned for the parks." (snip) "WDI also rolled out several of their top concepts to expand the Anaheim property further, with the Monstropolis mini-land and E Ticket Door Coaster planned for the sleepy Hollywood Backlot area and a new Star Wars themed makeover for the messy Tomorrowland section of Disneyland. The Board also got overviews of WDI’s plans to attempt a more modest makeover of the Disney’s Hollywood Studios park in Florida, with a scaled down Cars Land section and some of the same Star Wars concepts planned for Tomorrowland." So that sounds very much like "these are THE things WDI and Iger want to do" (not "among the ideas being discussed") and just need the Board's approval for.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Most of the alleged "predictions" in the article start with some variation of "right now the plan is"." Isn't that different that saying "here is one of the many ideas they are working on right now"?
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "For our purposes, that would be Bellella, and she's not the one you've been casting aspersions on." She's not alone. "Your position has been that people opposed to Star Wars Land = people who don't like deviating from 'Walt's vision'." Then you misunderstood. My position is that some people who oppose Star Wars Land are people who can't see past Walt's vision for Tomorrowland. I definitely don't think that everyone who opposes SWL is that way. But there are plenty who do. "And I have a prediction for you: There's a very good chance that Star Wars WILL be outdated in the near future, after Disney is done milking it to death. As I noted before, there has been precious little to come out of that franchise that's worthwhile to the average moviegoer since the early 1980s." The prequels did big business you know. Star Wars may already have lasted longer than "futurism" did. It's a much better bet.
Originally Posted By planodisney I will add a couple more notes that I thought were interesting. He did preface by saying, " as of today, those projects are not set in stone or greenlit." Didn't press him on why he said it that way. Also, he stated definitely look for a Hollywoodland expansion to take place before a TL makeover.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros As for people wanting to bring back the 1967 Tomorrowland, in a way it's similar to the logic that we all hate for how execs decide what attractions to build. They ask the guests if they want to see a roller coaster themed to Monsters Inc, or an entirely new ride system with a non-franchise theme. I would bet that 99% of guests would pick the Monsters coaster because it is a concept that they can understand and are familiar with, yet just different enough to feel new. Similarly, many fans want an updated version of TL67 because it was the land's best iteration to date, and is what we're familiar with. However, at the time it was a huge leap forward from what had been there before, and had some really revolutionary attraction concepts and configurations. The PeopleMover, ATIS, and COP all featured new ride systems, and the latter two were themed to concepts that most guests wouldn't have brought up if they were being surveyed. Yet the makeover was an unchallenged success with most of the changes lasting decades, and thus serves as a benchmark for all TL incarnations before or since. Similarly, I want a revamped Tomorrowland to throw out all the rules, nd completely blow me away. I want them to design ride systems that I've never thought about. I want attractions themed to things that I would never consider on my own. I want them to push the boundary and come up with something truly unique and visionary. I don't want them to rely on tired franchises to prop up themes that barely fit a land full of rehashed ride systems; unfortunately, I expect that's what we'll get.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 That's how Miceage gets away with bold face lies...They can say whatever the hell they want and go "Oh, the plans changed..."
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>Planodisney: Just a little update on this........ I asked a few questions......... 3. I've always been curious about how much Disney cares about fan site approval on future rumored projects. << If you don't mind me asking plano ... would you mind telling us what your source said about Point #3?
Originally Posted By mawnck >>That's how Miceage gets away with bold face lies...They can say whatever the hell they want and go "Oh, the plans changed..."<< Nooooooooo ...
