Originally Posted By oc_dean >>The pace of the story comes to a grinding halt shortly after the second waterfall until the attack on the port. The grotto section of the ride is filled with anticipation when you don't know what's coming, but after dozens of rides on the DL version I find that the long stretch of static displays and dark caves kills the action. << emphasizing - >>long stretch of static displays<< Well, 'dead pirate remains' generally are. If you want non static skeletons, visit the Haunted Mansion.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Or how about putting some pirates in there stealing the treasure? Actually, why is the treasure there anyway and what does it have to do with what unfolds in the ride after we see it? At DLP the treasure scene appears at the end of the ride, which makes way more sense if you ask me.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>>>The pace of the story comes to a grinding halt shortly after the second waterfall until the attack on the port.<< Completely, and respectfully disagree. Walt's first generation imagineers weren't so overly story-centric about every moment of every ride (like Disney is today-and brainwashing everyone else to think so as well). Walt's crew gave us (the audience) a chance to get absorbed into these incredibly richly detailed and mysterious environments .. setting up 'the mood' .... and any specific 'storytelling' would follow later, after your mind has gotten a chance to become lost within these environments. Does every Disney ride have to be so story-centric .. so non-stop-action centric ... that we don't get to absorb our minds into these rich backstory elements first?
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>Or how about putting some pirates in there stealing the treasure? << It's perfect the way it is. I don't need non-stop action from the first moment the ride starts. I love the ride just the way it is. (Pre Jack Sparrow, that is). The mood is setting itself up..... Anticipation builds..... and enter, the fort bonbardment! Perfect 'entrance' for the bonbardment scene. >>Actually, why is the treasure there anyway<< Because previous pirates left their loot in that cave, perhaps? >> and what does it have to do with what unfolds in the ride after we see it? << It was explained for us, before this piece of audio was snipped in favor of the Jack Sparrow changes ... in the completely dark section of tunnel.... Perhaps ye knows too much... ye've seen the cursed treasure, you know where it be hidden. Now proceed at your own risk. These be the last 'friendly' words ye'll hear. Ye may not survive to pass this way again... _________________________________ from that point .. it's established .. the pirates will do whatever it takes to get that treasure (we got to see first) ... They dunk the town mayor in the well for it ... and raid the town for whatever they can get ... and set the rest of it on fire, etc.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>At DLP the treasure scene appears at the end of the ride, which makes way more sense if you ask me.<< One ride lets the audience in on the treasure, first. So, now we have established .. whatever pirates we see, we know what their ulterior motive is. While the other version follows a script in more strict chronological order. One script format is not more superior than the other. It's just two different ways. And I hope some day, I get to see DLP's version. I've never been to Europe. I've read all about the various differences between it in Anaheim's. One of the most anticipated things I'm hoping to do at some point.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt >>>>The pace of the story comes to a grinding halt shortly after the second waterfall until the attack on the port.<< "Completely, and respectfully disagree. Walt's first generation imagineers weren't so overly story-centric about every moment of every ride (like Disney is today-and brainwashing everyone else to think so as well)." Of course, and no one can argue this. We also have to understand that these attractions were the first of their kinds and as a result their approach to storytelling is deliberately unsophisticated. Perhaps this partially helps explain why the ride seems dated to me; the narrative seems too passive in comparison to more recent WDI productions. I guess this also explains why Johnny Depp's AA figures feel so out of place. So, as I said, this is MY view of the attraction TODAY. WDI's intent in the 60s may have been to give guests the impression or idea of passing through a fantasy pirate realm, but I suspect the average modern guest expects a more literal interpretation with a bit of rhythm, logic and punch to the story line (ie: RS Racers, BTMRR, TLM, 7 Dwarfs Mine Train, Indy, etc) than Pirates offers. "Does every Disney ride have to be so story-centric .. so non-stop-action centric ... that we don't get to absorb our minds into these rich backstory elements first?" No, but I think a more cohesive narrative at DL's Pirates would improve and modernize it immensely for me.
Originally Posted By oc_dean I feel though .. not everything has to be so perfectly explained. And leave a bit to the imagination. Where was it here on LP, where some of you touched on this subject of imagineering creating very-well-explained backstories on characters, and situations? I like inserting my own "narrative" where there's room to do it. 'Interaction' is more than playing with props in Toontown ... or the props in Indy's queue ... or any other physical interactivity. 'Interaction' can also be - How our minds ... our souls ~touch~ on various Disney theme park experiences. That connection between YOU and the ride itself. You also touched on the word "passive". I think it's passive to follow some Disney character on their travels. It's much more exciting and 'interactive' that the ride makes us the "center character".
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<2. Binging on anything .. will eventually get tiring, and ultimately sick of it. Try watching all 5 seasons of Breaking Bad over and over. Eventually .. one will get sick of it so much. And it has nothing to do with how good of a show it was. It's got to do with burning something out .. even when it really is good.>> I agree to a certain extent. But I have gone on Peter Pan as often as I have gone on Pirates. But I still look forward to Peter Pan. A lot of other people do also. Pirates at WDW is usually a walk-on or 15 minute wait at most. Peter Pan is always 40 minutes or more. Help me out here... why does Peter Pan still do it for me when Pirates does not?
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "I feel though .. not everything has to be so perfectly explained. And leave a bit to the imagination." I agree. I'm not decreeing that every attraction at DLR ought to start at point A and end at point Z with a fully explained story in between. Walt apparently didn't think that dark rides were a good medium for traditional narratives, and so for the first 25 years or so the imagineers created impressions of a story and left guests to fill in the blanks. Some of the best examples of this are the Fantasyland dark rides. When EPCOT Center came along things got a bit more ambitious and we began to see dark rides with basically complete narratives - Journey Into Imagination, World of Motion and Spaceship Earth are good examples. Pirates may have been a ground breaking attraction, and it may be perfect for some, but I'm wondering if beefing up the story line might be a way to make it feel more relevant to me. "Where was it here on LP, where some of you touched on this subject of imagineering creating very-well-explained back stories on characters, and situations?" It's been mentioned a million times. I don't really care what WDI's processes are in developing a theme park or attraction. My only problem is when knowledge of one of their back stories is required to understand or enjoy the ride, which from my experience has been pretty much never.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Help me out here... why does Peter Pan still do it for me when Pirates does not?" Because you're actually a toddler masquerading as a grown man?
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt I think the reason RoadTrip may be what I referred to in posts 46 and 49. That is, the experience of passing through an attraction the size and scale of Pirates should be less passive. Looking at things is fine for the minute and half you're on PP, but I find parts of Pirates at DL a bit tedious.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>Pirates at WDW is usually a walk-on or 15 minute wait at most. Peter Pan is always 40 minutes or more.<< Not that we haven't touched on this subject to death ..... The bigger the ride vehicles are ... the more people the ride holds ... the smaller the vehicles are ...the longer the line becomes. It's like the subject of the Peoplemover. When I read nonsense .. that it wasn't popular, it was a walk on ... well ..... D.U.H...... you have 62 trains. Each train 4 cars each, each car holding 4 people each. It had an hourly capacity of 4,880! Of course it's going to be a walk on. That was the beauty of it. You didn't have to wait in any line.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Because you're actually a toddler masquerading as a grown man? >> More than likely true. I just wish more people could accept that.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance I've made my peace with it Roadtrip, if that makes you feel any better.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA For the record, I think 'Pirates of the Caribbean' at Disneyland is a damn near perfect theme park experience. The trip through the Blue Bayou. Waterfalls. The grotto sequence. Not boring. Not tedious. Not lacking in storytelling elements. Beautifully done. Damn. Near. Perfect. Where I question it is from my own history. I first visited in 1969. I was 7 years old! Pirates was 2 years old. And I've visited so many times over the course of my life - took dates in high school and college, family trips -- that I'm sure I have no true perspective on it. And maybe it doesn't matter. I have a very similar affection for 'it's a small world' and 'The Enchanted Tiki Room' (I'll never forget experiencing the pre-show Tiki Garden - still find it charming)
Originally Posted By leemac <<Damn. Near. Perfect.>> Couldn't agree more - except I'd call it perfect. Walt's boys were all studio artists so story wasn't front and center in their execution - it was about the visuals. Same for HM where it is effectively a series of visuals strung together - albeit with a stronger narrative that POTC. I'm surprised to hear older guests talk about the pacing and length of the ride. Again it all comes down to mix - not everything should be sub three minutes. You need these longer experiences to do two things: absorb guests' time and physically take guests out of the park. If the park was all Magic Mountain type rides then it would have a significantly lower capacity and wouldn't work. Whether Walt and his team really appreciated the impact that his signature E-tickets would have on the commercials for his park I don't know. He just set out to break the mould and create jaw-dropping experiences.
Originally Posted By leemac <<It's like the subject of the Peoplemover. When I read nonsense .. that it wasn't popular, it was a walk on ... well ..... D.U.H...... you have 62 trains. Each train 4 cars each, each car holding 4 people each. It had an hourly capacity of 4,880! >> It all depends on your definition of "popular". Again Disney parks need a mix of experiences to manage their day guests. People Mover also solved two dilemmas: it absorbed guests and took them out of the walkways and it added levels to an already congested TomorrowLand.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt For RoadTrip: www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPD2LuZNnl0 Not sure if you've seen this in person, but it looks pretty damn cool.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Curses!! <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://tinyurl.com/lldpzjy">http://tinyurl.com/lldpzjy</a>
Originally Posted By RoadTrip ^^ Very cool. No, I haven't seen it. When we were at WDW last September we had Fast Pass+ for Peter Pan. Would have been better to stand in line. I've always loved that attraction. Not really sure why, but it is the ONLY attraction I remember from my first visit to Disneyland back when I was about 10 years old. It has always been my favorite. I have been quite successful at never growing up. Maybe that has something to do with it.
