Originally Posted By danyoung That's a couple of fine ideas, jon. They could have had vehicles stop for a few seconds and had an AA forest ranger talking about whatever, setting up a story. DAK's Kali River Rapids with its lamish land stripper story has more story than GRR. Some think GRR doesn't need any more, and I'll agree that it doesn't NEED more - but more would have been fun. And frankly, I expected more when I rode it the first time, and was a bit disappointed.
Originally Posted By jonvn I thought it was very good. I don't really need a lot of story on my rides. Haunted Mansion, for example, has no story to speak of. It's just a haunted mansion. This was a raft ride through the sierras. I think they do too much story. It gets in the way.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy To me, the attractions that place an excruciating emphasis on telling a story, beginning to end, are the least repeatable. It's like watching the same episode of a TV show over and over again. Put me in an environment where that leaves something to my own imagination and I tend to want to queue up again. FWIW, DAK's Kali River Rapids doesn't compare at all to GRR. Adding a story to the ride doesn't make up for a raft trip that is too short, doesn't have a very interesting flume layout, and exposes too much of the behind the scenes sort of mechanisms out in the open without any sort of attempt to theme or explain what they're doing there. I think GRR is the right length, has a very interesting layout where the flume twists around and over itself, and all the mechanisms seem to make sense in the context of the environment where they are placed. Please don't add any cartoon character show scenes to throw the whole thing out of whack.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "They could have had vehicles stop for a few seconds and had an AA forest ranger talking about whatever, setting up a story. DAK's Kali River Rapids with its lamish land stripper story has more story than GRR." Somtimes an attraction can have too much story. Rocket Rods comes to mind. I'm sure that there are more things that could have been done to embellish GRR, but I think it's fine as is.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror >>>Of all the things to criticize at DCA, GRR is not it.<<< Agreed - but it could definitely be better. Animals WOULD add more eye candy, and that's more in line with the philosophy of giving the guest more to enjoy and discover on return trips. There's nothing wrong with that. I know I'm not saying "DCA is perfect" so some people can't understand that. Regardless... >>> I don't really need a lot of story on my rides. Haunted Mansion, for example, has no story to speak of. It's just a haunted mansion.<<< That comparison doesn't work at all, given that the Mansion, perhaps moreso than any OTHER single attraction at Disneyland, is loaded with detail upon detail. It's immersive to the nth degree, and filled to the gills with atmosphere. No, no real story to speak of, but its wealth of theming makes that more or less besides the point. GRR's theming is very nice, very pretty, and appropriate for the experience, but there's nothing to discover on return visits. It certainly doesn't exceed expectations, like the Mansion has since its opening, to the present.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Mansion, perhaps moreso than any OTHER single attraction at Disneyland, is loaded with detail upon detail." That is what makes the idea that you need a story to be not true. That's the whole point. You don't need a story, it doesn't have one. When you have a story, it does not replace the details of the ride. If you put a story on top of GRR now, it doesn't change the experience one bit, whether you like the ride or not. You could put the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy on top of the ride, it won't change the ride.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror >>>"Mansion, perhaps moreso than any OTHER single attraction at Disneyland, is loaded with detail upon detail." That is what makes the idea that you need a story to be not true. That's the whole point. You don't need a story, it doesn't have one. When you have a story, it does not replace the details of the ride. <<< I think you're misunderstanding what folks here are trying to say. Though it's decently and appropriately themed, GRR has NEITHER "detail upon detail" to offer the visitor, nor does it have a story of any significance. So it has neither. The mansion has details and immersion and atmosphere in abundance... it doesn't need a story. GRR - nice enough ride, but after one time, there's nothing new here besides the ride itself. I remember someone establishing a principle of offering the guest MORE than they could possibly absorb in one outing. I think it's a good principle. There's very little in the whole of DCA that subscribes to that, and GRR is no exception. Add more details, and it will indeed change the ride. It will make it better. It's good now. Make it better. There's no real reason NOT to.
Originally Posted By ChurroMonster Does GRR need anything? It's a rapids ride through a beautifually detailed Disney wilderness. The entire GRR area encompasses some of the most naturalistic and beautiful scenery in any Disney theme park. Some animals along the ride route wouldn't hurt the experience but wouldn't necessarily enhance it either. I echo the sentiments of those who say that other areas of the park need a lot more attention before GRR does. Until the rest of the park is as immersive and pleasant as GRR is, leave it alone.
Originally Posted By danyoung >Though it's decently and appropriately themed, GRR has NEITHER "detail upon detail" to offer the visitor, nor does it have a story of any significance. So it has neither.< Thank you - that's what I was trying to say. I don't think the mountain has to tell the "story" of some specific incident or person or historical fact. But I think it should have been more than just a flume ride through some nice scenery. But I also agree with ChurroMonster - fix all the other stuff first before spending much time and money on plussing GRR.
Originally Posted By jonvn "GRR has NEITHER "detail upon detail" to offer the visitor, nor does it have a story of any significance. So it has neither." What would detail upon detail include for this ride? Would putting a few AA figures do it for you? Is that all it takes? If so, that's a pretty narrow focus of what is a good detail on a ride. The ride is themed to a fast and wild raft trip through the sierras. As such, it is quite elaborate. It COULD have more. But this is true of everything. Haunted Mansion and POTC have had things added over the years as well. "But I think it should have been more than just a flume ride through some nice scenery." Well, it's a flume ride through the sierras. It's very detailed in that manner. I mentioned a couple ideas as to what they could have done, and maybe they could even put in a delapidated gold mining town, too. A few little things here and there. But I really don't think it would change the ride one bit. The only thing that might would be if they enclosed a section, and made it copmletely dark. Put a lit waterfall in it, or something. Putting an AA turtle along the banks, though, who is even ever going to see it?
Originally Posted By danyoung >Putting an AA turtle along the banks, though, who is even ever going to see it?< Put enough of them in and everyone will see 'em. Put in a backwoods cabin with an old mountaineer sitting on the porch cleaning his traps or rewinding his fishing reel. Put some animals into natural settings. The mining town that gets washed away in WDW's BTMRR goes by incredibly quickly, but it adds immeasurably to the quality and the repeatability of the attraction. The only reason to ride GRR for me is if it's a hot day and I want to get wet. I'd love to see more Disney type stuff there. But I'm not losing any sleep over it - there are many many areas of DCA that need much more immediate help.
Originally Posted By fkurucz Changing the direction or this discussion: Where is Disney getting the capital for this expansion? Will it come out of cash flow? Will they sell bonds or resort to some other form of borrowing. With the capital markets so topsy turvy these days, I just wondered.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Put enough of them in and everyone will see 'em. " You'd have to put in a lot of turtles. Hey, I'm all for putting more stuff in. If they do that, great. I enjoy it as is, though. I'm not going to be stupid and complain if they add to it! "Where is Disney getting the capital for this expansion?" Visa or American Express. They're a big company. They probably will either use cash on hand or borrow the money somehow. If this happens over a multi-year period, it's not that much for them to borrow.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<I think it should have been more than just a flume ride through some nice scenery>> Just to pick a nit here: GRR is not a flume ride, but a raft ride. I think it makes a difference because in a flume ride, everyone sits facing forward, so scenery is very important. A raft ride though, everyone sits facing inward; a great deal of the experience is watching the rest of your party, wondering who will get soaked. When you do look outside the raft, it's mostly to look at the water, and where the soaking and splashing effects are located. While I do think the addition of some AA's and what-not would "plus" the ride, I can inderstand why some feel that any additional theming would be a waste of effort. There are other areas of DCA that suffer from deficiencies much more than GRR.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Where is Disney getting the capital for this expansion? Will it come out of cash flow? Will they sell bonds or resort to some other form of borrowing. >> If 2007 and 2008 shape up the same way as 2006, Disney has plenty of cash flow to finance these capital investments. The big drags on cash flow 5 years ago were TV networks and consumer products. Both of those business segments have been turned around significantly and the theme park business is returning to pre-9/11 levels finally.
Originally Posted By lesmisfan just to let everyone know, there are new posters up around midway mania, each one with a different character, one with woody, jessie, the pig, potatoe head, and rex, each comes with different sayings.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf Don't know about you guys, but I'm getting excited about Midway Mania - can't wait to shoot some Pixar characters.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror >>>I echo the sentiments of those who say that other areas of the park need a lot more attention before GRR does. Until the rest of the park is as immersive and pleasant as GRR is, leave it alone.<<< On this, I don't argue. MOST of the park needs serious attention. Anything added to GRR would enhance the experience. Bears swiping at you, going for fish, etc. You spend your time looking at your fellow riders, because, frankly, there's nothing other than rocks and trees and water to look at. Break the paradigm, and people will discover a world of more. Are a few AA's what I call "detail upon detail"? In part. But you wouldn't just add them. There would be new props, new signage, probably some discrete visual and textual gags. Perhaps some new landscaping. It's about visual texture. Right now, GRR is more or less a smooth China plate. It could be a nice Peruvian vase. That would be a lot more interesting, for me. Haunted Mansion and Pirates DID have things added over the years, but they were pretty immersive and had their layers of detail upon opening. So the comparison remains sort of silly.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Don't know about you guys, but I'm getting excited about Midway Mania " I just hope it's an ok ride. I don't have a lot of optimism. "You spend your time looking at your fellow riders, because, frankly, there's nothing other than rocks and trees and water to look at. " You look at your fellow riders because the vehicle has you face all your riders. The only other thing to look at is the water about to splash you. This is why people seem to think the ride has no theme. They are too busy looking at each other and the water to notice that it does. "Right now, GRR is more or less a smooth China plate. " Again, this is ridiculous. It is themed to the sierras, and looks just like them. No one notices. Why? They're busy looking at the water.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> Nothing that TWDC has ever created has made me feel patronized or insulted, and I honestly don't think they ever go in thinking, "As long as we slap the Disney name on it they will come." << Tacky ol' Mulholland Madness? Tacky ol' Mailboomer? Tacky ol' Superstar Limo? Make sure to reserve enough passes on the bus headed to Abilene.
