Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>(Not a bad thing, or intended to be a insult... I think we are all on different frequencies)<<< Not to worry, EE. I am much to dead on the inside to have taken offense by that statement even if I could have seen anything about it as insulting. I couldn't...I didn't...we're cool.
Originally Posted By Scutr >> she continued to sing along with the whole show, and sporadically raising her hands and exclaiming "OH THIS IS SO WONDERFUL!!"<< I've been told The Witches do the same thing on IASW
Originally Posted By WDWVacationer <<I doubt that. The Matterhorn is a massive ride, and even icon. SWSA II won't have that. If it did, that would solve a big problem.>> Matterhorn is tall, with a smaller footprint. Mine Train will be short with a bigger footprint. Matterhorn is an icon because it is tall. I don't know what being an icon has to do with substance. And there's "SWSA II" again. Which is why you dislike the mine ride. You wanted another SWSA.
Originally Posted By leobloom Still trying to convince us that Dwarf Mine Train has as much substance as the Matterhorn? Uh-huh. Just checking.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost I don't think anyone is really trying to say that...but for it's purpose it has all the substance that is required. Not everything has to be the Matterhorn. Not everything should be the Matterhorn. Besides that I'm not sure the Matterhorn is that great an example. What is it, after all, but a roller coaster housed in a fake mountain. For it's purpose it is substantial. In my opinion, compared to other things like ToT, for example, it is pretty plain. It's like trying to compare a Cadillac to a Ford Falcon. Both serve a purpose and for that purpose they are of substance. And in that light they are of equal substance. They fulfill the purpose for which they were designed. Why is that such a problem for everyone to accept?
Originally Posted By WDWVacationer They are very comprable if you take a step back and put any false expectations aside. Both attractions are very similar going by the sense of immersion and substance that is in question here. So my point is that the Mine Train will provide just as much immersion and subtsance as the Matterhorn-a favorite attraction of many people.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Matterhorn is tall, with a smaller footprint. Mine Train will be short with a bigger footprint. Matterhorn is an icon because it is tall. I don't know what being an icon has to do with substance. And there's "SWSA II" again. Which is why you dislike the mine ride. You wanted another SWSA.<<< An icon is substance. It adds something, albeit superficial, to the scheme of things. Granted, this is a theme park, so superficial things are what makes a difference. And no, it's not why I dislike the train ride, it's a warranted need for story. But go ahead, put words in my mouth, you aren't the first!
Originally Posted By sjhym333 I agree, the mine train and the Matterhorn are very different experiences. I am not sure they are a good comparison. While the mine train may be immersive in it's own way, I am not sure it will be like the Matterhorn in most ways. I think the mine train may be a nice addition when you look at the whole FL expansion, not happy about Snow White dark ride going away to have another character greet. I would rather see them gut the attraction and put in another dark ride or a completely new Snow White attraction. My gut feeling about the Mine Train is that it is going to be great for families with young children, but disappointing to most everyone else because I expect it is going to have long lines for what looks to be a rather short ride.
Originally Posted By WDWVacationer <<And no, it's not why I dislike the train ride, it's a warranted need for story. But go ahead, put words in my mouth, you aren't the first!>> It's pretty clear that when you coined the term "SWSA II" you wanted the mine ride to tell the Snow White story like SWSA. This was a false and unwarranted expectation. Now you are disappointed because it doesn't tell that story. Not putting words in your mouth. I just know you set false expectations, now you are disappointed. You were never promised a retelling like you wanted. This ride will tell a story, but with place making rather than multiple scenes. Seems like Big Thunder in terms of storytelling. No real chronological sequence of events or anything like that, but a series of less elaborate scenes and a fully realized environment that take you to another time or place.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>> It's pretty clear that when you coined the term "SWSA II" you wanted the mine ride to tell the Snow White story like SWSA. This was a false and unwarranted expectation. Now you are disappointed because it doesn't tell that story. Not putting words in your mouth. I just know you set false expectations, now you are disappointed. You were never promised a retelling like you wanted. This ride will tell a story, but with place making rather than multiple scenes. Seems like Big Thunder in terms of storytelling. No real chronological sequence of events or anything like that, but a series of less elaborate scenes and a fully realized environment that take you to another time or place<<< Of course I wasn't promised anything. Doesn't mean that I still don't want it. SDMT is a misstep, if they are going to take out storytelling for experience. Just how I feel.
Originally Posted By Lee hisownself >>SDMT is a misstep, if they are going to take out storytelling for experience. Just how I feel. << I don't think we're ever gonna see eye to eye on this one EE. lol I disagree 1000%. 7DMT is going to be a huge plus for FL, and provide the large anchor attraction it has lacked for years.
Originally Posted By leobloom How can it be an anchor attraction when it was an afterthought to the whole FLE? It seems clear to me that Mermaid is supposed to be the "big"/major addition to Fantasyland...
Originally Posted By Lee hisownself >>It seems clear to me that Mermaid is supposed to be the "big"/major addition to Fantasyland...<< Mermaid was going to be, back when it was the only ride going in amongst a bunch of over designed and over expensive meet and greets. 7DMR is going to eclipse it. It will be the ride people talk about, that adults will want to ride, and that kids will love. Mermaid will be a cute little D-ticket dark ride, which is all it really can be.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer ^ You seem to think it will be an E Tic, then. I just don't see that happening. FLE needs a grand statement. Not just beautiful aesthetics and fleeting experiences. A real headliner. I expect to adore SWSA II/7DMT. Really. I just don't expect it to be something that's BIG.
Originally Posted By danyoung While I'm looking forward to the train, and think it will be a nice addition, I don't in any way see it as "the ride people talk about, that adults will want to ride, and that kids will love." It'll be fun, but not world shaking.
Originally Posted By WDWVacationer ^I was speaking in terms of it being a visual icon. I suppose you could consider it an icon as a quintessential Disney experience.
Originally Posted By Lee hisownself >>^ You seem to think it will be an E Tic, then. I just don't see that happening. << No, not at all. It will be large and of good quality, but not an E by any means. Neverless, it will be an excellent addition. >> I don't in any way see it as "the ride people talk about, that adults will want to ride, and that kids will love." It'll be fun, but not world shaking.<< No, not world shaking at all. But it will become the dominant attraction of Fantasyland. And it will attract adults. For me, it will be the only draw in FL. We'll know for sure in 2 years-ish. Until then, all this "It will!" vs "It won't!" is pointless. However, looking at it completely objectively, without damning it for not being a big E headliner, I don't see how it can be seen as anything but a positive.
