Originally Posted By leemac <<What about Disneyland Paris?>> I actually feel that this MK in Hong Kong is more visually appleasing. Even over Paris. <<"I just don't see how anyone can argue that seeing outside TDS is a good thing." But DCA has the same problem, if not worse! How can that be good either? You can see power lines, the conventions center, and the giant Paradise Pier Hotel.>> Very true. What I see is that people constantly go on about the "rich" theming of TDS but never mention the ghastly views of the industrial bay and the official hotels whilst lambasting DCA for its views. Neither are ideal at all but TDS had the option to prevent people seeing outside the park. It wasn't really an option for DCA that is surrounded by the buildings that preceded it. I'm just curious as to why the TDS imagineers designed the park that way. Creating such elevated positions to give oyu viewpoints outside the park throughout.
Originally Posted By SuperDry It would seem to me that the view of the bay is quite deliberate. As WD already mentioned, they went to extra expense to lower the monorail in that area so that it's not visible from the park. It would seem to me that being able to see an ocean bay is very much in keeping with the theme of DinseySEA. You can see the SS Columbia in the foreground and other ocean-going vessels out in the bay in the background. The leaking sea doors near Aquatopia clearly are indended to make you think that the ocean is right on the other side of the wall (with the road and monorail track well hidden). I think the use of the bay as being visible from within the park is very creative and totally in-theme. Now, being able to see the official hotels is another matter.
Originally Posted By TDLFAN >>Unfortunately custodial, maintenance, poor cast members and aweful guest behaviour, take the most beautifully designed MK and pushes the quality of the experience below the other parks. Sad but true. Whereas I think the HK work ethic will raise the HKDL experience to new levels of fun in the pantheon of play.<<< Spoken like a true TDLFAN, davewasbaloo!! I could not agree more onthis assessment. But then again... how long have I been saying this about DLP?? But this is not about trashing DLP. We are in celebration mode with the opening of yet another great facility from Disney, and one we hope will become as fine as the original park it so has much in common in looks and hopefully...atmosphere.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo ^^^ What will also be nice, is there will not be 100,000's of guests with a sense of entitlement. I'm quite excited to see HKDL grow and find it's own feet. It will be very interesting to see what direction it goes.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney <<What will also be nice, is there will not be 100,000's of guests with a sense of entitlement.>> Trust me. All of that will change in about 40 years when HKDL opens a second gate called Walt Disney's East Kowloon Studios Adventure!! I probably won't be around for it.....but my great grandson will be, giving them HELL on LP .
Originally Posted By TDLFAN >>I'm quite excited to see HKDL grow and find it's own feet<< ...And fake reeboks to go with them feet. >>It will be very interesting to see what direction it goes<< Go West!!!
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< >>I'm quite excited to see HKDL grow and find it's own feet<< ...And fake reeboks to go with them feet. >>> You just made me spit out my juice!
Originally Posted By jmuboy I just LOL'ed for real at that fake Reebok joke. My neighbor in the next cube is awake now.
Originally Posted By SuperDry Getting back to Raging Spirits, I wanted to comment on it now that I've had a chance to ride it. As others have reported, the ride itself is indeed an identical copy from DLP. The theming is interesting for what it is - supposedly it's built on top of an ancient burial ground. There are a few subtle things that really bring home this point. If you go at night, the fires and other decorations give it an eerie sense. As you're in line but before the boarding area, just look into the ride and take it in. It does have a very eerie sensation to it. One thing to pay particular attention to is the noise, or rather the lack thereof. As the cars go wooshing by, you hear a sound that's kind of hard to describe. It's kind of other-worldly. I'm not sure if it's entirely just the sound of the wheels on the track or if they have some particular shape to make that noise in the wind (it's clearly not an artificial sound in the eletronic sense). Aside from a few very loud ratchet sounds as each train enters the final braking area, the ride is remarkably silent except for this wooshing sound. What's different about this than other roller coasters, you might ask? Well, one notable thing that's absent is the ratcheting sound as the trains go up the lift hill. A close examination of the lift hill shows that the trains have not just a quiet version of the safety ratchet, but NO version of this. Instead, there are two separate lift chains to provide safety in case one should break. Then it all fell into place: they went to extra expense to do it this way specifically to make it quiet in order to set the mood - very clever. It's still a rough ride, and an "off the shelf" one at that, even though it's heavily themed. That ride does have a very small footprint for what it offers (compare it to any other Disney adult coaster), and I wonder how much available space had to do with it. One thing I don't understand is why they didn't do more to block out the view of outside the park when you're near the top of the ride. It seems that they have walls sufficiently high enough on the side that borders Indy and half the side that faces the parking lot - why they didn't just continue this around is a mystery. Particularly at night, the lights of the hotels and other stuff off in the distance grabs your attention when you're at the top and pointed in that direction.
Originally Posted By SuperDry Oh yea, one more thing about Raging Spirits: the height limitations. In addition to a minimum height, there's also a maximum height of 195cm. As I came up to it on my final night (after having ridden it already during the day), the CM asked me "How tall are you?" I was about to say "6 feet" but then realized that I could be a bit clever and give my height in metric units (not having seen the sign yet, but I assumed that since I was anywhere but the US, that metric units would be used). So, what's the obvious approximate conversion between 6 feet and metric units? Well, 1 yard is about 1 meter, so, 6 feet must be about "2 meters" which what I said. They then pointed to the sign which said 195cm. I protested and said, "see, 200cm is well above the limit" only to realize after I said it that it the 195cm was a MAXIMUM height - oops. Then I thought that I should use the exact calcuation, which would be that 6 feet = 72 inches, and 1 inch = 2.54cm, but this would be too much to do in my head on the spot (after the fact, I now know that 6ft = 183cm, so I was well under the limit). So, I got to be led backstage into the special sizing chair and they confirmed that it would close properly on me. For bigger people, they have to cofirm that the safety arms ratchet down past a certain point, the reason for which I'm not sure. After all, if the person fits in the seat and the safety bar locks in place with the passenger being held snugly in place, what difference does it make which notch of the locking mechanism was used? Well, it appearently makes a big difference, as they won't let you ride unless you can get it locked down at least to a certain point. I had to take my coat off in order to make it fit, but this was as much due to my girth as height. So anyway, the "maximum height" on the sign is not really a maximum height in a strict sense, as they never actually measured my height. It perhaps is just an estimate of how tall a thin person would have to be in order to not get the safety harness to close enough. I would imagine that shorter but wider persons could be excluded even though they may be well below the posted maximum height. I guess the roughness of this one makes the over-the-shoulder harness necessary (and a properly-fitting one at that) as compared to other Disney coasters where a lap bar suffices.
Originally Posted By irishfan >>It's still a rough ride, and an "off the shelf" one at that<< This surprises me. A brang new roller coaster should not be rough. It took a few years at Paris for Indy to become rough from what I recall.
Originally Posted By SuperDry There could be more than one kind of "rough" that we're talking about. RS had a lot of very sudden jerks in one direction or another. Compare this with something like Space Mountain (especially the new track at DL or HKDL), which has very smooth transitions. Since RS is brand new, this must just be part of the design, although I don't know enough about roller coasters to know why this would be. One thing I remember from Paris' version is that on that one, my ears were sore after riding after having been boxed into the restraint several times - that didn't happen on RS.
Originally Posted By Roger55 I might be off on this, but when I rode RS, it appeared to me that the seats in front of me were fairly stable, but the over the shoulder retraints seemed to be moving. I just assumed they designed in the shaking and rattling of the restraints for effect.
Originally Posted By irishfan >>One thing I remember from Paris' version is that on that one, my ears were sore after riding after having been boxed into the restraint several times<< Absolutley, thats why I tend not to ride it anymore. Saying that, it wasn't like that in its initial few years.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> It wasn't really an option for DCA that is surrounded by the buildings that preceded it. << No option? You got to be kidding. >> It would seem to me that being able to see an ocean bay is very much in keeping with the theme of DinseySEA. << And leemac is critical of that?? But, then again, he has said he favors DCA to DisneySea. It's like living in alternative universes.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher ^ I guess I should elaborate on the "really wasn't an option" comment. Yes, the development around the DisCo's property in Anaheim grew topsy turvy over the decades. But it's a lame excuse for the designers of DCA to claim they therefore couldn't have done a lot more to conceal views outside the park. In fact, DCA's Barry Braverman, instead of being embarrassed or sheepish about the park's exposed perimeter, said that a wide-and-open layout was appropriate for a park themed to wide-and-open California.
