Originally Posted By vbdad55 <<<I think the survey would show they like the ride better, not the attraction piece.>> Not sure what this means. < The ride portion of TT is better, the 'show' portion definitely is not.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Also I'm sure that logistically there was not enough space for both Test Track and World of Motion.< The space occupied by TT today could have housed a combo of both - changing the ride system for WoM - and keeping the show portion and AA's-- not two separate attractions
Originally Posted By Dlmusic So you're saying they should have kept all the theming and just made a high speed version of World of Motion with the ending of Test Track? That wouldn't have been logistically possible. The building was gutted because the track had to be made much longer considering Test Track goes at much higher speeds than World of Motion did. While I certainly agree that they could have encorporated some of the set pieces or animatronics into the Test Track ride system, I think you would have only been able to keep a certain percentage of those scenes due to the extra space needed for extra track. This might sound controversial, but I'm not sure the average guest would have preferred a sped up history of transportation versus the tactile "you're a test dummy" theming. I would certainly like the former but I'm not sure if most would.
Originally Posted By TDLFAN >>This might sound controversial, but I'm not sure the average guest would have preferred a sped up history of transportation versus the tactile "you're a test dummy" theming.<< That is because they are all dummies, including the folks who designed this TT (aka Turkey Track) ride.
Originally Posted By ChiMike Spirit great follow up posts. VBDad too. >>To say it wasn't popular just isn't true. Maybe in 1995 it wasn't. But in 1988 it sure was.<< Although I would say that even in 1995 it was one of the top draws for EPCOT. If you were to ask a family of 5.5 at T&TC (who are crucial to Disney's market) why they were heading to EPCOT from the MK, "Figment" would be at the top of the list. Again, it wasn't at the top of it's game by that point but it was hardly dormant. It did as well as it could considering Disney's support of it. And I had no problem with them trying to do something else. What I have a problem with is how they did it. How they wasted a lot of money. How they hurt EPCOTs operations for multiple periods of a time. Couple that with the arrogant hip & edgy attitude of the designers, and it was a bad project. The bad project ended up reflecting it's troubled design and designers. Guests noticed. Heck I was at EPCOT in fall of '99 when Michael Eisner previewed the attraction and HE right away noticed. So if the pavilion was unpopular in 1998, it was EVEN MORE unpopular in 2000.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>Really? I didn't know that. My info is largely anecdotal, but WoM often had major lines, it was just a people-eater. I honestly don't ever recall waiting longer than 20 minutes for Horizons even in its heyday.<< From my clear understanding Horizons had a larger avg. daily rider count than WoM when WoM was discontinued. Now, I'm not about to state the exact reason for that, but that was my understanding. And, again, queue time, let alone queue length, is never a good indicator of how attraction A and attraction B stack up against each other. I mean common sense comes into play when looking at things like Splash Mountain v. Mark Twain, but for two long Omnimovers it's a little trickier. But you are right, capacity-wise, WoM could handle about 400 more people an hour. So on a day when WoM is hitting capacity, then it is certainly currently seeing more guests than Horizons.
Originally Posted By Dlmusic <<That is because they are all dummies, including the folks who designed this TT (aka Turkey Track) ride.>> Dummies are not, those are the guests that Disney must serve. It's all too easy to write everyone off as stupid just because they have a different view of what a theme park ride should be like. <<And I had no problem with them trying to do something else. What I have a problem with is how they did it. How they wasted a lot of money. How they hurt EPCOTs operations for multiple periods of a time. Couple that with the arrogant hip & edgy attitude of the designers, and it was a bad project.>> I totally agree. The end result was disasterous. <<The bad project ended up reflecting it's troubled design and designers. Guests noticed. Heck I was at EPCOT in fall of '99 when Michael Eisner previewed the attraction and HE right away noticed. So if the pavilion was unpopular in 1998, it was EVEN MORE unpopular in 2000.>> And not that much more popular after Figment was put back. It's no secret that the Imagination project was a complete failure. If it didn't get ridership before, it certainly doesn't now.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>I'm just hoping that if a fourth version does get built, that it goes back more to the spirit of the original and returns that sense of wonderment that is evoked by all people young and old alike.<< Well said, BrotherDave. I agree to. And that doesn't mean we want 1983 back.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>JOURNEY in its original form sparkled, guests loved it, it enjoyed a strong run for over a decade, and as maintenance decayed and attention was lost on the pavillion as a whole, interest waned for the pavillion as a whole and the ride by default.<< Very well said, BlueOhanaTerror! >>We had one of those already. She drank her martinis and sailed off into the sunset.<<
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>Most definitely at WDW. I'd venture to say that many more folks miss it than they do Horizons ... or 20,000 Leagues ... or even Toad.<< I would agree also, although I think Toad was more relevant when it was closed. Toad could have continued.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>World of Motion - Test Track I don't see how anybody could argue this wasn't good business sense. << I don't think anyone really would. I agree, even with it's faults, it is a VERY popular ride and a widely successful upgrade in Disney's and the guests' eyes. I would say that, and Lee would agree I think, that the costs were out of control on it's development. It was one of the starters for WDI falling in love with technology over story. >>Any independent survey would show guests like this attraction way more than World of Motion.<< No doubt. >>Mr. Toad's Wild Ride - Many Adventures of Winnie-the-Pooh Again, hard to not justify this business wise.<< This is where we would disagree. Disney missed the boat on this entirely. This is a pure example of Disney taking the easy, quick road. Little effort to exact as much easy money as possible. If Disney were to be worried about the long term health of the park. The long term capacity need and the long term competitive advantage when it comes to taking advantage of it's customers' sentimentality were completely ignored in this case. It was all short term thinking. If Disney was sharp, they would have immediately reclaimed 20K instead of waiting a decade and would have installed Hunny Hunt in it's place. They would have been able to have a MUCH larger merchandise operation this way and probably would have sold more Pooh Plush. They also would have stregthened their park and further distinguished themselves from their competition. Instead of the awesomeness of Hunny Hunt and having Toad (a ride that Today's WDI could never recreate) in their lineup they have a ho-hum basic Pooh ride with a tiny shop. >> Horizons - Mission:Space This one is hard to judge, because on the one hand Horizons was not all that popular and was experiencing pretty bad attendance towards the end of it's run.<< Again, what time frame are we speaking about? How do you know this? Up until it lost it's sponser it was a very successful pavilion. It's closure had more to do with the desire for a space pavilion and a new sponser. It's closure had to do with the pavilion's state. A state that was brought on by Disney's own inaction. It wasn't because it lost a popularity contest. >> Is an attraction that a minority enjoys immensly better than an attraction that the majority midly enjoys?<< The only situation where this ended up applying was WoM -> TT >>Take Animal Kingdom where walking through the park at times is an "E" ticket experience with detail galore and a complete 3-d environment that is almost without peer in the U.S. Guests often complain of the lack of attractions and "things to do." I want to shake them and explain, "but did you see the amazing architecture here, or the brilliant use of landscaping, or the creative signage, etc." Personally I think it's wonderful that Animal Kingdom was created considering it's really above the heads of a lot of people. I honestly like the idea of challenging people who only think roller coasters are fun to ride a 20 minute dark ride on postulations of the future. I also understand it's a hard sell.<< I completely agree with you, happily, about AK. I would say that between AK rising popularity and the loss of family attractions in favor of thrills or sterile, unemotional 3 minute offerings, it's starting to be an easy sell again. The pendulum is starting to come back. >>In the end the balance between business sense and creative sense is hard.<< For those who were in charge. It's not when the right people are in place and areas of the company aren't stacked with people in love process and in love with their own perks. >>If Disney had a decade or so where they tipped too hard on appeasing the masses at the expense of those who take theme parks as art, I would prefer them do that then go too far on the other side and drive themselves out of business.<< I just don't see that as a reality. And I don't think this grand paradigm of business v. art is attributable. They were never at odds before when the company operated the parks division as a printing press for money. The cruise line makes tons of money and I don't see Disney collectors and die hards up in arms about that. It's not an inverse correlation. It's an issue of the creatives being overshadowed by the technocrats.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >><<A combination of the two attractions would have been best>> I agree with you from an artistic standpoint. However, I can understand the business sense of not opening an additional attraction.<< VBDad, I agree with you 100%. It would have made for a much stronger act I than what is currently there. When it came to TT, there was NO business sense. It wasn't a project hampered by tight budgets. It wasn't art v. business. It was simply a creative move to be all about the here and now and shed the whole history angle. Like other EPCOT pavilions it would have been nice to see a quick glimpse at the history in a few carried over show scenes, then the present, and then in the post-show the future. >> It's not like Epcot has capacity problems and needs to up it's ride count to lower lines.<< Had nothing to do with what ended up as TT and what was scrapped. >> Also I'm sure that logistically there was not enough space for both Test Track and World of Motion.<< There was. Test Track is not an example of Disneyland's extreme efficiency in using all space available. Test Track, with it's pros and cons, was not the best designed attraction. I don't even think the strictist Disney apologist would argue with that.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>So you're saying they should have kept all the theming and just made a high speed version of World of Motion with the ending of Test Track? That wouldn't have been logistically possible. The building was gutted because the track had to be made much longer considering Test Track goes at much higher speeds than World of Motion did. While I certainly agree that they could have encorporated some of the set pieces or animatronics into the Test Track ride system, I think you would have only been able to keep a certain percentage of those scenes due to the extra space needed for extra track.<< And that's exactly was suggested. A complete gutting but the preservation and repurposing of a few scenes for the beginning stages of the new ride.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>This might sound controversial, but I'm not sure the average guest would have preferred a sped up history of transportation versus the tactile "you're a test dummy" theming. I would certainly like the former but I'm not sure if most would.<< I don't see how guests would have a problem with TT now + a few AA informational scenes. If it means more ride time as a payoff for the long wait they endured it's gold in the guests eyes. A longer circuit also theoretically would have meant a slightly larger capacity, which is the first thing that TT could have used.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 ^^^^^^^^^^ agree, and the whole history did not need to be sped up - not all of TT is at top speed. A combo would have been appealing to those who like the 'show' portion of rides ( especially at EPCOT) and the speed test would appeal, like it does now to the 'gee whiz' crowd. to me this would have been an attraction with a longer shelf life.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 You guys are having such a nice discussion here that I'm almost feeling guilty about going "off-topic" by returning to the original topic. Thank you for the wonderful review of EPCOT's Nemo ride, TDLFAN. You've done a great job in words and pictures of letting us know what the experience is like. And, as always, your evaluation of this new EPCOT attraction is informed, critical, and fair. Personally, I'm way disappointed. I'm not someone who needs for every attraction added to every Disney Park to be an "E" ticket. A quiet and relaxing little dark ride here, a spinner there, are okay with me. But I expect each modest little attraction to be the best that it can be. From this report, Nemo is not the best it could be. It sounds as though The Seas went *backwards* in terms of conveying the impression of going underwater in the queue. I cannot understand or forgive that. With all the developments in technology since The Seas was originally installed, how could this attraction NOT do a bang-up job of convincingly transporting guests underwater? That has got to be one of the easiest (and least expensive) illusions to create. Sheesh! A Detroit museum carried it off convincingly for its TEMPORARY Titanic display! And once into the attraction, it sounds as though Nemo intermittently goes decidely low-tech in some scenes, and tiringly 2-D video in many more. Why?! Again, I have nothing against cute little attractions. But this is Disney. They should be State-Of-The-Art cute little attractions. It's just wrong that DL's Pooh attraction is not more eye-popping than the 40-year-older Alice in Wonderland attraction in the same Park. It's wrong that you should hear a tourist comment in the Nemo queue that the "underwater" illusion is so poorly executed. It's wrong that you exit the ride thinking, "The story's cute, but the ride was mostly lackluster." FWIW, you've made me feel guilty and confused. I think it's obnoxious to take flash photographs in Disney dark rides when there are other guests present -- whether or not Disney has posted admonitions about it. At the same time, I love seeing your pictures here, and I want you to continue to provide us with photographic reviews of attractions. Ugh! Mea culpa, mea culpa!
Originally Posted By Dlmusic <<It sounds as though The Seas went *backwards* in terms of conveying the impression of going underwater in the queue.>> I don't agree with this statement. I think that the new queue is definately more themed than the old one. Now it doesn't compare to Roger Rabbit's Cartoon Spin or most of the E-ticket lines, but I certainly don't think it was a step back from the old Living Seas. I definately feel more like I'm underwater than in that circular room with lighting effects. <<I cannot understand or forgive that. With all the developments in technology since The Seas was originally installed, how could this attraction NOT do a bang-up job of convincingly transporting guests underwater?>> I agree, while I think Nemo is great in comparison to Fantasyland dark rides and the like, I wish it was a more complete experience more like Roger Rabbit's Cartoon Spin. It certainly is a huge step up queue wise though from Superstar Limo/Monsters Inc and most dark rides. <<And once into the attraction, it sounds as though Nemo intermittently goes decidely low-tech in some scenes, and tiringly 2-D video in many more.>> I disagree with this at well. There is only one scene (the jellyfish) that I would describe as "low-tech." Even that scene is not bad in comparision to most dark rides of this nature. Now if you have a problem with a lot of video, that's fine. But that's not really cheap. Just one look at the projection systems and high quality screens in use in this attraction and it's obvious that putting in limited motion figures ala Peter Pan's Flight would have been cheaper.
Originally Posted By TDLFAN UPDATE. I rode the ride again today for my 4th time on it, this time in the company of G-Fan... He thought it was just OK but he expected more, concidering the popularity of the ride. As opposed to the first 3 times I rode, this time, the Jelly Fish scene was in motion. This is the first time I see the jelly fish thingies (which G-Fan referred to as "hanging sheets") moving up and down as if moving in the water. Also, the relentless flash photography continues.. The anglerfish scene didn't seem to suffer from flash or camera auto-focusing beams... as it kept going and going as folks on either side of us took photos with flash. It's been reported from others that the robotic arm may come to a stop due to flash photography, but that didn't seem to be the case. Finally, the Nemo ride is now featured on the EPCOT guidemap's cover... <a href="http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f231/TDLFAN/Nemo.jpg" target="_blank">http://i48.photobucket.com/alb ums/f231/TDLFAN/Nemo.jpg</a> Also ran into Doobie and Rebekah as we left EPCOT. Nice seeing you guys!!!
Originally Posted By ChiMike Why on Earth is Ops not requesting no flash photography!? Are the inmates truly running the asylum?!
