Originally Posted By skinnerbox FWIW... I've been good friends for several years with a former Imagineering creative development exec, whose name I cannot state for obvious reasons (still doing occasional contract work and wishes to continue getting offers). This individual, who worked in Glendale for well over a decade, hates the new interactive queue. Absolutely positively hates it. And mostly for the reasons I've stated regarding my distaste for the queue (weakens the theme and ambiance of the surrounding environment, elements are tacky, etc). I realize that this is second hand knowledge, but still, I know my friend and thoroughly trust said individual's design sensibilities. This person has the professional background and experience to know what fits and what doesn't. And this former Imagineering exec believes it doesn't fit at all.
Originally Posted By danyoung >Thanks for taking my post out of context.< Tom, I took nothing out of context. Here's what you said - >Rather this discussion is about some of us pointing out the obvious, while the Disney appologists are in full force.< The thought from that is that there's one right side and one wrong side, one set of obvious facts countered by apologists who have their heads in the sand. On a volatile subject like the HM queue, there is nothing obvious - just opinions, neither right or wrong. The reality is that we all make up our own minds about what we like. I can understand some of the arguments about theming. But to say that the new queue somehow ruins the rest of the HM experience is simply not true, at least for me.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>Let's occupy Main Street! All those that hate the tooling, generic menus and shopping, priority to dvc over the parks, the inability to get reservations thanks to DDP, poor quality maintenance and service, bad transport. I am the 1%. Who is with me?<<< HAH. This joke has been circulating on Twitter for a bit... love it.
Originally Posted By ChiMike Skinner. Good to see you chime in. Most folks who have a genuine basis in these things, or even in terms of WDI a talent for why they should be employed, would agree with your contact. It's not rocket science! No matter how hard unqualified people might want others to believe. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not all opinions are correct. It is plainly obvious to those who design for a living whose opinions carry weight, and looking at someone's opinion certainly allows for a glimpse into their 'basis' or judgment when it comes to understanding what works in a Disney theme park, in a feature film, or even in an art museum. Outside of sizing up Disney's current designers, even a fan who extols the virtues of a disaster like the TestTrack queue, while Disney themselves are waiving the white flags on it, presents themselves as having limited forming on what is successful design. It doesn't take away their right to have an opinion, but it certainly allows others an easier way to size them up, based on the opinions they profess. Especially if those opinions are based on personal preference, rather than actually experiencing something first. Like I said, it's not rocket science, especially in terms of an easily identifiable judgment on the HM queue.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip But is it possible to admit something is lacking in design but still feel it has a purpose... performs a function? Your typical 7-year-old doesn't give a mouse's butt about design, but perhaps enjoys the queue. In other cases, many people feel that something has good design but seriously lacks in functionality (some feel this way about the AK... gorgeous set, boring attractions). I'm not about to claim the queue is great design (especially when I haven't seen it), but does that necessarily mean it is worthless? Frankly, I can think of many places in WDW that are seriously lacking when it comes to design.
Originally Posted By ChiMike These are really good points RoadTrip >>But is it possible to admit something is lacking in design but still feel it has a purpose... performs a function? << Possibly. Typically as far as Disney theme parks go, or at least, as Disney theme parks use to go, there was a limited amount of on-stage area. There were always PLENTY of ideas and designs competing for a space in that limited area, and of course competing for a place in the budget. Looking at history, more than not, the cream rose to the top in that corporate environment. With all that said, I would argue that ideas are being put forth that might not once have been worthy to be onstage. There might be ulterior motives to some of these designs making the cut, rather than the clear reasons from the past why design would be implemented within the parks' boundaries. So, I guess I compare recent efforts with a time where something had to serve a purpose and also be of good design to make it in front of the guest. >>Your typical 7-year-old doesn't give a mouse's butt about design, but perhaps enjoys the queue.<< If the parks would have been designed for a 7 year old, there would be no Disney parks to speak of today. There would be no laughingplace.com and no RoadTrip and ChiMike usernames. It's simply a irrelevant point. Take my response above, the typical 7-year old could also like a well-designed queue just as he enjoys a poorly-designed one. That 7-year old might not know what he is missing. That 7 year old might also have a great time at Six Flags. >> In other cases, many people feel that something has good design but seriously lacks in functionality (some feel this way about the AK... gorgeous set, boring attractions).<< A great point! Not everything must have a direct function. That was never a recipe for success going all the way back to 1955. AK is a good example as to how design can be weak if not backed up by purpose (I think that is a more accurate word over function). AK was not as much bad design or void of purpose as it was incomplete. To take recent examples the HM queue and Test Track queue are not incomplete and not without purpose, they are simply bad design. >> I'm not about to claim the queue is great design (especially when I haven't seen it), but does that necessarily mean it is worthless?<< No. But is it appropriate? Simply serving a purpose isn't good enough. It wasn't good enough for the lackluster components to DCA. Doing more than simply serving a purpose is how Disney originally stood out from its competitors and made it that the company that it was in the 20th century. >>Frankly, I can think of many places in WDW that are seriously lacking when it comes to design.<< I can too. We probably agree on a lot of them.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Chi mike, careful with where you are going with this. I could argue that as far as theme park experiences go, my 6 year old has a wider experience than most adult lpers, having been to 28 world class parks in her whort years, my count is 75. And your veiled attempt to belittle my fondness for the test tack queue serves little purpose. I have delivered multi million dollar capital projects with teams of designers, yet now you try to discount my interest. For the average wdw visitor, all you have to do is stick mickey mouse on something and they will lap it up.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>And your veiled attempt to belittle my fondness for the test tack queue serves little purpose<< It wasn't a veiled attempt. A pretty direct one. However, it was not specifically aimed at you Dave. Listen, every project has its fans. Even SuperStar Limo had a few people who liked it for its kitsch. Superstar Limo might be liked by a few, and they have a right to like it, however it doesn't mean that because a couple message board posters say, "HEY, wait just one minute, I like ....." That, ..... is automatically acceptable. Some things fail on a mass scale regardless of whether or not there is a fringe appeal. I would argue that Test Track's QUEUE (the QUEUE) would be one of those things. On a Disney level, the queue fails. Something easy to say, because even folks at Disney have shared in that view. It was a foot by foot rework of the old WoM entrance and queue area, they were very limited in what they could put there with load staying where WoM load was. So, if someone says, "HEY, I really like TestTrack's queue" That is fine, good... I am glad something at Disney brings a guest comfort. It's just not good enough to then turn around and say that it was Disney's best effort, or best output.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Test track may not have a great queue, but I think it is not too bad compared to other Epcot queues. At least some minor attempt is made to be informative/entertaining. What other queues can you say that about? The blank halls of Soarin' with a few video games thrown in? I don't think so. The Nemo queue is well done but at the same time irritating. It takes you 10 minutes to walk through a queue for an attraction that is generally a walk-on during the off-season. They should have included some way to bypass the whole thing when it isn't necessary. I don't think the queue to Mission Space is that bad, but many think it is terrible so I don't know that is anything to hold up either. Basically, Epcot's Future World has some pretty damn boring queues. I don't mind because I enjoy so many of the attractions themselves.
Originally Posted By Manfried To paraphrase a poster, "Let's agree that we disagree on this one," and let it go at that.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>I don't think the queue to Mission Space is that bad, but many think it is terrible so I don't know that is anything to hold up either. Basically, Epcot's Future World has some pretty damn boring queues. I don't mind because I enjoy so many of the attractions themselves.<<< I actually really like that queue, despite the bad attraction.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>I actually really like that queue, despite the bad attraction.<<< This is why these discussions end up lasting forever. The above quote is a classic example of just how sure we are about our own OPINIONS. You see this as a bad attraction whereas, I see it as an imaginative, detailed and exciting attraction. It got a bad rap in the the beginning, but it is deserving, in my opinion, of much praise for the effort and attention to detail that was put into it. It is unlike anything that I have ever ridden (given that I had spent a lifetime in Vermont where not much happens other than Maple Syrup production). But the point is that what one person sees as bad, others see as excellent. And the funny thing is that neither is wrong. One's opinion cannot be wrong, it is what it is. So with that said, what say we argue about this for another 371 posts!
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer ^ And there's nothing wrong with that. LOL. Why quell the reason for a discussion board existing?
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>Test track may not have a great queue, but I think it is not too bad compared to other Epcot queues. At least some minor attempt is made to be informative/entertaining.<< You know.... I tend to be less harsh with Test Track than others of my thinking. I think Mission:Space is the real stinker of Future World. Test Track does straddle the line of old and new Future World. Rather than depending on virtual thrills or ride systems that only cycle on/off, it offers a nice ride circuit through real environments. The show offers minor information while also offering a real 'ride'. Like I said, in contrast to Soarin, Body Wars, and Mission:Space, I would give Test Track more credit than I probably should. That straddling the line view is significant. It isn't a throw away line for me. For all intents and purposes TestTrack was the next major WDW attraction after ToT; ToT being something that came about at the height of WDI's second golden age. TestTrack represented a significant shift in how WDW attractions were developed. A shift in tone for the presentation of an EPCOT attraction, a shift in tone for show scenes, a real thrill ride in EPCOT, a shift to exposing mechanics behind ride systems and stark show rooms, a shift from AAs in attractions, no real soundtrack, no real future. All coming off the heels of what basically was the antithesis to all that just a couple years earlier, ToT. So, Test Track represents a shift in a lot of things for EPCOT, WDW, and WDI. A lot was going on behind the scenes at WDI, a lot was going on behind the scenes at TDO and Burbank. They completely misrepresented and misjudged what it would take to implement the ride system and reuse the show building. They purposefully reprioritized what should be important for an EPCOT attraction and through natural corporate evolution future Disney projects. I'm trying not to be negative, again, I tend to be a little soft towards TestTrack. I just really look at it as a watershed moment -for the worse- in terms of the following years. >>What other queues can you say that about? The blank halls of Soarin' with a few video games thrown in? I don't think so.<< Can't agree more on that point, compared to Soarin' or Mission:Space, Test Track's queue looks downright charming. >>The Nemo queue is well done but at the same time irritating. It takes you 10 minutes to walk through a queue for an attraction that is generally a walk-on during the off-season. They should have included some way to bypass the whole thing when it isn't necessary.<< First, logistically, in repurposing the existing facility, a lot of that was unavoidable. Second, you are entirely missing the point of that specific queue. It is my suggestion that the designers were intentionally trying to give riders as much of a thematic prelude between Future World and the clamshells as possible. For good reason, in my eyes. What parts of the old TLS preshow and theater they could fold up into the new attraction, they did. Nothing left to really do with the unused area but absorb them into the queue. >>I don't think the queue to Mission Space is that bad, but many think it is terrible so I don't know that is anything to hold up either.<< It's not. Mission Space's ride area is bad enough, but to saddle it with such an unimaginative mall-like passageway is as close to gross incompetence as WDI can get. You could tell that the design team was so out of their league that they went with the gravity wheel as throw-away eye candy. They rip off this one iconic image from 2001, but then surround it with aesthetics one would find at their multiplex concession stand. We finally get a space pavilion with thousands of imaginative possibilities and this is what we get at the end of the day! This is how they setup the experience to a space pavilion? Amazing. Amazingly bad. All of a sudden stock light fixtures and exposed roof joists are the stuff that dreams are made of. >>Basically, Epcot's Future World has some pretty damn boring queues.<< A great observation. Today - totally agree! Yesterday, well the original pavilions had equally boring queues, but the reason for those setups was that each attraction was designed to prevent large lines in the first place, the ride systems were designed to gobble up guests. There really wasn't a need for large areas of queue or really even descript areas to entertain guests. With Disney shifting attractions over to lower capacity mega-rides, then they should have planned accordingly with the new queues. Body Wars was the first, and to me it was a boring queue even with the backstory. Test Track, Soarin, M:S all should have had far more interesting queue themes and queue layouts. Soarin is the worst, where you just have huddled masses standing still for minutes on end. Really, really shows again how far common sense has fallen in WDI hiring prerequisites. To go from a queue design of something like American Adventure, with it's multiple ante chambers, to how they funnel people into Soarin' is a great parallel in Disney efforts to make the queue the First Act in the Disney Show.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost In my myopic world I don't really put much concern in the queue. I notice when one is very good, like ToT and PoC, but if it isn't spectacular I never even notice it. To me the queue is a path to the attraction. If it has a story to tell, all its own, great, but I don't require it. I remember the queue line for Indiana Jones in Disneyland, but the only thing I can tell you about it is that it never ended. I am pretty certain that the ride itself was someplace in Mexico. This is not a conscience decision incidentally, just a natural reaction. A good queue is cool, a bad one is something I don't recognize. Yea, weird, I know!
Originally Posted By leobloom >> In my myopic world I don't really put much concern in the queue. I notice when one is very good, like ToT and PoC, but if it isn't spectacular I never even notice it. To me the queue is a path to the attraction. If it has a story to tell, all its own, great, but I don't require it. I remember the queue line for Indiana Jones in Disneyland, but the only thing I can tell you about it is that it never ended. I am pretty certain that the ride itself was someplace in Mexico. This is not a conscience decision incidentally, just a natural reaction. A good queue is cool, a bad one is something I don't recognize. Yea, weird, I know! << I agree with you. I'll take an E-ticket ride over an E-ticket queue any day of the week. That's my main beef with Everest and some other rides at DAK. The queues are impressive, but the rides less so.
Originally Posted By ChiMike Great point Leo. Kali and Everest really over deliver with their queues, and in my eyes disappoint greatly in contrast to the buildup. Same could be said for Dr. Doom at IOA
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<Same could be said for Dr. Doom at IOA>> Don't even get me started. Such an AMAZING queue for such a great character wasted on such a lame ride.
Originally Posted By leobloom The propaganda film in the Dr. Doom queue is great. The ride, a total bore.
