Avatar Flight of Passage reviews, comments and questions

[lentesta]

all i know is my wife who is not a big rider when it comes to rides got off the ride and said i cant stop smiling can we ride it again? i ve never heard her say that. of course ive been excited for this land for 5 years so take my opinion with a grian of salt just like some who have bashed this idea for five years and then say this place is underwelming also taking with a grain of salt. People who say its like soarin i just dont get it IMO. Its nothing close to soarin its much more thrilling, the music is incredible along with the visuals plus the ride vehicle make it far superior to soarin. I like @lentesta a lot but he's flat out wrong on this and not because of what im saying but the general public, probably 98% who ride it will say the same thing. This experience really doesnt even need to be compared to soarin.

Our preliminary reader survey results put Flight of Passage as the #3-rated attraction in the park (Safaris, Everest).

Na'Vi River Journey is 21st, behind It's Tough to Be a Bug and ahead of Primeval Whirl.

We have at least 30 surveys for each. Not quite the 2,000 we have for Safaris over the last 3 months, so this is still a work in progress.

That said, I don't think Disney spent 5 years and $500 million to be satisfied with a bronze medal and a "thanks for participating" certificate.

 

[doctornick]

The general public loves Soarin'.

This. If the ride is "just" Soarin' with more movement/thrill and better visuals (and I suspect that's underselling based on what people are saying overall) then the public is going to love the ride since Soarin' is extremely popular among regular park guests.

 

[doctornick]

I agree Simpsons is far jerkier and more nauseating than Flight. My point is Flight makes a big point about riding a banshee, but you never see the banshee. There's no attempt to create the illusion that you're "on" a banshee.

I haven't ridden, but I think that kinda of the point is that instead of trying to bluntly hit you over the head with the conceit of "your riding a banshee" (e.g. having the ride vehicle being a banshee or showing the banshee head on screen) they went with a more subtle but immersive aspect trying to appeal to multiple senses and making it more "real" and try to cause guests to forget they are on a ride and get more caught up in the experience.

Obviously, how effective that is will vary from person to person, but for many it sounds like it hitting that sweep spot.

 

[Flynnwriter]

Imagine if they have spent $1 billion + on an ip that anyone cared about in 2017. Now that would have been amazing!

 

[Flynnwriter]

Looks great from the video. And I'm sure it's times better in person.



I do think that should happen.

It just befuddles me when they build attractions, especially "headliner" attractions, that have low capacity. Why? They have an empty plot of land... the freedom to do and choose anything... and they choose a system that can only handle (with the current ride time) about 1,500 guests an hour? Or even less? I love Joe Rohde and whatever imagineers have been doing a great job quality-wise with Animal Kingdom lately, but man, this just confuses me.

Flight of Passage will prove to be a popular ride, just as TSMM and Soarin' have. Troubling that they did not learn from their past mistakes.

The river ride should have been an E ticket. 2400 people per hour ride that delivered big time- not the "what the hell was that?!" ride as built.

 

[Jones14]

To the Safaris/Everest/Flight "competition", that's not really going to be a good indicator of quality/popularity. Some people would rate Everest above Pirates in Shanghai and Mystic Manor simply because it's a thrilling coaster. Hell, Tron gets higher ratings than Pirates by some guests.

Same with Safari, which is wholly unique in its execution. The questions that really matter are, "Is Flight of Passage a must do? Would you come to Animal Kingdom just to ride Flight of Passage? Do you think you'll come to Animal Kingdom more often, and stay here for more of your day because of this?"

It doesn't have to be the #1 ride, because that's completely subjective, and the same guest is going to give you a different answer pretty much every time they're there. Now, if the ride were bad, we'd have a problem. But the worst reviews so far call it Soarin' 2.0, and that ride gets EATEN UP by the gp. I don't think Disney has much to worry about with this one.

 

[lentesta]

What is Len and Hills take on it? I know I could listen but if anyone could give me the gist of it? It's like some are upset it's been well received so far.

My take was that the Valley of Mo'ana was better than Diagon Alley, for those who aren't invested in the Potter films. I said that NRJ's used of screens was technically better than Gringotts, and the AA figure was the most advanced ever made. We both agreed that there's not much story.

For Flight of Passage, it's technically the most advanced ride Disney's ever made. It's smooth, and I didn't feel any motion sickness. We said the ride system seemed a bit over-engineered, and (again) it lacks a compelling narrative.

For the Unofficial Guide, we'll give NRJ 3.5 stars and FoP 4.5. I'm advocating knocking down Gringotts to 4.5 as well.

 

[RSoxNo1]

You mean in the movie your avatar isn't actually riding a banshee? I thought that was the whole point of the flight ritual (or that's what I gathered from the preshow).

Finally listening to the Len Testa and Jim Hill review podcast, and I think they give a very fair assessment of the two rides.

In the movie your Avatar is riding the banshee and you're in a tanning bed. The link chair is the equivalent of the tanning bed.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Wow! People have opinions that differ from your opinion, what an exciting new concept for you to learn!

Everyone that disagrees with me is wrong.

 

[flyerjab]

To the Safaris/Everest/Flight "competition", that's not really going to be a good indicator of quality/popularity. Some people would rate Everest above Pirates in Shanghai and Mystic Manor simply because it's a thrilling coaster. Hell, Tron gets higher ratings than Pirates by some guests.

Same with Safari, which is wholly unique in its execution. The questions that really matter are, "Is Flight of Passage a must do? Would you come to Animal Kingdom just to ride Flight of Passage? Do you think you'll come to Animal Kingdom more often, and stay here for more of your day because of this?"

It doesn't have to be the #1 ride, because that's completely subjective, and the same guest is going to give you a different answer pretty much every time they're there. Now, if the ride were bad, we'd have a problem. But the worst reviews so far call it Soarin' 2.0, and that ride gets EATEN UP by the gp. I don't think Disney has much to worry about with this one.

As far as headliners go, I think that this park (at the moment) has the best lineup, especially in terms of diversity. You have a great coaster in Expedition Everest, a thrilling dark ride in Dinosaur, the incredible Kilimanjaro Safaris (arguably the best WDW attraction for me), and now add to that arguably the best simulator ride experience almost anywhere with Flight of Passage.

Each attraction is so well done and also gives you a completely unique experience when comparing each of them. It is simply an outstanding E-Ticket lineup within the WDW parks.

 

[Kman101]

My take was that the Valley of Mo'ana was better than Diagon Alley, for those who aren't invested in the Potter films. I said that NRJ's used of screens was technically better than Gringotts, and the AA figure was the most advanced ever made. We both agreed that there's not much story.

For Flight of Passage, it's technically the most advanced ride Disney's ever made. It's smooth, and I didn't feel any motion sickness. We said the ride system seemed a bit over-engineered, and (again) it lacks a compelling narrative.

For the Unofficial Guide, we'll give NRJ 3.5 stars and FoP 4.5. I'm advocating knocking down Gringotts to 4.5 as well.

That all seems fair. Thanks Len!

 

[doctornick]

As far as headliners go, I think that this park (at the moment) has the best lineup, especially in terms of diversity. You have a great coaster in Expedition Everest, a thrilling dark ride in Dinosaur, the incredible Kilimanjaro Safaris (arguably the best WDW attraction for me), and now add to that arguably the best simulator ride experience almost anywhere with Flight of Passage.

Each attraction is so well done and also gives you a completely unique experience when comparing each of them. It is simply an outstanding E-Ticket lineup within the WDW parks.

Yes, indeed this is a wonderful point. I think the balance among those headliners is fantastic and helps to make a day at the park a well rounded experience. Especially when you toss in the complimentary attractions -- animal trails, shows, Awakenings/RoL, streetmosphere, etc.

I do think the one lacking area would be a greater number of more relaxing C-ticket type rides. NRJ is obviously in this vein, but a few more to flesh things out would really help to make the park even more spectacular.

 

[wdwmagic]

A brief snippet of officially released on ride footage

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

I've always described E:E as BTMRR on steroids.

 

[CinematicFusion]

Avatar Flight of passage makes you believe Star Wars land might be the greatest land ever created. It's that good. What is it going to be like flying the Falcon?

 

[TalkingHead]

My take was that the Valley of Mo'ana was better than Diagon Alley, for those who aren't invested in the Potter films. I said that NRJ's used of screens was technically better than Gringotts, and the AA figure was the most advanced ever made. We both agreed that there's not much story.

For Flight of Passage, it's technically the most advanced ride Disney's ever made. It's smooth, and I didn't feel any motion sickness. We said the ride system seemed a bit over-engineered, and (again) it lacks a compelling narrative.

For the Unofficial Guide, we'll give NRJ 3.5 stars and FoP 4.5. I'm advocating knocking down Gringotts to 4.5 as well.

I thought the 4 stars for FoP you mentioned on the podcast seemed fair. But compared to limited number of other rides in the park, I can see why guests would rate it 4.5.

ETA: One of the things that makes FJ such a sensational attraction is that it can't be remotely communicated through a YouTube video. By a combination of the low light levels and the ride's motion, it's a ride that simply has to be experienced in person in the park.

A YouTube of FoP comes pretty close to visualizing what the ride is all about. I think that may have advantages in spreading the word about the ride, but it also diminishes the mystery of the attraction before guests arrive in the park. I realize Disney doesn't carry one whit about that kind of thing, but it does factor into the overall design of these E-ticket-size attractions.

 

[flynnibus]

This. If the ride is "just" Soarin' with more movement/thrill and better visuals (and I suspect that's underselling based on what people are saying overall) then the public is going to love the ride since Soarin' is extremely popular among regular park guests.

Soarin is popular because the total is much greater than the sum of its parts. It clicks. Its the part that is hard to nail in a design.

So just being alike is not enough to parallel sucess. But it sounds like FoP has found a new total that is working on its own.

 

[TalkingHead]

In the movie your Avatar is riding the banshee and you're in a tanning bed. The link chair is the equivalent of the tanning bed.

Yeah, but as you experience your avatar's sensations, can't you see the banshee? You never see the banshee you're riding on -- as soon as you link, you go into a POV that's flying through space detached from the banshee. I kept thing there should be someway to give the sensation of looking down and seeing the banshee under you, but that wouldn't work because of the clunky way they have the row of ride vehicles lined up side by side.

I get that the "breathing" effect is supposed to convince you the banshee is under you. Just saying, after the preshow makes such a big to-do about the banshee being this epic creature, it's disappointing that your creature doesn't visually figure more prominently into the ride.

 

[flynnibus]

I agree Simpsons is far jerkier and more nauseating than Flight. My point is Flight makes a big point about riding a banshee, but you never see the banshee. There's no attempt to create the illusion that you're "on" a banshee.

I feel like you are being intentionally obtuse. You have seen the movie have you not?
Did you listen to any of the preshow?

 

[TalkingHead]

I feel like you are being intentionally obtuse. You have seen the movie have you not?
Did you listen to any of the preshow?

Have you ridden it? I'm not trying to be obtuse. I get the premise of "linking" with the avatar. The queue walks you through that -- you link, "it feel real because it is."

When you're in the avatar's body (i.e. during the ride), you would see the banshee you're paired with, wouldn't you? That's what the preshow depicts. That part of the drama is lost in the ride.