Texas84
Well-Known Member
I went at the beginning of the month and half the lights on the tower of terror sign were out. pathetic
Seriously, we went Wednesday night and my brother-in-law thought they needed to be fixed.
I went at the beginning of the month and half the lights on the tower of terror sign were out. pathetic
Aren't they supposed to be out. I'm talking about the Hollywood Towers sign. That hotel has supposedly been unoccupied since the 30's it's not likely they would all be lit. In fact, I can't think of any reason why any of them should be on. It's part of the detail.I went at the beginning of the month and half the lights on the tower of terror sign were out. pathetic
Aren't they supposed to be out. I'm talking about the Hollywood Towers sign. That hotel has supposedly been unoccupied since the 30's it's not likely they would all be lit. In fact, I can't think of any reason why any of them should be on. It's part of the detail.
We went on a rainy night last year. Disney ran an announcement just before the lighting of Osborne lights that the rain can cause certain sections of the lights to remain dark. While some things remained dark the entire time, some things came on as the weather improved and things dried out. Anyone who does any kind of home display will probably tell you that they encounter very similar issues when dealing with rainy conditions.
I have to second this. Lights and rain do not like each other. My family encounters the same thing after every rainstorm during the Christmas season. We have to wait till they dry and then make sure no damage was done to the lights. It gets very time consuming.
you know i've heard way too many times that Disney's poor performance is due to it being "part of the story". they said this was why the new jingle cruise sucked. I'm so sick of hearing that "its part of the story for half the letters to be out". no its not its disney being cheap and not doing up keepAren't they supposed to be out. I'm talking about the Hollywood Towers sign. That hotel has supposedly been unoccupied since the 30's it's not likely they would all be lit. In fact, I can't think of any reason why any of them should be on. It's part of the detail.
What kind of checks are you doing? As I stated on page one, we do a 50k (abouts) light display and after it rains, we don't check the lights for damage. We just turn them on the next day. If they work, which they often do, great. If not, then we repair.
You may be wasting a lot of time checking things that don't need to be checked.
you know i've heard way too many times that Disney's poor performance is due to it being "part of the story". they said this was why the new jingle cruise sucked. I'm so sick of hearing that "its part of the story for half the letters to be out". no its not its disney being cheap and not doing up keep
We found the most of the troubles occur in the lights that hang such as light icicles. They seem to have the most stress placed under them during storms. We will using do site check to validate their connection and see if they aren't tangled. IF they become tangle will check for wire damage (Though that doesn't occur to much, what really kills us is those squirrels).
My house we tend to be a little more careful after we had a fuse blow and start a small fire. Nothing big but enough to put you on edge when it comes to safety. So we probably are doing a little more work then we should.
Ah, yeah, if you don't have safety outlets that can be an issue. You might want to consider using black electrical tape to secure light strand to light strand. Don't use a lot, because it will trap moisture. Just use enough to ensure they don't come apart.
And squirrels are jerks. Plain and simple.
I think someone's sarcasm detector may be off.This is a case of yes it is part of the story. Here is a photo from 2010
and if you want further evidence here is a close up to the sign that even shows difference in the lettering that is on and off.
Now both e's will flicker on and off occasionally and that has done that since the attract opened in 1994, which here is a picture from 1995:
I think someone's sarcasm detector may be off.
You know what? You could be absolutely correct or you could be absolutely wrong. If you tell me that you were one of the imagineers that planned and designed ToT and know exactly how the sign was supposed to be configured then I will humbly apologize for my error. However, my error is due to the fact that I don't know. I do know that to have a realistic effect at all, 70 year old lights would be pretty much spent by now and to think that they should all be shining brightly would be totally without regard to the detail required for a realistic looking show. So if you are right, well, OK. If you just think that you would like to see it a different way, well, I would think that would be more personal opinion then proof of lack of maintenance. I do accept that since they are dealing with an attraction that is designed to look old and falling apart, they can be a little more lenient when it comes to replacing a light without doing anything to ruin the attraction. In fact, they may even think that it adds to the show. And they may be correct, either way, it is their decision to determine what it should or shouldn't look like. We can only go with our own personal likes or dislikes and formulate opinions about how we would like it to be, not how it was supposed to be. To call things a lack of maintenance when we cannot even define what maintenance should be on that attraction, is kinda stretching it a bit.you know i've heard way too many times that Disney's poor performance is due to it being "part of the story". they said this was why the new jingle cruise sucked. I'm so sick of hearing that "its part of the story for half the letters to be out". no its not its disney being cheap and not doing up keep
You know what? You could be absolutely correct or you could be absolutely wrong. If you tell me that you were one of the imagineers that planned and designed ToT and know exactly how the sign was supposed to be configured then I will humbly apologize for my error. However, my error is due to the fact that I don't know. I do know that to have a realistic effect at all, 70 year old lights would be pretty much spent by now and to think that they should all be shining brightly would be totally without regard to the detail required for a realistic looking show. So if you are right, well, OK. If you just think that you would like to see it a different way, well, I would think that would be more personal opinion then proof of lack of maintenance. I do accept that since they are dealing with an attraction that is designed to look old and falling apart, they can be a little more lenient when it comes to replacing a light without doing anything to ruin the attraction. In fact, they may even think that it adds to the show. And they may be correct, either way, it is their decision to determine what it should or shouldn't look like. We can only go with our own personal likes or dislikes and formulate opinions about how we would like it to be, not how it was supposed to be. To call things a lack of maintenance when we cannot even define what maintenance should be on that attraction, is kinda stretching it a bit.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.