Another ride review of Everst

[CrashNet]

Originally Posted by Merlin
I agree that having a positive attitude about things is important. But I think it's one thing to walk around WDW looking for every little flaw, and it's another thing to repeatedly ignore obvious flaws and excuse it away by saying, "Just sit back and enjoy it". Or, as someone said in a similar discussion on another thread, "You have to make your own magic." My view is that if it's reached a point where you have to "make your own magic", then what exactly are we paying Disney admission for?

But again, that's just each person's perspective and the definition of a higher standard. Some things bother people and others don't. What one person might find a flaw someone else may just take with a grain of salt. For example: I can't stand the fact that the Tree of Life has leaves that are brighter green than the neon lights in Vegas. Seeing some of the inner beams inside the mountain of Expedition: Everest? Eh, no big deal...when my eyes adjust I see all of the beams in Space Mountain, and that does bother me; but thats just me, and I understand completely why others see it differently.

 

[Merlin]

Have you missed the magic that is clearly integral to the Everest storyline? The locals worship the yeti, we bad guests don't do the same, get screwed, and go for a wild ride through the Forbidden Mountain, never actually making it to Everest. It's all about magic and curses...hell, we are talking about a mystical animal (though some certainly argue he is real...and apparently either immortal or extremely inbred). I can believe this magic caused the bizarre episodes on Expedition: EVEREST as much as I can believe the trains on Big Thunder are haunted and the elevators in the Hollywood Tower Hotel are drawn into the Twilight Zone...I really don't see the point in criticizing any of this...would you prefer that the caves be realistically dark so that we have absolutely no show scenes, cuz you sure as hell aren't going to see the yeti outside sunbathing...that kinda goes against the "mysterious creature" thing.

There is documentation that the storyline of Big Thunder is as I've described it. Likewise, there's plenty of documentation that the theme of ToT involves a potentially haunted hotel, the Twilight Zone, and another dimension (the "fifth" to be exact). Any one of these on it's own could account for the sudden thunderstorm that occurs out of nowhere.

Where is there documentation, Imagineer interviews, or anything else to indicate the Yeti has some sort of magical powers that result in physics not applying on that mountain?

 

[imagineer boy]

They should've had some sort of Yeti encounter at the beginning. On the Matterhorn at DL, the bobsleds have an encounter with large glowing eyes in a dark cave. There should've been atleast something like that. Therefor it kinda builds the size of the encounters.

 

[Merlin]

But again, that's just each person's perspective and the definition of a higher standard. Some things bother people and others don't. What one person might find a flaw someone else may just take with a grain of salt. For example: I can't stand the fact that the Tree of Life has leaves that are brighter green than the neon lights in Vegas. Seeing some of the inner beams inside the mountain of Expedition: Everest? Eh, no big deal...when my eyes adjust I see all of the beams in Space Mountain, and that does bother me; but thats just me, and I understand completely why others see it differently.

Perhaps you have a point, and it's worth defining what we mean by "higher or lower standards". I'm sure there's a rhyme or reason for your apparently random standards (i.e. "It annoys me on this attraction, but doesn't bother me on this one"), but it's not real evident. Nevertheless, as you stated, it's "each person's perspective".

For my part, I can be somewhat more forgiving of an attraction if the illusions were limited by the technology Disney had available to them at the time of the attraction's construction. Where I define standards as being lowered is when the attraction isn't limited by the ability to do it (from a technology standpoint) but rather by cutting corners. And it annoys me to see Disney cutting corners but continuing to raise admission prices. Disney could certainly have spent the extra $$ to put an AA figure in place of a projected "shadow" on the wall. I don't think they opted for the shadow because of storytelling, I think it was driven by budget. Where I think members of these forums are showing lower standards is when they excuse it by saying things like, "It's a great way to build the storyline!" or "It wouldn't make sense to show an AA figure more than once." I'm confident that if they had placed an AA figure in that spot, these same members would be discussing how cool it was. I doubt they'd be saying, "That ruins the storyline. They should have put a projected shadow in that spot." or "Why'd they put an AA figure in both places? That doesn't make sense."

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

So is the illusion ruined for you when you're at MGM and a REAL Florida thunderstorm takes place?

Actually, now that I think about it, I don't think its ever rained while I was at MGM. Wow, thats really wierd. But, no, I'm sure it wouldn't, I'd just think "what rotten Weather we're having in Hollywood!" or something like that:animwink: .

Yensid "ever-the-optimist-,-never-the-pessimist" tlaw1969

 

[Merlin]

They should've had some sort of Yeti encounter at the beginning. On the Matterhorn at DL, the bobsleds have an encounter with large glowing eyes in a dark cave. There should've been atleast something like that. Therefor it kinda builds the size of the encounters.

The Matterhorn also includes more than one encounter with an AA figure of the abominable snowman.

 

[imagineer boy]

The Matterhorn also includes more than one encounter with an AA figure of the abominable snowman.

I know, I've been on it. I think E:E proabably also could have used AT LEAST one more encounter of the yeti. Maybe right before you go down the drop, the yeti pops out breifly and you only get a glimpse then at the end of the ride, you're going a bit slower and the last encounter is still breif, but you get a better impression of what the Yeti looks like.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

Perhaps you have a point, and it's worth defining what we mean by "higher or lower standards". I'm sure there's a rhyme or reason for your apparently random standards (i.e. "It annoys me on this attraction, but doesn't bother me on this one"), but it's not real evident. Nevertheless, as you stated, it's "each person's perspective".

For my part, I can be somewhat more forgiving of an attraction if the illusions were limited by the technology Disney had available to them at the time of the attraction's construction. Where I define standards as being lowered is when the attraction isn't limited by the ability to do it (from a technology standpoint) but rather by cutting corners. And it annoys me to see Disney cutting corners but continuing to raise admission prices. Disney could certainly have spent the extra $$ to put an AA figure in place of a projected "shadow" on the wall. I don't think they opted for the shadow because of storytelling, I think it was driven by budget. Where I think members of these forums are showing lower standards is when they excuse it by saying things like, "It's a great way to build the storyline!" or "It wouldn't make sense to show an AA figure more than once." I'm confident that if they had placed an AA figure in that spot, these same members would be discussing how cool it was. I doubt they'd be saying, "That ruins the storyline. They should have put a projected shadow in that spot." or "Why'd they put an AA figure in both places? That doesn't make sense."

An animatronic of the Yeti is placed inthe attraction only once to create a feeling of suspense. At first when you see the track torn up you think "something's not right, what was that thing they were saying about a Yeti?'. When you see the shadow it's this thing is after me!". THEN after all that buildup of thinking "sooner or later you KNOW you're gonna meet up with this thing" you see it and think" Holy something I shouldn't say on a family board, this thing is REAL! IT'S REAL AND IT'S GOING TO END MY LIFE ARRRRGGGH OR SOMETHING NOT QUITE AS CHEESY AS THAT BUT SOMETHING YOU WOULD THINK AFTER COMING FACE TO FACE WITH A 20 FOOT TALL MONSTROUS BEAST!!!". If you saw it right from the beginning there'd be no suspense, no curiosity, so wanting to go on and see it but having to leave and live feeling. It would make it a hollow ride. There'd be no climax because the climax would be every 30 seconds. Then you'd get off and feel like there was no buildup toward anythign and no real feeling it was over. Youd get off and be like "that's it? Where's the revelation?".

But hey, maybe that's just me.

Yensid "I'll hold my judgement down til I ride, but I was pretty impressed with the low quality video myself" tlaw1969

 

[CTXRover]

Imo, the queue and ride seem to set up a carefully orchestrated set of scenes, each adding another layer until the Yeti's final reveal. First comes the relative primative art-work and warnings of the Yeti seen in the posters, carvings and statues in the queue. Then the almost religious representation of the Yeti seen in the mural in the temple. Then you see the possible physical effects of the Yeti at the first stop that they've been warning you about. But the question remains, is it real? Then you see the Yeti as a mere shadow, which reveals his ape-like appearance and movements, but still doesn't show us what he really looks like. Was it just a figment of your imagination and lights playing tricks on your eyes? All of which finally culminates in a face-to-face encounter with the animal itself in the flesh. Having the Yeti pop-up anyplace else would diminish the build-up to the final encounter. It all seems very well-planned, and well-done, to me. While I'd like just a few more seconds of actually seeing the Yeti AA in action, some of these negative comments about the attraction seem to be so nit-picky, that I don't even know why I'm posting. But I respect everyone's opinions and can see where some of the criticisms have merit.

 

[Legacy]

An animatronic of the Yeti is placed inthe attraction only once to create a feeling of suspense. At first when you see the track torn up you think "something's not right, what was that thing they were saying about a Yeti?'. When you see the shadow it's this thing is after me!". THEN after all that buildup of thinking "sooner or later you KNOW you're gonna meet up with this thing" you see it and think" Holy something I shouldn't say on a family board, this thing is REAL! IT'S REAL AND IT'S GOING TO END MY LIFE ARRRRGGGH OR SOMETHING NOT QUITE AS CHEESY AS THAT BUT SOMETHING YOU WOULD THINK AFTER COMING FACE TO FACE WITH A 20 FOOT TALL MONSTROUS BEAST!!!". If you saw it right from the beginning there'd be no suspense, no curiosity, so wanting to go on and see it but having to leave and live feeling. It would make it a hollow ride. There'd be no climax because the climax would be every 30 seconds. Then you'd get off and feel like there was no buildup toward anythign and no real feeling it was over. Youd get off and be like "that's it? Where's the revelation?".

But hey, maybe that's just me.

Yensid "I'll hold my judgement down til I ride, but I was pretty impressed with the low quality video myself" tlaw1969

But you can do quick encounters and still make it suspenseful. It doesn't even after to be full size animatronics... just quick movements of large shapes in the shadows.

They could have easily enhanced the ride with more than one animatronic, a projection and bird.

 

[Merlin]

An animatronic of the Yeti is placed inthe attraction only once to create a feeling of suspense. At first when you see the track torn up you think "something's not right, what was that thing they were saying about a Yeti?'. When you see the shadow it's this thing is after me!". THEN after all that buildup of thinking "sooner or later you KNOW you're gonna meet up with this thing" you see it and think" Holy something I shouldn't say on a family board, this thing is REAL! IT'S REAL AND IT'S GOING TO END MY LIFE ARRRRGGGH OR SOMETHING NOT QUITE AS CHEESY AS THAT BUT SOMETHING YOU WOULD THINK AFTER COMING FACE TO FACE WITH A 20 FOOT TALL MONSTROUS BEAST!!!". If you saw it right from the beginning there'd be no suspense, no curiosity, so wanting to go on and see it but having to leave and live feeling. It would make it a hollow ride. There'd be no climax because the climax would be every 30 seconds. Then you'd get off and feel like there was no buildup toward anythign and no real feeling it was over. Youd get off and be like "that's it? Where's the revelation?".

But hey, maybe that's just me.

Yensid "I'll hold my judgement down til I ride, but I was pretty impressed with the low quality video myself" tlaw1969

I think you, and others, would be singing a different tune if there were multiple encounters with an AA Yeti. Your explanation just makes an excuse for Disney having cut corners to save a few bucks. That is how I define lowering standards.

 

[LSUxStitch]

An animatronic of the Yeti is placed inthe attraction only once to create a feeling of suspense. At first when you see the track torn up you think "something's not right, what was that thing they were saying about a Yeti?'. When you see the shadow it's this thing is after me!". THEN after all that buildup of thinking "sooner or later you KNOW you're gonna meet up with this thing" you see it and think" Holy something I shouldn't say on a family board, this thing is REAL! IT'S REAL AND IT'S GOING TO END MY LIFE ARRRRGGGH OR SOMETHING NOT QUITE AS CHEESY AS THAT BUT SOMETHING YOU WOULD THINK AFTER COMING FACE TO FACE WITH A 20 FOOT TALL MONSTROUS BEAST!!!". If you saw it right from the beginning there'd be no suspense, no curiosity, so wanting to go on and see it but having to leave and live feeling. It would make it a hollow ride. There'd be no climax because the climax would be every 30 seconds. Then you'd get off and feel like there was no buildup toward anythign and no real feeling it was over. Youd get off and be like "that's it? Where's the revelation?".

But hey, maybe that's just me.

Yensid "I'll hold my judgement down til I ride, but I was pretty impressed with the low quality video myself" tlaw1969

One word.....DINOSAUR.

You have multiple encounters with the carnotaur (sp?) and yet the final time you see the dino, there is more suspense than ever. I believe this is one of the most intense rides disney has to offer, and yet the AA is seen multiple times. Personally, I still cannot keep myself from d__________g in the last encounter, but of course that could be just me.

 

[jaredliu]

After dissapointing Narnia and MonsterInc in DL, I say don't expect too much for EE and then you will have a great experience. I don't understand why Yeit being so "shy" but I do like to see it coming out a little bit longer after all the hype and how technology-advanced Disney discribes the AA figure of Yeti.

 

[Number_6]

One word.....DINOSAUR.

You have multiple encounters with the carnotaur (sp?) and yet the final time you see the dino, there is more suspense than ever. I believe this is one of the most intense rides disney has to offer, and yet the AA is seen multiple times. Personally, I still cannot keep myself from d__________g in the last encounter, but of course that could be just me.

Personally, I've found Dinosaur to be boring. I never jumped because while riding, I could see where the Carnotaur was from two scenes away, so I knew it was coming. I had no sense of suspense or urgency to get away when I rode. Having it jump out more than once seemed like old hat when you got to the final time it shows giving me a "been there, done that" feel. That's my personal opinion of Dinosaur, though. I know there are people that feel it's totally intense, just I'm not one of those people. I don't go on it anymore because I feel bad when people that have ridden with me get their photos and I'm sitting there with a bored look on my face while they are freaking out. I'll be riding EE on Saturday, so I can't say for certain if I feel it would be better to have more than one appearance of the Yeti, but based on how Dinosaur felt to me, I think having it show more than once might make it's final appearance ho-hum to me. I'll just have to see.

 

[peter11435]

I think you, and others, would be singing a different tune if there were multiple encounters with an AA Yeti. Your explanation just makes an excuse for Disney having cut corners to save a few bucks. That is how I define lowering standards.

You can always say "what if." There is not a ride in Disney that we could not talk about and pick apart and find things they should have done to make it better. Everest is no different. Just because some things could have been done differently doesn't mean it is not a good (or even great) ride.

 

[peter11435]

After dissapointing Narnia and MonsterInc in DL, I say don't expect too much for EE and then you will have a great experience. I don't understand why Yeit being so "shy" but I do like to see it coming out a little bit longer after all the hype and how technology-advanced Disney discribes the AA figure of Yeti.

You were dissapointed by Monsters, INC? Not to change the subject but what didn't you like about it. I thought it was a great classic Disney dark ride something Disney hasn't built domesticaly in years.

 

[Lee]

I think you, and others, would be singing a different tune if there were multiple encounters with an AA Yeti. Your explanation just makes an excuse for Disney having cut corners to save a few bucks. That is how I define lowering standards.

To clarify...
Never, in all the years of designing the ride, was there a plan to have more than one yeti. At no point did anyone have the need to say "You know, this budget is a bit large. Maybe we should cut out those other two yetis and just go with the one."
From the start, the idea was to build up to the yeti with subtle "clues" like the torn up track, the howling, and the projection. The climax of the ride is meant to be the glimpse of the real deal. It was simply never about money.

The Matterhorn also includes more than one encounter with an AA figure of the abominable snowman.

Well...yeah...but you have to remember that there isn't much to Harold. He's six feet tall, doesn't move at all (not an AA, just a static figure), and wasn't even added to the tide until it had been running for 20 years. And if you think you fly by EE's yeti fast, try getting a long look at Harold, either time.

 

[peter11435]

My view is that if it's reached a point where you have to "make your own magic", then what exactly are we paying Disney admission for?

Unless you are disney fans like us than you would not know the story behind most of the rides. Most riders have no clue what is going on at BTMRR. And thats just the way Disney wanted it. When they ride they have to use their imaginations, create there own story and make their own magic. That is the way the classic attractions: Pirates, Thunder, Space, Etc were created. The story is there but you are free to create your own or uncover Disney's. They are not force fed a story like on Dinosaur, Tower and even Indiana Jones. Everest is a return to an atraction developed around a story (so everything makes sense) but that still allows the guest to use their imaginations.

 

[jaredliu]

You were dissapointed by Monsters, INC? Not to change the subject but what didn't you like about it. I thought it was a great classic Disney dark ride something Disney hasn't built domesticaly in years.

I think both Narnia and Monsters INC are good and so will the EE. Just the expectation sometimes makes people too picky to be satisfied.

 

[Merlin]

To clarify...
Never, in all the years of designing the ride, was there a plan to have more than one yeti. At no point did anyone have the need to say "You know, this budget is a bit large. Maybe we should cut out those other two yetis and just go with the one."
From the start, the idea was to build up to the yeti with subtle "clues" like the torn up track, the howling, and the projection. The climax of the ride is meant to be the glimpse of the real deal. It was simply never about money.

Irrelevent. Whether the decision was made at the beginning or somewhere during the planning process, ultimately I believe it's obvious that it was, in fact, about money. If the Imagineers had a decent budget to work with, like they have in Tokyo DL, I'm sure they would have planned much more grandiose features for this attraction. Instead, they created a storyline that was within the constraints of a tight budget. Instead of placing an AA at a point that would have been infinitely more entertaining, suspenseful and dramatic, they went the cheap route and projected an animated "shadow" of the Yeti instead, ignoring basic physics and logic. Not only do so-called Disney "fans" overlook this ripoff, but they try to excuse it away as being "part of the storyline". That's absurd. Admit it, you would much rather have seen an AA Yeti and if one had been there instead of a projection, you would have thought it was really cool. You wouldn't be saying, "Oh, but it ruins the storyline" or "the buildup to a suspenseful climax". Here's my basic issue with people who call themselves Disney fans. If they were true Disney fans, they'd want the company to uphold the standards that originally set Disney apart from everyone else. Instead, they'll accept anything Disney produces, no matter how cheaply it's done.