Another ride review of Everst

[CrashNet]

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.

Um...that IS the reason why they only use one AA, and why you only see the Yeti for less than 5 seconds. Think about it...that is an extremely expensive piece of equipment that you see very quickly and then its gone...based on your argument, why did they even go to the trouble of having that AA either? Because its natural progression of a story...build to the climax, hit it, and then quickly end.

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.

Ok...again, we say its the storyline, and you guys say its because they don't live up to their the standards, the infinitesimally high pilar that Disney is apparently placed on by those who are ripping this attraction apart. And again, it is all about the perspective of what each person feels is the standard Disney should meet. There has to be something else other than "they did this better than this" to justify Expedition: Everest not living up to Disney's standards.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

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.

Funny, I was going to use Dinosaur as an example myself.

Last time I went on Dinosaur I found myself not being freaked out by the Carnotaur(us) by the end. Also, you forget, that the set ups for Dinosaur and Expedition Everest are completely different. On Dinosaur while you do not particularly know the Dino exists, it is nothing of legend, and they are not revealing one of histories best mysteries, so more than one encounter is necessary to plant the Idea in your head that that there is something dangerous on your tail. On Everest, the yeti is something of Legend that is a large part of your expedtion (to stay clear of it! Atleast the sherpa's say so). It has been a mystery for thousands of years what a Yeti looks like. They wanted it to be a suprose. No, I am not using it as an excuse for cutting corners on Disney's part. From what I hear, Joe decided to not finish the backside of the Mountain when budget cuts were made, because he refused to allow the show to suffer. Everest as it is when you experience it is exactly how it would be were no budget cuts made, as you cannot see the backside of the Mountain from the train.

Think of it this way. If Harry Potter came face to face with Voldemort in every chapter, not only would Harry Likely be dead by now :slurp: , but Voldemort would seem much less threatening and scary. If we saw the Yeti every 20 seconds the same effect would take place. While more hints of the Yeti would be nice (IE eyes in the darkness), seing the Yeti more than once would be overkill.

That's my take on it atleast. take it or leave it, I feel this way.

yensid 'SOOOO tired" tlaw1969

 

[CrashNet]

If we saw the Yeti every 20 seconds the same effect would take place. While more hints of the Yeti would be nice (IE eyes in the darkness), seing the Yeti more than once would be overkill.

That's a great way of putting it. The reactions, emotions, and surprise just wouldn't be there if you saw the yeti in full form throughout the entire ride. EE is about the mystery as you said, with Dinosaur being something already known.

 

[LSUxStitch]

When I used Dinosaur as an example, I was not trying to say that we should see the Yeti as many times as we see the carnotaur, but more of proving a point to an above poster about rides holding suspense and still seeing the object chasing you more than once. While I have never ridden this ride before, I refuse to say anything about cheapness of the ride. On that note, from what I have seen, I do not see why a small glimpse of another AA Yeti would hurt. I think the swiping of the arm and being so close is extreme enough to cause suprise, even if there was another slight encounter beforehand.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

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

Excuse me if I come off as rude, but this is terribly Ignorant.

It doesn't matter whether you believe it was about money, because the fact is it wasn't.

$100 is by far a decent budget. If Expedtion Everest was being built in Tokyo, what would you expect the budget to be? Please, enlighten me, because I'd love to know.

While multiple Animatronics WOULD be interesting (I'll give you that by a mile), it would be less suspenseful. See my Harry Potter Analogy above (no, it is not about a HP ride!).

Again, this is ignorant. The fact is they chose a projection for Storytelling, not for cheapness. Yes, it was cheaper, but they did not chose it for that reason. That IS a fact. Don't tell me that you believe they chose it to be cheap, because there are facts against that. yes, another yeti AA would be more expensive, but it would hurt the story, whether you believe it would or not. It's a law of good storytelling. The more you see something and the more you are able to examine it the less interested you become and the less imposing it seems. Stare at that Jim Hill pic of the yeti for a while. He will become less scary after seeing it for a while.

Another analogy for you:

When I was in 3rd grade I was the Killer from the movie Scream for Halloween (the least Imaginative costume I ever had, and I am not proud of it). My mom took me to Party City and I tried it on, showed her, and bought it. I didn't want to take it off when I got home. My mom saw the scream Killer walking around her house plenty of times (ofcourse, being 4 feet tall . . .). The later that night my dad came home. My mom was at the computer and I snuck up to her and tapped her on the shoulder and tried to scare her. It didn't work. She just said "Very Funny". Then Later I did the same thing to my dad. he was freaked out! He wasn't expecting to come face to face with the Sceam killer that night. See what I'm trying to say? The more you see something the less scary it becomes. I think Imagineering knows what they're doing a little bit better than you, so this "I believe it was about money" stuff it ignorant. it was for storytelling. Fact. Deal with it or don't ride.

Yensid "I seem to be ticked off tonight - sorry" tlaw1969

 

[Merlin]

Excuse me if I come off as rude, but this is terribly Ignorant.

It doesn't matter whether you believe it was about money, because the fact is it wasn't.

$100 is by far a decent budget. If Expedtion Everest was being built in Tokyo, what would you expect the budget to be? Please, enlighten me, because I'd love to know.

While multiple Animatronics WOULD be interesting (I'll give you that by a mile), it would be less suspenseful. See my Harry Potter Analogy above (no, it is not about a HP ride!).

Again, this is ignorant. The fact is they chose a projection for Storytelling, not for cheapness. Yes, it was cheaper, but they did not chose it for that reason. That IS a fact. Don't tell me that you believe they chose it to be cheap, because there are facts against that. yes, another yeti AA would be more expensive, but it would hurt the story, whether you believe it would or not. It's a law of good storytelling. The more you see something and the more you are able to examine it the less interested you become and the less imposing it seems. Stare at that Jim Hill pic of the yeti for a while. He will become less scary after seeing it for a while.

Another analogy for you:

When I was in 3rd grade I was the Killer from the movie Scream for Halloween (the least Imaginative costume I ever had, and I am not proud of it). My mom took me to Party City and I tried it on, showed her, and bought it. I didn't want to take it off when I got home. My mom saw the scream Killer walking around her house plenty of times (ofcourse, being 4 feet tall . . .). The later that night my dad came home. My mom was at the computer and I snuck up to her and tapped her on the shoulder and tried to scare her. It didn't work. She just said "Very Funny". Then Later I did the same thing to my dad. he was freaked out! He wasn't expecting to come face to face with the Sceam killer that night. See what I'm trying to say? The more you see something the less scary it becomes. I think Imagineering knows what they're doing a little bit better than you, so this "I believe it was about money" stuff it ignorant. it was for storytelling. Fact. Deal with it or don't ride.

Yensid "I seem to be ticked off tonight - sorry" tlaw1969

I think your judgment is incredibly clouded. As I stated before, regardless of what stage it was decided that they'd only have one AA figure, you can't honestly believe that it wasn't about money. Come on!! Give the Imagineers a little more credit! You honestly believe their first choice would have been to use an antiquated "effect" like a projection??

 

[LSUxStitch]

When I was in 3rd grade I was the Killer from the movie Scream for Halloween (the least Imaginative costume I ever had, and I am not proud of it). My mom took me to Party City and I tried it on, showed her, and bought it. I didn't want to take it off when I got home. My mom saw the scream Killer walking around her house plenty of times (ofcourse, being 4 feet tall . . .). The later that night my dad came home. My mom was at the computer and I snuck up to her and tapped her on the shoulder and tried to scare her. It didn't work. She just said "Very Funny". Then Later I did the same thing to my dad. he was freaked out! He wasn't expecting to come face to face with the Sceam killer that night. See what I'm trying to say? The more you see something the less scary it becomes. I think Imagineering knows what they're doing a little bit better than you, so this "I believe it was about money" stuff it ignorant. it was for storytelling. Fact. Deal with it or don't ride.

Yensid "I seem to be ticked off tonight - sorry" tlaw1969

Dude you are only 15 years old? You are rather intelligent for your age, but I do see in some of your posts, your age. It explains a lot.

Sorry for offtopic-ness.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

Dude you are only 15 years old? You are rather intelligent for your age, but I do see in some of your posts, your age. It explains a lot.

Sorry for offtopic-ness.

Thank you for the compliment of my intelligence, and I don't know if the "it explains alot" part was a compliment or an insult, so I'll just say ok and move on.

Yensid "storytelling: it's my thing" tlaw1969

 

[Legacy]

QUESTION!

I'm not entirely sure how much he costs, but I remember all the complaints when Stitch opened (yes, STITCH) that we didn't get enough time to watch the movements of this amazingly cool animatronic.

So why are we okay with seeing an animatronic that is supposedly even more amazing for a lesser amount of time.

I'm with Merlin on this, you guys seem to be picking your battles when you want to.

And don't claim "story" on me, because the story of Stitch actually works with LESS of the animatronic.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

I think your judgment is incredibly clouded. As I stated before, regardless of what stage it was decided that they'd only have one AA figure, you can't honestly believe that it wasn't about money. Come on!! Give the Imagineers a little more credit! You honestly believe their first choice would have been to use an antiquated "effect" like a projection??

Their first choice was to probably that we'd see the Yeti AA only once. They then went off to create other ways of hinting at the Yeti's existance. They decided seeing his shadow was a good way. I honestly don't know, I'm just assuming something like this happened. It is better storytelling in this situation to see the actual Yeti only once. It's the way the human brain works. The Imagineers are messing with our minds with the Yeti, in more ways than one. They first hint that he's there and he's real. They then show you a quick glimpse so when you get off you wonder "wait, what did I just see?". It's like that kind of dream that you dreamt but when you think about it later on your not sure if you actually dreamt it and that you might be just making it up on the spot . . . I think? Lol, I think a better example is when you hear about something or you see something and you want to remember it, but you really don't and you end up making up the memory even though you didn't really remember it in the first place. Wow, I think I went off with that last one. Whatever. I'm done here. The yeti is seen only once. Imagineering intended it. That is how it is.


Yensid "SLEEEEEP!!!" tlaw1969

 

[Monty]

If not having more than the one AA Yeti is because of budget, why spend ridiculous amounts of money on several trips to the Himalayas just to get "a feel for" the culture of the region and have local artisans sculpt woodwork for the attraction? Most of that info can be gleaned by googling "Nepal"!

Considerable amounts of money were spent to get it "just right" the way Disney has always done! Seems to me they've maintained the organization's traditional "standards" quite well. Just because one individual doesn't choose to acknowledge that doesn't make the vast majority of people who appear to truly enjoy the ride "blinded Disney automatons".

Get over it! One AA does exactly what WDI wanted it to do. Nothing more, nothing less.

And when I've ridden the darsh-gone thing, I'll really give you what-for! :lol:

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

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.

I would be singing a different tune, only that tune would be "this is Dinosaur with a new Character!". Imagineering never planned to have another yeti and they never wanted another yeti. Disney could've said "Here's another however much money to build another Yeti if you want" and he would have either said no or put that money toward something else. One yeti was all they wanted. It was their original intent and they never wavered on that decision. Your posts are untrue and based on opinion. When money was cut Joe decided not to finish the backside of the mountain. The attraction is exactly as it wouldv'e appeared while riding it if no money was cut at all. It is innafective storytelling to have more than one Yeti with the set up this attraction, well, sets up. You may think my judgement is clouded, but the fact is you are being (don't take this the wrong way) pigheaded. WDI would never have wanted another Yeti, and they know that it would be detrimental to the attraction to have more than one. If you want more than one Yeti, then Rebuild Everest in your backward and do it the way yuo want, but the FACT is that IMAGINEERING NEVER WANTED ANOTHER YETI. ONE YETI WAS THEIR FIRST CHOICE. ONE YETI WAS THEIR LAST CHOICE. ONE YETI WAS THEIR ONLY THOUGHT. If my past couple posts don't explain it well enough then I will leave this thread with you unsatisfied by how an attraction yout hink Could have been but was never going to be. You're making things up and passing them off as fact when they are fiction. "The Haunted mansion was originally going to have 1,400 Ghosts, but budget cuts . . ." is essentially what you are saying. Not true. they thought it would be fun and effective to have 999, and they would mention that you would be nice to take up slot # 1,000. No Budgets got in the way and forced this decision. Pure storytelling my friend, and if you cannot recognize EE as a great story, then I have no business wasting my time talking to you.


Yensidtlaw1969

 

[Lee]

As I stated before, regardless of what stage it was decided that they'd only have one AA figure, you can't honestly believe that it wasn't about money.

Ok...one last time...it was NOT about money. How much more clear can I make it? It's not a guess I'm making, not a rationalization....it's a fact told to me by people involved with the design of the attraction. Simple as that.

From day one the plan was to have hints about the yeti in the queue and early in the ride, with the climax being a look at him. No yetis were cut due to budget. That is just how it is.

And Tokyo is not an example of how it would be different. How many times do you see the Lava Monster in Journey to the Center of the Earth? Once. Quickly. At the climax of the ride. Unlike Dinosaur, where the story of the attraction is being "chased" through the jungle by the carnataur and the impenting comet impact, Everest was intended to use suspense and mystery rather than (for lack of a better word) fear.

Would it have been cool to have a couple more yetis in the mountain? Sure. But it isn't necessary for the story, and doesn't impact my view of the ride. I've known for three years that there was only one yeti in the mountain. That has always been my expectation and I have no problem with it. My standards for Disney and WDI have been met nicely, thank you.

 

[peter11435]

Ok...one last time...it was NOT about money. How much more clear can I make it? It's not a guess I'm making, not a rationalization....it's a fact told to me by people involved with the design of the attraction. Simple as that.

From day one the plan was to have hints about the yeti in the queue and early in the ride, with the climax being a look at him. No yetis were cut due to budget. That is just how it is.

And Tokyo is not an example of how it would be different. How many times do you see the Lava Monster in Journey to the Center of the Earth? Once. Quickly. At the climax of the ride. Unlike Dinosaur, where the story of the attraction is being "chased" through the jungle by the carnataur and the impenting comet impact, Everest was intended to use suspense and mystery rather than (for lack of a better word) fear.

Would it have been cool to have a couple more yetis in the mountain? Sure. But it isn't necessary for the story, and doesn't impact my view of the ride. I've known for three years that there was only one yeti in the mountain. That has always been my expectation and I have no problem with it. My standards for Disney and WDI have been met nicely, thank you.

:sohappy: Excellent post. As was yensidtlaw1969 last post.

 

[Rosso11]

Well this weekend I finally made it out to the cast previews and had my chance to ride Everest. I have a few opinions of my own that I would like to share and see if they make sense. First of all the ride is really good but falls short of greatness but I think that can be fixed. When critiquing Everest I must start with the guests first impression of it which is unfortunately from the Disney bus outside the park looking at the back of the mountain. This must be fixed somehow. It completely ruins the illusion even before you walk into the park. I heard many guests commenting on it. They need to cover this somehow perhaps with fake trees or a new fake facade. I'm sure they will do something, eventually. Anyway, now I have a few recommendations for the ride and mountain themselves. I really think they need to build some more suspense into the ride and I don't think it would be to hard or expensive to do. First of all from the outside I think it would make a huge impression if you heard the yeti yell, growl or howl from below the mountain every so often. If a lowed howl could be heard from a good distance it would really create suspense mystery and fear as to what is making this sound from atop the mountain. As for the ride itself there are also a few changes that should be made. I agree with the people who were saying that there should be someone in the temple as you go up the hill warning you not to enter the yeti's domain. As you approach the twisted track there should be a lot of smoke affects to create more of a mysterious feeling. The bird obviously has to go. Jose form the Tiki room looks more realistic than that bird. I really think they should play more on your senses. Maybe have the sound of the yeti approaching you and continuously getting louder. Then just as you fall back wards you see his giant hand reach over the mountain. The next scene with the projection should also be slightly updated a bit, but again using more of your senses. When you approach that room you should immediately smell the yeti who smells like some kind of wet dog even before his shadow appears and passably when he growls there could be a different smell from his breath. This will let you know he's here in the room with you but where? I remember everyone talking about what the yeti was going to smell like over a year ago but what happened to the effect? I think this is where you should really smell him since the scene with the actual AA goes by too fast for this to be affective. These are the changes I would make and I really think they would add to the mystery and suspense of the ride greatly. These are not major changes but changes that I believe would turn this really good attraction into a really great attraction.

 

[TiggersPooh]

Then again, half of them doing it were CP's makeing $5.75 a hour, so they could care less.

A lil harsh there...why put down CPs most of them do care but when people like you bad mouth them it breaks their spirits...they already get it from the full/part timers they work with everyday.

Oh and the pay is now $6.25 (and supposed to be increased again shortly) smartass

 

[TiggersPooh]

BTW- The Yellow Id's. This was all over the park, from the parking lot, into the turnstyles, into the tree of life. All over, people CM's not in any uniform just walking around. I've noticed this more and more lately, all over the resort.

Considering starting up a new website. www.badcmshow.com, I could put pictures of them shopping in Publix in the TOT uniform. Walking around talking on cell phones, etc. Could be pretty fun.

is it ur goal to find something wrong with CMs? They help make the magic for thousands of guests each day...yet you find the wrong.
Yes they shouldnt have been on their phones (on stage i assume) or wearing their costume outside of work...which i have done in the past (mc donalds or dennys before or after work...unplanned)

Youre at Disney Smile and Be Happy

 

[ClemsonTigger]

I think your judgment is incredibly clouded. As I stated before, regardless of what stage it was decided that they'd only have one AA figure, you can't honestly believe that it wasn't about money. Come on!! Give the Imagineers a little more credit! You honestly believe their first choice would have been to use an antiquated "effect" like a projection??

Merlin, your opinion is very clear. The opinion of others here is equally clear that they are extremely satisfied with the end product. That should be the end of the discussion.

Your continued insults or repeating your theme do nothing toward persuasion. Again you have overstayed your welcome in a thread. :fork:

 

[LSUxStitch]

IImagineering never planned to have another yeti and they never wanted another yeti. Disney could've said "Here's another however much money to build another Yeti if you want" and he would have either said no or put that money toward something else. One yeti was all they wanted. It was their original intent and they never wavered on that decision. Your posts are untrue and based on opinion. When money was cut Joe decided not to finish the backside of the mountain. The attraction is exactly as it wouldv'e appeared while riding it if no money was cut at all. It is innafective storytelling to have more than one Yeti with the set up this attraction, well, sets up. You may think my judgement is clouded, but the fact is you are being (don't take this the wrong way) pigheaded. WDI would never have wanted another Yeti, and they know that it would be detrimental to the attraction to have more than one. If you want more than one Yeti, then Rebuild Everest in your backward and do it the way yuo want, but the FACT is that IMAGINEERING NEVER WANTED ANOTHER YETI. ONE YETI WAS THEIR FIRST CHOICE. ONE YETI WAS THEIR LAST CHOICE. ONE YETI WAS THEIR ONLY THOUGHT. If my past couple posts don't explain it well enough then I will leave this thread with you unsatisfied by how an attraction yout hink Could have been but was never going to be. You're making things up and passing them off as fact when they are fiction. "The Haunted mansion was originally going to have 1,400 Ghosts, but budget cuts . . ." is essentially what you are saying. Not true. they thought it would be fun and effective to have 999, and they would mention that you would be nice to take up slot # 1,000. No Budgets got in the way and forced this decision. Pure storytelling my friend, and if you cannot recognize EE as a great story, then I have no business wasting my time talking to you.





Yensidtlaw1969

But in the before post you say this...

Their first choice was to probably that we'd see the Yeti AA only once. They then went off to create other ways of hinting at the Yeti's existance. They decided seeing his shadow was a good way. I honestly don't know, I'm just assuming something like this happened. It is better storytelling in this situation to see the actual Yeti only once. It's the way the human brain works. The Imagineers are messing with our minds with the Yeti, in more ways than one. They first hint that he's there and he's real. They then show you a quick glimpse so when you get off you wonder "wait, what did I just see?". It's like that kind of dream that you dreamt but when you think about it later on your not sure if you actually dreamt it and that you might be just making it up on the spot . . . I think? Lol, I think a better example is when you hear about something or you see something and you want to remember it, but you really don't and you end up making up the memory even though you didn't really remember it in the first place. Wow, I think I went off with that last one. Whatever. I'm done here. The yeti is seen only once. Imagineering intended it. That is how it is.


Yensid "SLEEEEEP!!!" tlaw1969

You, my friend, are doing the same as him except you are arguing the exact opposite. Everyone will have different opinions on this ride, why can't people just respect others opinion before jumping on people's backs. If someone thinks they wasted the $100 Mil, then let them think that because there will always be someone else that thinks it is the greatest ride in the world. Just look at every attraction at WDW, there are favorites and rides that people think are a waste of space. For being your age, I will take it as a grain of salt, but REMEMBER...When you get older not everyone will agree 100% with everything you say. You guys can keep on arguing, but I think it will go no where because after reading your opinions and his?, You both have strong feelings and do not bend either way.

-Sean

 

[Merlin]

Merlin, your opinion is very clear. The opinion of others here is equally clear that they are extremely satisfied with the end product. That should be the end of the discussion.

Your continued insults or repeating your theme do nothing toward persuasion. Again you have overstayed your welcome in a thread. :fork:

Yikes! Do you react this way in other aspects of your life whenever someone disagrees with you? "Overstayed (my) welcome"?? Isn't that a little harsh? Just out of curiosity, what exactly is your definition of a "discussion board"? My guess is you define it something like this: Everyone agrees that everything Disney does is flawless and should never be criticized in any way. Anyone who disagrees is not welcome in the discussion.