Another ride review of Everst

[peter11435]

Quick question for you Merlin. When did you ride EE.

 

[Merlin]

Quick question for you Merlin. When did you ride EE.

I never claimed to have ridden EE. That's not what this discussion is about. It's a discussion on about Disney having cut corners by using antiquated "effects" and how Disney fanatics excuse it by saying it's "about storytelling" and "suspense building".

So let me see if I can guess how you were hoping this exchange would play out. Was it something like this...

peter11435: (pretending to ask a sincere an innocent question) "So Merlin, when did you ride EE?"

Merlin: "Um....er....uh.... (dang! He's got me cornered! Now I have to admit I didn't ride it). Ummmm.....(sheepishly) well, you see I didn't exactly ride it."

peter11435: "Ah ha!!!! So how can you express an opinion about Disney and Disney fans in general if you didn't ride the specific attraction that we're discussing!?"

Merlin: "Gosh Peter, you're right. I take back everything I've ever said that has ever been remotely critical of Disney. I had no constitutional right to express my opinion. You're so smart, Peter. You really outsmarted me with that one!"

:brick:

 

[ClemsonTigger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemsonTigger
As a matter of fact I do! When it comes to beating a dead horse, someone has to say stop.

My definition of "discussion" is an earnest conversation, consideration of a subject. You have made your opinion of EE crystal clear as you are welcome to do, others have made different conclusions for their own reasons. When both parties stop listening (ie considering) another point of view, then the discourse is no longer a conversation, but belligerence.

This is not a belligerence board.

Singling out one member (namely, ME) and telling them they've "overstayed your welcome" on a discussion thread seems like more of a belligerent response than anything else I've read on this thread. Others are being just as headstrong in their opinions. Why did you choose to single just me out for being "crystal clear" in my opinion? Is it because my opinion disagrees with yours?

You are right, it is a belligerent response which was made to a "dead horse" thread.

I fail to see how "crystal clear" has negative (or positive) connotations, and is no different from the neutral qualifier of other opinions. I have stated no opinion on this attraction, to a large part because I have not see or ridden the finished product.

I would agree that it explains a lot about your opinions. If you are only 15, then you've primarily only truly known Disney as it's operated under it's current standards. Unless you were an incredibly astute 10 or 11 year old, you probably aren't able to make a valid comparison between Disney now versus Disney 5 or 6 years ago.-Merlin

Yikes! Do you react this way in other aspects of your life whenever someone disagrees with you? - Merlin

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

I think your judgment is incredibly clouded.-Merlin

Way to keep the "discussion" on point

 

[peter11435]

I never claimed to have ridden EE. That's not what this discussion is about. It's a discussion on about Disney having cut corners by using antiquated "effects" and how Disney fanatics excuse it by saying it's "about storytelling" and "suspense building".

So let me see if I can guess how you were hoping this exchange would play out. Was it something like this...

peter11435: (pretending to ask a sincere an innocent question) "So Merlin, when did you ride EE?"

Merlin: "Um....er....uh.... (dang! He's got me cornered! Now I have to admit I didn't ride it). Ummmm.....(sheepishly) well, you see I didn't exactly ride it."

peter11435: "Ah ha!!!! So how can you express an opinion about Disney and Disney fans in general if you didn't ride the specific attraction that we're discussing!?"

Merlin: "Gosh Peter, you're right. I take back everything I've ever said that has ever been remotely critical of Disney. I had no constitutional right to express my opinion. You're so smart, Peter. You really outsmarted me with that one!"

:brick:

I don't appreciate your putting words in my mouth. I know exactly what this discussion is about. Its about people assuming things about WDI that they have no knowledge about, it's about people claiming (unfairly) that Everest is the result of cutbacks and not creativity, its about people judging the quality of an attraction they have never ridden, and its about people putting works in other peoples mouths.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

I'll tell you what... Let's save this discussion thread and look back on it say, 10 years from now. How much do you want to bet the backside of the mountain still won't be finished?

I didn't say it will be done, I just said he will want it done and if the funds come in he will want to do it. Whether the funds come in to be able to do that or not is a different story entirely. If they get a large amount of money and they can either create a new attraction or finish the backside of the mountain, Joe would opt for the new attraction. While it is bad show, it can easily be temporarily fixed (atleast from the view of the parking lot) with some taller trees.

Oh, in ten years I will try to either revive this thread or create a new one and post whether the backside of the mountain is or isn't finished (just because it sounded like a good Idea). Seriously. If I have the free time and I remember (which I don't know if I will) I will post it.

Cheers!



Yensid "cake is GOOOOD" tlaw1969

 

[Merlin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemsonTigger
As a matter of fact I do! When it comes to beating a dead horse, someone has to say stop.

My definition of "discussion" is an earnest conversation, consideration of a subject. You have made your opinion of EE crystal clear as you are welcome to do, others have made different conclusions for their own reasons. When both parties stop listening (ie considering) another point of view, then the discourse is no longer a conversation, but belligerence.

This is not a belligerence board.




You are right, it is a belligerent response which was made to a "dead horse" thread.

I fail to see how "crystal clear" has negative (or positive) connotations, and is no different from the neutral qualifier of other opinions. I have stated no opinion on this attraction, to a large part because I have not see or ridden the finished product.









Way to keep the "discussion" on point

I see that you went to a lot of trouble to collect quotes from me, but ignored quotes from others on this discussion. That is yet another way of singling me out. When I made reference to it the first time, it was to ask you why you singled me out by telling me that I had overstayed my welcome on this thread. Why did you not tell anyone else they had overstayed their welcome? I'll ask again: Is it because my opinion disagrees with yours?

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

Quote:
I would agree that it explains a lot about your opinions. If you are only 15, then you've primarily only truly known Disney as it's operated under it's current standards. Unless you were an incredibly astute 10 or 11 year old, you probably aren't able to make a valid comparison between Disney now versus Disney 5 or 6 years ago.-Merlin

Quote:
Yikes! Do you react this way in other aspects of your life whenever someone disagrees with you? - Merlin

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

Quote:
I think your judgment is incredibly clouded.-Merlin

Atleast 8 years.

This issue is not something that can be disagreed with. Neither something that can be agreed with. It is a statement of fact -- There were no Yeti's cut out of EE and the ride is exactly as it would have been should the budget cut not have happened. And no, I find it perfectly acceptable when disagree with me. in fact, it makes life more interesting.

I assume that we're having bad weather in Hollywood on that particular day.

My judgement it pretty clear, if I do say so myself. However, this discussion is not about my Judgement. It is about facts. You cannot disagree with the fact that Everest did not "suffer" from budget cuts. While cuts were made, they do not affect the experience at all while you are riding it. It would not have been a better or worse attraction were no cuts made.

Thank you for the off-topic Insults, but I find them invalid.

Enjoy the rest of your day!

Yensid "listening to Illuminations on your phone is fun" tlaw1969

 

[Lee]

It's a discussion on about Disney having cut corners by using antiquated "effects" and how Disney fanatics excuse it by saying it's "about storytelling" and "suspense building".

Antiquated?
The bird, maybe. I'll admit I don't understand the point of the bird. :veryconfu
But the projection, for example, is anything but antiquated. It's a state of the art multiple-projector system.

Your statement is off in two ways.
1 - No corners were cut on effects. They got exactly what they wanted.

2 - You make it seem as if someone has said "Yeah, it's antiquated and poorly done...but it's that way on purpose!"
On the contrary. It's quite modern and well done...and it's that way on purpose.

Something for everyone to keep in mind: Whether or not someone likes the ride is a matter of their opinion, and each person is welcome to their own opinion. Facts, such as whether or not effects or AAs were cut due to budget are simply that...facts, and not debatable.

:wave:

 

[Merlin]

I don't appreciate your putting words in my mouth. I know exactly what this discussion is about. Its about people assuming things about WDI that they have no knowledge about, it's about people claiming (unfairly) that Everest is the result of cutbacks and not creativity, its about people judging the quality of an attraction they have never ridden, and its about people putting works in other peoples mouths.

I don't see how speculating (in a humorous way) what you were attempting to do could be defined as "putting words in your mouth". Besides, I was right, wasn't I? You jumped at the opportunity to point out I haven't ridden it and therefore feel I have no right to judge it's quality.

Besides, I'd guess the majority of people who've expressed an opinion of Everest on these boards so far, are basing those opinions solely on what they read or on photos or ride videos they've seen. But if those folks are saying things like "it looks awesome!" are you jumping on them for expressing an opinion about a ride they haven't been on?

 

[Merlin]

I didn't say it will be done, I just said he will want it done and if the funds come in he will want to do it. Whether the funds come in to be able to do that or not is a different story entirely. If they get a large amount of money and they can either create a new attraction or finish the backside of the mountain, Joe would opt for the new attraction. While it is bad show, it can easily be temporarily fixed (atleast from the view of the parking lot) with some taller trees.

Oh, in ten years I will try to either revive this thread or create a new one and post whether the backside of the mountain is or isn't finished (just because it sounded like a good Idea). Seriously. If I have the free time and I remember (which I don't know if I will) I will post it.

Cheers!



Yensid "cake is GOOOOD" tlaw1969

Trust me, it won't be done!:lol:

 

[Lee]

Trust me, it won't be done!:lol:

Actually....I hear that it probably will....
Not finished like the front....but improved from how it is now.

 

[peter11435]

I don't see how speculating (in a humorous way) what you were attempting to do could be defined as "putting words in your mouth". Besides, I was right, wasn't I?

Im not sure if it came of as humorous as you thought it would.

and therefore feel I have no right to judge it's quality.

Your right. If you haven't ridden the ride then you have absolutly no ride to judge the overall quality of the attraction.

Besides, I'd guess the majority of people who've expressed an opinion of Everest on these boards so far, are basing those opinions solely on what they read or on photos or ride videos they've seen. But if those folks are saying things like "it looks awesome!" are you jumping on them for expressing an opinion about a ride they haven't been on?

There is a huge difference between saying something looks awesome based on photos, and saying something is an inadequate (read: horrible) attraction based on pictures.

Its just like how you can say a movie looks great (or looks horrible even) based on the trailer, but you can't say the movie IS horrible (or great for that matter) based on a trailer.

 

[Merlin]

Quote:
I would agree that it explains a lot about your opinions. If you are only 15, then you've primarily only truly known Disney as it's operated under it's current standards. Unless you were an incredibly astute 10 or 11 year old, you probably aren't able to make a valid comparison between Disney now versus Disney 5 or 6 years ago.-Merlin

Quote:
Yikes! Do you react this way in other aspects of your life whenever someone disagrees with you? - Merlin

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

Quote:
I think your judgment is incredibly clouded.-Merlin

Atleast 8 years.

This issue is not something that can be disagreed with. Neither something that can be agreed with. It is a statement of fact -- There were no Yeti's cut out of EE and the ride is exactly as it would have been should the budget cut not have happened. And no, I find it perfectly acceptable when disagree with me. in fact, it makes life more interesting.

I assume that we're having bad weather in Hollywood on that particular day.

My judgement it pretty clear, if I do say so myself. However, this discussion is not about my Judgement. It is about facts. You cannot disagree with the fact that Everest did not "suffer" from budget cuts. While cuts were made, they do not affect the experience at all while you are riding it. It would not have been a better or worse attraction were no cuts made.

Thank you for the off-topic Insults, but I find them invalid.

Enjoy the rest of your day!

Yensid "listening to Illuminations on your phone is fun" tlaw1969

yensidtlaw1969, I don't see how any of my quotes could be described as "insulting" you. If you truly felt insulted, I'll offer an apology, but none of my comments were intended as insults. Another member commented about your age and said that it explained a lot about your posts. You asked that member what he/she meant by that, and as far as I know, that member did not answer your question. I mentioned that I agreed that it explained a lot about your posts, but then I went on to explain what I meant by that. I was referring to your frame of reference. Your age prevents you from knowing, through personal experience, what Disney standards were like 15 years ago. And truthfully, for the first several years of your life I highly doubt you were all that aware of such things. So we don't even need to go back the full 15 years. And trust me when I say this...things have changed quite a bit with Disney standards over the past several years.

If it was my comment about your judgment being clouded, I still stand by that statement. I love Disney (as I've stated many times), but I think that any time a person becomes fanatical about something, their judgment becomes clouded and they become biased toward it. You do sound like an intelligent person, and you articulate yourself in writing quite well. But at the same time, I can tell from your posts that your judgment is clouded by your fierce loyalty toward defending anything Disney produces (of course, that's just my opinion, which is why I chose my words carefully and said, "I THINK your judgment is incredibly clouded.")

As far as the other comments of mine that you quoted, I can't even speculate as to why you may have found them insulting.

 

[Merlin]

Actually....I hear that it probably will....
Not finished like the front....but improved from how it is now.

"Improved" in what way?

 

[Lee]

"Improved" in what way?

Not sure of the exact plan they have in mind, but I was told it would eventually be camouflaged to blend in and not look a warehouse with a facade stuck onto it. I would guess they paint the building to look like the mountain...that would do wonders for it.

 

[Merlin]

Im not sure if it came of as humorous as you thought it would.



Your right. If you haven't ridden the ride then you have absolutly no ride to judge the overall quality of the attraction.




There is a huge difference between saying something looks awesome based on photos, and saying something is an inadequate (read: horrible) attraction based on pictures.

Its just like how you can say a movie looks great (or looks horrible even) based on the trailer, but you can't say the movie IS horrible (or great for that matter) based on a trailer.

I just think the ever popular "How can you judge it if you haven't ridden it" response is a convenient one to pull out of your back pocket any time someone is critical of the attraction, but no need to bring it out whenever someone makes positive, glowing remarks.

Having said that, at what point have I made statements that the ride is inadequate based on pictures? I've expressed opinions as responses to what people have said about what they personally thought of the attraction. I read some reviews of the attraction where OTHER people complained about aspects of it (i.e. the bird, the projection instead of another AA, the fact that you go whizzing past the Yeti too fast to really get a good look at it, etc). Although I have seen pics and some ride videos, I'm not really expressing my opinion based on those things. But when I read some of the opinions, it made me think, "Typical Disney as of late. They overhype an attraction and then it seems like a bit of a letdown." Then I read other members defending it and trying to play it off as "great storytelling" and "a great way to build suspense". I can't help but laugh when I read comments like that because I think people can't see the reality sometimes. I truly think that if Disney were to build an "attraction" that was nothing more than an empty warehouse (something they've actually come close to a few times :lol: ), there'd be fans on this board who would say, "Wow, what great storytelling! They didn't cut corners. This was how the Imagineers intended it! We're supposed to use our own imaginations and make our own magic!"

 

[Merlin]

Not sure of the exact plan they have in mind, but I was told it would eventually be camouflaged to blend in and not look a warehouse with a facade stuck onto it. I would guess they paint the building to look like the mountain...that would do wonders for it.

Well that would be something at least. When I was there in June, I noticed that big showbuilding and thought it just looked tacky. I posted about it and another member said it was just a tarp that would be taken down.

 

[Number_6]

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.

Since you are in a static(non-motion) environment there and the big thing is the animatronic, that's probably why people were complaining it wasn't out there long enough. Actually, the only complaint I had for SGA had been story related. You've got the attraction taking place prior to the first movie. The method he uses to escape containment is similar(DNA from his spit causing the laser cannons to track and fire away from him) so they wouldn't have made the same mistake in the movie, Experiment 626 calling himself "Stitch" in the attraction when he doesn't get his name until he meets Lilo, going to Earth, specifically WDW after his escape when he didn't end up on Earth until he crashed in Hawai'i, and when he is climbing on Astro Orbiter, it is always a perfectly sunny day, even at night. It was like they spent most of their budget on the Animatronic and couldn't come up with more show elements afterwards with what was left of the budget. I have an idea of what they could have done instead, but that's for another discussion.

EE on the other hand was heavily researched. They visited the Himalayas and talked with people who know more about the Yeti legends than probably anyone in this discussion knows. As I've stated before, the legends indicate the Yeti as being able to blend in very well with the surrounding rock, so having him be clearly visible multiple times may not have had the same effect as making him that difficult to spot. As far as only seeing him briefly when you finally do, let me ask you this: If you really were travelling in a vehicle, any vehicle and something as big as the Yeti came out and looked pretty ticked off to the point of wanting to attack you, are you going to sit there and say "I need to get a really good look at this, since this is so amazing?" Probably not. Odds are, you are going to try to get the heck away from it as quickly as possible. Now, as far as not having the Yeti still be where the broken track is located, there are two thoughts I have for this... First, which would be more dramatic, having just the broken track and not having seen what did it, or having it there breaking the track? For me it would be just having the track. Maybe it's not that way for everyone, but that is likely the thought of a good number of people. Second, where would it be placed? This broken track is outside from my understanding. Is this broken track section visible from any other location(ie from outside of the attraction or while riding)? If it is, then you wouldn't want a Yeti visible to non-riders, or people that are riding at another point on the attraction as that would affect the experience in a potentially negative manner("look, it's still at the track it shredded and isn't really chasing after us" or for non-riders "so that's what it looks like"). It would have to be built the same or similar in size to the one that they currently have, so it would be harder to hide. Also, having one AA of the Yeti makes it less likely that something is not going to fire. Think of how many times one or another of the AAs on Splash Mountain is not working right, such as Brer Rabbit hopping along. If the drama was supposed to built up by multiple Yeti AAs and only one ended up working then there would not be as much of a build. By using the shadow projection, you don't have as much risk of it not functioning and still get the effect of "there's something out there." The broken track gives you the effect of "not only is there something out there, but I think it's mad." Followed by the appearance of the Yeti AA and the "Oh crap, that's what it is and yeah, it's mad... GET US OUT OF HERE QUICK!!!"

Just my thoughts on things. I'm going to not post in this discussion again until after I have gone on EE this Saturday. Then I'll be able to say how I felt the elements come together since I'll have had the chance to actually see it.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

I hate plenty of things that Disney has done. They don't always get everything right. i'm just saying that I think they got Everest right, but maybe that's just me.

Yensid "WDW's Adventureland . . . Why?!?!?" tlaw1969

 

[peter11435]

I hate plenty of things that Disney has done. They don't always get everything right. i'm just saying that I think they got Everest right, but maybe that's just me.

Yensid "WDW's Adventureland . . . Why?!?!?" tlaw1969

Its not just you. In fact your opinion is shared by about 95% of those who have actually been on EE.