Are the feelings for the Yeti unreasonable?

[Model3 McQueen]

I agree. I suspect if most of the people that complain about the Yeti being broken were really being honest, they would agree. However, it's chic to complain about the Yeti, so they complain about the Yeti.

We don't give Disney money to ride Goliath or Millennium Force or Kinda Ka. We arguably (at least, I do) go for the show scenes, the themeing, the immersion. So when you ride Indiana Jones Adventure and the finale doesn't work; Dinosaur without a working Carnotaurus; Seven Dwarves Mine Train with broken AA's; Matterhorn with, eh heh, broken yetis; do you want them fixed, or do accept subpar experiences in an otherwise magnificent attraction?

 

[TongaToast21]

We don't give Disney money to ride Goliath or Millennium Force or Kinda Ka. We arguably (at least, I do) go for the show scenes, the themeing, the immersion. So when you ride Indiana Jones Adventure and the finale doesn't work; Dinosaur without a working Carnotaurus; Seven Dwarves Mine Train with broken AA's; Matterhorn with, eh heh, broken yetis; do you want them fixed, or do accept subpar experiences in an otherwise magnificent attraction?

i agree with everything you said 100%! it's funny you mention the other coasters, because I feel like out of any disney attraction, Expedition Everest is the closest to a bonafide thrill coaster you would go on at other amusement parks.

Does the thrill or charm of EE live and die by the Yeti? I personally don't think so. Would it stop someone from riding it?

Would people still wait and ride SDMT if none of the animatronics worked? I think that's a different story..

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I wasn’t following this...so forgive me.

Did iger say something about this? Is that why this has popped back up?

 

[JustAFan]

Engineers did alert their superiors to the issues surrounding the cold weather and O-rings. They were dismissed.
(Source: Challenger Engineer Who Warned Of Shuttle Disaster Dies)

I'm amazed how many people will defend a company raking in billions each quarter for not spending the time and money to fix the largest AA in Disney history. You think there would be a bit more pride about the idea that the largest AA Disney ever created failed, and has yet to be addressed in any meaningful way.

Why any of use here would be concerned that the repair doesn't have the "appropriate" ROI is sorta baffling to me. Even as a shareholder, still odd to me that the only decisions that are to be justified are ones in which ROI is acceptable and DIS shares rise next quarter.

I'm convinced they simply don't care. Which is really sad.

I understand where you're coming from and get the sense that many others agree with you. However, I'm willing to bet your last statement ("they simply don't care") is simply not true. Maybe you're using hyperbole, but I'm sure they care. Could you accuse them of caring more about the bottom line than one part of one attraction? Sure, maybe that's the case. At the end of the day, Disney is a business, a publicly traded business. There are many stakeholders, park guests being a percentage of that pie. If someone could prove to the Disney corporation that the broken Yeti is negatively affecting their bottom line, you can bet the urgency to fix it would intensify. I think we can all agree that the Yeti being broken is not affecting park attendance or Disney's revenues. I still think they'll fix it someday. In the meantime, I'll still open my wallet - as will the rest of you - and enjoy my time at the parks, including disco Yeti.

 

[SirWillow]

I wasn’t following this...so forgive me.

Did iger say something about this? Is that why this has popped back up?

No, it came as my response to several posts on several threads claiming that Iger/ Disney/ Animal Kingdom/ etc was a major fail because they hadn't fixed the Yeti yet and it left the ride/ park in a completely unsuitable/ unrideable condition. Almost no exaggeration there.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

No, it came as my response to several posts on several threads claiming that Iger/ Disney/ Animal Kingdom/ etc was a major fail because they hadn't fixed the Yeti yet and it left the ride/ park in a completely unsuitable/ unrideable condition. Almost no exaggeration there.

The park is not a fail...but is still a work in progress

Yeti is a fail. It’s a moderate amusement ride that doesn’t do what the imagineers designer it to do.

Vekoma part works

 

[networkpro]

I'll side with the Yeti movement not representing a major failure. The hairbands and bird on a stick have a longer time on-stage with guests.

 

[Goofyernmost]

I don't know why they did it in the first place if it was such a small part of the ride. talk about going overboard

Because it was a very noble and energetic thing to strive for. If they had been able to pull it off it would have been one of the most spectacular thing to accomplish probably ever. It didn't work. sad but hardly the end of the world.

I completely disagree with the premise that moving Yeti vs. strobe Yeti is a small difference. To me it's a major difference, so much so that Joe Rohde himself promised he would fix it (someday). We have gotten so used to the existing Disco Yeti that we forgot how great it was when it worked. It was the pinnacle of Disney's animatronics.

As far as it lasting a few seconds; the fall down Splash Mountain only lasts a few seconds - shall we just get rid of that too? Those few seconds of a Yeti swiping down at you is the climax of the tension and buildup you feel from the second you hear the creepy music and view the displays in the queue line.

You are trying to make this a business decision - I am not an accountant for Disney, I am a guest that continues to pay more and more with each visit and don't really care the cost. I want back what was once the best attraction I experienced. Why would you NOT want it fixed is a better question.

Running a business is not unlike running your private home. You may want something, but, you find out that your life is just as good without it. You don't throw money away. It was a noble effort, but, not worth spending more money on.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I'll side with the Yeti movement not representing a major failure. The hairbands and bird on a stick have a longer time on-stage with guests.

If you believe what Disney claims - that all rides are really “stories” and that their commitment to quality is timeless...

Then how can that ride not be judged as a failure?

Do you trust the horses mouth?

 

[Patcheslee]

I'll say it would be nice if they did fix the Yeti just because I've never seen it with anything except the strobe. If I wasn't on these forums though I wouldn't know it ever moved.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I'll say it would be nice if they did fix the Yeti just because I've never seen it with anything except the strobe. If I wasn't on these forums though I wouldn't know it ever moved.

Understood...it was a “brief” encounter...

But they designed a 2 minute ride with the “largest AA ever built”...once you go on record...you’re on record.

I don’t think anyone blames them for the failure of the original system (though they probably should)...but when you build a $150 million dollar ride - can’t have catastrophic failure of one of the 3 elements and call it “inconsequential”

 

[Ladybat]

I know this one has some strong feelings from some people, and I have to admit I'm a little bemused by some of it, and figure I must be missing somethings. Especially after I saw a couple of people attack Iger on the thread about him as if he's directly responsible for it and it's a high crime to not have fixed the Yeti.

We all know the issue- the Yeti on Expedition Everest used to move. Now he doesn't, and instead has a strobe light effect projected onto him. The reason seems to be that the figure itself broke at some point, or it was causing structural issues with the mountain itself and they shut it down. Or both. From what I've seen the only way to fix it is to close the ride for months, actually have to remove the top of the mountain, lift the figure out for repairs, and also do some work on the mountain itself so that it can properly support the moving Yeti. And to do so is going to cost tens of millions of dollars. Do I have that basically right?

So a ton of money and downtime for something that nominally affects the ride, at best. I rode it before it opened, and over the course of the 5 years I worked there- starting about the time they opened the ride- and other visits, I've been on it plenty. The impact difference of moving yeti vs strobe yeti is small- small enough that I doubt most people would even notice it.

I don't understand thinking it's necessary to spend millions on a moment that lasts maybe a second. What return on their investment would they get that would make it worth it to spend that much money. An advertising campaign? "Look, the Yeti moves!"

I'm sure there is someone here who will be happy to put my ignorant self in place and explain how this one thing ruins their whole entire vacation at Disney, or how Disney would make billions if they fixed it, or something like that. But I don't get it.

Well all I can say is Universal's giant fire breathing dragon on the Harry Potter ride moves all over the place and puts Disney's Yeti to shame. IMHO that Harry Potter attraction in the Hogwarts castle beats every attraction I've ridden at Disney up to this point BUT... its the only ride at Universal that does. Disney attractions beats every thing else they have hands down. And I'm sure that future Star Wars land will likely have at least one attraction that beats Universal's Potter ride.

If Universal can make a giant fire breathing dragon move all around and breathing fire on top of it with out breaking down then Disney should have been able to do the same with the Yeti.

But I agree with you. Its to late to fix it now because it would just be way to costly for a special effect that lasts only seconds long.

I'm fine with him being disco Yeti. In fact, I've come to love his funny nick name. If they "fixed" him, he would not be Disco Yeti any more. Now when I see him I always laugh so hard thinking about his name.

 

[FigmentJedi]

I don't understand thinking it's necessary to spend millions on a moment that lasts maybe a second. What return on their investment would they get that would make it worth it to spend that much money. An advertising campaign? "Look, the Yeti moves!"

The idea was that the brief time you actually see the Yeti lunging at you would simulate what an actual encounter with a cryptid would be like. Like your perspective from the train becomes a shaky video camera getting footage of Bigfoot walking in the distance.

Also, rule of cool marketing.

 

[Model3 McQueen]

Technically the yeti isn't actually broken, and could be turned back on at any time. It's the structure that's failing. But you all knew that.

Imagine having a Lamborghini Aventador but you can't do anything with it because it's stuck on an expensive lift that needs to be replaced.

Oh well, the sight of it works for now. At least the garage still looks good - and is a heavily themed experience

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I'm fine with him being disco Yeti. In fact, I've come to love his funny nick name. If they "fixed" him, he would not be Disco Yeti any more. Now when I see him I always laugh so hard thinking about his name.

The question is: when will the price get to the point when you’re not ok with it?
Or is there a length of time?

 

[Ladybat]

The question is: when will the price get to the point when you’re not ok with it?
Or is there a length of time?

I'm not okay with quite a few things at Disney that have gone over board on the pricing. But Yeti moving around for a few seconds is just not a big deal for me. Maybe because I never saw him move in the first place. I've only seen him as Disco Yeti. The rest of the ride is fun as far as coaster rides go.

But I'm not all that into coaster type rides any way because I feel I can get as many of those as I want at other theme parks that cost a lot less than Disney parks cost.

If its going to be a coaster it needs to be more than six flags coasters for the price I pay at Disney parks.

I'm not a fan of space mountain either. Just a coaster in the dark. Wrapped in a fancy package.

But I LOVE big thunder because it has a lot of visuals and its a smoother ride.

Splash mountain... now there's an attraction that meets with Walt's standards. Created and built after Walt. But lives up to the Disney name in deed. Not many of them do that. Ones that came after him I mean.

 

[Goofyernmost]

If you believe what Disney claims - that all rides are really “stories” and that their commitment to quality is timeless...

Then how can that ride not be judged as a failure?

Do you trust the horses mouth?

There are no horses mouths at Disney anymore... mostly the other end.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

There are no horses mouths at Disney anymore... mostly the other end.

...ok...I gotta give you credit for that

 

[thomas998]

Engineers did alert their superiors to the issues surrounding the cold weather and O-rings. They were dismissed.
(Source: Challenger Engineer Who Warned Of Shuttle Disaster Dies)

I'm amazed how many people will defend a company raking in billions each quarter for not spending the time and money to fix the largest AA in Disney history. You think there would be a bit more pride about the idea that the largest AA Disney ever created failed, and has yet to be addressed in any meaningful way.

Why any of use here would be concerned that the repair doesn't have the "appropriate" ROI is sorta baffling to me. Even as a shareholder, still odd to me that the only decisions that are to be justified are ones in which ROI is acceptable and DIS shares rise next quarter.

I'm convinced they simply don't care. Which is really sad.

My point was that they overlooked it when they designed it to begin with. They never factored in how cold it actually got in Florida or they would have used a different material to begin with.

But to your point... Disney has an obligation to the shareholders and it would be irresponsible to spend tens of millions of dollars to simply insure that a animatronic yeti moved on a ride where the majority of the people don't care. Yes Disney has enough money to do it, the also have enough money to do all sorts of ridiculous things, but it would be silly to do it simply because a few people remember it when worked.
And if you don't understand ROI then I would hope you keep your investments in funds that are managed by people that do. As for what ROI means it is just exactly what it stands for "return on investment'... Most companies will always have more projects and business opportunities available to them than they have the funds to undertake. If you were given a two different opportunities but only had enough money to pursue one of them how would you make the decision? Would it be based on which opportunity made you the most money as a percent of you investment or would you rather invest in the one that had a cooler name or used nifty technology? Businesses go by the numbers and the ROI is just a way that they can easily compare all those opportunities to each other using a common measurement.

If a company is know to ignore ROI and just do what they think is cool it is a company that most investors will shun like the plague.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

My point was that they overlooked it when they designed it to begin with. They never factored in how cold it actually got in Florida or they would have used a different material to begin with.

But to your point... Disney has an obligation to the shareholders and it would be irresponsible to spend tens of millions of dollars to simply insure that a animatronic yeti moved on a ride where the majority of the people don't care. Yes Disney has enough money to do it, the also have enough money to do all sorts of ridiculous things, but it would be silly to do it simply because a few people remember it when worked.
And if you don't understand ROI then I would hope you keep your investments in funds that are managed by people that do. As for what ROI means it is just exactly what it stands for "return on investment'... Most companies will always have more projects and business opportunities available to them than they have the funds to undertake. If you were given a two different opportunities but only had enough money to pursue one of them how would you make the decision? Would it be based on which opportunity made you the most money as a percent of you investment or would you rather invest in the one that had a cooler name or used nifty technology? Businesses go by the numbers and the ROI is just a way that they can easily compare all those opportunities to each other using a common measurement.

If a company is know to ignore ROI and just do what they think is cool it is a company that most investors will shun like the plague.

If your company is successful in selling machine parts, jet engines or petroleum products....

...If it sells fictitious attachments to imaginary things and the emotional pull to buy products featuring them - then the world is more complicated...