Are the feelings for the Yeti unreasonable?

[SirWillow]

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.

 

[xdan0920]

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.

Why build it then?

 

[SirWillow]

Why build it then?

it worked at the beginning, and for a good while afterwards. But the question isn't why did they build it, it's is it worth spending the huge amounts of money to fix it when you're not going to get much of anything back on it.

They may also have actually realized that perhaps it was money that wasn't well spent or worth the investment when they built it.

 

[Raineman]

The thing about the whole Yeti issue that irks me a bit is with all of the engineering knowledge base that must exist within WDI, how did the Imagineers not foresee that the constantly moving Yeti AA would cause enough stress on the inner structure of the mountain to cause damage? I was (briefly ) in an engineering program in university, and using vector mechanics to determine force and stress is a fairly simple thing for someone with an engineering background.

 

[NormC]

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?

No, you do not have it right. He was put in after the mountain was built so he can come out.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

No, you do not have it right. He was put in after the mountain was built so he can come out.

But he (the yeti AA itself) isn't the issue, right? It's the foundation?

 

[NormC]

But he (the yeti AA itself) isn't the issue, right? It's the foundation?

The actual fault has not been confirmed. Even if it is his foundation it is separate from the coaster and the mountain. Also there is a debate over what foundation means. Some say it is the "sled" that he is mounted on the thrusts him forward. Some say it is bearings that cannot handle the force applied. All of this has been covered in the existing EE thread.

 

[Texas84]

I saw the working Yeti and I really don't miss it. But the movement was significant even in that split second.

 

[MattC]

So I have never chimed in on this. It has been discussed to death, buried, and dug up again. Several times. Also, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle of all the talk.

Bottom line for me. The ride is great. It would be better with the yeti working. Would it take a lot of money to fix? Probably so. It took a lot of money/time to build and right now that was all a waste. Something was made to work a certain way and it should. I understand that not everything can be fixed immediately or as simply as we think it can be. But more than enough time has passed for this issue.

 

[Cmdr_Crimson]

Never stop the Disco.....

 

[ABQ]

it worked at the beginning, and for a good while afterwards.

I don't think that's quite accurate. Didn't it fail very shortly after the attraction opened?

 

[ppete1975]

It will never be fixed. If it was a quick fix, they would have done it by now. It is either going to cost more downtime or way to much money for either investment to be worth it.

 

[righttrack]

It's a fail. Look at it as that. Something that was built and promoted and it doesn't work. Taking into account the whole experience on the ride it isn't much, but it's still a fail. Accepting this means we are opening up the door to accepting all sorts of substandard things in the future. That's why it's hard to let go.

 

[Epcot_Imagineer]

But he (the yeti AA itself) isn't the issue, right? It's the foundation?

Nope. Confirmed multiple times it is not the foundation. I came to correct you from the wasteland which is the EE effects watch thread .

 

[bhg469]

I don't think that's quite accurate. Didn't it fail very shortly after the attraction opened?

I cannot imagine that it was much longer than a year... When a vast majority of the people who have ridden the coaster have never seen it in A mode i would say that it no longer matters. That is not a good thing but at this point why bother fixing it when they're making money hand over fist without making an investment in fixing the attraction? Would a working yeti net them any more profit? That is the question... If the answer was YES!!! then it would be fixed.

 

[DisneyDoctor]

I'm with you, Sir Willow. It isn't that big of a deal.

 

[flynnibus]

it worked at the beginning, and for a good while afterwards. But the question isn't why did they build it, it's is it worth spending the huge amounts of money to fix it when you're not going to get much of anything back on it.

Which points right back to the probing question.

If you say spending millions isn't worth the return... then they never would have made the initial investment to build it either. Remember, the outcome is the same.. this 'really short payoff'

But I think its clear by now we know Disney's take on the problem. Failed concept.. moving on.

 

[Elfinko]

I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of visitors don't even know it's broken. I wouldn't know it was broken if I didn't regularly visit these forums.

 

[Model3 McQueen]

I can't imagine riding Matterhorn where Harry doesn't move and is instead given the "illusion of movement" with disco lighting. Even the simple arms movement on the original Harold is a great improvement over a yeti who stands completely still.

Does it make / break the attraction? That's subjective.

Imagine if the rolling ball scene at the end of Indiana Jones Adventure was completely broken and the show-scene didn't work for years. Would you consider that okay?

 

[Epcot_Imagineer]

Personally, the more than a decade's acceptance of Disco Yeti appalls me. What if Navi River Journey's shaman was replaced with a screen, and then just stayed like that for ten years? That might not be the best analogy, but it's the closest I could come up with at the moment.