-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
EE Update Feature
- Thread starter Jose Eber
- Start date
ballewclan
New Member
Although i think fundesign left. I must say that his posts were actually very tasteful. I think he reacted in a way most wouldnt have. So although i disagree with some of his thoughts, i respect them.
wow i sounded kinda smart there...
yeah so im riding EE in July!! woo
wow i sounded kinda smart there...
yeah so im riding EE in July!! woo
Lee said:
Think about it. If memory serves it was public knowledge that the technology purchased from ETC cost $35 Million out the door and installed. You can't include the total cost of the Horzons demolition because things like the ride system have been sold and/or used in other facilities. There were some in-house modifications that cost no more than about $6 Million. CGI and other media cost around $2.5 Million. Pre-show and queue area cost no more than $3 Million. Exterior and Facility was in the $20 Million range. Those are the major costs. There are other labor costs, opening, install etc. Figure it out. If MS cost what was released to the press than there was a ton of waste.
It has always been amazing to me how Sally can produce an attraction like Tut for $17 Million. A far better ride than say Buzz Lightyear, includes a more intuitive target/gun interface, much more elaborate sets and effects and real animatronics...yet Disney needs more than four times that amount to produce an attraction of equal or sometimes lesser quality.
wannab@dis
Well-Known Member
:lol:fundesign said:Why thank you. I keep thinking I'm going to leave but it is somewhat cathartic to post these things and spell out your thoughts. I really don't mean to offend anyone...well maybe those with a chip on their shoulder
chip, you mean this one... http://forums.wdwmagic.com/showpost.php?p=1459834&postcount=1811
Legacy
Well-Known Member
*sigh*
I'm gonna be perfectly honest... fundesign, though his opinions regarding Everest may be disliked, his opinion of the current state of Disney, I feel, is right on. The last attraction, I believe, that truly raised a bar as far as quality, creativity, and just all out fun (as far as the US goes) is Alien Encounter. It wasn't a technical marvel. It wasn't a cheap thrill. It was a simply ingenious attraction. All of the "big" attractions to open since have personally left me feeling let down by lesser quality. Test Track, deep down, is meh attraction, with cardboard scenery, neat effects (when they work), and a cheap spin around the building at roller coaster speed. Mission Space, is a over-hyped simulator with a surprisingly limited amount of thrills outside the opening lift-off. Philharmagic is just another 3-D movie, although on a bigger screen. And even Soarin' is Back to the Future flipped upside down (although I will admit it does what it is suppose to very well.) With Everest, my main concern was that it would be pretty, but not nessecarily a bar-raising ride. And though it looks fun, it doesn't look like it sets any new standards in creativity or originality.
That is what Disney needs. I think Disney needs to go back to the time when they could turn birds into characters that you actually care about. They need something that shakes into awe with just the shear power of it. Like I said before, Everest may be pretty, but that doesn't mean that it's good.
fundesign, for what it's worth I'm siding with you on this one.
I'm gonna be perfectly honest... fundesign, though his opinions regarding Everest may be disliked, his opinion of the current state of Disney, I feel, is right on. The last attraction, I believe, that truly raised a bar as far as quality, creativity, and just all out fun (as far as the US goes) is Alien Encounter. It wasn't a technical marvel. It wasn't a cheap thrill. It was a simply ingenious attraction. All of the "big" attractions to open since have personally left me feeling let down by lesser quality. Test Track, deep down, is meh attraction, with cardboard scenery, neat effects (when they work), and a cheap spin around the building at roller coaster speed. Mission Space, is a over-hyped simulator with a surprisingly limited amount of thrills outside the opening lift-off. Philharmagic is just another 3-D movie, although on a bigger screen. And even Soarin' is Back to the Future flipped upside down (although I will admit it does what it is suppose to very well.) With Everest, my main concern was that it would be pretty, but not nessecarily a bar-raising ride. And though it looks fun, it doesn't look like it sets any new standards in creativity or originality.
That is what Disney needs. I think Disney needs to go back to the time when they could turn birds into characters that you actually care about. They need something that shakes into awe with just the shear power of it. Like I said before, Everest may be pretty, but that doesn't mean that it's good.
fundesign, for what it's worth I'm siding with you on this one.
fundesign said:Why thank you. I keep thinking I'm going to leave but it is somewhat cathartic to post these things and spell out your thoughts. I really don't mean to offend anyone...well maybe those with a chip on their shoulder
Both sides of the argument are always very welcome here, and you are certainly very welcome here. Differences of opinion are not a reason to leave, afterall, that is what a discussion forum is for, to discus.
wannab@dis
Well-Known Member
*sigh*Legacy said:
Ok, I'll agree that AE was creative, but that's about it. I honestly can't believe that you can say that AE "raised the bar" but Everest fails to meet some imaginary bar. According to your "bar", AE is a sucess and Everest is a failure. :veryconfu
Legacy said:
Test track isn't a favorite attraction for me, but I'm not going to reduce it to a "cheap spin" level. The rest of the attractions that you listed are top notch in my view. Philharmagic and Soarin are probably two of my favorite attractions on property.
Legacy said:
Can't say I agree... I haven't seen anything of substance. The basic premise of his posts (and some of the other 'claim to be theme park designers' that just show up to bash new attractions) is that it could always be better. When you break it down just to that point, noone can really argue with them. But, it seems they have an ulterior motive in their posts... the claim that WDI is bumbling and inept, but they could do better and give Disney a new classic. That, is laughable at best.
dxwwf3
Well-Known Member
I think what Legacy is saying is that there have been a lack of attractions that the story gets you wrapped up and involved in the characters. I enjoy TT, Soarin', M:S, and Philharmagic as much as anyone, but I think I know what Legacy is saying and I agree.
Of course, I could be way off and I don't want to put words in his mouth either.
Of course, I could be way off and I don't want to put words in his mouth either.
Legacy
Well-Known Member
I didn't say "success". There is no way to measure the success of creativity. You know me Todd, you know I design. I like creativity and creative thinking. From everything I have heard and read and scene about Everest it's just not as creative as some of the design elements found in Splash Mountain, Pirates, AE, and Tower of Terror. I applaud creativity. It's not the only thing I look for in an attraction, though.wannab@dis said:
Your right, "cheap spin" is degrading the climax of Test Track. It is a fun ride. But this is where my views on the difference between amazing and fun split. I do not view Soarin', Test Track or PhilharMagic as creative as attractions of the past. Soarin' is an amazingly fun attraction. I love it to death. I could ride it all day... but that doesn't mean I think it's creative. It's well done, but not creative. Same with PhilharMagic. It's a fun movie... but I've heard those same songs and seen those same scenes many times before. Test Track had the potential to be a super creative attraction, but instead comes across (to me at least) as an attraction they just threw ideas at, kept what stuck and worried very little about transitions or making it visually appealling. (And before the argument arises... most vehicle testing is done outdoors... not in a warehouse.)
This one is just differing opinions. I definitely see where he is coming from from the creative aspect. I'm not going to try and sway your opinion in the matter, just liking my opinion be known. I think there is a big difference between creative and fun. The truly great attractions, I feel, are the ones that are both. I just, personally, haven't seen creative getting what it deserves over the last few years. I know that's not Imagineering's fault... but I do blame WDC. Hopefully, things will change and creativity will be more important than budget again.
I'm sure Everest is fun as anything... and it looks impressive as hell. But I think the presentation could have been much more creative than busted tracks, a shadow and a brief audio-animatronic. Creativity is what I really look for... but that doesn't I can't enjoy something that is fun.
wannab@dis
Well-Known Member
Legacy said:
I can understand seeing things from a creative side versus a fun side, but I think you have to look beyond that. My background is engineering and programming. So, I see M:S as a top notch attraction purely based on my preconcieved notions. I normally check those ideas at the door and view experiences at WDW from a guest perspective. When I walk through the gates, I see things from a 12 years olds eyes and from a new daddy's eyes. Yeah, I'm a big kid with a little kid. :lol:
With that in mind, I see different levels of attractions. Most notably are the kid friendly rides. You know what my little girl's favorite ride is? The magic capets of Alladin. Yep, a basic spinner. Now go to the opposite end of the spectrum for me. It would be a thrill ride that gets the blood pumping. There are numerous examples of great thrill rides at WDW. Right now, my favorite is ToT. I have a feeling that EE may take over that spot.
Ok, that's all been written for this last part. I think attractions should be judged by three things.
1. Who can ride it?
2. Do people really enjoy it?
3. Will it entertain for years to come?
The more positive answers for those three questions can basically tell you if something will succeed. Groundbreaking or bar raising do not necessarily mean it will succeed.
Remember I said that I really liked M:S... well, I don't think it scores as well on my questions as Philharmagic. I personally like it, but if I look at it from the greater perspective, then I can see that it may not make the top list. You mentioned AE. I think it also failed to even come close to other 'less creative' attractions. It appears to me that EE has done well, probably better than others, but we'll have to see what happens in the future. I applaud the decision to keep it from being a gut wrenching spew inducing coaster. I think you will see a lot of people riding that may not even ride RnRC. I see the use of a groundbreaking AA. I see fantastic theming of the village, the mountain, the track, the queue -- the whole picture.
Could something be improved? Of course. But that's true of anything and everything. Should improvements have been made? I really don't know, but I bet some serious vetting sessions have taken place. Will improvements be made? I bet they will. In fact, I think it was Peter that reported the queue may be expanded. It's not even officially open and they may have already seen a deficiancy and are looking to fix it.
My overall point is this. I can understand wanting to look at it from only a creative standpoint, but I think that's wrong. I think you need to look at the overall picture before coming to a conclusion.
bhg469
Well-Known Member
fundesign said:Why thank you. I keep thinking I'm going to leave but it is somewhat cathartic to post these things and spell out your thoughts. I really don't mean to offend anyone...well maybe those with a chip on their shoulder
I haven't been paying attention for the past few days but its great to hear your opinions on attractions, i think this forum would lose out by not having you here. You predicted that you would get flamed and you were right but I really think you should stick around.
Legacy
Well-Known Member
I honestly think the two of us have the same view on what makes a successful attraction. I have no doubt in my mind that Everest will be successful, that's why I never said that it was a bad attraction. I was really arguing more to the point of fundesign's were success doesn't neccesarily mean that it can't be improved. I think all attractions could be improved. Any concept could be made better. That's the power of creativity. But I also feel that Disney has been skimping out on creativity... which is one of the things that was their trademarks.wannab@dis said:
I know that ground-breaking doesn't mean success. From a purely technological stand-point Mission: Space is the most ground-breaking attraction on property, if not the world. But it's nowhere near the success of Peter Pan's Flight... an attraction that has survived 35 years on shear fun.
I'm not judging Everest except from what I can see and hear about. I don't know the next time I'll even be in Florida so I;m doing what I can. I'm not judging the experience, or the ride, of the atmosphere. I'm judging the creativity because that is all I can judge on. I know it's a limited scope, but fundesign's comments have turned the discussion towards the creative aspect so I thought I would let my side known.
Soarin' is a perfect example of where I stand. I don't think it's creative... but I love the ride. I'm hoping that the same thing will happen with Everest.
:wave:
wannab@dis
Well-Known Member
Legacy said:
Ok, I see now that you are splitting successful and creative into two separate points of view. i.e... AE may have been creative, but it was not really successful.
You say that you 'agree' with fundesign, but it looks like you have a more open mind about other viewpoints, whereas, his posts have been basically closed off. He makes EE out to be a failure just because they didn't go to the extreme with more creative theming or didn't use his ideas. I think that's wrong. Where is the cutoff point? If they can create a successful attraction that will bring in the guests and entertain for years with $X worth of theming, then why should they spend $X+$Y just to add something else?
Legacy
Well-Known Member
Eh... I'm use to the situation. I find myself agreeing with the argument, but not nessecarily the presentation. I think I have a more open mind because it's not something in my style. I'm a graphic designer by nature. I do a lot of conceptual stuff, but mostly I work with visual. Everest isn't something that I would look at and be like, "they could have done this." The story doesn't really suit my creative streak. Obviously, it does for fundesign... and if he is in industry than he would have a bit of a vested interest. I can understand the "harshness", as it were. I get the same way with graphics...wannab@dis said: