Expo_Seeker40
Well-Known Member
I tried green but I found it very jittery and uncomfortable 
orange was not fun for me
orange was not fun for me 
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
epcot wand....
- Thread starter jennc2001
- Start date
jakeman
Well-Known Member
While you have quanitified this as your opinion (thank you!), I am curious to what "unique" experiences you are referring to.
Expo_Seeker40
Well-Known Member
as for the hat, on its own its very interesting and cool, especially at night, the water-tower was a great idea for the studios concept, and yet if this is hollywood studios......well by golly why not redesign the entrance to the park.
Make it like we are entering between soundstages or sets or props at the entrance and new ticket area, and then we see the earful tower at the end of these soundstages, and then enter a "hot-set" which is that of the hollywood that never was, but always will be...hollywood blvd without the hat would be the set itself, as would be all the rides and shows, an entire hot-set full of things to see
Make it like we are entering between soundstages or sets or props at the entrance and new ticket area, and then we see the earful tower at the end of these soundstages, and then enter a "hot-set" which is that of the hollywood that never was, but always will be...hollywood blvd without the hat would be the set itself, as would be all the rides and shows, an entire hot-set full of things to see
wannab@dis
Well-Known Member
I understand what you are trying to get across, but it's just not accurate.
There's a pixar attraction in the icon, a pixar attraction a couple of hundred yards from E:E, an entire land for characters with numerous other character spots scattered across the park, a character boat that drives through the middle, a character laden parade through the park.
And, it gets basically the same traffic as Epcot.
krankenstein
Well-Known Member
I tried green but I found it very jittery and uncomfortable
I reread my post, I'm sorry if it seemed like I was rude, I didn't intend that! Anyway, That sucks that you can't ride M:S!
M:S is a truly great and unique experience!!!
Expo_Seeker40
Well-Known Member
space mountain, alien encounter, peoplemover, CoP, circlevision (though disney improved the one from the 58 world's fair), submarine voyage, matterhorn, adventure thru inner space, it's a small world, thunder mountain, splash mountain only because it is a character brand many wouldn't even know is "disney", hall of presidents, country bears, tiki room, pirates of the carribean, jungle cruise, great moments with mr. eisner, I mean mr. lincoln, SSE, UoE, WoL, Horizons, WoM, Imagination, the Land, the Living Seas (to an extent), and remember EPCOT Center was wrong IMO for providing too many dark rides and not enough variety, Great Movie Ride, Tower of Terror, Star Tours with beeing the first simulator, rockin roller coaster, expedition everest, dinosaur (or even countdown to extinction), the safari, the river rapids, etc
Legacy
Well-Known Member
Eh... in no way am I'm trying to knock the talent of Joe Rhode, but the attitude I've percieved is that is a very... well... "Joe Rhodes" oriented person. He strikes me as the type of guy who would rather build an attraction that he himself would enjoy, and if other people liked it good for them.
Everest, his crowning achievement so far, amounts to little more than a taller and more complicated Big Thunder with a much larger and more advanced goat. When you look at the fact that the Yeti itself has its own infrastructure with the mountain and all it does is swipe its arm, it can come across as grandiose overkill. Really, just because Joe Rhodes wanted it. The mythical (mythical?) mythical yeti is out of place in Animal Kingdom. It does nothing to explain the reality of that part of Asia other than the fact that Tibetans worship the yeti.
It's actually more appropriate for Epcot... now that I think about it.
Expo_Seeker40
Well-Known Member
yeah two times on M:S was enough for me :lol:
wannab@dis
Well-Known Member
Eh, see, I don't really agree. I get your point, but I find EE to be a very well done attraction. The theming is really immersive, and the coaster, while not ground-breaking, is a great ride. Plus, the mythical creatures were part of the original thought process of DAK (see the logo).
I will concede a point about Rhodes... I think his attention to detail is awesome, but so much of it goes over the heads of the average guest that it may be overkill. Personally, I love that detail, but was it really necessary? Was the imprints in the sidewalks really necessary? Or did it create more costs that could have covered another C or D attraction?
Expo_Seeker40
Well-Known Member
Disney animated characters and pixar is successful and just as part of the brand is their famous rollercoasters, however just because the public likes that, as do I like disney characters and pixar movies, etc it seems Disney is playing it safe these days and not taking more chances. It knows a nemo themed ride or Toy story themed ride will do well because people will like it....for now that is.....I have to wonder how long these rides will last when more movies will replace them as beeing more famous and popular.....like the whole johnny depp craze....some girl now may be a grandma blushing on her boat in 2058 and seeing the old rickity johny depp AA with lazy malfunctioning eye and broken arm, and her grandaughter wonders what the heck was so amazing about the movies in the first place
In my little fanboy world of mysery and magic, I wonder if Disney would ever revitalize old rides like adventure thru inner space, here is a ride that could work in discoveryland, tomorrowland, or even Epcot.
No I don't want old projector screens, or polyester, but taking that story and concept and using new technology, and making that eerie "we are part of an experiment" and making it more than just an omnimover, but a ride where our vehicles shift, spin, and jitter as we go through inner space could make it a cool attraction that the public may like, as it would be a new attraction, but the fanboys would be intriguied too, but there is unfortunately no gaurantee they (the public) will like it, but if you call it buzz's inner space nemofied spectacular, then yes every family and their mom will like it or atleast have more potential in liking it :shrug:
It feels to me that Disney has done pretty much everything they could, their Imagineers made monorials, rollercoasters, omnimovers, AA's, interactive character technology, etc what really is there left to do? Sure someone in Imagineering will always be dreaming, but it seems they don't get the approval to make something different, rather its the pixar brand or disney character brand just repackaged over and over. We can meet Buzz and Woody, fine, we can see them in a parade, fine, now they have their own ride, what more? will they get their own street named after them, a fireworks show, a soap opera? How many times does one need to see Cinderella before they've seen her too many times? A 4 year old won't care, they're disney's best audience, they don't normally question, and just plain don't care, give the girl cinderella and by golly she will see her as many times as possible, give the boy a pirate or indy and he will get it, the same could be said for changing phases such as a new character some day replacing johnny depp and the one after that, but still for the time in which that takes place, how much is too much and when can room be spent on making something that does not rely on pixar or disney animated characters
In my little fanboy world of mysery and magic, I wonder if Disney would ever revitalize old rides like adventure thru inner space, here is a ride that could work in discoveryland, tomorrowland, or even Epcot.
No I don't want old projector screens, or polyester, but taking that story and concept and using new technology, and making that eerie "we are part of an experiment" and making it more than just an omnimover, but a ride where our vehicles shift, spin, and jitter as we go through inner space could make it a cool attraction that the public may like, as it would be a new attraction, but the fanboys would be intriguied too, but there is unfortunately no gaurantee they (the public) will like it, but if you call it buzz's inner space nemofied spectacular, then yes every family and their mom will like it or atleast have more potential in liking it :shrug:
It feels to me that Disney has done pretty much everything they could, their Imagineers made monorials, rollercoasters, omnimovers, AA's, interactive character technology, etc what really is there left to do? Sure someone in Imagineering will always be dreaming, but it seems they don't get the approval to make something different, rather its the pixar brand or disney character brand just repackaged over and over. We can meet Buzz and Woody, fine, we can see them in a parade, fine, now they have their own ride, what more? will they get their own street named after them, a fireworks show, a soap opera? How many times does one need to see Cinderella before they've seen her too many times? A 4 year old won't care, they're disney's best audience, they don't normally question, and just plain don't care, give the girl cinderella and by golly she will see her as many times as possible, give the boy a pirate or indy and he will get it, the same could be said for changing phases such as a new character some day replacing johnny depp and the one after that, but still for the time in which that takes place, how much is too much and when can room be spent on making something that does not rely on pixar or disney animated characters
Expo_Seeker40
Well-Known Member
Hopefully this will make more sense....:dazzle:
when people went to Disneyland in the 50s 60s and even 70s, wasn't there a better understanding that this was his land andhis legacy (though rides and shows would need to be changed over the years. It was a place where you got to see all sorts of things him and his company made and will make.
With his passing, and the changes in ownership over the years when people go to Disneyland now or even Walt Disney World, they would feel awkward riding a ride like CoP or seeing a circlevision movie because there is nothing "Disney" about it to them ebcause since they were young or atleast familiar with the name "Disney" its been full of princesses, and pixar related things and not whole lot of other "wowing" experiences like tower of terror or rockin' rollercoaster.
That's what I was trying to say that the company is closing their brand and not allowing room for expansion to appeal to more teenagers and adults. A:E was imfamous to teens and adults, it scared people, it made people enjoy it and fun, and wastheir ride. Sure kids and even adults like stitch's great escape, but they have numerous other rides already catored to them in not only the magic kingdom, but the other disney parks.
when people went to Disneyland in the 50s 60s and even 70s, wasn't there a better understanding that this was his land andhis legacy (though rides and shows would need to be changed over the years. It was a place where you got to see all sorts of things him and his company made and will make.
With his passing, and the changes in ownership over the years when people go to Disneyland now or even Walt Disney World, they would feel awkward riding a ride like CoP or seeing a circlevision movie because there is nothing "Disney" about it to them ebcause since they were young or atleast familiar with the name "Disney" its been full of princesses, and pixar related things and not whole lot of other "wowing" experiences like tower of terror or rockin' rollercoaster.
That's what I was trying to say that the company is closing their brand and not allowing room for expansion to appeal to more teenagers and adults. A:E was imfamous to teens and adults, it scared people, it made people enjoy it and fun, and wastheir ride. Sure kids and even adults like stitch's great escape, but they have numerous other rides already catored to them in not only the magic kingdom, but the other disney parks.
Legacy
Well-Known Member
You are arguing a point that Disney has been founded on since the very beginning. All of Fantasy is based on a movie. Swiss Family Treehouse is based on a movie. Jungle Cruise is based on a movie. The lands themselves are based on genres. Characters have been involved in the parks since the beginning, but the because the movies they are in has a hopping lamp in the title sequence it's not allowed?
If I remember correctly, they use to have a Daniel Boone walk-around at Disneyland.
If an argument is made, it has to apply across the board... not just the wand or Pixar.
jakeman
Well-Known Member
So adding Johnny Depp invalidates the ride? He makes up 3 of the AAs in the entire ride. It's not as if the boat circles the Johnny Depp AA for 15 minutes and then unloads. These rides will last as long as Mr. Toad did. If it becomes unpopular then it will be replace. This again is an arguement with no facts. There are currently no facts to support that interest in these brands are flagging. Just because something isn't 40 years old like the original Pirates or Cinderella does not mean its not a classic. I'll even wager that in 30 years someone with a screen name of PIXARLuvr will be lamenting the loss of some of the attractions that you are decrying right now.
How is this any more original than using a movie tie with new technology (Crush, MLF)? It's a previous concept that Disney has done.
As harsh as this sounds, if this is tiring to you then maybe you should not go for a while. If see Disney Characters at a Disney park bores you and fills you with a sense of "I've done this", then maybe you have done this too many times. Why is it so bad to go to a Disney park to encounter Disney icons?
I have a theory based only on observation and no facts. Fan boys want the parks to themselves and for only them and their ilk to understand and enjoy it. By adding characters and attractions a wide variety of people will enjoy, it takes away the uniqueness of their affection for it.
It's the same concept of those who have a 10 page long Starbuck's order. Is the taste really that different? Probably not, but in the orderer's mind, they "get" the Starbuck's mentality.
I could be wrong, it's just the impression that I get.
Expo_Seeker40
Well-Known Member
I cannot begin to tell you the times I have ridden PoTC since its refurb and have been in boat full of people talking and gawking at Johnny Depp and then looking for him and even elizabeth throughout the ride, to top that off in december I had a group of friends go to the MK for their first time, not only did they think the ride was based on the movie they couldn't even recall anything in the ride except for the city burning ebcause they were too busy looking for "the movie characters".
I never said interest in these brands are flagging as of now, I made a point that some day they will become uninteresting just as other rides or older fads become worn and dated.
My comment was on how much saturation of one specific brand or character is too much.
The concept of Inner Space has already been done indeed, but its absence for many years would lament promotion of a new attraction many would think is new in and of itself, it wouldn't be like having adventure thru inner space in epcot, adventure thru outer space at the magic kingdom, and adventure thru your kitchen space at hollywood studios...using the same core principle (In your argument interactive character technology) and repeating it at two places in a small span of time i.e. talk with crush, talk with monsters,etc
Seeing Disney characters at a disney park does not bore me personally as much as seeing in general the company repeat the same stuff across rides, shows, and parades simply because they know the public might enjoy it, and many of them do, doesn't mean many of the public would enjoy something different for a change, but where can one find facts of something new and different if it doesn't have retail sales and movie ticket sales like a finding nemo franchise. Sometimes you have to take a chance and come up with a new franchise strictly for rides and shows and not rely on a movie franchise to make it Disney's Universal Studios and just have people riding sequals and prequals to disney movies.
As far as fanboys wanting the parks made for themselves, while I have expressed my personal opinions on topics such as SSE's ending and the cosmetics of Future World, I still enjoy going to WDW seeing the characters, the parades, shows, and fireworks, but after going there for years and reading the history of the company and its founder, am concerned about the future of the company in how it will sell its brand simply because it knows it can exist merely on kids and families buying into their characters, etc when the company has not yet tried enough since the 1990s to balance that out with new and unique adventures for these families to try out as well and may possibly enjoy. That way the parks would cator something for everyone, not just fanboy heaven of Epcot 95 which I don't support nor would it just cator to little children.
Anti-purists seem to think that all these rides must be doing swell because people go on them. Its because thats what is simply avaiable for them on their trip. Just because a family bought a nemo plush and saw the movie does not mean they will enjoy the ride itself. I've been in the tiki room enoughtimes to see people both enjoy as well as walk out saying "that was the dumbest thing I've ever seen". Then we could say its about 50/50 for most rides, you either like or you wont, but that does not mean everyone who will go see toy story mania will like it, nor will it mean thats the reason why people are going to DHS. If anything these character and pixar brands are successful because thats the majority of what Disney keeps offering its guests. They should do larger and more in depth surveys to find out what people really want. If someone was just asked that in their trip "would you think a buzz lightyear ride would be cool" many would say "yes", only to come back to the parks and whether they like it or not, not only find a buzz lightyear ride in tomorrowland, but as well at DHS, meet n greet, in the parade, merchandise etc
I never said interest in these brands are flagging as of now, I made a point that some day they will become uninteresting just as other rides or older fads become worn and dated.
My comment was on how much saturation of one specific brand or character is too much.
The concept of Inner Space has already been done indeed, but its absence for many years would lament promotion of a new attraction many would think is new in and of itself, it wouldn't be like having adventure thru inner space in epcot, adventure thru outer space at the magic kingdom, and adventure thru your kitchen space at hollywood studios...using the same core principle (In your argument interactive character technology) and repeating it at two places in a small span of time i.e. talk with crush, talk with monsters,etc
Seeing Disney characters at a disney park does not bore me personally as much as seeing in general the company repeat the same stuff across rides, shows, and parades simply because they know the public might enjoy it, and many of them do, doesn't mean many of the public would enjoy something different for a change, but where can one find facts of something new and different if it doesn't have retail sales and movie ticket sales like a finding nemo franchise. Sometimes you have to take a chance and come up with a new franchise strictly for rides and shows and not rely on a movie franchise to make it Disney's Universal Studios and just have people riding sequals and prequals to disney movies.
As far as fanboys wanting the parks made for themselves, while I have expressed my personal opinions on topics such as SSE's ending and the cosmetics of Future World, I still enjoy going to WDW seeing the characters, the parades, shows, and fireworks, but after going there for years and reading the history of the company and its founder, am concerned about the future of the company in how it will sell its brand simply because it knows it can exist merely on kids and families buying into their characters, etc when the company has not yet tried enough since the 1990s to balance that out with new and unique adventures for these families to try out as well and may possibly enjoy. That way the parks would cator something for everyone, not just fanboy heaven of Epcot 95 which I don't support nor would it just cator to little children.
Anti-purists seem to think that all these rides must be doing swell because people go on them. Its because thats what is simply avaiable for them on their trip. Just because a family bought a nemo plush and saw the movie does not mean they will enjoy the ride itself. I've been in the tiki room enoughtimes to see people both enjoy as well as walk out saying "that was the dumbest thing I've ever seen". Then we could say its about 50/50 for most rides, you either like or you wont, but that does not mean everyone who will go see toy story mania will like it, nor will it mean thats the reason why people are going to DHS. If anything these character and pixar brands are successful because thats the majority of what Disney keeps offering its guests. They should do larger and more in depth surveys to find out what people really want. If someone was just asked that in their trip "would you think a buzz lightyear ride would be cool" many would say "yes", only to come back to the parks and whether they like it or not, not only find a buzz lightyear ride in tomorrowland, but as well at DHS, meet n greet, in the parade, merchandise etc
EPCOT Explorer
New Member
:ROFLOL:...You might be right here.
And isn't that enough?Why does EVERYTHING have to be overdone and "magical"?EPCOT was the first non-Magic Kingdom park for a reason!
Me too!I love debating!
Perfectly said...I could not agree more.
jakeman
Well-Known Member
If the public is enjoying it, why is that so bad? Why is it bad for a company that caters in a luxury item (which a vacation to Disney is) to tailor that item to their customers? Additionally, how do you know the brands will flag? What evidence is there that these current brands: Pirates, Pixar, Princesses will not be around for a long time.
Kind of like Body Wars and Star Tours? Simulator through body and space. Or pretty much all of Future World at Epcot when it opened. AAs in cars. AAs on the telephones. AAs in space.
yankspy
Well-Known Member
How about EE. Actually, DAK, which is the youngest park, probably has the least amount of character infiltration. Look at Dinosaur or Kali or Kiliminjaro.
Pooh_Bear_67
New Member
My son wants to see Epcot so bad now he asking the same question!!!!!???? I just love the picture of Epcot all lit up at night time.