Everest Encounters Setback

Matterbuggy

New Member
I've got a question about the ride. If it's allowed to be answered..

Will it be something like Splash Mountain, where you go through some kind of story.. before getting on the actual "ride" part? I was just thinking this because of what some people have been saying about the layout. Thanks.
 

raven

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Matterbuggy
I've got a question about the ride. If it's allowed to be answered..

Will it be something like Splash Mountain, where you go through some kind of story.. before getting on the actual "ride" part? I was just thinking this because of what some people have been saying about the layout. Thanks.

The whole attraction IS the ride, just like Splash Mountain. If you are talking about that big drop in Splash Mountain then remember that the atraction wasn't built around that drop. The story came first, then the drop was added in for fun. This is how all Disney attractions are designed. Story before elements. This doesn't mean that the actual "story" is before the fun part. It mean the story of the ride is created before the rides layout and details are even thought of.
 

Matterbuggy

New Member
Originally posted by raven
The whole attraction IS the ride, just like Splash Mountain. If you are talking about that big drop in Splash Mountain then remember that the atraction wasn't built around that drop. The story came first, then the drop was added in for fun. This is how all Disney attractions are designed. Story before elements. This doesn't mean that the actual "story" is before the fun part. It mean the story of the ride is created before the rides layout and details are even thought of.

Ah, yes.. I know what you mean. But what I'm talking about is..

The first time I went on Splash Mountain, all I really knew about it was the big drop. I didn't know there was a story filled wall, or anything like that.

So is it safe to assume, that there will be something like Splash Mountain.. and not just the Yeti/ whatever it is now?
 

AndyP

Active Member
Well, if its 1% like Splash Mountain I certainly wouldn't be disappointed! A story is always better with a ride than a ride just on its own!
 

Bill

Account Suspended
Original Poster
There's a story, but due to budget crunching, the detailed story telling line cue was dumped, and video monitors were added. But there is also story on the ride as well. I'll ask my friend what the latest status is on that.
 

Matterbuggy

New Member
Originally posted by Bill
There's a story, but due to budget crunching, the detailed story telling line cue was dumped, and video monitors were added. But there is also story on the ride as well. I'll ask my friend what the latest status is on that.

Budgets.. drat.

Thanks Bill!
 

CTXRover

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Bill
There's a story, but due to budget crunching, the detailed story telling line cue was dumped, and video monitors were added. But there is also story on the ride as well. I'll ask my friend what the latest status is on that.

In addition to the budget scenario, I thought that the video monitors were added to insure that the backstory of the attraction was well understood by all guests before boarding the train. The original plans had the entire backstory in props and such, however, apparently understanding the backstory is crucial to fully understanding and getting the most out of your experience, hence the use of video monitors to "help" tell the story instead of assuming guests were smart enough to pull the story together from all the props in the queue. I imagine the queue will still be detailed, just not so much that the entire backstory depends on it.

Either way, I'd rather most of the 100+million budget went into creating an incredibly realistic and detailed mountain, ride and animatronics than towards the queue. And if it looks even close to the concept art, I don't think any one will be disappointed. Everest will not only add a new attraction, it will drastically change the landscape of AK...for the better.
 

Lee

Adventurer
Nope...
Budget was not the main reason the elaborate queue was cut in favor of monitors.

It has much more to do with integrating three queues: standby, fastpass, and single rider. WDI has learned from the mistakes of the old queues. Go to DL and check out the Indy queue for a great example.
 

dxwwf3

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Lee
Go to DL and check out the Indy queue for a great example.

What is wrong with the Indy queue? I've never been able to get out to DL but from what I hear the Indy queue is supposed to be one of the best Disney has come up with. Are you meaning that there are too many plot developments in the quque for FP guests?
 

Lee

Adventurer
Originally posted by dxwwf3
What is wrong with the Indy queue? I've never been able to get out to DL but from what I hear the Indy queue is supposed to be one of the best Disney has come up with. Are you meaning that there are too many plot developments in the quque for FP guests?

Correct, the Indy queue is arguably the best queue ever done. It's wonderful.
Problem is, all the wonderful story and themeing is going to waste. Guests in the standby line get to see most of it, but the fastpass and single-rider lines breeze right through it without stopping.
It makes no sense, budget or story-wise, to build a long, elaborate, story-telling queue when most guests will pass through without having time to get involved. These days, the shorter, more compact and efficient queues are necessary, like Mission:SPACE and Tower of Terror.
 

Yen_Sid1

New Member
Originally posted by Lee
Correct, the Indy queue is arguably the best queue ever done. It's wonderful.
Problem is, all the wonderful story and themeing is going to waste. Guests in the standby line get to see most of it, but the fastpass and single-rider lines breeze right through it without stopping.
It makes no sense, budget or story-wise, to build a long, elaborate, story-telling queue when most guests will pass through without having time to get involved. These days, the shorter, more compact and efficient queues are necessary, like Mission:SPACE and Tower of Terror.

One of the reasons the Indy que is so long and elaborate is that to keep you entertained during the long walk. Since the Indy attraction is located outside the berm of the park. So when you enter in Adventureland near the Jungle Cruise, you go underground and have to go underneath the railroad tracks and come up on the other side to go inside the building.
 

Lee

Adventurer
Absolutely correct.
But length is not the issue. The issue is the story told by the queue, and missed by 80% of the guests due to fastpass and single-rider.

No point in doing a queue like that if nobody is going to be stopping to look at it.
 

DisneyFan 2000

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Lee
Absolutely correct.
But length is not the issue. The issue is the story told by the queue, and missed by 80% of the guests due to fastpass and single-rider.

No point in doing a queue like that if nobody is going to be stopping to look at it.

From now on I hate Fastpass!! :mad:
 

The_CEO

Well-Known Member
It gets to a point where you have experienced the queue and you'd rather ride the attraction and not wait to see the same things. I'd take the ride over a 90 minute wait anyday.


I ofcourse will wait once in the queue to experience the queue's detail * if it has any * :)
 

MKCustodial

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by DisneyFan 2000
From now on I hate Fastpass!! :mad:

Always had this feeling quietly to myself... All FastPass does, in my humble opinion, is to make standby Guests wait longer.

"If they're dumb it's their problem, they should be using FP!!"

Well, we all know Fastpass eventually runs out, so...


Anyways, back to the topic at hand, I do consider a less-detailed queue to be a setback. A queue like PotC's is much more immersive than Jaws's or Jurassic Park's, back at Universal, with all its monitors giving you backstory and safety warnings.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom