That's exactly what CSOM was trying to say. And they weren't saying they objected to it. In fact, they were making a point of saying they did NOT object to it, as was I with my omnimover example. Please read our posts before posting responses. I think you'll find you're not contradicting us. You're agreeing with us and just not realizing it because you and ISTCNavigator57 think we're saying something that we're not. Make sense?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Everest- wooden coaster?
- Thread starter Dr Albert Falls
- Start date
That's exactly what CSOM was trying to say. And they weren't saying they objected to it. In fact, they were making a point of saying they did NOT object to it, as was I with my omnimover example. Please read our posts before posting responses. I think you'll find you're not contradicting us. You're agreeing with us and just not realizing it because you and ISTCNavigator57 think we're saying something that we're not. Make sense?
"That is simply a case of Disney saying, "this is a classic attraction on the West coast and we want our WDW visitors to experience them as well." They are duplicates of attractions, not knock-offs. I don't object to that." -- Merlin
I have a problem with your argument, at least for E:E. You seem to be saying you'd prefer a copy of Matterhorn at AK then something that utilizes newer technology and looks to be a much better ride. Why can't ideas and concepts that are proven to work be continually improved? IE newer rides with familiar themes. There are only so many different types of movies: tragedy, chick-flicks, romantic comedies, comedy, melodrama, mixed form but it's the subtle nuances of each that make it individual. Just because you've seen "Armaggeddon" does not mean that "Pirates of the Carribean" is a knock of and the people involved were uncreative. Most of Shakespeare's plays were rewrites.
I have a problem with your argument, at least for E:E. You seem to be saying you'd prefer a copy of Matterhorn at AK then something that utilizes newer technology and looks to be a much better ride. Why can't ideas and concepts that are proven to work be continually improved? IE newer rides with familiar themes. There are only so many different types of movies: tragedy, chick-flicks, romantic comedies, comedy, melodrama, mixed form but it's the subtle nuances of each that make it individual. Just because you've seen "Armaggeddon" does not mean that "Pirates of the Carribean" is a knock of and the people involved were uncreative. Most of Shakespeare's plays were rewrites.
"Read the descriptions like Merlin said and tell me what ride you think of:
- Screen based motion simulated attraction of a trip to Mars
- Run away mine train careening down a mountain
- Indoor dark roller coaster " -- CSOM
okay, this is a fun game, let's play it again
-- centrifuge that produces the differing effects of gravity as one would experience on a trip to mars
-- Run away mine train that runs into Yeti creature in the Himalayas
-- Indoor roller coaster in the dark with music and special UV effects
okay, one more time
-- screen based motion simulator attraction
-- outdoor roller coaster
-- indoor roller coaster
As you can see this is a pretty semantic argument, its manipulated by the information you give. I mean, to go further with your own argument I call call everything a "special sensory experience" and all of a sudden every ride or show ever created has fallen within it. Your first item has a little more merit since the two have the same destination, but I mean, really, where else would they go? People haven't been to Mars since Mission to Mars was created (last I checked) so it is still the most feasible, unvisited location in the solar system to reach. But your other two describe entire categories of attractions.
- Screen based motion simulated attraction of a trip to Mars
- Run away mine train careening down a mountain
- Indoor dark roller coaster " -- CSOM
okay, this is a fun game, let's play it again
-- centrifuge that produces the differing effects of gravity as one would experience on a trip to mars
-- Run away mine train that runs into Yeti creature in the Himalayas
-- Indoor roller coaster in the dark with music and special UV effects
okay, one more time
-- screen based motion simulator attraction
-- outdoor roller coaster
-- indoor roller coaster
As you can see this is a pretty semantic argument, its manipulated by the information you give. I mean, to go further with your own argument I call call everything a "special sensory experience" and all of a sudden every ride or show ever created has fallen within it. Your first item has a little more merit since the two have the same destination, but I mean, really, where else would they go? People haven't been to Mars since Mission to Mars was created (last I checked) so it is still the most feasible, unvisited location in the solar system to reach. But your other two describe entire categories of attractions.
Merlin--
I don't know why I'm wasting time playing your moronic game... but here it goes.
Mission:Space IS a totally new ride system.
But you feel "a simulated trip into space" is simply Disney re-hashing an old idea.
If the idea of travelling into space is "old", well, you're right. NASA in the last century, Jules Verne in the century before that, early astronomers in the previous century, cavemen looking at the stars--- what friggin' copycats!!!!
Back to our game--- Disney's got this innovative new centrifuge ride system that generates one-of-a-kind sustained G-Forces.
Merlin-- what creative ideas do YOU have for such a system??? (Don't say "space travel"-- that's already been taken! Don't say "aviation"-- that's just watered down space travel. You could suggest a super-speed bullet train ride, but they've got an old-fashioned version running around the Magic Kingdom. Sub ride? Sorry-- been there, done that. Helicopter? Can't produce the G-forces in real life.)
About the only creative thing I can think of is having the X-2 simulators strapped to the back of a fire-breathing dragon who soars over a mystical kingdom. Oh yeah, I just thought of something--- THAT MAKES NO FREAKIN SENSE!
So I guess we'll just have to settle for something we've done MILLIONS of times before--- travel through space. How dull!!!!!
Now, 3D movies. Since you're so negative on Disney for being "unoriginal"-- let's put YOU to the test!
You've got an empty building, you've got to entertain thousands of people every hour, and you've got enough budget to be innovative. What would YOU do?
I don't know why I'm wasting time playing your moronic game... but here it goes.
Mission:Space IS a totally new ride system.
But you feel "a simulated trip into space" is simply Disney re-hashing an old idea.
If the idea of travelling into space is "old", well, you're right. NASA in the last century, Jules Verne in the century before that, early astronomers in the previous century, cavemen looking at the stars--- what friggin' copycats!!!!
Back to our game--- Disney's got this innovative new centrifuge ride system that generates one-of-a-kind sustained G-Forces.
Merlin-- what creative ideas do YOU have for such a system??? (Don't say "space travel"-- that's already been taken! Don't say "aviation"-- that's just watered down space travel. You could suggest a super-speed bullet train ride, but they've got an old-fashioned version running around the Magic Kingdom. Sub ride? Sorry-- been there, done that. Helicopter? Can't produce the G-forces in real life.)
About the only creative thing I can think of is having the X-2 simulators strapped to the back of a fire-breathing dragon who soars over a mystical kingdom. Oh yeah, I just thought of something--- THAT MAKES NO FREAKIN SENSE!
So I guess we'll just have to settle for something we've done MILLIONS of times before--- travel through space. How dull!!!!!
Now, 3D movies. Since you're so negative on Disney for being "unoriginal"-- let's put YOU to the test!
You've got an empty building, you've got to entertain thousands of people every hour, and you've got enough budget to be innovative. What would YOU do?
Without realizing it, you've actually SUPPORTED my point! Thank you! Rather than point out ways in which Disney attractions HAVE been thematically innovative in the past few years, you've instead come up with ways to defend them for not being so. I suspect that's because you realize as well as I do that they haven't been all that creative lately.
As far as putting ME to the test, I freely admit I'm not the creative genius. Never claimed to be. But does that mean I don't have the right, as a paying guest and Disney fan, to be critical of Disney? I'm not capable of running the country, but I have the right to criticize our politicians. So how is this any different? Sorry, but I've always considered that approach to be a somewhat weak argument in any debate.
Oh by the way, you may be onto something with that "X-2 strapped to a dragon" idea! Hmmmmmm.......
Well for starters, I can see where you're coming from and I admit it probably did SOUND like I was saying I'd prefer a Matterhorn copy. For the record, no, that is not what I would personally prefer. I am fortunate enough to be able to visit the California parks as well as the Florida ones. So I don't personally benefit from duplicates at each. Not everyone is necessarily so fortunate though and so I think it is a good thing that Disney does replicate it's more classic and popular attractions (and I do like the fact that they generally aren't EXACT duplicates...gives me something different, albeit subtle, to see in each version). But when Disney does this, they don't generally try to hide the fact. They admit that they're creating a duplicate and I respect that. My issue (if you even want to call it an "issue") is when they come out with an attraction they present as "totally new" and then concept and themeing aren't new. It makes me sad because I believe there are SO MANY ideas that they could work with. Some have argued that it's smart of Disney to go with the "proven" ideas because they are more assured of success. If I were thinking from the standpoint of a major stockholder or a Disney executive under pressure to make money for the company, I might agree. But I'm thinking from the standpoint of a Disney fan who has always admired Walt Disney and his creativity. What attracted me to Disney was it's constant innovation and the way in which Disney would never cease to surprise me with their creative ideas. Perhaps you are drawn to Disney for different reasons. It's a personal choice. But for me, they've disappointed me in the past few years. That's all. Does that mean that I won't be lining up to ride EE as soon as it opens? Of course not! I have no doubts that it will be an awesome attraction! But would I be MORE excited if it had been based on an idea that didn't so closely resemble existing attractions? Absolutely! Do I wish they'd return to the old days of coming up with ideas that I personally could never have possibly imagined? Do I ever!!
Does my point make more sense now or am I still not getting it across?
JRead, I don't agree with your argument here, however I admire the way in which you support your points. Back to the debate though...
I think several posters are taking a simple observation that CSOM and I have made and have turned it into something much bigger than it was intended to be. My disappointment stems from the fact that Disney just hasn't "wowed" me in recent years in terms of a completely creative attraction theme. But as I've stated earlier on this thread, I'm referring to the attractions that are pretty obviously similar to previous ones. I'm not referring to obscure, loose similarities. So if you have two (or three, or four, etc etc) attractions based on space travel, I don't have a problem with that. It's a pretty broad topic in and of itself. But to have two that are specifically about a simulated trip to Mars seems unimaginative to me. Same goes for EE. Just this evening I was reading an article online that was describing EE (I should have copied the link so I could paste it here). But after describing the attraction, the author of the article began the next paragraph with something to the effect of "Sound familiar? That's because this isn't the first time Disney has built a roller coaster in and around a mountain with an abominable snowman....". So see? It isn't just me. That's what I mean by "pretty obviously similar". But people on these boards who disagree with me want to turn it around and make it sound like I'm saying I'm against any attractions with even so much as a remote similarity to previous ones. I once had a psychology professor who said that type of reaction generally indicates you've hit a nerve with people because deep down, they know you're right. If people can't argue on the merits of what you ACTUALLY said, they have to twist it into an argument that they're able to debate. Granted, my degree wasn't in psychology, but this pretty much makes sense to me.
As someone pointed out in an earlier post, if this actually were my point, then I'd end up liking only a handful of attractions at WDW. If that were true, that sure wouldn't be worth the price of the plane ticket to Florida!
christophe
New Member
a while ago i read some reactions here about matterhorn comming to world showcase. Everybody was excited about that. And now i read EE is 'just' an upgraded BTMRR with a matterhorn theme.
I guess every theme park in the world has the same ride systems. It's what you do with it that makes it special. If that bothers you, you can't go to any park anymore.
I guess every theme park in the world has the same ride systems. It's what you do with it that makes it special. If that bothers you, you can't go to any park anymore.
Originally posted by christophe
a while ago i read some reactions here about matterhorn comming to world showcase. Everybody was excited about that. And now i read EE is 'just' an upgraded BTMRR with a matterhorn theme.
I guess every theme park in the world has the same ride systems. It's what you do with it that makes it special. If that bothers you, you can't go to any park anymore.
Again we weren't talking about RIDE SYSTEMS but THEME's.... but just because I'm disappointed I can't enjoy it or go to a park? :hammer:
I've already backed off of RnRC because the theming is different, if actually care to read the rest of my posts.... Anyway, you're arguing apples and oranges. I was just making a broad statement that the THEME seemed very similar to things they have done in the past, and that MS was the same way. By bringing up centrifuges, you are talking about RIDE SYSTEM, which I agree is totally innovative..... but 2 different things.
Apologies again for the massive thread drift and unintended argument.
ToTBellHop
Well-Known Member
No one is going to read all of your posts because they are extremely long-winded (like my own) and say the same thing (I, by the way, do not expect people to read all of my posts). How many ways do we have to say it? Expedition EVEREST will bare next to NO SIMILARITIES with the Matterhorn Bobsleds--there is a feared, mystical creature with white fur--otherwise, they will look completely different. This ride has a different ride system, an entirely different story and therefore different theming. Since when can Disney not make rides with similar (yet very different) theming? That is the concept of a Theme Park...judging Expedition EVEREST 3 years before it opens is ludicrous--people were doing this with Mission: SPACE back in 2000 when Disney sacriligiously announced Horizons would be going down, yet everyone seems to love it. Humans want to go to Mars...simple as that. Venus is closer to us, arguably easier to reach, but we want to go to Mars, so that is where we can go every day from the ISTC. Regardless, how you can prejudge EVEREST this early is beyond me...go to Universal if you think Disney is THAT unoriginal. This is like comparing our Space Mountain to the one in Paris--different ride system, different story, different theming, different ride experience--only similarity is that you are going into space, but guest experience is completely different b/t the rides.
"slow moving attraction featuring the past, the world of today and possiblities for the futre"
could be both Spaceship Earth OR Carousel of Progress (could be the old UoE too). Both are pretty old, so its not as if Disney never did this before. My post was not about ride systems, it was about how with only a few similarities two rides can sound the same by showing how with more or less similarities it becomes obviously only one ride or every ride that ever existed.
If you don't want to read our entire posts, that's your choice. But if you're going to choose not to, don't accuse us of saying something that we did not say. That's certainly just as unfair (or "ludicrous") as "judging EE 3 years before it opens". This is the only reason our posts are "saying the same thing". It's because it is apparent that you're not getting what we're saying.
So again.....
Attractions which have some vague similarities: No problem
Attractions with obvious similiarities to others: Disappointing
Attractions that use the same ride system: No problem
Over use of the same ride system: Disappointing
Actually most of my posts are limited to a few lines, so if 100 words is too much for you, so be it. Anyway, this is something that has become way too big of a non-topic. I enjoy the rides, I love WDW (been twice this year) and will continue to go, but I think we as paying customers completely have the right to question some of the moves or ask for a little more creativity. If you're completely happy with everything disney has ever done, that's great, I'm happy for you.
Thanks for summing it up Merlin.
Shaman
Well-Known Member
*Trying to drift back to the subject of this thread*.....Why don't we wait until Everest is actually built and we have the chance to ride it to judge on whether it is or isn't a good ride.
I'll be the first to say that I hate clones (and I'm not all into the Indy ride coming to the studios rumor..and I especially hate the fact that Aladdin, Dumbo, and Astro Orbiter are all in the same park!), however there's no way we can actually say that E:E will just be another Thunder Mountain...this is why:
-Foward and backward movement during the ride: no other coaster in WDW has this technology.
-Both indoors and outdoors: again no other coaster at WDW has considerable track inside and outside.
-Animatronic Yeti: nope
-Huge 80 something foot drop: nope
-"Freezing" temps inside the mountain to simulate the himalayas: nope again
-Asian themeing (which is not American frontier) around the mountain.
And this is what we know so far...can you imagine the effects inside the mountain....the sound effects, the animatronic effects...I just can't wait, wooden or steel (which we all know that its probably steel) who cares. Ofcoarse I'll be a tough critic...but right now its tough to be a critic of a ride which hasn't even been built yet. My post isn't intended towards anyone, its just my own opinion.
:lookaroun
I'll be the first to say that I hate clones (and I'm not all into the Indy ride coming to the studios rumor..and I especially hate the fact that Aladdin, Dumbo, and Astro Orbiter are all in the same park!), however there's no way we can actually say that E:E will just be another Thunder Mountain...this is why:
-Foward and backward movement during the ride: no other coaster in WDW has this technology.
-Both indoors and outdoors: again no other coaster at WDW has considerable track inside and outside.
-Animatronic Yeti: nope
-Huge 80 something foot drop: nope
-"Freezing" temps inside the mountain to simulate the himalayas: nope again
-Asian themeing (which is not American frontier) around the mountain.
And this is what we know so far...can you imagine the effects inside the mountain....the sound effects, the animatronic effects...I just can't wait, wooden or steel (which we all know that its probably steel) who cares. Ofcoarse I'll be a tough critic...but right now its tough to be a critic of a ride which hasn't even been built yet. My post isn't intended towards anyone, its just my own opinion.
:lookaroun