Expedition Everest effects status watch

NormC

Well-Known Member
In Disneyland there's a tradition that's much worse. During graduation times, seniors ride Pirates and stick their gum under the low hanging bridge. If you're unlucky enough to ride during that time, you look up and see HUNDREDS of wads of gum - totally gross!
Yet another example of poor parenting. Disgusting brats.
 

Tom Morrow

Well-Known Member
You are mistaken once again----you have it backwards:
The roller coaster aspect(vehicle), in this case, enhances the story.

As for the attraction's purpose do you think the creators would say "it's a rollercoaster" or would they say something closer to "it's a chance for the guest to explore the legend of the Yeti".

By your backwards logic, Rock n Roller Coaster was created because the imagineers REALLY wanted to tell the amazing story of driving to an Aerosmith concert and figured that a roller coaster was the ONLY way this story could be conveyed.

When it comes to physical thrill rides, the main purpose for their existence is the physical thrill . Story and theming are enhancements to physical thrill rides, which are distinctly different from dark rides and arguably simulators.
 

Castle Cake Apologist

Well-Known Member
Joe Rohde, as a seasoned Imagineer and a person who intimately understands themed entertainment, would almost assuredly tell you that the roller coaster itself is far from "the point" of Everest.

Generally the concept is created and several types of conveyance are considered until a ride system that works with the story being told is decided upon. Imagineering generally does not start with the ride system and work backwards.
 

Tom Morrow

Well-Known Member
Joe Rohde, as a seasoned Imagineer and a person who intimately understands themed entertainment, would almost assuredly tell you that the roller coaster itself is far from "the point" of Everest.

Generally the concept is created and several types of conveyance are considered until a ride system that works with the story being told is decided upon. Imagineering generally does not start with the ride system and work backwards.
Everest was not created because 'Animal Kingdom needs a yeti ride." It was created because "Animal Kingdom needs a roller coaster. Come up with a theme that fits the park."

Joe Rhode can spin the importance of the backstory and theming all he wants, but even he, at the end of the day, would surely be smart enough to know that the main reason people want to ride Expedition Everest is because it's a roller coaster.

Yes, Everest does, in fact, have a rich and detailed backstory, but 95% of all riders don't catch on to any of it because it's all subtle and exists for those who wish to seek it out. None of it is imperative to the enjoyment of the ride, but knowledge of it is more or less "icing on the cake."

Why is Guardians of the Galaxy at Epcot going to be a roller coaster? Because Imagineers felt that that the story of Peter Quill at Epcot simply must be told and there is no other way to tell this story than via a roller coaster? Nope! It's because it's a popular IP and adding a roller coaster to a park that previously didn't have one will draw in large crowds.
 
Last edited:

mikejs78

Well-Known Member
Joe Rhode can spin the importance of the backstory and theming all he wants, but even he, at the end of the day, would surely be smart enough to know that the main reason people want to ride Expedition Everest is because it's a roller coaster.

Yes, Everest does, in fact, have a rich and detailed backstory, but 95% of all riders don't catch on to any of it because it's all subtle and exists for those who wish to seek it out. None of it is imperative to the enjoyment of the ride, but knowledge of it is more or less "icing on the cake."

I don't know... I have more than one friend who isn't on boards like this who have commented on Everest being a great coaster, and the theming is amazing. I do think people notice that and it matters.

As far as process, my guess is it's probably a combo of both. I would not be surprised if WDI had a bunch of story concepts in various stages of development at any one time. Then a park executive says something like "we need a coaster at Animal Kingdom, what have you got?" - and the Imagineers the look at some of their concept stories and see if any would fit.

The only thing I'd say about GotG, is that we really don't know *what* the story is. The whole 'Peter Quill went to Epcot in the 80s' may very well have just been a throwaway line/attempt at humor. Story / theming could end up being completely different.
 

Incomudro

Well-Known Member
Everest was not created because 'Animal Kingdom needs a yeti ride." It was created because "Animal Kingdom needs a roller coaster. Come up with a theme that fits the park."

Joe Rhode can spin the importance of the backstory and theming all he wants, but even he, at the end of the day, would surely be smart enough to know that the main reason people want to ride Expedition Everest is because it's a roller coaster.

Yes, Everest does, in fact, have a rich and detailed backstory, but 95% of all riders don't catch on to any of it because it's all subtle and exists for those who wish to seek it out. None of it is imperative to the enjoyment of the ride, but knowledge of it is more or less "icing on the cake."

Why is Guardians of the Galaxy at Epcot going to be a roller coaster? Because Imagineers felt that that the story of Peter Quill at Epcot simply must be told and there is no other way to tell this story than via a roller coaster? Nope! It's because it's a popular IP and adding a roller coaster to a park that previously didn't have one will draw in large crowds.

Plus, it's still a Himalayan and yeti themed ride.
The whole story is still working, even if the yeti isn't.
 

GCTales

Well-Known Member
image.jpeg

A bit Monty Pythonesque.

And now... The larch.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom