Expedition Everest effects status watch

MKCP 1985

MKCP 1985

Well-Known Member
I saw on Twitter that the bird effect was recently noted to be working and that led to more discussion that it has been working for a few months now.

It has been so long since I've been on Everest and even longer since the bird was part of the ride that I've forgotten what type of bird it is and the symbolism of its presence. Does anyone want to remind us?
 
Pepper's Ghost

Pepper's Ghost

Well-Known Member
tanc said:
This is old news, and maybe just wishful thinking but I saw this:

Patent Public Search | USPTO

appft1.uspto.gov appft1.uspto.gov


Never saw anyone post it.
Click to expand...
So, they want to patent a way to keep a robot from shaking? First, I'd be surprised if this would be approved. How can you stop people/companies from using a specific way to fix something that doesn't work. Perhaps they're trying to stop companies from monetizing a similar fix, but that makes no sense to me. How big is the demand for this that a company would steal their idea and start selling it. As far as I know, Disney is the only company with this ridiculous problem. Maybe they're afraid someone will steal their idea, and try to sell it back to them to fix the effing Yeti.
MKCP 1985 said:
I saw on Twitter that the bird effect was recently noted to be working and that led to more discussion that it has been working for a few months now.

It has been so long since I've been on Everest and even longer since the bird was part of the ride that I've forgotten what type of bird it is and the symbolism of its presence. Does anyone want to remind us?
Click to expand...
There's a bird on EE?? Talk about subtle details. Been YEARS since I've been back to WDW, but don't recall ever seeing or missing a bird. 🤣
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Pepper's Ghost said:
So, they want to patent a way to keep a robot from shaking? First, I'd be surprised if this would be approved. How can you stop people/companies from using a specific way to fix something that doesn't work. Perhaps they're trying to stop companies from monetizing a similar fix, but that makes no sense to me. How big is the demand for this that a company would steal their idea and start selling it. As far as I know, Disney is the only company with this ridiculous problem. Maybe they're afraid someone will steal their idea, and try to sell it back to them to fix the effing Yeti.
Click to expand...
A patent protects a specific way of doing something. Stopping others from doing that specific way to make or fix something is their whole purpose.

Controlling vibrations is a big part of fluid animation in animatronics. It also has applications outside entertainment.
 
MKCP 1985

MKCP 1985

Well-Known Member
Okay, answering my own question - the bird is a type of vulture and its inclusion on the attraction has meaning. Read about it in this link:

Vulture, the Sacred Bird of Tibet

Vulture is traditionally regarded as sacred bird in Tibet and fed with corpse in traditional sky burial in Tibet. In this article a detailed demonstration has been provided on the Tibetan reverence for their sacred bird, the vulture.
www.tibettravel.org www.tibettravel.org
Joe Rohde spoke about it probably back in 2006 shortly after the ride opened, to the effect of seeing the bird symbolized something that was likely to happen. I still can't recall the details.
Unfortunately, the effect failed to impress and was called "bird on a stick." It was discontinued for a long time but apparently has returned. Improved?
 
Pepper's Ghost

Pepper's Ghost

Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o said:
A patent protects a specific way of doing something. Stopping others from doing that specific way to make or fix something is their whole purpose.

Controlling vibrations is a big part of fluid animation in animatronics. It also has applications outside entertainment.
Click to expand...
So, lots of sincere questions based on your explanation...
Can they really stop Universal from using a similar way to fix Universal owned props? I can see stopping a company from monetizing their patented process, but to fix/update their own stuff? How would they ever know? Suppose Universal fixes a prop using this process. Would Disney file a lawsuit to get them to change back their animatronic? Again, sincere questions on this.

Btw, good point about other applications. I didn't really think outside the box on that... not even a little. Robots that build cars and all other sorts of stuff could use this technology I suppose, but still... not sure I understand Disney trying to stop other companies from fixing or building their own stuff if they aren't monetizing the process, as in, they aren't making money going to other companies and fixing it the patented Disney way.

It just seems kinda murky to me. It's like trying to stop someone from suping up their own sports car using a processes patented by someone else. But as soon as that person opens a shop and starts charging to do it for others, that's where legal problems begin. I can't think a court of law would force a company to change something back. I could be absolutely wrong about that tho. I'm just thinking practically.

Btw, I'm not claiming to understand the intricacies of patent laws. I'm just saying I bet there is a lot of gray area where a patent of something like this becomes hard to enforce, or perhaps not worth it.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Pepper's Ghost said:
So, lots of sincere questions based on your explanation...
Can they really stop Universal from using a similar way to fix Universal owned props? I can see stopping a company from monetizing their patented process, but to fix/update their own stuff? How would they ever know? Suppose Universal fixes a prop using this process. Would Disney file a lawsuit to get them to change back their animatronic? Again, sincere questions on this.

Btw, good point about other applications. I didn't really think outside the box on that... not even a little. Robots that build cars and all other sorts of stuff could use this technology I suppose, but still... not sure I understand Disney trying to stop other companies from fixing or building their own stuff if they aren't monetizing the process, as in, they aren't making money going to other companies and fixing it the patented Disney way.

It just seems kinda murky to me. It's like trying to stop someone from suping up their own sports car using a processes patented by someone else. But as soon as that person opens a shop and starts charging to do it for others, that's where legal problems begin. I can't think a court of law would force a company to change something back. I could be absolutely wrong about that tho. I'm just thinking practically.

Btw, I'm not claiming to understand the intricacies of patent laws. I'm just saying I bet there is a lot of gray area where a patent of something like this becomes hard to enforce, or perhaps not worth it.
Click to expand...
A company could try using a patented process in secret but that opens them up to liability. You’d have to keep that illegal behavior secret. That means you have to get everyone on board so it’s going to be easier done by a smaller organization than a massive one like a theme park that is also working with a lot of third party contractors and vendors. Other companies also have their own patents they want protected. There’s actually a somewhat famous story of a guy who offered to sell Pepsi Coke’s trade secrets and Pepsi called the FBI because they weren’t going to get caught up in corporate espionage.

A court would not necessarily force a company to undo work that used the patented process but they could force the company to pay licensing fees and damages.

Patents are also about specific processes and not ideas. The development of the sewing machine is actually really interesting in this regard as it’s a lot of very specific, often singular, improvements to established patents. That specificity is also why Disney has a patented flying theater ride system (Soarin’) but the manufacturer of that ride (Dynamic Attractions) also sells a flying theater to anyone who wants one. The way the Disney flying theater and the off-the-shelf flying theater work is different.
 
DoleWhipDrea

DoleWhipDrea

Well-Known Member
MKCP 1985 said:
Okay, answering my own question - the bird is a type of vulture and its inclusion on the attraction has meaning. Read about it in this link:

Vulture, the Sacred Bird of Tibet

Vulture is traditionally regarded as sacred bird in Tibet and fed with corpse in traditional sky burial in Tibet. In this article a detailed demonstration has been provided on the Tibetan reverence for their sacred bird, the vulture.
www.tibettravel.org www.tibettravel.org
Joe Rohde spoke about it probably back in 2006 shortly after the ride opened, to the effect of seeing the bird symbolized something that was likely to happen. I still can't recall the details.
Unfortunately, the effect failed to impress and was called "bird on a stick." It was discontinued for a long time but apparently has returned. Improved?
Click to expand...
I didn't get to hear Joe talk about the vulture, but when I think of vultures, I think of them as a symbol of death...when they circle around, they are zeroing in on a carcass to feed on. The ripped up track could indicate that just a bit ahead, others that tried to make the journey through the Forbidden Mountains lost their lives to the yeti, and the vulture could be feasting on the remains. Or the vulture is circling because they believe that soon, you as the rider will be left as a carcass for the vulture to feed on...
 
999th Happy Haunt

999th Happy Haunt

Well-Known Member
DoleWhipDrea said:
I didn't get to hear Joe talk about the vulture, but when I think of vultures, I think of them as a symbol of death...when they circle around, they are zeroing in on a carcass to feed on. The ripped up track could indicate that just a bit ahead, others that tried to make the journey through the Forbidden Mountains lost their lives to the yeti, and the vulture could be feasting on the remains. Or the vulture is circling because they believe that soon, you as the rider will be left as a carcass for the vulture to feed on...
Click to expand...
Wow Animal Kingdom has some really dark elements here and there
 
networkpro

networkpro

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
Yes
Pepper's Ghost said:
So, they want to patent a way to keep a robot from shaking? First, I'd be surprised if this would be approved. How can you stop people/companies from using a specific way to fix something that doesn't work. Perhaps they're trying to stop companies from monetizing a similar fix, but that makes no sense to me. How big is the demand for this that a company would steal their idea and start selling it. As far as I know, Disney is the only company with this ridiculous problem. Maybe they're afraid someone will steal their idea, and try to sell it back to them to fix the effing Yeti.

There's a bird on EE?? Talk about subtle details. Been YEARS since I've been back to WDW, but don't recall ever seeing or missing a bird. 🤣
Click to expand...

Bird on a stick. To the left of the ripped up track at the summit.
1628020221314.png
 
DoleWhipDrea

DoleWhipDrea

Well-Known Member
999th Happy Haunt said:
Wow Animal Kingdom has some really dark elements here and there
Click to expand...

Life and death were a major part of the conversation when Animal Kingdom was being created. The park had to be realistic, and in that way, it would have to acknowledge the non-fairytale aspects of life and our world, and would therefore have to be a lot different from the other parks.

1628038100137.png


Not that it's always gone over well with visitors...

1628038191258.png

1628038223684.png

By comparison, the ripped up track and flying vulture are pretty tame.

1628038339584.png

1628038479771.png


Looking at the image above, going a bit further in reading the symbolism of the scene, it's interesting that the track is ripped up just after the flags, which are hung up as a form of protection. They literally mark the end of where it is "safe."
 
Beacon Joe

Beacon Joe

Well-Known Member
MKCP 1985 said:
Okay, answering my own question - the bird is a type of vulture and its inclusion on the attraction has meaning. Read about it in this link:

Vulture, the Sacred Bird of Tibet

Vulture is traditionally regarded as sacred bird in Tibet and fed with corpse in traditional sky burial in Tibet. In this article a detailed demonstration has been provided on the Tibetan reverence for their sacred bird, the vulture.
www.tibettravel.org www.tibettravel.org
Joe Rohde spoke about it probably back in 2006 shortly after the ride opened, to the effect of seeing the bird symbolized something that was likely to happen. I still can't recall the details.
Unfortunately, the effect failed to impress and was called "bird on a stick." It was discontinued for a long time but apparently has returned. Improved?
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting that since the post previous to yours made my head hurt.

And yes, seeing a vulture up there was actually meaningful. Is there any element that bears Rohde's touch that doesn't have a purpose either to reinforce the set / location or to pay respects or at a minimum make a nod to some ethnological point?

Based on what I can sort of infer about Rohde, I expect he personally wanted it as a ride element for a few reasons I can think of off the top of my head:

1) Habitat - these are high altitude birds. If you see one, especially that close, you're way up in the Himalayas. Disney and Rohde do stuff like this to reinforce setting.

2) Local Factor / Paying Respect - Obviously, I don't know this for sure, but given that I've seen Rodhe's cultural and artistic interests tend to overlap some of mine, I would bet he's not only well-read on and fascinated by sky burials that these vultures are central to, but also bet that he had watched some of the same documentaries I have on the subject. So on the face of it, if he had this cultural practice in mind, on its face, there's a "creep factor" (that also translates to the West), but really there's a much deeper cultural meaning here. Again, just my conjecture, but I would bet that he wanted to pay homage to these birds' revered status as something he learned about in his travels.

3) What's the whole ride's theme again? What's the context regarding deforestation that is established for the riders? What's the yeti upset about? You know what else in the natural world in this biome would be upset, since locally it's traditionally looked upon as protector and cleaner of the land? Yup, you guessed it, gyps himalayensis.
 
Last edited:
Model3 McQueen

Model3 McQueen

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
Sorry all, this is Chapek and D'Amaro we're talking about. Iger nor Chapek care. Rohde might have unless Rohde just outright lied to everyone when he kept saying they'll fix the yeti.

SMH.
 
Cesar R M

Cesar R M

Well-Known Member
Model3 McQueen said:
Sorry all, this is Chapek and D'Amaro we're talking about. Iger nor Chapek care. Rohde might have unless Rohde just outright lied to everyone when he kept saying they'll fix the yeti.

SMH.
Click to expand...
Maybe this is why they made Rodhe leave.
Aka he made an ultimatum to let the yeti go, and that it would never get fixed because of "costs" and executive pay.
Thus they said no.. and thus he left.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom