Expedition Everest's Devil's Advocate

[wannab@dis]

Don't get me wrong...there are some good things about it. It's still fun but I wouldn't expect anything groundbreaking. If you go with that in mind you'll probably enjoy it.

You know... there's really only a minor percentage of attractions at WDW that I would use "groundbreaking" as an adjective. To me, that has to do with the technology more than the overall theming or enjoyment of an attraction. I think some examples would be ToT, M:S, Soarin. However, many of the attractions that use old technology or old methods (coaster, rafts, boats, omnimovers, flume, etc) are just as exciting and well done as "groundbreaking" attractions. There's no way you can consider Splash Mountain "groundbreaking" since flume rides have been around for years. However, it's considered a great classic and a WDI success.

What do you consider groundbreaking and why is pre-requisite for a good attraction in your mind?

 

[fundesign]

True, there are those that say Soarin and Mission Space are disappointments, but I love both of those. I was hoping for a mass blown-away reaction, but these days people seem harder to please.

I find guests' expectations to be exactly the opposite. Comparing EE to Splash or Pirates or even BTMR is enough for me to say EE was a step back in some cases. Compare the number of show elements in BTMR or Splash to EE as a start.

 

[wannab@dis]

I find guests' expectations to be exactly the opposite. Comparing EE to Splash or Pirates or even BTMR is enough for me to say EE was a step back in some cases. Compare the number of show elements in BTMR or Splash to EE as a start.

So, is "show elements" your main criteria for being a good attraction? If so, then you are sorely disappointed in most attractions, right? I would think that only dark rides and omnimovers can have a large number of show elements.

I can see how you say Splash and Pirates has a lot of show elements, but BTMR? I don't get it. It's scenery at best. It seems that you have to have a slow moving conveyance to encounter multiple show elements. Otherwise, they are really just scenery as you zip right by them.

 

[peter11435]

I find guests' expectations to be exactly the opposite. Comparing EE to Splash or Pirates or even BTMR is enough for me to say EE was a step back in some cases. Compare the number of show elements in BTMR or Splash to EE as a start.

The difference as I see it is that unlike Splash and Thunder EE is a high speed roller coaster. Look at how few show elements are in RnRC. I mean there is only so much you would be able to see when going 55 mph.

 

[Shaman]

Do trees swaying in the breeze count as "show elements"? :lookaroun

Because I saw lots of trees moving...and stuff...

:lookaroun :lol:

No? How would most rate show elements (or the lack thereof) on WDW's Space Mountain?

 

[CaptainMichael]

No? How would most rate show elements (or the lack thereof) on WDW's Space Mountain?

Nice point objr!!!! Space Mountain has stars and darkness...wow.


I think that the appeal of Everest and DAK to me, is the realism that is achieved by the attractions there. Everest reeks of realism and that is what makes it awesome imo.

 

[imagineersrock]

Nice point objr!!!! Space Mountain has stars and darkness...wow.


I think that the appeal of Everest and DAK to me, is the realism that is achieved by the attractions there. Everest reeks of realism and that is what makes it awesome imo.

Very true... The realism, authenticity, attention to detail, and themeing found throughout are what make Animal Kingdom my favorite park.

Everest and the surrounding area is another extremely well-done addition to Animal Kingdom---And not only a fun ride, but a beautiful visual addition to the park as well.

 

[OmegaKnight]

Some of the posters here are being bitter for the sake of being bitter. To me, it seems that they are basing their ride experience on what they thought it would be and not how the attraction actually turned out. I think all of the amazingly positive buzz and comments that this ride has gotten detracts some people away. You should judge the attraction (and any attraction for that matter) on how it turned out, not what you thought it should have been.

P.S., my comment that I made earlier in this thread about me seeing the excited guests coming off the attraction still stands. I havn't seen this much positive buzz for an attraction, let alone a Disney attraction before its official opening in a long time.

 

[Merlin]

I find guests' expectations to be exactly the opposite. Comparing EE to Splash or Pirates or even BTMR is enough for me to say EE was a step back in some cases. Compare the number of show elements in BTMR or Splash to EE as a start.

Extremely good point!! EE doesn't even come close to having the number of show elements as the attractions you mentioned. It's almost overwhelming on those attractions, which leads to the draw in making guests want to ride again. I don't think it works at all (as some have insisted) to only show you an extremely brief glimpse of a show element (i.e. the Yeti) and expect that will make guests want to ride again just to confirm what they saw.

 

[Merlin]

Nice point objr!!!! Space Mountain has stars and darkness...wow.

One of the many reasons why Space Mountain at Disneyland blows away the WDW version.

 

[Merlin]

Merlin, why is it that the vast majority of your posts here seem to be focused around bashing your point of view down peoples throats in a never ending cycle. You have been warned about this before. You have your opinion, and that is fine, but you seem to enjoy ruffling peoples feathers, and generally seem to be looking for arguments. If you cannot accept other members views without questioning everything over and over and looking for an argument, I think you should go elsewhere.

I think the people looking for arguments are the ones who take personal jabs after I've expressed an opinion that differs from their's. Nevertheless, it is your site so I will abide by your rules. From here on out, I'll express only my opinion and not comment on the opinions expressed by others. I assume, of course, that others will be held to that same standard and not be allowed to make personal attacks on me?

 

[speck76]

I've been hearing some unexpected feedback from friends and family that have recently returned from WDW and have experienced Expedition Everest.

Before I get to that, I should qualify myself as someone who has not yet experienced the attraction, but can not wait to do so. I have no plans of traveling to WDW any time soon, but I am very much looking forward to Expedition Everest.

In any event, those that I know who have experienced the attraction are painting a different picture than what I am expecting. Granted, these family, friends, and co-workers are not die-hard Disney fanatics, but they do vacation to WDW on an average of every 2 years or so, so they certainly do not dislike WDW.

Here's my point: These people are not impressed at all with Expedition Everest. In fact, I have yet to hear anyone tell me that it is even close to a great ride. I'm hearing phrases such as "too boring", "too slow", "not worth the wait", and so on.

I am still anxiously awaiting my own experience, and I'm certain that I will not be disappointed. But are the majority of us on this Forum, myself included, looking at Disney through rose-colored glasses? Has anyone else experienced similar feedback from others?

Scott

It does not matter what anyone thinks about the ride, except for you.

 

[CHAPPS]

You have to remember that this is a Disney fan site, and as such, most of the reviews are going to be positively slanted in favor of Everest being a great ride. I think there's value in listening to the unbiased views of outsiders, especially if you're thinking of planning a trip around it. I've ridden Everest and did not find it to be all it's been made out to be. Will that stop me from making future trips to the World? Absolutely not! Would I go again just to experience Everest again? No. Will I ride Everest again the next time I go? Probably.

 

[Shaman]

You have to remember that this is a Disney fan site, and as such, most of the reviews are going to be positively slanted in favor of Everest being a great ride. I think there's value in listening to the unbiased views of outsiders, especially if you're thinking of planning a trip around it. I've ridden Everest and did not find it to be all it's been made out to be. Will that stop me from making future trips to the World? Absolutely not! Would I go again just to experience Everest again? No. Will I ride Everest again the next time I go? Probably.

I agree...I don't think most people go to WDW for one particular ride anyway. It's the whole package, and one of the great things about WDW is that it has something for everybody. But thank you for your honesty...some people bash an attraction and are the first to get in line for it. This is understandable, because Disney vacations aren't cheap, and one tries to make the most of the experience (not boycott attractions).

As for some of the other things posted in this thread...I just have to comment some more...

Some say, EE was all hype, but in reality who creates the hype? In this particular case I don't think it was Disney, but the fan. We are our own worse enemy when it comes to the anticipation of a new attraction. Our imagination runs wild and it is only when we experience the ride that we come back to reality...and in some cases are very very dissapointed with the final product. It doesn't live up to what we had been imagining. It's like when movie studios make movies based off books; in our minds, most of the time the movie will never be AS good as the book. Imagination is powerful that way.

For that reason I watched the videos ( ) before I experienced the ride. So that my imagination, my expectations would not be unrealistic or impact my first experience of the attraction. And I think it worked, because on my first "expedition" I had lots of fun.

Is EE a good addition to AK? Yes.
Would AK be a better park without EE? No.

Could EE have been better? Yes.
Could EE have been worse? Yes.

Is there something like EE somewhere else in WDW? No.
Is there something like EE somewhere else in Orlando? No.

So in the end, I think EE is a great attraction. And while it isn't perfect (few attractions are), I think like Splash, it will become a fan favorite fairly quick. That of course, is only my opinion.

 

[imagineersrock]

I agree...I don't think most people go to WDW for one particular ride anyway. It's the whole package, and one of the great things about WDW is that it has something for everybody. But thank you for your honesty...some people bash an attraction and are the first to get in line for it. This is understandable, because Disney vacations aren't cheap, and one tries to make the most of the experience (not boycott attractions).

As for some of the other things posted in this thread...I just have to comment some more...

Some say, EE was all hype, but in reality who creates the hype? In this particular case I don't think it was Disney, but the fan. We are our own worse enemy when it comes to the anticipation of a new attraction. Our imagination runs wild and it is only when we experience the ride that we come back to reality...and in some cases are very very dissapointed with the final product. It doesn't live up to what we had been imagining. It's like when movie studios make movies based off books; in our minds, most of the time the movie will never be AS good as the book. Imagination is powerful that way.

For that reason I watched the videos ( ) before I experienced the ride. So that my imagination, my expectations would not be unrealistic or impact my first experience of the attraction. And I think it worked, because on my first "expedition" I had lots of fun.

Is EE a good addition to AK? Yes.
Would AK be a better park without EE? No.

Could EE have been better? Yes.
Could EE have been worse? Yes.

Is there something like EE somewhere else in WDW? No.
Is there something like EE somewhere else in Orlando? No.

So in the end, I think EE is a great attraction. And while it isn't perfect (few attractions are), I think like Splash, it will become a fan favorite fairly quick. That of course, is only my opinion.

Good post, I completely agree.

...Especially regarding the whole topic of visiting just for Everest: I've heard several people now make comments such as "Everest alone is not worth the price of admission to Animal Kingdom" and "Would I go again just to experience Everest again? No."

I love Disney, and I love many of its attractions.....But I have yet to find one ride that I would justify the price of admission alone, or justify making an entire trip for that one ride by itself. I understand the point these people are trying to make, but I'm just curious as to if they think there are any rides out there that live up to this? I do not, the only reason I would ever go for a single ride is if it was highly anticipated and I had never been on it before.

 

[fundesign]

You know... there's really only a minor percentage of attractions at WDW that I would use "groundbreaking" as an adjective. To me, that has to do with the technology more than the overall theming or enjoyment of an attraction. I think some examples would be ToT, M:S, Soarin. However, many of the attractions that use old technology or old methods (coaster, rafts, boats, omnimovers, flume, etc) are just as exciting and well done as "groundbreaking" attractions. There's no way you can consider Splash Mountain "groundbreaking" since flume rides have been around for years. However, it's considered a great classic and a WDI success.

What do you consider groundbreaking and why is pre-requisite for a good attraction in your mind?

That is a very good question. I don't limit the term "groundbreaking" to just technology. To me Splash was a groundbreaking project in that it raised the level of expectation with respect to flume rides. Yes there are some firsts in the technology category. For example, the coaster element in the Laughing Place sequence. But more importantly, the integration of show/story is unparalleled in flume ride history. The closest predecessor would probably be Knotts' flume in California. If Disney ever does another flume attraction, in theory they shouldn't take the flume experience backwards with a bare-bones show like Everest (yes I know there are flume rides where the vehicle goes backwards LOL).

Using my definition, I can't agree that there is only a small percentage of groundbreaking attractions available at WDW. Almost every attraction built prior to the recent WDI slump (about Ten years) had at least one groundbreaking quality to it. Mansion used the Omnimover and injected humor while Pirates' large number of Animatronics and elaborate sets in a ride set it apart. Space Mountain was the world's first roller coaster ride that was completely controlled and operated by a computer system and I think the first fully enclosed themed coaster (not sure about the first space themed but regardless, there was certainly nothing else quite like it anywhere). If You Had Wings, COP, even the Peoplemover all included groundbreaking ideas and/or technology.

More importantly, while riding Everest I kept thinking, "I've been on this before...ahhh yes, Big Thunder...except there are more efx/show elements on Thunder." Such a shame that so much opportunity was wasted at Everest. Two track switch sequences and they squander it with a lame shadow projector and mangled track. The sequence after the first lift is a complete waste of space. Backwards motion, Shadow projector, Animatronic in a coaster ride...all been done before. There was absolutely nothing groundbreaking. The story is nothing special. The exterior,queue and trains are all nice but what is it that makes this special? How has Everest exceeded any expectations or caused anyone to look forward to the next inevitable evolution of this type of ride experience?