Rumor Fantasyland Expansion

[mharrington]

The phrase you're looking for is "where there's smoke there's fire" which is neutral to the good/bad result of the rumors.

It's too late for that now.

In this case, though, there's barely a single puff of smoke, and it's of the loco weed.

Again, could maybe @GiveMeTheMusic or @marni1971 shed some light on this?

 

[Mac Tonight]

It's too late for that now.



Again, could maybe @GiveMeTheMusic or @marni1971 shed some light on this?

I thought @lentesta pretty much already confirmed the rumor began as a miscommunication between himself and Jim Hill on their podcast.

Found it (see below):

 

[mickEblu]

@lentesta so now that you ve had a little time to reflect on the Falcon what are your thoughts on the ride experience? And then what are your thoughts on the experience as a whole? Which is Undoubtedly how Disney would like us to evaluate Smugglers Run.

Everything you said in your Twitter review I had been concerned about here for weeks even before the first reviews/ ride through videos came in.

 

[mharrington]

I thought @lentesta pretty much already confirmed the rumor began as a miscommunication between himself and Jim Hill on their podcast.

Found it (see below):

View attachment 379417

That's good to know, but it still sickens me that they would even entertain such a notion, here or in Tokyo.

 

[Mac Tonight]

That's good to know, but it still sickens me that they would even entertain such a notion, here or in Tokyo.

That's just it... no one has entertained the idea. It was a miscommunication.

 

[mharrington]

That's just it... no one has entertained the idea. It was a miscommunication.

In any case, I hope it never comes to pass, and that it gives Disney any ideas.

 

[marni1971]

It's too late for that now.



Again, could maybe @GiveMeTheMusic or @marni1971 shed some light on this?

Me? Nope.

 

[lentesta]

@lentesta so now that you ve had a little time to reflect on the Falcon what are your thoughts on the ride experience? And then what are your thoughts on the experience as a whole? Which is Undoubtedly how Disney would like us to evaluate Smugglers Run.

Everything you said in your Twitter review I had been concerned about here for weeks even before the first reviews/ ride through videos came in.

I think the Falcon ride experience is ultimately disappointing. For all of Disney's talk about how immersive and detailed Galaxy's Edge would be, the setup of the Falcon is so unrealistic that it actively hurts the ride experience.

By "actively hurt" I mean that it's virtually impossible for the Falcon's gunner and engineer roles to do their jobs *and* watch the action at the same time. Their seats are facing forward, toward the (small-ish) screen. But all of their controls are rotated 90 degrees from the screen. As a result, you're constantly looking away from either the screen or your controls, to see what's happening with one or the other.

Similarly, Disney divided the flight controls on the Falcon so that one pilot controls left and right, and the other pilot controls up and down.

It's horrible ergonomics. No flying machine would ever be designed like that. AND WE KNOW THE FALCON DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.

It's so implausible that I gave up trying, because coordinating the actions of six people isn't fun - it's like being in a human random number generator experiment.

Also, the gunner positions aren't anything like what we know the gunners look like from Episode 4. Like the engineer, the gunner sits in a seat whose push-button controls are situated 90 degrees from the screen. It's not the real Falcon, the ergonomics are horrible, and it ultimately feels like anything you try is hopeless and frustrating.

The movie script is so hilariously similar to every Disney simulator ever made, with the same tropes, that it's actively distracting: even during the first ride, part of me was saying "This is Star Tours and Mission: Space." The same plot points, the same tempo, the same kind of dialog.

If you've ever been on a Disney simulator, you've experienced the cliche where the action pauses for a second, but you know the ride isn't over, and then something unexpected happens, right? I called the "here's where something goes wrong" point to Guy on our initial ride, right before the script actually says "...That was unexpected." First-timers shouldn't be able to predict the plot like that - it's a bad sign that I was even trying to, but that's how bad the script is.

It didn't need to be this way. Disney had the talent, time, and money to make the gunner positions more realistic, to make better consoles for the engineers, to figure out a better set of responsibilities for each pilot, and hire someone to write a fresh script (FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!)

There's only one Falcon. Everybody loves it. Everyone knows how it's supposed to work. It's a precious thing. Disney wasted it on a C-ticket ride.

I'd give it 3 1/2 stars.

 

[britain]

I think the Falcon ride experience is ultimately disappointing. For all of Disney's talk about how immersive and detailed Galaxy's Edge would be, the setup of the Falcon is so unrealistic that it actively hurts the ride experience.

By "actively hurt" I mean that it's virtually impossible for the Falcon's gunner and engineer roles to do their jobs *and* watch the action at the same time. Their seats are facing forward, toward the (small-ish) screen. But all of their controls are rotated 90 degrees from the screen. As a result, you're constantly looking away from either the screen or your controls, to see what's happening with one or the other.

Similarly, Disney divided the flight controls on the Falcon so that one pilot controls left and right, and the other pilot controls up and down.

It's horrible ergonomics. No flying machine would ever be designed like that. AND WE KNOW THE FALCON DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.

It's so implausible that I gave up trying, because coordinating the actions of six people isn't fun - it's like being in a human random number generator experiment.

Also, the gunner positions aren't anything like what we know the gunners look like from Episode 4. Like the engineer, the gunner sits in a seat whose push-button controls are situated 90 degrees from the screen. It's not the real Falcon, the ergonomics are horrible, and it ultimately feels like anything you try is hopeless and frustrating.

The movie script is so hilariously similar to every Disney simulator ever made, with the same tropes, that it's actively distracting: even during the first ride, part of me was saying "This is Star Tours and Mission: Space." The same plot points, the same tempo, the same kind of dialog.

If you've ever been on a Disney simulator, you've experienced the cliche where the action pauses for a second, but you know the ride isn't over, and then something unexpected happens, right? I called the "here's where something goes wrong" point to Guy on our initial ride, right before the script actually says "...That was unexpected." First-timers shouldn't be able to predict the plot like that - it's a bad sign that I was even trying to, but that's how bad the script is.

It didn't need to be this way. Disney had the talent, time, and money to make the gunner positions more realistic, to make better consoles for the engineers, to figure out a better set of responsibilities for each pilot, and hire someone to write a fresh script (FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!)

There's only one Falcon. Everybody loves it. Everyone knows how it's supposed to work. It's a precious thing. Disney wasted it on a C-ticket ride.

I'd give it 3 1/2 stars.

That seems pretty high for a negative review.

Oh out of 5, not out of 4.

 

[RSoxNo1]

I think the Falcon ride experience is ultimately disappointing. For all of Disney's talk about how immersive and detailed Galaxy's Edge would be, the setup of the Falcon is so unrealistic that it actively hurts the ride experience.

By "actively hurt" I mean that it's virtually impossible for the Falcon's gunner and engineer roles to do their jobs *and* watch the action at the same time. Their seats are facing forward, toward the (small-ish) screen. But all of their controls are rotated 90 degrees from the screen. As a result, you're constantly looking away from either the screen or your controls, to see what's happening with one or the other.

Similarly, Disney divided the flight controls on the Falcon so that one pilot controls left and right, and the other pilot controls up and down.

It's horrible ergonomics. No flying machine would ever be designed like that. AND WE KNOW THE FALCON DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.

It's so implausible that I gave up trying, because coordinating the actions of six people isn't fun - it's like being in a human random number generator experiment.

Also, the gunner positions aren't anything like what we know the gunners look like from Episode 4. Like the engineer, the gunner sits in a seat whose push-button controls are situated 90 degrees from the screen. It's not the real Falcon, the ergonomics are horrible, and it ultimately feels like anything you try is hopeless and frustrating.

The movie script is so hilariously similar to every Disney simulator ever made, with the same tropes, that it's actively distracting: even during the first ride, part of me was saying "This is Star Tours and Mission: Space." The same plot points, the same tempo, the same kind of dialog.

If you've ever been on a Disney simulator, you've experienced the cliche where the action pauses for a second, but you know the ride isn't over, and then something unexpected happens, right? I called the "here's where something goes wrong" point to Guy on our initial ride, right before the script actually says "...That was unexpected." First-timers shouldn't be able to predict the plot like that - it's a bad sign that I was even trying to, but that's how bad the script is.

It didn't need to be this way. Disney had the talent, time, and money to make the gunner positions more realistic, to make better consoles for the engineers, to figure out a better set of responsibilities for each pilot, and hire someone to write a fresh script (FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!)

There's only one Falcon. Everybody loves it. Everyone knows how it's supposed to work. It's a precious thing. Disney wasted it on a C-ticket ride.

I'd give it 3 1/2 stars.

Are we convinced that Disney has the talent to consistently produce excellent attractions anymore? By all accounts they weren't restricted by budget on this and it was done by people who were remarkably passionate about the process. There is no real "excuse" here.

 

[Epcot_Imagineer]

I thought @lentesta pretty much already confirmed the rumor began as a miscommunication between himself and Jim Hill on their podcast.

Found it (see below):

View attachment 379417

I found the twitter account who tweeted out the survey question asking about IASW and replied to Len on another thread, I believe. The tweet went viral before he could further explain the survey asked the same question about every ride at Disneyland that he had ridden on his trip. I don't fault Len, Jim, or the tweeter, it was all just a misunderstanding -- part of the fault of sharing information in only a limited number of characters on Twitter.

 

[Disney Analyst]

Are we convinced that Disney has the talent to consistently produce excellent attractions anymore? By all accounts they weren't restricted by budget on this and it was done by people who were remarkably passionate about the process. There is no real "excuse" here.

I think it mostly comes down to the practicality of a theme park ride and interactivity. All the big complaints from Len seem to lean on the side of issues with the interactive nature and not being fundamentally cannon with how the Falcon works.

I’ve seen complaints and compliments on both sides. It seems pretty evenly split. Some don’t mind and can utilize the side buttons and watch the screen... some seem unable to.

Now there could be a discussion about if this was the best choice of attraction given the divide it may create... but I think if you go into it to just have fun and stop thinking as much... you’ll enjoy it.

 

[lentesta]

I found the twitter account who tweeted out the survey question asking about IASW and replied to Len on another thread, I believe. The tweet went viral before he could further explain the survey asked the same question about every ride at Disneyland that he had ridden on his trip. I don't fault Len, Jim, or the tweeter, it was all just a misunderstanding -- part of the fault of sharing information in only a limited number of characters on Twitter.

I'll correct this on the next show, too. Thanks again for understanding.

 

[lentesta]

Are we convinced that Disney has the talent to consistently produce excellent attractions anymore? By all accounts they weren't restricted by budget on this and it was done by people who were remarkably passionate about the process. There is no real "excuse" here.

Flight of Passage is excellent. To your point, that's one in how many attempts?

 

[RSoxNo1]

Flight of Passage is excellent. To your point, that's one in how many attempts?

I like Flight of Passage as well, but I'm sure you can simply look at guest satisfaction results for things built under Iger. IIRC, Flight of Passage was the highest rated attraction in the recent guide, no? I'm sure there's a recency bias but we can't ignore dismiss that there's at least one very successful addition under Iger.

I haven't been on Smugglers Run, but your complaints on basic design elements seem to be fairly consistent with all others that criticize the ride. As for the plot being formulaic, unfortunately that's pretty much simulator 101. It doesn't excuse it, but it's not surprising.

We criticize IP based rides for praying on familiarity over quality (and no, they don't need to be mutually exclusive), but with that in mind there are odd choices all around this attraction. I recognize that in the time frame guests are in Batuu that Han Solo isn't alive. But Lando is. Chewey is. Why have Hondo as the host? The connection to Han Solo is actually more in line with the Solo release that came out last year.

 

[britain]

Ok, but can I just say, how many times in the Star Wars films is flying the Millennium Falcon a breeze? It's supposed to be bedlam in there! Things breaking all the time! What's that flashing!? It's not supposed to be a "look out at the pleasant view" sort of experience.

What's "on the screen" is probably the most important thing, but not the only important thing. Star Tours has conditioned us to expect the perfect movie-theater-like view out a simulator window. But that's the anti-thesis to actually being on the Falcon.

Be glad they didn't have the engineers run down the hall to reconnect some pipes with hydrospanners in the middle of the ride!

 

[TalkingHead]

Some don’t mind and can utilize the side buttons and watch the screen... some seem unable to.

It recalls a movie theater screen that encourages interactivity with cellphones. Only here the movement isn’t looking up at the screen and down at the phone but turning/looking to the side and going back to the screen. I’d love to know what the WDI discussions were like and why they settled on this design.

 

[Rich T]

Ok, but can I just say, how many times in the Star Wars films is flying the Millennium Falcon a breeze? It's supposed to be bedlam in there! Things breaking all the time! What's that flashing!? It's not supposed to be a "look out at the pleasant view" sort of experience.

What's "on the screen" is probably the most important thing, but not the only important thing. Star Tours has conditioned us to expect the perfect movie-theater-like view out a simulator window. But that's the anti-thesis to actually being on the Falcon.

Be glad they didn't have the engineers run down the hall to reconnect some pipes with hydrospanners in the middle of the ride!

Is it fun? That's the only thing that matters. I don't care if it's movie-accurate. And, actually, I don't care if it's just the world's most expensive Bop-It game. Is it fun? Is it fun enough to justify all the time and money that went into it? And can I just sit there and laugh at the results of my not doing anything to help my crew at all (hands in the air screaming, "WHEEEEE!")

 

[truecoat]

Are we convinced that Disney has the talent to consistently produce excellent attractions anymore? By all accounts they weren't restricted by budget on this and it was done by people who were remarkably passionate about the process. There is no real "excuse" here.

You have to remember ROTR is supposed to be the end all be all of new rides, so I'd wait until that one opens before you pass judgment on the budget.

 

[shambolicdefending]

Are we convinced that Disney has the talent to consistently produce excellent attractions anymore? By all accounts they weren't restricted by budget on this and it was done by people who were remarkably passionate about the process. There is no real "excuse" here.

I don't think there's any conceivable attraction that could totally escape the criticism of 21st century internet mobs. But, I'd say about 90% of the reports coming back on MFSR are really positive, so I'm not sure that anybody feels the need to be making excuses.