Source?
Also, would the “less capable” design still have the key animatronic of the entire attraction’s backstory still functioning?
I thought you'd never ask! I'm a big Expedition Everest fan, so you're doing me the favor to let me ramble about this...
Rollercoasters are some of the most popular and beloved rides at amusement/theme parks. While I am a big fan of dark rides, I understand that rollercoasters are the apex predator of the theme park world. They are the attractions that people remember the most clearly when they go home. Why? Because rollercoaster are so impactful physically. They make you feel danger and emotions in a way that other attractions struggle to mimic. They leave an imprint on you that other rides don't.
But there's a few problems with roller coasters...
Rollercoasters, with a few exceptions, are ugly. Walt Disney specifically did not want "scream machines" in Disneyland, because they are ugly. They also don't provide much storytelling opportunity. Basically, they are just pointless and meaningless vehicles to make you feel some physical sensations.
But Walt Disney, in the way that only Walt Disney could, came up with a solution. Matterhorn would change rollercoasters forever. Rollercoasters were no longer just about physical sensations and thrills, but part of a bigger story. In Matterhorn's case, that meant the rollercoaster became part of telling a story of a Swiss Alpine Bobsled Race. It was super cool AND beautiful. Disney would be so enamored by the concept, that he started to pitch the idea of Space Mountain before his death.
And so began the tradition of Disney rollercoasters (and other thrill rides!) telling great stories. Matterhorn, Space Mountain, Big Thunder Mountain, Tower of Terror, Splash Mountain, etc. The thrill of the ride became part of the story. Disney's rollercoasters are not all that different from a Six Flags when looking at them from the track. But when you add life and story around the coaster, it becomes unmistakably special.
So, Joe Rohde was tasked with building a Disney rollercoaster by Michael Eisner to put Animal Kingdom on the map. Simple enough. It had been done before. And the plan was to build it in a mountain. Again, this has been done before. So, what's the big deal?
There was a big difference between Expedition Everest and other Disney rollercoasters built into mountains. The rollercoaster that was planned for Disney's Animal Kingdom would be the most ambitious ever placed within a mountain. Expedition Everest's site plan is around 2x the size of Big Thunder or Splash Mountain. The rollercoaster would take guests higher, drop them faster, and push them further than any Disney mountain rollercoaster ever had.
So, they got to work. One of the things that Rohde quickly realized when designing Expedition Everest, is that the faster you go the more expensive your rollercoaster gets. If Six Flags adds 50 feet of ride track to an already long coaster, it's not going to break the bank. Disney coasters are different. When you add track to a Disney coaster, you have to make it "show ready." That means rock work, decoration, upkeep, etc. Worse still, this show will only be appreciated as you zoom by quickly.
Rohde and his team did something kind of counterintuitive to solve this problem. They hit the breaks. Literally. Expedition Everest has multiple instances where the ride comes to a complete halt. Those were the spots where the team installed show scenes. The stops were seamlessly integrated into the story. Imagine if the train didn't stop at that broken track near the peak? It would ruin the suspense! Or if you didn't see the Yeti leaping around tearing up track? The show would be ruined!
An example of artists designing their way out of a tricky situation.
There's another trick Rohde and his team employed to save money. Darkness. Darkness is cheap to decorate! So, Expedition Everest travels through the dark during its thrill portion. This makes the guests happy because they get more thrill time and suspense. And Disney is happy because they didn't have to pay to build and maintain hundreds of feet of additional rock work that you'd hardly notice anyway.
It's also worth pointing out that show scenes themselves are absurdly simple (with the exception of the Yeti). The only two big effects for the first two big show scenes are a bird on a stick and a projector. That's it. No audio animatronic or anything fancy. Just two highly effective simple tools that tell the story perfectly.
One thing that actually demonstrates how good Expedition Everest is executed, is the fact that Disney hasn't been forced to maintain it for nearly two decades. If Rise of the Resistance's Kylo Ren animatronic was left lifeless for an extended period of time, people would complain or mock it. But Expedition Everest remains awesome, even with its singular animatronic broken. Why? Because they designed a ride that tells its story effectively and simply. Disney's park operations can treat Expedition Everest with all the disrespect in the world, but it still ranks as one of the great Disney attractions regardless. That's good storytelling!
Compare this to Guardians of the Galaxy or Tron. This is not an insult to either attraction, but they both faced the same problem as Expedition Everest. How did they handle it? In the case of Guardians of the Galaxy, they handled it by cost overruns and by building a huge and ugly box. Guardians of the Galaxy is reputed to be among the most expensive Disney attractions of all time. Containing that massive attraction inside of a giant box was a huge expense. In order to get a long ride, it needed hundreds of millions more than Everest required. That's not a knock on it. It's entertaining. But it's not exactly an efficient design.
Tron solved it by shortening the ride. Everest's actual thrill section is actually pretty similar to Tron's, but Everest is a more satisfying experience. Why? Because the show scenes are a nice compliment to the thrills. It gets you much more time on the ride and enjoying yourself.
And now I will close my verbose discussion on the amazing attraction that is Expedition Everest. Don't ask me about other elements of the ride, or might just have to write another essay.
