mergatroid
Well-Known Member
You didn't use the word terrible, but how do you think your post reads? Was it a glowing endorsement or were you erring more on the 'assumed' negative aspects and using language to belittle it?
It's like you've already decided you won't like it and are looking to try to sell everything in a negative way. The last line particularly displays your desire to be negative. You're saying you're sure that if it were at Universal, it would be ridiculed for being a poor effort? How can you be sure if you admit to not knowing how this ride will be experienced or enjoyed by people? It's like you're saying that every attraction that opens can only be good if it uses better technology than what went before, hence mentioning state of the art. How do you know that a few well placed effects combined with a reasonable thrill factor can't be as enjoyable, if not more enjoyable than something more state of the art? I enjoy Pirates of the Caribbean far more than Forbidden Journey, despite the latter being more 'state of the art'.
Attractions can and should be more about how you feel during the ride itself, rather than how 'state of the art' the inner workings are. Do you know how much you'll enjoy the soundtrack on this ride, do you know how fun the speed will actually be combined with the ability to have the vehicle rotate and how much the visual effects blend in with them? You'd really have to ride it to know that, to experience how the movements are calibrated to one another which isn't easy to do without experiencing it. How these factors play off against one another can make a huge difference to the enjoyment of an attraction, you can't really underestimate this. For instance about 99% of the people on here are critical of the Disco Yeti not moving anymore, I'd guess you're not bothered about it not moving though? The reason I say that is if passing an animatronic for what must be less than 1% of that rides allotted ride time can ruin the experience for so many, it shows how just one tiny thing can make or break an attraction in people's minds. On the flip side that demonstrates how something that lasts less than 2 seconds on an attraction can really be important and make a huge difference to the enjoyment of said attraction.
So to pass off 'a few screen and tunnel effects' as though they can't be much can only make sense if you've experienced those effects in use on that attraction. It could be done awfully, it could be done well or it could be somewhere in between those possibilities. At Universal we see that 'Transformers' is rated less enjoyable than 'Spiderman' by many guests, myself included. This is despite 'Transformers' being built after 'Spiderman', in theory using more recent technology and all the experience gained in building the former. But even when using extremely similar ride systems like these two, it's possible for one to work much better than the other in the general public's opinion. Many complain that 'Transformers' is inferior due to a far less coherent and understandable story line with lots of shouting and confusion. It's obviously subjective which one people enjoy more, however it also demonstrates that what on paper looks very similar can be very different depending on the execution of the attraction. The point being that you really need to experience it to give a valued opinion and small things can easily change that opinion. Had you even experienced Cosmic Rewind just on Youtube, your opinion would mean more as you'd be basing it on several known factors. As it is you're judging it with none of this as it's not even open so it seems odd that you're 'guessing' negatives only, despite claiming to have no agenda for or against. I'll judge it when I've seen it or ridden it, as that seems the fairest way of doing so, but hey maybe that's just me?
