Reminds me of an old joke:
Q: Did you hear about the chef who put the carving knife in her back pocket?
Disaster.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Remy's Ratatouille Adventure coming to Epcot
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
Q: Did you hear about the chef who put the carving knife in her back pocket?
Kman101
Well-Known Member
This.
I can't take these names seriously at all. Do they just come up with surveys "just because"? Because that's what it feels like. People get paid to come up with this stuff. I wish they would just let WDI do their job. And it goes the same for attractions. I really dislike the back and forth that dilutes a project to the bare minimum. Maybe just build it as designed? You'd probably actually save some money!
What's the budget for having dozens of castmembers taking surveys? Couldn't that be put to better use? They can't just have a signup for those who want to take surveys? Maybe a survey club you sign up for? I get having a castmember there to "approach" you, but eh, it seems they could do it differently. How many people truly get surveyed? It really shouldn't be used for designing things. Like you said, it should be more about the guest experience. Not naming attractions.
Missing20K
Well-Known Member
Just no surveys. Zero. If people don't like something, they will find the appropriate ears in which to beat (especially in this day and age). If they aren't complaining, they most probably like it. If people continue coming back to your property for decades and spend billions each year even in the face of price increases, they LOVE it. Or at least have no adequate market substitution. No survey required.
Kman101
Well-Known Member
Just no surveys. Zero. If people don't like something, they will find the appropriate ears in which to beat (especially in this day and age). If they aren't complaining, they most probably like it. If people continue coming back to your property for decades and spend billions each year even in the face of price increases, they LOVE it. Or at least have no adequate market substitution. No survey required.
How it should be.
People already complain through e-mail, social media (I wish more complaints were lodged on social media, imagine the panic in the cubicles), etc. And they have no problem walking into guest services and demanding what they want. Surveys feel unnecessary. E-mail the survey after a guest's stay (which I believe they still do, just not sure the frequency or how often - I used to get one just because I had FP's and went to the parks but I haven't received one in a long time). Survey guests at the resorts (I imagine they do, do they not? but I haven't stayed on-site at a Disney owned resort in 10 years - I stay in the Springs area, so "on property" but so much more affordable) ... lots of ways to overhaul what they do.
SteveAZee
Premium Member
Did you hear about the butcher who accidentally backed into the meat slicer?
He got a little behind in his work.
castlecake2.0
Well-Known Member
I always think of what they could have done to blend it in. Continue the mountain look? Fake townscape? Trees?
They did plant some evergreen trees around the backside perimeter of the pavilion a few years ago but I don’t think they’ll ever do any job of hiding soarin.
What would you have done if you could?
Fox&Hound
Well-Known Member
“Stop looking at me, swan!!!!!”
Andrew C
You know what's funny?
Shampoo is better.
Mike S
Well-Known Member
Conditioner is better!!!
smile
Well-Known Member
ugly loomers
Aside from not build it there? Sink it lower. Not impossible, just expensive.I always think of what they could have done to blend it in. Continue the mountain look? Fake townscape? Trees?
They did plant some evergreen trees around the backside perimeter of the pavilion a few years ago but I don’t think they’ll ever do any job of hiding soarin.
What would you have done if you could?
FerretAfros
Well-Known Member
There's a lot they could have done to reduce the structure height without impacting the ride experience.
The roof girders appear to be 8-10' tall and make up about 20% of the building's height, but provide nothing meaningful to the ride experience. They could have easily been designed with less depth by using beefier members. Additionally, the structure appears similar to the new GOTG building, with a single central column; given that the building will be broken into many smaller show scenes, they could have added columns to reduce the span length, which would also reduce the structural depth needed.
The building also doesn't specifically *need* a parapet wall around the edges; a less visually intrusive guardrail could be used to protect workers. Any roof-mounted equipment could be concealed using localized screens, which would be more easily obscured, set back from the visible edge.
These changes could knock up to 10' off the height for minimal (or no) cost difference. But instead we have a massive hulking box plopped down next to carefully-designed scaled architecture. As with so many WDI projects lately, this is an unforced error due to a lack of interdisciplinary coordination and technical knowledge. Given the ridiculous costs these days, there's really no excuse.
aladdin2007
Well-Known Member
I checked this out today in person, it really depends on what angle location your looking at Morocco from, pictures on here are a tad misleading. For instance when standing directly in the middle of world showcase plaza between the two shops at the water, the building is not conflicting with Morroco and is not in view behind it at all. Its perfectly situated between Morocco and France with the trees hiding the majority of it. I suppose when approaching from UK on the right side, it could look like it is from that angle. But from the middle or the left side it does not at all conflict with it from across the water, and I was worried about this too. I was fairly relieved today after seeing it. Also it looks like the top of the show building may end up with a decorative roof along the top, to possibly match the other France rooftops??
Missing20K
Well-Known Member
I thought it was discussed earlier that the reason for the height of the building is due to the height of the screens. I'm not sure of their exact size (I'm sure someone here knows) but just anecdotally from being on the Paris version, they are huge. And yes reducing the height of the joists is possible through either beefier members or closer spacing, but both options do increase cost. More steel = more money. Closer column spacing must not have been possible due to ride constraints I would suspect.
Totally agree about any parapet that might happen. Could have done a gravel stop edge and just put any roof top units or fall protection far away from the edge.
I'd be surprised it they would have voluntarily designed the building even a six inches taller than needed as that just adds cost in myriad ways (material, labor, time, heating and cooling). Unless they are purposefully inflating CapEx for some accounting reason.
No arguments against the hulking box. They should have just used a pre-engineered building at this point. It's essentially what they have anyway. Heck, it actually might be.
Missing20K
Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Those background painted flats are only on the west (entrance) side. They are not on the north and east sides that face World Showcase Lagoon and the Morocco Pavillion.According to the concept art, yes it will.
Missing20K
Well-Known Member
I sort of assumed they would theme those sides as well, mostly because if you theme the west side, wouldn't the north side need themed also due to being able to see the corner of the building where themed and unthemed meet? I would assume the same for the east and north corner of the building as well.
I could be assuming far too much.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Guests can’t go around the corner. The theming only needs to wrap the corner on the lower entrance mass.