Slash and Burn ...

[agent86]

I really like EE and the budget has nothing at all to do with it ...

You're not the one who referred to the budget as a reason for thinking EE is great, so on that point we're cool. :wave: But someone earlier (several pages back now) spouted that it "cost $120 MILLION" as though that was supposed to make me say, "Oh, well in that case, it IS a great attraction."

all you need to do is look at the numbers and the guest satisfaction numbers.

So where exactly can the average person get access to these alleged "numbers" that everyone always refers to in order to support their points? I'm always hearing that argument, "look at the numbers", but no one is ever able to actually produce these "numbers" they're using to back up their claims. I wish I could do that any time I'm trying to win a debate. That would be great if I could just say, "Well if you don't believe me, just look at that highly classified government docu...Oh, wait. That's right, you don't have access to that. Well I guess you'll just have to take my word for it." :hammer:

Others have answered this ... but the point is simple. He is supposed to be a mythical, elusive creature ... the whole buildup is to give clues that maybe he does exist. He isn't supposed to get up and recite a speech or do a song and dance. He is supposed to cap your thrilling visit up Forbidden Mountain and get you excited so you get back in line (after buying stuff in the gift shop!) again.

I understand what the supposed storyline is (understood it the first time it was explained to me :animwink, but that's not my point. What I said was that it "just doesn't add up". And what I meant by that was this:

- On one hand, we have an AA figure that is supposed to be the most sophisticated, most technologically advanced, most impressive AA ever built (at least that's what many people on these boards have frequently claimed).
- On the other hand, we're not meant to see the yeti for more than a brief moment because it's being true to the legend of the mysterious, elusive yeti.
- So why would a cost conscious company like Disney invest in building such an elaborate AA and then choose not to showcase it in all it's glory?

That's what I mean when I say it "doesn't add up". I can see the logic behind only showing it for a brief moment (even though I don't agree that's good showmanship). But I don't see the logic in spending huge sums of money, time and effort on something that's only meant to be seen for a brief moment.

Sorry, but one of those two claims just simply can't be true. It makes no sense.

 

[agent86]

Anyhoo...I think Agent86 just hates Everest and wants everyone else to hate it too, and can't understand how come we don't.

"Hate" is a pretty strong word. I challenge you to find a single post in which I've stated that I "hate", or even "dislike" Everest. When have I ever stated that?

 

[Monty]

"Hate" is a pretty strong word. I challenge you to find a single post in which I've stated that I "hate", or even "dislike" Everest. When have I ever stated that?

You chose the phrase "all-out disappointment" instead...

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

 

[docandsix]

There's a good explanation. Maybe one of your premises is wrong.

- On one hand, we have an AA figure that is supposed to be the most sophisticated, most technologically advanced, most impressive AA ever built (at least that's what many people on these boards have frequently claimed).
- On the other hand, we're not meant to see the yeti for more than a brief moment because it's being true to the legend of the mysterious, elusive yeti.
- So why would a cost conscious company like Disney invest in building such an elaborate AA and then choose not to showcase it in all it's glory?

That's what I mean when I say it "doesn't add up". I can see the logic behind only showing it for a brief moment (even though I don't agree that's good showmanship). But I don't see the logic in spending huge sums of money, time and effort on something that's only meant to be seen for a brief moment.

Sorry, but one of those two claims just simply can't be true. It makes no sense.

Or is it possible that the stereotype of Disney as a "cost conscious company" isn't as accurate as many of the insiders on this board (see the OP) claim it is? Or that it wasn't as true when Expedition Everest was built as it is in today's faltering economy?

For the record, I think that Expedition Everest is a spectacular experience, when the effects are all (or almost all) working, despite the fact that the less-than-overwhelming reviews of this site had led me to expect disappointment.

There is one thing we can all agree upon, however. The bird is stupid.

 

[tirian]

So where exactly can the average person get access to these alleged "numbers" that everyone always refers to in order to support their points? I'm always hearing that argument, "look at the numbers", but no one is ever able to actually produce these "numbers" they're using to back up their claims. I wish I could do that any time I'm trying to win a debate. That would be great if I could just say, "Well if you don't believe me, just look at that highly classified government docu...Oh, wait. That's right, you don't have access to that. Well I guess you'll just have to take my word for it." :hammer:

As somebody who's guilty of using that phrase, I see your point. But you can see the results of said "numbers":

>> DAK's attendance level has skyrocketed since E:E opened. You should be able to find this on Google (I don't have time to pull it up for you right now).

>> Thanks to WDW's marketing machine, E:E was plastered all over Discovery, History, and Travel channels, leading to a lot of public hype. The attraction is almost 3 years old, and it's still the first thing Guests run to when DAK opens. (Granted, it's the most recent ride too.)

>> BACK to SGE <<
Much of the "failure" evidence is unavailable to Guests, so you'll have to take WDW1974's word for it. Sorry, that's part of reading and participating in a "News/Rumors" thread.

 

[dxwwf3]

>> BACK to SGE <<
Much of the "failure" evidence is unavailable to Guests

Anyone who visits the MK can get all the evidence they need: Just walk by the attraction :lol:

BTW, I know what you're saying and I was just joking

 

[agent86]

You chose the phrase "all-out disappointment" instead...

Well technically, the phrase I actually used was "extreme disappointment", but that's splitting hairs. Nevertheless, you quoted me out of context, thus changing the meaning of what I said to suit your point. What I was saying (which is obvious if you read the whole one-sentence post and not just those two words) was that EE was a disappointment relative to expectations. This was the post where I was saying it was analogous to the movie "Batman & Robin" (i.e. It showed a lot of promise, but was an extreme disappointment). There's a big difference between that and saying I "hate" or even "dislike" the ride.

 

[agent86]

Or is it possible that the stereotype* of Disney as a "cost conscious company" isn't as accurate as many of the insiders on this board (see the OP) claim it is?

I've read enough about Disney in books, magazines, newspapers, etc to be able to say that, at least since the beginning of the Eisner era, Disney is a cost conscious company. And as a publicly traded company, they SHOULD be fiscally responsible to their shareholders.

(*btw, for what it's worth, you've misused the word "stereotype". A stereotype is to attribute one or more of the same characteristics to all members of a particular group. An individual person, or company, can't, by definition, have a stereotype on it's own. If the argument was, "All entertainment companies are cost conscious, therefore Disney is too", then that would be a stereotype. A more accurate way to put it would be to say something along the lines of, "Is it possible that the image of Disney as a cost conscious company...". Not being argumentative here, or picking on you. That's just a term that I see misused a lot and it's a subject matter that is near and dear to my heart. )

There is one thing we can all agree upon, however. The bird is stupid.

:sohappy: Most definitely! Of course, if we're to believe what some people (most notably WDW1974) tell us, then the plastic bird on a stick is precisely true to Joe Rhodes' vision. :hammer:

 

[agent86]

As somebody who's guilty of using that phrase, I see your point. But you can see the results of said "numbers":

>> DAK's attendance level has skyrocketed since E:E opened. You should be able to find this on Google (I don't have time to pull it up for you right now).

Thanks, I'll look it up. Although it has always been my understanding that Disney does not release their attendance numbers. Has that policy changed? If not, then I'm guessing anything I'm likely to find on Google is not going to truly be from the source, and will therefore just be speculation. Correct?

>> Thanks to WDW's marketing machine, E:E was plastered all over Discovery, History, and Travel channels, leading to a lot of public hype. The attraction is almost 3 years old, and it's still the first thing Guests run to when DAK opens. (Granted, it's the most recent ride too.)

Is that really a big surprise, though, or proof that it's a well-liked attraction in the grand scheme of things? I've read many articles (was just reading one the other day as a matter of fact) that roller coasters are an almost guaranteed draw for people to a theme park. Add to that the fact that DAK still does not have as much to offer as other parks, and it stands to reason that EE would be the first thing people would run to when they visit the park. I also have always said that EE is an impressive sight when you're looking at it from anywhere in the park (except for the back of it that you can see from the parking lot...really bad show, but apparently true to Joe Rhodes' vision :hammer. If I were a first time visitor to DAK and didn't know much, or anything, about the attractions, and I saw EE, it would definitely be the first thing I'd run to. But none of this supports what people say about it being a well liked attraction. I would think the only thing that would really support that would be some sort of validated survey, conducted either by Disney or an impartial professional company that specializes in conducting guest satisfaction surveys. People on these boards make reference to that sort of thing all the time, and they say, "Just look at the numbers", but again, where can someone like me get my eyes on that information (the whole thing...not just a snippet that says something like, "According a recent survey, guests love EE." Where can I get my eyes on the actual survey results themselves?

Much of the "failure" evidence is unavailable to Guests, so you'll have to take WDW1974's word for it. Sorry, that's part of reading and participating in a "News/Rumors" thread.

I understand what you're saying, and in fact, it basically supports what I've been saying all along. It's funny that earlier in this thread, someone chastised me for not adding the words, "in my opinion" to everything I post. But yet it's okay for people to state things as fact, but have nothing to back it up (while only pretending to be able to back it up by using impressive sounding phrases like, "just look at the numbers").

 

[mrssparrow]

Ok,
I read about the first thirty pages, then started skipping through and only read the posts of WDW1974, EpcotServo, Buried20KLeague, including a side-track through the pictures of the PoC III premier and story.... All great by the way...

Only to now feel somewhat justified in reading that much and spending the past 2 1/2 hours reading, I have to sum up my thoughts on all of this.

- WDW1974 put it best many pages ago. I visited MK (and I say only MK as it was the only park open then) in 1981 and stayed at FW and I was 6 years old. I don't remember many of the particulars, but remember the majors like IaSW, POC, pretty much all of fantasy land. But, I do remember Space Mountain and my unending fear of going on that ride. My fear was SOLELY centered around the fact that everytime I stood in the line with my father and siblings, the darn thing broke down. EVERYTIME! I remember being the next family to board and it broke down and that scared the life out of me (was I going to go off track and plummet to my death??) My father, to say the least, finally gave up and wouldn't bother standing in line for the umpteenth time for me to only have me scream and cry in fear.
It goes to say that the first time I rode this ride was in 2001 on my honeymoon.
---What does the above story have to do with this thread? Well, 2 reasons:
A) Space Mountain is in desperate need of a rehab, as it may have needed in 1981. Give some attention to it so it doesn't become a storage room or cm locker room ala the shops in adventureland.
B) Some things in life are going to be scary to 6 year olds and are not intended for everyone to see. That fear stayed with me and is now a 'pleasant memory' I have of a family vacation. While I don't remember Alien Encounter whatsoever, the scariness of the space mountain breakdowns still linger when I ride it now.


Now onto Alien Encounter/SGE
I have a 6 year old who has been at Disney at least once a year for the past three years now. His first disney movie he loved was Lilo & Stitch. Stitch cluttered his bedroom, we could recite the movie, the soundtrack played constantly in the car, and we named our dog Stitch. He was not afraid of the character at 3 years old and SGE was by far the attraction he was excited about. While he wasn't dissatisified about the ride, it was a one-timer; he didn't want to ride it multiple times, nor has he wanted to ride it many times on later trips. My stomach turns at the smell of the chili dogs. The only thing that gets him on the ride ONCE a trip is seeing if he can remember where Stitch spits to get sprayed.
What does this have to do with AE? While I don't remember the ride whatsoever, and I'm not even sure if I was on the ride ever, that fear is something that is lost in today's society. A poster before mentioned that the entire park (and pretty much USA) for that matter has become a place that has to be acceptable to all. (I'm trying to paraphrase) I have had enough of that mentality. Fear is a part of life (albeit fear of a ride). I can imagine the people that would complain at guest services for frightening their youngster and demanding recourse. Like I said earlier, the fear of the Space Mountain break-downs is still alive in me and I hold that close to my heart in family vacation memories, more so than riding AE (*if I had in fact rode it, none of my family remembers! No offense AE lovers)

I have been to disney multiple times and very spread out between 1980 and 2001 and can't pinpoint the torch-lighting, or disney topiaries, or diamond horseshoe. I came to Disney on a family vacation and just hoped that I got to see Mickey himself, afterall, that is the only thing I was interested in. A picture with Mickey and his autograph. The rides were a definite plus. It is the character experiences that keep my son wanting to return year after year. Using the DDP to take part in these experiences is starting to become less cost effective due to the changes and that have been made as of late. But we looked at it as a means to killing two birds with one stone (eating and not having to wait in endless lines in the judges tent or character spot).

Even though memory hasn't been my best friend on many of these topics, nor do I have the ability to have an AP, insider knowledge, an economics or business degree, or the time (unlike this morning) to read through pages on a message board, I do see the suttle changes in Disney quality and not just in the parks of Orlando. I think there might have been a bit of over-saturation going on here. Yeah, this thread is about WDW, but take into account the Disney Store closures this past year. A disney store was 15 minutes away from me and it closed (quickly I might add). Having befriended the manager there, I felt terrible for her for how the whole thing played out. In hindsight, it was a "slash and burn" mentality that occured when they closed the stores. Now going to a nearby Outlet store yesterday, I actually walked in there, not having any disney magic since my August trip and walked out with a stuffed animal for my son. I thought of the magic that was in my neighborhood store and how quickly that turned into "business" I see it now with how WDW1974's simple and blunt reality check was in the first post. It's business, there is no other way around it. It is so believable that WDW did nothing but funnel money into other areas of TWDC during times, but now that is not reciprocating for whatever reason, the cash cow as it was put earlier will eventually stop being productive.

 

[T-1MILLION]

mrssparrow said it very well. Don't think I can top that.

Fear is a part of life and it has to exist in a fantasy based realm for happy endings. That is why Villians are such a fun love to hate based thing or badarse.

Tomorrowland of that period of the 90s was fantastic. You had the Sci Fi promise of The Timekeeper where inventions can be inspirational to others dreams. You had Alien Encounter to entertain with fear and remind us that we must be cautious of the future and what we might jump on and temper with things we should not, because a bad fate could be ahead of it. Space Mountain had its space travel fantasy, we could blast through the galaxy in a matter of minutes like a futuristic airport. Then Buzz has us all space rangers patrolling the galaxy for bad guys/toys. It made sense with the theme that even the obvious property was tolerable. Space cops are futuristic anyway.
And then the TTA which is self explainatory and the Historical Society perserving the fact of where we came from with the CoP, for that is the most important thing to look to in the future, a bit of the past and what it lead us to.


Now you have all movie based propeties filling that area and even more stitch on the way with the new show.

Let us not forget that the major reason walt even created Disneyland was he wanted a place where the kids and adults could be entertained. Where the parents or older people could be entertained instead of sitting off to the side or being bored with the brand of entertainment.

I agree with others are saying...the Magic Kingdom has certainly lost a lot of that for me.

 

[EpcotServo]

You're not the one who referred to the budget as a reason for thinking EE is great, so on that point we're cool. But someone earlier (several pages back now) spouted that it "cost $120 MILLION" as though that was supposed to make me say, "Oh, well in that case, it IS a great attraction."

Except YOU were the one saying it's crummy because of all the budget cuts as though that's supposed to make me say "OH, well in that case it IS a disappointing attraction."

So where exactly can the average person get access to these alleged "numbers" that everyone always refers to in order to support their points? I'm always hearing that argument, "look at the numbers", but no one is ever able to actually produce these "numbers" they're using to back up their claims. I wish I could do that any time I'm trying to win a debate. That would be great if I could just say, "Well if you don't believe me, just look at that highly classified government docu...Oh, wait. That's right, you don't have access to that. Well I guess you'll just have to take my word for it." :hammer:

All you have to do is be like the few of us here (Me, 1974, Lee, a few others) who actually know the ride and it's first years of operation like the back of our hands, and play Disney information close to the chest instead of having nothing whatsoever to do with the ride but come about with conjuncture and hearsay regarding the creation of the attraction while simultaneously blasting anyone with a differing opinion like they're second class citizens.

Maybe that's why you aren't privy to what actually happens at the ride on a day to day basis like some of us?
:shrug:

 

[nibblesandbits]

How come when you make intelligent, articulate, rational posts like the one above people don't hate you?
What's scary is when people begin believing, and they already do, that the MK is a park for children. Walt Disney's cryogenically fozen melon would be 'sploding at such talk.

This is the company that made a name by traumatizing children and adults with films like Dumbo, Bambi and Old Yeller.

Now, everything has to be made so as to be acceptable to a five-year-old ... and not a particularly mature one either!

It absolutely isn't what the MK is about.

But for today's audience, it has to make little Brittany or Brandon smile ... no matter what. So why have live entertainment with real quality UNION entertainers like at Diamond Horseshoe or the old Kids of the Kingdom even? Why have steel drum bands in Adventureland, blue grass trios in Frontierland or Fife and Drum corps in Liberty Square? Place a 17-year-old in a foamhead suit with two handlers and a line for autographs. Why have shops that antiques, themed merchandise, exotic wares when you can just have Grumpy tees, Tink sweatshirts, Mouse ears, pins and HSM soundtracks at EVERY store?

It's all about dumbing the product down and conditioning the guests to expect less all the time while paying more.

The MK is absolutely the worst when it comes to it because it used to be so wonderful and has lost so much. ... It now really is Phil Holmes' Magical Disney-Pixar Character Park. The sad thing is when people try and convince themselves or others that the place was always like this or that this is the right way to run the place.

I can answer this, but you aren't going to like it, I can guarantee it.

It's becuase with Lee's posts, people don't feel as if they're being talked down to...the posting style isn't as grating and it's a lot easier to focus on what's being talked about, rather than how it's been portrayed. And of course, that gains you respect and it means people will listen to you. Now, while you may be intellegent, I think a lot of people have trouble with the way you talk about what you're intellegent about, which turns them off. It's hard to not respect someone who can intellegent, articulate, and rational.

These are all reasons on which I believe why people are annoyed by your posting style. While you may have good information, if you want people to focus more on what you're saying and not on how you're saying it, (which, I'm assuming you'd probably prefer) you may want to try changing your posting style to be more like Lee's than how you are currently posting now.

I'm understanding of your message, don't get me wrong...I can see how you have quite a few good points...but the thing that gets to me, is not what you say, but how you say it. And that can turn a lot of people away. (It's even hard for me to sometimes want to listen to the message when you come off the way you do sometimes.)

I hope you know I'm not trying to start WWIII here, so, please don't take this the wrong way, I was just giving you some construstive criticism, since you kind of asked. (inadvertantly). :wave:

 

[Animaniac93-98]

I'd like to thank everyone by saying this is hands down my favoritist thread ever on this site! It's like an "anything can happen" showcase of ideas, expression, bickering, random accusations and tales of love gone by. They should make a movie out of this near 50 page extravagance.

Also, Agent86, I like EE (NO, I CAN'T BELIEVE IT!) and so do many other people (including my brother, and we both went on it many times, and all the effects were working when we were on it. We also saw other people that day who were just as eager to line up again for a second go around on the ride as us). Your entitled to your opinion of not liking an attraction, but is it so hard to get it through that thick skull of yours that OTHER people DO like it? You may question polls or rating systems on this site, but their far more believable than your "facts" about people just saying they like it to be nice to a friend or it's just busy because it's a roller coaster (The Barnstormer and Primeval Whirl are ones too but I don't see Everest long line ups for those), or that you "overhead", "guests", "opinions" on the ride (how vague can you get?) that were not positive. Actually put concrete quotes to prove your points and I might believe you. I don't have to questions others liking the ride because I know people and have seen other comments that have been quite positive, and there actually is a general consensus that exists that is positive for the ride (even if you don't like it, and I'm sure Disney or Joe doesn't give a damn if you don't).

Of course if you just wanted attention you have greatly succeeded. I agree with Pumba's very accurate post.

Totally of topic (just what is "on topic" in this thread anymore? That's what I love about it!) but that's a very appropriate avatar for today Servo.

 

[EpcotServo]

Totally of topic (just what is "on topic" in this thread anymore? That's what I love about it!) but that's a very appropriate avatar for today Servo.

Yep, been saving it for this day!
:sohappy: :wave:

 

[whylightbulb]

and I would certainly argue Everest is one Harvey Dent of a ride...incredible queue with incredible special effects and an impressive ride structure that unfortunately falls short now due to a less-than-incredible maintenance budget. It truly would be stellar if they could get all of the effects working (at least most of the time...). There's no real question that the ride COULD have been better, but every ride COULD be better. Money isn't infinite, though. I would imagine most of us are creative enough to even come up with improvements for attractions like the Tower of Terror or Indiana Jones Adventure, but they are still fantastic rides that don't NEED any changes.

What we ended up with on Everest is still fantastic--though I do wish they would fix the effects, as that really should be unacceptable and grounds for a refurbishment.

"incredible special effects"!!!? There is one projection effect (extremely low budget and not very well done in my opinion) and one animatronic...that's it! Why is this ride so hyped up by everyone? It's a nice coaster with very little show. Big Thunder has more show elements than Everest. In my opinion we continue to go backwards (no pun intended) with Everest in terms of quality, innovation and show compared to the attractions from the early 90's and before.

 

[RSoxNo1]

The coaster itself is above average for a coaster without inversions. When the Yeti is functioning it adds to the coaster significantly. Without it, it's still a step above the Matterhorn in disneyland because it's a smoother and more thrilling ride.

As for those people labeling Expedition Everest as a failure. I don't think that's accurate. I think Mission Space was a failure. Everest boosted attendance whereas Mission Space didn't have the same effect on the gate as far as I know.

 

[WDW1974]

Well for starters, I should clarify that my post was meant facetiously when I said that perhaps Disney is not the place for him (Joe Rhodes). That was in response to someone who said that if Joe Rhodes felt the budget for EE was cut, that he'd state it publicly. I found that difficult to imagine, as I'm sure he does possess at least some business savvy, and the response I got was that he doesn't play by those rules. So for the record, let me just clarify that I do think Disney is the place for Joe Rhodes and I think they are lucky to have him. I personally think that some of the best things Disney has produced have been due to him. However, I would not personally consider EE to be his crowning achievement.

First, let's spell his name correctly. It's Joe ROHDE. Pet peeve, but we should get his name right.

And of course, Joe like any other Imagineer is NEVER going to say 'Well, we did the best that we could do, but originally we did want $275 million for the project ...' And Disney is very lucky to have him.

I also agree that in no way is EE his crowning achievement. The park that is DAK would be his (thus far) crowning achievement.

Having said that, I'm sorry but you're wrong about Disney being a place for Imagineers' "personal expression". In fact, it's interesting that you included Ken Anderson on your list because there is a legendary conversation that Walt Disney once had with Ken Anderson in which he (Walt) told Ken that working at Disney wasn't about the artists personally.

Good catch ... comment ... and true in the context it was given. But if I recall the comment was from Walt in either the 1940s or 50s and was speaking more about the umbrella product of animation that was coming out of the Studios. It was more about Walt and his power if I recall ... and it really doesn't have relevance because the 53-year history of Disney theme parks shows that individual artists and Imagineers visions wound up on the real life canvas.

I never said there was a campaign that said that. But I do recall seeing, in several places (including Disney's website) that EE would include an "up close, personal encounter with the yeti". To argue that they didn't promised you'd see it for x amount of time, sounds like some sort of legal loophole. I think they knew what they were trying to convey when they said "up close, personal encounter". It doesn't take a PhD in pyschology to know that the average person would interpret that as meaning you'll get a decent look at it...for more than just a few seconds.

We could (likely) debate this on and on but I don't want to and I have NYE plans to get ready for shortly and two pages of posts on this thread I'd like to read.

Disney said you'd encounter the yeti. You do that. Nothing wrong or dishonest in their advertising ... not like when they ran (in 2006-07, didn't see them this year) commercials for WDW featuring all sorts of attractions and entertainment that was in fact DL footage and not available in Florida. That was cheap, tacky, sleazy and dishonest and I am happy to see it appears they stopped that this year.

 

[WDW1974]

Or is it possible that the stereotype of Disney as a "cost conscious company" isn't as accurate as many of the insiders on this board (see the OP) claim it is? Or that it wasn't as true when Expedition Everest was built as it is in today's faltering economy?

Please. Disney is about as CHEAP a company as you'll ever find. This is a company that when they couldn't sell candy tins (some plastic) even after their expiration to CMs, they emptied the candy and put the tins on sale at their outlet stores. This is a company that NEVER throws anything out. A great Disney geek field trip would be to visit some of those huge warehouses they have both on property and off.

Money is a factor in absolutely everything Disney does these days and this mentality has really be entrenched for decades now ...

You can believe otherwise ... just like you can believe WalMart is the greatest store in the world, George Bush was the best president ever, Chevy makes the best automobiles in the world and American Idol is the best show in the history of television ... you can believe it, but it doesn't make it so.

And, btw, I am not saying YOU (the individual) believe any of that, just speaking in general.

Those of us who know how Disney runs, knows it all comes down to $$$.

For the record, I think that Expedition Everest is a spectacular experience, when the effects are all (or almost all) working, despite the fact that the less-than-overwhelming reviews of this site had led me to expect disappointment.

I wasn't here when the attraction opened. My reviews elsewhere gave it a B+ grade and that's one I stick with. I wouldn't call it spectacular, but it is well done (again when everything is in show condition) and a whole lot of fun.

There is one thing we can all agree upon, however. The bird is stupid.

Well ... the bird was a compromise forced upon WDI when money was chopped ... decisions had to be made ... originally said bird on a stick was a real AA creature.