Slash and Burn ...

[jt04]

Ah, for me that small thing would be the zip a dee dooh dah tip for today. It simply wouldn't be WDW until you walked into the hotel room and turned on the tv to the tip for today. Aside from the fact that the hostesses are hot, I really hate the top 7. Strange how those small things affect your experience.



I wouldn't really say I have complete confidence in Iger. He's certainly a hell of a lot better than Eisner and thank god he bought Pixar, but he's not the savior of the company. I'd certianly gain a ton of confidence in him if he fired all of the WDW execs and hired ones with true creative vision like Joe Rhode.

I doubt quite seriously Mr Rohde wants the job. He is much more artist than executive.

 

[agent86]

The reality that you seem incapable of grasping is that other people's opinions can and will differ from yours

And the "reality that YOU seem incapable of grasping" is that I've never disputed that point. You don't need to continually remind me again and again about how everyone is entitled to their opinion. That's not my point. My point is that whenever someone does refer to EE as "phenomenal" or "amazing", the things they use to describe why they feel that way are way over exaggerated. I have no problem with you saying you love EE or that its at the top of your list (however sad I find that to be). What I do have a problem with is when people say it's because of things like "It's filled with spectacular effects." Huh? What effects?? A waterfall?? How is that a "spectacular effect"?? That cheesy cartoon projection?? What is "spectacular" about that? The AA Yeti?? Who knows whether it's spectacular or not? We never get to see it long enough to judge. The bird on a stick?? Nothing spectacular about that either. So what exactly about EE are people referring to when they say "filled with spectacular effects"?? I'd love to know, but no one has ever been able to list them.

It's kind of like if I said to you that I loved the movie "Lilo & Stitch" and that it was my all time favorite Disney animated classic. You might disagree with me, but you'd have to admit I have a right to my opinion. But if you asked me WHY I liked it so much, and I proceeded to list a bunch of things that don't even accurately describe the movie (e.g. "It's up there with Disney classics like Beauty and the Beast and Little Mermaid" or "I love all the incredible special effects!" or "The animation in the movie is absolutely amazing!"), wouldn't that kind of make you scratch your head and think, "Either this guy is on drugs, or he's talking about a different 'Lilo & Stitch' from the one I saw?"

Well that's what I'm getting at when I read people's descriptions of EE. It's fine if you want to love the attraction, or even put it on your top ten list. But what I take issue with is when people are not honest in their descriptions of it. In the case of my over the top description of "Lilo & Stitch" as an example, what if someone went and saw the movie based on how I described it? Don't you think they'd feel kind of jipped? Likewise, what about people reading these posts who have never been on EE? The way a lot of people here describe the ride, I think they would go in expecting something really phenomenal and come away disappointed. Me, I prefer to describe things as they really are.

So it's not about disputing whether or not you have the "right to enjoy the attraction". Enjoy it all you want. More power to you. As I've stated, I enjoy riding it too. But I take it for what it is, and I don't try to build it into something it's not.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

My point is that whenever someone does refer to EE as "phenomenal" or "amazing", the things they use to describe why they feel that way are way over exaggerated. I have no problem with you saying you love EE or that its at the top of your list (however sad I find that to be). What I do have a problem with is when people say it's because of things like "It's filled with spectacular effects." Huh? What effects?? A waterfall?? How is that a "spectacular effect"?? That cheesy cartoon projection?? What is "spectacular" about that? The AA Yeti?? Who knows whether it's spectacular or not? We never get to see it long enough to judge. The bird on a stick?? Nothing spectacular about that either. So what exactly about EE are people referring to when they say "filled with spectacular effects"?? I'd love to know, but no one has ever been able to list them.

The problem is that even the examples you're giving of clearly definable terms are still just matters of opinion, which can only be pinned down so far before it becomes a matter of just agreeing or disagreeing.

"Spectacular effects" isn't something that can be quantitatively defined. Anything that creates a spectacle in the eye of the beholder (defined as "anything presented to the sight or view, esp. something of a striking or impressive kind") is by definition "spectacular" to that individual. Your idea of what creates a spectacle might differ from mine, but it's ultimately not an empirical or objective term.

Technical specs and the existence or absence of specific elements can be debated in the clinical way you seem inclined to approach this question. The impression (or spectacle) an attraction leaves on an observer can't.

Basically, saying an attraction has spectacular effects is just as much a matter of opinion as saying it's one of the top 10 attractions on property.

 

[Tim G]

I've said is once and I'll say it again...
All these things which are happening are signs of PIXAR Management is taking their next political step...

Forget the crap, like Pixar IS Disney... (it's the other wat around, management wise)

By the end of 2011 it will be... Welcome to Pixar World, Orlando...
From the start, this was all meant to be...

Almost every big name is gone... Rasulo will be next...


And slowly but surely they're drawing their plans...

 

[agent86]

The problem is that even the examples you're giving of clearly definable terms are still just matters of opinion, which can only be pinned down so far before it becomes a matter of just agreeing or disagreeing.

"Spectacular effects" isn't something that can be quantitatively defined. Anything that creates a spectacle in the eye of the beholder (defined as "anything presented to the sight or view, esp. something of a striking or impressive kind") is by definition "spectacular" to that individual. Your idea of what creates a spectacle might differ from mine, but it's ultimately not an empirical or objective term.

Technical specs and the existence or absence of specific elements can be debated in the clinical way you seem inclined to approach this question. The impression (or spectacle) an attraction leaves on an observer can't.

Basically, saying an attraction has spectacular effects is just as much a matter of opinion as saying it's one of the top 10 attractions on property.

I see your point, but I disagree. An expression of opinion that can't really be debated are things like, "I love Everest" or "Everest is my favorite attraction". But to say that "Everest is filled with so many amazing effects" implies more than just opinion. A statement like that might be phrased in that way so that the person making it can later say, "Look, I was expressing my opinion which just happens to be different than yours". And while that may technically be true, clearly the intent is to describe Everest as more than it actually is. Using words like, "filled with" and "so many" might not be quantifiable numbers, but they certainly imply more than just two or three effects. Words like "amazing" imply that most people who experience it are truly going to be amazed as opposed to just thinking it's a nice visual. Having a waterfall on Everest is a nice touch (there are several on the Matterhorn, btw), but I find it difficult that when people describe that as "amazing" that they are truly expressing their honest opinion. You can argue semantics all you want, but the intent of messages like that are pretty obvious. They are meant to make Everest seem like a much more impressive attraction than it is. And I think if you have to build an attraction into something it's not, then it must mean that deep down you know it can't really stand on it's own true merits.

Another example of this is when posters here will talk about how they are constantly hearing guests go on and on about how incredible the attraction was, with things like, "That Yeti seemed so real". Or how they talk about overhearing people, in every corner of the park, gushing over how impressive the ride was. I just think that sort of description is way over the top. I personally think the most incredible attraction in Orlando is Spider Man at IOA, and I would never make the claim that I hear people all over the park talking about that attraction nonstop, or constantly hearing all kinds of enthusiastic remarks EVERY TIME I ride it. Likewise, I think ToT is the most incredible attraction on Disney property (and a very close second to Spider Man), but I don't hear those things about ToT either. I don't hear them about ANY attraction to the degree that people claim they're being said about EE. So I think that, too, is an exaggeration that posters here seem to feel they have to make in order to make EE appear more popular than it is.

 

[EpcotServo]

That may be why you didn't even get the mis-quoted version of Occam's Razor correct. :hammer:

That all?

Another example of this is when posters here will talk about how they are constantly hearing guests go on and on about how incredible the attraction was, with things like, "That Yeti seemed so real". Or how they talk about overhearing people, in every corner of the park, gushing over how impressive the ride was. I just think that sort of description is way over the top. I personally think the most incredible attraction in Orlando is Spider Man at IOA, and I would never make the claim that I hear people all over the park talking about that attraction nonstop, or constantly hearing all kinds of enthusiastic remarks EVERY TIME I ride it. Likewise, I think ToT is the most incredible attraction on Disney property (and a very close second to Spider Man), but I don't hear those things about ToT either. I don't hear them about ANY attraction to the degree that people claim they're being said about EE. So I think that, too, is an exaggeration that posters here seem to feel they have to make in order to make EE appear more popular than it is.

Yeah....sure.

I still don't understand.... I'm reasonably sure I've never personally used any reference to spectacular effects [except perhaps in response to others' discussion of same], but I'll happily state that I find EE to be a phenomenal attraction. My son and I both rank the attraction as our number one favourite attraction at Disney [we haven't been to Universal yet, but intend to in 2010]. And you wanna know a secret? I'm not kidding you!

The reality that you seem incapable of grasping is that other people's opinions can and will differ from yours and they're not wrong! Opinions are formed based on the experience and background available to the individual forming them and as a result, despite that you may disagree with my opinion it is still an opinion I have developed based on my personal framework and as a result you're unlikely to change it.

Oh, and have a magical day! :wave:

The problem is that even the examples you're giving of clearly definable terms are still just matters of opinion, which can only be pinned down so far before it becomes a matter of just agreeing or disagreeing.

"Spectacular effects" isn't something that can be quantitatively defined. Anything that creates a spectacle in the eye of the beholder (defined as "anything presented to the sight or view, esp. something of a striking or impressive kind") is by definition "spectacular" to that individual. Your idea of what creates a spectacle might differ from mine, but it's ultimately not an empirical or objective term.

Technical specs and the existence or absence of specific elements can be debated in the clinical way you seem inclined to approach this question. The impression (or spectacle) an attraction leaves on an observer can't.

Basically, saying an attraction has spectacular effects is just as much a matter of opinion as saying it's one of the top 10 attractions on property.

:lol: :sohappy:

 

[Wilt Dasney]

I see your point, but I disagree. An expression of opinion that can't really be debated are things like, "I love Everest" or "Everest is my favorite attraction". But to say that "Everest is filled with so many amazing effects" implies more than just opinion. A statement like that might be phrased in that way so that the person making it can later say, "Look, I was expressing my opinion which just happens to be different than yours". And while that may technically be true, clearly the intent is to describe Everest as more than it actually is. Using words like, "filled with" and "so many" might not be quantifiable numbers, but they certainly imply more than just two or three effects. Words like "amazing" imply that most people who experience it are truly going to be amazed as opposed to just thinking it's a nice visual. Having a waterfall on Everest is a nice touch (there are several on the Matterhorn, btw), but I find it difficult that when people describe that as "amazing" that they are truly expressing their honest opinion. You can argue semantics all you want, but the intent of messages like that are pretty obvious. They are meant to make Everest seem like a much more impressive attraction than it is. And I think if you have to build an attraction into something it's not, then it must mean that deep down you know it can't really stand on it's own true merits.

Implication and intent are tricky things to nail down, my friend. You might have other people's motives pegged to the proverbial "T" ... but you can never prove it. When you get into arguing over what someone else intended or implied, all they have to do is say "you're wrong"...even if you're right. :shrug:

So based on the fact that your position can never be proven, irrespective of its accuracy, I don't really see the point in drawn out back-and-forths...unless you just view forum posting as a full-contact sport, with the thrill of the argument acting as its own reward. :lol:

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

More to the point you just come across as a right tit.

 

[imagineer boy]

I've said is once and I'll say it again...
All these things which are happening are signs of PIXAR Management is taking their next political step...

Forget the crap, like Pixar IS Disney... (it's the other wat around, management wise)

By the end of 2011 it will be... Welcome to Pixar World, Orlando...
From the start, this was all meant to be...

Almost every big name is gone... Rasulo will be next...


And slowly but surely they're drawing their plans...

And... this is a bad thing? :ROFLOL::ROFLOL::ROFLOL:

I'll welcome pixar execs taking control of Disney with open arms.

 

[Monty]

I see your point, but I disagree. An expression of opinion that can't really be debated are things like, "I love Everest" or "Everest is my favorite attraction". But to say that "Everest is filled with so many amazing effects" implies more than just opinion. A statement like that might be phrased in that way so that the person making it can later say, "Look, I was expressing my opinion which just happens to be different than yours". And while that may technically be true, clearly the intent is to describe Everest as more than it actually is. Using words like, "filled with" and "so many" might not be quantifiable numbers, but they certainly imply more than just two or three effects. Words like "amazing" imply that most people who experience it are truly going to be amazed as opposed to just thinking it's a nice visual. Having a waterfall on Everest is a nice touch (there are several on the Matterhorn, btw), but I find it difficult that when people describe that as "amazing" that they are truly expressing their honest opinion. You can argue semantics all you want, but the intent of messages like that are pretty obvious. They are meant to make Everest seem like a much more impressive attraction than it is. And I think if you have to build an attraction into something it's not, then it must mean that deep down you know it can't really stand on it's own true merits.

Another example of this is when posters here will talk about how they are constantly hearing guests go on and on about how incredible the attraction was, with things like, "That Yeti seemed so real". Or how they talk about overhearing people, in every corner of the park, gushing over how impressive the ride was. I just think that sort of description is way over the top. I personally think the most incredible attraction in Orlando is Spider Man at IOA, and I would never make the claim that I hear people all over the park talking about that attraction nonstop, or constantly hearing all kinds of enthusiastic remarks EVERY TIME I ride it. Likewise, I think ToT is the most incredible attraction on Disney property (and a very close second to Spider Man), but I don't hear those things about ToT either. I don't hear them about ANY attraction to the degree that people claim they're being said about EE. So I think that, too, is an exaggeration that posters here seem to feel they have to make in order to make EE appear more popular than it is.

You keep harping on how you can't believe people who use terms like "Amazing" and "Phenomenal" could possibly be giving their "honest opinion". Does this mean you choose to believe I am lying to you? Because I honestly believe that Expedition Everest is an amazing experience and it is indeed phenomenal. Perhaps you can over-simplify and rationalize that into something that confirms whatever point it is you're desperately trying to make.

 

[tirian]

Oh we are. A fun ride, but the biggest missed opportunity since when they had a perfect Tomorrowland. Or could have had a longer Pirates. Or could have completely refurbed Horizons. Or could have had a fully themed test track. Or could have built a killer UoE. Or could have had Mt Fuji built for them. Or could have had a Sunset Blvd full of attractions. Or could have had Beastly Kingdomme....

Please don't remind me about that. :fork:

Also, is it my imagination, or does PoTC have even fewer AAs than it used to?

 

[whylightbulb]

You keep harping on how you can't believe people who use terms like "Amazing" and "Phenomenal" could possibly be giving their "honest opinion". Does this mean you choose to believe I am lying to you? Because I honestly believe that Expedition Everest is an amazing experience and it is indeed phenomenal. Perhaps you can over-simplify and rationalize that into something that confirms whatever point it is you're desperately trying to make.

But you keep ignoring his main point. He has no problem with anyone saying that they think Everest is amazing. What he and I take issue with is when someone gives reasons that clearly don't make any sense. The example being used is, "Everest is filled with so many amazing effects." Can three effects be considered "so many" when right next door we have Dinosaur and Tough to be a Bug in which there are over thirty effects? Or comparing it to Thunder Mountain built in the eighties with more than four times the number of effects? By any Disney or Universal standards Everest lacks in that department.

I also don't understand how people rave over the Yeti AA figure. I've seen enough of it to say that it's no more impressive than the King Kong AA figure in the now extinct ride from Universal. Function for function, size for size, animation quailty...King Kong rivals the Yeti no matter how you slice it. So why are so many raving over this thing? There isn't much of an argument there because how do you judge an AA? finish, number of functions, life-like actuation? Since we only see him for a few seconds the most you can make out is his right arm, hands and some facial functions. How is this figure any better than the Stich pre-show or Wicked Witch from GMR?

So when people say it's filled with "amazing" effects what exactly are they referreing to? Nobody has answered this yet. If it's not the effects that make the attraction so incredible than what is it?

Sure it's nicely themed but can anyone honestly say it's better themed than Splash Mountain? I'd say as far as rock work and art finish they are comparable. Level of detail in the queue is great but that is about all I can say makes this ride stand out from any other Disney thrill ride. So if someone where to say that what makes Everest their favorite ride is the queue then I could understand the logic (I wouldn't agree because this wouldn't be enough for me to categorize an entire attraction favorably but it has already been established that everyone has a right to their opinion). That is something that makes sense if detail of queues is what floats your boat when it comes to Disney attractions.

If someone where to reason that the Himalayas is their favorite theme of any location, time or space then I could understand the sentiment. But what I am postulating is perhaps many that call this their favorite attraction are simply excited at the newness of it. They are not comparing it locgically or even emotionally to other Disney attractions that offer so much more. Why do I care? Because it's this attitude that empowers Disney to continue lowering their standards. While my and Agent 86's position will be unpopular, someone has to "sound the alarm" so to speak.

Before anyone makes the silly comment that I'm wasting my time by doing it in this forum I will point out that I also do it in "real life" since I own an entertainment design/build company. This is more of a cathartic release for me. I have access to many in the industry and I do use that to make my concerns known. I also produce product to put my money where my mouth is. With less than 10% of a Disney budget we have produced a few attractions already that would give them a run for their money.

 

[EpcotServo]

But you keep ignoring his main point. He has no problem with anyone saying that they think Everest is amazing. What he and I take issue with is when someone gives reasons that clearly don't make any sense. The example being used is, "Everest is filled with so many amazing effects." Can three effects be considered "so many" when right next door we have Dinosaur and Tough to be a Bug in which there are over thirty effects? Or comparing it to Thunder Mountain built in the eighties with more than four times the number of effects? By any Disney or Universal standards Everest lacks in that department.

Logical Reasons why Everest is Amazing.

-Story

-Theme

-Execution

-Thrill of the Ride

-Engineering of the Ride

-Size of the Ride

-The Yeti

-THE EFFECTS (IF they were all working, including the ones that have never been turned on. Anytime else, you can exclude the effects if it tugs on your chest that much.)

-The Rockwork

-The Mountain (As an Icon)

-The Trains

-The Buildings

If that's what you two want, I can reduce any ride to pretty much the same bullet points.
:lol:

And by the way, you do alot of talking about your company. Mind if you give us some solid information on the rides you've done so we can see them for ourselves?

 

[albino_pygmy]

Reasons why EE isn't as great as it should have been:

-Yeti never works, and if he does, there's not enough time to really enjoy him no matter how advanced he is
-Didn't theme the ENTIRE structure, the backside is clearly visable from the parking lot and is an eyesore
-short/less thrilling of a coaster, overhyped

I'm not saying that it's horrible or anything, just that it's not as great as you claim it is, because it could have been better and I'm sure you know it, same goes with the other recent attractions that came out, TSM, Monsters Inc, Stitch, etc.

 

[whylightbulb]

Logical Reasons why Everest is Amazing.

-Story

-Theme

-Execution

-Thrill of the Ride

-Engineering of the Ride

-Size of the Ride

-The Yeti

-THE EFFECTS (IF they were all working, including the ones that have never been turned on. Anytime else, you can exclude the effects if it tugs on your chest that much.)

-The Rockwork

-The Mountain (As an Icon)

-The Trains

-The Buildings

If that's what you two want, I can reduce any ride to pretty much the same bullet points.
:lol:

And by the way, you do alot of talking about your company. Mind if you give us some solid information on the rides you've done so we can see them for ourselves?

First, it should be obvious that I can't divulge who I am since I make many references to specific people's work in the industry. If I am to continue landing Disney and Universal contracts I need to play the political game. One of the reasons I can speak so bluntly on this forum is because nobody knows who I am. When I bring up these points in person it's either through work related items or is handled much more delicately.

Once again, you have itemized these bullet points but have yet to explain how any of these elements surpass or even match most of the other attractions of the same scope. I have brought up specific examples. Anyone can list these things generally but if you take point by point Everest comes up far inferior to most other attractions.

I listed rock work and theme in my previous post. What is it about the rock work that makes it superior to Splash Mountain or even Big Thunder? Would you say the Yeti AA is better than Wicked Witch or any of the dino figures in CTX? If so why?

Not to repeat myself again but you are entitled to your opinion but we're not talking about opinion here. I can point out specific reasons why Everest is inferior in terms of scope, quality and execution. Not that it's a terrible ride but it's simply okay or fun, not a Disney masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[whylightbulb]

Reasons why EE isn't as great as it should have been:

-Yeti never works, and if he does, there's not enough time to really enjoy him no matter how advanced he is
-Didn't theme the ENTIRE structure, the backside is clearly visable from the parking lot and is an eyesore
-short/less thrilling of a coaster, overhyped

I'm not saying that it's horrible or anything, just that it's not as great as you claim it is, because it could have been better and I'm sure you know it, same goes with the other recent attractions that came out, TSM, Monsters Inc, Stitch, etc.

Yes I completely agree. Why TSM is getting so much hype is beyond me. At least many recognize the shortcomings of Monsters and Stitch but TSM seems to have escaped the bullet.

I can same the same for TSM as many of Disney's recent additions; it's fun but falls short of the original Disney standard. Terrible story, lackluster themeing but nice technology. Why in the world are we shrunk to the size of the toys, how did we get here and what is the point?

There are several ways they could have spent the same amount of money and delivered a more cohesive and solid story. What about riding in Barbie's car from Toy Story 2 through Al's Toy Barn. Imagine the humorous banter from Barbie. We could have stopped at different games in each aisle of the store for example. We could have been on a search for Woody while battling the various toys along the way. We could have been on Buzz's planet playing that game from the beggining of Toy Story 2. Where is the imagination? What ever happened to total immersion into an environment rather than moving from one UV Sintra piece to the next?

 

[albino_pygmy]

Exactly. I feel that these newer attractions are more in place to sell the merchandise, not to tell a story or deliver a memorable experience. The parks aren't ran by the dreamers anymore, and it clearly shows when you see something as original and well executed Alien Encounter and replaced it with Stitch, just to tie it into a movie. Same thing when they renamed Countdown to Extinction to Dinsoaur just for the sake of a movie tie-in. I do like the idea of synergy, but I feel that Disney takes it to the extremes, and milks every movie and franchise it has down to the bone, and then some to the point we're sick and tired of just hearing it's name. High School Musical anyone?

 

[Horizonsfan]

Not to distract from WWIII: The Battle For Everest but, I think this little nugget is getting lost:

I've said is once and I'll say it again...
All these things which are happening are signs of PIXAR Management is taking their next political step...

Forget the crap, like Pixar IS Disney... (it's the other wat around, management wise)

By the end of 2011 it will be... Welcome to Pixar World, Orlando...
From the start, this was all meant to be...

Almost every big name is gone... Rasulo will be next...


And slowly but surely they're drawing their plans...

You can have too much of anything but, for the most part Pixar is doing alright in my book. While WDW & WDI maybe over-doing it, Pixar themselves are not. (John Lasseter may have a little blame but not very much)

I guess I don't see how Rasulo leaving is remotely a bad thing. Or are a ordering the construction of a billion new DVC rooms brilliant and I just missed the memo? I guess it was wrong of me to buy champaign and order those banners saying "See you later Rasulo, don't let the door hit your ______ on the way out!" :drevil:

 

[EpcotServo]

First, it should be obvious that I can't divulge who I am since I make many references to specific people's work in the industry. If I am to continue landing Disney and Universal contracts I need to play the political game. One of the reasons I can speak so bluntly on this forum is because nobody knows who I am. When I bring up these points in person it's either through work related items or is handled much more delicately.

I wasn't asking you to oust yourself and reveal who you really are, but when one mentions that he's "in the Biz" in nearly EVERY post, I think it's more than fair for any person to expect some kind of answerable fact pertaining to it.

Not that I doubt you are what you are, but I can't take your "Professional Knowledge" if I have never seen one shed of evidence or accountability in your posts at all.

You talk about these superior and Cheaper Attractions, but I can't know what they are?

Once again, you have itemized these bullet points but have yet to explain how any of these elements surpass or even match most of the other attractions of the same scope. I have brought up specific examples. Anyone can list these things generally but if you take point by point Everest comes up far inferior to most other attractions.

I listed rock work and theme in my previous post. What is it about the rock work that makes it superior to Splash Mountain or even Big Thunder? Would you say the Yeti AA is better than Wicked Witch or any of the dino figures in CTX? If so why?

Not to repeat myself again but you are entitled to your opinion but we're not talking about opinion here. I can point out specific reasons why Everest is inferior in terms of scope, quality and execution. Not that it's a terrible ride but it's simply okay or fun, not a Disney masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination.

Fair Enough:

Logical Reasons why Everest is Amazing.

-Story
A Widely Easy to Understand story with a Beginning, Middle, and End, with plenty of details, plot twists, and conflicts.

-Theme
Never breaks show, immersive theme that transports the viewer into the setting and the story

-Execution
Timing, Lighting, Physical Motion, and sets used to execute the story, and does so effectively.

-Thrill of the Ride
Thrilling attraction, to young and old.

-Engineering of the Ride
Well engineered, with Technical Achievements such as the massive Track Switches and the blending of show and all the mechanics of the structure and Ride.

-Size of the Ride
A very large attraction, in both height and length.

-The Yeti
Incredibly Fast Moving, VERY large (50 Feet High from Foot to arm, when the arm is in the height of it's swing.), and comes VERY close to the train. (Hand is 15 feet above your head, at the bottom of it's arm swing.) All of which is fair to say, uncommon to any other attraction.

-THE EFFECTS (IF they were all working, including the ones that have never been turned on. Anytime else, you can exclude the effects if it tugs on your chest that much.)
If all effects are working, the Environment is brought to life with Mist, Steam, water, Cold Air, Projections, and Lighting, both on and off the ride.
(Again, mostly broken or off, so Effects is a take it or leave it, I never said the Effects were stunning, I don't know who you got that from.)

-The Rockwork
Rockwork thoroughly impressive, in regards to both the scope of all the attraction, it's likeness to the Himalayas, and the use of forced perspective to bring an entire Mountain Range (Instead of a Single Mountain, such as Big Thunder or Splash) to the middle of Florida, including Mount Everest itself.

-The Mountain (As an Icon)
A powerful Icon from afar, from in and outside the park.

-The Trains
Extremely Unique Trains, in design, fuctionallity, and the way it appears to give off Steam at Load.

-The Buildings
Faithfully recreated from Nepal, with their own stories attributed to them, in addition to the detail and richness inside and out. Detailed, Well Crafted, and authentic.

There you go. Now What are your SPECIFIC REASONS why it's "Inferior"?

 

[whylightbulb]

I wasn't asking you to oust yourself and reveal who you really are, but when one mentions that he's "in the Biz" in nearly EVERY post, I think it's more than fair for any person to expect some kind of answerable fact pertaining to it.

Not that I doubt you are what you are, but I can't take your "Professional Knowledge" if I have never seen one shed of evidence or accountability in your posts at all.

By revealing the attractions we did I will reveal who I am. What would you have me do? Of course, if you study my posts (not just in this thread) you'll see plenty of evidence. I get pretty specific when it comes to what we do in our projects from creative and engineering to budgets and project management. Short of that I'm not sure what you are looking for that won't reveal my identity.

There you go. Now What are your SPECIFIC REASONS why it's "Inferior"?

I have given more than enough to build a case for this attraction's shortcomings. I have yet to see anyone give specific comparisons to other attractions that show Everest's worthiness to stand along side attractions such as Splash Mountain, Tower of Terror or Indiana Jones ride. Compared to those examples Everest just doesn't contain the quantity and in most cases quality of show elements. Other than being a fun coaster Everest has much less to enjoy and contains less of what makes Disney and Universal attractions stand out from the rest of the world.

The main reason it's inferior is because you can count the number of elements on one hand that make this any different than just a roller coaster. This is not opinion it's fact. The mountain isn't even completely themed in all areas that guests can see it. The first sequence takes us around a bend with absolutely nothing but trees! The next sequence does the same thing. Then we climb uphill through a cheap temple scene that doesn't even compare to what we see in the queue. After that it's mostly darkness and a shadow projector.

I don't know how much clearer I can be. There is nothing more to the ride except a detailed queue and a nice bit of coaster elements including a really fun backwards sequence. Compare the story to the Indy ride. In Indy we are treated to details at every turn and the story actually builds to a climax for a finale sequence. We aren't just waiting in line reading a bunch of interpretive panels and expected to use our imagination for the rest. We are immersed in every detail and there is a well thought out narrative that is conveyed using just about every means possible in a ride format.

You say there are plenty of details, plot twists and conflicts in Everest. What are these? The details are in the queue, the plot twists are...well there aren't any that most guests will notice and there is one conflict. What this is to most guests is that we are on a train and we encounter the Yeti. Where are the characters other than in the queue? More importantly why do we care? How can you use "story" as an example of how this ride stands out from other Disney attractions when you have the examples such as Indy to compare it to? Just because there is a backstory that does not add to the experience for most guests. Every attraction has that anyway.

Sets and ligting you say? I count three show lighting sequences for day operations: the temple during the main lift, the shadow projection room and the Yeti encounter. There is absolutely nothing with respect to lighting that you could point to in those examples that make it stand out to tell the story better. In fact it can be argued that the lighting design for the Yeti encounter sucks but that's a lot of opinion. What about sets? The rock work is okay but that is about all that can be said for the so called "sets." Compare a bunch of rocks to the massive Temple of the Fobidden Eye set. Compare it to the detailed sets in Splash that contain the rock work, mulltiple AA, real theatrical lighting, foliage, props etc. Sorry, no comparison in scope or even quality in some cases. I've already stated that the queue is well done for what it is so I'll give you that.

The length of the attraction is average and its effectiveness in terms of being an icon is fine as well. But once again, what makes it a masterpiece? It's an average coaster that's fun to ride with nothing to add in any show category. If this is all we have to look forward to from Disney in Florida it would be a crying shame.