something strangely wrong with Everest?

[Rockin Roller]

I felt as though there should be a cold part to the ride. Maybe inside the mountain a blast of cold chill?

I heard somewhere that they are working on that.

 

[CHAPPS]

Folks we're dealing with a ride here that is based largely on the folklore and sightings of this "beast" by the Nepalese. There has to be a bit of ambiguity here. It allows the Guest to use an incredible thing that sometimes it appears some have forgotten about, their imagination. (Head on over to Figment, he can help )

The Yeti is supposed to be fleeting and mysterious, it's to make you want to ride again to see a little more of him that you couldn't see in the first, second, third, or fourth ride.

This ride is wonderfully rich it traditional story and folklore, it doesn't need to be embellished by any more ride scenes or special effects. IMHO it's perfect as it is.

I read this explanation from several members of these forums back when EE first opened and a lot of people were bashing it. Forgive me, but it just kind of sounds like an excuse for Disney going a bit cheap on this one. I realize that since I used the word "cheap", someone is likely to fire back with something like, "What are you talking about? It cost $100 million! That's not 'cheap'!". Regardless of the price tag, though, it just seems like Disney didn't really give this one their all. I remember reading debates in which several members stated that EE is exactly the attraction that the Imagineers created and that nothing was cut out of the budget for the attraction. If that's true, then I'm really disappointed in the Imagineers. I think they could have done much better and they could have been much more creative. I agree with others who have stated that the mountain itself is very impressive. But as for the attraction itself, it really is little more than a rollercoaster. That might be okay if it were an especially exciting or innovative coaster. But as a ride, it's really rather dull in my opinion. There are too many portions where all you're doing is just sitting there for what seems like forever. It seems to me that those moments would have been a great opportunity for something exciting to happen for guests to look at.

As far as the explanation that providing short glimpses makes guests want to keep riding, sorry but I don't buy that one. There are tons of attractions at WDW that we all enjoy riding again and again. I don't think that what brings us back is a LACK of details, but rather a multitude of them.

 

[Pete C]

I thought the ride was great, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have been better. I usually judge Disney coasters a bit differently than amusement park coasters, since the average family is going to be riding it. Still, they could have added some excitement without alienating the average park guest. I am actually really surprised they didn't go for a slightly more thrilling ride. It's very good as it is, but if it were just a hair more exciting I think a lot less people would be complaining about it right now. A few things...

The pre-lift sequence is a complete waste of time. I really don't undersand the point of it. It would have been nicer to have that portion in the dark going by some bones or something to look at. After the lift, I thought a good 50 foot backwards drop in the dark would have really given coaster enthusiasts something to hollar about. Another way they could have really injected some thrills would have been a little launch out of the mountain following the projector scene. I wish I could have been involved in those sessions when they decided on the elements, and heard their reasoning for what is there now. But, whatever...what's done is done and they can't change it now.

On to something they CAN change, I think the main problem is that some people say they can see the ride infrastructure in the dark parts. They really need to address this...it should be pitch black in there. This seems like an easy fix. Any chance of them ever fixing this?

And of course, finish the back of the mountain!! It looks like garbage from the back...ugh!

 

[C&D]

Armchair quarterbacks; EE is not just a roller coaster, there is a story being told. The pre-high lift is representing a train ride in the Himalya's that all of a sudden goes wrong.

+1 to the poster that says, "use your imagination".

If you just want to ride a roller coaster, go to Universal.

 

[landauh]

Forgive me, but it just kind of sounds like an excuse for Disney going a bit cheap on this one. I realize that since I used the word "cheap", someone is likely to fire back with something like, "What are you talking about? It cost $100 million! That's not 'cheap'!". Regardless of the price tag, though, it just seems like Disney didn't really give this one their all. ... I think they could have done much better and they could have been much more creative. ... it really is little more than a rollercoaster. That might be okay if it were an especially exciting or innovative coaster. But as a ride, it's really rather dull in my opinion.

1. Most people assume that the $100M is the cost of the attraction (ride) while if you look at what was built (village, museum, walkways, etc.) I would think that unless someone knows for sure, the $100M was spread between the entire area and not just the ride portion, thus making the cost for the attraction less than what it seems. Also, don't forget the cost of R&D on the Yeti AA.

If you find the ride dull and boring ... don't ride it. I, among others, can't handle the trill coasters at other parks and am glad that there are "dull" ones at WDW for the rest of us to enjoy.

 

[Chux]

Well despite the rampant negativity running through this thread, I had a great time on Everest, rode it 3 times in a row and never got tired of it.

The view was awesome, the Yeti was incredible and the rest of the riders were having a great time too. The theming of the queue shows that they took a lot of time to get the details right. Maybe you'd rather go ride Superman at Six flags and walk through a red queue line with a superman shield on the ceiling of a metal roof.

 

[abian]

.If you find the ride dull and boring ... don't ride it. I, among others, can't handle the trill coasters at other parks and am glad that there are "dull" ones at WDW for the rest of us to enjoy.

I think he/she means the ride is dull in terms of yeti and show scenes, not the thrilling factor.

 

[Yen_Sid1]

I read this explanation from several members of these forums back when EE first opened and a lot of people were bashing it. Forgive me, but it just kind of sounds like an excuse for Disney going a bit cheap on this one. I realize that since I used the word "cheap", someone is likely to fire back with something like, "What are you talking about? It cost $100 million! That's not 'cheap'!". Regardless of the price tag, though, it just seems like Disney didn't really give this one their all. I remember reading debates in which several members stated that EE is exactly the attraction that the Imagineers created and that nothing was cut out of the budget for the attraction. If that's true, then I'm really disappointed in the Imagineers. I think they could have done much better and they could have been much more creative. I agree with others who have stated that the mountain itself is very impressive. But as for the attraction itself, it really is little more than a rollercoaster. That might be okay if it were an especially exciting or innovative coaster. But as a ride, it's really rather dull in my opinion. There are too many portions where all you're doing is just sitting there for what seems like forever. It seems to me that those moments would have been a great opportunity for something exciting to happen for guests to look at.

If they let the Imagineers build exactly what they wanted with no regards to money, then it would have been a fantastic attraction. But of course, the beancounters always get the first approval rights. And always cut that out and cut that out and try to save money. Can't you do that same effect with something cheaper? Actually, I feel sorry for a lot of those WDI folks. They have great and creative ideas, but almost always budget crunched. The first thing they are always asked is How will it cost? How many people a hour will it carry?

Actually, they cut out about 300 - 400 ft of track from the orginal design, most of the track was cut out between the first and second lift, there was supposed to be a village there which helped to tell the story about the Yeti. But it got eliminated as well as some extra turns and dips in the mountain. And of course, a lot of the show effects got eliminated also, just to save money. So, I think they did a great job with some limited resources.

Is there any time frame on that? Thanks

There is no exact time frame for that right now. They are dealing with some other issues right now.

 

[pintraderpayee]

Well despite the rampant negativity running through this thread, I had a great time on Everest, rode it 3 times in a row and never got tired of it.

The view was awesome, the Yeti was incredible and the rest of the riders were having a great time too. The theming of the queue shows that they took a lot of time to get the details right. Maybe you'd rather go ride Superman at Six flags and walk through a red queue line with a superman shield on the ceiling of a metal roof.

:lol: And don't forget at Six Flags.....trash EVERYWHERE.......greater majority of employees without a clue or smile.....linejumpers......etc. etc.

Love the Yeti and his Forbidden Mtn!!! ºoº

 

[CHAPPS]

1. Most people assume that the $100M is the cost of the attraction (ride) while if you look at what was built (village, museum, walkways, etc.) I would think that unless someone knows for sure, the $100M was spread between the entire area and not just the ride portion, thus making the cost for the attraction less than what it seems. Also, don't forget the cost of R&D on the Yeti AA.

Sure, but as I stated in my post, as a consumer I don't really care how the money was spent. Whether you tell me the ride cost $100 million or $1 million, I still think it looks like they cut corners. Bottom line here is that one of two things happened: Either the Imagineers came up with something much more impressive and Disney cut their budget (in which case I blame Disney for being cheap and short-sighted) or nothing was cut from the budget and the attraction we ended up with was the best thing the Imagineers could dream up (in which case I blame the Imagineers). Either way, the end result, in my opinion, is a ride that could have been so much better.

If you find the ride dull and boring ... don't ride it. I, among others, can't handle the trill coasters at other parks and am glad that there are "dull" ones at WDW for the rest of us to enjoy.

Personally I do like the thrill coasters at parks like IOA and Six Flags. But I also totally love and appreciate coasters that are less than thrilling on their own, but have a totally cool theme that more than makes up for it. Big Thunder is an excellent example in my opinion. If it were just a coaster and a track with no themeing, I certainly don't think it would be that fun of a ride. But when you combine that ride with the theme and all the visuals, it is an excellent attraction. The problem with Everest is not simply the fact that the ride itself is dull (re-read my post if that wasn't clear). Rather, it's the fact that Everest falls short on both counts. It is a dull coaster that does not deliver the themeing and effects to make up for it.

 

[CHAPPS]

If they let the Imagineers build exactly what they wanted with no regards to money, then it would have been a fantastic attraction. But of course, the beancounters always get the first approval rights. And always cut that out and cut that out and try to save money. Can't you do that same effect with something cheaper? Actually, I feel sorry for a lot of those WDI folks. They have great and creative ideas, but almost always budget crunched. The first thing they are always asked is How will it cost? How many people a hour will it carry?

Actually, they cut out about 300 - 400 ft of track from the orginal design, most of the track was cut out between the first and second lift, there was supposed to be a village there which helped to tell the story about the Yeti. But it got eliminated as well as some extra turns and dips in the mountain. And of course, a lot of the show effects got eliminated also, just to save money. So, I think they did a great job with some limited resources.

Back when this ride first opened, there were lots of discussions and debates on these boards as to whether Everest had been a victim of budget cuts. Several members who seemed to be "in the know" assured the rest of us that this was not the case. In fact, I remember reading a number of times that the Everest we got was exactly the Everest the Imagineers designed, and that at no point was anything cut from the budget.

Having said that, I tend to agree with YOU. It just doesn't make sense to me that the Imagineers would have been so uncreative. As to your point that they did "a great job with some limited resources", I would only agree to the extent that it must have been some extraordinarily limited resources.