The Spirited Seventh Heaven ...

[RSoxNo1]

You can still do that with FP+.

I didn't say that you couldn't. The way they're handling park hopping seems to be the best thing they're doing with FP+.

 

[tribbleorlfl]

Spent way too much time on this, but I can't stand losing an internet argument. Maelstrom show building appears to be no more than half the size of Mummy's. Almost the entire pavilion fits into the Mummy show building. So I stand by my refutation of your comment, Disney cannot do something the "scale of Mummy" inside Maelstrom without ripping out the majority of the pavilion.

 

[tribbleorlfl]

So Escape from Tomorrow is streaming on Netflix now... interesting that Netflix would pursue the movie, considering their deal with Disney. I wonder what will happen if a bloody Mickey glove starts showing up under a "Because you watched Lilo & Stitch" category? I have to imagine the viewers of the movie will be strongly correlated with those who watch the official TWDC product already on there.

Yeah, thanks for posting this and getting me to give up an afternoon of my life I'll never get back. I was mildly curious about the film last year when I heard about it because of the unauthorized, "Guerilla film-making." However, after seeing it today that is the only redeeming quality. Quite literally one of the most terrible movies I've ever seen.

 

[Bairstow]

Yeah, thanks for posting this and getting me to give up an afternoon of my life I'll never get back. I was mildly curious about the film last year when I heard about it because of the unauthorized, "Guerilla film-making." However, after seeing it today that is the only redeeming quality. Quite literally one of the most terrible movies I've ever seen.

"Escape From Tomorrow" really frustrates me.
I love the idea of that movie being made. I even like the premise.
I hate the film they ended up making, which is confused and juvenile to the point of being almost unwatchable.
In more talented hands it could have been something really fascinating.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

The Maelstrom building is the perfect size for modern Imagineering storytelling.

In the queue the flat screens explain her snowy powers. Get on the boat to find the trolls. The troll scene is cute but the AAs would have been better if they didn't go with the trolls in their bolder form. LOOK OUT, WATERFALL! (backwards down the drop into Ice Castle Great Hall), "Let It Go". The End.

"It's the endearing story of "Frozen" through the eyes of Sven", said Tom Fizgig.

 

[PhotoDave219]

Yeah, thanks for posting this and getting me to give up an afternoon of my life I'll never get back. I was mildly curious about the film last year when I heard about it because of the unauthorized, "Guerilla film-making." However, after seeing it today that is the only redeeming quality. Quite literally one of the most terrible movies I've ever seen.

All it's by far up there with "plan nine from outer space" as worst movie ever.

 

[dadddio]

I didn't say that you couldn't. The way they're handling park hopping seems to be the best thing they're doing with FP+.

I guess that I'm missing the point of your post.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Spent way too much time on this, but I can't stand losing an internet argument. Maelstrom show building appears to be no more than half the size of Mummy's. Almost the entire pavilion fits into the Mummy show building. So I stand by my refutation of your comment, Disney cannot do something the "scale of Mummy" inside Maelstrom without ripping out the majority of the pavilion.

The Mummy is in the old King Kong building and that hummer was big. The show scenes in KK were huge and the ride vehicles were huge and suspended from the ceiling. Even the queue was gigantic. I don't know the dimensions of the buildings in WDW, but I don't think that there are any that are that big. Don't know for sure though.

 

[dadddio]

The Mummy is in the old King Kong building and that hummer was big. The show scenes in KK were huge and the ride vehicles were huge and suspended from the ceiling. Even the queue was gigantic. I don't know the dimensions of the buildings in WDW, but I don't think that there are any that are that big. Don't know for sure though.

Not that I care about this argument, but I have two thoughts:

First, I have never seen Mummy. Does it use the entire building?

Second, I'm not sure that by 'scale' that he meant 'as large as'.

Carry on...

 

[Goofyernmost]

Not that I care about this argument, but I have two thoughts:

First, I have never seen Mummy. Does it use the entire building?

Second, I'm not sure that by 'scale' that he meant 'as large as'.

Carry on...

What argument are you referring too? Mine was a comment and in essence it agreed with the poster.

 

[wdisney9000]

What argument are you referring too? Mine was a comment and in essence it agreed with the poster.

I think everything is an argument in his eyes.

 

[Mike S]

Not that I care about this argument, but I have two thoughts:

First, I have never seen Mummy. Does it use the entire building?

Second, I'm not sure that by 'scale' that he meant 'as large as'.

Carry on...

You're right, I didn't mean "as large as".

 

[dadddio]

What argument are you referring too? Mine was a comment and in essence it agreed with the poster.

It seemed that you guys were keying too heavily on Mike S' use of the word 'scale' instead of his actual point. Sort of like your keying on my use of the word 'argument' instead of the actual point of my post.

 

[dadddio]

I think everything is an argument in his eyes.

I think that it might be useful for you to learn that the word 'argument' has a number of definitions.

 

[CDavid]

Wait times probably wouldn't be much different since neither ride capacity nor interest wouldn't change. Those FP+ holders would just be standing in the standby line with you.

The number of people in a given attraction queue obviously affects line length and thus the total wait time, but it has no bearing on the rate at which the line moves. Attraction capacity is a constant.

Your argument is flawed.

If someone goes to TTC and buys an AP and then goes and enjoys a park, he isn't able to prereserve his FPs. Neither can someone who makes on-site hotel reservations on day of arrival. That doesn't change the fact that those who choose to buy tickets in advance can prereserve FP+s regardless of whether they are on-site, off-site, or AP guests

Again, off-site guests who do not buy tickets in advance can not make FP+ reservations prior to arrival.

Please explain how you think that statement is flawed.

 

[Goofyernmost]

It seemed that you guys were keying too heavily on Mike S' use of the word 'scale' instead of his actual point. Sort of like your keying on my use of the word 'argument' instead of the actual point of my post.

I'm listening, what was your point? I not only wasn't focusing on the word "scale" I didn't even notice it. Didn't matter anyway I was just talking about the fact that the building the Mummy is in is much larger then Maelstrom building. Or are we all back to making mountains out of molehills again.

 

[Goofyernmost]

I think that it might be useful for you to learn the the word 'argument' has a number of definitions.

Really? Name a few please.

 

[dadddio]

The number of people in a given attraction queue obviously affects line length and thus the total wait time, but it has no bearing on the rate at which the line moves. Attraction capacity is a constant.

You just restated what I posted.

Again, off-site guests who do not buy tickets in advance can not make FP+ reservations prior to arrival.

Please explain how you think that statement is flawed.

The statement is perfectly true, it just doesn't serve your position that off-site guests don't get the benefit of prereserving FP+s because anyone who fails to buy their ticket media ahead of time will not be able to prereserve their FP+s. This is just as true regarding on-site guests as off-site guests (and AP holders).

 

[dadddio]

I'm listening, what was your point? I not only wasn't focusing on the word "scale" I didn't even notice it. Didn't matter anyway I was just talking about the fact that the building the Mummy is in is much larger then Maelstrom building. Or are we all back to making mountains out of molehills again.

You weren't focusing on the word 'scale', but you are fixated on discussing the comparable size of the two buildings.

OK

 

[GoofGoof]

Spent way too much time on this, but I can't stand losing an internet argument. Maelstrom show building appears to be no more than half the size of Mummy's. Almost the entire pavilion fits into the Mummy show building. So I stand by my refutation of your comment, Disney cannot do something the "scale of Mummy" inside Maelstrom without ripping out the majority of the pavilion.

This is the internet!!! No place for facts...and then you back it up with an actual picture too. Bad precedent to set. I prefer, I am right because I said so. Between you and I, you just won. Don't tell the other guy though.