Rumor Tower of Terror to gain new theme?

[Bairstow]

It doesn't, but the lift vehicle, or "VVC", on Guardians is equipped with a very dynamic lighting package.

The more I think about my idea, the more I think it might be really viable. On-vehicle projection probably wouldn't be an appropriate concept for anything other than an enclosed drop tower, since it's the only common ride platform out there where the riders constantly face in the same direction towards a flat surface that, for the most part, stays a fixed distance from their point of view. Whatever projection is played would need to be in perfect sync with the motion to avoid motion sickness (you would never want the projection to suggest standing still while the platform is moving up and down), but on the other hand you could probably greatly enhance the sense of falling if the rate of decent as indicated by the projection outpaces reality. This is done to some extent on Star Tours and the Spider-man ride accomplishes this with no vertical motion at all. If I'm not mistaken, Tower of Terror has always used fans and other means to heighten the perceived rate of fall.

I feel kind of dirty, though, contemplating ways to add screens to attractions.

 

[Kram Sacul]

It doesn't, but the lift vehicle, or "VVC", on Guardians is equipped with a very dynamic lighting package.

Also known as blinking lights.

 

[marni1971]

It doesn't, but the lift vehicle, or "VVC", on Guardians is equipped with a very dynamic lighting package.

So did the Orlando ToT. In 1994.

 

[Kram Sacul]

So did the Orlando ToT. In 1994.

When was it disabled?

If ToT is ever plussed I would like to see the roof blocked off so you can't see the shaft above and the overhead lights given some flickering during the drop sequence like DCA's has.

 

[marni1971]

When was it disabled?

If ToT is ever plussed I would like to see the roof blocked off so you can't see the shaft above and the overhead lights given some flickering during the drop sequence like DCA's has.

Not so much disabled as not working as it should.

 

[rle4lunch]

My apologies, I was responding at work and actually didn't see it. But even in that post, you're making the blanket statement that fans opposed to things like Guardians at Epcot are opposed to any IP in the parks. This is obviously untrue, as many attractions featuring IP are held in very high regard. This thread alone is evidence of that.
The issue that people take is specifically with the use and placement of the IP and the fact that the company has imposed restrictions on WDI that only allow them to use IP when developing attractions. Not to mention the new trend of creating lands centered completely around specific franchises, severely limiting creative development.

No worries, I miss things in here all the time because of my stupid phone. Lol

If building exclusively IP only attractions is the current rule is true (is it in writing somewhere? ) then that really is sad.

The point I'm getting at is that I doubt they're any "knee jerk" decisions being made (since the track record for a new ride is 1 e ticket every 15 years), but they are going with there most recognizable properties that they have in order to,
A. Satisfy the masses (not us weirdos on here, lol)
B. Stay ahead of the competition
C. Make a whole lotta money

The order of precedence of those is debatable, but I'm pretty confident that they're pretty accurate assessments.

That said, the reasoning for u-turn on the theater was pretty lame, but still falls in line with those 3 objectives. Funny thing, even though it was going to be a new non IP attraction, it would've still ran IP branded live shows. (Does everyone hate the IP live shows too? Serious question that I don't see debated on here).

 

[mikejs78]

No worries, I miss things in here all the time because of my stupid phone. Lol

If building exclusively IP only attractions is the current rule is true (is it in writing somewhere? ) then that really is sad.

The point I'm getting at is that I doubt they're any "knee jerk" decisions being made (since the track record for a new ride is 1 e ticket every 15 years), but they are going with there most recognizable properties that they have in order to,
A. Satisfy the masses (not us weirdos on here, lol)
B. Stay ahead of the competition
C. Make a whole lotta money

The order of precedence of those is debatable, but I'm pretty confident that they're pretty accurate assessments.

That said, the reasoning for u-turn on the theater was pretty lame, but still falls in line with those 3 objectives. Funny thing, even though it was going to be a new non IP attraction, it would've still ran IP branded live shows. (Does everyone hate the IP live shows too? Serious question that I don't see debated on here).

Again, it's not IPs that people are against but how those IPs are used. For example, many here would agree that Frozen Ever After is well done, but object to where it was placed (Norway in Epcot) because World Showcase is supposed to be about exploring the cultures that are represented by the countries. Had Frozen been built in Fantasyland at MK, I think far fewer people would have objected. Conversly, many here are pulling for a Coco themed ride in Mexico, because the movie was such a great tribute to Mexican culture, so Coco is a natural fit.

For the Guardians Coaster, if it had been planned for DHS as a new build, there would be far fewer objections. But because it's in Future World, which is supposed to be about human progress and edutainment, people are concerned. Who knows, we may be surprised by Guardians, and it's story may be perfectly in line with Epcot's themes. But that's hard to imagine given the IP being used and the way it has been used elsewhere, like Mission Breakout.

 

[rle4lunch]

Again, it's not IPs that people are against but how those IPs are used. For example, many here would agree that Frozen Ever After is well done, but object to where it was placed (Norway in Epcot) because World Showcase is supposed to be about exploring the cultures that are represented by the countries. Had Frozen been built in Fantasyland at MK, I think far fewer people would have objected. Conversly, many here are pulling for a Coco themed ride in Mexico, because the movie was such a great tribute to Mexican culture, so Coco is a natural fit.

For the Guardians Coaster, if it had been planned for DHS as a new build, there would be far fewer objections. But because it's in Future World, which is supposed to be about human progress and edutainment, people are concerned. Who knows, we may be surprised by Guardians, and it's story may be perfectly in line with Epcot's themes. But that's hard to imagine given the IP being used and the way it has been used elsewhere, like Mission Breakout.

I understand what you're saying. Shoehorning a storyline (IP based or not) is not good for flow and aesthetic.

Riddle me this though, what if Disney built a outer space futuristic roller coaster in Epcot future world that showcased possible future technologies and distant planets. It did so well that 5-10 years down the road they made a movie based on it. The ride/attraction has sold countless themed merchandise since it opened, creating it's own brand/ IP. The movie is a HUGE success. Are we now not allowed to like that attraction because its turned into a profit machine for Disney?

Case in point, potc. No one is skewering Disney for that decision.

Take Frozen for example. What if they built that ride before releasing the movie, would there still be the fervent hate for it replacing maelstrom?

 

[marni1971]

Take Frozen for example. What if they built that ride before releasing the movie, would there still be the fervent hate for it replacing maelstrom?

Yes. The theme, target and execution are ideal for DHS. Or the original MK.

 

[rle4lunch]

Yes. The theme, target and execution are ideal for DHS. Or the original MK.

Let me rephrase. If they were telling a Norway story that happened to organically (and perhaps unintentionally) create a new princess , and then the movie was developed, would the hate be there?

I know this isn't the case and agree that it should've been in a different park, but is it really that bad? They kept it pretty classy and its a heck of an upgrade from the obtuse and subpar maelstrom "storyline". And I'm using the word storyline VERY loosely.

 

[mikejs78]

Let me rephrase. If they were telling a Norway story that happened to organically (and perhaps unintentionally) create a new princess , and then the movie was developed, would the hate be there?

I know this isn't the case and agree that it should've been in a different park, but is it really that bad? They kept it pretty classy and its a heck of an upgrade from the obtuse and subpar maelstrom "storyline". And I'm using the word storyline VERY loosely.

But that's a lot of "maybes". Frozen isn't about Norway, and the ride definitely doesn't have anything about Norway in it. There's a real-life example of your scenario though. If they threw in a random, non-IP ride about princesses that had nothing to do with Norway as a replacement for Malestrom, and then made a movie later, I'd still think it was the wrong attraction in the wrong place. For example, if they replaced Malestrom with PotC, that would still be the wrong choice, even though it's an awesome attraction, because it's thematically in the wrong place. It's great in Adventureland - perfect in fact, and it embodies Adventureland. But would be a poor fit in Norway (unless they rethemed Pirates to make it about Vikings, but now I'm stretching...)

 

[larryz]

Also known as blinking lights.

RAPIDLY blinking lights...

 

[RobotWolf]

The more I think about my idea, the more I think it might be really viable. On-vehicle projection ...

What your idea made me think of is "dynamic projection maps." Using a combination of cameras and possible sonar and easily available open-source image recognition software, they could scan the interior of the drop shafts and build the distortion map they use to modify images and video just before projection.

In TT, they could probably get away with doing it once and recording it. But that technique could be used on motion bases, like parade floats, to do projection mapping on a constantly moving surface; like the crowds flanking the parade route.

(I wish grants were available for developing theme park technology ...)

I feel kind of dirty, though, contemplating ways to add screens to attractions.

Any effect or technique, used properly and in moderation, is appropriate. I think it's when screens are over-used and more importantly, used to replace physical animation and effects that is the "problem." And, happily, projectors no longer require screens thanks to projection mapping.

Long story, longer, your idea could totally work. They're doing something similar in DCA, they just need to make the lights "smarter." (By adding projectors)

I'm not saying projectors are necessary. In the wrong hands, they could certainly make the experience worse. I'm just saying it could be made to work with regard to your idea.

 

[disnyfan89]

But that's a lot of "maybes". Frozen isn't about Norway, and the ride definitely doesn't have anything about Norway in it.

While not directly about Norway it does tie into Norwegian stories as Frozen is inspired by Hans Christian Andersen's The Snow Queen which in turn is inspired by the Norwegian Fairy Tale East of the Sun, West of the Moon. The ride also features the trolls which is a common mythological creature in Norwegian Fairy Tales and the look of the attraction/film draws inspiration from traditional Norwegian architecture and clothing.

Is it a perfect fit? No. But it's roots are based in Norway's fairy tales and legends which personally works for me. Other people's opinion may differ.

 

[mikejs78]

While not directly about Norway it does tie into Norwegian stories as Frozen is inspired by Hans Christian Andersen's The Snow Queen which in turn is inspired by the Norwegian Fairy Tale East of the Sun, West of the Moon. The ride also features the trolls which is a common mythological creature in Norwegian Fairy Tales and the look of the attraction/film draws inspiration from traditional Norwegian architecture and clothing.

Is it a perfect fit? No. But it's roots are based in Norway's fairy tales and legends which personally works for me. Other people's opinion may differ.

BTW this isn't to say that I don't like FEA - I actually think it's well done. Just think it would have been better in Fantasyland.

 

[Tom Morrow]

Also known as blinking lights.

Yeah, and a lot more of them than our ToT ever had. Even when DCA's tower was ToT it had better lighting programming.

DHS ToT has a single strobe light under each row. They are only programmed to fire at the very end of the drop sequence. They are all burned out as of now. There are lights on the VVC in the same positions as the load shaft VVCs, but they only flash along with the outside camera for the photo and are otherwise just worklights.

 

[disnyfan89]

BTW this isn't to say that I don't like FEA - I actually think it's well done. Just think it would have been better in Fantasyland.

I agree as well that it would have been a better fit in Fantasyland but I understood the thought process behind putting in Epcot from both an operational and thematic standpoint.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Yes. The theme, target and execution are ideal for DHS. Or the original MK.

It would be a great attraction for an expanded New Fantasyland provided they also addressed the capacity issues. The attraction was limited to Maelstrom's shortfalls but the bones are there for a very good attraction if it was built from scratch in an appropriate area.

As an attraction, it's better than Maelstrom, but it's a thematic break.

If it was in New Fantasyland, I think it would be received more favoriably than Mermaid, despite the attraction not having the depth and detail of Mermaid from a set dressing standpoint.

 

[rle4lunch]

But that's a lot of "maybes". Frozen isn't about Norway, and the ride definitely doesn't have anything about Norway in it. There's a real-life example of your scenario though. If they threw in a random, non-IP ride about princesses that had nothing to do with Norway as a replacement for Malestrom, and then made a movie later, I'd still think it was the wrong attraction in the wrong place. For example, if they replaced Malestrom with PotC, that would still be the wrong choice, even though it's an awesome attraction, because it's thematically in the wrong place. It's great in Adventureland - perfect in fact, and it embodies Adventureland. But would be a poor fit in Norway (unless they rethemed Pirates to make it about Vikings, but now I'm stretching...)

Norway troll legends and Frozen troll legends. That's enough of a connection for me. Lol.

Hey, at least at the end of the ride we don't drift by an oil rig or cruise ship and empty into a European perfume factory anymore.

 

[mikejs78]

Norway troll legends and Frozen troll legends. That's enough of a connection for me. Lol.

Hey, at least at the end of the ride we don't drift by an oil rig or cruise ship and empty into a European perfume factory anymore.

That's a stretch.... And there isn't anything in the attraction itself to connect it to Norway. At least the rat ride is set on the streets of Paris.