Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
They want to spend 3x what it used to cost to build cool rides, to make OK ones instead.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Transformative Multi-Year Expansion Announced for WDS Paris
- Thread starter Jwhee
- Start date
They want to spend 3x what it used to cost to build cool rides, to make OK ones instead.
britain
Well-Known Member
It's 1995 all over again. I guess truly groundbreaking things come around every 30 years or so.
Feels like it a bit doesn’t it
croboy82
Well-Known Member
I don‘t feel like she confirmed it won‘t be Star Wars just that they are still working on it.
It‘s been rumored for a while that in the american parks they could overhaul Rise with the original trilogy so maybe Paris is getting that.
I was hoping we would still get Rise and another land after that.
Pandora would make the most sense. Many new movies coming and a wow ride. But I don‘t know if they have the money to make it as good as in Orlando.
It‘s been rumored for a while that in the american parks they could overhaul Rise with the original trilogy so maybe Paris is getting that.
I was hoping we would still get Rise and another land after that.
Pandora would make the most sense. Many new movies coming and a wow ride. But I don‘t know if they have the money to make it as good as in Orlando.
What was 1995? Indiana Jones Adventure?
Or somthing released in the couple of years before?
maybe Tower or Terror…
When budgets began to be slashed.
DisneyDean97
Well-Known Member
I just don't see a ride system that is a better fit than Universal's SCOOP for an Avengers E-Ticket. Instead of a FoP variation, at least with a SCOOP you can have some practical effects. What's Disney's closest ride system to that... their EMVs, even though they can't rotate you and point you in different directions.
Even the Kuka arm would be a better ride system for an Avengers ride, there's no way Universal still has exclusivity rights on that system, right?
I just don't see any current Disney ride system that would match the thrill, and immersion the Marvel films deserve...
Maybe a modified EMV that has all the motions but can also launch down the track like Test Track-- if that would even be possible
yensidtlaw1969
Well-Known Member
I actually tend to agree with you - but this is a problem that's inherent in the nature of simulator ride systems. What sort of investment and commitment does it take to transform Flight of Passage into an Avengers ride? Okay, they want to reconfigure the seating arrangement, sure, go ahead. Outside of that? You're basically just changing the projection content. You're playing a different movie. The seats will be programmed to match that new movie, of course, but there's not much to work with to diversify these types of experiences.
Meanwhile, Pirates is a completely different looking and feeling physical environment from Small World despite using the same ride system, because there are so many exciting variables intermingling within that showbuilding to create a fully unique experience. This is why Rise of the Resistance feels so different from Poohs Hunny Hunt. They're playing with more than just a movie screen being watched from a ride vehicle.
I'm not saying the only way to create a great Avengers ride is to use an entirely new ride system, but if the ride was predetermined to be a simulator than it would have helped to make it unique and exciting. Flight of Passage is considered by many to be better than Soarin' largely on the basis of its different seating configuration and its more dynamic projection content (not to mention the level of catharsis these combined elements manage to amount to for a number of guests), but you'd think that for the biggest franchise in their portfolio they'd want to take that experience far beyond what's been done to make something truly dazzling.
Flight of Passage is good, but is it *that* good that any ride using the same or a similar system would likely be as thrilling?
Absimilliard
Well-Known Member
Those three rides you mention, you view them from a modern point of view where those rides are common today. I suggest you read Roller Coasters, Flumes and Flying Saucers for amazing insight into how Matterhorn Bobsleds, Pirates and Small World came to be. They did reinvent the wheel for those.
Regarding Splash, it is not well known how many issues WDI and Hopkins, the ride vendor had to get the Disneyland version working. WDI wanted massive 10 person boats, Hopkins was unable to make such large boats work. Then, WDI allowed Hopkins to go with extended inline boats that were gorgeous... But the WDI art mandate meant the shape made all the water enter the boat, soaking guests badly. Dana Morgan, son of Ed Morgan (one of Arrow Development cofounder) and who had now formed his own company was called in to troubleshoot. In a podcast, he mentioned having to fight WDI tooths and nails on the shape of the boat as they didn't want to understand how it affected waterflow. The boats it opened to the public with were a Morgan design that compromised both the pretty and functional aspects.
Space Mountain and its layout designer Bill Watkins are the most important breakthrough in roller coaster design since the 1920s. Why? While Matterhorn Bobsleds was hand designed and a good ride, it was never the most comfortable ride and required lots of speed boosters to adjust the ride speed throughout the ride. With Space Mountain at WDW, Bill Watkins designed using computers the first fully heartlined roller coaster layout. Instead of pivoting on itself, the track rotates and pivot in relation to the rider center of mass instead, making the curves comfortable and smooth. Space Mountain in Florida suffered from horrible quality issues stemming from the Arrow standard track.
For Space Mountain at DLR and in Tokyo, Bill Watkins designed a triangular tied track where the guide wheels rode on the outside, allowing the most precise track at the time. The layout design itself was so good Vekoma was able to replicate it for the later versions in California and Hong Kong with minimal updates.
Absolutely!
britain
Well-Known Member
Yeah I was thinking about Indy.
denyuntilcaught
Well-Known Member
To be clear, I absolutely respect and understand how the attractions I mentioned furthered what was possible in their respective spaces. I did not intend to sounds as if Space Mountain, for example, was a direct lift from Matterhorn, just with lights and a space cookie. My larger point was how much energy (read: $$$) WDI is investing in new technologies, and letting the new tech be the focus of what sells the attraction, versus all the other storytelling details that surround the technology. Slight nuance to my point that I clearly failed to make!
That said, I love love how much you know about the details of the creation of these attractions.
britain
Well-Known Member
Absimilliard
Well-Known Member
Sounds like the right time for a DL Tomorrowland refurb!
To be fair, Eddie Sotto ing off OLC to the point where they didn't build Rocket Rods there did not help the ride didn't help with the version in California. Add GM pulling from sponsoring Rocket Rods due to the Test Track fiasco and the ride was doomed. From another podcast he participated on with a DLP french discord site, here is the story on that:
- Eddie Sotto and WDI create Sci-Fi City for a planned Tomorrowland refurb at Tokyo Disneyland.
- Rocket Bikes are part of the proposal, finally bringing elevated tracks to Tomorrowland there.
- Prototype is built and works in California.
- OLC cancels Sci-Fi City to divert funds toward Tokyo DisneySea. They still loved the concept of an elevated track ride, so they wanted to keep Rockit Bikes (the new name of the attraction) and continued development.
- Over at Disneyland, Paul Pressler didn't want a non-IP ride for Tomorrowland, so Rockit Bikes was imagined as a new build attraction in Tomorrowland based on the Endor Speeder Bikes. It didn't go anywhere, so the attention was then diverted to making Rockit Bikes work on the old Peoplemover tracks.
- The Peoplemover tunnels don't have the necessary clearances to allow banked curves on a motorcycle, so the concept evolved into Rocket Rods.
- OLC saw the concept of Rocket Rods and now wanted that. Eddie Sotto refused to do it, as he felt Rockit Bikes was more exciting and they had the space to do the original concept. Things stalled so badly that Disneyland Rocket Rods went into production and was underfunded badly due to: A- OLC not allowed to build the ride by Eddie Sotto and B- Test Track delays scared GM into not sponsoring the new ride.
On the positive side?, OLC did thank Eddie Sotto from saving them from the Rocket Rods disaster. I researched extensively the subject and wrote about it here:
Sci-Fi City at Tokyo Disneyland
Rocket Rods
Absimilliard
Well-Known Member
To be clear, I absolutely respect and understand how the attractions I mentioned furthered what was possible in their respective spaces. I did not intend to sounds as if Space Mountain, for example, was a direct lift from Matterhorn, just with lights and a space cookie. My larger point was how much energy (read: $$$) WDI is investing in new technologies, and letting the new tech be the focus of what sells the attraction, versus all the other storytelling details that surround the technology. Slight nuance to my point that I clearly failed to make!
That said, I love love how much you know about the details of the creation of these attractions.
Thank you for the kind word! Yes, I agree with you that WDI is too focused today on the tech rather than the whole package on an emotional level.
Don’t forget C) Cynthia Harris refusing a 10% budget increase to bank the turns.