who rode EE lets talk

[Merlin]

And most logical people can clearly see the reason for the short yeti encounter.

I absolutely, totally agree 100% that most logical people will see the reason for the short yeti encounter. Could it be?....hmmmm....let's see, maybe....$$$$$

That's what most logical people will realize, and they'll be correct. Meanwhile, the biased fans will make up anything they can to justify it and convince themselves that it's about "great storytelling". :brick:

 

[PigletIsMyCat]

Having this expectation would defy basic physics. The only way the drop would be as high as the initial lift hill would be if it either immediately dropped after reaching the peak, or if there was another equally high lift hill just before the drop.

Oh my gods I am not here for a physics lesson. I was just saying that by bringing you all the way up the mountain at once, it kind of forces you into expecting a huge drop because you remember that big uphill and are thinking you're still that high up.

By the way, the Yeti would not just growl menacingly at you. The Yeti (Disney would have you believe) is a legendary figure who guards Everest, and I bet he'd be ticked if you were there. The point is this: It's a Disney ride. It's not historical, not meant to be educational, and not meant to be real. Either have fun riding it (like my entire family did, even the non-Disneyfreak ones) or don't go on. Just means I have less time to wait in line.

 

[Monty]

I absolutely, totally agree 100% that most logical people will see the reason for the short yeti encounter. Could it be?....hmmmm....let's see, maybe....$$$$$

That's what most logical people will realize, and they'll be correct. Meanwhile, the biased fans will make up anything they can to justify it and convince themselves that it's about "great storytelling". :brick:

Or "other" biases will lead people to adamently cling to an argument that nobody else agrees with? You seem to have some deep-seated dislike for what everyone else enjoyed. I have ridden EE 18 times. I didn't go in with preconceived ideas as to what to expect or what I "thought" it should be. Coming off the ride, I paid attention to what other riders were saying and not once did I hear a negative comment. This thread, combined with the Joe Rohde thread, lead me to the inescapable conclusion that you have some bone to pick with Disney that has nothing to do with what you present on the surface.

 

[Merlin]

Actully less is often better on the subject of Film (And I believe Film applies to Disney as it is essentialy at it's core a Film experienced in reality).

Look at Alien for example, you hardly ever see the Alien in Alien, and it works perfectly, it builds tension, suspense, and is master film making on Ridley Scotts part.

Another example, but this time bad. Signs, the first 3 quarters of Signs were very good, you only saw very, and I mean very fleeting glimpse of the Aliens. Then the last quarter of the film completely ruined it, introducing the Alien in full light for a good 5-10 minutes, it was rubbish, and downgraded the film.

Just some simple rules from the Hitchcock school of Film Making, what you dont see is often more interesting than what you do. Something I believe EE captures brilliantly, and also fits in with the Legend of the Yeti.

Well we do agree on three things here:

1. Alien was a masterpiece
2. Signs was a terrible, vastly overrated movie, and
3. Hitchcock was a genius at creating psychological suspense.

Unfortunately, while your examples are certainly excellent ones, I think your analysis of why each works or doesn't work is flawed, as is your attempt to apply the same concepts to a theme park ride...or assume that's what Imagineering has successfully done, which they haven't.

The first thing I'd recommend is that you rent Alien and watch it again. While the movie does do a lot to build suspense, it also gratifies the audience by allowing us to gradually see more and more of the creature as the film progresses. At the end, if you recall, it's a full on encounter. You also must remember that the film does this over the course of 2 hours...a luxury of duration that no theme park ride offers. There have been other movies that have relied on the "tease" throughout the course of the entire film. Audiences generally come away from those feeling frustrated and cheated. I believe that's how most of the general public will look at Everest. Many will like it for the coaster aspect of it, and maybe some will think it's cool that the lift hill offers a great view, and that you go backwards in some parts. But I think most will not be impressed by the Yeti (especially the cartoon projection).

What ruined Signs was not the fact that you see the aliens at the end. The flaws of that film are too numerous to list here, but in a nutshell it had an incredibly weak storyline (i.e. Why attack a planet that is 4/5's water if water is lethal to you??), and the "suspenseful" scenes were ones that featured nothing but a pitch black screen and a lot of screaming. It didn't work.

As far as Hitchcock is concerned, filmmakers are always trying to take elements of what he did, apply those elements to their films and then scratch their heads wondering why it didn't yield the same effect as Hitchcock's films. That's because, much like Walt Disney, Alfred Hitchcock was widely misunderstood and most people did not get what it was about his genius that was so effective. Hitchcock was able to tap into the part of a person's mind that can conjure up more fear and suspense than anyone can provide externally. If the Imagineers were trying to do this with Everest, they failed.

 

[MuRkErY]

The first thing I'd recommend is that you rent Alien and watch it again. While the movie does do a lot to build suspense, it also gratifies the audience by allowing us to gradually see more and more of the creature as the film progresses. At the end, if you recall, it's a full on encounter. You also must remember that the film does this over the course of 2 hours...a luxury of duration that no theme park ride offers.

Exactly, so comparing on a ratio of time here, I'd say EE offers us about the same as Alien over all. Those 3 minutes off EE offer us about the same as the 2 hours or so of Alien on average but in a compressed time frame.
Also the Alien in Alien never fills the whole of the frame for more than 3 seconds at the most, even at the end of the film Riplys back is turned to the Alien as she blows it out of the Air lock.

I agree about Signs the whole idea for it is dumb.

As for Hitchcock I dont think WDI were trying to copy his style of Film Making into EE. How ever I would also argue there are some elements of EE that relate closely to that school of Film Making, as much as you can on a Theme Park Ride I suppose.

 

[Merlin]

Or "other" biases will lead people to adamently cling to an argument that nobody else agrees with? You seem to have some deep-seated dislike for what everyone else enjoyed. I have ridden EE 18 times. I didn't go in with preconceived ideas as to what to expect or what I "thought" it should be. Coming off the ride, I paid attention to what other riders were saying and not once did I hear a negative comment. This thread, combined with the Joe Rohde thread, lead me to the inescapable conclusion that you have some bone to pick with Disney that has nothing to do with what you present on the surface.

Well, that's a personal attack, which is something I have not done to you. As far as having a "bone to pick", I hope you can back that up with some specifics if you are going to accuse me of that. The truth is, I have no "bone to pick" whatsoever. And I have a huge love and admiration for Disney (and have had for my entire life). But I don't allow that love and admiration to cloud my judgment. If I feel that Disney has either short-changed it's guests, or that a particular product (be it film, theme park ride or anything else) is not up to par, then I'm going to express it. That's what an open-minded person does. Everest is an attraction that we've all been eagerly awaiting for some years now. I have to admit my own anticipation has been unbearable at times, and as I saw the photos of it's progressive construction, I got more and more excited. I think what this does to some people, unfortunately, is that they want so desperately to be blown away by a new Disney attraction, that when it finally opens and is somewhat of a letdown, these fans can't accept that. So they'll make any excuse to justify it in their minds as still being "amazing" or "awesome". There's a psychological term for this. It is called "cognitive dissonance". But as Walt always said, the great thing about a theme park is that you can always go back and fix it if it doesn't work. I would prefer to express my disappointment in the hopes that maybe Disney will take note and go back and fix something to make it better. Unfortunately, when Disney fans just happily accept whatever Disney gives them and they rant and rave about how incredible it is, this reduces any incentive Disney might have to go back and improve something. This isn't being negative. This is expressing my opinion as an open-mind, freedom-of-speech-loving, cash-paying guest.

 

[peter11435]

I absolutely, totally agree 100% that most logical people will see the reason for the short yeti encounter. Could it be?....hmmmm....let's see, maybe....$$$$$

That's what most logical people will realize, and they'll be correct. Meanwhile, the biased fans will make up anything they can to justify it and convince themselves that it's about "great storytelling". :brick:

That is by far the stupidest comment I have ever heard on these boards. What the heck did money have to do with it? The answer is absolutely nothing. Anyone who thinks that money was the reason is far from logical. The fact is no matter how long you spend in the Yeti room he still cost the same amount. Say what you want about EE, but don't say things that make you sound like a fool.

If you feel this was a personal attack, oh well. You deserve it as in the past month you have done nothing but argue for the sake of arguing.

 

[Merlin]

Exactly, so comparing on a ratio of time here, I'd say EE offers us about the same as Alien over all. Those 3 minutes off EE offer us about the same as the 2 hours or so of Alien on average but in a compressed time frame.
Also the Alien in Alien never fills the whole of the frame for more than 3 seconds at the most, even at the end of the film Riplys back is turned to the Alien as she blows it out of the Air lock.

But don't you see that that's NOT what they're doing? It is what they SHOULD be shooting for, but they're not. What they're compressing into the three minutes is only the "teaser" stuff. That doesn't work, and it leaves guests feeling unsatisfied. EE doesn't have the luxury of being a 2-hour ride, so it can't afford to waste time just teasing the guest and then not delivering on that. Alien does a lot of teasing, but as the film progresses, we do see more and more of the alien. At the end, we may not see the alien for any one single span for more than 3 seconds, but we see him a number of times for that length of time. EE let's us see the actual Yeti for about that length of time. But we're moving when it happens and we only get to see it once. If we're only going to get short glimpses, then they should be more frequent. If we only get to see the Yeti once, as some have argued is more "realistic", then it should be for more than the amount of time we're currently seeing it.

As for Hitchcock I dont think WDI were trying to copy his style of Film Making into EE. How ever I would also argue there are some elements of EE that relate closely to that school of Film Making, as much as you can on a Theme Park Ride I suppose.

I think it's reasonable to argue that many filmmaking techniques do, in fact, apply perfectly to theme park attractions. For example, forced perspective, and old movie trick, has proved to work brilliantly in theme parks, where space is limited. But I think Imagineers need to be able to recognize when a filmmaking concept does NOT apply to a theme park attraction.

 

[peter11435]

That doesn't work, and it leaves guests feeling unsatisfied.

After a dozen rides on EE I have not seen one person who left "feeling unsatisfied." Your fighting an arguement you can't win. You can't say people come off unsatisfied when that is the complete opposite of the truth.

 

[Merlin]

That is by far the stupidest comment I have ever heard on these boards. What the heck did money have to do with it? The answer is absolutely nothing. Anyone who thinks that money was the reason is far from logical. The fact is no matter how long you spend in the Yeti room he still cost the same amount. Say what you want about EE, but don't say things that make you sound like a fool.

If you feel this was a personal attack, oh well. You deserve it as in the past month you have done nothing but argue for the sake of arguing.

Well I guess if that's "by far" the stupidest comment you've ever heard on these boards, then you haven't spent near as much time on them as I have. :lol: Although I question the wisdom of a statement that suggests money is not a factor in developing a theme park attraction.

Also, I think you might need to go back an re-read some of my posts. You'll find that what I've been suggesting all along is one (or both) of two things: Either they show you the Yeti (AA figure that is) more than once, or they give you a long enough encounter of the one we do see, so as not to cheat the guests. Clearly Disney is saving money by only having one AA figure. Are we in disagreement on that, because it's gonna be really difficult to explain that concept if you don't already get it. :brick: The latter option (seeing the Yeti for a longer period of time), would also likely cost more money too because the Yeti figure would need to be more sophisticated so as to impress the guests more. It would need to have more variety of movements. Disney saved money by having us whiz past the Yeti quickly because it saved them from having to make the Yeti too complex.

And yes I do feel you were making a personal attack, and the fact that you seem proud of that only speaks of the kind of individual you must be. I think that if you can't have a civil, mature conversation on a discussion board, and be receptive to opinions that differ from your own, you're probably someone who encounters conflict frequently in life and does not deal with it very effectively.

 

[peter11435]

And yes I do feel you were making a personal attack, and the fact that you seem proud of that only speaks of the kind of individual you must be. I think that if you can't have a civil, mature conversation on a discussion board, and be receptive to opinions that differ from your own, you're probably someone who encounters conflict frequently in life and does not deal with it very effectively.

Actually that is far from the truth. You know nothing about me. I am perfectly capable of having mature conversation. The problem here is that you have started this same agument numerous times, and tried to claim things you have no knowledge about.

The fact is that the Imagineers never intended for guests to see the Yeti more than they do. It was never about money, it was about being true to the story. You are entitled to your opinion that you don't like the story, but don't try to say that guests feel unsatisfied or that the short glimpse of the Yeti is the result of money.

 

[Merlin]

The fact is that the Imagineers never intended for guests to see the Yeti more than they do. It was never about money, it was about being true to the story. You are entitled to your opinion that you don't like the story, but don't try to say that guests feel unsatisfied or that the short glimpse of the Yeti is the result of money.

So are you suggesting the Imagineers had an unlimited budget?

 

[peter11435]

So are you suggesting the Imagineers had an unlimited budget?

No. I never said anything like that and you know that. I said that the decision to only see they Yeti for a few seconds was not determined by money.

 

[Neverwhere]

I tend to believe that people who are saying, "the yeti was so cool", and using those exact words, are probably hardcore Disney fans who are going to be a bit biased anyway. I doubt your average guest is going to comment on how cool it was, and most are probably not even going to refer to it as the "yeti". I'd guess that the people you heard saying that are people who were in the know and have read all about how it's supposed to be such a sophisticated AA figure. So they went on the ride with their minds already made up that the yeti (and the rest of the ride for that matter) was awesome. People with no background knowledge (which represents the majority of WDW visitors) will only be able to rate the ride and the yeti on their own merits. Knowing the high expectations guests have these days regarding their entertainment, trust me....most will feel let down and disappointed.

Well, I was there with a bunch of average guests. In fact, the woman I actually talked to in the shop right after I got off the ride had never even been to WDW before. She wasn't an AP holder. Not a WDW freak. Just an average person.

I think you are trying to project your feelings of dissapointment to the majority. You are certainly entitled to feel dissapointed, I certainly did after Stitch's Great Escape. But if other's don't agree, there is really no need to lump all WDW fans into a mindless clan who can't form opinions on their own.

 

[Merlin]

Your fighting an arguement you can't win.

Using words like "fighting" and "win" imply a hostile and competitive attitude. For my part, I'm certainly not trying to "win" anything here. I'm expressing my honest opinion, which is my understanding of what a discussion board is supposed to be about. Making the assumption that I see this as some sort of contest is really an indication that that's how YOU see it. I'm not interested in swaying anyone to see this from my point of view, nor do I expect I would be successful if I tried. To many people, Disney is almost like a religion in that it's so ingrained, that they'll overlook obvious flaws for fear of being critical of Disney. If that makes them happy, who am I to impose my values on them? But that's not going to stop me from expressing my opinion about it. If people are secure enough in their own beliefs and opinions, then they shouldn't be bothered by opposing views. If I express an opinion which strikes another member's nerves (which, despite what you may believe, is not my motivation), then I tend to believe that member is probably not all that secure in his/her opinion. On some level they probably know that my argument makes sense. If that's upsetting to someone, don't you think that's their issue and not mine? If you truly think my opinions are absurd, I don't think you'd be that bothered by them.

 

[Merlin]

No. I never said anything like that and you know that. I said that the decision to only see they Yeti for a few seconds was not determined by money.

If that's indeed true, then it's very poor storytelling on the part of the Imagineers. Anyone who would think that only showing one quick glimpse of the Yeti would be entertaining to people clearly out of touch with what most of the general public finds entertaining.

 

[peter11435]

If that's indeed true, then it's very poor storytelling on the part of the Imagineers. Anyone who would think that only showing one quick glimpse of the Yeti would be entertaining to people clearly out of touch with what most of the general public finds entertaining.

Most of the general public find EE to be very entertaining.


You are entitled to your opinion. However you are the one who has in a number of threads started not only giving your opinion of EE but also trying to claim things as fact that are not true. Saying that people are not satisfied with EE or that the short yeti encounter is the result of money is not stating your opinion, it is giving out facts that are not true. Notice you are the only person who seems to feel that this ride represents poor storytelling. What’s that tell you.

 

[Merlin]

Most of the general public find EE to be very entertaining.

How do you know this? Have you seen polls or surveys given to the general public?

Notice you are the only person who seems to feel that this ride represents poor storytelling. What’s that tell you.

It tells me two things:

1. It tells me you haven't read all the opinions expressed about this ride, because others have said the same thing about it. You can say that I'm in a small minority on this opinion, which would not be surprising considering this is a Disney fan site. But it's not accurate to say that I'm the "only person" who feels this way. Now who is stating things as fact that are not true??

2. It tells me that I'm posting on a discussion board that is made up mostly of Disney fanatics who are unlikely to admit any flaws in a Disney attraction they've been heavily anticipating. Then again, haven't I been stating that all along? :lol:

 

[peter11435]

How do you know this? Have you seen polls or surveys given to the general public?

I have spent hours at AK in the Everest area and have not once heard a single guest say anything negative about the attaction. In addition in over a dozen rides on Everest I have no yet been on a train that did not break out into applause at unload. That is how I know.

It tells me you haven't read all the opinions expressed about this ride, because others have said the same thing about it.

Yes others have said that they wished you would see the Yeti longer, but you are the only one (I have heard) who has said the short yeti sighting is the result of money or bad storytelling and that guests come off the ride displeased with their Yeti encounter.

 

[Merlin]

I have spent hours at AK in the Everest area and have not once heard a single guest say anything negative about the attaction. In addition in over a dozen rides on Everest I have no yet been on a train that did not break out into applause at unload. That is how I know.

That's not "knowing". That's formulating an opinion based on your own personal experience and observation. Nothing wrong with that, but call it like it is. Don't accuse me of stating my opinions as "facts" and then turn around and do the exact same thing.

Yes others have said that they wished you would see the Yeti longer, but you are the only one (I have heard) who has said the short yeti sighting is the result of money or bad storytelling and that guests come off the ride displeased with their Yeti encounter.

Now you're elaborating on what you first claimed that I had stated. Note your previous post on this...

Notice you are the only person who seems to feel that this ride represents poor storytelling. What’s that tell you.