Yeti is indeed being fixed! Update 8/4/2014

[Rich1]

Actually not an April Fools joke. Know this to be true.

 

[flavious27]

Do people really do this? Or are you reacting to his presence on all those one-note Travel Channel "documentaries"? Rhode is a cool guy and I like what he's done, but I think you're partaking in a little hyperbole when you say that "people act like he's God." Who is doing this?

Also, EE does alot for the park far beyond the ride experience. There are many vistas that suddenly open up to reveal that gorgeous mountain in the distance. It's exciting and beautiful and makes Animal Kingdom one of the most--if not THE most--rewarding parks to just walk around in. If you think a ride should only perform on the merits of it's ride experience and that is IT, then why are you even at a Disney theme park? You can get more exciting rides elsewhere. EE isn't working as intended and that's a shame (hopefully rectified soon), but the ride as a whole functions and succeeds on multiple levels.

Also again: And what has Walt Disney ever done really? Now, I wasn't alive in '55, but from what I've seen, Disneyland looked lame when it first opened. Fantasia? I can hear that music on public radio (for now), why do I need to watch this crazy abstract nonsense along with my Stravinsky?

In the end...

But he is god.

Look, he is telling us he is the king of the animals and to bow before him.

 

[djkidkaz]

Actually not an April Fools joke. Know this to be true.

Returning and back to disco mode? If so, I'd rather she stay on vacation until she gets fixed!

 

[_Scar]

Wow.

 

[Rich1]

Right now it looks as if she will return in some kind of working order. No longer in the sad state of disco mode. She was ripping herself apart but is getting some work done on her hydraulic system. She currently is naked as a jay bird too! On (or around) April 1...working again!

 

[lazyboy97o]

And so would start another disney shareholder revolt, disney might as well just move their legal department to delaware.

Doubtful. The company would be dropping the expense and risk of the theme park business. The vast majority of Disney stock is held by group investment programs that are only interested in the company for its ability to help maintain and build the value of their respective portfolios. Shareholders who are fans would be upset, and there would be a media circus, but the vast majority of anonymous and/or investment shareholders would probably be quite happy.

 

[AEfx]

Not sure I would go that far. I think most people who are fans of Rohde respect the fact that his projects have the most research and depth of theming.

Do people really do this? Or are you reacting to his presence on all those one-note Travel Channel "documentaries"? Rhode is a cool guy and I like what he's done, but I think you're partaking in a little hyperbole when you say that "people act like he's God." Who is doing this?

Obviously I was using hyperbole, LOL. It's a figure of speech. I was not saying people believe he is actually a religious deity, LOL, but that people act like he is some wunderkind who is infallible and some genius beyond measure. To be honest, I think a lot of people like him more for his image as a non-conformist than anything else. I have no personal problem with the guy (except for his overall poor design of Everest, such a wasted opportunity) but when his name comes up some people "ooooh!" and "ahhh!" instantly. I'm just not in that camp.

I think the 'edutainment' component of the queue/pre-show for Everest is considered high quality by more people than you are giving credit to. We have enjoyed that queue/pre-show with many different people (most of whom we just met) and heard nothing but raves about it. Those who are not aware that it is all authentic are always amazed and in awe when they find out that it is.

Well, you kind of hit the nail on the head with this one. People have to generally be told it's "authentic". Sure, it's a great little queue. I'm not saying it's awful. I do object to the term "preshow", though, because although I have not been on Everest for several years I do not recall any pre-show, just a queue where you walk past piles of junk with references to the Yeti to get you excited about something (the Yeti) that doesn't exist in the way it was promoted.

What I am saying is that there is no need for the "authenticity", because most people don't know it even is, and the same effect could have been created with far less money and without taking trips around the world and making TV specials about it. People could have been just as satisfied with any junk they wanted to pile up in the queue to make it look "lived" in. Is it cool to say, "Hey, all this crap really came from the Himalayas (or wherever)?" Yeah, but I would have much rather had the ride fleshed out more than care if a tin can and snowshoe came from another country vs. a junkyard in any small community that experiences winters with snow.

Of course neither of us can assign a number, but I cannot imagine that the number of people that get all excited because of a bunch of junk and camping equipment is on display in the queue is very large. I just don't see many people walking away from the ride and saying, "Wow, that queue really made my visit!" And if they do...well that's pretty sad that a line for a ride is the most memorable thing for them.

I am as disappointed as the next guy in the Yeti being in B or C or Tarp Mode, but it certainly doesn't make the ride a failure. Other than people like us that have ridden many many times, most riders don't have any idea that the yeti is not what it once was. They still love the experience of the roller coaster and are psyched up for the yeti experience in part because of what they saw in the queue.

But...the Yeti experience primed up in the queue does not exist. And it's not just because it's been broken for years. It's because, even when fully working, at the point you go past him at a high speed most people on a coaster are either squinting or have their eyes closed because of the wind in your face, and unless you know just where to look he's not that easy to spot (people that say he is right in front of you are having hazy memories, because it simply isn't the case).

And again you've hit the nail on the head - they get pumped up in the queue for something that doesn't happen and most people don't notice. I can *promise* you, the most common question people have when coming off that ride is to walk off with a confused look and say, "Did we see the Yeti?" That's why Disney hasn't done anything about it for so long - even if they invest the millions and millions it would take, overall it doesn't add much to the ride because they erred too far on the side of not giving you a King Kong like encounter so people didn't say they ripped Universal off.

If people just enjoy the coaster - that's awesome, because at least it's something. But there are far better coasters if that is really what people want.

I don't think it's exaggerating to call Everest a failure. It fails as an immersive attraction (steel beams inside, broken Animatronic centerpiece), it failed in mechanical design (again, broken Yeti), and the basic design of the experience was just flawed to begin with.

If the best thing we can say about it is, "Well, people like looking at the junk piled up in the queue and just being on a roller coaster, and they don't know what they are missing anyway", that's not a successful Disney attraction. It speaks more to the desperation of people for *something* more to do in AK than anything else.

This summer, our visit will include 2 first time visitors and 2 second time visitors. None of them are Disney fanatics like ourselves, so I look forward to hearing their responses to things like the theming and experiences much more than their reaction to rides (we've seen them react to rides at Six Flags).

I'm sure they will have a great time, especially because of your knowledge. Thing is, not everyone has a Brifraz, most people don't. Confusion is what I think a lot of guests think about EE more than anything else since Disney made sure when it came out that everyone heard about that big amazing Yeti.

Also, EE does alot for the park far beyond the ride experience. There are many vistas that suddenly open up to reveal that gorgeous mountain in the distance. It's exciting and beautiful and makes Animal Kingdom one of the most--if not THE most--rewarding parks to just walk around in. If you think a ride should only perform on the merits of it's ride experience and that is IT, then why are you even at a Disney theme park? You can get more exciting rides elsewhere. EE isn't working as intended and that's a shame (hopefully rectified soon), but the ride as a whole functions and succeeds on multiple levels.

Yes, it's very pretty to look at. I'll give you that, it definitely does. As soon as I look at it and think that, though, I get sad, because I know what a disappointment it is inside.

You are also very correct, AK could very likely be one of the most rewarding parks to just "walk around in". However - how many people spend thousands of dollars to come to WDW just to walk around a pretty environment? Not very many.

I also think you misunderstand - I am not looking for a more "thrilling" coaster, I am looking for what the Disney brand is supposed to provide - fun, immersive experiences with visuals that "wow" you. Everest cannot do that. The wonderful theming is certainly one of the reason I absolutely love WDW - but all the theming in the world doesn't do you a tinkers darn worth of good if the actual experiences people are coming for are sub-par, as Everest is.

Don't kid yourself - the vast majority of people travel to WDW for rides and excitement, not to just walk around and look at pretty trees and flowers.

It's amazing that just about everyone who has commented on AK can only really say as the big positive that it's pretty to walk around in. As people who come to a board like this, and likely travel their regularly, yes, you will find people who like just that. But does Disney show TV commercials across the country saying, "Hey, come to WDW and enjoy walking around a simulated jungle environment with little stands to sell you stuff in between!" No, they talk about attractions, rides, and experiences.

Also again: And what has Walt Disney ever done really? Now, I wasn't alive in '55, but from what I've seen, Disneyland looked lame when it first opened. Fantasia? I can hear that music on public radio (for now), why do I need to watch this crazy abstract nonsense along with my Stravinsky?

Wow...wish I had read this first haha. Wouldn't have bothered replying at all. While I agree Fantasia is an overblown jumble of nothing special, if you don't know what Walt Disney did for theme parks - I just don't know how to respond to that.

When was the last time you saw a tiger on the Safari?

LOL, you caught me. I meant Lion.

I was trying to demonstrate the point that, if you go on the Safari at most times of the day, you get hurried through the ride path either listening to a stupid narration or the guide trying very hard to point out if you look real real close behind a rock you can see a tiny bit of a sleeping animal.

Sure, you can see some birds, an elephant or zebra quite often. But you are hustled away so quickly through you can't enjoy even what you can see, and often it's a struggle to see anything at all for large portions of the trip.

It nearly passed DHS a couple years ago. The only reason it didn't was because they finally decided to invest in DHS (TSMM). Having said that, many people agree with your position that you don't go to Disney World to see animals - that's fine. Personally I get a lot out of that, and I do go to zoos on a regular basis (I have an annual membership to two local zoos). You're absolutely right though, the park needs more rides, just like DHS. I'd argue that thrill rides aren't necessarily the problem with those two parks, but more family friendly attractions. I would say the opposite is true at the Magic Kingdom and Epcot where the need is for a thrill ride.

That's not quite accurate as to how I feel. I don't have a problem with seeing animals - it may not be the reason for my visit to WDW, but it's not something I just object to as a concept.

It's that, the few things that do have live animals just aren't done very well. And many of us, like yourself, live much closer to experiences with animals that may not have as convincing virtual environments, but I'd rather actually be able to stand still and appreciate the animals much more, and not have to whip out binoculars just to see them, than have a bunch of largely empty spaces like the Safari so often has (for example). Other than that, Disney offers nothing you can't get elsewhere (cheaper, better, and easier).

I'm not even so much for thrill rides. I like them, but give me a wildly immersive slow-moving dark ride and I'm all over it. AK is just such a padded park - take away the two shows which take up almost half the day to experience them both because of their intentional admission structure, and there is barely a half-day's stuff to do there even if you do take time wander in the petting zoo portions.

I have tried *so hard* to like AK. It *is* beautifully themed. But quite often I find myself going there, getting excited (as it still feels "new" to me), and when I get there I go straight to Dinosaur, ride a few times...and then can't come up with anything to do. Of course, part of that is a symptom of being a repeat guest, but I can ride the HM 20 times in a day and not get bored. At AK, after Dinosaur, I briefly think about the Safari, but then realize it's too late in the day to see anything decent (and the fake storyline is sooooo annoying). Usually at that point I just head out, stopping at the Bugs movie if there isn't an awful line.

Again, that's my experience, I know others feel differently; but I'd love to see guest satisfaction surveys on the park. My guess is it rates below the other parks for most guests because of the very confusion as to what the park is - it's not a zoo, but it's not a real Disney theme park either. The zoo experiences are not that spectacular, and the theme park portion is below the standard of the other parks. So you have 33% of a zoo, 33% of a theme park...and added together that 66% doesn't = a full anything.

I'm very happy that Disney is doing the FLE. I have been saying on this board for YEARS that our Fantasyland was so sad it was almost pathetic. But after that, I hope to all heck they do something about AK. At this point, they could probably build a decent D-ticket for the price it would cost to fix the dang Yeti - they should just abandon that idea, add some visual effect instead, and spend the $ on a new, immersive experience instead of fixing something broken already that probably will never be fixed and perform as originally intended anyway.

 

[AEfx]

That's stretching it a little. Popeye & Bluto is, by far, the best use of the ride system. But Kali and Grizzly being fairly comparable? Not at all. Grizzly is, for one thing, considerably longer, and also much more enthralling.

No matter how many times I ride Kali, I always get off thinking, "Wow...that was it?" but on Grizzly I always came off feeling I'd gotten a good ride.

Yup...exactly my feeling as well.

It's so short, and just not all that exciting. With the toned down effects at the "top", and the fact they never really developed the original storyline, it just feels kind of anti-climactic.

Now Grizzly I found amazing - what a ride! I couldn't tell you if there was a story or not - I was just having so much fun.

It's easy to directly compare the rides - both are rafting rides where you go through "natural" environments largely surrounded by plant life. I really do feel like one is far, far superior to the other, however.

 

[flavious27]

I agree, I think it would be cool if Disney could create attractions at AK that take previously restrictive or dangerous experiences and open them to their guests. I would love to see an attraction that replicates the feeling of ziplining without actually having to zipline. I for one would love to do the real thing, but I have plenty of friends who would not be able to for various reasons. Making a moderate capacity attraction that gives guests a similar experience would be great.

The animals at AK are an asset, future attractions shouldn't be like Everest and just disregard their existence, they should seek to bring the magic of the animal world to their guests. *In a way that is not harmful to either guests or the animals!

Wouldn't soarin be able to do this?

 

[flavious27]

Doubtful. The company would be dropping the expense and risk of the theme park business. The vast majority of Disney stock is held by group investment programs that are only interested in the company for its ability to help maintain and build the value of their respective portfolios. Shareholders who are fans would be upset, and there would be a media circus, but the vast majority of anonymous and/or investment shareholders would probably be quite happy.

Not the disney stockholders but whoever buys stock in parks company

 

[brifraz]

Well, you kind of hit the nail on the head with this one. People have to generally be told it's "authentic".....What I am saying is that there is no need for the "authenticity", because most people don't know it even is, and the same effect could have been created with far less money and without taking trips around the world and making TV specials about it. People could have been just as satisfied with any junk they wanted to pile up in the queue to make it look "lived" in. Is it cool to say, "Hey, all this crap really came from the Himalayas (or wherever)?" Yeah, but I would have much rather had the ride fleshed out more than care if a tin can and snowshoe came from another country vs. a junkyard in any small community that experiences winters with snow.

However, the queue is set up to be a museum of Yeti artifacts and history of the Himalayas. There is similarly, no need for the actual items to be on display in any museum. An expertly crafted replica would fool just about everyone, but I for one am much happier that museums (be they the Smithsonian or One Man's Dream or the E:E queue) do show authentic items. Does that cost more? Yes. Does it improve the experience? For some, yes, for some, no. Is it something Walt Disney cared about - creating the most real/realistic immersive experiences possible? I think so.

But...the Yeti experience primed up in the queue does not exist.....And again you've hit the nail on the head - they get pumped up in the queue for something that doesn't happen and most people don't notice. I can *promise* you, the most common question people have when coming off that ride is to walk off with a confused look and say, "Did we see the Yeti?"....If people just enjoy the coaster - that's awesome, because at least it's something. But there are far better coasters if that is really what people want.

I think perhaps you misunderstood my comment that people enjoy the coaster. I was not trying to say that the ride (actual cars on track) are what people enjoy. I think they enjoy the experience (ride+immersive environment). And even with a fully functional yeti, the question "Did we see the Yeti?" is not necessarily a bad thing. The concept of the yeti is supposed to be shrouded in mystery. If he came up next to the cars very obviously like Kong, I think that would hurt the experience. For some that I have gone with, that question creates re-rideability. I know on our first ride way back when it opened, I had my eyes closed and my wife had hers open for the actual yeti (still fully operational). She said it was awesome and I missed it. Guess what queue we were right back in.

I don't think it's exaggerating to call Everest a failure. It fails as an immersive attraction (steel beams inside, broken Animatronic centerpiece), it failed in mechanical design (again, broken Yeti), and the basic design of the experience was just flawed to begin with.

I guess this depends on which definition of failure you are going with. According to Webster's it could be 'a falling short' or a 'total defect.' With the former, I would agree given the state of the yeti. With the latter, I would have an argument because I feel many aspects of the ride are successful. And, I could be wrong, but I thought the visible steel beams were intentionally visable to represent the trusses for the train you are on.

Finally, AEfx, thank you for intelligent debate. The reason I tend to stay hidden on these boards is that so much discussion results in name calling and belittling. It is nice to be able to discuss a difference of opinion in a mature manner!

 

[flynnibus]

I do object to the term "preshow", though, because although I have not been on Everest for several years I do not recall any pre-show, just a queue where you walk past piles of junk with references to the Yeti to get you excited about something (the Yeti) that doesn't exist in the way it was promoted.

It is a preshow - sorry no one sat you down and spoon fed the story and the acts to you. When you read and take in the different elements you see as you progress through the queue - the story is seen and the authenticity takes hold to bring the immersion and credibility to the story.

What I am saying is that there is no need for the "authenticity", because most people don't know it even is, and the same effect could have been created with far less money and without taking trips around the world and making TV specials about it. People could have been just as satisfied with any junk they wanted to pile up in the queue to make it look "lived" in. Is it cool to say, "Hey, all this crap really came from the Himalayas (or wherever)?" Yeah, but I would have much rather had the ride fleshed out more than care if a tin can and snowshoe came from another country vs. a junkyard in any small community that experiences winters with snow.

So in short you would have just preferred a bad-______ coaster and nothing else. Then Disney isn't your cup of tea... goto Magic Mountain or Ceder Point for those experiences.

I just don't see many people walking away from the ride and saying, "Wow, that queue really made my visit!" And if they do...well that's pretty sad that a line for a ride is the most memorable thing for them.

Because the supporting cast isn't supposed to steal the show. You don't see people going 'wow, that color of wall and light gel really made that POTC come to life!!' either. You're trying to isolate each element as a stand-alone attraction and that's just not it's purpose and you fail to comprehend howhow each element adds to the total experience that would not be the same without each element. From lighting, sound, environment, props - they all goto building the experience that the show designers are trying to project.

But...the Yeti experience primed up in the queue does not exist. And it's not just because it's been broken for years. It's because, even when fully working, at the point you go past him at a high speed most people on a coaster are either squinting or have their eyes closed because of the wind in your face, and unless you know just where to look he's not that easy to spot (people that say he is right in front of you are having hazy memories, because it simply isn't the case).

You dive under his position. You also have the show sequences that build up to that moment... with the shadow, sound, and switchback sequence.

You act like the Yeti should have his own solo on stage in front of everyone to be considered real. Theatre man.. it often has SUBTLY

And again you've hit the nail on the head - they get pumped up in the queue for something that doesn't happen and most people don't notice. I can *promise* you, the most common question people have when coming off that ride is to walk off with a confused look and say, "Did we see the Yeti?"

Then they get back in line and try to see more of him! A teaser brings people back for more... a who puts out all she has in 5 minutes doesn't drive repeat business.

I don't think it's exaggerating to call Everest a failure. It fails as an immersive attraction (steel beams inside, broken Animatronic centerpiece), it failed in mechanical design (again, broken Yeti), and the basic design of the experience was just flawed to begin with.

Flawed in your mind because it doesn't match what you want doesn't make it flawed. It makes it undesirable to you.

If the best thing we can say about it is, "Well, people like looking at the junk piled up in the queue and just being on a roller coaster, and they don't know what they are missing anyway", that's not a successful Disney attraction. It speaks more to the desperation of people for *something* more to do in AK than anything else.

If that were the case - people wouldn't goto AK JUST to ride Everest and it wouldn't have boosted park attendance.. but both are true.

You are also very correct, AK could very likely be one of the most rewarding parks to just "walk around in". However - how many people spend thousands of dollars to come to WDW just to walk around a pretty environment? Not very many.
[...]
Don't kid yourself - the vast majority of people travel to WDW for rides and excitement, not to just walk around and look at pretty trees and flowers.

Wow - guess EPCOT was a major fail for you two. Good thing you didn't go back in the 80s. You would have been bored out of your mind and boggled at why people went there. And god knows why Disney bothers copying main street in every park.. what a waste of space and money!!! Those trees and plants Disney meticulously picks from around the world.. what a waste of time and money!! They should just move in some cyprus trees up and be done with it..

And that beach at Poly.. tear it up and put something useful there!

Flower and Garden show? Who in their mind wants to just look at plants?

And who came up with the idea of showcase pavilions that didn't have rides? What morons!!! No one wants to just LOOK at stuff and eat.

They could build a whole other park if they stopped changing the flowers out in EPCOT and MK all the time. These guys have no idea how to run a business!!
---

The good news is.. the people running the business don't think like you and Disney continues to be something more then an amusement park of world class rides and attractions.

AK is just such a padded park - take away the two shows which take up almost half the day to experience them both because of their intentional admission structure, and there is barely a half-day's stuff to do there even if you do take time wander in the petting zoo portions.

More fallacies. First, there are at least 3 main 'must see shows', Lion King, Nemo, Wonders. Those by run time alone are more then a 1/4 of the day. Then you have the safari, kali, everest, ittbab, the nature station (which since you complain about not seeing things live and 'easy'.. you should check it out), the parade, and dinosaur. That right there is another 4-5 hours plus. And all of that is without doing any of the walking tour stuff or dealing with lines.

This tired argument is bogus and only perpetuates because people come in and decide they only want the big rides and then make up stuff to justify to others why the park fails their expectations.

You say it yourself.. you go in, do dinosaur, and opt to ignore the rest. It's not your cup of tea.. that's fine - but don't try to rewrite reality to try to qualify your choice.

 

[flynnibus]

And even with a fully functional yeti, the question "Did we see the Yeti?" is not necessarily a bad thing. The concept of the yeti is supposed to be shrouded in mystery. If he came up next to the cars very obviously like Kong, I think that would hurt the experience. For some that I have gone with, that question creates re-rideability. I know on our first ride way back when it opened, I had my eyes closed and my wife had hers open for the actual yeti (still fully operational). She said it was awesome and I missed it. Guess what queue we were right back in.

Exactly.

It seems like younger people today would find masters like Alfred Hitchcock lame because you don't see the bad guy gut the victim.

 

[Mammymouse]

First of all, I didn't know the Yeti is a girl? Not that it matters but I assumed it was a male animal/thing/creature. :lol: Oh well, on the thread about "rock walls are going up" in the new Fantasy Land area there was a link to the making of Expedition Everest. And yesterday the History Channel had the making of Everest on Modern Marvels. Joe Rhode said the story is very important, there would be no attraction without it (yeti), and there is nothing that is that big that moves this fast in the world of animation. He said the final construction (outer layer) of the mountain was completed around the Yeti and there is no opening large enough to remove the Yeti. So to me it sounds like it can't be removed and any repair would have to be done on it inside the mountain. It was news to me also that it was built in a secret lab in California and shipped to WDW ready to be installed. Rhode described that the Yeti is on hydraulic sliders that move 5' forward and backward, and go up and down 18" and has as much thrust as a jet engine on a 747 airplane. So I wonder if the "fix" will have to happen inside the mountain and maybe that is another complicating factor of getting it back in A mode?

 

[Biff215]

First of all, I didn't know the Yeti is a girl? Not that it matters but I assumed it was a male animal/thing/creature. :lol: Oh well, on the thread about "rock walls are going up" in the new Fantasy Land area there was a link to the making of Expedition Everest. And yesterday the History Channel had the making of Everest on Modern Marvels. Joe Rhode said the story is very important, there would be no attraction without it (yeti), and there is nothing that is that big that moves this fast in the world of animation. He said the final construction (outer layer) of the mountain was completed around the Yeti and there is no opening large enough to remove the Yeti. So to me it sounds like it can't be removed and any repair would have to be done on it inside the mountain. It was news to me also that it was built in a secret lab in California and shipped to WDW ready to be installed. Rhode described that the Yeti is on hydraulic sliders that move 5' forward and backward, and go up and down 18" and has as much thrust as a jet engine on a 747 airplane. So I wonder if the "fix" will have to happen inside the mountain and maybe that is another complicating factor of getting it back in A mode?

I have no doubt that the size of the Yeti prevents them from getting him out of there in one piece. The bigger problem, however, that fixing him in or out of the mountain will require some downtime for the ride. That's Disney's real problem!

 

[WDW1974]

Originally Posted by AEfx
AK is just such a padded park - take away the two shows which take up almost half the day to experience them both because of their intentional admission structure, and there is barely a half-day's stuff to do there even if you do take time wander in the petting zoo portions.

More fallacies. First, there are at least 3 main 'must see shows', Lion King, Nemo, Wonders. Those by run time alone are more then a 1/4 of the day. Then you have the safari, kali, everest, ittbab, the nature station (which since you complain about not seeing things live and 'easy'.. you should check it out), the parade, and dinosaur. That right there is another 4-5 hours plus. And all of that is without doing any of the walking tour stuff or dealing with lines.

This tired argument is bogus and only perpetuates because people come in and decide they only want the big rides and then make up stuff to justify to others why the park fails their expectations.

You say it yourself.. you go in, do dinosaur, and opt to ignore the rest. It's not your cup of tea.. that's fine - but don't try to rewrite reality to try to qualify your choice.

I've been trying to figure out just how to respond to all the DAK-bashing that is perpetuated on this site, and this thread, and realized I have no desire to spend more than a few minutes on it vs. going point by point ... and I think the above sums things up quite well.

There are a large segment of fanbois who are ride junkies. They believe that Disney (and all parks) are about rides and how many they can do in one day. They'd take 20 spins on Space Mountain before ever spending 90 minutes walking thru the Pangani Forest Trail. I don't find that MAGICal, but everyone is different.

If people want rides and don't appreciate animals, horticulture, theming, then I'd almost tell them to stay away from DAK entirely. It just isn't their type of place. Go ride the rides at MK over and over and over again.

I think the folks who want to bash Joe Rohde may have agendas of their own. The man isn't perfect, but he is one of WDI's best and that is an opinion widely held in the industry by people who live this stuff. Taking shots at him for getting the details right shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Disney's concept of show. Whether 99% of people see something or get it doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

As much as I take shots at Disney, where I feel appropriate, I've never been to one of their parks that I haven't enjoyed. (one of my fans here should pull that quote!:wave I don't at all agree with the business mindest of 'building parks on the cheap' ... or parks that have more expansion pads than actual attractions. But flynnibus does a great job of 'splaining why calling DAK less than a full day experience really is a fallacy. And, frankly, having spent many days in DCA, DSP and HKDL, they all have enough to fill a day ... my criticism of all is they don't have what they should and were built in varying degrees of 'not giving our best' or worse 'not even trying'.

Frankly, I don't get that vibe at DAK because it works so well ... and really IS a great place to spend a day ... if you aren't looking for your next ride fix.

 

[Mansion Butler]

That's stretching it a little. Popeye & Bluto is, by far, the best use of the ride system. But Kali and Grizzly being fairly comparable? Not at all. Grizzly is, for one thing, considerably longer, and also much more enthralling.

Wait, what? P&B is the best? By far? This is obviously a subjective matter, so you can think that, but how can it possibly be by far? Let alone state it as a fact.

I'm greatly disappointed by Kali, but I'll take it narrowly over Bilgerat Barges. Grizzly, though, I vastly prefer more than either. Give me drops, please. Bluto's barges don't.

I know the popular comparison for Kali is Grizzly River Run, but I don't see a substantial difference between the two.

I do. Three drops instead of one. Longer. Not quite the cheap soaking moment of Kali's drop. The cool spinning effect.

It's Kali on steroids. With smaller ride vehicles (lower capacity but less space for the movement to be dispersed across, haven't yet decided if the lower capacity is worth it because I've only been when DL is slow).

 

[Mansion Butler]

Here's the thing, though - you are weird. I get you, because in many of the same ways I am weird as well, but you are weird. The vast majority of guests come to WDW to enjoy the rides and attractions. They don't stop every five feet in the Everest queue to stare at junk piled up, they don't know or care it's "authentic", and again it's terribly, terribly sad that so much money was wasted on something that could have easily been replicated with much less effort and cost. Those people are waiting to get on this new ride with an exciting Yeti encounter - that simply doesn't exist.

Yes, I am absolutely not the average park goer. But it doesn't bother me. What bothers me is when someone else who, like me, is not the typical park goer extrapolates their personal interests on to what is or is not good for the whole. Like when someone here tells me TSMM sucks, when people love it (not me, but that's kind of my point). Disney is a business and should do what makes business sense. When it pleases me personally, I'll be happy. When it doesn't, I'll understand.

Everest pleases me. It use to please me more, but it still does.

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

I'm in the league of people who love Everest's queue. I love the entire experience, queue AND ride. My mother doesn't enjoy the ride due to not being a fan of any coaster more violent than Big Thunder, but even she likes the queue and commented on how well-designed it was when we first rode it. It's very fun to walk through. And i'd say i'm the average park goer. A great many people also comment on how well designed the queue are. I hear them commenting on it all the time when we're standing in line.

Shame the Yeti and many effects are broken, but i'll give credit where it's due. Actually, the only design issues i have with Everest are the parts that aren't decorated so well. There's a part on the back of Everest where you can see the side isn't completed (it's where you're entering from the parking lot and can see the bald back from a distance). And of course the inside backwards part where it's not filled in. Minor gripes for me though, very minor considering how well themed 95% of the attraction is (and how much i like it).

BTW, on the subject of Toy Story Mania, the queue is the only thing i actually like about that ride. I also like Kali River, but i've never been on Grizzly over at CA. My only issue with Kali is how painfully short it is. It's one of the better circular raft rides i've ridden. We used to have one in Tennessee at a park called Opryland. Funnily, it was named Grizzly River Rampage. No drops, but it was quite fun and very wet. It was actually used for professional raft riders during certain times of the year for practice.

 

[Mansion Butler]

I'm in the league of people who love Everest's queue. I love the entire experience, queue AND ride. My mother doesn't enjoy the ride due to not being a fan of any coaster more violent than Big Thunder, but even she likes the queue and commented on how well-designed it was when we first rode it. It's very fun to walk through. And i'd say i'm the average park goer. A great many people also comment on how well designed the queue are. I hear them commenting on it all the time when we're standing in line.

Agreed. Everest has absolutely taken a step back in my heart from where it was in the preview days, but if you told me I had one day and could only go on five attractions, but it could be any five, Everest is on that list. No question. You can't please everyone, and most people who dislike it have good reasoning, but until I actually see numbers on capacity used and guest satisfaction, I won't ever believe it's a failure.

I also like Kali River, but i've never been on Grizzly over at CA. My only issue with Kali is how painfully short it is. It's one of the better circular raft rides i've ridden. We used to have one in Tennessee at a park called Opryland. Funnily, it was named Grizzly River Rampage. No drops, but it was quite fun and very wet. It was actually used for professional raft riders during certain times of the year for practice.

Y'know, I use to think Kali was worse compared to other raft rides than it is. I've since re-ridden other parks' raft rides over the last few years, as well as some others for the first time, and I've changed my mind. Some are longer, but lack the theming and don't have any drops, while still getting you wet cheaply.

Doesn't mean I love Kali, but it just seems my first reaction was incorrect. The raft ride in general is an underperforming concept, and Kali is no different, but at least it's better than most. It's just disappointing because GRR is exactly what a raft ride could be, from the same company.