New Posiden's Fury is much better [Archive] - The DIS Discussion Forums

CoileyTheSpringSprite

09-08-2001, 09:40 PM

I certainly hope you don't walk out of movies when you go see one and realize you don't know the characters beforehand.

Why is it that you can't seem to understand the concept of the character?

Taylor explains the whole thing:

Darkennon- Poseidon's trusted high priest.

That's ALL you need to know. Remember 99% of the people experiencing the attraction have NEVER SEEN THE OLD VERSION BEFORE.

So Zeus isn't in it! SO WHAT? The idea was to create an extremely *EVIL* character -- and Poseidon was not, and could not be threatening enough.

You're confronted with two options when recreating this attraction:

Keep Poseidon as the bad guy: DOESN'T work for the purposes they set down. He's a god, omnipotent, and he's not seen as a monster. In the old show- he just WASN'T threatening. Atlantis seemed pretty darn nice. It just wasn't scary.

New character: In this case, Darkennon. Unleashing the *ghost* of a high priest who locked the doors of all the chambers in the temple and slaughtered everyone inside. It's MUCH more threatening and he's pure *evil.* He wants to kill you and Poseidon. Why? Because he's evil! The Poseidon of old wanted to make you part of his army... not exactly on the same level of threatening, here.

You're missing the CONCEPT of storytelling- something both Universal and Disney are EXTREMELY good at. At least a good half or so of Disney's attractions are not based on anything at all- they create their OWN story. Just as the new show does. And believe it or not, a LOT of people have never heard of some of the characters at IOA- or are not familiar with them.

Besides, it's not as if it's Poseidon vs. the Care Bears. Darkennon fits perfectly within the frame of the story told- if the god Poseidon had high priests, maybe one of them was named Darkennon. I mean, it's MYTHOLOGY. NONE OF IT IS REAL!

If your complaint is that it's too hard to understand- or that maybe others can't understand it, then its unjustified. Taylor says it ALL in the Chamber of Sacrifices. Many people didn't understand the old show because they didn't listen to the exposition. If they don't understand the new one, then its the same problem, and its the guest's fault.

WebmasterBarry

09-08-2001, 11:21 PM

Darkenon is the long lost son of Darth Maul. Since Star Wars was told "long ago in a galaxy far away," it's possible Darkenon would show up during the ancient Greek times.

It was also nice for the warning message to be in English. The ancient Greeks must have been smarter than we know or Taylor's flashlight comes with a universal translator. :)

MrNonacho

09-09-2001, 09:38 AM

Speaking of Taylor's flashlight.. Does anyone know specifically what brand/model his standard incandescent one is? I'm guessing it's one of those rechargeable Mag-Lites. I'm looking for a really bright flashlight, and Taylor's fits the bill.

MIB999999

09-09-2001, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by Barry Hom
Darkenon is the long lost son of Darth Maul. Since Star Wars was told "long ago in a galaxy far away," it's possible Darkenon would show up during the ancient Greek times.

this example makes sense except for the WD connection

It was also nice for the warning message to be in English. The ancient Greeks must have been smarter than we know or Taylor's flashlight comes with a universal translator. :)

the english and Darkenon are just IOA storywriters having a bad day and forgetting to put the beleivablity test to the story. :o

WebmasterBarry

09-09-2001, 09:24 PM

I could have used Taylor's flashlight. It would have helped me survive Latin class. :)

Gary Goddard

09-10-2001, 01:08 AM

Regarding this Show --

I make no apologies. The goal was simple: Universal wanted to revise the Posedon show. The #1 goal was to "make the story understandable" and #2 was to "make the show more entertaining.." At the same time, they wanted the show to have more for kids and families. Okay all would-be attraction designers - what would YOU do? And realize Universal had already done two revisions to the attraction - but they were what I would call band-aid changes. They did what many of you seem to perfer - they tired to keep everything the same and change some lines here and there, add a few more lights. But that doesn't really do anything on a canvas as large as this. You have to think out of the box and really get into something new. Add to the equation that you have to use the existing format, the rooms, the screens, the basic set-up of chamber and effects. You have to tell the story in the walk-through format.

Okay - now lets talk about "the Keeper" that many of you are so fond of. Am I missing something? Since when do you like going to professional theme park and seeing 20 and 30 year olds playing a 70 year old looking man, who it turns out is hundreds or thousands of years old, and who ultimately turns out not be a man, but a God? So if he was Zeus all along, why was he taking us into a known trap? And why does he wear a bad beard and wig? And then - for all of you people so sensitive to the reality of the show - did it bother anyone that his LIVE performer transforms into CGI animated character? And as to the content of the show - nothing happened in the first two scenes. Nothing.

So - Take the goals above and mix with a very small budget, and 12 weeks to do it all, and have at it. I am very proud of the show that we accomplished. That is to say, I and my team, and the Universal technical support team, that did the impossible. The show now has better ratings, and as pointed out by one of you here, the ratings improve as they continue to get the finale effects on line on a more consistent basis.

As to the choices I made - and yes, I wrote, directed, produced and designed the show -- here are there reasons. It's not some random thing -- it was very purposeful.

Taylor - I wanted a character audiences could indentify with and they they would LIKE.

Darkennon - I wanted a VILLAIN - someone that could be EVIL and that could attack Poseidon.

Why Poseidon as a HERO? Well for all of you purists - its just not correct that Poseidon was a villain. And Zeus and Poseidon battling for Earth isn't correct either. So - lets get off this notion that the previous show was somehow "true" to mythology. It wasn't --

It was called Poseidon's Fury - and they decided to keep that name, though I had proposed a change - The Haunted Temple of Poseidon. I thought, since the "fun houses" at Halloween use walk-through effectively, that there was good parallel in calling this a Haunted Temple. (That would have slightly changed the writing as well...)

As to the concept and design -- Pre-Show sets up Taylor as your host who TRIES his best to deal with the "strnage things" going on --

ACT I - establishes the backstory of what has gone before, it then sets up a RIDDLE that holds the key to what lays ahead, and then cleanly sets up the Villain - and all in a way that allows Taylor to react and discover things as he goes. (Compare that to the previous show in there - honestly people, there is no comparison because nothing dramatic happened previously ecxcept that they shined lights on cieling paintings.)

ACT II - CHamber of Death -- People are TRAPPED. No escape unless they can find something -- find it or die. No way out - until Taylor by chance finds the object of magic -- and in doing so, brings to life the Guardian --- who then casts the spell that opens the doorway to Poseidon's Chamber.

ACT III - Poseidon's Chamber -- for all of you jaded people who KNOW the secret of the room - next time WATCH the faces of the guests who don't know whats coming. You will see that they are quite awestruck -- as a magic trick, it works well. As to the rest of it - the focus, the staging, the storytelling is CLEAR now. We realize what is up.

And, as pointed out by others -- if you saw the show early in the SUmmer - the finale effects were not firing as consistently as we had liked. Now the show is building up its reliabilty - and mjore and more of the effects are in.

I agree with several people here -- its easy to be jaded and cynical about things. Espeically when you don't go on line to achieve things. But here, I end where I started - I make no apologies. THe show is clearer. Kids love the show (although Tiny ones have to leave as it gets a little scary for them) - Adults love the show too though. The ratings have gone up. People applaud at the end of this show - something that never happened previously. I'm proud of this on all counts - but when you add that we did it on a small, tight budget, and in 12 weeks, it is only that much more incredible.

I urge those of you who thought it wasn't all that great, to see it again with an open mind. I cannot agree with anyone who thinks the previous show was a gem -- sorry. It was really not good on most any level - dramatically and from an entertainment point of view - it lacked any heart, it had no humor, and it certainly was not engaging.

I welcome your comments - its always good to get feedback. Now -=- for your specific comments --

Barry - flashlights probably wouldn't help in Latin Class.and as to your other comments- Darkennon is in a way related to all classic villains. Thanks for the obvservation. As to the "GreeK' your comment regarding English here means that MOST motion pictures are wrong then? You know - when we see them reading the words in Bibles from other eras, when we see Roman and Greeks words in movies that are also in English - its a CONVENTION used to facilityate a story. And by the way -- just so you know -- Poseidon's Fury isn't a REAL story. Its fantasy and action adventure. :)
Mr. Nonacho - we found one of the brightest ones we could find - so you're right. I'll try to find out what the spec and model is.
Barry - Cute -- that observation about Greek and English. And also the comparison to Darth Maul. Nice.
Coiley the SPring SPrit e- I love you - you GET it - you have a sense of what creating a show is all about -- and you understand the nature of storytelling. THANKS for the positive words and thoughts --
MIB999999 - I don;'t understand your hang up on DARKENNON - he was created because in actuallity it is MORE believeable that a HIGH PRIEST challenged the gods in a way that would make him evil and capable of using humans as nothing more than sacrifical lambs. To make Poseidon a VILLAIN is wrong-headed. I am suprised you don't understand that. And what is WRONG with an original character? THINK ABOUT THIS - you need to have, in a show that takes place in 12 minutes - INSTANTLY RECGONIZABLE ICONS -- so that people KNOW what your intent is. THIS IS NOT MOVIE MEDIUM where you have TIME to establish character and intent -- - THINK when you criticise.
Tony M - the entire notion that ZEUS was actually this guy in a bad wig and bad fake beard is insulting! You all go on about "reality" and then take the entire basis of the original show - a young actor playing an OLD man who is actually a centureies old GOD, who becomes a CGI animated character -- I mean COME ON!!!
All I am saying is - instead of being caustic and smug in your replies people -- THINK about things and find positive solutions. If there was ONE idea in here that was a great suggestion, I'd probably use it. As it is - these endless remarks that are "cute" do nothing to really help, nor are they valid criticisms.

I look forward to additional comments.

CoileyTheSpringSprite

09-10-2001, 02:54 AM

Gary,

Thanks a lot for responding to the complaints lodged on this board. Hopefully people will be able to see the show in a new light, and not be totally jaded by their love of the old show.

I enjoyed the old show- but mostly for the major show effects. The stone cartouche door, the water vortex and the room drop. Three wonderful effects, which, unfortunately, were hindrered by a story and set-up that was certainly not the best in the world. You and your team managed to create a better attraction through a more compelling story.

Having watched many an attraction rehab before, the fact that you guys were able to go from concept to completed product in such a short time is nothing short of amazing.

The old show was a very passive experience. The audience wasn't involved at all. There was no immedieate sense of danger. You've managed to cover most of the points of why the old show was lacking in comparison to the new one.

Other comments...

Darkennon is evil. As such, (and if the Internet Movie Database is correct, because I wouldn't have ever guessed it was him...) Jeffrey Combs was an excellent choice for the part. The man is very good with deliciously evil parts as evidenced in his recurring role on Deep Space Nine and his small, albeit creepy turn in House on Haunted Hill (which, if we all recall, was partially filmed at IOA). Christina Pickles' Goddess character also stands out. I still get goosebumps when the music swells, the door rolls open and she says "Your trident comes home... returns to your hand."

Speeding up the cartouche works a lot better than when it moved so slooooowly before. Gives the guest less time to realize its not really stone. Combine that with the louder sound effects, and the effect is much more realistic.

Making the Chamber of Sacrifices more three dimensional... ie: the frame around the emergency exit doorway, and the painting that helps cover up the hidden door's seperation from the wall.

One of my favorite improvements... after the strobe goes off and the walls for the smaller chamber fly away... you're standing in complete darkness for a good 6-7 seconds or so. What's great about this? You've already been transported to Poseidon's Chamber. You just can't SEE anything because the Octopus' tentacles are blocking any light from getting in. The lights fade up as the tentacles unwrap themselves... one of my biggest complaints about the old show was it seemed like a movie was starting. They needed a segue between no projection and the start of the film so they created the Octopus. Unfortunatrely, it didn't really explain why you can see perfectly... it really made it seem like a film. The new use of the Octopus segue is spectacular- its such a small detail, but it adds so much to the realism.

One point that hasn't been brought up yet... the new show has a WONDERFUL score. From the queue music that sounds very Haunted Mansion-esque, to the swelling theme in the Chamber of Death as the door slides open... it's nice really, because, unlike the old show, the main theme and variations thereof follow you from room to room. Works extremely well, in my opinion. Something I think we can ALL agree on, is that IOA has the single best collection of original attraction and area music of just about anywhere, and as such, the new music is in good company- and yet a few more tracks I would love to have on CD. The old show's score was actually good as well, but it only really stood out in the final chamber.

If I have only one complaint about the entire redo- it's that the lightning in the queue wasn't replaced with the excavation work lights, ala DL's Indy. But if I had to guess, I would assume that their absence (Although not complete absense, as the two main lights in the final portion of the queue were replaced... to reinforce the idea of an electricity generator) was due to budgetary purposes.

I could keep going on with the praise, but I'll just close with saying Bravo to you and your team. Congratulations on giving guests of Islands of Adventure what's basically a brand new attraction- one that's compelling, and as exciting as some of the other offerings in the park.

-CoileyTheSpringSprite
aka kungaloosh1937@hotmail.com

johare

09-10-2001, 07:05 AM

The new show is good, but I think I would have prefered the old show if they could have found a better 'keeper'. All the times I went the keeper made most mall santa's look good in a fake beard. I know that universal can do a makeup/makeover job better than that. Just look at the Grinch character around Christmas. Heck, the guy who walks around Jurassic Park with the cane would have made a decent keeper character!

I think what I miss most is that final surprise where you are 'sent back' to the previous room.

fervour

09-10-2001, 08:31 AM

I agree with Johare. The "transporting" effect is now missing. For me, the loss of that effect ruins the attraction.

What is the purpose of the vortex now? In the older version, the vortex transported you below the sea to posiedon's lair and then Zeus magically transported you back from the deep. In the new version there really is no purpose in the vortex.

In the older version you walked through the vortex to a destination below the ocean. In the the new version you walk into a chamber EXACTLY like the prior chamber ----this is what ruins the magical transportation that used to occur. In the older version one was unaware that the attraction viewing area had the same configuration as the earlier chamber. Now when the room "magically" reappears, one is left thinking "ho hum, the walls are back".

Also, in the new version, when the blinding flash occurs and the walls "disappear", the natural inclination for me is to ponder, "Where did the walls go?" A quick glance around the room allowed me to watch the last inches of the walls receding into the ceiling---and my mind made the association "curtain rising". Of course the search for the walls also emphasized the mechanics of the building, the theatrical lighting props and trusses, etc. ----totally brought me back to "reality" ---this is just a show. So when the walls reappear, My natural association was "curtain drop".

That's just my two cents. But for me, the loss of a reason for the vortex and the lack of the transporting effect ruins the attraction.

larworth

09-10-2001, 08:33 AM

Wanted to say thanks for taking the time to contribute. Hearing from people who are actually involved in the creation of the great product we get to experience is a real plus. It is also nice to hear your openess to feedback.
THINK about things and find positive solutions. If there was ONE idea in here that was a great suggestion, I'd probably use it
I won't be able to see the new show for a couple more months, so I can offer none today. Maybe others have some good ideas. Of course, changes do require some budget to work with.

Hmmm.....I think Barry is still looking for someplace to invest some of his excess millions into the park (I assume you haven't been too hurt in the market downturn). He'd probably be more than willing to fund whatever new idea we come up with.

The only problem I see is if management was not interested in renaming the ride "The Haunted Temple of Poseidon", they might not be all that interested in renaming it "Barry's Fury"?

WebmasterBarry

09-10-2001, 09:34 AM

I think the new show should be "Earl's Fury: All Secrets Revealed." The last room will be a fight between Earl and Michael Eisner. :)

johare

09-10-2001, 09:55 AM

In the older version you walked through the vortex to a destination below the ocean. In the the new version you walk into a chamber EXACTLY like the prior chamber ----this is what ruins the magical transportation that used to occur. In the older version one was unaware that the attraction viewing area had the same configuration as the earlier chamber. Now when the room "magically" reappears, one is left thinking "ho hum, the walls are back". I feel the same way. What's the point of walking thru a water vortex if you wind up in a room which looks almost exactly like the room you just left?!? It was MUCH more effective when the vortex led to this HUGE undersea chamber and at the end you were magically transported back to the first room. I even prefered the keeper character with his storytelling over this new idiot that runs around screaming like an fool and making bad jokes. The new attraction is ok, but really pales in comparison with the original. Maybe IOA hired the same guys who re-engineered Journey into Imagination over at Epcot! :)

Gary Goddard

09-10-2001, 12:06 PM

Johare -

tell me what is so great about walking into a giant room that has to be in a modified "work light" environment. You go through this great vortex - and wind up in an atmosphere that gives away the entire next part of the show. FIVE OBVIOUS SCREENS have repeating "bubbles" on them to fill the load-in time. You can see all the fountain piping and if you look BEHIND you - what happend to theming? A die-hard theme park fan like you accepts the fact you can see bare walls, speaker clusters and other support equipment in plain view? That's not very period is it? So
you criticize the new show for IMPROVING on the staging, and putting the audiences' focus where it should be -- on the SHOW and by revealing that room in a dramatic way. Yet you forgive major inconsistancies like this --

And what is this LOVE of the old show's KEEPER - I find this curious. As pointed out before - the first two acts are long, monotonous monologues -- with nothing happening in any chamber. No reveals, no engagement of the audience, and worse, nothing remotely entertaining. The guy is a kid in a bad wig and worse fake beard. You think that's great writing?

And then the CGI mess at the end -- which made no sense -- this is what you think makes for a great show. I find your comments really cynical. A theme park is designed - its attractions - to take visitors in journeys that are fun, that engage the emotions, and that excite them in some way. Whether you choose to admit it or not, this show achieves this in a superior way to the prior show.

Revealing the finale chamber wiht all of its warts and blemishes showing - as they had to do to allow people to load-in -- is NOT good show. It is NOT good staging. You can defend this all you want - but honestly, you're just wrong. Sorry - but your liking of this would be akin to showing you the backstage part of the finale to -- lets' say PHANTOM OF THE OPERA -- the curtain rises and you SEE the smoke machines, the lighting instruments, the speaker clusters -- and THEN they try to make magic happen. Just doesn't work.

And if you'd never SEEN the prior show - you wouldn't give this a moment's thought. You would be, like the audience members who are less jaded than you - enthralled.

Anyway - you are certainly entitled to your opinion - just that, from a dramatic and staging point of view, it doesn't make sense to reveal your big punch finale under load-in lighting levels that give the magic away before the show starts.

Gary

fervour

09-10-2001, 12:55 PM

Gary --
I realize your last comment was directed at Johare, but I would like to address it.

you say
------------------------
Revealing the finale chamber wiht all of its warts and blemishes showing - as they had to do to allow people to load-in -- is NOT good show. It is NOT good staging. You can defend this all you want -
-------------------------

My point is that the set was interesting enough to maintain one's focus while the audience loaded in. So I did not dwell on the "warts and blemishes" as you call them. But the flash in the new version is pretty spectacular. Yet it does not prevent one from seeing the mechanics of the illusion (at least in the times that I visited). And seeing the mechanics of the illusion destroys the effect. Also entering a room which looks exactly like the prior room is anticlimatic (sp?) nullifies the spatial transportation. In the older version we not only felt that we transported from the fantastic to the real, but there was also a spatial displacement. I for one felt that I had been moved from one spot to another. Now, at best, you move from the "fantastic" world on stage to the "ordinary" ----but there is no sense of having "moved".

I don't have any real complaints with the new story line. I think my two issues could be remedied by loading into the main arena like in the earlier show. What is the point in the vortex now?

EUROPA

09-10-2001, 01:06 PM

Man this started off kind of friendly...now we have people creating new user id's just to vent...wow. I can't wait to get there in December and see it for myself.

johare

09-10-2001, 01:40 PM

FIVE OBVIOUS SCREENS have repeating "bubbles" on them to fill the load-in time. You can see all the fountain piping and if you look BEHIND you - what happend to theming? A die-hard theme park fan like you accepts the fact you can see bare walls, speaker clusters and other support equipment in plain view? You know what...when I walked into that big room and looked around I never even noticed the bare walls, speaker clusters or other support equipment. The kids and I just looked around at this big amazing room we had entered via the water vortex. The screens with the repeating bubbles added to the atmosphere/theming a lot more than a small empty room very similar to the one I just left.

you criticize the new show for IMPROVING on the staging, and putting the audiences' focus where it should beI don't consider the new show an improvement.

And what is this LOVE of the old show's KEEPER - I find this curious. As pointed out before - the first two acts are long, monotonous monologues -- with nothing happening in any chamber. No reveals, no engagement of the audience, and worse, nothing remotely entertaining. The guy is a kid in a bad wig and worse fake beard. You think that's great writing? Yes they could have improved the keepers beard/makeup and yes his storytelling was somewhat boring, but I'll take boring over annoying anyway and that screaming idiot archeaologist they have in there now is about as annoying as they come.

And then the CGI mess at the end -- which made no sense -- this is what you think makes for a great show. I find your comments really cynical. A theme park is designed - its attractions - to take visitors in journeys that are fun, that engage the emotions, and that excite them in some way. Whether you choose to admit it or not, this show achieves this in a superior way to the prior show. The new show is superior to the old show in YOUR opinion. I'm glad you think my comments are cynical. I would let you know what I think of your comments, but DIS forums regulations prohibit me from doing so.

You can defend this all you want - but honestly, you're just wrong. Once again...in YOUR opinion. Quite honestly I feel I'm right.

Anyway - you are certainly entitled to your opinion - just that, from a dramatic and staging point of view, it doesn't make sense to reveal your big punch finale under load-in lighting levels that give the magic away before the show startsYou obviously don't understand what the show is or what the finale is supposed to be. A big giant room is NOT a good finale in my book. Being 'magically' transported back to the room I came from however is a GREAT finale.

Gary Goddard

09-10-2001, 01:42 PM

In the new story, the idea is that there are many small chambers throughout -- and that there IS some "ancient link to the oceans" and in fact, we DO find it. But its set up is different - you STILL go through the Vortex and you come to another chamber which seems small and not unlike other chambers. BUT, in bringing home the TRIDENT, Poseidon now REVEALS the real underwater world that we have come to.

This is a more magical presentation of the room - only a fan boy like yourself would notice technical elements - and in fact, if you saw the last bit of the walls moving, that means the lighting came up a second too soon. You should not see any of that, and I guarantee you that the general public is not noticing those things --

Anyway -- its like this - as a Director, if you were the show director, you would choose to tell the story that way. I disagree, and as the show director this time around, I choose to REVEAL the room in a dramatic fashion. This is not unlike what I did in the STAR TREK attraction - when you are BEAMED ABOARD the ENTERPRISE. The challenge here was to use EXISTING TECHNOLOGY and lmited budget to maximize what was already there. I know you hate this - but in fact, this IS A BETTER way to reveal that room - it reveals it dramatically, under show lighting conditions, wiht music and sound effects - its the way it should be. Entering that room before had no magic, no wonderment - it looked like a big empty room with five obvious projection screens. Where was the SHOW?

And as a theme park fan and one who really cares about theming, I would think - if you step back and your objective for a moment - that you would see this really IS a better solution. You are very forgiving that people see every bit of technical support system in the old way. I'm sorry - but you just don't make a convincing argument for that presentation -

Gary

Gary Goddard

09-10-2001, 01:51 PM

Well, I am sorry that you feel you would have to use language that the moderator wouldn't allow in order to properly give me your opinions. Thats kind of sad, and I guess indicates a certain kind of personality. If you can't win an argument with facts, resort to profanity? That's not a real healthy approach to things.

As I said in my response to Fervour's comments - each person would do the show his or her way. Obviously I prefer this show, as I created it. I think it works and I think it works better. I am not here to tell you that you should like my show over the last one - you are entitled to your opinion. I CAN tell that that bringing people into a vast hanger, with backstage elements showing all over the place is not "good show" as its termed in the industry. For you - you chose to overlook those major faults, while finding other less obvious faults in the new show. That's fine --

I believe the new show works much better than the old show, and that it is miles ahead in the story telling department. And I know that people applaud at the end, and that they are excited and talkative when leaving --

Die hard fans of the old show seem bent on PROVING it was somehow better. It was't. But it was different. And you know its OKAY that you and a few others like that one more. I am just saying that the things you bring up seem very small in comparison to the larger script, staging and engagement issues that existed in the previous show, which you seem completely to ignore.

Thats it --

fervour

09-10-2001, 02:01 PM

Gary ---
I'm not mad at you. I do understand johare's position. You do speak condescendingly to us. But that's ok. Ultimately, you have the last laugh. It is as you say, your show.

I suppose if I had re-tooled the show I might be a little touchy too.

Thanks for your insight.

Sincerely,
Dave

johare

09-10-2001, 02:18 PM

Well, I am sorry that you feel you would have to use language that the moderator wouldn't allow in order to properly give me your opinions. Thats kind of sad, and I guess indicates a certain kind of personality. If you can't win an argument with facts, resort to profanity? That's not a real healthy approach to things. That was a joke. I see you have a good sense of humor too. btw: What make you think I intended to use profanity?

As I said in my response to Fervour's comments - each person would do the show his or her way. Obviously I prefer this show, as I created it. I think it works and I think it works better. I am not here to tell you that you should like my show over the last one - you are entitled to your opinionHmmm...are these not your prior quotes to me: "Whether you choose to admit it or not, this show achieves this in a superior way to the prior show." or how about "You can defend this all you want - but honestly, you're just wrong". Doesn't sound like you really believe that anyone should have an opinion of this show which differs from yours.
I am just saying that the things you bring up seem very small in comparison to the larger script, staging and engagement issues that existed in the previous show, which you seem completely to ignore. What's small to you isn't small to everyone else. The new show is good, however I feel that USF wasted their time and money changing it to what it is now when all they really needed to do was give the keeper a better makeup job and hide a couple speaker wires.

johare

09-10-2001, 02:22 PM

I'm not mad at you. I do understand johare's position. You do speak condescendingly to us. But that's ok. Ultimately, you have the last laugh. It is as you say, your show. I'm sure the people who re-imagineered Journey into Imagination into Journey into Your Imagination had the last laugh too...but is having the last laugh really the goal?

fervour

09-10-2001, 03:30 PM

hey johare ---I just sent you a private message ---I'm new to sending private messages ----I don't know if you got it.

JessicaR

09-10-2001, 03:50 PM

Just my opinion and the opinion of my kids. We did the old show in December we enjoyed it well enough and didnt think about improving on it. We just saw the show again last week a few times actually as we all really loved it. I wont compare the two but just wanted to state my opinion that the changed show left us wanting to see it again, in December there was no desire to see it twice. I guess I'm just a sit back enjoy being entertained guest that doesnt have to anylze every detail to enjoy it. Just an immediate response after walking out of the new show...we all agreed the we enjoyed it better.

Gary Goddard

09-10-2001, 04:39 PM

Hey Dave --

Its good to have a name this time around -- thanks for your last note.

The reason I chose to write - is because I find that its all too easy for theme park fans to be catty and critical - without really making a point. And I wanted everyone to know - at least in this case - its not some faceless, nameless management group that made decisions. I concieved the new show, wrote it, directed it - essentially made it all happen. So of course I am defensive of it - I think it's pretty darn good. Is it T2/3D, or SPIDERMAN, or STAR TREK or any of the other shows that I started on from day one? No, but this was a different animal. I wasn't asked to create a Poseidon attraction from day one -- or given $70,000,000 to do it. The challenge was to take the existing format and try to make it work in a way that would -- let's just say in a way that would it more popular with a greater number of people than the old show was.

And yes, I think if any of you are proud of what you do - you would defend it as well. I find that many fans too easily dismiss the hard work done by those in the field. Sometimes the criticisms are harsh - and I am very critical too - of my own work and of others. But NO ONE - no matter what any of you might think - sets out to do a bad show. The teams before me tried hard to make the Poseidon show a great one - and there were certain positives -- obviously the most impressive one is the Vortex tunnel, which everyone seems to love. (And by the way, in that sense, I think the WAY that I introduce the vortex, dramatically and musically, is again superior to the old show). So, as I stated to Johare earlier - - one can be critical and catty all one wants to be - but that doesn't get anyone anywhere.

At the end of the day, Johare for whatever reasons preferred the older vision of the show - I like mine. I tried to state WHY choices where made - but to little avail. His mind is made up. Cool. I can understand that too. But every decision on the last show, made within tight budget and schedule limitations, was mine -- so I stand by the choices and continue to believe it is a far, far more entertaining show.

Anyway, thanks for your note.

Gary Goddard

09-10-2001, 04:44 PM

Thanks Jessica,

It seems that you and your family responded as I had HOPED people would - and as it seems they are based upon recent rating surveys - which is, that they like Taylor, they like the fact the show makes sense now, and they are ENTERTAINED by it.

I mean - that was the real goal. Make the show entertaining -- and the fact that you wanted to see it again makes me very happy - its what we are in this business for.

Thanks,

Gary

Gary Goddard

09-10-2001, 04:49 PM

Johare --

I totally AGREE with you regarding the changing of JOURNEY INTO IMAGINATION. Tony Baxter and I worked together many years ago at Imagineering - they guy's one of the great ones. The new change is uninspired. Frankly, I am insulted that you would compare that change to Poseidon -- its just not right. You seem to be quite flippant with regard to your comments - but they are not thought out - they are like jokes. Well, just to let you know, I take what I do seriously and whether you appreicate it or not, a great deal of thought went into the choices made at POSEIDON. And I could not disagree with your comments more when it comes your suggestion that ---

" ... however I feel that USF wasted their time and money changing it to what it is now when all they really needed to do was give the keeper a better makeup job and hide a couple speaker wires."

If you think that was ALL that was wrong with that show you exhibit a very limited understanding of the art of writing, staging and drama. I mean seriously - is THAT what you think? Do you really think that by doing those changes the show would have improved? Or that the ratings would have gone up?

I don't think you are really that out of touch - I just think again, you are being glib and flippant.

Spaceman Spiff

09-10-2001, 05:19 PM

Welcome to the UIS Board Gary Goddard! I think its great when the people behind the scenes join us here, hop you like it here.

PS--I think the tech./main. personel do a great job at Universal.

johare

09-10-2001, 06:29 PM

Gary,

Ok, I agree that you did a better job than the person responsible for JIYI...in that case the new attraction is MUCH worse than the previous. In the case of Poseidon however (and I am NOT joking here) I still feel that the original was slightly better and they could have made some small adjustments and wound up with a better show than they have now and saved a ton of money in the process. There is one exception though...the first time I attempted to see the new Poseidon show the vortex crashed when it was full of people. That was probably the most exciting Poseidon show I've seen! :)

If you think that was ALL that was wrong with that show you exhibit a very limited understanding of the art of writing, staging and drama. The more I read your condescending comments with your "I know better than the guests" attitude, the more I begin to realize what went wrong with the Poseidon rehab. You really should spend a little time finding out what others find entertaining. You aren't building the attraction for yourself, are you? I didn't know that one needed a degree in art, writing, staging and drama to appreciate your work. What you exhibit is a very limited understanding of what the average theme park guest finds entertaining.

I mean seriously - is THAT what you think? Do you really think that by doing those changes the show would have improved?Yes, not significantly, but enough to fix the few problems I had with the old show. I mean seriously, do you really think that what you did improved the show? Is THAT what YOU think? Because I HONESTLY LIKED THE OLD SHOW BETTER. The feeling of being teleported back to the original room was one of the highlights. The current effect is just a fancy way of 'raising the curtain on the stage'. Nothing special. I'm sorry if you don't agree or are conceited enough to think that makes me ignorant.

Gary Goddard

09-10-2001, 07:12 PM

Hey Johare,

I never called you ignorant. Sorry you took it so personally. But you know, you are pretty strong willed yourself - you might want to go back and look at the caustic comments you made originally. Anyway, I don't believe you need a degree in anything to create entertainment -- and as far as my personal approach to things go - my credentials speak for themsevels in the arena of attraction creation. Do you like Terminator 2/3-D? The Amazing Adventures of Spiderman? Star Trek The Experience? Jurassic Park The Ride? If you like any of those - then you like some of my work. As for Poseidon - I repeat - you are entitled to your opinion and some day maybe YOU will get to create your own attraction. My sense of what entertainment is == is quite different than yours. I found very little entertaining in the previous produciton, and the guests agreed. You are in the minority - that doesn't make you right or wrong on this - just that you are not in touch with the larger public. And as for you comments, let me say that first and foremost, I try to do things that please me, yes, but always with an eye to the audience too. But I know if it doesn't make ME lough, or get excited, or cry, or whatever - then it won't affect the audience either.

Everyone's comments are appreciated - but the more constructive comments are usually better. The caustic and cute ones - that are really just catty cut downs - are not appreciated.

Sorry if I sound condescending -- thats not my intention either. But you know - I think its time someone speak up from the design side to say, we DO think about these things. We go to great lengths to try and make these things work. And, if you step back and get over your own prejudices, you might see that more of the PUBLIC likes this attraction than the last one.

Gary

johare

09-10-2001, 07:25 PM

I never called you ignorant. Maybe not in those exact words, but you have said "I'm wrong, I don't know what I'm talking about, I have a very limited understanding, etc...".

Do you like Terminator 2/3-D? The Amazing Adventures of Spiderman? Star Trek The Experience? Jurassic Park The Ride?
T23D yes
Spiderman YES!
Star Trek never heard of it
Jurassic Park Ride ok could be better.

But I know if it doesn't make ME lough, or get excited, or cry, or whatever - then it won't affect the audience either. So you believe the audience shares your sense of humor, excitement, etc... and you say you're not conceited?

btw: I never said you needed a degree to create something, I said that you pretty much expect someone to have a degree to appreciate your work. And I HAVE spoken with people regarding the new attraction and my impression is that it's about 50/50. Half seem to like the new the other half like the old and if that's the case, why bother. I also have been stopped by the people with the clipboards at the exit who take you to that little room off guest services and I've given them my opinion there also.

johare

09-10-2001, 07:26 PM

Ah, now I see my mistake. This explains everything!

CLICK HERE! (http://www.k105country.com/goddard.html)

Tony M

09-10-2001, 07:44 PM

Thank you Mr.Goddard, Chairman of Landmark, for visiting our site.
For those of you out there who don't know who he is, Mr.Goddard is the Chairman of Landmark, the company responsible for great attractions like Universal's T-2,3-D, Las Vegas' Star Trek Experience and now seemingly the rehab of Poseidon's Fury. It is very hard for all of us to distinguish people who are who they say they are on this site from those who anonymously say that they work for Universal, Disney, or in this case Landmark. It's annoying that the internet is such an anonymous community where we have to trust that people are who they say they are and not some idiot who researches the internet and hides behind a name of someone else that they found on a website's Company info page to try to lend to that person's credibility. The fact that you have included your ACTUAL name to all of your posts adds all of the credibility and verification that one would need to validate all of your comments. Thank You for not hiding behind some screen name.
It is nice to know that the Chairman of Landmark, such a large entertainment company would take the time to respond to our comments about an attraction that you were so involved with. As Chairman of Landmark, it is obvious that someone with your experience and knowledge of ride and attraction development should be the ultimate resource for all of us fans curious about your projects. Criticism or praise, we just like to share our opinions and ideas. We are merely amateurs, inexperienced in what a theme park guest wants or would like to see, but we enjoy the banter none the less.
I had hoped to reach you through your company's website today to discuss this attraction and other attractions that you have been involved with on a little less formal manner than this public forum, but unfortunately none of my attempts were successful. Please excuse the numerous attempts to reach you through your company's office and website. I had thought that since you were able to take so much time responding on this site that you were available for one to one dialogue. I am a big admirer of theme park projects and was interested in Landmark's involvement. I know that you would not divulge that info over a public forum, but maybe you would in private email format. As Chairman of Landmark, it is good to know how involved that you still are in the actual creative aspects of your company's projects and you seem to be a true resource to this site and the fans of this site.
Thanks again for taking time out of your busy day as Chairman of Landmark today to respond to all of our posts.
Since you are the Chairman of Landmark your info comes straight from the most reliable source possible regarding "Poseidon's Fury" and your many responses to our posts has made all of us take notice of your company's value of customer relationship and how much you appreciate our perspective. Please visit this site as often as you can.
Thanks.
HAVE FUN

MIB999999

09-10-2001, 07:50 PM

Gary Goddard glad to have you in this discussion since this new show is your baby.
I like the old show for the following reasons:
1: the old show transported me back to the pre-vortex room. IMHO you are assuming the applause for the new show at the end is good. The old show left you in such a state of wonderment and question as to how you got back to this room. You know something happened but you are not sure what it was and you are trying to figure it out. This condition is not conducive to spontaneous applause. The applause for the new show is because they know the show is over.

2: the vortex: in the old show the vortex was a point of reference as well as being cool to see and walk through. In the new show the vortex has no relationship to the ending. we just as well put the vortex outside between Fury and Mythos so everyone can see and enjoy it.

3: Keeper was low keyed and talked with you, relaying a story. Taylor talks, (screams) at you and thus there is no bond of trust.

4: Keeper led us thru the vortex by the calm of his person. I seriously doubt anyone would follow taylor based on trust, especially after the chicken with its head cut-off routine just displayed.

5: The keeper character was based on subtle trust. With Taylor you are just stuck in the wrong place with the wrong person.

IDEAS FOR IMPROVEMENT: rewrite the story so the vortex is once again a point of reference and i am transported back to the pre-vortex room. ;)
kevin

Gary Goddard

09-10-2001, 08:27 PM

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

Again, please understand I was hired to TRANSFORM the current show. THere were TWO ATTEMPTS prior to my involvement to "fix" the old show you refer to. My experience shows that band-aid fixes are not sufficient on attractions of such a large scale, you have to somehow think OUT OF THE BOX and really turn things on its head.

My goal -- lets return to that - what I was asked to do, was to create a more entertaining experience. I was asked to make the story understandable and to make it more entertaining for families. The old show, as much as some of you love it, was not fixable in this way. I honestly find it hard to believe that any of you were engaged by the KEEPER character - a caricature of an old man who later is revealed to be an omnipotent God. Nothing happend in Act I and nothing happend in Act II. It was all a big delay until you got to the Vortex. And that is not a "show" --
be that as it may --- lets go to your points -- -

1. In actuality - the stunned silence was because people were confused. Most people did not get that they were "back where they started" though they did get they were in another room. But the silence there continued in the halls during the exit - there was no laughter - no excitement. When people leave shows that they love, they talk and chat -- its part of the shared experience. So, yes there was something to be said for the stunned reaction - but honestly - Universal wanted (and I agree in this case) people to be excited and pumped up at the end of the show. That was the goal - I think it worked.

2. I am not sure how you can say in the New Show the Vortex has nothing to do with the ending. The entire set up is all about "the ancient connection to the ocean..." - something thought to be legend - but which proves to be true. The build up to the transition tunnel - which will take them "deeper into the Temple" is a big part of the show. The tunnel them leads them to the Chamber of Poseidon -- and yes, in another world with another budget, I would have designed the room differently - BUT in this case we could not change anything there -- but since the prior room had changed, I thought it was okay. Anyway - in terms of story - the transition plays well, and the VORTEX is an important part of leading you to the hidden chamber. I think thats pretty clear in terms of the text of the show.

3. Well, I have to tell you that the KEEPER bored me senseless. On and on with nothing but expository information -- the actors tried to rise above the material - but you know - it was dry, it was boring - and this entire myth that it was somehow "the art of storytelling" is just off base. TAYLOR - and I don't know which Taylor you saw - but I know that it DOES depend upon which performer you see -- but the TAYLOR character does engage the audience. And the script now has moments that REVEAL things, and where there is an emotional reaction to what is going on.

4. The nature of entertainment is to create an approach that makes a character interesting and engaging. The Vortex is a great effect, and a wonderful one -- and I think audiences actually like following Taylor through there -- and the music and drama that lead to the reveal actually gets people more emotionally involved than previously -- its a big moment. I cannot agree that the Keeper's passive, non-involved performance was better -- its just a difference of opinion.

5. The Keeper and his "subtle trust" I don't get. Taylor is based - admitedly - on classic comedy/adventure movies. I think everything from the Bob Hope/Bing Crosby ROAD movies, to more recent movies like Ghostbusters, MEN IN BLACK, Austin Powers - there are tons. You take a character that is comical yet who wants to be more than he is - and you put him into dangerous or threatening situations and let him work his way through them. It results in comedy - and an endearing character. Sorry if the guy or girl you saw that say was so over the top that it wasnt holding togehter - thats NOT the direction for the Taylor performance.

See a few more shows with a different Taylor and see if you feel differently.

Okay - thats my two cents on your most recent notes.

Best,

Gary

Gary Goddard

09-10-2001, 08:34 PM

Tony,

Thanks for the introduction to the message boards. I actually enjoy seeing what theme park fans think - and while I am used to most fans really liking what I do -- its okay when sometimes they don't. BUt in the case of Poseidon's Fury -- I feel that Universal was more than justified in wanting to change and improve the show. And, as importantly, as the creator of that show, I am most proud of the show and therefore, have been happy to talk to those who, for whatever reason, don't like the new one.

I am happy to talk to you about anything else you want to dicscuss - though I did not get any Email or telephone messages from you today. Please feel free to eMail me at this address - or to call me at Landmark.

Best regards,

Gary

Gary Goddard

09-10-2001, 08:38 PM

Hey Johare -

Nice try - but it aint' me. Some OTHER Gary Goddard. Look for me at Landmarkusa.com

But it was funny, I'll give you that.

Gary

Melanie1001

09-10-2001, 08:40 PM

If I'm reading right, the final 'magical' transport effect is no longer existant...Why did they do away with the final effect of going back to the original room? I can understand changing the 'Keeper' character, it really didn't make much sense anyway, but that final effect rocked! I'm glad I got to see it once anyway..

MIB999999

09-10-2001, 08:40 PM

Mr. Goddard,
now that you set my brain juices gurguling. i have seen the new show 4 times. The frist with a male taylor. in the first the final room had no sound so that was interesting.

second show was a female taylor and that was much better. a bit more believeable.

show three and four were male and four was really over the top.
my wife wanted to take the boy aside and calm him down or check on his medication dosage.

So it is not that i dislike the new show, i just like the old one better.
I do agree that the correct approach by taylor will make a large difference in the preception by the audience.

so how bout it, transportation back to the pre-vortex room is a possibility for a future variation:D

johare

09-10-2001, 08:44 PM

Maybe the next poll should be...

How many people here believe that the Gary Goddard posting here is THE Gary Goddard, Chairman and founder of Landmark Entertainment group. Most executives I know are FAR to busy to spend an entire day posting to a web based discussion group. Seems like only a couple people have caught on so far that this guy is a fake. Nobody with an attitude like his would have gone far in the business.

MIB999999

09-10-2001, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by johare
Maybe the next poll should be...

How many people here believe that the Gary Goddard posting here is THE Gary Goddard, Chairman and founder of Landmark Entertainment group. Most executives I know are FAR to busy to spend an entire day posting to a web based discussion group. Seems like only a couple people have caught on so far that this guy is a fake. Nobody with an attitude like his would have gone far in the business.

I don't know johare. they thought International Harvester was a forever institutiuon right up to the day Case bought it up. Just cause they are high up does not mean they still have a grasp on day to day reality that local politics finds usefull.;)
onething is for sure the FURY has been discussed!!!!!!

CoileyTheSpringSprite

09-10-2001, 09:05 PM

Well, I'm certainly not Gary, but I'll lend my perspective on a couple issues from the view of a theme park fan...

>>>1: the old show transported me back to the pre-vortex room.<<<<

I'm trying to figure out why that's better than what currently occurs. The temple is made up of a series of interconnected chambers. When you finally reach the secret chamber "hidden from [Darkennon's] eyes" by way of the vortex- you are at a point where Poseidon can help you directly. So he zaps you from the current room you're in, and into his Chamber. When the threat has been taken care of, he grants safe passage back to the temple and zaps you out of there.
Either way, the teleportation effect is still there.

>>>>>IMHO you are assuming the applause for the new show at the end is good.<<<<<<

Ah, so people are appluading because they hate it and are glad that it's over.

>>>>The old show left you in such a state of wonderment and question as to how you got back to this room. You know something happened but you are not sure what it was and you are trying to figure it out.<<<<<

Seemed pretty simple to me. Back in the old room again- that's where you're supposed to cue the applause. It's the exact same effect that occurs now. Maybe its best to ask yourself why it was confusing before, and why people understand now and applaud?

>>This condition is not conducive to spontaneous applause. <<

Again, the same effect ends the current show and there IS applause.

>>The applause for the new show is because they know the show is over. <<

Again, the same effect ended the old show- why would people not know it is the end?

Regardless- SAME effect in both shows. One elicits a positive response, the other a "huh?"

>>the vortex: in the old show the vortex was a point of reference as well as being cool to see and walk through. <<

Yes, it did make sense in the old show.

>>>In the new show the vortex has no relationship to the ending. we just as well put the vortex outside between Fury and Mythos so everyone can see and enjoy it. <<<<

This was explained fairly nicely at the beginning by Taylor. Legend has it that the temple contains a secret connection to the oceans. The Goddess brings it up again later... "Shhh! Listen!" and you hear the rush of water. It adds another layer of legend and personality to the temple. It coud also be inferred that perhaps the fact that Poseidon's spirit is on the other side of the vortex is the reason why Darkennon doesn't know where he is?

>>3: Keeper was low keyed and talked with you, relaying a story.<<<

And he talked, and talked.... there was no immersion. Nothing happened during this story. And why exactly were we in the temple to begin with? And what's with the scary old man crawling out of the wall and talking to us for anyway?

>> Taylor talks, (screams) at you and thus there is no bond of trust. <<

Taylor never screams AT you. He screams because he's scared, and if you were in the same situation, you would be, too. He's a character we can RELATE with because if I was being tormented by a long dead murderous high priest in an abandoned haunted temple, I'd be screaming as well.

>>Keeper led us thru the vortex by the calm of his person.<<

So, if the Keeper was Zeus, why was he leading us into this trap? Zeus couldn't leave well enough alone with Poseidon at the bottom of the sea? He just HAD to go down there in human form and wake a whole bunch of potential victims with him as well?

>>With Taylor you are just stuck in the wrong place with the wrong person.
<<

You do't have a CHOICE with Taylor. Darkennon has already made it clear at this point that there's only one path for you to take, and its with him. Taylor WANTS to get out of there and evacuate, but Darkennon doesn't allow it.
There was no ultimatum given in the old show. You followed the Keeper by your own will... and you seem to be concerned with the realism of the situation with your comment of "I seriously doubt anyone would follow taylor based on trust." In real life, who in their right mind would follow a weird old man that just popped out of a hole in the wall? Once again, in the new show, you HAVE to go.

>>The keeper character was based on subtle trust. With Taylor you are just stuck in the wrong place with the wrong person. <<

Subtle trust? You make him sound like he's a father figure or something. The Keeper made no logical sense story-wise. Who the heck is he? WHY are we listening to him? There's no reason for any of it. The truth is, anyone in Taylor's situation would not be able to retain complete composure to the course of events presented.

>>>>IDEAS FOR IMPROVEMENT: rewrite the story so the vortex is once again a point of reference and i am transported back to the pre-vortex room.<<<

It already is a point of reference. Specifically stated by Taylor and referenced later by the Goddess, and implied as the reason why Darkennon cannot see Poseidon.

Going back to the pre-vortex room would be impossible. Notice now that the Chamber of Death is very three-dimensional. There are props- skeletons, gold, actual THINGS adorning the walls. There was a reason why the show of old had an extremely plain looking room- and it had to do with just storing four solid walls and the connecting beams in the ceiling above you in the final chamber.

And again, within the context of the story, it makes no sense to go back to the Chamber of Death. "The Dark One has sealed the doors to this chamber with a locking spell impervious to magic. The way home is now impossible."

----- moving on to another poster...

>>>>Ah, now I see my mistake. This explains everything!

CLICK HERE!<<<<

Ahh, very intelligent.

>>>>But I know if it doesn't make ME lough, or get excited, or cry, or whatever - then it won't affect the audience either.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you believe the audience shares your sense of humor, excitement, etc... and you say you're not conceited? <<<<<

Once again, I'm most definately NOT trying to speak for Gary here, but there are fundamental elements that should be in every attraction and the old show was missing several of them. As a general rule, an attraction needs to be entertaining- and the truth is, most of the people were not entertained at all in either of the first two rooms of the old show. They were missing things that should be at the core of every theme park attraction.
I'm just a fan but I know that for an attraction to succeed, you need: humor, drama, action, heart, etc. The old show was lacking any sort of humor. The new one gets laughs consistently- but depends on the actor. The old show lacked drama up until the final chamber- and even then, you're just watching a battle between two petty gods. You're not really in the equation. It's between Zeus and Poseidon. In the new show, your lives are VERY much at stake- and Darkennon makes sure you know that right from the start. The heart in this show is that we have a guide that we can IDENTIFY with. He is us in that situation. This new show gets people excited... People yell and cheer consistently in the Chamber of Death when Taylor asks everyone if we're really brave enough to venture on. At this point, peoplehave been hooked into the story. The old show was extraordinarily slow in this room. There was not a single exciting thing that happened until the cartouche door opened and revealed the vortex.

>>>>>And I HAVE spoken with people regarding the new attraction and my impression is that it's about 50/50. Half seem to like the new the other half like the old and if that's the case, why bother.<<<<

It's not realistic at all to talk to only people who have seen the old show, which is what you're saying here. If a greater percentage of people who've never experienced the old show have a more positive reaction to the new one then did people who only saw the old show, then your point is moot.

>>>>>I still feel that the original was slightly better and they could have made some small adjustments and wound up with a better show than they have now and saved a ton of money in the process.<<<<<

If you've followed the history of the attraction at all, Universal tried this. TWICE. It would seem that they finally decided to just go all out and redo the entire storyline.

CoileyTheSpringSprite

09-10-2001, 09:09 PM

Hehe- It took me about an hour to put together my last post. In that time, Gary made a few more responses while I was typing mine out. Mine looks really repetitive now since it seems we're thinking pretty much the same way. :)

Gary Goddard

09-10-2001, 09:17 PM

Give me a break.

I am the real GG -- and I am NOT a radio DJ. And the reason I have time to do this is that I MADE time -- its my company and I choose where to put my focus. Today, I decided to try and actually converse with fans that either like or don't like the show -- although I must admit I had no idea it would take on such a lengthy commitment. But as you might guess - I see things through from start to finish.

I'm Gary Goddard. The one that created SOME of your favorite attractions - and the one that apparantly has ruined -- at least in your opinion -- your favorite one about a certain God of the Oceans.

The one and same.

johare

09-10-2001, 09:37 PM

I'm Gary Goddard. The one that created SOME of your favorite attractions - and the one that apparantly has ruined -- at least in your opinion -- your favorite one about a certain God of the OceansSure you are. Perhaps you are THIS PERSON (http://www.ci.galesburg.il.us/www/citymanager/main.htm) then?

btw: Poseidon's Fury is not my favorite attraction now and it wasn't before either. On the good old 1-10 scale I give the old one a 7 and the new one a 6. I don't think the new version is ruined either. I just happen to like the old one just a little bit more. Sorry of that offends you so much

Gary Goddard

09-10-2001, 09:58 PM

Pretty funny.

You do your homework prince alwaleed.

But I am not the same person as Coliley the SPrite - but whoever that person is - I must say that he or she has a very good grasp on the essential ideas behind show design.

Gary

CoileyTheSpringSprite

09-10-2001, 09:58 PM

Let me tell you a little about myself: I'm a Disney premium annual passholder, a Universal two-park Annual holder, and am currently a seasonal Universal employee for HHN. I'm currently a freshman at UCF.

I'm just a theme park fan- nothing more, nothing less. And I certainly don't make a habit of impersonating others.

I have, however, met Mr. Goddard before as we have a mutual friend. I can also tell you that by way of that mutual friend, I have been told that it is most definately Gary Goddard who has been posting on this board.
Of course, there's no reason for anyone to believe me, but- hey, whatever.

Come on, people- just because designers rarely speak out on public forums, does not preclude the possibility of it happening. Just as people in the know from Universal post here regularly- no one questions the validity of Earl on this board. Remember that Mr. Goddard is about as high up as they come in a company and therefore has no need to hide his real identity as others do on this board.

Just because I enjoy the attraction, think its an improvement over the old one, and understand the basics of story and theming does not make us the same person.

CoileyTheSpringSprite

09-11-2001, 12:01 AM

Sharing an IP address, huh? Only moderators can access that info- and if they would take a moment to check it out, you would see that they're absolutely not the same. Now you're resorting to lying.

Gary didn't know who I was until I e-mailed him not too long ago. I met him once, in passing, and we do have a mutual friend. Besides, my regular screen name is Kungaloosh1937. This is the only board on the net that I go by CoileyTheSpringSprite.

I find it interesting that you registered your screen name *today*. If I had to guess, you're probably a regular poster who doesn't want everyone to know they're lying and making things up about others (See issue about IP address above for proof of lying).
I've been on this forum for about a year now- and while my posts have been sporadic, they've at least been interesting and informative- which is more than what anyone could say about the three you've made so far.

johare

09-11-2001, 12:37 AM

I think this persons review of the new Poseidon's Fury sums it up best...
Poseidon's Fury Part II (http://www.themeparkinsider.com/news/response.cfm?ID=103)

Or More reviews (http://www.themeparkinsider.com/news/response.cfm?ID=156)

What's funny is that 'Gary' was personally emailing this guy trying to defend this attraction again.

How about some more opinions on this updated Poseidon....
http://www.theotherorlando.com/updates/ioafury.html

or

http://pub17.************/fislandsofadventureislands.showMessage?topicID=516 .topic

CoileyTheSpringSprite

09-11-2001, 12:51 AM

Nice try, Prince Al Waleed- removing the post in which you claimed Gary and I's IP addresses were the same- when 1. they're not, and 2. you don't have access to that info.

Where are the moderators for this board, anyways? Shouldn't new screen names like this, who come on merely to lie and start conflicts be banned? I'm sure the moderator can see posts deleted by users- and I KNOW they can check IP addresses.

You know, I've been on here over a year- haven't posted much, but what I have has been useful and relevant. I finally jump into a thread which is interesting because I'm a big fan of the show- and all this happens. I'm gonna go back to the freaking newsgroups if this is how everyone is treated.

rob@rar.org.uk

09-11-2001, 02:18 AM

Gary

If you have previously worked with Tony Baxter, are you a former Imagineer? Is there a small tribute in the Posiden's Fury script as you included a "Professor Baxter"?

I much prefer the new version to the old version, by the way. I found it was much easier to get involved with Taylor's story than it was with Timekeeper's story, despite the show building and effects being largely the same.

Regards

Rob

Gary Goddard

09-11-2001, 03:19 AM

I have never seen someone so DETERMINED to tear down things as you. The negative energy you expend -- all in the hopes of proving your point - is really sad. I hope that you can at some point in your life, turn your energy to trying to be positive and maybe, creating some ideas of you own. At this point, I can see all of my attempts to speak to you - seriously - about what kind of thinking went into the creative choices, was a waste of time. You are on these boards to be critical, and crass, and catty. That is not what I am about.

And even in your attempt to tear down the show yet again, the links you provided actually show that some of these people liked the show and approved of the changes.

I really can't take anything you say -- at this point - serious. I do get your basic message - you preferred the old show to the new one. Fine. We disagree.

Gary Goddard

09-11-2001, 03:24 AM

The answer is yes - I was an Imagineer back when we were working on the concepts and plans for EPCOT and the WORLD SHOWCASE - I was just out of college. Tony had been there for a number of years, and was completing the design model for THUNDER MESA at the time. It was great time to be at W.E.D. (that was the name at the time) -- Al Bertino, Marc Davis, Herb Ryman, Claude Coats, X. Atencio, Bill Justice -- everyone was still there -- these were the GUYS - -the one's who created Disneyland and Walt Disney World. The "young punks" were me, Phil Mendez, Steve Kirk, Tony Baxter -- it was a pretty cool time.

Anyway - it IS a coincidence that the Professor's name is Baxter isn't it? :)

I do appreciate your comments, and I am glad to hear that you liked the show.

Gary

johare

09-11-2001, 06:50 AM

I have never seen someone so DETERMINED to tear down things as youAnd I've never seen someone so DEFENSIVE as you. Why don't you listen to other peoples opinions instead of belittling them when they aren't as impressed with your work as you think they should be? The new Poseidon's is not bad, it's just not better than the old one...in my opinion. If you are really Gary Goddard, I can understand how you would be defensive of your project, but don't you think it's better to listen to people instead of criticizing those who don't agree? I'm sure even the creator of JIYI would defend his work, but hopefully he would also learn what he could do better next time.

And even in your attempt to tear down the show yet again, the links you provided actually show that some of these people liked the show and approved of the changes. Exactly! Some like the new show some like the old. From what I've read it's about 50/50 and if half of the people do prefer the old show what did Universal gain with the rehab?
I really can't take anything you say -- at this point - serious. I do get your basic message - you preferred the old show to the new one. Fine. We disagree.And why couldn't you say that from the beginning? Instead you chose to belittle my opinion and try to make it seem like I didn't know what I was talking about because I didn't like your attraction. I'm not there as a professional theme park critic or to try to analyze what went into an attraction, I'm there just to enjoy the park and it's attractions. I happened to enjoy the original Poseidon's Fury more (as do about half the people) and find the new show a little campy and Taylor annoying. Why is that so wrong?

johare

09-11-2001, 07:46 AM

Gary,

Just one quick question. Based on others comments and reviews (not just mine), is there anything you would change on the current Poseidon's Fury and if so what?

SpaceMountain_uk

09-12-2001, 06:21 AM

I loved the water tunnel part. I was amazed how do they do that part?

johare

09-12-2001, 07:45 AM

Here's a good link if you are interested in seeing a little bit about how the water vortex in Poseidon's Fury works...

http://popularmechanics.com/science/sports/1999/7/outdoing_disney/index2.phtml

kellymonaghan

09-12-2001, 08:38 AM

I've been doing some globetrotting, so I'm coming in a bit late on this. But I must say I'm impressed.

And as a fellow writer, I have to hand it to Gary for having the gumption to stand up and fight for his vision. The pride and prickliness are very familar to me. if you're not Gary, you're doing a brilliant job of impersonating a writer!

In a much earlier post, Gary, you asked for constructive suggestions, so here goes my attempt to play editor. Please forgive my presumption:

What if there were TWO rooms after the vortex? The first, which people would enter after the vortex, would look like an ominous trap in which the guests were in imminent danger of drowning. Water would be dripping from the ceiling, the walls could buckle, perhaps random jets of water would squirt out onto the guests.

This room would then fly away for the main show.

The SECOND room would appear at the end of the show. Perhaps it could be a room under excavation by another of Professor Baxter's assistants (the "off-duty" Taylor?) who would say something like, "We'd given you up for lost! Better get out quick before something else goes wrong. There are strange forces at work here that we don't understand."

Obviously, this could only work if there is enough room in the fly space to accommodate two versions of the post-vortex chamber. It might also require the hiring of another actor, another cost consideration.

Just a thought.

Gary Goddard

09-12-2001, 09:46 AM

Kelly,

Thanks for the suggestion. Let me explain again- there were certain "givens" on this assignment: First, you have to use the existing building - you can't add rooms or change the nature of the basic experience (e.g. a "walk through"). Second, the budget did not allow for creating entirely new rooms. Third, we had to accomplish all the changes and get the new show on its feet. And 4th, we couldn't add a cast member - the original show was based around ONE actor - we had to leave the operations budget the same as we found it.

So - the challenge in this case is take the existing format, the existing number of cast, the existing show equipment, and then to do something dramatically different that really makes the show more entertaining that previous versions. (Remember, there were two other attempts to enhance the show by doing exactly some of the things mentioned by other people here on the message boards. Its not that those changes didn't make a difference, is just they were not of a magnitude to change the overall perception of the attraction.)

I love a good challenge. As I said before -- while this is not how I would have designed an attractino based on Poseidon had I been brought on to do it originally, I think it's a great new story and that it meets all the parameters I had to work within. And I want to be clear that I am not making excuses - I like the show a lot - I just saw it again two weeks ago - in fact I saw it five times with five different audiences who all seemed to like it a lot.

But, I do appreciate your ideas and its a unique approach to the finale. By adding another room though, you do add more time to the show, and yet another transition from room to room - so you have to think about what that timing does to the overall capacity of the show. That's another thing you have to always keep in mind when creating these shows - you have to keep capacity up so that it gets the proper number of people per hour through the gate.

Its certainly a challenging medium to work in -- we have more rules to deal with than any other entertainment medium -- in film, theatre, television you have a great deal more flexibility in how to tell your stories. You don't have to worry about capacity issues, fire exits, safety rules that require you to look at head room for all effects, etc. etc. --

Anyway - again, thanks for the comments ---