Expedition Everest is Official

[crusader]

It may wel be that Disney needs to push for more Thrill rides in general, but one coaster no matter how good will do that and by heavily restricting such a ride they would only intensify certain issues with the park.

I disagree. There is a desperate need for more thrill and a 48" height requirement should be the bar to measure this coaster. Even at a 4 ft. minimum, we are still talking far less than extreme. If this co. is serious about investing in an attraction of this magnitude, it will push the envelope much further.

The quality of a thrill isnt always measured by the height requirement.

This is not entirely true. A venue that provides a great deal of enjoyment and entertainment is not categorically a "thrill" type attraction. Height requirements are becoming more prevalent today due partly because of the nature of the ride and partly for litigation purposes.

 

[DisneyKidds]

When addressing this issue there is really only one question to be answered, IMHO. What is more likely to provide a 'classic' Disney experience and have a sustained, long term impact on opinions regarding AK? Is it a more family oriented, well themed, E-ticket ride in the tradition of Pirates, Space Mtn, Thunder Mtn, Splash Mtn, etc., or is it the latest, cutting edge, steel behemoth that excludes a significant protion of guests from being able to be a part of the ride?

Notwithstanding that there are a number of folks on this board who are true coaster fans and would love to see Disney up the thrill quotient, I think more people who look at what would be best for Disney long for what we always refer to as the 'old classics'. Rides that are done with the incredible themeing, detail, and story we expect from the Disney of old, and allow the 'whole family' to enjoy the experience. Granted, a 42 inch requirement won't include the whole family, but it would include a much higher % of people than a big thrill coaster.

Given the biggest knock on the AK, that there aren't enough attractions, there is more of a need at AK than the other parks to add an attraction that is available to the largest number of people. Putting in a ride than many people won't be able to experience wouldn't help the situation.

 

[crusader]

What is more likely to provide a 'classic' Disney experience and have a sustained, long term impact on opinions regarding AK? Is it a more family oriented, well themed, E-ticket ride in the tradition of Pirates, Space Mtn, Thunder Mtn, Splash Mtn, etc., or is it the latest, cutting edge, steel behemoth that excludes a significant protion of guests from being able to be a part of the ride?

A 48" height requirement will not preclude the attraction from being "classic disney" or "family oriented". It will allow more intensity coupled with great themeing to create a much needed addition to the place. There are a significant number of guests already attending the parks who will inevitably not ride a coaster or any semifast moving attraction of any type. Enhancing the speed or thrill element to this capacity will not in any way remotely detract from the disney style if designed effectively.

 

[DisneyKidds]

A 48" height requirement will not preclude the attraction from being "classic disney" or "family oriented".

I'll give you that it wouldn't prevent the ride from having classic Disney themeing. However, I disagree with the 'family oriented' part. Quite simply, I do not consider RnR at the Studios a 'family' attraction. The DW won't ride it and my kids won't be tall enough for years. Splash Mtn I do consider a 'family' attraction as the DW will ride, and my DD has been able to ride since she was 3.

While a 48 inch coaster would keep more coaster enthusiasts and thrill fans happy, a ride the likes of Splash Mtn would be pure, classic Disney that would keep many, many more people happy and cater more to Disney's market.

I'm not saying a great, height restricted, thrill coaster would be a bad thing if done correctly, I just don't think it is the best thing for Disney or the AK right now.

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

If this co. is serious about investing in an attraction of this magnitude, it will push the envelope much further.

Throwing away your heritage so you can go play the same "Higher and Faster" game that every Six Flags and Cedar Fair in the nation has been playing for a decade and change is not "pushing the envelope" in any meaningful sense.

Pirates of the Caribbean did not improve on the log flume by dropping you over higher and steeper waterfalls.

There are more things in Heaven and Earth, crusader, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. I really need to set up a macro for that.

-WFH

 

[crusader]

First of all it is Cedar Point which is a great coaster park but in no way is being compared to WDW here.

Pirates is a boat ride which alot of non-coaster individuals will embark on. The same can be said for Splash. There are many individuals who will board a flume type ride but skip anything resembling even a moderate coaster like BTMRR and SM. Expedition Everest is not slated to be a water ride it is the next generation of "mountains" for which great themeing can be achieved at a 48" benchmark. This height requirement is no where near "higher and faster" by any means. Greatness in disney can be accomplished at this measurement and it's about time they went for it.

 

[KNWVIKING]

I think Everest will be a fair compremise between the need for thrill in todays marketplace and the goal to still be "Disney". Is Everest the tallest,fastest,steepest,etc ? No. Is it bigger, faster, steeper then any other Disney mountain ? I think we can assume yes. For the price they are supposedly to pay for Everest, if Disney's only goal was Six Flagg type thrills, they could have put three or four steel screamers up for the same price.

 

[Chil Sung]

DisneyKidds....I'm confused!! Are you saying that, because this ride, (which hasn't even imported the first steel beam in yet) is a 200 foot tall "behemoth," it automatically excludes it from Disney "classic" status??! And what, in YOUR mind, constitutes a "family type" attraction?!
If it's something that the whole family can enjoy together, then you may want to reconsider.....To ME, the Barnstormer looks like a cool ride, but alas, I am too tall to ride it, so that excludes ME!! But you won't hear me complaining about it, because it just wasn't built for a guy my height!! The rest of my family can ride it, but I can't!! Oh well!! So I'll move on to something that will accommodate me, end of story!! Looking at this attraction, it is pretty safe to say that, it in NO WAY, even REMOTELY resembles X, Millennium Force, Top Thrill Dragster, or any mega/giga/hyper coaster you can think of!! This is Disney, pure and simple!! A top speed of 55 MPH (Which, BTW, is slower than both TestTrack, AND Rock-N-Roller Coaster) doesn't make it a Cedar Point, OR Six Flags type attraction.......Not even close!!!


Eric

 

[YoHo]

Well, having DisneyKidds agree with me could completely destroy my reputation around here, but I'll take it, especially when he's just so right.


Look, its not about whether a full on ***** to the Wall coaster could or couldn't be a classic. Of course it could.
The problem is with Disney and Animal Kingdom. Animal Kingdom fails because there is nothing to do. More specifically it fails, because there isn't enough for kids to do. The solution is to make a ride that as much of the family as possible can enjoy. To bump up the ride height could well be suicide. Animal Kingdom has a big Problem and it requires a big and broad solution. Save the High G thrills for when the park is ready to round itself out or as a new addition somewhere else.

Disney needs to fix the park and a 48" height restriction will make it harder not easier.

 

[Douglas Dubh]

Well said Yoho. This is one of the reasons why "Primeval Whirl" was not the best choice to add to AK when it was.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Are you saying that, because this ride, (which hasn't even imported the first steel beam in yet) is a 200 foot tall "behemoth," it automatically excludes it from Disney "classic" status??!

No. However, it might depart from the other Disney 'classics' that didn't rely on thrill factor to achieve the status. Will RnR ever be considered 'classic' in the same sense as Pirates? I'm not sure.

And what, in YOUR mind, constitutes a "family type" attraction?!

As you POINT out, that is a very subjective determination. Let's just say that I'd consider an attraction that allows most people 4 and older to ride it to be more of a 'family attraction' than one that only allows those 8 and older to ride. Let's just say that I'd consider a ride that doesn't induce cookie tossing to be more of a family ride than one that does. I'm not saying that a 48 inch height restricted coaster is going to pull out all the stops and be the most thrilling, barf inducing coaster out there, I'm just saying that Disney is good at taking a tamer coaster and turning it into a masterpiece that more people can experience. That is what I think AK needs right now.

To ME, the Barnstormer looks like a cool ride, but alas, I am too tall to ride it, so that excludes ME!!

Not sure how tall you are, but I'm 6'4" and I ride Barnstormer with my DD every trip. Bet they'd even let me ride without her if I wanted to .

So I'll move on to something that will accommodate me, end of story!!

Good for you! All I'm saying is that Disney would be better served with Everest to put in a ride that will provide a great Disney experience AND accomodate the greatest number of guests. I think a 42 inch restricted coaster would strike a good balance in that regard.

Looking at this attraction, it is pretty safe to say that, it in NO WAY, even REMOTELY resembles X, Millennium Force, Top Thrill Dragster, or any mega/giga/hyper coaster you can think of!! This is Disney, pure and simple!!

And I think there is good reason to keep it that way, at this point at least. YoHo is right. After Disney (hopefully) succeeds in attracting more guests to the AK by adding more rides that are available to most people they can go ahead and add some more thrilling rides - but now isn't the time, IMHO.

 

[Chil Sung]

HELLO!!!

Thank you Scoop!!

 

[Chil Sung]

Okay DisnyKidds....I'll accept that!!
But, don't you think you should at LEAST wait to see if Everest will draw the big crowds first?!
*shrug*

 

[DisneyKidds]

It needs exactly what it is getting. Something that will cause excitement not just in the type of ride but the whole experience.

Disney needs to add family attractions indeed. But, they need to be secondary rather than primary at this point.

Scoop, what exactly are you saying, or are you purposely speaking in ambiguous 'lawyer talk' . What do you think would be better for AK right now - (assuming both are done with true Disney themeing) a 48 inch restricted, somewhat higher thrill quotient ride that creates buzz, or a 42 inch restricted, lower thrill quotient ride that creates buzz that filters to even more guests?

I'm a proponent of "all inclusive family rides" as I've stated before. But, that is not what AK needs.

I'm not advocating an 'all inclusive'. I do think 'more inclusive' is just right for AK right now. I'm not a big proponent of rides being 'classic' dark rides like Pirates. I really hope Everest becomes the next Splash Mountain. I think that ride is perfect. It has a good balance of thrill and themeing, and allows a wide cross section of guests to ride. If Everest is a bit of a step up from Splash in the thrill department (which it seems it will be) I think that is fine. I'm just not sure that more rides along the lines of RnR are what Disney need in the AK right now.

 

[DisneyKidds]

But, don't you think you should at LEAST wait to see if Everest will draw the big crowds first?!

You did see that (hopefully) in my post, right? To be honest, choosing an attraction is a gamble. Disney is betting that the 42 inch variety of Disney coaster is more likely to generate those crowds than the 48 inch variety. While I may agree, only time will tell for sure.

 

[crusader]

I'm just not sure that more rides along the lines of RnR are what Disney need in the AK right now.

This is the next mountain attraction which is much bigger than just posting it as an upcoming event on the what's new since your last visit bulletin board. Scoop is right - it has to deliver.

The height requirement gives the project much more flexibility and eliminates the need to try to appease the scared to tears age bracket.

A state of the art, cutting edge disney mountain ride is far too symbolic in nature to satisfy by simply designing a greatly themed but only mid-level type of coaster attraction.

 

[raidermatt]

Chil/Scoop, I don't think DK is saying the new AK coaster is bad, but only that if it were souped up to the point of needing a 48" height requirement, it would be less than optimal for AK.

I agree, AK, WDW, and even DLR need things that will generate excitement. Going by the way the plans look NOW (3 years from opening), the Everest Coaster looks like it COULD fit the bill.

However, AK is already a park criticized for a lack of things to do, and it already has 3 height restricted attractions, so adding another one isn't a slam dunk. That said, since Kali and PW are not exactly at the top of their class, so adding a truly exciting 42" coaster probably isn't a problem.

What I find sad is that so many, including Disney themselves, seem to no longer believe it is possible to create excitement without a height restriction.

No that doesn't mean there shouldn't be any new height restricted rides, only that they should not be 100% of the attempted solution (3D movies being an oft-copied exception).

As far as whether or not this is really "great" news for WDW, that remains to be seen. Even a reluctant Disney knows they have to add something to the resort at some kind of "reasonable" interval. We have M:S and Philharmagic coming this year, then Everest in 2006. That alone can't be considered "great" for a 4 park complex. An objective view says we need to see more before we can trust things are looking up, at least from an investment standpoint.

Also, as has been pointed out, a lot of things can change for Everest, for better and for worse, before it opens in 3 years. If criticizing a real photo of a M:S ride vehicle is premature, then praising Everest based on a drawing is most definitely premature.

 

[All Aboard]

AK needs kewl and it needs to be as encompassing as possible. Spiderman, Test Track, Tower of Terror, MIB, Jurassic River Adventure, Popeye, Kali, Dinosaur, Back to the Future have proven that you can get a decent chunk of kewlness for 40" to 42".

That's the balancing act WDW has to play with. Slamming a 54" required coaster in AK right now will drive the kewlness factor way up, but would it drive much new traffic to AK?

Everest may strike that delicate balance. Kewl enough for the preteens but non-restrictive enough that most kids over the age of 4 can ride.

This may, in fact, be just what AK needs right now.

 

[wdwguide]

Disney needs to find a balance between kewl and keeping their guests happy. Putting a 54" hypercoaster in the park would certainly be great for those of use who love these things, but half of WDW's guests probably would not ride it and are likely complain about it, too. I see parents complaining to CMs all the time about how their child should be allowed to ride despite them being too short, and these things do not reflect well on guest satisfaction.
Nor do I think that many coaster fanatics will drop a couple of grand on a Disney vacation just because they build a single ride that appeals to them.

I think they have found a good balance with their recent major attractions, with the exception of Primeval Whirl - a 48" (I think) coaster in the back of what is essentially a kiddie-land was not very good planning.

 

[YoHo]

Can any of you Universal People clue me into to the Dark rides at IOA/USF that ar considered really good. Also, isn't there a new dark ride opening up there which is getting a lot of buzz?

And speaking of Buzz, what about Buzzlightyear? or Winnie the Pooh (Tokyo or Flordia version)

Those rides generated buzz and are always popular across age brackets.

So Scoop, I would have to say that your statement vis a vis Dark rides is wrong based on the most current examples.

Of course nowhere did we mention Dark rides in this discussion. The contention was over exactly how intense Everest should be and I maintain my answer that it should provide a Thrill with that wink and nod that keeps it all fun. Gee, who came up with that turn of phrase? Give ya a hint, his initials were W.E.D.

I find it hard to believe with all of the complaints about AK that we constantly see that anyone could claim they don't need more family friendly attractions there. The truth is that the Safari is the ONLY attraction that really and truely appeal to people of ALL ages. I agree with others that Disney is very very well known for turning the 40" segment ride into something very very special. Lets let them work their magic the way they know how.