7DMT TV Commercial-Misleading?

[CinderElsa]

I must assume that by "Lord of the Rings" you mean the book(s) and
not the movie(s.)

I do!

 

[jeffbear]

All I can say is that some people don't notice it at all, and to others, it stands out as the most prominent (and odd) feature of the ad. I guess you could say that the ad is very well made then. But again, taking mountains and molehills out of the picture for a moment, (well, molehills anyway), having seen the ad 100 times, how would you answer the question about whether the ride in the ad is being portrayed as more or less intense than BTMRR? Not arguing or debating here, and there is no wrong answer, obviously. I'd just like to get your impression on that point. Be honest and objective.

The question can be taken two ways so I'll try and answer in two ways ... objectively of course. Because, why not?

1. If you mean how does my impression of the SDMT ride, assuming I've only watched the ad, stack up to my actual experience of riding Big Thunder ... then I'm honestly not sure how to answer. I've ridden Big Thunder a ton of times over the years in a variety of different conditions, and the ad only shows a portion of the track for SDMT. I'd say it looks pretty similar, but it's pretty clear in the ad that they are only showing a portion of the experience.

2. If you mean how does the impression of the advertising for SDMT stack up compared to the advertising I've seen over the years that included images of Big Thunder .... then I'd say fairly similar but not in tone. The SDMT ad is clearly pretty jokey and includes Dwarf characters and I can't recall ever seeing ad footage of Big Thunder that showed anything other than people throwing their hands in the air as you crest one of the track peaks ... or maybe coming out of that tunnel near the end.

Bottom line, I'm probably a bit hamstrung by the fact that I actually rode the Mine Train before I saw the ad spot. So I knew that there was a slower dark ride element and knew that they were only showing one of the two outside portions of the ride where the cars pick up speed. I'd completely defend that choice, by the way. You don't want to show the whole thing and blow the experience for people. I liked the coaster portion of the ride, but the dark ride aspects are what makes that ride special IMO.

And purely as a coaster ... it was my firm impression from these boards and the general internet community buzz that the Mine Train was expected to slot in between Big Thunder and the Barnstormer in terms of coaster ride intensity. IMO it did pretty much just that.

 

[JimmyV]

Now- how come I don't see you complaining about Gringotts Bank Coaster that's not even a real rollercoaster but a virtual reality rollercoaster???? http://popwatch.ew.com/2014/05/13/escape-from-gringotts-harry-potter-universal-orlando/

First, The new ride at US is not a virtual reality coaster. Second, I haven't seen an ad for it. Third, if there is an ad for it and it is misleading, I would point that out as well. Not sure why you would think I wouldn't. But it would be on a US site (which I don't visit or post on).

 

[jade1]

Oh great, next we will find out you don't stand on TOT.

 

[JimmyV]

I think you summed it up nicely, with the most telling points being...

I'd say it looks pretty similar, but it's pretty clear in the ad that they are only showing a portion of the experience....

then I'd say fairly similar but not in tone.

I don't see why the question posed in the title of this thread is the least bit controversial. The ad makes the ride seem as if it is on par with BTMRR, (at a minimum...I will leave aside the debate as to whether they portray it as taking the thrill level a step further). Anyone who views the ad objectively as you have done has to agree that the ad tries to place the ride on a level of BTMRR. Really, that is beyond debate or dispute. But that was not the point of the question originally posed. The question is, in so doing, is the ad misleading? It would appear that some would answer: "Yes. The ride is not at the level of BTMRR and it is misleading to portray it as such." And others would answer: "No. While the ride is not at the level of BTMRR, there is no harm in portraying it as if it is." This is a discussion board and discussion is good.

 

[jeffbear]

I think you summed it up nicely, with the most telling points being...



I don't see why the question posed in the title of this thread is the least bit controversial. The ad makes the ride seem as if it is on par with BTMRR, (at a minimum...I will leave aside the debate as to whether they portray it as taking the thrill level a step further). Anyone who views the ad objectively as you have done has to agree that the ad tries to place the ride on a level of BTMRR. Really, that is beyond debate or dispute. But that was not the point of the question originally posed. The question is, in so doing, is the ad misleading? It would appear that some would answer: "Yes. The ride is not at the level of BTMRR and it is misleading to portray it as such." And others would answer: "No. While the ride is not at the level of BTMRR, there is no havrm in portraying it as if it is." This is a discussion board and discussion is good.

Personally I don't consider Big Thunder to be any kind of thrill ride either. Just for the record. It's a slightly bigger scale, heavily themed "family coaster" IMO.

 

[auralia]

At least your 3YO could ride it. The height restriction on this ride is ridiculous. My 37 inch 3YO will be denied. Watched a ride through of it on YT and it is half the ride he rode 6x this weekend at Sesame Place.

My 3 year old is 42 inches tall and can ride TOT (though once was enough for him). I think I wouldn't have wanted him on it under 38 inches there are some tight curves where I had to help him with head stability (like I have to on BTMR)

 

[Jennasis]

News flash! Advertisers stretch the truth about their products in order to make them more desirable.

 

[MaryKatesMom]

I think you summed it up nicely, with the most telling points being...



I don't see why the question posed in the title of this thread is the least bit controversial. The ad makes the ride seem as if it is on par with BTMRR, (at a minimum...I will leave aside the debate as to whether they portray it as taking the thrill level a step further). Anyone who views the ad objectively as you have done has to agree that the ad tries to place the ride on a level of BTMRR. Really, that is beyond debate or dispute. But that was not the point of the question originally posed. The question is, in so doing, is the ad misleading? It would appear that some would answer: "Yes. The ride is not at the level of BTMRR and it is misleading to portray it as such." And others would answer: "No. While the ride is not at the level of BTMRR, there is no harm in portraying it as if it is." This is a discussion board and discussion is good.

Unless you get caught in the "Disney can do no wrong" crossfire.

 

[MaryKatesMom]

News flash! Advertisers stretch the truth about their products in order to make them more desirable.

But why not show the cute family friendly scene?

 

[Jennasis]

But why not show the cute family friendly scene?

You would have to ask Disney's marketing department

 

[Bullseye]

Seriously .... they've been running that ad during Stanley Cup and World Cup coverage and if I didn't notice a "thrill ride" aspect to it the first 50 times I saw it, I'd only notice it now because you suggested it.

I truly do think you're making a mountain of a molehill on this subject.

Right, Jimmy's got a little bit of a spur under his saddle lately with Disney and Coasters ! I rode it three times last week and while there saw the commercial several times. After riding it my only complaint was that it was too short. As far the commercial, I kind of rolled my eyes , but not because of it being misleading, but more so because the ride is so brief.

Now that being said, I'm totally on board with Jimmy that WDW needs some bigger coasters!

 

[Chuckers]

I owned a sports car once, never took it around winding mountain roads.

To be honest, the commercials usually tell you not to attempt that and it's done by a professional on a closed road... just sayin'...

 

[DrHfuhruhurr]

Doubtful. The increased speed might account for, at best, a savings of half a second of air time. If they found themselves with 31 seconds of footage and needed to cut out a second, the obvious solution would have been to drop a second elsewhere. No one in the film room would have said: "Hey! I have a solution. Let's save a second by having Special Effects speed up the coaster in two or three segments!"

Having worked as a television editor and cut my own share of commercial spots, I'll respectfully disagree with you. When presented with the task of fitting as much footage of a particular nature (e.g., shots of the coaster) into a limited amount of time, someone in the "film room" would have absolutely toyed with ramping up multiple shots. In a short spot, even tenths of a second are precious, and it happens every day. The reverse is also true--when trying to pad out the spot, the first reflex of any editor is to drop some footage into lower speed. Neither technique requires a special effects department--it's literally done with the click of a button.

Having said that, I think it's more likely that the editing of this commercial was done strictly for artistic effect.

It is not surprising that much of this crowd wears its Disney Goggles and cannot look at this objectively.

Wow. So, the people who disagree with your subjective conclusion are now incapable of objective opinions? Hubris, much?

 

[PeterPanic]

I don't know that showing a 35 mph ride going 60 mph is "arty". It is a great ride. Show it as it really is.

Hadn't thought of that. Could be true, but the presence of the dwarfs would probably draw less enthusiasm than a 60 mph coaster. But given the interest in characters, that could be true.

There are certain unchangeable physical laws to take into consideration. The camera is stationary and the train is moving at whatever speed it is going. If you are looking at the same thing and following it with your eyes from the time it comes into view until it disappears from view, you are keeping up with it's speed by moving your eyes and head with the motion you are seeing. Try the same thing just looking straight ahead without moving with it and see how much faster it seems to be.

Yes, Disney did use "magic" to make it seem pretty fast, that's what they do with everything in the place. The play tricks on your senses to make it seem bigger then what it is. Forced prospective! Besides, I would say that it goes about the same speed at times as BTMR, but it does slow up and almost come to a stop at times as well. Even at best, it is a very small point to dwell on.

How would anyone get the idea that it was a scary fast ride from that commercial

My very thoughts. Lately it just seems the people are searching for reasons to kick Disney. I don't mind that when it is justified, but this commercial and this attraction are not one of those times. It just makes us look petty.

 

[monorailrabbit]

Never-mind misleading, the commercial is all around pretty horrible. I was so distracted by the horrible rap and sunglasses I never noticed they had sped up the tape. Now that it was pointed out is just looks dumb and unnatural. I mean, there's no way anyone could actually believe it was going that fast. It doesn't look real at all. So strange.

I agree! It was a pretty terrible commercial! I remember reading somewhere a year or so ago that Disney was adding "another mountain" when they were discussing SDMT. That, to me, put it in the same category as the others as far as thrill. I don't remember where that quote came from, so I can't provide a link, but I remember seeing that and getting really excited! I haven't been back to Disney since last fall, so I haven't seen or ridden this in person, but with the new "mountain" term in my head and this add, I would expect it to be on par with BTM at the least! I'm not brushing it off yet, I still want to ride it, but I have the feeling that if DH and I are expecting a mountain, we will be sad.

 

[Seeker615]

I agree the commercial is pretty lame. It appeared to try and be "cool" but instead it was just a fail. The part that gets me is the family in the sunglasses and the teen girls are checking out the boy in the family....plus the dwarves in the sunglasses....

I usually am a huge fan of the Disney commercials but not this one.

 

[chapie1968]

How can anyone watch this commercial and not realize it was sped up????

It's blatantly obvious.

 

[basas]

How can anyone watch this commercial and not realize it was sped up????

It's blatantly obvious.

I agree. Terrible commercial for a mediocre ride.

 

[Bullseye]

How can anyone watch this commercial and not realize it was sped up????

It's blatantly obvious.

Who cares if they did ? Regardless of what they see on a commercial, does anyone with half a brain that knows Disney think they would put a high speed roller coaster in Fantasyland of all places