New Posiden's Fury is much better

[larworth]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 be

I 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 starts

You 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]

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]

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]

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]

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 opinion

Hmmm...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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