Water Park Apprentice: Challenge 3, Create a water thrill ride
It's time for this week's elimination for Water Park Apprentice. In the third challenge, our remaining contestants have been designing water thrill rides (think Splash Mountain
). Please check out the thread
where they detail their ideas, then vote for your favorite below.
Just one contestant gets the chop this week.
James, you got my vote!
I really liked James' level of detail. I, too, have considered possibilities of a Titanic attraction in the past. However, I thought it was a little, for lack of a better word, insensitive to turn an historic tragedy into a thrill ride. An exhibit would be a different story.
Hard choice but I went with Justin's ride cus I think epcot needs an adventure ride like that and the movie ratitouile was pretty cool
Joshua, your concerns are certainly justified ,I appreciate them, and I did think about that before I created it. That is why I specified that there would be no dead bodies anywhere, no gratuitous violence, just a thrilling adventure and a courageous officer sacrificing himself for his passengers. Plus, there are no survivors of Titanic left. The last one died last year, and the last one to remember it died several years ago. Titanic will always be part of our heritage.
Joshua, your concerns are legitimate, and I considered them before I created Titanic- The Final Plunge. That is why I specified that there would be no dead bodies seen, no gratuitous violence, only a thrilling adventure of escape and a courageous officer sacrificing himself for his passengers. The last survivor passed away last year, and the last person to remember it died several years ago. Titanic was a tragedy, but it has become part of the world's maritime history.
I liked Justins best. It just seemed like a ride that would actually appear in the park.
Looks like we may have our fired contestant.
Good points, James. It's a touchy subject, I suppose. Will they make a Hurricane Katrina attraction in 100 years after the last witness is dead? Would people consider it offensive? It's hard to say.
i've got a ride idea, its called 911:crash and burn!!!!!!
I voted for James. He had a great ride and superb ideas.
I find the crass comment about the 9-11 ride personally offensive Mr. gonzales and you should be ashamed of yourself. There is absolutely NO DEFENSE OR EXCUSE for your comment. Word??? ( that's a pretty stupid thing to say by the way... thats a 1980's thing... get into the 21st century please)
Great stuff across the board. I hope Disney Imagineering is taking note of your talents, gang! Kudos to all of you!
Well said Scott. The idea that you and James worked on stayed clear of being a torturous ride about the tragic story. It could have been themed to any boat (even fictional) and still would have worked well because the ride was not about the despair of the Titanic, but a clever alternate voyage. The ride was creative and genius.
After my defense of the ride, I have to present my own viewpoint on the subject. As Joshua said, the historical aspect of the ride is a touchy subject. However, the ride was a memorium in a thrill ride form. It distinctly avoided showing death and despair of people. Regardless of how it is presented, either ride or museum, they both pay respects in their presentations. Its hard to make rides on disastrous events, but if movies can be made and books written, then why not rides? For example I would consider the Hall of Presidents and The backlot tour to touch on disastrous events. In the Hall of Presidents, wars are discussed where American soldiers have died serving their country.Time has past, and the event is considered historical. In backlot tour, Pearl Harbor is depicted in the preshow as well as a generic Catastrophe Canyon. These events could trigger emotional and historical references that could also be questioned as to why they exist being somewhat controversial. But the timing has to be appropriate for an event to be considered historical, and cross the line from being considered recent. I'm one of the people who thought it was too soon to create books and movies about 9/11 within less than 30 years. However, related movies and books were created depicting the tragedy. Most famous was World Trade Center, only 5 years after the tragic event happened. I guess there is some line that we eventually cross when the healing process has ended and we are indeed able to accept that tragic events are in the past. These types of subjects are very tricky to deal with, but once time has elapsed, history becomes a story in its own sense. A story that is filled with tragedy, warfare, miracles, and happiness that has to be accepted at some point.
I think the person posting the 911 ride comment was being sarcastic. He was probably making the joke in response to the titanic ride debate.
The difference between movies/books/exhibits and thrill rides is pleasure. World Trade Center is a bad example, but Paul Greengrass' film United 93 was an excellent example of why it is important to discuss and present depictions of tragedy. You don't (or shouldn't, anyway) get any pleasure out of watching Greengrass' film, just like you wouldn't get any out of reading a 9/11 confessions book or visiting the 9/11 exhibit in Washington, D.C.'s Newseum. A thrill ride is a different story. It wouldn't evoke sombre emotions in people. In defense of the Hall of Presidents or American Adventure, these are shows depicting history. If the Hall was converted into a wagon roller coaster soaring through Gettysburg, then that would be a different question.
Also, in defense of Luis, I can see the point he was trying to make. I, too, considered making my point with reference to 9/11, but felt that a disaster on account of human error was incomparable to one caused deliberately. Still, I don't think he was trying to aggravate anyone. He's a regular contributor to the site.
His "word" signature might be renowned, but I still have no idea what it is supposed to mean.
it's nice to see some fire on the discussion board!
Facetious, not fececious. Just my thoughtful observation. BTW, do we really need any fire in these discussions? I've been in too many groups where such emotional discussions lead to the group melting down and melting away. So far, everyone in here has been extremely civil and sensitive to the feelings of others. I'd really like it to stay that way. I know, I know, it sounds like "Can't we all just get along?" So far, we have.
thanx for the spelling correction, even i make mistakes.
Since we're picking nicknames I want to be called Fl@tulΣnce, because I am silent, but deadly.
James,(I mean this in the nicest way) you are so weird.;+) That's why I like you.
As long as I get to be first in line for your Titanic attraction, you can call me any name you like! ;)
You'll be there right next to me, front row center.
This article has been archived and is no longer accepting comments.