Inside Universal Forums

Welcome to the Inside Universal Forums! Register a free account today to become a member. Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members and unlock our forums features!

  • Signing up for a Premium Membership is a donation to help Inside Universal maintain costs and offers an ad-free experience on the forum. Learn more about it here.

SeaWorld San Diego

I really don't understand people defending this...

Like... why?

It has about zero merit.

What compels you to defend it?

Agree as well. With the standard caveat of not having ridden it yet, it looks terrible. If they had enclosed it and given it lighting, it might have stood a chance. I'd like WDW to use this system to build a 20,000 Leagues ride, similar to DisneySea.
 
You say that, but you keep posting to defend it.
Im not defending it, im simply saying, as i have now stated three times, that I have a hard time getting worked up. That's it.

I'm ending this conversation now and won't be responding to future responses by you as you clearly are just looking for someone to argue with.
 
Yeah we're just not that passionate about it. It's an attraction for little kids that is not great, but it was never hyped to be it. You keep asking people, and we're answering. If you don't like the answers, I'm not sure what else I can tell you.
 
I think it looks fine. Kids will enjoy it. Not every ride is designed to please every one. If you don't like it, don't ride. And. it pretty much has as much scenery as the Seuss Trolley.

I am a HUGE fan of SeaWorld and their parks and I still keep wondering how Brian Morrow has kept his job with some of the questionable projects that I don't think have provided much ROI. If I was running the company I would have fired him for the Antarctica project alone, yet he keeps going with very hit and miss projects. For every great idea there's a clunker and a lot of questionable choices. I think some of his ideas are good, I just wonder how some of the bad ones get approved by management for greenlighting.
 
I like Sea World, and the area does look well landscaped, but as an attraction, this is pretty bad. We're outside, but we're also underwater? We're outside, so let's enjoy the view (snort), but also look at the screen? It just makes no sense. It's like they already knew they had to put a dress on a pig.

That said, I do think a bad dark ride is better than none at all. And will give it credit for having various speeds and a stop in the middle of the ride, that's a bit unusual.

But really to me, I'd view it as a low budget PeopleMover type attraction, and on that level, it'll do (barely). I can't imagine it'll ever have much of a line, so it also has that going for it. Points for trying. But it's certainly not going to win anyone over, so it does really make you wonder why they bothered. I think it's one of those things that looked good on paper to execs that have never been on a ride before.
 
I like Sea World, and the area does look well landscaped, but as an attraction, this is pretty bad. We're outside, but we're also underwater? We're outside, so let's enjoy the view (snort), but also look at the screen? It just makes no sense. It's like they already knew they had to put a dress on a pig.

That said, I do think a bad dark ride is better than none at all. And will give it credit for having various speeds and a stop in the middle of the ride, that's a bit unusual.

But really to me, I'd view it as a low budget PeopleMover type attraction, and on that level, it'll do (barely). I can't imagine it'll ever have much of a line, so it also has that going for it. Points for trying. But it's certainly not going to win anyone over, so it does really make you wonder why they bothered. I think it's one of those things that looked good on paper to execs that have never been on a ride before.

Appears the concept of the land is you are under water for all the attractions, so that's not too crazy to get worked up over. My problem is of the first (not linked here) ride through I saw focused 95% of the time on the iPad like games that don't affect anything around the ride vehicles.
 
SeaWorld or not, I don't think any new additions at parks, especially a gentle transport outside a land aimed towards kids should be met with such disdain.

The only part I really don't get is why this has a 42" height requirement, the same way Seuss has a 40". By the time you're tall enough to ride, you really don't care for rides like this.
 
The only part I really don't get is why this has a 42" height requirement, the same way Seuss has a 40". By the time you're tall enough to ride, you really don't care for rides like this.
Because both utilize an elevated rail, similar to the Peoplemover, but there's no railings along side parts of both rides, unlike the peoplemover, meaning a height requirement needs to be put in place for a certain height so there isn't a tragic incident.
 
SeaWorld or not, I don't think any new additions at parks, especially a gentle transport outside a land aimed towards kids should be met with such disdain.

The only part I really don't get is why this has a 42" height requirement, the same way Seuss has a 40". By the time you're tall enough to ride, you really don't care for rides like this.

Per the Seaworld website, the 42" requirement is only for guests riding unsupervised. Otherwise, the only requirement is being able to walk unassisted.
 
Top