AVATAR land - the specifics

[Casper Gutman]

Having three rides was in a (much) earlier concept and was not approved, therefore it was not cut, merely opted out of. Same goes for the boat ride, in which (believe it or not) scenes were added, since it was originally about a 2.5 minute romp (albeit with more LM figures). The final product may put a bit of style over substance, but the substance is still present, moreso than Diagon or NFL (the land and league).

If this is true, it begs the question - what is wrong with Disney management that they ever thought a slow 2.5 minute boat journey would be an acceptable ride? That would have essentially been the length of Maelstrom if everything after the polar bear is cut. That's insane.

Also "cut" vs. "opted out of" is a bit "Po-tay-to" vs. "Po-tah-to" - the point is Disney continues to limit projects as much as they think they can get away with.

Finally, I've said above that I think Pandora will be a very nice land, but come on - nothing we've seen at any step of the process hints it will have more substance than Diagon, which is very dense with detail and things to do and, along with Carsland, is the pinnacle of this sort of IP land.

 

[rioriz]

Having three rides was in a (much) earlier concept and was not approved, therefore it was not cut, merely opted out of. Same goes for the boat ride, in which (believe it or not) scenes were added, since it was originally about a 2.5 minute romp (albeit with more LM figures). The final product may put a bit of style over substance, but the substance is still present, moreso than Diagon or NFL (the land and league).

Thank you for saying this, specifically about the boat ride. My friend worked on this ride floral and the entrance feature, and since Disney came to his company this was always the design of the ride. In my eyes a cut comes after plans are set such as TSPL. Yes people may know what was in the planning and see that as a cut, but I don't especially in the matter of NRJ. Yes it's a trend of the queue and ride together is the attraction, but it's still better than what I know was originally propossd....

9 weeks til I see it, couldn't wait til Sept as originally planned

 

[doctornick]

Also "cut" vs. "opted out of" is a bit "Po-tay-to" vs. "Po-tah-to" - the point is Disney continues to limit projects as much as they think they can get away with.

Not at all. If some Imagineer proposes something and it never gets approved, how is that possibly a "cut"? "Cut" implies something that was at one point actually planned and was later removed. Apparently, at no point was there was budget for Pandora that ever accounted for 3 rides; just because someone pitched the idea doesn't mean anything.

Finally, I've said above that I think Pandora will be a very nice land, but come on - nothing we've seen at any step of the process hints it will have more substance than Diagon, which is very dense with detail and things to do and, along with Carsland, is the pinnacle of this sort of IP land.

Diagon (and Cars Land) is a very different type of land, so it will be tough to directly compare regardless. That said, the comment that @Magic Feather made seemed to be directed at the common complaint about the look of a land overshadowing the "stuff to do" (i.e. attractions). I do think that is a legit complaint about Diagon Alley where there is only one ride within the actual land and it was somewhat overhyped (and too similar in experience to virtually every other new Uni attraction). DA is fantastic to explore -- and hopefully Pandora will be as well -- but that detail is largely spent on places to sell you stuff.

I do hope @Magic Feather is correct and that the "substance" of the attractions is not lacking.

 

[roj2323]

Wow, it's a little shocking that some of these photos look pretty bare and incomplete, is this usual for projects that are about a month away from opening?

Yes. Things usually come together in the last week or so. As is what's visible in the photos is all minor stuff. The boats can be placed into the ride in a few hours and the same goes for clearing the tools/materials from the pathways. Realistically I'm very impressed with the level of completion and quality of theming shown and these photos only make me more excited to see the final product.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Diagon (and Cars Land) is a very different type of land, so it will be tough to directly compare regardless. That said, the comment that @Magic Feather made seemed to be directed at the common complaint about the look of a land overshadowing the "stuff to do" (i.e. attractions). I do think that is a legit complaint about Diagon Alley where there is only one ride within the actual land and it was somewhat overhyped (and too similar in experience to virtually every other new Uni attraction). DA is fantastic to explore -- and hopefully Pandora will be as well -- but that detail is largely spent on places to sell you stuff.

I do hope @Magic Feather is correct and that the "substance" of the attractions is not lacking.

I think Uni has too many screens - it's particularly a problem in the Studio's entrance corridor (Minions, Shrek, Fallon, etc.) - but it's a stretch to lump Gringots in there (it also puts River Expedition - with one AA and other creatures on screens) on shaky ground. I also think it's a little disingenuous not to include Hogwart's Express.

All that is beside the point, because the the shops, restaurants, little corners, special effects, etc. - are the substance. They're what elevates the land.

 

[MisterPenguin]

All that is beside the point, because the the shops, restaurants, little corners, special effects, etc. - are the substance. They're what elevates the land.

Well... that's the great taste debate. Many people are focused just on the rides. If they're not moving, they don't want to have anything to do with it. Then there is a subset of that group for whom the only rides that matter are thrill rides. Does not matter to them how great a show is or the architecture or the immersion or sight lines or meeting characters... if I ain't moving, it's crud.

Whereas others are totally into the shows, and the theming, and the characters, and the food. These people can spend the whole day in DHS enjoying themselves whereas the first group claims DHS is only good for a few hours.

So, it all depends what you want in a theme park and the various 'lands' and attractions and rides. Whatever is done, whether it is rides, or theming, or shows, should be done well. But you'll never satisfy some folk who only want a lot of one thing and dismiss everything else.

 

[rioriz]

I think Uni has too many screens - it's particularly a problem in the Studio's entrance corridor (Minions, Shrek, Fallon, etc.) - but it's a stretch to lump Gringots in there (it also puts River Expedition - with one AA and other creatures on screens) on shaky ground. I also think it's a little disingenuous not to include Hogwart's Express.

All that is beside the point, because the the shops, restaurants, little corners, special effects, etc. - are the substance. They're what elevates the land.

Due to the level of thought put into the queue and experience i agree about HE....i loved the DA experience but the ride is not something I really feel like doing again....its the equivalent of Disney's Queue +Ride = Attraction

Disney is improving on that with FoP and SWL and Uni is or will with Nintendo.....Kong was an eye opener

 

[doctornick]

I think Uni has too many screens - it's particularly a problem in the Studio's entrance corridor (Minions, Shrek, Fallon, etc.) - but it's a stretch to lump Gringots in there (it also puts River Expedition - with one AA and other creatures on screens) on shaky ground.

Virtually all of the newest Uni headliner attractions -- FJ, Mummy, Transformers, Kong, Gringotts, even stuff like Simpsons and Despicable Me to some extent -- rely heavily on screens and motion of your vehicle interacting with them and some sort of variant on the "and something went terribly wrong" storyline. It's not that any of these in isolation aren't quality, even great, rides but that there is a certain degree of sameness that pervades the attractions. There's nothing wrong with thrill rides with screen based effects, but that gets overplayed at Uni; perhaps I'm naive, but the buildup for Gringotts seemed to label it as something new and groundbreaking, but it seems like more of the same for those parks.

(I'll note that Rip Ride Rockit is an exception among new headliners to this trend)

NRJ is a completely different animal. It's going to be a calm family ride and is going to compliment the other offerings in DAK. In fact, I think DAK could use another couple of rides in the same vein. Now, I can't speak to the quality of it at this point since I haven't ridden it and we don't know a lot about it. But I hope that @Magic Feather is correct that the "substance" of the land and specifically the rides is of good quality and it doesn't suffer from the issues of the FL expansion (nice to look at, but attractions that fail to live up to the environment).

 

[Casper Gutman]

Virtually all of the newest Uni headliner attractions -- FJ, Mummy, Transformers, Kong, Gringotts, even stuff like Simpsons and Despicable Me to some extent -- rely heavily on screens and motion of your vehicle interacting with them and some sort of variant on the "and something went terribly wrong" storyline. It's not that any of these in isolation aren't quality, even great, rides but that there is a certain degree of sameness that pervades the attractions. There's nothing wrong with thrill rides with screen based effects, but that gets overplayed at Uni; perhaps I'm naive, but the buildup for Gringotts seemed to label it as something new and groundbreaking, but it seems like more of the same for those parks.

(I'll note that Rip Ride Rockit is an exception among new headliners to this trend)

NRJ is a completely different animal. It's going to be a calm family ride and is going to compliment the other offerings in DAK. In fact, I think DAK could use another couple of rides in the same vein. Now, I can't speak to the quality of it at this point since I haven't ridden it and we don't know a lot about it. But I hope that @Magic Feather is correct that the "substance" of the land and specifically the rides is of good quality and it doesn't suffer from the issues of the FL expansion (nice to look at, but attractions that fail to live up to the environment).

There is a sameness in the Studios entrance corridor between Minions, Shrek, Fallon, and Terminator. Lump Simpsons in there too. But Gringotts, Kong, HE, and particularly Mummy are quite different in feel and style, and if you dismiss them as "screen heavy," its tricky to defend RJ, promotional footage of which has shown us a screen behind foliage over and over again. As to FoP and the Falcon ride, of course, both are screen based simulators.

And I actually think NFL gets a bad rap. It's pretty good and I think Mermaid is a strong addition in the Fantasy Land dark ride style. With another ride and a few more nooks, crannies, and stores it could have been great.

 

[BrianLo]

There is a sameness in the Studios entrance corridor between Minions, Shrek, Fallon, and Terminator. Lump Simpsons in there too. But Gringotts, Kong, HE, and particularly Mummy are quite different in feel and style, and if you dismiss them as "screen heavy," its tricky to defend RJ, promotional footage of which has shown us a screen behind foliage over and over again. As to FoP and the Falcon ride, of course, both are screen based simulators.

I disagree with how you lump the attractions. It's Transformers, Minions, Fallon, Gringotts and Simpsons that are the problems for making one another seem progressively bland.

It's the sheer combination of motion bases, 3D glasses, spot the characters, frequent poor screen integration, something goes wrong x10, oh no we're falling, Spiderman did it better - that permeates all those attractions. Neither is a problem attraction truly in situ, but there doesn't have to be 5 of them!

Shrek is just a terrible attraction and an offender in all but the motion base.

HE actually offers something dramatically different, as does Terminator to an extent. Mummy is a practical coaster.

Kong is a victim of the issues everyone has with the Studio blandness, the forthcoming copy-paste job and the blending of both parks into one. Whether you love it or not, it actually adds some variety to IOA (especially with where it breaks up the water rides), rather than takes away from it.

If they literally copied and pasted NRJ into the middle of the studios I would praise UC. It's not the screens that I have issue with. NRJ lacks glasses, a motion base, a silly dramatic storyline, manages to integrate screens into real sets and doesn't pretend you are falling.

Screens are just a small symptom of the actual disease Universal Creative suffers from. It's far too reductive to blame just a small piece of tech.

 

[rushtest4echo]

I disagree with how you lump the attractions. It's Transformers, Minions, Fallon, Gringotts and Simpsons that are the problems for making one another seem progressively bland.

It's the sheer combination of motion bases, 3D glasses, spot the characters, frequent poor screen integration, something goes wrong x10, oh no we're falling, Spiderman did it better - that permeates all those attractions. Neither is a problem attraction truly in situ, but there doesn't have to be 5 of them!

Shrek is just a terrible attraction and an offender in all but the motion base.

HE actually offers something dramatically different, as does Terminator to an extent. Mummy is a practical coaster.

Kong is a victim of the issues everyone has with the Studio blandness, the forthcoming copy-paste job and the blending of both parks into one. Whether you love it or not, it actually adds some variety to IOA (especially with where it breaks up the water rides), rather than takes away from it.

If they literally copied and pasted NRJ into the middle of the studios I would praise UC. It's not the screens that I have issue with. NRJ lacks glasses, a motion base, a silly dramatic storyline, manages to integrate screens into real sets and doesn't pretend you are falling.

Screens are just a small symptom of the actual disease Universal Creative suffers from. It's far too reductive to blame just a small piece of tech.

Don't forget the spritz of water... Wouldn't be a Universal attraction without one!

 

[Kman101]

I liked Kong, but I didn't like a few of the areas where screens were blatant and I don't think they work as well as they hoped. As for the overall experience of the ride I think they did a great job. You're physically moving through things and there are some sets, so it's not all screenz all the time. But screenz are 100% overused at Universal, and they aren't used well in some cases. Fallon was the last thing they needed with Fast and Furious around the corner.

I actually liked Gringotts .... I see a lot of meh about it but I really enjoyed it. I think the queues for both Harry rides are amazing and so well done. Very immersive and incredible. I kind of liked Gringotts more than Forbidden ...

But we are also getting incredibly off-topic ...

 

[Incomudro]

My concern, (not complaint) is that it will be FLE all over again in terms of a beautifully themed land with mediocre rides. Please remember, I am not complaining, just being cautious to get my hopes in terms of Disney producing something groundbreaking attraction wise.

If Flight of Passage is simply "Soarin over Pandora", that will be upsetting. Doesnt mean it wont be a fun attraction, I am just hoping Disney allowed WDI do a little more than clone Soarin. Same for the boat ride. I hope it is not 4 minutes of screens and a few sets then a cool A.A. at the end. Again, not saying that it will not be fun, just that Id like to see Disney produce something unique, let alone mind blowing at WDW. Its been quite awhile now.

I expect less out of the boat ride than I do Flights of Passage.
I'm of the belief that we are going to be quite impressed with FoP.
I'm betting the visuals are far superior to those of Soarin', and we can already tell that the ride itself is more radical.
You know that we're going to plummet off of those cliffs!
I'm betting that other sensory elements are upped a few notches over those of Soarin'.

 

[danlb_2000]

Wow, it's a little shocking that some of these photos look pretty bare and incomplete, is this usual for projects that are about a month away from opening?

The shots of the boats were taken backstage. The others look complete to me with the exception of some construction equipment still laying around.

 

[wdisney9000]

I expect less out of the boat ride than I do Flights of Passage.
I'm of the belief that we are going to be quite impressed with FoP.
I'm betting the visuals are far superior to those of Soarin', and we can already tell that the ride itself is more radical.
You know that we're going to plummet off of those cliffs!
I'm betting that other sensory elements are upped a few notches over those of Soarin'.

I hope you are correct. Im kinda like Fox Mulder at this point, ..."I want to believe", lol.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I hope you are correct. Im kinda like Fox Mulder at this point, ..."I want to believe", lol.

It would be nice if they would give us some details about FoP - it seems a bit vague considering it opens in a month and a half.

 

[twebber55]

It would be nice if they would give us some details about FoP - it seems a bit vague considering it opens in a month and a half.

i agree
we still dont know how far the RV goes out or how much movement it has
all we know is you wear 3D glasses

 

[MisterPenguin]

Sometimes we just don't get the full specs on a new ride or attraction until it opens.

Opinions will then have to be based on the experience of the ride rather than the theoretical crunching of specs, which don't always tell you if it will be a good ride or not. For example, the Spider-Man ride at Universal is one of the best dark rides ever. And so, they cloned the specs to create a Transformers ride which is a hot mess and sucks (IMO). The specs of the ride wouldn't have told one that the Transformer's use of the screens was a strobe of indistinguishable actions and explosions leaving you constantly asking, "What the heck is happening?"

 

[wdisney9000]

Sometimes we just don't get the full specs on a new ride or attraction until it opens.

Opinions will then have to be based on the experience of the ride rather than the theoretical crunching of specs, which don't always tell you if it will be a good ride or not. For example, the Spider-Man ride at Universal is one of the best dark rides ever. And so, they cloned the specs to create a Transformers ride which is a hot mess and sucks (IMO). The specs of the ride wouldn't have told one that the Transformer's use of the screens was a strobe of indistinguishable actions and explosions leaving you constantly asking, "What the heck is happening?"

I dont give a rats poop chute about specs, how about just a photo or a video besides the 5 seconds of what we saw on the ABC night line show (or whatever show that was), which was not much at all.

 

[Goob]

There is a sameness in the Studios entrance corridor between Minions, Shrek, Fallon, and Terminator. Lump Simpsons in there too. But Gringotts, Kong, HE, and particularly Mummy are quite different in feel and style, and if you dismiss them as "screen heavy," its tricky to defend RJ, promotional footage of which has shown us a screen behind foliage over and over again. As to FoP and the Falcon ride, of course, both are screen based simulators.

And I actually think NFL gets a bad rap. It's pretty good and I think Mermaid is a strong addition in the Fantasy Land dark ride style. With another ride and a few more nooks, crannies, and stores it could have been great.

7DMT just kinda kills it for me. If I would've gotten off of it happier than I did, it would have made the whole experience of NFL better for me. That ride was just a HUGE letdown.