This ongoing physical-vs-screen argument reminds me of the preference between practical effects and CGI effects in cinema. The preference between the two varies between filmmakers and between audiences. It seems to me that the common preference on both ends leans towards physical/practical effects, whenever possible. Of course, there are countless instances where executing something in the practical world would be too expensive, too dangerous, or completely impossible. Even those who don't like CGI probably enjoyed movies that used CGI for elements that the viewer didn't even notice.
Attractions like The Haunted Mansion are fantastic, but a mansion is intended to make the guest feel like they are in a mansion, which is dramatically different from being in the middle of web-slinging comic book, or battle between giant robots or prehistoric creatures. And, let's face it, some of the mansion's best effects are screen/projection-based, because Disney couldn't have accomplished some of those special effects with solely physical elements.
Soarin' simulates flight in a (screen-based) manner that could not have been accomplished using practical sets. If Disney had tried to do so, we would have ended up with a very bizarre version of Peter Pan. And when Disney did put together a physical thrill ride with practical prehistoric creatures, we got Dinosaur, which ended up being one of the most criticized Disney attractions on these forums. The irony in Everest (as it currently stands) is that the only time we see a moving yeti is when we see a projection effect, as the practical element has famously failed.
I, too, prefer physical/practical effects when possible. However, Universal tends to deal in subject matters that would fall flat as attractions if they limited themselves solely to physical, non-screen-based, sets. E.T. works as a practical attraction because it's based on a movie that took place in "our world," and involved a subject matter that translated well from the screen to the ride (despite it appearing somewhat dated now). Even something that was essentially a comic, The Cat in the Hat, translated well into an all-ages dark ride, because the book and overall theme wasn't outrageously fictional with respect to the environment that the story takes place in. The world of the Minions, on the other hand, is completely different and would have fallen flat if recreated in a "Mr. Gru's Wild Ride" type of attraction. Imagination was updated to add a lot of screens, and I prefer the original. Test Track was updated to add a lot of screens, and I prefer the original. But I don't think it's fair to suggest that Universal could have or should have attempted to recreate its more recent attractions without the screen-based effects that they ended up using.
When someone says that they want Universal to use fewer screens in their rides, I think that what they really mean (perhaps unintentionally) is that they want Universal to use different movies/stories for their rides. They either: (a) want subject matters that don't require the experiences that are impossible to recreate in a practical environment, or (b) don't care if end result in a practical environment is cheesy, flat, or otherwise unconvincing.
I'm not sure what a Transformers or Spider-Man ride would look like without screens, but I probably wouldn't enjoy them as much or generally "feel" the thrill, excitement, etc. of "riding the movies." One of the reasons I really enjoy Forbidden Journey is because of the mix of practical and screens. And that ride is a perfect example of what I'm discussing in this post. Universal seemed to design that ride by placing each of the various story scenes into two categories: things that can be accomplished with a physical set, and things that can only be accomplished with a screen; and then they executed the final attraction accordingly.
As others have said, a good ride is a good ride. Similarly, a good movie is a good movie, whether or not CGI is used.
I suppose Universal could forego the use of screens and turn to other films as the basis of their new attractions, but who among us would really be interested in You, Me and Dupree: The Ride...?
According to what I was able to find online, one out of two attractions in Pandora will be a simulator. I'm not sure how that equals "mostly screens." I'm not sure if there's enough info on Star Wars Land to determine whether the rides will be "mostly screens" unless you know something I don't.
