Big C 73
Well-Known Member
Animatronics & elaborate sets still outnumber screens in over half of these attractions vs Universal's 3D thrown down.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Spirited News, Observations & Thoughts IV
- Thread starter WDW1974
- Start date
- Status
Animatronics & elaborate sets still outnumber screens in over half of these attractions vs Universal's 3D thrown down.
You know, I simply couldn't remember anything about that...I only remember the animatronics. But I'll add it to my post.
MerlinTheGoat
Well-Known Member
Make them less of a ride? Not really (anything that has a certain degree of motion could be argued to be a ride). But I would most definitely say that rides that use primarily video screens (no matter how impressive the video screens) in favor of physical sets and animatronics are lesser experiences to me than those that do. That doesn't mean I dislike video based rides. I do enjoy Soarin and Star Tours and really like films such as France's movie (though I actually do dislike Toy Story Mania and Mission Space). But they are unquestionably not as interesting to me as Haunted Mansion, Pirates, Spaceship Earth (or the other three gone Future World rides) and others like them. You will never convince me that any of those rides would be remotely as good if they gutted them and replaced the scenes with video screens (no matter how high quality and cutting edge the video was).
The problem is that Disney is just as guilty if not even moreso as Universal in this regard now, they're also using projections for everything instead of having physical sets and animatronics (the new POTC in hai is rumored to be forgoing many animatronics in favor of video screen tech to show characters). Universal may do video screens better than Disney, but i'm still not impressed either way. Video screens have a place and can be very well done to plus certain elements of an attractions, but not as the main show element for massive budget attractions or as a valid replacement for physical sets and robotic figures.
Though from what I am to understand from what Martin said earlier in this thread, it sounds like he knows some of Universal's plans for the future and is saying they intend to start building more slower paced animatronic-rich rides in the future that are geared towards people like myself who love old school POTC and EPCOT style rides. So it's conceivable that Universal could very well end up overtaking Disney in this regard in the future. We shall see. I'm guessing Universal's future plans will depend largely on whether Potter 2.0 is a success financially. Gringotts itself is supposedly going to have a fair amount of impressive animatronic figures. Sounds like Universal is going after the crowd that appreciates that sort of thing heavily (myself).
Over a decade ago when Disney was still the leader for quality rides in the theme park industry, video-based attractions such as simulators and movies (3D or non-3D) did exist then. But at the time they were considered by both Disney and guests to be minor attractions next to the real meat of the experience. The true E Tickets were attractions like Spaceship Earth, Pirates of the Caribbean, American Adventure and others like them with elaborate phyiscal sets and large animatronic populations. Video elements were often present in some form, they were considered a more minor element to the main show.
Last edited:
Nothing.
I am taking issue with the implied claims that the attractions at Universal are only screens, as if they were too lazy to build an actual attraction. But looking at the list, only Shrek 4D, The Simpsons Ride and Despicable Me are simply screen attractions. All the other listed attractions that use the screens use them to complement and enhance the experience. By comparison, looking at the Disney screen-based atttractions, all but a handfull of them have little more to the attraction than what's on the screen.
Last edited:
Disneyhead'71
Well-Known Member
I would just like to see Disney build Transformers: The Ride with only using physical sets and robotics.
Universal only has three screen-based attractions where there is nothing else to the attraction - Despicable Me, The Simpsons Ride and Shrek 4D. All the other attractions use physicals sets, animated figures and actors to supplement the experience. But why mention that, when you can imply that the only thing about Universal's attractions is the screens. Yet a significantly larger number of screen-based attractions at Disney are simply a guest sitting in front of a screen while nothing else happens. Circle of Life is in a theater that looks like a museum lecture hall!
Big C 73
Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Screen-based attractions are a tool that can be properly and improperly utilized. One of the big advantages of a well designed screen system is the expansion space. Look at something like Pirates of the Caribbean, The Haunted Mansion, the Little Mermaid or Mystic Manor. One tends to journey through defined spaces that surround. You do not get many vistas. You travel through caves or a town or rooms in a house. Screens can allow one to explore far bigger spaces than the site could ever physically hold. They can also allow for a rapidity of movement that still not feasible in terms of reliability and cost in physical sets and figures. The problems arise when screens are used not because they are the better medium for they experience, but merely because they can be farm more cost effective.
Big C 73
Well-Known Member
lebeau
Well-Known Member
Are we assuming screens are inherently a bad thing?
Why is it a "valid criticism" to use screens in attractions? If they are well used, why would that be a negative?
I get being critical when screens are used as a substitute for animatronics as in the Gran Fiesta Tour. That just smacks of cheapness. But if the screens are well-integrated, what's the problem?
(Since we apparently do not yet have a "shrug" emoticon, I will use "cyclops" in its place.)
Why is it a "valid criticism" to use screens in attractions? If they are well used, why would that be a negative?
I get being critical when screens are used as a substitute for animatronics as in the Gran Fiesta Tour. That just smacks of cheapness. But if the screens are well-integrated, what's the problem?
(Since we apparently do not yet have a "shrug" emoticon, I will use "cyclops" in its place.)
lebeau
Well-Known Member
Wait? Are you implying Disney builds rides? In Orlando? You may want to look into that. That doesn't sound right.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Yeah, cost effective.
Well let's compare... do it with an AA and you get a Yeti that never moves.. or do it with a screen and get an effect that works every day.
Big C 73
Well-Known Member
Are we assuming screens are inherently a bad thing?
Why is it a "valid criticism" to use screens in attractions? If they are well used, why would that be a negative?
I get being critical when screens are used as a substitute for animatronics as in the Gran Fiesta Tour. That just smacks of cheapness. But if the screens are well-integrated, what's the problem?
If used wisely and to a minimum screens are alright. Or if the attraction absolutely needs them to create the appropriate experience. Anyway that's all I have to say on the screens, I have other Spirited News and Observations to discuss.
Clever Name
Well-Known Member
Well, Disney is using a hell of a lot more ECV's. So there!
Big C 73
Well-Known Member
A broken yeti is still more realistic and more lifelike. He is in the room with you not on a screen.He can disco too if you use your IMAGINATION.
Disneyhead'71
Well-Known Member
I believe the original implication was that Universal can build their rides fast because they are nothing but screens. Where it takes Disney longer because they use actual sets. As if Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey is simply a plussed version of a mall megaplex.
Even Transformers, which I believe is what the original comment was aimed at, has a complex ride system, physical sets and effects. They were able to complete is so fast, not because it is screen based, but because it's the 3rd iteration of the ride. The R&D was done. Transformers is as close to a "plug and play" attraction that you will see. And THAT is WHY UOR got it. They needed to dump over $150 Million fast to avoid a hefty tax bill. That is why both Transformers and Cabana Bay were built. Universal had no intentions of putting Transformers in Orlando and that is the reason that they allowed the action to be SOOO similar to Spider-man. They were never designed to exist in the same resort. But for UOR, Transformers is basically a "free" E-Ticket that they could have open for Summer 2013. There was really no downside to dropping it on the old Murder She Wrote soundstage like it was the Wicked Witch of the West (sorry Angela).
Even Transformers, which I believe is what the original comment was aimed at, has a complex ride system, physical sets and effects. They were able to complete is so fast, not because it is screen based, but because it's the 3rd iteration of the ride. The R&D was done. Transformers is as close to a "plug and play" attraction that you will see. And THAT is WHY UOR got it. They needed to dump over $150 Million fast to avoid a hefty tax bill. That is why both Transformers and Cabana Bay were built. Universal had no intentions of putting Transformers in Orlando and that is the reason that they allowed the action to be SOOO similar to Spider-man. They were never designed to exist in the same resort. But for UOR, Transformers is basically a "free" E-Ticket that they could have open for Summer 2013. There was really no downside to dropping it on the old Murder She Wrote soundstage like it was the Wicked Witch of the West (sorry Angela).
flynnibus
Premium Member
Each technology has it's place...
You're not going to get a Yeti sized AA to move like you need them to act realistic as a high speed transformer.
These 'all or nothing' arguments are petty that ignore the realities that you apply technology to fit your vision.. not set out and say 'what we need is a ride full of AAs!!'
lebeau
Well-Known Member
Funmeister
Well-Known Member
Sorry, but using static wooden cutouts and fiberglass fixtures is more of a cop out than using screens. I use that comparison because that is what Disney relies on, for the most part, when animation is needed in an attraction. Sure you can say Ursula is great, and she is, however that was a clone and based on today's technology they could/should have created something unbelievable.
TDL is proof that attractions can be created with or without screens and shows how when used properly work in harmony.
TDL is proof that attractions can be created with or without screens and shows how when used properly work in harmony.
- Status