3D Overkill?

Club Cooloholic

Club Cooloholic

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
I really enjoyed my trip to Universal. But I was wondering if anyone else felt like there is maybe too much emphasis on 3D on most of the new rides? I like it, but Transformers felt pretty much like Spiderman and Gringotts was fun but I found Mummy to still be superior because it's not the 3D screen causing it it's actual tangible set peices.
Now my color blindness and or astigmatism may factor in because I seem to get less depth with the new 3D glasses than other people do, I am not sure why exactly but I guess it's one of the things I just mentioned causing it. But I think I also just prefer more of a variety in the rides.
 
Last edited:
belledream

belledream

Well-Known Member
I just got back from Universal and was thinking exactly the same thing. I thought Gringotts could've been better as a real roller coaster but I guess that's more of Disney's expertise than Universals...:p I thought maybe they do it to save space/generally easier production, but that's just my musing.
 
Jahona

Jahona

Well-Known Member
Universal does seem to rely on screens and 3D projections for a lot of their new rides. Their 3D tech is far superior to Disney's but it also takes something away from the tangible experience. Transformers I thought was to busy in each scene. I think my favorite experience was Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey. The mix of physical set piece changes and the screens brought a great experience.
 
Club Cooloholic

Club Cooloholic

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Jahona said:
Universal does seem to rely on screens and 3D projections for a lot of their new rides. Their 3D tech is far superior to Disney's but it also takes something away from the tangible experience. Transformers I thought was to busy in each scene. I think my favorite experience was Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey. The mix of physical set piece changes and the screens brought a great experience.
Click to expand...
Agreed on FJ, it works great on that one!
 
TubaGeek

TubaGeek

God bless the "Ignore" button.
Screens are a great tool, like on Spidey or FJ. But yeah, I would love to see more practical sets. It blows my mind how much more I prefer Spidey to Transformers, largely because TF has NO moving parts, aside from the vehicle itself.
 
Tony Perkis

Tony Perkis

Well-Known Member
belledream said:
I just got back from Universal and was thinking exactly the same thing. I thought Gringotts could've been better as a real roller coaster but I guess that's more of Disney's expertise than Universals...:p I thought maybe they do it to save space/generally easier production, but that's just my musing.
Click to expand...
Disney' expertise is real coasters? What?
 
orlando678-

orlando678-

Well-Known Member
Sure, the 3d gives great effects and I do think that they belong in a theme park, but I prefer the rides where there are two or three screens, many special effects and lots of audio animatronics.
 
Q

Quinnmac000

Well-Known Member
Screen based rides are easier to revamp later on than rides with physical sets which means once something loses it hype or something they can easily replace that ride with a new IP in a shorter time
 
Disneyhead'71

Disneyhead'71

Well-Known Member
I will never say there is too much 3D. That is like saying there are too many rides. What I will say is, with the recent additions at USF, they have thrown the balance between 3D and non-3D attractions off.

I think that UniCreative knows this and I would bet that Shrek and T2:3D are being eyed for replacement in the not too distant future.
 
Tony Perkis

Tony Perkis

Well-Known Member
Quinnmac000 said:
the only one with an elaborate exterior is Gringotts and Forbidden Journey... Transformers, Shrek 3D, descipable me also 3D, Terminator 2:3D, Spiderman all have easy to replace facades.
Click to expand...
Terminator is not a cheap revamp, and Transformers's show building was built specifically for that attraction. Try again.
 
Tony Perkis

Tony Perkis

Well-Known Member
orlando678- said:
Sure, the 3d gives great effects and I do think that they belong in a theme park, but I prefer the rides where there are two or three screens, many special effects and lots of audio animatronics.
Click to expand...
3D screens are able to produce depths and effects than physical sets and animatronics cannot replicate. The interior of Gringotts bank is of a far greater scope than physically possible. Same with Forbidden Journey.

3D attractions are able to provide thrills than physically sets cannot because physical sets lack the ability to effectively interact with passengers, in most cases. Otherwise, it's just a show. Some examples of a show are great (Pirates, Haunted Mansion). Others are awful (Little Mermaid).

The technology used to create excitement and fun is mostly irrelevant. It all depends on how well they are used within the context of what is trying to be accomplished.

The mere presence of physical effects doesn't make the attraction great. Peter Pan, Stitch, and Little Mermaid aren't better than Transformers or Despicable Me.
 
orlando678-

orlando678-

Well-Known Member
To me, I still think that 3d is less exciting than audio animatronics and so on. I haven't been on Transformers, Despicable me, Gringott's and the Little Mermaid yet, but I'm going this summer so I'll see whether I change my mind
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom