A Terror-rific Spirited 13th (ToT fans have lots to fear)...

[Daveeeeed]

See, I think Kong is great. I fail to see where it is lacking. I have ridden Kong about 10 times. I have ridden 7DMT once and have no desire to wait in line for it again.

Have you actually ridden Kong?

Screens can be used good like Harry Potter and The Forbidden Journey, or Shanghai POTC. Or on simulators, but when you have too many in one park it's too much. It would be like all rides being Omni movers. Sure there are different variations, buzz, Spaceship Earth, Haunted Mansion for example, but they become stale without variation, it's for that reason and obviously better theming that you pay more to go to Disney parks.

Screens again can be used effectively in moderation, but they are a way to spend less money on sets, I don't see that as a good thing, and that is why Epcot is in the state it is in now. From Nemo, to Ellen, to Mission: Space to Soarin' to the films etc. Balance is key like at Mk, or Animal Kingdom with Avatarland. If Universal's Nintendo attractions will use screens that will be a tremendous disappointment, and along with the Fast and Furious Ride plus Jimmy Fallen that's basically all you will have at Universal. Thankfully Epcot is expected to get some better attractions, and I hope the same can be said for Universal. I enjoyed Universal a lot when I went, but Minions, Despicable Me etc. was just too many screens. It felt like I was at a movie theater.

 

[ford91exploder]

Drop the Pixie Dust Pipe.

Pipe? - extra large bong is more like it

 

[Disneyhead'71]

Screens can be used good like Harry Potter and The Forbidden Journey, or Shanghai POTC. Or on simulators, but when you have too many in one park it's too much. It would be like all rides being Omni movers. Sure there are different variations, buzz, Spaceship Earth, Haunted Mansion for example.

Screens again can be used effectively in moderation, but they are a way to spend less money on sets, I don't see that as a good thing, and that is why Epcot is in the state it is in now. From Nemo, to Ellen, to Mission: Space to Soarin' to the films etc. Balance is key like at Mk, or Animal Kingdom with Avatarland. If Universal's Nintendo attractions will use screens that will be a tremendous disappointment, and along with the Fast and Furious Ride plus Jimmy Fallen that's basically all you will have at Universal. Thankfully Epcot is expected to get some better attractions, and I hope the same can be said for Universal.

Disney fans whining about Universal using too many screens is like Universal fans whining about Disney building another 2MPH boring drag through a wax museum. Disney fans can't get enough rides that don't move showcasing 1960s tech.

 

[ford91exploder]

Screens can be used good like Harry Potter and The Forbidden Journey, or Shanghai POTC. Or on simulators, but when you have too many in one park it's too much. It would be like all rides being Omni movers. Sure there are different variations, buzz, Spaceship Earth, Haunted Mansion for example, but they become stale without variation, it's for that reason and obviously better theming that you pay more to go to Disney parks.

Screens again can be used effectively in moderation, but they are a way to spend less money on sets, I don't see that as a good thing, and that is why Epcot is in the state it is in now. From Nemo, to Ellen, to Mission: Space to Soarin' to the films etc. Balance is key like at Mk, or Animal Kingdom with Avatarland. If Universal's Nintendo attractions will use screens that will be a tremendous disappointment, and along with the Fast and Furious Ride plus Jimmy Fallen that's basically all you will have at Universal. Thankfully Epcot is expected to get some better attractions, and I hope the same can be said for Universal. I enjoyed Universal a lot when I went, but Minions, Despicable Me etc. was just too many screens. It felt like I was at a movie theater.

Or screens as used in the Hogwarts Express, Where screens are PART of the show element they can be amazing, When they ARE the show element not so much as they are a lazy and cheap way to build the attraction.

 

[Daveeeeed]

Disney fans whining about Universal using too many screens is like Universal fans whining about Disney building another 2MPH boring drag through a wax museum. Disney fans can't get enough rides that don't move showcasing 1960s tech.

Ahem, I was criticizing Disney and Universal. You can read my posts however you want, it doesn't matter, but I don't understand what's so hard for you to admit that Universal needs to tone it down with the screens. Ratatouille is a great ride at Disneyland Paris, but that is because the park has a balance of attractions. IOA doesn't suffer from this as much as USF and even Epcot, but it is disappointing that they went the cheap route and used screens instead of sets, Imagine Kong with caverns like Journey to The Center of The Earth, or Shanghai Pirates with sets and screens.

As for the 2mph comment, that is just ludicrous, have you been to Animal Kingdom? Have you been on Spaceship Earth? Haunted Mansion? Tower of Terror? Heck imagine The Tower of Terror with screens. Imagine no hallway just a screen. Oh look put on some 3D glasses!! It's a Small World? No need to have animatronics, let's just watch a film instead.

 

[SplashJacket]

Please tell me this is sarcasm.

Thankfully yes, though I feel Kong is a simulated that wants to be so much more but falls so short. I like Escape to Gringotts, and my favorite ride of all time is Forbidden journey. It mixes screens and sets perfectly. As for Kong all I see is a forced horrible dull plot with no depth and just random nonsense happening but Kong throwing a bunch of dinos off a cliff. You have the big Kong animatronic that is really cool but feels as if it was a last second thought.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

Or screens as used in the Hogwarts Express, Where screens are PART of the show element they can be amazing, When they ARE the show element not so much as they are a lazy and cheap way to build the attraction.

They are a "different" way of building attractions.

See: The Amazing Adventures of Spider-man.

Now if they are used like Toy Story Midway Mania. Yeah, lazy.

 

[ford91exploder]

They are a "different" way of building attractions.

See: The Amazing Adventures of Spider-man.

Now if they are used like Toy Story Midway Mania. Yeah, lazy.

I think your comment proves my point,

AAoSM uses a ride vehicle which travels in 3 dimensions and uses the screens to present Spidey, The screen is 'part' of the ride as no one has yet built an AA which is capable of telotaxic movement without an external power supply to the best of my knowledge even holographic projection is not ready for this so a screen to display a show element is the only choice.

TSMM while fun is indeed a lazy way to do a ride.

 

[SplashJacket]

Or screens as used in the Hogwarts Express, Where screens are PART of the show element they can be amazing, When they ARE the show element not so much as they are a lazy and cheap way to build the attraction.

Disney fans whining about Universal using too many screens is like Universal fans whining about Disney building another 2MPH boring drag through a wax museum. Disney fans can't get enough rides that don't move showcasing 1960s tech.

You two are are missing the point. Why do you go to the movies? To feel immersion. What about 3D? Same thing. What about a simulator? Same thing. What about Transformers or Kong which is a moving simulator? Same thing. What about Ratatouille or Forbidden Journey with the best of both worlds. The impossible things to do is in the screens and the realistic things are in the props etc. Then you go to Dinosaur and you see they couldn't do the impossible because they didn't have screens. In the defense of Transformers, you could say "Try blowing up a bunch of robots on set... Real possible." Some rides have to rely more on screens though they could have made a lot more sets and props then they did. The Kong ride added the final animatronic just to have it. It had no real purpose. Though rides/attractions like Hogwarts or Toy Story you have to have screens, but if you have that made ToT or The Great Movie Ride. Let me think of the rides that do not rely on screens at all. All of the outdoor coasters, E.T. Dudley Do, River Adventure, Popeye, and that pterodactyl ride overlooking Kong, and whatever else is in kid zone. The only ride that did have screens and didn't overly use them was Forbidden Journey and Spider-Man. As for Transformers, it is a moving sim, Gringotts likewise, then all the sims.

 

[Pi on my Cake]

I think people are more critical of Disney because we know that can do better than that have for the last 10 or so years (and with avatar, star wars, and all that may be living up to their old standard again soon). Universal is doing the best they've ever done (or at least best in a very long time). So standards are lower, but Universal keeps meeting or exceeding them.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

Ahem, I was criticizing Disney and Universal. You can read my posts however you want, it doesn't matter, but I don't understand what's so hard for you to admit that Universal needs to tone it down with the screens. Ratatouille is a great ride at Disneyland Paris, but that is because the park has a balance of attractions. IOA doesn't suffer from this as much as USF and even Epcot, but it is disappointing that they went the cheap route and used screens instead of sets, Imagine Kong with caverns like Journey to The Center of The Earth, or Shanghai Pirates with sets and screens.

As for the 2mph comment, that is just ludicrous, have you been to Animal Kingdom? Have you been on Spaceship Earth? Haunted Mansion? Tower of Terror? Heck imagine The Tower of Terror with screens. Imagine no hallway just a screen. Oh look put on some 3D glasses!! It's a Small World? No need to have animatronics, let's just watch a film instead.

Yes, I openly admit that Universal has added too many screen based attractions. We call that the EPCOT Center Syndrome. But because they have too many screen based attractions doesn't mean that all of Universal's attractions suck balls. That means there are too many of screen based attractions.

ToT main show scene is a screen. And yes, I have been to DAK. Here is a pic I took recently.

You two are are missing the point. Why do you go to the movies? To feel immersion. What about 3D? Same thing. What about a simulator? Same thing. What about Transformers or Kong which is a moving simulator? Same thing. What about Ratatouille or Forbidden Journey with the best of both worlds. The impossible things to do is in the screens and the realistic things are in the props etc. Then you go to Dinosaur and you see they couldn't do the impossible because they didn't have screens. In the defense of Transformers, you could say "Try blowing up a bunch of robots on set... Real possible." Some rides have to rely more on screens though they could have made a lot more sets and props then they did. The Kong ride added the final animatronic just to have it. It had no real purpose. Though rides/attractions like Hogwarts or Toy Story you have to have screens, but if you have that made ToT or The Great Movie Ride. Let me think of the rides that do not rely on screens at all. All of the outdoor coasters, E.T. Dudley Do, River Adventure, Popeye, and that pterodactyl ride overlooking Kong, and whatever else is in kid zone. The only ride that did have screens and didn't overly use them was Forbidden Journey and Spider-Man. As for Transformers, it is a moving sim, Gringotts likewise, then all the sims.

Universal had absolutely nothing but 3D sims. WDW is all barely moving benches with animated wax figures.

 

[Daveeeeed]

Yes, I openly admit that Universal has added too many screen based attractions. We call that the EPCOT Center Syndrome. But because they have too many screen based attractions doesn't mean that all of Universal's attractions suck balls. That means there are too many of screen based attractions.

ToT main show scene is a screen. And yes, I have been to DAK. Here is a pic I took recently.

Universal had absolutely nothing but 3D sims. WDW is all barely moving benches with animated wax figures.

I love Disney. I love Universal. I am a huge Disney fan, but in grading rides, I just say what I think it is. The bottom line is Disney's budgets are higher due to using sets for the rides comparing to Universal using screens. People say look how cheap Universal can do it, well Disney spends a ton just because they are Disney, but it also has to do with the sets. "But because they have too many screen based attractions doesn't mean that all of Universal's attractions suck balls. That means there are too many of screen-based attractions." Exactly! I think Transformers is a great ride for instance, but when you have so many it starts to take away. Same can be applied for Kong, although the ride isn't bad it just could have been a lot better, and what adds insult is the quantity of that type of attraction. But to be 100% fair in the case of Kong the story is very bad, I don't think anyone can deny that. And I wish they would have used sets too. It's just complicated because it's a mix of a lot of things. Ratatouille works because it combines sets screens (although could have used more sets) senses, heat, vibrations, tilting etc. Kong does some of those, but not as immersively (you actually feel like you are a rat on Ratatouille). Another thing the perspective is that of a rat. Things like those tiny details are what make it work. Kong Unfortunately while the vehicle is neat holds it back from immersing more with the screens. The screens could have also been used more effectively. I can tear many rides apart being Disney or Universal, but I feel at Universal the quantity of screened rides mixed with some of them lacking just brings down an otherwise great experience. Universal still has a long way to go to catch up to Disney though on the non-screen rides. Dudley Do Right being a major point of concern.

 

[Jones14]

The difference for me is when screens become the sole show element in an environment that calls for more. Spider-Man works for me because the ride never stops moving, and because the sets continue to interact with the vehicle and riders. Transformers is less impressive to me because it is a direct copy of Spider-Man's tricks, but the sense of motion and sense of being there remains. Star Tours executes its ride system to the absolute best of its ability, and is the only way to do justice to what the concept calls for. Hogwarts Express uses the physical sensation of moving in a real train. Forbidden Journey uses them to do only what the sets and animatronics cannot.

When Gringotts and Kong stop at a screen, it's a full stop to watch a 3D movie when the concept calls for racing away at high speeds through practical sets. While that's all well and good, their motion bases will never compare to the capabilities of hybrids like Spider-Man or true simulators like Star Tours, and the effect on pacing can be painful. In the case of Gringotts, this is a result of a fundamental flaw in the storytelling, while in Kong, it's a case of budget cuts. Both rides are very, very expensive, cutting edge attractions, but both take the concept of something is terribly wrong and literally grind to a halt with it, trundle to another room, and then grind to another halt, and so on.

This would not be a problem if the rides did not suggest they were going to offer other experiences. Gringotts makes you believe it's going to be a high speed roller coaster to escape (literally in the name) your situation. Kong suggests at least a moderately fast-paced trek through the jungle. Both fail to deliver on their perceived promise so that they can sit on a motion platform for a solid half of the ride time, right after they make it clear you need to be going somewhere fast.

The tech is great in both, even groundbreaking. The execution is lacking. That's why Haunted Mansion and Forbidden Journey can get away with state of the art effects right next to parlor tricks. In those rides, the designers knew how to best evoke the desired experience within the budget and ride system they were given. That's why you can't see where the budget was cut in those rides, but you can feel the missing chunks of the Mine Train, Everest, Kong, and Gringotts.

Both companies are guilty of it, and both companies could learn a lot from each other.

 

[Daveeeeed]

The difference for me is when screens become the sole show element in an environment that calls for more. Spider-Man works for me because the ride never stops moving, and because the sets continue to interact with the vehicle and riders. Transformers is less impressive to me because it is a direct copy of Spider-Man's tricks, but the sense of motion and sense of being there remains. Star Tours executes its ride system to the absolute best of its ability, and is the only way to do justice to what the concept calls for. Hogwarts Express uses the physical sensation of moving in a real train. Forbidden Journey uses them to do only what the sets and animatronics cannot.

When Gringotts and Kong stop at a screen, it's a full stop to watch a 3D movie when the concept calls for racing away at high speeds through practical sets. While that's all well and good, their motion bases will never compare to the capabilities of hybrids like Spider-Man or true simulators like Star Tours, and the effect on pacing can be painful. In the case of Gringotts, this is a result of a fundamental flaw in the storytelling, while in Kong, it's a case of budget cuts. Both rides are very, very expensive, cutting edge attractions, but both take the concept of something is terribly wrong and literally grind to a halt with it, trundle to another room, and then grind to another halt, and so on.

This would not be a problem if the rides did not suggest they were going to offer other experiences. Gringotts makes you believe it's going to be a high speed roller coaster to escape (literally in the name) your situation. Kong suggests at least a moderately fast-paced trek through the jungle. Both fail to deliver on their perceived promise so that they can sit on a motion platform for a solid half of the ride time, right after they make it clear you need to be going somewhere fast.

The tech is great in both, even groundbreaking. The execution is lacking. That's why Haunted Mansion and Forbidden Journey can get away with state of the art effects right next to parlor tricks. In those rides, the designers knew how to best evoke the desired experience within the budget and ride system they were given. That's why you can't see where the budget was cut in those rides, but you can feel the missing chunks of the Mine Train, Everest, Kong, and Gringotts.

Both companies are guilty of it, and both companies could learn a lot from each other.

Well said!!!

 

[GrammieBee]

The point in my previous post was that forty years ago my family never cared a feather or a fig why or how a ride or attraction was rated (except for the cost difference), and we don't care now. They can be rated by crowd control, length, perceived quality, thrill factor, upgraded technology, theme or whatever. They can be rated differently now than they were forty, twenty or even five years ago. A ride or attraction can be rated A,B,C, D, or X,Y or Z for all we care. If we like the ride or attraction, we like it. If we don't care for it, we don't care for it. Sure, we like some better than others, but this is definitely not based on some external alphabetical rating thought up by someone else for whatever reason..

I'll, therefor, leave the discussion about how and why which is rated what and where or better or worse to the rest of you.

 

[ford91exploder]

I think people are more critical of Disney because we know that can do better than that have for the last 10 or so years (and with avatar, star wars, and all that may be living up to their old standard again soon). Universal is doing the best they've ever done (or at least best in a very long time). So standards are lower, but Universal keeps meeting or exceeding them.

Well said - Most of us long term Disney fans are well aware of what Disney, CAN do, The problem is what Disney HAS done in the past decade to be charitable is uninspiring at best and carnie cash grab at worst. UNI OTOH is doing their best work ever there is a big difference between 'mailing it in' as Disney has done for the past decade and doing your absolute best.

 

[ford91exploder]

The difference for me is when screens become the sole show element in an environment that calls for more. Spider-Man works for me because the ride never stops moving, and because the sets continue to interact with the vehicle and riders. Transformers is less impressive to me because it is a direct copy of Spider-Man's tricks, but the sense of motion and sense of being there remains. Star Tours executes its ride system to the absolute best of its ability, and is the only way to do justice to what the concept calls for. Hogwarts Express uses the physical sensation of moving in a real train. Forbidden Journey uses them to do only what the sets and animatronics cannot.

When Gringotts and Kong stop at a screen, it's a full stop to watch a 3D movie when the concept calls for racing away at high speeds through practical sets. While that's all well and good, their motion bases will never compare to the capabilities of hybrids like Spider-Man or true simulators like Star Tours, and the effect on pacing can be painful. In the case of Gringotts, this is a result of a fundamental flaw in the storytelling, while in Kong, it's a case of budget cuts. Both rides are very, very expensive, cutting edge attractions, but both take the concept of something is terribly wrong and literally grind to a halt with it, trundle to another room, and then grind to another halt, and so on.

This would not be a problem if the rides did not suggest they were going to offer other experiences. Gringotts makes you believe it's going to be a high speed roller coaster to escape (literally in the name) your situation. Kong suggests at least a moderately fast-paced trek through the jungle. Both fail to deliver on their perceived promise so that they can sit on a motion platform for a solid half of the ride time, right after they make it clear you need to be going somewhere fast.

The tech is great in both, even groundbreaking. The execution is lacking. That's why Haunted Mansion and Forbidden Journey can get away with state of the art effects right next to parlor tricks. In those rides, the designers knew how to best evoke the desired experience within the budget and ride system they were given. That's why you can't see where the budget was cut in those rides, but you can feel the missing chunks of the Mine Train, Everest, Kong, and Gringotts.

Both companies are guilty of it, and both companies could learn a lot from each other.

Very well said indeed,

It's been said that Engineering is the art of building what you WANT with what you HAVE, But there is an ART there too which the OLD imagineers had and the new ones at both DIS and UNI don't seem to grasp and that is when a simple parlor trick is all that is needed in some cases but other cases require full on brand new tech.

 

[ford91exploder]

The point in my previous post was that forty years ago my family never cared a feather or a fig why or how a ride or attraction was rated (except for the cost difference), and we don't care now. They can be rated by crowd control, length, perceived quality, thrill factor, upgraded technology, theme or whatever. They can be rated differently now than they were forty, twenty or even five years ago. A ride or attraction can be rated A,B,C, D, or X,Y or Z for all we care. If we like the ride or attraction, we like it. If we don't care for it, we don't care for it. Sure, we like some better than others, but this is definitely not based on some external alphabetical rating thought up by someone else for whatever reason..

I'll, therefor, leave the discussion about how and why which is rated what and where or better or worse to the rest of you.

40 years ago one visited Disney to be amazed and awed by the sheer magic of the attractions no matter what letter designation was applied to them, Not to pay 100 bucks for cardboard Olaf on a paint stirrer...

 

[Brer Oswald]

F is more like it

I strongly disagree. It's a decent dark ride that's based on a criminally underrated and obscure Disney movie. Not only that, but it never has any wait! That's extra points in my book.

 

[ford91exploder]

So ergo my point its all so subjective without a unified code. I'd be willing concede Country Bear and Tiki may not be E's but are def D's they are immersive, ambitious technologically amazing(Country moreso then tiki), and if Winnie the Pooh is a C Tiki blows it out of the water. For Hallof Presidents its an E because of the ambition and message. The Tableau of 44 presidents is an amazing site to see. Maybe its nostalgia! That's why it is so tough. I can totally see a few of my E tickets being demoted to D.

Frozen is a dark ride with nice AA's great AA's but not an E level quality attraction, the New Pandora Boat ride for example will be a boat ride with great AA's but no one will be putting that in the E level category.

Country vs Tiki - When you consider that the Country bears had 2 decades of AA development since the Tiki Room it's not surprising that they are a 'Better' attraction than the Tiki Birds but at the time the Tiki Birds were mindblowing and to think they came about from a mechanical bird Walt found in an antique shop.