News Announced: Mary Poppins Attraction in UK Pavilion

[steve2wdw]

IYHW was very much screen based.

It was famous for having the show audio played very loud to overcome the noise of the multitude of projectors used. If You Could Fly followed the same format. It was only Dreamflight that broke the mold with only 3 screens.

Every time I think of IYHW (which was a family favorite), I hear the clatter of the projectors, in my head. We would ride that attraction over and over. As simple as the whole presentation was, it was highly effective, and better yet, as a "free" attraction, highly repeatable!

 

[smile]

some tend to forget screens were all over ec from the beginning...
wom was chock full of em and two of horizon's most iconic moments were entirely screen based

so, like most anything, screens can be used and abused
- far as abuse is concerned... the best solution isn't always the most obvious one. or the cheapest one. or the quickest one... it's relative tho, dependent upon your goals

however, one thing with screen based attractions is that they don't appear to last very long; and if they do, it's not without having to be significantly altered or upgraded.... curious.

 

[mikejs78]

some tend to forget screens were all over ec from the beginning...
wom was chock full of em and two of horizon's most iconic moments were entirely screen based

so, like most anything, screens can be used and abused
- far as abuse is concerned... the best solution isn't always the most obvious one. or the cheapest one. or the quickest one... it's relative tho, dependent upon your goals

however, one thing with screen based attractions is that they don't appear to last very long; and if they do, it's not without having to be significantly altered or upgraded.... curious.

And as @MisterPenguin pointed out, the number of screen based rides in WDW is quite low.

 

[MisterPenguin]

And as @MisterPenguin pointed out, the number of screen based attractions in WDW is quite low.

Screen based *rides*.

Non-ride attractions like PhilharMagic, Bugs, Epcot's circlevisions... are bracketed for the moment.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Actually there's very few *rides* that are screen based in WDW...

​

DAK​

Flight of Passage​

1/2 - NRJ​

​

DHS​

Midway Mania​

Star Tours​

​

Epcot​

Nemo​

Mission Space​

Soarin'​

1/2 - Gran Fiesta​

​

MK​

none, not even half way​

Some things to note:

• That's only about 15% of the rides at WDW that use screens
• Nemo and Gran Fiesta represent the worst of screen usage with framed TVs. *That* is what we need to avoid.
• Aside from Nemo and Gran Fiesta, the others use screens appropriately for simulators and in conjunction with great set pieces or fantastic rides:
  • four (and only four) screen-based simulators
  • multi-planar 3D transparent screens in NRJ
  • video game screen is video game screen
• There are no screen-based dark rides in Fantasyland (or anywhere in MK).
• If you thought there were more... see: Universal.
• Don't know what the new UK dark ride will be like, but all the other planned and rumored attractions don't use screens cheaply or poorly like with Nemo or Fast & Furious... except maybe Cars Academy.

Let’s look at this another way that, one might argue, more accurately reflects the experience of the parks. For instance, your list of screen-based rides at EPCOT looks short until one realizes that (with Imagination added in and Gran Fiesta counted as fully screen-based - AAs at the end don’t change that, just as they don’t in Kong) it includes 50% of the “rides” at EPCOT. By that same measure, 33% of MGM rides (50% one week ago, 44% two years from now) are screen-based. Even though AK has only 19% and MK none, that’s two fairly screen-heavy parks.

And then, of course, you take a shot at Uni. Problem is, IoA has only a few screen-based rides - Spidey, Kong, and half of FJ. To be fair, we can also include half of Hogwart’s Express, consigning the other half to the Studios. But... it has 12.5 non-screen-based rides! So IoA has only 19% of its attractions based on screens. In other words, it’s less screen-heavy then MGM or EPCOT... weird.

Uni Studios, of course, is a different matter. That park sure has a lot of screen-based rides - 52%. That’s even worse than EPCOT. But wait... why is it so important to keep this argument centered on “rides” instead of the much more commonly used “attraction?” Because if we don’t, EPCOT suddenly has a whopping 67% screen-based attractions, which tops Uni Studios 56% of attractions. EPCOT is the screeniest park in Orlando by a wide margin! (And IoA passes AK as the second-least screen-y park after MK.)

So, what’s the point?
1) Seemingly objective facts are almost always being applied in subjective ways (as I am also doing).
2) as the poster who started this discussion said, EPCOT really, REALLY needs some non-screen-based dark rides.
3) Over-reliance on screens (which should be one tool in a toolbox, not the whole show) are a problem across Orlando.
4) Uni seems to be moving away from screens (the new HP ride is, by all accounts, not screen-y) while WDW is moving towards them. That’s an issue for WDW.
5) MK has almost no screens, which is great.
6) the calculations above are quick and dirty, so if I fouled them up, please blame stupidity, not bad faith. I think the core points stand, though.

 

[mikejs78]

Screen based *rides*.

Non-ride attractions like PhilharMagic, Bugs, Epcot's circlevisions... are bracketed for the moment.

Thanks, fixed.

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

Yes, as I mentioned in my recent EPCOT trip report, I realized I had screen fatigue at the end of day one. Shocking!

 

[Rich Brownn]

We used to joke that Mexico pavilion was "If you had wings you could fly through it's a small Mexico"

 

[GlacierGlacier]

We used to joke that Mexico pavilion was "If you had wings you could fly through it's a small Mexico"

"If you had Oars"

 

[RSoxNo1]

In a vaccuum, there is nothing inherently wrong with screens if they are the best way to tell a ride's story. The problem Universal runs into is having the screen based ride system mirrored with a different theme. Because they do this so often and across both parks the screen fatigue sets in. Nearly every new attraction has had a simulator component to it which becomes problematic. Disney runs the risk of this also taking hold. Take a look at the 10 rides in development at Disney and the 4 that have opened in the last 15 months:

• Flight of Passage - Screens are the primary driver of story
• Na'vi River Journey - Screens are secondary driver of story
• Slinky Dog Dash - No Screens
• Alien Swirling Saucers - No screens
• Battle Attraction - Screens are secondary driver of story
• Millinnium Falcon Attraction - Screens are the primary driver of story
• Mickey and Minnie's Runaway Railway - Screens/projections are a secondary driver of story (could be primary, TBD)
• Ratatouille - Screens are the primary driver of story
• Guardians of the Galaxy - Screens are the primary driver of story
• Tron - Screens are the primary driver of story

 

[MisterPenguin]

• Guardians of the Galaxy - Screens are the primary driver of story
• Tron - Screens are the primary driver of story

We could always get live actors to set up the story, like F&F does so well...

 

[mikejs78]

In a vaccuum, there is nothing inherently wrong with screens if they are the best way to tell a ride's story. The problem Universal runs into is having the screen based ride system mirrored with a different theme. Because they do this so often and across both parks the screen fatigue sets in. Nearly every new attraction has had a simulator component to it which becomes problematic. Disney runs the risk of this also taking hold. Take a look at the 10 rides in development at Disney and the 4 that have opened in the last 15 months:

• Flight of Passage - Screens are the primary driver of story
• Na'vi River Journey - Screens are secondary driver of story
• Slinky Dog Dash - No Screens
• Alien Swirling Saucers - No screens
• Battle Attraction - Screens are secondary driver of story
• Millinnium Falcon Attraction - Screens are the primary driver of story
• Mickey and Minnie's Runaway Railway - Screens/projections are a secondary driver of story (could be primary, TBD)
• Ratatouille - Screens are the primary driver of story
• Guardians of the Galaxy - Screens are the primary driver of story
• Tron - Screens are the primary driver of story

Where are the screens in Tron?

 

[Lensman]

ory

• Guardians of the Galaxy - Screens are the primary driver of story
• Tron - Screens are the primary driver of story

I thought electromagnets were the primary driver on both these coasters?

No, seriously, could you expand on what you mean for these two?

Also, I think there's a difference between different ride systems that use screens in different ways. For instance, the following are different enough that I think that "one of each" wouldn't create fatigue:
1. Circlevision
2. 4-D
3. Classic motion simulator (Star Tours)
4. EMV + projection
5. EMB + projection
etc.

In the above "+ projection" cases, I suspect that the sense of repetitiveness also depends on the proportion of physical sets to "pure screens" in the individual scenes.

And I think projection mapping is also a distinctly separate category, but that's just my opinion.

Just saying "anything with a screen is bad" is like saying "having audio-animatronics is bad", it's an overgeneralization.

I'm actually a bit more interested in the transition from presentational rides to immersive rides.

 

[mikejs78]

In a vaccuum, there is nothing inherently wrong with screens if they are the best way to tell a ride's story. The problem Universal runs into is having the screen based ride system mirrored with a different theme. Because they do this so often and across both parks the screen fatigue sets in. Nearly every new attraction has had a simulator component to it which becomes problematic. Disney runs the risk of this also taking hold. Take a look at the 10 rides in development at Disney and the 4 that have opened in the last 15 months:

• Flight of Passage - Screens are the primary driver of story
• Na'vi River Journey - Screens are secondary driver of story
• Slinky Dog Dash - No Screens
• Alien Swirling Saucers - No screens
• Battle Attraction - Screens are secondary driver of story
• Millinnium Falcon Attraction - Screens are the primary driver of story
• Mickey and Minnie's Runaway Railway - Screens/projections are a secondary driver of story (could be primary, TBD)
• Ratatouille - Screens are the primary driver of story
• Guardians of the Galaxy - Screens are the primary driver of story
• Tron - Screens are the primary driver of story

I don't see the use of screens in NRJ being similar to the screens in FoP at all. And same is likely true of Battle Escape and Mickey.

By this line of reasoning, late 1980s Epcot was "nothing but screenz" because many attractions had screens as primary or secondary elements. Spaceship Earth, Universe of Energy, Body Wars, Horizons, Journey into Imagination, even Listen to the Land. The difference here (and with Navi, possibly Battle Escape and Mickey) is that they were components of the story, not the primary element. And even as the primary element, it's fine when done well (like Star Tours, FoP...).. But the issue Universal has is that many of the rides feel the same (and I think Rat will fall into this category, though I've never ridden it). But screens as a secondary elements aren't the same thing at all.

 

[SuperStretccch]

Where are the screens in Tron?

Inside the show building near the end with the orange Lightcycle zooming under you, and then it explodes.

Other than that, I actually don't see many screens in Tron, at least from what I can tell in the video. Most of the effects just seem to be lights, glass panes and a mirror. There's also the fact that half of the coaster is outside, with no screens at all.

 

[martymcflyy85]

There is a big difference with a ride "having screens" and the ride "being a screen." Its the "being" part that people are tired of.

 

[mikejs78]

There is a big difference with a ride "having screens" and the ride "being a screen." Its the "being" part that people are tired of.

Right, but as @MisterPenguin pointed out, there aren't many rides at Disney where the ride is "being a screen".

 

[RSoxNo1]

I don't see the use of screens in NRJ being similar to the screens in FoP at all. And same is likely true of Battle Escape and Mickey.

By this line of reasoning, late 1980s Epcot was "nothing but screenz" because many attractions had screens as primary or secondary elements. Spaceship Earth, Universe of Energy, Body Wars, Horizons, Journey into Imagination, even Listen to the Land. The difference here (and with Navi, possibly Battle Escape and Mickey) is that they were components of the story, not the primary element. And even as the primary element, it's fine when done well (like Star Tours, FoP...).. But the issue Universal has is that many of the rides feel the same (and I think Rat will fall into this category, though I've never ridden it). But screens as a secondary elements aren't the same thing at all.

We'll go over what primary and secondary mean later.

 

[mikejs78]

We'll go over what primary and secondary mean later.

Ha, very funny. You listed all these attractions where screens are only enhancements or supplemental to the attraction as evidence that Disney is at risk of screen oversaturation. And my point is that secondary uses don't have the same risk of oversaturation as primary (using your terms) because the screens typically don't draw attention to themselves. Whereas with Universal, many of the attractions use screens as their primary element.

 

[marni1971]

How about a chit chat thread about screens, their reasons, their history and their merits? We could have a nice little poll too.