• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Can they make a ride without screens?

vitani88

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
I've always gotten sick on simulators, ever since I was a kid. Because of this, there's not a whole lot I can do at Universal Studios since most of their rides are at least partially simulations. This is one of the reasons I LOVE Disney! I can do almost everything there and I just skip the simulators (or load up on Dramamine).

I just watched a video of the new Kong ride, which I mistakenly thought was a rollercoaster and I'm wondering if they're even capable of making a good ride without screens. It seems like literally every new ride they've put out in the last several years has incorporated screens/simulation in a big way. Why is this?
 

Bob Harlem

Well-Known Member
Avatar is mostly screens, Star Wars will be mostly Screens, Soarin all screens, Toy Story, all screens, the dwarf faces in the mine train are screens, Frozen will be about half/half. There are more animatronics in Kong than in the Shanghai Pirates. Little Mermaid is the last attraction at Disney that wasn't completely screen based (and that too has several).

The rides everyone mentions with the animatronics at disney are all 25+ years old now, and some have been removed (Journey into Imagination is now mostly screens).

I think people have a serious rose colored glasses problem, since Disney hasn't really put out much in the last decade. The Yeti doesn't move.

The original Kong was pretty dull, neat apes, but that was it.

All most people care about is the ride good or not, Kong is good.

Nintendo will be much less screen intensive, so you freaks can look forward to that.
 
Last edited:

Disney Analyst

Well-Known Member
Avatar is mostly screens, Star Wars will be mostly Screens, Soarin all screens, Toy Story, all screens, the dwarf faces in the mine train are screens, Frozen will be about half/half. There are more animatronics in Kong than in the Shanghai Pirates. Little Mermaid is the last attraction at Disney that wasn't completely screen based (and that too has several).

The rides everyone mentions with the animatronics at disney are all 25+ years old now, and some have been removed (Journey into Imagination is now mostly screens).

I think people have a serious rose colored glasses problem, since Disney hasn't really put out much in the last decade. The Yeti doesn't move.

The original Kong was pretty dull, neat apes, but that was it.

All most people care about is the ride good or not, Kong is good.

Nintendo will be much less screen intensive, so you freaks can look forward to that.

Your argument is false. While a lot of Disney attraction will incorporate projection technology, they are not the screen based attractions universal has been pumping out. Yes, more are coming... but the point is everything Universal has pumped out in the last what... 6 years? and foreseeable future are screen based. Disney does not have that track record.
 

GLaDOS

Well-Known Member
Your argument is false. While a lot of Disney attraction will incorporate projection technology, they are not the screen based attractions universal has been pumping out. Yes, more are coming... but the point is everything Universal has pumped out in the last what... 6 years? and foreseeable future are screen based. Disney does not have that track record.

Who cares? A good ride is a good ride.
 

Disney Analyst

Well-Known Member
Who cares? A good ride is a good ride.

Of course, but variety is the spice of life. If every single ride was basically you watching a movie with motion... who would go? You have to build variety. Universal can and has done it. They have done it brilliantly in the past in my opinion. Crashing helicopters, giant apes, firey explosions. I miss that, I miss Universal taking me into the movies, not making me watch them.
 

vitani88

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Avatar is mostly screens, Star Wars will be mostly Screens, Soarin all screens, Toy Story, all screens, the dwarf faces in the mine train are screens, Frozen will be about half/half. There are more animatronics in Kong than in the Shanghai Pirates. Little Mermaid is the last attraction at Disney that wasn't completely screen based (and that too has several).

The rides everyone mentions with the animatronics at disney are all 25+ years old now, and some have been removed (Journey into Imagination is now mostly screens).

I think people have a serious rose colored glasses problem, since Disney hasn't really put out much in the last decade. The Yeti doesn't move.

The original Kong was pretty dull, neat apes, but that was it.

All most people care about is the ride good or not, Kong is good.

Nintendo will be much less screen intensive, so you freaks can look forward to that.

You having a bad day?

I'm not just comparing screens vs. animatronics. (Did you really just compare the dwarves faces with a simulator?) Disney has way more non-simulation rides than Universal. It's not even a contest.

Even still, of the new attractions in New Fantasyland, none are screens/simulators. No, the dwarf faces don't count. :rolleyes: 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.

As for every ride with animatronics being 25+ years old, did you forget about Journey of The Little Mermaid? Dinosaur? I'm pretty sure those are much newer than 25+ years old.
 

GLaDOS

Well-Known Member
Of course, but variety is the spice of life. If every single ride was basically you watching a movie with motion... who would go? You have to build variety. Universal can and has done it. They have done it brilliantly in the past in my opinion. Crashing helicopters, giant apes, firey explosions. I miss that, I miss Universal taking me into the movies, not making me watch them.

Well, I think the new rides still do that. Sorry you don't.
 

Disney Analyst

Well-Known Member
Well, I think the new rides still do that. Sorry you don't.

They do to some extent. But not in the same way, and not to the same level of immersion.. At least not for me. Like Toy Story Mania, I realize I'm just looking at a screen. Transformers and Spiderman really do integrate it well, they are incredible attractions. But It would also be cool to actually be in the physical worlds I see on screen.
 

Bob Harlem

Well-Known Member
Your argument is false. While a lot of Disney attraction will incorporate projection technology, they are not the screen based attractions universal has been pumping out. Yes, more are coming... but the point is everything Universal has pumped out in the last what... 6 years? and foreseeable future are screen based. Disney does not have that track record.

What part is false? Most of the rides called out are 25+ years old, there are a few newer ones, but the Wicked Witch in the Great Movie Ride was probably the best.

I think this argument is stupid though. I'm seeing when the most popular ride in Epcot is essentially a screen with feet above you, Holywood Studios is a glorified wii game and probably the best intensive j--k off simulator anywhere, And the Animal Kingdom centerpiece hasn't worked in years an now consists of a strobe light and shadow cartoon. And Little mermaid is a bad ride with a pretty nice queue.

This BS allowed the suits at Disney to coast by for years with doing barely anything of note while jacking up ticket costs and getting by with asinine, absurdly priced hard ticket events where you get a pathetic cupcake or two or a mickey bar, and charging $60 for a buffet.

A good ride is a good ride, and yes the ones I listed at Disney are good rides (except Mermaid)
 

Disney Analyst

Well-Known Member
What part is false? Most of the rides called out are 25+ years old, there are a few newer ones, but the Wicked Witch in the Great Movie Ride was probably the best.

I think this argument is stupid though. I'm seeing when the most popular ride in Epcot is essentially a screen with feet above you, Holywood Studios is a glorified wii game and probably the best intensive j--k off simulator anywhere, And the Animal Kingdom centerpiece hasn't worked in years an now consists of a strobe light and shadow cartoon. And Little mermaid is a bad ride with a pretty nice queue.

This BS allowed the suits at Disney to coast by for years with doing barely anything of note while jacking up ticket costs and getting by with asinine, absurdly priced hard ticket events where you get a pathetic cupcake or two or a mickey bar, and charging $60 for a buffet.

A good ride is a good ride.

I disagree. If you want to look at Disney World only sure... but I look at all that Disney is creating. Cars Land, Mystic Manor, Grizzly Gulch, Little Mermaid (quality aside), Majority of the attractions at Shanghai. Yes Disney World has not fared so well with innovative attractions as of late, but the other parks are doing quite well. Disney has built screen based attractions, but no where near the scale of Universal.

Universal East: Simpsons, Minion Mayhem, Transformers, Forbidden Journey, Gringotts, Kong, Falon, Fast and Furious.
West Coast: Transformers, Simpsons, Minion Mayhem, Kong 360, Fast and Furious, Forbidden Journey.

There is a place for rides of this style. I am not arguing against that... I am a huge Universal Fan, and also a Disney Fan. But there has to come a time when they need to be more creative, more innovative. Disney has proven throughout it's history that they are just that... Yes, they have stagnated, but Universal is too young in the game to rely on the same old trick and to stagnate. I sincerely hope Nintendo is fully realized, and the rumored Secret Life of Pets is fully realized. By all means incorporate projection technology, that is fine... but give me something new and innovative to make me want to spend the thousands of dollars to visit Florida and experience your attractions.
 

GLaDOS

Well-Known Member
I disagree. If you want to look at Disney World only sure... but I look at all that Disney is creating. Cars Land, Mystic Manor, Grizzly Gulch, Little Mermaid (quality aside), Majority of the attractions at Shanghai. Yes Disney World has not fared so well with innovative attractions as of late, but the other parks are doing quite well. Disney has built screen based attractions, but no where near the scale of Universal.

Universal East: Simpsons, Minion Mayhem, Transformers, Forbidden Journey, Gringotts, Kong, Falon, Fast and Furious.
West Coast: Transformers, Simpsons, Minion Mayhem, Kong 360, Fast and Furious, Forbidden Journey.

There is a place for rides of this style. I am not arguing against that... I am a huge Universal Fan, and also a Disney Fan. But there has to come a time when they need to be more creative, more innovative. Disney has proven throughout it's history that they are just that... Yes, they have stagnated, but Universal is too young in the game to rely on the same old trick and to stagnate. I sincerely hope Nintendo is fully realized, and the rumored Secret Life of Pets is fully realized. By all means incorporate projection technology, that is fine... but give me something new and innovative to make me want to spend the thousands of dollars to visit Florida and experience your attractions.

I think you're being HILARIOUSLY entitled here. Kong is new. Kong is innovative. It's just not new and innovative in the exact way you want it to be new an innovative.
 

Disney Analyst

Well-Known Member
I think you're being HILARIOUSLY entitled here. Kong is new. Kong is innovative. It's just not new and innovative in the exact way you want it to be new an innovative.

To each their own... I don't think it's entitled to hold these companies who make millions to high standards... Especially when they've proven what they can create in the past.

Edit to add:

I am also not saying Kong is not quality, it is. But that's not the discussion at hand. I guess the question is..

Could Universal have created an incredible Kong attraction without the need of screens being the centre of the story? I think they could have, they didn't, and that's that. But we are here to discuss, and discuss we will.
 

Timekeeper

Well-Known Member
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...?
 

Disney Analyst

Well-Known Member
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...?

I will disagree in one aspect... I definitely think they could create a Minions Dark Ride, and I think it could be amazing.

Forbidden Journey is definitely a great example, it's a fantastic, unique, innovative, immersive ride.
 

Timekeeper

Well-Known Member
I will disagree in one aspect... I definitely think they could create a Minions Dark Ride, and I think it could be amazing.

Forbidden Journey is definitely a great example, it's a fantastic, unique, innovative, immersive ride.

I think that a Minions dark ride would have been very cute, and I'm sure that I would have loved it, but I was merely suggesting that animating them as practical effects/AAs would have had obvious limitations and it would have been impossible to have them do the things that they do in the current attraction. Also, the current plot that the Minions live on is small, and so between the simulator and hypothetical dark ride, I vote for the simulator as it's more in-line with the tone of the movies - IMHO. Now, if the minions began as "real life" characters, like the munchkins in the Wizard of Oz, then I would have favored a dark ride, because it would be more in-line with the movies.

I suppose that what I'm getting at is that I tend to favor attractions that most closely resemble the movie format on which they are based. For example, the Harry Potter stuff needs screens to accomplish some of the cinematic special effects and sheer scale of the environments. On the other hand, I would hate to see a screen-based Jaws ride, because the Jaws movie was practical, and so any attractions based on the classic Jaws should also be practical. This isn't always the case, as there's room to overlap, but it seems to hold true in the majority of cases.

As long as there isn't a sock scene...

Well, I imagined that Universal's press release announcement would go something along the lines of "Our new attraction will sock it to your senses without the use of any screens!" :hilarious:

But now, apparently, some people don't want socks. ;) No screens, no socks, what's left?

(Wait, I did hear about this one ride over at WDW that doesn't use screens OR socks, and I think it's called something like ...Primeval Whirl.)
 

A foolish mortal

Well-Known Member
I've always gotten sick on simulators, ever since I was a kid. Because of this, there's not a whole lot I can do at Universal Studios since most of their rides are at least partially simulations. This is one of the reasons I LOVE Disney! I can do almost everything there and I just skip the simulators (or load up on Dramamine).

I just watched a video of the new Kong ride, which I mistakenly thought was a rollercoaster and I'm wondering if they're even capable of making a good ride without screens. It seems like literally every new ride they've put out in the last several years has incorporated screens/simulation in a big way. Why is this?
Totally agree!!

Looks like a lot of people don't understand that when we are saying we dont like rides that are using screens, we are talking simulator screens... not seven dwarfs, or Anna and Elsa with projected face.. that's stupid, and not comparable at ALL! That's definitely NOT what we are talking about! We are talking about screens that are bigger than a wall, with motion to mimic what you see! (Yes, Soarin, Toy Story Midway Mania, Star Tours etc are all screen based, but they are a few of the Disney rides compared to the many Universal rides)

I totally agree with you! I think i would have loved King Kong more if it was a complete dark ride instead of mostly screens! I get dizzy on all the rides with big screens (note big screens), and i totally hate getting dizzy! Besides, it just doesn't feel realistic enough (which is even worse)! I love every "dark ride" aspect of Forbidden Journey, but i HATE the screens.. it ruins the whole experience for me, as it's just not real enough! But we are all different with different opinions.. and that's why i wish Universal could build something (new) for people who dont like the simulator type rides! (I love the Hulk, E.T, Jurassic Park, but they need new rides too that are not simulator rides. Instead we get King Kong, Jimmy Fallon and Fast and Furious.. and people are STILL saying that Universal are not only making screen based rides? Maybe not the older rides, but you cant say anything about the newer ones!)
 

Tom Morrow

Well-Known Member
I don't agree that Universal's attraction subject matter mandates the use of screens. If they would just push themselves to not hit the same familiar notes in every attraction, it is possible. Not every ride has to have something go terribly wrong (*I realize this cliché is not limited to Universal, but it is something Disney has moved away from), not every ride has to have you flying through the air and falling hundreds of feet to be caught at the last second, etc.

Minions absolutely could be executed as a physical dark ride, although it would need more space than it's current location. Simply change the plot from "you are training to be a minion" to "you are touring the Minion training facility" and there is no longer a need to have you fly around through the air and other physically impossible stuff. Despite the fun training concept, Minions still even has the completely unnecessary "something goes wrong" element.

Gringotts could have consisted entirely of physical scenes if the plot was just a tour of the Gringotts vaults on a crazy cart system instead of being caught in the most pivotal event in the bank's history where you (of course) have to get attacked, etc.

Men in Black is a great example of putting you "in the movie" without the need for screens because they came up with a fitting concept instead of some high speed alien chase or something.

I love and root for Universal, but after Kong being a letdown for me, and both new attractions under construction most likely also being heavily screen-based, it's just too much of the same and its bordering on lazy.
 
Last edited:

A foolish mortal

Well-Known Member
I don't agree that Universal's attraction subject matter mandates the use of screens. If they would just push themselves to not hit the same familiar notes in every attraction, it is possible. Not every ride has to have something go terribly wrong (*I realize this cliché is not limited to Universal, but it is something Disney has moved away from), not every ride has to have you flying through the air and falling hundreds of feet to be caught at the last second, etc.

Minions absolutely could be executed as a physical dark ride, although it would need more space than it's current location. Simply change the plot from "you are training to be a minion" to "you are touring the Minion training facility" and there is no longer a need to have you fly around through the air and other physically impossible stuff. Despite the fun training concept, Minions still even has the completely unnecessary "something goes wrong" element.

Gringotts could have consisted entirely of physical scenes if the plot was just a tour of the Gringotts vaults on a crazy cart system instead of being caught in the most pivotal event in the bank's history where you have to get attacked etc.

Men in Black is a great example of putting you "in the movie" without the need for screens because they came up with a fitting concept instead of some high speed alien chase or something.

I love and root for Universal, but after Kong being a letdown, and both new attractions under construction most likely also being heavily screen-based, it's just too much of the same and its bordering on lazy
.
This <3
 

Disney Analyst

Well-Known Member
I don't agree that Universal's attraction subject matter mandates the use of screens. If they would just push themselves to not hit the same familiar notes in every attraction, it is possible. Not every ride has to have something go terribly wrong (*I realize this cliché is not limited to Universal, but it is something Disney has moved away from), not every ride has to have you flying through the air and falling hundreds of feet to be caught at the last second, etc.

Minions absolutely could be executed as a physical dark ride, although it would need more space than it's current location. Simply change the plot from "you are training to be a minion" to "you are touring the Minion training facility" and there is no longer a need to have you fly around through the air and other physically impossible stuff. Despite the fun training concept, Minions still even has the completely unnecessary "something goes wrong" element.

Gringotts could have consisted entirely of physical scenes if the plot was just a tour of the Gringotts vaults on a crazy cart system instead of being caught in the most pivotal event in the bank's history where you have to get attacked etc.

Men in Black is a great example of putting you "in the movie" without the need for screens because they came up with a fitting concept instead of some high speed alien chase or something.

I love and root for Universal, but after Kong being a letdown, and both new attractions under construction most likely also being heavily screen-based, it's just too much of the same and its bordering on lazy.

Agreed. Can anyone say to themselves when they thought of Gringotts they thought... this could be the most amazing coaster ride ever?! Then Universal announced they were making it into one, I was so excited... and then... they made that? It could have literally been an amazing themed coaster through the depths of the bank, and it would be a far better attraction. You could have utilized dark ride elements and slow downs still, a screen here and there...but the entire thing is just. Screens. Ugh. Gringotts had such potential :(
 

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

Top Bottom