Originally posted by Married@WDW
I think this whole thread has gotten totally out of hand since I last posted. And I think almost everyone on it has some kind of bias.
As for animatronics -- I think the Triceratops at Universal is the best ever done. If I remember correctly, it was made by Stephen Spielberg's company for the first Jurassic Park movie, which is why it was SO well done! Many of the other animatronics at IoA just don't meet that standard, but in the same respect, I'm not all that impressed with the animatronics in Countdown to Extinction either (I have always REFUSED to call it Dinosaur as the originally name is SO much cooler).
As for Hall of Presidents -- if Universal had come up with it first, around the time Disney did, it would be a classic just as it is today. When Universal has been around for 50 years people will be talking about their classic attractions and complaining when they take out Spiderman to replace it with something more popular, like some people complain about Mr. Toad's and Country Bears. Universal just needs to do their time and keep making the best attractions they know how to make. And it's totally unfair to compare Disney with Universal right now -- Disney had a few decades head start on them.
And I think even the biggest Disney fan will admit some of Disney's gruesome mistakes -- just look at DCA. I enjoyed myself when I visited, but it's just not a Disney park.
I agree with you. I think it's time for everyone to step back and calm down. Let's let this thread die (someone will start another one in a month or two, anyway
) Seriously, a few people have resorted to name calling and for the most part, everyone is now repeating what was said earlier on.
Neither Universal or Disney uses cardboard cutouts. Universal uses two dimensional depictions of characters that are comics (both the comic book and Sunday Times variety) which are from their source, two dimensional and flat both literally and in character. While you don't find these items being used outside, they are present on several Disney Rides. In Test Track not only is the guy in the truck flat, but so are the trees you pass. This was intentional - just like the numbers painted on the trees - to suggest a real testing environment that was only meant to simulate reality rather than duplicate it. They do it in Space Ranger Spin and if you are an adult with no kids, it probably looks pretty cheap. This ride was never intended to be a blockbuster attraction and as sad as I think it sounds, I know someone in their young teens that's afraid of MIB because of the Aliens, I guess she thinks some of them look too real (although I can see this being a real concern with smaller children). Both Universal and Disney have Dumbo style rides themed in an appropriate manner to their sections. I think IOA's has a bit more of a show element to it because of the music and theme applied. On the contrary, they both have teacup rides and I think Disney's is much better done with the theme of the ride itself as well as the structure that covers it and its surrounding area. Dinorama has the theme of being a cheap tacky golden-age-of-driving roadside (tourist trap) park. Some aspects of this kind of thing such as the rides and their theme elements are cheap. Personally, I consider this a sort of cop-out on Disney's part. They have themed it, yes - but they came up with a theme that allowed them to use lower quality amusement park rides (sort of like what I've heard about the pier at DCA) On the other hand, making that area of the park look old and rusted out and cheap the way they do to such detail was probably an expensive process when starting out with all new things that also had to be safe and stand the test of time. Facades like this were probably a lot more expensive and difficult to develop than the painted cement and fiberglass that make up many other parts of Disney as well as Universal. Let me make clear though, in the end, I think they got out cheap with this one overall.
The problem that plagues Universal which many of us Disney fans see but can't always quite place is the fact that by and large, Universal doesn't have this THEME park thing down the way Disney does and they probably never will. They build their parks the same way most companies build AMUSEMENT parks which is by contracting 3rd party developers to do almost everything in the design and construction on a by attraction basis. This can work well. In the case of Universal Studios in it's glory years, all the the rides were totally different and original in relation to each other. Pooling from different creative minds in different organizations, they were able to get a lot of unique creative talent together for the attractions that went into that park. The uniqueness of those kinds of things has a price though. I think what Universal discovered was that these original concept attractions seem to have more technical difficulties and breakdowns due to them being almost prototype-like in nature and they tend to be very, very expensive because of high development costs. Jaws is a perfect example of that. It was originally built to open with the rest of the park but it was closed for years because elements of the ride could not be made to work properly and rather than fix them, Universal and the two companies responsible for designing and building the attraction decided to all sue each other. As a result, the ride finally opened years later with some of the better original elements gone. With IOA they obviously chose a cheaper and safer route. While some attractions are innovative (Spiderman, Poseidon) the rest incorporate well tested and for the most part relatively common systems already in place. The Hulk for instance, came from a 3rd party manufacturer at a much lower cost and with a guarantee that Universal probably did not get when they "bought" Jaws. By and large, while a good number of people may find IOA entertaining (myself included on the right days) it is a park of much lower quality and less originality overall than many of the others in its area and that is what makes me less fond of it. That doesn't make it bad but I think it's a step down from what their first park was and if Disney had dared pass something like this off with a new park of their own around here, I'd be really upset. As I understand, a lot of people feel the same way about DCA (which I've not been to) as I do about IOA.
There will be people that choose to ignore most of what I've said and jump straight to where I say IOA is cheaper and less creative and start arguing that with me. Just like they have all along. Personally, I'm tired of the repetition. If you like Jurassic Park River Adventure, more power to you. The ride system used for it is cheap and unoriginal and that isn't really open for debate. They do attempt to customize the experience a little but the ride is not original. That doesn't mean it's a bad ride - just that it can feel a lot like a ride many of us have been on somewhere else closer to home. There are a few tweaks to Dudley Doright but it's pretty much the same story. Universal quite obviously had no real hand in the design or development of their two big coasters. If they had declined the designs, B&M would probably have kept the deposit and sold them to someone else a few months later. Even though these are some of the most popular attractions in IOA, they were all cost cutting attractions, too which is something that seems to be escaping a lot of people in the IOA defense side. On a much smaller scale, Disney dose the same thing from time to time. Cheap does not have to mean boring, lame, dull or anything else that might relate to a person wanting their money back, though. I'm not trying to suggest that there aren't fun things to do in IOA. For me, Disney and Universal have both reared me to just expect more than that when I spend my time in Orlando area parks. My personal hope is that this is a trend that is not permanent for Universal or Disney. I would like to see the next big thing in IOA be more like Spiderman and less like Hulk or Dragons and I don't think that anyone that's been on all three of them needs an explanation as to why. I know that Mission Space will be something unique and original (my fingers are crossed that it will be good as well) but I hope that they don't resort to a B&M type coaster for the anchor of the new land in AK simply because it's a cheap way to produce a thrill ride. I could go on and on but I think I'll go ahead and give it a rest now. Anybody who has read my other posts on this thread should have a good idea of what I'm talking about by this point. If you don't, then I don't know how to explain myself to you. I'm sorry.
P.S.
Someone had mentioned that they thought the Triceratops at IOA was used in one of the Jurassic Park Movies.I can tell you with almost totally certainty that it wasn't. Most of the lifelike dino shots that you see in all three of the movies are CG. The mechanical dinos that were actually used were manual puppets - not programmed animatronics.The animatronic at IOA also had to be a lot more durable than anything they used on the Movie sets.
