I have honestly found most of the new additions underwhelming, and that even includes Star Wars ROR and MMRR and even Avatar FOP. To me, I think Universal is capturing thrills even without coasters. TBH the Harry Potter attractions are blowing Disney away, and 2 of them aren't coaster. Just my thoughts though..... I get Disney is family friendly, but they haven't had a thrill ride in some time....
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Does anyone else find Rise of the Resistance and Runaway Railway underwhelming?
- Thread starter Poseidon Quest
- Start date
EarthboundChild
Active Member
I haven't ridden on Runaway Railway but I did ride on Mystic Manor at HK Disneyland. In Mystic Manor they had the spinning effect you described.
I'm not sure what you mean? Are you speaking about the Ollivander's Wand experience? Hippogriff, Hagrid's, and Gringotts are all coaster.
As in spinning around a central set piece? In the video I edited into the initial post, I do cover Mystic Manor towards the end if you're interested in my take on that. I believe that Mystic Manor uses the technology quite well, despite being a more linear experience.
Forbidden Journey would be an example of a Harry Potter ride that blows any new disney attraction away. Im not sure i get the hype of the new Disney stuff. It is underwhelming, to me at least.
Little Green Men
Well-Known Member
FOP and ROTR are far from underwhelming
Giss Neric
Well-Known Member
You call FOP underwhelming? No other 3D screen ride currently can go anywhere near the realness and immersiveness of that ride. ROR and MMRR I get cause it can be compared to other rides and it generally has polarizing opinions.
Yes, unpopular I get it, but its basically Soarin on steroids. Its cool, but to me never been worth the wait thats demanded. Maybe I am wrong, but I remember first trying Forbidden Journey at Universal and being in awe, saying I have never ridden anything like that. My thoughts after FOP and ROR were nowhere near that. Just my 2 cents...
Brer Oswald
Well-Known Member
FOP is spectacular until the 6th ride or so.
Definitely agree here. I'm currently working on a breakdown of Pandora, and I think that Flight of Passage is the only truly spectacular attraction to come to the U.S. Disney parks in the Iger/Chapek era. Its design philosophy is very much in line with many classic Disney dark rides, in that it allows you to take in the environment rather than just throw things at you. It pushes simulator attractions to a whole new height in the details and immersiveness that it strives to achieve.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
I don't think Forbidden Journey is especially great.
To be fair, it gave me horrendous motion sickness which is obviously a factor, but I still wasn't really impressed by it even ignoring that. I don't think I've ever been overly impressed by any ride that relies heavily on screens, though. They just don't really do much for me.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
I don't think FoP is all that great either. It's gorgeous, but it still boils down to watching a video on a screen -- I never felt like I was actually there. I think NRJ is a far more immersive experience than FoP, even with its issues.
I still enjoy FoP and like riding it. I'm certainly not saying it's a bad attraction. But simulators just don't really work for me; I'm not sure it's even possible to build a screen based ride that would actually blow me away. I could watch the FoP video on a large screen and feel like I was getting 90% of the experience (and might even enjoy it more because it would be easier to take in all the beautiful details).
Last edited:
Giss Neric
Well-Known Member
I had the same feeling when I rode Forbidden Journey for the first time. Probably cause of the Kuka arm technology being new. Unfortunately, that ride gave me my first motion sickness and I'm not the type who gets motion sickness. Rode it twice again for science and I still felt dizzy after. I didn't feel dizzy when I rode Simpsons or Minions which is notorious for getting people dizzy. I didn't feel all of that in FOP maybe cause they improved on the synchronicity of the movement of the seats to the movement on screen.
I disagree with the screen aspect. Obviously it makes up a decent portion of the ride, but it never ceases to fascinate me how seamless it moves you between the screen bubbles and the physical sets and animatronics.
As someone who has been very critical of Universal's screen based attractions, I'm surprised to be disagreeing with you again. Flight of Passage definitely seems to have hit a very different note with me. Sure it's a simulator, but I think that it's so ridiculously well thought out that it still stands as an exceptional experience to me. However, I just found myself writing three pages on it, so it would be too lengthy to explain my POV here. I definitely perceive it as a rare exception to how I normally feel about simulators or screen based attractions though.
As someone who never feels motion sickness, FJ will affect me in a minor way on occasion. I got stuck on it for a ride stop once, and with the lights on, you can see a decade worth of throw-up stains down below you. I understand why it keeps getting cloned but... that's a messy attraction problem to keep addressing.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
I do think the way it moves between the screens and the physical sets/AAs is well done, but the screens are more than 50% of the ride and just don't do it for me. It's also incredibly jerky, which is an issue. I think that's why I got such bad motion sickness (I didn't get it at all on FoP) and although my GF didn't get sick, her neck actually hurt after riding it because of how much it throws you around.
I don't think we disagree that much on FoP -- I think it's a good attraction and a much better ride than any of the Universal simulators. It's probably about as good as a simulator attraction can be. I just wasn't blown away by it, and it's because screens are never able to transport me the way physical sets are (and why NRJ is far more immersive than FoP to me).
It's obviously all about personal preference/experience, but I have a hard time imagining a heavily screen-based ride that could ever be more than a B+ for me. They just lack the immersion of physical sets.
While we're on the topic of Flight of Passage, I've just done a much more in-depth analysis on it and present my argument for why I feel it's the best project to come out of the Iger/Chapek era.
Fable McCloud
Well-Known Member
I have yet to ride MMRR or RotR, but on my honeymoon in 2018 I was able to ride FoP. I liked it, but it was like Soarin' in a more uncomfortable seat. My husband was really not impressed. We both prefer full dark rides for immersion. Haunted Mansion is my favorite attraction because it gives me the atmosphere and the sense that all these things in front of me are real and concrete, except the ghosts. His favorite is the Tower of Terror for the same thing: it's all in front of us except for the things meant to be illusions or ghosts. FoP failed to really impress me because I knew I was just sitting on a "banshee" and looking at a computerized scene. It's like how the original Soarin' was all shot with a camera versus the obvious bits of CG in the new version.
Na'vi River Journey felt more realistic and I love the shaman AA, she's really detail and highly animated. To me, it's more impressive to see these awesome AA figures that move so realistically than watch a nice digitally rendered scene on a screen. I respect the people who create these sequences, and it's impressive, just not as immersive to me.
Na'vi River Journey felt more realistic and I love the shaman AA, she's really detail and highly animated. To me, it's more impressive to see these awesome AA figures that move so realistically than watch a nice digitally rendered scene on a screen. I respect the people who create these sequences, and it's impressive, just not as immersive to me.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
This is almost exactly how I feel. Physical sets, AAs, etc. always trump screens.
I still think Flight of Passage is a better overall ride than NRJ, but NRJ is more immersive. Screens are best used as an enhancement to physical sets rather than a replacement for them.
Also, yes, the CGI bits in Soarin' actually make the attraction worse. They're so noticeable it takes you out of the experience.
LaughingGravy
Well-Known Member
I can only base my opinion on the multitude of YouTube videos and my last experience at Universal, but I am tired of show you a movie and shake you around in a box/car/glider rides. If they are going to do that, it should be at a consistently high bar the overseas parks seem to get, but somehow get dumbed down for the US market.
I felt the same way, at least on my first ride. With subsequent ride-throughs though, my perspective has changed a lot on it now that I better understand its intent and how it goes about trying to execute that intent. I will almost always argue that physical attractions are better than screen centered ones, but Flight of Passage might be my only exception. That being said, I respect your perspective on things.
I'm not sure about that. The original Soarin' relied on CGI as well, and I don't think it looks bad at all in the new version. I think the reason it takes people out of the experience is because they don't necessarily believe that the shots are authentic. The polar bears for example, seem a little too perfectly shot to be convincing, despite me feeling that the quality of the CGI is top notch.
I agree with that, but Universal is definitely trending away from those types of attractions. They've heard their audience loud and clear, and while they haven't necessarily removed all screens in their newer builds, they're minimizing them and using them to greater effect. There's been a lot of criticism around the Mario Kart attraction being too "screen heavy" when its use of AR likely isn't something that can really be judged on video.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
It's not that all of the CGI is bad -- I realize my comment sounded like that's what I was saying, but I didn't mean to imply that. It's that there are certain places where it's very obvious and it distracts from the rest of the ride. The one that I remember really jumping out at me and making me shake my head the last time I rode (January 2020) was when the elephant is tossing up dirt, but there were a couple others. That elephant doesn't look real.
Similar threads
