Kevin Yee: The Universal Formula

[BryceM]

http://micechat.com/21130-universal-formula/#comments

This is a rather interesting article on MiceAge that discusses Universal's formula on constructing rides and themed environments in their parks. It doesn't focus on Universal's Islands of Adventure as much as it focuses on Universal Studios Florida's "warehouse" theming (weird...).

This seems like it could be an interesting discussion. Thoughts?

 

[danpam1024]

IDK- I see it as comparing apples to oranges- Disney's "immersion" doesn't really fly anymore- IMO they rely too heavily on nostalgia. UOR on the other hand seems to be keeping a better pace with the changing times and fluctuating economy. USF "warehouse style" is exactly what it's supposed to be as the park is supposed to represent a "movie lot" right? When I'm there I feel immersed in "Hollywood"- but, again, that's just my humble opinion.

 

[twebber55]

i think Singapore changed Universals thought process... they are going for more immersive environments and less studios look.....USF is slowly changing its look, first Simpsons mini land, next HP2, after that kidzone...great discussion though

Uni is creating hybrid parks with great thrills and incredible themeing...thats why IOA ,to me, is the worlds greatest theme park before JP expansion

 

[BryceM]

I agree that Universal Studios Florida seems to be going in a new direction, with Springfield and the Harry Potter expansion. And I thought it was a bit unfair to bash on Production Central. Disney is even worse about the soundstage look, with both DHS and WDS falling victim to trying to convince guests that its a real, working movie studio. Universal executes the studio theming much better and things are actually filmed there (occasionally) and the soundstages are used throughout the year. And Universal executes the New York/Hollywood theme much better in my opinion. Streets of America has nothing on New York at USF.

 

[TalkingHead]

A couple of thoughts...

>> It had one of the very best themed queues in the entire world… but culminated in a bare steel coaster. True, the ride had its physical thrills, but if this were a Disney ride and the Disney formula were to apply completely, the tracks would have flown around and through a giant mountain. Indeed, that’s what Disney does with its roller coasters, such as Big Thunder Mountain or Space Mountain. <<

Except Disney also gave us Gadget's Go-Coaster, the Barnstorner, Primeval Whirl, and even Everest, whose second half does a very poor job "theming" the coaster tracks. Maybe Kevin means "Disney formula" figuratively as something that Disney even fails to replicate at times?


>> But the waiting area and queue provide theming that resist complete immersion. Instead of wandering through fully realized tombs, we walk through soundstages built to look like tombs. Disney would have used this space to make us believe we were actually in ancient Egypt. Universal wants us to think we are watching a film production take place in present-day ruins that look like ancient Egypt. The difference between the two prevents us from actually sinking into the role. <<

This part blows my mind. Did Kevin miss Disney-MGM Studios from 1989 until recent years? "Disney would have...[made] us believe we were actually in ancient Egypt" -- except for Star Tours which, until its refurb, did the exact same thing that the Mummy does (albeit to a lesser extent). Remeber when you entered the Star Tours show building, there was theming made to look like you were stepping onto a soundstage. It was sloppy and not convincing, since the rest of the attraction played the show "straight." But to act like Disney didn't do this sort of thing for the first 20 years at MGM is a little disingenuous. MGM had that meta/postmodern approach that was almost always winking at the guests. TOT is probably one of the first attractions there that did play it "straight" as classic MK-style E-tickets did.

 

[djlaosc]

>> But the waiting area and queue provide theming that resist complete immersion. Instead of wandering through fully realized tombs, we walk through soundstages built to look like tombs. Disney would have used this space to make us believe we were actually in ancient Egypt. Universal wants us to think we are watching a film production take place in present-day ruins that look like ancient Egypt. The difference between the two prevents us from actually sinking into the role. <<

This part blows my mind. Did Kevin miss Disney-MGM Studios from 1989 until recent years? "Disney would have...[made] us believe we were actually in ancient Egypt" -- except for Star Tours which, until its refurb, did the exact same thing that the Mummy does (albeit to a lesser extent). Remeber when you entered the Star Tours show building, there was theming made to look like you were stepping onto a soundstage. It was sloppy and not convincing, since the rest of the attraction played the show "straight." But to act like Disney didn't do this sort of thing for the first 20 years at MGM is a little disingenuous. MGM had that meta/postmodern approach that was almost always winking at the guests. TOT is probably one of the first attractions there that did play it "straight" as classic MK-style E-tickets did.

Now, it's been over a year since I was at Universal, but are you even supposed to be in Egypt in the Mummy attraction?

Don't you enter the "New York Museum of Antiquities"?

Looking at Wikipedia, "Guests enter the ride by entering the massive Museum of Antiquities facade, browsing through the film setup of a fictional sequel titled; "Revenge of the Mummy". The film's props, molds, and concept drawings are on display inside. The inside queue morphs into a 1940s archaeological dig inside an Egyptian tomb",

So, we start off looking at a film production, and then we are supposed to go to Egypt, but couldn't it be explained (and make more sense) that you were wandering around an exhibit in the museum?

If it was at Disney, I would guess that it would either end up in Adventureland (in which case you would hope you would enter a pyramid), or it would be somewhere in DHS, and it would probably be similar to how it is at USF!

And yeah, I thought of Star Tours as well.

 

[BryceM]

Now, it's been over a year since I was at Universal, but are you even supposed to be in Egypt in the Mummy attraction?

Don't you enter the "New York Museum of Antiquities"?

Looking at Wikipedia, "Guests enter the ride by entering the massive Museum of Antiquities facade, browsing through the film setup of a fictional sequel titled; "Revenge of the Mummy". The film's props, molds, and concept drawings are on display inside. The inside queue morphs into a 1940s archaeological dig inside an Egyptian tomb",

So, we start off looking at a film production, and then we are supposed to go to Egypt, but couldn't it be explained (and make more sense) that you were wandering around an exhibit in the museum?

If it was at Disney, I would guess that it would either end up in Adventureland (in which case you would hope you would enter a pyramid), or it would be somewhere in DHS, and it would probably be similar to how it is at USF!

And yeah, I thought of Star Tours as well.

The ride entrance has been changed, so now you enter under that classy movie theater facade that says "Paradise Theater". And it's supposed to be that you're on the hot set for the next Mummy movie, but all of the (real) artifacts are cursed. I think that the whole time you're supposed to be on set.

 

[JT3000]

Critically flawed article. It sounds like it was written by someone unaware that Disney has studio parks of its own. How does their concept differ from USF's? Besides the fact that they never host actual production anymore?

The ride entrance has been changed, so now you enter under that classy movie theater facade that says "Paradise Theater".

Yeah, now you're in a theater that doesn't look like a theater, as opposed to a museum that doesn't look like a museum. Mummy is one of those bad ideas you shouldn't even try to understand. It's not humanly possible. But it also isn't typical of the park, so it shouldn't have been used as an example.

 

[BryceM]

Critically flawed article. It sounds like it was written by someone unaware that Disney has studio parks of its own. How does their concept differ from USF's? Besides the fact that they never host actual production anymore?

Exactly. USF has ONE section of the park that is themed to a movie production studio. New York, San Fransisco, London, World Expo, Springfield and Hollywood don't even try to pretend that they are movie sets. They actually place you in the location that they are themed after.

Whereas, DHS has half the park themed to classic Hollywood, and the other half themed to a weak movie studio, where they take you on tours of water towers and shrubs. The soundstage look that the article gripes about is basically half of DHS. Heck, even the Streets of America is obviously trying to be a movie set, with the blatantly obvious supports holding many of the buildings up. New York at USF succeeds in actually placing the guest in the streets of New York City, instead of a bland, fake street with two-dimensional buildings.

I just didn't get where he was going with the article.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

Looks like Endor to me.

And I get where Kevin is going with the article, it's just that both resorts break their own rules in so many places that..."the code is more what you would call "guidelines" than actual rules."

 

[AswaySuller]

Exactly. USF has ONE section of the park that is themed to a movie production studio. New York, San Fransisco, London, World Expo, Springfield and Hollywood don't even try to pretend that they are movie sets.

Maybe I'm wrong but I always thought New York WAS supposed to be a movie set... I always thought New York was supposed to represent a fake New York on a backlot like most working studios have...

 

[BryceM]

Maybe I'm wrong but I always thought New York WAS supposed to be a movie set... I always thought New York was supposed to represent a fake New York on a backlot like most working studios have...

Maybe it is, but I don't get that feeling from it. Especially with the alleyways and how detailed the interior of the shops are.

I could see where it would get confusing though, like with the New York backdrops at the end of the street, right by HRRR.

 

[JT3000]

Maybe I'm wrong but I always thought New York WAS supposed to be a movie set... I always thought New York was supposed to represent a fake New York on a backlot like most working studios have...

I think there's a duality to most of USF's lands. They're supposed to represent the actual locations, while also doubling as a filming backlot. Unlike at DHS, there's really nothing in the park that screams, "See how fake this is?" The movie set aspect isn't really pushed to the forefront unless they're actually filming something at the time.

 

[StageFrenzy]

I don't know if I can articulate this well enough but I'll try and I haven't been to the studios in a while. When you enter UNI you enter a movie studio with sound stages in the entrance area of the park as you go deeper into the park and the "movies" the theming gets more complete and richer. DM, Transformers, twister movie lot themed. Terminator, Mummy and Disaster more layering part of the experience. MIB, HP(Jaws) and now the Simpsons Full immersion. Granted a lot of this is now revisionist with Simpsons and BttF having light immersion but I think that is where Uni should shoot in the future.

I think if you want to compare apples to apples then MGM and the Studios should be compared and AK and IOA. Both sets of parks were built at the same time allowing industry trends and acceptable levels of attractions and theming.

 

[AswaySuller]

I think there's a duality to most of USF's lands. They're supposed to represent the actual locations, while also doubling as a filming backlot. Unlike at DHS, there's really nothing in the park that screams, "See how fake this is?" The movie set aspect isn't really pushed to the forefront unless they're actually filming something at the time.

Definitely... maybe there's no right or wrong answer and its open to interpretation.

 

[Hedwig's Keeper]

It's an interesting article but I wish that it didn't have such a broad title. I would have liked "Universal Themes Formula" better as this article is really addressing only half of the work behind any new ride - the other half being the reuse of ride technology/effects or the licensing/assignment/development of new ride technology/effects. This is apparent from the variables that Yee identifies for his formula: "The Forbidden Journey has all of the elements of the traditional Disney ride in spades: details, immersion, and unexpected surprises."