Screens Not Issue; Chases Scenes Are Same

[DanielBB8]

Having visited Universal Orlando recently, the complaints about every single ride being screens concerned me. Turns out, the screens aren’t the issue. The fact that most of these attractions are fast racing simulators with a high degree of turbulence bothered me. I thought Jimmy Fallon’s Race Through New York would be a gentle touring ride that’s no different than Disney’s Soarin’. Was I mistaken. It feels the same as Simpsons, Minions, Kong, F&F, and Forbidden Journey. They all have you to rushing towards something and falling down and rescued. Only Gringotts is sufficiently different that it didn’t seem to be the same. It is easily the most impressive attraction. The remainder uses the same tricks.

 

[martymcflyy85]

You should change the title of the thread to "Screens not the ONLY issue" because the way its titled it makes it seem like you are saying that screens are not an issue. I think we all agree that they definitely are.

 

[DanielBB8]

You should change the title of the thread to "Screens not the ONLY issue" because the way its titled it makes it seem like you are saying that screens are not an issue. I think we all agree that they definitely are.

I disagree. I wrote the title and repeated it in the post. Screens are Not the issue. Chase scenes are Really the issue.

 

[lebeau]

For me, the truth is somewhere in the middle. After our trip a couple weeks ago, I decided that screens weren't as big of a deal as everyone made them out to be. It's how they are being implemented. Too many rides have too many similarities. While Kong and Spider-Man are different enough from each other, you throw in Transformers and Fast and Furious and things start getting repetitive. Then there are Despicable Me, Race Through New York and The Simpson all in close proximity to one another and all very similar. They really up the sense of deja vu. Gringott's and Forbidden Journeys aren't really all that similar to the other screen-based attractions, but they have enough of the same DNA that if you are already burned out on screens you feel it.

So, to me, screens are just a tool and not inherently a problem. The problem tends to be that they are (over)used the same way on too many attractions. Are they used on chase scenes? Yes. Is that a problem? If like the OP they bother you, yes. I don't personally have a problem with that. I am not all that interested in Universal's answer to Soarin'. (Side note: I am not sure why you would think an attraction called Race Through New York wouldn't be fast but then again Fast & Furious: Supercharged is ironically slow.) I think chase scenes are only going to be a problem for a relatively small percentage of the guests in the park. I know a guy who will argue strongly that spiders are a bigger problem at Universal.

I am hopeful that going forward we will see greater diversity in the new attractions coming to Universal. The Potter coaster sounds promising in that regard.

 

[Tom Morrow]

I mean I kind of agree. They have a problem with being seemingly unable to write an attraction that isn't a bunch of bombastic chaos. So it could be argued that the attraction concepts they come up with necessitate screens.

The answer, though, isn't that screens are necessary, it's that they need to think outside of their creative bubble and come up with ride concepts that don't necessitate screens. The new Potter coaster seems to be a big step in the right direction.

 

[OG Runner]

I agree, I think, it is not the screens it is the use of them. I went for a trip to Universal in May. I texted a friend back home that I
had been dropped virtually thousands of feet, being caught by webbing, Bumblebee, Kong, etc. It really isn't the screens it is
the same story use of the screens.

 

[JohnD]

I agree. It's not the screens. It's the motion simulators. Although when I rode Spiderman again the next day, it was actually the combination of the two that got to me. I had to close my eyes several times to diminish the effects until it was over. I was planning on riding Kong next. I decided against it.

 

[DanielBB8]

Disney had the same problem, but different. Every screen attraction was a stage show on the screen like the Bug’s show, Honey I Shrunk the Audience, Muppets. Luckily, Disney decided to close them and try something different. If only Universal will really try something different, but they just opened Kung Fu Panda that has a opening water sequence that’s most of show. Maybe they’ll learn someday to try something different.

 

[Tony Perkis]

Disney had the same problem, but different. Every screen attraction was a stage show on the screen like the Bug’s show, Honey I Shrunk the Audience, Muppets. Luckily, Disney decided to close them and try something different. If only Universal will really try something different, but they just opened Kung Fu Panda that has a opening water sequence that’s most of show. Maybe they’ll learn someday to try something different.

You mean like the upcoming Potter ride?

 

[DanielBB8]

You mean like the upcoming Potter ride?

That might be worth waiting for.

 

[Bairstow]

Interesting that the Haunted Mansion and Pirates of the Caribbean, despite being almost universally recognized as two of the greatest theme park rides of all time, are seldom used as structural models for modern rides. Sometimes a complete absence of narrative structure, or even rider identity context works just fine.

Disney fell into the "Something has gone wrong," creative hole for very, very long time and only with the two new Pandora rides are they breaking free of the trap. Hopefully Universal can one day make a headliner ride without making "EVERYTHING has gone wrong!" being the narrative mode.

 

[Tom Morrow]

Disney fell into the "Something has gone wrong," creative hole for very, very long time and only with the two new Pandora rides are they breaking free of the trap.

Ehh... In all of Disney's attraction history they avoided much more than they have used it, and most of their attractions of the last 15-20 years have not followed it.

 

[Bairstow]

Ehh... In all of Disney's attraction history they avoided much more than they have used it, and most of their attractions of the last 15-20 years have not followed it.

Mission:Space and Everest fall squarely into the category, and honestly Disney just didn't build that much during the last 15 years.

 

[Tom Morrow]

Mission:Space and Everest fall squarely into the category, and honestly Disney just didn't build that much during the last 15 years.

Misson: Space is not a "something goes wrong" ride, the thing that goes wrong is a challenge that is part of your training. As opposed to, say, having to abort your training mission to deal with a "real" problem.

7DMT
Toy Story Midway Mania
Rock 'n' Roller Coaster
Soarin'
Test Track
Radiator Springs Racers
GotG: Mission Breakout
Big Grizzly Mountain
Mystic Manor
Tron Lightcycles

to name a few.

 

[lebeau]

Misson: Space is not a "something goes wrong" ride, the thing that goes wrong is a challenge that is part of your training. As opposed to, say, having to abort your training mission to deal with a "real" problem.

Mission: Space is such a "something goes wrong" ride. The training angle is just a technicality. Speaking of which, could that aspect of the attraction be any more confusing? I doubt most riders realize that it was supposed to be a simulation. Do you think actual training simulations have the plot of a "something goes wrong" ride? I doubt it.

 

[Bairstow]

Mission: Space is such a "something goes wrong" ride. The training angle is just a technicality. Speaking of which, could that aspect of the attraction be any more confusing? I doubt most riders realize that it was supposed to be a simulation. Do you think actual training simulations have the plot of a "something goes wrong" ride? I doubt it.

Minus the over-the-top drama, but... yeah. Isn't the point of most simulators to eventually start throwing more and more challenging emergency situations at the participants to train and evaluate them on their ability to respond to them?

You're right though, that Mission:Space is a complete narrative disaster.
It's a simulation of a simulation of a simulation of a simulation.

 

[Tom Morrow]

Minus the over-the-top drama, but... yeah. Isn't the point of most simulators to eventually start throwing more and more challenging emergency situations at the participants to train and evaluate them on their ability to respond to them?

You're right though, that Mission:Space is a complete narrative disaster.
It's a simulation of a simulation of a simulation of a simulation.

That's too many layers. It's a simulation of a training simulation.

It doesn't have the plot of a "something goes wrong" ride. Your (simulated) mission is to get to Mars. There are some obstacles that you overcome, but the obstacles are part of the training. In my opinion, a ride plot is a "something goes wrong" plot if it can be summed up as "You're here to do x but y happens, and now you have to z!"

Agreed that the over-dramatic musical cues and narration are unnecessary and make the narrative more confusing. I also don't like that they say "welcome to Mars" at the end. It isn't intended to be literal, but only further confuses people.

 

[Bairstow]

That's too many layers. It's a simulation of a training simulation.

You're not really going to Mars, you're training to go to Mars at the ISTC.
...but as the preshow tells you, you're not really training to go to Mars, you're just riding in simulators like the ones they would use to train people to go to Mars.
...but of course you're not actually at the ISTC, you're on an interactive Disney ride at Epcot.
....but the ride isn't actually interactive, it only pretends to be, and riders' input has no actual effect on the ride experience.

So, it's a simulation of a simulation of a simulation of a simulation of spaceflight.
...at least as it originally opened. I haven't been since they got rid of Gary Sinese.

 

[Tom Morrow]

You're not really going to Mars, you're training to go to Mars at the ISTC.
...but as the preshow tells you, you're not really training to go to Mars, you're just riding in simulators like the ones they would use to train people to go to Mars.
...but of course you're not actually at the ISTC, you're on an interactive Disney ride at Epcot.
....but the ride isn't actually interactive, it only pretends to be, and riders' input has no actual effect on the ride experience.

So, it's a simulation of a simulation of a simulation of a simulation of spaceflight.
...at least as it originally opened. I haven't been since they got rid of Gary Sinese.

 

[networkpro]

Mission: Space is such a "something goes wrong" ride. The training angle is just a technicality. Speaking of which, could that aspect of the attraction be any more confusing? I doubt most riders realize that it was supposed to be a simulation. Do you think actual training simulations have the plot of a "something goes wrong" ride? I doubt it.

Thats the point to training simulations. To plan for the unexpected.