Skull Island: Reign of Kong from construction to opening

[matt clark]

 

[matt clark]

 

[matt clark]

 

[matt clark]

 

[matt clark]

 

[matt clark]

Took a trip to the parks yesterday and was able to jump onto one of the technical rehearsals for kong.
they put a generic time up of 90 minutes.
we made it through the cool que in about 45 minutes.
right when we were grabbing our goggles they shut down the ride for about 20 minutes.
The first time we rode I got to sit in the middle... DEFINITELY SIT IN THE MIDDLE!
in the middle you see absolutely no tops or bottoms to the screens.
There is some artificial motion at one point in the ride and it feels so much more realistic from the middle seat.
In the que the two scare actors did a good job of scaring both of my little ones.
The bat aa's are really pointless and meh.
The fogged out windows that dont allow you to see much of the AA on the vehicle is a let down.
The fact that the voices are different for every driver is really cool.
During my first ride the movie shut down oddly and the kong aa shut down halfway through.
when we got off the ride people were just being very moody and didnt hear the man say that we could ride again if we'd like.
they put is in what will eventually be the fast past que.

We boarded the second time and i was on the far right outside.
dont do this.... you can see the top and bottoms of the screens and its just not as good.
I BELIEVE we made it through the full middle movie. We also saw aw of the AA for kong and then we just kind of got stuck in the AA room before we exited.

The pro's.. the middle 360 movie is just AWESOME! its the best part!
you can turn your head from side to side and the action goes from side to side.
the second time i rode i looked at different parts and saw different things.

the beginning room and a half is sort of pointless... BUT its nice to see a little bit of PG-13 action.

The OUTSIDE of the ride is just amazing... the gate... the rocks... just insane!

the audio is just top notch... even in the QUE.. the witch room is just spectacular.

the negatives... the ride is so SHORT!!! it may be minute-wise long.. but you basically stop in 3 rooms for a few minutes. it seems WAY shorter than it is. It feels as short as Gringotts IMO.

Because its only a few rooms... its like a tiny circle... you really dont deviate from riding in the truck in a little circle. They dont do much to make you FEEL like it isnt a tiny circle either.

The AA kong room is so disappointing and pointless. I just wish they didnt do it at all.
if youve gone on kongfrontation it just makes you miss that ride so much.
The AA has 0 interaction with the vehicle... lift me... anything.. just do anything!
Its very unimpressive and just an add in to make it a little different.

The middle of the ride is just so impressive that it really just makes all the extra surrounding it seem like extras they threw together to make it a bigger attraction. Everything INSIDE the ride house is very underwhelming that surrounds the 360 experience.

with that said... this ride has cracked my top 10 all around.
both harry potter rides are better.
spiderman and transformers are better.
jurrasic park and the water rides are much more fun.
the roller coasters are more thrilling.
BUT.. this is a good addition to universal.
Just dont over-hype it.

 

[matt clark]

also confirmed... because i noticed the difference.
At one point yesterday the motion track during the 360 was shut down.
a team member ( facebook group for passholders) said that the motion track is why the ride keeps breaking down.
I feel like I will like the ride much more when it officially opens.
i feel like i may not have even seen the entirety of the 360 movie even riding it two times.
I could tell for sure the first ride because the screen froze.
The second time it seemed to have ended properly, but i could be mistaken.
i will try to check the ride footage on youtube later.

 

[whylightbulb]

Someone has already alluded to it in this thread – many in Universal Creatives’ upper and middle management are lazy and inept. Kong is the latest example of this disappointing realization. Of course not all of them are careless and riding out their high six and seven figure salaries and bonuses. Mike West is one example of a manager that cares and has the talent to back up his position. Unfortunately he has been stymied with Kong, just as he was with Simpsons and Minions. The past year we have seen an exodus of UC talent, including Lisa Nash, because they are tired of the BS. Ask Scott Trowbridge why he left UC. It wasn’t just the sweet offer from Disney that motivated him to leave his high level position. There are of course many more examples but let’s talk Kong now.

Kong had a lot of promise and could have been spectacular, what it ended up being, in my opinion, was just passable. Just as I predicted park guests love it, specifically the tunnel scene. I knew they would and therein lies the problem and the reason why we will continue to get attractions that just barely make the grade for the foreseeable future. Instead of UC and Comcast living up to a standard they set for themselves (as Disney used to do and is starting to once again in some cases), they will be lazy and deliver just enough to get by.

First, here’s the good about Kong. The queue is well executed and sets the mood (nice job Greg). The queue AAs are nice but I wouldn’t have expected anything less from Advanced Animation. They are the only domestic AA company besides Garner (handed to them on a silver platter by WDI) that have figured out how to pull off compliance software in house and really make it work. There is just enough detail in the queue to deliver an entertaining and interesting experience in anticipation for an amazing ride (if only the last part could have been delivered). I applaud the effort in installing on-board AAs for each ride vehicle. It doesn’t bother me that much that their motion is jerky and that they look like the old Sally AAs back from ET because it is something different and it works for most of the passengers past the first few rows. I love the size of the show doors into the building. Last but not least, obviously the Kong AA, just as I’ve been saying all along, is very realistic and well executed in some ways.

Now for the bad and the reasons why this attraction is only passable in my opinion. Let’s start with the fact that there are really only five (and I’m being generous here) scenes of any consequence and they are, once again, 75 percent screens. Not only did Woodbury cut much of the queue but he cut major portions of the ride as well. This is a fact, Woodbury does not “get it” and I’ll leave it at that in order to protect myself and several others. There are a few on these boards that I’ll reveal specific and personal experiences regarding working with him and others from UC but I can’t get too specific in public for obvious reasons. These cut scenes had some to do with budget but more to do with not appreciating or understanding what makes a theme park attraction stand out. To open a major dark ride attraction with just two screens, a projection tunnel/motion base, a few bats, and one large-scale animatronic is an embarrassment in my opinion.

Among the scenes that got cut: a high-speed (practical not screens) chase through the jungle, a scene where the RV breaks down and our driver gets nabbed, a detour through the insect pit with AAs etc. etc. Some of the cut scenes made it pretty far before being cut by the man that most outside of UC revere out of ignorance and those that know him and work with him fear more than anything because he has quite a temper and rules with an iron fist as opposed to a collaborative and open management style that you find more often at WDI. Some of the scenes didn’t even make it to an official pitch because they were seen as gratuitous and unnecessary. I don’t know about you but I think the high-speed chase in the middle of all those screen scenes would have been a welcome respite from the same old UC tricks and would have made the experience more complete and unique. Just two more practical scenes would have made it more complete.

How about, even with what they had to work with, a little variety. Why couldn’t the first two screens show a different scenario and characters for each driver? Maybe the tunnel could have randomly had Kong either be hostile or friendly followed by the AA angry or friendly (as he is now). Than we also have the execution issues. Why, after all these years of imagery technology advancement do we still have a black wall at the bottom of the tunnel screens? Take a look at Comcast’s own corporate headquarters lobby for an example of extremely hi definition LED panels that could have been installed on those walls to further immerse us in the scene as opposed to taking us right out of the illusion. The transition from tunnel to Kong AA is also not executed well. There is no reason why we should be seeing blank screen when they could have flown in a foliage assembly covering frame and screen during the transition and flown above or below during projection sequence for example.

So many are going crazy over the ride system. In this case I question why did it have to be AGV? Did the trackless setup add anything to the experience? The nice scenery in the Kong AA scene goes underappreciated because the audience is wearing the 3D glasses. These are some of the criticisms that to me make this just an “ok” ride. So many missed opportunities and so many cuts make it a disappointment in my book. Yes the guests love it and yes many in the fan community also love it. That is why we will most likely never see Universal live up to its potential without an IP holder like Warner Brothers forcing them to.

 

[AndyMagic]

Someone has already alluded to it in this thread – many in Universal Creatives’ upper and middle management are lazy and inept. Kong is the latest example of this disappointing realization. Of course not all of them are careless and riding out their high six and seven figure salaries and bonuses. Mike West is one example of a manager that cares and has the talent to back up his position. Unfortunately he has been stymied with Kong, just as he was with Simpsons and Minions. The past year we have seen an exodus of UC talent, including Lisa Nash, because they are tired of the BS. Ask Scott Trowbridge why he left UC. It wasn’t just the sweet offer from Disney that motivated him to leave his high level position. There are of course many more examples but let’s talk Kong now.

Kong had a lot of promise and could have been spectacular, what it ended up being, in my opinion, was just passable. Just as I predicted park guests love it, specifically the tunnel scene. I knew they would and therein lies the problem and the reason why we will continue to get attractions that just barely make the grade for the foreseeable future. Instead of UC and Comcast living up to a standard they set for themselves (as Disney used to do and is starting to once again in some cases), they will be lazy and deliver just enough to get by.

First, here’s the good about Kong. The queue is well executed and sets the mood (nice job Greg). The queue AAs are nice but I wouldn’t have expected anything less from Advanced Animation. They are the only domestic AA company besides Garner (handed to them on a silver platter by WDI) that have figured out how to pull off compliance software in house and really make it work. There is just enough detail in the queue to deliver an entertaining and interesting experience in anticipation for an amazing ride (if only the last part could have been delivered). I applaud the effort in installing on-board AAs for each ride vehicle. It doesn’t bother me that much that their motion is jerky and that they look like the old Sally AAs back from ET because it is something different and it works for most of the passengers past the first few rows. I love the size of the show doors into the building. Last but not least, obviously the Kong AA, just as I’ve been saying all along, is very realistic and well executed in some ways.

Now for the bad and the reasons why this attraction is only passable in my opinion. Let’s start with the fact that there are really only five (and I’m being generous here) scenes of any consequence and they are, once again, 75 percent screens. Not only did Woodbury cut much of the queue but he cut major portions of the ride as well. This is a fact, Woodbury does not “get it” and I’ll leave it at that in order to protect myself and several others. There are a few on these boards that I’ll reveal specific and personal experiences regarding working with him and others from UC but I can’t get too specific in public for obvious reasons. These cut scenes had some to do with budget but more to do with not appreciating or understanding what makes a theme park attraction stand out. To open a major dark ride attraction with just two screens, a projection tunnel/motion base, a few bats, and one large-scale animatronic is an embarrassment in my opinion.

Among the scenes that got cut: a high-speed (practical not screens) chase through the jungle, a scene where the RV breaks down and our driver gets nabbed, a detour through the insect pit with AAs etc. etc. Some of the cut scenes made it pretty far before being cut by the man that most outside of UC revere out of ignorance and those that know him and work with him fear more than anything because he has quite a temper and rules with an iron fist as opposed to a collaborative and open management style that you find more often at WDI. Some of the scenes didn’t even make it to an official pitch because they were seen as gratuitous and unnecessary. I don’t know about you but I think the high-speed chase in the middle of all those screen scenes would have been a welcome respite from the same old UC tricks and would have made the experience more complete and unique. Just two more practical scenes would have made it more complete.

How about, even with what they had to work with, a little variety. Why couldn’t the first two screens show a different scenario and characters for each driver? Maybe the tunnel could have randomly had Kong either be hostile or friendly followed by the AA angry or friendly (as he is now). Than we also have the execution issues. Why, after all these years of imagery technology advancement do we still have a black wall at the bottom of the tunnel screens? Take a look at Comcast’s own corporate headquarters lobby for an example of extremely hi definition LED panels that could have been installed on those walls to further immerse us in the scene as opposed to taking us right out of the illusion. The transition from tunnel to Kong AA is also not executed well. There is no reason why we should be seeing blank screen when they could have flown in a foliage assembly covering frame and screen during the transition and flown above or below during projection sequence for example.

So many are going crazy over the ride system. In this case I question why did it have to be AGV? Did the trackless setup add anything to the experience? The nice scenery in the Kong AA scene goes underappreciated because the audience is wearing the 3D glasses. These are some of the criticisms that to me make this just an “ok” ride. So many missed opportunities and so many cuts make it a disappointment in my book. Yes the guests love it and yes many in the fan community also love it. That is why we will most likely never see Universal live up to its potential without an IP holder like Warner Brothers forcing them to.

I have no doubt everything you said is true and that the original plans were more ambitious but doesn't what you describe happen to every attraction over the course of development? And while this particular version of Kong may have had cuts, isn't it also true that the ORIGINAL plans for a Kong attraction in Orlando was a much cheaper and less ambitious adaptation of the Kong 360 experience from Hollywood that was to take the place of DISASTER? In this case, no matter how you look at it, the final product as it is today is monumentally more impressive than whatever the original plans were which to me goes against a lot of what you described above. If it was all about the bottom line and delivering the minimum amount to please guests, why did they decide to allocate more money and completely change the scope of the attraction from a moderate D-ticket to a full E-ticket?

 

[RobotWolf]

(handed to them on a silver platter by WDI)

(handed to WDI on a silver platter by Sarcos)
It actually makes the witch at GMR even more interesting that her grandfather was a prosthetic arm.

 

[Mike S]

Someone has already alluded to it in this thread – many in Universal Creatives’ upper and middle management are lazy and inept. Kong is the latest example of this disappointing realization. Of course not all of them are careless and riding out their high six and seven figure salaries and bonuses. Mike West is one example of a manager that cares and has the talent to back up his position. Unfortunately he has been stymied with Kong, just as he was with Simpsons and Minions. The past year we have seen an exodus of UC talent, including Lisa Nash, because they are tired of the BS. Ask Scott Trowbridge why he left UC. It wasn’t just the sweet offer from Disney that motivated him to leave his high level position. There are of course many more examples but let’s talk Kong now.

Kong had a lot of promise and could have been spectacular, what it ended up being, in my opinion, was just passable. Just as I predicted park guests love it, specifically the tunnel scene. I knew they would and therein lies the problem and the reason why we will continue to get attractions that just barely make the grade for the foreseeable future. Instead of UC and Comcast living up to a standard they set for themselves (as Disney used to do and is starting to once again in some cases), they will be lazy and deliver just enough to get by.

First, here’s the good about Kong. The queue is well executed and sets the mood (nice job Greg). The queue AAs are nice but I wouldn’t have expected anything less from Advanced Animation. They are the only domestic AA company besides Garner (handed to them on a silver platter by WDI) that have figured out how to pull off compliance software in house and really make it work. There is just enough detail in the queue to deliver an entertaining and interesting experience in anticipation for an amazing ride (if only the last part could have been delivered). I applaud the effort in installing on-board AAs for each ride vehicle. It doesn’t bother me that much that their motion is jerky and that they look like the old Sally AAs back from ET because it is something different and it works for most of the passengers past the first few rows. I love the size of the show doors into the building. Last but not least, obviously the Kong AA, just as I’ve been saying all along, is very realistic and well executed in some ways.

Now for the bad and the reasons why this attraction is only passable in my opinion. Let’s start with the fact that there are really only five (and I’m being generous here) scenes of any consequence and they are, once again, 75 percent screens. Not only did Woodbury cut much of the queue but he cut major portions of the ride as well. This is a fact, Woodbury does not “get it” and I’ll leave it at that in order to protect myself and several others. There are a few on these boards that I’ll reveal specific and personal experiences regarding working with him and others from UC but I can’t get too specific in public for obvious reasons. These cut scenes had some to do with budget but more to do with not appreciating or understanding what makes a theme park attraction stand out. To open a major dark ride attraction with just two screens, a projection tunnel/motion base, a few bats, and one large-scale animatronic is an embarrassment in my opinion.

Among the scenes that got cut: a high-speed (practical not screens) chase through the jungle, a scene where the RV breaks down and our driver gets nabbed, a detour through the insect pit with AAs etc. etc. Some of the cut scenes made it pretty far before being cut by the man that most outside of UC revere out of ignorance and those that know him and work with him fear more than anything because he has quite a temper and rules with an iron fist as opposed to a collaborative and open management style that you find more often at WDI. Some of the scenes didn’t even make it to an official pitch because they were seen as gratuitous and unnecessary. I don’t know about you but I think the high-speed chase in the middle of all those screen scenes would have been a welcome respite from the same old UC tricks and would have made the experience more complete and unique. Just two more practical scenes would have made it more complete.

How about, even with what they had to work with, a little variety. Why couldn’t the first two screens show a different scenario and characters for each driver? Maybe the tunnel could have randomly had Kong either be hostile or friendly followed by the AA angry or friendly (as he is now). Than we also have the execution issues. Why, after all these years of imagery technology advancement do we still have a black wall at the bottom of the tunnel screens? Take a look at Comcast’s own corporate headquarters lobby for an example of extremely hi definition LED panels that could have been installed on those walls to further immerse us in the scene as opposed to taking us right out of the illusion. The transition from tunnel to Kong AA is also not executed well. There is no reason why we should be seeing blank screen when they could have flown in a foliage assembly covering frame and screen during the transition and flown above or below during projection sequence for example.

So many are going crazy over the ride system. In this case I question why did it have to be AGV? Did the trackless setup add anything to the experience? The nice scenery in the Kong AA scene goes underappreciated because the audience is wearing the 3D glasses. These are some of the criticisms that to me make this just an “ok” ride. So many missed opportunities and so many cuts make it a disappointment in my book. Yes the guests love it and yes many in the fan community also love it. That is why we will most likely never see Universal live up to its potential without an IP holder like Warner Brothers forcing them to.

I appreciate you coming in here. So the drivers getting nabbed did have weight to it. Huh. Also I've read on OU that a better transition to the AA Kong is supposed to be there but for whatever reason isn't being projected yet during technical rehearsals. Wait and see on that one. The bug pit really is the only scene I could see working replaced by sets and AAs. A run through the jungle would've been nice. 360 scene sounds like a blast. From the beginning the biggest thing I wanted was an AA Kong. Since I got what I wanted and I think the rest will still be great for me personally, yeah. Bring on the ride

Anything new on Nintendo?

 

[StageFrenzy]

Someone has already alluded to it in this thread – many in Universal Creatives’ upper and middle management are lazy and inept. Kong is the latest example of this disappointing realization. Of course not all of them are careless and riding out their high six and seven figure salaries and bonuses. Mike West is one example of a manager that cares and has the talent to back up his position. Unfortunately he has been stymied with Kong, just as he was with Simpsons and Minions. The past year we have seen an exodus of UC talent, including Lisa Nash, because they are tired of the BS. Ask Scott Trowbridge why he left UC. It wasn’t just the sweet offer from Disney that motivated him to leave his high level position. There are of course many more examples but let’s talk Kong now.

Kong had a lot of promise and could have been spectacular, what it ended up being, in my opinion, was just passable. Just as I predicted park guests love it, specifically the tunnel scene. I knew they would and therein lies the problem and the reason why we will continue to get attractions that just barely make the grade for the foreseeable future. Instead of UC and Comcast living up to a standard they set for themselves (as Disney used to do and is starting to once again in some cases), they will be lazy and deliver just enough to get by.

First, here’s the good about Kong. The queue is well executed and sets the mood (nice job Greg). The queue AAs are nice but I wouldn’t have expected anything less from Advanced Animation. They are the only domestic AA company besides Garner (handed to them on a silver platter by WDI) that have figured out how to pull off compliance software in house and really make it work. There is just enough detail in the queue to deliver an entertaining and interesting experience in anticipation for an amazing ride (if only the last part could have been delivered). I applaud the effort in installing on-board AAs for each ride vehicle. It doesn’t bother me that much that their motion is jerky and that they look like the old Sally AAs back from ET because it is something different and it works for most of the passengers past the first few rows. I love the size of the show doors into the building. Last but not least, obviously the Kong AA, just as I’ve been saying all along, is very realistic and well executed in some ways.

Now for the bad and the reasons why this attraction is only passable in my opinion. Let’s start with the fact that there are really only five (and I’m being generous here) scenes of any consequence and they are, once again, 75 percent screens. Not only did Woodbury cut much of the queue but he cut major portions of the ride as well. This is a fact, Woodbury does not “get it” and I’ll leave it at that in order to protect myself and several others. There are a few on these boards that I’ll reveal specific and personal experiences regarding working with him and others from UC but I can’t get too specific in public for obvious reasons. These cut scenes had some to do with budget but more to do with not appreciating or understanding what makes a theme park attraction stand out. To open a major dark ride attraction with just two screens, a projection tunnel/motion base, a few bats, and one large-scale animatronic is an embarrassment in my opinion.

Among the scenes that got cut: a high-speed (practical not screens) chase through the jungle, a scene where the RV breaks down and our driver gets nabbed, a detour through the insect pit with AAs etc. etc. Some of the cut scenes made it pretty far before being cut by the man that most outside of UC revere out of ignorance and those that know him and work with him fear more than anything because he has quite a temper and rules with an iron fist as opposed to a collaborative and open management style that you find more often at WDI. Some of the scenes didn’t even make it to an official pitch because they were seen as gratuitous and unnecessary. I don’t know about you but I think the high-speed chase in the middle of all those screen scenes would have been a welcome respite from the same old UC tricks and would have made the experience more complete and unique. Just two more practical scenes would have made it more complete.

How about, even with what they had to work with, a little variety. Why couldn’t the first two screens show a different scenario and characters for each driver? Maybe the tunnel could have randomly had Kong either be hostile or friendly followed by the AA angry or friendly (as he is now). Than we also have the execution issues. Why, after all these years of imagery technology advancement do we still have a black wall at the bottom of the tunnel screens? Take a look at Comcast’s own corporate headquarters lobby for an example of extremely hi definition LED panels that could have been installed on those walls to further immerse us in the scene as opposed to taking us right out of the illusion. The transition from tunnel to Kong AA is also not executed well. There is no reason why we should be seeing blank screen when they could have flown in a foliage assembly covering frame and screen during the transition and flown above or below during projection sequence for example.

So many are going crazy over the ride system. In this case I question why did it have to be AGV? Did the trackless setup add anything to the experience? The nice scenery in the Kong AA scene goes underappreciated because the audience is wearing the 3D glasses. These are some of the criticisms that to me make this just an “ok” ride. So many missed opportunities and so many cuts make it a disappointment in my book. Yes the guests love it and yes many in the fan community also love it. That is why we will most likely never see Universal live up to its potential without an IP holder like Warner Brothers forcing them to.

That is a pretty good explanation of the ride we got. Thanks as always for the insight.

 

[Magenta Panther]

We boarded the second time and i was on the far right outside.
dont do this.... you can see the top and bottoms of the screens and its just not as good.

Well, that's a drag. Couldn't they be camouflaged somehow?

Just read whylightbulb's post. Dang. Why is non-talent always in control of talent?

 

[Disneyhead'71]

Spoiler

OSHA would not approve the driver getting snatched gag because of the risk of injury. It was replaced with the scene where Kate gets snatched the big scorpion thing on film.

And I assume the high speed run through a practical jungle was cut when they decided to build Cabana Bay, because on the plot of land actually in the park, because of size constrains, that would have been impossible.

 

[Mike S]

Spoiler

OSHA would not approve the driver getting snatched gag because of the risk of injury. It was replaced with the scene where Kate gets snatched the big scorpion thing on film.

And I assume the high speed run through a practical jungle was cut when they decided to build Cabana Bay, because on the plot of land actually in the park, because of size constrains, that would have been impossible.

Really dude? It's in the thread title...

Edit: Thanks for fixing the spoiler.

 

[gmajew]

OSHA would not approve the driver getting snatched gag because of the risk of injury. It was replaced with the scene where Kate gets snatched the big scorpion thing on film.

And I assume the high speed run through a practical jungle was cut when they decided to build Cabana Bay, because on the plot of land actually in the park, because of size constrains, that would have been impossible.

Man that would sound like pixie dust if it was about Disney.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

Really dude? It's in the thread title...

Right, sorry, I forgot. I'll fix it.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

Man that would sound like pixie dust if it was about Disney.

Spoiler

I know for a fact that OSHA didn't approve the gag. A Kuka Arm with a crab claw at the end was supposed to reach into the ride vehicle and grab the driver. OSHA deemed their plan too dangerous. They found another way to do it.

And the jungle romp was never anything more than fanboi wishful speculation, even as much as saying "a 30' tall free roaming AA is going to chase your vehicle through the jungle". Does that sound even remotely like something UC would do?

 

[RobotWolf]

Spoiler

I know for a fact that OSHA didn't approve the gag. A Kuka Arm with a crab claw at the end was supposed to reach into the ride vehicle and grab the driver. OSHA deemed their plan too dangerous. They found another way to do it.

And the jungle romp was never anything more than fanboi wishful speculation, even as much as saying "a 30' tall free roaming AA is going to chase your vehicle through the jungle". Does that sound even remotely like something UC would do?

Spoiler

Do they say "No" to anything getting near the ride envelope?

 

[Disneyhead'71]

Spoiler

Do they say "No" to anything getting near the ride envelope?

Spoiler

No, Gringott's has a screen that is flat out straight across the track and is pulled away at the last second. But that effect doesn't involve a robot are grabbing an actual human every 30 secs for years and years.