Skull Island: Reign of Kong from construction to opening

imperius

Well-Known Member
No I have not. All I am saying is the budget if they combined screens and sets would've been much higher, and they clearly did not want to go there as it would've cost a LOT more. I don't think it is a bad ride, but it's severely disappointing, the story is generic. I'm sure it has great feelings and realism aspects, but I know that I've been to a lot of theme parks around the world including both Universal Parks earlier this year, and it is getting crazy how they did not use more sets to make this experience come together. Cost had to of been the only issue as all it could do would make it better. I said terrible up above, but that is not what I meant, I meant that it was disappointing, so including the line etc. good ride, but imo it will never have that complete package like Forbidden Journey etc., and I think the primary reason is not using sets.
But you haven't even been on the ride....
 

Daveeeeed

Well-Known Member
But you haven't even been on the ride....
I'm sure it is great, but as I saw a video of Ratatouille etc. beforehand I could judge and was very accurate with how I liked it. I kind of went overboard I don't know why, but seriously this ride is overhyped. Uni needed a ride that would combine sets and screens, and sure they had that wonderful Kong AA, but seriously they failed at combining them. I'm sure it is a great ride to ride, but it disappoints as nothing really is new.
 

Daveeeeed

Well-Known Member
It is more than FJ though which was $75 million. I guess that crushes the "they cheaped out!!!" argument. That being said, please take your rants to the screen thread.
They didn't cheap out, but it would've cost an arm and a leg more to combine sets, screens, and aa's. Exterior looks wonderful. Line is one of the best, but the story isn't there, and sets would've been appreciated that is all I am saying. And I'm done.
 

mergatroid

Well-Known Member
It looks good on the video and I'm sure I'll enjoy it when it comes to riding it. I did however think there'd be more sets than there are rather than mainly the use of screens. Was expecting to be immersed in a combination of sets between screens but doesn't seem to be like that watching the video. Still looks good and maybe when I ride the screens will blow my mind so much I won't miss sets, here's hoping?
 

Daveeeeed

Well-Known Member
I just don't think this ride is worth making a decision on from a PoV video. There is so much more involved with motion bases, water effects, and other things.
Very true I agree, I went overboard earlier if you saw, but it just frustrates me how they didn't combine any screens and sets, it could've been one of the best rides on Earth. And how dull the story was too.
 

imperius

Well-Known Member
Very true I agree, I went overboard earlier if you saw, but it just frustrates me how they didn't combine any screens and sets, it could've been one of the best rides on Earth. And how dull the story was too.
I didn't watch the video fully so not really sure. I will ride it soon though.
 

Disneyhead'71

Well-Known Member
No I have not. All I am saying is the budget if they combined screens and sets would've been much higher, and they clearly did not want to go there as it would've cost a LOT more. I don't think it is a bad ride, but it's severely disappointing, the story is generic. I'm sure it has great feelings and realism aspects, but I know that I've been to a lot of theme parks around the world including both Universal Parks earlier this year, and it is getting crazy how they did not use more sets to make this experience come together. Cost had to of been the only issue as all it could do would make it better. I said terrible up above, but that is not what I meant, I meant that it was disappointing, so including the line etc. good ride, but imo it will never have that complete package like Forbidden Journey etc., and I think the primary reason is not using sets.
But there are sets, huge sets. The facade is an incredibly detailed MASSIVE set piece. There are AAs. There are live actors. There are lots of practice effects that are completely lost on video like wind, water, scents, and the motion platforms. The audio is body shaking. You keep dissing the RVs. That is truly laughable. The vehicles are pretty darned cool. This is what they do when they're not on an expedition at Universal.

getfile.php
 

Jones14

Well-Known Member
But there are sets, huge sets. The facade is an incredibly detailed MASSIVE set piece. There are AAs. There are live actors. There are lots of practice effects that are completely lost on video like wind, water, scents, and the motion platforms. The audio is body shaking. You keep dissing the RVs. That is truly laughable. The vehicles are pretty darned cool. This is what they do when they're not on vacation at Universal.

getfile.php
Yes, but one can easily argue that the outdoor set is its own placemaking, to be judged as an exterior, not as part of the attraction itself. Yes, the facade is impressive, but David is suggesting that it does not make up for the lack of detailed environments to pass through on the ride itself. You're free to disagree with him on that point, but he is not wrong to say that there are not many physical sets in the attraction itself, because there aren't. Outside? Yes. But inside? There's not much there, and whether or not you think that is bad, good, or okay, that is the reality of the situation.
 

imperius

Well-Known Member
Yes, but one can easily argue that the outdoor set is its own placemaking, to be judged as an exterior, not as part of the attraction itself. Yes, the facade is impressive, but David is suggesting that it does not make up for the lack of detailed environments to pass through on the ride itself. You're free to disagree with him on that point, but he is not wrong to say that there are not many physical sets in the attraction itself, because there aren't. Outside? Yes. But inside? There's not much there, and whether or not you think that is bad, good, or okay, that is the reality of the situation.
But he has never rode the ride.
 

Jones14

Well-Known Member
But he has never rode the ride.
And? Whether or not he's ridden doesn't matter in terms of objectively pointing out whether or not a ride has 8 projection screens and 2 sets, therefore relying more on screens than sets, or vice versa. You can argue that quality assessment can only properly occur by riding an attraction in person, but whether or not he's been on it is, once again, irrelevant to his ability to recognize that the ride relies heavily on the use of screens.

He's making an assertion that the ride is getting more mixed reviews than FJ because of it's reliance on screens, which does not require that he have already been on the attraction. Maybe he'll think that it works better in person, but even now, this is an assertion that is based in previous knowledge and logic, and calling someone an embarrassment because you've equated it to them bashing the attraction is childish.

He already said he went too far, and pulled back his statement to reflect what he actually thinks, and no part of it warrants being lambasted on a public forum, because it's a rational opinion based on a set of facts. Whether or not anyone disagrees with said opinion is irrelevant in terms of whether or not what he stated as fact is true, which it is.
 

gmajew

Premium Member
It is more than FJ though which was $75 million. I guess that crushes the "they cheaped out!!!" argument. That being said, please take your rants to the screen thread.
Building the entire castle was only 75M? That does not seam right, with how expensive both companies builds have been.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom