News Space 220 Restaurant dining experience at Epcot's Future World

[Demarke]

This is a crazy take. Calling NRJ a screen based ride is absurd. It's still one of the better rides they've built at WDW in the past couple of decades despite its flaws because it relies on actually transporting you via detailed sets instead of just looking at a screen. I'd much rather see another ride similar to NRJ than almost anything else Disney OR Universal have built this century.

While Na'vi should absolutely have a couple more AAs, it and Rise are the two of the best examples anywhere of how to use screens in a ride. They should be a complement to detailed physical sets instead of the thing you are looking at. The screens add some additional detail and background movement but they're not what makes the ride pretty good.

With all that said, even if you absolutely hate NRJ, it's still not remotely screen based. You could remove all the screens and it wouldn't significantly hurt the ride's appeal since they're not a major focus.

I think most of the screens in NRJ are blended pretty well except the first one with the panther looking creatures, that one just screams screen projection to me.

I think a lot of folks forget that early Epcot used a decent amount of screens too (looking at you Universe of Energy, Wonders of Life pavilion, and even Horizons had the IMAX segment). I’m okay with some screens being used, I just hope they are there to augment practical effects rather than the entire show (FoP being my exception). The Fast and Furious, Kong, Jimmy Fallon, Spider-Man, and Simpsons style rides at Uni just don’t do it for me.

 

[MisterPenguin]

I'm upset the earth isn't an audioanimatronic!!

 

[Incomudro]

And now it’s all WDW is building.

And I didn’t mention Rise. In fact, if you look above, I defended it. But come on, Na’Vi has a whopping one AA. It’s screen based.

And as for Uni having a higher percentage of screen rides - that’s interesting. The least screen-based park in Orlando is MK, with only 10% of its attractions reliant on a screen. But the next is IOA with 22% screen-based attractions. And Universal Studios is the most screen-reliant park, but only because it has one fewer attraction overall then MGM or EPCOT - all three parks have 8 screen rides. The difference comes out to 53% for US and 50% for the two WDW parks. Resort-wide, Uni is more screen reliant (but screen-based rides are nowhere near a majority), 36% to 22%, but that’s entirely due to MK. Compare Uni to the three newer WDW parks, and Uni is significantly less screen-heavy.

So yeah, WDW doesn’t have a huge amount to gloat about on the screen front.

PS: I forgot Rat! When that finally opens, EPCOT will be tied with Universal Studios as Orlando's most screen-based park!

There are some applications where screens can't be beat, and technology should be embraced when it's results are superior.
Now, yes - I certainly agree that there are instances in Disney as well as Uni, where screens are over used, and Rat appears to be one of them.
But for this restaurant, it's launch and the views out of the restaurant windows - the technology of screens is unbeatable.
You couldn't come close to the realism here with physical sets.

 

[Tom Morrow]

And now it’s all WDW is building.

And I didn’t mention Rise. In fact, if you look above, I defended it. But come on, Na’Vi has a whopping one AA. It’s screen based.

And as for Uni having a higher percentage of screen rides - that’s interesting. The least screen-based park in Orlando is MK, with only 10% of its attractions reliant on a screen. But the next is IOA with 22% screen-based attractions. And Universal Studios is the most screen-reliant park, but only because it has one fewer attraction overall then MGM or EPCOT - all three parks have 8 screen rides. The difference comes out to 53% for US and 50% for the two WDW parks. Resort-wide, Uni is more screen reliant (but screen-based rides are nowhere near a majority), 36% to 22%, but that’s entirely due to MK. Compare Uni to the three newer WDW parks, and Uni is significantly less screen-heavy.

So yeah, WDW doesn’t have a huge amount to gloat about on the screen front.

PS: I forgot Rat! When that finally opens, EPCOT will be tied with Universal Studios as Orlando's most screen-based park!

Na'Vi is NOT screen based. There are, I think, three screens and they are set dressing or an animation behind physical sets. As others said, it absolutely needs more animatronics but no, it is not a "screen ride". Rides like Nemo and Gran Fiesta Tour is where it gets a little muddier, as you still technically have a ride with physical setpieces even if the screens are turned off, as opposed to Universal's screen attractions where you wouldn't have a show scene at all if the screen was off. Before you mention Spider-Man and the like having physical setpieces as well, the ride vehicles whiz by them and park at the screens.

Literal films like Reflections of China, Impressions de France, or O' Canada should not be included in the count in a discussion about rides. These films are more exhibits than anything. By my count, Epcot has three rides that are undeniably screen rides (Mission: SPACE, Soarin', Ratatouille), and two that are arguably one way or the other (Nemo, Gran Fiesta Tour).

 

[Casper Gutman]

Na'Vi is NOT screen based. There are, I think, three screens and they are set dressing or an animation behind physical sets. As others said, it absolutely needs more animatronics but no, it is not a "screen ride". Rides like Nemo and Gran Fiesta Tour is where it gets a little muddier, as you still technically have a ride with physical setpieces even if the screens are turned off, as opposed to Universal's screen attractions where you wouldn't have a show scene at all if the screen was off. Before you mention Spider-Man and the like having physical setpieces as well, the ride vehicles whiz by them and park at the screens.

Literal films like Reflections of China, Impressions de France, or O' Canada should not be included in the count in a discussion about rides. These films are more exhibits than anything. By my count, Epcot has three rides that are undeniably screen rides (Mission: SPACE, Soarin', Ratatouille), and two that are arguably one way or the other (Nemo, Gran Fiesta Tour).

You’re striving to make arbitrary distinctions here. I didn’t actually count Nemo as screen based, but Gran Fiesta absolutely is. Spidey has just as many integral (and much more elaborate) physical sets - the loading bay with the Spidey Signal, the truck, the floating Liberty head, the exploding bridge, etc - the only reason to attempt a distinction is because you want to count one and not the other.

And their is no reason not to count EPCOTs movies, which are touted as attractions. If you eliminate them, EPCOTs ride count plummets. And does that also eliminate Shrek? What about Fallon? How much does a theatre need to move before it stops being an “exhibit?”

 

[Hawg G]

I think most of the screens in NRJ are blended pretty well except the first one with the panther looking creatures, that one just screams screen projection to me.

I think a lot of folks forget that early Epcot used a decent amount of screens too (looking at you Universe of Energy, Wonders of Life pavilion, and even Horizons had the IMAX segment). I’m okay with some screens being used, I just hope they are there to augment practical effects rather than the entire show (FoP being my exception). The Fast and Furious, Kong, Jimmy Fallon, Spider-Man, and Simpsons style rides at Uni just don’t do it for me.

To lump Spider-man in with the rest of those shows your bias.

 

[No Name]

Yeah, why can’t they move away from screens with rides like Rat… er… Smugglers Run… um… MMRR… wait… Tron… you know what, never mind.

(For the record, I think MMRR is pretty close to a masterpiece, but the “screen” line will remain no matter what the two resorts actually build.)

Also, do people really prefer Disney’s PR tone - over-inflated self-important faux reverence and a hypocritical exploitation of the nostalgia they otherwise ignore - to Uni’s silly snark?

I mean I’m not exactly sure what your point is. While both companies use screens to varying degrees of success, no theme park is as overwhelmed by them as Universal Studios Florida is.

But yeah I don’t think Disney’s PR tone is any better.

 

[No Name]

The Bourne Stuntacular at Universal is the best blend of screens and physical things I’ve ever seen. It’s incredibly impressive.

 

[MisterPenguin]

You’re striving to make arbitrary distinctions here. I didn’t actually count Nemo as screen based, but Gran Fiesta absolutely is. Spidey has just as many integral (and much more elaborate) physical sets - the loading bay with the Spidey Signal, the truck, the floating Liberty head, the exploding bridge, etc - the only reason to attempt a distinction is because you want to count one and not the other.

And their is no reason not to count EPCOTs movies, which are touted as attractions. If you eliminate them, EPCOTs ride count plummets. And does that also eliminate Shrek? What about Fallon? How much does a theatre need to move before it stops being an “exhibit?”

I don't know anyone, when counting *rides*, adds in theater shows. The count for rides at EPCOT has been under 10 for a long time. And everytime I've posted a single-digit count of EPCOT rides (or DAK or DHS rides), no one has ever tried to correct me by adding in O Canada or Festival of the Lion King or Frozen Singalong.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I don't know anyone, when counting *rides*, adds in theater shows. The count for rides at EPCOT has been under 10 for a long time. And everytime I've posted a single-digit count of EPCOT rides (or DAK or DHS rides), no one has ever tried to correct me by adding in O Canada or Festival of the Lion King or Frozen Singalong.

I knew, with complete certainty, that the ride/ attraction hair-splitting was going to be brought up by the WDW Defense Crew (I say that as a self-aware member of the Uni Defense Crew). I was remiss in not replacing all uses of the word "ride" with "attraction." Disney, on their guide maps, list Festival and Everest and all the other "rides" and "shows" in the same category - "attractions." The distinction only really matters when one is trying to prove EPCOT and MGM aren't REALLY that screen-reliant by dismissing a whole bunch of the parks' content. And it leads to absurdities - according to this logic, Universal Studios would be LESS screen reliant if Fallon and Simpsons didn't move and were simply static films, because then they could be dismissed as irrelevant to the discussion. In other words, being MORE screen reliant would make the park LESS screen reliant by this method of measurement.

 

[Demarke]

To lump Spider-man in with the rest of those shows your bias.

To be fair, I’m likely to only keep my Universal AP after my platinum Disney expires (after the recent changes) and I actually edited my comment to add Spiderman after seeing another comment and realizing I didn’t remember much else about the ride other than being jerked from one screen to another. I like both parks, don’t like screen-heavy station-to-station rides, and stand by my statement!

 

[TrojanUSC]

I do not like the use of screens in attractions to replace conventional dark ride animatronics, but for the space 220 restaurant, I love what they have done!! To me, space 220 really feels like it belongs in EPCOT.

Yep it FEELS like Epcot. Amazing this got greenlit and wasn't changed to like "BUZZ LIGHTYEAR'S SPACE RANGER RESTAURANT!"

 

[UNCgolf]

I knew, with complete certainty, that the ride/ attraction hair-splitting was going to be brought up by the WDW Defense Crew (I say that as a self-aware member of the Uni Defense Crew). I was remiss in not replacing all uses of the word "ride" with "attraction." Disney, on their guide maps, list Festival and Everest and all the other "rides" and "shows" in the same category - "attractions." The distinction only really matters when one is trying to prove EPCOT and MGM aren't REALLY that screen-reliant by dismissing a whole bunch of the parks' content. And it leads to absurdities - according to this logic, Universal Studios would be LESS screen reliant if Fallon and Simpsons didn't move and were simply static films, because then they could be dismissed as irrelevant to the discussion. In other words, being MORE screen reliant would make the park LESS screen reliant by this method of measurement.

I don't really understand this line of thinking. Rides and films are different things; no one cares if a movie is screen based because that's what a movie is. If Simpsons and Fallon were simply films, then Universal would just have less rides -- but they also would have been designed differently from the start.

I also don't see how that has anything to do with WDW Defense Crew, considering I would never lump in the EPCOT films with the rides and absolutely no one who's been here for more than a couple of weeks would even consider calling me WDW Defense Crew -- I'm among the most critical posters here. The World Showcase films are great and should stay (I'd like there to be even more of them), and they certainly help with capacity, but they're not rides.

Although the films don't fall into this category (in that they are legitimate attractions), Disney has a history of being very liberal in labeling things as attractions. They call the Cinderella Castle an attraction, as well as the Leave a Legacy blocks at EPCOT and a bunch of individual animals at Animal Kingdom (in addition to calling the trails themselves attractions).

 

[Tom Morrow]

You’re striving to make arbitrary distinctions here. I didn’t actually count Nemo as screen based, but Gran Fiesta absolutely is. Spidey has just as many integral (and much more elaborate) physical sets - the loading bay with the Spidey Signal, the truck, the floating Liberty head, the exploding bridge, etc - the only reason to attempt a distinction is because you want to count one and not the other.

And their is no reason not to count EPCOTs movies, which are touted as attractions. If you eliminate them, EPCOTs ride count plummets. And does that also eliminate Shrek? What about Fallon? How much does a theatre need to move before it stops being an “exhibit?”

I believe the distinction would be "do you sit in some sort of moving vehicle?". Fallon is absolutely a ride, Shrek is a show where your butt bounces to mimic Shrek's butt or something.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I believe the distinction would be "do you sit in some sort of moving vehicle?". Fallon is absolutely a ride, Shrek is a show where your butt bounces to mimic Shrek's butt or something.

Why not say that the distinction is that shows rely on live human performers to a considerable extent and run at set times rather then continuously - so Festival is a show and Bugs isn’t. Isn’t that arbitrary distinction just as logical?

Or how about just acknowledging that this is silly hair-splitting and even Disney doesn’t distinguish between “shows” and “rides” and we can just call them “attractions,” because guests experience them all as entertainment consumed during a day in the park?

 

[ChrisFL]

Na'Vi is NOT screen based. There are, I think, three screens and they are set dressing or an animation behind physical sets. As others said, it absolutely needs more animatronics but no, it is not a "screen ride". Rides like Nemo and Gran Fiesta Tour is where it gets a little muddier, as you still technically have a ride with physical setpieces even if the screens are turned off, as opposed to Universal's screen attractions where you wouldn't have a show scene at all if the screen was off. Before you mention Spider-Man and the like having physical setpieces as well, the ride vehicles whiz by them and park at the screens.

Literal films like Reflections of China, Impressions de France, or O' Canada should not be included in the count in a discussion about rides. These films are more exhibits than anything. By my count, Epcot has three rides that are undeniably screen rides (Mission: SPACE, Soarin', Ratatouille), and two that are arguably one way or the other (Nemo, Gran Fiesta Tour).

Are we counting the lily pad things above you, as those are basically screens/projections.

Also, when we mention the "screenz!" argument, is projection mapping considered screen-based also?

There's a lot of nuance IMO with this type of discussion...technology is advancing and I think the mixture of physical set pieces with screens if it's a moving ride vehicle is the best method for immersion.

 

[MisterPenguin]

I've never gotten mad at "SCREENZ!!" unless they're used poorly (cf. Nemo ride).

Both Spider-Man and Transformers use the same motion-arm and screen technology. One is a near perfect ride, the other is a hot mess.

It's how you use the screens.

 

[Tom Morrow]

Why not say that the distinction is that shows rely on live human performers to a considerable extent and run at set times rather then continuously - so Festival is a show and Bugs isn’t. Isn’t that arbitrary distinction just as logical?

Or how about just acknowledging that this is silly hair-splitting and even Disney doesn’t distinguish between “shows” and “rides” and we can just call them “attractions,” because guests experience them all as entertainment consumed during a day in the park?

No, I think your example of categorizing shows as live performances only is illogical. There is a very clear distinction between a ride and a show. We're discussing screen rides, not screen attractions. A 3D theater attraction that doesn't utilize any type of ride vehicle is a show. Disney also doesn't like to call their rides "rides" because they want you to think of them as the thematic experience they are attempting to be. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by suggesting categorizing Impressions de France with Race Through New York other than Disney Bad, Universal Good.

Are we counting the lily pad things above you, as those are basically screens/projections.

Also, when we mention the "screenz!" argument, is projection mapping considered screen-based also?

There's a lot of nuance IMO with this type of discussion...technology is advancing and I think the mixture of physical set pieces with screens if it's a moving ride vehicle is the best method for immersion.

I believe the distinction between "screen rides" and "rides that utilize screens" should be made, and this is how I would categorize them:

1. If the screens are the show scenes, as in, there might be physical sets around the screen but most or all of the action is happening on the screen, and
2. If more than 1/2 of the ride time is utilizing said screens

= screen ride

1. If the ride uses screens but they are not the primary focus of the scene, IE "set enhancement", or
2. If the screen-focused segments are less than 1/2 of the ride time

= a ride that utilizes screens

- All traditional simulators, both theater based and simulator cabin/pod/capsule based are obviously screen rides. (Flight of Passage, Star Tours, Smuggler's Run, Simpsons, Fallon, etc)
- MuppetVision, Shrek - not rides, so not screen rides.
- Toy Story Midway Mania - the screens are 95% of the experience, so, screen ride.
- Rise of the Resistance and Na'Vi River Journey - not screen rides, the screens function as set enhancement. The final escape pod segment on ROTR is only a small portion of the overall ride time.
- Spider-Man is perhaps 75%/25% screen/physical scene. There are ample physical sets but the majority of the ride time has you focused on the screens. It's a screen ride but fair to call it a simulator/dark ride hybrid.
- Transformers is like 90% screen, and the physical sets only serve as transitions between the screens. Definite screen ride.
- Forbidden Journey is almost exactly 50/50, not a "screen ride", but a "ride that uses screens".
- Ratatouille - definite screen ride.

 

[Hawg G]

I don't know anyone, when counting *rides*, adds in theater shows. The count for rides at EPCOT has been under 10 for a long time. And everytime I've posted a single-digit count of EPCOT rides (or DAK or DHS rides), no one has ever tried to correct me by adding in O Canada or Festival of the Lion King or Frozen Singalong.

And let's be honest Gran Fiesta, Land, Imagination, and Nemo are B tickets.

 

[Zipadeelady]

You people are killing me. Is this a thread about screens or Space 220?