Tom Morrow
Well-Known Member
The Express queue misses some of the downstairs rooms but sees most of the important effects and rooms.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Universal Epic Universe (South Expansion Complex) - Now Open!
- Thread starter Bob Harlem
- Start date
The Express queue misses some of the downstairs rooms but sees most of the important effects and rooms.
I mean, the Untrainable Dragon's theater is certainly better than the theater show in WDW's arguably most immersive theme park that has had a lot of time to improve.
So reading between the lines, it would still have the light, sounds, etc. through much of it?
JoeCamel
Well-Known Member
I witnessed two proposals and two in park weddings (different couples) at Universal. Happens all the time. One of the proposals WAS in front of the globe and another couple who met at the park, married and are together 10 years later in Texas. I don't know hundreds of Universal people either.
Here is an example of one of my favorites.
I know people personally who were there. Universal since 1990 to now has been a part of millions of people's lives in FL and geographically beyond.
James Alucobond
Well-Known Member
What? Theater in the Wild is fairly bland, but it looks like a properly proportioned and fully finished building. Untrainable Dragon is an undersized facade glued to the front of what is clearly a poorly painted warehouse.
Interesting take.
James Alucobond
Well-Known Member
It's not a take; it's what it is.
JoeCamel
Well-Known Member
That is royal wedding! TM's I'm guessing?
Not really how it works.
Super fans at the time actually. Great PR move.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
The difference is that Theater in the Wild isn't trying to be something else, it's just a theater.
James Alucobond
Well-Known Member
That's exactly how it works. One is objectively show-finished across its entire guest-facing surface, regardless of how you feel about the visual interest of that finish. The other is objectively only partially show-finished along the guest-facing surface, with clear warehouse paneling intersections and gutters still protruding from the remainder of the facade, painted with some go-away blue, faux clouds, and trees.
Andrew25
Well-Known Member
Disney has had the advantage of being a well-synced and organized company throughout its up and downs. However, Universal has had issues as a brand with all of its sales and different parent companies.
With that said, Universal is starting to create its own identity and starting to fill their parks back with older properties... and creating good stuff. They're not as well-synced of a company, but they're starting to be a bit better at it.
That is creatively bankrupt logic. Why does a theater have to look like just a warehouse with trim?
The thing has been redone and new venued multiple times since opening and decades.
And business end of this, is thanks to Comcast. Comcast was the first time the parks were under a sole parent ownership. They had a ugly time in the late 90s and 2000s which were not always great to the parks. Comcast, for all its flaws, likes to invest creatively in the parks.
Be careful switching from crucial meat ripping gloves to the kid handling ones depending on which park your mind is visiting.
Your taste says the one show is not as appeasing. Both are "show finished" that is not the definition of objective.
James Alucobond
Well-Known Member
Once again, you’re missing the point. One purports to be a modern theater, consistent with the architecture of adjacent Dinoland and Discovery Island. The other is supposed to look like the entrance to a Viking structure of some kind. The former, despite being generally uninspiring, does not stick out as a facade glued to the front of a warehouse; it looks like and has the proportions of a normal theater. The other is only partially themed to a Viking structure, with rest left as an exposed warehouse.
No one is saying Theater in the Wild is beautiful, but the problems it has are completely independent of the problems Untrainable Dragon has. The point is that the comparison was completely unwarranted.
No one is saying Theater in the Wild is beautiful, but the problems it has are completely independent of the problems Untrainable Dragon has. The point is that the comparison was completely unwarranted.
No points missed.
One is a bland building with trim after the facade that hugs the guest path (and for some reason with a show about the Sea life institute inside but that is seperate layer altogether)
The other is a gathering venue within a cartoon viking world that you are upset that the continuation of the building chose to paint a continuation of that cartoon world along the sides.
It is not objective.
Both did their objective goals.
You don't like the mural paint technique because you don't care for that ask of imagination.
You like what Theater In The Wild does better.
Now you are stating both had different objectives so should not be compared. It is hard to follow this logic now, as if they should not be, than in fact they both objectively do just fine at what they wish to accomplish, and any dislike or like is subjective. Painting a sky color and trees are complete show, just not a show you care for.
That, is how it works. Your opinion is accepting of one but not the other. It is a take.