Cedar Point has built a lot of roller coasters, so it should stop making roller coasters and build other rides, to keep fans happy.
Disney has made a lot of animated movies, so it should stop making animated films and develop only live-action family movies, to keep fans happy.
Legoland has built a lot of attractions that look like Lego bricks, so it should use other surface decorations on their new attractions, to keep fans happy.
Dollywood has a lot of musical shows, so it should it should stop using music in its new live performances, to keep fans happy.
Universal has developed a lot of screen-based attractions, so it should stop developing new rides that use screens and build nothing but animatronic dark rides, to keep fans happy.
Am I getting this right?
Okay, I'm trolling hard here, but I just don't get the this standard that some fans seem to be applying to Universal for its theme park attractions.
Universal uses a lot of IP that relies on actors — real human beings whose instantly recognizable faces cannot be convincingly recreated in animatronic form. (Just take a visit to the uncanny valley of Disney's Hall of Presidents creepshow to see how badly some familiar faces look in animatronic form. Sorry, but that is not Barack Obama.) Unless Universal wants to throw many millions of dollars into animatronic R&D in an attempt to beat Disney at its own game and develop mechanical faces that look and react exactly like Daniel Radcliffe, Helena Bonham Carter, Vin Diesel, and Jimmy Fallon, then it's going to need to use screens to bring these people into Universal's theme park attractions in a convincing way.
Because of Universal's reliance on live-action, actor-driven IP, Universal's theme parks necessarily are going to include a higher percentage of screen experiences than any other parks in the industry. The only way to avoid that is to create experiences such as Men in Black Alien Attack, where the lead actors are either marginalized onto supplemental screens (Will Smith) or eliminated entirely (Tommy Lee Jones). Universal can pull that off every once in a while, but it needs to deliver that stars that define its IP franchises on a consistent basis to please their fans. That means screens.
What about Gru and the Minions? Those are animated characters. Couldn't Universal have created an animatronic ride for them? Yeah, I'll give the haters that one. But let's remember that Despicable Me Minion Mayhem was one of the last major new attractions that Universal developed before its Harry Potter windfall allowed the company to buy out Blackstone Group, take full ownership of the Universal Orlando Resort, and escalate the budgets for its new attractions. Minion Mayhem was budgeted as a reskin of the old Jimmy Neutron ride, which itself was a reskin of the original Hanna-Barbera attraction. (Google it, kids. And join me later in the bottom of that rabbit hole. "Grape Ape!")
Fans loved the Minion Mayhem ride film and Universal made a sound business decision to dupe it in Hollywood and Japan. If Disney fans want to give Universal a hard time for passing on developing an original idea merely to dupe a cheaper, existing concept from its park on the other coast, I would invite them to Google "Pirates of the Caribbean" "Western River Expedition" before proceeding.
To Universal's credit, it's vastly improved the setting for Minion Mayhem with each installation, creating a Super Silly Fun Land (with spinners and playgrounds — no screens!) in Hollywood and an even bigger Minion Park coming to Japan this year. But, yeah, I'd love to see Universal create an animatronic-driven Minion dark ride experience some day.
All right, let's move down the list. Wanna talk about Transformers? Until I hear a solid refutation, I will go to my grave believing that Universal had no intention of bringing Transformers to Orlando, relenting only when it appeared that it might need to close Spider-Man in a deal to trade the Marvel theme park rights to Disney as part of a major financial transaction that would have released Steven Spielberg from Dreamworks (which has a distribution deal with Disney) so that he could return to Universal. But Spielberg elected to stay with Dreamworks, scuttling the negotiations. Ever wonder why Universal was in such a pants-on-fire rush to get that ride built? It didn't want to be caught for any length of time without a replacement for its all-time highest-rated attraction, so it rushed plans to dupe the Transformers ride from Singapore and Hollywood. Maybe I'm wrong here. But I'd love to hear a more convincing explanation for why Universal pulled the idea to build Transformers in Orlando out of nowhere and put it into the park in mere months. (Leak to me, people. You know where to find me.)
What about Kong? More screens there! Let's look at the unusual context around the creation of that experience, too. When a backlot fire at Universal Studios Hollywood in 2008 destroyed the Kong Encounter on the Studio Tour, Universal knew it needed a replacement. With Peter Jackson having directed a reboot of Kong for Universal in 2005, the park chose to turn to Jackson to help develop a new Kong encounter, based on his film. At that point, every encounter on the Studio Tour was practical, which actually made little sense given how much of filmmaking in the 21st century is digitally-based. Adding a digital encounter on the tour helped alleviate a deficiency on the attraction.
So when Universal decided to return Kong to Orlando, it had a wildly popular attraction from California to offer. But instead of simply duping King Kong: 360/3D, Universal plussed it. It encased the Hollywood Kong encounter in richly decorated new practical setting, added an extra video scene, then installed an animatronic and live actors in the queue, and finished the ride with a massive new Kong animatronic for its finale.
But the haters ignored the animatronics and the actors and grunted, "no more screens!"
We didn't know it yet, but Kong established a template that Universal followed this year with Race Through New York with Jimmy Fallon. That attraction features another screen-based ride, with a flying theater, but it also includes a richly decorated setting, a character meet and greet, and a live musical performance.
I know that Universal's critics simply want to see a more diverse mix of attraction experiences across the park, including animatronics, coasters, dark rides, water rides, live shows, and, yes, even screens. I do, too. But instead of balancing its overall portfolio by building no-screen rides exclusively for a while, Universal is blazing a new path toward creating that balance.
With Kong and now Fallon, Universal is creating a diversity of experiences within each of its new attractions. They're not just screen rides. They're hybrids that employ screens, live performances, and for Kong, animatronics, on top of different ride platforms in either case. Kong and Fallon advance a model expands the definition of a theme park attraction beyond "a queue and a thing." They can involve multiple narrative elements — live, filmed, and mechanical — that launch from the moment you enter, not when you reach the load platform or pre-show area.
If this is the new model at Universal, balance will arrive soon enough. (Heck, rip out Shrek and Minion Mayhem in Orlando in favor of that animatronic Minion dark ride of my dreams, and the resort would be there right then.) So please excuse me for sitting out the "no more screens at Universal!" furor. I think what Universal is doing with its theme park attractions is fascinating, not lamentable.
Tweet
While I can't call myself a Universal critic (I've loved USF since first visiting it in 1993 at age 6), this is exactly what I'd like to see, yes. I don't believe that's an unreasonable desire, nor do I think it makes me some kind of a screens hater. Islands of Adventure has pretty much a perfect blend of all of that, while Universal Studios Florida has gone overboard on 3D and simulators. When the bulk of the attractions in a park utilize a similar approach, that approach starts to lose its unique and interesting qualities.
Universal doesn't have to build AA heavy rides and screenless rides if they don't want to. Indeed they have been very successful with their new parks, but Cedar Fair and Legoland etc. are far from being the theme park standards. If they want to ever equal or beat Disney then believe they will have to.
Labeling people that don't agree with your opinion as "haters" doesn't seem to fit into the spirit that "all participants in the Theme Park Insider community treat one another with respect and a spirit of helpfulness."
Appreciate your recent review of the Jimmy Fallon ride at USF. The last few times we visited Universal, we did not even bother with Twister. Good to see them to take that limited space and put something new and different in its place.
My point is not to disparage all of the "screen-based attraction" critics of Universal. I can understand and sympathize with their frustration over the situation. But different theme parks offer different experiences and I make it a point to enjoy whatever each theme park does best.
FWIW - I am excited about the new "screen-based" Justice League opening at our home park, SFOG. I honestly don't think it will measure up to what Transformers and SpiderMan have to offer. But for me, part of the appeal will be witnessing the reaction of locals (GA, AL, SC) who have never ridden anything like it before. In addition to competing with my grandson on the shooting part of ride :-)
If you ride Shrek 4-D, Transformers, Minions, Simpsons, Spider-man,Kong, and it seems now Race through NY you are getting somewhat similar ride experiences. Those are all very well done (can't vouch for the last one but I trust you) but variety IMO is much more preferably than just expertly done simulator after simulator.
And it's very lame to say that Universal is forced to go with mostly screens just because they use actor's faces. You're giving them an excuse to cheap out on us. If you want to use the actors, they can use screens for that, but can still give us practical effects for most of the ride -- as they did with MIB, Forbidden Journey, Mummy.
It's also lame to call us haters just because we are pressing the company to give us more variety. I and other criticize because we are fans and we care about what we're getting for our theme park dollar. If I hated Universal, I would just stay away from their parks, and I wouldn't care at all what they put in there.
And I don't hate screen-based rides and 3D. In fact, I've always been a sucker for 3D. But at Universal, they just keep shovelling the same stuff at us, and that tendency has jumped the shark.
I'll admit that Escape from Gringotts is a very good ride, and did enough new with 3D that it was worthwhile. But when they announced Skull Island, I thought it would be a departure from that template, not just a plussed version of the 90 second UHS experience, which is just a small part of the Studio Tour.
You also made some weak comparison with Cedar Fair. We expect a lot more variety, diversity and immersive theming from theme parks, as opposed to amusement parks. That's one of the reasons we pay a lot more for theme parks than for our local Six Flags park, and we travel to go to Disney and Universal.
I also don't buy this hybrid idea. The queue and surroundings are the icing on the cake. That doesn't change the fact that the cake has too much sameness.
As for the hybrid idea, while some may look at the attraction as a whole, most look at the ride component as 80-90% of the package. If the main draw is the queue, why have a ride that won't live up to it in the first place? Which are you more likely to return to: A restaurant that has average appetizers and outstanding entrees, or a restaurant that has outstanding appetizers and average entrees? For most, it would be the former.
There is a misconception that screens are a low cost option for ride designers. Actually, animation, projectors and screens can be VERY expensive. It is important for us to acknowledge however, that this perception is one downside to using projected media and perception is everything!
In our new Justice League rides, we tried to strike a balance between the AA's, practical sets and screens. That mix seems to be working pretty well.
When entering Universal Studios you meet 3 rides (Minion, Shrek and Fallon) that are very similar. Two of those rides are on the list to be cut. Both Shrek and Minions will leave the park and (I hope) get new iterations in Universal's next theme park. I'm positive their animation and game ip's will see many more animatronics.
Regarding Transformers: I heard the head of Universal Studio's Florida was nervous about Diagon Alley. The success of their first Potter land was overwhelming and they wanted another pull somewhere in the park to open before Potter to spread the guests. When attending the opening for Transformers in Hollywood he was taken about the reception the ride got and decided to have it build. UC was already preparing the old building for HHN when they got the message the building would be torn down.
Universal always knew Marvel was theirs so they never needed to counter anything except their own success.
I love the good old Disney vs Universal debates and those are usually the threads with the most comments so I must not be the only one. (I've been a menber since 2011 and participated in my fare share!) But what I love is the playful back and forth and being able to come in with an open mind and listen to good solid points that make me think. The hardcore fanboys on either side will never admit defeat or failure so it's not worth trying to change their minds cause it's never going to happen.
The info that should be taken from this artical is that these companies are different and have strengths and weaknesses. We shouldn't constantly fault them for doing something they are good at if it gives us a new attraction or experience. Yes we should hold them accountable and not be willing to blindly give passes if an attraction is really bad. (And when I say bad I mean something that is without a doubt low quality and disliked by just about everyone. Not just a ride that you don't like for personal reasons)
Yes Universal uses a lot of screens but look at the amount of space they have to work with, the story they are trying to tell, the target audience they are going for, and the unbelievable rate at which they are pumping out new attractions! Agreed that the IP might also not be your personal favorite, but having a solid new crowd eating ride helps you visit an attraction you enjoy with less of a wait. And to fry the new thing yourself at least once gives you a new experience and may just surprise you.
Yes Disney works at a snails pace but they will be unveiling lots of new lands and attractions in the next 5 years that should be entertaining to guests and again give us new experiences. And to think these new experiences are going to be less than world class is rediculous!!! They might not all be home runs and be the best new thing of all time, and again the IP might not be your cup of tea, but new entertainment is still worth checking out.
Disney has had and still has their irons in the fire all over the world when it comes to construction. It is frustrating to see very little new in the US, but realize that they were trying to fix infrastructure on their two oldest resorts so they don't put the cart before the horse.
Voicing opinions is very welcomed and being able to express your take or desire on how you would like a park to be is just fine! Having the small chance that maybe a bigwig from the company might hear the opinion of "Bob Liebe" (insert your name there) and cater their new experience to your thoughts is what we would all love!
But when it comes to beating a dead horse on a topic or being so intrenched on one side that an open mind is nowhere to be found and we can just spew hate to the other side, it makes for a "swipe left" moment for me.
I don't think Robert was calling everyone who wants to see Universal do something else besides screens a "hater" with the intent to degrade them. (He himself said he wishes for more non screen rides too.) I believe this was nothing more than being playful.
If not, then I too am a hater and proud of it and take no offense. I would like to see more non screen based attractions, but I also can't deny what they've done in 6 years and still do find enjoyment in the new attractions with screens. I just try not to incorporate that opinion on every thread, every time, without question, and in a negative way to others! I then also don't flip flop when "my side" makes a screen based ride so it is now the best thing since sliced bread.
In the words of Anchorman Ron Burgandy, "Stay classy San Diego".
Thats what the new Fallon ride has me so excited to go on once I go back to Universal with my wife. Do I want to just sit and watch a 4d experience, not exactly, but throw in a live music show, museum, interactive shows and games and yes I would like a good helping of immersion please. Disney has been first with this concept but has fallen a bit behind but the promise of new lands of immersion has my interest peaked especially Star Wars.
You have to ask yourself do you just like running from ride to ride to get the most ride time in a day or actually experience the whole surroundings to let yourself be in the situation, to be in the moment, to be part of the attraction. To me it's where the screen doesn't matter because they are just one part of the whole experience.
What if Disney only offered Meet-and-Greets. Would I want to maybe ride a coaster?
What if LEGOLAND only built Lego models. Would I be bored after a while?
What if Universal kept building ride after ride featuring the same technology? Would each ride have diminishing returns?
Yes to all of the above.
And let's not forget the great practical effects Universal offers, when appropriate. That new King Kong animatronic is legit, for one. Also, there are many practical effects -- ET, Escape from Gringotts, Forbidden Journey, Jurassic Park, Men In Black, Poseidon's Fury, The Mummy, and Spider Man all contain at least some practical elements.
I do think Transformers could be better, particularly since the characters would lend themselves to some large-scale animatronics. This added to the fact that it uses an identical ride system to the better Spider Man attraction makes it seem a bit stale.
But in general, Universal has done a fine job at deciding when to use screens for fast-paced action, and when to use animatronics and practical effects. I agree that they need to continue using practical effects and animatronics whenever appropriate, and maybe even step that up a bit to the level of Forbidden Journey when possible.
On the other hand, Disney. Disney, Disney, Disney. If I never see another animatronic human, that would be great! Most of the Disney "audio-animatronics" creep me out. They creep kids out. These slow-paced attractions are fun once, maybe twice. Rides like Dumbo feel like cheap carnival attractions. Add the snails pace at which they create new attractions, and the accelerated pace at which people lose interest in things, and it's a nightmare. I'm excited for Avatar land, although I don't recall much from the movie. And I'm excited about Star Wars. But in general, Disney needs to step it up if they want to maintain interest and continue providing excitement to people over 10.
If you like Disney, stick with it, Universal, same thing. You should experience them both before becoming a cheerleading fanboy for either one, however.
We did Disney for years, then went to Universal when my girls got a older. They simply like, Universal better, as do I.
Since Men In Black and ET, they didn't attempt the full animatronics ride much. These two rides are very good. The cute ET dark ride was good, but the intro with the police cars unnecessarily killed the ride. They went dramatic danger to a calming space alien Zen. Sometimes, Universal can do without the full theatrical experience and just go with the attraction experience (be more Disney-like). Too bad ET no longer lives on. Seems odd that Spielberg's movie creations don't last long at Universal Orlando with ET and Jaws gone.
So here's another bread crumb, Universal's rides don't last very long. Screen rides make more sense as a business investment for Universal.
Disney's rides can benefit from some screen enhancements to its existing attractions. WDW's Pirates should get some scenes from Shanghai's Pirates. DL's Indiana Jones Adventure should get some screens in some dark spots where nothing happens.
What a surprise that some people that prefer slow moving singing robot rides don't like bumpy movie screen attractions. I like em all. Except drop towers. I hate drop towers :) I don't understand the everything must be just like Disney to be good idea.
If you ride Spiderman and just see movie screens, then Uni probably isn't for you. If you ride Small World and just see your worst nightmare, then Disney probably isn't for you. There are many people that fall into the later category, but I don't see websites calling for Disney to stop building animatronic rides just to make them happy. Most of these people I know just look for other entertainment options that are more closely aligned to their own joys.
Poseidon's Fury is one of the best practical effect attractions in Orlando. I love the facade, the queue keeps me cool in the summer, walking between rooms, stage tricks, and DAT WATER TUNNEL. I only wish they could modernize the finale a little bit with their new, gigantic budget.
My only true complaint with Universal is that my wife dislikes the "intensity" of every attraction. She's not old, but she no longer has an interest in every ride being so intense. This is becoming a problem, because now she no longer wants to go to Orlando. ...And when mama ain't happy, nobody is happy.
I'm not saying abandon the screens and the thrills, but Universal does need a few "calmer" attractions that families of all ages can do "together." Give her a Waterworld caliber show in Orlando and she'd return. She could watch Waterworld multiple times a day in Hollywood.
But I have to tell you, Robert, that your reference to the "Hall of Presidents creepshow" totally made my day.
Great writing, as always!
The reason, Spielberg's 'Midas touch' is considered lost. Some blame his desire to produce Oscar worthy adult fare. Others blame the development execs he surrounded himself with.
Don't believe me...
Track his box office results.
Universal did. As such, they never intended on trading their Marvel theme park rights East of the Mississippi. Not to mention all the naming/marketing stipulations Wet of the Mississippi in their favor.
NBC/Universal saw DreamWorks Pictures II was failing. DWP wasn't even hitting the annual film quota they promised Disney. As such, they intended to wait out the deal. They did and Spielberg is back!
While it's estimated Disney lost over $200M on their DWPII deal, they did end up with full ownership of films created by DWPII. For example, the Hugh Jackman film Real Steel.
FACTS ARE FACTS!
That said, everyone would be surprised to know, Universal Creative 'off-the-record' has been happy and really stung by the HIGH que, but LOW ride survey scores from Kong. They expect the same from Jimmy.
Internal discussions are how to sell Minions, Kong, Jimmy and soon F&F as unique.
How do you sell, a rocking tram with your feet on the floor is not another version of a flying theatre with your feet on the floor?!?!?
UC is seeking, if the budget is approved, to up their game on F&F. Sadly, it looks like it will launch as planned. Why?
Corporate overseers are reportedly focusing on the massive investments approved for...
-- Harry Potter expansion: M of Magic for USO
-- Harry Potter redevelopment: dueling coaster at IofA
-- Nintendo: while originally designated as a replacement for USO kids area USO Creative is closely monitoring Toy Story Land and STAR WARS land construction. Why? If Disney contracts the budget the competition will be less impressive. If Disney expands the budget, like they did for Avatar --$1B per the internet is false--, competition will demand more immersion AND more impressive rides.
Corporate overseers feel their 'Ace' could be an immersive Nintendo third gate. The patents recently released lit social media on fire. Sure the buzz started within fan blogs, but then quickly went viral.
FYI
Internally the water park is not referred to as a third gate
I'm not sure you can say that Universals over reliance on screen and 3D simulators is their "claim to fame." I'm pretty sure that honor goes to the Wizarding World of Harry Potter (and before that the Studio Tour, industry leading stunt shows and movie making behind the scenes shows) and the level of detail, realism and immersive story telling that, until then, could only be experienced in a Disney park. They followed the leader and have been very successful because of it. Before Wizarding World they were only competition for Sea World
Are there too many screen based attractions there? Yes. Does that make them bad rides? No.
Yes, that's totally correct. When you Disney apologists start slamming Universal for too many movie screens and simulators, you'd better look closer to home because Epcot is #1 in terms of the highest percentage of attractions being simulators and movies screens at 32%.
Of course, USF is very close behind at 30% of attractions being based on simulators/screens.
#3 in the movie/simulator attraction sweepstakes is DHS with 3 of its paltry 13 attractions being based on the screens (23%).
#4 on the list is IOA at 12% of its attractions being movie screen/simulator based.
#5 is the Magic Kingdom with only 8% of the attractions there using movie screens/simulators to entertain the masses.
#6 on the list is obviously AK with only one attraction being based on a movie screen/simulator, and that leaves it at 5%.
So the reality of the situation is that for many of you, your perceptions are wrong. You tend to think of Disney as only the Magic Kingdom, and on that basis, every other competitor is going to come up short. But when you knock USF when you compare it to the MK perhaps you should also throw a little derision at Epcot in the same rant because the flaws are bigger if not worse there than at any other park in central Florida.
Go on Expedition Everest to see the worlds largest broken non moving robot.
Splash Mountain always has robots off or half working
Jungle Cruise would be helped with screens as they would not be as moldy and fake
Carousel of Progress is worst then a Chuckie Cheese show and should take Walt's good name off
Tower of Terror is a great screen based attraction and added more projections and screens
I love to ride the movies! I think Universal learned their lessons with overly complex anatronics from their opening in Orlando. Most people except for Disney fans would rather go on a fast thrilling ride then a slow moving rides that always have the signature effect or figure broken.
That would actually make a great article for TPI. Interesting to know what parameters you used for "attractions". I hope you also considered live performances or the night time show for Epcot as it is quite the unconventional theme park. Also I would not consider hybrids like FJ a screen based attraction because their is a significant amount of practical effects/props besides the screens. I think also my expectations are completely different when visiting Epcot. Epcot has never been about rides. It's always been about edutainment and learning about world cultures. For that theme I expect documentary type movie attractions as very likely. Universal Studios also ironically was never about rides. Rides were fourth on the list after 1. The studio tour 2. Live action stunt shows (which have yet to be surpassed by Disney or Universal) and 3. Movie making edutainment. Universal has changed, however, and they have clearly made rides and immersive storytelling their new standard. So personally I have very different expectations when visiting the two. I would compare Universal parks to DHS, MK, DL or DCA but would have very different expectations for Epcot or Animal Kingdom.
I did a quick and dirty head count using the descriptions on the "Park Guides" pages for each park on TPI. I'm in the middle of a huge project for one of my masters level classes, and I just didn't have the time to put into the research.
I also counted nightly fireworks shows and parades and rated meet-n-greets the same as I would the Pirates of the Caribbean or the Hulk Coaster. The whole argument about what constitutes an attraction gets wearisome until you realize that the criteria for what constitutes an attraction is totally subjective based upon your age and interests.
FJ got designated as a simulator/movie screen. Gringott's did not.
The real underlying issue is the chapped butt cheeks that so many Disney fans have about all of the incredible things being done at the Universal parks during a period where Disney has relatively little for their domestic parks. Thus we get silly and disingenuous comments like "too many simulator rides" and "they do the same thing over and over!"
Really folks?
If a ride like Transformers were dropped into Epcot or DHS, many of these same people would be blowing up the message boards with praise for the wonderful thing that Disney has built. Instead they're stuck with a well-themed kiddie coaster and new parking garages in Disney Springs, and they've got to make lemonade until Pandora and Star Wars Land and Toy Story Land start making an appearance.
Why do so many people have to treat theme parks like their favorite sports teams? "You suck! We're the best!" I just don't get it.
No, I'm not a Universal hater. No, I'm not a blinkered Disney fan. I'm a theme park fan, and I, among many others will not shut up about a trend which we dislike.
I've been on theme park message boards since 2007. I remember when Universal was getting more praise than Disney (from me and others) because they were building and innovating more. Now Universal seems to be recycling their past successes, and copping out with gallons of CGI, while Disney is giving us a variety of experiences.
It's not about being a biased fanboy. It's about recognizing when a company is resting on its laurels and going down the wrong path. As long as Universal keeps leaning on that 3D screens/simulator crutch, the criticism will only grow. Give us something different! Until they do, they can forget about passing Disney in the theme park business.
"Still a fan" -- I don't think anyone is disagreeing that we'd like to continue seeing more diversity of experiences. But if you ride things like Escape from Gringotts, Forbidden Journey, and Spider Man and only see screens, you'd better take another look!
On other message boards, most posters are saying they are sick of the screens at Universal. The backlash is real, and it's not just "fanboys."
On Spiderman and Transformers, I see screens, and it's a yawning bore. Gringotts wouldn't need 3D glasses if Universal had made physical sets which would have been a much more persuasive environment. Forbidden Journey has a better balance of screens and sets; that's where Universal should aim if they must persist with screens. Disney has done an exceedingly better job of using digital effects and screens to support primarily physically set experiences, such as on Alice in Wonderland in DL.
"But I don't like screen based rides (with only a few rare exceptions such as Soarin' or Impressions of France). I not only don't want additional screen rides, I actually prefer none. Kong looks great with the vehicles, queue, show building, etc., but the screen action sucks bigly. Minions should be a dark ride, not a screen. Transformers and Spiderman suck as well with the screens."
"I don't like screen based rides" - except for a couple of mediocre rides at Epcot.
"Kong looks great....but the screen action sucks bigly." (Interpretation) Yeah, I prefer a nice, gentle ride with a hideous queue any day over a ride with an immersive queue, intense action, and with a pretty decent animatronic at the end.
Transformers and Spiderman suck as well with the screens." (Interpretation) Until Disney builds something this freakin' awesome I'm going to be a total troll and pretend that the technology and presentation are just not good enough.
You have now entered Disney Fanboy Club territory - Please contact TH Creative for your membership package and secret decoder ring.
It's a good thing the upcoming Star Wars and Avatar won't make use of screens. Oh, wait..,
Enjoy your Dumbo spinner and creepy animatronics!
When Universal makes a screen based ride as good as Soaring, then I'll give them props.
When Universal makes a film as beautiful as Impressions of France, then I'll give them props.
When Universal makes a narrative-driven dark ride as amazing as Shanghai PotC that deftly uses digital effects and screens to support fantastic physical sets, then I'll them props (as I did for FJ).
But when Universal makes a continuous habit of lazily designed screen rides such as Fallon, F&F, Transformers, Minions, Kong, etc. then Universal will be taken to task on discussion boards, social media and word of mouth. If Universal continues to double down on cheap screens, then they'll join Sea World as the Kodak of theme parks. Such a shame as Universal's physical lands for the Simpsons and Harry Potter are so good and immersive, but their recent string of new rides have been empty shells without substance.
For the record, I almost always find myself in agreement with your comments on this site except in this thread. Unfortunately, you and "Still a fan" made some pretty subjective comments that were way over the top with respect to Universal screens and simulators. I dropped some statistics on you all which neither of you bothered to refute in the least other than to double down on the subjective silliness. So you got the fanboy treatment for not acknowledging in the least that your opinions were not facts.
As far as "no substantive argument" goes, I gave you some rough statistics. You gave some subjective opinions. Are you describing my argument or yours? Just wondering.
Second, the subject of Robert's "apology" post was Universal, so we're addressing those parks and their 33% screen content (per the tally from Rob Alvey at TPR). And almost all the recent, new additions (Walking Dead excluded) at Universal have been screens. Have most of Disney's recent additions been primarily screen-based? No, and not even close. The trendlines clearly indicate that Disney still invests in expensive, immersive, physical sets, while Universal cranks out comparatively cheap screens within a fancy show building/queue. That's not opinion, that's fact.
Third, people are sick of Universal's panoply of screens. Just check the reviews on other discussion boards, social media, YouTube, etc. Some are even saying they miss Twister. This is the only site where I've seen people defending Universal's screens, and most of the defense is the pitiful and whiney "but Disney has screens too" defense. Rob Alvey said at the Fallon opening, people were openly and disappointingly commenting that Universal had done yet another screen attraction (but a great non-queue). There's backlash, and it's real. That's not opinion, that's fact.
Tim Hillman dropped some stats on us, and like many stats, they were pretty meaningless. It doesn't matter whether Epcot has more screen-based attractions than IOA. It's not about individual parks; it's about the resorts as a whole. WDW, as a whole, offers a great deal of variety.
Meanwhile, a large and growing proportion of Universal's attractions, for the whole resort, are cut from the same cloth. This is especially glaring because Universal offers little besides rides -- no nighttime events, no parades. So when theme parks offer almost exclusively rides, and those rides have increasing sameness, it starts to wear on a lot of guests.
As I mentioned before, Disney used to get the lion's share of criticism on message boards, and I was one of those critics. Now Universal is facing a backlash, and it has nothing to do with bias or fanboyism. It has everything to do with what they are giving us.
Ever since the innovation of Spider-Man, most of their new offerings have been more of the same. Spider-Man is a great ride, but it shouldn't be the template for nearly everything that follows. Universal used to produce unique dark rides to rival Disney's best, such as Revenge of the Mummy, MIB and The Cat in the Hat. These rides all seemed to be designed starting with a clean slate, and a willingness to explore different ways of telling a story or presenting an experience.
Now it seems they want to take the lazy way out and fall back on their screens crutch, over and over. And that trend has been accelerating. That's a fact. Whether or not you like that trend is an opinion.
Well, clearly a lot of people don't like it. For most of us, I would guess, it hasn't been a deal breaker -- yet. I guess we should just shut up, and let Universal think that everything is honky dory...until nearly everything in their parks is screens, and they start losing customers.
Call me crazy, but I think everyone is better off if companies continue getting the free feedback offered by message boards.
Still a fan -- The only ride directly copied from Spider-Man is Transformers (same ride platform). I agree that it is not their best. Jimmy Fallon is a refit into a small and land-locked space, and I think it's remarkable what they did in that space. You said they have no nighttime events or parades at Universal? Have you ever been there? Superstar parade (daily), Mardi-Gras, Christmas, and special event parades. Nighttime events -- Cinematic Spectacular, Halloween Horror, and misc. special events. If you haven't see the Cinematic Spectacular and you love movies, it's an amazing thing and you may walk away with a tear in your eye.
In fact, I'm not suggesting that we don't criticize overuse of a particular technology. I think Minions could have been done in a better way, Shrek should be removed and replaced, and Transformers isn't as good as Spider Man. But my criticism for Disney runs far deeper -- the mouse is irrelevant, the rides are mostly lame, the fastpass+ reservation system is awful, they roll out mediocre things at a snails pace -- and that's just getting started. Doesn't mean that I don't enjoy a few things there as well, or that I don't hope they improve things in the future. I'm looking forward to Avatar and Star Wars.
I am, in the end, through and through, a THEME park fan. And right now, Universal is hitting it out of the park.
Now we can have a substantive dialogue. You two are closer to the truth, but you're still way off base when it comes to your dissection of Robert's thread opening post.
First of all, let's examine the mentality of most theme park fans. For most of us, Disneyland and the Magic Kingdom are the basis for how we judge theme parks, and looking at 2015 attendance numbers, nothing else comes close. With the exception of one amazing theme park in Japan, even Disney can't do Disney like they do in the MK-style parks. Cinderella and the ugly stepsisters in Orlando are a great example of this. Epcot, the second highest attended park at the Disney resort in Orlando draws barely 57% of the attendance of the MK, and the numbers are worse for AK and DHS.
So, if Disney can't do Disney anywhere else like they do in the MK/Disneyland parks why should anyone else even try? They'll just end being like Europa Park, a nice but not notable Disney-lite park in Germany.
And that brings us back to Robert's original post where he described the unique development of the Universal parks in Orlando in terms of the Universal perspective - which many of you fail to acknowledge.
Everything that Universal does always gets judged and quite often unfairly so in terms of the Disney experience. Funny thing is, most of you don't compare the other Disney parks to the MK/Disneyland parks with the same fervor that you apply to the Universal parks. Your criticism of USF for having too many screens/simulators is perfectly valid within the context of the experience of a visit to Universal Studios. But you lose validity when you cherry pick selected attractions from across the Disney spectrum and use those experiences to adversely judge USF.
Look at Kong. What's the greatest weakness of IOA? Lack of family style dark rides. Kong meets the requirements - immersive queue, intense but not too rough ride experience, and a pretty decent animatronic at the end. But so many of you get stuck on the fact that the action is presented on a screen and totally discount the rest of the experience or the context of the park in which it is being offered.
What's the biggest knock on Transformers? It's too much like Spiderman! Yet they're in different parks, and Universal doesn't get any credit for that. Do they have to be 2000 miles away from each other for Transformers to get the respect for being an utterly amazing ride?
And here's where we get to the gist of the fallacy of your perspectives. Too many theme park fans suffer from an embarrassment of riches at the Universal parks. Ten years ago if somebody had told me the current lineup of the attractions at the Universal Orlando Resort, I would have laughed them out of the room. Now that we have all of these incredible attractions, we nitpick them to death without any consideration for what we have now in light of what we had back in the past.
Robert's article was merely an explanation of how attractions at USO got to where they are now and to a possible wishful path for the future. He also expressed a desire to have a more comprehensive attraction mix at USF (nothing really wrong at IOA) without denigrating the decisions made in the past by Universal management because most of the decisions by Universal Creative and Universal management have been spot on. It certainly wasn't an "apology post" as some have described it but rather a dissection of how we got to the current lineup of attractions at Universal and where things might go in the future.
1) If the screen is serving as the only window for your "vehicle" (Good examples: Star Tours, Body Wars, Questor from Busch Gardens, etc.). This way there's no practical sets mixed in to force your brain to go back and forth from screen to real life, thereby not having the risk of "taking you out" of the experience. Having a filmed/realistic video on the screen in this case helps immensely (vs. being clearly animated, like Minions' and Simpsons' film is), since it looks realistic enough to get involved in and "pretend" it's real.
2) If in a large theater, then at the very least it has to have a realistic/filmed appearance to the video of the simulator in the first place, rather than be obviously animated. (Good examples: Soarin', Back to the Future) I enjoyed the actual ride experience of "Back to the Future" WAY more than I do "Simpsons," despite the awesome theming and sense of humor the queue and surrounding area supplements it with. When that dinosaur head comes at me in Back to the Future, it feels way more believable than a CGI Sideshow Bob in a giant panda suit coming at me in an artificial frame rate.
3) If in a moving simulator (such as Spider-man, Transformers, Forbidden Journey, etc.), the film must be realistic enough AND feature enough action in practical sets/animatronics to balance out the reliance on screens (Good examples: Spider-man, Forbidden Journey). Watch a POV of Spider-man, then compare it to the ride-through of Transformers. ALL the action of Transformers takes place on a screen. Likewise with Kong, and even Ratatouille for the most part. However, with Spider-man and Forbidden Journey, though a lot of the action takes place on a screen, there are many distinct physical sets/effects as well. The floating Statue of Liberty head, the Hobgoblin's exploding grenade, the dragon's opening mouth, etc. These really make a difference in helping ease the screen-reliance so much.
So it's not so much IF there's screens, but how are they being used? I'm finding that it really makes a big difference with me, and I don't think I'm alone.
This article has been archived and is no longer accepting comments.
