King Kong Speculation Thread

[Disneyhead]

Because they don't have enough room. The Mummy/Kong show building is huge...when Kong was in there, it was a short and simple loop layout, even with all that space available. To do a King Kong ride justice, you need big sets. The Disaster building doesn't have the luxury of a lot of room. And when you consider that the HE blocks any possible expansion opportunity, you realize that what's in Disaster now is pretty much all you're gonna get as far as physical sets--that leaves no room for the large scale effects and sets that were present in the original Kongfrontation which took up the entire Mummy building.

To achieve the scale of a good Kong ride while still effective,y utilizing the relatively small Disaster building, 3-D is pretty much Universal's only option.

- - - Updated - - -



I don't think Shrek is going anywhere anytime soon--it's still the chief attraction used in marketing The Studios (similar to Potter or Spider-Man for IOA), and one of the only family properties present in Universal. And he's still popular to most people who dont realize how poorly-done the show actually is

Shrek (in the marketing of the resort) will most likely be upstaged by "The Minions" in the near future.

 

[Cupcakes]

I think the main reason why Shrek was used so much in advertising was because they really didn't have anything else in family properties to utilize. (The reason why they never used Jimmy Neutron/SpongeBob in advertising that much was because apparently Viacom charged them a huge amount of money every time they did). But now with Despicable Me in the mix and whatever's coming to the Kidzone, that's all going to change.

I can't see Shrek surviving this decade.

 

[TylerDurden]

I think the main reason why Shrek was used so much in advertising was because they really didn't have anything else in family properties to utilize. (The reason why they never used Jimmy Neutron/SpongeBob in advertising that much was because apparently Viacom charged them a huge amount of money every time they did). But now with Despicable Me in the mix and whatever's coming to the Kidzone, that's all going to change.

I can't see Shrek surviving this decade.

I wish I could agree, but I just dont see it happening. The fact that its used in any marketing at all hints at its popularity. Also, I was thinking about this the other day, but I believe its pretty uncommon for a 3-D show to use TWO theaters...and still attract long-enough lines to utilize an overflow queue.
Plus, just because one family-friendly IP has arrived (DM) doesnt mean one will go--theres not a quota on family-friendly attractions, as a matter of fact, the more the better. With the popularity of the Shrek franchise (anyone check Shrek 2's box office totals?) I feel like it will be sticking around a little longer than we give it credit for

 

[Clive]

I wish I could agree, but I just dont see it happening. The fact that its used in any marketing at all hints at its popularity. Also, I was thinking about this the other day, but I believe its pretty uncommon for a 3-D show to use TWO theaters...and still attract long-enough lines to utilize an overflow queue.
Plus, just because one family-friendly IP has arrived (DM) doesnt mean one will go--theres not a quota on family-friendly attractions, as a matter of fact, the more the better. With the popularity of the Shrek franchise (anyone check Shrek 2's box office totals?) I feel like it will be sticking around a little longer than we give it credit for

I think we're stuck with Shrek for a few more years for many of the reasons you're citing... but I think its time is quickly coming. As Disneyhead noted, the minions are moving in as the big marketable "family" property at the Studios. I also agree it shouldn't be replaced by another 3D show, though I feel that may be what we get since there's already 2 theaters built in there that would be VERY easy to cheaply convert...

I have no idea how the Dreamworks deal worked - but could it be possible that Universal is required to advertise Shrek in x % of its marketing? I know Marvel has to be used in a certain percentage. I figured there could be similar terms there...

Also worth pointing out that Spongebob is popping up a lot more in Universal's advertising ("Giggles are Universal" along with all the Superstar Parade and Character Breakfast ads).

 

[IzzyB]

I don't know, maybe...but it seems kinda odd to think people would buy glasses just to use them one time and then be done with it (assuming they're out-of-town vacationers of course). Also, imagine the amount of "cheating" that would go on in movie theaters if 3-D glasses were readily available without having to buy 3-D tickets...I feel like The Cineplex would kinda be hesitant about this.

Huh? What cheating could occur? A non-3D movie would look no different with glasses on. When you buy the 3D ticket you are buying to be in that theater that shows 3D, not the glasses. We kept our glasses after watching DM 2, if theaters did not want you to have outside glasses they would make you give them back. I mean sure, you could buy non-3D and hop into the 3D theater, but the theater does not lose that much money as you still had to buy a ticket and they don't have to pay for the glasses for you. Like I said, if this was a big deal, they wouldn't allow you to keep the glasses afterwards.

 

[TylerDurden]

Huh? What cheating could occur? A non-3D movie would look no different with glasses on. When you buy the 3D ticket you are buying to be in that theater that shows 3D, not the glasses. We kept our glasses after watching DM 2, if theaters did not want you to have outside glasses they would make you give them back. I mean sure, you could buy non-3D and hop into the 3D theater, but the theater does not lose that much money as you still had to buy a ticket and they don't have to pay for the glasses for you. Like I said, if this was a big deal, they wouldn't allow you to keep the glasses afterwards.

I don't think very many people keep the glasses, and if they do, they forget about them or lose them. The cheating I was talking about is what you said, buying a 2D movie but getting into a 3D one (which you can't do unless you have glasses with you). If you bought the glasses from Universal, you would be a lot less incline to lose them and not use them at the movies, at least that's my way of thinking.

- - - Updated - - -

I think we're stuck with Shrek for a few more years for many of the reasons you're citing... but I think its time is quickly coming. As Disneyhead noted, the minions are moving in as the big marketable "family" property at the Studios. I also agree it shouldn't be replaced by another 3D show, though I feel that may be what we get since there's already 2 theaters built in there that would be VERY easy to cheaply convert...

I have no idea how the Dreamworks deal worked - but could it be possible that Universal is required to advertise Shrek in x % of its marketing? I know Marvel has to be used in a certain percentage. I figured there could be similar terms there...

Also worth pointing out that Spongebob is popping up a lot more in Universal's advertising ("Giggles are Universal" along with all the Superstar Parade and Character Breakfast ads).

I also wonder about how Dreamworks licensing works, and I didn't know about the Marvel situation--interesting. That could very well be why Shrek is used prominently. I also have noticed the increase in Spongebob...it's all really interesting/confusing how it all works.

 

[martymcflyy85]

I totally agree that 3-D is being overdone. It used to be unique. Not anymore.

 

[TylerDurden]

I totally agree that 3-D is being overdone. It used to be unique. Not anymore.

I agree, shows like Shrek 4-D or Captain E-O, where the 3-D IS the attraction, have lost their luster. But how can you tell me that Transformers isn't unique? Certain rides don't use 3-D as a gimmick, but as a genuine way to tell the story. To me, 3-D itself isn't necessarily that exciting anymore, but the applications of it can still be very exciting. The advancements in 3-D that allow for Transformers to look as big and crystal clear as it does is very, very unique. The way that Spider-Man revolutionized the technology by developing "squenching", which allows you to view projected images in 3-D even while moving, is exciting. The rumors we've been hearing about 3-D helping the sets of Gringott's appear to be hundreds of feet tall and wide is also innovative.

If Universal was opening 3-D theater attractions, then yes I'd be bummed too. But they aren't...they're using 3-D technology to tell their stories and advance their attractions. I for one, imagine the rumored Kong ride being similar to Kong 360, but with a King Kong animatronic. Imagine a life-size King Kong, right before your eyes, interacting with a blend of real props and 3-D projections to create a completely innovative visceral experience. That would be amazing.

Without 3-D, there would be no way we could crash through buildings, fall from 300 foot towers, or fly through busy factories full of hundreds of minions. I don't mean to gush over 3-D, because I prefer the rides like Jaws and Kongfrontation where everything was physical and more believably real, but I hate that 3-D gets crudded on just because you can see 3-D movies in the local theaters nowadays. The advancements in the technology itself, as well as the applications of it, have made 3-D a pretty darn exciting element of theme park rides, and one that is crucial to making certain attractions possible.

 

[mebweb]

:iagree: If this were Facebook, I'd click the Like button.

 

[IzzyB]

I think we finally agree on something Tyler.

 

[Frogki]

:iagree: If this were Facebook, I'd click the Like button.

That's what :rep: is for :thumbs:

 

[TylerDurden]

I think we finally agree on something Tyler.

 

[IzzyB]

Don't worry, it didn't last long as I didn't agree with your HRRR comment

 

[TylerDurden]

Don't worry, it didn't last long as I didn't agree with your HRRR comment

Gooooooood its best to keep the status quo! :thumbs:

 

[ChrisFL]

I totally agree that 3-D is being overdone. It used to be unique. Not anymore.

"We won't be stooping to any cheap 3D tricks" - Kermit

"Did you say cheap 3D tricks?"- Fozzy

...that was in 1990

 

[Accio Butterbeer]

As long as there is a big King Kong AA I'll most likely be happy with the ride.

 

[AK-Jake]

So just to clarify, it sounds like the new Kong attraction is going to simply reuse the Disaster building? I was kind of hoping they'd raze the Disaster AND Beetlejuice buildings and build a new one (or new ones) for the new attractions.

 

[Disneyhead]

So just to clarify, it sounds like the new Kong attraction is going to simply reuse the Disaster building? I was kind of hoping they'd raze the Disaster AND Beetlejuice buildings and build a new one (or new ones) for the new attractions.

They could, but given that they just developed a Kong attraction in Hollywood using a VERY similar tram-like ride vehicle to Disaster!, I believe that they will be going with that.

 

[Cupcakes]

I imagine they'll be making a new building to house the queue line at least.

 

[darkridelover]

I have a feeling its going to be a completely new area. If I had to bet I would say Beetlejuice could easily be updated and expanded and moved to Fear Factor. Making tons of room for a Kong attraction done right.