King Kong Speculation Thread

[mike.marty]

Jaws was the best at night, it was always an HHN must for me!

 

[Cole]

Seems like we are all kinds of disagreeing about Jaws today :rofl:

The skippers were hit or miss, some could stay in the moment but others reminded me of Arnold Schwarzenegger's first movie where he was saying syllables put together that sounded like English but you could tell there was no meaning behind the words.

The queue and scenery at the old Kongfrontation were quite amazing for the time they came out, Jaws had great scenery too.

LOL that was the best way to put the skippers. Out of the three times I went on it I had one good skipper who was Patrick from attractions magazine. He was awesome and it was just cool to see someone I watch on YouTube in person performing in front of me. I really REALLY loved the amity theming on the ride, creepy but it felt like there was a world in this tiny ride, since I was born and raised near the beach it felt like home to me. I didn't like the theming around it though because of the god damn carnival games and their barkers. I didn't hate the jaws ride just found it to be a mixed bag. Love parts but hate others. I don't really miss it either because diagon is the Jesus of theme park lands. I'll get my jaws fix by watching the movie again

- - - Updated - - -

What made the old Kong ride so great is that it was like a lot of the classic Disney rides....slow and atmospheric. Everything today seems like it has to be fast and frenetic and I guess they think screens are the only way to do that. I hope that eventually they realize that slow and atmospheric is just as cool and a great way to include the entire family. Sets give you the feeling of actually being there, as opposed to feeling like you just watched something on a tv.

I do miss slow universal rides, let's hope kidzone introduces more

 

[Clive]

JAWS and Kongfrontation came from a simpler time where every attraction didn't have to have constant sensory bombardment and unnecessary thrill elements. They were truly immersive experiences that first enveloped you in a fully realized world (Amity, NYC) before plunging you straight into an iconic encounter with some of film's greatest beasts. They're the type of rides we will never see built again, and it's why I'm so desperate to cling on to ET - the last one standing.

I'm sure the new KONG ride will be a good time and a great addition to the park, but yet another "3D screen experience" isn't exactly enticing to me (go ahead, bash me on Twitter, whatever). I prefer fully realized sets, tangible effects and animatronics to 3D imagery - its a format that Spider-Man mastered (and Gringotts may take in a new, interesting direction), but other than that, I think the ride type has peaked and there's no point in continuing it, or else the spark of the illusion will become even more diluted than it already has (does Transformers really have the WOW impact that Spider-Man had when it premiered)?

 

[Cole]

JAWS and Kongfrontation came from a simpler time where every attraction didn't have to have constant sensory bombardment and unnecessary thrill elements. They were truly immersive experiences that first enveloped you in a fully realized world (Amity, NYC) before plunging you straight into an iconic encounter with some of film's greatest beasts. They're the type of rides we will never see built again, and it's why I'm so desperate to cling on to ET - the last one standing.

I'm sure the new KONG ride will be a good time and a great addition to the park, but yet another "3D screen experience" isn't exactly enticing to me (go ahead, bash me on Twitter, whatever). I prefer fully realized sets, tangible effects and animatronics to 3D imagery - its a format that Spider-Man mastered (and Gringotts may take in a new, interesting direction), but other than that, I think the ride type has peaked and there's no point in continuing it, or else the spark of the illusion will become even more diluted than it already has (does Transformers really have the WOW impact that Spider-Man had when it premiered)?

Well with the 360 3D tech it'll definitely stand out against Spider-Man and gringotts. I agree that the 3D is slowly and surely becoming annoying but if they find new and creative ways to do it then I'm cool

 

[rhino4evr]

I do prefer the old school atmospheric rides of yesteryear. However, I feel we are a dying breed. Most people want bigger/dumber/and faster these days. It's just our culture. Blockbuster Movies now a days are nothing but CGI fests and videogame boss battles. Is there really any need for "atmosphere" in Transformers when the movie itself lacks atmosphere?

I was really excited when I heard GB would have AA inside. I was hoping for some sort of giant Dragon AA, but we had to settle for the goblin tellers. Which in all honesty isn't a terrible trade off. Just a little less grand then I was expecting.

I was really hopeful for the Avatar boat ride that could have had real state of the art AA throughout the Ride. But I hear that may have been nixed

 

[natespf]

I feel the same way about rides and movies. But after they do all they can for wow factor with CGI, they'll need to find more ways to combine it with practical effects which give a stronger emotional connection.

 

[RonaldsModernLife]

I think we all want this ride to be more real sets than screens, I know I want that. I will always pick AA's and real sets over screens. Sad thing is, screens is the future of theme park attractions. I'm not looking forward to a time when every dark ride requires glasses, but it's cheaper to build and has way less maintenance and the general public doesn't seem to mind. Universal and Disney would rather build screen based rides than real sets, and I don't think that's going to change anytime soon.

 

[Cole]

Well when it comes to universal I want to feel like I'm in a movie and if that revolves around non stop action then I'm more than fine with that. I'm sorry but I love rides like transformers and Spider-man because I feel like I'm in this giant amazing battle sequence that blows my mind and if that has 3D in it then so be it, if it enhances the experience then I welcome it. The problem is universal doesn't know when to stop the action. They've built so many rides based on pure adrenaline that I'm afraid they don't know how to stop. Even cat in the hat has action in it. Universal now is kinda like the movie 1941. The action sequences are incredible and blow you away but after a while it gets old and you just want a break from the non stop destruction and battles. That's why I rely so much on this kidzone expansion. I don't care if it's a Dora the explorer attraction but as long as I can sit down and enjoy something without constant effects and BOOMS!!! Then I'll be happy. Universal needs one calm ride for every 2 or so exciting rides to balance and by the looks of it I don't think that'll ever happen

 

[Milla4Prez66]

I might be in the minority that isn't that crazy over AAs. They can be cool (The Goblins for the Gringotts queue) but they are expensive to maintain and just aren't that impressive anymore. ET's AAs look horrible. I can agree 3D might be a bit much, but remember that IOA currently only has one 3D attraction so that park isn't suffering from an overload of it. There are so many more things you can do with screen based attractions, being able to combine real life sets and effects with screens makes the most impressive new rides of today. There is still a place for AAs, but entire rides being full of them are a dying breed.

 

[Clive]

Meanwhile at the Studios, we have 5 3D attractions - and counting! 7 across the resort (with Kong) just seems too high.

Expensive to maintain? Who gives a crap? That's the company's problem, not yours. I'm so sick of excusing corporate decision making because it makes monetary sense for them - demand more, not less, don't justify their cost cutting measures by being over reliant on screens. Bad AAs will never be impressive, but good AAs have proven to stand the test of time - see The Wicked Witch, Benjamin Franklin and Mark Twain, SIR/Sarge, T-Rex, etc... Nothing will ever compare to a physical, tangible creature in front of you, no matter how great the 3D is or how well it's hidden in the set.

Someone recently made a great comparison between Universal's screen obsession and the CGI craziness of the late 90s, early 2000s. Suddenly we had the technology to literally make anything happen on the screen via CGI, just as we can now create virtually any environment with any special effect if we envelop you with 3D screens. But just because you can, doesn't mean you should... the mind and the rider gets a whole lot more out of a complicated series of effects executed in different ways (this is why Jurassic Park still holds up, SFX-wise, today, ditto with Haunted Mansion in the attraction medium) than a bunch of "crazy things" happening clearly under the guise of a 3D screen.

Again, I believe Spider-Man represents the peak of the format. Gringotts may prove to be the exception given its crazy new ride system - but even then, I think the praise should be lavished on the system, not the show elements, as have some here and elsewhere have lamented (though we will see).

Universal needs to be reminded to exercise restraint when designing its attractions. Just because you can show a full-on battle of Kong fighting three enormous dinosaurs in front of you in 4K 3D, doesn't mean you should. The mind numbs to that after a while and it ceases to be exciting, the mind no longer engaged in a disbelief of "how did they do that!?" You're just watching a movie with some motion to match. Sometimes a ride through a fully-realized jungle, with some brief animatronic encounters with a live T-Rex before encountering Kong in the aftermath of the fight, will be far more effective... the power of suggestion shouldn't be forgotten.

 

[Milla4Prez66]

Meanwhile at the Studios, we have 5 3D attractions - and counting! 7 across the resort (with Kong) just seems too high.

Expensive to maintain? Who gives a crap? That's the company's problem, not yours. I'm so sick of excusing corporate decision making because it makes monetary sense for them - demand more, not less, don't justify their cost cutting measures by being over reliant on screens. Bad AAs will never be impressive, but good AAs have proven to stand the test of time - see The Wicked Witch, Benjamin Franklin and Mark Twain, SIR/Sarge, T-Rex, etc... Nothing will ever compare to a physical, tangible creature in front of you, no matter how great the 3D is or how well it's hidden in the set.

It may not be my money but money being tied into maintaining AAs takes away from budgets in creating other things. We all like to rag on Disney for not building like Universal is but did you think that if maybe they didn't have to spend so much to maintain what they already have, they could have the free money to make new things? Considering the maintenance costs for rides like Kongfrontation and Jaws hurt Universal for years, it certainly is a factor beyond a company's bottom line.

We can go on about screens and 3D not being as good as something real, but a big 'ol robot that barely moves isn't as majestic and amazing as we like to make it out to be. There is only so much we can really do with AAs and giant real life sets. AAs get worn down and rough with time. ET has aged horribly IMO and I even think the JPRA is showing some serious age. I'm not anti-AA, but I really don't think they are as amazing as some make them out to be. If done right they can be cool, but on such a massive scale they become problems *cough*discoyeti*cough*.

 

[Lucky Planet]

If you thought Jaws was boring you wouldnt have liked Kong...pretty much the same type of ride experience.

Well, Haunted Mansion and Spaceship Earth are pretty slow but they are two of my most favorite rides. I don't mind slow when it is dark and awesome.

Jaws, I never liked the scenery that much (nothing about it was that amazing for me) and the shark was hard to see unless you were sitting at the edge.

But I would have loved to see the sets on King Kong and I would have loved to see the giant gorilla. That would be the difference between Jaws and KK, that you actually got see the creature right? from the pics or videos I saw you really got to see the animatronic,

Just seeing something so big would have been amazing for me. I guess It's because I have never seen anything like it. That's why I asked about the comparison to the Yeti.

I Love seeing big scary creatures like that.

 

[Nick]

Universal needs to be reminded to exercise restraint when designing its attractions. Just because you can show a full-on battle of Kong fighting three enormous dinosaurs in front of you in 4K 3D, doesn't mean you should. The mind numbs to that after a while and it ceases to be exciting, the mind no longer engaged in a disbelief of "how did they do that!?" You're just watching a movie with some motion to match. Sometimes a ride through a fully-realized jungle, with some brief animatronic encounters with a live T-Rex before encountering Kong in the aftermath of the fight, will be far more effective... the power of suggestion shouldn't be forgotten.

This is precisely why I believe that ET is still one of the most awe-inspiring attractions on property still. You go from attraction to attraction seeing screen after screen that after awhile the power of illusion is lost and, as you said, you are no longer left in disbelief. Sure the attractions are exciting, but doing the same thing all day is a bit mind-numbing. You need variation in rides in order to please everyone (this goes for Disney too).

At this point though, 3D action rides are becoming about as repetitive as omni-mover/classic dark ride style attractions are at Disney.

 

[Oscar]

Meanwhile at the Studios, we have 5 3D attractions - and counting! 7 across the resort (with Kong) just seems too high.

Expensive to maintain? Who gives a crap? That's the company's problem, not yours. I'm so sick of excusing corporate decision making because it makes monetary sense for them - demand more, not less, don't justify their cost cutting measures by being over reliant on screens. Bad AAs will never be impressive, but good AAs have proven to stand the test of time - see The Wicked Witch, Benjamin Franklin and Mark Twain, SIR/Sarge, T-Rex, etc... Nothing will ever compare to a physical, tangible creature in front of you, no matter how great the 3D is or how well it's hidden in the set.

Someone recently made a great comparison between Universal's screen obsession and the CGI craziness of the late 90s, early 2000s. Suddenly we had the technology to literally make anything happen on the screen via CGI, just as we can now create virtually any environment with any special effect if we envelop you with 3D screens. But just because you can, doesn't mean you should... the mind and the rider gets a whole lot more out of a complicated series of effects executed in different ways (this is why Jurassic Park still holds up, SFX-wise, today, ditto with Haunted Mansion in the attraction medium) than a bunch of "crazy things" happening clearly under the guise of a 3D screen.

Again, I believe Spider-Man represents the peak of the format. Gringotts may prove to be the exception given its crazy new ride system - but even then, I think the praise should be lavished on the system, not the show elements, as have some here and elsewhere have lamented (though we will see).

Universal needs to be reminded to exercise restraint when designing its attractions. Just because you can show a full-on battle of Kong fighting three enormous dinosaurs in front of you in 4K 3D, doesn't mean you should. The mind numbs to that after a while and it ceases to be exciting, the mind no longer engaged in a disbelief of "how did they do that!?" You're just watching a movie with some motion to match. Sometimes a ride through a fully-realized jungle, with some brief animatronic encounters with a live T-Rex before encountering Kong in the aftermath of the fight, will be far more effective... the power of suggestion shouldn't be forgotten.

Great Post :thumbs:

 

[natespf]

Now I am not saying CGI isn't here to stay, but what I am saying is practical effects are not going to be gone for good. Most good blockbusters and E tickets invent some new technique or software/hardware to outdo everyone else in wow factor. It will not be long before everything that can be done in the computer has been done, and even the general audiences get desensitized to it all. After it becomes just copy and paste this, this, and this visual effect they will need to find new ways to bring in practical special effects to keep audiences interested.

 

[Cole]

Well AAs are definitely more exciting than screens but both have the problem of getting dated. Like look at the cat in the hats AAs, not very impressive as they once were. And look at the Simpsons ride, not as impressive as it once was. Technology keeps getting better and better and in the theme park world that's kind of a bad thing. Gringotts might be the biggest ride with screen tech now but in 20 years it might look like s***. Same with 7 dwarfs. Sure dwarfs would age slower than gringotts but still it's a plague. My final point is there are some things you can only do with AAs and some things you can only do with screens. If universal wants to combine the 2 to make a to make an amazing experience then I have no complaints that's fine by me

 

[rhino4evr]

I'd argue that the practical effects of The Haunted Mansion are much more awe inducing to me then the CGI Movie effects of Spiderman. However, I realize I am a bit older and my tastes just may be different. It's far more impressive to me when I see a practical and mechanical special effect opposed to something that was done on a computer screen. AA seem like much more of an artform to me. As someone else said, CGI actually gets dated just as quickly (if not more) as Technology gets better. That first potter film has terrible CGI.

 

[Cole]

I'd argue that the practical effects of The Haunted Mansion are much more awe inducing to me then the CGI Movie effects of Spiderman. However, I realize I am a bit older and my tastes just may be different. It's far more impressive to me when I see a practical and mechanical special effect opposed to something that was done on a computer screen. AA seem like much more of an artform to me. As someone else said, CGI actually gets dated just as quickly (if not more) as Technology gets better. That first potter film has terrible CGI.

I'd argue potter 1-3 has bad CGI. I definitely agree with your HM point. The thing is that when you are in a space like that where literally everything is themed and immersive. But screen or not isn't that what makes a theme park? If a ride can take me for full immersion like transformers I'm impressed but if something distracts me and completely breaks the immersion then it's lame. Look at the CGI scene (10th time bringing this up) in cat in the hat. You look at that and go "ouch" and it takes you out of it all. I don't think it's screens or AAs are the problems here. It's the immersion into the world your going to, the effects just help that experience

 

[natespf]

I'd argue that the practical effects of The Haunted Mansion are much more awe inducing to me then the CGI Movie effects of Spiderman. However, I realize I am a bit older and my tastes just may be different. It's far more impressive to me when I see a practical and mechanical special effect opposed to something that was done on a computer screen. AA seem like much more of an artform to me. As someone else said, CGI actually gets dated just as quickly (if not more) as Technology gets better. That first potter film has terrible CGI.

Yes, I would argue it does get dated faster. If today we were to make the most amazing computer animation and AA possible, in 20 years the animation would look like garbage but the AA would still be impressive.

 

[Cole]

Yes, I would argue it does get dated faster. If today we were to make the most amazing computer animation and AA possible, in 20 years the animation would look like garbage but the AA would still be impressive.

I wouldn't say that, AAs age as well (JP, Most of fantasy land, every Epcot AA)