As far as I recall Transformers worked fine for me during softs. Gringotts of course wasn't open but as we all know it still had problems post opening along with FJ. I'll be riding Kong the weekend after the media event so hopefully all goes well
Skull Island: Reign of Kong - General Discussion
- Thread starter Drew
- Start date
-
Signing up for a Premium Membership is a donation to help Inside Universal maintain costs and offers an ad-free experience on the forum. Learn more about it here.
I just dont do softs. Not my thing. Too risky. However the Hogwarts Express I did catch for softs (But Had no idea until I got off)As far as I recall Transformers worked fine for me during softs. Gringotts of course wasn't open but as we all know it still had problems post opening along with FJ. I'll be riding Kong the weekend after the media event so hopefully all goes well
- Jun 28, 2013
- 438
- 583
That's not really fair, when he's made it clear he's changed things when people have come close of figuring out who he is. I don't see a problem with what he's saying, and it reminds me of the worst of magic where people have sources who work for the company who will fight to the death over what they're told and go crazy when someone else who has inside info says something contrary. It becomes a battle of insiders. It might just be possible he has a different insight than others. I know the guy works with these people, not repeating info he's heard.
Well, yeah..
Teebin and Mad Dog aren't exactly wrong. I can't count the number of times I have seen a quoted post of his on those forums, just to go back and find the original and it had been so heavily edited after the fact that the information presented was completely different and contradicting what was originally posted.
And I'm sorry, but many of those "cut" Kong ride scenes seem very unrealistic. A high speed chance sequence through the forest? In all practical sets? Yes, the show building is big, but it's not THAT big that such a scene could be realistic, and they used pretty much every ounce of land that was available. Sounds to me he may have mistaken, or is trying to pass of, blue sky 'what if' ideas that were never in real consideration as realistic possible additions to the ride in an attempt to lambast it it for "cuts". I mean, we all knew about the "driver getting snatched" idea. Teebin had long ago confirmed that it was during initial "idea" phases but never made it past that. How could it have been cut due to budget if it never made it beyond the initial "idea" phase of the ride?
Last edited:
i tend to concur...they are reaching the point (please dont read more into this than it is) like Disney where they can affod to punt and rely on recent reputation....it couldnt go on this way 4ever but im appreciative
- Jun 28, 2013
- 438
- 583
Did you know wdw was supposed to have Pixie Hollow with an interactive Tinkerbell and dark ride? A Mysterious Island/Beastly Kingdom hybrid where Avatar now sits? Tron launch coaster where COP and the employee parking lot at Tomorrowland sits? To the simple addition of onboard audio for Space Mountain? All were planned but were cut. Things happen, change, as always, things are in flux, doesn't mean because they didn't happen they're untrue or the person who knows about it is making it up because... Of some imaginary vendetta?
Kong wasn't always planned for that plot, either, where space would not have been an issue. Even people here have said things were cut. Yes, he's changed things, like I said, when he got scared off. And typically, he adds what he's changed in the post and thread he's posted in.
Just don't listen to anything that you personally feel is improbable or overhyped. While I loved (what I saw) of the ride, there were SO many things on this website that were blown so out of proportion that it's hilarious to even think about. "Scariest ride of all time", "the tour guides will die", "many scare actors", "the mummies jump on your vehicles!!!" Blah blah and blaaaahhh. This is a thing that will happen time and time again with upcoming rides. Fiction is far more interesting than fact, especially when we don't know which is which
I'm aware of all those thing thanks, and they are different beasts all together, and make sense within the constraints of their building locations (or rather, there possibly building locations). I'm talking specifically about this attraction and reality of those "cuts" mentioned, as some (like the high speed chase) make absolutely zero sense as a realistic planned addition to the ride given the size of the area. And he clearly lists those as cuts made to the ride as we see it now and planned in its current location, not the previous iteration planned in Disaster!, which he addressed in a later post.
I'm not saying cuts were not made, cuts are always made in amusement attractions. All I'm saying is he rather obviously trying to overplay the idea of "cuts" by bringing up things that may have never been real concepts actually considered for the final iteration for the ride aside from the initial "blue sky" phase (in which Creative teams usually throw everything and the kitchen sink at the wall) as a way to bash the ride.
He has always looked and spoken down at Universal, and when he make remarks like the ones made in that post (especially about the Creative team) that I know personally and first hand are outright false, it makes me question his intentions and length of his insider info, at least on the Universal front.
If any of what why lightbulb said was true, then I completely agree with him.
I too had an issue with the first 'scene'...it feels very rushed and not too well put together. I also have a problem with the lack of greenery/vines and whatnot surrounding the screen/door areas. This and the black walls could easily have been touched up with some plant life to really immerse the riders.
Oh, and sitting on the left hand side of the vehicle sucks. You experience so little compared to the right hand side. Maybe a Kong head peeking around the corner of the first scene or some more bats or Dino's or something would have helped balance that side out. I just honestly felt the right side was a more complete experience.
I too had an issue with the first 'scene'...it feels very rushed and not too well put together. I also have a problem with the lack of greenery/vines and whatnot surrounding the screen/door areas. This and the black walls could easily have been touched up with some plant life to really immerse the riders.
Oh, and sitting on the left hand side of the vehicle sucks. You experience so little compared to the right hand side. Maybe a Kong head peeking around the corner of the first scene or some more bats or Dino's or something would have helped balance that side out. I just honestly felt the right side was a more complete experience.
- Jun 28, 2013
- 438
- 583
What I'm saying is you're choosing not to believe him, it doesn't make what he said untrue, and he was VERY proud of his work on FJ and how UNI was giving it to Disney. He's been FAR AND AWAY harder on Disney than UNI.
I have not experienced Kong, but I can say it looks like a fun ride and a ride IOA needs. But if I'm being honest, since the softs started and I have a good idea what it's about, it's not a ride that makes me want to visit IOA anymore than I did. And I could totally change my mind when I do ride it!... But I didn't buy into the hype, and a lot of that had to do with the good people here on OU who made it clear to temper expectations. But I remember people bragging that Kong would "drink Avatar's milkshake" early on when the plans were obviously bigger.
Last edited:
Actually, I started a thread (that got deleted) specifically stating Flight of Passage is going to school Universal on how to use 3D screens. The logic was that they are opening a year apart so won't be competing with each other. I, on the other hand, think that they are 2 huge 3D screen based attractions opening 12 miles apart within a year of each other. And is a better comparison than what Fallon or F&F will offer to take on FoP.
But I don't remember anyone saying Kong would drink Avatar's milkshake. I do remembering people saying that Avatar would never get built.
- Jun 28, 2013
- 438
- 583
The milkshake comment stuck in my head. It could have been on the UNI sub forum of magic.
- May 26, 2012
- 1,946
- 2,689
Having ridden it today without the motion base working I can tell you it makes a world of difference. Your brain is getting these visual cues you are moving, but your inner is is disagreeing. But my friends did freak out in scene one with the bats. "How did they get them into the truck?" They didn't even realize that was still part of the 3D
Ok so that comment from whylightbulb about the practical RV chase sounds like BS (I have zero clue how they would make that work with these vehicles and how they would even have the space!), but I gotta ask @Teebin about this specifically: he mentions an RV scene where the driver (or hell, someone) gets nabbed. And this particular aspect in many, many forms has been part of rumors for almost the entire life of this attraction's construction. I even recall CoasterRadio discussing it way back in January of 2015 because they heard about the idea so much (this was mostly on the predication that an AA or moving prop would lower and snag another AA or actual human actor away), so I gotta ask if this was ever actually part of the attraction's development in any shape or form? It seems like this aspect got brought up particularly a lot just to be blue sky rumors and not seriously looked at.
Keep in mind: I'm not directly asking about exactly what lightbulb said, but just the general idea of it.
Keep in mind: I'm not directly asking about exactly what lightbulb said, but just the general idea of it.
"Descope" is part of every design process.
I've never understood complaints about budgets by designers. It is literally part of the process of you're not just working on theoretical projects in school. I was trained that the mark of a good designer is how they work creatively within a budget to deliver amazing results.
But there's this whole sect of designers - especially in the theme park realm - who pitch a fit if they can't have authentic spun gold laced with earwig piss. The good designer uses duct tape because it works and won't harm the show (and by golly designs things to hide it if needed).
And how the ones who complain and can't stay under budget (WDI) or can't deliver results (WDI but sometimes UC) remain employed with their lucrative incomes just baffles me.
I've never understood complaints about budgets by designers. It is literally part of the process of you're not just working on theoretical projects in school. I was trained that the mark of a good designer is how they work creatively within a budget to deliver amazing results.
But there's this whole sect of designers - especially in the theme park realm - who pitch a fit if they can't have authentic spun gold laced with earwig piss. The good designer uses duct tape because it works and won't harm the show (and by golly designs things to hide it if needed).
And how the ones who complain and can't stay under budget (WDI) or can't deliver results (WDI but sometimes UC) remain employed with their lucrative incomes just baffles me.
And to tell you a story of the two worlds and the very real struggle..
I was in grad school for theatrical design. I was assigned a show, which had a budget and designers and everything assigned before there was a script chosen. So whatever artistically needed to be done needed to fit whatever the script called for and had to work. Not a perfect scenario.
Scenery usually has a much larger budget than costuming, which is what they had budgeted.
The script ended up calling for a million costume changes while allowing for minimal scenery. I was the scenic designer. I slashed my set to a minimal - but beautiful - design. I gave my budget to costuming.
This was unheard of. My advisor at the school was a Yale alumni and West End designer. She was livid. She said I was being ridiculous and that I should use all the budget given to me and that the budget I had was already too low and if I didn't use the funds then costuming would just waste it.. Yadda yadda.
So those completely asinine people exist in powerful design positions. And they teach others to act like that. It's how we've ended up where we are.
I was in grad school for theatrical design. I was assigned a show, which had a budget and designers and everything assigned before there was a script chosen. So whatever artistically needed to be done needed to fit whatever the script called for and had to work. Not a perfect scenario.
Scenery usually has a much larger budget than costuming, which is what they had budgeted.
The script ended up calling for a million costume changes while allowing for minimal scenery. I was the scenic designer. I slashed my set to a minimal - but beautiful - design. I gave my budget to costuming.
This was unheard of. My advisor at the school was a Yale alumni and West End designer. She was livid. She said I was being ridiculous and that I should use all the budget given to me and that the budget I had was already too low and if I didn't use the funds then costuming would just waste it.. Yadda yadda.
So those completely asinine people exist in powerful design positions. And they teach others to act like that. It's how we've ended up where we are.
