It is far worse in script form. I was handed the shooting script a few years ago (before Hollywood) and I thought it was a joke.
Fast & Furious: Supercharged - General Discussion
- Thread starter Brian G.
- 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.
It is far worse in script form. I was handed the shooting script a few years ago (before Hollywood) and I thought it was a joke.
I loved Disaster when it was in proper working order. It's a shame that everything fell apart in the end. That's the problem with those types of attractions. The shelve life is limited. They ultimately die of old age & fall apart.
The trains weren't working properly, the automatic doors wouldn't work even after attempted repairs. A large number of the effects & set pieces in the final scene either didn't work anymore or only worked sporadically. Repair costs were so huge that they were prohibitive, according to various insiders.
As probably the only F&F fan here….I'm at least excited to see the film cars in the queue...
I think there's lots of F&F fans here. They're just disappointed in what's coming.
I like your signature, especially the glum looking Mickey.
I mean, the Disaster! ride system (formerly Earthquake) had been around since opening day, so the shelf-life obviously isn't too short
- May 26, 2012
- 1,941
- 2,682
I worked there at the end. I used to joke when you dispatched the train, there was only a 50% chance it would come back. In reality, the first day I learned how evacuations work before I learned anything else because the train kept going down
25 years is nothing for a Disney attraction. That's the ages of their newer attractions.I mean, the Disaster! ride system (formerly Earthquake) had been around since opening day, so the shelf-life obviously isn't too short
Yeah but Universal has only been open for 26 years. And Disney has been open far longer than Universal.25 years is nothing for a Disney attraction. That's the ages of their newer attractions.
If anything, the reason that Disaster got into such bad shape was lack of ny true refurbishment for real maintenance. The dark years probably didn't do the attraction any good from a maintenance stand-point either.
You miss my point. That type of attraction (Earthquake/Disaster), like the physical elements in DHS's former Backlot Tour sections & effects, have a tendency to degrade quicker than a typical theme park attraction. Twister was in the same boat with special physical effects that degrade over time due to the unusual stresses put on them . The two shows on Backlot Tour weren't too pretty at the end either. Thus the shorter shelf life for attractions of that nature. Whereas many of Disney's theme park attractions have been around for a long time, even their newer attractions are the same age as Disaster was.
Catastrophe Canyon and the tank portion (while VERY DATED) were not by any means in bad shape. One of the supposed reasons Disney closed it so early was to save the costs they would spend to keep the Canyon scene looking good and performing each and every day.You miss my point. That type of attraction (Earthquake/Disaster), like the physical elements in DHS's former Backlot Tour sections & effects, have a tendency to degrade quicker than a typical theme park attraction. Twister was in the same boat with special physical effects that degrade over time due to the unusual stresses put on them . The two shows on Backlot Tour weren't too pretty at the end either. Thus the shorter shelf life for attractions of that nature. Whereas many of Disney's theme park attractions have been around for a long time, even their newer attractions are the same age as Disaster was.
Which does go back to your point about the type of attraction in a way I guess. They are certainly harder to maintain, but I also think companies should be willing to spend the money. Although I agree that a lot of those attractions from the late 80's, early 90's are going away.
Yep, those huge costs to keep those types of attractions going are probably some of the reasons they're fast disappearing. Jaws, in a way, was in that same boat. And those special effects have to put a lot of stress on components.I would imagine that Screen based attractions are a lot cheaper to maintain.
They are also cheaper (and faster) to build. That's in part why Universal is able to crank out rides at such a rapid pace. The other part is having a CEO that believes in the parks as a profit driver.
Think we're gonna need a bigger boat.
Except the only rides that are totally screens are Despicable Me, Shrek, and Simpsons. All the others contain physical sets blended in. It's more the latter than the former. I think it's been said on here that the projection technology they use is actually very expensive. Then you have to consider syncing everything perfectly.
Not as easy as it seems.
- Jun 10, 2014
- 875
- 620
