Inside Universal Forums

Welcome to the Inside Universal Forums! Register a free account today to become a member. Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members and unlock our forums features!

  • 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.

Fast & Furious: Supercharged - General Discussion

Who is the person who has had final say on the raft of atrocious attractions of late?

With Disney, you always have that one figure you can go all the way back to , be it a decade long drought in not investing in new attractions, or the success of Pandora, the cheapness of Toy Story Land, and the upcoming Star Wars Land - Bib Iger.

With Universal, and i assume Comcast, who is making these decisions?

Who is the head honcho who is allowing them to hurt the Universal parks, ultimately wasting money? Fast Furious is not a one off. Fallon was equally as poor and lazy. Kong was another lazy screen attraction. I refuse to believe the same person (or people) who green lit Harry Potter Lands are the same people in charge of these raft of disasters.

Who was the one who said 'Universal Studios Orlando will get this horrendous Fast N Furious attraction' ?

Anyone have names? Is it a commitee? Whoever they are, they really have no place in the theme park business.
It's not an individual. A group of people greenlight projects. You can blame Bob Iger, but as the head of the The Walt Disney Company, he's not greenlighting everything in each park.

And to say the three rides you mentioned "hurt" Universal is a matter of opinion. The GSATs, the guests satisfaction numbers that indicate how guests feel about specific attractions, are high for Kong and Fallon. If GSATs are high, then they don't "hurt" the park.

But, the important thing to know is that most of the creative team that created Potter were involved in F&F, Kong, and Fallon.
 
It's not an individual. A group of people greenlight projects. You can blame Bob Iger, but as the head of the The Walt Disney Company, he's not greenlighting everything in each park.

And to say the three rides you mentioned "hurt" Universal is a matter of opinion. The GSATs, the guests satisfaction numbers that indicate how guests feel about specific attractions, are high for Kong and Fallon. If GSATs are high, then they don't "hurt" the park.

But, the important thing to know is that most of the creative team that created Potter were involved in F&F, Kong, and Fallon.

Disagree. Whilst i am aware Iger isn't physically sitting there over seeing every little project or involved in the creative process, he is however involved in every major authorisation. Star Wars, Toy Story, Pandora could not have gone ahead if he wasn't in agreement for them to go ahead.
 
Disagree. Whilst i am aware Iger isn't physically sitting there over seeing every little project or involved in the creative process, he is however involved in every major authorisation. Star Wars, Toy Story, Pandora could not have gone ahead if he wasn't in agreement for them to go ahead.
Does he also approve the Marvel phases?

What about every show on ABC, Freeform, and ESPN?

Is he telling people he doesn't like the design of that Frozen lunchbox?


He provides vision. Sure, it was his idea to bring in Avatar for an attraction at Hollywood Studios. But the parks division figured out they should move it to AK and increase the scale. Bob Iger bought LucasArts/Star Wars and Pixar as predominately movie acquisitions and said they would be in the parks. The parks division determined the scale of the respective lands. Any of those could have failed had Imagineering and the Parks not done a good job. None of that is on Bob.
 
Does he also approve the Marvel phases?

What about every show on ABC, Freeform, and ESPN?

Is he telling people he doesn't like the design of that Frozen lunchbox?


He provides vision. Sure, it was his idea to bring in Avatar for an attraction at Hollywood Studios. But the parks division figured out they should move it to AK and increase the scale. Bob Iger bought LucasArts/Star Wars and Pixar as predominately movie acquisitions and said they would be in the parks. The parks division determined the scale of the respective lands. Any of those could have failed had Imagineering and the Parks not done a good job. None of that is on Bob.

Okay then if it's not the CEO'S of Comcast/Universal ... who then is to blame for Fast N Furious? Who thought it would be a good idea and was the head honcho?

If there is no accountability the mistakes will repeat.
 
To be honest, I think you aren't getting the point that things have to be done by multiple individuals. It isn't strictly one "Head Honcho", but multiple people.

If we want to be specific, some of the creative calls may be to ask are more from Universal Creative Orlando (as I believe they were the ones who originally worked on the attraction versions for Hollywood [as that was a tram simulation that opened up in 2015] and Orlando if I'm not mistaken).
 
To be honest, I think you aren't getting the point that things have to be done by multiple individuals. It isn't strictly one "Head Honcho", but multiple people.

If we want to be specific, some of the creative calls may be to ask are more from Universal Creative Orlando (as I believe they were the ones who originally worked on the attraction versions for Hollywood [as that was a tram simulation that opened up in 2015] and Orlando if I'm not mistaken).

If you are constantly going to 'blame everyone' then the mistakes will be repeated in the future.

There needs to be accountability. Not just a small thing, as a crappy ride, but it's actually wasted millions of dollars.
 
There is leadership in Universal Creative that is known for prioritizing screen-based media to a fault. (It's also an industry-wide trend.)

I could name names - it's well-known, and the information isn't hard to find if you look - but to what end? Sure, accountability is great in an ideal world, but no one on this board is going to be rendering "accountability" on any Universal executive, and to suggest otherwise is overly combative (and certainly not constructive).
 
Mark Woodbury. And Bill Davis (president of UOR) should also be held responsible.

However, keep in mind that UOR's attendance numbers are rising, profit is going up, this despite a few lackluster rides/guest satisfaction surveys. It would be surprising if a company didn't have a few stinkers here and there. I should hope that the F&F travesty is a good learning experience for them, and they'll work on preventing the repeating of their mistakes.

The only ones I expect to have their job on the line are the team members on Creative who are not capable of developing a ride which doesn't involve mainly screens.
Creative TM: "Mark, I have a great idea for a ride! First, guests grab their 3D glasses"
Mark Woodbury: "You're fired."

OK maybe not, but one can hope. >:)
 
Last edited:
I searched "Mad Max" and didn't find anything on these forums, so I thought I'd throw this idea out there...

I would personally prefer this ride to be rebranded as Mad Max. Make it super over the top, including all of the following:
  • Max (Tom Hardy) tied to the front of a vehicle (who eventually escapes and kills all the baddies)
  • Vehicle with war drummers on back and guitar guy on front (with flames shooting out of the guitar, of course)
  • Spear throwers
  • Lots of explosions
  • Crazy post-apocalyptic cultists shouting "WITNESS ME"

But back to reality: the IP is owned by WB (which just means it'll cost more), the franchise is in limbo (though they apparently might make a sequel to Fury Road, but not confirmed yet), and it's very R rated so maybe not the best for a family friendly theme park.

 
There's also the element of artistic risk. Creators don't start designing something with the intent of it being bad. They make decisions on what they hope guests will enjoy and what will work best for their vision. On paper, Fast and the Furious works extremely well as a screen based attraction. Screens allow you to use celebrities, simulate speed, create scale and depth, and present something "chaotic" without complicated mechanics the require extensive maintenance costs. Flight of Passage, Back to the Future, Spiderman, and Transformers all work as a screens for the same reasons Fast and the Furious works as a screen.

A "party bus" ride vehicle fits the world of F&F narratively and can help increase capacity. Leveraging the loop with screens saves space and prevents the complicated build of going over the Hogwarts Express. Cheesy writing and over the top ridiculous fit the F&F production. Replacing an expensive, aging, less popular attraction with the franchise and intended ride system makes financial sense, and fits the thematic space of San Francisco.

Basically, each independent decision makes logical, creative, and operational sense. Sometimes though, each "right" decision just comes together in the wrong way. It's easy to armchair imagineer those failures, but chances are, if you were in the same position, you would have made the same decisions.

Not too long ago I read an interview with a film director who made a "bad movie" (I don't remember who it was or which movie they were talking about). They were asked, "How does this happen?" The answer was enlightening, and amounted to - "There are so many moving parts in a production, and every decision is made in order to achieve something that has never been seen before. We want it to be good. But sometimes, for whatever reason, it just isn't. And there's no way to tell if it's good or not until you start seeing the final edit come together."

Frankly, I think that's what happened with F&F. All the independent decisions were "correct." They just didn't come together. And with theme park attractions, like movies, sometimes you can't tell if something is good or not until it's too late.
 
There's also the element of artistic risk. Creators don't start designing something with the intent of it being bad. They make decisions on what they hope guests will enjoy and what will work best for their vision. On paper, Fast and the Furious works extremely well as a screen based attraction. Screens allow you to use celebrities, simulate speed, create scale and depth, and present something "chaotic" without complicated mechanics the require extensive maintenance costs. Flight of Passage, Back to the Future, Spiderman, and Transformers all work as a screens for the same reasons Fast and the Furious works as a screen.

A "party bus" ride vehicle fits the world of F&F narratively and can help increase capacity. Leveraging the loop with screens saves space and prevents the complicated build of going over the Hogwarts Express. Cheesy writing and over the top ridiculous fit the F&F production. Replacing an expensive, aging, less popular attraction with the franchise and intended ride system makes financial sense, and fits the thematic space of San Francisco.

Basically, each independent decision makes logical, creative, and operational sense. Sometimes though, each "right" decision just comes together in the wrong way. It's easy to armchair imagineer those failures, but chances are, if you were in the same position, you would have made the same decisions.

Not too long ago I read an interview with a film director who made a "bad movie" (I don't remember who it was or which movie they were talking about). They were asked, "How does this happen?" The answer was enlightening, and amounted to - "There are so many moving parts in a production, and every decision is made in order to achieve something that has never been seen before. We want it to be good. But sometimes, for whatever reason, it just isn't. And there's no way to tell if it's good or not until you start seeing the final edit come together."

Frankly, I think that's what happened with F&F. All the independent decisions were "correct." They just didn't come together. And with theme park attractions, like movies, sometimes you can't tell if something is good or not until it's too late.

All of this is one hundred percent true in filmmaking and theme park development/production, two fields that have a tremendous amount of overlap (having now worked in both). I've seen projects with great talent, a decent budget, and good ideas end up shockingly mediocre - less than the sum of its parts. And of course, sometimes the opposite happens.

That said... there is still some blame in Orlando pushing ahead with this attraction after the Hollywood version debuted to dreadful reviews and reactions. They had ample time to course correct and chose not to. That decision bears more scrutiny, in my mind.
 
There's also the element of artistic risk. Creators don't start designing something with the intent of it being bad. They make decisions on what they hope guests will enjoy and what will work best for their vision. On paper, Fast and the Furious works extremely well as a screen based attraction. Screens allow you to use celebrities, simulate speed, create scale and depth, and present something "chaotic" without complicated mechanics the require extensive maintenance costs. Flight of Passage, Back to the Future, Spiderman, and Transformers all work as a screens for the same reasons Fast and the Furious works as a screen.

A "party bus" ride vehicle fits the world of F&F narratively and can help increase capacity. Leveraging the loop with screens saves space and prevents the complicated build of going over the Hogwarts Express. Cheesy writing and over the top ridiculous fit the F&F production. Replacing an expensive, aging, less popular attraction with the franchise and intended ride system makes financial sense, and fits the thematic space of San Francisco.

Basically, each independent decision makes logical, creative, and operational sense. Sometimes though, each "right" decision just comes together in the wrong way. It's easy to armchair imagineer those failures, but chances are, if you were in the same position, you would have made the same decisions.

Not too long ago I read an interview with a film director who made a "bad movie" (I don't remember who it was or which movie they were talking about). They were asked, "How does this happen?" The answer was enlightening, and amounted to - "There are so many moving parts in a production, and every decision is made in order to achieve something that has never been seen before. We want it to be good. But sometimes, for whatever reason, it just isn't. And there's no way to tell if it's good or not until you start seeing the final edit come together."

Frankly, I think that's what happened with F&F. All the independent decisions were "correct." They just didn't come together. And with theme park attractions, like movies, sometimes you can't tell if something is good or not until it's too late.

That's a pretty fair point but if you don't mind, i'd like to switch the topic from trying to place blame on industry leaders for garbage rides and the complicated reasons bad attractions are made in the first place to something a bit more positive: How amazing is RFRees idea for a Mad Max ride?!

Mad Max: Fury Road not only is a incredible sequel but it's perfect for a theme park attraction. They're already developing a car-based ride system for Mario Kart in Fantastic Worlds, Mad Max would be the perfect IP to transfer that technology to the other parks. They could also use it to give a new boost of life to the San Francisco area. Maybe have the land become abandoned over time after a freak accident and have the bandits from the film take over the former restaurants/shops. That would be so cool! :grin::grin::grin:
 
Dafuq is Orlando Rising?

I think it’s another Orlando theme park related fan site

Sorry to pop in on Inside Universal's board, but I saw the site was being linked to on here and wanted to answer this question myself. If you've seen my post in the MuppetVision thread, this will largely be the same.

I'm John Gregory, owner and operator of Orlando Rising. I started reporting on Orlando tourism and theme parks for the site in April 2018, when it was a general local news and politics site. It's now totally focused on Orlando theme parks.

As to whether we're trustworthy, I certainly aim to be more of a news site rather than a fan site. I've worked in journalism professionally for more than 8 years, and my goal is to do more responsible and credibly sourced reporting than some other sites (that's in no way directed at Inside Universal, Brian and co. do things right), and not focus on promoting the parks or covering every new limited-time snack or piece of merch.

I did a story soon after Fast & Furious opened and the negative reviews were still strong asking in general terms what theme parks can do when new rides flop. I decided to revisit a year later with the story linked to on this thread, and the same theme park consultant who called it a "home run" the year prior downgraded it to a "double" this time around, along with a response from Universal and some insight from a travel agent who often books Universal trips. It's the kind of analysis I like doing rather than the unsourced rumors and speculation that's so rampant in the theme park world.

Hope that answers your question! And sorry (for the second time today) to Brian for coming on here to post about my site.
 
Sorry to pop in on Inside Universal's board, but I saw the site was being linked to on here and wanted to answer this question myself. If you've seen my post in the MuppetVision thread, this will largely be the same.

I'm John Gregory, owner and operator of Orlando Rising. I started reporting on Orlando tourism and theme parks for the site in April 2018, when it was a general local news and politics site. It's now totally focused on Orlando theme parks.

As to whether we're trustworthy, I certainly aim to be more of a news site rather than a fan site. I've worked in journalism professionally for more than 8 years, and my goal is to do more responsible and credibly sourced reporting than some other sites (that's in no way directed at Inside Universal, Brian and co. do things right), and not focus on promoting the parks or covering every new limited-time snack or piece of merch.

I did a story soon after Fast & Furious opened and the negative reviews were still strong asking in general terms what theme parks can do when new rides flop. I decided to revisit a year later with the story linked to on this thread, and the same theme park consultant who called it a "home run" the year prior downgraded it to a "double" this time around, along with a response from Universal and some insight from a travel agent who often books Universal trips. It's the kind of analysis I like doing rather than the unsourced rumors and speculation that's so rampant in the theme park world.

Hope that answers your question! And sorry (for the second time today) to Brian for coming on here to post about my site.

I'm sure you're good John. Thanks for stopping by! Also, if you don't mind giving your professional opinion, a Mad Max ride would be awesome right? Right? Somebody back me up on this.
 
Frankly, I think that's what happened with F&F. All the independent decisions were "correct." They just didn't come together.

While I concede that your larger points definitely have some validity, I do somewhat disagree with this summation.

I think Supercharged (in Orlando) was fatally flawed from the jump. Given the existence of Kong in IOA, the existence of numerous other screen/simulator rides in USF, and the subpar reaction to the Tour version of the experience in Hollywood, Supercharged should never have been greenlit for Florida in the form it was.
 
While I concede that your larger points definitely have some validity, I do somewhat disagree with this summation.

I think Supercharged (in Orlando) was fatally flawed from the jump. Given the existence of Kong in IOA, the existence of numerous other screen/simulator rides in USF, and the subpar reaction to the Tour version of the experience in Hollywood, Supercharged should never have been greenlit for Florida in the form it was.

Ultimately, yes; but all research & data show the GP has been loving UO's additions, even the screen rides - so that bit can be explained. Combine that with Legacy's overall point and you can see how decisions were reached.

As much as I agree about the screen problem - part of me believes F&F only amplifies it because of how poorly it was received.

I would've definitely preferred the other options they had - but Disaster was earmarked for replacing for a while, and it was already put off once before. The ride needed to go due to maintenance, and they settled on F&F coming before reviews for Hollywood arrived.
 
While I concede that your larger points definitely have some validity, I do somewhat disagree with this summation.

I think Supercharged (in Orlando) was fatally flawed from the jump. Given the existence of Kong in IOA, the existence of numerous other screen/simulator rides in USF, and the subpar reaction to the Tour version of the experience in Hollywood, Supercharged should never have been greenlit for Florida in the form it was.
Except Kong "proved" that taking something from the Hollywood tram tour and plussing it could work. Spider-Man and Transformers "proved" identical ride systems in different parks could be well received. Almost every other screen-based attraction has good GSATs.

Again, each individual decision makes sense. We only know they weren't "right" because we have hindsight.

The ONLY "obvious" indicator that F&F, as presented, was a bad idea was the tepid response in Hollywood. The attraction in Orlando was already green-lit and mostly designed by the time they knew that though.
 
Sorry to pop in on Inside Universal's board, but I saw the site was being linked to on here and wanted to answer this question myself. If you've seen my post in the MuppetVision thread, this will largely be the same.

I'm John Gregory, owner and operator of Orlando Rising. I started reporting on Orlando tourism and theme parks for the site in April 2018, when it was a general local news and politics site. It's now totally focused on Orlando theme parks.

As to whether we're trustworthy, I certainly aim to be more of a news site rather than a fan site. I've worked in journalism professionally for more than 8 years, and my goal is to do more responsible and credibly sourced reporting than some other sites (that's in no way directed at Inside Universal, Brian and co. do things right), and not focus on promoting the parks or covering every new limited-time snack or piece of merch.

I did a story soon after Fast & Furious opened and the negative reviews were still strong asking in general terms what theme parks can do when new rides flop. I decided to revisit a year later with the story linked to on this thread, and the same theme park consultant who called it a "home run" the year prior downgraded it to a "double" this time around, along with a response from Universal and some insight from a travel agent who often books Universal trips. It's the kind of analysis I like doing rather than the unsourced rumors and speculation that's so rampant in the theme park world.

Hope that answers your question! And sorry (for the second time today) to Brian for coming on here to post about my site.
Are you the site that cancelled the Pokemon expansion?
 
Throwing another thing in here: Demanding anyones job or career over theme park additions is insane, there's a larger discussion in social media about creative works and we forget how much is a group effort. As much as I'm not happy with results (and neither are Comcast) that's between the high ups of UC and their bosses, not us. Criticize the art, not the artist.

Are you the site that cancelled the Pokemon expansion?

No.
 
Top