King Kong Speculation Thread

[Cole]

I think you are being a bit dramatic here, pretty much every ride since 2010 has been stellar and has come at a timely pace. I really don't see the reason to complain, it's not like we are waiting 3 years for transformers. Just sit down and enjoy the roses for a second, it could be a lot worse

 

[Milla4Prez66]

I agree to an extent but you also have to consider what's good for the parks and the resort and it should be a variety of attractions. I don't think they should further cement themselves as the screen guys with newer output.

I never said no variety. I'm just tired of hearing complaints about the screen rides, it really doesn't matter to me if it is a screen or AA if I'm getting an awesome experience, it's an awesome experience. Universal has had some incredible success lately with these rides, and I have faith in the people running the show now. I'm sure they want to find ways to include AAs (DA has some and Kong will too), but not every ride can be done well with AAs. A Transformers ride full of AAs would be a nightmare and probably a snoozefest compared to what we have.

 

[Clive]

I never said no variety. I'm just tired of hearing complaints about the screen rides, it really doesn't matter to me if it is a screen or AA if I'm getting an awesome experience, it's an awesome experience. Universal has had some incredible success lately with these rides, and I have faith in the people running the show now. I'm sure they want to find ways to include AAs (DA has some and Kong will too), but not every ride can be done well with AAs. A Transformers ride full of AAs would be a nightmare and probably a snoozefest compared to what we have.

I agree that Transformers would've been nigh impossible without screens - as would Spider-Man. However, the Lorax ride that was considered was also to employ "4K 3D screens..." (that's per HTF as well as an official Universal survey). What about something as simple as The Lorax demands 4K 3D insanity?

I think there's a much smaller screen (and especially 3D) tolerance than many of you are anticipating with the general public. I've gotten plenty of comments from friends asking if the next ride is gonna be "more 3D or something 'real.'" Especially when it seems like it's the only way Uni plans to do rides for the foreseeable future, it's... worrying.

 

[Milla4Prez66]

I agree that Transformers would've been nigh impossible without screens - as would Spider-Man. However, the Lorax ride that was considered was also to employ "4K 3D screens..." (that's per HTF as well as an official Universal survey). What about something as simple as The Lorax demands 4K 3D insanity?

I think there's a much smaller screen (and especially 3D) tolerance than many of you are anticipating with the general public. I've gotten plenty of comments from friends asking if the next ride is gonna be "more 3D or something 'real.'" Especially when it seems like it's the only way Uni plans to do rides for the foreseeable future, it's... worrying.

With the Lorax we're just speculating since those plans never got off the ground.

We're supposed to be getting a mini Jurassic Park update that will feature a family coaster and the KidZone replacement isn't really expected to be a 3D/screen attraction either. Who really knows, the only future ride we know of expecting to have screens is Kong and it's already been said it will have AAs and real life sets too. I'm sure Universal has plans for things that aren't just screen related, but I won't automatically hate on a ride for use of screens either.

 

[Clive]

With the Lorax we're just speculating since those plans never got off the ground.

We're supposed to be getting a mini Jurassic Park update that will feature a family coaster and the KidZone replacement isn't really expected to be a 3D/screen attraction either. Who really knows, the only future ride we know of expecting to have screens is Kong and it's already been said it will have AAs and real life sets too. I'm sure Universal has plans for things that aren't just screen related, but I won't automatically hate on a ride for use of screens either.

I don't mean to sound rude, but have you been paying attention? All the buzz around here and from reputable people on WDWMagic is that Uni has a bit of a fetish for screen attractions and doesn't intend to stop building them any time soon. Lorax was more than just idle speculation - it came from HTF (whose track record speaks for itself at this point) as well as Universal themselves via the survey (which I took). It honestly doesn't even matter that it didn't get built - the point is they were ready to do it, which speaks to their design philosophy. It isn't just that screens will almost never look as good as a fully realized set with properly animated animatronics and effects - it's that the two approaches result in completely different show philosophies. The former can make literally ANYTHING happen without restraint, while the latter requires careful consideration in how best to present an effect (and also begs the question is this effect achievable at all - will it be convincing?) You don't get often any of that with predominantly screen attractions (and yes, I'd argue that includes Transformers, which lacks much of the care that went into making Spider-Man and its numerous mechanical, practical effects).

Jurassic Park expansion for now got scrapped in favor of Kong (a decision I don't necessarily disagree with), but that expansion wouldn't have fallen into either category - I don't want screen-based dark rides and outdoor rides only, we need more rides like ET, Jurassic Park, Cat in the Hat, and Men in Black. We have enough killer 3D rides with Spider-Man, Transformers, and Gringotts. Let it rest. As for KidZone? If they were willing to slap 3D elements into the freaking Lorax (one of the most easily physically translatable stories out there), I wouldn't put it past them to give us "Bikini Bottom Adventure in 3D."

By the way - of the opinion that best results are achieved through the integration of screen effects (often via projection mapping) in addition to animatronics and physical environments. See Disneyland's recently reopened & enhanced Alice in Wonderland dark ride for a stellar example.

 

[shiekra38]

That would be so much cheaper than making a ride like Transformers with sets. If the Future is 3D screens then I would say just make the rides faster and forget about creating sets. Just build a bunch of simulators all over the park lol

I think I'm missing your point...are you somehow suggesting that because Universal uses screens that they should just give up doing rides like Transformers and do simple simulators? I don't see the connection between a state-of-the-art ride with screens and practical effects verses a simple simulator...other than the fact that the use projection and a screen..

AAs are not the solution to the perfect dark ride folks, when it comes down to it theming and story are at the heart of it...that is why Spiderman is superior to Forbidden Journey..the ride is a cohesive experience...no AAs, uses screen and practicals...verses the disjointed FJ that has AAs and screens as well as practicals...again I fail to see how Universal not using screens changes anything...lets face it at the heart of this is nostalgic folks wanting their childhood back..sorry but what worked in the 90s will not work now...it may still work at Disney where terrible excuses for dark rides like Peter Pan get a pass based on the fact that people enjoyed it when they were little...that just doesn't work at Universal..its time to move on from the screens debate and realize that they are the future and projection technology will only improve and can easily be switched out and update...just look at Spiderman, it is nearly a completely new ride after the projection update..imagine updating a bunch of AAs, the price would be astronomical...The future lies in projection and digital media...

 

[TylerDurden]

Maybe it would, since the ride in it's current state is a snoozefest and has even been crapped on by some major Disney fans. My cousin is a stereotype pixie duster and hates it.

I'm not a Pixie Duster and go to Universal way more than I do Disney, and I like the Little Mermaid…as does the rest of my family, especially my two youngest kids. So I don't get your point--you're just arguing with opinions, which will get you nowhere.

They aren't stupid and not everything they do will be 3D from now on. Kong will feature AAs so I don't get the whining, but it is almost impossible to get the experience they are looking for with solely AAs on this ride. The AAs I saw around Diagon Alley were neat too. Universal will continue adding unique and cool attractions going forward and I'm confident in that. Not everything will be screen related, but not everything will be slow moving rides to look at robots either. Universal's latest attractions (FJ, Transformers, Gringotts) have been praised worldwide as some of the best theme park attractions built but I guess we'd rather just have stuff like Little Mermaid instead.

I've always been more lenient on 3-D than some, but there is such a thing as over saturation. For some experiences, 3-D is the best…things like Transformers, which is non-stop action from start to finish, and T2, which tries to envelope the audience into an experience, are great uses of the technology. That being said, there's something distinguishable about AA's. You can pick your favorite AA in a theme park resort…but you can't pick your favorite 3-D screen. At their core, they're all the same.

The last time I went to Universal I did begin to notice a little screen fatigue. 3-D movies tend to hurt my eyes, and while a ride is incomparable to a full-length movie, having 3-D glasses on through a lot of the day could be kind of annoying. It's nice to sometimes have some rides to slow down on and enjoy something more "real".

I think King Kong could be the perfect type of ride to slow down and take a break from 3-D on. They've done it before, it's obviously possible. While I like the idea of being able to fly through the jungle with dinosaurs and King Kong fighting all around me, I'm already able to do that on Spiderman, Transformers, and presumably Gringott's (don't tell me if I'm wrong though, I'm still trying to avoid spoilers! ). Nobody's denying that 3-D rides aren't cool, but after a while the technology has run its course and can only do so much. I mean, really, how much more can they do with 3-D? Sure, you could say the same thing about Animatronics, but you can make different Animatronics, with different capabilities, motions, etc. in different physical settings. A 3-D screen, no matter what ride it's in, is still a 3-D screen at the end of the day.

TL;DR…3-D is cool and works perfectly for certain types of attractions. But not everything needs to be the type of experience 3-D lends itself well to, and therefore not everything needs to incorporate 3-D. Say what you want about Little Mermaid, but in a park full of big action rides, it would be a nice diversion, and Universal could pull a ride like that off very well (as proven with their old-school rides that are now gone).

 

[IAmFloridaBorn]

Not to get n on the screens or not battle necessrily, but IOA could use some screens. I don't see the issue if KONG has screens. If I'm not mistaking, Spiderman and FJ are the only rides(Not including Poseidon Attraction) in IOA using screens yes? Where as Universal Florida has - 7 or 8 that do. it just need a balance.



Personally I hate 3D technology on rides that move, swivel, too fast. I miss the story or get headache due to my retina getting delayed signals from forced prospective images and speedy movement. I usually take my glasses off and enjoy the ride. I think the use of 3d technology is becoming overkill in USF but the screens, the replacing expensive AA are going to be around for a long time.

Not liking 3d rides Ive accepted that. IF Kong is 3D Ill be okay with that because IOA could use another tame ride with some screens. It's not going to hurt. At least you can alter what is shown on the screens . AA's you have to replace, maintain, etc etc.

 

[TylerDurden]

Not to get n on the screens or not battle necessrily, but IOA could use some screens. I don't see the issue if KONG has screens. If I'm not mistaking, Spiderman and FJ are the only rides(Not including Poseidon Attraction) in IOA using screens yes? Where as Universal Florida has - 7 or 8 that do. it just need a balance.

Who really does just one park, though? I guess a few people, but the majority have 2-park passes, and this will especially be the case with the HE opened up. So we really should start looking at it as a resort on the whole rather than individual parks. If I'm jumping from Universal to IOA, the novelty of screens isn't going to just come around when I get to IOA.

 

[Clive]

I'm not a Pixie Duster and go to Universal way more than I do Disney, and I like the Little Mermaid…as does the rest of my family, especially my two youngest kids. So I don't get your point--you're just arguing with opinions, which will get you nowhere.



I've always been more lenient on 3-D than some, but there is such a thing as over saturation. For some experiences, 3-D is the best…things like Transformers, which is non-stop action from start to finish, and T2, which tries to envelope the audience into an experience, are great uses of the technology. That being said, there's something distinguishable about AA's. You can pick your favorite AA in a theme park resort…but you can't pick your favorite 3-D screen. At their core, they're all the same.

The last time I went to Universal I did begin to notice a little screen fatigue. 3-D movies tend to hurt my eyes, and while a ride is incomparable to a full-length movie, having 3-D glasses on through a lot of the day could be kind of annoying. It's nice to sometimes have some rides to slow down on and enjoy something more "real".

I think King Kong could be the perfect type of ride to slow down and take a break from 3-D on. They've done it before, it's obviously possible. While I like the idea of being able to fly through the jungle with dinosaurs and King Kong fighting all around me, I'm already able to do that on Spiderman, Transformers, and presumably Gringott's (don't tell me if I'm wrong though, I'm still trying to avoid spoilers! ). Nobody's denying that 3-D rides aren't cool, but after a while the technology has run its course and can only do so much. I mean, really, how much more can they do with 3-D? Sure, you could say the same thing about Animatronics, but you can make different Animatronics, with different capabilities, motions, etc. in different physical settings. A 3-D screen, no matter what ride it's in, is still a 3-D screen at the end of the day.

TL;DR…3-D is cool and works perfectly for certain types of attractions. But not everything needs to be the type of experience 3-D lends itself well to, and therefore not everything needs to incorporate 3-D. Say what you want about Little Mermaid, but in a park full of big action rides, it would be a nice diversion, and Universal could pull a ride like that off very well (as proven with their old-school rides that are now gone).

I just tried to give you rep for this but it won't let me... so... there's that, I guess. Great post.

Just remember it isn't as simple as screens versus animatronics. Screens are generally used to do things that animatronics can't (Spider-Man swinging through NYC into Hydroman, Optimus Prime and Bumblebee flying around attacking Megatron) - but not every single freaking ride has to be a giant battlefield that riders are traveling through or participate in with nonstop in-your-face action from start to finish. Let the attractions breathe. Universal needs to start experimenting in more physical show types again or risk over-saturating its rides with one trick ponies.

 

[IAmFloridaBorn]

Who really does just one park, though? I guess a few people, but the majority have 2-park passes, and this will especially be the case with the HE opened up. So we really should start looking at it as a resort on the whole rather than individual parks. If I'm jumping from Universal to IOA, the novelty of screens isn't going to just come around when I get to IOA.

Thats exactly why I said that. But I imagine that will start to change, and people will buy more park to park passes. Ive been in one park or the other for work and casual visits and hear people talk about the amount of 3d attractions. We should def start thinking of it as a resort. Good point.

 

[Milla4Prez66]

I don't mean to sound rude, but have you been paying attention? All the buzz around here and from reputable people on WDWMagic is that Uni has a bit of a fetish for screen attractions and doesn't intend to stop building them any time soon. Lorax was more than just idle speculation - it came from HTF (whose track record speaks for itself at this point) as well as Universal themselves via the survey (which I took). It honestly doesn't even matter that it didn't get built - the point is they were ready to do it, which speaks to their design philosophy. It isn't just that screens will almost never look as good as a fully realized set with properly animated animatronics and effects - it's that the two approaches result in completely different show philosophies. The former can make literally ANYTHING happen without restraint, while the latter requires careful consideration in how best to present an effect (and also begs the question is this effect achievable at all - will it be convincing?) You don't get often any of that with predominantly screen attractions (and yes, I'd argue that includes Transformers, which lacks much of the care that went into making Spider-Man and its numerous mechanical, practical effects).

Jurassic Park expansion for now got scrapped in favor of Kong (a decision I don't necessarily disagree with), but that expansion wouldn't have fallen into either category - I don't want screen-based dark rides and outdoor rides only, we need more rides like ET, Jurassic Park, Cat in the Hat, and Men in Black. We have enough killer 3D rides with Spider-Man, Transformers, and Gringotts. Let it rest. As for KidZone? If they were willing to slap 3D elements into the freaking Lorax (one of the most easily physically translatable stories out there), I wouldn't put it past them to give us "Bikini Bottom Adventure in 3D."

By the way - of the opinion that best results are achieved through the integration of screen effects (often via projection mapping) in addition to animatronics and physical environments. See Disneyland's recently reopened & enhanced Alice in Wonderland dark ride for a stellar example.

I'm well aware of what HTF and others said about Lorax plans. But considering it was never green lit and has now been scrapped and thrown in the trash, it's kind of pointless to your point. Maybe UC came up with this idea and the top Universal execs said no? Who knows. I just don't see how a proposed 3D attraction that got turned down proves anything. Also, the JP expansion hasn't really been scrapped for Kong, but postponed since Universal figured IoA needs a bigger bang in 2015 after DA this year. Everything still points to this happening at some point, possibly as soon as 2016.

I'm just still not getting the point of this whining, since the ride this thread is about is going to have most of what you guys are asking for. It's more slow paced and will have some AAs and neat sets. It's going to use screens too because you can't seriously have Kong and dinos going at each other with AAs and have it look passable. Kongfrontation was different since it's a giant monkey in a city environment. Why is this such a big deal? Gringotts has already received mass praise and is probably now the resort's best attraction, Transformers was a massive hit and Kong will probably be too. Until Universal starts throwing out some duds, I'm not going to complain because I love what they are doing and I'm sure some more cool unique stuff is coming.

 

[Milla4Prez66]

I'm not a Pixie Duster and go to Universal way more than I do Disney, and I like the Little Mermaid…as does the rest of my family, especially my two youngest kids. So I don't get your point--you're just arguing with opinions, which will get you nowhere.

Ummmm, isn't that what we all are doing? Arguing about our opinions?

I've always been more lenient on 3-D than some, but there is such a thing as over saturation. For some experiences, 3-D is the best…things like Transformers, which is non-stop action from start to finish, and T2, which tries to envelope the audience into an experience, are great uses of the technology. That being said, there's something distinguishable about AA's. You can pick your favorite AA in a theme park resort…but you can't pick your favorite 3-D screen. At their core, they're all the same.

Nobody has said there isn't over saturation. But the problem is you guys just keep lumping all rides featuring 3D as if they are the same experience. Just because you're wearing 3D glasses on one ride doesn't make it the same as another. Obviously Spider-Man/Transformers is a bit different but we already know the deal with that. Gringotts is supposed to be a unique ride unlike anything we've seen, but I'm supposed to believe it's quality is weakened because it features 3D glasses? I 100% disagree with the point about screens being the same at their core. Why is it the case for screens but not AAs? Every screen has something different, a new experience. If we're just going to say all of them are the same, why does that not apply to AAs? I mean, at their core they are all just robots that mostly stay stationary with some minor movement. What makes an AA of E.T. waving at guests so different from an AA of the Cat in the Hat doing the same? I'm not trying to say all AAs are the same, but just saying all screens are the same is something I don't agree with. It isn't about the screen itself, but how the screen immerses you and the experience you get from it. I also don't think all screen rides are awesome either. I'm not a fan of Despicable Me and Simpsons, mainly because they are just makeovers of previous rides which I don't really care for. But rides like Spider-Man, FJ, Transformers and presumably Gringotts are awesome. It doesn't matter to me if you're using AAs or screens, an awesome ride is an awesome ride. Universal is having success with what they are doing and building gamechanging attractions and Kong will likely just add to that, and it will feature elements of both and I'm excited about it.

 

[Nick]

I think a good example of where you can clearly tell screens are less satisfying is during the Frozen event. Yes, they have Olaf on a screen and he's able to do some tricks an AA wouldn't be able to do, but it's much less satisfying than if there was an actual AA Olaf there available to Meet or even just for the shows.

I'm not anti-screens, but there's just certain things that people would be more impressed by if they see it in physical form. Obviously AA's can't do as much, but a proper mixing of both is where I think rides need to start heading.

Think Mystic Manor at Hong Kong Disneyland for a great example.

 

[Nick]

I'm well aware of what HTF and others said about Lorax plans. But considering it was never green lit and has now been scrapped and thrown in the trash, it's kind of pointless to your point.

Nothing is ever "thrown in the trash". It could easily come back.

 

[Milla4Prez66]

I think a good example of where you can clearly tell screens are less satisfying is during the Frozen event. Yes, they have Olaf on a screen and he's able to do some tricks an AA wouldn't be able to do, but it's much less satisfying than if there was an actual AA Olaf there available to Meet or even just for the shows.

I'm not anti-screens, but there's just certain things that people would be more impressed by if they see it in physical form. Obviously AA's can't do as much, but a proper mixing of both is where I think rides need to start heading.

Think Mystic Manor at Hong Kong Disneyland for a great example.

THAT IS WHAT THIS RIDE IS GOING TO BE! Why are we complaining about this all of a sudden then?

 

[TylerDurden]

Nobody has said there isn't over saturation. But the problem is you guys just keep lumping all rides featuring 3D as if they are the same experience.

Not really. They're all different. It's just that the effect becomes less impressive the more you see it. The illusion becomes less effective. The whole point of Transformers is to move you around super fast and do all this stuff you could never physically do safely, in a theme park. That's great. But then when I get on Spider-Man, of which the technology serves almost the exact same purpose, then the novelty of that idea wears off. While the actual projections are different, the sensation is the same.

However, if you are to compare Haunted Mansion and Pirates of the Caribbean, the same argument doesn't really hold up despite them both being reliant on animatronics and physical effects. Because it's the scope of the sets of Pirates and the mystery of the effects on Haunted Mansion that get people excited. You see the ballroom scene on HM and think "wow, how do they do that?"…you go into the first scene of PotC and think "this could be a real place!". You go on Transformers and think "ok, that's a 3-D screen".

Now don't get me wrong, I like what 3-D can do. There's nothing at Disney comparable to being thrown through buildings or down 300-foot free-fall drops. But when so many rides and attractions rely on the same technology, it just becomes less impressive. The thing about physical set-based rides is that the creators realize they're limited in what they can do, so it forces them to become creative with the presentation of it. They're forced to come up with impressive sets like the New York streets of Kongfrontation, or suspenseful scenes like the boathouse from Jaws. And it just makes for a completely different and refreshing ride experience.

I'm not trying to take away from what 3-D can do and the awesomeness of Universal's latest rides. And I realize that rides like Hogwarts Express, Forbidden Journey, and Transformers have to rely on screens to be possible. So what would be nice is if attractions that could avoid them, that could tell the same story without the same exact technology we see over and over again now, would utilize a different approach. Kong does not need to have a 3-D segment…they proved that 25 years ago. I already can watch huge robots fight right in front of me, I don't need to see a big monkey and dinosaur do the same. No, not all screen-based rides are the same, but they achieve the same effect. Animatronics and physical sets allow for depth and a wide variety of effects that impress people. Look at something as simple as Disaster…if it were a big screen, I'm sure the earthquake could be a lot more intense. But would a 3-D screen be as exciting as a real tanker coming down and exploding right next to you, or a humongous flood actually threatening to get you wet? There's just so much going on in Disaster and that's what makes it an exciting attraction, something that would be lost if it's sole special effect was 3-D.

 

[Lucky Planet]

Fallow and TylerDurden made excellent points.

But I would just say this, It is not just about hating 3D rides, It's just sometimes when I am at the Studios, I look at Transformers and I don't really feel like I want to do it again. it was great the first times but now I just don't want to go in it.
( I have the same problem with Simpsons but that's a different story)

But if I am at Disney I will always do Pirates or Dinosaur or Haunted Mansion. It has nothing to do with Nostalgia or anything like that.
It's just that for me it is just more pleasant to look at the sets and the animatronics on those rides, I have done them at least 200 times but they are always nice for me. (I mentioned Spaceship Earth before and yeah, that ride might be dumb and slow and lame as hell but I love it. I even love ET more than Transformers and I hate the ET planet because it is so weird lol. )

3D is cool but it is tiring. When I go to Forbidden Journey I have to close my eyes on the screen parts because I just want to see the Dragon and the Dementors. (I know that ride is not 3D but it still applies to what I am saying) The real sets and the Dragon to me personally will always be so much better than whatever is on the screens in that ride. The screens in Forbidden Journey make me sick actually. I get motion sickness from it. I can't even enjoy looking at it. (I think I have more fun at the queue for Forbidden Journey than doing Transformers or Simpsons actually)
This does not mean I love slow rides and I only want slow rides either, I Love roller coasters and I even like the Mummy better than Transformers. One of my favorite rides is the Aerosmith coaster at Disney. I LOVE that ride. I am all for Fast rides like Test Track, I don't mind 3D rides as long as they are combined with real stuff.

 

[Avvie Cunnington]

So do you guys think this will be one ride or on a bigger scale,similar to Hogsmeade? Full immersive land with shops and themed eating places?

 

[Cole]

So do you guys think this will be one ride or on a bigger scale,similar to Hogsmeade? Full immersive land with shops and themed eating places?

One ride/mini land. I don't think they could do much with the space they are given besides maybe a food cart. It'll be immersive but not that crazy. Think MIB for an example