King Kong Speculation Thread

[rhino4evr]

Wow lots of arguements on the board this morning.

I just want to state that Little Mermaid is a great fantasy land attraction. It's ending may be a bit forced, but the under the sea and ursula scenes are great. It's basically on the same level of Peter Pan and Winnie the Pooh. How anyone that also likes those rides would "hate" this one is confusing to me. Its a family attraction, not a thrill ride, and I don't see the harm in that.

It fits well in the land/area.

- - - Updated - - -

and I don't think it would have been a better ride with 3D screens.

 

[DragonSlayer]

I broadly agree with the screen over-saturation point of view, and do really like more 'real' stuff myself. However, I think there are perhaps two points worth making here:

1) There is a distinction to be made between sets and AAs. They are often lumped together as 'real stuff' for the purposes of this argument, but they are actually two quite different things. One achieves an environment, and the other creates character / action. My particular position is that I don't really like animatronics that much (however much you suspend your disbelief, most still fall into categories of 'cool but not really realistic' or 'pretty damn realistic but uncanny valley') but LOVE, love, love physical sets. I think being in the environment is the most important thing about telling a story in the way that rides aim to. Nothing impresses me more than an awesome set. Personally, my perfect design philosophy for rides would be killer physical sets, with musion screens embedded in the sets at various different depths for live-action actors or CGI characters to be projected on to. Why has no one done this yet? Imagine the town scene of Pirates of the Caribbean, with that awesome great set but the lady with the rolling pin being a live-actor chase projected onto a musion screen placed behind the window. Or imagine SPOILERS (highlight) the Bellatrix scene in Gringotts (where she drags the train forward), if the entire chamber and the tunnels had been physical sets including the platform Bellatrix stands on, with Bellatrix just being on a musion screen placed on the platform.

2) There is also a distinction to be made between 'all screens' and 'some screens'. Spidey, Transformers and Gringotts are sometimes cited as the evil alliance of completely screen-based attractions, when there are actually loads of physical sets anyway. I agree with the screen argument in the cases of DMMM and Simpsons, but I think it's unfair to target the aformentioned trio as evidence of the ever-increasing slide towards screens when they all contain some awesome physical sets. The sewer pipe on Spidey and the broken concrete pillars and road debris on Transformers are some of my favourite parts of those rides, and I'm very much assuming the supposedly 40-50' tall set segments of Gringotts will be the same for that ride!

 

[USO92]

Totally thought that their was some legitimate information floating around this thread due to it's immense popularity over the past two days......................................................................

guess not..

:blank:

 

[natespf]

Totally thought that their was some legitimate information floating around this thread due to it's immense popularity over the past two days......................................................................

guess not..

:blank:

There's rumor that after the 360 screens there would be a Kong AA farewell scene.

 

[DufflesMcGee]

Didnt... read... any of this

But here's the summary of it all. AA's are better for some things, Screens are better for another. A proper mix of both can tell a great story. But Kong in 3D? I was raised on seeing kong in the fur. I hope the first scenes of Kong on the ride are in AA's, then transition to Screen, then back to AA. Not see him first as a Screen, then just an AA waving "goodbye"

Edit: And I do agree with Tyler, Don't need to see Kong Vs. A Dino, we've seen that already and doesnt necessarily bring us in. I would rather Kong is trying to kill us rather than Kong fighting a Dino.

Fun idea:
the first scene with kong is of us going into a giant cave, its dark and our guide has a flashlight. he's looking around and he puts the flashlight on a giant wall of black hair, then an eye opens, Its Kong! Ah, we have to get out of there!

And so on

 

[rhino4evr]

well the way Peter Jackson and Universal has spun Kong recently, is that he's the "good guy", that's just misunderstood. I don't think he will attack us. More like protect us. But who knows.

 

[Cole]

Yeah kong will most likely be the good guy, hopefully there isn't a weird loving interaction with him and the tour guide

 

[kingcooger]

Yeah kong will most likely be the good guy, hopefully there isn't a weird loving interaction with him and the tour guide

Maybe that's why the tour guide disappears...

 

[HalfGlass]

Fun idea:
the first scene with kong is of us going into a giant cave, its dark and our guide has a flashlight. he's looking around and he puts the flashlight on a giant wall of black hair, then an eye opens, Its Kong! Ah, we have to get out of there!

And so on

That, my friend, is genius. Very Jaws like. Would be a nice tribute, especially if the car broke down when he tries to rev the engine.

 

[Cole]

Maybe that's why the tour guide disappears...

Yeah great possibility, my prediction is kong captures the guide and we make the assumption he will eat her or something then after we go through a bunch of stuff kong returns the guide and gives him a hug or some s**t then we get a kong banging his chest in the background saying bye. I hope that happens, would be pretty heartwarming actually like minion mayhem

 

[Milla4Prez66]

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.

I've already discussed Spider-Man/Transformers and it's pretty well known that Transformers wasn't designed with a Florida version in mind. We got it as an extra pretty much after the success the ride saw in Hollywood and the fact Universal could build a clone so fast in a dead area of the park that needed an E-ticket made it a no brainer. But even with the rides being so similar I enjoy the hell out of Transformers, it's my favorite ride at USF (at least until I ride Gringotts).

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".

Maybe some of the whiners here go on Transformers bummed out saying that's just a 3D screen, but whenever I ride it the guests on board with me always seem to enjoy the hell out of it. I haven't come across one person who got off and said "Meh, that was just screens." The ride has received mass praise too, despite it almost being a clone of a ride that's been around since 1999. Your right that nobody can compare rides like POTC and HM despite using AAs, but you can't tell me that Gringotts and Transformers are the same experience either.

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.

Really, it's just two rides that rely on the same technology (Spidey/Transformers) so I'm not really getting the complaining. Gringotts is a new experience, Kong will be a new experience. I'm just not sure why people want to complain about the screens so much. Especially when Kong is probably going to have a lot of cool sets and AAs along with some screen portions. You're likely going to get a good amount of what you're looking for.

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.

What same technology? Again, you're lumping in every ride with a screen together unfairly. Hogwarts Express' technology is unlike anything we've seen before. Same for FJ, Gringotts and Kong next year. The only real example of this is Spider-Man/Transformers.

I also don't think Disaster would be better with a screen, but I wouldn't consider it an exciting attraction either. They could close it tomorrow without replacing it and it wouldn't bother me much at all. That attraction takes up way too much time in my day and doesn't do much for me at all. Not because it doesn't have screens, but just because it's boring. There are good and bad rides for both types of rides.

 

[Nick]

Your right that nobody can compare rides like POTC and HM despite using AAs, but you can't tell me that Gringotts and Transformers are the same experience either.

Of course they aren't the same, but the point is PotC and Haunted mansion have expansive, realistic type of environments you can get lost in. Gringotts and Transformers are run mainly with big screens as what you are looking at. While the experience while riding is great and packs a punch, you simply can't compare screens to real, large scale environments.

They built all of London and Diagon Alley, which are areas you can get lost in for hours. I just wish they would build a ride with that mentality.

 

[Milla4Prez66]

Of course they aren't the same, but the point is PotC and Haunted mansion have expansive, realistic type of environments you can get lost in. Gringotts and Transformers are run mainly with big screens as what you are looking at. While the experience while riding is great and packs a punch, you simply can't compare screens to real, large scale environments.

They built all of London and Diagon Alley, which are areas you can get lost in for hours. I just wish they would build a ride with that mentality.

BS, the entire Gringotts experience is going to be an incredible environment to be lost in. From the second you walk into Diagon Alley and see the building with the dragon. To walking through the bank and seeing it's incredible detail, seeing some of the characters and going through the lobby with the Goblin AAs (Omg AAs at Universal??? Whouda thunk it?) and going down the elevators to the vaults and going on the journey of your life from there. Just because the ride's show sequences have screens doesn't make it any less of an environment to be lost in.

 

[Marni1971]

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,

Not exactly.

 

[Nick]

BS, the entire Gringotts experience is going to be an incredible environment to be lost in. From the second you walk into Diagon Alley and see the building with the dragon. To walking through the bank and seeing it's incredible detail, seeing some of the characters and going through the lobby with the Goblin AAs (Omg AAs at Universal??? Whouda thunk it?) and going down the elevators to the vaults and going on the journey of your life from there. Just because the ride's show sequences have screens doesn't make it any less of an environment to be lost in.

Not disagreeing that the queue's are great, but the ride experiences are all relatively the same is the point. At some point enough is enough with 3D. Everyone blasts Avatar at DAK with the excuse that it was only successful as 3D was a fad at the time. Well, I don't see how that's any different at Universal right now. It's a fad and it's being played out a bit too much.

 

[JungleSkip]

but the ride experiences are all relatively the same is the point.

Do you think Pirates and IASW are "relatively the same"? Also, have you been on Gringotts?

Transformers is similar to Spider-man because it was a Spider-man stand in for Hollywood and Singapore and was never meant to come here. By all accounts Gringotts is vastly different and possibly better than the other two. I think "Every screen attraction is the same" is about as ludicrous as saying every AA attraction is the same.

 

[Lucky Planet]

I broadly agree with the screen over-saturation point of view, and do really like more 'real' stuff myself. However, I think there are perhaps two points worth making here:

1) There is a distinction to be made between sets and AAs. They are often lumped together as 'real stuff' for the purposes of this argument, but they are actually two quite different things. One achieves an environment, and the other creates character / action. My particular position is that I don't really like animatronics that much (however much you suspend your disbelief, most still fall into categories of 'cool but not really realistic' or 'pretty damn realistic but uncanny valley') but LOVE, love, love physical sets. I think being in the environment is the most important thing about telling a story in the way that rides aim to. Nothing impresses me more than an awesome set. Personally, my perfect design philosophy for rides would be killer physical sets, with musion screens embedded in the sets at various different depths for live-action actors or CGI characters to be projected on to. Why has no one done this yet? Imagine the town scene of Pirates of the Caribbean, with that awesome great set but the lady with the rolling pin being a live-actor chase projected onto a musion screen placed behind the window. Or imagine SPOILERS (highlight) the Bellatrix scene in Gringotts (where she drags the train forward), if the entire chamber and the tunnels had been physical sets including the platform Bellatrix stands on, with Bellatrix just being on a musion screen placed on the platform.

2) There is also a distinction to be made between 'all screens' and 'some screens'. Spidey, Transformers and Gringotts are sometimes cited as the evil alliance of completely screen-based attractions, when there are actually loads of physical sets anyway. I agree with the screen argument in the cases of DMMM and Simpsons, but I think it's unfair to target the aformentioned trio as evidence of the ever-increasing slide towards screens when they all contain some awesome physical sets. The sewer pipe on Spidey and the broken concrete pillars and road debris on Transformers are some of my favourite parts of those rides, and I'm very much assuming the supposedly 40-50' tall set segments of Gringotts will be the same for that ride!

Yeah I can agree with this post. I don't really like the sets in Transformers,he transformer sets are not really great,
If they made real sets and used screens to show characters I guess I would be okay with that too. (The way the queue for Forbidden Journey is set up with the characters appearing)

I guess I would love rides where all the sets are real but they use screens for the action and to show the characters. Even if King Kong was made that way I think I would like that.
you make a good point about the real sets and about Pirates, if they had characters on windows I guess I would be cool with that since the sets are so well done.

 

[Nick]

Do you think Pirates and IASW are "relatively the same"? Also, have you been on Gringotts?

Transformers is similar to Spider-man because it was a Spider-man stand in for Hollywood and Singapore and was never meant to come here. By all accounts Gringotts is vastly different and possibly better than the other two. I think "Every screen attraction is the same" is about as ludicrous as saying every AA attraction is the same.

I know you love defending screen attractions and I know they aren't all the same, but there's certainly something more special about something REAL as opposed to going from ride to ride seeing screen after screen.

And yes, I have been on Gringotts and HE. I work for Universal. I didn't go until just recently, but i've been on.

 

[JungleSkip]

I know you love defending screen attractions and I know they aren't all the same, but there's certainly something more special about something REAL as opposed to going from ride to ride seeing screen after screen.

And yes, I have been on Gringotts and HE. I work for Universal.

I mean, isn't that all opinion? That's like saying Pirates is just going from AA scene to AA scene.

Point is a great ride is a great ride.

 

[Clive]

I mean, isn't that all opinion? That's like saying Pirates is just going from AA scene to AA scene.

Point is a great ride is a great ride.

Read back a few pages. While there's certainly the element of it being hard to indulge in the illusion when your brain knows the scene is so obviously just a 3D screen (what with the glasses on your head and flat surface), the two mediums of show scene design require completely different approaches. Some of us prefer one or the other for a majority of attractions. Some of these 3D experiences are AMAZING and completely justify their existence - Spider-Man, Transformers, (looks to be) Gringotts - but that's enough. There's only so much that can be done before it gets excessive.