- Dec 3, 2020
- 961
- 3,081
What’s with the sad reactions? It’s a fine ride?
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.
Frankly, I think it's cope.
If Kong is officially compromised in some notable ways, why should we settle for a broken attraction! We actually never liked the new Kong ride in the first place! Forget all of the fervor and posts over the past month about how the ride was great and Universal is ruining it with these changes. Let's just throw it all out and start a new hype cycle for whatever replaces it! I'm sure it'll be the best attraction ever and fill all of the niches that USO needs filled! Maybe it will be the Jurassic World Beijing ride, that'd be awesome! (Even though the ride system is already represented with Spidey, and we already complain about Transformers a park away; even though we just got a huge Jurassic World expansion a few years ago; even though the ride largely fits the same general ride concept as River Journey next door) It'll be great!
Kong is fine. Especially if the outdoor portion is being fixed relatively soon, it's really not gonna be that big of a deal on the grand scale of the USO parks. Unfortunate? Sure. Not ideal? Definitely. But let's not throw the baby kong out with the Banana-scented bath water literally the moment a budget cut hits it. I don't like it, and you don't have to either, but it's not getting replaced. This is just how it is, until it isn't anymore. If you really care about the situation, talk about it in surveys or to TM's who's job it is to listen and send complaints to higher ups.
But KONG is king! The only thing higher up is a God. Unfortunately, Godzilla isn't at the park. Guess we'll have to bug him on twitter...
- May 13, 2023
- 39
- 53
I think most are disappointed UNI was untruthful. Budget cuts to a ride that helps separate this park as arguably the best in the world, when the park has already cut back on this attraction, is just downright frustrating. Seeing the outdoor section closed for this long is not the standard UNI set for us.
Probably, at this stage of the game, with Epic construction, and flat/declining attendance over the past four quarters, and projected continual shortfall for the rest of this year, Universal Orlando has had their budget tightened. Ultimately, money for breakdowns is probably limited. Universal has a history of overreacting to flat attendance, so stuff like Kong unfairly suffers. My opinion is that this is a poor way to react to problems, but it is kind of Universal Orlando's M.O, based on past history. Guessing once we get closer to Epic, all this cost cautiousness will lessen, and stuff will get back to 2019 levels.
- Aug 17, 2009
- 8,006
- 9,862
As it should be. I've expressed how dumb the 3D move is, but the ride shouldn't shut down over it. I already mentioned this in the Toon Lagoon thread, but there's waaaaay too many other things happening between now and 2030 for Universal to jump the gun and aimlessly shut Kong down over a (stupid) budget cut lessening an aspect of the ride. Just because the decision is trash doesn't mean they should throw a temper tantrum and shut down a perfectly good capacity eater when it's obviously not going to be replaced any time soon lol. Especially once the outdoor section is finally repaired.
Last edited:
- Mar 25, 2010
- 719
- 521
I understand the sentiment, but I vehemently disagree. You don't design things specifically for 3D, then take away the 3D. I haven't had a chance to ride it without 3D yet, but I can imagine...
This ride is dependent on 3D due to its need to portray depth in 3 dimensional space while moving... Whereas something like a stationary simulator & film, not so much. Those can still be very effective without 3D, on something like that 3d is more of an enhancement.
If you're going to have THIS specific attraction operating without 3D, you might as well can it or overhaul it the next chance you get.
Perhaps my previous post was an overreaction. But, quite frankly the sentiment remains the same. If this is a "long term temporary cost cutting measure" by effectively putting one of your main, world class attractions into a "D" operating mode, whoever made such a decision needs to be checked. Much easier to raise the prices of churros a dollar and make small incremental price increases across the park than to do something that can ruin your reputation as a world class attraction by effectively debilitating the effectiveness of almost all the effects in the attraction.
I'm also thinking, maybe there is a liability issue with insurance with eye damage that is possible by putting the glasses on while outside... It would explain the whole "The doors aren't working" thing and the lack of outdoor operations... The doors are a good cover story. Other than an over zealous exec, that is probably the only other logical reason I can think to make such a huge operational change to the attraction.
If that's the reason for this, I say Plus the attraction by redesigning the outdoor section to give more coverage to the vehicles, while simultaneously bolstering warnings about putting the glasses on outside.. Signs with a design that demonstrates the risk non verbally could work... Giving the ride vehicles more coverage leading up to the temple gates can achieve the same, or even enhance the reason for the design choice of being able to see the vehicles entering the temple while simultaneously improving the on ride experience.
From the Queue and beyond, now excitement is building as you see smaller peeks of vehicles moving outdoors, but on the ride you're more immersed, and now the temple doors are a more major and effective reveal.
- Jan 30, 2013
- 1,951
- 4,700
I get that the absence of answers only leaves room for speculation, but I would caution everyone not to move to conspiracy.
Speaking of conspiracies... I figured out the real issue with this ride & the plot of land it sits on...
- Aug 17, 2009
- 8,006
- 9,862
I don't disagree. I think it's beyond stupid.
I don't agree that the whole baby needs to be tossed out with the bathwater, but I understand feeling that way. That wasn't my point though. My point is that "the next chance" is nowhere in the immediate future. Epic, Lost Continent/Zelda, Pokemon/Simpsons, Great Hall expansion, Luigi's Mansion expansion, Fear Factor Live (hopefully, finally), and possibly others are all presumably on the way and none of those should be paused to replace a functional attraction that has been around for less than a decade when the majority of visitors won't even know something has changed.
Yes, plus it is too expensive an attraction to close so early in its 'reign'. It's not like it wasn't getting big crowds when operating properly. Generally, Kong had among the longest lines at either park, short of Hagrid/Gringotts/Velocicoaster. It really helped IOA's capacity, and need for attractions that can operate in bad weather. It needs some good love from the next budget to get back to where it should be, outdoors section and return of 3D. I've been monitoring some line numbers since the 2D 'experiment/fix ?', and loss of outside section, but I want to do a couple more months before I make a comment on that.
- Mar 25, 2010
- 719
- 521
I'm speculating.
I'm saying "What if...".
I see something that makes, to me at least, no logical sense. If it's really as simple as "saving money on operations", then I'm flabbergasted. This isn't something I can imagine any company in a position of fighting for any level of dominance in their field would do, nuking one of the main effects on one of their shows, that the whole show is effectively dependent on and designed around. To me, It's akin to trying to watch a Cirque du Soleli performance from a one inch hole on the side of the tent or through a crack in the doors to the theater.
After seeing the way some companies handle issues like these from personal experience, absolutely nothing I've said would surprise me. I've witnessed many crazy, silly, things first hand. There's no hard evidence for anything I've speculated, only observation. I wouldn't put any of these things on the record as hard truths. I'm not saying any of this is "why". I truly do not know why anything from the doors to the glasses has happened with the attraction, I just know they happened and are happening.
In regards to the 3d glasses, I can imagine a world where someone uses and abuses the ride verbiage of "protective goggles" or whatever they bill them as to think that meant something other than there intended use and claim an injury, or some other instance of misuse that calls into question operating the attraction with the goggles vs without, that gives more weight to the idea that the attraction should be operated without them as a cost cutting measure, or because this thing happened, it save them even more operating money without them. If you are saving so much money operating without a primary part of the attraction, Why? What happened?
It would make sense if there's another reason in addition to the glasses cleaners for this specific attraction being down a bunch.
Speaking of, I can even imagine a scenario where the manufacturer of the glasses claims cleaning them in another machine voids a warranty or creates an exception in an agreement somewhere so they refuse to fix the problem, or otherwise claim the operator is incorrectly operating the glasses and has such voided their agreement. I can then, very easily see a scenario where an exec says "Until we can find another manufacturer/supplier for a 3D solution, we will operate the attraction without using their tech, we are giving them no more money". I've seen things like this happen in my time, too.
This is all speculation. I do not know for sure. But quite frankly I don't believe it's unreasonable or edging on the brink of conspiracy to suggest in the spirit of "fandom speculation" any of these things as maybe a reason why, considering it seems the zeitgeist of this thread is the removal of the glasses was an idea handed down by mandate, and the "testing" of this mode of operations was rigged... Speaking of conspiracies... lol. If this is an "acceptable" string of speculation in this thread, then trying to understand why this is so is fair game.
This is how I think, I submit every possible vector of attack into my speculative reasoning. I think of solutions and different scenarios that can create the known unknown, or to try and understand the reasoning behind what I consider in terms of operations a silly decision, and I even will ideate on some of this speculative reasoning.
In the absence of absolute knowledge, in the absence of absolute truth, minds will wander. I'm just posting all the places my mind can wander on "why" based on my own personal experiences and observations. I'm not selling any of this as the absolute reason any of this is happening, and that's the primary difference between intense speculation and forming conspiracy.
Please take care of how you address people in public forum. I'm not really feeling being called out by a mod like I'm some sort of conspiracy nut-job. Your "warning" is closer to an attack than it is trying to cool wild speculation about an issue, and I understand it can be annoying if perhaps you might be more keen on exactly why the issue persist, or just being generally more knowledgeably about the attraction or park operations in general, but being a mod in this forum means you are also a KOL in this forum. You can address the reasons the content of my message might not be wholly viable in vague general terms, Maybe even asking me to defend my speculative reasoning versus creating a public implication in the form of a passive impression about how I speculate...
Cool it. I know @Nico was just trying to caution against going down the rabbit holes we sometimes tend to venture into when things change in the parks. There was no intention of attacking you. They’re your opinions and it’s fine to share them, but this is the internet: expect pushback. We all think differently here; that’s what makes these kinds of discussions so interesting to me, and others here. But you really are venturing into conspiracy-level thinking with these ideas you’re putting out there. It’s not really furthering any discussion on what is happening with the attraction currently.
Probably a good time to remind everyone that it was also explained why the vehicles don’t go outside either…
Issues with the rough terrain which the vehicles weren't designed for & broken doors that require extensive repair below ground?
I am 100% certain glasses were cut as a cost saving measure. It’s not even speculation.
If there were other reasons that involved safety, all rides would remove 3D. Much like how all coasters that pass over guest areas now have metal detectors and not just some of them.
If there were other reasons that involved safety, all rides would remove 3D. Much like how all coasters that pass over guest areas now have metal detectors and not just some of them.
Glasses are mid twenties in cost individually. These are not like the cheap Shrek or Philharmagic glasses. I suspect they go through quite a few replacements monthly. Plus the employee costs for that cleaning and collecting area. So the cost gets up there a bit. That said, that's still a poor excuse to remove them from an attraction they're fairly crucial to. I'd guess that if attendance and revenue weren't flat/down during the past four quarters, this wouldn't be an issue. I'd guess the budget is tight for now, and under those circumstances, bad stuff happens.
- May 13, 2023
- 39
- 53
As someone whose done 3D glasses during my movie theatre employment, guests are brutal with 3D glasses & they only need them for the movie! You end up tossing quite a few away due to being broken/damaged
I can only imagine the hell the ones for KONG, Transformers & Spidey go through lol
I can only imagine the hell the ones for KONG, Transformers & Spidey go through lol
I don’t know what type of projection it uses, but if it’s two-projector method, switching to 2D cuts down on replacement bulbs by half as well.
