Discussion in 'General Discussions' started by Brian G., Jul 13, 2015.
Have at it, boys!
omg screenz r so unreelistik, i duhmand AAs n setz all dai, disknee for lyfe yo
On a serious note, as long as the ride is done well I don't care if it utilizes screens or not. Good rides are good rides.
To screen or not to screen? That is the question. Thierry C. Hamlet
Screens are a strange phenomenon. Chances are, you're looking at one right now. With that being said, the theme park industry must create a mandate of sorts that places screens at a 1:2 ratio with animatronics. Every screen used, two animatronics must be used as well. Or, it should be a 55% animatronic and 45% screen. So, when you get off the new Mario ride at Universal, you'll say "hmm, I think I saw just a little bit more animatronics." More research needs to be done before I release an official statement regarding the "Use of Screenz" <--- and spelling issues......
It's a joke....
Yes. I knew that beforehand. I just chose not to put an emoji at the end.
If screens make the attraction work and successfully encapsulate the story and whimsy of the ride, then I am all for it. I am personally feeling a little screen fatigue but that is only because of the number of simulator style rides. Mixed effects are going to go a long way.
One of the big comparisons in my mind is Buzz to TSMM. TSMM should win hands down but in my opinion Buzz is better since you could realistically replicate the TSMM ride experience by going through a Best Buy TV aisle playing the same games while riding in a shopping cart.
Exceptional rides that utilized screens Spiderman, Gringotts, Forbidden Journey, and Horizons.
That is why Forbidden Journey is so great! It follows the mandate I set up hours ago. Correct me if I'm wrong, as I haven't been on FJ for a few months, but I don't believe there are 2 screens in a row, no more than 3 in a row at least. It has the perfect blend of screens (used when necessary) and physical sets.
Yes, I strongly agree. FJ has that perfect mix & blend.
I'm in no way opposed to screen based rides. I really enjoy all of them, however, my only point when making the post in the other thread was a theme park is more than one type of ride done 3-4 different ways. Sure it's fun as hell every time, but Universal would probably gain an entire day on people's vacations if they just slowed people down a bit and added some C-ticket type side attractions. Every ride in the park is one big adrenaline rush. It's the "...and then something goes wrong" storyline over and over.
Again, I LOVE Universal. But they could use a bit of variety within their rides. Islands does this much better than at USF.
There's a lot that can be discussed regarding this topic, so apologies, this will be long
What do we consider the first "Screen based" ride? Star Tours in 1987 maybe? Those were using real effects, not CGI and didn't require 3D glasses.
Since then we've seen many attractions adopting CGI and 3D glasses. The CGI is progressively getting better, but it isn't perfect yet.
Even on the newest, best attraction, Escape from Gringott's, as amazing as the screens are, it is still very noticable when the screen ends and the real sets begin. I think having a constant mix of 3D screens and real set pieces more intertwined can do wonders.
For example, I'm going to use Nemo at Epcot (yes, really)...during one scene right after meeting the sharks, there'a part where he's floating through some rusty parts of a sunken ship, through tubes, etc. The effect is a screen with nemo in behind actual "rusty" pieces and it is done IMO exceptionally well. Also, having the fish projected onto the actual aquarium at the end is also done well, though the colors and brightness compared the aquarium is really a big contrast.
Now I also have to think about attractions that just could NOT be done without screens. Transformers is the best example of this. There's just too much action going on for it to work at all with animatronics.
I think in the next 5-10 years we'll see display technology and CGI work much more seamlessly.
I totally agree that there are some attractions like Transformers that can't be done without screens. It's just not possible.
However, why isn't somebody at Universal Creative looking at Mystic Manor and saying "Let's make something like that, but BETTER". Mystic Manor is a perfect type of attraction for Uni to model a slower more "classic Disney" dark ride after. It uses a trackless ride system, lots of physical sets, but it also uses some screens/projection mapping. It also has a grand facade and queue.
To me, that sounds almost like the description of a Universal attraction, the only difference is it's a slower moving ride.
Agree to disagree I thought the transitions were seamless in a great many places, particularly the vaults section. Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly but when it first opened, I read many reviews in which people said they wanted to remove the glasses on a reride because it was difficult to tell some physical sets apart. Obviously the opening scene and the lava scene are somewhat telling but I feel that many people are shocked when they realize the amount of Gringotts that was actually a physical set.
With that said I have little concern over the screen debacle because I truly believe Universal knows how to utilize them. I feel that while some of the general public may question the amount of screens, the vast majority are so impressed with the quality of the rides that they will only ask how Universal can do it better. I will concede that there is definitely a need for more slow paced attractions, and I feel that at some point in the pipeline those will come. Universal has a good thing going - I have faith they will not mess it up.
Does Uni need to make a ride that primarily has physical sets? Yes, and we're getting that with Kong. I don't want to see a primarily screen based attraction for a bit, but they should be used in moderation.
Of course, I prefer real sets over screens. I've made that loud and clear in my post history. But to me the bigger issue is having to wear those stinking glasses.
And yes, bring on Mystic Manor.
What annoys me to no end in Universal vs Disney discussions is how Universal seems to be the sole employer of screens, but that's because they utilize them in their new attractions and they continue to build new attractions.
Disney does not have this problem but a large majority of the attractions they've opened in WDW this past decade+ also utilize screens:
Toy Story Mania
The Seas with Nemo and Friends
Turtle Talk with Crush
Monsters Inc Laugh Floor
Star Tours II
There's probably more you can name. It would just be as obvious if they built more and as often, but they don't.
I generally don't have a problem with screens, my main beef is 3D/needing to wear glasses. It certainly is starting to feel like they're getting carried away with it now, and now starting to go back to older rides and adding 3D goggles to them (in Forbidden Journey's case). If they update the Simpsons ride, is there a chance they'll add 3D to that too? I understand their use of screens and reliability for fast-moving action, and they certainly are capable of building physical set pieces and using both in an attraction. Just... please Universal, less headgear required!
The point isn't that WDW doesn't use screens. Of course they do. But their variety when it comes to attractions is far better than the variety at Universal imo. Universal has three types of rides it mainly offers: 3D Simulators, Coasters and Water Rides.
The whole point is that UOR has a big problem in that they have 7 Coasters, 3 Water Rides (all in one small part of the same park) and 6 simulators.. 4 being 3D (+ Shrek & T2 for 3D usage).
That's basically all of the major rides at the parks and all have height restrictions. Sure Soarin', ST2, M:S and Test Track use screens, but at least there's always the rides like Spaceship Earth, Kilimanjaro Safaris, Pirates, HM, Mermaid, Peter Pan, Nemo, etc, etc, etc that are available to all ages.
In your list, three of those are static shows, meaning no ride vehicle. Two don't have a height requirement. All that leaves is Soarin', M:S and ST2. The only rides Universal has that able to accommodate the whole family with no height requirement is Kang & Kodos, HE (although that's more of an experience than anything) and a few rides in Seuss Landing. However, even in Seuss Landing, The High in the Sky Trolley ride has a height requirement as well as the Cat in the Hat ride (and they've even toned down the spinning), the land's marquee attraction. ET has an unfortunate height requirement as well.
I don't know how I can be any clearer. Not only has Uni fell in love with Simulators and 3D, but there's no end in sight. We know Kong will have 3D elements, Fallon likely will and seeing as F&F in USH has 3D, i'd guess that F&F will have 3D elements as well. I love their simulator rides, I really do. However, they need to accommodate a wider age range (they're missing out on young AND old... and the old have the money) and start using screens in a different way than just 3D simulator TF/Spidey/Gringotts type rides.
I think a lot of it depends on space as well.
If you look at the footprint of spiderman or trasnformers, you could never fit a full scale action ride in there with physical sets.
Screens seem to work a lot better when there is a physical element to it.
Ive been on the tram tour at USH and the kong section did nothing for me. The 360 screen there lost perspective because of the 360, there needs to be some physical features for your mind to focus/adjust to.
What hurts the most is they are tearing down existing practical effect attractions and replacing them with screens.
Separate names with a comma.