The Official "Use of Screenz" Thread

[Red Carpet]

You think people complain about screens now? Just wait until the Oculus Rift and other VR devices hit the market. Then it will be even harder to impress guests with screen based attractions.

 

[Nick]

You think people complain about screens now? Just wait until the Oculus Rift and other VR devices hit the market. Then it will be even harder to impress guests with screen based attractions.

I don't see how that makes a difference. Universal's screen attractions are already like dropping you inside of a giant VR game and just going along for the ride.

 

[Teebin]

Set based attractions hmmm.... I would pay $25 just to walk through Hogwarts and be happy to shell out another $25 to walk through Gringotts. They are mega attractions unto themselves that could easily warrant ride vehicles meandering through them at a Disney pace.

 

[belloq87]

I’ve got no problem with a ride extensively using screens; Spider-Man is my favorite ride of all time. The only concern I have would be that in 10 or 15 years, Universal Studios Florida might be made up almost entirely of screen-based rides/simulators of one sort of another. That appears to be the trajectory the park is on, and that’s not a composition that would excite me. Gringotts and Simpsons and Minion Mayhem and Transformers are a lot of fun… but if (nearly) every future attraction built is a variation on one of those, the rides will begin to blend together and start to lose what makes them special and distinct. Would people really want a park full of Spider-Man progeny? I'd like a park full of unique and varied experiences, not full of just Spider-Man 3.0s or Gringotts 2.0s.

Is that hyperbolic? Perhaps. I’m sure there will be a token few attractions built at Universal over the next decade that don’t adhere to the Spidey/Forbidden Journey/Gringotts template, but I’m worried that the bulk of what's coming are going to be versions of rides we’ve already got at the resort. I want to see Universal do something totally unpredictable and unique.

 

[martymcflyy85]

I’ve got no problem with a ride extensively using screens; Spider-Man is my favorite ride of all time. The only concern I have would be that in 10 or 15 years, Universal Studios Florida might be made up almost entirely of screen-based rides/simulators of one sort of another. That appears to be the trajectory the park is on, and that’s not a composition that would excite me. Gringotts and Simpsons and Minion Mayhem and Transformers are a lot of fun… but if (nearly) every future attraction built is a variation on one of those, the rides will begin to blend together and start to lose what makes them special and distinct. Would people really want a park full of Spider-Man progeny? I'd like a park full of unique and varied experiences, not full of just Spider-Man 3.0s or Gringotts 2.0s.

Is that hyperbolic? Perhaps. I’m sure there will be a token few attractions built at Universal over the next decade that don’t adhere to the Spidey/Forbidden Journey/Gringotts template, but I’m worried that the bulk of what's coming are going to be versions of rides we’ve already got at the resort. I want to see Universal do something totally unpredictable and unique.

This pretty much sums its up perfectly. People think we are hating on screen based attractions. We are not. We are just hating on there being SO MANY of them.

 

[captainmoch]

I pretty much agree. At this point, I just hope that
1) Fallon and F&F don't use 3D. The Fallon/Soarin' thing probably will, and I feel like F&F depends on what the ride is like.
2) The Nintendo attractions aren't super screen based. A Mario Kart ride like RSR with little screen usage would be great, a Mystic Manor-esque Luigi's Mansion attraction could be amazing, a Zelda dark ride could be good, and a Pokemon Snap dark ride could also be great. Just saying, if they want Nintendo to be a good family area to replace KidZone, having an overload of simulators wouldn't work that well. A fair amount of detailed, Mystic Manor-tier family dark rides plus a few minor thrills would be best IMO.

 

[Red Carpet]

If a ride uses screens to enhance an environment I physically move through like Gringotts, I am fine with that. If a ride uses screens to simulate motion rather than actually moving me, like Despicable Me, then I have a problem. Simulated motion simply does not compare to actual motion. I don't like it when screens are used to take the ride out of the ride.

 

[captainmoch]

If a ride uses screens to enhance an environment I physically move through like Gringotts, I am fine with that. If a ride uses screens to simulate motion rather than actually moving me, like Despicable Me, then I have a problem. Simulated motion simply does not compare to actual motion. I don't like it when screens are used to take the ride out of the ride.

I don't know, that doesn't bother me much. I still feel like I'm "riding" something, just in a different sense. I don't expect them to make a non-simulator attraction based off Despicable Me or Simpsons because like, what would they really do to make it fun and interesting? It also works in the sense of making it a more "family" ride that can ease kids into more thrilling rides, imo.

 

[Mad Dog]

Controversy about screens? What about so called "AA only Disney "? Take a look at Epcot, a fairly "traditional Disney" park. Looking at their attractions, I'm seeing an awful lot of movie screens and projections, full or partial parts of the attraction.. China Film attraction, France Film attraction, Canada Film attraction, Mission Space (both Green & Orange), Universe of Energy (some film segments), Turtle Talk with Crush, Soarin, Capt. EO, The Seas with Nemo (film projections), Gran Fiesta Tour. I only see four attractions without screens (and one of those is questionable since I haven't been on the new Test Track), plus the new Frozen attraction will be partly screens. If it's good enough for Disney, it should be good enough for Universal:ears: . Personally though, I prefer a mix of screens and AA's, sets etc. like Reign of Kong will be. But, it's pretty tough to do a 21st century type ride without using screens for at least a portion of the attraction.

 

[jh32488]

Good screen based attractions are fine as long as there aren't too many of them. Transformers is not near as good as spiderman for the same type of ride.
Spiderman throws a fireball in your face. Transformers has a lighting effect. I can't think of any times the Transformers sets are as interactive as the Spiderman sets. EX: Spiderman jumps on ladder, the close call with garbage truck, floating set pieces, etc. Spiderman pushed technology forward to a new type of ride and Transformers takes it back a little.

Not only are screens an issue but 3D is getting over used. It doesn't work well with myself or a lot of people for that matter.

 

[Disneyhead]

I enjoy TF every bit as much as I enjoy Spider-man. They are similar, but different. They feel different. One is dramatic the other is frenetic.

I think TF is a great attraction, but it threw off the balance of Screenz/non Screenz attractions. It was fine before Gringott's opened. But after that USF became out of balance.

Fallon won't help. Nintendo will help.

 

[Nick]

Controversy about screens? What about so called "AA only Disney "? Take a look at Epcot, a fairly "traditional Disney" park. Looking at their attractions, I'm seeing an awful lot of movie screens and projections, full or partial parts of the attraction.. China Film attraction, France Film attraction, Canada Film attraction, Mission Space (both Green & Orange), Universe of Energy (some film segments), Turtle Talk with Crush, Soarin, Capt. EO, The Seas with Nemo (film projections), Gran Fiesta Tour. I only see four attractions without screens (and one of those is questionable since I haven't been on the new Test Track), plus the new Frozen attraction will be partly screens. If it's good enough for Disney, it should be good enough for Universal:ears: . Personally though, I prefer a mix of screens and AA's, sets etc. like Reign of Kong will be. But, it's pretty tough to do a 21st century type ride without using screens for at least a portion of the attraction.

The point isn't "SCREENZ ARE BAD". Disney has a wide variety of rides and attractions, which just happen to include screens.

Universals attractions tend to stick to the one concept in screens/simulators... Very little diversity.

 

[belloq87]

I enjoy TF every bit as much as I enjoy Spider-man. They are similar, but different. They feel different. One is dramatic the other is frenetic.

I think TF is a great attraction, but it threw off the balance of Screenz/non Screenz attractions. It was fine before Gringott's opened. But after that USF became out of balance.

Fallon won't help. Nintendo will help.

We may disagree on the overall distinctive merits of Transformers (though fun, I find it a completely inessential experience in comparison to the far superior Spider-Man), but we definitely agree about the balance being thrown off a bit. With Twister and Disaster on the chopping block, that balance is (apparently) going to tip even further in the screens direction for the near future.

As such, I really hope you're right about whatever Nintendo attractions are coming! Two or three (mostly) physical/practical dark rides or coasters would definitely help.

 

[Nick]

I'll bring this here so the Fallon thread doesn't go as another thread today bogged down by SCREENZ talk

I can't imagine Frozen Ever After will be that screen reliant. That'd be like calling RSR screen reliant because of the one spray paint scene.

I agree in theory, but the AA's are going to use the new projection tech and if the main Elsa scene were to breakdown at any point, then that scene is nothing (which also means the ride has to go down for a period of time until it's fixed). That's why I lumped it in.

 

[Parkscope Joe]

I'll bring this here so the Fallon thread doesn't go as another thread today bogged down by SCREENZ talk


I agree in theory, but the AA's are going to use the new projection tech and if the main Elsa scene were to breakdown at any point, then that scene is nothing (which also means the ride has to go down for a period of time until it's fixed). That's why I lumped it in.

What I have heard is there will be AAs but also many "SCREENZ" effects.

 

[deathcab4cutie]

pros vs cons screen
pro
cheaper
bigger
can be used in both the for-ground
and back ground
have limitless uses
the future of theme park is heading
towards screens followed by holograms
can be used in so many ways that could
blow your mind
can be used with or without glasses
people who are afraid of thrill rides tend
to try it if it has glasses
even Disney is starting to use screens more
now then ever before
takes up less space
can bring to life larger then life creature
that can move fully
screens keep getting better just a few years ago
it was 4k now where heading towards 8k
wont come to life and start killing people like in five nights at Freddies
con
used a lot kinda gets old
AA,S LOOK COOLER
if used the same way gets boring
people are nostalgic towards AA,s and not screens

 

[darkridelover]

I always thought that Universal is a movie company first and foremost. Bringing the movies to life in unique and inventive ways is what Universal Orlando does. Movies happen on screens. And almost every major theme park attraction in the last decade centrally utilizes some sort of projection technology. It's just where the industry is right now. And I don't think anyone would disagree that Universal has become the world leader in utilizing this technology in ground breaking attractions.

 

[Mad Dog]

I always thought that Universal is a movie company first and foremost. Bringing the movies to life in unique and inventive ways is what Universal Orlando does. Movies happen on screens. And almost every major theme park attraction in the last decade centrally utilizes some sort of projection technology. It's just where the industry is right now. And I don't think anyone would disagree that Universal has become the world leader in utilizing this technology in ground breaking attractions.

You summed it up pretty good.

 

[belloq87]

I always thought that Universal is a movie company first and foremost. Bringing the movies to life in unique and inventive ways is what Universal Orlando does. Movies happen on screens. And almost every major theme park attraction in the last decade centrally utilizes some sort of projection technology. It's just where the industry is right now. And I don't think anyone would disagree that Universal has become the world leader in utilizing this technology in ground breaking attractions.

Absolutely. Any fair-minded theme park fan should be able to acknowledge that. But I also happen to think, however, that when Universal keeps using the same (great) tricks again and again on all their major rides, the cool and unique elements of the tricks begin to wear off.

With the upcoming Fast & Furious and Fallon attractions no doubt being dependent on screens, that leaves Mummy, Men In Black, and E.T. as the only remaining key attractions (excluding the live shows) that don't rely on that technology. I would like there to be more of a balance of experiences.

 

[Clive]

I always thought that Universal is a movie company first and foremost. Bringing the movies to life in unique and inventive ways is what Universal Orlando does. Movies happen on screens. And almost every major theme park attraction in the last decade centrally utilizes some sort of projection technology. It's just where the industry is right now. And I don't think anyone would disagree that Universal has become the world leader in utilizing this technology in ground breaking attractions.

This doesn't track. The point is to put us into the world of the films, not watch a larger screen with simulated motion.

Universal is definitely the leader in utilizing these - but there's "too much of a good thing," and we're close to have passed it.