Inside Universal Forums

Welcome to the Inside Universal Forums! Register a free account today to become a member. Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members and unlock our forums features!

  • 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.

The Official "Use of Screenz" Thread

What was the term Disney used when they made the Pooh and Mansion queue changes?
Interactive queues... they've basically given up on the concept as they finally realized people don't care.

What Universal has done here is successfully execute an "interactive queue". Funny enough, Surrell has been involved on both sides. He did the space mountain queue games at the least I believe.
 
Interactive queues... they've basically given up on the concept as they finally realized people don't care.

What Universal has done here is successfully execute an "interactive queue". Funny enough, Surrell has been involved on both sides. He did the space mountain queue games at the least I believe.

I love these new queues. Or even the extremely detailed ones.
But the question I do ask myself is did the elaborate queue affect the ride. Example- would we rather have an additional show scene on Kong and have a more basic queue with less theming, no AAs or scare actors?
If the trend is going to be elaborate queues at the expense of better rides, I'm not sure I'd be on bored with that.
 
Interactive queues... they've basically given up on the concept as they finally realized people don't care.

What Universal has done here is successfully execute an "interactive queue". Funny enough, Surrell has been involved on both sides. He did the space mountain queue games at the least I believe.

If they go for a room filled with Nintendo sports or 8 person multiplayer Mario kart, hands down the best interactive queue yet.

Even failing that, a Nintendo museum like Fallon would be fascinating.
 
Niles just put up a full Screenz article on TPI. He kind of looks at the debate with a different slant. Of course his pro Disney commentator crowd blasts Universal for it's screens and praises Disney's screen rides. Those people never cease to amaze me. They are hilarious. :lol:
 
The excuse I hear is that screens are the best way to tell a particular story. If that is the case I suggest finding a different story. Hopefully one that lends itself well to a physical environment.

This is a HUGE part of the issue. Universal's locked into these "thrill-a-minute" story concepts for rides these days, concepts which are basically all frenetic action for the duration of the ride. They start at close to 10 and have nowhere to build up to (there are exceptions, certainly). So of course screens are going to be the go-to method. This, coupled with pacing, is a big part of the reason so many of the rides feel kind of same-y to me.

Niles just put up a full Screenz article on TPI. He kind of looks at the debate with a different slant. Of course his pro Disney commentator crowd blasts Universal for it's screens and praises Disney's screen rides. Those people never cease to amaze me. They are hilarious. :lol:

I don't know, I think the comments are pretty reasonable! :shrug:
 
per TPI and the article
my thoughts are, if you re asking the question then that probably gives you the answer
personally i dont have a problem with them

big thing is diversity of ride technology in a park

Absolutely. So often those of us who are pegged as "anti screens" are nothing of the kind; we just don't want the parks to be filled with variations of the same basic simulator-y concept.

That's why I maintain Islands of Adventure is a superior park to Studios. Much more variety (even as USF has the greatest themed land I've ever seen). 10 - 15 years ago, I felt the opposite.
 
This is a HUGE part of the issue. Universal's locked into these "thrill-a-minute" story concepts for rides these days, concepts which are basically all frenetic action for the duration of the ride. They start at close to 10 and have nowhere to build up to (there are exceptions, certainly). So of course screens are going to be the go-to method. This, coupled with pacing, is a big part of the reason so many of the rides feel kind of same-y to me.



I don't know, I think the comments are pretty reasonable! :shrug:

That's very true..It is interesting how Spiderman is the oldest of all of them and yet it paces the action...You start with a slow jog through a city, meet Spiderman, meet the villains, and then the action ramps up

Ironically, I think Kong is a good example of how to "start" a ride off
 
That's very true..It is interesting how Spiderman is the oldest of all of them and yet it paces the action...You start with a slow jog through a city, meet Spiderman, meet the villains, and then the action ramps up

Ironically, I think Kong is a good example of how to "start" a ride off

Spider-Man, for my money, also has the best integration of screens and sets (and physical effects) that Universal has yet pulled off, and it's why I find Transformers so inferior despite basically being a "clone." The sets there are mostly transition points, whereas they're much more part of the scenes in Spidey.

In terms of creating a build-up, Kong does appear (based on what I've read and seen, as I haven't been on it yet!) to have a nice prologue-ish sort of sequence with the approach to the wall outside, but once we get into the show building my understanding is that it ramps up pretty quickly. As I've said elsewhere, I think if everything leading up to the 360 scene had been done in a fully classic dark ride style (which would have required rethinking what transpires in those moments, certainly), it would have improved the pacing concerns and made that 360 scene even more of a jaw-dropping showstopper.
 
Spider-Man, for my money, also has the best integration of screens and sets (and physical effects) that Universal has yet pulled off, and it's why I find Transformers so inferior despite basically being a "clone." The sets there are mostly transition points, whereas they're much more part of the scenes in Spidey.

In terms of creating a build-up, Kong does appear (based on what I've read and seen, as I haven't been on it yet!) to have a nice prologue-ish sort of sequence with the approach to the wall outside, but once we get into the show building my understanding is that it ramps up pretty quickly. As I've said elsewhere, I think if everything leading up to the 360 scene had been done in a fully classic dark ride style (which would have required rethinking what transpires in those moments, certainly), it would have improved the pacing concerns and made that 360 scene even more of a jaw-dropping showstopper.
Well, there are many factors why Kong was a bit lackluster...

Spiderman's action is pretty fast paced, but if you think about it there isn't really much going on..(i.e. Elector holds a plug in your face, Scream jumps on your car, Hobgoblin throws a flaming pumpking...Where as with Kong it is T-Rex over there, T-rex over there, add a spider, Kong jumping around, falling rocks, other truck, water spray, wind, and that is all in the 360 scene haha..
 
On Theme Park Insider's Facebook page, Robert Niles just posted a few random exterior and interior shots from around Universal Orlando with the snarky caption, "Actually, Universal isn't all just a bunch of screens...."

The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks! :lol:

But seriously, he strikes me as becoming needlessly defensive (on a third party's behalf!) over this whole thing, and I don't really get it.
 
It isn't always a third party. I was taken aback to see a TM I worked with doing video things for Attractions Magazine, but at Disney and as a "guest."
 
I just meant that on the surface, there doesn't appear to be a reason for Niles to so vigorously carry Universal's water on this issue. He can editorialize about it (and he has, which is perfectly fine), but this seemed like he was taking it a bit too far, especially when the consensus among his readers seems to be that, well, there's no consensus.

Or maybe he was just having some fun with it, who knows.
 
Last edited:


The #1 comment to this video....
Take notes Universal Studios. No more freakin screens.

Other top comments
The Mario ride at Universal better be animatronics, not screens

Universal was bad ass when I was 6 in 2002 but the illusion is far outdated and perhaps I was just young, whereas Disney keeps innovating. The harry potter park is pretty aight though

Wait til they see the new F&F ride. It's not just the theme park nerds that are tired of it.
 


The #1 comment to this video....


Other top comments




Wait til they see the new F&F ride. It's not just the theme park nerds that are tired of it.


Just a bit of advice -

You can't complain on one thread (aka Pandora) about beating a dead horse, and come into another beating a dead horse.

Either way, everyone knows it's time they stopped.
 
Just a bit of advice -

You can't complain on one thread (aka Pandora) about beating a dead horse, and come into another beating a dead horse.

Either way, everyone knows it's time they stopped.

This is the appropriate thread for that though. Completely different. Not like I'm posting it on this on the Fallon or F&F thread.
 
I'm not saying you're not. Talking about Pandora, whether you hate it or not, in the Pandora thread is also the appropriate thread.

I'd say it's different. I have no problem with people stating opinions but when it's the same, repetitive statements that add no value, or substance, it makes me (and apparently many others) want to sign off. If someone doesn't want to read about "Screenz" they don't have to click on this thread. It's been nearly the same Avatar talk since 2011. They can start a "Avatar is Culturally Intensive" or "Avatar is Irrelevant" thread and talk there. Which is how this thread came about because the other "main" threads were being overwhelmed with the same screenz talk.

You're trying to compare my initial post on this thread to those made within the Pandora thread...

4d4.jpg
 
Last edited:
I'd say it's different. I have no problem with people stating opinions but when it's the same, repetitive statements that add no value, or substance, it makes me (and apparently many others) want to sign off. If someone doesn't want to read about "Screenz" they don't have to click on this thread. It's been nearly the same Avatar talk since 2011. They can start a "Avatar is Culturally Intensive" or "Avatar is Irrelevant" thread and talk there.

You're trying to compare my initial post on this thread to those made within the Pandora thread...

4d4.jpg

Other bit of advice - don't be an ass. Especially to the owner of the site. You were A-OK until you tried to get cute with the pic.

Banned for a week.

And not because you crossed me. But because you've been looking for trouble in countless threads for quite some time.

AMENDMENT:

Before I get accused of going drunk with power, let me just clarify that it's really tough to make this decision as I don't want to ban anyone - unless they obviously crossed some serious lines. After the debacle of the Pandora thread, several people were on thin lines - with Miketheboss being one of them. Even after a warning yesterday, he tried to get cute again and I let it slide. This needs to stop. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but to get defensive or cute at someone's difference of opinion is where I drew the line. As I stated, had he not posted the pic, he'd still be posting.

I really don't want another Pandora issue again where the thread gets toxic. With an imminent merger, this is not the way I want to start this new era. I will be cracking down on more posters who are being asses.

I'll be posting on the Announcement thread as well to ensure everyone sees this.
 
Last edited:
Top