Fast & Furious: Supercharged - General Discussion

[AlexanderMBush]

I don't see what your point is regarding the opening dates within a year limit, but the what the attraction presents.

Let me put it this way, you are comparing a 100-110 million (just a guess as I think IOA Kong is there) attraction that will have a high capacity in-take as a filler attraction against a billion dollar land with two E-Ticket attractions.

In a way, it's comparing apples to oranges; or in a case as both opened the same year; Transformers in California to a 750 million dollar Cars themed land.

It's just not a right way of comparing things, and that you need to revise what you need to say.

 

[Imperius]

Opening date doesn't mean much but trying to compare this standalone ride based on FF to a Star Wars attraction in a billion dollar land makes no sense.

 

[Paulio]

Let me put it this way, you are comparing a 100-110 million (just a guess as I think IOA Kong is there) attraction that will have a high capacity in-take as a filler attraction against a billion dollar land with two E-Ticket attractions.

In a way, it's comparing apples to oranges; or in a case as both opened the same year; Transformers in California to a 750 million dollar Cars themed land.

It's just not a right way of comparing things, and that you need to revise what you need to say.

I never said that filler and E-ticket rides are comparable nor that I compare to a ride to a land (why you interpret this is beyond me). All I'm saying is that lately, Universal has been developing new rides for 3d screen simulator rides for fillers whereas Disney has been developing new rides based on practical sets with some screens attached to them. When is the last time Disney has add rides as fillers lately, let alone just purely 3d simulator attractions? In Pandora land, they added a river boat ride with mixed-practical sets and screens with an amazing animatronic and a flight-simulator ride and at the D23, they announce the same thing happening as well. All I'm saying is that Universal needs to take notice and catch up with the most immersive attractions they need to offer, so my points still stands.

 

[AlexanderMBush]

I never said that filler and E-ticket rides are comparable nor that I compare to a ride to a land (why you interpret this is beyond me). All I'm saying is that lately, Universal has been developing new rides for 3d screen simulator rides for fillers whereas Disney has been developing new rides based on practical sets with some screens attached to them. When is the last time Disney has add rides as fillers lately, let alone just purely 3d simulator attractions? In Pandora land, they added a river boat ride with mixed-practical sets and screens with an amazing animatronic and a flight-simulator ride and at the D23, they announce the same thing happening as well. All I'm saying is that Universal needs to take notice and catch up with the most immersive attractions they need to offer, so my points still stands.

Well, I have to agree to disagree with you.

 

[Imperius]

Isn't the millennium Falcon ride all screens?

And Universal is planning non-screen attractions so this argument really is moot.

 

[Disneyhead]

I never said that filler and E-ticket rides are comparable nor that I compare to a ride to a land (why you interpret this is beyond me). All I'm saying is that lately, Universal has been developing new rides for 3d screen simulator rides for fillers whereas Disney has been developing new rides based on practical sets with some screens attached to them. When is the last time Disney has add rides as fillers lately, let alone just purely 3d simulator attractions? In Pandora land, they added a river boat ride with mixed-practical sets and screens with an amazing animatronic and a flight-simulator ride and at the D23, they announce the same thing happening as well. All I'm saying is that Universal needs to take notice and catch up with the most immersive attractions they need to offer, so my points still stands.

Disney didn't add a whole heck of a lot for a long time. Filler nor headliners. But TSMM is a filler attraction and is, quite frankly, the laziest screen based attraction there is. Even beating out Shrek, which is saved merely because of the preshow.

 

[SkiBum]

When is the last time Disney has add rides as fillers lately,

Disney didn't add a whole heck of a lot for a long time. Filler nor headliners. But TSMM is a filler attraction and is, quite frankly, the laziest screen based attraction there is.

Frozen Ever After felt like a filler ride. They repurposed Maelstrom for all intents and purposes. That is even more filler than TSMM. Thing is, Disney hasn't added enough rides to compare to UNI in the last decade (as Disneyhead stated). New Fantasyland had an underwhelming omnimover and a short, budget-reduced coaster. Let's not forget a Beauty & The Beast playset for children. Flight of Passage is a simulator, basically, and the River Journey is screen-based, although well done.

How else can you do Kong without screens? F&F has to be a screen-based ride, if you aren't going to use fast moving vehicles (such as a coaster). I think that Wizarding World and Diagon Alley shows that UNI has caught up with immersion. I have always felt that IOA as a whole was more immersive than anything at WDW (although Animal Kingdom comes close).

Also, I would imagine that this discussion has been hashed out and rehashed over on the screens forum.

 

[darkridelover]

It's so bad that Universal have to build another 3D generic screen simulator excuse of a ride. Meanwhile, Disney plans to incorporate actual animatronics of droids and fighters as part of Galaxy's Edge's new ride involving the battle between the rebels and the Galantic Empire.

Disney also just opened a "Generic" screen based attraction, and announced plans for like 12 more at D23 so lets put the criticism in context.

 

[Andysol]

Forgot frozen or TSMM.
How about TSMM third theater? Or soarin third theater?

There's quite literally nothing more of a filler than just adding another theater, is there not?

If your point is F&F is incredibly disappointing, then you won't have many people arguing the fact. But compare apples to apples. The premier attraction in the biggest project WDW has had in 20 years (SWL) should be compared with the premier attraction at Nintendo. Or even a 5 or 9 year older ride in HP. Will it be better, maybe- let's wait and judge.
As for the atrocity that is F&F- compare it with a more mid-tier attraction like Mickey and Minnie replacing GMR. Or even GotG. Those are more fair comparisons. Will M&M be better than F&F? Probably. Will GotG? Almost certainly. But let's wait and watch though, K?

 

[UNIrd]

How else can you do Kong without screens? F&F has to be a screen-based ride, if you aren't going to use fast moving vehicles (such as a coaster).

As long as there is imagination left in the world, screens are not solely the answer.

 

[xxbrothawizxx]

This and Fallon already looked bad just in comparison to Creative's own output as of late. Of course it looks even worse when Disney World is getting the attention it should have years ago.

I just remind myself that Nintendo and probably more Potter is coming at some point. I do wish their output would be a bit more consistent. I know everything can't be Gringotts or FJ, but guests will probably see something like this as a disappointment.

 

[bob albert]

The Belle thing may be a kids show, but everyone should see the amazing animatronics and the door transformation once.

 

[Paulio]

How else can you do Kong without screens? F&F has to be a screen-based ride, if you aren't going to use fast moving vehicles (such as a coaster). I think that Wizarding World and Diagon Alley shows that UNI has caught up with immersion. I have always felt that IOA as a whole was more immersive than anything at WDW (although Animal Kingdom comes close).

Also, I would imagine that this discussion has been hashed out and rehashed over on the screens forum.

Nowadays, screens are considered the future of immersive of technology in the theme park industry so as long they are used, people are going to keep on hashing that argument out and how concerned such screens will not immerse the guests the same way it was back in the old days. Kong could have been done without screens. Look at Kongfrontation and King Kong Encounter, it's not that impossible. Imagine the Indiana Jones ride are made using today's technology instead of back in the 1990s, people would argue that it would be all entirely screens with a bit of a practical effects thrown in. But look where it is, the ride is entirely filled with practical sets and immersion. It seems like Universal prefer to build them sooner with little creative input rather than wait for the opportunity to make them into immersive and awesome rides while balancing out the popular appeal of such rides.

 

[Scott W.]

Frozen Ever After felt like a filler ride. They repurposed Maelstrom for all intents and purposes. That is even more filler than TSMM. Thing is, Disney hasn't added enough rides to compare to UNI in the last decade (as Disneyhead stated). New Fantasyland had an underwhelming omnimover and a short, budget-reduced coaster. Let's not forget a Beauty & The Beast playset for children. Flight of Passage is a simulator, basically, and the River Journey is screen-based, although well done.

How else can you do Kong without screens? F&F has to be a screen-based ride, if you aren't going to use fast moving vehicles (such as a coaster). I think that Wizarding World and Diagon Alley shows that UNI has caught up with immersion. I have always felt that IOA as a whole was more immersive than anything at WDW (although Animal Kingdom comes close).

Also, I would imagine that this discussion has been hashed out and rehashed over on the screens forum.

 

[Parkscope Joe]

Nowadays, screens are considered the future of immersive of technology in the theme park industry so as long they are used, people are going to keep on hashing that argument out and how concerned such screens will not immerse the guests the same way it was back in the old days. Kong could have been done without screens. Look at Kongfrontation and King Kong Encounter, it's not that impossible. Imagine the Indiana Jones ride are made using today's technology instead of back in the 1990s, people would argue that it would be all entirely screens with a bit of a practical effects thrown in. But look where it is, the ride is entirely filled with practical sets and immersion. It seems like Universal prefer to build them sooner with little creative input rather than wait for the opportunity to make them into immersive and awesome rides while balancing out the popular appeal of such rides.

I don't agree with your asssessment that creativity and care (care based on your "sooner" comment) only apply to attractions with physical sets.

Anyway, can we move this back on topic again? We have a dedicated thread for talk about screen based technology in attractions.

 

[Alicia]

Here's a quick update from last week. Took me some extra time because I'm having work done on my house: Universal Update: Fast & Furious Construction, Nintendo Land Rumors, Mummy Props and More – Orlando ParkStop

Video:



Photos:

Section of walls still not completed to the right:

Workers are using paint and stain to age down the windows:

View from across the lagoon:

Work finally underway at the former Disaster entrance:

Some existing brickwork is being stripped off:

New walls going up:

Area seen from London:

 

[SkiBum]

<sigh> Darn it. I would still argue that Kong in its current incarnation is much easier to pull off with screens. Maybe that is how I should have phrased it. Either way, I will keep my expectations set for the ride type that will be used and not expect to go rocketing at 80 mph through a show building.

 

[shiekra38]

<sigh> Darn it. I would still argue that Kong in its current incarnation is much easier to pull off with screens. Maybe that is how I should have phrased it. Either way, I will keep my expectations set for the ride type that will be used and not expect to go rocketing at 80 mph through a show building.

You are right, but I think Universal should stop looking at how to tell the story they are telling and more at the story they are trying to tell...Kong could have been done practically if they simply told a different story

 

[SkiBum]

You are right, but I think Universal should stop looking at how to tell the story they are telling and more at the story they are trying to tell...Kong could have been done practically if they simply told a different story

Absolutely. Picking the right medium (ie ride type) is essential for these rides. Fallon as a sim works great. Spiderman and Transformers have the right tech. Gringott's, Forbidden Journey, and others use the right conveyance for the story of the ride. Would Kong have worked as maybe a jeep ride with sets and animatronics. Absolutely. F&F could have been awesome.

 

[Freak]

Absolutely. Picking the right medium (ie ride type) is essential for these rides. Fallon as a sim works great. Spiderman and Transformers have the right tech. Gringott's, Forbidden Journey, and others use the right conveyance for the story of the ride. Would Kong have worked as maybe a jeep ride with sets and animatronics. Absolutely. F&F could have been awesome.

I totally see this ride as an easy way out. Just imagine a ride that could have been a cross between Test Track and Transformers. Even if it had screens, it still would have been better than this.