Race Through NY Starring Jimmy Fallon

[Disneyhead]

And just a FYI, there are more AAs in DA than NFL.

EDIT: Ok, ^^^^ isn't correct. I miss counted. Explanation below.

 

[IzzyB]

And just a FYI, there are more AAs in DA than NFL.

What are you considering an AA? Because 7 dwarfs has 7 in the mine and several in the house. Little mermaid has 3 Ariels, 1 ursala, 2 of the guy, and 1 of the father.

Gringotts has the 7 in the bank area and 1 in the bank. But I am not sure how many are in the ride itself.

 

[captainmoch]

I'm pretty sure there's none in the ride itself.

 

[ChrisFL]

What are you considering an AA? Because 7 dwarfs has 7 in the mine and several in the house. Little mermaid has 3 Ariels, 1 ursala, 2 of the guy, and 1 of the father.

Gringotts has the 7 in the bank area and 1 in the bank. But I am not sure how many are in the ride itself.

I sense we're about to have a discussion about what constitutes an "AA"

 

[IzzyB]

I sense we're about to have a discussion about what constitutes an "AA"

Agreed... I honestly don't know what people consider an AA vs something else. Like in the house they are way less detailed and moving vs in the mine itself.

 

[Disneyhead]

What are you considering an AA? Because 7 dwarfs has 7 in the mine and several in the house. Little mermaid has 3 Ariels, 1 ursala, 2 of the guy, and 1 of the father.

Gringotts has the 7 in the bank area and 1 in the bank. But I am not sure how many are in the ride itself.

OK, there's my blonde moment. I forgot the dwarfs! So my statement earlier is incorrect. And there is also Scuttle, Lumier, and The Wardrobe in NFL, but I counted them.

And there are 9 goblins in the lobby. There is also Nagini and 2 furry beasts in the Magical Menagerie. And Hedwig in HE.

 

[IzzyB]

OK, there's my blonde moment. I forgot the dwarfs! So my statement earlier is incorrect. And there is also Scuttle, Lumier, and The Wardrobe in NFL, but I counted them.

And there are 9 goblins in the lobby. There is also Nagini and 2 furry beasts in the Magical Menagerie. And Hedwig in HE.

Glad I am not the only one having blonde moments

 

[Disneyhead]

Agreed... I honestly don't know what people consider an AA vs something else. Like in the house they are way less detailed and moving vs in the mine itself.

First, no one builds AAs anymore. Now they are just animatronics. But the difference between animatronics and mechanical figures is that animatronics motion is triggerable. Mechanical figures are simply motorized and you turn them on and they go.

 

[misterID]

No, what I was saying is if you are looking for Disney style attractions (i.e.: AA centric), Disney is where you should go to get them. Whining about the fact that Universal is doing what Universal does best seems pointless to me. And calling Universal lazy is laughable.

I do respect you, and I enjoy a lot of your posts, but even on the other site you're out to instigate arguments, especially the waxy figure comment which you keep falling back on and inserting into every debate, over and over, when anyone says anything not glowing about uni or about screens. I didn't say uni was lazy. You're deliberately trying to twist my words, which is pretty low, the simulator itself is lazy. I understand space limitations, but f&f is a lazy move, IMO, but uni is far from lazy. And others seem to have the problem when they are mentally unable to accept the desire for variety in theme parks or take it as an assault on uni. I'm here because I love the parks and don't want to see it be one dimensional.

 

[Nick]

I do respect you, and I enjoy a lot of your posts, but even on the other site you're out to instigate arguments, especially the waxy figure comment which you keep falling back on and inserting into every debate, over and over, when anyone says anything not glowing about uni or about screens. I didn't say uni was lazy. You're deliberately trying to twist my words, which is pretty low, the simulator itself is lazy. I understand space limitations, but f&f is a lazy move, IMO, but uni is far from lazy. And others seem to have the problem when they are mentally unable to accept the desire for variety in theme parks or take it as an assault on uni. I'm here because I love the parks and don't want to see it be one dimensional.

Perfectly stated. We wouldn't be on this site if we didn't want Universal to be great. Building nothing but simulators creates less diversity, meaning all experiences start to feel the same.

ET and MIB are great rides that use almost all practical sets. If those same rides were built in this day and age of Universal "Creative", can you honestly tell me those rides would be built the way they currently are in the park today?

 

[brianlo]

I too am just giving them a hard time because I have come to expect more. This will probably be a perfectly fun attraction (for me) when all is said and done and that's fine. Even just the thematic changes will be a major boon.

It's just not the creative direction that would get me excited however.

Universal's forte is projection technology. Disney's is robotics. Disney uses projection tech, and Universal uses robotics. But their strengths are what set them apart.

Although I wouldn't discount Disney's strength in projection mapping.

I can't help but think that if we had the Sesame Street and Madagascar attractions here, people who are dissing slow moving waxy rides wouldn't have a problem with it, and the complaining about screens would steadily decrease.

I think the complaints would decrease because people would actually realize Madagascar is a terrible, terrible ride. It can't even be given the compliment of being waxy, it's plastic. It is Universal trying and not succeeding in copying the Disney format. @Disneyhead is right that sometimes it's best when the competition doesn't try to copy one another.

I have to nip that in the bud whenever someone here hopes for the Madagascar attraction. It's not good, trust me.

 

[Nick]

I have to nip that in the bud whenever someone here hopes for the Madagascar attraction. It's not good, trust me.

I'm not one that is wanting Madagascar, but hey, we're getting F&F and Kong... both pretty mediocre tram attractions from Hollywood. We know Kong will be AMAZING and F&F... well, it'll be a little better.

The point is, when Universal clones an existing attraction, normally the second time is MUCH better than the first time. Even look at Hogsmeade USJ. Minion Mayhem or Springfield at USH. They always do better on their second chance.

Again, i'm not advocating for the ride, but also remember, Madagascar wasn't built under the Comcast reign.

 

[Disneyhead]

I do respect you, and I enjoy a lot of your posts, but even on the other site you're out to instigate arguments, especially the waxy figure comment which you keep falling back on and inserting into every debate, over and over, when anyone says anything not glowing about uni or about screens. I didn't say uni was lazy. You're deliberately trying to twist my words, which is pretty low, the simulator itself is lazy. I understand space limitations, but f&f is a lazy move, IMO, but uni is far from lazy. And others seem to have the problem when they are mentally unable to accept the desire for variety in theme parks or take it as an assault on uni. I'm here because I love the parks and don't want to see it be one dimensional.

Well, your complaint is that all Universal does is simulators. And using simulators is lazy. Sounds to me like you are calling Universal lazy.

Name one calm AA oriented dark ride built since Epcot opened that feels state of the art today. The closest thing would be the mine scene in 7DMT. But 5 mins of that with no coaster portions would be boring.

And I am curious as to the F&F coming to Orlando being lazy. It's going to be a $90 million state of the attraction. Custom trackless ride vehicles and state of the art projection technology doesn't sound lazy to me. Don't worry your test track-ish ride is coming. And Kong is more SCREENZZZ!!!!!!! Lazy!!!!!'

 

[brianlo]

The point is, when Universal clones an existing attraction, normally the second time is MUCH better than the first time. Even look at Hogsmeade USJ. Minion Mayhem or Springfield at USH. They always do better on their second chance.

Yes, although there is a difference between cloning and building an attraction from scratch. Madagascar needs to be done from scratch. Kong looks to be great, but it's not a clone from Hollywood, it's a completely new attraction.

Universal actually has a fairly bad record of cloning attractions, in my opinion. There are virtually no differences to Hogsmeade (unless you think a lake and 3D are groundbreaking changes). They are now cloning a 15 year old kiddie coaster that was overlaid for Potter, which I think ranks as one of the laziest things they've done. Again there are no significant changes. Transformers was at its best in Singapore (the original).

I've been to the Universal Parks and ultimately I walk away with the impression that they are all too similar, and ultimately, lesser versions of Orlando. Beijing on the other hand may finally be something truly unique.

Name one calm AA oriented dark ride built since Epcot opened that feels state of the art today.

Mystic Manor.

And I am curious as to the F&F coming to Orlando being lazy. It's going to be a $90 million state of the attraction. Custom trackless ride vehicles and state of the art projection technology doesn't sound lazy to me.

That doesn't sound lazy at all, if true. But aren't they just cloning the Tram ride, with some slight modifications?

 

[Nick]

Yes, although there is a difference between cloning and building an attraction from scratch. Madagascar needs to be done from scratch. Kong looks to be great, but it's not a clone from Hollywood, it's a completely new attraction.

Universal actually has a fairly bad record of cloning attractions, in my opinion. There are virtually no differences to Hogsmeade (unless you think a lake and 3D are groundbreaking changes). They are now cloning a 15 year old kiddie coaster that was overlaid for Potter, which I think ranks as one of the laziest things they've done. Again there are no significant changes. Transformers was at its best in Singapore (the original).

I've been to the Universal Parks and ultimately I walk away with the impression that they are all too similar, and ultimately, lesser versions of Orlando. Beijing on the other hand may finally be something truly unique.

Maybe cloning was a bad word. I more meant they go full back into the R&D phase for the attraction and redevelop it into something similar but much better like they have with the tram attractions that have come to Orlando over the years.

And I agree, i've been to a majority of Universal parks around the globe and I am always just reminded of Orlando as everything is similar. I can't say the same when I go to Disneyland or Tokyo DLR.

 

[martymcflyy85]

Don't worry your test track-ish ride is coming.

What do you mean by this? Is this something new?

 

[RonaldsModernLife]

This is the only thing I'm going to say on this matter since there is a thread for it. But if you don't like the attractions with screens then you should just stop bothering with Universal. This is how it's going to be going forward, it's easier and most cost effective to make these attractions and they have been nothing but hits for Universal so far.

That shouldn't be an excuse. Liking or not liking screen based attractions is irrelevant (though if you must know, I am quite saddened to see the loss of a practical effects attraction being closed down for yet ANOTHER motion simulator. I don't hate motion simulators, but I would like some variety as well) but we shouldn't be encouraging Universal to take the easier, cheaper way out. Of course any company is going to aim for their products to be cost effective, but we shouldn't be patting anyone on the back for taking the easier way out.

 

[@gentPerry]

I'm guessing the test track-like tech will be used for nintendo

 

[Disneyhead]

That shouldn't be an excuse. Liking or not liking screen based attractions is irrelevant (though if you must know, I am quite saddened to see the loss of a practical effects attraction being closed down for yet ANOTHER motion simulator. I don't hate motion simulators, but I would like some variety as well) but we shouldn't be encouraging Universal to take the easier, cheaper way out. Of course any company is going to aim for their products to be cost effective, but we shouldn't be patting anyone on the back for taking the easier way out.

F&F will not be cheap.

What do you mean by this? Is this something new?

Yes, new. But alas it will use state of the art projection tech never before used in a theme park application. And it will be interactive AND spin!

 

[Nick]

F&F will not be cheap.

You said they are spending $90M on it. Obviously that is not "cheap". But the idea behind the ride that has been described by most, is most certainly taking the easy way out, unless something has changed.

Just because they spend a good amount of money doesn't mean it isn't cheap.