Skull Island: Reign of Kong - General Discussion

[Brian G.]

EDIT: Not disagreeing with anyone, by the way. I am curious why you'd even lead with the pretense of surveys unless you wanted to somehow telegraph, whether this was true or not, that the change was actually precipitate by some measurable impact on guest satisfaction rather than on cost.

Bit of both it seems. There has been general pushback over the reliance on screens, but the debate is whether the survey exactly makes it as a 3D problem or a screen problem. The jury is out on that one.

 

[HalfGlass]

Bit of both it seems. There has been general pushback over the reliance on screens, but the debate is whether the survey exactly makes it as a 3D problem or a screen problem. The jury is out on that one.

I know technically any ride that employs 3D was "built" for 3D, but some rides genuinely need it as part of the gimmick (Jimmy Fallon, Spider-Man, Transformers), for depth based on rendering (Kong, Avatar, Gringotts) or because the vehicles have limited movement and need immersion (Ratatouille).

When I look at Despicable Me, did 3D make it better? Sure. But in my opinion it uses the same ride mechanics and thrills as Simpsons - like when the vehicles crash into things. So I don't notice its absence as readily and nothing would be "off" to me if I rode it in 2D my first go around.

I get needing to remove 3D from certain rides to fight against bad reactions from guests, but I wish the theme parks wouldn't shortchange the experience for some attractions and would instead, be more strategic about it.

I guess my analysis basically shows there's almost no attractions left to remove 3D from except for maybe Star Tours (though there's an argument it's needed there too), but it's a shame we've gotten to this point.

 

[Rhian]

I actually 100% agree that Universal should re-render/re-animate the ride film. But even without that fix, the removal of 3D isn't gonna determine whether I ride it or not.

The absence of the outdoor portion will.

If this was going to be a permanent move all along I thought they would've done that. They edited the AA dialog. I don't want to point too far down this road but it does seem like a less than a complete changeover for a lower price. If that does change soon then I'll take that back.

Everest has been the biggest example, so far.

This one is a little different because it wasn't cut out intentionally at first. Disney could have kept it running but I think the following lawsuits once the Yeti successfully freed itself from its base and really attack the track would have been the end of that ride entirely. It's also true now since they've chosen not to fix it since.

 

[Wesker69]

some rides genuinely need it as part of the gimmick (Spider-Man, Transformers)

The 3D never felt like a gimmick since they featured fire, fog, water effects to bring the action to life. It seemed more like a depth thing rather than the traditional "3D pop-out-of-the-screen" gimmick.

 

[HandsomePete]

Didn't they just remove 3D from ratatouille in DLP?

They did. "for Testing".

There obviously seems to be a pushback to 3D, whether it's an overcorrection or not.

3D has been on and off at DLP for years.

 

[Brian G.]

3D has been on and off at DLP for years.

Wasn’t aware. Thanks!

 

[Alicia]

If it were happening soon*, I'd take it (but wouldn't love it).

*This calendar year, say.

I think the outdoor scene will return at some point this year, yes.

 

[HalfGlass]

The 3D never felt like a gimmick since they featured fire, fog, water effects to bring the action to life. It seemed more like a depth thing rather than the traditional "3D pop-out-of-the-screen" gimmick.

You're right - gimmick is a strong word. I only say that because both Spidey and the Transformers physically jump and grab onto the vehicle, which would never work in 2D.

 

[Wesker69]

physically jump and grab onto the vehicle, which would never work in 2D.

But it worked fine for the Dino on BTTF & Maggie-zilla on Simpsons and they're 2D.
(Hot breath, baby powder scent & spit really sold it)

 

[Rhian]

So we get the outside portion back at the cost of 3D. Seriously who's holding the monkey's paw over there?

 

[saint.piss]

Man I honestly regret not going back on this ride when I've had the chance back when it had both the 3D and outdoor portion. I've only done it maybe 2-3 times

 

[Wesker69]

the monkey's paw

Oooooo new merch idea!! I'll take 3 & a shrunken head (although I might have to go to Disney's Adventureland for that)

 

[ultimateforce]

I always thought the 3D looked very blurry and fake. I'd take a clear 2D image every time, personally.

 

[UNIrd]

I always thought the 3D looked very blurry and fake. I'd take a clear 2D image every time, personally.

Well you're not getting that either 'cuz the 2D's blurry too!

 

[OLSinFLA]

I always thought the 3D looked very blurry and fake. I'd take a clear 2D image every time, personally.

If 8k at 60+ FPS looks blurry, its never going to look better, 3D or 2D

 

[belloq87]

But it worked fine for the Dino on BTTF & Maggie-zilla on Simpsons and they're 2D.
(Hot breath, baby powder scent & spit really sold it)

2D works in those instances because the subjects in question -- while they do interact with the vehicle -- are giant.

In Spider-Man, it's human-sized figures, and that won't work in 2D. They would look far too big without the depth.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Who exactly are the people who hate 3D but don’t mind screens, and why were both Universal and Disney unaware of them for the last two decades?

 

[Michael S]

Who exactly are the people who hate 3D but don’t mind screens, and why were both Universal and Disney unaware of them for the last two decades?

I haven’t followed this thread super closely, but I really don’t see that brought up here as a generalization. I see people talking about the quality of the 3D and not liking that, rather than just outright hating 3D. The “screenz” hate—which in my opinion, was overblown at times— came from a time that Universal was saturated with screen based attractions (they’re a film studio, go figure). It’s all about how you use it. Spider-Man is mostly a screen based 3D attraction and is still considered one of the best attractions at any theme park in the world. It doesn’t get a lot of hate. Harry Potter is a screen heavy attraction as well and it has been one of the most well received dark rides in the last 20 years. It’s a case by case basis, honestly.

Edit: also, when Harry Potter had 3D it wasn’t well received and was axed pretty quick, if I remember correctly. So that’s a specific example of an attraction where people hated its USE of 3D but not the screen based nature of the ride.

 

[IzzyB]

Bit of both it seems. There has been general pushback over the reliance on screens, but the debate is whether the survey exactly makes it as a 3D problem or a screen problem. The jury is out on that one.

I always assumed it was the overuse of screens in general and not enough physical prop rides. I don't think 3D or 2D makes a difference when it comes to heavy use of screens. And really it was mainly studios park and no other park.

I know technically any ride that employs 3D was "built" for 3D, but some rides genuinely need it as part of the gimmick (Jimmy Fallon, Spider-Man, Transformers), for depth based on rendering (Kong, Avatar, Gringotts) or because the vehicles have limited movement and need immersion (Ratatouille).

When I look at Despicable Me, did 3D make it better? Sure. But in my opinion it uses the same ride mechanics and thrills as Simpsons - like when the vehicles crash into things. So I don't notice its absence as readily and nothing would be "off" to me if I rode it in 2D my first go around.

I get needing to remove 3D from certain rides to fight against bad reactions from guests, but I wish the theme parks wouldn't shortchange the experience for some attractions and would instead, be more strategic about it.

I guess my analysis basically shows there's almost no attractions left to remove 3D from except for maybe Star Tours (though there's an argument it's needed there too), but it's a shame we've gotten to this point.

I will be honest I had forgotten that DM was in 3D before when I rode it. My kids loved the ride and I didn't miss the 3D. But I had not been on it in years. So I am that person you are talking about and it clearly didn't make a difference to me.

If this was going to be a permanent move all along I thought they would've done that. They edited the AA dialog. I don't want to point too far down this road but it does seem like a less than a complete changeover for a lower price. If that does change soon then I'll take that back.


This one is a little different because it wasn't cut out intentionally at first. Disney could have kept it running but I think the following lawsuits once the Yeti successfully freed itself from its base and really attack the track would have been the end of that ride entirely. It's also true now since they've chosen not to fix it since.

The Yeti and outdoor portion are equal because both broke and both are not fixed. Now I would say that Yeti didn't take out a section of the ride, so it still not comparable. But the cost and time to fix both seem high. Maybe that not even knowing how to fix it may factor in. But the Yeti isn't equal at all to 3D since it broke and this is pure just wanting to save money. Where the outdoor and Yeti is allocating new money vs removing 3D cutting costs.

 

[OrlandoGuy]

Edit: also, when Harry Potter had 3D it wasn’t well received and was axed pretty quick, if I remember correctly. So that’s a specific example of an attraction where people hated its USE of 3D but not the screen based nature of the ride.

I may be conflating my own opinion with the overall feedback, but for me the problem with FJ’s 3-D conversion was the tacky implementation (I still cringe now when the dragon flies in your face right before the end of that video scene). I also think people were complaining about nausea because, tying back to the spirit of the discussion, that ride wasn’t built for 3-D like the others were.