King Kong Speculation Thread

[JungleSkip]

I think if anyone calls Forbidden Journey, Gringotts, Mummy, and Spider-man similar, they're either being purposefully obtuse or didn't pay attention. Transformers is very similar to Spider-man, but that's because they were never meant to coexist.

To me that's like complaining that IASW or Pirates are the same because they're slow moving boat rides. Or that Spaceship Earth, Haunted Mansion, and Little Mermaid are all the same because they're omnimovers.

 

[belloq87]

I think if anyone calls Forbidden Journey, Gringotts, Mummy, and Spider-man similar, they're either being purposefully obtuse or didn't pay attention. Transformers is very similar to Spider-man, but that's because they were never meant to coexist.

To me that's like complaining that IASW or Pirates are the same because they're slow moving boat rides. Or that Spaceship Earth, Haunted Mansion, and Little Mermaid are all the same because they're omnimovers.

If there’s a better place to have this discussion so as not to clutter up the Kong thread, I’m happy to take this there, but in the meantime...

The person I mentioned basically felt that Gringotts was a kind of fusion of all those rides mentioned, but didn’t really offer her anything that she felt set it substantially apart from those other rides (with the exception of a few of the climactic effects), which I essentially agree with. That doesn’t mean I’m not thrilled to have it - and Diagon Alley - in the park (even at the expense of Jaws, which was once my favorite ride in the Studios).

As for the Disney comparison, I’ll definitely cop to being more forgiving of identical ride systems in a classic dark ride setting. I tend to favor the artistry of tangible animatronics, sets, fire, and water in a ride slightly over digital or video representations. I recognize that that’s my own personal baggage, and it’s not meant to be a knock against what Universal has been doing. If that makes me somewhat hypocritical in this regard, then so be it; we all have our faults and biases.

The ultimate point I was attempting to make was about Universal building rides that can only be successfully achieved through screen integration: fast paced, lots of action, dynamic and exciting movement. They’re all great rides... but I would like to see what Universal Creative could do if given the challenge to create their own equivalent of a Haunted Mansion, or a Horizons, or even a contemporary update of their own E.T. Given their recent track record of amazing quality, I know they could knock it out of the park (pun intended) if afforded the chance and the right I.P.

Why wouldn’t any theme park fan want to see that, regardless of its likelihood of happening? I don’t think there’s anything wrong with wanting to see it, and it doesn’t make me less of a Universal fan (or a screens hater, or something) to feel that way. That’s all I’m saying.

 

[JungleSkip]

I mean, sure, that'd be great.

But in reality Universal has never done that. ET is nearly the only example. Even Jaws and Kong had thrilling or scary elements to them. universal builds big, action movie rides. They aren't going to build Horizons or Pirates or Mansion. That's what Disney's there for. I guess I'm content with that.

 

[JungleSkip]

And really, when's the last time Disney built anything resembling the Haunted Mansion or Horizons in the US? Little Mermaid is maybe the closest, but that is still not very close.

 

[belloq87]

Oh, they haven't. Then again, they've haven't built much of ANYTHING in the Florida parks in the last seven years. I may think Universal is getting a little too "same-y" with their approach, but at least they're expanding, and as a theme park fan I'm very happy about that.

 

[martymcflyy85]

I mean, sure, that'd be great.

But in reality Universal has never done that. ET is nearly the only example. Even Jaws and Kong had thrilling or scary elements to them. universal builds big, action movie rides. They aren't going to build Horizons or Pirates or Mansion. That's what Disney's there for. I guess I'm content with that.

I'm not.

 

[DragonSlayer]

Oh, they haven't. Then again, they've haven't built much of ANYTHING in the Florida parks in the last seven years. I may think Universal is getting a little too "same-y" with their approach, but at least they're expanding, and as a theme park fan I'm very happy about that.

You can't really even blame this on TDO complacency / cheapness though. Of the latest two dark rides in the Disney arsenal - Mystic Manor and Ratatouille - we can see even Disney moving further and further from the so-called 'traditional' dark ride. Granted, MM has a ton of effects and other cool stuff, but that ride is incredibly unique and extraordinarily high budget. The first time I went on Ratatouille, you know what it reminded me of the most? Spiderman. There is really nothing in it which wasn't accomplished by Spiderman in 1999. The ride system contributes little to the actual ride experience IMO, and once you move past that it's a predominantly screen-based attraction, bar one scene. I think the argument being had time and time again here is much more symptomatic of an industry-wide shift than some direct ideological clash between Disney and Universal.

Ironically enough, RSR probably has one of the best dark ride scenes created in recent times in terms of use of 'classic' elements of animatronics and show lighting of physical set pieces when it isn't even primarily a dark ride.

 

[JungleSkip]

I'm not.

Sorry? But that's how Universal makes rides. Kong will come the closest to being a "serene" attraction, if I had to put money on it.

Ironically enough, RSR probably has one of the best dark ride scenes created in recent times in terms of use of 'classic' elements of animatronics and show lighting of physical set pieces when it isn't even primarily a dark ride.

You think so? I thought the interior of RSR was completely devoid of inspiration. The racing portion was fantastic, however.

 

[OrlandoGuy]

You think so? I thought the interior of RSR was completely devoid of inspiration. The racing portion was fantastic, however.

:yikes: really?? I'll second the notion that RSR is one of the best classic dark rides, at least in recent times like DragonSlayer said. The animatronics are the best I've ever seen, and I really like the use of speed for certain parts of it. The paint shop/tire shop random thing is cool too. Some of the obvious 2-D sets are kinda lame but personally, I think it might be Disneyland Resort's best ride, maybe second to Indiana Jones.

 

[JungleSkip]

:yikes: really?? I'll second the notion that RSR is one of the best classic dark rides, at least in recent times like DragonSlayer said. The animatronics are the best I've ever seen, and I really like the use of speed for certain parts of it. The paint shop/tire shop random thing is cool too. Some of the obvious 2-D sets are kinda lame but personally, I think it might be Disneyland Resort's best ride, maybe second to Indiana Jones.

The AAs are great, but the dark ride portion is just uninspired. It's a slow roll through the town you just walked through to get to the ride with everyone more or less saying the same thing about the race.

I'd put a lot above RSR at DLR (Pirates, Indy, Space Mountain, Grizzly).

But we've probably drifted a bit too far off topic here.

Sorry for the tangent, all.

 

[Cole]

Photos of the kong site do not do it justice, this facade is MASSIVE like almost as big as hogwarts massive if not bigger, not to mention width either. It looks so awesome already, looks like they started putting down those yellow sheets for rock work too, amazing job

 

[belloq87]

You can't really even blame this on TDO complacency / cheapness though. Of the latest two dark rides in the Disney arsenal - Mystic Manor and Ratatouille - we can see even Disney moving further and further from the so-called 'traditional' dark ride. Granted, MM has a ton of effects and other cool stuff, but that ride is incredibly unique and extraordinarily high budget. The first time I went on Ratatouille, you know what it reminded me of the most? Spiderman. There is really nothing in it which wasn't accomplished by Spiderman in 1999. The ride system contributes little to the actual ride experience IMO, and once you move past that it's a predominantly screen-based attraction, bar one scene. I think the argument being had time and time again here is much more symptomatic of an industry-wide shift than some direct ideological clash between Disney and Universal.

Ironically enough, RSR probably has one of the best dark ride scenes created in recent times in terms of use of 'classic' elements of animatronics and show lighting of physical set pieces when it isn't even primarily a dark ride.

I think Mystic Manor (which I haven't been able to ride yet) appears to strike much more of the sort of balance I'd like to see; just going off the ride videos I've seen, that attraction is overflowing with AAs and setpieces in a way that Ratatouille just simply is not (again, based on the ride videos I've seen, in which the ride seemed VERY underwhelming). MM seems to use screens not as the driving centerpieces of conveying the action, but as accents and enhancements to the physical effects. I do think you're on to something when you say it could be a bit of an industry shift, not merely a Universal-centric issue. On the other hand, maybe they just viewed Ratatouille as their (much belated) direct answer to Spider-Man, and it's not necessarily a harbinger of rides to come.

Given what I've read about Kong in this thread over the past months, I'm very optimistic that it's going to hit that sweet spot of AAs, giant setpieces, and exciting screen action. Hopefully it will please fans on all sides of the issue!

 

[darkridelover]

Kong Kong Kong Kong Kong!!!! This thread is about Kong. As in King Kong.

 

[UniversalCityFL]

Regarding screens:

I think, generally, screens are only used throughout the parks as a medium to create the type of experience the audience would demand from the source material.

For example, Spider-Man... They could never create a Spider-Man ride that was a slow-moving omnimover dark ride through the Daily Bugle. The audience would feel let down. That kind of source material requires some sort of high-speed web-slinging adventure through a city. That's really only possible through screens. And they use them sparingly... only for the portions that would be impossible to construct practically.

For a ride like Jurassic Park, they could have done a screen-based attraction, but again, the audience would feel let down. They want to see physical dinos if they are visiting Jurassic Park.

Likewise with Forbidden Journey - I think they did as much as they could practically - but when it comes to being in the middle of a quidditch match, they switch over to screens. Otherwise, how else would you execute that? Therefore I'm totally fine with the use of the medium.

And likewise for KONG -- it seems they are building as much as they can physically. For the inevitable portion where your ride vehicle gets thrown off a cliff (or whatever), there will be screens for that.

If you look at the broad view of everything Universal has created over time, you'll find that it's a sliding scale. From 100% screen-based rides (BTTF), to 100% practical experiences that are nothing short of engineering miracles (Earthquake). I think right now we are in a time when the best attractions are a blend of screens and practical.

Don't forget that the people who design these rides are huge theme park fans as well. The attractions aren't thought up by a bunch of people asking, "What can we do that's screen-based?". They are saying "What would be really fun and cool?" and then working backward from there to make it happen.

Oh, and might I kindly suggest, that if you're going to comment or complain about something, it's always great to offer up what you think would be a better solution. That's a general rule in any discipline when critiquing the art of others, and makes for more engaging discussion on these boards. So if you're upset that KONG or Fast and Furious uses screens, go ahead and expound on how YOU would execute the attraction instead.

 

[deano_ue]

while i agree with a lot of your points, such like spider-mans web swinging couldnt be done, i think a mixture of animatronics and screens could have really improved spidey. you come round the corner and there is an actual doc ock standing mouthing off and have his tenticles start to bring the building done while the scoop backs up at high speed. or a shriek animatronic coming out of a wall.

i do think your right the forbiddeon journy got the balance correct im just kinda getting annoyed that every ride outside of an actual rollar coaster is now a simulator of a 4d show

 

[shiekra38]

Regarding screens:

I think, generally, screens are only used throughout the parks as a medium to create the type of experience the audience would demand from the source material.

For example, Spider-Man... They could never create a Spider-Man ride that was a slow-moving omnimover dark ride through the Daily Bugle. The audience would feel let down. That kind of source material requires some sort of high-speed web-slinging adventure through a city. That's really only possible through screens. And they use them sparingly... only for the portions that would be impossible to construct practically.

For a ride like Jurassic Park, they could have done a screen-based attraction, but again, the audience would feel let down. They want to see physical dinos if they are visiting Jurassic Park.

Likewise with Forbidden Journey - I think they did as much as they could practically - but when it comes to being in the middle of a quidditch match, they switch over to screens. Otherwise, how else would you execute that? Therefore I'm totally fine with the use of the medium.

And likewise for KONG -- it seems they are building as much as they can physically. For the inevitable portion where your ride vehicle gets thrown off a cliff (or whatever), there will be screens for that.

If you look at the broad view of everything Universal has created over time, you'll find that it's a sliding scale. From 100% screen-based rides (BTTF), to 100% practical experiences that are nothing short of engineering miracles (Earthquake). I think right now we are in a time when the best attractions are a blend of screens and practical.

Don't forget that the people who design these rides are huge theme park fans as well. The attractions aren't thought up by a bunch of people asking, "What can we do that's screen-based?". They are saying "What would be really fun and cool?" and then working backward from there to make it happen.

Oh, and might I kindly suggest, that if you're going to comment or complain about something, it's always great to offer up what you think would be a better solution. That's a general rule in any discipline when critiquing the art of others, and makes for more engaging discussion on these boards. So if you're upset that KONG or Fast and Furious uses screens, go ahead and expound on how YOU would execute the attraction instead.

Good point, Universal is all about teh realism...I'm pretty sure cost cutting measures also leads to certain things being cut as well...I believe Transformers was meant to have some animatronics, but the cost would have been astronomical compared to what we have (which by the way still gives me sweaty palms when we fall)...

It seems ever since Transformers people have been complaining about Universal's attractions...How people can see an identical attraction in Gringotts and Transformers/Spidey is beyond me...

I think everyone may have missed the part about Kong having an animatronic Kong and outdoor portion with other AAs...hmm..

 

[DragonSlayer]

i think a mixture of animatronics and screens could have really improved spidey. you come round the corner and there is an actual doc ock standing mouthing off and have his tenticles start to bring the building done while the scoop backs up at high speed. or a shriek animatronic coming out of a wall.

Something I've taken issue with time and again is this idea that the argument here is purely screen vs animatronic. For me personally, screen vs physical environment is the much more important comparison. Spidey is traditionally cited as an excellent example of how to combine screen-based and practical effects, but the things which make it such a favourite of mine are the physical sewer pipe set, the physical building sets used in many scenes, etc etc. If people would recognise this difference it would eliminate a lot of the argument based on realism - space permitting, a physical set is equally if not more realistic than a screen of the same thing. A physical animatronic is usually not.

Screens vs animatronics? Don't care. Screens vs sets? Sets every time.

 

[belloq87]

Oh, and might I kindly suggest, that if you're going to comment or complain about something, it's always great to offer up what you think would be a better solution. That's a general rule in any discipline when critiquing the art of others, and makes for more engaging discussion on these boards. So if you're upset that KONG or Fast and Furious uses screens, go ahead and expound on how YOU would execute the attraction instead.

As I've said, I'm really excited for what Kong has in store, and have no problems with Universal's approach for it. F&F, however, is a different story. It seems so obvious that the franchise is crying out for a higher octane Radiator Springs Racers-style set-up where two ride vehicles race each other, preferably through detailed city-street-type sets with lots of practical fire and physical effects. I want to actually be moving at high speeds (shooting around curves, launching into straightaways, dodging obstructions, etc.), not positioned alongside giant screens that are SIMULATING high speed. But again, that's all hypothetical; we haven't seen the final version of Hollywood's attraction, much less what might be coming to Florida.

Anyway, I'm sorry for the massive left turn this thread has taken (my fault!). Back to Kong!

 

[shiekra38]

As I've said, I'm really excited for what Kong has in store, and have no problems with Universal's approach for it. F&F, however, is a different story. It seems so obvious that the franchise is crying out for a higher octane Radiator Springs Racers-style set-up where two ride vehicles race each other, preferably through detailed city-street-type sets with lots of practical fire and physical effects. I want to actually be moving at high speeds (shooting around curves, launching into straightaways, dodging obstructions, etc.), not positioned alongside giant screens that are SIMULATING high speed. But again, that's all hypothetical; we haven't seen the final version of Hollywood's attraction, much less what might be coming to Florida.

Anyway, I'm sorry for the massive left turn this thread has taken (my fault!). Back to Kong!

Anyone want to measure the size of RSR show building/track vs. the Disaster/Beetlejuice area and see how they compare...I would love a fast paced attraction RSR type attraction at UNI

 

[mbrou24]

Photos of the kong site do not do it justice, this facade is MASSIVE like almost as big as hogwarts massive if not bigger, not to mention width either. It looks so awesome already, looks like they started putting down those yellow sheets for rock work too, amazing job

As of yesterday rock work had already begun on the left side of the building as far as I could see.