The Official "Use of Screenz" Thread

[Mad Dog]

Still don't know why people complain about SCREEENZZZZ on Kong even though the queue and half of the ride are physical sets, and what is done with the screens would be nearly impossible with physical sets especially with the amount of space they had.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[belloq87]

Still don't know why people complain about SCREEENZZZZ on Kong even though the queue and half of the ride are physical sets, and what is done with the screens would be nearly impossible with physical sets especially with the amount of space they had.

I think there are several factors. Some people who followed the years of rumors leading up to the opening may have been expecting - based on those rumors, many from reliable sources - that the scenes before the 360 room were going to be far more physical and AA-filled than what we ended up getting. And there were probably some other, more old school Universal fans who loved Kongfrontation (a giant-in-scale experience brought to life without any screens) and thought, "If they could do Kong 'for real' back in 1990, why does so much of Reign of Kong need to be simulated?"

I think if Universal had found a way to achieve the bug pit scene through (primarily) AA means, it would have quieted a lot of the concerns. It might also have improved the pacing of the ride; by necessity, a more physical bug sequence wouldn't have been as "action packed," thereby making the 360 room feel like even more of the ride's centerpiece. There would have been more of a buildup.

But really, the screens in Kong don't bother me; I view it as a delightful bonus ride in IOA's lineup, which still offers a great balance of many types of attraction experiences. It's Race Through New York and Fast & Furious that truly annoy me.

 

[Mad Dog]

I think there are several factors. Some people who followed the years of rumors leading up to the opening may have been expecting - based on those rumors, many from reliable sources - that the scenes before the 360 room were going to be far more physical and AA-filled than what we ended up getting. And there were probably some other, more old school Universal fans who loved Kongfrontation (a giant-in-scale experience brought to life without any screens) and thought, "If they could do Kong 'for real' back in 1990, why does so much of Reign of Kong need to be simulated?"

I think if Universal had found a way to achieve the bug pit scene through (primarily) AA means, it would have quieted a lot of the concerns. It might also have improved the pacing of the ride; by necessity, a more physical bug sequence wouldn't have been as "action packed," thereby making the 360 room feel like even more of the ride's centerpiece. There would have been more of a buildup.

But really, the screens in Kong don't bother me; I view it as a delightful bonus ride in IOA's lineup, which still offers a great balance of many types of attraction experiences. It's Race Through New York and Fast & Furious that truly annoy me.

Yes, I think your on to something with that. Niles, of TPI, for one, probably saw the first concepts, but not the actual plans, because he kept insisting (about 6 months before the attraction opened) there was a physical kidnap scene after the skeleton and refuted there was any screens or even the long cavern that's before the 360 room screen . I know, since I argued the existence of the two screen scenes & the cavern with him when I used to post over there, since plans I had seen was completely different than he was describing. And he was very meh on the attraction at that time with that kidnap scene concept. He finally walked it back a bit and then when he finally experienced the ride a few months ago,he gave it a glowing review. On Magic a few months ago, Why Light Bulb talked about that same scene Niles described, but that scene was not in the attraction plans. And the more I think about it, I don't think that kidnap scene would have been as good as the two screen scenes. For one, there just isn't much room in that building. And secondly, that scene might have really been tough to create and operate without breakdowns. I really like the special effects there on the two screens with the bug attacks & the vehicle movement. and the cavern set is done quite well. I don't see an AA or two there being as thrilling. I think there's more bang for your buck the way they did it. And, as I've said in my really wordy review on the Kong Review thread, I really like the outdoor scene & the grand entrance through the gates. When they only run the indoor scenes, due to inclement weather or problems with the vehicles, the ride is not as good. So it really has a pretty significant set scene when you're outside, in my opinion, and that sets the stage for the entire ride experience. I just love Kong, and like Gringotts, it gets better with repeat rides.

 

[belloq87]

Speaking of Niles, he just published a de facto defense of Universal's recent screen-happy nature...

http://www.themeparkinsider.com/flume/201703/5480/

I think his point about Universal crafting attractions that are full experiences from the moment one steps into the queue (and which may utilize far more than just screens in those queues) is fair, but I think he's really bending over backwards to be deferential to all the simulators in the Studios park, and he's got a general attitude of "Get over it" which doesn't sit well with me.

But, I suspect many will agree with his take!

 

[Brian G.]

Yes, I think your on to something with that. Niles, of TPI, for one, probably saw the first concepts, but not the actual plans, because he kept insisting (about 6 months before the attraction opened) there was a physical kidnap scene after the skeleton and refuted there was any screens or even the long cavern that's before the 360 room screen .

Initial plans had the ride much longer and some other cool scenes, but money always talks. Plan big and work down from there to make it realistic.

Speaking of Niles, he just published a de facto defense of Universal's recent screen-happy nature...

I think his point about Universal crafting attractions that are full experiences from the moment one steps into the queue (and which may utilize far more than just screens in those queues) is fair, but I think he's really bending over backwards to be deferential to all the simulators in the Studios park, and he's got a general attitude of "Get over it" which doesn't sit well with me.

But, I suspect many will agree with his take!

They can be full experiences without screens though. 3 years ago, when it was just Kong and Diagon Alley on the way, I thought the critique wasn't warranted. Now, it may be.

 

[Mad Dog]

Speaking of Niles, he just published a de facto defense of Universal's recent screen-happy nature...

Don't dismiss Universal's new, interdisciplinary take on theme park rides
http://www.themeparkinsider.com/flume/201703/5480/
I think his point about Universal crafting attractions that are full experiences from the moment one steps into the queue (and which may utilize far more than just screens in those queues) is fair, but I think he's really bending over backwards to be deferential to all the simulators in the Studios park, and he's got a general attitude of "Get over it" which doesn't sit well with me.

But, I suspect many will agree with his take!

To a degree I agree. I've been a big supporter of the Total Attraction (Queue, Pre Shows, Ride) that Universal has kind of evolved into, so I judge an attraction by the sum total. Quite often Universal saves their AA's for the queue, which is fine with me since I have more time to experience & join them that way. That said, though, I'd still like to see a couple of less thrill ET type attractions, just to mix it up a bit & balance the parks. IOA has decent balance. And Studios doesn't bother me much being screen oriented, since with Hogwarts Express most everyone now treats the two parks as one gigantic park. And as Insiders are now saying, after F&F the mix will be changing. So I don't really see much of an issue.

 

[belloq87]

They can be full experiences without screens though.

Oh, I totally agree with that. I was just trying to avoid raking Niles over the coals too much!

And that's not to underrate any of the amazing queues that have been built over the last several years, though. The Forbidden Journey and Gringotts queues are attractions in themselves (and, in Gringotts' case, better than the actual ride itself to me!).

 

[belloq87]

To a degree I agree. I've been a big supporter of the Total Attraction (Queue, Pre Shows, Ride) that Universal has kind of evolved into, so I judge an attraction by the sum total. Quite often Universal saves their AA's for the queue, which is fine with me since I have more time to experience & join them that way. That said, though, I'd still like to see a couple of less thrill ET type attractions, just to mix it up a bit & balance the parks. IOA has decent balance. And Studios doesn't bother me much being screen oriented, since with Hogwarts Express most everyone now treats the two parks as one gigantic park. And as Insiders are now saying, after F&F the mix will be changing. So I don't really see much of an issue.

I think queues are incredibly important, but at the end of the day, it's still all about the ride for me. If I go through a great queue and then hop on a decent-but-not-amazing ride, in my mind I'm asking, "Why didn't they put more of that queue's flavor/design/AAs/sets/whatever into the actual ride?"

As for treating the two parks as one giant one, I guess I'm still too old school for that! One day at IOA, one at USF, one morning in Diagon. So they're still mostly separate identities to me, each with separate strengths and weaknesses that are independent of the other's strengths and weaknesses.

 

[OLSinFLA]

One of the things (as someone who studied film in school) is HOW the screens/systems are used differently depending on whats needed. Spiderman, for example, is mostly left-to-right motion of the cars, so the screens are flat. But in the free fall, the screens are deeply curved because it needs the effect of foward motion. Its an old trick first used by Cinerama in the 50s, that curved screens can simulate motion. Transformers, on the other hand, is a lot of forward motion, so the majority of the screens are deeply curved. However, since the 'squinching' effect doesn't work so well when the vehicles move left to right, sideways motion is reduced (hence why Tranfsfomers feels to stop and go). On the other hand, Kong has to simulate forward motion while not looking ahead, so another trick is used. Douglas Trumble discovered the faster the frame rate, the more the mind interprets it as real. So using 70mm at 70fps he was able to create ShowScan that created the illusion of movement and reality. So Kong is projected at 60fps, which sells the illusion. (T2 is also slightly faster than the normal 24fps but no where near that high. Its difficult enough to synch up 6 70mm projectors). There's a couple of other tricks thrown in. So its not just simple screens, but actually a combination of type of screen, projection system used and how its combined with a theater.

 

[Mad Dog]

One of the things (as someone who studied film in school) is HOW the screens/systems are used differently depending on whats needed. Spiderman, for example, is mostly left-to-right motion of the cars, so the screens are flat. But in the free fall, the screens are deeply curved because it needs the effect of foward motion. Its an old trick first used by Cinerama in the 50s, that curved screens can simulate motion. Transformers, on the other hand, is a lot of forward motion, so the majority of the screens are deeply curved. However, since the 'squinching' effect doesn't work so well when the vehicles move left to right, sideways motion is reduced (hence why Tranfsfomers feels to stop and go). On the other hand, Kong has to simulate forward motion while not looking ahead, so another trick is used. Douglas Trumble discovered the faster the frame rate, the more the mind interprets it as real. So using 70mm at 70fps he was able to create ShowScan that created the illusion of movement and reality. So Kong is projected at 60fps, which sells the illusion. (T2 is also slightly faster than the normal 24fps but no where near that high. Its difficult enough to synch up 6 70mm projectors). There's a couple of other tricks thrown in. So its not just simple screens, but actually a combination of type of screen, projection system used and how its combined with a theater.

Wow. Great and interesting information. And you simplified the explanation enough that even us non tech types can understand. Thanks. :thumbsup:....So, is the curved screen the reason you feel deeper into the action & scenes on Transformers then you do on most of Spider Man?

 

[WAJAS]

I used to not have a strong opinion on this, but it's getting kinda ridiculous with the amount of rides that are completely reliant on a screen.

 

[shiekra38]

To a degree I agree. I've been a big supporter of the Total Attraction (Queue, Pre Shows, Ride) that Universal has kind of evolved into, so I judge an attraction by the sum total. Quite often Universal saves their AA's for the queue, which is fine with me since I have more time to experience & join them that way. That said, though, I'd still like to see a couple of less thrill ET type attractions, just to mix it up a bit & balance the parks. IOA has decent balance. And Studios doesn't bother me much being screen oriented, since with Hogwarts Express most everyone now treats the two parks as one gigantic park. And as Insiders are now saying, after F&F the mix will be changing. So I don't really see much of an issue.

Oh, I totally agree with that. I was just trying to avoid raking Niles over the coals too much!

And that's not to underrate any of the amazing queues that have been built over the last several years, though. The Forbidden Journey and Gringotts queues are attractions in themselves (and, in Gringotts' case, better than the actual ride itself to me!).

I get that making the queues amazing is important as most people spend the most time in that area, however...I would argue that Universal is actually shooting themselves in the foot because the ride has that much more anticipation to fulfill...Take Kong for instance, the outside, the queue and the boarding area are all quite epic..The ride has a lot that it needs to accomplish to live up to the amazing queue...

I think in part that is why a lot of mixed reviews have been happening on the rides recently...Those who 'get it' in terms of what Universal is trying to accomplish, like the rides...Those who don't necessarily understand that the ride portion is part of the overall experience, don't necessarily like the rides that much or have a 'meh' feeling towards them...

Also, Universal needs to get comfortable again with buildup..Think of the first scene in JAWS, no shark, no action, just a skipper and some exposition..Mummy as well, a slow jog through some creepy sets until you hit the first show scene....Gringotts is boom, yank, and into the first scene...Kong tried to buildup a bit with the outdoor portion and the first scene a bit, but it still just feels rushed...The whole ride feels like it is rushing you to the 360 scene, cause that's really what the ride is about at the end of the day, I don't like that...

Just a few of my thoughts...I don't think screens are the issue here..I think pacing, presentation, and overall design is...

 

[shiekra38]

Sorry for the double post, but I feel I should respond to a couple of points made in the article

Cedar Point has built a lot of roller coasters, so it should stop making roller coasters and build other rides, to keep fans happy.

I'm not so sure CP fans are asking them to not build coasters anymore..It's what they do...Universal builds immersive attractions that put you into the action..They are tasked with selling you an illusion...The recent screen based attractions are hindering that illusion...And also, the screen based rides are starting to slip in the guest satisfaction surveys...And CP is an Amusement Park at the end of the day, people get what they pay for..CP delivers on its promises..

Disney has made a lot of animated movies, so it should stop making animated films and develop only live-action family movies, to keep fans happy.

Ironic.

Legoland has built a lot of attractions that look like Lego bricks, so it should use other surface decorations on their new attractions, to keep fans happy.

Once they rename Universal "Screenland" or "Christie Projection Studios" I will agree with this point

Am I getting this right?

No

At that point, every encounter on the Studio Tour was practical, which actually made little sense given how much of filmmaking in the 21st century is digitally-based. Adding a digital encounter on the tour helped alleviate a deficiency on the attraction.

Funny he would mention varied experiences...There is a reason F&F feels redundant on the tram tour...

Kong and Fallon advance a model expands the definition of a theme park attraction beyond "a queue and a thing." They can involve multiple narrative elements — live, filmed, and mechanical — that launch from the moment you enter, not when you reach the load platform or pre-show area.

Again, I like this model...The ride HAS TO deliver on the promise from the queue line though

 

[OLSinFLA]

Wow. Great and interesting information. And you simplified the explanation enough that even us non tech types can understand. Thanks. :thumbsup:....So, is the curved screen the reason you feel deeper into the action & scenes on Transformers then you do on most of Spider Man?

Spiderman motion is mostly movement past the screens left-to-right so the vehicle itself provides most of the actual illusion.

 

[Freak]

What's really disappointing with all of the overuse of screens is that they have not made any ride since Spider-Man where any of the practical effects are mixed with the stuff on screen.

We all know the scene where Spidey jumps on a physical platform that moves with his landing. Why haven't they expanded on that with other rides for other effects? Why not have a helicopter fly above us in Fast and Furious that gets shot down by something on screen? Why not have a robotic arm that "grabs" our car mixed with 3D Megatron to make it look real? Why not have a 3D character jump on a practical car that moves while it's racing along? I think you see my point.

It's possible Uni even considered to do this stuff but decided, "eh, that's good enough". If they insist on doing another ride in 3D, they need to do that.

 

[Clive]

What's really disappointing with all of the overuse of screens is that they have not made any ride since Spider-Man where any of the practical effects are mixed with the stuff on screen.

We all know the scene where Spidey jumps on a physical platform that moves with his landing. Why haven't they expanded on that with other rides for other effects? Why not have a helicopter fly above us in Fast and Furious that gets shot down by something on screen? Why not have a robotic arm that "grabs" our car mixed with 3D Megatron to make it look real? Why not have a 3D character jump on a practical car that moves while it's racing along? I think you see my point.

It's possible Uni even considered to do this stuff but decided, "eh, that's good enough". If they insist on doing another ride in 3D, they need to do that.

Bingo. I penned an essay on this in response to my disappointment with Gringotts years ago... but the Spider-Man tech works when the 3D media and physical effects cross-pollinate and blur reality. Human eyes can tell when something is being generated on a screen - it's the real-world effect triggered by the 3D imagery that temporarily stuns the brain. Best example of this, to date, remains the Hobgoblin explosion. It's the biggest "wow!" moment of the ride for a reason.

 

[UNIrd]

Initial plans had the ride much longer and some other cool scenes, but money always talks. Plan big and work down from there to make it realistic.

Were the plans for a ride somewhere else? I feel like they did the most they could with the space, unless it would have gone multi-level like Transformers.

 

[shiekra38]

What's really disappointing with all of the overuse of screens is that they have not made any ride since Spider-Man where any of the practical effects are mixed with the stuff on screen.

We all know the scene where Spidey jumps on a physical platform that moves with his landing. Why haven't they expanded on that with other rides for other effects? Why not have a helicopter fly above us in Fast and Furious that gets shot down by something on screen? Why not have a robotic arm that "grabs" our car mixed with 3D Megatron to make it look real? Why not have a 3D character jump on a practical car that moves while it's racing along? I think you see my point.

It's possible Uni even considered to do this stuff but decided, "eh, that's good enough". If they insist on doing another ride in 3D, they need to do that.

I decided to ride Spiderman with my glasses off a couple of visits ago...The ride still holds up due to all of the practical set work that they decided to do...Event eh flying sequences have stuff around you...If I tried to do that with Kong it probably wouldn't bode well

 

[Freak]

I decided to ride Spiderman with my glasses off a couple of visits ago...The ride still holds up due to all of the practical set work that they decided to do...Event eh flying sequences have stuff around you...If I tried to do that with Kong it probably wouldn't bode well

Even Disney tried that practical/screen effect at the end and it looked spectacular. That was without 3D. I'm baffled as to why Uni is so allergic to this now.

 

[Evan]

I think the best example of an attraction without screens is Indiana Jones... Incredible queue, great build up, but the ride surpasses the queue. The ride is action packed, fast, slow, and epic. I honestly was hoping Kong would be more like that, in fact it kind builds itself up to be a lot like Indiana Jones, and then it kinda falls flat.

There are most certainly ways to build action packed rides, without screens.