The Official "Use of Screenz" Thread

[UNIrd]

I'm even now starting to see references of "Please Disney, not another screens attraction" which I have never seen before. That's the difference of not expanding at all for a cool decade whereas the type of immersive rides both resorts build in this day and age do involve screens of some sort. Now that Disney is in the game of building new attractions again, they're catching up on the screens front.

The difference is their parks are still way more balanced than I see USF ever being again for years. And I mean YEARS.

 

[shiekra38]

I'm even now starting to see references of "Please Disney, not another screens attraction" which I have never seen before. That's the difference of not expanding at all for a cool decade whereas the type of immersive rides both resorts build in this day and age do involve screens of some sort. Now that Disney is in the game of building new attractions again, they're catching up on the screens front.

The difference is their parks are still way more balanced than I see USF ever being again for years. And I mean YEARS.

Where at? I would like to read it, is it on....that...other Magic site?

 

[Red Carpet]

For things that can't be done "for real" you use screens. For things that could be done physically but use screens instead, it comes across as cheap and lazy.

 

[darkridelover]

I'm even now starting to see references of "Please Disney, not another screens attraction" which I have never seen before. That's the difference of not expanding at all for a cool decade whereas the type of immersive rides both resorts build in this day and age do involve screens of some sort. Now that Disney is in the game of building new attractions again, they're catching up on the screens front.

The difference is their parks are still way more balanced than I see USF ever being again for years. And I mean YEARS.

Hollywood studios is opening up 3 screen based attractions this year, bringing its total to 6 screen attractions, 2 roller coasters, a kiddie spinner and a drop ride. That doesn't seem very balanced.

 

[belloq87]

Hollywood studios is opening up 3 screen based attractions this year, bringing its total to 6 screen attractions, 2 roller coasters, a kiddie spinner and a drop ride. That doesn't seem very balanced.

It isn't! Some of us are not thrilled about that.

A key difference is that Hollywood Studios was never filled with physical/practical dark ride-type experiences and live shows like USF was.

 

[Nick]

Hollywood studios is opening up 3 screen based attractions this year, bringing its total to 6 screen attractions, 2 roller coasters, a kiddie spinner and a drop ride. That doesn't seem very balanced.

It absolutely isn't. DHS is the most unbalanced Disney park by far and i'll call it out just like i'd call out Universal. Just like USF, DHS would really benefit from some physical dark rides and maybe a boat ride and/or a water ride.

I do think it's a little unfair to describe RotR as a screen-based ride though as much of the ride will be spent going through extensive and very detailed physical sets. RotR uses screens where it improves the attraction, but it isn't going to be overly screen-reliant at all.

 

[Bobharlem]

It isn't! Some of us are not thrilled about that.

A key difference is that Hollywood Studios was never filled with physical/practical dark ride-type experiences and live shows like USF was.

Uh, what was Lights motors Action, Catastrophe Canyon and the Great Movie ride?

 

[Nick]

Uh, what was Lights motors Action, Catastrophe Canyon and the Great Movie ride?

I get what you’re saying, but the only legit argument you have here imo is GMR.

LMA took up a lot of land and was very lightly attended (not to mention a one-and-done for most). Catastrophe Canyon was cool, but it wasn’t it’s own ride. It was a part of a much larger ride that ate up a lot of space in the park and, unfortunately needed to go as a result.

GMR though should’ve been updated and Runaway Railway added as an expansion into Animation Courtyard.

 

[belloq87]

Uh, what was Lights motors Action, Catastrophe Canyon and the Great Movie ride?

The key qualifiers of my original statement were "filled with" and "like USF." I didn't say Hollywood Studios didn't have any non-screen attractions. USF had more and - outside of The Great Movie Ride - the attractions lost in USF were more fondly regarded than the attractions Hollywood Studios has lost.

GMR though should’ve been updated and Runaway Railway added as an expansion into Animation Courtyard.

100%. This was such a short-sighted move.

It's particularly galling because Disneyland is, by all accounts, not losing ANYTHING when Runaway Railway heads over there, whereas we lose the centerpiece attraction of the entire theme park.

 

[RevFreako]

The key qualifiers of my original statement were "filled with" and "like USF." I didn't say Hollywood Studios didn't have any non-screen attractions. USF had more and - outside of The Great Movie Ride - the attractions lost in USF were more fondly regarded than the attractions Hollywood Studios has lost.



100%. This was such a short-sighted move.

It's particularly galling because Disneyland is, by all accounts, not losing ANYTHING when Runaway Railway heads over there, whereas we lose the centerpiece attraction of the entire theme park.

Given that Disney doesn't seem to want to play with anything they don't own, and assuming that they didn't know they'd be buying Fox, would you rather have gotten what we're getting, or an all-Disney GMR revamp?

 

[belloq87]

Given that Disney doesn't seem to want to play with anything they don't own, and assuming that they didn't know they'd be buying Fox, would you rather have gotten what we're getting, or an all-Disney GMR revamp?

I'll give you an order of preference, including options you didn't list:

1. An updated Great Movie Ride keeping most of the existing scenes, switching 2 - 3 for more "relevant" properties (Tarzan and the generic "horror" scenes would be prime candidates), and generally giving the entire thing a refresh PLUS Runaway Railway (or some other comparable attraction) added in the Animation Courtyard vicinity.

2. An all-Disney GMR overhaul PLUS Runaway Railway added in the Animation Courtyard vicinity.

3. GMR stays (in any form). No Runaway Railway added anywhere.

4. What's currently happening.

 

[RevFreako]

I'll give you an order of preference, including options you didn't list:

1. An updated Great Movie Ride keeping most of the existing scenes, switching 2 - 3 for more "relevant" properties (Tarzan and the generic "horror" scenes would be prime candidates), and generally giving the entire thing a refresh PLUS Runaway Railway (or some other comparable attraction) added in the Animation Courtyard vicinity.

2. An all-Disney GMR overhaul PLUS Runaway Railway added in the Animation Courtyard vicinity.

3. GMR stays (in any form). No Runaway Railway added anywhere.

4. What's currently happening.

2-4 is fair enough, but 1 wasn't happening in any case, of course. I'm not even sure who owns the rights to half of the movies in there, but I'm sure any studio that did was going to take some skin off Disney for any redo.

 

[belloq87]

I would have been perfectly fine with the horror and Tarzan scenes swapped out for some Disney-owned IP. A collection of Disney villains as a replacement for the horror scene, for example, could have been a way to highlight how a great villain is often key to a great movie. Or something along those lines.

 

[darkridelover]

I get what you’re saying, but the only legit argument you have here imo is GMR.

LMA took up a lot of land and was very lightly attended (not to mention a one-and-done for most). Catastrophe Canyon was cool, but it wasn’t it’s own ride. It was a part of a much larger ride that ate up a lot of space in the park and, unfortunately needed to go as a result.

GMR though should’ve been updated and Runaway Railway added as an expansion into Animation Courtyard.

What do you mean legitimate argument?

The statement was
"A key difference is that Hollywood Studios was never filled with physical/practical dark ride-type experiences and live shows like USF was."
The follow up was
"Uh, what was Lights motors Action, Catastrophe Canyon and the Great Movie ride?"

Those are all practical experiences and shows that went away to be replaced by screen based attractions.

The complete argument was valid!!!

 

[belloq87]

I guess I'll just quote my (two-months-old) response to that argument.

The key qualifiers of my original statement were "filled with" and "like USF." I didn't say Hollywood Studios didn't have any non-screen attractions. USF had more and - outside of The Great Movie Ride - the attractions lost in USF were more fondly regarded than the attractions Hollywood Studios has lost.

 

[Nick]

What do you mean legitimate argument?

The statement was
"A key difference is that Hollywood Studios was never filled with physical/practical dark ride-type experiences and live shows like USF was."
The follow up was
"Uh, what was Lights motors Action, Catastrophe Canyon and the Great Movie ride?"

Those are all practical experiences and shows that went away to be replaced by screen based attractions.

The complete argument was valid!!!

I’m not trying to get into this too much (mostly bc I don’t really care), but I’ll take the highly practical and immersive land of SWGE over those any day of the week.

Also, RotR is going to be fairly practical.