Skull Island: Reign of Kong - General Discussion

[Nico]

Yes, there will always be cuts, additions, and changes occurring broadly simultaneously. This is almost always true of theme parks - it was even true of the distinguished competition during its darkest period. It’s a balancing act we all weigh differently, not “different realities.” I feel, for instance, that recent additions like Minion Blast have been blatantly cost-cut disappointments.

People who seem to know in this and other threads seem to be indicating that costs are being cut at the resort as part of an “efficiency” push. Is this untrue?

My understanding is that it often seems to be related to staffing efficiency, which to some effect, we’re seeing at all major companies unfortunately.

I think it’s also true that there can be additional “benefits” to the company making a certain cut. IE “addressing 3D feedback,” the cost of the glasses, plus staffing.

To me, its both cheap and potentially a means to address whatever they are attempting to do with staffing EU. Both things can be true. But, I also don’t know these things for a fact.

Generally, that absence of info allows for all of us to speculate, then assign Universal’s intent in these decisions. Some of us go with a more optimistic spin (which can feel like “shilling”) and others go a little more pessimistic (“cutting to the bone”). But at the end of the day, we’re all just making up intentions and reasons.

 

[Brian G.]

It's always fun to think oh what happened now? when coming back to a thread and seeing multiple new pages.

This test is a little extensive too. Not only redoing the scenes for non-3D, they also edited the dialogue for each of the drivers to remove the mention of goggles. If they did this before for Gringott's and it didn't work, why would they think it would work here?

General question if anyone knows: Creative's involved in decisions like this right? Like could ride designers challenge these changes if they were brought up in meetings?


I'm thinking it might have to do with how far you are from the screen as the RV moves up to it? From that distance it seems harder to pull off convincingly without the 3D.

Yeah. The 360 scene doesn’t have any “3D tricks”, but uses it too add depth so it’s “passable” as a 2D screen. Whereas the first 2 scenes have bugs and creatures shifting position, especially towards you; so it throws off sizes and stuff. Throw in the parallax effect and it just looks wonky.

 

[Jake S]

But at the end of the day, we’re all just making up intentions and reasons.

Agreed, which is why I typically feel like trying to assign a reason to many of these decisions is fruitless. These cuts stink, and while the additions have been good (and I’m stoked for the new park!) it’s quite frustrating that a park that is by all accounts very successful is acting this way.

If prices were staying flat, I’d be more sympathetic to the cost outlay of a new theme park. But they aren’t and almost certainly will increase once there’s a third park. That can make it feel like we’re paying for an addition (that will make them money!) in two ways.

I still think the parks are great, but I definitely empathize with frustration, especially from those more local than me.

 

[Nico]

Agreed, which is why I typically feel like trying to assign a reason to many of these decisions fruitless. These cuts stink, and while the additions have been good (and I’m stoked for the new park!) it’s quite frustrating that a park that is by all accounts very successful is acting this way.

If prices were staying flat, I’d be more sympathetic to the cost outlay of a new theme park. But they aren’t and almost certainly will increase once there’s a third park. That can make it feel like we’re paying for an addition (that will make them money!) in two ways.

I still think the parks are great, but I definitely empathize with frustration, especially from those more local than me.

Spot on.

And we should probably all return to Kong. Thanks for coming on this detour

 

[Jordan]

Hey, Universal, could you maybe try NOT being so cheap & actively ruining your product that gets exorbitantly more expensive for its customers every year? I promise it isn't that difficult. We know you have the money, it used to be ours. What's that old adage for business owners? You have to spend money to make money? Yeah, I think that still applies. Loosen up those purse strings or I'll tighten mine.

Yes, I had to come out of hibernation just to say this. It's that bad.

Generally, that absence of info allows for all of us to speculate, then assign Universal’s intent in these decisions. Some of us go with a more optimistic spin (which can feel like “shilling”) and others go a little more pessimistic (“cutting to the bone”). But at the end of the day, we’re all just making up intentions and reasons.

There's literally no logical way to put a positive spin on this.

 

[OrlandoGuy]

This has been an interesting read haha…

One thing that’s getting glossed over is that this forum has always overvalued Kong. It’s never moved massive merch, it’s not a real asset to the marketing of the resort as a whole, and it has always scored just fine. When it first opened, there was a lot of sensitivity surrounding its satisfaction scores…I wasn’t high enough on the ladder to know why but I imagined that there was a real sense that the investment hadn’t been worth it to the executives at the top, which is a tough look when this was clearly a flyer taken on a passion project by Creative (the exact opposite of something like Supercharged, for example).

All that to say I don’t think this is as dooming as a lot of super fans probably think it is. This is, in UO’s eyes, a small step up from downgrading Minion Mayhem…a potential cost/labor savings on a less impressionable ride in the park’s lineup. Universal’s biggest fans may not see it that way, but all numbers point to that being a pretty apt comparison in terms of what the general public thinks.

 

[Jordan]

This has been an interesting read haha…

One thing that’s getting glossed over is that this forum has always overvalued Kong. It’s never moved massive merch, it’s not a real asset to the marketing of the resort as a whole, and it has always scored just fine. When it first opened, there was a lot of sensitivity surrounding its satisfaction scores…I wasn’t high enough on the ladder to know why but I imagined that there was a real sense that the investment hadn’t been worth it to the executives at the top, which is a tough look when this was clearly a flyer taken on a passion project by Creative (the exact opposite of something like Supercharged, for example).

All that to say I don’t think this is as dooming as a lot of super fans probably think it is. This is, in UO’s eyes, a small step up from downgrading Minion Mayhem…a potential cost/labor savings on a less impressionable ride in the park’s lineup. Universal’s biggest fans may not see it that way, but all numbers point to that being a pretty apt comparison in terms of what the general public thinks.

If that's how Universal truly feels, then common sense says you don't make cuts to the ride. You make the investment to replace it with something else that you predict you and your guests will find more value in. This is just bad business, regardless of one's opinions on the ride itself.

 

[Nico]

There's literally no logical way to put a positive spin on this.

Agreed. I haven’t seen anyone make a positive spin on this decision. Also, that sentence was in a paragraph started with “Generally.” Welcome back!

 

[OrlandoGuy]

If that's how Universal truly feels, then common sense says you don't make cuts to the ride. You make the investment to replace it with something else that you predict you and your guests will find more value in. This is just bad business, regardless of one's opinions on the ride itself.

For the record, I’m not defending the decision. But, assuming this is some sort of cost-saving measure at all, I don’t think it points to the end of the Universal Orlando Resort guest experience as we know it. When they start cheapening the Harry Potter rides, the Marvel rides, Mummy, etc. then it’ll be more concerning on a macro level.

 

[Mad Dog]

What's most disappointing is that this is the type of move you would expect from Six Flags, not a park resort that's making huge profits. Bush league move for sure. .

 

[Jordan]

For the record, I’m not defending the decision. But, assuming this is some sort of cost-saving measure at all, I don’t think it points to the end of the Universal Orlando Resort guest experience as we know it. When they start cheapening the Harry Potter rides, the Marvel rides, Mummy, etc. then it’ll be more concerning on a macro level.

But the guest experience encompasses all of those things, does it not? Not just the attractions that are most popular. Even if you just allow the least popular thing in the park to rot, or cut crucial aspects of that one experience, you're still negatively affecting your overall guest experience. But these are the same people who killed off an entire section of the park with no replacement in sight, so I can't say I'm surprised. It's been concerning.

 

[Brian G.]

Again - as of now, this move is temporary. Let’s keep it about Kong only, too.

 

[HandsomePete]

Spot on.

And we should probably all return to Kong. Thanks for coming on this detour

I guess you could say the thread got a little bumpy when it went outside the building.

 

[IzzyB]

My understanding is that it often seems to be related to staffing efficiency, which to some effect, we’re seeing at all major companies unfortunately.

I think it’s also true that there can be additional “benefits” to the company making a certain cut. IE “addressing 3D feedback,” the cost of the glasses, plus staffing.

To me, its both cheap and potentially a means to address whatever they are attempting to do with staffing EU. Both things can be true. But, I also don’t know these things for a fact.

Generally, that absence of info allows for all of us to speculate, then assign Universal’s intent in these decisions. Some of us go with a more optimistic spin (which can feel like “shilling”) and others go a little more pessimistic (“cutting to the bone”). But at the end of the day, we’re all just making up intentions and reasons.

I agree cutting glasses does cut staffing and I have often wondered where they will get the staff for Epic when it already takes 30 to 45 minutes to get counter service food.

For the record, I’m not defending the decision. But, assuming this is some sort of cost-saving measure at all, I don’t think it points to the end of the Universal Orlando Resort guest experience as we know it. When they start cheapening the Harry Potter rides, the Marvel rides, Mummy, etc. then it’ll be more concerning on a macro level.

I agree it is not end all be all, but I do think it is a fair point to ask why is this being done when prices are going up. You expect a better quality product even on the lower rides than a worse product when prices go up. I am pretty sure they are making a profit and not in danger. I expect this from SW which is under true financial risk, not Universal.

 

[OrlandoGuy]

But the guest experience encompasses all of those things, does it not? Not just the attractions that are most popular. Even if you just allow the least popular thing in the park to rot, or cut crucial aspects of that one experience, you're still negatively affecting your overall guest experience. But these are the same people who killed off an entire section of the park with no replacement in sight, so I can't say I'm surprised. It's been concerning.

I agree it is not end all be all, but I do think it is a fair point to ask why is this being done when prices are going up. You expect a better quality product even on the lower rides than a worse product when prices go up. I am pretty sure they are making a profit and not in danger. I expect this from SW which is under true financial risk, not Universal.

Totally fair…my only point was, would there be five pages of sentiment if they removed an element of Dr Doom? Or the Seuss Trolley? Probably not, even though internally UO views Kong as closer to one of those rides than a Potter, Spider-Man, Mummy, etc.

 

[Scott W.]

Also the fact that Universal has openly said it is a “test” gives a glimmer of hope. My guess is that it was never intended to be a test (publicly at least), but after the feedback they decided to announce it was a test as damage control.

This is the copy and paste response to guests complaining about it:



The way this is worded and if they go ahead with fully removing 3D, it comes across that they don't care about the guest experience.

 

[IzzyB]

Totally fair…my only point was, would there be five pages of sentiment if they removed an element of Dr Doom? Or the Seuss Trolley? Probably not, even though internally UO views Kong as closer to one of those rides than a Potter, Spider-Man, Mummy, etc.

I think changing a single element of a ride is a much different scope than removing 3D from a ride. I mean what could even be changed in those 2 examples to the level of removing 3D from Kong? One is a drop tower with very few elements to it. The other is a trolley ride where the majority of the time you are just viewing the park.

 

[HalfGlass]

Totally fair…my only point was, would there be five pages of sentiment if they removed an element of Dr Doom? Or the Seuss Trolley? Probably not, even though internally UO views Kong as closer to one of those rides than a Potter, Spider-Man, Mummy, etc.

I do think there’s something to be said about taking away from attractions built to be more applicable to most park goers though. Seuss Trolley is for very young ones and Dr Doom is strictly for thrill seekers. When you water down rides that have general mass appeal, it hurts the brand of the park a bit more in my opinion.

 

[UniversalRBLX]

All that to say I don’t think this is as dooming as a lot of super fans probably think it is. This is, in UO’s eyes, a small step up from downgrading Minion Mayhem…a potential cost/labor savings on a less impressionable ride in the park’s lineup. Universal’s biggest fans may not see it that way, but all numbers point to that being a pretty apt comparison in terms of what the general public thinks.

Comments like these are how the Disney parks got away with cuts over the past few years. Sure Kong isn't a headliner, but that doesn't mean that Universal Creative's work should be diminished because a few executives have profit goals to execute. I couldn't care less about Kong, not my favorite attraction, but this unfortunately could lead to a slippery slope of potential changes elsewhere. If Universal is willing to do this sort of thing for one attraction, who's to say someone at UDX doesn't have an Excel spreadsheet with cost savings ready to be implemented with management more than willing to execute those ideas now?

For the record, I’m not defending the decision. But, assuming this is some sort of cost-saving measure at all, I don’t think it points to the end of the Universal Orlando Resort guest experience as we know it. When they start cheapening the Harry Potter rides, the Marvel rides, Mummy, etc. then it’ll be more concerning on a macro level.

Decisions like these could spread throughout the resort. They have now signaled that they are willing to cut portions of the ride experience in the name of cost savings. Maybe this will be the only cost-cutting done, but this unfortunately leads to inevitable questions/discussion on what else they are willing to cut.

I agree cutting glasses does cut staffing and I have often wondered where they will get the staff for Epic when it already takes 30 to 45 minutes to get counter service food.

Excited for Universal Creative's work on Epic... but boy are they having issues at the moment staffing the resort properly, especially restaurants.

Totally fair…my only point was, would there be five pages of sentiment if they removed an element of Dr Doom? Or the Seuss Trolley? Probably not, even though internally UO views Kong as closer to one of those rides than a Potter, Spider-Man, Mummy, etc.

Universal views Kong far closer to a Potter/Spider-Man/Mummy than a "lesser" attraction. Kong is a headliner (we can argue about the quality all day, but Uni sees it as an E-ticket).

Just for fun, I did some quick maths:
Assuming the average TM gets paid $23.40 (wage + benefits), operating hours of 9AM to 9PM (and I'm being a bit bullish here considering short operating hours), and they have 3 TMs checking and cleaning glasses, that's a whopping $307K a year in costs related to TM expenses... or about 8 Butterbeers ($8.49) an hour. Yes there are additional costs for maintenance of projectors, but $307K is literally pennies for a company that continues to see growth YoY.

 

[HalfGlass]

With enough beer, maybe it’ll be in 3D for me?

More to come on this hypothesis…