Someone has already alluded to it in this thread – many in Universal Creatives’ upper and middle management are lazy and inept. Kong is the latest example of this disappointing realization. Of course not all of them are careless and riding out their high six and seven figure salaries and bonuses. Mike West is one example of a manager that cares and has the talent to back up his position. Unfortunately he has been stymied with Kong, just as he was with Simpsons and Minions. The past year we have seen an exodus of UC talent, including Lisa Nash, because they are tired of the BS. Ask Scott Trowbridge why he left UC. It wasn’t just the sweet offer from Disney that motivated him to leave his high level position. There are of course many more examples but let’s talk Kong now.
Kong had a lot of promise and could have been spectacular, what it ended up being, in my opinion, was just passable. Just as I predicted park guests love it, specifically the tunnel scene. I knew they would and therein lies the problem and the reason why we will continue to get attractions that just barely make the grade for the foreseeable future. Instead of UC and Comcast living up to a standard they set for themselves (as Disney used to do and is starting to once again in some cases), they will be lazy and deliver just enough to get by.
First, here’s the good about Kong. The queue is well executed and sets the mood (nice job Greg). The queue AAs are nice but I wouldn’t have expected anything less from Advanced Animation. They are the only domestic AA company besides Garner (handed to them on a silver platter by WDI) that have figured out how to pull off compliance software in house and really make it work. There is just enough detail in the queue to deliver an entertaining and interesting experience in anticipation for an amazing ride (if only the last part could have been delivered). I applaud the effort in installing on-board AAs for each ride vehicle. It doesn’t bother me that much that their motion is jerky and that they look like the old Sally AAs back from ET because it is something different and it works for most of the passengers past the first few rows. I love the size of the show doors into the building. Last but not least, obviously the Kong AA, just as I’ve been saying all along, is very realistic and well executed in some ways.
Now for the bad and the reasons why this attraction is only passable in my opinion. Let’s start with the fact that there are really only five (and I’m being generous here) scenes of any consequence and they are, once again, 75 percent screens. Not only did Woodbury cut much of the queue but he cut major portions of the ride as well. This is a fact, Woodbury does not “get it” and I’ll leave it at that in order to protect myself and several others. There are a few on these boards that I’ll reveal specific and personal experiences regarding working with him and others from UC but I can’t get too specific in public for obvious reasons. These cut scenes had some to do with budget but more to do with not appreciating or understanding what makes a theme park attraction stand out. To open a major dark ride attraction with just two screens, a projection tunnel/motion base, a few bats, and one large-scale animatronic is an embarrassment in my opinion.
Among the scenes that got cut: a high-speed (practical not screens) chase through the jungle, a scene where the RV breaks down and our driver gets nabbed, a detour through the insect pit with AAs etc. etc. Some of the cut scenes made it pretty far before being cut by the man that most outside of UC revere out of ignorance and those that know him and work with him fear more than anything because he has quite a temper and rules with an iron fist as opposed to a collaborative and open management style that you find more often at WDI. Some of the scenes didn’t even make it to an official pitch because they were seen as gratuitous and unnecessary. I don’t know about you but I think the high-speed chase in the middle of all those screen scenes would have been a welcome respite from the same old UC tricks and would have made the experience more complete and unique. Just two more practical scenes would have made it more complete.
How about, even with what they had to work with, a little variety. Why couldn’t the first two screens show a different scenario and characters for each driver? Maybe the tunnel could have randomly had Kong either be hostile or friendly followed by the AA angry or friendly (as he is now). Than we also have the execution issues. Why, after all these years of imagery technology advancement do we still have a black wall at the bottom of the tunnel screens? Take a look at Comcast’s own corporate headquarters lobby for an example of extremely hi definition LED panels that could have been installed on those walls to further immerse us in the scene as opposed to taking us right out of the illusion. The transition from tunnel to Kong AA is also not executed well. There is no reason why we should be seeing blank screen when they could have flown in a foliage assembly covering frame and screen during the transition and flown above or below during projection sequence for example.
So many are going crazy over the ride system. In this case I question why did it have to be AGV? Did the trackless setup add anything to the experience? The nice scenery in the Kong AA scene goes underappreciated because the audience is wearing the 3D glasses. These are some of the criticisms that to me make this just an “ok” ride. So many missed opportunities and so many cuts make it a disappointment in my book. Yes the guests love it and yes many in the fan community also love it. That is why we will most likely never see Universal live up to its potential without an IP holder like Warner Brothers forcing them to.