Fast & Furious Supercharged soft opens at Universal Studios Florida

Posted | Contributed by Jeff

From the article:

Universal Orlando shifted into a higher gear this weekend, beginning technical rehearsals for Fast & Furious – Supercharged, its new speed-oriented attraction inside Universal Studios theme park. Translation: While F&F is in what we frequently call “soft opening,” it may or may not be open to the public, at least through its grand-opening date. Universal has not announced an official opening date, although it will hold media events during the first week of May.

Read more from The Orlando Sentinel.

eightdotthree's avatar

An expansion of the Hollywood tram experience similar to King Kong. Should be a fun experience even if the IP is a little cheesy.

Jeff's avatar

Skip to 1:54...

(I was in the audience that day, this story made me think of this.)

Jeff - Editor - - My Blog

Jeff's avatar

Rick was not impressed, but I really don't think that this particular ride has anything to do with how Universal will do against Toy Story Land:

Jeff - Editor - - My Blog

LJEdge's avatar

I hate how Universal and IOA basically shifted into attractions that aren't much more than Screen: The Ride.

It works for Spidey and the initial Potter Ride, but they're milking the film reels dry. None of their current output, including Potter, holds a candle to Haunted Mansion. Spiderman is right up there with Haunted Mansion for me.

Last edited by LJEdge,

Rick Rick Rick........ The only thing missing from his article is cutting and pasting two tweets from random twelve year old park nerds. Eight paragraphs citing other people's reactions and he can't spit out the real problem with that attraction: The attraction film itself is horrible. Laughable actually.

While you can't argue with the money that franchise has brought in (cue Cartman saying "$400 million dollar gross, Kyle"), one can argue its artistic merits. It makes perfect sense to make an Orlando attraction based out of it. It certainly has appeal, and is totally marketable. Cletus with the car full of kids might decide to go to US instead of Disney's movie park simply based on the ads for this attraction alone. In that regard it will be a success. It's just that the ridefilm is so horribly bad that I can't believe that it got ported to Orlando with no significant changes. As a cheesy add on to the Hollywood tram ride it was "excusable" (within limits). For an Orlando full size attraction it comes up way short.

The knock on US/IOA being all screen-based attractions is really starting to be true. Yes it's a "ride the movies" park, and one should expect "movie rides". However, people need/want/expect practical sets and dynamic experiences beyond sitting still, watching a movie screen, and shaking a bit.

I'm certainly not a F&F fan, nor its target market. However, there are lots of IP attractions that I can enjoy while disliking the IP, because the attraction experience is amazing. This one is not.

Last edited by CreditWh0re,
Jeff's avatar

Yeah, the screen thing is getting old. Forbidden Journey was a nice mix, and such a dynamic and unique conveyance device that video usage was a non issue. Gringott's was not terrible because it was also dynamic, but it was still a missed opportunity for making the best themed coaster since Mummy.

Since then, Kong is just another movie. Fallon is another simulator comparable to Simpsons.

I'm not nostalgic necessarily about the classic attractions, but things like Jaws, E.T., Ghostbusters, Jurassic Park River Adventure, the original Kong... those were rides that felt tangible and real. I miss that experience.

Jeff - Editor - - My Blog

Yes, to me there’s a big difference between “Ride the Movie” and “Ride IN the Movie”. Or, maybe “BE the Movie” is more what I’m looking for.

There is something to the argument that movie companies make movies, but I agree that some of the original attractions were more like live theatre. Park goers were treated to impressive movie sets and immersed into the actual scene. I thought Gringotts was a little disappointing because it relied so heavily on film. And especially since they had created such wonder and realism within the new themed area, the ride almost seemed like an easy cop out.

CreditWh0re said:

However, people need/want/expect practical sets and dynamic experiences beyond sitting still, watching a movie screen, and shaking a bit.

Do they? I'm not so sure. Yes, those of us who are park geeks/old timers want that, and certainly a site titled "CoasterBuzz" would be full of people who want physical dynamics in their attractions. But I doubt that people are walking out of US/IoA thinking to themselves "Gee, I wish we hadn't done that."

Jeff's avatar

I wouldn't say that either, but it doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer the practical attractions instead. Earthquake was another one. The water gushing into the subway and semi falling in from the "street" above was amazing in the 90's, and it was amazing the day it closed.

Jeff - Editor - - My Blog

eightdotthree's avatar

I am not going to excuse the Jimmy Fallon ride but King Kong is much more than just watching a screen and shaking. It mixes practical sets with the screen experience and audience reaction is really positive. I like the experience.

Jeff said:
I wouldn't say that either, but it doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer the practical attractions instead. Earthquake was another one. The water gushing into the subway and semi falling in from the "street" above was amazing in the 90's, and it was amazing the day it closed.

As was hologram Christopher Walken

Allow me to clarify, I don't think people want a whole park, or the majority of the newest marquee attractions, to be screen experiences without practical sets, movement etc. I would point you back to the early days of Epcot (before it became a constant food/wine festival), and the complaints for the back half of the park, which was primarily only three screen attractions. (Yes there was Mexico, but even it had some "screen bits")

As EightdotThree mentions, the Kong attraction, does a great job of taking the screen only experience from the Hollywood tram attraction and plussing it into a full bore experience. It helps that the Kong film is infinitely better than the F&F ridefilm.

eightdotthree's avatar

BrettV said:

As was hologram Christopher Walken

The experience was modified from the very serious tone to the silly Christopher Walken story because the subway section of the ride was so pathetic.

eightdotthree's avatar

The Christopher Walken hologram was pretty cool...

So just now, forgetting hockey was on, I was pecking through the tv channels and low and behold, USA is showing Fast and Furious 6 right now.
6??!?. I had no idea. Maybe it’s more popular and relevant than I thought...

OhioStater's avatar

I believe they are working on an 8th, but I could be wrong. My wife and I tried to watch the 7th one after Paul Walker died out of sheer curiosity (having not watched the first....6). We made it about 30 minutes in before we literally couldn't take it anymore.

That said, it's immensely popular. Apparently just not our thing.

Tommytheduck's avatar

You gotta check your brain at the door, but it's entertaining. THey keep making them with no sign of stopping, but at least they are evolving and not becoming too stale.The latest one was more of a Pierce Brosnan era James Bond movie than anything else. If you had to watch one, I'd say Pt 5. That was where they got away from just street racing. It was actually a "Heist Movie" that used lots of cars in the heist. The later ones got more and more ridiculous until you got the afore mentioned Bond parody.

But hey, it's a money printing machine. Teens like it because of cheesy action, hot chicks and cool cars. Women like it because of hot guys. Adult men like it because it's a cheesy action flick their women want to see. I like it because of the cars and because it's something my teen son still wants to go see with his Dad. My wife stays at home. She doesn't like The Rock, which I guess is good for me?

ApolloAndy's avatar

Pretty sure the most recently released one, The Fate of the Furious, was number 8, hence fate (feight, f8, whatever). I enjoy them as stupid action movies which is all they every claimed to be. The whole "we're a family and that's stronger than guns, money, and physics" is getting a little tired, though.

Hobbes: "What's the point of attaching a number to everything you do?"
Calvin: "If your numbers go up, it means you're having more fun."

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2024, POP World Media, LLC