For those who have side-effects such as headaches and nausea from 3D probably suffer from motion-sickness so rides in general probably don't agree with you.
Since these rides are now using digital versus film projection it would be fairly easy to offer an alternate experience for an individual vehicle. The operator could tag the vehicle and then the brain of the ride should be able to follow that vehicle and alter the experience by showing alternate content. But what's the point?
However, what you're suggesting would essentially ruin the attraction. If you can't see 3D then you're already missing the experience and I don't understand how a 2D version would allow them to experience it. Transformers the ride without the 3D visuals - that's not going to work. Toy Story Midway Mania- you'd have a hell of a time hitting the targets and I can say that from experience.
You can also purchase glasses that will convert a 3D image to 2D. I believe they do this by just focusing both eyes on one of the two projected images. Parks could offer this, but I don't think you'd find much demand since the ride loses it's appeal.
Finally, I think you're also taking the definition of reasonable accommodation to a entirely new level that's beyond ridiculous.
Personally, I have no problems seeing 3D, but for movies I'll see the 2D version over the 3D version because I hate wearing those cheap glasses for two hours.
So when I ride Star Tours, I don't see 3D. When I ride Spaceship Earth I also don't see 3D.
How to accomodate me? Just give me the glasses. I'm used to double vision, I mostly ignore my weak eye except peripherally anyway.
If nothing else, like the above poster said, simply give out the glasses that convert it to 2D--they have the same filter in both lenses. Cheap fix to a problem that I can't imagine bothers too many people that badly.
Lawsuits shouldn't be a problem, either. Accommodations need only be "reasonable" under the ADA. There are rides that require getting out of a wheelchair and coasters that can't be ridden unless one has all four limbs.
Most cinema and ride systems use circular polarisation with the (slightly) differnt images being projected either clockwise or counter-clockwise.
The lenses on the glasses block out one of the two images (left eye blocks clockwise, right eye blocks counter clockwise).
Therefore, if a rider was given a special pair of glasses with the same lenses in both, they would only see one of the two images and therefore only see 2D.
perhaps a 4th option? can see 3d, but really prefer 2d
Hence, while I would have loved to see The Hobbit in 3D, I just could not do it.
These parks bend over backwards to make sure that everyone has a good time. Everyone is going to have some sort of issue with some sort of ride. I think it's selfish to want to experience everything at a park in the expense of others. You can have a great time in these parks with a disability. To say that a ride has to be dummy down to a persons comfort level is purely ridiculous and what if that is the case. Will they have to cut all the legs of the classic wooden horses so I could ride? Or how about a motionless motion dark ride? How about for the people with clasterfobia (fear of being in tight spaces because I don't know if I spelled that correctly) riding a dark ride open air? How about cutting 250 feet off a coaster so everyone can ride it? You know height limits are no good either because a 4 year old should experience the same kinds of thrills that I do so there should be booster seats for roller coasters. What point is this getting ridiculous? Like a previous writer wrote you play the cards that you were dealt. I'm okay watching my family ride cedar downs without me because I know without injuring myself I couldn't ride that ride.
The article in itself makes the disabled look like idiots and chooses to lesson the great rides to make accessable to the few without asking them if they even care. There's warning signs on everything now and you should make your own individual discision to ride any ride with height, weight, and disability restrictions.
What about those who are chlosterphobic or get easily sea sick, are theme parks supposed to substantially alter their attractions to accomodate them? If the ADA was expanded to include all sorts of "disabilities" like the inability to see in 3-D, then parks would spend more time making accomodations than they would make attractions. They would also be opening themselves up to lawsuits from every Joe-Shmo on the planet that doesn't feel that he gets the same experience as the guy next to him because of some obscure condition. While 3-D attractions seem to be propogating like a virus, there are still far too many attractions at just about every theme park in the world to offer to those who cannot appreciate 3-D technology.
If parks start making concessions to non-3-D seers, what's next, a walk through of Pirates of Carribean for those who get nauseous when riding in a boat or a lights-on version of Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey to those who have a pupillation disorder?
Parks are still grappling with Large American Disorder, which is always a hot button issue, and I think catering to those who cannot see in 3-D is way down the list of "disabilities" parks are concerned about.
I can't ride the famous Tea Cups. There are no special concessions for that.
Fact is, theme parks have a lot of different attractions for this reason. Every ride isn't for every person.
I still think the movie having an actual story and being entertaining is more important than the effects, atleast when it comes to movies in the theaters.
I agree with the person who said 3D is fine in small doses. Most amusement park rides / 3D things are about the right length for this technology to me. The Star Tours 3D version I rode this past year was the best 3D I have ever seen, and was probably the perfect length of time for tolerating 3D effects.
I can see it fine, my eyes just don't like processing all that information trying to trick my brain that is is looking at 3 dimensions.
This is why I love the 3D rides at any park. Most are 5 minutes or less and they arent normal 3D. They are rendered at a moving point of perspective to match the vehicle, so it is even more convincing. The physical elements allow you to take your focus off the screen for a few seconds (Pumkin Bomb).
This video explains the difference between Spider-Man, Transformers, and more than likely Gringotts vs Despicable Me / Shrek 4D / T23D. At 2:45, you can see why it is so convincing.
The classic movie look on a projector / screen is so different than watching on an LCD or plasma with it's oversaturated colors and ultra deep black levels. It is sort of like how book aficionados prefer a real paper book vs an e-reader.
I love watching sports, documentaries, basically anything other than full length movies on today's unrealistic TV's, but movies need to be as close as the theatrical release as possible, at least for me, which means projection, but no 3D.
I have only seen two theatrical releases in 3D, and both times I left with a severe migrane and couldn't enjoy the movie at all.
The only one I can think that a Blind person can enjoy just as well as others is Sounds Dangerous which is, eh, gone.
For movies, it's similar to rides. If the film is a 4D movie with audience interaction, I don't mind the 3D, but if it is a normal movie shown in 3D it is just a 3D image in a normal movie theater and therefore I'd rather not have to deal with the glasses. I've only seen a major motion picture in 3D twice since the revival (saw Avatar and Tron: Legacy), and both times I felt that the minimal quality increase was not worth the $5 extra I paid with the ticket ($10 extra for Avatar since it was IMAX 3D). I'm planning to see The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in HFR 3D, but that is mainly because I want to see how the 48 frames per second looks.
In short, I don't mind 3D, but I think it should be reserved for applications where it makes sense and not just thrown onto everything to make it look cool.
There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding what is delivering a 3D image. If one eye is closed there is no difference focussing on the remaining visual that with old fashioned 2D projection. A 3D ride with one eye is the same as a 2D simulator. A degree of our perception of 3D comes from non binocular effects (ie independent of seeing with one or two eyes). In 2 dimensions you still experience things like depth of field (some objects in focus, some not) and motion parallax (when moving objects closer move quicker across the field of view). Hence why Soarin, Star Tours (old version), etc. work.
Your brain processes your position by integrating data from your body, eyes and ears. It is the disparity between the 'real' data from your ears and body vs the synthesised visual data that causes nausea in simulators. The same mechanism as sea sickness.
Some people get unwell simply from the motion of rides and its effects on the balance sensing gear in the ear. A last group become unwell simply from current 3D technology. This is overlaid, in all cases by a persons subjective experience and emotional state.
I just prefer that look over gangstered colors and ultra deep black levels that are beyond reality. That is probably why I like the 3D rides so much as all of it is projected...
I even prefer to watch older movies in 480P vs remastered HD/Blu Ray versions.