Bob Iger says no to VR in Disney Parks

[yeti]

Incorporating physical sensations seems to be a big must. There are practical reasons such as reducing motion sickness, but there is also something very unnerving about your sight not matching up with your other senses (although that could also be used as part of a deliberate design intent).

They might also need to consider ride seating, since it would be virtually (heh) impossible to simulate the position of other riders. That's why I think the speeder bike would work best, or maybe a flying broomstick if we were talking about Universal. That type of seating is already more intimate.

I'm curious to try a VR coaster at Six Flags or somewhere, but for these reasons and what you just mentioned, I suspect that to integrate it properly would be a lot more conplicated than slapping a pair of glasses on during a standard coaster. VR is a first for theme parks since you're sort of in your own little world, but I think it could be really effective.

 

[Rhino77]

It seems even more basic. VR has it applications most assuredly. But, if you are going to need to create a large space to queue visitors, store and clean VR equipment, and all the other logistics of operating an experience, why would you not just create the experience/environment rather than using VR to create it. And with many of the parks visitors being families or groups of friends, a significant part of the experience is participating, even just observationally, with them and VR doesn't, at this point allow that (although once it can this part of the argument goes away).

 

[lazyboy97o]

It seems even more basic. VR has it applications most assuredly. But, if you are going to need to create a large space to queue visitors, store and clean VR equipment, and all the other logistics of operating an experience, why would you not just create the experience/environment rather than using VR to create it.

For the same good reason screens are used, to do something larger and not really possible in a physical environment.

And with many of the parks visitors being families or groups of friends, a significant part of the experience is participating, even just observationally, with them and VR doesn't, at this point allow that (although once it can this part of the argument goes away).

There has already been experiences where people are isolated from their groups. Sum of all Thrills was essentially a virtual reality attraction inside a Disney park.

 

[NobodyElse]

Just an observation (and I haven't read the article yet) but it always strikes me as funny when somebody says something like this:

He’s ordered his team not to even think about it.

Quick everybody - Don't think about a PINK ELEPHANT!

 

[BrianLo]

The problem with declaring "I don't want to see [x]" is that 'x' is not actually defined, and is instead often a host of limited assumptions based only on what has been done before. It's an inability to consider more than what is already known.

The long rumored Speederbike coaster is a concept I think that would have easily benefited from virtual reality. That scene in Return of the Jedi is thrilling because of the tight spaces and isolation. There was no safety envelope. No matter how much landscaping was planted, a coaster would have always been a group of people going through a clearly marked path. VR being the "ultimate in go away green" means all of that can disappear. You can visually break the safety envelope. You could just barely make it around a tree. A scout trooper could get right up next you.

The possibilities for virtual reality are there. In Disneyland, contemporary themed entertainment was birthed from the carny crap of the mid-20th century amusement park.

To me this just screams the lowest base of VR. Throw it on a roller coaster, this is what Six Flags is doing.

It would be nice for Disney to build an Eticket with a budget under 100mil for once. However, I'd much rather see them come up with creative solutions to make the envelope appear tighter than take the path of least resistance with a headset.

I'm not denying the suggestion wouldn't be fun, but this is the problem with true VR unlike AR, it's always just a sim on your face. You mentioned that X always must lead to a limited host of assumptions and then proposed what our assumptions were anyways. You can throw people on a coaster or throw them around in sim seat, VR really is that limited.

I fully admit I'm taking the curmudgeonly stance on this one though. Perhaps Universal will do it at some point with the muscle of a worthy budget for the video and I'll totally change my tune.

 

[October82]

I fully admit I'm taking the curmudgeonly stance on this one though. Perhaps Universal will do it at some point with the muscle of a worthy budget for the video and I'll totally change my tune.

I wouldn't describe this perspective as curmudgeonly, it's recognizing that technological advances often have real limits. It is difficult to imagine that, as you described it, a "simulator on your face" is going to be a compelling experience. It's not always clear that far more immersive simulators always make for compelling experiences.

 

[DDLand]

I guess at the crux of this conversation is whether Imagineering is primarily a creator of physical spaces that are captivating, or storytellers. If they're primarily about creating physical spaces, buildings and other built out spaces, then a natural aversion to Virtual Reality is logical or even inevitable. If on the other hand Imagineers are storytellers first, then technically they should be able to use any tool at their disposal to create incredible attractions.

Imagineers have used stage shows, movies, roller coasters, simple rides, restaurants, and shops to create compelling stories. What makes VR different? The thing that should separate any Six Flags VR attraction and a Disney Attraction is the story. As storytellers, Disney should create a better and higher quality attraction because of the story.

With that said, I'm somewhat skeptical of Virtual Reality. Can Disney compete against a technology that could be ubiquitous in every home or shopping center? Does Disney want to enter an arms race?

Or the opposite, why should Disney volunteer not to be part of something that could tell great stories?

Initially I was more positive on this, but @lazyboy97o's points are thought provoking. He may be on the right side of history...

 

[Stevek]

Good...I can't stand VR.

 

[lazyboy97o]

To me this just screams the lowest base of VR. Throw it on a roller coaster, this is what Six Flags is doing.

It would be nice for Disney to build an Eticket with a budget under 100mil for once. However, I'd much rather see them come up with creative solutions to make the envelope appear tighter than take the path of least resistance with a headset.

I'm not denying the suggestion wouldn't be fun, but this is the problem with true VR unlike AR, it's always just a sim on your face. You mentioned that X always must lead to a limited host of assumptions and then proposed what our assumptions were anyways. You can throw people on a coaster or throw them around in sim seat, VR really is that limited.

I fully admit I'm taking the curmudgeonly stance on this one though. Perhaps Universal will do it at some point with the muscle of a worthy budget for the video and I'll totally change my tune.

I wouldn't describe this perspective as curmudgeonly, it's recognizing that technological advances often have real limits. It is difficult to imagine that, as you described it, a "simulator on your face" is going to be a compelling experience. It's not always clear that far more immersive simulators always make for compelling experiences.

You are both making the arbitrary distinction pointed out by @danlb_2000. Disney pioneered just tossing you around in front of a screen with Star Tours. Before that, Disney pioneered the idea of surrounding the viewer with film with the CircleVision 360. What is the magic distance that suddenly makes a screen become 'ersatz'? A virtual reality film still has to be created, and just like film it will not be easy to create compelling content. This is just another screen attraction, and the content, not the technology, will determine its success. The Curse of DarKastle does not negate The Amazing Adventures of Spider-Man.

 

[October82]

You are both making the arbitrary distinction pointed out by @danlb_2000. Disney pioneered just tossing you around in front of a screen with Star Tours. Before that, Disney pioneered the idea of surrounding the viewer with film with the CircleVision 360. What is the magic distance that suddenly makes a screen become 'ersatz'? A virtual reality film still has to be created, and just like film it will not be easy to create compelling content. This is just another screen attraction, and the content, not the technology, will determine its success. The Curse of DarKastle does not negate The Amazing Adventures of Spider-Man.

Describing VR as "just another screen attraction" is simply ignoring the real limitations of the technology, along with the advantages it provides. The reason VR is worth talking about is that it isn't a simple extension of existing technology.

As I mentioned in the post you quoted, there is room for debate about the success of all screen based attractions - not just VR. None of this means that the technology can't be leveraged to great effect - but you shouldn't minimize the limitations and challenges imposed by the technology to try and make that point.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Describing VR as "just another screen attraction" is simply ignoring the real limitations of the technology, along with the advantages it provides. The reason VR is worth talking about is that it isn't a simple extension of existing technology.

As I mentioned in the post you quoted, there is room for debate about the success of all screen based attractions - not just VR. None of this means that the technology can't be leveraged to great effect - but you shouldn't minimize the limitations and challenges imposed by the technology to try and make that point.

You keep referencing these special limitations but don't actually outline them. Virtual reality is not the first system in which the visual content is limited to a screen.

 

[NobodyElse]

Disney pioneered just tossing you around in front of a screen with Star Tours.

This is outside the scope of this discussion, but I'd like to make a distinction (that I've made before). While the Back to the Future / Simpsons type rides, as well as those little Iwerks mall parking lot theaters, are fun and "toss you around in front of a screen", Star Tours "tosses you around with the screen". To me, this has always made a huge difference. With properly produced / synced content, having a simulated window (screen) attached to your platform gives a huge advantage. Simply rocking back while the screen shows forward acceleration is an effect that can never really be achieved with those other types of attraction.

Back to the VR-less Bob discussion.

 

[DDLand]

Describing VR as "just another screen attraction" is simply ignoring the real limitations of the technology, along with the advantages it provides. The reason VR is worth talking about is that it isn't a simple extension of existing technology.

As I mentioned in the post you quoted, there is room for debate about the success of all screen based attractions - not just VR. None of this means that the technology can't be leveraged to great effect - but you shouldn't minimize the limitations and challenges imposed by the technology to try and make that point.

But why categorically rule it out? It's one thing to say that screens should be used wisely as an artistic tool, but no one says screens or projections are untouchable. Thrills can be utilized pointlessly, a roller coaster at an amusement park, or as a powerful storytelling device like on Splash or Everest.

It's not about the medium, so much as as how it's used. The best attractions blend technology, physical sensations, and built out environments to convey story.

Look at Flight of Passage, which is interesting because it looks like it could have largely been accomplished by VR. Much more simply and cheaply too. You're still wearing glasses too!

Before Forbidden Journey some might have said the thought of giant projections inside of a ride would be idiotic. Now it's intuitive.

Who's to say (much less Bob Iger who's background is in Network Broadcasting) that theme parks that hosts audio-animatronics, screens, physical sets, movies, massive rock work mountains, fireworks, water fountains, stage shows, live characters, musical entertainment, beautiful built out environments, live animals, projections, drones, etc. can't utilize a new form of artistic expression.

It's like telling a painter that the color blue is off limits because you like green and orange better. Sort of silly.

The more I think about this, the more I realize that an aversion to this will almost undoubtably end up being on the wrong side of history.

I believe in putting Story first. There doesn't seem to be any reason to think there's an exception here.

 

[October82]

You keep referencing these special limitations but don't actually outline them. Virtual reality is not the first system in which the visual content is limited to a screen.

The success of systems that are primarily screen based is debatable. The underlying problem with VR that the industry is and will continue to have to deal with is that the human brain is better at distinguishing virtual environments from reality than we are at producing them. The technology will mature over time, but regardless of how good the technology becomes, you will necessarily be sacrificing physical immersion for a more immersive virtual one. It is not clear that you win by making that sacrifice.

But why categorically rule it out?

That's not what is being said. Instead, the argument is that VR involves making substantial sacrifices and the advantages are not clear.

It's not about the medium, so much as as how it's used. The best attractions blend technology, physical sensations, and built out environments to convey story.

The problem is that by design, VR will make it more difficult to blend technologies. No one is hostile to new technology simply because it is new. All technologies have limitations, and we shouldn't ignore the problems in talking about their potential.

Before Forbidden Journey some might have said the thought of giant projections inside of a ride would be idiotic. Now it's intuitive.

Forbidden Journey is a great example of an attraction that combines physical and virtual environments. The virtual component is a worthwhile addition to the attraction, but the strength of it lies in the physical environment and the blending of the two.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The success of systems that are primarily screen based is debatable. The underlying problem with VR that the industry is and will continue to have to deal with is that the human brain is better at distinguishing virtual environments from reality than we are at producing them. The technology will mature over time, but regardless of how good the technology becomes, you will necessarily be sacrificing physical immersion for a more immersive virtual one. It is not clear that you win by making that sacrifice.

Which is it? You say VR is completely separate from other screen systems but then say VR must be in doubt because all screens are in doubt. A non-physical immersion is part of many screen systems.

That's not what is being said. Instead, the argument is that VR involves making substantial sacrifices and the advantages are not clear.

You keep mentioning these huge sacrifices but don't state them. The advantages are something that would come out of an open storytelling process, but Walt Disney Imagineering is prevented from discovering those advantages as the technology is banned.

The problem is that by design, VR will make it more difficult to blend technologies. No one is hostile to new technology simply because it is new. All technologies have limitations, and we shouldn't ignore the problems in talking about their potential.

VR is not the first system to restrict the content to a screen.

 

[Curious Constance]

It sounds like he's ruling it out because he is interested in thinking bigger and better. He probably feels that VR is the cheap way out. I think it's a good sign that he isn't interested in doing the cheapest, easiest thing.

In my option, VR will never come close to being in an actual, physical environment. Having a screen strapped to your face, that is as big as the width of your eyes, so that you can't see anything around you, just doesn't sound appealing to me.

 

[R W B]

This is something I can 100% agree with Iger on, Disney doesn't need VR to make you feel like you're someplace else IMO.

 

[October82]

Which is it? You say VR is completely separate from other screen systems but then say VR must be in doubt because all screens are in doubt. A non-physical immersion is part of many screen systems.

Well, no. That's not an accurate account of what was said. VR has its own set of concerns that are unique to the technology, while also suffering from more general problems that all screen based technologies have.

You keep mentioning these huge sacrifices but don't state them. The advantages are something that would come out of an open storytelling process, but Walt Disney Imagineering is prevented from discovering those advantages as the technology is banned.

I mentioned the major problem in the post you responded to.

The underlying problem with VR that the industry is and will continue to have to deal with is that the human brain is better at distinguishing virtual environments from reality than we are at producing them. The technology will mature over time, but regardless of how good the technology becomes, you will necessarily be sacrificing physical immersion for a more immersive virtual one. It is not clear that you win by making that sacrifice.

I'm not certain what is meant by "the advantages that would come out of an open storytelling process".

VR is not the first system to restrict the content to a screen.

I'm not certain what point you're trying to make with this. VR is a far more restrictive technology than any previous case - that is why it has advantages and is worth talking about in the first place. If you want to claim that VR has advantages in the first place, you also need to acknowledge that it is a new and different technology.

 

[indianajack]

I'm with Iger on this one. VR blows.

 

[DDLand]

But why categorically rule it out?

That's not what is being said. Instead, the argument is that VR involves making substantial sacrifices and the advantages are not clear.

Isn't that exactly what is being said?

If Bob had said they were proceeding with extreme caution into the VR space, and that they want to create the best experience; that would be a level headed statement. VR can easily be used as a gimmick. Explaining that they're actively exploring the pros and cons of the technology would have been logical. That if the story they wanted to tell required VR, they'd utilize it.

That's how it should have been.

Instead a mandate from above has ordered Imagineers not to even think about a potentially compelling technology. What if Walt Disney had never gotten over an aversion to roller coasters?

The problem is that by design, VR will make it more difficult to blend technologies. No one is hostile to new technology simply because it is new. All technologies have limitations, and we shouldn't ignore the problems in talking about their potential.


Forbidden Journey is a great example of an attraction that combines physical and virtual environments. The virtual component is a worthwhile addition to the attraction, but the strength of it lies in the physical environment and the blending of the two.

VR in a compelling roller coaster or another ride system. The opportunities are compelling and off limits.

It sounds like he's ruling it out because he is interested in thinking bigger and better. He probably feels that VR is the cheap way out. I think it's a good sign that he isn't interested in doing the cheapest, easiest thing.

What if the cheaper option is the best option? What if things that used to require massive pieces of infrastructure can now be created in a cheaper and even a better way? What if the new really is better or complementary in certain use cases?

I'm not suggesting that you should strap on VR goggles before It's a small world or Splash Mountain, but is there no time when it could be great?

That's what Bob is saying. Moderation is great, but what if cool technologies never get off the ground?

This approach seems incredibly closed minded and a poor tactical move. For a company that made a name for itself reinventing the mundane into the magical, this seems like a missed opportunity.

Story first.