Bob Iger says no to VR in Disney Parks

[lazyboy97o]

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

An open storytelling process would be one where a good story is developed and then it's execution is chosen and developed out of that. No arbitrary restrictions from someone else who is not and never has been involved in the creative process.

 

[Daveeeeed]

He's just saying no to it in the parks and I'm happy to hear that. Disney is great at creating real environments -- VR is just a simulation of that. The whole idea of VR is that I can (someday) go to Disneyland at home in my underwear. If I'm going to take the time to get dressed and drive there though, it better not be virtual!!!

Parks-wise, the only place I think VR makes sense is in an Innoventions type setting as part of a brand experience.

100% agree. For home I would love a Disney style VR simulation, but VR simulates what's not there. Disney is about experiences what's there haha.

 

[Disney Irish]

But you said "He doesn't want to take you out of the real world by putting you into a VR world". There really isn't much to see in Soarin' besides the screen, so in effect you are being taken out of the real world and put in a VR world.

The difference, while might be small is an important one.

With a simulator you are physically position in one location, watching a screen with motion simulation trying to mimic the movements on the screen. You can still look around and say, "Hey I'm sitting in a theater watching a screen".

With VR you strap on the goggles and are no longer seeing the world around you. And are not confined by just the single image displayed on the screen in front of you. You look left, you look right, you are not seeing a theater. You see the VR world and the VR world only. That is what is meant by not wanting the guest to be taken out of the real world.

I can see the appeal for some with VR. But for me I rather have AR, which to me is the next jump in technology from VR anyways. I rather put on glasses and still see the real world but with images overlayed on top of it. I just think of walking down Main St at night right before the fireworks. Having the AR glasses on and seeing Tink shoot across the sky toward the castle. Then to start the fireworks Tink sprinkles pixie dust over the castle like in the classic Disney TV shows and movies. I'm not taken out of the real world, I'm getting an enhanced real world experience...

 

[October82]

That's how it should have been.

I didn't read his comments in that way, and I agree with the idea that the technology has potential and is worth exploring. The number of people who are going to categorically reject the technology is pretty small. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be aware of what the realistic limitations are.

 

[October82]

An open storytelling process would be one where a good story is developed and then it's execution is chosen and developed out of that. No arbitrary restrictions from someone else who is not and never has been involved in the creative process.

Since apparently it isn't clear - I don't think any decision to limit the available technologies is a wise one.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The difference, while might be small is an important one.

With a simulator you are physically position in one location, watching a screen with motion simulation trying to mimic the movements on the screen. You can still look around and say, "Hey I'm sitting in a theater watching a screen".

With VR you strap on the goggles and are no longer seeing the world around you. And are not confined by just the single image displayed on the screen in front of you. You look left, you look right, you are not seeing a theater. You see the VR world and the VR world only. That is what is meant by not wanting the guest to be taken out of the real world.

Disney spends considerable sums to mask infrastructure as much as possible. It is not highlighted as part of the experience, as some sort of reassurance that everything is fake.

 

[Disney Irish]

Disney spends considerable sums to mask infrastructure as much as possible. It is not highlighted as part of the experience, as some sort of reassurance that everything is fake.

That may be true, but if you still look around you are in a theater. You are getting a "simulating" experience. With VR you don't see any of that that. Like I said you look left, you look right, you see the VR world not a theater. And I know that is what is the appeal about it and an argument for VR. But for me and a lot of others, the VR experience still feels very fake. I'm more about the real world experiences. Plus with AR you have less risk of bumping into things in the real world than you do with VR.

 

[lazyboy97o]

That may be true, but if you still look around you are in a theater. You are getting a "simulating" experience. With VR you don't see any of that that. Like I said you look left, you look right, you see the VR world not a theater. And I know that is what is the appeal about it and an argument for VR. But for me and a lot of others, the VR experience still feels very fake. I'm more about the real world experiences. Plus with AR you have less risk of bumping into things in the real world than you do with VR.

Disney has and does build things to keep you from looking around. It's part of the iconic shape of the Doombuggy. VR feeling fake is an issue of content, not something inherent to the system. Lots of dark rides look awful. Bumping into things is an operational and design issue.

 

[yookeroo]

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.

I'm sympathetic to this view. But I think you're reading way too much into this statement. Do you really think Iger has dismissed VR as a tool forever and ever? That this is set in stone? I'm pretty sure this isn't the case. I'm not sure a CEO needs to qualify every statement every time to the press.

 

[Disney Irish]

Disney has and does build things to keep you from looking around. It's part of the iconic shape of the Doombuggy. VR feeling fake is an issue of content, not something inherent to the system. Lots of dark rides look awful. Bumping into things is an operational and design issue.

But you aren't riding around in a doombuggy in simulators. You are strapped into a stationary sit in a theater. So these are not comparisons.

Also VR feeling fake is not content. Its the technology limitations right now. In 5-10 years when the technology has been flushed out more, maybe. From Time's article in 2016 on the VR Developer Conference:

"Then there's the visual fidelity gap, which currently has no workarounds and has you observing otherwise breathtaking vistas always slightly out of focus. It's less noticeable when moving your head around, or while initially wide-eyed and breathless from VR's novelty distortion field. But concentrate on objects or textures, especially distant ones (say a gorgeous sunset over a mountain-scape), and you'll easily spot the so-called "screen door" effect, as if you were looking through a mesh at the world—the result of putting eyeballs mere inches from non-retinal screens."

http://time.com/4265899/virtual-reality-experience/

I have not doubt that VR will have its place in some mediums like gaming and maybe even TV/Movies one day. But in a theme park experience like Disney Parks I don't think its needed nor likely wanted by most guests. AR has more of a place there. Where the guest is still seeing the physical world but with AR images overlayed on top. Like the Tink example I gave earlier which would enhance the fireworks experience not take you out of it with VR.

 

[Disney Irish]

I'm sympathetic to this view. But I think you're reading way too much into this statement. Do you really think Iger has dismissed VR as a tool forever and ever? That this is set in stone? I'm pretty sure this isn't the case. I'm not sure a CEO needs to qualify every statement every time to the press.

WDI has been using VR for years to help design attractions. So VR in the company as a whole hasn't been dismissed. I agree that too much is being read into this article. The way I interpret it is, right now the technology is not at a place where they see it as a benefit or enhancement to the guest experience. If in the future VR gets to a point where its just as good or better than looking at the real world they may consider it.

 

[BrianLo]

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?

So I will say I totally agree that there should never be a mandate. I will however say this isn't a mandate against VR entirely. It's a mandate against the version that blocks out everything, he wants them to strive for blending of tech with AR.

I think Disney would be one the wrong side of history if they ignored the whole tool in general, he just wants them to avoid the lesser version and see how they can push the blending of the tool with what they already (generally) do so well - physical environments. AR allows that, VR does not.

 

[Curious Constance]

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?




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


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.

I'm sure Bob has the capability to change his mind if he feels the technology becomes compelling in the future. I think you're taking his canned statement to the press too literally.

 

[Practical Pig]

I interpret Iger's publicly stated prohibition as being irrelevant to any actual future R&D in the parks division. It's a PR promotion of Disney Parks as being a superior experience over lesser parks cheaply slapping VR headsets over existing infrastructure to flesh out a new experience over old bones. This is promotion, not real policy.

If a VR technology emerges that ticks enough boxes on the "Disney Experience" forms, they'll use it, regardless of Iger's PR smoke screen.

 

[Phroobar]

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.

Not even if it is a black neck tie covering your eyes put on by Bob?

 

[Practical Pig]

Not even if it is a black neck tie covering your eyes put on by Bob?

Fifty Shades of Bob?

 

[Curious Constance]

I interpret Iger's publicly stated prohibition as being irrelevant to any actual future R&D in the parks division. It's a PR promotion of Disney Parks as being a superior experience over lesser parks cheaply slapping VR headsets over existing infrastructure to flesh out a new experience over old bones. This is promotion, not real policy.

If a VR technology emerges that ticks enough boxes on the "Disney Experience" forms, they'll use it, regardless of Iger's PR smoke screen.

Exactly. He just wants everyone to know he wants the best, and right now that's not what VR can offer. I know it's popular to dislike Bob Iger if you're a Disney fan, but his statement is actually very promising. I think Bob has a whole new appreciation for the parks and is ready to keep them constantly moving forward.

 

[Curious Constance]

Not even if it is a black neck tie covering your eyes put on by Bob?

Lol

 

[Curious Constance]

Not even if it is a black neck tie covering your eyes put on by Bob?

I was really trying to be good and not drag this thread, all about Bob Iger, into Smuttown, and you had to go and ruin it!!!

 

[yookeroo]

So I will say I totally agree that there should never be a mandate. I will however say this isn't a mandate against VR entirely. It's a mandate against the version that blocks out everything

I doubt it's a mandate at all. I think it's just this:

I interpret Iger's publicly stated prohibition as being irrelevant to any actual future R&D in the parks division. It's a PR promotion of Disney Parks as being a superior experience over lesser parks cheaply slapping VR headsets over existing infrastructure to flesh out a new experience over old bones. This is promotion, not real policy.

If a VR technology emerges that ticks enough boxes on the "Disney Experience" forms, they'll use it, regardless of Iger's PR smoke screen.

It's a reaction to how other parks are using VR and the current state of the tech. Maybe it's an actual mandate, but I doubt it.

Lol

But you have managed to avoid answering.