Ahh... an empty theme park..... :lol:
-not quite
Hmm.... dull. An A-100 costs around a million dollars a piece. It can take over a month to program each figures movement.
The MTV generation indeed.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
The Audio-Animatronic Ride: Extinct?
- Thread starter Victor
- Start date
-not quite
The MTV generation indeed.
MeTa
Member
Yea but Disneyquest smelled like a big foot.:hurl: But I hear what your saying.
Mister Toad
New Member
Thanks, and appropriate from someone named Generation X. Let's face it, Home Depot sells Animatronics to decorate your front lawn for Christmas that are more advanced and realistic than you see anywhere in Ecpot.
AA was cool when it was unique to Disney, but you can see that ANYWHERE now. Even my local mall has AA for major holidays. There is no "WOW" seeing that in Disney anymore.
prspeppers
New Member
If i had my way i would bulldoze Mission Space. There isn't a g force high enough to make me feel like i'm in the future....however.... when you traveled past that AA in horizons playing that strange piano/xylophone thing that illuminated as he waved his hands over it....Now that was the future!!!!!!!! How did he do that!
AA rides rule....to bad there about as extinct as the dinos in Energy. Bummer.
AA rides rule....to bad there about as extinct as the dinos in Energy. Bummer.
Mister Toad
New Member
:lol: :lol: :lol:
ONUpolarbears
Member
You, sir, are a genius!
And to the person who said AA are simple. Maybe it's just me being an engineering student but I think it would give you a better appreciation for what goes into making a yeti or lucky or the american adventure if you understood the complexity and things they have to engineer around just to get them to work reliably. If you find an AA at home depot that can twirl a real lasso....LET ME KNOW!
kcnole
Well-Known Member
A few comments.
I can agree with that, there's no need to have every ride be an animatronic ride. If every ride were a roller coaster, or a log flume, or an AA ride I'd get bored. You need to have diversity in your rides to keep the whole theme park interesting. However I think it's important not to put too many thrill rides in your park. That leads into my next point.
I've already spoken on this issue in depth on my blog, which you can find linked in my signature. Allow me to post some excerpts of it here. It's rather long so I won't just post the whole thing. If you want to read it all, just head over to my blog.
There are numerous places spread out amongst the globe where parents can take their kids and watch their kids have fun while they sit back and watch, and in some cases just endure it. That was not Walt's idea for the parks. He firmly believed that he could build a place where parents and children could come and both have fun together, at the same time, laughing and dreaming as one. To his amazing credit he created exactly that and his way of doing it was very interesting. When asked about the issue, he had this to say:
When it comes to theme park design and development, those two quotes should be emblazoned in every creative, executive, and financial office in America today. When asking why Walt's enormous dream became such a success, became a world icon, and a brand unto itself, all that you have to do is look at those ideals. The parks today spend all of their time on the latest thrill ride, or on synergy, yet they miss the most simple of all answers. And that simple answer is "Parents and Children having fun together." It really is that simple yet it's overlooked all too much lately.
and another quote from the blog.
I am beginning to become afraid that those ideals are being lost. Rides like Mission Space, Rockin' Rollercoaster, Dueling Dragons, and The Hulk are wonderful rides in and of themselves but they totally miss the goal that Walt spoke of many years ago. They divide the family and remove the one thing that made me love the theme park. They removed the bonding with my family. So while I understand the need for one or two thrill rides in a park for those families and individuals who do love them, I don't want to see the parks become known as thrill parks. In the end, to remain successful into the future, they must remain family parks. That means creating something that the whole family can enjoy together, not kiddie lands, and not thrill rides.
I can agree with that, there's no need to have every ride be an animatronic ride. If every ride were a roller coaster, or a log flume, or an AA ride I'd get bored. You need to have diversity in your rides to keep the whole theme park interesting. However I think it's important not to put too many thrill rides in your park. That leads into my next point.
I've already spoken on this issue in depth on my blog, which you can find linked in my signature. Allow me to post some excerpts of it here. It's rather long so I won't just post the whole thing. If you want to read it all, just head over to my blog.
There are numerous places spread out amongst the globe where parents can take their kids and watch their kids have fun while they sit back and watch, and in some cases just endure it. That was not Walt's idea for the parks. He firmly believed that he could build a place where parents and children could come and both have fun together, at the same time, laughing and dreaming as one. To his amazing credit he created exactly that and his way of doing it was very interesting. When asked about the issue, he had this to say:
When it comes to theme park design and development, those two quotes should be emblazoned in every creative, executive, and financial office in America today. When asking why Walt's enormous dream became such a success, became a world icon, and a brand unto itself, all that you have to do is look at those ideals. The parks today spend all of their time on the latest thrill ride, or on synergy, yet they miss the most simple of all answers. And that simple answer is "Parents and Children having fun together." It really is that simple yet it's overlooked all too much lately.
and another quote from the blog.
I am beginning to become afraid that those ideals are being lost. Rides like Mission Space, Rockin' Rollercoaster, Dueling Dragons, and The Hulk are wonderful rides in and of themselves but they totally miss the goal that Walt spoke of many years ago. They divide the family and remove the one thing that made me love the theme park. They removed the bonding with my family. So while I understand the need for one or two thrill rides in a park for those families and individuals who do love them, I don't want to see the parks become known as thrill parks. In the end, to remain successful into the future, they must remain family parks. That means creating something that the whole family can enjoy together, not kiddie lands, and not thrill rides.
the-reason14
Well-Known Member
Yea, but have you seen the qualities of those AA at the stores. They only have a very small range of movements. Theres no proper comparison between the two and I think you know it.
DisneyMusician2
Well-Known Member
I think we can mix the AA and new technology to create better rides, but I don't see a problem with the new Epcot. I wouldn't consider Test Track a thrill ride except for the small loop aroud the building. It is more educationally based than anything that has gone into Epcot in a long time. And M:S is fun for many. It is a glimpse into what people may be doing in the future (kind of). People need to enjoy the storytelling no matter how it happens. Some things are not about a great story. Some things are about having a great time. Look at the mountains in MK. Space and Thunder are fun, and not truly "story driven at all". Just a quick thought....
Slowjack
Well-Known Member
Ah, well, thanks for the translation. I don't think, though, that you are the center of attention in Test Track any more than you are in the Jungle Cruise. I mean, it's hardly a clear distinction, and I don't think it's what makes a ride popular or not (again, Test Track and ToT are also thrill rides, so it's not an easy comparison to a non-thrill ride). But I agree that must be what the other guy meant--that at least explains the use of the "interactive" word.
Now, you also mention Epcot being Omnimover-ville--I agree with your point. For Omnimover fans like myself, it's great, but the original Epcot probably relied too much on two types of attractions. Future World was primarily variants of Omnimover AA rides, and World Showcase had (and still has) three film presentations that are all quite similar. So if you don't like that kind of thing, and not everyone does, you're left with a park without much to enjoy. The Magic Kingdom has survived so long with so many older attractions still intact because of the mix, I think. Classic dark rides, Disney-style thrills, Omnimover, shows, etc.
CoffeeJedi
Active Member
I don't believe that they've exploited the Indianna Jones/Dinsoaur ride systems to their fullest. Here you have vehicles that can speed up, slow down, go forwards, backwards, or hop up and down, in any combination. You can shoot them through fast turns like a roller coaster, or slow them to a crawl for a dark ride, in the same attraction. You can make audiences of all types happy.
Indianna Jones is a fantastic ride, filled with special effects, AA's, sensory/psychological thrills, and motion-based thrills. Dinosaur, while not quite as inventive, also uses all of these to good effect. But why only 2 rides like this? I think that it could have revolutionized the dark ride genre, given the chance, but 10 years and only 2 rides*? That's terrible.
Imagine the possibilities, with the right immersive environment, realistic AA's, a good story, and high-speed elements, you can do ANYTHING with that ride. And the vehicle definitely "puts you in the story" in a way that a slow moving boat or omnimover doesn't. Why have they squandered it?
*yes, i know that TDS has a near-clone of Indy
Indianna Jones is a fantastic ride, filled with special effects, AA's, sensory/psychological thrills, and motion-based thrills. Dinosaur, while not quite as inventive, also uses all of these to good effect. But why only 2 rides like this? I think that it could have revolutionized the dark ride genre, given the chance, but 10 years and only 2 rides*? That's terrible.
Imagine the possibilities, with the right immersive environment, realistic AA's, a good story, and high-speed elements, you can do ANYTHING with that ride. And the vehicle definitely "puts you in the story" in a way that a slow moving boat or omnimover doesn't. Why have they squandered it?
*yes, i know that TDS has a near-clone of Indy
kcnole
Well-Known Member
I'd really love a new area of the animal kingdom to be built based around the arctic. It would use these type vehicles to take you on an excursion through the arctic that would somehow have a mixture of animatronics and live animals throughout the ride and of course something would go wrong and you'd have to outrun a polar bear or stop some poachers or something. It could be great.
Totally agree. I believe that Indy was the last TRULY great ride built by WDI. I only rode it once, but the experience was far more rewarding and memorable than anything they've done since.
Epcot82Guy
Well-Known Member
I guess just a few comments on what I have seen in this thread.
1. As for the third-person aspect, I actually think the third person aspect is what made the attractions so much more interactive. When you rode Horizons, Mansion, etc., the story was not told to you. It was laid out, but it was up to you to figure out. You were like a fly on the wall, an eavesdropper, and you had to pay attention to get the point of everything. That's what allowed you to grow up with it, figure new things out, and see new things every time you rode the attraction.
With the new generation, the story telling is blatant. You are the central character, so everything is happening to you (in theory). Therefore, there is nothing really new to see each time. It is MUCH MUCH more linear in my opinion. To throw in an odd philosophical analogy, many of the "originals" used an inductive reasoning method. You had to gather lots of information (which took lots of rides) to figure out your version of the "premise (the central story)." The great thing: there really wasn't a "right" central story. It was up to you to figure them out. The modern rides are very deductive. There is a blatant plot and story presented. Details and what not are somewhat wasted in that people get the point right away. It is a much more baseline mental enjoyment. You can go on to look for details to support the story, but the "pont" is very clear and superficial. Mansion provides a wonderful example of this with its dozens of internet backstories, none of which are objectively "correct". On the other hand, I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone developing the characterizations in attractions like JIIwF, ETRUNM, and Stitch (especially since the Disney Characters' backstories have been provided to you on conveninently sellable discs).
2. Be careful with the argument about ho-hum AAs. What you are commenting on with the "wow" factor are characters from the early 1980s or before. If we are going to talk about how new attractions wow with their video technology and what not, let's compare apples to apples. How many original video attractions (which there were many of) are still around? Granted, video can be updated more easily and cheaply, but let's look at the technology of the Depp AA in Pirates, Stitch in SGE, and our Yeti. I agree that a balance is necessary. However, the old attractions did that. Look at Horizons: two of its biggest scenes were pure video. It was the combination of intense experiences with live action that created a more kinetic and complete environment IMHO. New technologies in robotics could really blow anything video out of the water if the time and imagination (and $$$) are put in.
And please note that I am only 24, so I am definitely a part of the interactive generation. I loved my Nintendo as a young child and own an iPod and many other things. However, there was something very different and organic about the classic Disney attractions that simply presented a new (and better) form of entertainment. Some things, like inspirational and challenging artistic entertainment, don't go away with the computer if one takes the opportunity to integrate them together.
3. I really think the DisneyQuest example is a wonderful highlight. While some of these new "interactive" technologies work, they become antequated very quickly. If you rely on the technology and not the actual production quality and immersion, you head into trouble. Roller coaster design has dealt with this for decades. If you go to be big and thrilling and "relevant", you will be surpassed in a year. If you go for fun, entertaining, and immersive, you will last much longer. In fact, Disney's original coasters do just that. Create fun. It is something more than you would expect from the traditional ride. It is the story - and that was much more a story as a photoalbum without captions rather than a childrens book. The imagination loves to figure things out in new ways. It's something our species thrives on if we let it go. Perhaps to tie everything in, the new JIIwF says it best - Imagination works best when it is set free. Disney is about creation, not experience to me - creation that takes place in that child-like, easily inspired part of your brain.
1. As for the third-person aspect, I actually think the third person aspect is what made the attractions so much more interactive. When you rode Horizons, Mansion, etc., the story was not told to you. It was laid out, but it was up to you to figure out. You were like a fly on the wall, an eavesdropper, and you had to pay attention to get the point of everything. That's what allowed you to grow up with it, figure new things out, and see new things every time you rode the attraction.
With the new generation, the story telling is blatant. You are the central character, so everything is happening to you (in theory). Therefore, there is nothing really new to see each time. It is MUCH MUCH more linear in my opinion. To throw in an odd philosophical analogy, many of the "originals" used an inductive reasoning method. You had to gather lots of information (which took lots of rides) to figure out your version of the "premise (the central story)." The great thing: there really wasn't a "right" central story. It was up to you to figure them out. The modern rides are very deductive. There is a blatant plot and story presented. Details and what not are somewhat wasted in that people get the point right away. It is a much more baseline mental enjoyment. You can go on to look for details to support the story, but the "pont" is very clear and superficial. Mansion provides a wonderful example of this with its dozens of internet backstories, none of which are objectively "correct". On the other hand, I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone developing the characterizations in attractions like JIIwF, ETRUNM, and Stitch (especially since the Disney Characters' backstories have been provided to you on conveninently sellable discs).
2. Be careful with the argument about ho-hum AAs. What you are commenting on with the "wow" factor are characters from the early 1980s or before. If we are going to talk about how new attractions wow with their video technology and what not, let's compare apples to apples. How many original video attractions (which there were many of) are still around? Granted, video can be updated more easily and cheaply, but let's look at the technology of the Depp AA in Pirates, Stitch in SGE, and our Yeti. I agree that a balance is necessary. However, the old attractions did that. Look at Horizons: two of its biggest scenes were pure video. It was the combination of intense experiences with live action that created a more kinetic and complete environment IMHO. New technologies in robotics could really blow anything video out of the water if the time and imagination (and $$$) are put in.
And please note that I am only 24, so I am definitely a part of the interactive generation. I loved my Nintendo as a young child and own an iPod and many other things. However, there was something very different and organic about the classic Disney attractions that simply presented a new (and better) form of entertainment. Some things, like inspirational and challenging artistic entertainment, don't go away with the computer if one takes the opportunity to integrate them together.
3. I really think the DisneyQuest example is a wonderful highlight. While some of these new "interactive" technologies work, they become antequated very quickly. If you rely on the technology and not the actual production quality and immersion, you head into trouble. Roller coaster design has dealt with this for decades. If you go to be big and thrilling and "relevant", you will be surpassed in a year. If you go for fun, entertaining, and immersive, you will last much longer. In fact, Disney's original coasters do just that. Create fun. It is something more than you would expect from the traditional ride. It is the story - and that was much more a story as a photoalbum without captions rather than a childrens book. The imagination loves to figure things out in new ways. It's something our species thrives on if we let it go. Perhaps to tie everything in, the new JIIwF says it best - Imagination works best when it is set free. Disney is about creation, not experience to me - creation that takes place in that child-like, easily inspired part of your brain.
Madison
New Member
It seems that the enormous cost of these attractions ensures that there will only ever be a handful of them. As dark rides and animatronics alike have become more sophisticated, they've also become considerably more expensive to construct and I imagine that's why we see so few of them. Were it built today, absent of the nostalgia surrounding it, an attraction likes Pirates or Haunted Mansion would be criticized for its animatronics' limited ranges of motion and stiff movements. Audiences won't accept anything less than state-of-the-art technology and that comes at a price; both figuratively and literally.
Modern animatronics are nothing less than industrial robots; the same kind you'd expect to see assembling a car or a microchip. Can you buy one of those at Home Depot? They're far removed from the 'simple' (i.e., groundbreaking) technology exhibited by Fritz and Pierre and exhibit a level of control and fluidity in movement that requires extensive software and hardware support. It is never simply a matter of telling some servo somewhere to move back and forth to get the character to wave or walk or turn from side to side. There is quite a bit more going on behind the scenes and, as I'm known to rant about it, misunderstanding that is indicative of our cultural unappreciation for the amazing work that engineers do.
The late 80s represent that last significant wave of attractions that rely on this technology to tell their story. Even then, it seems as if those attractions -- The Great Movie Ride, Maelstrom, and Splash Mountain -- work with animatronic figures, not because of their cutting edge technology, but because of their implementation.
In The Great Movie Ride, animatronic figures recreate seens from America's favorite passive activity, watching movies. Also, because the subject matter of each scene is, in some way, an entry in our cultural dictionary, the notion of altering or somehow involving the audience in the scene is uncomfortable. Also consider that Margaret Hamilton animatronic is even today considered among the most sophisticated and life-like ever built and its role in the show. Especially when compared to the other scenes represented in the attraction, that figure exhibits by necessity the greatest energy and immediacy to the audience.
Maelstrom deals almost exclusively with mythological creatures about which most western audiences have few preconceived notions. As with their own traditionally animated characters, Maelstrom represented an opportunity for Disney artists to conceive a unique representation of the archetypes represented by Norwegian folk tales. Animatronics provide to the trolls an immediacy (similar to the notion mentioned above) that cannot be recreated by other technologies, underscoring their volatile, unpredictable nature.
Splash Mountain, finally, exists at Disneyland almost entirely because it was able to recycle animtronics from America Sings. Without that benefit, it's plausible that the attraction would've ended up as something differently entirely from what we know today.
I believe that there is still a place and audience for passive entertainment and that it does not represent lazy storytelling at all. In fact, passive storytelling is far more difficult to accomplish successfully than is interactivity, but that increased challenge is rewarded by increased loyalty. Compare films to video games to see exactly how the dichotomy plays out in another medium.
The question going forward is whether we expect from the company that they produce each generation's Star Wars or if they produce its Doom, Counterstrike or Halo -- games that have seen insane popularity, but comparatively little loyalty. I bet you know a few people who still love Star Wars as much today as they did when they first saw it, but I doubt you'll run across too many folks who're still playing Doom.
CoffeeJedi
Active Member
Well, yes, of course, an attraction on the scale of PotC with an entire cast of A100's would be prohibitively expensive. But in terms of technology itself, once the initial R&D is done and paid for, each installation <i>should</i> get cheaper than the last. And not all attractions would even need the level of effects that Indianna Jones has. 3 or 4 really solid AA's, a well-detailed set, and a single spectacular effect at the finale would go a long a way toward being convincing.
What about Test Track? That system gives you almost the flexibility of Indy. Imagine how much better that victory loop at the end would feel if there was an immersive and dramatic story leading up to it (escaping a cave-in? cliche, but its just one example.)
Yeah, but I can't imagine it would be much more expensive than what they've shelled out for M:S and EE.
Madison
New Member
I agree entirely, but it's pretty clear that the company does not; or, at least, that their timetable for constructing these attractions is a lot longer than what we'd like. I think that investing in something like Indiana Jones Adventure represents an enormous risk, even if the R&D is largely out of the picture, because it cannot be changed easily if unsuccessful. Comparatively, a roller coaster is a sure-fire hit, even if the story isn't compelling.
Are you familiar with the Pandora's Box from Vekoma? None have been built to date, but I think it represents a fantastic step forward in the dark ride genre that allows for, but doesn't require, thrilling elements. It also seems flexible enough to allow for some measure of interactivity.
In any case, it's seems certainly obvious that dark rides are, by and large, the most accessible and popular of all E-ticket attractions. Even outside the Disney empire, attractions like The Amazing Adventures of Spiderman and the Sally Interactive dark rides prove that there's a growing market for family attractions at parks that have, for decades, been known for their thrills.
I wonder if there's been any push within WDI in consideration of what amounts to modular animatronic design that might allow for relatively high-volume production of parts that can then be arranged in differing combinations to produce, say, different skeletal structures. The dinosaur, Lucky, seems to have been the focus of the most recent development of animatronics and while interesting, I don't know if there are many uses for that technology in the near term. I respect, however, the dream that there might someday be a place with many such free-roaming, interactive characters.
Finally, the Test Track system was used in no small part on DisneySea's Journey to the Center of the Earth. The ride is, as I'm sure you're aware, nearly exactly as you've described. There's definitely a place for these ride system technologies in a new generation of dark rides, but the focus of such attractions needs to shift away from 'shock and awe' and back toward more minimist approaches to story telling.
Overall, I agree that there's no single reason that an animatronic heavy attraction should be more expensive than the most recent batch of E-ticket attractions, but there's something more at work than just expensese that's keeping them out of the park. I think it's largely the company's effort to keep 'in touch' with a society that's become largely out of touch with reality, but perhaps it's something less sinister like the ongoing expense of maintaining a complex animatronic figure when compared to, say, changing the lightbulb in a projector. In any case, it's a shame.