Bruce Vaughn @ D23 on Universal Creative, Original rides, etc.

[lazyboy97o]

I'm not a fan of projections as stated unless used conservatively.

Gringotts i'm far more excited for than any of those three rides. Though it's because it's supposed to have more of an emphasis on physical sets and apparently is going to have more animatronic elements than more recent rides. I'm kind of ok with projected elements when they're mixed with a ton of practical effects as well. And thankfully that sounds like what Universal is aiming at for their future endeavors.

You just proved @flynnibus right. You have no idea what the results will be but made a judgement based entirely on medium.

Still they are essentially the same idea. It looks lazy to have two simulators in one park. I dont like when DCA has 2 3-d shows either it just seems sloppy

It's lazy to continually push the envelope of what can be accomplished?

 

[Fairybuzz]

Now you're just getting defensive instead of being objective. The point is your perception and admiration may be skewed by the 'how' and not just by the actual resulting effect. When you step back and try to understand why two different people have differing evaluations of the same thing.. you look at what influences them and what they value. This is reasoning and intelligence - not some classification of 'afflication'

In the Disney community, AA technology is highly valued.. because it was one of Disney's early differentiators and a long standing area of innovation for the company. This mentality is also repeatedly reinforced by the admiration of the classics such as Pirates/etc. These types of attractions are elevated to be the pinnacle of attractions. This combination provides a feedback loop that reiterates time and time again the 'value' and admiration for the means... much more than say if you took a opinion from a isolated subject. The one in isolation would appreciate the RESULT more so than the history of the company/tech that cummulated in that effect.

I just think theres something special to being IN the world of the attraction rather than separated by a screen. I just like being transported into the world of the ride

 

[Fairybuzz]

It's lazy to continually push the envelope of what can be accomplished?

by doing the same thing over and over again but with a different video?

 

[lazyboy97o]

I just think theres something special to being IN the world of the attraction rather than separated by a screen. I just like being transported into the world of the ride

You're completely ignoring the achievements of great screen applications. You'll never be able to move around in a physical space the way Universal Creative moves you in their simulations.

 

[lazyboy97o]

by doing the same thing over and over again but with a different video?

I don't think you've been on all three if you think that.

 

[Fairybuzz]

I don't think you've been on all three if you think that.

I never said I didn't like the rides. I just think they could do something other than use 3-d glasses and a vehicle that moves from screen to screen. I think now that they have these rides its enough. they shouldn't do it again. Remember I'm not a uni hater. I hate all these types of things like star trek vs star wars bugs vs. mickey etc.
I'm just saying its time for a change

 

[Fairybuzz]

You're completely ignoring the achievements of great screen applications. You'll never be able to move around in a physical space the way Universal Creative moves you in their simulations.

Who says I want to move that way huh?

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

Now you're just getting defensive instead of being objective. The point is your perception and admiration may be skewed by the 'how' and not just by the actual resulting effect. When you step back and try to understand why two different people have differing evaluations of the same thing.. you look at what influences them and what they value. This is reasoning and intelligence - not some classification of 'afflication'

In the Disney community, AA technology is highly valued.. because it was one of Disney's early differentiators and a long standing area of innovation for the company. This mentality is also repeatedly reinforced by the admiration of the classics such as Pirates/etc. These types of attractions are elevated to be the pinnacle of attractions. This combination provides a feedback loop that reiterates time and time again the 'value' and admiration for the means... much more than say if you took a opinion from a isolated subject. The one in isolation would appreciate the RESULT more so than the history of the company/tech that cummulated in that effect.

I'm not being defensive at all, i'm attempting to explain something that you're just trying to dissect as something psychological when it's not that complex to me. My perception and admiration for AA tech is both the how AND the resulting effect. The result of seeing a physical moving figure in actual space is more pleasing to my eyes than seeing a video screen, even if what i'm seeing on the video screen is amazing. The only exceptions to this are when the animatronic is poorly designed (such as Ariel in Mermaid, an artistic problem), or when the figure is poorly implemented into the ride. Though that's something that can be said of projection tech as well (poor design or implementation).

I feel i'm saying this in a pretty unbiased manner, I grew up experiencing both kinds of attractions at the same time (both with practical physical elements and ones with video screens). I first visited Disney World in the very early 90's and there were rides with both physical elements as well as projections. Even from the very start I knew which one I preferred. And even though I was very young, I was able to grasp why I preferred it. Mexico and Dreamflight were two prominent examples of projection-heavy rides. I enjoyed them both a lot, but less than similar rides that were dominated by physical elements.

You just proved @flynnibus right. You have no idea what the results will be but made a judgement based entirely on medium.

I've attempted to explain in better detail why I prefer physical elements. I'm well aware of the results projections can achieve. I think physical effects, while perhaps more limited, look and work better in an immersive ride experience. What I personally believe makes Universal's simulators so cool is a combination of the ride system as well as the implementation of the projection tech. Not to projections themselves so much, but how they are implemented. Again though, for my money I prefer the look of physical sets and figures.

I do think that there may well be a place for both techs to work well together. And i'm again optimistic about Gringotts in this regard.

 

[Soarin' Over Pgh]

Didn't read the last five pages, will go back and do it in a few.... just wanted to comment on the OP's post and video.

That was SO UNCOMFORTABLE to watch, I couldn't imagine watching it again to pick through it. Mr. V looks like someone has a flame on his behind and a knife to his neck. Good lord. It's just questions, dude...

 

[Fairybuzz]

I've attempted to explain in better detail why I prefer physical elements. I'm well aware of the results projections can achieve. I think physical effects, while perhaps more limited, look and work better in an immersive ride experience. What I personally believe makes Universal's simulators so cool is a combination of the ride system as well as the implementation of the projection tech. Not to projections themselves so much, but how they are implemented. Again though, for my money I prefer the look of physical sets and figures.

Thats kinda my argument about new movies use of cgi. I preferred special effects that weren't cgi, case in point I found a lot of the explosions in avatar looked pastel or like someone shaded them with a colored pencil. I liked the ones in the original star wars trilogy where you could see the debris floating around and the explosion was real and required hard labor to make instead of a guy hitting keystrokes

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

CGI i'm kind of split on. If we're talking about the computer animation used in actually animated movies like Pixar's stuff and now Disney's own animation, I think it actually looks ugly most of the time. I've always felt this way, even since I first saw Toy Story in theaters as a kid. But even the newest and best CGI. It's not the tech that even bothers me, I never even really thought about there being differences in technology as a kid. And I can at least ignore it if the movie is great. It's just the way it looks. If they manage to replicate a hand drawn look using CGI tech, i'm perfectly fine with the tech used. In fact I like what they're trying to accomplish with the Paperboy short Disney made, at least regarding the character designs (the environments still don't look very good though). Though i'm worried they just did it as a test and aren't going to actually use it in any of their movies in the future...

Though that's not to say I think hand drawn animation is always great either. I'm really not a fan of the animation in the 50's and 60's Hanna Barbera cartoons for example (Yogi, Quickdraw, Huckleberry Hound etc). There are also some animated cartoon shows from the 90's i'm not a fan of the animation of either. I am loving the new Mickey Mouse shorts though (for the most part anyways).

I will say give me a Studio Ghibli movie and my hand drawn animation crave will be pretty well and satisfied. Gorgeous they are.

Realistic CGI i'm more split over than animation CGI. I've seen a ton of really horrible uses of it, and it tends to age as well as milk even in the short term (like any of the CGI used in all the Star Wars movies). Though I have seen a few uses where it worked fairly well. Most recently, there were some environments in the Misty Mountains scenes involving wood scaffolding that had some cool looking parts. Though in the same movie, the orcs and goblins were all CGI and looked rather horrid (which is a shame because LOTR tended to use real live actors in makeup for the orcs, which looked great). And while it may yet age horribly like its predecessor, Tron Legacy had some neat looking CGI in places. So it's really a mixed bag, unfortunately containing a lot of rotten parts you have to sift through to get to the good stuff.

Wherever practical effects are possible though, i've found they almost always look best and superior to a comparable state of the art CGI effect. Even if you can accomplish more motion with a CGI effect. And age like fine wine. The original Star Wars movies being a perfect example with their intricate puppetry (Yoda's in Empire Strikes Back still looks fantastic). Or more silly movies such as Gremlins and even the Little Shop of Horrors.

 

[flynnibus]

I'm not being defensive at all, i'm attempting to explain something that you're just trying to dissect as something psychological when it's not that complex to me. My perception and admiration for AA tech is both the how AND the resulting effect.

Then you just confirmed exactly what I said. I'm not treating it as a negative - I'm pointing out what it is. And environment really does influence behavior... embrace it, not live in denial of it. Disney fans are conditioned to elevate AAs.. it's just reality. You'd have a hard time fitting in if you didn't.

The result of seeing a physical moving figure in actual space is more pleasing to my eyes than seeing a video screen, even if what i'm seeing on the video screen is amazing

You reveal these inherent biases all over. The 'video screen'? what if the 'screen' isn't actually there? How many effects have we used over the years that are projection based. Alas this 'AA vs whatever' discussion ineviable throws the baby out with the bath water because of the love of the AA figure.

Don't get me wrong.. I prefer an immersive environment over watching something... but I don't get hung up on the idea that someone used a light to fool me into believing something was there.. vs requiring something physically be there. Sometimes you just gotta sit back and enjoy the product

I feel i'm saying this in a pretty unbiased manner, I grew up experiencing both kinds of attractions at the same time (both with practical physical elements and ones with video screens). I first visited Disney World in the very early 90's and there were rides with both physical elements as well as projections. Even from the very start I knew which one I preferred. And even though I was very young, I was able to grasp why I preferred it. Mexico and Dreamflight were two prominent examples of projection-heavy rides. I enjoyed them both a lot, but less than similar rides that were dominated by physical elements.

So we limit our future.. based on what you saw from what was designed 35+ years ago. I hope you don't buy cars today based on what you experienced of cars in the 90s

 

[Fairybuzz]

CGI i'm kind of split on. If we're talking about the computer animation used in actually animated movies like Pixar's stuff and now Disney's own animation, I think it actually looks ugly most of the time. I've always felt this way, even since I first saw Toy Story in theaters as a kid. But even the newest and best CGI. It's not the tech that even bothers me, I never even really thought about there being differences in technology as a kid. And I can at least ignore it if the movie is great. It's just the way it looks. If they manage to replicate a hand drawn look using CGI tech, i'm perfectly fine with the tech used. In fact I like what they're trying to accomplish with the Paperboy short Disney made, at least regarding the character designs (the environments still don't look very good though). Though i'm worried they just did it as a test and aren't going to actually use it in any of their movies in the future...

Though that's not to say I think hand drawn animation is always great either. I'm really not a fan of the animation in the 50's and 60's Hanna Barbera cartoons for example (Yogi, Quickdraw, Huckleberry Hound etc). There are also some animated cartoon shows from the 90's i'm not a fan of the animation of either. I am loving the new Mickey Mouse shorts though (for the most part anyways).

I will say give me a Studio Ghibli movie and my hand drawn animation crave will be pretty well and satisfied. Gorgeous they are.

Realistic CGI i'm more split over than animation CGI. I've seen a ton of really horrible uses of it, and it tends to age as well as milk even in the short term (like any of the CGI used in all the Star Wars movies). Though I have seen a few uses where it worked fairly well. Most recently, there were some environments in the Misty Mountains scenes involving wood scaffolding that had some cool looking parts. Though in the same movie, the orcs and goblins were all CGI and looked rather horrid (which is a shame because LOTR tended to use real live actors in makeup for the orcs, which looked great). And while it may yet age horribly like its predecessor, Tron Legacy had some neat looking CGI in places. So it's really a mixed bag, unfortunately containing a lot of rotten parts you have to sift through to get to the good stuff.

Tron I can get over since its supposed to be a computer anyway. (Plus Quorra is my fav char ever!! but I digress)

MM scenes were nice looking, the orcs were very laughable indeed. (not to mention that that big bad orc wasn't even near being in the book but once again digressing)

It is possible that a lot of my views underlyingly (which is not a word) stem from things out of the early 90s which is sorta my favorite time period in my life. However when I look at things from back then (music movie effects etc) and compare them to now I'm usually disappointed in now if that makes sense. Idk what happened to a lot of these things but things got darker and louder, and lost a lot of class and charm along the way. I believe this happens to theme park rides too, like the optimistic Horizons being replaced by mission space where everything goes wrong. Thats a good example of comparing AAs to movies right there in itself. I remember as a kid seeing the Brava Centauri scene and not believing that they did it all without screens. the stillness of space, the fluid motion, the capsules, the satellites, It seemed way too profound and I admit it even frightened me at first. Thats when I fell in love with space and sci fi forever. I just didn't feel that on Mission Space where everything is hectic rushed and closed off from you.

Its a long stretch but this leads back to the op to begin with, in that disney tries too hard to be like universal and it dumps what made it special. Everything has to be sooo next gen thrill tacular! instead of wonderous and unique

 

[Fairybuzz]

I hope you don't buy cars today based on what you experienced of cars in the 90s

1995 toyota avalon still going strong great mileage made it from New York To Los Angeles and back.

2001 Audi A4 ac gone, headlights gone, no pickup, terrible mileage, two stereo speakers shorted out, makes a strange clunking noise when driving, breaks fail alot, has every mechanic in the tri-state area scratching their heads...

I really hope you dont buy cars based on what you know from 90s cars

 

[flynnibus]

I just think theres something special to being IN the world of the attraction rather than separated by a screen. I just like being transported into the world of the ride

Sorry - these types of statements are just entirely dismissive and not based in what is actually out there.

Just a heads up.. those gems in the dwarves mine won't be real gems! and the glittering lights will be fake too!

 

[Fairybuzz]

Sorry - these types of statements are just entirely dismissive and not based in what is actually out there.

Just a heads up.. those gems in the dwarves mine won't be real gems! and the glittering lights will be fake too!

how is that dismissive? I'm just saying how I feel personally. I know the gems arent real but I can look around them see the sides of them look back and see them fading behind. Its not flat like cardboard its real enough that it may as well be the genuine article. I go back to my horizons story about how It really felt like space to me, and how Mission Space can never feel that way. Its because when I watch movies on tv or in imax theaters or even 3-D theaters (they are everywhere these days, at least here in ny, even a massive omnitheater) I don't feel like I'm part of whats going on either because I know its just a screen there is nothing behind it but some walls and maybe a fire exit. I may just be spoiled because there are kuka arm-like simulators in the mall near my house. I don't know. I can't step outside myself and truly be objective no one can.



I only take part so I can listen to everyone's ideas and thoughts and share some of my own.

I know the chances of changing someone's opinion are always next to 0 but its nice to see what people with other viewpoints think and have to say. It helps also when looking at myself and why exactly I feel certain ways over things. In the end I don't mean any animosity.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I never said I didn't like the rides. I just think they could do something other than use 3-d glasses and a vehicle that moves from screen to screen. I think now that they have these rides its enough. they shouldn't do it again. Remember I'm not a uni hater. I hate all these types of things like star trek vs star wars bugs vs. mickey etc.
I'm just saying its time for a change

Only two of the three use 3D glasses...

 

[Fairybuzz]

Only two of the three use 3D glasses...

That's not the point. The point is that It'd be nice to have more variety thats all.

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

Then you just confirmed exactly what I said. I'm not treating it as a negative - I'm pointing out what it is. And environment really does influence behavior... embrace it, not live in denial of it. Disney fans are conditioned to elevate AAs.. it's just reality. You'd have a hard time fitting in if you didn't.

You reveal these inherent biases all over. The 'video screen'? what if the 'screen' isn't actually there? How many effects have we used over the years that are projection based. Alas this 'AA vs whatever' discussion ineviable throws the baby out with the bath water because of the love of the AA figure.

I do accept that environment influences behavior, I never said otherwise. But what I said was that I was raised in an environment with both types of techs, and I was exposed to both at the exact same time. At that point in my life I had no preconceptions about what tech was considered better by people. I was never told by anyone that projections were an inferior tech. It was purely my own conclusions based on firsthand experience, free of any prior bias leading me one way or another. Again, I still came to the quick conclusion that I prefer the look of AA's and their physical 3-dimensional nature.

It's not always required to embrace a new idea just because it's the "in thing" to do currently. Even if it means you won't fit in. That's better known as peer pressure. I shouldn't be forced to enjoy a movie like Avatar if it didn't click with me, even though the tech is amazing and there's a ton of other people who really liked it.

So we limit our future.. based on what you saw from what was designed 35+ years ago. I hope you don't buy cars today based on what you experienced of cars in the 90s

I don't buy cars in the same way that I judge theme park rides. Unless it's a roadside carnival ride that I suspect has a good chance of killing me when riding in it that is...

 

[marni1971]

I'd love to see an update (provided it's not half assed or given any pop culture and/or celebrity crap). Though i'd like for them to keep some of the wonderful music such as Carnival of the Animals and Clair de Lune.

A Reflections of China makeover would be perfect. Similar or same music, just swap out the most dated shots and keep the others. Something like 40% of Wonders of China is still played today.