But remember, the OLD show was about communication. The NEW one is about creating the future.
That story shift using many elements of the previous attraction might make it hard for the know-every-detail Disney enthusiast to grasp the new storyline. But for a newbie rider Im sure it is much more clear ( Whether the story change is good or bad is debatable, but without it, Siemens wouldn't have funnelled cash into the much-needed refurb.)
The old ride explored how we "reached out to one another. To communicate." The new one asks "Where are we going? And how did we get there?" I think most will agree that is a very "Epcot-esque" topic that fits with what traditionalists believe the park should focus on.
The first part of the ride answers the second question. Few would dispute that the SSE ascent through history is a success.
The second part of the ride tries to answer the first question: "where are we going?"
What should the Imagineers have done in that difficult-to-use descent tunnel to address that very reasonable topic of imagining the future?
They could have put 3D props and animatronics in the tunnel. But as Carousel of Progress, Horizons, The Living Seas, Tomorrowland, and other future-looking attractions have proven, the ride can get outdated very fast. With dimensional sets, it is very expensive to update, not to mention creatively-challenging to work with existing materials. Also, how do you adequately portray the future in such a confined space?
So I can see why Disney opted for a video-based ending that, in theory, could be easily updated while also being interactive.
One could argue that such video images should have been shown outside the vehicles. But many here criticize Disney for doing too much of that already in rides like Gran Fiesta and Nemo. On-ride interative screens are totally unique to SSE in the theme park world. And if choose-your-own-adventure videos could be successful in the low-tech Horizons ride, why not do a modern version here?
If you've agreed with me up to this point, then it becomes clear that the success of SSE boils down, not to the video screen itself, but to the content that appears on it.
And even though I really like the new SSE --especially the photo capture!-- and roll my eyes at some of the comments on these boards (especially by those who haven't ridden it yet), I feel the animated video could have been a little more realism-based rather than "Jetsons".
After all the scientific research that went into the original Epcot attractions, and with a major innovator like Siemens on board, I'm surprised the video does not present more probable futuristic scenarios.
Then again, maybe they didn't have enough interesting realistic subject matter for a theme park ride. If they had to chose between a hydrogen-powered Ford Explorer or an advanced medical MRI or a jetpack hovercraft, which would be more fun?
Also, people here have a definite nostalgic love of Horizons and the now-unrealistic future it portrayed. By giving the animated video a "retro" feel, they can get away with more fantasy, since the real-life future is likely more mundane (I doubt space station living or undersea bases are really in the plans anymore)
I'd probably prefer a more photo-realistc animation, especially with my photo-realistic face plastered on it. But I don't know what technical limitations there are in order to render the custom video in such a short time frame. Are the brightly-painted backgrounds easier for the computer to generate quickly?
But the nice thing about the computer screens is that they can always be changed. And after seeing Disney's recent strides with Monsters Inc Laugh Floor and their constant upgrades to Tower of Terror....Im sure they'll eventually made a fun addition even better.
That story shift using many elements of the previous attraction might make it hard for the know-every-detail Disney enthusiast to grasp the new storyline. But for a newbie rider Im sure it is much more clear ( Whether the story change is good or bad is debatable, but without it, Siemens wouldn't have funnelled cash into the much-needed refurb.)
The old ride explored how we "reached out to one another. To communicate." The new one asks "Where are we going? And how did we get there?" I think most will agree that is a very "Epcot-esque" topic that fits with what traditionalists believe the park should focus on.
The first part of the ride answers the second question. Few would dispute that the SSE ascent through history is a success.
The second part of the ride tries to answer the first question: "where are we going?"
What should the Imagineers have done in that difficult-to-use descent tunnel to address that very reasonable topic of imagining the future?
They could have put 3D props and animatronics in the tunnel. But as Carousel of Progress, Horizons, The Living Seas, Tomorrowland, and other future-looking attractions have proven, the ride can get outdated very fast. With dimensional sets, it is very expensive to update, not to mention creatively-challenging to work with existing materials. Also, how do you adequately portray the future in such a confined space?
So I can see why Disney opted for a video-based ending that, in theory, could be easily updated while also being interactive.
One could argue that such video images should have been shown outside the vehicles. But many here criticize Disney for doing too much of that already in rides like Gran Fiesta and Nemo. On-ride interative screens are totally unique to SSE in the theme park world. And if choose-your-own-adventure videos could be successful in the low-tech Horizons ride, why not do a modern version here?
If you've agreed with me up to this point, then it becomes clear that the success of SSE boils down, not to the video screen itself, but to the content that appears on it.
And even though I really like the new SSE --especially the photo capture!-- and roll my eyes at some of the comments on these boards (especially by those who haven't ridden it yet), I feel the animated video could have been a little more realism-based rather than "Jetsons".
After all the scientific research that went into the original Epcot attractions, and with a major innovator like Siemens on board, I'm surprised the video does not present more probable futuristic scenarios.
Then again, maybe they didn't have enough interesting realistic subject matter for a theme park ride. If they had to chose between a hydrogen-powered Ford Explorer or an advanced medical MRI or a jetpack hovercraft, which would be more fun?
Also, people here have a definite nostalgic love of Horizons and the now-unrealistic future it portrayed. By giving the animated video a "retro" feel, they can get away with more fantasy, since the real-life future is likely more mundane (I doubt space station living or undersea bases are really in the plans anymore)
I'd probably prefer a more photo-realistc animation, especially with my photo-realistic face plastered on it. But I don't know what technical limitations there are in order to render the custom video in such a short time frame. Are the brightly-painted backgrounds easier for the computer to generate quickly?
But the nice thing about the computer screens is that they can always be changed. And after seeing Disney's recent strides with Monsters Inc Laugh Floor and their constant upgrades to Tower of Terror....Im sure they'll eventually made a fun addition even better.