DHS Disney Animation-Inspired Experience Coming to Disney’s Hollywood Studios

[monothingie]

Soooo updating the ride with physical sets and more coherent story while removing a design station that rarely ever connected to the ride displays is a deal breaker?

I'm not following with the whole story line since the whole concept of the ride has no relevance to its actual name. It's no longer a "Test Track".

But the design stations added an interactive element that easily could have been carried through the version 3 with a little creativity. The ride itself while having good moments for visuals, also has some not so good ones. Even in the post ride exhibits, it seems so sterile and low-energy.

I will say this, when my three young nephews 6, 9, 13 and their friends who really loved the ride found out that that they don't have the design stations anymore they went sour on it. The ride became mid.

 

[DisneyHead123]

Looking back over the original description, I’m super curious as to how this area will be structured. Will the pictures be Magicband activated, or a Magic Quest type situation, or otherwise interactive in some way? I’m unsure what a guest exhibit that looks like offices would look like, so that’s a question mark (areas with interactive exhibits tend to be large open spaces). The Alice in Wonderland area sounds intriguing too. I’m assuming the flowers will be a soft play area? (Hopefully staffed by CMs because older kids have no mercy when doing parkour on play structures and will send a toddler flying in a heartbeat.) The tea party situation is intriguing too as I can’t imagine they’ll give kids access to actual dishes. Maybe a permanent structure with interactive elements?

 

[James Alucobond]

Looking back over the original description, I’m super curious as to how this area will be structured. Will the pictures be Magicband activated, or a Magic Quest type situation, or otherwise interactive in some way? I’m unsure what a guest exhibit that looks like offices would look like, so that’s a question mark (areas with interactive exhibits tend to be large open spaces). The Alice in Wonderland area sounds intriguing too. I’m assuming the flowers will be a soft play area? (Hopefully staffed by CMs because older kids have no mercy when doing parkour on play structures and will send a toddler flying in a heartbeat.) The tea party situation is intriguing too as I can’t imagine they’ll give kids access to actual dishes. Maybe a permanent structure with interactive elements?

Interestingly, some of the art for the original hub renovation of EPCOT included Alice in Wonderland setpieces, including the oversized wingback chair and hanging lanterns from the tea party and a card soldier doing a backbend to create an archway. It was shown in the garden just outside Connections, though it’s unclear if it was permanent or indicative of possible seasonal decor. Curious if any of those ideas will be reused.

 

[Gusey]

Looking back over the original description, I’m super curious as to how this area will be structured. Will the pictures be Magicband activated, or a Magic Quest type situation, or otherwise interactive in some way? I’m unsure what a guest exhibit that looks like offices would look like, so that’s a question mark (areas with interactive exhibits tend to be large open spaces). The Alice in Wonderland area sounds intriguing too. I’m assuming the flowers will be a soft play area? (Hopefully staffed by CMs because older kids have no mercy when doing parkour on play structures and will send a toddler flying in a heartbeat.) The tea party situation is intriguing too as I can’t imagine they’ll give kids access to actual dishes. Maybe a permanent structure with interactive elements?

I wonder of the interactive portraits would be using a similar technology to the art on the Disney Cruises, some get animated when you walk past and some interact with the on ship treasure hunt games

 

[Robbiem]

That’s not what you said. You said the courtyard would “open into a set of jarring post modern studio buildings”, not that there was a single postmodern decoration on one of the buildings that you thought might be disruptive. Also, in the context of literally everything else around it not being postmodern, it will likely just read as the conical hat it is based on, not part of a larger geometric architectural language since it won’t be echoed elsewhere in the space.

We have different views. I am happy to accept that you have a different opinion to me and like the plans and I don’t.

I will try to explain my view again below

The press release on the main site says:

• The existing Star Wars: Launch Bay building will be redesigned to resemble the Roy E. Disney Animation Building in Burbank, complete with a Sorcerer Hat atop the roof.

The Roy E Disney building is a post modern design. In my view this means that the building or buildings (people say its one or two) will have a post modern overlay. In my opinion this will be jarring with Hollywood boulevard’s art deco look. I would have preferred the budget to be spent by retaining the style of the building and either used for better content or placemaking of the area in general to enhance the existing theme

The release then says:

• The new experience will immerse guests in an animated world where characters have taken over the studio after the animators have stepped away

Fair enough. I would have liked a more classic look for a character area like a studio take on toontown, especially as I think this could better connect sunset and Hollywood boulevard’s better and tie into some of the Roger Rabbit theming dotted around the original park.

Again please remember these are my opinions. We aren’t in a court of law so please don’t try to pick my views apart by being pedantic about my words. I’m sure you understand my view but disagree

We have differing views and that’s fine, until the thing is built neither of us will know what it will be like in real life

Peace and love

 

[James Alucobond]

We have different views. I am happy to accept that you have a different opinion to me and like the plans and I don’t.

I will try to explain my view again below

The press release on the main site says:

• The existing Star Wars: Launch Bay building will be redesigned to resemble the Roy E. Disney Animation Building in Burbank, complete with a Sorcerer Hat atop the roof.

The Roy E Disney building is a post modern design. In my view this means that the building or buildings (people say its one or two) will have a post modern overlay. In my opinion this will be jarring with Hollywood boulevard’s art deco look. I would have preferred the budget to be spent by retaining the style of the building and either used for better content or placemaking of the area in general to enhance the existing theme

The release then says:

• The new experience will immerse guests in an animated world where characters have taken over the studio after the animators have stepped away

Fair enough. I would have liked a more classic look for a character area like a studio take on toontown, especially as I think this could better connect sunset and Hollywood boulevard’s better and tie into some of the Roger Rabbit theming dotted around the original park.

Again please remember these are my opinions. We aren’t in a court of law so please don’t try to pick my views apart by being pedantic about my words. I’m sure you understand my view but disagree

We have differing views and that’s fine, until the thing is built neither of us will know what it will be like in real life

Peace and love

Whether I do or don’t like the plans is irrelevant and was not part of my response to you. I looked at the concept art of the renovation, noted that the only structural change to the buildings is to a single entrance overhang such that it includes the sorcerer’s hat, and made the factual statement that it is not being otherwise fundamentally transformed into something postmodern in the way you implied.

 

[Cmdr_Crimson]

I'm not following with the whole story line since the whole concept of the ride has no relevance to its actual name. It's no longer a "Test Track".

But the design stations added an interactive element that easily could have been carried through the version 3 with a little creativity. The ride itself while having good moments for visuals, also has some not so good ones. Even in the post ride exhibits, it seems so sterile and low-energy.

I will say this, when my three young nephews 6, 9, 13 and their friends who really loved the ride found out that that they don't have the design stations anymore they went sour on it. The ride became mid.

Best way I can describe it ..

Test track 1.0 your the test dummy experiencing how it feels to work in a test facility

Test Track 2.0 you design your futuristic car and see how capable it works on the test track

Test Track 3.0 the car Blueprint of the future and beyond.

 

[Epcot82Guy]

I know we think that, but everything they’ve done to HS lately indicates they might actually care, if not thematically then at least organizationally. This is why I think it’s a mistake to tie the loss of MuppetVision to this in any meaningful way, as if it is the fault of not using the AC space for Monsters that MV3D is gone. It might be the reason it left as soon as it did, but I think it’s just a consequence of larger reorganization around IP-unified lands while also viewing the existing Muppet area as too big given their apparent lack of merchandise draw and unpopular rat pizza. If Muppets actually do eventually move into the flex theater, there will be only one attraction in the entire park that remains oddly placed, which is kind of an insane turnaround from not too long ago.

That's actually a very fair point. I often point to DHS as examples of where they do really care about cohesion in an area. (compared to say EPCOT where the studios side pushed them to make the back France alleyway cartoonish rooftops compared to the more realistic Pavilion - and ignoring Frontierland, World Discovery, etc.).

I do appreciate the creativity Imagineering uses to justify these things - like switching from the real world to the cartoon world. It's just not very effective in space design IMHO. And, back to your point, made worse by the fact they can do it when they want to.

 

[DisneyHead123]

I wonder of the interactive portraits would be using a similar technology to the art on the Disney Cruises, some get animated when you walk past and some interact with the on ship treasure hunt games

I also wonder if we’ll see concepts moved from the cruises to the parks, or if they’ll keep those totally separate.

 

[AidenRodriguez731]

I'm not following with the whole story line since the whole concept of the ride has no relevance to its actual name. It's no longer a "Test Track".

But the design stations added an interactive element that easily could have been carried through the version 3 with a little creativity. The ride itself while having good moments for visuals, also has some not so good ones. Even in the post ride exhibits, it seems so sterile and low-energy.

I will say this, when my three young nephews 6, 9, 13 and their friends who really loved the ride found out that that they don't have the design stations anymore they went sour on it. The ride became mid.

I would definitely consider it still a test track but instead of testing the vehicle's you're testing out the newest and future technology around the vehicles. You test out LIDAR sensing, powered roads, at-home customization, and self driving cars/AI of course.

It's not the same as the usual "Test Track" but since a lot of the stuff is things you are "testing' IMO the name still fits.

Also I hated the design stations, I know a lot of kids liked them but they threw off the line in my opinion and could easily be replaced with a game on the play Disney app for the exact same/better effect.

 

[Professortango1]

Not even close. It was an empty warehouse that was already outdated by 2010.View attachment 872607View attachment 872608View attachment 872609View attachment 872610View attachment 872611View attachment 872612

That looks far more interesting than the current empty queue and void-ness of the current ride experience. Plus...it fit the name. And it was funny. The only thing I like about 3.0 is the forest section, and that's only aesthetically. If it could look like that and be still the ramping up of tension from 1.0; along with the rest of the attraction as 1.0. then it would be perection.

 

[Chester&Hester Enthusiast]

l

Pluto was hungry.
I mean, did you SEE the look on his face in the concept art…??

Guilty as … h-e-double hockey stick!

View attachment 872475

I'm sorry, but why does all of Disney's modern concept art feel like it has that AI stank all over it? They're clearly using a decent enough model (probably in-house), but there's no way some of this stuff isn't done with an image generation tool. I'm sure they clean it up a bit, but nonetheless.

You notice it the most where something is supposed to be symmetrical and matching, like Pluto's feet here (not pictured in your crop) or the planters on either side of the entrance in the aerial rendering. Just slight differences that an actual human artist would likely have paid attention to, but that an AI generator is likely to miss on a little. All the people in them are so lifeless looking now, too.

 

[YodaMan]

Still a bit torn on this overall. It’s still crazy to me that Mermaid sat rotting for roughly 5 years before they ended up bringing back… an updated Mermaid. And 10 years after replacing the Magic of Disney Animation with Launch Bay, we’re finally replacing Launch Bay with… the Magic of Disney Animation. It all feels counterproductive even if it is a better use of the space than we’ve had the last few years.

But it makes sense, they always seemed to have regrets about closing Animation. They immediately had to build a new Meet and Greet location for Mickey and Minnie on the other side of the park. They created Celebrity Spotlight and added a Meet and Greet space to Walt Disney Presents as flex spaces for new characters from new Disney films. And they added the Animation Academy to DAK. Almost everything they got rid of ended up elsewhere, so it’ll be interesting to see what happens to all these things that were created in response to Animation closing now that Animation is coming back.

 

[Figments Friend]

l

I'm sorry, but why does all of Disney's modern concept art feel like it has that AI stank all over it? They're clearly using a decent enough model (probably in-house), but there's no way some of this stuff isn't done with an image generation tool. I'm sure they clean it up a bit, but nonetheless.

You notice it the most where something is supposed to be symmetrical and matching, like Pluto's feet here (not pictured in your crop) or the planters on either side of the entrance in the aerial rendering. Just slight differences that an actual human artist would likely have paid attention to, but that an AI generator is likely to miss on a little. All the people in them are so lifeless looking now, too.

Completely agree.
Most concept art coming out over the last few years has been dreadfully flat looking to my eyes.
None of it really looks overly appealing…but it gets the job done in providing the Company with an image to use for publicity and marketing.

I miss the days of ‘REAL’ concept art done by very talented artists….who drew and painted on paper…and took years of their life to learn their skill.
Blair, Ryman, Hench, etc.
Now some office intern assigned to the art department punches in a few words and a computer program does the rest it seems….
Blech…


-

 

[Chester&Hester Enthusiast]

Completely agree.
Most concept art coming out over the last few years has been dreadfully flat looking to my eyes.
None of it really looks overly appealing…but it gets the job done in providing the Company with an image to use for publicity and marketing.

I miss the days of ‘REAL’ concept art done by very talented artists….who drew and painted on paper…and took years of their life to learn their skill.
Blair, Ryman, Hench, etc.
Now some office intern assigned to the art department punches in a few words and a computer program does the rest it seems….
Blech…


-

I do a lot of freelance work with an advanced engine that’s trained only on specific imagery, so I’ve gotten pretty good at spotting this stuff. I could always be wrong, but that would be almost worse in what it would say about their current roster of conceptual artists.

I assume it's an in-house proprietary model that’s been trained on their own assets and architecture. It really stands out in pieces like this with overlays. An overlay makes it easy to use a well-trained model to tweak the look of existing buildings.

I think the worst part for me is that they insist on using this "digital painting of a digital painting" look when they could easily be rendering in watercolor or acrylic or pencil. Honestly, choosing a more natural looking medium would probably make it look less artificial.

That said, can you even imagine hanging any of this recent "art" on your wall? Or buying a coffee table book of it? Eef.

 

[ToTBellHop]

I do a lot of freelance work with an advanced engine that’s trained only on specific imagery, so I’ve gotten pretty good at spotting this stuff. I could always be wrong, but that would be almost worse in what it would say about their current roster of conceptual artists.

I assume it's an in-house proprietary model that’s been trained on their own assets and architecture. It really stands out in pieces like this with overlays. An overlay makes it easy to use a well-trained model to tweak the look of existing buildings.

I think the worst part for me is that they insist on using this "digital painting of a digital painting" look when they could easily be rendering in watercolor or acrylic or pencil. Honestly, choosing a more natural looking medium would probably make it look less artificial.

That said, can you even imagine hanging any of this recent "art" on your wall? Or buying a coffee table book of it? Eef.

I guess it depends on what you want. Modern concept art is far more literal than the stylized, beautiful pieces from the past. It does feel like people are more likely to criticize the finished product for not “living up” to the art, so perhaps it’s just not worth it for them to make stylized art. I doubt they make much from those coffee table books. They probably employ far fewer concept artist than in the past, and I’m sure you’re correct that some AI is employed.

 

[Figments Friend]

I do a lot of freelance work with an advanced engine that’s trained only on specific imagery, so I’ve gotten pretty good at spotting this stuff. I could always be wrong, but that would be almost worse in what it would say about their current roster of conceptual artists.

I assume it's an in-house proprietary model that’s been trained on their own assets and architecture. It really stands out in pieces like this with overlays. An overlay makes it easy to use a well-trained model to tweak the look of existing buildings.

I think the worst part for me is that they insist on using this "digital painting of a digital painting" look when they could easily be rendering in watercolor or acrylic or pencil. Honestly, choosing a more natural looking medium would probably make it look less artificial.

That said, can you even imagine hanging any of this recent "art" on your wall? Or buying a coffee table book of it? Eef.

Totally agree with you.
As a ‘traditional’ artist myself, I can get behind what you are saying here 100%.

Enlarging these modern concept art images can be downright disturbing at times.
And yes, I agree….nobody will want to buy Disney Gallery prints of these recent works in the future.


-

 

[Gusey]

Totally agree with you.
As a ‘traditional’ artist myself, I can get behind what you are saying here 100%.

Enlarging these modern concept art images can be downright disturbing at times.
And yes, I agree….nobody will want to buy Disney Gallery prints of these recent works in the future.


-

I will say that some of the concept art for Adventure Way at Disney Adventure World looks really nice. Still digitally made but all really nice to look at and I would buy prints of. I wonder if it is the subject manner, as even old concept art for MGM Studios looks quite flat and not like original Disneyland concept art

 

[Brer Oswald]

Can we pwetty pwease stop with the “phasing” stuff? It’s been like decades since anyone even has any concept of that…

The do stuff when they feel forced and put it…whatever…schedules and cohesiveness went the way of the dodo

If something is planned in Phases, everything after “phase 1” almost never happens. Remember the Radiator Springs “phase 2” in this park? How about “phase 2” of the Epcot overhaul? The people planning these things seem to not understand that almost everything in the parks has a sense of permanence to it. Once something is put in, it’s going to stick around for a while whether it’s good or not.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

If something is planned in Phases, everything after “phase 1” almost never happens. Remember the Radiator Springs “phase 2” in this park? How about “phase 2” of the Epcot overhaul? The people planning these things seem to not understand that almost everything in the parks has a sense of permanence to it. Once something is put in, it’s going to stick around for a while whether it’s good or not.

Phases more refers to this romantic historical recollection of the the 1960’s - 1980’s where they liked building stuff and and did it to grow business

Now it’s all last resort and upsell potential on a spread sheet…

There’s a segment of the fanbase - older and newer - that likes to think WDI is a bunch of “artists” coming up with grand ideas that the management just shows up and can’t say no to its awesomeness. Very much backwards in the imperial senate now

Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?