Eddie Sotto's take on the current state of the parks (Part II)

[Pixiedustmaker]

I think the portion at the very end of the clip where they show the face.. and all the inputs being moved around kind of drives the point. How does anyone program that many inputs with that high of sampling rate manually? I kind a skipped through the middle of the presentation, but the end effect didn't scream 'real' to me.. but could have been other factors too. And I'm of the type that didn't have a problem with the CGI in tron for Clu.

I think Disney's best solution is DISTANCE Everyone thinks the presidents look great in HoP for that reason

While doing all of that programing by hand would be hard, I'm sure they'll have folks tweaking the final product, under show light conditions and everything.

Although the final effect isn't "real", it sure is a lot more real than the Pirate animatronics as seen up close. The big deal is the dozen or so little actuators in the face. I've thought about how I would build a next gen animatronic, and no doubt I would put a whole lot of motors/actuators in the face to be able to produce a great range of emotions.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

Well put. As Herb Ryman did so many times in his paintings, make things "specifically vague". That allows us to imagine what we think they really look like. It is far more satisfying. How many times have you seen a celebrity and thought that they don't look like we thought but it is really them? Lincoln only works because of distance and the right lighting allowing the hard shadows to sculpt his distinctive face. Take a flash photo of any of those HOP figures and it's pretty ugly. They don't look like what we want or believe they should look like. That is why you make the faces expressive in their sculpts as it is all theater. When they are slightly caricatured they read as more of a resemblance. Johnny Depp in Pirates works because of the eye makeup and the hair,etc. He looks pretty much like we recall him because his character in the film is so over the top and all the cues are there.

That's a really good point, about the exaggerated profiles of animatronics. I believe that Sid Caesar was used for at least one of the pirates, and I believe they used some random cast members who naturally had expressive faces.

John Depp's animatronic looks like Johnny Depp, but the expression is pretty vague/slightly apprehensive and certainly doesn't match some of the more stylized animatronics that seem much more rough around the edges. They could do like they did with Jim Carrey in the Christmas Story, built an exaggerated face mask for a specific character.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

That's a really good point, about the exaggerated profiles of animatronics. I believe that Sid Caesar was used for at least one of the pirates, and I believe they used some random cast members who naturally had expressive faces.
.

My understanding is that Blaine copied the faces pretty faithfully from Marc Davis characters.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

My understanding is that Blaine copied the faces pretty faithfully from Marc Davis characters.

Oh, maybe I unwittingly passed on an urban legend. Supposedly Sid Caesar was a friend of Walt Disney, and/or an imagineer, and his likeness inspired the pirate on the left,

Here's from an interview on TellNoTales.com (http://www.tellnotales.com/insiders.php),

In the Pirates of the Caribbean attraction, there's a popular story that one of the faces is based on Sid Caesar. It's also been said that the Imagineers themselves used their own facial features for the pirates. Is there any truth to either of these rumors?

That's probably the biggest misconception about Pirates. Blaine Gibson told me point blank that not one pirate is based on a specific person, including Walt Disney and Sid Caesar. I know the pirate you're referring to, and he does bear some resemblance to Sid, but that wasn't a conscious thing on Blaine's part. The Auctioneer is in fact inspired by an actual person, a WED architect at the time of the show's development, but Blaine would like to keep that person's identity anonymous. But even the Auctioneer isn't a "direct lift" of that person's appearance.

I believe this is the Marc Davis concept art of the scene,

Of course, some people think that the jail scene pirate borrow similar facial characteristics from Sid Caesar, and Johnathon Winters, and Milton Berle, as they appeared in the 1963 film Mad, Mad, Mad World. The Uncle Milty-ish pirate is also the old man in the bayou at the beginning of the ride. Not a direct lift, albeit, but interesting similarities I guess.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I never gave the Celebrity likeness issue much thought. I was told that Marc would even produce and evolve his drawings as the figures developed, changing them to match what was working best in the development of their final movement. If his original animation scheme was not working, he'd do something a bit different and the development went back and forth. Not sure if that applied to faces, but it could have. Gibson could have noticed that Marc's expression was too cartoony and would not translate well, then perhaps Marc tones back the face or something like that. I do see the Sid Caesar similarity, but never heard his name mentioned by any of the 1G Imagineers in this reference.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

I never gave the Celebrity likeness issue much thought. I was told that Marc would even produce and evolve his drawings as the figures developed, changing them to match what was working best in the development of their final movement. If his original animation scheme was not working, he'd do something a bit different and the development went back and forth. Not sure if that applied to faces, but it could have. Gibson could have noticed that Marc's expression was too cartoony and would not translate well, then perhaps Marc tones back the face or something like that. I do see the Sid Caesar similarity, but never heard his name mentioned by any of the 1G Imagineers in this reference.

That's very interesting, and inspiring too, in that Marc Davis wouldn't just do the conceptualization work, but adjusted his input based on what was being produced.

Instead of just ordering the builders to replicate an animatronics scene which stays true to a given drawing, Davis would give input about how the real animatronic movement could be adjusted in terms of overall feel of the scene, or even re-work a scene if it didn't work in the real world.

Sort of how a novel writer and the editor push written work back and forth until it gels.

It seems that a lot of current Imagineering work is developed almost entirely in the "pre-vis" stage, and then built by engineers/builders, perhaps without much input from the designers as to whether artistically it is working in the real world, or at least this is my superficial impression gleaned after watching a handful of behind the scenes videos.

Doubtlessly, a lot of conceptual work is changed on paper and in the computer, but I wonder if anybody has ever looked at a half-finished ride and said, "this isn't working like we wanted, we've got to make some changes".

I guess realistically, only folks like Walt Disney had this sort of power, like how he supposedly had parts of New Orleans Square removed/demolished because they didn't look right. With modern corporations, its hard for somebody to put on the brakes and over ride what was probably a committee decision, especially as such changes may cost more money.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

So true. Well, it's funny you bring all of this up.

When I was in the Green room with Tony and Tom at D23, I brought up how I imagined getting into WED and being able to change the colors of finished buildings many times like John Hench, only to find when I finally did get in, that you may get them to redo it once and never live it down. They laughed and agreed that the Primadonna days of endless revision had pretty much ended.

The reality is that the process is still is very back and forth between the designer and production in that you visit the work in stages (ride mockups) and you try to to anticipate the failings or issues before they go awry. Usually, You would see that what was promised mechanically was not as feasible as predicted, and we all had to deal with a new reality of a compromise that affected the show, given where we were in the process of production or design you'd make a change. John Lassiter is the "Walt" of today and can recklessly revisit things long after they are built (as he should ) so they are just right in the bigger picture. He does not worry about schedule or budget, just the outcome. Someone has to do that when the whole budget is wasted or redeemed based on the creative success with the guest.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

So true. Well, it's funny you bring all of this up.

When I was in the Green room with Tony and Tom at D23, I brought up how I imagined getting into WED and being able to change the colors of finished buildings many times like John Hench, only to find when I finally did get in, that you may get them to redo it once and never live it down. They laughed and agreed that the Primadonna days of endless revision had pretty much ended.

The reality is that the process is still is very back and forth between the designer and production in that you visit the work in stages (ride mockups) and you try to to anticipate the failings or issues before they go awry. Usually, You would see that what was promised mechanically was not as feasible as predicted, and we all had to deal with a new reality of a compromise that affected the show, given where we were in the process of production or design you'd make a change. John Lassiter is the "Walt" of today and can recklessly revisit things long after they are built (as he should ) so they are just right in the bigger picture. He does not worry about schedule or budget, just the outcome. Someone has to do that when the whole budget is wasted or redeemed based on the creative success with the guest.

Interesting story,

Yes, Lasseter is certainly deserving of his influence, hard to argue with success, even more true after Carsland's popularity. Even more amazing considering that he also does a lot of work at Pixar. Can't wait to see what the Ratatouille dark ride looks like.

It still seems pretty amazing to me that they tore out a lot of stuff from DCA 1.0, even though I never much liked any of this stuff. Must have wasted millions of dollars.

 

[jt04]

Thanks for the link. I think I can provide some background why cloning will produce a much more animated animatronic:

There are dozens of muscles in the human face. The combined movement of these muscles produces an almost infinite range of facial expressions. This new animatronic will have what looks like about a dozen little "deformation" points in the face, probably little linear actuators or something, much, much, more complex than what animatronics currently have.

If you look at figures like Lincoln, yes he moves his mouth and eyes, . . . but the expression is always solemn. Similar to how some animatronics in Pirates are always jovial/drunk.

With this new technology, the animatronic can alternate between a grimace, laugh, . . . a whole range of emotions! They will obviously use actors, maybe well known ones, and have them act out a short scene. For example, the auctioneer in Pirates could be smiling, then get real nasty when he thinks somebody is stealing his rum, and then laugh. It will add deep to an attraction, but you could also have much more realistic shows like Hall of Presidents, only the characters could almost put on a play, which requires a range of emotions.

Also, the materials science is beyond what they currently have in the park, they are making sure the latex matching what the actor is doing.

Exaggerated expressions can, and will, still be used because actors are experts at making things look good theatrically.

I think that reason why they made the latex mask, instead of just doing a mould, is that it looks like they need to vary the thickness of silicone, to help make "wrinkles" and probably so that the little pullies, or whatever the actuators attach to, can properly deform the mask. A lot more complex than a simple mould, really amazing actually. A simple mold would be more, or less, uniform thickness and wouldn't deform in a predictable manner when the actuators are doing their job.

Plus they want the computer generated model to exactly match what is physically made. I would assume that a mould of a person's face would have imperfections, and such, and this might be enough to effect the final product. Also, a computer, I guess "printed" mould, means that one actor could do the face movements for several different looking animatronics.

Well said. Very much an evolving technology that likely is intended for applications beyond theme parks. Perhaps to hospitals and other places where machines will someday replace humans. Fascinating and terrifying all at once.

Beyond uncanny valley.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I have personally seen some of these advances and they are quite impressive. I just can't discuss them.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

Ahh, the good ole NDA!

 

[Alektronic]

I have personally seen some of these advances and they are quite impressive. I just can't discuss them.

I've seen Abe Lincoln's head with all electric actuators and it was pretty amazing and lifelike.

 

[ChrisFL]

I've seen Abe Lincoln's head with all electric actuators and it was pretty amazing and lifelike.

He's in the "One Man's Dream" display and looks pretty lifelike, except for the fact that all of his components are showing

 

[KevinYee]

The reality is that the process is still is very back and forth between the designer and production in that you visit the work in stages (ride mockups) and you try to to anticipate the failings or issues before they go awry.

Can you speak to the "loss of magic" that occurs when you are the designer, and see the thing first as artwork, then as blueprint, then as Maya wireframe, then as previz, then as real thing? The rest of us see just the final product and thus have the magic-- is the magic missing for you, since you saw all the versions along the way?

Relatedly, does the pre-viz change the equation? I would imagine that you made your peace with the process some decades ago, but a CGI version of the thing now is closer to reality than what you had 20 years ago, right?

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Can you speak to the "loss of magic" that occurs when you are the designer, and see the thing first as artwork, then as blueprint, then as Maya wireframe, then as previz, then as real thing? The rest of us see just the final product and thus have the magic-- is the magic missing for you, since you saw all the versions along the way?

Relatedly, does the pre-viz change the equation? I would imagine that you made your peace with the process some decades ago, but a CGI version of the thing now is closer to reality than what you had 20 years ago, right?

For me, there is a loss of magic for sure in the process. I do tend to get excited to see the guests reaction to a really good effect. Like a doctor looking at naked patients all day, there is no erotic aspect to it, it's just a process. For one thing, you can spend years worrying if the effect will work and if the whole show will fail due to something not coming together. You sit there rethinking every way that the guest will see it and if it is "wow" enough. You may decide to cut something that in the end threatens your ability to pull off the show, you worry about that. I tend to deal in varying degrees of "creative risk", constantly looking to "buy" risk back with various design decisions made throughout the life of the project. In the end, if it does turn out great, you can feel the magic to a degree through the eyes of the guests, but to me, all I can see is everything that was not the way I had hoped it would or could be, and exist eternally dissatisfied. The positive guest reaction is the only salve for this, as despite the flaws, they love the project.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Relatedly, does the pre-viz change the equation? I would imagine that you made your peace with the process some decades ago, but a CGI version of the thing now is closer to reality than what you had 20 years ago, right?

I use 3D pre-vis imagery of most of my current work. I'm not a fan of it in that to a degree it gives clients a false sense of the completeness of the project. Just because it looks real does not mean you have thought it through. It has it's place and we use it alot, but there are tradeoffs.

 

[WDW1974]

Dream on.

I still do, Eddie ... still do ... that's why I'm headed to DL soon!

 

[WDW1974]

I wish we could all meet in Paris and do a D23, that would be awesome.

Hmm ... I wonder who posted that idea!

 

[WDW1974]

So true. Well, it's funny you bring all of this up.

When I was in the Green room with Tony and Tom at D23, I brought up how I imagined getting into WED and being able to change the colors of finished buildings many times like John Hench, only to find when I finally did get in, that you may get them to redo it once and never live it down. They laughed and agreed that the Primadonna days of endless revision had pretty much ended.

The reality is that the process is still is very back and forth between the designer and production in that you visit the work in stages (ride mockups) and you try to to anticipate the failings or issues before they go awry. Usually, You would see that what was promised mechanically was not as feasible as predicted, and we all had to deal with a new reality of a compromise that affected the show, given where we were in the process of production or design you'd make a change. John Lassiter is the "Walt" of today and can recklessly revisit things long after they are built (as he should ) so they are just right in the bigger picture. He does not worry about schedule or budget, just the outcome. Someone has to do that when the whole budget is wasted or redeemed based on the creative success with the guest.

True ... but I worry about John's vision sometimes and his own recklessness with money. Not that he isn't the closest thing to a Walt at the company today.

But was it really worth the ridiculous sum (over $175 million from what I've been told) to bring back the subs with a Nemo overlay? ... And mark my words but the Luigi's Flying Tires will wind up closing within 2-3 years and there'll be Al Lutz columns on them and the fact they exist is largely because John had a soft spot for the Flying Saucers at DL in the 60s. Guess he forgot how unreliable they were and they seem to having all sorts of issues from load speed to needing the beach balls to removing them to removing the controller etc. Seems like the perfect definition of a vanity project because no one told him 'no.'

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

True ... but I worry about John's vision sometimes and his own recklessness with money. Not that he isn't the closest thing to a Walt at the company today.

But was it really worth the ridiculous sum (over $175 million from what I've been told) to bring back the subs with a Nemo overlay? ... And mark my words but the Luigi's Flying Tires will wind up closing within 2-3 years and there'll be Al Lutz columns on them and the fact they exist is largely because John had a soft spot for the Flying Saucers at DL in the 60s. Guess he forgot how unreliable they were and they seem to having all sorts of issues from load speed to needing the beach balls to removing them to removing the controller etc. Seems like the perfect definition of a vanity project because no one told him 'no.'

I thought that the subs was closer to $50 million? Seems like it was worth it as guests happily wait 40 minutes for the ride—I know, I'm one of them. Plus Nemo 2 is coming out, the ride may have also served the purpose of keeping the story fresh in the public's mind, probably a wise decision commercially. Plus Nemo is very popular with kids, they love that ride.

I haven't ridden Luigi's tires yet (will in less than a week), but a lot of the general public seems to really like the ride. I think it is better than all of the stuff in Bugsland, though I like some of the Bugsland theming. Plus it adds kinetic atmosphere to Carsland.

I don't think Lasseter is reckless, as he seems to have "won" in terms of Carsland's success, and the merchandise flying off the charts. More of the general public has the intention to return to Carsland than Indiana Jones. It's OK to nitpick, but the whole thing is a massive success, I would wager than Lasseter will gain more influence as he's a down to earth guy that "gets it" in terms of what the public wants.

I'm not sure what you mean Lasseter's "recklessness" with money? Everything he's done theme parkwise has been at least a moderate success, and has pleased a lot of diehard fans too . . . ?