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

[flynnibus]

I think people should look at movie production... especially production for things that are fantasy and or have no direct reference. Those designers must use elements to create believable characters or settings. The details are used to bolster the belief or emotion the setting is intended to convey.

There is no 'they didn't have that in year 2045!' type of criticisms people can latch onto. Or 'the Romulans didn't use that type of fasteners!'. Yet these people must create worlds or characters that do not conflict with what people may know about the subject, or better, if they differ, must be MORE convincing than what they knew previously.

The job of production designers, concept artists, etc in movies is very similar to what must be done in the parks. With no absolute reference, details are added to support the image or emotion the creation is intended to project.

I wish people who like to critique the parks would consider this direction. Alas today when we are fixated on construction work, any detail that shows up people absorb... then they are conditioned to only look at the details... and eventually they become obsessed with what details are there and how many are they. They totally lose sight of the purpose of those details.

Things like atmosphere, lighting, temperature, color, pace - are all lost.. and people laser-lock on things like the architectural style used in the lights and that you can see a light if you look up into the ceiling. Instead of even cooler things like.. how the lights flicker with heavy machinery (like they do in ToT) to add to sense of fear and suspense.. not just 'hey, look at the 1930s lights!'

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Production Design

While at WDI, I took classes in production design from some very talented film designers (Rocketeer, Iron Man, Lethal Weapon) and their advice was that the art direction is there to support the actors, not distract from it. You support the emotion of the scene and the story. You barely hold up the actors.

As you know, the original DL designers were mostly from the Fox Studios art department. They know their process and craft well. My teachers were all from film, and that is the essence of good theme design.

 

[KevinYee]

Things like atmosphere, lighting, temperature, color, pace - are all lost.. and people laser-lock on things like the architectural style used in the lights and that you can see a light if you look up into the ceiling. Instead of even cooler things like.. how the lights flicker with heavy machinery (like they do in ToT) to add to sense of fear and suspense.. not just 'hey, look at the 1930s lights!'

I would guess that a majority of visitors have an internal meter (not quite a BS meter) that does add up this stuff, but they just can't vocalize or parse exactly WHICH details made the difference.

How many visitors notice the lights dimming in the Indy (Anaheim) queue, or if they do, realize it's because the lights are all on a string and the generator out front was straining? Just because they don't realize it consciously doesn't make it a waste of time; on the contrary.

I not only agree with you, Flynnibus, I think this marks the difference between Disney-quality theming and non-Disney. Other parks in the world do try this stuff, and the result is "close but no cigar." Take the Universe of Energy, a dinosaur themed ride in the France (!) section of Europa Park in Germany. Actually there are several knockoff rides in Europa Park like this, especially former rides. They mimic the look and try to mimic the feel, but they get close only in SOME respects, and the overall effect is like a mannequin/android that is creepy. Freud called this kind of 'almost-human' (what he meant was almost-right on the level of details) a new term we now translate as Uncanny. It's close to home, reminds us of home, but it's a demonstrably a new thing in some ways and thus monstrous.

Theme park rides done with heavy theme but which get the tone (the emotion, to use Eddie's term) wrong could be said to be uncanny, too.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

This is about "details" being more than design or architecture, but sensory information that makes or breaks a show. How much "detail" is enough? How are details assimilated and perceived?

As humans, our senses are continually processing incoming information and making decisions about what we are experiencing. Is it real? is it a threat? Are we really underwater or flying? Those decisions as to what something is or is not comes from our personal archive of previous experiences, and we are constantly comparing what we think we know to be real to what is happening to us in real time. Our bodies want to adjust to perceived threats and react in some way (like screaming). Designers use certain crude sensory cues and optical illusions to fool us, but our beings actually require more in some cases to be convinced as some cues are subtle. The message here is that they are all being absorbed together and that's why experiences are systems. When we design a ride based on a film, sometimes those stored emotions come from viewing the film and if the cues are good enough we relive something from the movie.

We don't always know what the sensory cues are at times, but our overall fake "meter" goes off when enough of it does not pass muster. Lips on figures that are out of sync by a few frames, a perspective scene that is slightly off, all add up to a big "fail" for some. How many times have you been engrossed in a movie and then some out of place element distracts you and you begin looking for more? Or the music takes you out of the scene because it's discordant to the emotion? We are beings that make continual assumptions as we really don't see or process everything, so our minds are guessing and telling us what reality is or what we think it is based on past experience. (Past experience says granite boulders are not hollow sounding FAIL). Your peripheral vision is nothing more than blurry guesswork. We are only able to focus on a very small area at once but our eyes dart continuously so we think we see things in greater detail than we do. Can you design for that kind of "moving camera" experience? Sure, but you have to know what you're up against. How many megapixels equivalent does the eye have?

Here's more on that, but to a designer this is crucial to know (at least it is to me). This is just one sense mind you. Here's the full article http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html

The eye is not a single frame snapshot camera. It is more like a video stream. The eye moves rapidly in small angular amounts and continually updates the image in one's brain to "paint" the detail. We also have two eyes, and our brains combine the signals to increase the resolution further. We also typically move our eyes around the scene to gather more information. Because of these factors, the eye plus brain assembles a higher resolution image than possible with the number of photoreceptors in the retina. So the megapixel equivalent numbers below refer to the spatial detail in an image that would be required to show what the human eye could see when you view a scene.

Based on the above data for the resolution of the human eye, let's try a "small" example first. Consider a view in front of you that is 90 degrees by 90 degrees, like looking through an open window at a scene. The number of pixels would be
90 degrees * 60 arc-minutes/degree * 1/0.3 * 90 * 60 * 1/0.3 = 324,000,000 pixels (324 megapixels).
At any one moment, you actually do not perceive that many pixels, but your eye moves around the scene to see all the detail you want. But the human eye really sees a larger field of view, close to 180 degrees. Let's be conservative and use 120 degrees for the field of view. Then we would see
120 * 120 * 60 * 60 / (0.3 * 0.3) = 576 megapixels.
The full angle of human vision would require even more megapixels. This kind of image detail requires A large format camera to record.


,
The point is that our opinions on how well "the spell" is working are cumulative, are just a perception, and constantly updated. It's an experiential "tightrope". Magicians know exactly what details will work as they "misdirect" you to the hand they want you to see. They use darkness as a mask. As our eyes are more like video streams directed by an incredible image processor, you can "direct" the eye and senses to the detail to reinforce the show or main points just like David Copperfield. That's why dead areas in rides work well as they play against the areas we want you to look at. To me, the passion and sincerity of the director can overcome many flaws because "real" is a perception and if you know what to focus on and exploit that, more people will buy into the fantasy. Mr. Toad masterfully used darkness, sound of an oncoming train, the tactile feel of riding over railroad ties, and a giant realistic headlight in the dark to make you think a whole locomotive was right in front of you. Building the front of the train and more sets and details would have been less effective as your imagination makes it twice as fearsome. Sensory minimalism, but the right senses and the right visual cues in harmony. Shows that fail IMO, add detail for it's own sake, looking rich but not moving the emotional "needle" forward. Great sets, no "wow". They do not really know what they are trying to achieve, so the cues that will add up are just not there.

Misdirected design can be like an "All you can Eat" Buffet, the visual impact of all that food is impressive, but in the end you either ate too much of the wrong things (world's tallest salad) or you made a plate of expensive food (load up on lobster, chocolate cake, and prime rib sliders) that really didn't go well together. If you are overwhelmed with mind numbing detail and it's pointless, it's like a visual feast of junk food. It is not directed to a result. If then, you ordered off the Menu and got the four course meal from the Chef, it's all matched, complimentary, and leads to a dessert crescendo.

Does any of this make sense? (Now I'm hungry). I don't know if anyone else sees it this way, just my process and I'm sticking to it.

.

 

[choco choco]

Does any of this make sense?

It makes perfect sense, and sort of ties into the issue we were talking about earlier regarding overtheming. Sometimes, subtlety and letting the mind fill in the gaps is more effective than sensory overload.

know what to focus on and exploit that, more people will buy into the fantasy.

Does it feel like sometimes the buildup is more important than the payoff. This is said about a great many things, that the anticipation itself is memorable and not the ultimate end.

Monty Python used to say that "Punchlines are overrated," meaning that it was not necessary to end their skit on a high, just end it when you have milked a joke for all it is worth. The last joke doesn't necessarily have to be the best one. "Holy Grail" is like this, the ending is stupid and abrupt and doesn't pay off their search for the holy grail, but who cares? Everyone remembers the journey.

Or, if we tie back to Disney, the film Snow White. Most critics note that the last battle is unsatisfying (the queen falls off a cliff, never even confronting the dwarves the movie had so carefully set up for in the previous couple of scenes). Instead, as critic Anthony Lane states, everyone only remembers, "the macabre of the buildup," with the evil queen transformation, the scariness of the old hag and Snow White biting the apple and falling down. In many ways, the Snow White ride is similar, which focused on the scariness as the main component and barely even acknowledges an ending.

Is there some sense in themed design that the focus is the anticipation itself? The buildup is the emotional climax, so to speak. To me, what's memorable about the Haunted Mansion has never been the ride, but the Stretching Room and that creepy portrait hallway immediately after, things that happen before you even board the vehicle.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Interesting Plaque

Here is the old Knott's Berry Farm dedication plaque. It was posted as you enter the Ghost Town. When they added a new Coaster a few years ago, it was removed. I just read it recently as it is in a museum at the Farm. I was impressed by it's message of self reliance. Coming out of the depression, it is interesting how Knott calls attention to this quality as it was something he had to demonstrate himself. Somewhat timely given the economy and challenges we face today. Times change but we can always believe in ourselves.

I once questioned my bosses ability to come through and he blurted out "Never underestimate someone who overestimates himself!". :ROFLOL:

 

[flynnibus]

I would guess that a majority of visitors have an internal meter (not quite a BS meter) that does add up this stuff, but they just can't vocalize or parse exactly WHICH details made the difference.

The individual always needs to be the one to decide if the combined effect works but to do that, I think people need to be reminded to sit back and just EXPERIENCE the attraction first... save the critical eye for a redirect later. A resistive mind will not be free to float into the designed state.

If it works is in the eye of the beholder, but I think too many armchair critics fail miserably because in trying to quantify a failure in their eyes,they only look for tools or methods to be duplicated from a successful ride. They only comprehend duplicating successful implementations instead of being able to understand why something worked and what the other missed. I think that is why so many are so critical of something like soaring - or projections.

I not only agree with you, Flynnibus, I think this marks the difference between Disney-quality theming and non-Disney. Other parks in the world do try this stuff, and the result is "close but no cigar."

Certainly - its what happens when you copy the output or methods without understanding how/why it is used. You end up with gaps and the effect just feeling a bit off...

We go back to how we teach... we teach people the purpose of something and how to use it- not just how to repeat what was done. Well at least in good education

I find that comprehension extremely lacking in so many disney armchair critics.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Why 3D won't work.

Oscar winning film Editor Walter Murch writes this letter and technically explains why he thinks 3D Movies cannot succeed long term. Since we discuss this medium as a new element in rides, it's worth reading. I found it really revealing. I'm sure you'll enjoy it!

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html

 

[ChrisFL]

Oscar winning film Editor Walter Murch writes this letter and technically explains why he thinks 3D Movies cannot succeed long term. Since we discuss this medium as a new element in rides, it's worth reading. I found it really revealing. I'm sure you'll enjoy it!

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html

I'm no expert on cinema, but it seems to me that most of the effort of 3D movies is to get people going back to the theater, instead of waiting to watch it in their home theaters.

In addition, as of last month...3D TV's had a whopping 3% of the home market share in the U.S. so if its not the movies selling 3D TV's, what will?

Meahwile, hollywood is re-releasing all of these old movies in 3D now...even though they were never shot or designed to be in 3D before.

Where's Kermit telling the movie producers not to stoop to "any cheap 3D tricks" to sell their movies...in the "old" days it was all about quality of storyline, acting and cinematography.

 

[KevinYee]

My interest in the man's opinion perked up when I read he was the editor of Captain EO. A few seconds later, I realized that made me a Disney geek more than perhaps any other telltale sign. I should be interested in his expert opinion no matter his theme park credentials!

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I'm no expert on cinema, but it seems to me that most of the effort of 3D movies is to get people going back to the theater, instead of waiting to watch it in their home theaters.

In addition, as of last month...3D TV's had a whopping 3% of the home market share in the U.S. so if its not the movies selling 3D TV's, what will?

Meahwile, hollywood is re-releasing all of these old movies in 3D now...even though they were never shot or designed to be in 3D before.

Where's Kermit telling the movie producers not to stoop to "any cheap 3D tricks" to sell their movies...in the "old" days it was all about quality of storyline, acting and cinematography.

My son and I ditched the Oscars for StarWars 3D and by the end of the movie we were both rubbing our necks. There is something to what he's saying as to fatigue (or was it that Episode One was so boring?).

 

[Eddie Sotto]

My interest in the man's opinion perked up when I read he was the editor of Captain EO. A few seconds later, I realized that made me a Disney geek more than perhaps any other telltale sign. I should be interested in his expert opinion no matter his theme park credentials!

He got that project because Lucas and Coppola love him. He also edited American Graffiti and did the audio for Apocalypse Now. EO was shot so poorly (Vittorio Storaro) and had such focus issues that CGI films never encounter. The only thing done well on EO was the spinning rock opening, that gave you time to get used to the 3D effect.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I'm no expert on cinema, but it seems to me that most of the effort of 3D movies is to get people going back to the theater, instead of waiting to watch it in their home theaters.

In addition, as of last month...3D TV's had a whopping 3% of the home market share in the U.S. so if its not the movies selling 3D TV's, what will?

Meahwile, hollywood is re-releasing all of these old movies in 3D now...even though they were never shot or designed to be in 3D before.

Where's Kermit telling the movie producers not to stoop to "any cheap 3D tricks" to sell their movies...in the "old" days it was all about quality of storyline, acting and cinematography.

Just saw StarWars yesterday. 3D did not make it any less dull. Apple will rev up the TV business and I'm waiting to see what they do.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Oscar winning film Editor Walter Murch writes this letter and technically explains why he thinks 3D Movies cannot succeed long term. Since we discuss this medium as a new element in rides, it's worth reading. I found it really revealing. I'm sure you'll enjoy it!

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html

I remember seeing this back when it was first posted and also some very good retorts. Martin Scorsese is rather accomplished and seems to think that there is merit to 3D films. He gets to what has been a recurring theme in this discussion. As with CAD, CGI, projections, etc. 3D is a tool, not an end.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/23/hugo-blu-ray-3d-special-feature-scorsese/

 

[mgf]

Just saw StarWars yesterday. 3D did not make it any less dull. Apple will rev up the TV business and I'm waiting to see what they do.

I know this is somewhat of a drift, but there was a really interesting note in the Economist a few weeks back regarding TV production. Essentially, none of the TV manufacturers make money off of producing the unit, with some companies losing up to $80 a unit. This is a pretty unsustainable model as you cannot really control the content or peripherals - unlike say the X-box and Kindle Fire which are produced at a loss. The number of producers will need to drop, but also the market price will need to rise in order for TVs to be a profitable platform.

I suspect that content control would be a huge component of any Apple produced TV. I just don't know if that model will really ever work. Looking at my audio rack, I have a Wii, TiVO, and PS3 that all allow me access to a lot of extra content, but none of them allow me to get rid of the other components. No one has successfully built a truly multipurpose entertainment unit that has been attractive to consumers.

I think Apple made a mistake by not putting a blu-ray player in the iMac, which would have been a good test case for an Apple based entertainment center.

 

[krash9924]

Eddie,

Sorry to go totally off topic and please let's not let this spiral out of control but I have a few questions on "stroller parking".

This seemed to be such a non issue in Walt's day but seems is a very real issue today.

How would you tackle this issue from a design standpoint?

In your opinion has Disney's reliance on merchandise sales driven the use of strollers as purchase carriers?

My daughter is 3 and has never been a stroller child so this is a non-issue for us, she seems to be of the mindset that a theme park is best viewed from her dad's shoulders. (Being a slightly overweight 30 yr old male with bad knees doesn't make those days easy, but I wouldn't trade them for anything)

 

[ChrisFL]

Eddie,

Sorry to go totally off topic and please let's not let this spiral out of control but I have a few questions on "stroller parking".

This seemed to be such a non issue in Walt's day but seems is a very real issue today.

How would you tackle this issue from a design standpoint?

In your opinion has Disney's reliance on merchandise sales driven the use of strollers as purchase carriers?

My daughter is 3 and has never been a stroller child so this is a non-issue for us, she seems to be of the mindset that a theme park is best viewed from her dad's shoulders. (Being a slightly overweight 30 yr old male with bad knees doesn't make those days easy, but I wouldn't trade them for anything)

I just want to say good questions, I'd like to know as well

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I remember seeing this back when it was first posted and also some very good retorts. Martin Scorsese is rather accomplished and seems to think that there is merit to 3D films. He gets to what has been a recurring theme in this discussion. As with CAD, CGI, projections, etc. 3D is a tool, not an end.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/23/hugo-blu-ray-3d-special-feature-scorsese/

I'd also imagine that Scorsese would need 3D to help market a very obscure subject such as Hugo.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I know this is somewhat of a drift, but there was a really interesting note in the Economist a few weeks back regarding TV production. Essentially, none of the TV manufacturers make money off of producing the unit, with some companies losing up to $80 a unit. This is a pretty unsustainable model as you cannot really control the content or peripherals - unlike say the X-box and Kindle Fire which are produced at a loss. The number of producers will need to drop, but also the market price will need to rise in order for TVs to be a profitable platform.

I suspect that content control would be a huge component of any Apple produced TV. I just don't know if that model will really ever work. Looking at my audio rack, I have a Wii, TiVO, and PS3 that all allow me access to a lot of extra content, but none of them allow me to get rid of the other components. No one has successfully built a truly multipurpose entertainment unit that has been attractive to consumers.

I think Apple made a mistake by not putting a blu-ray player in the iMac, which would have been a good test case for an Apple based entertainment center.

I used to agree on the Apple needs BluRay so i got an external drive. Now I'm thinking that there are so many ways to get HD content streaming that I'm less likely to need it. I already have software that converts my Blu-ray DVDs to H264 and it looks great.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Eddie,

Sorry to go totally off topic and please let's not let this spiral out of control but I have a few questions on "stroller parking".

This seemed to be such a non issue in Walt's day but seems is a very real issue today.

How would you tackle this issue from a design standpoint?

In your opinion has Disney's reliance on merchandise sales driven the use of strollers as purchase carriers?

My daughter is 3 and has never been a stroller child so this is a non-issue for us, she seems to be of the mindset that a theme park is best viewed from her dad's shoulders. (Being a slightly overweight 30 yr old male with bad knees doesn't make those days easy, but I wouldn't trade them for anything)

I think we discussed this in Part One somewhere and it is an issue in places that are not designed to accommodate the parking they require. Strollers eat tons of area and are a nightmare. In Walt's day the problem existed but the park was probably less crowded and had less attractions. The park went from 17 Attractions to more than 53 depending what you count. I think the bigger issue is the electric wheelchairs that are basically motor vehicles and require clearances up to the exits. I'd look at central parking for a land like Toontown.