HMF
Well-Known Member
That post sums up my worst fears.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Eddie Sotto's take on the current state of the parks
- Thread starter hpyhnt 1000
- Start date
- Status
Eddie Sotto
Premium Member
Many of you have pointed out the differences in the live experience of the park versus the 3D of a film, and this is all true. But that's today. This blogger is thinking of where things may lead in the future. That is where my head is and has been at for some time. To me, it is the challenge of a career to see if you can use 3D in concert with other technologies to immerse someone in an even richer, more seamless way than you get in the park. Either make the park better than the 3D film or vice versa. Take the best of both mediums and make a breakthrough new one. Disneyland was the VR of the 1950's, they just had to build it brick by brick to make it render fast enough. It's now the new Century and I say all bets are off! Black lights and flat sets are so 20th Century! I for one, vote to reinvent the experience of guest immersion in either venue (toss in a dash of multi-user online worlds and gestural control too) in hopes of breaking through into the next plateau. Rides today are scratching the surface by embedding the media, but are far from breaking the mold. What Cameron has done for film has to be done in it's own dramatic way for Parks. Now's the time boys and girls!
HMF
Well-Known Member
Are you suggesting we get rid of Audio-Animatronics?
Eddie Sotto
Premium Member
tirian
Well-Known Member
Sorry, there are two reasons I don't buy the blogger's argument. First, a physical environment presents the intangible feelings of visual weight, substance, realistic atmosphere, and placesetting that a mere projection cannot provide—not to mention the "WOW!" factor that the incredible environments physically exist. Secondly, a significant percentage of the population either cannot see 3-D, or suffers headaches from the technology, reasons that have prompted theaters to screen films in both 3-D and 2-D.
His (her?) assertion that the Haunted Mansion would be the first to go due to visual limitations is another faulty point. The doombuggy's concept is that it restricts viewing angles just like a movie—a fact that remains the same in both 3-D shows and an HM omnimover.
Even if the technology existed for hologram environments like something out of Star Trek, guests would have to ride through those scenes in some sort of vehicle to avoid the backups inherent in walkthroughs, meaning that the technology's promise of unlimited virtual experiences would be underutilized. Otherwise, the holograms are nothing more than expensive playgrounds.
Let's also remember that Disney excels at providing experiences that cannot be replicated anywhere else. I can play interactive games on a Wii. In a few months, I can watch high-definition 3-D on my PS3. I cannot float on a boat through a group of rowdy, singing pirates in my living room.
The only way for Disney to stay ahead of the curve is to combine the latest virtual reality with traditional dark rides to create experiences that cannot be replicated in a movie theater or at home. Ironically, the only Disney attraction to combine cutting-edge film technology with incredibly immersive physical environments was Horizons, and it's extinct.
Postscript: IMO, the entire "let's stay relevant" argument sounds like a lot of bunk dreamed up by old fogeys and business suits out of touch with reality, similar to when a corporation clunkily tries to be "hip" and "cool." In my personal experience, young people prefer the physical attractions over the virtual ones precisely because "they're actually THERE" (as one 12-year-old told me Friday night). If WDI actually surveyed the demographic that's worrying them, we'd probably see more, not fewer, animatronics.
tirian
Well-Known Member
Part of people's disenchantment with screen technology is that the WDI promise, "It'll be updated regularly!" has never been fulfilled. ST2 doesn't count. The original has been hitting lightspeed over 20 years.
Now even though I'm responding to your post, I'm addressing this to people who think it has to be either 3-D screens or AAs: why not combine both?
I believe that's what you're implying, Eddie, and it's true. The future of theme park design will combine physical and virtual technology to create brand-new experiences that envelope riders in a new world.
Eddie Sotto
Premium Member
While this is true about physical environments, I'm looking to take on those sensations as well. Who's talking about mere projections? Not me. This is daring to go where no safety bar has gone before.
tirian
Well-Known Member
I agree with you 110%; I typed another response to clarify the first one.
EDIT: And I based the Figment example on existing technology. Thinking about what hasn't been invented yet is enough to make me wet myself. :lookaroun
Eddie Sotto
Premium Member
Looking back to look ahead.
When you think about it, Pirates was to be a Wax Museum with voice tracks running in little scenes. Walt wanted to make Marc's drawings come to life, that's it. He was not bound by the past even though people still liked Wax Museums. Technology had to catch up with his expectations and they pushed it way out to blow people away. Who would have dreamt that they would end up with Ampex Computers running pirate robots? Especially when Computers were a space age rarity? That's as far from a Wax Museum as you can get, but it was a leap. All I'm saying is (and I don't have all the answers either) that they have refined the 1967 paradigm about as far as you can go, and now it's time for another leap that ushers in a new "springtime of progress" in a more realistic and immersive way that exceeds expectation.
When you think about it, Pirates was to be a Wax Museum with voice tracks running in little scenes. Walt wanted to make Marc's drawings come to life, that's it. He was not bound by the past even though people still liked Wax Museums. Technology had to catch up with his expectations and they pushed it way out to blow people away. Who would have dreamt that they would end up with Ampex Computers running pirate robots? Especially when Computers were a space age rarity? That's as far from a Wax Museum as you can get, but it was a leap. All I'm saying is (and I don't have all the answers either) that they have refined the 1967 paradigm about as far as you can go, and now it's time for another leap that ushers in a new "springtime of progress" in a more realistic and immersive way that exceeds expectation.
tirian
Well-Known Member
*thumbs up*
jt04
Well-Known Member
Yep. AA's are perfect for something like HoP but what is emerging now from a technology perspective (3D projections) is a giant leap forward with unlimited potential. Exciting times.
Eddie Sotto
Premium Member
You can see the process in motion in today's attractions but sometimes it takes more than merging the two technologies. When Silent Movies were invented Edison only wanted to add "visuals" to his recordings. There were headsets on the early kinetoscopes, but people rejected the sound in favor of just the images. Sound was rejected at first. They filmed stage plays thinking that was what film would be good at. Merging the past with a new technology. But that was not yet the breakthrough. Theater did not go away, it took a new place in relation to film.
ValentineMouse
New Member
Hi! I'm the guy who wrote the Disneyology blog --- (I actually have no idea how you found it Eddie as I haven't intended to promote it at all yet!). The version there was just a first draft and I've rewritten it now to the final version I was hoping to link to here.
Anyway, here's the link: http://disneyology.blogspot.com/2010/03/3d-films-versus-3d-environments.html, and I'll post it below:
And yes, the name was inspired by your Disneytology story, Eddie!
----------------------------------
"On the WDWMagic message boards, former Imagineer Eddie Sotto proposed a question to its readers. With the growing success of 3D films, how will brick and mortar three dimensional environments compete in the future?
It’s an interesting question; films are becoming increasingly immersive. No longer is the world confined to the two dimensional screen, but instead its elements reach out and surround you. When Disney is selling immersion, perhaps it’s under threat from the local cinema. I think it requires a detailed strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats analysis to understand how Disney can differentiate itself appropriately.
One proposal is that films won’t be able to replicate the smells and ambiance of a real environment, but really this is just a matter of time. Already, many scents we smell at Disneyland aren’t real – the popcorn, the candy, the stink bug, the burning of Rome. Yes there are the occasional real smells that exist, like burning fire perhaps, but many of the real smells at the parks are unintentional (and perhaps, if they could be controlled, wouldn’t be there – even fan favourite smells such as the stale water of Pirates and Splash or the mechanical smell of the Indiana Jones Adventure). Essentially, if people already accept some smells despite their artificiality, there is no reason to suspect they won’t accept all artificial smells; Disneyland cannot claim a benefit here. Already, specially equipped cinemas in Korea are offering ‘4D’ theatre experiences – synchronising smells, sprinkling water, wind, motion activated seats and “twenty-five other special effects” to major blockbusters – essentially bringing Muppets 4D to the local cinema.
Certainly some attractions aren’t at threat. The physical exhilaration we may feel on a rollercoaster or spinning teacup cannot be replicated in a theatre. These attractions are safe. At threat however, are the attractions that rely on three hundred and sixty degree immersion. We may say that Pirates of the Caribbean has a great peripheral scope that encircles the guest, but perhaps in the future movies will return to ‘Panorama’ or even ‘Circle-Vision’ screens for greater immersion. The Haunted Mansion is even more at risk in that it already limits the scope of the guests view with its ‘doombuggy’ Omnimover seats which restrict vision only to where the seat is pointed.
If this trend continues, I think it is these traditional dark rides like Pirates of the Caribbean and the Haunted Mansion that are at threat. Simply, 3D films can do fantasy worlds better – they don’t have to worry about wheelchair access, emergency exits, or even real physics – literally anything can be digitally created on a computer. The cost of digitally creating something is significantly less than constructing in real life.
At present, there’s a huge intrinsic difference between seeing a 3D film and experiencing a theme park attraction like Pirates – but I honestly expect that 3D films will making increasing steps towards bridging the gap. It is possible that some hurdles are unlikely to be jumped; moving your head even half a foot left and right reveals the real depth of a physical environment but has no effect on a 3D film, but I honestly wouldn’t rule out this being insurmountable.
Some ideas have been explored to deal with this threat; attractions such as Toy Story Midway Mania have introduced interactivity into the fold, part way between a theme park attraction and a Nintendo Wii. It seems unlikely that theatrical films will incorporate this interactivity, leaving a possible gap in the market for theme parks to fill. However, I’m pretty sure ‘interactivity’ along these lines is not what will be needed in the future, as this will almost certainly be claimed by video games. Yes it is interactive, but it is interactive from a distance.
However, the key to retaining the theme parks niche is, I think, made of up of three parts: amplifying the guests control in both a tactile sense, an explorative sense and highlighting the nonlinearity. Built environments allow the guest to wander from the path, allowing them to deviate from the pre-designated paths of movies. Emphasize the guests control over their journey. If a guest wants to go to the mysterious caves rather than the swamp shack, they can do so. Secondly, guests can reach out and touch physical environments. A 3D Indiana Jones film may be immersive, but it cannot duplicate walking the queue of the Indiana Jones Adventure; touching the cold, rough rock walls or pushing a bamboo pillar causing the roof to descend. Allow the guests to reach out a touch the environment they’re in – to step across stepping stones, slide down rock faces, feel the wood grain of a barrel, or knock a mysteriously locked door.
Furthermore, movies follow linear stories which attractions don’t need to be confined to. By emphasizing repeatability and spontaneity, themed attractions can stand out. As Walt regretted, films are locked and unchangeable – attractions can be constantly updated and changed. One hour you may walk through the jungle and come across an abandoned clearing – the next hour there may be a native ambush.
What does this mean for traditional attractions? In all honestly, I expect that attractions like Pirates of the Caribbean just won’t be justifiable as they are in the future. In its place will be the option of either 3D film or 3D environment. The ‘3D film’ version of Pirates will depict the towering mountain of shipwrecked galleons, giant voodoo goddess rising from the waves, and enormous swirling whirlpools – effects too expensive and impractical to duplicate in real life. Without a doubt they will be immersive; showing sea spray down on the audience, shaking the guests right along with the characters battling through a fierce storm or replicating the warming Caribbean sun. The emphasis will be on spectacle.
Meanwhile, however, the Pirates of the Caribbean attraction will be a physically explorable environment in which guests can walk through – and get lost in – the mysterious pirate caves, follow a treasure map to a hidden treasure – and then choose whether they want to walk to the pirate beach, or wander into the rowdy pirate bar. The emphasis will be on control and physical interactivity. Of course, distance interactivity will still compliment the environment, for example picking up a musket and firing at gunpowder barrels in the courtyard below – but this will not be the sole interaction as in Midway Mania. More actors will be required in the three dimensional environments as audio-animatronics will not fulfil the required interaction of future attractions (at least not yet; Lucky, Push and the Muppet Mobile Labs are certainly tackling this problem). However, the greatest opportunity for attractions is to escape from the characters and film and empower the guest to be the staring player. Their influence must be actual, not just superficial.
The greatest success will come when spectacle and tactile interactivity and control are merged. Whilst exploring the pirate town, the guest may walk up to the lookout point at the top of the castle, and through the arches of a tower, see the krakens tentacles locking onto a doomed pirate ship. Or whilst walking through the caves, look through a crack in the wall to see the voodoo goddess Calypso rising out of a whirlpool and suddenly exploding into thousands of crabs – effects which can justifiably be done with video screens (hopefully the rumoured ‘glassesless 3D’ technology).
Park lands are the least at threat, but more needs to be done to inject spectacle and interactivity into them to make up for the diminishing role passive ride-throughs will have. A simulation won’t threaten taking a real rowboat out on a lake, or swinging on a rope, or the options available in investigating a three dimensional environment. Lands which are simply pathways between shops and rides won’t do – the lands will have to become the attractions themselves. Let guests get out of their bateaux on Pirates and explore the town. Implement 3D screens all throughout the inside of Space Mountain which visualize swirling galaxies, streaking comets and roaring spaceships. And merge attractions with their environment so intimately, that boarding a boat will no longer be ‘getting on a ride’, but simply swapping your feet for a boat as your ride vehicle.
In conclusion, theme parks need to amplify;
- Physical exhilaration
- Non-linearity
- Tactile interaction
- Spontaneity and change
- The guest as the character"
Anyway, here's the link: http://disneyology.blogspot.com/2010/03/3d-films-versus-3d-environments.html, and I'll post it below:
And yes, the name was inspired by your Disneytology story, Eddie!
----------------------------------
"On the WDWMagic message boards, former Imagineer Eddie Sotto proposed a question to its readers. With the growing success of 3D films, how will brick and mortar three dimensional environments compete in the future?
It’s an interesting question; films are becoming increasingly immersive. No longer is the world confined to the two dimensional screen, but instead its elements reach out and surround you. When Disney is selling immersion, perhaps it’s under threat from the local cinema. I think it requires a detailed strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats analysis to understand how Disney can differentiate itself appropriately.
One proposal is that films won’t be able to replicate the smells and ambiance of a real environment, but really this is just a matter of time. Already, many scents we smell at Disneyland aren’t real – the popcorn, the candy, the stink bug, the burning of Rome. Yes there are the occasional real smells that exist, like burning fire perhaps, but many of the real smells at the parks are unintentional (and perhaps, if they could be controlled, wouldn’t be there – even fan favourite smells such as the stale water of Pirates and Splash or the mechanical smell of the Indiana Jones Adventure). Essentially, if people already accept some smells despite their artificiality, there is no reason to suspect they won’t accept all artificial smells; Disneyland cannot claim a benefit here. Already, specially equipped cinemas in Korea are offering ‘4D’ theatre experiences – synchronising smells, sprinkling water, wind, motion activated seats and “twenty-five other special effects” to major blockbusters – essentially bringing Muppets 4D to the local cinema.
Certainly some attractions aren’t at threat. The physical exhilaration we may feel on a rollercoaster or spinning teacup cannot be replicated in a theatre. These attractions are safe. At threat however, are the attractions that rely on three hundred and sixty degree immersion. We may say that Pirates of the Caribbean has a great peripheral scope that encircles the guest, but perhaps in the future movies will return to ‘Panorama’ or even ‘Circle-Vision’ screens for greater immersion. The Haunted Mansion is even more at risk in that it already limits the scope of the guests view with its ‘doombuggy’ Omnimover seats which restrict vision only to where the seat is pointed.
If this trend continues, I think it is these traditional dark rides like Pirates of the Caribbean and the Haunted Mansion that are at threat. Simply, 3D films can do fantasy worlds better – they don’t have to worry about wheelchair access, emergency exits, or even real physics – literally anything can be digitally created on a computer. The cost of digitally creating something is significantly less than constructing in real life.
At present, there’s a huge intrinsic difference between seeing a 3D film and experiencing a theme park attraction like Pirates – but I honestly expect that 3D films will making increasing steps towards bridging the gap. It is possible that some hurdles are unlikely to be jumped; moving your head even half a foot left and right reveals the real depth of a physical environment but has no effect on a 3D film, but I honestly wouldn’t rule out this being insurmountable.
Some ideas have been explored to deal with this threat; attractions such as Toy Story Midway Mania have introduced interactivity into the fold, part way between a theme park attraction and a Nintendo Wii. It seems unlikely that theatrical films will incorporate this interactivity, leaving a possible gap in the market for theme parks to fill. However, I’m pretty sure ‘interactivity’ along these lines is not what will be needed in the future, as this will almost certainly be claimed by video games. Yes it is interactive, but it is interactive from a distance.
However, the key to retaining the theme parks niche is, I think, made of up of three parts: amplifying the guests control in both a tactile sense, an explorative sense and highlighting the nonlinearity. Built environments allow the guest to wander from the path, allowing them to deviate from the pre-designated paths of movies. Emphasize the guests control over their journey. If a guest wants to go to the mysterious caves rather than the swamp shack, they can do so. Secondly, guests can reach out and touch physical environments. A 3D Indiana Jones film may be immersive, but it cannot duplicate walking the queue of the Indiana Jones Adventure; touching the cold, rough rock walls or pushing a bamboo pillar causing the roof to descend. Allow the guests to reach out a touch the environment they’re in – to step across stepping stones, slide down rock faces, feel the wood grain of a barrel, or knock a mysteriously locked door.
Furthermore, movies follow linear stories which attractions don’t need to be confined to. By emphasizing repeatability and spontaneity, themed attractions can stand out. As Walt regretted, films are locked and unchangeable – attractions can be constantly updated and changed. One hour you may walk through the jungle and come across an abandoned clearing – the next hour there may be a native ambush.
What does this mean for traditional attractions? In all honestly, I expect that attractions like Pirates of the Caribbean just won’t be justifiable as they are in the future. In its place will be the option of either 3D film or 3D environment. The ‘3D film’ version of Pirates will depict the towering mountain of shipwrecked galleons, giant voodoo goddess rising from the waves, and enormous swirling whirlpools – effects too expensive and impractical to duplicate in real life. Without a doubt they will be immersive; showing sea spray down on the audience, shaking the guests right along with the characters battling through a fierce storm or replicating the warming Caribbean sun. The emphasis will be on spectacle.
Meanwhile, however, the Pirates of the Caribbean attraction will be a physically explorable environment in which guests can walk through – and get lost in – the mysterious pirate caves, follow a treasure map to a hidden treasure – and then choose whether they want to walk to the pirate beach, or wander into the rowdy pirate bar. The emphasis will be on control and physical interactivity. Of course, distance interactivity will still compliment the environment, for example picking up a musket and firing at gunpowder barrels in the courtyard below – but this will not be the sole interaction as in Midway Mania. More actors will be required in the three dimensional environments as audio-animatronics will not fulfil the required interaction of future attractions (at least not yet; Lucky, Push and the Muppet Mobile Labs are certainly tackling this problem). However, the greatest opportunity for attractions is to escape from the characters and film and empower the guest to be the staring player. Their influence must be actual, not just superficial.
The greatest success will come when spectacle and tactile interactivity and control are merged. Whilst exploring the pirate town, the guest may walk up to the lookout point at the top of the castle, and through the arches of a tower, see the krakens tentacles locking onto a doomed pirate ship. Or whilst walking through the caves, look through a crack in the wall to see the voodoo goddess Calypso rising out of a whirlpool and suddenly exploding into thousands of crabs – effects which can justifiably be done with video screens (hopefully the rumoured ‘glassesless 3D’ technology).
Park lands are the least at threat, but more needs to be done to inject spectacle and interactivity into them to make up for the diminishing role passive ride-throughs will have. A simulation won’t threaten taking a real rowboat out on a lake, or swinging on a rope, or the options available in investigating a three dimensional environment. Lands which are simply pathways between shops and rides won’t do – the lands will have to become the attractions themselves. Let guests get out of their bateaux on Pirates and explore the town. Implement 3D screens all throughout the inside of Space Mountain which visualize swirling galaxies, streaking comets and roaring spaceships. And merge attractions with their environment so intimately, that boarding a boat will no longer be ‘getting on a ride’, but simply swapping your feet for a boat as your ride vehicle.
In conclusion, theme parks need to amplify;
- Physical exhilaration
- Non-linearity
- Tactile interaction
- Spontaneity and change
- The guest as the character"
Buried20KLeague
Well-Known Member
I just wanted to jump in here and tell everyone that there are VERY VERY few copies of "Disneyland Paris from Sketch to Reality" in English print left.
I bought a copy a few weeks ago, and the author said that he had only a few copies left. Less than 10, maybe?
It's not a cheap book, but WELL worth it. Even if you haven't been to DLP, it's still a GREAT book, and something anyone on this site would love.
Kinda cool to see everything in there from Eddie, and then be able to come on here and chat with him also.
Eddie Sotto
Premium Member
I don't know what they will end up doing with it, and to a certain audience it is the most magical thing you can do. It's not really new in that sense, but it works. I think what we are talking about is "game changer" type stuff.
Eddie Sotto
Premium Member
It is the best telling of the DLP story out there and I agree it's a must if you are into DLP. The years they put into writing it go far beyond the asking price for sure. A labor of love.
Eddie Sotto
Premium Member
Aha. Thanks for letting us in on your altar ego. (I have Google Alerts so I see anything posted in html with my name mentioned).
ValentineMouse
New Member
Ah the mystery is solved! Thanks for highlighting my thoughts to everyone reading, and posing the question that got me writing. The future of themed entertainment is really interesting to me - so many threats, but so many possibilities. When I get time a little later this evening, I plan on writing a response to Tirian's counterpoints.
It certainly was a shock to come online and see my first real blog entry had been read by you, lol!
It certainly was a shock to come online and see my first real blog entry had been read by you, lol!
RandySavage
Well-Known Member
The ultimate endpoint would be something similar to the holodeck from Star Trek (mentioned above): where any person, place or thing - real or imagined - could be physically recreated, interacted with, and manipulated by the user.
Combine that with very realistic - yet safe - role-playing adventures like seen the films "The Game" or "Total Recall."
E.g., in the 22nd Century's "Pirates of the Caribbean", the participant would literally enter the world of the film, captain a ship, pillage, duel the villain, save the day, etc.
But that is a long ways away.
- Status