ParkPeeker
Well-Known Member
Too curious how the final back box will look. I’m just guessing the changes based on available evidence.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
HKDL gets new castle, frozen land and marvel land.
- Thread starter Kiwiduck
- Start date
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Neither of those contradict his point. They are still rooted in a reality that is only stretched in specific ways. The Navi elements of Pandora are all based on actual human crafts. The adobe of Batuu is thick and built up, studied from places like Morocco. The tectonics of Pandora and Galaxy’s Edge are very much rooted in reality and how such materials work for building.
ParkPeeker
Well-Known Member
Timothy_Q
Well-Known Member
If anything, Disney has been going to opposite direction of cartoony.
New Fantasyland, Pandora, SWGE, Cars Land are all extremely textured and “realistic” looking. Much more than previous lands.
The only recent project that is cartoony is TSL, but that’s exactly the point
Last edited:
DDLand
Well-Known Member
A cartoony vibe that seems to be the result of rendering things with 3D software. Pirates Cove at Shanghai Disneyland, “New” Fantasyland, and even Galaxy’s Edge all look fake. Their forms are ugly and unrealistic. Even Buena Vista Street suffers from this weird off vibe. The days when Disney could create Hollywood Boulevard are no more. Shanghai Disneyland suffers from this extensively. It’s hard to describe because it’s intangible. It’s essentially permeated every creation they’ve built in the last 20 years. Then there’s the problem of subject matter...
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Design that has been limited by the capabilities of Revit is definitely something that seems too common. As well as views and vistas only ever studied from faked angles.
Last edited:
DDLand
Well-Known Member
This is what I was trying to say.
Admittedly it was my fault for lumping two different issues into one broad critique. I also used the word cartoony to describe both the weird Revit issues and strange content. The reason I did, is because while the Revit problem and the content problem are separate, they reinforce each other. Admittedly this is where my amateur analysis gets pushed beyond its expertise. All I know, as humorous as it might be, is that New Fantasyland and Galaxy’s Edge do not look the same as as the rest of the parks they reside in. I think the graphic software is the big problem in Galaxy’s Edge, and a poor choice of subject matter (cartoony architecture) combined with Revit is the issue at New Fantasyland.
Nothing at Shanghai Disneyland really looks real. This is the quintessential example of the problem. Or look at the Tangled restrooms next to the divide between Liberty Square and Fantasyland. The upstairs section of Colombia Harbor House is beautiful. The Tangled bathrooms are nice, but are off.
This castle is an example of poor subject matter and the rendering issue combining to make a really weird building. I think you either get it or you don’t. And I’m clearly the wrong person to try to explain it.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
I think the tools are more an obstacle than a root cause. The bigger problem to me is a bit of a contradiction, a lot of designers who want to be theme park designers combined with ever increasing specialization. The art directors who get to make the aesthetic choices are trained as art directors, more and more even specifically trained as theme park art directors. Their point reference is no longer the real world but theme parks. The design becomes recursive, a copy of a copy of a copy, with the wrong elements being emphasized. Whereas Main Street, USA or Hollywood Blvd took real buildings, sometimes very directly, and reshaped them to a smaller massing utilizing forced perspective, Mickey Ave is littered with elements that are just ridiculously small, as the cartoon characters represented are not shown to live like clowns in a car. There are no proportional relationships, things are just small, taking the wrong lessen from how prior streets were formed (smaller) and going beyond their end point. In the case of Magical Dreams and Wishes Fantasy Disney Princess Castle, it seems painfully clear that it was designed in elevation and then had to be resolved in three dimensions, eventually running into the missed obstacle of the actual ground upon which the castle sits. That’s a very backwards approach to building design.
RandySavage
Well-Known Member
^Nice post. Further to that, I've found that numerous Gen I WED designers studied as classically-trained architects, worked as film production designers and then were drafted into the creation of Disneyland. That generation had a major hand in the creation of EPCOT and DLP, as well. I think this helps explain the different feels between the generations that DDLand touches on.
As noted, there has also been a move towards greater grandiosity and/or theatricality (my term for the "toony"-look referred to above) of design/art direction, a lot of which I welcome, but one can sense the difference in the two Eras.
Also, there has been a shift in the actual construction of architectural environments: from once building closer to the "old-fashioned way" and using actual materials - ie. laying actual bricks in walls, using real wooden roof shingles - to today using molded plastic and sculpted concrete to imitate wood and other materials. Such techniques are hit and miss, I find.
Another thing to consider is that due to the IP mandate at Disney and Universal, most theme park design/building today is about transposing pre-established movie environments into the parks.
As noted, there has also been a move towards greater grandiosity and/or theatricality (my term for the "toony"-look referred to above) of design/art direction, a lot of which I welcome, but one can sense the difference in the two Eras.
Also, there has been a shift in the actual construction of architectural environments: from once building closer to the "old-fashioned way" and using actual materials - ie. laying actual bricks in walls, using real wooden roof shingles - to today using molded plastic and sculpted concrete to imitate wood and other materials. Such techniques are hit and miss, I find.
Another thing to consider is that due to the IP mandate at Disney and Universal, most theme park design/building today is about transposing pre-established movie environments into the parks.
Last edited:
Disneylover152
Well-Known Member
the.dreamfinder
Well-Known Member
No, many of them were fired after completing DisneySea in 2002 and more over time through layoffs and retirements. No design leads on that park work for the company, save Zsolt and his rockwork team. The Kirks have consulted on changes made to the MiraCosta, but the park is not like DAK with a dedicated imagineer.
the.dreamfinder
Well-Known Member
What role does the VR DISH play here, because they have the capability to see these problems in advance to make corrections, yet they tend to ignore them.
The Grand Inquisitor
Well-Known Member
I think the land will be amazing!
I know it's TDS but did 9/11 play a part in letting WDI go in 2002? Why get rim of them all? We all think TDS is the standard. Now, if they were let go after DCA opened....
the.dreamfinder
Well-Known Member
From what I know, it was largely internal Disney politics. TDR’s projects are overseen by an offshoot of WDI called WDI Tokyo. When they came back from their assignment in Japan, many lost their jobs.
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
Given the humid climate and lack of attractions what the park still needs are equivalents to Splash Mountain and Pirates of the Caribbean. Pirates in particular is something you really notice and miss when you realize all the other Magic Kingdoms have it.
Grizzly Gulch also needs something else to make it feel like a proper Frontierland and not just an afterthought to the park's design.
Grizzly Gulch also needs something else to make it feel like a proper Frontierland and not just an afterthought to the park's design.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
I find it hard to describe current trends as moving towards grandiosity / theatricality when there are overwhelming similarities to the design of McMansions and similar cheap developments.
Faking materials and tectonics isn’t new, so I am not sure how there could have been a shift. Disneyland Paris is the only park that ever really used a lot of actual materials. I think the issue relates to the above, these faked elements are being used without knowledge of what they are imitating thus resulting in applications and finishes that don‘t quite work.
As someone who is very open about my distaste for the franchise mandate, I actually don’t think it has as large of a role to play. In cinema there is still sincere high regard for art direction and authenticity. The attitude of “It’s a movie, it doesn’t matter” doesn’t hold the way many will proudly profess “It’s a theme park, it doesn’t matter.” Frozen Ever After is in the Norway Pavilion not because of some important aspect of the movie’s story, but because the filmmakers wanted to root it in a place seemed real.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
The DISH is just a display technology. It only shows what is modeled.
Layoffs after a park opening is the norm. There just isn’t enough work for everyone after the big push of getting the park built. Many of the independent themed entertainment design companies have their origin in the layoffs that followed the openings of EPCOT Center and Tokyo Disneyland.
Last edited: