Andrew C
You know what's funny?
Yes. It's simple. It's basic. There is no real detail or depth. Apart from the 3D effects. That's why it's not a good choice for an immersive attraction. It wouldn't wow the eye.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Mickey and Minnie's Runaway Railway confirmed
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
Yes. It's simple. It's basic. There is no real detail or depth. Apart from the 3D effects. That's why it's not a good choice for an immersive attraction. It wouldn't wow the eye.
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
The Disney Channel shorts have backgrounds that are very nicely art designed, but they are not particularly detailed and have very little sense of depth. They are colorful, their main virtue, and nicely stylized. The characters themselves are, again, very simple. This is all by design. The colorful, flat, simple background is a defining trait of a certain breed of modern animation.
The animation itself is expressive but very simplistic. Not many frames of movement. Characters switch from one posture to another without a great deal in-between. Again, this is part of the design of the series. They hired a creator best know for his work with Genddy Tartakovsky, and the work bears a lot of hallmarks of his bright, simplified style.
It is a style designed for a specific purpose - television and, perhaps even more importantly, the internet. It is very good for what it is. It is not theatrical animation. It makes no sense in the Chinese Theatre.
The virtue of Get a Horse is the quality of the animation and the pure classicism (complete with mischievous) of its Mickey. The short's plot didn't dictate a variety of backgrounds, but the style could certainly accommodate a variety of bright, "eye wowing" environments.
Kram Sacul
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
At this point it really doesn't matter which style of Mickey is used since we're losing the AA and set heavy Great Movie Ride for a glorified projection show. There's going to have to be a lot more going on then some transforming sets for me to be excited about this.
Kman101
Well-Known Member
The mass majority won't care. They just won't
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
In general they won't. But some will sense the disconnect in a general way. And to folks like us it will have an impact on the coherence - and quality - of the attraction.
But once again, what will force the ride to change is concerns over branding when, in a few years time, a new team of executives no longer want to push a dated version of their icon.
Kman101
Well-Known Member
But what makes this version "dated"? We don't know how they will hold up 10 or 20 years from now. Maybe this design sticks and won't go away? A ride featuring it certainly cements it. And we know how often WDW updates things so this should last decades. I know some don't like the design but we don't know it can't or won't last. And despite people disliking the shorts and design on here they ARE popular and the ride is likely to be very well done and received.
Amidala
Well-Known Member
I think it's also worth nothing that...we don't know that this new attraction will utilize the same exact animation process as the shorts. Obviously the character designs, tone, voice actors and other key elements of the shorts will be included in MMRR, but this attraction will have a higher budget than an episode of a Disney Channel animated series...so I think taking a "wait and see" approach is fair here.
No Name
Well-Known Member
If we and this forum were around 25 years ago, and we were told they'd be building a drop ride in DHS with not a single animatronic, what would the reactions be? "It'll never be a popular, classic attraction!" "Eh, another screen-based ride. Pass." "Hopefully one day, they'll retheme it and add an AA or two." Right...
I'm in no way supporting the replacement of the GMR or predicting that the Mickey ride will be good. I'm just pointing out that so long as the right technology is used in the right ways for the right reasons, the attraction can be stellar.
Measuring a ride by how many AAs it has is a shallow way of looking at things.
That is, in part, because there are actual animals. They're like super realistic AAs. Kilimanjaro Safaris is full of them.
I'm in no way supporting the replacement of the GMR or predicting that the Mickey ride will be good. I'm just pointing out that so long as the right technology is used in the right ways for the right reasons, the attraction can be stellar.
Measuring a ride by how many AAs it has is a shallow way of looking at things.
That is, in part, because there are actual animals. They're like super realistic AAs. Kilimanjaro Safaris is full of them.
Kman101
Well-Known Member
I can agree with a lot of this but I think people get upset about AAs because that's where Disney set itself apart and now they're not doing heavy AA based rides. I agree it often seems like things are written off by some because of no AAs but not having them doesn't mean the ride will be awful. Look at Mermaid. It's got problems and it was meant to be a classic full of AAs and figures.
It's not a very audible audio-animatronic.
And I agree with you. This is my position:
- Neither screens nor AAs are good or bad in and of themselves.
- Bad screens and bad.
- Bad AAs are bad.
- Good screens and good.
- Good AAs are good.
TGMR has a fantastic AA in The Wicked Witch. It had a horrible AA in Sigourney's character with the fast twitch head and ugly mask.
PotC Shanghai has a fantastic AA married with projection-mapping. PotC Orlando has some horribly jerky AAs with the worst being mannequins on rapidly spinning turntables.
NRJ has a fantastic AA in the Shaman. HoP has fantastic AAs. The Little Mermaid, however, has a cast of unarticulated plastic fish on moving sticks (and even some just glued to the wall).
An AA is not a sign of a good ride. Good AAs are a sign of a good ride.
And just the same with screens. The screens in the Nemo ride are outlandishly and insultingly crude. The screens in Star Tours and FoP are top notch.
So, when people say things to the effect that "AAs good; sreenz bad", I just roll my eyes at their indiscriminate tastes.
MagicHappens1971
Well-Known Member
I think this is what most people were expecting. I'm also disappointed they went in this direction.
Mike S
Well-Known Member
Are, are you implying the classic Pirates rides are bad...?
If the animation's in fits, you must a quit.
Mike S
Well-Known Member
That I can't agree with. You have to take into account when some this stuff was built.
Sorry, I regard that as having nostalgia goggles. I don't know how everyone seems to agree that Orlando's PotC is the worse PotC but then they don't want to change it!
Next Big Thing
Well-Known Member
The AAs should be replaced over time with modern AAs which hasn't happened, which is why a ride like WDW Pirates comes off as terribly outdated.
It doesn't need to be that way.
Amidala
Well-Known Member
Agreed. I would rather see an attraction updated (or even overhauled) as necessary than left to age and gather dust until the point that it becomes dated and needs to be replaced.
Disneyhead'71
Well-Known Member
Unpopular opinion incoming.
I'm totally ok with everything about this attraction.
I've been done with the GMR for over a decade. And I'm ok if Disney never builds another slow wax museum vignette/aa style dark ride. They, quite frankly, are boring. And I don't find them in anyway immersive. Unless you count being immersed in a ride through moving wax museum as immersive. Mermaid and FEA are cute but not very "fun". I find myself just sitting there kinda staring at things. But no real smiling. And certainly no spontaneous laughing or giggling.
I do really like Mystic Manor. It's not as "WOW" as Shanghai's PotC, but I like how the monkey aa is used better. Shanghai's PotC still does the slow drag in front of an obvious robot thing. Particularly, the Davey Jones at the organ scene.
I also like the art style they are using for this ride. I think it will make for a more fun, zany, madcapped adventure. Maybe at one point, you are racing down the train track right at a train. I do find people's reaction interesting.
I never say this, but I trust that WDI is going to knock it out of the park with this attraction.
I'm totally ok with everything about this attraction.
I've been done with the GMR for over a decade. And I'm ok if Disney never builds another slow wax museum vignette/aa style dark ride. They, quite frankly, are boring. And I don't find them in anyway immersive. Unless you count being immersed in a ride through moving wax museum as immersive. Mermaid and FEA are cute but not very "fun". I find myself just sitting there kinda staring at things. But no real smiling. And certainly no spontaneous laughing or giggling.
I do really like Mystic Manor. It's not as "WOW" as Shanghai's PotC, but I like how the monkey aa is used better. Shanghai's PotC still does the slow drag in front of an obvious robot thing. Particularly, the Davey Jones at the organ scene.
I also like the art style they are using for this ride. I think it will make for a more fun, zany, madcapped adventure. Maybe at one point, you are racing down the train track right at a train.
I do find people's reaction interesting. I never say this, but I trust that WDI is going to knock it out of the park with this attraction.
Last edited: