My opinion of the biggest problem Disney parks has to face

[erasure fan1]

Having seen what the Shaman of Songs can do. I respectfully disagree with you.
If you threw in 50 of those AA's as storm troopers, Vader, Luke, ect in an action dark ride. Disney would really explode with interest because everyone else IS using screens.

Exactly! And for him to say they are only good for shows or slow dark rides is just laughable. Everest and the yeti was great, 7D mine train is another good example. They can be used in any ride, a good imagineer should be able to find the best fit. Star wars is a great example. An AA heavy star wars ride would have people loosing their minds.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Exactly! And for him to say they are only good for shows or slow dark rides is just laughable. Everest and the yeti was great, 7D mine train is another good example. They can be used in any ride, a good imagineer should be able to find the best fit. Star wars is a great example. An AA heavy star wars ride would have people loosing their minds.

There are no AA's in 7DMT except in the slow dark ride parts. In those locations they are good and in the last scene almost all of them are stagnant spin around in circles only partial AA's. Everest yeti was great for a very short period of time and even then it was missed by many riders. As a stationary, once great AA, it is very meh! and not really animated so it is only an A and not a big deal at the moment. That particular example could have been well served by a screen instead of a million dollar hung of scrap metal supported only by a high powered fan and a strobe light. And for heavens sake, the only AA's in Star Tours was the pilot and a couple of them in the queue unless you are referring to the upcoming Star Wars Land, which at this point is mostly screens in the ride part and who knows what they might add in for affect. However, that doesn't make them the stars of the rides just part of the scenery.

 

[erasure fan1]

There are no AA's in 7DMT except in the slow dark ride parts. In those locations they are good and in the last scene almost all of them are stagnant spin around in circles only partial AA's. Everest yeti was great for a very short period of time and even then it was missed by many riders. As a stationary, once great AA, it is very meh! and not really animated so it is only an A and not a big deal at the moment. That particular example could have been well served by a screen instead of a million dollar hung of scrap metal supported only by a high powered fan and a strobe light. And for heavens sake, the only AA's in Star Tours was the pilot and a couple of them in the queue unless you are referring to the upcoming Star Wars Land, which at this point is mostly screens in the ride part and who knows what they might add in for affect. However, that doesn't make them the stars of the rides just part of the scenery.

First, you said they were only good in shows and dark rides and both examples given are coasters. 2nd it doesn't matter that the yeti is broken or the 7D mine trains AAs are on the lift hill. Neither ride would be enhanced by replacing said effects with screens (and don't say the yeti would because a screen is better than nothing, you know what I mean). The point is that Disney used AAs on thrill rides, who cares what spot, and its better than screens. Lastly, if you had read my post, I said "An AA heavy star wars ride would have people loosing their minds." That would mean IF they built one. I'm just not sure why you keep going against people wanting more AAs. Screens might be the current trend in tech but that doesn't mean it's better. The whole point of this is that when you use all the tools together, that is the best. And why do you keep saying AAs are old tech? Who cares! Because roller coaster tech is old we should only have simulators? I haven't been on Navi river journey yet. I do know people who have been on it and have read a lot about it. What comes up all the time? The AA was awesome. Of all the people I know, no one said, man the screens were great. It was, man the avatar guy at the end was fantastic. To this day, good AAs impress, even if the attraction is blah, just look at stitch.

 

[King Racoon 77]

Nothing would make me loose my mind at Disney ...

 

[Goofyernmost]

First, you said they were only good in shows and dark rides and both examples given are coasters. 2nd it doesn't matter that the yeti is broken or the 7D mine trains AAs are on the lift hill. Neither ride would be enhanced by replacing said effects with screens (and don't say the yeti would because a screen is better than nothing, you know what I mean). The point is that Disney used AAs on thrill rides, who cares what spot, and its better than screens. Lastly, if you had read my post, I said "An AA heavy star wars ride would have people loosing their minds." That would mean IF they built one. I'm just not sure why you keep going against people wanting more AAs. Screens might be the current trend in tech but that doesn't mean it's better. The whole point of this is that when you use all the tools together, that is the best. And why do you keep saying AAs are old tech? Who cares! Because roller coaster tech is old we should only have simulators? I haven't been on Navi river journey yet. I do know people who have been on it and have read a lot about it. What comes up all the time? The AA was awesome. Of all the people I know, no one said, man the screens were great. It was, man the avatar guy at the end was fantastic. To this day, good AAs impress, even if the attraction is blah, just look at stitch.

Let's be honest here. Who are all these people that would "lose their minds" that you speak of. It is obvious that due to their limited motion that are not going to fit believably into any thrill ride. That is just your imagination not reality. But, if you want to make like AA's are the end all, don't let me stop you, however, if it was going to be a mind blowing experience it would already be done. Right now the most realistic AA's require projections for facial and other natural movements. (i.e. Frozen)

Just for clarification, because you tend to skip over some spots when you read, I do not dislike AA's. As I said in some areas, like how they were introduced originally, they are perfect and I don't want to see them taken out just because they do not fit everyone image of "thrill", they are quite good for entertainment and for something that is less then breakneck speed. I used the Yeti as an example of what happens when they try an get overly rambunctious with AA's. It didn't take long before they figured out that it had a very limited ability to have a range of motion that would be required to fill in on a thrill ride. Let's face it, Yeti is currently a statue, a prop, not an AA.

Also 7DMT is a completely different set up. The largest part of it is coaster. The AA's are introduced in the good, but, hardly pulse raising, dark parts where you are either creeping along or you are stopped. One more thing... 7DMT is not considered a thrill ride, it is almost universally defined by thrill enthusiasts as a Kiddie Coaster. That is how it is possible to inject AA's in the middle of a coaster. If they kept it at full speed you wouldn't even be able to identify the AA's by name or see the movement.

Alright, lets take a look at Stitch, oh wait, we can't take a look at Stitch because no matter how good the AA is it could not carry an attraction on it's own. You can lavish all the praise on it that you want, it wasn't good enough to save the attraction, it wasn't the major draw. It only supplements and, btw, Stitch is a show, you don't move an inch and it's in a dark ride environment. When they did have a show that was really based around an AA in that location, it was to intense for children because not only were you not moving, you couldn't move because you were stanchioned in place. It was probably a good example of thrill, but, not placed in the right environment were the majority wanted to be scared and captive. Universal or Six Flags in the right areas would probably have made Alien an epic attraction, just not in Disney. Think about the concept. You are Tomorrowland where the hope for the future is laid out in front of you and part of that image is that we are going to be an Alien lunch buffet and displayed in a inescapable harness. Not in the right park, MK cannot and should not be a scare the poop out of you location, via AA's or otherwise.

OK, now because apparently no one ever reads the signature lines below... all that I have said above is my opinion. It is not anything more then my observation and my impression of what I see or have seen. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, if everyone agreed about everything what a boring life we all would be part of.

 

[DarthVader]

I'm going to say that ride technology in Disney is not a problem. Are people expecting Disney to blow up all the rides in MK and replace them with the latest technology? I still love a small world, jungle cruise and Peter Pan. Yet they are all using older tech.

Don't get me wrong FOP, is an awesome ride, and Disney does need to keep innovating/improving. They sat on their laurels for a long time, especially in Epcot but over all I'm pretty happy with what my family and I do when we visit. If not, I'd not pay a boat load of money for vacations.

Don't forget Disney is designed for kids, I think people lose sight of that, and look at Disney through adult eyes and criticize how its failing to keep up.

 

[erasure fan1]

Just for clarification, because you tend to skip over some spots when you read, I do not dislike AA's.

I never said you didn't like them. And it's you who has selective reading. I said a good AA impresses even if the attraction is blah. You keep insisting that AAs are the past and people want more thrills. But when given examples of how AAs can be more immersive than screens in more thrilling attractions, you flip it for some reason. My opinion was the lift in 7D is better as an AA scene than it would be as screens. Then you come back with its not a thrill ride. Do you believe it would be better with screens?

Let's be honest here. Who are all these people that would "lose their minds" that you s

You must not be a star wars fan. There are a lot of us.

Right now the most realistic AA's require projections for facial and other natural movements. (i.e. Frozen)

Ding ding ding! Back to the point I've made multiple times. Both types of tech working together is best. AAs can enhance screens and screens can enhance AAs. AAs are as much the past as Rollercoasters are, but that doesn't mean Disney should stop making coaster based attractions. I expect them to push the tech forward and find ways to use it new and inventive ways. I'm pretty sure we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[marni1971]

Don't forget Disney is designed for kids

Of all ages. Don’t forget that

 

[danlb_2000]

Don't forget Disney is designed for kids, I think people lose sight of that,....

That would be very sad if true, fortunately I don't see any evidence at this point that that is happening.

 

[DarthVader]

Of all ages. Don’t forget that

Of course

That would be very sad if true,

Why is that sad?

I don't see any evidence at this point that that is happening.

Just look at all the marketing Disney does. Its always with kids/families and promoting a magical time. If that doesn't scream kid-centric, I don't know what does.

I'm not knocking it, and I love going to disney, even before I had kids. Its hard to say Disney wasn't designed for kids, when you look at 90% percent of the rides at Magic Kingdom.

 

[danlb_2000]

Of course

Why is that sad?
.

I am surprised that I would have to explain that to anyone on these message boards. Disney has always been a place where adults and children can enjoy the experience together. If you design just of kids you get this...

https://storybookland.com/

which is fine for kids, but not the sort of place adults are going to go on their own. Yes, Kids are a big target audience for Disney because that's where the money is at, but they still provide enough balance the adults can enjoy it as much as kids.

 

[huwar18]

Of course


Why is that sad?


Just look at all the marketing Disney does. Its always with kids/families and promoting a magical time. If that doesn't scream kid-centric, I don't know what does.
View attachment 304846View attachment 304847

I'm not knocking it, and I love going to disney, even before I had kids. Its hard to say Disney wasn't designed for kids, when you look at 90% percent of the rides at Magic Kingdom.

Disney's marketing is kid-centric because it is a marketing ploy. Just yesterday,We were watching a movie on the Disney Channel and they were promoting Destinations by Disney. They had one of the Disney stars on a Destination by Disney trip. They know how to get the bug into the adult's ear.

 

[rreading]

In addition to what's already been said, the other very real point is that Disney is making progress with their AAs. The cartoon AAs in 7DMT and Frozen are extremely expressive, while the AA at the conclusion of Navi appears more fluid and expressive than almost any before.

While it is useful to use screens when necessary (FOP), Disney more than anything seems to excel at creating immersive environments which usually happen to have AAs to tell their story

 

[geekza]

The Pepper's Ghost effect was ancient tech when it was used in Haunted Mansion, however there are still people who have no idea how the ballroom scene works and think it's some form of holographic technology. Screens aren't bad, in and of themselves. When used well, they can enhance an attraction. Occasionally, for things like Soarin' and FoP, they are used because the attraction couldn't be built any other way. I think that the main beef a lot of us have is when screens are used in situations where physical sets and AA figures would work just fine. Screens are a tool that the Imagineers have available to them. The best attractions are ones where the tech that is used is selected because it's essential to the experience and story. Sometimes, that calls for a screen-based attraction, sometimes not. It's the attractions where screens are only used as a shortcut that are a problem.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

Don't forget Disney is designed for kids

It really, really isn't.

It's designed to be inclusive of them, but not exclusive for them. They don't have the disposable income to keep the place afloat.

That said, I do agree with your premise that it's not all about the tech. Some of the best rides in the park use tech that's 50+ years old. I'd love to see more of that added to the parks, in and amongst the fun new toys technology offers up.

It's funny to me how Flight Of Passage is hailed as a return to form for WDW, while the projection tech on which that ride is based is the same tech that drops the ball in Na'vi River Journey. Tech alone doesn't make an attraction, it's in how it's used. If the projected animals were replaced with even POTC-level animatronics of Pandoran fauna I bet the ride would be much more well received.

 

[Christian Fronckowiak]

(This is why Thrill rides are nowadays "favorites", you cant have a rollercoaster in your home.)

Speak for yourself...!

 

[Darth Figment]

As i said in a earlier post, i pefer AA's over projectors , BUT .. i do love Toy Story midway Mania, Technology is evolving, Toy Story Mania wouldnt Exist with out today's tech.
There is away to balance both tech's, AA's & projectors , im hopeful that wll happen. I've seen PoC in Shanghai on you tube, it looks amazing, theres AA's plus projectors. We'll just have to see if WDW/DL do amazing stuff like in Shanghai.

 

[Goofyernmost]

I never said you didn't like them. And it's you who has selective reading. I said a good AA impresses even if the attraction is blah. You keep insisting that AAs are the past and people want more thrills. But when given examples of how AAs can be more immersive than screens in more thrilling attractions, you flip it for some reason. My opinion was the lift in 7D is better as an AA scene than it would be as screens. Then you come back with its not a thrill ride. Do you believe it would be better with screens?

You must not be a star wars fan. There are a lot of us.

Ding ding ding! Back to the point I've made multiple times. Both types of tech working together is best. AAs can enhance screens and screens can enhance AAs. AAs are as much the past as Rollercoasters are, but that doesn't mean Disney should stop making coaster based attractions. I expect them to push the tech forward and find ways to use it new and inventive ways. I'm pretty sure we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Can I just make a few points and then I'm done with the conversation:

1. I stand by my opinion that since AA's are sparingly used now and screens are prolific that AA's are mostly the past and that the new impressive direction would be screens because of versatility.

2. I do think by the fact that Epcot died or is on life support and that people are always complaining that there aren't enough coasters or general thrill rides that people want more thrills. Epcot may have dared to be different, but, the public didn't want it to be. Kind of the "you can bring a horse to water, but, you can't make it drink" syndrome.

3. I agree that the lift area on 7DMT use of AA's in that area is best, I haven't flipped anything. It is you that keeps insisting that I think screens would have been better in that area. Never once did I say that.

4. What I did say was that in order for those AA's to work as well as they do the ride had to transform from a coaster to a dark ride vehicle on a coaster track.

5. I am not a huge Star Wars fan. I think it is interesting, but, what did I say that would make you think I was not? All I did was state basically the obvious that from what I have read here, the attractions will be mostly screens.

6. Using projections to automate the AA's is the ultimate lazy way of creating an alleged AA. What they become is not much different then the Yeti at this point. They are body shaped vessels (screens) on which to project the animation. The are mongrel AA's with a body and a Polaroid for a face. Whatever happened to animating the face to speak, to blink and to express emotion. Seems like they were just on the verge of perfecting that. However, no matter how you try and twist it using the projection method you have just used the body shape to project the picture on. It can be done very effectively as in the Mine Train and Frozen, but, like it or not they are still screens.

I do enjoy both AA's and screens, but, my point since the beginning is that in this stage in history screens are the method of choice to attempt to give the people what they are looking for. The fact that there are a few of us from the past that still enjoy even the most primitive of AA's, does not represent the cross section of the public or even, especially, the people that design new attractions. That is just where we are at this point in time. Who knows, perhaps newer more advanced AA's might make a comeback at some point, it's just not at the moment. AA's are now used as minor players in some attractions where they fit in, but, the last big AA supported attraction, at least at WDW, was the American Adventure and that was 35 years ago. The second biggest recently built AA show that I can think of is the Little Mermaid and 35 years ago people would have lost their minds over that ride, however, we heard nothing but complaints about how that came off. The math is simple, but that doesn't mean that is what I want to see for everything, but, more what I think we might expect to see, at least for awhile. It might be to our benefit to embrace and enjoy it instead of denying that it is what the current technology happens to be and if you allow yourself to recognize the artistic aspect, it can be quite good and well done.

 

[HansGruber]

Disney is clearly embracing technology as a cost-saver.
It's far cheaper to light up the castle than pay for a 300 cast member parade.

Of course, we went to the Aloha Dinner Show and had to wait in a 25 minute line because they did everything on paper. So, who knows.

 

[marni1971]

the last big AA supported attraction, at least at WDW, was the American Adventure and that was 35 years ago. The second biggest recently built AA show that I can think of is the Little Mermaid..

Splash Mountain?

(Horizons came after AmAd but I digress)