Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
I forgot Splash Mountain (26 years ago) Horizon (34 years ago and gone). That was the point. That still makes "Mermaid" the most recent full AA dark ride, I think.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
My opinion of the biggest problem Disney parks has to face
- Thread starter tomast
- Start date
erasure fan1
Well-Known Member
And dinosaur
Oh yes. Dinosaur. And I suppose Frozenstrom.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
The real problem here is that you guys are missing the point. I AM NOT AGAINST AA's!!! I am against the, blinders on approach, of so many to just dismiss the current technology as inferior. Just what is coming, (according to you, Martin) with Star Wars land should scream that out loud and clear. That is the current and advanced way of presenting the story that cannot be duplicated by animatronics or stagnant scenes to the degree of realism that screens can.
All the ones that have been listed are indeed superior use of AA's. Frozenstrom is the use of AA's (sort of) as projection screens. If you are a true AA's fan that is not what they should have been doing with them. They project a more realistic image but not the full AA, what we all loved. Those should be called Animascreenics. Nothing wrong with it just not what was anyone's, including Walt's, idea of them.
Dino would obviously not work as well with screens. 3D Dino's are obviously superior to a screen, no argument. (also, I might point out was built 20 freaking years ago) Robots were the only real advancement in theme park story telling a half century ago. Both have specific and superior applications in that roll. We should be happy to have both instead of stuck in that constant time-warp and trying to convince others that they are not a legitimate and extremely immersive media. They have impressively enhanced the theme park experience and brought it into the 21st century. What the rest of the 21st century might bring still remains to be seen, but, for now it is the most advanced available.
Not me. I agree.
KBLovedDisney
Well-Known Member
Just to add in my two cents: we use screens everyday. They are a now a big part of most everyone's life and what is now becoming part of Disney's. It isn't a bad thing. However, IMHO, having a screen on a ride versus an AA is like reading a regular book versus a pop-up one. The first is nice looking, but the other engages your senses a bit more.
Not saying Disney won't improve their screen technology to not be more immersive and sense engaging, but there was always something slightly more impressive and thought provoking as an AA versus watching a screen.
But, who knows what kind of technology we could see coming in. We may get to see holograms in future rides that will trump the AAs in their entirety.
Not saying Disney won't improve their screen technology to not be more immersive and sense engaging, but there was always something slightly more impressive and thought provoking as an AA versus watching a screen.
But, who knows what kind of technology we could see coming in. We may get to see holograms in future rides that will trump the AAs in their entirety.
donnylambb
Well-Known Member
I think the word that's works for everybody is balance. Keep some of the tradition along with new technology. We go every year and its the escape that we love.
geekza
Well-Known Member
I can only speak for myself, but my preference for using AA figures and real sets and props when appropriate stems from the fact that they are tangible. You can go through something like HM or Pirates or even Small World and genuinely admire the artistry and ingenuity that went into creating them. They contain physical objects that, by the sheer fact that they exist in the real world, add a sense of immersion that isn't possible with just a screen.
On a related subject, I was watching some older animation with one of my stepsons, who is 18. He commented that he loved watching pre-CG animation because you could actually see the brush strokes and imperfect lines and know that all of it was done by hand. It's kind of the way I feel about AA figures and real sets.
I'm not against screens when they are necessary or appropriate. I'm even okay with the projected faces on the 7DMT or Frozen. They allow for film-accurate animation of faces. Plus, they're really just an evolution of Madam Leota or the Singing Graveyard Busts in HM. The faces augment the realistic movement of the AA figures. Facial movements have always been a weak spot in traditional AA figures. You don't want to get too close to them in something like the American Adventure or CoP because it becomes obvious that the lips and eyes just can't capture a feeling of full realism. Humans have so many muscles in our faces that control nuanced expressions that duplicating them in mechanical form would be nearly impossible. When you're dealing with stylized expressions, like those used in animated films, projections work perfectly. Perhaps the only downside to them is that it's hard to consistently match the lighting on the face so that it blends with the "real" bodies and clothing, but that will improve over time.
On a related subject, I was watching some older animation with one of my stepsons, who is 18. He commented that he loved watching pre-CG animation because you could actually see the brush strokes and imperfect lines and know that all of it was done by hand. It's kind of the way I feel about AA figures and real sets.
I'm not against screens when they are necessary or appropriate. I'm even okay with the projected faces on the 7DMT or Frozen. They allow for film-accurate animation of faces. Plus, they're really just an evolution of Madam Leota or the Singing Graveyard Busts in HM. The faces augment the realistic movement of the AA figures. Facial movements have always been a weak spot in traditional AA figures. You don't want to get too close to them in something like the American Adventure or CoP because it becomes obvious that the lips and eyes just can't capture a feeling of full realism. Humans have so many muscles in our faces that control nuanced expressions that duplicating them in mechanical form would be nearly impossible. When you're dealing with stylized expressions, like those used in animated films, projections work perfectly. Perhaps the only downside to them is that it's hard to consistently match the lighting on the face so that it blends with the "real" bodies and clothing, but that will improve over time.
I can't wait for the Steven King pop-up collection.
KBLovedDisney
Well-Known Member
The Shining pop-up book - the final act of the book would definitely be interesting. One page would have Redrum pop up at you, the next a big bloody axe in your face.
lifeguard1020
Active Member
Just throwing this in here...
in my opinion, the best combination of AA's and physical sets with screens...
Mystic Manor...
in my opinion, the best combination of AA's and physical sets with screens...
Mystic Manor...
geekza
Well-Known Member
It really is pretty great. I've only seen videos and, even then, it comes across just how effective the whole attraction is.
When I first read about the Shanghai Pirate's attraction, I immediately jumped to conclusions and thought, "This is an insult to the original ride." Then I saw the videos. It is a totally different experience, but one that works. Aside from a couple of the "screen scenes," like the swordfighting, it is a really nice blend of the physical and the virtual. The AA figures that are there are amazing. The physical sets are beautiful. The room that simulates your boat going from underwater to the surface is jaw-dropping. It in no way diminishes the beauty of the original ride, but taken as its own thing, it is revolutionary.
JohnD
Well-Known Member
The ending scene of Three Calleberos used to be the three of them singing in a video. They were replaced by AAs. The consensus among everyone is that the AAs (from Mickey Mouse Revue) made the ride better, considering the rest of it is, except for the pinata scene, screens anyway.
JohnD
Well-Known Member
HM, SplM, IASW, 7DMT, POTC, TLM, Tiki Room, CBJ, HOP, PPM, JC, SSE, TAA, Three Calleberos (two scenes), FEA, NRJ
Yeah, yeah, I know. Except those don't count because... I don't know why, except you say so.
geekza
Well-Known Member
Old ones from the Mickey Mouse Review, even. While the design of the skins are a little dated, the AA figures themselves work beautifully. It definitely improved upon what was there.
JohnD
Well-Known Member
Let's widen the scope. The SW Prequels primarily relied on CGI (to the detriment of acting). Lord of the Rings, while definitely making good use of CGI, also used miniatures (BigATures), sets, and on-location. Both were filmed at about the same time. Which was the better trilogy? Exactly.
geekza
Well-Known Member
To take your point further, the Hobbit trilogy, due to a severely-truncated production window and a total change of direction after Del Toro left, were forced to use a lot more virtual scenery and creatures. Aside from the fact that the scripts are weaker, the overall believability of the films suffered in comparison to the LotR films.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
I can, and have explained it to you, however, I cannot make you understand it. So, just do like the fabulous face projected AA in Frozen and "Let It Go". Move along, nothing to see here that is comprehensible to those that don't want to comprehend.
JohnD
Well-Known Member
It's because you're logic isn't comprehensible. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
Good one... guess you told me. Go back and try reading every word. Not just the words that you think you saw, because your response doesn't line up with any of the discussion.