New Technologies Coming to Disney and Universal

[Slowjack]

There is a new anchor attraction for the Harry Potter area that will use the Kuka Roboarm technology. They are claiming it is going to be the most high-tech ride ever built. Expect to either be flying around on a broom or in a car in a year or so.

Oh, yeah, I do remember hearing about that now. My money's on riding in the car, since I can't imagine how they could harness you to a broom in a realistic manner. I guess I didn't realize this was the signature attraction, though. It just doesn't seem all that Harry Potterish. I mean if you they are reproducing the car rides from the books there's not much of the HP story they can tell. I suppose they could just take the idea of a car as a way to have you fly around to famous HP locations; through a Quiddich match, avoiding the Whomping Willow, etc., but so much of the story takes place in interior locations.

 

[SpectroMan]

disney has a lot of catching up to do when it comes to the 18-29 market.

I disagree. I think it really understood this market for a while (when Tower of Terror and Alien Encounter were built; we can even say Mission: Space). The problem was that the other markets, the kids and their parents, freaked out about this new direction. Because of all the complaints about Alien Encounter, there was the need to stay true to the roots of being a family place.

We can argue about the whole technology thing for a very long. While I think SpiderMan is one of the most spectacular rides out there, we have to also look at the technology that Disney has created during this time. We can say that Universal has SpiderMan and the new Potter ride, but that is really only two innovations.

During this span of when SpiderMan was being created to now, Disney has had, while not revolutionary, technology-driven attractions including Test Track, Soarin', Everest, Turtle Talk/Laugh Floor, and now Toy Story Mania, not to mention a slew of attractions in Tokyo. We can also count the great animatronics that have graced our presence in the past years too. Look at Lucky, the Yeti, and the animals in Dinosaur.

Disney, while not creating the greatest technological ride, has still been the front runner when it comes to technology. Disney is at the beginning of a revolution that is going to increase the thrilling and interactive nature of theme parks. In a few years, Universal might have SpiderMan and Harry Potter, but Disney will have gone in a totally different direction that will be the future of theme parks.

 

[Slowjack]

disney has a lot of catching up to do when it comes to the 18-29 market.

sure, they might have 0-17 with girls and 0-13 with boys, and they might have the 30+ market, but they really havent figured out the teenagers yet. DHS is supposed to be their answer to Universal, but Disney has NOT poured enough money into that property to make it a contender.

Yes, Toy Story Mania and American Idol is a nice start. But, they really need to start innovating. Spiderman was an innovation, toy story mania is not. Harry Potters new ride using the robotic arm technology is an innovation, the future family-friendly coaster at DHS is not.

Wasn't that the whole point of WED all that time ago? To innovate and entertain their guests. Creative risk taking is why disneyland/disney world exists. If they don't continue to take risks in every single park, they will eventually fall to people who are willing to take more risks.

I agree with the last statement...I think Disney is in danger of growing complacent. I think WDI still has lots of great ideas, it's just a question of opening up the purse to pay for them. Sadly, though, as long as WDW is making a pile of money, there's not much incentive to greenlight risky ventures.

On the first statement, though...you can't please everyone. Teenagers dislike WDW in large part because it is so popular with younger kids. Teenagers that don't like being seen with their parents especially don't want to enjoy things their little siblings enjoy. I see what you are saying, maybe DHS could be the "teen" park, but I'm not sure that's a battle Disney can win. It works in reverse, too. Six Flags tried a while ago to become more family-friendly, but they were so entrenched as a teen place it didn't take.

 

[JLW11Hi]

We can only hope that Harry Potter will give Disney a run for its money in terms of attraction popularity, because that will mean more and better attractions in the long run.

The technology, as stated in the article, is not the important thing. The technology is a tool used to work the overal immersiveness of the attraction. Spiderman uses this technology to support an immersive story in ways unmatched by Disney.

Universal is Disney's only real competition in this field. Believe me, we want them out-doing eachother with each new attraction! If they didn't, Disney would be just fine resting on their laurels generating revenue from marketing campaigns rather than awesome new attractions.

 

[OmegaKnight]

I went to Islands of Adventure today for the 1st tme in like 2 years and rode Spider-Man again. I am still absolutely impressed on how amazing that ride works. Nothing in the Central Florida area touches that attraction in terms of innovativness, in my opinion.

 

[WeLComeHomE OKW]

I disagree. I think it really understood this market for a while (when Tower of Terror and Alien Encounter were built; we can even say Mission: Space). The problem was that the other markets, the kids and their parents, freaked out about this new direction. Because of all the complaints about Alien Encounter, there was the need to stay true to the roots of being a family place.

We can argue about the whole technology thing for a very long. While I think SpiderMan is one of the most spectacular rides out there, we have to also look at the technology that Disney has created during this time. We can say that Universal has SpiderMan and the new Potter ride, but that is really only two innovations.

During this span of when SpiderMan was being created to now, Disney has had, while not revolutionary, technology-driven attractions including Test Track, Soarin', Everest, Turtle Talk/Laugh Floor, and now Toy Story Mania, not to mention a slew of attractions in Tokyo. We can also count the great animatronics that have graced our presence in the past years too. Look at Lucky, the Yeti, and the animals in Dinosaur.

Disney, while not creating the greatest technological ride, has still been the front runner when it comes to technology. Disney is at the beginning of a revolution that is going to increase the thrilling and interactive nature of theme parks. In a few years, Universal might have SpiderMan and Harry Potter, but Disney will have gone in a totally different direction that will be the future of theme parks.

Disney has been trying their best to catch up in this area. By building Tower or Terror and Rockin' Roller Coaster, but, Universal has tons of roller coasters. Universal has a MARVEL section and Jurassic Park and now Harry Potter. They have Shrek and the Mummy ride and Terminator and is about to have a SIMPSONS ride.

I don't think you are arguing the same thing i am. All the technological advances you mention are not innovations other then the Living Character Initiative. Trust me, I would love to see Disney take tons of risks. I want them to be the best. I am the biggest Disney fan around. But, they are not at a beginning of any revolution. If anything, many could argue the opposite. They started the theme park revolution, but, like any business, new and younger people are figuring out ways to do it better. I agree with Slowjack, i think disney is becoming complacent. I do disagree, though, that disney can't corner this market. If they wanted to, they could put tons of money into Disney Hollywood studios to be a much more demographic-specific park. Or have much bigger areas, with more fun/fast attractions.

I understand Disney's philosophy that every single theme park should be made for the whole family. But, at the same time, Magic Kingdom is made for parents with children. Epcot is centered around adults, and up to this point, DHS tries to go for the 18-29 market. (animal kingdom is the only park that doesnt fall into this age trap) Does this mean other demographics cant enjoy the other parks? No. I enjoy every single park. and so do tons of other people. But, if disney wants DHS to live out its true potential, they have to add alot more excitement and innovation. Create large immersive worlds, and stop putting in stunt shows and other various 'shows' that take little money to develop and leave guests content instead of excited.

I worked for Disney over the summer at DHS, and kids would always ask where all the rides were. They were upset that there wasn't more to do, and more fun to be had. When I worked there, they taught us that we always had to give disney service. Not good service, not decent, but Disney. In other words, we had to be excellent. We had to strive to be the best cast members we could be. That is what makes disney magical. If the Imagineers and executive members will not strive to do the same, what is the point? They can't strive to creative "good" experiences. They have to strive to make the best. And that is what leads to risk taking.

 

[WDWFigment]

I disagree. I think it really understood this market for a while (when Tower of Terror and Alien Encounter were built; we can even say Mission: Space). The problem was that the other markets, the kids and their parents, freaked out about this new direction. Because of all the complaints about Alien Encounter, there was the need to stay true to the roots of being a family place.

On the first statement, though...you can't please everyone. Teenagers dislike WDW in large part because it is so popular with younger kids. Teenagers that don't like being seen with their parents especially don't want to enjoy things their little siblings enjoy. I see what you are saying, maybe DHS could be the "teen" park, but I'm not sure that's a battle Disney can win.

I think these two points have it dead-on. I still think Disney could make an attempt to gain market share with the 18-29 crowd, but, at what cost? Would it be profitable to build as many attractions as they'd need to build to draw that group in? As they draw that group in, would they be alienating the other groups? WDW doesn't need to directly compete with every other amusement park in the country. Take the risks in developing cutting edge attractions, sure, but it seems pointless to cater to a demographic that they're going to have a hard time winning over.

 

[VacationPlanner]

You absolutely have to love this article....just knowing that the competitive nature that is thriving in the orlando theme parks just means great things for us

 

[raven]

...riders might feel as though they are flying

...video images that appear three-dimensional...

Audiences, too, are raising the bar. Theme parks must outdo the thrills, realism and control that people

...you're sitting on motion bases -- not only moving forward and backward, but rocking up and down and sideways,"

For Busch, the latest innovations stress immersing visitors into real-life habitats, not stories, said Couceiro.

Realism? Real-Life? How is a motion simulator "real" anything?

Is it just me or am I the only one who thinks that "simulators" are a lame excuse for a thrill ride? Don't get me wrong. I love dark rides, new technology and what not but some of these are just becoming cheaper every year. I don't like "virtual reality" I like actual reality. Are we getting jipped due to budget cuts, space requirements, pressure of adding new atrractions and lack of creativity? Stop cheapening the attractions and show me something that is truely REAL.

 

[WDWFigment]

Realism? Real-Life? How is a motion simulator "real" anything?

Is it just me or am I the only one who thinks that "simulators" are a lame excuse for a thrill ride? Don't get me wrong. I love dark rides, new technology and what not but some of these are just becoming cheaper every year. I don't like "virtual reality" I like actual reality. Are we getting jipped due to budget cuts, space requirements, pressure of adding new atrractions and lack of creativity? Stop cheapening the attractions and show me something that is truely REAL.

It definitely isn't just you. I know this because I agree. Is it just Raven and me, or does anyone else find simulators overdone?

 

[raven]

It definitely isn't just you. I know this because I agree. Is it just Raven and me, or does anyone else find simulators overdone?

Very. A Simulator is a simulation of a real thing or situation. I'll take real anyday. I love Soarin', Dinosaur and Indiana Jones Adventure but these are rare instances were Disney has incorporated real with simulation. That's fine. But some of the things that parks are creating and calling "thrills" are anything but that.

 

[sknydave]

What part of Dinosaur and Indy is a simulator?

 

[raven]

What part of Dinosaur and Indy is a simulator?

The vehicle. :hammer:

 

[davidpw97]

Realism? Real-Life? How is a motion simulator "real" anything?

Is it just me or am I the only one who thinks that "simulators" are a lame excuse for a thrill ride? Don't get me wrong. I love dark rides, new technology and what not but some of these are just becoming cheaper every year. I don't like "virtual reality" I like actual reality. Are we getting jipped due to budget cuts, space requirements, pressure of adding new atrractions and lack of creativity? Stop cheapening the attractions and show me something that is truely REAL.

What is your definition of REAL and which attractions are truely real? Everything about Disney is a virtual reality. A boat ride through a jungle full of electronic animals is virtual compared to an actual jeep ride through the woods with real animals. All thrill rides are virtual, instead of riding up a mountain or the sensation of hang-gliding, you could actually go out and scale a mountain and actually hang glide. I don't think people go to a world of fantasy and magic and expect things to be REAL. If you want actual reality go to a national park or a museum. If Disney were about actual reality the pirates would steal your booty, the tigers would maul you, and not all females would be princesses. I think you go to Disney to experience things you CAN'T experience in everyday life. Simulators are for those of us who can't be astronauts or comic book heroes or Luke Skywalker.

 

[raven]

What is your definition of REAL and which attractions are truely real?

I think most people knew what I meant by my post but I figured someone would smoke me.

My definition of REAL, when it comes to attractions, is an actual ride. Not #D screens, motion simulators and glasses.

 

[ChrisFL]

Uhh, motion simulators instead of the real thing...err...like instead of Dinosaur and Indy simulating the motion of going over bumpy roads you'd prefer they actually go over bumpy roads? :shrug:

During this span of when SpiderMan was being created to now, Disney has had, while not revolutionary, technology-driven attractions including Test Track, Soarin', Everest, Turtle Talk/Laugh Floor, and now Toy Story Mania, not to mention a slew of attractions in Tokyo. We can also count the great animatronics that have graced our presence in the past years too. Look at Lucky, the Yeti, and the animals in Dinosaur.

Disney, while not creating the greatest technological ride, has still been the front runner when it comes to technology. Disney is at the beginning of a revolution that is going to increase the thrilling and interactive nature of theme parks. In a few years, Universal might have SpiderMan and Harry Potter, but Disney will have gone in a totally different direction that will be the future of theme parks.

Test Track was designed in the mid 90's and was so full of problems it opened 3 years behind schedule.

IOA had a very good animatronic attraction in Triceratops Encounter, but closed it (though I heard rumors it may be returning!)

what direction is Disney going in? touch screens on every ride?

 

[mousermerf]

I want actual reality too.

I am so over "Screen Technology" it's not funny.

I was reading an article today about "digital art" and using different digital line weights instead of actually drawing lines to compose images. Bleck.

I want to walk into the creative offices of the theme parks with a bull horn and go "Step away from the computer! Pens, pencils, paper, and paint only!"

I think at some point this trend will have to implode the way it did with Animation. It's not bigger better faster.

 

[tirian]

I am apparently the only person in America who doesn't find Spiderman to be the greatest dark ride ever. It's well done, but I prefer physical AAs to screens.

TSM better be great, because with the Nintendo Wii, complete motion interaction already exists within people's homes.

 

[S.E.A.]

Yeah, i guess you are tirian. Spiderman is still and probably will remain to be the best single attraction in orlando. It sucks that WDI's greatest hits (Indy, Hunny Hunt and JTTCOTE) are not in WDW. Right now the closest things WDW can get to at least measure up to Spiderman are The Tower of Terror, Soarin' and Everest. And no, I don't believe that Toy Story Mania can be anywhere near as grand and exciting as Spiderman, unless TSM can manage to have a real story, it still to me feels like it's going to be a glorified video game

 

[JLW11Hi]

The greatest advantage screens have over AAs is their unlimited amount of movement and flexibility in the characters.

I always thought that 3D was a great solution to the screen thing, and Spiderman was the current peak of what could be possible with the technology. You still have real life elements and effects combined with the screens where the characters can live and fly around.

That said, I'm ready for some creative uses of AAs again. But I have to admit, I'm a little tired of the limited gesture movement so common in most AAs. In order to stay relevant, AAs need to keep advancing and adding new possibilities for movement and actual acting. I think they should work on facial expressions, and more "free" movement, where the character isn't stuck in one spot the whole time.

If there is any reason AAs have "come out of favor", its because these opinions are steming from older AA attractions. They certainly can become popular again if Imagineering works to add a new level of life to their AAs and allow programers more ways to have them "act".