Spirited News, Observations & Thoughts IV

[truecoat]

I don't see how you get this from my post. My point is that Disney never has competed in the "thrill ride" market with your Six Flag, Cedar Farms, etc type amusement park. The reality is that to compete with them for those demographics would require building completely different rides and sacrifice story/ambiance for thrills. While Disney has some exposed track coasters, they are mostly small options and don't disrupt the theming much (something like California Screamin' helps to build a sense of "place" actually).

The "coasters" that Disney has are pretty much mild, "family coasters" with relatively low height restrictions. Outside of RNR, none of them would elicit a yawn in a typical coaster park. They are Disney's way of offering some thrills while keeping in with the overall spirit of the parks. I applaud them for that and would like to see more such rides. But I don't think you'l ever have some crazy X2 type roller coaster at a Disney Park and I don't think there's much point in them even considering doing that. I mean, my 4 year old has been on BTMM and Space Mt (in Cali) and he's short for his age; I'm sorry, but they just aren't remotely in the same class as typical thrill rides in a coaster park.

I don't think Disney is deliberately ignoring any demographic. I think they would love to have teens and young adults come to their parks. They just hope to draw them in with theming, engaging ride experiences and yes, some mild thrilled but I don't expect them to branch out into the latest and most intense coaster types to do it.

This wasn't always the case. When Disneyland 59' came about, the Matterhorn was a pretty spectacular roller coaster. Space Mountain was as tall as most coasters at the time. Although not as fast as most, it was enclosed with effects. Splash mountain, BTR also were considered thrill rides in their time. Disney has added other thrill rides, but these original thrill rides were on par with offerings elsewhere and were state of the art to boot.

Comparing those coasters to coasters made in even the last 20 years isn't fair. I went to the original and only 6 Flags at the time in 1977, maybe 3 coasters total. The biggest, Big Bend was 81 feet tall. 9 under Space Mountain with no real steep drops. Disney didn't keep up with the thrill park wars but to say they never competed isn't right.

 

[ToTBellHop]

Each technology has it's place...

You're not going to get a Yeti sized AA to move like you need them to act realistic as a high speed transformer.

These 'all or nothing' arguments are petty that ignore the realities that you apply technology to fit your vision.. not set out and say 'what we need is a ride full of AAs!!'

True. A yeti-sized AA can't even move like they need it to act realistic as a yeti.

And then there's the bird on a stick...

 

[Disneyhead'71]

And I know of at least 2 slow moving, AA intensive, family friendly dark rides coming to Universal Orlando in the next 5 years. One in Seuss Landing and one in the KidZone redo.

And the 2 E-Tickets under construction now are not going to be "Thrill Rides".

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

Speaking of Gringotts, what level of thrills are we talking about? As thrilling as Big Thunder, Everest, or something more or less intense than those two?

Well let's compare... do it with an AA and you get a Yeti that never moves.. or do it with a screen and get an effect that works every day.

Of course when you've got a company that is too incompetent or cheap from a maintenance perspective, then sure you can argue that animatronics are a bad thing. Though that's no so much the animatronic's fault rather than the company (and perhaps the people that built the ride).

And even then, projections need maintenance as well. Just take a look at the horrible state of Soarin's video in Epcot (the projection room wasn't built properly to begin with, and they don't ever clean or replace the film though it desperately needs it). And last I checked, Philharmagic and Tough to Be a Bug were in pretty bad quality too (likely even worse now considering they don't seem to have been converted to digital and I doubt they replaced or cleaned the film).

I've spotted completely broken projections as well. Rode Everest several times where the yeti projection either was turned off entirely or had a Windows error message instead of the animation. The mist screen projection in Pirates has also been non functional in the past (or too blurry to see properly). Don't know whether they fixed it. Before upgraded to digital, the France movie was in dire condition (the jump in quality is amazing now that I've seen the digital upgrade over what was there prior). Heck even soon after opening, the projection on the Wardrobe animatronic in New Fantasyland was in a pretty consistent state of not working properly as reported on these forums (I don't even know if they ever fixed that). They even put a sack over her head to hide her projected eyes not working...

 

[Big C 73]

Each technology has it's place...

You're not going to get a Yeti sized AA to move like you need them to act realistic as a high speed transformer.

These 'all or nothing' arguments are petty that ignore the realities that you apply technology to fit your vision.. not set out and say 'what we need is a ride full of AAs!!'

Create and build an animatronic complex enough to go through the actions and demands. Disney has created and crafted things that have never been done, but that is why it makes them so special. You build and construct within to create a new technology that will make the impossible possible. A Transformers animatronic is possible with some work a creativity. Anything can be done and you don't forget that. Disney could do it I know, Universal maybe if they would take the time.

 

[Pentacat]

Disney has been using screens instead of sets for decades before USF even existed (If you had wings anyone???).

Oh man...now that song will be stuck in my head for days.

 

[flynnibus]

Of course when you've got a company that is too incompetent or cheap from a maintenance perspective, then sure you can argue that animatronics are a bad thing. Though that's no so much the animatronic's fault rather than the company (and perhaps the people that built the ride).

Competence or not - there is an inherent difference between the reliability between a large scale AA and a projected effect.

 

[marni1971]

I disagree. I said nothing about Spidey vs Transformers. I'm talking about Uni's love of video projection screens and saying that its a valid to criticize them for that.

I probably quoted the wrong quote....

There again, surely there are just a handful of attractions where a screen/s is/are a part of the bigger attraction? MIB, RotM, T2, Disaster, Twister.... don't these all feature plenty of physical components?

 

[Clever Name]

Disney has been using screens instead of sets for decades before USF even existed (If you had wings anyone???). This argument is so tired.

What matters is not the technology, but how it's USED and it's final effect in the attraction.

I still dislike Circle-Vision 360°.

 

[flynnibus]

Create and build an animatronic complex enough to go through the actions and demands. Disney has created and crafted things that have never been done, but that is why it makes them so special. You build and construct within to create a new technology that will make the impossible possible. A Transformers animatronic is possible with some work a creativity. Anything can be done and you don't forget that. Disney could do it I know, Universal maybe if they would take the time.

Keep telling yourself that...

meanwhile we live in a real world where physics, safety requirements, reliability, and cost make such things impractical.

There is a reason all the AAs you see do big slow movements - It's called physics.. and no Disney can't pixie dust their way out of it.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

Create and build an animatronic complex enough to go through the actions and demands. Disney has created and crafted things that have never been done, but that is why it makes them so special. You build and construct within to create a new technology that will make the impossible possible. A Transformers animatronic is possible with some work a creativity. Anything can be done and you don't forget that. Disney could do it I know, Universal maybe if they would take the time.

NO ONE and I repeat NO ONE is going to build a ride with 14 30'-40' tall full motion Animatronics. It's cost prohibitive and a maintenance nightmare.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Yeah, cost effective.

I don't follow. Care to elaborate?

 

[the.dreamfinder]

And I know of at least 2 slow moving, AA intensive, family friendly dark rides coming to Universal Orlando in the next 5 years. One in Seuss Landing and one in the KidZone redo.

And the 2 E-Tickets under construction now are not going to be "Thrill Rides".

Is How To Train Your Dragon the ride destined for KidZone?

 

[Disneyhead'71]

Speaking of Gringotts, what level of thrills are we talking about? As thrilling as Big Thunder, Everest, or something more or less intense than those two?


Of course when you've got a company that is too incompetent or cheap from a maintenance perspective, then sure you can argue that animatronics are a bad thing. Though that's no so much the animatronic's fault rather than the company (and perhaps the people that built the ride).

And even then, projections need maintenance as well. Just take a look at the horrible state of Soarin's video in Epcot (the projection room wasn't built properly to begin with, and they don't ever clean or replace the film though it desperately needs it). And last I checked, Philharmagic and Tough to Be a Bug were in pretty bad quality too (likely even worse now considering they don't seem to have been converted to digital and I doubt they replaced or cleaned the film).

I've spotted completely broken projections as well. Rode Everest several times where the yeti projection either was turned off entirely or had a Windows error message instead of the animation. The mist screen projection in Pirates has also been non functional in the past (or too blurry to see properly). Don't know whether they fixed it. Before upgraded to digital, the France movie was in dire condition (the jump in quality is amazing now that I've seen the digital upgrade over what was there prior). Heck even soon after opening, the projection on the Wardrobe animatronic in New Fantasyland was in a pretty consistent state of not working properly as reported on these forums (I don't even know if they ever fixed that). They even put a sack over her head to hide her projected eyes not working...

Gringott's will be less "thrilling" than BTMRR.

 

[ToTBellHop]

Gringott's will be less "thrilling" than BTMRR.

Sounds like a boring rendition of

But we'll see.

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

Competence or not - there is an inherent difference between the reliability between a large scale AA and a projected effect.

Never said there wasn't. Just saying that Disney has been unwilling to properly take care of either type of effect.

Gringott's will be less "thrilling" than BTMRR.

Interesting... Thanks for the info, I had been under the impression it would be more in line with Everest's thrill level (if not more so). Dunno what made me think that, maybe descriptions of rumored motions it was supposed to have, but oh well. We'll find out soon enough.

 

[Funmeister]

Will Gringott's have the rumored break-away floor?

 

[Pentacat]

Competence or not - there is an inherent difference between the reliability between a large scale AA and a projected effect.

I would say that Disney has shown some pretty cool results recently with the combination of projected effects along with physical environments. Look at Mystic Manor or the enchanted mirror in Story Time with Belle. Those represent just how good TWDC can be at marrying the two mediums.

This debate is a lot the CGI versus Practical effects arguments that people have with regards to movies. There's good points to both methods but the greatest results are the combination of the two.

 

[flynnibus]

Never said there wasn't. Just saying that Disney has been unwilling to properly take care of either type of effect.

You can lead a horse to water.. but you can't make him drink

Disney's maintenance woes are independent of the technology they are using

 

[Big C 73]

Keep telling yourself that...

meanwhile we live in a real world where physics, safety requirements, reliability, and cost make such things impractical.

There is a reason all the AAs you see do big slow movements - It's called physics.. and no Disney can't pixie dust their way out of it.

I know that, I'm just trying to get a point across with enough time and effort you can make some pretty outstanding technologies that break the laws of the regular theme park agenda. If Universal can make meet and greet Transformers that move(I know people are in them) They can surely make an animatronic. Universal made the 39 ft Kong animatronics, hell they made two. They made a whole attraction that looked just like New York City and morewith not one screen!