News Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge - Historical Construction/Impressions

[VJ]

Art is objective.

you're objective!

 

[Disney Irish]

The problem with this view is that it places man in the center of all things. Man is not the judge on what art is good and what art is bad because man is not where beauty originates.

We're talking about art here, not theology or the origins of the universe. The art didn't appear out of nowhere, there was no big bang and then all of sudden art. So of course man is where the beauty originates. It is man who creates it, it is man who defines both objectively and subjectively what is beautiful about it, it is man that is at the center of it. Without man there is no theme park for us to be discussing here.

 

[TROR]

We're talking about art here, not theology or the origins of the universe. The art didn't appear out of nowhere, there was no big bang and then all of sudden art. So of course man is where the beauty originates. It is man who creates it, it is man who defines both objectively and subjectively what is beautiful about it, it is man that is at the center of it. Without man there is no theme park for us to be discussing here.

A piece of art may be created by man, but what is and isn't beauty existed before us.

 

[Disney Irish]

A piece of art may be created by man, but what is and isn't beauty existed before us.

Now you're talking philosophically, which is not the context of this discussion.

But I'll play along.

Without man's perception of what is beautiful it is just an object, its the perception that makes it beautiful. A flower is just a flower until it is perceived to be beautiful.

 

[TROR]

Now you're talking philosophically, which is not the context of this discussion.

But I'll play along.

Without man's perception of what is beautiful it is just an object, its the perception that makes it beautiful. A flower is just a flower until it is perceived to be beautiful.

A flower is always a flower even if everyone calls it a tree.

 

[Disney Irish]

A flower is always a flower even if everyone calls it a tree.

Beautiful, ugly, good, bad, these are all just words. It is man who defines what those words mean.

 

[TROR]

Beautiful, ugly, good, bad, these are all just words. It is man who defines what those words mean.

If this is the case, then words mean nothing and reality can be whatever you want it to be. This is an attempt to destroy the truth of the world.

 

[Disney Irish]

If this is the case, then words mean nothing and reality can be whatever you want it to be. This is an attempt to destroy the truth of the world.

Now you’re getting it!

 

[TROR]

Now you’re getting it!

So the goal is to live in a false world of make believe instead of what truly exists in order to make one feel happy? How sad.

 

[socalifornian]

So the goal is to live in a false world of make believe instead of what truly exists in order to make one feel happy? How sad.

 

[Disney Irish]

So the goal is to live in a false world of make believe instead of what truly exists in order to make one feel happy? How sad.

Nope the goal is to realize that reality is what we make it. We as a species define the world around us. It is up to us to determine what is and what isn't the beauty within it.

I agree flowers are beautiful. But without the meaning behind the word beautiful we might as well just call it food and eat it. So again it is we as the species that created language to perceive the beauty in objects and create the meaning in the word and the emotional connection to that object.

 

[THE 1HAPPY HAUNT]

what does any of this "art " talk have to do with the fact that we can't walk up the ramp on the Falcon???

 

[Disney Irish]

what does any of this "art " talk have to do with the fact that we can't walk up the ramp on the Falcon???

Because Disney didn’t consider the ramp art and thus isn’t beautiful enough for you to walk up.

 

[TROR]

Nope the goal is to realize that reality is what we make it. We as a species define the world around us. It is up to us to determine what is and what isn't the beauty within it.

I agree flowers are beautiful. But without the meaning behind the word beautiful we might as well just call it food and eat it. So again it is we as the species that created language to perceive the beauty in objects and create the meaning in the word and the emotional connection to that object.

According to this logic, I just moved Galaxy's Edge from Disneyland to a third park opening on the Toy Story lot. Oh, that didn't happen? Seems like reality is not what we make it as reality exists outside of our discerning and man is not the center of the universe.

 

[SuddenStorm]

Geez I think @TROR 's comment about art in the context of themed attractions being objective, not subjective, is being skewed and blown way out of proportion.

There are basic tenets of themed design that are essential, just like any other art. Everything from ride system, track layout, effects used, and dialogue come into play- and each of these very clearly have better and worse ways to do it. With film, you can have a horrible film that people enjoy, but objectively and artistically have it be utter trash. Rides are the same way. You can look at Snow White's Scary Adventure and objectively say that it's ending is poorly paced. You can look at the new dialogue and setup for the auction scene and instantly know it's not as well executed artistically as the original.

Just like a film, a ride could have an excellent story, world, and art design- but have horrible editing (which, in the case of a ride, would be the track/room layout). Just like a film, the voice acting and dialogue is essential. And just like a film, the physical vs digital effect push/pull that takes place is essential to have it age well. Film makers have studied and developed techniques to make films good, and there are schools that teach one how to make a film that's objectively good. Theme park design is far newer and far more niche, so it doesn't have that luxury yet, though there are books being written and Imagineers that are willing to discuss how to make good themed attractions.

Star Tours The Adventures Continue is, in my opinion, objectively worse than Star Tours 1.0. Everything, from the timeline to the quality of effects to how the simulator technology is utilized isn't done nearly as well as the original. Just like how Mission Breakout is artistically worse than Tower of Terror, despite being potentially more fun for the guest. Of course, every experience I mentioned was Imagineering either revamping or re imagining a new/updated attraction into a pre existing space.

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

Until the mid to late nineteenth century, art has had a set of criteria that defines it as good or bad. These mostly focus on the subject matter (religious, historical, mythological, portraits, landscapes, and still life all considered good subject matter; I believe I've ranked them from most to least valuable properly) and the quality of art (realistic proportions of people, proper perspective, detail, brush strokes, color, etc.). Usually there's also meaning behind what is displayed for art's primary goal is to communicate with the viewer (for example, in a still life painting there may be a skull to represent death). While these specific standards mostly apply to paintings and sculptures, all mediums of art, whether that be music, poetry, cinema, or theme parks, are still held to specific standards. Subject matter is universal across all mediums.

When it comes to theme parks, subject matter still holds great importance. It's what separates Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln from Guardians of the Galaxy: Mission Breakout. One is look back on America's history and one of our greatest presidents, the other is based on a low brow franchise. Whether or not someone prefers the thrills of Mission Breakout doesn't change the fact it is an objectively inferior attraction to Mr. Lincoln on subject matter alone.

Like a painting is judged for its quality of brush strokes, there's also the objective quality standards for theme park attractions. The main four criteria here are the narrative flow, ride vehicles/system, mediums used, and role of guest.

With storytelling for theme park attractions, the best flow for dark rides is the three act structure, much like a film. That's because there tends to be a linear narrative. This is easiest to see in Pirates of the Caribbean. You begin with the small hints of things to come (bayou), a bit more explicit (skeletons in the caverns), and finally everything is revealed (living, breathing pirates). This formula is also used on Tower of Terror (queue/library, mirror, hallway), Splash Mountain ("How Do Ya Do?," "Laughing Place," "Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah"), Haunted Mansion (foyer/stretching room, pre seance, post seance), and numerous other rides.

As stated, this structure only applies to narrative dark rides and not towards attractions like Autopia, Dumbo, or the Tea Cups.

The second criteria of ride vehicles/system is how well the ride system represents the property or attraction. Sticking with Pirates, it makes sense to have it be a boat ride as pirates sail the seas. The ride vehicle goes along with the story. With Indiana Jones, that's a franchise about adventure so it makes sense the ride vehicle would be an off-roading jeep. Tower of Terror is a story about an elevator, so naturally the ride vehicle should be an elevator. Star Tours is based on a franchise about space travel so it makes sense to have a flight simulator as the ride system with the gritty Starspeeder 3000 as the vehicle.

Mediums is really just the difference between full sets with advanced audio animatronics, static figures, blacklit plywood, and screen based attractions (that's from best to worst). Pirates of the Caribbean, which is primarily full sets filled with audio animatronics, is an objectively better attraction than Toy Story Midway Mania, which is all screens. Having audio animatronics and full sets creates a more realistic and believable environment just as well proportioned and proper perspective creates a better painting.

You can even get into the craftsmanship of each items within the medium. With screen based rides, they tend to work best with physical environments on screen rather than CGI (compare Soarin to Soarin 2) and without actors. With audio animatronics you can judge them as sculptures. So on and so forth.

Lastly, there is the role of the guest. Again, Pirates of the Caribbean. This is a passive attraction. It's a leisurely cruise. This is how narrative attractions should be. Second is the rider is the main character but the ride does not interact with the rider (Fantasyland rides), third is the rider interacts with the ride (Astro Blasters), and worst is the ride interacts with the rider (Mission Breakout).

There are, of course, other simple ways to evaluate an attraction. These are things such as thematic consistency of an attraction in its land (a Pixar ride should be in a land about Pixar), thematic consistency within the attraction itself (blatant references to things outside the attraction should not exist within an attraction), how much fun an attraction is, etc.

I'm tired of typing so I'm just wrapping it up here, not fully developed. There other things I didn't even talk about like how theme parks are a visual medium so the stories should be told visually.

I should just write a book on this instead of cram everything into a post on an internet forum.

I think this post is one of your best.

 

[Disney Irish]

According to this logic, I just moved Galaxy's Edge from Disneyland to a third park opening on the Toy Story lot. Oh, that didn't happen? Seems like reality is not what we make it as reality exists outside of our discerning and man is not the center of the universe.

Except it is man that determined it would go into Disneyland in the first place. Again it didn’t just appear out of thin air in Disneyland one day.

We can have all these “if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it did it really fall” discussions all day long. But in the end art is both objective and subjective no matter how you feel about it.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I'm right.

Art is only subjective over what one enjoys, but what makes art "good" is objective. To say otherwise is to make the world centered around you, which it is not. The viewer is not the one who defines what is good.

Gee...what fan base seems to excel and trying to present their excitement/feelings about things as objective facts with no tolerance for the good side/bad side of things??

...Nah...can’t think of one

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

you're objective!

Do you mean “objectionable”??

...word foul...two minutes in the box, Bub

 

[THE 1HAPPY HAUNT]

Gee...what fan base seems to excel and trying to present their excitement/feelings about things as objective facts with no tolerance for the good side/bad side of things??

...Nah...can’t think of one

John Wick fans?