Yeah I think so. I understand that people still like audio-animatronics, but to me, it's time for something new.
While you are certainly and absolutely entitled to your opinion, if "something new" means simply screens with characters on them, then I also respectfully disagree. I think a lot of other Guests would too and while it's true that Disney needs to consider costs and the like (all rides have a budget, of course), they also need to consider Guest feedback. Universal's over-reliance on totally screen-based attractions has been a consistent complaint (according to the time I spent in Guest Relations at USH) from Guests and seems to be a general complaint across the board in many parks, assuming there was nothing else that could be done. The reason (I think) for this, I will get to this at the very end.
This is what I fundamentally disagree with. Audio Animatronics do not automatically equate to a premium ride experience. Further, it's been said in this thread multiple times that it will be a shame that so many of them will be removed, seemingly suggesting that quantity of AA's should rank above quality, whether they are important to the show or not.
That is something I do absolutely disagree with. If there is no storytelling purpose to keep those AA's from America Sings, they should be discarded (although admittedly, maybe to a museum or other exhibit).
I agree that AA =/= automatic good ride. Like all things, they can be good and bad. Navi River Journey's shaman is an example of this, to me. I agree with the notion that America Sing's AA's may no longer fit thematically with whatever new story or art style they are planning to use for PatF's takeover. I am of the same mindset that if the story beats don't call for them, they should be replaced, though I'd prefer with figures that better blend with the new changes.
I think we might have a misunderstanding on our hands regarding where I stand on the Splash AA thing. I'm not advocating for the saving or re-purposing of the America Sings figures, specifically. I am simply saying that I think practical show elements the superior choice to screen-based, unless there is really no way to achieve the effect without it (see, my stance on Transformers as an attraction). I just think that
if an AA can be used to create a scene, then it should. -and that it should be done well.
I didn't mean to suggest that the screen is a better technology than the AA's, just that the decision to use them has to be just as purposeful. So in that I think we both agree, that it's mostly based on execution and purpose than just using something for the sake of using it.
Absolutely, hah. I'm not trying to be totally hard-headed about this. If a show scene or attraction element calls for something that simply cannot be achieved with an AA, then other options need to be looked into.
There's a lot of fundamental differences between the two though. Little Mermaid was designed to be a slow moving ride with lots of things to see. Splash Mountain moves much faster and scenes only have a few seconds to make an impact. That's where you start to have to make a value analysis on spending money on an AA figure that could be expensive to build, take hours to program, and be something that guests only see for a few seconds as they turn a corner.
So as an Imagineer you are trying to weigh the impact of every dollar spent and this turns into a bit of calculus trying to figure out. Maybe you can build a life-like Louis AA, but if you spend a lot of money you need to put him somewhere prominent (and that can impact your story or your scene layout). Maybe at the end when the boats are waiting to enter the station ?
Maybe you fudge it with a less realistic AA, or even just a simple motion figure, and put him somewhere earlier along the ride course.
But also consider that spending money on an AA, especially an expensive one, may mean that you only have one... so you only see Louis at one point in the ride? Does that tell a compelling story? Maybe if you need to see him multiple times, you have to split the AA budget across multiple figures and that can impact what those figures can do.
And while you're sitting here trying to figure out the math on Louis, you still have Tiana and Naveen to figure out.
That said, Disney needs to take these things into account when immediately when they start designing these types of things for the theme park. -and that whole design process can, admittedly, be hindered by constraints placed on the Imagineers. I wouldn't argue that an Imagineer who was only given budget for screens could have done better than them, that would be impossible. But I would argue that those allocating the budget should have dedicated more so that Imagineer could have designed something better for Guests.
Your point about the budget constraints for AAs stand, as they would for any budget related hinderance Imagineers might face. But this is Splash, and I certainly hope that they invest the money they need to in order to do it justice. Guests don't normally have access to that kind of budget information but when they ride the re-opened Splash, they will have frame of reference for what was there before and what the building was capable of housing. Guests know AAs are more expensive than screens and if the new attraction is all screens, it could be perceived more easily by Guests as Disney stepping backwards with the ride.
I'm not trying to say that every single figure we pass needs to have the range of movement as Navi River Journey's shaman or need to be a heavy investment. Just that I'd prefer to pass by something I can't pull out of my pocket at home. My best guess, assuming they are gifted what they need, is that we will be seeing figures with about the same range of motion as what was there before because as you and others have said, we move past them fairly quickly. If Disney is going to invest any large sum of money into more advanced figures, it will likely be reserved for the former finale scene, which allows Guests time to really absorb everything in the room.
What about mix media? Would it be ok for him to be on a screen in some scenes, but an AA in others? The screen can provide a better representation of the movie character, since on screen you can still achieve that same level of motion and activity from the movie (something an AA probably can't do).
Again, I have no issue with mix media. As long as the situation or story they want to tell calls for it. An example I've already given would be if you're simply passing Louis talking to you, playing his trumpet or getting otherwise involved in shenanigan's easy to read as we pass by; those moments I feel are better suited for practical figures and sets. However, if the scene calls for Louis to be so highly animated that he were to say, jump from one side of the flume to the other, then sure, a screen based illusion is a better prospect.
All in all though, if the bar is the Little Mermaid, I don't really know how impressed I will be, AA or not.
It doesn't have to be and that's not what I'm advocating for
(Edit: but I guess that's really gonna be up to Disney and their financial team to decide when it comes to budget). As you've stated, there are fundamental differences in the ride systems. Mermaid affords more time to notice flaws. Splash doesn't have the most complex set of AAs but they've been delighting Guests since 1989. I do feel it's time for an upgrade (to better their reliability) but I'm not saying they need to be exactly the same figures as before or downgraded to the level of some of Mermaid's more questionable figures.
Just that I think, practical sets and characters should be a focal point, when possible. With projection mapping and/or screens used to further compliment or enhance the scenes. I know this wall of text keeps growing but I just want to touch on one final point when it comes to seeing something in reality versus a screen and why I think it's what the park should continue to offer, when and where possible:
I think, practical pieces or illusions are, generally, more impressive or entertaining to the masses because they aren't as commonplace as screens or nearly as easy to understand. Sure, an AA is just a series of wires and air compressors to create a moving figure but that still seems to garner more respect and mystique than a screen because the masses understand more easily how screen-based effects are achieved. We are, after all, surrounded by them on a daily basis these days. Not so much with AAs. For comparison, I offer one final example: The Chamber of Destiny on Indiana Jones. The illusion featured before was far more impressive and left first time riders with a "how do they do that" moment. However, when the effect hit a snag all these years later, rather than pay to repair it, we now have the projection mapping effect. It looks nice, sure, but it just doesn't hold a candle to that scene before. Because Guests know how that effect is achieved. There's a state of the art projector hidden somewhere, playing an effect file. It's just not the same.
If this decision making is anything to go off of and is the direction they choose to go with the PatF overlay, then I also, don't know how impressed I will be, projector or not.
