DavidDL
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't be too worried about guest feedback, since the bigger rated attractions at Disneyland are usually the ones with just a couple (or even no) Audio Animatronics. Things like Soarin, Space Mountain, Big Thunder, Mission Breakout. There are a lot of decent E Tickets that fall into the few AA category... even Indy only has ... what three? And they're all basically the same figure.
Right, you don't need an AA to be a successful attraction, I won't dispute that. Though it likely comes down to the type of ride system and how it's implemented into the story that they want to tell. Indy only has about 4 dedicated AAs (3 Indys and a giant snake) but the entirety of the ride is mostly practical effects and sets that the vehicles move through, the sense of realism is still present with or without so many AAs. The center of my belief is simply that if a practical effect (or AA) can be used to do something, it should. The physical boulder rolling "towards" you on Indy is more impressive and better for the attraction than, perhaps a moving image of said boulder.
Yeah, in the spirit of compromise here, I think I might be willing to admit that part of my hesitancy toward Audio Animatronics has been the way they are used in attractions as of late. I agree that walking into the Tiki Room and watching a screen wouldn't be the same experience.
But to go back to something like Little Mermaid or Frozen: you *expect* to see those characters on the ride named after them, so the inclusion of an AA representing those characters isn't really impressive or exciting (at least to me). It's expected, predictable, and sometimes boring. It matters far more to me what the characters are doing, saying, and how they are interacting and in most of these setups, the AA's are very limited in what they can do.
Yes, implementation and what a figure can do is vital. Designers being able to make the call into the correct medium for the moment is important. So also in the spirit of compromise, I'd of course be willing to say that certain high movement and thrilling scenes like, Starscream hooking our vehicle and dragging us through the city skyline on an attraction like Transformers, would be nearly impossibly suited with practical effects (at least, with our current, limited tech).
Regarding Mermaid and Frozen that you bring up, I think the issues you take with these segments and figures can be traced back even further than the decision to use AAs for them. I think the issues you have might be traced all the way back to the initial storytelling itself. If, for example, the story Disney designs calls for the character or figure to speak (to us), sing or otherwise not do anything overly "impossible" in that moment, then is it really the fault of the physical figure for doing exactly what Disney wanted it to do? We know AAs are capable of great things. Screens too, but both are just machines and end up being reflections of those who direct them.
Disney rides are already given exorbitant budgets. They're the most expensive in the world. Saying they need to be given more money isn't really the solution.
Maybe you're right? There's certainly a level of responsibility that falls on artists and engineers to take what is allocated to them and make something special, smartly, with it. But given the stories that come out of WDI and the general history of the parks and their management culture, is it really fair not to criticize Disney for not allocating more funds for something?
In general, the current culture at Disney (from firsthand accounts) is for someone to approach with an idea, then to only be met with "how much is this going to cost?". That is technically a fair and realistic question to ask but it probably shouldn't be the first. The first question should be, "is this a proper fit for the park and is this an idea worth pursuing?" If it the answer is yes, then budget and building can be talked down when the ugly real world constraints start to get involved. But if they start to get cut down so much and to a point where the original vision and concept is totally lost or becomes ineffective, then the idea should be abandoned or put on hold until it can be done justice, for fear of overpromising/underdelivering something to Guests.
Some folks at WDI report pitching an idea, saying it will cost X dollars and then be told immediately, "I like it, but do it with half of X". Said Imagineer re-approaches with model or design using half of X and their boss will say, "why does this look so bad". Imagineers respond with, "well, because, it's literally half of what it could be", only to have the entire thing scrapped in the end and take their careers elsewhere because of workplace frustrations. This culture spreads and perhaps, now you have Imagineers simply stepping forward with pre-neutered works like the dancing fish in Mermaid because they know it's the only way to get approval.
I actually sort of disagree with the notion that "just throwing money" at something can't be a solution to a problem. Especially at the largest media empire in the world and especially when said problems are a problem simply because they were at risk of not getting proper funding, to begin with. I know this isn't the case all the time, there are certainly examples of more being built with less. But when you look at something like DCA 1.0, something built on the cheap because that's what they were mostly concerned with before ground even broken, is it really any wonder that the solution to their problem had to be, toss another $1.2 billion at it? Yeah, that's a lot of money but maybe if Disney had simply made the initial, what they perceived at the time to be, an overly agonizing financial investment, they wouldn't have had to pay even more down the line to fix what they admitted to be, a struggling park?
I just don't want the same thing to happen with Splash. I want Disney to know that they need to invest whatever funds are needed in order do this overlay and do it well the first time. Because if they don't, it's going to sit there, upsetting Guests until someday, they need to come along and do it again at even greater cost down the line.
But in the end, I will agree that there needs to be a better compromise between the realistic, financial burden of attraction building and building something worthwhile. Perhaps, if there really aren't the funds to do a good idea proper, maybe it shouldn't be done at all or at least, not yet?
I should also point out that the work needed to pull off a screen based effect can also be just as involved as that for an animatronic. In some cases, if the effect is leaning toward something novel (like the parallax effects being used in 3D), you're talking about a cutting edge field that could exceed the cost of building a simple AA.
That actually comes back to the heart of my argument: AA's are so commonplace now, they're just as ubiquitous as screens. There isn't any mystique about how they are done... people know and understand that Disney can build robots and they just take them for granted.
And no, I am not advocating for a full on replacement of practical sets for screens. I think the model going forward though will be something very similar to Rise of the Resistance or Smugglers Run: One or two AA's placed in key positions (or in the queue), with other effects (including screens) doing most of the heavy lifting.
Oh I wouldn't argue that the tech behind screens isn't complex. Arceus knows I could never get one working at the level at the level of something like Transformers.
But.. AAs more commonplace now? Maybe in theme parks, exclusively? They're both impressive but screens are a now integral part of our daily lives. Our phones, the computer screens we type on, our video games, even going to the movies. But AAs? Maybe someday (we're certainly on our way with some robotics) but not yet. How many of us can claim to have something even remotely close to the Auctioneer Pirate from PotC as accessible in their day to day life? Maybe the CMs working the attraction and those in the engineering field.. but that's really about it.
To close, I do agree with your assessment of Rise of the Resistance and Smugglers Run. If you're going to build an attraction where you fly the Millennium Falcon, there's no way that doesn't end up screen based. Practical wouldn't accomplish what that ride needs to. -and with Rise of the Resistance, you have mixed media working exactly where it needs to. The story calls for Kylo Ren to be on the bridge, then turn towards riders? Practical. No reason not to. The same story calls for Kylo Ren to fall from the ceiling then approach riders in a threatening manner just moments later? Gotta involve screens for that kind of movement (though cleverly, his lightsaber is still practical to help sell the illusion).
I simply hope that those designing the story for PatF are doing so in such a way, that it can make full use of what riders have come to expect from Splash and have made it such a classic despite being relatively young. Going totally screen-based in moments that could have otherwise been effectively communicated with practical figures or sets, could upset that notion. Conversely, going practical for a scene that requires more movement or effects to get the message really across, could lead to that awkwardness you experience on something like Mermaid. A blend of the two, complimenting each other and adding extra life, would be ideal. Splash show scenes tend to be tight, perhaps projections and screens could create the illusion that they go on for longer than they do? Or be used to compliment, say, a Dr. Facilier AA with animated and moving shadow creatures?
I am curious what your thoughts are on Mickey and Minnie's Runaway Railway, @el_super? I haven't been on it myself but it's definitely one of those attractions that calls for over the top animation, movement and show scenes and does what it can to blend both the practical and the physical. Would you consider it's implementation a success akin to RotR or more awkward like Mermaid/Frozen?
Last edited: