Tracking the Evolution of the Dark Ride

[Brer Panther]

Theme Park Insider posted an interesting article on the "more screens, less physical sets" mindset of dark rides nowadays:
http://www.themeparkinsider.com/flume/201602/4967/

Your thoughts?

 

[ShoalFox]

Speaking of digital effects, what's the heck happened to Disney's ability to make animatronics with decent looking faces? Why have most been digital or poorly made in the last few years?

I think the best dark rides should use a perfectly balanced combination of 3D effects and practical effects.

 

[FettFan]

Theme Park Insider posted an interesting article on the "more screens, less physical sets" mindset of dark rides nowadays:
http://www.themeparkinsider.com/flume/201602/4967/

Your thoughts?

For me, screens in dark rides are like CGI in movies....they can be effective tools that can create DAZZLING effects.....BUT (and this is a BIG but) , it has to be used in conjunction with physical props and animatronics in order to create an actual environment. That's why 23 years later, Jurassic Park's T-Rex attack is still effective....it seamlessly blends CGI shots with an actual animatronic Rexy.

I think the best use of screen tech in a dark ride is a Disney project: Mystic Manor at Hong Kong Disneyland. The screens are used sparingly to augment and draw the riders deeper into the story (including a neat re-imagining of the classic Haunted Mansion changing portraits)....and then it culminates into a grand finale in which the statue of a Monkey God comes to life and turns the house into a tornado, blowing out the walls.

It's really quite awesome, and isn't just the tired/lazy "point the audience at a screen" thing that Toy Story Midway Mania and Transformers are.


That being said, if I go on the new Kong ride at Universal and don't see an actual 25' tall animatronic gorilla, I am going to blow out the park's email inbox with complaints.

 

[raven]

I prefer actual sets combined with special effects and some screens. If I wanted a 100% screen experience with a few bumps along the way, I'd go to a movie and sit in front of an obnoxious kid who kids the back of my seat.

 

[DManRightHere]

I'm ok with screens. I'm not ok with nothing but screens (with some exceptions). This is why I felt gringotts was a bit of a letdown. A couple physical elements, and a little more time and money to make the videos feel more movie like I would have been more than thrilled.

Jack Sparrow was added to the original cast on Pirates, if a ride was created today just like pirates it would be horrible, but I like Jack Sparrow in the ride.

I disagree that ET is not thrilling to an extent.

For now, yes, screens are in and working, but if a theme park is filled of nothig but screens, how fin will that be? Who knows what the future will hold. I am really thinking that making rides highly interactive will be a big thing. More than just shooting.

 

[Tay]

I prefer traditional dark rides or hybrids like FJ. I just wish FJ didn't have motion sickness problems. I see I'm not the only one disappointed in Transformers . The Gringotts reviews are disappointing.

 

[Donaldfan1934]

I prefer actual sets combined with special effects and some screens. If I wanted a 100% screen experience with a few bumps along the way, I'd go to a movie and sit in front of an obnoxious kid who kids the back of my seat.

I totally agree with you. Screens should only be side effects, never primary effects. That's one of the many reasons I don't care for Universal. I love how you brought up the movies because most modern cinemas provide just as great of an experience for less than $100 per ticket.

 

[Bairstow]

Theme Park Insider posted an interesting article on the "more screens, less physical sets" mindset of dark rides nowadays:
http://www.themeparkinsider.com/flume/201602/4967/

Your thoughts?

I disagree with McCullough completely, especially here:

You can’t deny that seeing a 3-D projection of Helena Bonham Carter in Gringotts isn’t more satisfying that Sigourney Weaver’s creepy audio animatronic in The Great Movie Ride. This is perhaps the one thing 3-D has going for it most in theme park dark rides. It brings the original actors into the attraction.

Two issues here. The first is that the Ripley figure in the Great Movie ride is an example of poor execution, not poor concept. The sculpt is fine, but a more dynamic pose for the figure, curly hair, and a more ruffled uniform would certainly better capture the essence of the movie and set the stage for the alien attack to follow. Even still, when riding the attraction you are seeing a real thing, in true space- this is something that no 3D screen I've yet seen will duplicate, on a conceptual level- you're not going to ride a screen-based attraction like Gringotts and come away with the impression that you've actually seen objects that can be appreciated, either on the level of their place in the story or for their technical merits.

As for "bringing the original actors in the attraction," what's to say that a more successful deployment of the same techniques, like, say the A-100 figure of Margaret Hamilton's Wicked Witch of the West, in the same attraction, with her original voice recording and an accurate representation of her appearance and voice, isn't as good an incorporation of the actor's performance as the couple seconds of Carter's footage that appears in Gringotts? I would argue that it's a far more effective incorporation of performance into an attraction because you are rendering the presence of an actor in real space, in a very literal, mechanical way. This is something that presently, only live theater and themed attractions incorporating robotics can properly do.

Would anyone disagree that for most people, the parts of Forbidden Journey that really stick out in one's memory of the ride are those that do not rely on screens- the encounters with the giant tree, spider, dragon, and dementors? Seeing real stuff is always going to be a more visceral, and thus satisfying, than seeing a projected recording of stuff.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

I find that current batch of thrill dark rides a bit lacking. They are not thrilling enough to give me a real kick (except for ToT, if that one counts), and they are nowhere near as pretty and immersive as 3D set based dark rides.

I prefer Mansion, Pirates and Horizons + some coasters and thrill rides over those hybrids. Who, as is typical for hybrids, are sterile, neither fish nor fowl.

 

[Bairstow]

I find that current batch of thrill dark rides a bit lacking. They are not thrilling enough to give me a real kick (except for ToT, if that one counts), and they are nowhere near as pretty and immersive as 3D set based dark rides.

I prefer Mansion, Pirates and Horizons + some coasters and thrill rides over those hybrids. Who, as is typical for hybrids, are sterile, neither fish nor fowl.

I agree in part, but only because as a practical matter, a thrill/dark ride hybrid will rarely be truly impressive as a dark ride because its budget will have to necessarily have to be split between thematic and technical aspects, and the thematic aspects must necessarily take a back seat to having the thrill ride hardware ride function reliably and safely- Forbidden Journey being the exception that proves the rule.

Still, the coaster/dark ride hybrid is my absolute favorite trend in theme parks these days, and I'm really excited by the prospect of more things like The Curse of Novgorod, Baron 1898, and the various Mummy rides.