I would argue that Spider-Man has the proper cinematic pacing that we’re discussing here. Also Kong and a few others.
Introduction - three act structure with the third act being the most exciting part/climax - conclusion.
However, more often Universal does not follow this structure or have any semblance of pacing, and you go full throttle at the beginning of the ride and they never let off the gas until the end. Examples: Forbidden Journey, Gringotts, Transformers, The Simpsons Ride... and well, most of them.
In Forbidden Journey, the climax of the ride (being saved from the dementors and “it’s caving in!!”) is not any more intense or interesting than the events of the beginning of the ride, where you are immediately chased and attacked by a dragon. In Spider-Man, you begin by creeping around corners slowly and end with being whipped through the air.
Unlike, say, a basic roller coaster, cinematic and heavily themed rides should have cinematic pacing, or at the very least, not be on full blast the entire time.
This is a reply I was looking for. One that actually discusses and doesn't just cast the concept off as crazy. Thank you.
Seeing Haunted Mansion cited as an example of great storytelling made my day. A ride that wasn't even supposed to have much of a story originally, and the conspicuous storytelling that was later shoehorned in is now considered by most to be the worst parts of the entire attraction!
But this is coming from the same person who thinks TRON even
has storytelling! A roller coaster through darkness and neon special effects. Next we'll hear about how even SeaWorld's coasters have masterful storytelling while Universal's rides just suxxorz.
I wasn't talking about the mediocre story in HM, but how it's framed on a technical level. In a themepark, that is a way of storytelling. It's perfectly paced, bringing in a meticulously crafted 'world' to an audience that builds intrigue and suspicion as each scene unfolds. You legitimately don't know what scene comes next, but every one delivers something unique and brings you along nicely. Every scene is meticulously crafted from the attic (original) to the party. Disney has regressed on a lot of things but that is an entirely separate topic. I think you're viewing this from the wrong angle. Sometimes it's a good idea to watch things differently. Whether it's watching a movie for it's technical details, or a theme park ride. How the shot is frames; how a ride's scene is. What is going on visually and underneath. A skilled painter can tell you a million things about a painting that none of us here could catch!
TRON does not have 'storytelling per say,' but reading my post, I was including everything from pacing to the soundtrack and how that let's the story (in this case a simple one) unfold. TRON has a very good score that feels like it's made for the ride (more work required than just copy and paste). The ride is very balanced and builds tension. Comparing a dark ride like that to a coaster is apples to oranges. A better comparison is the Rip Ride Rocket to TRON, not in theme, but the storytelling. A hybrid dark ride/coaster Everest could be compared to Mummy, arguably the best Universal ride to use cinematic elements. I'm not saying Universal doesn't have it at all, but for however good FJ is, it's only
mostly random scenes stringed together like the terrible Ariel ride, without a painterly eye for unfolding a story before your eyes. Not talking about a backstory (although that can be used), but the story you are apart of is the main part, and it requires good writing/pacing to maximize it.
I came on too strong, and I apologize for that, but I was bringing legitimate discussion to the table and was cast off as not. The whole reason I brought this up was that I was concerned for the new park not worrying about it as much as they should, but I hope they do.
Haunted Mansion doesn't have a story, but it is one of the best examples of great cinematic attraction pacing (although the modern playful queue additions ruin this a little). A first time visitor begins seeing this foreboding structure and has no clue what to expect inside. Will it be scary? Silly? The introduction hints at both, but gives you little information, and leaves you feeling more apprehensive. You board the doom buggy, and start out seeing very little. For more than the first 1/3rd of the ride, you don't actually see a ghostly apparition, only visual and audible evidence of ghosts, while the activity you are seeing increases as you go. The action pauses for a moment for the seance. You are then bombarded with what you've been anticipating, actual visible ghosts, presented on a massive scale in what is still one of the most impressive scenes in any theme park. The action continues to rise until the climax of being plopped right in the middle of a rowdy ghost graveyard party. It isn't until here where it is confirmed that the spooks are playful. You then get a proper goodbye conclusion and epilogue.
People get it wrong when they insist theme park attractions need a dictated story, they totally don't, but solid pacing makes a huge difference in the experience.
I'm also not saying that all attractions should follow a narrative structure either. Flight of Passage doesn't follow one (and it certainly has no story, only background information on what you're doing) but the flight experience has solid pacing by starting out with relatively "mundane" flight movements and visuals. The visuals gradually get more grandiose and the flight maneuvers increase in intensity, until you reach the first "peak". After this moment, everything pauses for a moment for a breather (this is honestly my favorite part of the ride because it's beautiful and I can't think of any other ride that has a moment of reflection like this). You then begin the second half of the flight, with the duration featuring the most impressive and beautiful visuals and intense flight maneuvers.
Agreed with all of what you wrote. To comment on the last bit that's a good point. Nobody cares about story on Soarin' or Popeye's because it doesn't really need one. My point was storytelling elements like pacing (and others) help propel a ride further. FoP does a REALLY good job at pacing and has strong direction; it really may be the best example of what proper storyboarding can do for simulators. Compare it to the hodgepodge of Star Tours... But like you said, not all rides need it. Gringotts is probably Uni's best example of a ride that could have been mind-blowing was dogged down because of this problem. Screens aren't even the problem, it just has storytelling issues. I enjoy the ride because it's an E-ticket like I do Test Track, but they have some issues. I was mainly pointing out the best instances of them, and said that Uni doesn't have them as much at the top and would benefit from focusing on that aspect more.
