Themed Attraction.com Forum Index Themed Attraction.com
Welcome to the official message boards for themedattraction.com.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

 

Google
 
Monumental no more?

 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Themed Attraction.com Forum Index -> Imagination Forum - Theme Park Attraction Design & Imagineering
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Loric



Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 143

PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:08 pm    Post subject: Monumental no more? Reply with quote

What happened to monumental rides/attractions?

I'm not talking just "big" - don't confuse Everest, Mummy, or even the DL Nemo subs for one - but of the big show extravaganzas that we rarely see anymore.

Disneyland and Magic Kingdom got a few from Pirates and Haunted Mansion, but they really came into being with Epcot. Another name could be audio-animatronic spectaculars - but it's not limited just to rides that use complex AA's. Really, it's ride with massive encompassing show scenes and elaborate designs.

Now we dont have them - we get rides with big empty spaces, obvious black curtains, they're obviously "rides" not really experiences.

The really seemed to happen around a certain time - Universal went really big on them for a while too. The ET ride is actually really surprisingly good and the show sets are HUGE! That's what I miss.. huge sets.

Even the newly refurbished Spaceship Earth doesn't really go there. It has black curtains in places and the new show scenes are fairly small and crammed into place - not to mention the boring and uninspired ending. Jib-Jab for the descent? Yeah, that's not really innovative nor a very good sue of the technology.

That rant aside - where did the big immersive attractions go? Why aren't things designed or built with big show scenes anymore? We get little things with decent quality, but nothing big and grand, no huge vistsa of Horizons, no massive scale of Kongfrontation...

And the ride vehicles! They all look like ride vehicles now. You have some doors, two rows, some sort of restraint maybe... ET with bikes? Unheard of nowadays. Hanging trams for Kong? Who would do that now?

We don't even really get experimental ride systems like Universe of Energy and Great Movie Ride. We just get little vehicles that are modified versions of the same old bus-bar vehicles of yesterday.

Would they even consider the hanging gondolas of Horizons again?

So, what happened? Why the change? Why the lack of interest in these types of rides? Why does everything lately look the same and have the same sort of minimalism? Where are the big show sets?!?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
admin
Site Admin


Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Posts: 381

PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Loric --

You don't consider Everest (2006) a monumental attraction? What about Soarin' (2005), The Revenge of the Mummy? (2003). These are all recent attractions with large budgets. For that matter there's the big budget Test Track (1999) or Mission Space (2001) as well. I can't stand test track but all of these rides are big budget attractions. Unique ride vehicles? Space and Test Track are unique. Soarin' is REALLY unique. In my humble opinion, there have been plenty of great innovations in the past few years and there will be many more to come!

Thoughts?

Nate
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Loric



Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 143

PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 4:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I guess I see the holes in those supposedly "great" attractions compared to past attractions.

The #1 problem is that they focus on technology over story or theme, but there are other flaws...

Test Track - minimal interior sets, large empty spaces, nothing to look at, and absolutely no engaging storyline. Does anyone care that they're a crash test dummy? Look to the left as you go into the second anti-lock bake test, there's nothing but a massive open unused area left over from World of Motion.

Everest - Big dark spaces again. Darkness used as a dramatic counterpoint is one thing - but just going backwards through a helix in the dark and seeing the track and hollow mountain structure are not the same. Compare it to Big Thunder and how elaborate every scene is. They very few scenic visuals overall on Everest. From load to the lift you have some grass... then you see the shrine sort of thrown up on the lift, then some icy caves, then the end of the track and that weird bird that is a really poor effect, then Fwoosh! Backwards, darkness, a video screen, forwards, drop, the Yeti (if it's working) and the end. It's not a well themed cohesive enviroment compared to past attractions.

Mission Space - You walk in and out through the obvious ride system, blatantly aware of guests loading and unloading behind you, and exit into a long unthemed hallway - to the sound of a shrieking girl singing a bad 90's bubblegum pop song. The fascination was with the technology to make the ride, not with making a cohesive grand statement - which is why even though the public isn't terrified of it anymore, the wait times are still quite low.

Soarin: Walk in to see a large blue screen and all the vehicles. Watch a movie that randomly jumps around. The effect is nice, but it tells no story and has no defined relevance. Just an "oo, pretty" experience.

Can you think of any recent attractions that require large set pieces? Have huge seemingly endless vistas? Or even ones that actual storylines...?

It seem show writing has become the art of coming up with a reason for a cheap thrill, and scenery there merely to support the ride system - rather then the ride system designed to traverse the scenery.

Back in the day, theater went through a time of turmoil where the shift of power went the wrong way - shows were about actors promoting themselves and the director. That's not the proper creative path. Rather, it should go from playright/script (or the idea) to the director to the actor to the audience - always going back to the source for inspiration. A direct clean line.

When the power was in the wrong place, actors upstaged/stole scenes when they shouldn't and made themselves stars of shows when they should of been minor parts for the sake of the show itself and it's meaning.

So, power redirected and rethought, the source become the key, and that guided all action - no more upstaging actors, rather the show itself and the way it was supposed to be presented was of most importance.

I think we have something similar in theme park design. The technology is the star - it shouldn't be. It's upstaging everything else that is far more important. Remember how they would make star-based movies and they would flop or only be popular breifly then forgotten? How come some plays have been around forever? Because the show is good, and a good actor lets the show itself be the star.

But instead the current trend is to let the technology be the star, nothing else is important, and it's all minimal dressing to hide the ugliest underbelly. Ugly black curtains - everywhere. Lest the audience see the "star" is just a heartless machine and the thrill wont last nor make a meaningufl memory.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Loric



Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 143

PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 4:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh, and about budget - budget does not define creativity nor even hinder it. Budget is a challenge, a problem waiting to be solved creatively.

There is no excuse for black curtains or purple Figment feet sponge-stamped on the walls.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Loric



Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 143

PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 4:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Furthermore, since it's 4am and i', all worked up (can you tell i'm still passionate?)

Watch the latest DL DVD released by Disney. They directly discuss the creation of the Jungle Cruise and how a person walked around drawing a line in the dirt and then had a crew dig out the course for the boats. They even say how today it'd be impossible without tons of budget and research.

It's not impossible, they just have it stuck in their heads that it is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DancinBelle



Joined: 30 Jul 2007
Posts: 165
Location: Virginia

PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You said that big rides now have no storyline. What's the storyline and/or narrative in the Haunted Mansion? Or Pirates of the Caribbean? Sometimes having a storyline makes it worse. Phantom Manor has a wonderful, fully-realised storyline, but there's just enough of it left in the ride to completely confuse you. Kilaminjaro Safari does not really benefit from it's forced storyline about saving a baby elephant. It's not the story that's important, it's the theme. These are, after all, theme parks! Sometimes a story is the best way to theme something, but it's not the only way. I love Test Track! I haven't done the others in Epcot yet, I will in April, but they all sound pretty darn cool to me! I do understand wanting complex rides back, and I do too, but that's what we're here for. We have to go in and set things straight. I know I'm chomping at the bit to go in and do everything bigger and better. I'm just stuck in high school right now and can't do much about it. Yet. But I will, and I think that's the spirit of this board, to reinvigorate this fantastic industry. Sorry, I think I got a little side-tracked! Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Loric



Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 143

PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I need to be clear in my response, sorry.

Theme is actually the key. It defines a world/universe/order and you then build out to convey that idea to the audience. Plot or storyline is merely one means to conveying an idea. It's why Dumbo, HM, etc.. are void of story but successful.

I need to be less ambiguous when discussing the two.

I don't feel those attractions I discussed had fully formed themes. What is Everest about? What is Test Track about? Themes are not mundane, but rather they're supposed to be universal and all encompassing. They are not cliche.

Compare what Horizons was about to what M:S is about. Which more effectively conveys an idea through the presentation? Which stays with you longer as meaningful and more then merely a presentation or interesting sensation?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Loric



Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 143

PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another thing to consider...

Why was certain technology chosen as the tool for expression?

Look at Monsters Inc Laugh Floor at Magic Kingdom. Why are we telling the story of the Monsters through a comedy club plopped down in Tomorrowland? It really doesn't fit the rest of the area and sticks out thematically.

So, how did they get there? I don't know the specifics, but if you go backwards from what the finished product is, it implies the decision was made to use the screens before they chose what the attraction was about.

Like, they jhad a bunch of pieces and were told to make it work. Screens, monsters, living character technology, tomorrowland - go make it work.

Instead of the proper process of:

1. Are the Monsters best suited to a night club in Tomorrowland? No.

2. If a night club show, why not AAs? AA's are more believable and engaging then the large screen. Crush at Turtle Talk works on a screen because he is supposed to be in a tank. It was the solution to the question "how do we make a talking sea turtle?" not vice-versa.

So, they didn't find a theme to be expressed that needed monsters, tomorrowland, screens, and living characters - they seemingly took those bits (bigger and better technology!) and made them fit.

It's not good form and the result is subpar.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MartinJ



Joined: 09 Aug 2007
Posts: 93
Location: Flint, MI

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have to agree with you about the Monsters show. The only reason I could see it being there is because of the scenery in the movie. The factory/warehouse they worked from looked kinda sorta futurish. I think the idea would've played better in MGM (oops, sorry) Hollywood Studios.

Speaking of Everest, I think the area surrounding the ride was very well done. The idea of putting a museum in the queue area does make the line interesting. There's just enough mix of real to the made up stuff to put that tiny little spark of doubt in your mind (is this for real?). The animated shadow of the yeti tearing up the track did seem to break the suspension for me. It's hard to mix the two and keep it believable.

Thanks for giving us good discussion material, Loric.
_________________
-Martin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Loric



Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 143

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 2:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

About the Yeti projection...

Did you see the guy from Carnegie Mellon who hacked the Nintendo Wii?

Essentially if you design a 3D environment that reacts to the user's POV and adjusts like a real environment/diorama would rather then being a static 3D image, it will looks truly-3D and even extend beyond the projection plane?

He hacked the Wii, used the controller as the receiver (sort of) and mounted what was the receiver bar to a rig on a person's head, so the wii now tracked the person's POV and regenerated the "room" as neccessary. Really awesome when a 3D image "tracks" and suddenly breaks through the image plane.

http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/681741/Headmounted_3DDisplay_WiiMote.html

Check it out! Think of the applications to better blend images and real 3 dimensional environments!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thriller



Joined: 11 Oct 2007
Posts: 14
Location: the Netherlands

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 1:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree with loric, I see the overexposure of technology and lack of creativity as a trend also. Even though my background is in engineering, I agree that it should be the supporting role and not the star of a theme park. But it's all over the place.

That silly new Nemo ride at the WDS is just a dark coaster. Buzz was all about new technology (so new even that many parks had it long before Disney had...what does that tell us?). Gimmicks...

Dancinbelle, you are also right: Story can be very useful, but not all the time. However, the themes of todays rides are just to simple, B-movie "everything goes wrong" kind of things. Is it really that guests want and expect short, stimulating thrills nowadays, or are they force-fed it by the corporations that monopolize theme parks? I mean, how many true theme parks are there outside of Disney? There's one in my country that I would classify as a theme park, but over here, it's the same evolution towards simple entertainment.

IMHO the question is: Is the shift in type of theming due to guests' expectations and the ever speedier world we live in, or is it a choice of the parks. If the latter, is it money or just disinterest?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
MartinJ



Joined: 09 Aug 2007
Posts: 93
Location: Flint, MI

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have to say that it appears money is the main controlling force. Shorter attractions mean more people get pumped through. More people moving through means more people can visit the place. More people entering the park means more revenue. That's my cynical side.

I think that the best engineering in the world is that which can't be seen. Not many visitors know that the entire Magic Kingdom in FL is a single building. People just assume that when they see water and dirt that there's nothing below it. The Utilidors is great example of engineering that is very well hidden.

So, let's all try to keep the engineering out of the spotlight. It might make the attractions magical again. Do you remember the first time you saw the Presidents? How about Abe standing up to give his speech?
_________________
-Martin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Loric



Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 143

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Length doesn't dictate through-put in that way though.

Short attractions, like small dakr rides, have abysmally low through-put. Long attractions like like the original Future World lineup (all 14min or longer) have high capacities. Boat rides and omnimovers have the highest capacities - both of which tend to be large elaborate designs.

Even tiny minute-long spinners have tiny hourly abilities.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MartinJ



Joined: 09 Aug 2007
Posts: 93
Location: Flint, MI

PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

True. You can have a longer attraction as long as you can feed large amounts of people through it. Here's the accountant kicking in. If I made that long ride 30 seconds shorter, that same person would available to purchase goods for an extra 30 seconds. (I noticed that you said original Future World; have they shortened just a bit?).
_________________
-Martin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sfan00



Joined: 15 Jan 2008
Posts: 33

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:43 pm    Post subject: Re: Monumental no more? Reply with quote

[quote="Loric"]What happened to monumental rides/attractions?
I'm not talking just "big" - don't confuse Everest, Mummy, or even the DL Nemo subs for one - but of the big show extravaganzas that we rarely see anymore.
[/quote]

Hmm , I will respond from a UK perspective...

[quote]
Disneyland and Magic Kingdom got a few from Pirates and Haunted Mansion, but they really came into being with Epcot. Another name could be audio-animatronic spectaculars - but it's not limited just to rides that use complex AA's. Really, it's ride with massive encompassing show scenes and elaborate designs.
[/quote]

Tussad did this for the Bubble Works, Fifth Dimension(Chessington), Toyland Tours(Alton Towers) and to an extent it reached a peak with 'Terror Tomb' (Chessington) and the the 'Haunted House'(Alton towers).
The last two being converted to shooting gallery type rides Sad

[quote]
Now we dont have them - we get rides with big empty spaces, obvious black curtains, they're obviously "rides" not really experiences.
[/quote]
You've never ridden X:No Way Out at thrope? WTF were they thinking? Shocked
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thriller



Joined: 11 Oct 2007
Posts: 14
Location: the Netherlands

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ghehe, X No Way OUt is indeed...weird. To say the least. It's unfortunate that Tussauds developed in the way they did. Nemesis is the most brilliant disguise of a "naked" coaster ever, and it's soundtrack really sets the tone. Hex is another masterpiece, just brilliant!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Holly
Site Admin


Joined: 06 Aug 2007
Posts: 229
Location: Orlando, FL

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:55 pm    Post subject: Ride Tech Reply with quote

It's unfortunate that the technology sometimes dictates the ride or is used as the reason to create the attraction ("Sounds Dangerous" at MGM/Hollywood Studios sound familiar?)...

However, I think it may be a sort-of Catch-22... A lot of the rides are big draws because they are something that no one has ever seen before -- Spiderman, The Mummy, and Everest all benefitted from new technology... If Spiderman were more like Mr. Toad's Wild Ride (simple sets and vehicles), The Mummy were a clone of Rock-N-Roller Coaster, and Everest used all the same technology as Big Thunder Mountain, would people flock to see it? People like walking out of a ride and saying, "Wow! How did they do that?" or having an experience so extraordinary that they want to talk about it for the rest of the day.

Some of my first memories of theme parks involve things that were "amazing" to me, that I had never seen before -- scenes with animatronics, riding a "racing" carousel that was extremely fast, choosing a "future" on Horizons. I agree that we need more attractions that surround the guest with story, rather than having to up the technology ante with every attraction that's built... Nevertheless, I think there has to be something about that story world or ride that is new and attractive -- that makes people tell their friends, "you *have* to see it... it's amazing...". Part of that is using the technology as a tool... What would Haunted Mansion be without Pepper's Ghost? It tells the story, but it's also amazing the first time you see it.

We could probably keep within budgets just by using technology only where it really sells the story, and then otherwise letting the story or theme play through by surrounding the guest with visceral and sensory cues that create the feeling of having had a fully-fleshed experience... I stepped onto Spaceship Earth this weekend... Silly as it sounds, I was hoping that it still smelled the same as always in the load area -- because that is part of Spaceship Earth for me... Some of the modern rides are more aseptic -- it's not just that they are air conditioned so that they don't smell, or that they often have rubberized floors, but they often don't have a particular artistic style that plays through, or a unique outlook on things (ex. the Haunted Mansion isn't so pessimistic about death -- these are "grim" but "grinning ghosts" coming "out to socialize" -- it's more than an ordinary haunted ride because of its particular outlook and style). Sometimes it seems like we are more concerned with impressing people or making it seem real than making it an experience. The "E.T." ride at Universal doesn't seem realistic to me, but nevertheless I feel excited every time I step into the forested queue... it feels like a *place*... not a real forest, but somewhere more magical and interesting... I hope that we are never so concerned with making something perfect that we suck the life out of it that comes from the quirkiness, imperfections and unique artistic touches made by interesting individuals... I think part of what makes those old Disney rides what they are (and makes people so attached that they never want them replaced) is the unique thumbprints left by the people who created them.

That was a bit rambling... sorry... that's what you get for asking the question, lol... Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thriller



Joined: 11 Oct 2007
Posts: 14
Location: the Netherlands

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

One has to wonder though...
If someone was to build a new park (I'd do it if I would be able to finance it Wink ), made up of only "theatrical" experiences. Sure, technology would play a part in portraying the themes and stories, but only when it's convenient. What if such a park was marketed as being an experience and not having advertisements that scream "NEW" "NEVER BEFORE SEEN" etc. Would it have a change of success in today's world? In other words, are people sensitive to less-edgy and less-hip experiences?

When DLP opened, all the advertisements were geared towards the "look how big it is" message. Totally wrong, since the park itself is not necessarily bigger than most other European parks. But would people listen if the marketing was more about the special experiences of the park?

On a side note...how did that "choose your finale" thing work on Horizons? I never understood what that was actually about...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
icandrawem2



Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Posts: 171

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Holly I agree with what you are saying about those unique tidbits that different attractions have...and believe me the first time i stepped into that forest ride queue at ET I was like "wow this is incredible"...i kinda hate when there is not a wait because they bypass that entirely Laughing I believe any time you feel like youve been transported someplace other than where you are, someone has done their job. It makes whatever story you are telling more believable, IMO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Loric



Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 143

PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Holly, we need to go theme-parking together sometime. We seem to enjoy the same attractions for the same reasons.

Quick note about Horizons: As you entered the finale, a little panel in the vehicle lit up and the narrator asked you to choose a way back home: land (desert), sea, or space. Majority rule (as there were up 4 people in a vehicle). Then you drifted sideways past a big screen where your chosen finale was projected. Dividers were placed between the vehicles so you couldn't see the other projections. The image tracked along at the same speed as your vehicle, and so you were treated a fairly large-format film of a intricate 1st person POV flight. The Mesa Verde (desert) one involved extremely complex stop motion and stunning miniature sets. The music loop that played in the area (playing to all vehicles at once on a loop) was exciting and seemed timed to the footage but in reality was not - it merely was well scored for its purpose.

Back on technology - I think the point is to know what you want to convey and then find a means to convey it. Would spiderman be amazing without the technology? No.

But it wouldn't be the same idea either. It wouldn't be thrilling to move slowly past sets and not be immersed in the world. There would be no threat of danger if the fire was projected instead of a real burst on cue. The technology supports the idea and is well used.

Now, imagine if they had made a Pooh ride with that technology. Would there ever be a need to move suddenly, turn rapidly, to dash through the hundred acre woods? Does Pooh need to look 3D and realistic? Do the candles on his birthday cake need to be real flames? No.. it'd be silly to use that technology.

To see technology force fit the wrong way.. wander into Stitch's Great Escape (there wont be a line, I promise). You present a family-friendly cartoon character with technology meant to be thrilling. Explosions, sub woofers, the extensive surround audio, and the ability to simulate blood splatter and shattered glass shards - not the making of a family-friendly attraction.

But, they forced the technology to fit the new show.. and it's kinda bombed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Loric



Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 143

PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah, a good example of the "Pooh" problem above...

Anyone ride Cat in the Hat? Anyone notice that CGI version of the Cat that simply does not work? Or similarly, the CGI Figment at Imagination?

Technology where it didn't need to be..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Holly
Site Admin


Joined: 06 Aug 2007
Posts: 229
Location: Orlando, FL

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:18 am    Post subject: Techie... Reply with quote

I am okay with the CGI Figment simply because Figment is not a physical creature, but rather the embodyment of imagination -- so it makes some sense that he may show up anywhere... But yeah, CGI Cat in the Hat is a slight bit jarring after seeing him and the other characters in 3D... When I think of the Cat in the Hat's world, I don't think of technology... They also do a bit of technology in Pooh that doesn't always feel harmonious for me (ex. the Pepper's Ghost sleeping disembodied Pooh sequence)... but the beginning and ending sequences of scenes are spot-on for that world...

I think a 3D Pooh could be interesting... Think of Philharmagic and how you whirl through the worlds of otherwise benign characters... For Pooh, you could be blown by the wind on that very windy day... through the woods past Tigger and Heffalumps, through Pooh's house, land in Rabbit's garden, fall into Gopher's holes and follow him underground. I think the problem is age group more than translatability of the property to 3D. The TV show "The Book of Pooh" has a landmark 3D style that could easily be transferred to CG and could be very nice to watch. I think that the problem with Pooh is that, Spiderman caters to teens and older (in general). Pooh is more for the preschool through first grade set... If you made an attraction that a 3 or 4-year-old could not ride, you would miss your target audience for that brand... and you are using a huge budget for a group that doesn't need as much to be wowed in a dark ride... They are riding dark rides for the first time... Even moving through animated sets in a bouncing vehicle is pretty amazing and fun, especially when you are very, very young...

As far as Stitch's Great Escape -- definitely a force-fit. The new doesn't really fit the remaining pieces of the old set... You don't really feel like you have experienced the Lilo and Stitch world... The technology as well as the way the show is done don't support the movie. Lilo and Stitch could be great as more of a dark ride that "surfs" -- moves more like E.T., Soarin' or Peter Pan (smooth, slow swoops and rises through the different places and scenes -- using the song "Hawaiian Roller Coaster Ride" Smile...). I guess the question of technology may be more of: are you overdoing it for the world that the characters live in? Too much tech stretches believability for some character worlds and can also alienate the audience (no pun intended)...

P.S. I have a Disney pass, so if you have one too, come on over to O-Town!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Loric



Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 143

PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 4:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have a Disney and Uni pass, so i come over there frequently, when might you be up to a day of exploring?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Holly
Site Admin


Joined: 06 Aug 2007
Posts: 229
Location: Orlando, FL

PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 2:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

At least a couple of weeks from now... At the moment, I am in the process of moving (again!)... If anyone else would like to come, shout out! Maybe we could have a get-together of sorts...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Loric



Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 143

PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 2:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That'd be great fun!

You'll just have to be ok with someone who takes tons of photos and likes to look at ride systems and surmise how set pieces are constructed more then actually enjoying the ride sometimes Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
icandrawem2



Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Posts: 171

PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 11:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

count me in! ill be down in a couple days until feb 5 then back again on march 5...im gettin married in orlando on the 8th of march so we are going park hoppin maybe on that friday or something.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Holly
Site Admin


Joined: 06 Aug 2007
Posts: 229
Location: Orlando, FL

PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's okay, Rob... I have a friend who stares at projectors, lighting fixtures and gadgets through whole rides, so it would be nothing out of the ordinary for me, lol. I am going to be wrapped up for a while in moving and unpacking (I am moving Friday/Saturday), but if you can coordinate with icandrawem to set a date (anything except daytime Monday - Thurs, or on a Sunday night), I will look to clear my schedule Smile Do you prefer any particular park?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
icandrawem2



Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Posts: 171

PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i would say holly that you could call me nate, but i could see that getting confusing haha. how about nate2 that works Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DancinBelle



Joined: 30 Jul 2007
Posts: 165
Location: Virginia

PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 9:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darn, it looks like I'll miss the powow! Sad I'll be at Disney for a week with my family (last family vacation before I start college) over spring break. My school's band will be doing a parade there in April, they're sooo excited!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Themed Attraction.com Forum Index -> Imagination Forum - Theme Park Attraction Design & Imagineering All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group