Iger Planning to Kill Imagineering?

[Another Voice]

But it still feels like the story was developed around the ride technology and not vice-versa....

That's exactly it!!!!!!

Look at 'Space Mountain'. It's a ride that remains immensely popular despite of the fact that it’s really a very tame roller coaster locked inside a giant building? ‘Space’ works because you’re never really told it’s a roller coaster. The attraction itself is a “rocket journey through space”. It just happens to use a roller coaster as the why to express that.

And yes, doesn’t ‘Rock’n Rollercoaster’ do the same thing? Not really. There’s no attempt to hide the fact that it’s a roller coaster (look at the name). The “car” itself is nothing like a real car, but it’s clearly nothing more than a rollercoaster train made up to look like a car. Inside the ride itself it nothing but a bunch of effects stapled to the side of the tracks – again, it’s not really hiding the fact that it’s a roller coaster.

So what’s the difference between a neon palm tree and a bunch of sparkly lights – it’s all in the audience. It’s the same reason people like movies, it’s “suspension of disbelief”. I think really like to believe in the fantasy. The easier you make it for them, the more they’re going to enjoy it.

Getting an audience to that state is hard, and it’s easy to break That’s why all the real Disney designers were such sticklers for the details. You don’t want anything to nudge the guest in the side to and bring them back “to the real world”. What you draw attention away from is as important as you focus attention on.

To me that’s the problem with ‘Tower’. Walking up to the building you see a falling elevator. You get into the line and see that a hotel’s been closed because its elevator has fallen. Then you step inside a preshow and watch a movie about an elevator that falls. Then you’re invited to ride in an elevator, but strap in because the elevators going to fall. Then you actual get on the elevator – and the elevator falls. Yes, all the surrounding bits help add a great atmosphere to the place, but constant falling doesn’t add to a story so much as it reminds you of the ride’s mechanism – a drop ride.

I think most people really enjoy diving into “make-believe” and are more than happy to work with a story, they just don’t to fight against it. All too often in Disney’s newer rides the mechanics instead of the story show through – leaving nothing for the guests to believe in.

 

[Keyser]

Star Wars (and the rest of the initial trilogy), even with it's relativly primative Special FX has yet to be topped in terms of popularity and immersivness, because of how great the story was.

Bringing up Star Wars is a low blow - I can't argue with the greatest movie ever. I will point out that in the "Special Edition", though, Lucas did feel a need to update the effects (in addition to a bunch of other junk ).

In fact, the prequels take the opposite route and fail utterly.

I'd disagree a bit about the prequels (episode II had some really bad effects, and episode I some particularly bad acting) - I think the story was decent, but that's getting onto a tangent.
I certainly wouldn't argue that good effects overcome bad story, at least in the longer term (though movies like Independence Day showed they can help movies in the short term). I think I even said so.

As for current attractions.
As was said many pages ago, there is a distinct and important difference between Plot and Story. RnRC has a plot (A weak one) there is no story.

I agree. There are many, many recent rides that I feel are weak in some ways. But, there are others that I feel _do_ have a story-driven approach - maybe not perfectly accomplished, but using the right approach. Some that I'd put in here are Tower of Terror, Dinosaur, and Mission:Space. And, not to beat a dead horse, but everything from Rohde's talk told me that E:E was very story driven, within the constraints that they needed a high capacity thrill ride.

You can argue that even having that constraint in the first place is a problem, but that's not a particularly limiting constraint, and I think it's a bit unreasonable to expect any group to operate without such constraints, at least within an existing park.

Even Splash Mountain was a flume ride first.

Indy was the last ride where they took a story and built a mechanism for it.

I suppose I should say CTX/Dinosaur as well, but that ride is such a pile of bantha poodoo compared to Indy that I have troble equating the 2.

Wouldn't Mission:Space fit here, also? This seems like a perfect example - let people experience what a trip to Mars could be like, with the ride mechanism put in place to help tell the story in the most immersive way possible, not the other way around.

 

[Another Voice]

but everything from Rohde's talk told me that E:E was very story driven,

A shiny case of where all the people at WDI who knew things have been fired, leaving all the people that don’t.

We’ve all had to sit through movies where a lot of stuff happens, but we aren’t really interested and we certainly don’t really care. And we’ve all sat through movies where we’ve had a great time and where what’s actually happening up on the screen doesn’t make any sense – but we love it anyway.

A story is really about how an audience’s emotions change over the course of the show. You go to see a thriller, you walk in apprehensive, you get the daylights scared out of you, you feel the tension as people fight back, you’re relived when the “good guys” defeat the monster.

A plot is a storytelling device, a way of using characters, words and actions to give those emotions to an audience. The plot is “evil CEO of a theme park uses a cheap chemical as a way to cut French Fry expenses which causes a genetic mutation in some mice that happen it eat and then they go on a night-long feeding frenzy during a Pin Trading event”.

The ‘Haunted Mansion’ has a story, but no plot. While there’s no “this person did that to the other guy” – you start off the ride in a very dark and forbidden place. The ghosts are angry, the trap you inside a room and taunt. As you move through the house you see more; doors move, books float around. After a visit to the séance, the ghosts become more comfortable – they let you see them at their party. Things get even friendlier as the party moves into the graveyard. Now they’re signing and dancing. Finally, they jump right in a sit right down beside you and invite you back. You start the ride scared of ghosts and you end the ride being friendly with them.

‘Expedition: Everest’ has a plot, but no story. You wait in line and see things that make you afraid of the Yeti. You get on the train, the Yeti rips up the tracks. You remain frightened as the train travels backwards and the Yeti rips up more tracks. Finally you move ahead and the Yeti returns to frighten you again. Nothing changes – you’re afraid of the Yeti at the start and you’re afraid of the Yeti at the end. The plot doesn't work because it doesn't change the audience's emotions during or after the show. The plot is a tool, not an end result. That's the problem Rhode and a lot of people left at WDI have. They spend all their time working on elaborate plots, but forget the sreal story.

People like stories more than like plots. People want to feel things – even to feel bad (look at how many popular movies are tearjerkers). All ‘Everest’ offers is a few moments of thrills, but it’s not any deeper than that. But watch the crowd at ‘Mansion’, people go in nervous and afraid and all huddled together. But they come out happy and completely changed. That change is why people enjoy stories.

 

[raidermatt]

But, there are others that I feel _do_ have a story-driven approach - maybe not perfectly accomplished, but using the right approach. Some that I'd put in here are Tower of Terror, Dinosaur, and Mission:Space.

You can apply AVs points to M:S as well. Its a simulator. Its obvious its a simulator. The simulator us used to simulate a space flight.

Space Mountain and Star Tours use there ride mechs to try to simulate the REAL thing. Star Tours doesn't tell you its a simulator. Of course we all know that, just like we know movies aren't real. But if the filmmakers and ride designers do their job right, we're willing to go along for the ride.

Rides like Test Track and M:S don't even bother to try to immerse you in anything. RnRC makes a bit more of an effort, I guess, but it still doesn't pretend to be anything other than a roller coaster from the moment you read the name and step into the courtyard.

ToT also makes a bit more effort, but still does it through themeing and plot, rather than real story.

Somewhat ironically, I think Dinosaur makes more of an effort than the rest in this area. The problem is its not executed particularly well, and they cheaped out on the effects.

 

[MJMcBride]

Not as silly as quibbling over how large the number is. The point holds regardless of the exact number.

Wrong because AV, as usual, makes up stuff to support his argument. There are not dozens and dozens. In fact, there might be 3. In terms of zoological parks, only San Diego and the Bronx zoo's are are on par with DAK in terms of immersive exhibits. Most zoos have some immersive exhibits, but also have old, dingy unrealistic exhibits or even cages.

Even the top two zoos in the country (mentioned above), can get a little cramped. San Diego packs a boat load of animals in a relatively small size (I'm talking zoo, not the animal park -which by the way is one of only 2 zoos that I can think of that have comaprable rides to Kilmanjaroo). DAK never really has that "crowded" or "old and dinghy" feel that are found at just about every other zoo.

 

[dbm20th]

That's exactly it!!!!!!

Look at 'Space Mountain'. It's a ride that remains immensely popular despite of the fact that it’s really a very tame roller coaster locked inside a giant building? ‘Space’ works because you’re never really told it’s a roller coaster. The attraction itself is a “rocket journey through space”. It just happens to use a roller coaster as the why to express that.

Again, I apologize, but I feel this is a huge exaggeration. I don't know about you, but I never once thought that there was any overly successful attempt at hiding that SM is a roller coaster. Certainly not anymore than RnR. The themeing of the vehicles in RnR is far superior. There is no way to see the track, like you do from the line in SM, and the way the story is set is vastly more detailed and effective then SM. I love Space Mountain, for the nostalgia it brings, but when it comes to emmersing us into a story...I just don't think it stacks up with attractions like RnR or ToT. Not even close.

 

[Another Voice]

There are not dozens and dozens.

Turn on Animal Planet. Better yet, get out of the house and explore. The exhibits at Disney's Animal Kingdom are on the low end of what people are doing today. In fact, they're at the low end of what people were doing a decade ago - take a look at the Monterey Bay Aquirium. And thirty years ago you could drive through Lion Country Safari, get a lot closer to then animals AND learn a lot more – and they didn’t have to have a “Save Little Red” After School Special plotline.

Disney looks amazing as long as that’s the only thing you look at. The rest of the world has caught up.

DAK never really has that "crowded" or "old and dinghy" feel that are found at just about every other zoo.

Illusions are great aren’t they? The “roaming the African veldt” is a lie. In reality what you see is on a tiny part of the animal’s life. For most of the time they are herded backstage in the same dingy concrete boxes of all the places you hate. Disney does a far worse job then dozens and dozens of other wildlife parks and sanctuaries. If Disney really wanted to do something more – they could have. Instead they built cages. Take the train and see.

overly successful attempt at hiding that SM is a roller coaster.

You don’t have to hide it to make the guests ignore it. It’s the same way that movie special work. You KNOW that’s not a real ship sinking, or a giant Medeval castle on the mountain, or a dinosaur chasing down the tourists. You go with it because of the story. And it generally works as long as nothing draws to much attention to the fact that it’s an effect.

‘Space Mountain’ doesn’t draw attention to itself that it’s really just a roller coaster, in exactly the same as a movie effect tries to blend in. So the audience is much more forgiving – and interest – in the atmosphere and overall experience of the attraction.

‘Rock’ says in its very name that it’s a roller coaster and doesn’t do anything to hide that fact. It’s like a film maker putting a subtitle saying “This is a really cool CGI effect, isn’t it!!!” whenever Davy Jones shows up on the screen.

No effect works 100% of the time or for all people. It’s a matter of the audience’s imagination and who much they want to use it.

 

[Amity 3]

I've always wondered why Rock 'n Rollercoaster was suitable to be in a theme park based on movies.

 

[BRERALEX]

Anyone hit on that in 30 years, one of the biggest parts of RnRRC ride will be outdated. Aerosmith while being very popular will not appeal to kids 20-30 years from now. While being a pirate or entering a haunted mansion (monster house) will still be appealing.

It was poor planning for short term returns

 

[dbm20th]

Anyone hit on that in 30 years, one of the biggest parts of RnRRC ride will be outdated. Aerosmith while being very popular will not appeal to kids 20-30 years from now. While being a pirate or entering a haunted mansion (monster house) will still be appealing.

An update in the film and some new music is all it takes to make it happen, though I admit that updates, even great ones, are normally met with fundamentalist nonsense.

 

[dbm20th]

‘Rock’ says in its very name that it’s a roller coaster and doesn’t do anything to hide that fact. It’s like a film maker putting a subtitle saying “This is a really cool CGI effect, isn’t it!!!” whenever Davy Jones shows up on the screen.

That is the one good point you've made on this. After the title, which perhaps was ill-conceived when thinking on these terms, it far outpaces SM when it comes to themeing and "hiding the coaster" aspect.

You don’t have to hide it to make the guests ignore it. It’s the same way that movie special work. You KNOW that’s not a real ship sinking, or a giant Medeval castle on the mountain, or a dinosaur chasing down the tourists. You go with it because of the story. And it generally works as long as nothing draws to much attention to the fact that it’s an effect.

SM just simply does not do that to the extent with which you are stating. We'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

For most of the time they are herded backstage in the same dingy concrete boxes of all the places you hate. Disney does a far worse job then dozens and dozens of other wildlife parks and sanctuaries.

There are people much more qualified to answer this then I, and I would imagine more qualified then you as well, though I am only guessing. So we'll wait for that...

 

[dbm20th]

I've always wondered why Rock 'n Rollercoaster was suitable to be in a theme park based on movies.

Are you trying to get the fundamentalists to go completely whacko? What a can of worms you are opening here. Put it away man, before this thread flies off in another direction

 

[yalegracey]

Anyone hit on that in 30 years, one of the biggest parts of RnRRC ride will be outdated. Aerosmith while being very popular will not appeal to kids 20-30 years from now. While being a pirate or entering a haunted mansion (monster house) will still be appealing.

It was poor planning for short term returns

Same with Stitch and the new Pirates! Along with WWTBAMPI!

 

[BRERALEX]

Same with Stitch and the new Pirates! Along with WWTBAMPI!

WWWTBAMPI we are already seeing that problem being taken care of.

Stitch and Pirates can at least be tied into Disney. Aerosmith seems like they just picked a rock group and said "ya they'll do." But I may be ignorant on the history of the ride.

 

[mjstaceyuofm]

I've always wondered why Rock 'n Rollercoaster was suitable to be in a theme park based on movies.

Are you trying to get the fundamentalists to go completely whacko? What a can of worms you are opening here. Put it away man, before this thread flies off in another direction

Oh c'mon - there's a perfectly logical reason - the intro to the ride IS a movie!

 

[BRERALEX]

I've always wondered why Rock 'n Rollercoaster was suitable to be in a theme park based on movies.

It should be placed in Animal Kingdom so Aerosmith can be with all the other Dinosaurs. OOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHH WOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOO

Why is it in MGM?

Tower I get
Muppets I get
50 Prime time Cafe
Indy
Car Stunt Show
Sci Fi Dine in
WWTBAMPI! I get
Great Movie Ride no brainer
Backlot Studio Tour
Little Mermaid show and B&B show I get.

Why is RnRC there at all? Should I spin off the thread?

 

[dbm20th]

It should be placed in Animal Kingdom so Aerosmith can be with all the other Dinosaurs. OOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHH WOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOO

Why is it in MGM?

Tower I get
Muppets I get
50 Prime time Cafe
Indy
Car Stunt Show
Sci Fi Dine in
WWTBAMPI! I get
Great Movie Ride no brainer
Backlot Studio Tour
Little Mermaid show and B&B show I get.

Why is RnRC there at all? Should I spin off the thread?

Well if you put in tv stuff, like WWTBAMPI and ToT, then you've opened up to things other than films. Aeorsmith certainly falls in the entertainment category and I believe that the ride is thorugh LA. It's a stretch I know, but if you include the tv stuff, then you've already killed the movies-only theme of the area. But theme's often suffer for the good of finding a place for a great ride that doesn't really belong anywhere...kind of like the Matterhorn in Tommorowland! (Yup, look it up!)

 

[BRERALEX]

Well if you put in tv stuff, like WWTBAMPI and ToT, then you've opened up to things other than films. Aeorsmith certainly falls in the entertainment category and I believe that the ride is thorugh LA. It's a stretch I know, but if you include the tv stuff, then you've already killed the movies-only theme of the area. But theme's often suffer for the good of finding a place for a great ride that doesn't really belong anywhere...kind of like the Matterhorn in Tommorowland! (Yup, look it up!)

How bout we just stick with MGM since we're on RnRRC

Twilight zone was a movie (Yup, look it up!) BTW FYI. They used 'elements' and the dude from the show BUT it was a movie!

"Welcome to the Hollywood that never was and always will be."

I can fit TV in there easily.

It's a stretch I know,

Good ride joke

Aeorsmith certainly falls in the entertainment category

So does Vivid Video when do they get a ride?

Anyone have Ei$ners MGM speech from opening day?

 

[dbm20th]

So does Vivid Video when do they get a ride?

Anyone have Ei$ners MGM speech from opening day?

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. All I am saying is that there is precedent for...tweaking a theme. A precedent that goes all the way back to Walt, and includes things like WWTBAMPI.

And yes, Twilight Zone was a movie...but then again if you want to use that logic, Aerosmith were in films so therefore it fits just fine in the movie theme!

 

[BRERALEX]

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear.

No not at all. So Vivid Video doesn't get an attraction?

And yes, Twilight Zone was a movie...but then again if you want to use that logic, Aerosmith were in films so therefore it fits just fine in the movie theme!

You can easily fit in Tv shows and Movies into the theme of MGM. You can't fit in Aerosmith, you can't fit in that ride. What movies have they been in? Cause their music has been in movies? How does RnRRC celebrate music in movies? It's out of place at MGM. It's an ugly building with a big car at the entrance to that dead end corner.

I haven't discussed Walt, MK, AK, Epcot, DCA or Disneyland. I'm just talking about MGM.