tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post116353388548063492..comments2024-02-08T07:33:49.907-08:00Comments on Re-Imagineering: The Magic DoorMr Bankshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12952506736745891323noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-79037628421449144922007-02-18T17:38:00.000-08:002007-02-18T17:38:00.000-08:00"We become mere passive spectators of a contrived ..."We become mere passive spectators of a contrived scenario, burdened with more plot than necessary (“Help save Boo from blah, blah, blah…”). We are watching a mini-version of the film, not participating in it."<BR/><BR/>Spot on.<BR/><BR/>Many of the classic attractions--Jungle Cruise, Matterhorn, Pirates, Haunted Mansion, Space Mtn, Big Thunder--didn't rely on complicated storylines. This notion that Disney attractions are defined by their stories is a myth (at least historically). It's not the story that defines classic Disney so much as it is immersive atmosphere, an atmosphere where the guests are free to use their imaginations to engage with the creative space.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-1167341281495442462006-12-28T13:28:00.000-08:002006-12-28T13:28:00.000-08:00One must ask if there something objectionable abou...One must ask if there something objectionable about fornication. <BR/><BR/>Either way, if the metaphor works I say use it. <BR/><BR/>And God bless foreplay WITH penetration. Without it there would be no Walt Disney.Mr Bankshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12952506736745891323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-1165635718331717092006-12-08T19:41:00.000-08:002006-12-08T19:41:00.000-08:00BSDB said:Using the "blue sky drive by" argument b...BSDB said:<BR/>Using the "blue sky drive by" argument by Imagineers or accountaneers to justify crappy budgets should be seen for what it truly is: an excuse for being <B>creatively lazy. </B><BR/><BR/><BR/>Ted said:<BR/>I'm I the only person that thinks its OUTRAGEOUS that by re-using almost everything from an existing ride, it still cost Imagineering somewhere between $80 and 100 MILLION dollars to build?!?!!<BR/>No wonder Disney builds everything on the cheap! To build sub-par attractions it still costs millions of dollars!! Disney execs probably say to themselves, "for imagineering to build a big, better Pirates, it will bankrupt the company and we can't afford that!"<BR/><BR/><BR/>It looks like "creatively lazy" isn't the only problem. Add design/engineering to the mix.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-1165603205126738772006-12-08T10:40:00.000-08:002006-12-08T10:40:00.000-08:00cupanudles makes a vital point here...there need b...cupanudles makes a vital point here...there need be no explanation for <I>why</I> we're all about to have a good time. Too often in these new and cynical attractions, the pre-show feels as much of an excuse than anything else.<BR/><BR/>As has been mentioned elsewhere here, the concept of the "simulation" is particularly galling. "We're going to pretend to pretend to send you into space or test a vehicle..." ...it's as if they are afraid to ask you to take their work seriously.<BR/><BR/>There's a difference between setting a tone with a kickass queue (eg, WDW's Pirates) and showing you a video with a bunch of unnecessary exposition.<BR/><BR/>And the last thing we need is another cynical attraction based on the failure of technology such as Alien Encounter or HISTA.Captain Schnemohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15112333068173312142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-1165187721133598892006-12-03T15:15:00.000-08:002006-12-03T15:15:00.000-08:00I wholeheartily agree with the message of the orig...I wholeheartily agree with the message of the original post. I would like to add that I have recently watched a documentary called "disney's Imagineers" (Yes, they did not capitalize Disney.) and guess what everyone said in the doc? They talked about "story" being the most important in the ride. While some rides like Mission to the Moon had a linear storyline, there was no need to convince the visitors on why they were entering any of the rides like they do today. The imagineers in the documentray also said that Pirates of the Carribean had the most story, which anyone who has ridden the ride can agree that there is no reason "why" you are going on this ride, and not to mention why the chracters are doing what they are doing. The absence of the story line allows you to enter a more realisticly escapist world. Just like the film technique used in Star Wars created by Akira Kurosawa called an "immaculate reality", you are exposed to a world that isn't explained because it actually exists, allowing the visitor to be thrust into a world to explore the Carribean along with rambunctious pirates. Fantastically escapist ride with no storyline.. something we really need in the disney parks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-1164753596335798942006-11-28T14:39:00.000-08:002006-11-28T14:39:00.000-08:00Some comments about story not being what it is all...Some comments about story not being what it is all about aren't completely accurate. It has always been about story - with an emphasis on immersion. Walt knew from the start that he wanted to embrace this new medium of storytelling, by putting us into the story. The three-dimension aspect instead of just watching on a screen was an exciting thing. It definitely should be experienced from the start (queue) to finish.<BR/>Many comments have also missed the main point - going through a door could lead to unending, unimaginable possibilities - whether that was the main point of the movie story, or not. That is where we should be taken. The doors that are projected, with changes each time you go through, start to hint at what could have been done.<BR/>It's not too late to add to the queue, and (at least) block out the sound stages all around you, once you pass under the first billboard. Theatrical set construction is all that would be needed, and wouldn't have to cost that much.WOKcreativehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05970083755401883889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-1164736170226971432006-11-28T09:49:00.000-08:002006-11-28T09:49:00.000-08:00Splash Mountain is one of the most beautiful rides...Splash Mountain is one of the most beautiful rides at Disneyland. It's also one of the most boring and uninvolving. It's as if the story of the "Laughing Place" was a complete afterthought, while the splash into the briar patch is staged in a way that makes it unmemorable. There are very long stretches where all there is to see is blank rock. Waste of time and space, really.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-1164718635751276392006-11-28T04:57:00.000-08:002006-11-28T04:57:00.000-08:00You're wrong about Splash Mountain being one of th...You're wrong about Splash Mountain being one of the "film in three dimensions" rides considering you actually do plummet into the Briar Patch and characters do acknowledge your existence as new visitors to Chickapin Hill with Brer Frog telling you about how Brer Rabbit's going to find himself in trouble one day, the start of the How Do You Do sequence one can assume the geese are welcoming you, and finally, the roadrunner asks the passing boats if he can tag along as he wants to see the laughing place.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-1164698804477956722006-11-27T23:26:00.000-08:002006-11-27T23:26:00.000-08:00what's with the hate-on for the winnie the pooh ri...what's with the hate-on for the winnie the pooh ride? This ride is amazing! both at DL and in WDW. the DL version is great with the way the queue is designed. Is there jealousy over the tokyo version or something?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-1164689771700707902006-11-27T20:56:00.000-08:002006-11-27T20:56:00.000-08:00>>Not everything that is old is good. Conversely, ...>>Not everything that is old is good. Conversely, not everything that is new is bad.<<<BR/><BR/>Right - - but new or old we should be going through Magic Doors. If not... who cares what age it is?Merlin Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13397520005969644808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-1164673878675070302006-11-27T16:31:00.000-08:002006-11-27T16:31:00.000-08:00Thanks for posting my comment. I didn't think tha...Thanks for posting my comment. I didn't think that you were going to release it to be published, considering my tone. But thanks for doing so.<BR/><BR/>In any case (along with all the grammatical errors I now see on my post), I forgot to put in my final point:<BR/><BR/>Not everything that is old is good. Conversely, not everything that is new is bad.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-1164666528867874032006-11-27T14:28:00.000-08:002006-11-27T14:28:00.000-08:00My god. Is there anything you guys like?! It see...My god. Is there anything you guys <I>like</I>?! It seems that all you do is complain about how the glory days are gone...how this sucks and that sucks..."In my day, we didn't have these newfangled cars, we walked to work with bale of hay on our backs..." I agree that there are less than stellar attractions now at both Disneyland and CaAdv, but Monster's Inc. isn't one of them. Winnie the Pooh? Yes. Heimlich's Train? Yes. But Monsters Inc. is charming, a welcome addition to the park...<BR/><BR/>My goodness...get thee to a proctologist to get take out what ever is stuck up there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-1164397789687714542006-11-24T11:49:00.000-08:002006-11-24T11:49:00.000-08:00I've enjoyed the discussion here, but I just wante...I've enjoyed the discussion here, but I just wanted to put in a good word for the Buzz Lightyear ride, which I was very pleasantly surprised with. I honestly don't see how you can accuse this ride as being more voyeuristic than participatory. You're cast as someone helping out the little green men, buzz gives you a training session, and off you go as a part of the mission, zapping everything in sight. Furthermore, it's not just retelling the movie, but giving you a completely new story, and it's the return of the Omnimovers!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-1164349904724606942006-11-23T22:31:00.000-08:002006-11-23T22:31:00.000-08:00Perhaps the reason folks are ignoring your comment...Perhaps the reason folks are ignoring your comments, Ted, is because they're simply not true.<BR/><BR/>The Monsters, Inc attraction cost in the neighborhood of $30 million, possibly $35 million. Not $80 million, definitely not $100 million.<BR/><BR/>And it was my understanding that Spider-Man cost Uni about $90 million. But that's Florida; California is far more expensive for construction and installation of attractions.judihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15415067631504911897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-1164227535683141402006-11-22T12:32:00.000-08:002006-11-22T12:32:00.000-08:00Everyone is ignoring my post that is the reason th...Everyone is ignoring my post that is the reason the ride isn't what it should be. <BR/>It cost $80 million dollars to do a poor retrofit!! <BR/>I could have built a better ride from the ground up for less than that!!! <BR/>If that is how Imagineering WASTES money, than no wonder Disney management wants to spend as little money as possible!<BR/>Speaking of the Spiderman ride at IOA, I heard it cost them a little over $100 million to make a FAR superior ride.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-1164140016677741802006-11-21T12:13:00.000-08:002006-11-21T12:13:00.000-08:00I used to hang out on alt.disney.disneyland. I JU...I used to hang out on alt.disney.disneyland. <BR/><BR/>I JUST discovered this blog through Boing Boing.<BR/><BR/>I laughed until I cried with SuperStar Limo. Other guests in the vehicle thought I was insane. I wasn't laughing with the attraction. I laughed at it.<BR/><BR/>What was Eisner thinking? I don't blame the Imagineers. I blamed Eisner. <BR/><BR/>My observation was that the ride COULD have worked if it wasn't in a Disney park and specifically Hollywood Backlot of Calififorna Adventure. <BR/><BR/>In essense the park had people coming to experience some of the magic of Hollywood and the ride gave them a cynical look at the silliness of celebrity. <BR/><BR/>On a very basic level it was making fun of, and not in a good way, of the people the ride meant to entertain. What was Eisner thinking?<BR/><BR/>A stranger can make mildly insult a kid and it can be funny. When a parent insults their own kid it's always cruel. And guests picked up on the cruelty of the attraction.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I brought up the alt.disney.disneyland thing because I noticed something in most of the various flamewars that occurred. People have an astounding memory for rides that were. But they almost always ignore that they were kids, their experience as children was limited and there's an entirely different context that kids approach rides with. <BR/><BR/>In my opinion, a GOOD ride entertains both kids and adults. And a problem with a lot of the new rides in the park is that it's not that entertaining for adults. We spot the Disney agenda. <BR/><BR/>Give the guest just enough show, and then direct them through a gift shop. Kids generally love the stuff. Adults tolerate it because their kids love it.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>I've been on the Monster's Inc attraction twice. I thought it was entertaining but nothing spectacular. I thought the effect were well done. My overall impression was that the pacing was off. My background is actually television and film so I'm sensitive to that. <BR/><BR/>I think everyone did a great job in putting the attraction into that ride space. I'm not a fan of that in general. I think retrofits are a VERY bad idea. I think the best shows were created when they design the space to the ride rather than the ride to the space. But I can say that because it's not my money.<BR/><BR/>Best, <BR/><BR/>BattyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-1164114654973409022006-11-21T05:10:00.000-08:002006-11-21T05:10:00.000-08:00The door to Monsteropolis will open January 2007 i...The door to Monsteropolis will open January 2007 in the Magic Kingdom's Tomorrowland.<BR/><BR/>See you on the other side!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-1164097923711915682006-11-21T00:32:00.000-08:002006-11-21T00:32:00.000-08:00One thing too is the speed in which a vehicle trav...One thing too is the speed in which a vehicle travels through a space. The speed must match both the intended mood of the story/environment and the pace in which the story happens. The Haunted Mansion strikes a beautiful balance as the mood and tone match the slow speed of the doombuggies. <BR/><BR/>Classic dark rides like Snow White simply move too quickly and rigidly. Winnie the Pooh strikes a better balance as does TOT. I've noticed more than once that Splash Mountain in Disneyland seems to travel much faster than the one in Disney World.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-1163987115939894772006-11-19T17:45:00.000-08:002006-11-19T17:45:00.000-08:00WDW's Tower of Terror = personal experienceDCA's T...WDW's Tower of Terror = personal experience<BR/><BR/>DCA's Tower of Terror = book report written from Cliffs Notesjudihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15415067631504911897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-1163965740982816822006-11-19T11:49:00.000-08:002006-11-19T11:49:00.000-08:00People! People! You're getting too caught up in th...People! People! You're getting too caught up in the word, "story" here. The classic Disney dark rides never tried to tell the Story of Snow White, Mr. Toad, Alice or Peter Pan. They merely tried to wrap you up in the world and cast you as the central character. Imagineers knew that if you wanted the story you'd watch the movie or read the book.<BR/><BR/>Yet Monsters Inc; the ride comes off (as one person close to the project admitted) like a book report. Disney park guests deserve better. They deserve a visceral all encompassing journey to the worlds within worlds of Monsters Inc. Truly going into that movie means going into that magic door, narrative be damned.<BR/><BR/>Guests don't want a book report, they want a personal experience.Mr Bankshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12952506736745891323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-1163964507610066912006-11-19T11:28:00.000-08:002006-11-19T11:28:00.000-08:00It's not that the door is more important then the ...It's not that the door is more important then the story. It's that the door is an important <I>part</I> of the story. Part of the process of immersive storytelling is taking you layer by layer into the story and farther and farther away from the real world. <BR/><BR/>As was pointed out, Tower of Terror takes you away from the real world little by little, layer by layer. The tower itself draws you in from a distance, then the overgrown garden and creepy backdrop give you a varying sense of unease. Now imagine Tower of Terror if they had decided to skip designing a lobby, a broken down elevator and a boiler room and just took you straight from the front door into a series of queue lines and then the ride. <BR/><BR/>Sure, it would be the same "ride". Falling from those heights is just as thrilling as any ride like that. But Tower of Terror doesn't just take you <B>to</B> the world in one or two steps. It takes you scene by scene <B>into</B> the world and gradually makes you feel like you're a part of it. Now you’re not just in a falling elevator, you’re in a haunted elevator in the Twilight Zone. And for the briefest and mot strenuous of moments, you believe it. <BR/><BR/>It's a subtle thing, but it is also a very important part of storytelling. Writers, such as myself, whether amateur or professional, cannot afford to ignore even small elements of a story just because they do not seem important. The smallest element, though seemingly inconsequential to a reader, can be the difference between a handful of people liking your story and a #1 bestselling novel. <BR/><BR/>This particular blog's point, I believe, was to point out that minor story elements are being too readily dismissed. Subconsciously, taking you into the Monsters, Inc world through an easily identifiable plot device would have a deeper impact on you then just going there without it. It’s a tier, a part of the progression from one world into the other, and, even a mediocre writer, would not have overlooked it. I'm genuinely surprised to hear that they didn't incorporate it.<BR/><BR/>Now, of course, someone will point out that not all great rides use this device, but that will be unerringly false. All great rides do incorporate this sensory device, they simply do so in a different manner and in varying degrees. <BR/><BR/>Horizons, for example, is very much tiered the experience. But it did it within the ride itself. Horizons wasn't a tale, it was an exploration of something. A journey into a concept, rather a journey with a plot line. The host and hostess spoke to you and each other as is they were passengers in your car, and started you off with familiar images of what humans have perceived as their future over the course of the centuries. It did so chronologically and scene by scene. It then took you into what we now think the future might be and gradually moved you into concepts of the earth, then space and then the sea. It was immersive because it explored an area of man’s dreams and expectations, dream by dream and expectation by expectation.<BR/><BR/>Each great attraction has taken advantage of the immersion principle to varying or lesser degrees. But each one doesn’t do so in the exact same manner. A ride with a clear basis in an existing storyline will need to take you into that world utilizing the trappings of that world that most people would recognize. If it fails to utilize one of these plot devises, then people are going to notice, whether consciously (where were the doors?) or unconsciously (the ride was okay I guess).Digital Jedihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02374739586203788564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-1163955310636406732006-11-19T08:55:00.000-08:002006-11-19T08:55:00.000-08:00Re-Imagineering Bloggers,I read every blog post th...Re-Imagineering Bloggers,<BR/><BR/>I read every blog post that you give, and I agree wholeheartedly on the issues you present. Generally I don't meddle in affairs not Mansion related, however, I slightly disagree with this weeks posting.<BR/><BR/>While I had never gotten the chance to ride Superstar Limo, the reviews and videos I have seen show me that I didn't miss much. However, I did get to ride Monsters Inc and I feel it is very much on-par with what the other Fantasyland Dark Rides are, just in a new land. <BR/><BR/>To compare Monsters Inc with Pirates, Mansion, Splash, Adventures Thru Inner Space is not quite fair. Its like pitting Ghandi against Mike Tyson. I feel they are different versions of the classic Dark Ride. <BR/><BR/>Pirates, Haunted Mansion, Splash, Etc are meant to immerse you in an experience using thousands of tricks of the trade, make you feel like you are fully enveloped in something VERY real. In some cases they use very realistic AA figures (Pirates), Sureal AA figures (Mansion) or Cartoony AA figures (Splash) and all for a good purpose. The advent of the AA figure added realism to the attractions like none before. <BR/><BR/>As for the Fantasyland dark rides, they did a great job because, to the young, and the young at heart, you got to experience something you already know, movies which they were based upon. Families went to the park and then they got to live what they had seen. With Pirates, Mansion, Splash (splash is an exception here), they had never seen a movie based upon it before, it was where Disney could start with a blank page.<BR/><BR/>With Monsters Inc, again, families see the film, own the DVD, and most likely the kids have a plush of one of the characters before the attraction was even built. Disney capitilized on something they knew was popular, a pixar film. <BR/><BR/>What I fail to agree with in your original post is that, Monsters Inc, is very much on par with a Disney standard compared to movies being turned into attractions. They haven't really broken much of their own cannon, there is a movie, they make a short, 3 to 4 minute attraction (if that), you visit the world from the safety of your own vehicle, you see many scenes from the movies, in the end, everything lives happily ever after. <BR/><BR/>Sure, maybe some people want to go through a magic door to go to another world. However, that part of the movie, was only a small fraction of the overall story. If you made an attraction where you just go through various doors, there isn't much of a story there.<BR/><BR/>I think better use of this thread would be more of where they miss-stepped on this attraction, the queue area. <BR/><BR/>Going through an attraction (which is not unlike those in Fantasyland), getting the cliff notes story, seeing limited animation of the figures, etc. is no where near as shocking as walking through this big Rolly Crump/Mary Blair style facade wall and into a desolate queue area, then into an old set of opening supermarket style doors and into what appears to be an office building. <BR/><BR/>That is far more of a (you're really in a theme park, its all fake) reality check than not going through a door.Ghost Relations Dept.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03126998331165855389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-1163786441671557112006-11-17T10:00:00.000-08:002006-11-17T10:00:00.000-08:00http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBUMRk-nkdAWow - I ...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBUMRk-nkdA<BR/><BR/>Wow - I hadn't seen that Mermaid ride video - - they should start building that tommorrow. The way they surprise you by dipping "under the sea" and back up again could be marvelous! ... and literally "immersive" if you enjoy an obvious pun.<BR/><BR/>Put it where the abandoned Motor Boat Cruise is.Merlin Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13397520005969644808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-1163752302417855022006-11-17T00:31:00.000-08:002006-11-17T00:31:00.000-08:00I guess then I'll have to agree to disagree. Yes, ...I guess then I'll have to agree to disagree. Yes, I guess something neat about the film was that they had magic doorways. However there was nothing interesting about going through the door. It was the Monsters job and it took them into our world. The real appeal in the film was their world and how it mirrored our own. That was the world you should have wanted to be in. The attraction puts you into that world. I disagree that it merely surrounds you. I think the immersion is possible if you, the audience lets it happen. Nevertheless you are in that cool world that the filmmakers portrayed and you are complaining that they didn't use the doorway effectively to get you there? Like I said, agree to disagree...<BR/><BR/>"''Whenever I go on a ride, I'm always thinking of what's wrong with the thing and how it can be improved." - - Walt Disney"<BR/><BR/>Of course and I'm sorry if I seem like I'm trying to stop creative discourse about these things. I actually love these articles and generally think the same way myself. I guess I'm just trying to refocus the whole thing, which obviously is not my job, nor the job of anyone else but the blog owner. Like most of us I'm just thinking out loud and thought that Monsters was getting a bad rap. I think I got it out of my system now. Carry on.Eric Scaleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12149591952925380521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-1163749735853970542006-11-16T23:48:00.000-08:002006-11-16T23:48:00.000-08:00For those of you who were talking about how amazin...For those of you who were talking about how amazing the Little Mermaid Ride would have been (and, by the way, I fully agree), here's the clip of the ride for those of you who don't ahve the DVD:<BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBUMRk-nkdAAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com