Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror >>>I'm also not a big fan of the interactivity of attractions -- most times it feels forced.<<< I think it has its place, and I think Jon is remembering the Owl that used to teach us about animatronics... Although that was a recorded, unchanging show, I think something like that, depending on the content and characters, could really work. For instance, a revitalized WONDERS OF LIFE pavillion would be a natural for attractions of this sort. Imagine some cartoon doctor, answering basic questions in a lesson structured so that REAL learning could take place, but the questions would (hopefully) never veer outside a certain arena. I could see kids LOVING interaction with Figment, in a "learn to draw with Figment" session. Get the right guy to do his voice, and I'D be standing in line for it. Again, match the content to the medium, consider the audience. Interactive entertainment of a sort works pretty well in The Adventurer's Club in Florida. There's room for more of that, especially more inventive, innovative applications of such.
Originally Posted By karlg The problem seems to be that they get something that works once and then they "Who Want's to be a Millionaire" it (meaning they repeat it to death). Turtle Talk with Crush worked, so they repeat and repeat it. Frankly, I can only take so much dude. They aren't hiring professional commedians and they want a "consitent product", so they end up with a fairly canned presentation. The same goes for Pixar'ing everything (some it good, but too much is too much) and mobile shooting gallaries. I also think they are starting to over-use projection television effects.
Originally Posted By jonvn "What would the poor actor "speaking for" Lincoln say the first time an audience member asked about current events? "Who was better, Clinton or Bush?" " Well, you come up with a sort of non-answer that doesn't say anything. just like the current presidents do. Or you could just have him say "I would rather not discuss current events." It would be tricky, though. You'd have to have a computer bank with a lot of quotes. As to the debate, why did he say anything? He could again, respond with something along the lines of "I said what I did because that's how I felt." "If Lincoln were supposed to be interactive, why make him animatronic? Why not just put an actor in a suit? " Because then it wouldn't look like Lincoln, it'd look like an actor in a suit.
Originally Posted By jonvn Interactivity is one aspect of the idea that makes the show DIFFERENT each time, and alive. Not the same exact thing every time you see it. I wasn't exactly drawing up blueprints with the idea, but the idea was that a presentation be made that is constantly changing and repeatable. You won't get anything like that with a fixed stage show. Something to draw people in who have already seen it once or twice. Or ten times. Now, some here may not like the interactivity idea, but I think a lot of people would really get freaked out by it, and that'd be exactly what would be called for. People really seem to enjoy the crush thing, and this would be combining two different technologies into one show. I don't want them to repeat themselves, and what they do is so repetitive these days anyway. Would would be good though would be to combine these separately shown technologies into one showcase. That's for these sorts of things. The ones I can think of. However, the basic ideas are being able to repeat visit the show without getting tired of it for a very long period of time, and that requires constant change, and the other main idea is technological advancement as much as possible. The only thing that made the original lincoln any different than a waxwork with a recording playing behind him was the technology in making him move. It was the technology that made Lincoln the sensation he originally was in 1964, and it should be what drives that show today. Otherwise, it's really leaden. Basically, what I'm saying is that this area should be a showpiece for Disney theme park innovation, showing the public what sorts of things they can do and are working on. Of course, this means that they'd have to actually do some innovation first...but if they did, it would be showcased here.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror >>>People really seem to enjoy the crush thing, and this would be combining two different technologies into one show.<<< Well, they'll be doing that at DCA when the MIDWAY MANIA attraction opens. The Mr. PotatoHead barker in the queue will be a large real-time animatronic who will have interaction with guests. Not exactly winkin-blinkin' Lincoln, but it does represent that level of innovation.
Originally Posted By jonvn Well, there you go. Except, of course, it is a cartoon, and as I said in my earlier post, that is all they can do these days. They have a formula, and they stick to it.
Originally Posted By SIR at X-S Tech And Mr Potato head is no different than Roz in Monsters Inc. I love the presentation that Tom Fitzgerald gave for Midway mania, where he said "... and of course we're going to have all our 4-D effects that you've come to know and love, water, air and (something else that I've forgotten)". Essentially while much of Toy Story Mania will be innovative, some of the effects that were once innovative and really only good for a surprise factor are being used yet again.
Originally Posted By SIR at X-S Tech ...and I have a feeling before long there won't be any real wow factor for the "living character" thing as more and more start being used. For me, I'm still more impressed by the animatronic figure itself, how well it's sculpted and moves, much less by the fact that it's talking to me. After you know how it's done, that's no big deal.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA I agree with you SIR. An animatronic that talks to me, and describes my shirt, or says 'Nice hat' or whatever, is gimmicky -- it also makes it obvious that it's being controlled by a person 'behind the curtain' so to speak.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt While I get the argument that the "man behind the curtain" thing isn't a big technological leap forward, it does heighten the guest experience.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA When an animatronic figure has been programmed and does its thing, I find that to be fascinating. Like in the Mission Control center in 'Mission to Mars' with Mr. Johnson. Disneyland had the people sitting in front of the monitors, dialing knobs, looking at read-outs, but they were AA figures. Wouldn't have been nearly as cool if they were live human actors. Same with Mr. Johnson. They even threw in the 'interaction' with the Cast Member to make it seem off the cuff. Now, if Mr. Johnson were being operated by a Cast Member, it wouldn't work. In fact, I saw an example of this interactivity in Marineland back in the 70s. It was a crudely done 'animatronic' character [seemed like he was supposed to be living under the ocean or something] with a moving mouth. Our host operated the mouth and answered questions in this ridiculous robotic monotone voice. It was a bonafide ventriloquist act. Only stupider. 'What do you eat?' asked one bored member of the audience. 'Pea-nut-but-ter-and-plank-ton-sand-wiches' We thought it was totally stupid. And that was back in the innocent 70s, when we drove funny cars and had silly hair styles.
Originally Posted By SIR at X-S Tech Hans, does it heighten the experience or merely present a different one? When a "living character" is the gimmick of the attraction (ie: Laugh Floor) is that a heightened (better) experience than something passive like Pirates? I'd wager that even old outdated attractions like 20K subs or ATIS would rate higher in overall satisfaction than Laugh floor or Turtle Talk. When it comes right down to it, aren't the living characters just sophisticated puppets? The only thing that makes them more than a guy with a puppet, is that they are presented in a theater setting, and magically that makes them an attraction. If we had a puppeteer, even a good one, walking around with a Turtle puppet on his hand would we all be praising Disney for the experience? Getting a bit off point there, but my point is, that when it becomes all about this interactive character, every other skill and consideration goes out the window. If there's something talking to us on the screen it's enough to put the guest into a dark room and that's you're attraction. Nothing impressive about that to me. Now I know that this tech is still in it's infancy, so perhaps it's unfair to judge it so harshly. Disney could very well apply it to a great new format, instead of simply using it to dress up new dark rides.
Originally Posted By karlg I like the idea of having a longer set of speeches and randomizing them. I have always felt that Lincoln had about 20-minutes of build up to about a 5 minute show. I want 5 minutes of intro and a 20 minute show. I can't see the interactive thing working with an important historical person such as Lincoln. I think it can and does (sometimes) work with a fictional animatronic character. It would be great if they had a large number of speaches recorded and they could run different ones. I have often thought the Tiki Room should have had an extended set of songs. There are a lot of other songs they could do. This would keep the Tiki Room fresh. With today's computers it should be trivial to have a large set of songs they could use at randome and/or they could even cycle through the shows, including the complete original show, on the same day.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror Personality's a tough thing to sythesize. I think some characters lend themselves better to interactivity. You know, SOME of the muppets are naturals for this...we're USED to puppets being interactive, and it seems more "real" in their universe. The Pixar characters are good candidates as they come from this 3D universe, where things kind of exist closer to our own reality (I'm just saying, in perception). But frankly, I LOVED the Stitch Encounter thing at Innoventions. The personality is inquisitive and consistent with the character's curiosity and mischievous nature. I would love to hear Edison tell us of his failures, leading to his wonderful discoveries. He could even "lead" the audience in their involvement... instead of letting the audience ask HIM questions, he could ask THEM questions, and respond to their responses... using the socratic method. I know, this sounds kinda dry. It works better in my head, as I'm sure Jonvn's does. But there IS a way to make it work. I just feel that, the character should match the story/throughline/purpose. Dreamfinder and Figment could be interactive in the process of inspiration. What a ride that would make!
Originally Posted By jonvn Post 53: Yes, exactly what that show needs. And it would have been absolutely terrific in the Bear show, too. It would have probably been a lot cheaper and more popular than taking them out and putting in a little out of place dark ride.
Originally Posted By SIR at X-S Tech I had always thought that about the COuntry Bears too. Have some real comedy writers come in and write several variations on one show, so that the experience felt organic like a live show. Jokes could be flubbed and another Bear could heckle the mistake. The show would be the same each time, but the difference would be in the performance. Seems like with computers that would be easy enough to implement but I have a feeling it would have been a bear (no pun intended) to perform and organize. Writing about it now, it seems like a lot of work for just another gimmick and I seem to have lost my enthusiasm for it. It probably would really drive the cost of the attraction up, and most likely wouldn't be spent on an existing show like CBJ.
Originally Posted By jonvn It doesn't have to be that complex. Create a few templates for shows. Each show has the same set, or maybe if possible, change the background drape behind the bear band. Within each show template, each individual bear could have sang one of several songs. Prior to each show, the template is randomly selected, and during the show, each song during the performance for each bear is also randomly selected. Some songs for each bear can be usable within multiple tepmlates. In this manner, you can have hundreds of variations very quickly. Add a template or two, add a song or two here and there, and it's constantly updated, and fresh, and constantly being plussed. But, heck, that was way too much trouble to actually go and do something CREATIVE. So we ended up with a fantasyland dark ride instead, as per formula.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 I think you could get into some trouble making an "interactive" Lincoln. Would the actor try to interpret a personality? Would there be humor? Could people take a comment the wrong way? There is a fine line between presenting him in a good historical context and having him appear in a commerical with a talking beaver. I think it could fail based on who was delivering the lines, and they way his personality was presented.
Originally Posted By wedroy1923 I know it's not "right" to ask "what would Walt do?" - but I think one of Walt's lessons was the story should drive the experience, not the technology. The "idea" behind Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln existed before the technology was available to make it happen. Space Mountain is another example of this - the "idea" / those great John Hench drawings were created before the mechanics that could transform the concept into reality. Technology should not be the factor pushing the creation of a Disney attraction . . . I guess that's where I'm going with this. It shouldn't be "oh, we have those cool innovation, what can we do with it?" but rather, "we've got this great idea, what will it take to make it a reality?" Was the AA technology a factor in Lincoln's original success? Most likely . . . but so was the presentation, done in a manner that mattered to people in the mid 1960s. I don't know . . . am I off base here?
Originally Posted By jonvn No. But it was technology that also made it what it was. Because of the technology, they could produce the Lincoln show as it was. Otherwise, you could have had (and I've seen ones like this) a show with a wax figure of lincoln, and fancy lighting, and a tape track. I'm sure 11 people would have seen it. Instead, it was a real wow thing, because of the technology. You use the technology to make a show good. you are right in that you don't make something to show off tech only, that gets old quick. But you do use the tech to make a wow kind of experience. The best sort of technological use is where it is not noticeable at all. You don't even see the technology behind something. You just see the show. If you can pull that off, you've done a good job.
