Paging Tony Baxter! Please come to the...

Originally Posted By karlg

It is the whole package that makes a great attraction. The technology can add to the magic or be a distraction. Pixar was successful because it had good story concepts and made good use of the technology.

These days they get too hung up on the ride vehicle, the best/worst example of this is Mission to Space. All you have to do is look at Dinosaur versus Indian Jones and you should know that the ride vehicle can't save a poorly conceived attraction.

I'm most saddened by how little they have used technology to improve and advance attractions. With today's digital electronics, it should be easy to add to shows like the Tiki Room, or have 2 hours of speeches that Abe could give, 20-minutes at a show.

Some may remember videos of Wathel Rogers in a "programming harness" supposedly programming the original Carousel of Progress. From what I have read, this harness never really worked. But with today's motion capture technology use for 3-D graphics and games, programming an AA figure should be much easier, and this should have enabled economical programming and thus the ability to make longer and more varied programming.

AA themselves should be vastly cheaper to build today (when adjusted for inflation) than back in the days Pirates and HM. Yet they still build Pooh with technology that was not even Teddy Ruxpin (1985 consumer product) level animatronics.

My "strategy" would be to start with the Tiki room by adding a an alternative show with new songs and show that it will increase traffic. I would then keep adding action to Pirates and other attractions. Look how adding a few things to Pirates added new life to it, what if the attraction was a little different every time?

One example that I have seen done is at Indiana Jones at Tokyo Disney Seas. At the end of the ride, the loading/unloading backed up and we were stopped in front of Indy with the crashed bolder. While we were waiting there for a couple of minutes, the Indy figure lifted his harm and looked at his wrist as if looking at a watch; then he leaned over and turned as if looking at the load/unload area to see what was wrong. That was my favorite thing about IJ at TDS (it only ever happened that once). While DL IJ has some variety in it, they need it to be more noticeable (about the only thing most people might notice is the 3 doors). Also the figures could have more interaction with the audience like the Indy figure did at TDS.

The problem with animatronics is that they have not advanced it, and by they I'm not talking about "compliance" and other improvements in the movement; what is missing is the variability that modern technology can affordably bring.

 

Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror

>>>The problem with animatronics is that they have not advanced it, and by they I'm not talking about "compliance" and other improvements in the movement; what is missing is the variability that modern technology can affordably bring.<<<

I've been involved in the creation of a few of the more cutting-edge videogames recently, and part of the goal has been more realism in the gaming experience - via interaction with NPCs (non-player characters), and this is very tough, given that those characters can't really "think". But by really, really thinking through the process, you can design characters' personalites, and dialogue for those characters, that permit an ILLUSION of interactivity with the real, human players. It requires a different way of thinking, of writing dialogue, and of programming a matrix that will cause the NPC to utilize those responses in a way that seems like a natural give and take with the player.

This sort of thinking COULD be applied to the theme park animatronic guest experience. The video game environment has an advantage, in that responses are usually multiple choice or typed in, but voice recognition software is getting to the place where in the near future, it's conceivable that NO real-time human puppeteer/voice actor would be required to interact with the guests. The illusion of spontaneity and real interactivity could be pretty convincing.

I don't know if we WANT that, but it would be "truer" to the whole concept of audio-animatronic performers... unpaid mechanical "slaves". And my guess is, we'll see SOME version of this sort of "programmed interactivity" in the future.

 

Originally Posted By aracuanbird

BlueOhana, I think it is the manner in which guests discover these characters, the context in which they activate an exchange with some programmed character, that is the real trick.

Video games are far from my sphere of experience but from the little I do know, in that environment players are often on self-directed adventures, working within the confines of the game architecture. Happening upon a character and engaging in an exchange can take place on the user's own time, and sometimes as frequently as desired.

How to open up classic theme park experiences (rides) that are capacity sensitive to this less structured navigation is a nut I don't know how to crack. And at the end of the day, I think it is a fundamntal challenge. Guests come to these places for rides. Call them adventures or attractions, whatever, the fun is riding a boat, riding a rocket, riding a sub.

Do you think there is an answer in video games that translates player-NPC interaction in that medium to guest-character interaction in atractions?