Wizarding World - Diagon Alley Discussion (Opens 2014)

[Frogki]

I think it is fairly lame of Daniel Radcliffe to opt out of all future Potter. Without Potter he would just be an average actor with average looks struggling to make a living. He owes Potter everything! Dude, just take part in the new ride.

I don't think he is trying to disrespect Potter though... I agree with you, but I think he understands how much he owes Potter - he also understands that he wants to continue working in the acting industry. And in order to do that he needs to be very flexible, and if people continue to think of him as Potter (and regardless of what he does they will), it'll be really hard for him to get a good leg in the industry and keep it there. Think about it - anyone who doesn't pay much attention to movies or the actors simply calls him Harry Potter because they don't actually remember his name.
So I understand and respect his decision - he wants to move on from this particular franchise and I don't really blame him all that much.

UPDATE:

I was actually commenting that the person/character shown doesn't actually have to be filmed (Tupac in this case)

I didn't even think about this aspect of the tech, sorry about that... You're right, that is really impressive.

 

[Disneyhead]

Disneyhead is that what they use for Christopher Walken in the Disaster queue and also FJ queue? if so, it's very impressive indeed. However,I still don't think there's anything better than a true animatronic that you can literally fly over at any angle and you're part of the scene as opposed to just looking at the scene.

Kind of. But imagine Dumbledore (musion effect) but in 3D.

Edit: This is pure speculation on my part.

 

[ReelJustice]

Update today from Orlando Informer (thanks for braving the deluge)

Link to full update: http://www.flickr.com/photos/97317268@N05/sets/72157634473482084/

Kings Cross with arch work on the side:

Framework progressing:

Hogsmeade Station

 

[retroeric]

Yes, it is.

And please, give me an example of such an animatronic.

Well it's an antiquated one but E.T. has some. Also Yeti in Everest there's a close encounter. And also FJ. I don't want to watch the action, I want to travel INTO it and feel like if I stretch far enough that I could touch it. Those experiences really do it for me. Rides like Transformers, not so much.

 

[USO92]

Im sorry but the animatronics on any ride except FJ dont add to the story or make me feel like Im in the story more. they simply distract from the actual ride and storyline bc of how lackluster and restricted in movement they are. Especially ET. Too much 3D is aggravating but I would rather ride something that uses screens and does what it needs to well than ride a ride that has AA's that can barely move or dont look real.

 

[Miketheboss]

Im sorry but the animatronics on any ride except FJ dont add to the story or make me feel like Im in the story more. they simply distract from the actual ride and storyline bc of how lackluster and restricted in movement they are. Especially ET. Too much 3D is aggravating but I would rather ride something that uses screens and does what it needs to well than ride a ride that has AA's that can barely move or dont look real.

That doesn't justify Universal using screens. Thats like saying "my son gets bad grades in english so I rather him just take math classes". Then they need to make AA's that are fluid and reliable. So do you think all the Pirates on the Pirates of the Caribbean should be displayed on screens?

 

[retroeric]

I guess I'm just more the AA type but I agree a combination of different technologiest is ideal.

 

[Miketheboss]

I guess I'm just more the AA type but I agree a combination of different technologiest is ideal.

I'm with you. The BEST attractions use both. And for me, the more sets,AA's and props that are in an attraction make it best ones.

 

[badlactose]

I think a healthy mixture of animatronics, screens, and physical sets are the ideal.

I saw a documentary a while back, and a segment with James Cameron stuck in my mind. He said he always tries to continually switch between different types of effects (digital, practical, miniatures, full-scale sets) even within one shot or scene of a movie. This way the audience could never figure out how an effect was achieved. Granted, this interview was well before Avatar, and he seems to have thrown this philosophy out the window.

But I think this holds true for rides. A mixture keeps us on our toes, never lets us figure out the 'secret' behind the magic. I could even see them creating part of Kong as an animatronic (let's say the torso and and arms and head) while a part of his anatomy further away from the viewer is a screen projection. If they could make it seemless, it would be a stunning effect.
They already do this to a lesser degree in Transformers, with real elements (the trucks, helicopters) that are real set pieces at the front, but digital extensions at the back.

 

[Frogki]

That doesn't justify Universal using screens. Thats like saying "my son gets bad grades in english so I rather him just take math classes". Then they need to make AA's that are fluid and reliable. So do you think all the Pirates on the Pirates of the Caribbean be displayed on screens?

Apples to oranges - Pirates is a completely physical set-based ride. Is it a good one? Absolutely. Is Jack Sparrow convincing? Definitely. But is it easier to maintain him than a screen? No. Not to mention you know you're looking at a robot as opposed to the actual actor or actress. Obviously you know it's a screen in other attractions, but it's much more convincing to see Dan Emma and Rupert on a screen "in the flesh" as opposed to a wonky robot.
Do I think there should be more physical sets/animatronics? Possibly. I am very excited to see the full scale dragon HTF keeps hyping up. But I love what screens can do and I think we all need to recognize the limitations of animatronics. In the same way that giant animatronics are hard to maintain (ie Yeti, Kong), human animatronics are very tricky to get right. Much easier (and often times, cooler) to use convincing screen effects/illusions.

 

[Miketheboss]

Apples to oranges - Pirates is a completely physical set-based ride. Is it a good one? Absolutely. Is Jack Sparrow convincing? Definitely. But is it easier to maintain him than a screen? No. Not to mention you know you're looking at a robot as opposed to the actual actor or actress. Obviously you know it's a screen in other attractions, but it's much more convincing to see Dan Emma and Rupert on a screen "in the flesh" as opposed to a wonky robot.1
Do I think there should be more physical sets/animatronics? Possibly. I am very excited to see the full scale dragon HTF keeps hyping up. But I love what screens can do and I think we all need to recognize the limitations of animatronics. In the same way that giant animatronics are hard to maintain (ie Yeti, Kong), human animatronics are very tricky to get right. Much easier (and often times, cooler) to use convincing screen effects/illusions.

But people don't want to see whats easier. Haven't you ever wondered why usually the hardest things to obtain and create or the things that most people desire. Ex. six pack, ferrari, love. lol......Whats better is always harder and I understand that it has to make sense from a functional point of view but it can be done.

 

[Frogki]

But people don't want to see whats easier. Haven't you ever wondered why usually the hardest things to obtain and create or the things that most people desire. Ex. six pack, ferrari, love. lol......Whats better is always harder and I understand that it has to make sense from a functional point of view but it can be done.

Not always the case - especially in the entertainment industry. Yes, people want to see the greatest creation Universal can make, and that means hard work. But a technology that has proven to be less effective when it comes to creating what you're talking about (IE humans) isn't what they'll use. A Harry Potter AA would just look creepy, that's almost 90% certain. Just because the mouse can do it with Pirates (an attraction created based on the AAs) doesn't mean it's always the answer. Obviously a mix of the technologies is best, but when it comes to people, I really feel that musion/screens are the most effective format to present them in.

 

[USO92]

Which one is more reliable and more cost efficient? Screens or animatronics? We've seen UO can create reliable animatronics in JP, FJ etc...but as you can see in any and all of those rides its an absolute pain in the butte to upkeep and also as you can see that the likes of CITH are in horrid condition. I like the mixture of screens and animatronics but the days of the likes of kongfrontation, jaws etc...are over.

 

[Frogki]

Which one is more reliable and more cost efficient? Screens or animatronics? We've seen UO can create reliable animatronics in JP, FJ etc...but as you can see in any and all of those rides its an absolute pain in the butte to upkeep and also as you can see that the likes of CITH are in horrid condition. I like the mixture of screens and animatronics but the days of the likes of kongfrontation, jaws etc...are over.

:thumbs: You're absolutely right. I'm for all fields being used (I love it when an attraction utilizes every practical effect it can), but at the end of the day you have to know what to use and where in order to make a hit.

 

[Miketheboss]

Not always the case - especially in the entertainment industry. Yes, people want to see the greatest creation Universal can make, and that means hard work. But a technology that has proven to be less effective when it comes to creating what you're talking about (IE humans) isn't what they'll use. A Harry Potter AA would just look creepy, that's almost 90% certain. Just because the mouse can do it with Pirates (an attraction created based on the AAs) doesn't mean it's always the answer. Obviously a mix of the technologies is best, but when it comes to people, I really feel that musion/screens are the most effective format to present them in.

If people continue thinking like that then we are never going to see an advancement of AA's. Disney could have easily added Captain Jack Sparrow as a screen but it wouldn't look right. The Captain Jack AA isnt 100% identical but i would say at least 95%.

Here's a video of the AA. This was done (i think) 6 years ago. So imagine what can be done now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc1qz1JheHA

At the end of the day, I just hope their are incredible AA's and the screens not being noticeable.

 

[USO92]

^^Its all about business. A good business brings in money while retaining it. AA's will not retain money as well as screens. Simple fact and believe me, parks nowadays are simply after money under the guise of nostalgia and memories. Its written all over the walls

 

[Miketheboss]

Also, check out Radiator Springs Racers, many have also put this ride in the the same level as FJ. Sure they could have used screens. But they did!! The eyes of the cars are screens/projected. However, its on an AA.

[video=youtube;22GhxvNRg6s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22GhxvNRg6s[/video]

I'm not all Disney but they are the best with AAs. IMO

 

[KreativeKid]

Those are animated CARS. Harry Potter characters are live action people. Much harder to bring to life in AA form.

 

[Miketheboss]

Those are animated CARS. Harry Potter characters are live action people. Much harder to bring to life in AA form.

Yes, I agree. But animating a car isn't so easy either. They personalized a car for crying out loud. (I've always wanted to use that phrase)

ok, ok, All I'm asking for are AA goblin bank tellers !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dats it!

 

[Skipper Justin]

Yes, I agree. But animating a car isn't so easy either. They personalized a car for crying out loud. (I've always wanted to use that phrase)

ok, ok, All I'm asking for are AA goblin bank tellers !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dats it!

That is going to happen. That has already been basically confirmed. There is no way they are going to be musion since they do not have to represent "real" people.