Wizarding World - Diagon Alley Discussion (Opens 2014) | Page 625 | Inside Universal Forums
Toggle sidebar

Wizarding World - Diagon Alley Discussion (Opens 2014)

  • Signing up for a Premium Membership is a donation to help Inside Universal maintain costs and offers an ad-free experience on the forum. Learn more about it here.

Poll Closed

  • Yes

    Votes: 154 88.0%

  • No

    Votes: 21 12.0%

  • Maybe

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    175
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Miketheboss said:
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!
Click to expand...

and you can personalize a circle by adding two dots and a crescent line.
smiley_face_note_card-p137495620208331383envcr_400.jpg


Personifying the fictional and the inanimate is easy, it's recreating real human complexity that's hard. That's why the new Jack stands out in the Pirates ride, because he's a recreation of a real person in an environment of cartoon-ified characters.

I'm all for AA's when your making a scary Dragon, Goblins and the like, and personally I'd love to see some more advanced moving AA's so the audience can be chased in-rides by the likes of King-Kong, but I know at the end of the day CGI is going to work more consistently, more accurately and cheaper then their mechanical counterpart. Plus with people, it's the emotions that are key, and if you can't have live actors then musion is the next best thing.
 
Last edited:
Can we boil down the animatronics argument to say that elaborate and liberal use of them can be very effective when they are representing just about anything except a photo-realistic human - especially one who is recognizable to the audience, and especially one that should be displaying some sort of emotion?

I think the depiction of Jack Sparrow only works as well as it does because that particular character is actually supposed to act in an "uncanny valley" sort of way, displaying very little outward emotion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hockeyman55
Not a big fan of Human AAs. Dinos, dragons, candelabra, etc. I'm good with. But human AAs just look creepy.

Screens? Universal batting a thousand so far, so let go nuts with them. Let Disney do their AA thing. That way we, the consumer, gets both. :happy:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hockeyman55
GGGhost said:
Whoa-whoa-whoa.... Guys? Am I crazy or...

st-pancras-station.jpg
!!!!!

Probably wishful thinking, but you've got to admit it looks strikingly more like that^ than it does the small rectangular windows that are on that side of the real Kings Cross.
Click to expand...

I think your on to something with this. I believe that is what the building is modeled off of in the movie so wouldn't be surprised if it looks similar in the park.
 
Great pics BriMan!

Not to piss anyone off with this AA talk, but, to me, that Jack Sparrow animatronic is a perfect example of why there should be a few animatronic elements in every new ride we see at the parks. That was done 6 or 7 years ago, and it looks ridiculously realistic for something done back then. They pulled it off tremendously.

It's 2013, I feel as though animatronic problems that were around back then could definitely have been dealt with. The technology for a robot has probably tripled since 2006 (see Asimo).

Someone posted this video recently:
[video=youtube;G1iVJExd5vA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1iVJExd5vA[/video]

Quite honestly, if you think that they couldn't pull off a human character with technology like this, that's just upsetting. I mean, that video represents some extremely realistic emotion and expression coming from a machine, to the point where it's almost scary.

Universal has embraced the digital age with open arms, and that's great and all, but it becomes redundant. Screens are such an amazing technology, I agree, but at some point, you have to incorporate other technologies into your rides.

I know the question is not really whether or not UC could pull it off, but rather if they would.. and that's the upsetting part.
 
^ I have said it once, and I will say it again. Animatronics that are used in film are designed to look great for 25-50 takes and then they go into storage. They are not designed to run and reset every few seconds 10 hours a day, 365 days a year. I have seen behind the scenes videos of films being made with complicated anims such as above and after 3 takes the things break down. Theme park anims cannot be as complicated and delicate as those used in movies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jtsalien
Teebin said:
^ I have said it once, and I will say it again. Animatronics that are used in film are designed to look great for 25-50 takes and then they go into storage. They are not designed to run and reset every few seconds 10 hours a day, 365 days a year. I have seen behind the scenes videos of films being made with complicated anims such as above and after 3 takes the things break down. So, there you have it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know. I've taken my fair share of film classes, I know that animatronic was used for that scene and yeah, stored away like you said. That happens with almost every major prop specifically designed for a film. I posted that video as more of a, "holy crap, animatronics CAN be that realistic."

It was just to prove a point towards bigAWL: yes, emotion can be portrayed by an animatronic, and with shocking realism.
 
Teebin said:
^ I have said it once, and I will say it again. Animatronics that are used in film are designed to look great for 25-50 takes and then they go into storage. They are not designed to run and reset every few seconds 10 hours a day, 365 days a year. I have seen behind the scenes videos of films being made with complicated anims such as above and after 3 takes the things break down. Theme park anims cannot be as complicated and delicate as those used in movies.
Click to expand...

We obviously have the technology, the cost is probably less attractive than a screen.
 
By no means do I feel that the attraction will lack amazing animatronics - the (rumored) goblin AAs in the queue will be awesome IMO. But I don't feel it's necessary (nor is it as cost effective) to create human animatronics for every scene as opposed to the much more attractive and easier to maintain screen solution. We've seen what can be done with these things - why would you fix something that is far from broken?
As I said - I am positive there will be quite an AA presence in the attraction. But I don't think any of it will (nor should) be human characters. Those can be left to screens so UC can focus on much more interesting aspects of the attraction. I'd rather the money be spent on creating an amazing and technologically innovative dragon in the attraction. That, in my opinion, merits an AA.
 
Frogki said:
By no means do I feel that the attraction will lack amazing animatronics - the (rumored) goblin AAs in the queue will be awesome IMO. But I don't feel it's necessary (nor is it as cost effective) to create human animatronics for every scene as opposed to the much more attractive and easier to maintain screen solution. We've seen what can be done with these things - why would you fix something that is far from broken?
As I said - I am positive there will be quite an AA presence in the attraction. But I don't think any of it will (nor should) be human characters. Those can be left to screens so UC can focus on much more interesting aspects of the attraction. I'd rather the money be spent on creating an amazing and technologically innovative dragon in the attraction. That, in my opinion, merits an AA.
Click to expand...

I think I agree on not having AA humans. But what if there is a Voldemort AA?! Though technically he's not human. He's immortal :sneaky:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Book with our Travel Partners

MEI Travel

Latest posts

Share this page

Top Bottom
Back