https://glamorouslengths.com/author/agehour5/
last logged in on May 9, 2024 8:48 am
https://kaufenuhren.orgThe common question amongst all Disney fans after every new film surrounds the possibility for this property to enter the parks. The direction of the company in recent years has made this proposition more realistic, as advertising new properties and promoting synergy of the brand is the surefire way to make money across the company. Should a film be popular, and should the brand offer potential for revenue, it becomes viable for Parks presence. We’ve had an Incredibles 2 overlay for Pixar Place and a Cars 3 Stage Show at Hollywood Studios, an Incredibles 2 Superhero Expo event at Tomorrowland in the Magic Kingdom, an Alien Pizza Planet at Tomorrowland in Disneyland, an Incredibles 2 Coaster in DCA, a Marvel Summer of Heroes event at DCA, and a lot more.The restraint in not making a sequel can be more powerful for the original film than any subsequent story ever could be. Though it was popular, Up was created with no intent for continuing the story. It wasn’t an endless tale with characters applicable for numerous circumstances, as it happened to be a contained tale of grief, loss, friendship, and family. This is the factor that separates films from products. Endless personality and a concise vision. Tell a story, leave an impression, close the book.It’s with this distinction that it becomes clear how a film translates to a theme park attraction. There are three manners to bring film into this medium; A Complete Retelling, Extended Story, and an Immersive World. The way a films are made rarely allows for translation to such the vastly different medium of immersive entertainment, but with sacrifice it can be done depending on the quality of the initial product.The Complete RetellingIn the early days of Disneyland, the growing giant needed something to pad out the Fantasyland attraction list. Funds were growing lighter, and it was too expensive to write/develop/build new assets for a brand new property. Even if they had the money, why not dip into an already famous library of films?Disneyland opened with Snow White’s Scary Adventure, Peter Pan’s Flight, and Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride, three attractions that followed the story of the original films with some slight alterations (Mr. Toad is similar concept but follows an original story). It made sense to adapt popular stories into easily approachable attractions as they could be finished quick and offered very little risk.For this to work, the properties being translated must have a simplicity to them. You can’t condense a complex film into a 5 minute attraction, as you’d lose most of what makes it a unique experience. Older Disney films were rather simple, and one could condense fairy tales into a smaller attraction. Capture the feeling, not the story, and use that to your advantage.Peter Pan’s Flight is a rough translation of a rater simple film. It’s true that the J.M. Barrie original has subtext, but the film chooses to ignore this in favor of capturing childhood glee and imagination. An attraction based on flying through the London sky and over Neverland is perfect for the animated classic, and all of the underlying themes of growing up and accepting change are lost in translation. Though important to film criticism, these aren’t themes prevalent in many of the audience’s interpretations.However, would all films work like this? Surely not. You can’t pull the underlying themes from movies heavily reliant on them, which limits this approach to very surface level films. Peter Pan can work without the underlying themes, but would Up? Could you make an Up attraction that chooses not to deal with the unending sadness of grief and focuses more on adventuring through the jungle? You could, but it would feel soulless and disgusting. The attraction would force an emotional movie to be something it isn’t, as it isn’t a load of mindless fun.For a complete retelling to work, the plot of the original film must be simple enough to translate to a restrictive medium. A shorter length will inherently limit the themes that can be addressed in a theme park ride, and trying to condense everything from a film into a short duration is impossible. Though someone could design an original story to fit within these constraints, translating a film will come at the loss of core themes.You wouldn’t try to fit Moby Dick into a five minute dark ride, right?Extended StoryIf the characters are fit for a Saturday Morning Cartoon, they can be forced into an Extended Story attraction.Characters that don’t have a set story arc, from beginning to end, would work perfectly in this translation tactic. If you could imagine as much of a zany adventure as they did in the film while doing other things (at the barber, out camping, etc.), you could see them in an Extended Story.This was most popular way to translate a film to a theme park. Stitch goes to prison, the Toys put on a carnival shootout show, the Bugs perform the arts, the Incredible family lose the baby, the Guardians of the Galaxy go to prison, the Monsters put on a talent show, and so on. Extend the story beyond the credits, and take the flexible characters into new directions they weren’t initially created to explore, and start the show.This fixes some of the problems brought up in the aforementioned Retelling, but not all of them. Instead of forcing a feature film into a smaller runtime, the extended story will neglect the running themes of the original film by changing the context each of the characters were developed in.The clearest example of this issue comes in translating The Incredibles to the theme parks. When visiting Pixar Pier, or taking part in the Incredibles Super Dance Party, the impression given is that these are just a bunch of good looking heroes trying to save the day. None of the themes of relationship tension, cheating, conformity, or failure appear in any of these experiences despite being core aspects of the original film. How can you extend these characters so far beyond the intent of the film while still respecting the source material? Truth is, you can’t.It’s clear that Imagineers have ideas for what works in the park and higher-ups ask them to find the closest possible property to synergize the product. Imagine you had an idea for a stage show in Tomorrowland based heavily on audience participation. Now imagine you’re a stockholder who knows Disney owns the popular property focused on Monsters drawing laughs from children for power. Can you kill two birds with one stone by combining a new attraction with a profitable property? You might lose a lot of the original film’s merits, but the core idea is similar enough that a synthesis is passable.It’s important to remember that the audience’s interest tends to increase as the themes become lighthearted and fun. No one would be interested in a ride detailing the fragility of friendships, but they’d love a carnival shooter based on Woody’s Roundup.A loose connection to a proven idea permeates all of these attractions individually, with the finished product resembling a forced advertisement than an expertly designed experience.The Incredibles is barely about Super Heroes. Toy Story is barely about Toys. Lilo and Stitch is barely about space. Coco is barely about skeletons. However, these are the most easily identifiable traits of each brand, and advertising the latest release by focusing on the most popular aspects is a surefire way to improve merch sales for the next installment.It’s just advertising. All of it.Immersive WorldIf I were to predict the direction Theme Parks would be moving in the next era, it would clearly be this one. With the success of The Wizarding World of Harry Potter, Cars Land, Pandora: The World of Avatar, and Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge, it’s clear that creating an immersive world based on an already known property is a surefire hit.The idea is rather simple. You have to design a fictional world when making a film, so why not translate that to the real world as accurately as possible?You already have an icon, why not bring it to reality? One of the biggest hurdles in creating an attraction is convincing an audience to immerse themselves in a new world, and basing everything on concepts already indoctrinated into the minds of consumers bypasses this struggle.It becomes difficult, however, to do anything here but retread ground already covered by the film. The Wizarding World and Cars Land allow you to enter buildings never before seen, but very little of the impression is “new.” Guests end up saying “So that’s what this looks like” and “Boy, I’m in the ____ and it was just how I expected it!” If you’re not careful, you’ll begin to waste surface area on delivering the same experience you’d get on the big screen, but this time in the physical realm. Sure, it’s rather neat to enter the world of Radiator Springs, but you end up seeing the same buildings and feeling the same emotions the film already covered. The E-ticket attraction Radiator Springs Racers feels more like a clip show of Cars’ best moments rather than a totally new experience. However, there are two areas that I commend for doing something completely different, forgoing a safe retread for an innovative recapturing of the films essence.Pandora: The World of Avatar blends the vast, sprawling mountains of Pandora with the conservationist attitude of the park. Flight of Passage is a simple fly-by of gorgeous scenery from the film, but the general message directly reflects the mentality of Animal Kingdom. A focus on habitat destruction, keystone species, and the effect of human development on flora and fauna perfectly ties The World of Avatar to the rest of the park. It may be a property, but it chooses not to advertise the film series, but to use the complex message of the film to the benefit of the park’s underlying themes.Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge is not a simple area based on a well known location (thankfully) but a new planet on the outskirts of the galaxy. Here, the spirit of Star Wars is captured without delving too far into a retread. Though the planet looks like the familiar hive of scum and villainy that is Mos Eisley, the culture is far different. It’s the essence of Star Wars that makes this land so special, whether it be the diverse cast of characters or a deep focus on lore. Even the Millennium Falcon attraction, something clearly intended to make older fans feel at home, chooses to focus on lesser-known characters to preserve the identity of the land. Translating Star Wars without the fluff is difficult, but I have no problem saying Galaxy’s Edge did a fantastic job.Sadly, this form of translation requires trust on behalf of the creator. Both of these examples originated in the Staggs administration, and we are now under the leadership of Bob Chapek. I don’t want to harp on this for very long, as many think complaining about the current decisions is “whiny,” but simply looking at the quality of Toy Story Land and Pixar Pier shows a clear focus on maximizing a small budget instead of taking a risk financially for the betterment of the artform. Toy Story Land is a thematic mess with bland setpieces and a terrible flow for guests. If you needed proof that the future is immersion, this is it, as the “story” places guests in Andy’s backyard. Just like Disney saved money putting attractions in rectangular boxes with the theme of “Studio,” the same can easily be done here. Immerse the guests in a cheap world and use the quality of the film to make up for a lazy translation.With integrity, you can create an immersive world that not only captures the feelings of a film but elaborates on them to fit a theme park dynamic. With poor intentions, you can recognize that simply delivering familiar locales will guarantee a quick return on investment from guests with little effort. Often, companies will try to sell these lands with the justification of “Look! It’s this thing you know! Don’t you want to go there?” without having the foundation to bring forth new experiences outside the translation. Simply taking one design document across the street from Animation to WDI does not make for a unique experience. With effort, you can perform the difficult task of translation, turning an already great piece of media into something amazing.What Else?As we conclude this discussion, I must take this time to do the dreadful. Nobody wants to hear it, but I must say it.It goes without saying that any form of translation will have negative effects on the park. As noted previously, it can be done extremely well, but it becomes clear that an idea not created explicitly for the theme parks will run into hurdles so difficult to overcome that one will have to make sacrifices just for it to work. You can shave a square peg, but it’ll never fit in the hole just like the circle would.Movies are meant to be movies. In film, characters are meant to have finite arcs in a finite experience with emotion, progression, and conclusion. A film without a conclusion is just a TV show, and extending the story beyond the credits is either evidence that a film is incomplete or that these characters are lack finite characterization. In Toy Story, Woody works as Andy’s toy, but with years of sanitizing and brand development, seeing him hold up a target as I launch digital pies at him doesn’t phase me.A 10 minute runtime needs a 10 minute story, and that’s why some of the best attractions in a theme park are those created specifically for that medium. Just like film, immersive design is an art, and translating between mediums is often difficult (ex: Video Game to Movie, Movie to Game, Book to Movie, Ride to Movie, etc.). Rarely are these done with artistic integrity in mind, often capitalizing on the success in one medium by bringing it to another. Sure, some Book to Movie adaptations are fantastic, but most are made at the height of one book’s popularity. Is this teen drama romance doing well? Make a movie. Is this Super Hero moving performing above expectations? Make a ride.All attractions built for the medium are aware of the constraints, something difficult to do when translating. You can certainly translate Indiana Jones to a ride, mostly because the series is already an episodic chain of events. Each movie begins and ends like a serial, and another fast paced adventure can be shortened down like an episode of television. Can you really translate a dynamic film like Inside Out, one that deals with depression, loneliness, growing up, and a fear of failure into a spinner attraction like Dumbo? Doesn’t that treat the original piece like something it isn’t? Inside Out isn’t a fun, happy movie unless you choose to forget the deeper subtleties and focus on the fact that the main character is Joy, shes yellow, and she has a fun Cotton Candy friend (neglecting the fact he dies after being forgotten).This is why so many people are desperate for original attractions seperate form Intellectual Property. Not because they hate Disney’s vulture-like advertising practices, or because Disney is pushing their monopoly on the masses, but because you can create a wonderful story made for the medium by focusing on originality. Jumping between mediums is NOT a guaranteed success. You can’t expect something to work on film while also fitting the medium of theme park design.Journey Into Imagination, Haunted Mansion, Pirates of the Caribbean, Big Thunder Mountain Railroad, Space Mountain, Mission: Space, Maelstrom, Horizons, Spaceship Earth, all these attractions have one thing in common. They’re all properly designed with the best aspects of theme parks in mind. Every character, scene, and emotion was designed with the audience’s perspective in mind. Nothing had to be translated into a medium it wasn’t made for, nor did anything betray the original intent of the product, as it was created for the physical ride system. Developing a contained story with characters limited in time but broadened by the physical medium is the key to successful theme park storytelling, something lost in the translation between mediums.Through this, it becomes clear that the best art is made for a particular medium. Should there be a translation, it should be done to accentuate the best parts of the new format, not to capitalize on the success of the original product. One small example is film translation of Call Me By Your Name, which focuses on creating a unique story with a familiar foundation by employing techniques exclusive to film rather than trying to capture the immense detail of a book. The goal of the Theme Park is to offer immersion over outright storytelling. Implied storytelling can be more successful than direct speech to an audience, as designers speak through architecture and design rather than script and narrative.This is what one can realistically conclude from a discussion on translation between mediums. Each medium has their own successes, and that must be recognized when making the shift. Too many times do marketing groups or higher-ups look at theme parks as an extension of film, asking that designers focus on translation to maximize profits. The world of theme parks is one of physical immersion, using detail to leave an impression on the audience. In this, it becomes clear that original attractions made specifically for the medium are not required, but a necessary facet of the artform. If some begin to translate across mediums that is okay, but the community mustn’t lose sight of the benefits original art can bring.In the modern era, where brand synergy control corporate decisions, it has become more and more difficult to get original products made for the medium into the limelight. Some projects have tried to distance themselves from the property (ex: World of Pandora), but they can never escape the series baggage. This isn’t the end of theme parks as we know it, but it may be the start of an era where theme park art will become obsolete. The experiences will get more immersive, but each will be an advertisement for a brand ripe for merchandise sales. Marketing on popular products is good, but focusing solely on using new products as marketing opportunities while neglecting to use the medium for new purposes with new stories will further promote the idea that theme parks are somehow lesser than any other form of entertainment.The burden of proof is on Disney’s shoulders, as they’re the largest giant in the market. With their decisions comes a ripple across the community, showing what’s possible in theme parks. There’s no indie theme parks, and any smaller ones don’t have the budget necessary to legitimize the art. Focusing on translating brands across mediums comes with significant downsides to the product, and these problems will reflect across the medium.As fans of the artform, we must ask for original art. Seeing our favorite brands fleshed out with hyper-immersive experiences is absolutely amazing, but this shouldn’t blind us to the increasing disinterest of creating new storylines for the parks. It shouldn’t be normal to accept we’ll never get another Horizons, Space Mountain, or Haunted Mansion. These original products can live in harmony with IP translation, as long as both are given the attention they deserve.There’s a bright future ahead of us, we just have to ask for it.Ryan Dorman is a Columnist and the Content Director for the Boardwalk Times. He can be found on Twitter at @OpentheDorman, and as a host of the Boardwalk Talk podcast on iTunes.