Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

3D - Should it stay or go on attractions?

Collapse

Get Away Today

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 3D - Should it stay or go on attractions?

    For fun debate (which we've probably had before), since we all love it so here :

    I just read an article supporting the elimination of 3D elements requiring glasses on future attractions in the parks. Basically, 3D doesn't actually add much to the experience, is more expensive in some cases, makes some guests nauseous, and makes the attraction less accessible (folks with vision issues, glasses, etc..).

    I couldn't agree more. I don't feel like 3D adds much at all, if anything the visuals are less crisp, and feels less immersive. I think a select few attractions benefit, but it shouldn't be in the majority of attractions.

    For those of you that can get behind the paywall, here's the article in the OC Register.

  • #2
    I would not be heart broken to see the 3D attractions go. I really don't see the advantage.
    BGood! It's not just my motto its my name!

    Comment


    • #3
      I don't think we should get rid of the 3D attractions per se. It should be more like not developing them in the future. There are so many things more immersive than 3D glasses. Building live set pieces that move and function as if they were real are 1,000x better than screens. Back when smartphones weren't a thing 3D as a kid was pretty cool, but now that a vast majority of kids are constantly in front of some sort of screen. I think the magic from these attractions is fading away and fading quickly. If I were Disney I wouldn't make anymore 3D attractions. The problem with my argument is that 3D screens are way cheaper than live sets and we all know how Disney likes to do things on the cheap right now.

      Comment


      • #4
        I don't mind 3D attractions at all when done well, just as I dislike physical set pieces when done poorly. I'd argue the technology itself is not really the issue, it is instead the over reliance on it that is the biggest source of frustration for some people. 3D does wonders for attractions like Midway Mania and Star Tours; both of which are incredibly popular and well regarded overall. Star Tours is one of my favorite rides; its simplicity is its key to success. Once you pass through the outer doors you are well and truly whisked to a galaxy far far away. It's an attraction that could not be done with physical sets, and the 3D element enhances what would otherwise be a screen.

        I agree that having every single new attraction be screen based and 3D is overusing the tech, and it was something that Universal trended towards in the early to 2000s to 2010s. You felt it in the parks, especially in Orlando, where it felt like almost every attraction needed glasses and had you staring at a screen. However, a mix of technologies with some using 3D where it enhances the attraction and others not using it as a crutch means that 3D attractions have a place.

        Comment


        • #5

          3D or not, it's sad that the company that once was the leader in audio-animatronic technology has devolved into an imitator of other companies' video screen rides.

          "Disneyland is often called a magic kingdom because
          it combines fantasy and history, adventure and learning,
          together with every variety of recreation and fun,
          designed to appeal to everyone."

          - Walt Disney

          "Disneyland is all about turning movies into rides."
          - Michael Eisner

          "It's very symbiotic."
          - Bob Chapek

          Comment


          • #6
            I believe visual effects tech has moved beyond the need for 3D. The Tom Holland scene on webslingers clearly evidences that you can generate 3D without needing glasses. I also think the overreliance on it has got to go. I rode Remy a few weeks ago - it's in 3D and that element felt completely unnecessary.

            Comment


            • #7
              I'm not a fan of 3D or simulator type attractions. So I'd be okay if new attractions didn't include it.
              Big Thunder Ranch > Galaxys Edge

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by mickdaddy View Post
                I would not be heart broken to see the 3D attractions go. I really don't see the advantage.
                Same. The time has passed.

                Comment


                • #9
                  For me I don't care either way. It enhances the experience but isn't truly necessary in a lot of cases. I can't imagine FoP without 3D.

                  But my nDH cannot really 'see' the 3D even with the glasses and 3D makes my DS2 ill. I'm sure they'd both be fine if it were gone.
                  "Life is not about waiting for the storm to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain.​"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    For me it depends on the attraction and if wearing the 3D glasses feels natural for the sort of thing you'd be doing.

                    An attraction like Muppet*Vision 3D which plays the 3D into the attraction's storyline and uses characters that probably would utilize the tech for their own zany purposes, is something I can get behind.

                    Not so much with something like Star Tours. You're already safely inside of a tour vehicle for sightseeing so having the riders wear 3D glasses doesn't feel like something that would happen "naturally" within the context of the attraction. It exists solely to give depth to the screen, which is nice in a way but still takes me out of the experience a bit.

                    So, I think it's fine if it "feels" right or wearing glasses is something that one would do for the context of the attraction. One example I can think of that would work well in my book would be a 3D version of Soarin' over California. Hang Gliders wear protective eyewear to protect themselves from anything that might accidentally obscure their vision while gliding so having us put on some "aviation goggles" before boarding would both make sense and provide a new depth of field to the experience. I also think the ride is gentle enough to prevent many from getting motion sickness. At the very least one theatre could be 3D and the other could be flat (a la Orange and Green team at Mission: Space).

                    Click image for larger version

Name:	Hudson-Valley-Hang-Gliding-Paragliding.jpg
Views:	441
Size:	614.4 KB
ID:	8648648Click image for larger version

Name:	1491592807420.jpg
Views:	444
Size:	162.6 KB
ID:	8648649

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I think they will go, or more likely, evolve.

                      Similar to how Star Tours seemed to set off the trends of parks adding simulator-based attractions, I think AR attraction experiences (like Universal Japan Mario Kart) will start catching on. As AR attraction technologies gain more adoption in parks, I think it will make it a more affordable technology not limited to Disney and Uni.

                      Rather than 3-D glasses, I think attractions will start moving to AR glasses attractions.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I can't give a blanket answer to this question. It's not my preferred technology, but if the situation calls for it then I'm not going to throw it out.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Mr Wiggins View Post
                          3D or not, it's sad that the company that once was the leader in audio-animatronic technology has devolved into an imitator of other companies' video screen rides.


                          I AGREE
                          Disney have done "OVER KILL"with there , video base screen attractions......at there park's !
                          IMO
                          Soaring like an EAGLE !

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Oh man... I can't believe I'm outvoted here...I like the 3D movies, (especially the 4D ones when the ants bite your bottom) it's so cute when the little kids grab at the flying Guinea Pig in Captain Eo. They're great!

                            I know they're both gone from CA already, those were just the best ones that I will never forget

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by nostalgic View Post
                              Oh man... I can't believe I'm outvoted here...I like the 3D movies, (especially the 4D ones when the ants bite your bottom) it's so cute when the little kids grab at the flying Guinea Pig in Captain Eo. They're great!

                              I know they're both gone from CA already, those were just the best ones that I will never forget
                              Don't feel bad...most time I'm outvoted here......
                              But what expect, from a un-knowen -nobody .

                              I have enjoy 3-D movie's growing up.......BUT

                              My understand IGER
                              love base screen attractions.........for they are cheap attractions......
                              that can be change ,to a new attraction on a dime.
                              and most all Theme Parks have them.

                              My Issue.....and my IMO
                              Disney way to many !.........and feel they can do better ,than that !
                              Soaring like an EAGLE !

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                I agree that I think they should only have one 3D ride in a park. Honestly, I think they should also have the 360 movies. It's cool for little kids to see. The park should still have attractions for the once in a lifetime visitor.

                                I used to be bothered by Michael Jackson and understood at the time why they took out Captain Eo, but since he has died I have learned that so much of what I thought was "true" was completely fabricated. His story is the first time I REALLY felt like a sucker and that I had fallen for fake news. I absolutely believed, that when he died, for instance, the EMTs couldn't put an oxygen mask on him properly because his prosthetic nose had fallen off. A local news story actually reported that! I believed it! When I tell people that's not true they still argue with me. Lots of people think that he had a prosthetic nose. Horrible. (proof is in coroner's autopsy report. Sad, but factual)

                                The only reason I feel this is on topic is because I really feel Michael Jackson was found guilty in the court of public opinion, and he was never found guilty in court. Who knows, I certainly don't, he might have done some bad stuff. But that could be said of anybody, and the cancel culture in Hollywood is pretty rough.

                                Captain Eo had been created to be timeless, set in a future or past far away place. Star Wars. I showed my kids Eo on youtube and they loved it! It could easily be put into circulation, special come back type of deal.

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  If Eo comes back for a time it *really* needs a remaster, cleaned up to 4k+ and using a modern multi-laser projection system.

                                  Please check out my website too!

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    As a glasses wearer, 3D SUCKS. One of the types of rides I despise are ones where we're forced to wear 3D glasses and wish they'd stop making 3D attractions.

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      I never have a problem wearing the 3D glasses over my regular glasses, but I'm not crazy about 3D in itself. It's a gimmick that goes in and out of fashion, and when it's in, theme parks get flooded with 3D film attractions which then hang around long after the fad has faded and make it seems as though the designers themselves have some sort of fixation on the effect. That, and any 3D attraction is automatically a screen-based attraction, and those are way overused at the expense of actually building stuff.
                                      Like this post? Read more like it at The Disneyland Dilettante!

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        The whole point in going on attractions is to… do something you can’t do at home hahaha. I can 3D at home.

                                        Your honor, you have my answer.

                                        Comment

                                        Get Away Today Footer

                                        Collapse
                                        Working...
                                        X