Tag Archives: Walt Disney World

“On Cinema and Theme Parks” (part 6)

Posted on by
1

My Book

Successful movie-themed attractions (stage shows or rides) create an atmosphere that is often built upon a foundation consisting of confrontation and direct simulation rather than long, sustained narratives. Whether watching a show on a stage or experiencing a ride-like attraction, the park guest is subjected to a series of physical and/or emotional shocks throughout the abridged narrative. Physical movement is also a strong element in an effective and successful movie-themed attraction design. This creates the illusion that the audience member is not only watching the action or horror take place, but part of the story as well. Implementing the use of special effects such as lighting effect or water also improve the guest experience by bringing the narrative to life.

jurassic_park_river_adventureIn the contemporary theme park model, designers seek to create a relationship between the narrative and the audience (or park guest); this is what Geoff King (2000) refers to as “the cinema of attractions.” The park guests want to be transported from a world in which they are spectators to a world in which they are participants in the story. But, themed entertainment has come a long way from its inception into modern society. How the film theme has been fused with theme park attraction design has evolved over the decades to create the convergence and synergy that exists today. This is mostly due to the understanding of spectacle versus narrative. Although these two elements work seamlessly together in a themed attraction, they are not synonymous with one another. An excellent example of a horror/action film that is both spectacle and narrative, and furthermore, is both a film and a ride is Jurassic Park.

A similar example of the infusion of the aforementioned is Jaws. Just as the use of digital special effects (or visual effects) has evolved in film, the use has also evolved in theme parks. Digital (or visual) effects is a broad term, as it covers a range of possibilities that include computer-based or computer-generated effects (Wood, 2002). The “spectacle” of film and theme park rides possesses the ability to transform the narrative, thus adding an extra dimension to the story progression. However, ultimately within the full-spectrum of the elements that make up a film or ride based on a movie, spectacle is subordinate to narrative. Spectacle is needed to dazzle and simulate, but is essentially lifeless without the narrative. (Wood, 2002). Unlike a narrative, which can have great depth, spectacle “is often understood as a particular kind of extended special dimension…depthless, or as having an excess of surface…more image-full than mise-en-scene (meeze-on-syn) everything that appears before the camera and its arrangement, composition, blocking, and lighting] as it accumulates ever more details” (Wood, 2002, 373).

mise en sceneSpectacle should never be relied upon to carry a narrative, but should be considered a useful tool in enhancing the visceral experience of the narrative. Spectacle possesses the ability to be used to create a dynamic time and space through which the narrative expands and can sometimes be manipulated (Wood, 2002). Digital effects can be used to advance the story or comment on the relationship between characters and their respective environments. In terms of theme park attractions, specifically those based on movies, adding spectacle to the narrative of the ride serves to enhance the overall experience of the park guest. The use of spectacle enables the settings, events, and characters to come to life for the park guests experiencing the live movie-based narrative. Effectively used, the guests should feel as though they get transported from the real world to the world of the movie. Theme parks offer escapes from reality; this is also true of most movies. So, by utilizing the tangible benefits of both narrative and spectacle, the designers are successful in creating the illusion that the guest is either witnessing or part of the story.

University of Central Florida professor Andy Milman (2001) further explores this relationship between cinema and theme parks in his writings in the Journal of Tourism (2001). Exploring the infrastructure of the movies, theme parks, and the convergence of the two is a complex research area that is increasingly becoming more important as the movie studios turn to theme parks for revenue, and the theme parks depend on the movie studios for creative direction and expansive guest experiences. In the article Movie Induced Tourism, authors Roger Riley, Dwayne Baker, and Carlton S. Van Doren (1998) explain that movies provide both the objective and subjective material that capture peoples’ gaze and influence them to travel to the places depicted in movies.  The concept of traveling to locations where movies were made has a direct relationship with the concept of designing theme parks based on movies and showcasing the magic behind the movies (Riley et al, 1998). This concept can be seen in some of the most visited parks in the world. One of the goals of a studio like Warner Bros. is to get the fans of the Harry Potter books and movies to the Wizarding World of Harry Potter at Universal Studios Florida; and, by way of the flip side of the coin, one of the goals of the theme parks (mainly Disney and Universal) is to turn park guests into movie audience patrons (Milman, 2001).

You can always find out what you missed by buying my book on Amazon!

Return to the beginning of this series by clicking PART 1

“On Cinema and Theme Parks” (part 5)

Posted on by
1

My Book

Over the decades, there has been a strong convergence between cinema and theme parks. Studio executives, filmmakers, and theme park designers are working together in ways that serve to support both the movies and the parks that have rides based on the movies. Historically, the beginning of the convergence of cinema and theme parks became apparent in the late 1970s. Following the decline and eventual fall of the original Hollywood studio system in the 1960s, there are some areas that have changed in the production of films (and other entertainment media). According to Allen Scott of UCLA in the writings of Dr. Ralph Casady (1957), some of the changes and transitions dating back to the 1970s are: (1)The penetration of digital technology into all stages of motion picture production (2)The intensified geographic decentralization of production in the greater LA area (3)The proliferation of new markets based on the cross-promotion of intellectual property rights (4)The increased penetration into themed entertainment and video gaming and (5)The merging of, or buying out of major studios by giant multinational media conglomerates (2001). Along with anti-trust government regulation as a result of the Paramount Decision* and the reluctance of big banks to continue to finance motion pictures, film studios were forced to seek new revenues from other sources.

Inside the show building from the former Hitchcock: the Art of Making Movies attraction at Universal Studios Florida.

Inside the show building from the former Hitchcock: the Art of Making Movies attraction at Universal Studios Florida.

More than ever, filmmakers and attraction designers need to know what the cinema patron and park guest both want in order to create a synergistic and dynamic entertainment experience based on a single narrative. The idea is to generate a similar or complementary emotional response during the themed attraction to that experienced by the movie patron during the respective movie. According to researchers Enrique Bigne, Louisa Audreu, and Juergen Gnoth (2004) of Tourism Management, visitor emotions, in a theme park environment, influence satisfaction and behavioral intentions; and, emotions consist of two independent dimensions: pleasure and arousal (2004).  Theme parks are a form of leisure activity because they provide an opportunity for entertainment during an individual’s discretionary time (Milman, 1991). More specifically, movie-based theme parks provide live themed entertainment experiences that immerse the individual into the world of filmmaking or into the narrative itself. As media conglomerates continue to grow and acquire theme park properties (either through the development of new or re-envisioning of old ones) and intellectual property licenses, the popularity of movie-based theme parks will likely continue to grow.

(Check out what you missed by buying my book on Amazon)

Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey at Universal's Islands of Adventure

Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey at Universal’s Islands of Adventure

The creators of theme park attractions from movies have to keep in mind two areas to communicate through the attraction: (1) selecting elements from the setting, characters, and narrative to translate; (2) Translating the aforementioned elements in a manner which can be communicated in a physical, tangible, multisensory way. Theme parks have traditionally used two models for cinema-based attractions. Examples of these models can be found at the Universal Studios Florida park (Failes, 2014). One model is the behind the scenes of movie-making and the other model is the ‘ride the movie’ concept (“ride the movies” is the original slogan for Universal Studios Parks). The former is traditionally more of a stage show that takes the park guests on a journey through the production process of a movie (i.e. Earthquake: Ride it Out or Hitchcock: The Art of Making Movies). The latter is usually a more conventional amusement ride that involves moving vehicles through the world and characters of the movie, often facing some sort of challenge within the narrative (i.e. Harry Potter: The Forbidden Journey and StarTours: The Adventure Continues). In recent years, there has been a move from the “behind the scenes” rides/shows to more participatory rides, placing the park guest into the narrative as a de facto character from the movie.

* U.S. V. PARAMOUNT PICTURES, INC., 334 U.S. 131 (1948) The US Government forced the eight major/minor studio players to end the practice of block booking (meaning, films would now be sold on an individual basis), divest themselves of their respective theatre chains (sell them off), and modify the practice of long-term employee contracts (though, this would continue until the 1960s). This marked the beginning of the end of the Studio System, AKA Hollywood’s decentralization.

For previous articles this series, click here:

“On Cinema and Theme Parks” part 4

Posted on by
2

My Book

Continued from Part 3

One medium being the extension of, or exhibiting a direct connection to, another medium is not a new concept. In fact, this concept of media convergence has been around for as long as multiple mediums have existed. In order to better understand the convergence or synergy that exists between cinema, in particular horror film, and theme parks, it is crucial to understand how we arrived at this point. One thing that film and themed entertainment both have in common is that each tells a story—in a different manner. But, the narrative is often quite similar. Prior to theme parks and cinema (film), there were plays, novels, and oral stories/traditions. The novel is an extension of the oral story, the play is an extension of the novel, cinema is an extension of the play, and the theme park is an extension of cinema. According to Dr. Henry Jenkins, “there has been an alarming concentration of the ownership of mainstream commercial media, with a small handful of multinational media conglomerates dominating all sectors of the entertainment industry” (2004, p1). This is clearly seen in the acquisition, exhibition, and development of theme park attractions based upon movies and, to a lesser extent, television shows.

The first cinemas were setup more like attractions than actual theatres. Perhaps more than coincidentally, theatres began springing up at the same time Coney Island opened its turnstiles around the beginning of the twentieth century; and at this time, cinema itself was still very much viewed as an attraction (Gunning, 1986). According to Tom Gunning (1986), “it was precisely the exhibitionist quality of turn-of-the-century popular art that made it attractive to the avant-garde” (1986, p66). So this concept of the convergence of cinema and theme park (or attraction) is one that dates all the way back to the early 1900s. Since some of the earliest films were of a surreal or horror nature, it is of no surprise that horror played a large role in the development of the cinema attraction. Much in the same way that early cinema was essentially a variety show, in essence, lacked a continuous diegesis, or narrative, the convergence of cinema and theme parks offers a variety of cinema-based attractions that are, indirectly at best, connected to each other. However, instead of the film, itself, being the attraction, cinema-based theme parks and attractions use the narrative provided by a work of cinema and uses elements of that film that can be translated into a real-world experience.

But as with any media convergence, there are also pitfalls to such a synergy between two powerful media. In order to best understand the pitfalls and promises in such a meeting, it is imperative to discuss convergence of two media in and of itself. Understanding the concept of convergence will better prepare filmmakers and themed entertainment designers to select the best elements of films to translate into themed attractions based on movies, in particular horror or action. According to the leader of research into the area of media convergence Henry Jenkins (2004), “media convergence is more than simply a technological shift. Convergence alters the relationship between existing technologies, industries, markets, genres, and audiences. Convergence refers to a process, but not an endpoint” (P1). Over the years, the relationship between cinema and theme parks has shifted. Before, cinema was the attraction; and now, the attraction is infused with cinema. And the handful of multinational media conglomerates own both methods of the exhibition of creativity. With the exception of the Walt Disney Company, many of the other media conglomerates have prominent interests in theme parks and film and television studios; and some also have interests in Broadway productions (i.e. Universal Studios’ Wicked and Sony Pictures’ Spider-Man).

Crossing over into new arenas of revenue requires access to vast media libraries, and that is what many of media conglomerates have at their disposal. This ability to converge areas of media interest in order to generate more revenue is something that contrasts with old Hollywood. Jenkins (2004) remarks that “old Hollywood focused on cinema, [and] the new media conglomerates have controlling interests across the entire entertainment industry” (P34). This convergence greatly influences the way society consumes media and entertainment (everything from movies to theme parks to music to toys and games). More than a cross-promotion of entertainment and media products, the convergence of cinema and theme parks is “a reconfiguration of media power and a reshaping of media aesthetics and economics” (Jenkins, 2004, P35). This reconfiguration comes in many shapes and forms. And, the horror film has found a place within the new configuration of entertainment media synergy. Specifically, the horror film has been used instrumentally in this reconfiguration; evidence of this can be seen in the prolific number of television shows (most popularly zombie shows), movies, and horror/Halloween themed events at theme parks (e.g. Busch Gardens’ Howl-O-Scream and Universal Studios’ Halloween Horror Nights). In these events, horror films provide a vast heritage from which theme parks can draw characters and plots to create temporary attractions to generate more income for the media company. Looking at many of the opening day attractions at movie-based theme parks, horror films were the first films to be translated into themed entertainment.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

On Cinema and Theme Parks (part 3)

Posted on by
6

Continued from Part 2My Book

Some of the most impressive and revolutionary changes to the movie-based theme parks came to fruition in the 1970s and 1980s. This is the time that horror became the chief source of inspiration for attractions at Universal Studios Hollywood (Riley, 1998). The ride that ushered in the plethora of attractions based on some of the best horror movies of all time was Jaws. JawsThe Jaws Ride was opened as part of the studio tram tour in 1975, and was an immediate hit with the park guests. It was quickly followed by Kongfrontation and Earthquake: Ride it Out (Murdy, 2002). Just as audiences are fascinated by horror movies and seek to watch that which would be repulsive in real-life, they are equally interested in immersing themselves into the experience by way of a theme park attraction. This phenomenon is not limited to horror movies, because rides like Jurassic Park the Ride (Jurassic Park River Adventure in Florida), Revenge of the Mummy, and Pirates of the Caribbean beckon millions of guests a year (IAAPA, 2014). In addition to attractions based on the movies, movie studio executives and theme park engineers created attractions that embody what Carl Laemmle first envisioned, by taking the audience behind the magic of the movies. This is the case with the (now closed) Backlot Tour at Disney’s Hollywood Studios and Hitchcock: The Art of Making Movies at Universal Studios Florida (Murdy, 2002). The relationship between the cinema and theme parks is a strong one and creates an energetic synergy that entertains millions of people each year.

Not every movie-themed attraction is a smash hit with the guests, just like not every big-budget movie is a hit with movie patrons. Although well-intentioned by the producers of both, or even the media conglomerate that has major investments in or owns both, may desire and believe they did what it took to create the next blockbuster ride or movie, sometimes the guests fail to view the movie or attraction with the same lens the designers and backers used to create the film or ride. In terms of movie or intellectual property-based attractions, major theme parks can make mistakes or lose out because of the ownership of some parks changing from one conglomerate to another.

LightMagicNot every flubbed theme park attraction is a “ride;” sometimes it is a show or parade. The failure of a show/parade can be seen in the four month—yes, four—run of Disneyland’s Light Magic “street-tacular” (Krosnick, 2014).  More than another light parade, Light Magic condensed the number of parade floats ordinarily expected in a Disney parade to four large stages that, along the parade route, would burst into light, pyrotechnics, and digital projections. It was complete with a pantheon of Disney characters and music. Unfortunately, if you chose to stand in the wrong spot, all you get is darkness and vaguely familiar shapes of characters. Following a very poor reception by Disneyland passholders, the negative word of mouth was so severe that it effectively caused the closure of the new entertainment offering that sent $20MIL down the drain.

TombRaiderRideAccording to Theme Park Tourist (2014), popular seasonally operating Paramount’s Kings Island (purchased by Cedar Fair in 2007 and all Paramount property removed) spent $20MIL on a ride that lasted a mere five years. Based on the hit video game and blockbuster action movie Tomb Raider: The Ride was on par with Disney and Universal in respect to story, setting, and special audio/visual effects; however, after Paramount sold off its theme park investments to Cedar Fair, the ride got rebranded as The Crypt, a generic theme, and all direct associations with the movie and game Tomb Raider were removed following the 2007 operating year.  Interestingly, the ride attendance continually dropped following the rebranding, and the ride was eventually moved to Kings Dominion in Virginia in 2012. Although there may be other reasons as to why the ride became less popular and eventually moved to another park, it is conceivable to conclude that there is a special relationship between attractions and movies in a theme park. (Krosnick, 2014).

Continue to Part 4

Click here for Part 1

Click here for Part 2

“Magical” Data Collection (part 2 of 3)

Posted on by
2

MagicBands

(cont’d from part 1)

Magic Bands work primarily off RFID and GPS technologies; the former is a marriage of radio frequencies and microchip technologies whereas the latter is built upon geo-locating satellite transmitters and receivers (Schnell, 2013). Think of RFID technology as the older IR (infrared) technology but not requiring the same line of sight. Both are limited to short distances. Writing on Near Field Communication (NFC), Schnell highlights that NFC is a “contactless exchange [of information] that takes place over short distances…NFC allows users to perform contactless (although sometimes brief contact is also used) access to digital content and connect to other electronic devices simply by bringing their mobile devices into close proximity” (Schnell, 2015 p.101).

Everything from reading and writing information to programming for specific tasks can be accomplished with NFC. Outside of the magical examples, NFC can be seen in the technology that tells a phone or computer to go to sleep when placed on a special stand or dock. More commonly known, there are mobile device charging stations that respond simply by placing the phone on the charging pad (with no cable connectivity required). NFC technology is also found in the growing number of consumers who are using ApplePay® to make purchases by holding the iPhone close to an ApplePay reader and using the security of a fingerprint. The method by which Apple is integrating ApplePay into the functionality of the iPhone and the experience in the Apple Store is the similar to the method by which the Magic Bands operate. Both perform similar tasks, but for different purposes.

The widespread ramifications of the Magic Band system will be felt not only by real theme parks (i.e. Universal Studios, SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment) but also by museums, airports, and zoos, aquariums, and many more places that integrate hospitality, transportation, and merchandise into the daily operations. The intel collected from the use of the bands is unprecedented (Pameri, et al, 2014). The question at hand is two fold, (1) beyond the superficial uses, how else is the tracking information used? (2) beyond the vacation management system (MyMagic+), how else does this smart data affect other business decisions?  The two fold question has one common element: privacy.

The indirect results of weeks and months of smart data collection can be used to affect decisions like how many employees (Cast Members in the Disney vernacular) to staff at each attraction, restaurant, or resort. By analyzing the number of FastPass reservations made through the My Disney Experience app (the flagship app in the MyMagic+ system) and reflecting those numbers against the number of standby guests (guests without FastPasses who have to wait in the traditional queue) all the while just qualifying those numbers against the physical number of guests through the attraction entrance, Disney World can make effective decisions based upon copious amounts of dynamic data. This same smart data can even help determine what items to stock in the various merchandise shops and even how many character performers should be strategically roaming the park (Palmeri, et al, 2014). It is conceivable to conclude that this same information can also be used in the decision making process of a new movie, television show, or Broadway show. “To infinity and beyond” with this information as Toy Story’s Buzz Lightyear would say.

At the end of the day, there really is not anything particularly magical about the Magic Band. It takes what, as Jurassic Park’s Ian Malcolm would say, “others have done and took the next step” (Jurassic Park, 1993). The Magic Band is next evolution in the wearable technology trend of integrating technology seamlessly into the everyday or more mundane tasks for which, otherwise, time has to be separately allocated. Experiences with a brand or product are customized by collecting, tracking, qualifying, and quantifying data created by the [perceived] end user. The word perceived is in brackets because it is truly the company who is the end user of the data because they decide what to do with it and whether to sell it to another buyer. According to Adam Thierer, “wearable technologies are among the fastest-growing segment of internet-based technologies and promise to have widespread societal influences in the coming years” (p1 2015). These positive and negative consequences can include challenges to present societal norms, mores, and more. Economic and legal norms and guidelines may also find themselves challenged by the data provided by wearable technologies. This is not so unlike Disney’s decision-making in the parks about staffing and merchandise.

Like with any new technology, safety (including, but not limited to privacy and security) is a major concern and the skeptics often outweigh those who are welcoming of new communications technologies with open arms. If safety was always paramount and truly dictated innovation, then it is likely that entrepreneurship, economic growth, ingenuity, and invention could be greatly mitigated (Thierer, 2015). There must be a balance struck between acknowledging safety (in the case of this paper, privacy) but permitting new communications technologies to breach it to a small extent to pave the way for a more efficient means of conducting business or creating experiences. The best means of dealing with privacy issues, in terms of wearable technologies, is to creatively deal with them as they rise up (Thierer, 2015). Unfortunately, sometimes privacy issues are ignored or seen as passé in order to commodify data. That is the crux of the issue. Beyond the obvious uses of the Magic Bands, is the privacy of consumers compromised and is the data being sold off? Without conducting an empirical research study and interviews with those who monitor and support the technology, it is entirely possible that the answer will not be known for some time yet since the MyMagic+ system is still relatively new. But, past research can show us how similar technologies are used, and by extension, apply those practices to the MagicBands and the data collected by them.

Interestingly, privacy awareness over what is now referred to as smart data can be traced back to 2006—a time in which many were unaware that the aforementioned technology existed, at least in its present form (Mokbel, 2006). The idea of location-based information is not new—that is how Google Maps mobile app works as well as just the basic GPS in your vehicle. But, that same technology has become smaller, less expensive, and can be integrated into many different items including the Disney Magic Bands. Why integrate this technology into items like the Disney Magic Bands? Simply stated, it is because “user requests to location-based services can be modeled as spatio-temporal queries that can be efficiently executed over large numbers of mobile users through database management modules, e.g., data indexing, query processing, and query optimization” (Mokbel, P1, 2006). The possibilities of channeling the data in copious ways provides an unprecedented quality and quantity of data that can be cited in the development of various decisions. It is not that this same data could not be quantified in any other way, but this method is far more efficient because it would take exponentially more hours and resources to achieve the same results through more conventional means—at least convention as it was known until the advent of smart data devices.