Sleeping Beauty Castle Walk-Thru Reopening?!

[Escapay]

I think that is really bad and I think people should outcry against it! I mean, anyone could see that video by getting the DVD or Blu-ray

It's out of print as of January this year. So this time next year, for most guests who don't have the DVD or Blu-Ray, going to Disneyland is the only way to see the CGI walk-through. Regardless if it's up to date or not with the actual attraction.

How did James Baxter, usually a nice guy, and who loves quality, allow that?

JAMES Baxter the animator had nothing to do with it.

TONY Baxter the imagineer, on the other hand...

Can we get Disney to fix this meaness? Those poor handicapped people, you know?

Meanness? Really?

Meanness?

Disney simply opted to use an already-available CGI walk-through as an opportunity for handicapped guests (not all of whom would have the 2008 DVD or Blu-Ray) to experience the attraction. So it's not a 100% recreation of what's currently inside the castle, big deal. It's not like imagineers and accountants are maliciously laughing at guests backstage in a "Hahaha, that crippled guy in the wheelchair will never see what it REALLY looks like" kind of way.

If they really wanted to accomodate the handicapped for this attraction, they'd close off the inside of the castle, gut it all, and re-build it top to bottom to be wheelchair accessible. No more stairs, no more narrow passages. But they don't have the money to do that. And since they have an option that is - I repeat - already available, they'll use it.

Whether fans like it or not, refurbs and rehabs and updates cost money. Disney could have shelled out the extra $$$ to update the CGI walk-through. But there are other things in the park that obviously have priority (continued maintenance for the already existing walk-through, for example). For the time being, it is simply cheaper to use what is already available. And then maybe they'll update it later on.

Also, at least the handicapped guests given a chance to watch the walk-through (regardless if they have the DVD at home or not). Imagine how handicapped guests must have felt from 1957 to 2001 when such an option wasn't available.

It should also be noted that Magic Kingdom's Swiss Family Treehouse and Disneyland's Tarzan's Treehouse aren't wheelchair accessible. Where's the fan uproar about that? Where's their CGI walk-throughs? (And there better not be a bs excuse of "Oh, they're not popular enough to merit such a treatment".) Sleeping Beauty Castle is lucky to have such an option. After all, the CGI walk-through was released around the same time that the actual attraction was re-opening. So it was meant to be available for people who couldn't see the real thing. Regardless if they were in the park or not.

albert

[Disney Duster]

Oh, yea, I meant Tony Baxter.

The thing is, as you mentioned, they were building the new attraction just as they were making the CGI version, so, when on earth would they make it if they didn't make it then? I would not think it would be that hard to have the artwork used in the new version be placed in the CGI version, I mean, it's just flat cut-outs, you just have to place them in the same 3D castle! How hard and much money could it be to simply take the animation in the projection of the Maleficent dragon, or the 2-D art prepared for all the rest, and stick it in the 3-D castle?

It's not Disney caring about other things. It's about Disney caring about money and being lazy as almost always these days. It's about catering to the biggest amount, and not the smaller amount, like almost always these days.

[Escapay]

The thing is, as you mentioned, they were building the new attraction just as they were making the CGI version, so, when on earth would they make it if they didn't make it then?

But it's not a new attraction. It was already there, it already existed, it was just closed off. They simply needed to touch it up, clean it up, change a couple things. That's less expensive (I assume) than recreating the whole thing in CGI from scratch.

I would not think it would be that hard to have the artwork used in the new version be placed in the CGI version, I mean, it's just flat cut-outs, you just have to place them in the same 3D castle! How hard and much money could it be to simply take the animation in the projection of the Maleficent dragon, or the 2-D art prepared for all the rest, and stick it in the 3-D castle?

Seriously, you're gonna actually say that? I know you have some bias against CGI animation but really...you KNOW that animation (regardless if it's hand-drawn or on a computer) is much more than transferring one thing into another, in this case transferring a CGI file into another and hitting a "render" button. There are plenty of other factors to consider.

Might as well say "I'll take this square peg and shove it into this circular hole and expect it to fit perfectly without adjusting anything on the square peg."

It's about Disney caring about money and being lazy as almost always these days.

They have shareholders.

They have competition.

They are a worldwide company with plenty of other parts of their business to worry about.

And I don't know where you've been the past 3 years, but the world was in a global financial crisis. Money isn't thrown about willy-nilly. Purse strings on all companies are getting tighter, not just Disney.

They have to maintain plenty of businesses, and you're mad that they couldn't update a CGI ride-through to include a new scene?

It's about catering to the biggest amount, and not the smaller amount, like almost always these days.

That's every company, again, not just Disney. They need to appeal to the widest range of consumers. They can still appeal to a "smaller amount" but when you've (hypothetically) got $100 to spend on 1000 people, you need to prioritize where that money goes and how it's used for the greatest amount of people. They can't 100% satisfy everyone.

Hell, they still haven't updated Carousel of Progress, in which the grandfather proclaims the wonders of LASERDISC and the granddaughter says "We've got a whole new century ahead of us." It's a low priority for them to update that, much like an already-existing CGI walk-through that still faithful to what's inside, even if it's not 100% faithful.

Seriously. People can be mad at Disney for a variety of things. But calling them mean, lazy, caring about money, etc. because they aren't updating a CGI walk-through that still serves its intended audience? That's a petty issue.

albert

[Disney Duster]

First off, the completely changed all the old dolls in backgrounds to completely different cut-outs in backgrounds. Practically all new.

Next, I have not bias against CGI, but at Disney, all I ask is that it look Disney. We won't get into that, I am just stating that, and I thought the first CGI walk through looked fine on the DVD, obviously since I want them to work on it even more so people can see the new version the same way.

Next, I said how hard could it be not to put some other 3D animation into the CGI castle, but put flat, 2-D cut-outs into it. And they only have to do a few!

Finally, the reason I am so upset is because they lied. They said wheelchair guests would able to experience the new walk-through in the virtual way. But it is not the new walk through they are seeing this way. If they let the guests know exactly what they were seeing, a virtual walk through not very accurate to the new one (and could have been more accurate to the old one) that they could also pick up on a DVD or Blu-ray, very available back then, but still available today because you can still find them places, not to mention video rental stores, that's still mean but at least honest, but no, they lied. But Disney lies a lot too, like saying the original theatrical edition of a movie is on a DVD when it's not.

[Escapay]

First off, the completely changed all the old dolls in backgrounds to completely different cut-outs in backgrounds. Practically all new.

My mistake, then. I only went through the walk-through once (July 2009), but remember little of it even if it was only last year. I do remember a family behind us that were annoyed because we (Kram & I) took so long at each diorama. But the actual walk-through is very hazy in my memory of it now.

Next, I said how hard could it be not to put some other 3D animation into the CGI castle, but put flat, 2-D cut-outs into it. And they only have to do a few!

Even so, you're proposing that they simply change something and in a style markedly different from the rest of the walk-through. All for the sake of being 100% accurate, which isn't even possible given that it's a CGI video and not the actual thing. Again, square peg in circular hole.

Finally, the reason I am so upset is because they lied. They said wheelchair guests would able to experience the new walk-through in the virtual way. But it is not the new walk through they are seeing this way. If they let the guests know exactly what they were seeing, a virtual walk through not very accurate to the new one (and could have been more accurate to the old one) that they could also pick up on a DVD or Blu-ray, very available back then, but still available today because you can still find them places, not to mention video rental stores, that's still mean but at least honest, but no, they lied.

Most consumers don't care about special features. And most Disney consumers likely aren't even aware of the contents on Disc 2 of any Disney movie they have. Thus, when a wheelchaired guest is presented with a virtual walk-through of an attraction they otherwise can't go on, they more likely will be grateful for Disney offering such a courtesy, REGARDLESS if it's 100% faithful or not.

So they lied about that. Big deal. I would imagine guests are grateful that they did make a CGI walk-through viewing room, even if it's just showing the video already on the DVD/Blu-Ray. Besides, were it not for the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (part of which more or less says any public building must be wheelchair accessible), Disney wouldn't be legally obligated to provide such an alternative.

Seriously. There are greater things to be pissed off about within the Walt Disney Company. Lying about what a CGI walk-through is or isn't is again a petty issue.

albert

[Disney Duster]

I'm glad you took such a good long time at the walk-through, I'd probably be even worse!

I don't get what you mean when you say "you're proposing that they simply change something and in a style markedly different from the rest of the walk-through." The CGI walk-through already has cut-outs and lots of parts that are accurate to the current walk-through. They would just be getting different cut-outs and I think one or two whole new scenes, which they have the artwork and animation for already and I'm guessing probably in a computer somewhere.

As for them being obligated to make a wheelchair version, I actually thought they didn't have to and they were being nice as they should be, I didn't know they were kind of forced to. That actually makes what they did seem all the more lazy, just doing what they have to.

And maybe this is a small issue. But there is something up with you that whenever we bring up small things, you think we shouldn't talk about them. Well details are part of quality and often bring about the quality of things. A bunch of small things make up a whole big thing. You're right the issue is small. But just because there's one bad thing compared to other bad things doesn't mean I won't talk about the one bad thing, too. I'm not going to shut up and keep silent on what I see, no matter how small.

[Escapay]

I don't get what you mean when you say "you're proposing that they simply change something and in a style markedly different from the rest of the walk-through." The CGI walk-through already has cut-outs and lots of parts that are accurate to the current walk-through. They would just be getting different cut-outs and I think one or two whole new scenes, which they have the artwork and animation for already and I'm guessing probably in a computer somewhere.

Because you're proposing that they take artwork/animation for one medium (the real-live walk-through) and simply click-and-drag it into another (the CGI walk-through), and that it's that simple enough. It's not. It's like taking the Ace of Spades and putting it in the pile with the Clubs or Diamonds and saying "Hey, it's the same thing!"

And maybe this is a small issue. But there is something up with you that whenever we bring up small things, you think we shouldn't talk about them. Well details are part of quality and often bring about the quality of things. A bunch of small things make up a whole big thing. You're right the issue is small. But just because there's one bad thing compared to other bad things doesn't mean I won't talk about the one bad thing, too. I'm not going to shut up and keep silent on what I see, no matter how small.

I'm not saying you (in the general sense, not you in particular) shouldn't talk about them. The fact that we're still talking about it proves that. I'm saying that before talking about such things and/or making accusations ("Disney's mean! Disney's lazy!"), to think of the bigger picture before complaining about such small issues. Yes, small issues affect the big picture, but there are plenty of times where the big picture is still intact even if a small issue is not resolved.

Big Picture = Disney has to maintain an attraction that involves hundreds of people walking through it all day. They need to pay custodial to walk through it every so often and sweep up any trash that guests drop without realizing. They need to pay an operations cast member to stand at the entrance and/or exit. They need to pay maintenance to make sure that everything's in working order, and that it remains in working order. They need to pay maintenance again whenever something is not working and they have to fix it. They need to pay photographers who may take a picture of it to use in a future Birnbaum's Guide. They need to pay a family of actors who may pose for that picture. They need to pay painters and sculptures and engineers who made the pieces for the attraction and make new pieces to replace the others when they get worn down. They need to pay a lot of people to take care of a lot of things.

Big Picture = Disney creates a CGI walk-through for the 2008 DVD/Blu-Ray. They then decide to install it into a viewing room for wheelchair-bound guests who can't otherwise go on the actual walk-through. They need to pay custodial to go in the room every so often and sweep up any trash that guests drop without realizing. They need to pay an operations cast member to stand in the room and answer any questions about the viewing. They need to pay maintenance to make sure that everything in the room is in working order, and that it remains in working order. They need to pay maintenance again whenever something is not working (like a viewing monitor) and they have to fix it. They need to pay photographers who may take a picture of it to use in a future Birnbaum's Guide. They need to pay a family of actors who may pose for that picture. They need to pay painters and sculptures and engineers who made the details within the viewing room, and to re-touch them when they get worn down. They need to pay a lot of people to take care of a lot of things.

Small Issue = The CGI walk-through does not contain the same Philip v. Dragon scene as the actual attraction. This makes sense as it was from a video created before the attraction re-opened, and is meant to be a reflection of what the original attraction was. Disney should re-edit and re-render the scene to include that.

albert

[Disney Duster]

Okay then...

Well, the fact is we don't know easy turning the artwork for the new attraction (which may or may not already be on a computer that they can copy and paste and manipulate) into artwork in the CGI attraction. So I'm saying, maybe it is easy, because it sounds like it would be. I am just asking why, why can't they do it...

The issues you think are big and that I think are big are...different. I consider not lying, and making the CGI version better and more accurate, to be a bigger issue because it is the actual attraction, which is what you need before it comes to the maintenance and photography opportunities.

Finally, it isn't just Phillip and the dragon. Some scenes should have different art altogether. Only the actual castle part (and a good number of scenes) should stay the same.

[Escapay]

Well, the fact is we don't know easy turning the artwork for the new attraction (which may or may not already be on a computer that they can copy and paste and manipulate) into artwork in the CGI attraction. So I'm saying, maybe it is easy, because it sounds like it would be.

Maybe it is easy. But maybe it isn't. Take a picture of a tree.

Six months later, go to the place where you took a picture of the tree, and take another picture.

Cut out the tree from your first picture.

Paste it over the picture you took six months later.

Is it seamless?

No.

CGI animation is the same thing. You can't just click and drag one thing into another and say "voila, it's done!" Were this hand-drawn animation it'd be a lot more than click-and-drag. CGI isn't all that different. You have to adjust and manipulate plenty of things so it looks seamless. Lighting, shadows, color schemes, etc. then rendering it all.

Thus, while the concept sounds easy (take a digital file, move it over to another digital file, pray for the best), it is not.

And even so, no matter how easy or hard it is, it takes time and money, both of which Disney would (I assume, and I expect) rather spend maintaining something that doesn't need fixing, to ensure it doesn't need fixing.

I am just asking why, why can't they do it...

Why fix what isn't broken?

I consider not lying, and making the CGI version better and more accurate, to be a bigger issue because it is the actual attraction, which is what you need before it comes to the maintenance and photography opportunities.

Photography opportunities fall under publicity and marketing.

Maintenance is self-explanatory.

You're thinking from a fan perspective rather than a business one if you think updating a CGI walk-through (that is otherwise satisfying a majority of its clientele) is more importance than actual attraction maintenance. Hence, why my "big issues" would theoretically carry more weight with the company than your "big issues".

albert

[Disney Duster]

It is broken in a sense.

And yes the attraction itself is a bigger issue than the maintenance for said attraction. I don't think we should work on maintaining something crappy and unsatisfying! But in any case you need an attraction before you can maintain it.

[Escapay]

And without maintenance your attraction will fall apart. It's a circular argument.



As for "crappy and unsatisfying"...honestly, I don't see that. The CGI walk-through is still an amazing video, regardless if it's 100% true or not to the real thing. But if it's a great big thorn in your side for you, maybe you should just avoid the CGI viewing room entirely when you next go to Disneyland.

albert