Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
CMU School of Drama
Tuesday, April 10, 2018
Themed entertainment designers from Disney, Knott's, Efteling and more preach the importance of play over technology
www.latimes.com: The Disneyland Resort played host to the usual tuneful pirates and hitchhiking ghosts this past weekend, but what visitors may not have noticed among all those carelessly pushed strollers were the 800 or so artists gathered for one of the most respected awards ceremonies of the themed entertainment industry.
I have actually spoken on articles before with similar topics to this one. This article actually blatantly says what I always comment. Special effects are great and all but it isn’t everything, Human interaction is key. The article goes on with theme parks and how the best attractions are one that allow the visitor to interact and play with something in the physical sense and offer an engaging storyline., I always argue this when it comes to movies and television as so many people are quick to just do everything in special effects; this is from setting up blue screens to editing things in afterwards. Although I’m not against special effects I think the use of practicals is better because of its inherent ability to allow an actor to work with something and fully understand what is going on and the same can be seen in the performance by the audience. What that actor goes through on screen is what the audience goes through in park attractions. The best example of this is probably Disney’s Buzz Light year ride. I still see all ages going in there with their friends and family, despite the intended audience being children, because it offers that ability to interact that others rides don’t.
I like the message that this article and the people quoted in the article are saying. Like Nicolaus, I also read a lot of the technology based articles on this blog because the machinery described in it seems super interesting, with cool applications to the world of art, but I am not here for the robot revolution. I agree that there need to be a human component in a piece of art for it to feel real. I have not been to a big theme park like Disney before, where the rides have fancy computer and animated elements, but when I was younger and we would go to small amusement parts nearby, I also remember being creeped out but the crude, automated figures or animals that were aside the rides. I think an important part of what this article is trying to get at is that when rides utilize too much technology, the experience and the world of the ride no longer feels realistic on some level, and their for is less believable or enjoyable. I think this is an important point that can be carried over into art and the world of theatre. While technology and special effects are a great way to create and enhance experiences, it is the human aspects and interactions that make the story world feel real. I think there are also ways that this line could be crossed to the benefit of the art or the production, and I think it would be interesting to see a piece that used technology in that way to purposely create an unnatural world.
2 comments:
I have actually spoken on articles before with similar topics to this one. This article actually blatantly says what I always comment. Special effects are great and all but it isn’t everything, Human interaction is key. The article goes on with theme parks and how the best attractions are one that allow the visitor to interact and play with something in the physical sense and offer an engaging storyline., I always argue this when it comes to movies and television as so many people are quick to just do everything in special effects; this is from setting up blue screens to editing things in afterwards. Although I’m not against special effects I think the use of practicals is better because of its inherent ability to allow an actor to work with something and fully understand what is going on and the same can be seen in the performance by the audience. What that actor goes through on screen is what the audience goes through in park attractions. The best example of this is probably Disney’s Buzz Light year ride. I still see all ages going in there with their friends and family, despite the intended audience being children, because it offers that ability to interact that others rides don’t.
I like the message that this article and the people quoted in the article are saying. Like Nicolaus, I also read a lot of the technology based articles on this blog because the machinery described in it seems super interesting, with cool applications to the world of art, but I am not here for the robot revolution. I agree that there need to be a human component in a piece of art for it to feel real. I have not been to a big theme park like Disney before, where the rides have fancy computer and animated elements, but when I was younger and we would go to small amusement parts nearby, I also remember being creeped out but the crude, automated figures or animals that were aside the rides. I think an important part of what this article is trying to get at is that when rides utilize too much technology, the experience and the world of the ride no longer feels realistic on some level, and their for is less believable or enjoyable. I think this is an important point that can be carried over into art and the world of theatre. While technology and special effects are a great way to create and enhance experiences, it is the human aspects and interactions that make the story world feel real. I think there are also ways that this line could be crossed to the benefit of the art or the production, and I think it would be interesting to see a piece that used technology in that way to purposely create an unnatural world.
Post a Comment