Storytelling attractions

[SaiyanHajime]

Basically, is story telling crucial to improving attraction experience?

This has spawned out of Facebook and Twitter discussions that started with criticising Dinoland USA at Disney's Animal Kingdom. The general gist being that this land comes across as being cheap, crap and not very Disney-like in it's execution. Everyone kinda agrees it's ****, me included, but I butted in with the often misinterpreted explanation of Dinoland USA is about. This isn't a toony dinosaur themed land done badly, it's actually themed to a roadside funfair, that's themed to tacky toony dinosaurs and the story being told is of extinction. Is that the dinosaur extinction, or that of crappy American funfairs that Disney and it's kind are slowly killing, or both?

Dinoland USA is actually pretty clever, but it's problem is that you read it as being cheap, tacky and crap. Animal Kingdom kinda suffers this problem all over, imo, as people also don't read the masses of incredible foliage as "theming". Theme parks have to be read as fake in order for people to be blown away by their artistry, and Animal Kingdom's artistry just goes unnoticed because it's all weirdly normal.

I criticised the fact that Disney force logical narratives into everything. With Dinoland USA, that's "well we want a dinosaur theme but like, we can't have actual dinosaurs unless we send guests back in time, so..." No one cares. No. One. Cares. They won't just let a roller coaster be a roller coaster, and that limits the themes and narratives they can place onto roller coasters. It has to be a mine train, or a space ship... Or, in the case with Dinoland USA's spinners and California Screamin', theme it to itself. Theme it to... A roller coaster. And this, imo, is a creative hindrance. It's not just coasters where they do it, either. Ratatoullie, I've not ridden, but why are the cars those hideous rats? Why not just generic stylised vehicles? Because Disney are obsessed with making vehicles that make narrative sense. That's why they have about 50 different mine train rides in the same **** resort, because what else would you theme an outdoor roller coaster to?

There's this weird obsession with making reasons, forcibly making reasons, why you as a guest are someplace and in the vast majority of cases, they're just not needed. And it's not just Disney who do it, obviously. Nemesis' track and trains are it's feeding tentacles, or some such rubbish. This doesn't enhance the ride, imo, it makes it laughable? Am I alone here?

Relevant video... https://vimeo.com/98368484 "The story you are telling is ****." I agree.

Discuss!

 

[nadroJ]

I think with any attraction there are a few 'givens' that no amount of attempt at storytelling will change. Firstly, it is a given that YOU ARE IN A **** THEME PARK. You are in a theme park. This is a ride. Take Expedition Everest for example, with it's 'oh **** the track's been ripped up' bit, yes it's cute and catches guests off guard a bit but no amount of even a WILLING suspension of disbelief is going to cause you to think that the track has actually been ripped up. Because you're in a theme park, it's a ride, that's the reality of it, the 'threat' isn't real. And guess what? Everest sucks as a coaster, but also fails as a dark ride because there aren't enough dark ride-y bits, so you're left with this huge weird mess of a thing that smaller children are too scared to ride because of its size, and adults (apart from Jordan, clearly) left unsatisfied by what, from all intents and purposes, should be a thrilling ride.

Secondly I think it's also a given that you assume you're going on an 'adventure' just by being in a theme park. Being on a rollercoaster is an adventure, it's an escape from daily life. Why put a fake version of adventure over the top of something that is already an adventure in the first place? It's very odd when you look at it like that. The Nostalgia Critic, when talking about why the use of CGI in films can be quite crude, talks about the way it is a double fake out. If you had a prop or puppet or even an animatronic on screen pretending to be something, it's a single fake out because although it is pretending to be something else it is still physically there. With CGI not only is it pretending to be something else, it isn't even actually in the scene. And so you're left with a weird sense displacement, and I feel the same about 'enforced adventure'.

That isn't to say that I don't like rides themed to have a narrative, I don't, but I don't think I've ever really thought about it? When I do properly think about it, it is quite jarring. Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey springs to mind. Why couldn't it just exist as a kind of 'best of' montage that we sashay through? I don't even get what we're meant to have done when we're being applauded at the end? It doesn't really make sense and actually detracts from the whole ride. Rather than leaving going 'omg awesome' you leave going 'omg awesome, except for the end bit, what?' So yeah, thinking about it, rides should just be rides! Well themed rides <3

 

[Hyde]

I feel this digs at an even deeper question: theme park or amusement park? Which design provides a better experience?

That is, the entire point of a theme park is to have a theme. A theme park without narratives, storylines, space ships, and everything in between doesn't have a... well... theme. In turn, amusement parks focus development on the ride solely, with minimal-to-no theming involved.

There are strong cases of rides and attractions that have and do not have themes which have great rider experience. An immediate comparison I can think of are Raptor (Gardaland) and Gatekeeper. Both roller coasters are B&M wing coasters that while different in statistics, are moderately ranked next to each other in Mitch Hawker (Gatekeeper - 108, Raptor - 106). Raptor carries a heavily-themed experience of a menacing monster that terrorizes the surrounding area, while Gatekeeper's namesake is founded on simply being located over the gate. It is night and day in terms of theming between these two rides, but both seem to produce a positive rider experience.

I believe it to be difficult to find someone who flat out demands theming of all rides or no theming at all. Just about everybody will recognize a balance depending on the park and attraction. If anything, what is the most jarring is when a theme park blatantly does not theme an area or attraction (e.g. Dinoland USA), or an amusement park has an over-the-top themed attraction.

It has been mentioned on these forums in the past; maybe one way to think of theming is as icing on the cake. You can theme the crap out of a wacky worm, but at the end of the day - it is still a wacky worm. A strong ride design is the bulk of the ride experience, with theming adding that last 10% at the end of the day.

 

[SaiyanHajime]

That isn't to say that I don't like rides themed to have a narrative, I don't, but I don't think I've ever really thought about it? When I do properly think about it, it is quite jarring. Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey springs to mind. Why couldn't it just exist as a kind of 'best of' montage that we sashay through? I don't even get what we're meant to have done when we're being applauded at the end? It doesn't really make sense and actually detracts from the whole ride. Rather than leaving going 'omg awesome' you leave going 'omg awesome, except for the end bit, what?' So yeah, thinking about it, rides should just be rides! Well themed rides <3

I love your entire post, but this bit I wanted to expand on in particular, because yes, yes 100% YES!

I don't understand that criticism people often throw out of "I don't know anything about Harry Potter so I had no idea what was going on" because, to me, it's just a series of cool stuff I watch and get flung about to, and yet I loved it. It's my favourite non-coaster. If I actually stop to think about it, the story is something to do with Hermione setting a spell on some bench things so we fly about. And then stuff happens. And the applause is because Harry bloody Potter managed to save us and we got home ok? I don't know. I don't care. It's irrelevant to enjoying the ride.

Maybe it's because I'm totally not a film, or to be honest, narrative interested person in the first place. I'm very interested in characters and the worlds they inhabit, but the story? Meh. That's really weird I realise, but I've always been the same.

Terror Tomb at Chessington was my favourite ride as a kid. It had a story in the sense that, queueing up, you pas through a present day-ish Egyptian marketplace, see some guy sleeping, enter a Tomb and then encounter the same fellow telling you to get out. But it didn't think it necessary to explain why you were sitting in a vehicle as opposed to on foot - because it's a **** ride. It didn't find it necessary to tell a continued story throughout the entire attraction that made any logical sense, it just showed a series of scenes with their own mini narrative. Each involving this man trying, and failing, to get the same jewel in a comedic, somewhat dark, fashion. And would the ride have been any better had it bothered to make up some **** reason why you were sat on a vehicle or had a continued story throughout? No. No it wouldn't have.

That's not to say rides should never have logical consistent stories, or that Forbidden Journey is worse for it, I just don't get the obsession with it, specifically at Disney. It's like they are clinging onto the idea that the park evolved out of Walt's hatred for those funfairs Dinoland USA represents, but in doing so are loosing sight of the wood through the trees.

It has been mentioned on these forums in the past; maybe one way to think of theming is as icing on the cake. You can theme the crap out of a wacky worm, but at the end of the day - it is still a wacky worm. A strong ride design is the bulk of the ride experience, with theming adding that last 10% at the end of the day.

Whilst I donit necessarily think theming is just icing on a cake, it can be the entire point of an attraction, but I don't get theming a whacky worm within an inch of it's life. Which is EXACTLY what Disney do... Case in point, Dumbo, of which they have, what, 4 variations of the same ride with different paint and characters? Why? Who are they fooling? So people get any more fun out of Dumbo than Chessington's Flying Jumbos?

 

[Hyde]

But you see, I think you guys are driving right at the entire point of a theme park: suspended reality. Guests are not going to have a story that makes sense and be 100% realistic. Rather, I would wager that the average theme park-goer is interested in make believe and fantasy - they DO want over-the-top theming for even the most mundane amusement attraction.

As Jordan said, it is an escape from daily life. And using Disneyland as an example is really point to the penultimate; Disneyland was the first modern theme park that completely revolutionized the way parks are organized and designed. Everything Disney after serves as an even broader scope of Walt Disney's original mission - they "cling" to it because that is the very namesake and being of its existence.

Also, FWIW, wasn't Dinoland USA meant to be something else, which was scrapped late in the game and only quickly added at the end?

 

[SaiyanHajime]

People seem to misinterpret this topic as being about theming. I wrote this on Facebook and I'm proud enough of the wording to post an edited version of it here...

I think people are misunderstanding "narrative" and" theme". All rides are themed, to some extent. When you call a flying coaster "Superman" you're theming it, even if you added nothing else, because you're applying a concept to a piece of ...well, hardware. A concept that people interpret and that then changes their ride experience. My issue is forcefeeding stories. It's making the queue watch a pre show that explains how Superman's scientist friend has made a contraption to allow you to fly with him! That's what I hate. It's just unnecessary. Coasters are pop culture enough that they can exist abstractly, and the generic "we're flying like superman" (key word being LIKE... not, we ARE doing something) is good enough. What I dislike about Disney is they do find it necessary - 100% necessary, 100% of the time, to make sure that no hardware is explained/themed with abstract concepts. Disney have no themed rides, only narrative attractions. They don't just theme, the apply story to everything, and that means they can't do things like have a roller coaster that's highly themed. Something like, for example, Black Mamba or Novgorod. Because when Disney do roller coasters, like California Screamin, their desperation to make it narratively logical means they limit their choice of themes. They loose sight of what's actually important - physical theming, scenery, beautiful landscapes and far away places. The public didn't respond well to Dinoland USA and California Screaming because they weren't gorgeous magical environments - I argue the story is (mostly) irrelevant.

 

[nadroJ]

I think people are maybe getting confused as well because Disney use theming as a narrative device, and because that theming is Such high quality, it can become hard to tell the difference. That's why things like Dinoland stick out like a sore thumb, it's only Disney doing what they always do, but because it's loud and garish people hate it, even though it is perfectly good at doing what it is supposed to be doing!

 

[Hyde]

Dinoland USA might be a bad example, as it did have its budget slashed for theming and rides. This section was originally planned to have a runaway mine train that travels through an abandoned dig site, as well as a dark ride. Those additions would have absolutely boosted the effort for that section of the park.

What I dislike about Disney is they do find it necessary - 100% necessary, 100% of the time, to make sure that no hardware is explained/themed with abstract concepts.

I can see what you are getting at here. Perhaps an example of the opposite is the large Chinese roller coaster with enormous theming effort, that have zero story plot.

I wouldn't say 100% of Disney attractions force 100% of the story down riders throats. Yes, there is a story presented through the theming - but as for pre-shows those are not on every absolute attraction.

I feel a bit torn on storytelling vs. theming. I guess I do side to storytelling as a good thing, as it does bring the theming together. Or at the very least, I do not understand it to be unpleasant. Otherwise, things can feel a bit scrambled, disorganized. I am thinking of themed rides such as the Calico Mine Ride at Knott's, Fire in the Hole at SDC, or take-your-pick dark shooters. There is general theming, but no true story plot linking the scenes.

[Disney] don't just theme, the apply story to everything, and that means they can't do things like have a roller coaster that's highly themed.

If Expedition Everest, Big Thunder Mountain Railroad, Rock 'n' Roller Coaster, Space Mountain, Matterhorn, or Seven Dwarves Mine Train aren't considered heavily themed; then I don't what else could be.

Yes these rides have backstories, but that is apart of the theming. As for limiting their theming ability? I can't really think of a theme Disney hasn't done that someone else has. African, Space, Adventure, Wild West, Fantasy - they've pretty much covered the gambit.

 

[Ploddish]

So I've been ruminated on this for a while, and I think I've come to understand how I feel (and I think as an extension, how Joey feels) about this.

So there's two separate things I should define before I get into this: Story (or Plot) and Narrative. I think they're distinct things. I think Story is what a traditional person thinks of - the series of events that happen during a work of text. Narrative is Story and everything else - the overarching theme, ambiance, tone etc.

I think that theme parks are home to some of the best examples of Narrative that are out there, and also home to some of the worst examples of Story.

The Tower of Terror ostensibly has a story, and as with almost all ride stories, the protagonist is you - you go into an old hotel, you are shown the library (during which a lightning strikes, causing an out-of-fiction video to be shown that explains the backstory??), you are then sent to the basement where get into a lift, and then **** Goes Wrong because of Reasons.

The far more interesting aspect to ToT though, is the narrative - the backstory of the place, the ambience, the bellhops and their behaviour, those little easter eggy things that reward careful attention. I believe the ToT is one of the industry's gold standards for narrative that still leaves wiggle room for a little thing called Agency.

Agency is a term we use in the game industry often - it's the word used to describe the options available to a player at any one time. If you give them only 1 route to travel vs 5, you're restricting their player agency. A linear plot that has the player's character enter a spooky building will, by definition, limit the player's agency, as it was never the player's decision to enter this weird spooky building - it was the designer's. If you see a cutscene of them picking up an item from a table that has another set of items, you're reducing the player's agency compared to if you had let them choose which item they wanted to pick up.

So let's say ToT explained why exactly you were there, and had lines about why you were getting into this lift and had lots of story detail rammed into it - would that have made it a better ride? I don't think so. I like that you have the ability to choose why you enter the hotel - that you can choose why it is you enter the lift. I will note that you don't actually have a choice here, given there's only one route through the attraction. But, like a lot of clever games, behind the scenes it won't actually matter what item you picked up off that table - they will all achieve a similar goal - it's the fact that you feel like you have some measure of control over your destiny.

It's sorta fascinating to see the similarities here - both are interactive experience design, and both tackle similar sorts of problems. I imagine as time goes by, we'll start to see a bigger blend between the two industries.

 

[SaiyanHajime]

So there's two separate things I should define before I get into this: Story (or Plot) and Narrative. I think they're distinct things. I think Story is what a traditional person thinks of - the series of events that happen during a work of text. Narrative is Story and everything else - the overarching theme, ambiance, tone etc.

Hilariously I'd define those as exact opposites. Narrative is very specifically about "Joey went to the seaside and bought ice cream" where as story is more conceptually "Joey, seaside, ice cream".

Am I outright wrong here? Like, do story and narrative have actual definitions in the theory and study of film and story-telling?

I think I come to the assumption of story being so ambiguous and all encompassing because so many people use the term "story-teller" when they're not really telling stories, but concepts. See the video link in my initial post.

Interesting.

Re: Tower of Terror, I was discussing with Scarlet last night about the depth of that thing's actual story (your definition of story, Plod) and it's actually a lot less detailed than I thought as you go on to explain yourself. Which is consequently why I think it probably is one of the best working examples out there. You, me - any rider - we're not literally a part of the plot, but abstractly just there for some unmentioned reason. No one explains why we're going in the elevator or what we're there to do or even why we're sitting down in that elevator. It's not important and doing these things would ruin the (by your definition) narrative. Less is more. The lacking detail stops it from being silly and helps us "suspend disbelief". I'm not convinced it's to do with the sense of choice or unique interpretations, it's just about stopping it from being ...silly?

I don't know why or if there is a word for this sense that details stop stuff making sense rather than help, but they do.

 

[Ploddish]

I think the reason it stops making sense for you is because it's not the reason you feel you'd be doing that action, though. There's a difference between going into a building and being told why you're going into a building, and your concept and theirs not matching up.

It breaks the inherent contract between you and the designer of the experience - which is that you consent to the actions you're are about to undertake. If someone told you that what you thought you did was not what you thought they were, there's an inherent break in the "consent" of what's happening. It pulls you from the disbelief that people craft so carefully by getting you to ask: if you were wrong about this one aspect - what else were you wrong about? I think it's that (among other things) that pulls you out of the experience and makes things feel "silly", or "trite" or "overexplained".

 

[Hyde]

So if I'm following both Joey and Ploddish correctly, a good thing that a themed attraction could establish is a story construct where riders maintain a perceived sense of free will? That is, while the attraction is themed and presents an obvious story plot, there are portions of the experience that are filled in by rider's own comprehension and awareness.

Using the ToT Easter Eggs as an example, such as the fallen sign letters that spell out a hidden message; these are theming elements that add to the narrative (which as Ploddish defined, is how the story is delivered through tone and presentation), but can only be experienced through free will initiative of the rider. Only the rider who takes action experiences this addition to the story.

Am I headed in the right direction?

 

[Ploddish]

Yeah, exactly. The theme of ToT is mystery, so the addition of extra elements that only observant people notice fits perfectly within the narrative - and the fact that it's optional lets the person who observes it become part of the story without having to explicitly tell them that.

 

[SaiyanHajime]

Where I think it gets interesting is that, does ToT, being ultimately a physical thrill ride, hold up without any story at all, just narrative (as defined by Plod)? Can we forgo the preshow and still get it? I say yes. The concept of an elevator gone wrong is understandable instantly. And that's the backbone of many great concepts. We just get that Superman: Ultimate Flight is implying that we're flying like Superman because it's such a perfectly matching concept + experience. We don't need to know whether Superman's scientist friend invented something to enable us to fly or if Superman is carrying us. We're flyingt like Superman. End. Details worsen it.

I'm not a fan of forced pre-shows that include information necessary, or deemed necessary, to understanding to enjoying the attraction. Hex is the worst offended of this, where pre-ride content is equal to if not more important than the finale. Don't get me wrong, I do love Hex, but that finale doesn't hold up at all to the preshow elements. Now, people will tell me thats fine because those aren't preshows they're part of the attraction as a whole, but it's impossible to not separate them conceptually. And this is why I have an issue with rides that aren't very physical in general, because ultimately the audio-visuals - the affects, theming, story, etc - have to be outstanding in order to stop us seeing the ride as the movie and everything else as the trailers before hand.

So whilst ToT does force you through a preshow to deepen your experience, it doesn't go as far to explicitly insist detailing that would, essentially, show how stupid the whole thing is. The believability comes from the missing parts, because we're willing to "suspend disbelief" regarding huge realism plot holes due to the environment. In real life, we don't do this, we demand answers and explanation.

 

[Hyde]

what do you think about pre-shows are simply deployed as a manner of queue mitigation? Take out the pre-show in Star Tours, Muppet Vision, Haunted Mansion, RnR, or ToT... and you are simply waiting the exact same length to ride the ride. Personally, I'd rather have some entertainment while waiting!

Alternatively, what about pre-shows that are simply looping while waiting in line for the queue. Flight of Fear has quite an entertaining pre-show video for instance, that plays ask folks walk through the line. Something you can easily zone out, but adds fun story to an otherwise normal Premier Bowl Coaster.

 

[SaiyanHajime]

Preshows as queue entertainment - yes. Some will argue that they're always queue entertainment even when you're specifically held someplace, because they're for batching. But unfortunately, this isn't always the case, or worse...

On Gringott's, the elevator is integral to the ride imo. I have no issue with that pre show, it's neat. What I hate though is the unavoidable clusterfunk that follows, where you get a backlog of too many people with nowhere to go, and you can bet the opposite often happens too. It only takes something to go wrong at one part of the queue batching process, and you've potentially got trains going empty with people waiting before the elevator to queue. I've also seen this on Haunted Mansion, where too many people end up in the loading area of the ride exiting the stretching room. And there's also the fact that, with any preshow you are batched into, you loose your place in line. Unavoidable. Frustrating. Causes arguments. I've seen it happen.

But when you're watching a video in line - as with Spidy or the animatronics in Star Tours. I love that. No one's pushing in front of anyone. No info is integral. It's all just bonus content to entertain me whilst I'm a captive audience.

And lets not pretend even a normal premier spaghetti bowl coaster is anything other than utterly fabulous, Hyde.