How relaible is concept art?

[furie]

I think if the concept art between the initial and the final is as far removed as it was with Air, then something has failed somewhere though. Whether it's budget failure, or because the concept simply wasn't portrayed well enough - there should still be a degree of semblance surely? I don't really know enough about this stuff, but to me it would seem that you have a customer asking the design team to "conceptualise a ride about flying" say. They're given a rough idea of the physical design and area to work in and then they work with that.

If they completely miss with the concept (it's, I don't know, all fluffy bunnies) then it's because the art team missed the concept the park was after. The concept though has to be sold to management, and if you do a great job at the concept and a great sell, then you've got a success. It may even be, if the concept is strong enough and the design team passionate enough, that budget will be made available.

It's odd, because if you look at the initial kinds of images we've seen for 13 and The Swarm, they're very similar to what was carried out. Is it a stronger design team? Or simply because Merlin allow the design team to buy into the project properly?

I know you mentioned films too Joey. I think again if a concept is really strong, it can sway the entire film. Being a fan of H.R. Giger I read up on the development of Alien.

The concept art is near identical to what ended up in the film:
http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l5x7o ... o1_500.jpg
http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_litei ... o1_500.jpg
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17hak8q ... iginal.jpg
http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ldrya ... o1_500.jpg
http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lj2mo ... o1_500.jpg
http://application.denofgeek.com/images ... ockpit.jpg

I'm sure you've seen them before. So here the concept is so strong, it changed the way the entire film felt - it pushed it in a certain direction, making it darker and probably made it the successful film it became.

Sometimes the concept is perfect. Other times it fails, such as Giger's work on the original Dune film. He drew up a lot of concept art which was all ditched because it was simply inappropriate for the source material.

The point I guess is that if the concept art is good, it should always remain relatively unchanged until the end product. If it changes a lot, it's because the concept wasn't strong enough in the first place.

Personally, I feel the Air concept art was excellent and could have made a real difference to that area of the park. The Nemesis area is almost perfectly (or was before it all changed - it's still okay) with presenting the concept (and it's still abstract). Imagine if they'd skimped on Nemesis in the same way they did on Air? You felt, entering Thunder Valley, completely transported to another place. It was superb. Alton has certainly diluted that, and Air was a final nail in the coffin.

However...

And Furie, like I said, what's the point of heavy theming if it is deemed to be inappropriate for the audience? If it's not financially worth it, what's the point? Why SHOULD it be more?

I haven't yet been able to find a legitimate, convincing reason in favour of theming that warrants the expense. I believe it adds to overall guest satisfaction when done right, but getting it right isn't easy, and getting it wrong can be disastrous and have the complete opposite effect, doing as Gavin has mentioned several times in conveying cheapness, or dirtiness, etc.

I was discussing this with ECG recently... I think it comes down to the target audience and you're right there, but that's kind of dismissing out of hand that people can't and don't appreciate a nice environment.

We see in Forbidden Valley (or did) the monster in the pit, the odd alien gun, the broken army machinery, the post apocalyptic-al Ripsaw and then... Concrete expanse of Air. There's an illusion that is spoiled there.

You're right though (and so is ECG). Most people there at that time are there for the ride and that's what brings them back there. The ride is the important thing for that "demographic". We ignore the broken spell because we want the ride. If Air wasn't so popular, I'd argue that people are more likely to return though if the area is pleasing to the eye. They want to be there to just enjoy what's on offer - but I think that's just a small number of people who do that (even in (especially in?) enthusiast circles).

Look at the much loved Chessington though. Everything is themed and given consistency, but for one good reason - it's a kids park. The rides here are all relatively basic, or low excitement and the target audience seems to be lower (though I know it was once classed as a thrill park, but I think that was late in development - an experiment). So you need something else to build the excitement. The bits around the ride are equally as important (in some cases more important) than the ride itself. Concept becomes full development because it IS important.

Then we see Europe, which is chock full of very overly themed rides/parks/attractions. Even the thrill rides are part of an overwhelming visual experience. The reason here I think is simply because there is so much competition also doing it. To not go that way would be to let others take the lead - once visitors are used to that environment, they expect it wherever they go. Hence the issue with the Air concept failing in Forbidden Valley - the visitor expects more and gets nothing. Fortunately, the thrill of the ride overwrites the disappointment for most. It's just another reason why "Alton has lost it's magic".

I know that you don't think it's relevant to the topic of how reliable concept art is, but it is. If we understand the reasons the concept art doesn't make it to the ground, then we can work out how reliable concept art potentially is.

In Germany, you're likely to find that the concept art follows through, simply because they need to keep the standards very high to compete with other parks. The budget is issued on the understanding that it's a vital part of a new development.

In other parts it may be more hit and miss, depending on the ride type and area of the world/country (as we see in Master Thai).

In a park based on families or younger visitors, then the focus has to be heavily into the theme as it's what attracts that demographic - it's all visual and the ride will never be as exciting as the presentation, but that's because it's rare to find exciting family rides. The enjoyment comes from the package.

So while Paultons' concept for Magma may not have translated massively well within the budget/talent constraints - it's still pretty close. The justification is simply that without it, the excitement with visitors wouldn't be there and the feeling of joy and elation having been to the park dead. So in those cases the visitor satisfaction is absolutely key to what you do. The rides are much less important than the concept.

Disney I think is utterly different and it has to be completely forced. People go there wanting a real life version of the films they know. They know if it's breaking canon or at odds with the stories and characters they love. There's no room for artistic license, because Disney have already had their artistic license producing the source material.

Huge post to say that I do agree really :lol:

 

[Martyn B]

Interesting to see the concepts for Oblivion and Air.

I'm glad they didn't go down that route with Oblivion tbh, it doesn't seem to suit it really.

 

[SaiyanHajime]

I think if the concept art between the initial and the final is as far removed as it was with Air, then something has failed somewhere though. Whether it's budget failure, or because the concept simply wasn't portrayed well enough - there should still be a degree of semblance surely? I don't really know enough about this stuff, but to me it would seem that you have a customer asking the design team to "conceptualise a ride about flying" say. They're given a rough idea of the physical design and area to work in and then they work with that.

If they completely miss with the concept (it's, I don't know, all fluffy bunnies) then it's because the art team missed the concept the park was after. The concept though has to be sold to management, and if you do a great job at the concept and a great sell, then you've got a success. It may even be, if the concept is strong enough and the design team passionate enough, that budget will be made available.

I don't know how I can better explain where I think you're missing the point...

If, just for arguments sake, we're building a flying coaster. We want to theme it. The obvious choice is flight. Now, within the concept of flight we have infinite possibilities. Superman, aircraft, spacecraft, dragons, birds, insects, abstract, bats, wind, water... Lets just say for arguments sake that the design team had all these and more brainstormed on a big spider diagram. From there they develop a few of their favourites, and that development would include drawings.

That's concept art. Really early stage. Most of it we never see because it's literally scribbles on lined paper. But for all we know, what became air might have once been a scribble of a dragon, bat, bird, space craft, etc themed ride.

It's part of the development process. All of those capture the concept of "flight". To say Air isn't like any of those and is thus a failure is absurd. Do you get me?

What stage those steampunk designs are from is hard to say, but I'm going to GUESS that they had to do a theme 360 with Air faiiirly late in the day just because the final is SO minimalistic compared to those designs, as you say. But there's no reason, what so ever, it SHOULD be like those. For all we know the park could have just gone "yeah we don't think steampunk is cool enough or that anyone will get it" or maybe they said "yeah we can't afford this" and the designers then went "well it's pointless doing this half arsed, so lets do something more abstract and minimalistic". We just don't know, we never ever will. The end product should, and probably always does, meet the criteria of the project. The criteria wasn't "steampunk". And new criteria could have been introduced along the way, such as new information or research about what the audience wants.

Air is very successful. Could it have been more successful with lots of steampunk theming? I don't think so. Would we have preferred it? Yeah probably. I think what makes Air work is that it is INSTANTLY understandable and the ride experience is well communicated by the look of it. It could have suffered the same fault as Swarm has, and implied a more intense experience than it offered. But it hit it just right. It's rare, and I'd say a massive coincidence, when it happens as well as it happened with Air.

It's odd, because if you look at the initial kinds of images we've seen for 13 and The Swarm, they're very similar to what was carried out. Is it a stronger design team? Or simply because Merlin allow the design team to buy into the project properly?

I think this the product of years of budgets that do not match the grandiose ideas. If you look at Disney, they literally concept up the most absurd, impossible ideas and then make them work. Merlin don't have the budget to, so they've started thinking smaller and smaller to start with. Original concepts SHOULD be the best possible, the most absurd, impossible, magnificent ideas, and the talent I'd say is translating the parts that convey the most, the essential content, to the finished product. With Air, that's "flight", but a kind of magnificent prestigious flight I'd guess from the similarities between the end concept and the steampunk idea. That's why, I think, the recent attractions have become increasingly less clever and less sensical, because the initial ideas are less interesting and there's no deep concept (or as Merlin likes to call them, "compelling propositions") gelling the whole project together. That's perhaps why Thirteen and Swarm are so all over the place, because their concept was more a visual generalisation than a solid idea. Just a theory here, but you with me? Original concept development, and the art that accompanies it, should be intentionally more fantastical than the end product could possibly be.

I know you mentioned films too Joey. I think again if a concept is really strong, it can sway the entire film. Being a fan of H.R. Giger I read up on the development of Alien.

But, was the artwork Giger provided the FIRST concept for Alien? I doubt it. I've heard it started life simply as "jaws in space". You're assuming what we see from the parks is the most relevant piece of work to how the project proposal was by the time it was built. Proposals change, drastically sometimes.

However...

And Furie, like I said, what's the point of heavy theming if it is deemed to be inappropriate for the audience? If it's not financially worth it, what's the point? Why SHOULD it be more?

I haven't yet been able to find a legitimate, convincing reason in favour of theming that warrants the expense. I believe it adds to overall guest satisfaction when done right, but getting it right isn't easy, and getting it wrong can be disastrous and have the complete opposite effect, doing as Gavin has mentioned several times in conveying cheapness, or dirtiness, etc.

I was discussing this with ECG recently... I think it comes down to the target audience and you're right there, but that's kind of dismissing out of hand that people can't and don't appreciate a nice environment.

We see in Forbidden Valley (or did) the monster in the pit, the odd alien gun, the broken army machinery, the post apocalyptic-al Ripsaw and then... Concrete expanse of Air. There's an illusion that is spoiled there.

You're right though (and so is ECG). Most people there at that time are there for the ride and that's what brings them back there. The ride is the important thing for that "demographic". We ignore the broken spell because we want the ride. If Air wasn't so popular, I'd argue that people are more likely to return though if the area is pleasing to the eye. They want to be there to just enjoy what's on offer - but I think that's just a small number of people who do that (even in (especially in?) enthusiast circles).

Indeed, the overall enjoyment is enhanced by theming, but I can't see how it increases returns enough to warrant expense?

Here's the thing though, I think the low-range theming attempts are hit worst by this. If you're not going to bother properly, you might as well not at all because it's a waste of money as it comes off tacky and cheap. So I guess this is an argument that should be against how Air currently is, but actually I think they pulled it off by being so sleek and minimalistic. There's no rubber rats or other poundland bought decoration (for examples sake) which ruins Vampire's queue. Vampire's queue would be better WITHOUT the junk they've now littered through it, it's actually detrimental.

Look at the much loved Chessington though. Everything is themed and given consistency, but for one good reason - it's a kids park. The rides here are all relatively basic, or low excitement and the target audience seems to be lower (though I know it was once classed as a thrill park, but I think that was late in development - an experiment). So you need something else to build the excitement. The bits around the ride are equally as important (in some cases more important) than the ride itself. Concept becomes full development because it IS important.

Chessington IS a great example in favour of "theming matters", because it has the highest annual pass numbers of the 4 British parks. That means it's a nice environment people return to. But it also means people don't think the place is good value for money, as they only go because "it's free". And ask most people what their favourite ride is and they'll tell you Fury, the least themed major ride on the park. It's a delicate balance, and one Merlin certainly hasn't worked out yet.

Then we see Europe, which is chock full of very overly themed rides/parks/attractions. Even the thrill rides are part of an overwhelming visual experience. The reason here I think is simply because there is so much competition also doing it. To not go that way would be to let others take the lead - once visitors are used to that environment, they expect it wherever they go. Hence the issue with the Air concept failing in Forbidden Valley - the visitor expects more and gets nothing. Fortunately, the thrill of the ride overwrites the disappointment for most. It's just another reason why "Alton has lost it's magic".

Air exists within most of my Alton memory, as my first visit was when it was being built. So for me, Alton's magic was still present. In fact, I'm pretty sure Alton's magic is quite simply an illusion.

I don't understand the negativity around Air, I really don't. Perhaps it's because I know how well it targets it's audience because I've experienced it through my mother, who literally will not ride nothing else.

In Germany, you're likely to find that the concept art follows through, simply because they need to keep the standards very high to compete with other parks. The budget is issued on the understanding that it's a vital part of a new development.

Examples? And again, how can you prove the art you're seeing isn't just one of many that match the finished product because it was a later one?

 

[furie]

What stage those steampunk designs are from is hard to say, but I'm going to GUESS that they had to do a theme 360 with Air faiiirly late in the day just because the final is SO minimalistic compared to those designs, as you say. But there's no reason, what so ever, it SHOULD be like those. For all we know the park could have just gone "yeah we don't think steampunk is cool enough or that anyone will get it" or maybe they said "yeah we can't afford this" and the designers then went "well it's pointless doing this half arsed, so lets do something more abstract and minimalistic". We just don't know, we never ever will. The end product should, and probably always does, meet the criteria of the project. The criteria wasn't "steampunk". And new criteria could have been introduced along the way, such as new information or research about what the audience wants.

I think we're getting too caught up in Air here - it's clear that it was a complete budget shrink that caused the final design. I know that the concept is one of many, and they'll all work on different feelings, budgets, over-riding imagery or whatever. It's just that the concept is TOO minimal to be anything other than constraints. The same concept that led to what we have also had fountains and water features scattered around - with a continuation of the "rock" effect we see on the main sign. All ditched.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it was a purposeful design to make it so "light and free" an area, it's actually just sparse and just happens to fortunately fit well. Does it work better than a "real theme"? Maybe, but it's a moot point

I think this the product of years of budgets that do not match the grandiose ideas. If you look at Disney, they literally concept up the most absurd, impossible ideas and then make them work. Merlin don't have the budget to, so they've started thinking smaller and smaller to start with. Original concepts SHOULD be the best possible, the most absurd, impossible, magnificent ideas, and the talent I'd say is translating the parts that convey the most, the essential content, to the finished product. With Air, that's "flight", but a kind of magnificent prestigious flight I'd guess from the similarities between the end concept and the steampunk idea. That's why, I think, the recent attractions have become increasingly less clever and less sensical, because the initial ideas are less interesting and there's no deep concept (or as Merlin likes to call them, "compelling propositions") gelling the whole project together. That's perhaps why Thirteen and Swarm are so all over the place, because their concept was more a visual generalisation than a solid idea. Just a theory here, but you with me? Original concept development, and the art that accompanies it, should be intentionally more fantastical than the end product could possibly be.

Yeah, I think we agree here

But, was the artwork Giger provided the FIRST concept for Alien? I doubt it. I've heard it started life simply as "jaws in space". You're assuming what we see from the parks is the most relevant piece of work to how the project proposal was by the time it was built. Proposals change, drastically sometimes.

The alien designs all come from Giger. It was his sketches and drawings that were used directly to bring him in to develop further for the film. That's different I guess because it was his artwork that became the concept, rather than him being asked to work on concept.

I know what you're saying though, that generally you may have a dozen concepts and you go down one path, but in the three years between concept and build (or however long it is), a major change could force a different concept to be picked, or a brand new developed instead.

Here's the thing though, I think the low-range theming attempts are hit worst by this. If you're not going to bother properly, you might as well not at all because it's a waste of money as it comes off tacky and cheap. So I guess this is an argument that should be against how Air currently is, but actually I think they pulled it off by being so sleek and minimalistic. There's no rubber rats or other poundland bought decoration (for examples sake) which ruins Vampire's queue. Vampire's queue would be better WITHOUT the junk they've now littered through it, it's actually detrimental.

Again, agreed. I especially hate Duel because it's just standard, off the shelf props they use.

I don't understand the negativity around Air, I really don't. Perhaps it's because I know how well it targets it's audience because I've experienced it through my mother, who literally will not ride nothing else.

Yeah, Air confuses me too. Most of the time though it's simply ignored for anything other than the ride. People love the noise as about the only positive of Air, but the same people adore being in the Nemesis queue - yet they dislike Nemesis to ride and love Air. I think it's simply down to the rides, but Air is certainly a more "friendly" ride to approach.

Examples? And again, how can you prove the art you're seeing isn't just one of many that match the finished product because it was a later one?

Well, it will be one design that was developed from concept somewhere Or do parks just say "go and make me a finished design, the ride opens in four weeks and we need to start thinking about it!"?

 

[SaiyanHajime]

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it was a purposeful design to make it so "light and free" an area, it's actually just sparse and just happens to fortunately fit well. Does it work better than a "real theme"? Maybe, but it's a moot point

I think you're right. Air's positives were, I think, fluke. But that doesn't change the fact that they work and have been well received... And that is possibly what has added to the development in the way the company approached project development? Possibly, but also that's possibly a bit harsh of a comment.

Well, it will be one design that was developed from concept somewhere Or do parks just say "go and make me a finished design, the ride opens in four weeks and we need to start thinking about it!"?

Well, a lot of the "concept art" we see isn't actually concept art, but rather marketing visuals... The problem is you can't tell them apart, and Merlin even mix the two up and use some concept art for marketing. and then there's the issue of how far along in the design process does this image represent? Unless it's leaked, most of the art we see the parks have chosen to show, so it'll be either because it makes the ride look good or because it's accurate to the end product. Tussauds/Merlin is a little different in that they have a HUGE fanbase and a lot of stuff gets leaked, and they behave weirdly in their choices of what to make public on top of that.

 

[spicy]

Here's quite an interesting blog showing how accurate some of Disney's concept art is.

http://disneyandmore.blogspot.co.uk/200 ... isney.html