Eddie Sotto's take on the current state of the parks

[Eddie Sotto]

So the issue you have hit upon in these situations, is that everything is the same underneath, but "different" on the surface to the guest.

The project was sold as being very intimate and as realistic as possible to space missions. In real missions you are prompted to do things like release the fuel tanks, etc. So we simulated that. We wanted to do more but landed at about the extent of the limitations of making it work for the whole crew.

 

[HMF]

It looks like WDI has a new logo.
http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hpho...28496781_145368478867126_310730_2189220_n.jpg
Well' there goes the idea of changing the name back to WED. I personally prefer the old Sorcerer Mickey logo. On the plus side I think the WED badges will probably remain popular.

 

[BigThunderMatt]

Part of the "spell" we cast is to not be distracted by the other guests and stay in the moment.

Difficult to do on many high-capacity attractions these days due to continuous texting, flash photography (thank you very much digitial cameras...), and Brazilian tour groups.

I can count on 1 hand the amount of times I've been on an attraction like Pirates, Mansion, or even Soarin' where something like this WASN'T happening.

 

[Disneyparksgeek]

Eddie, since you worked on Mission Space, was there ever a reason given for tearing out Horizons? Sorry if somebody already brought this up.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Eddie, since you worked on Mission Space, was there ever a reason given for tearing out Horizons? Sorry if somebody already brought this up.

WDW showed us reports that showed Horizons had lost attendance and also it's sponsor. It was also shown to have a surveyed rating to be near the bottom of attractions preferred by guests. The name and the lack of visual excitement in the facade may have contributed to it's poor attendance in it's later years. I don't know. So WDW wanted a thrill attraction to balance out the demographic appeal of EPCOT. Tony Baxter had already proposed a concept for that space based more on Sci-Fi and Aliens, but it was turned down by WDW and no one had a proposal. Our group proposed what you see there today. At first we were going to try and reuse the building, but for tax depreciation reasons (and it was not readily adaptable) it was torn down.

I think one of the reason Horizons is beloved is because it was the only attraction that addressed futurism, the thing you expect the most from EPCOT. the other pavilions dodged the future by retelling lots of history and only hinted in the post show. The history of the future is an optimistic one and Horizons did a good job of portraying it. I give it a D plus. I don't fault Space or any other attraction for replacing it, it's just that not having the "story of the future" told in... dare I say Future World, leaves a gaping hole in the park.

 

[flavious27]

WDW showed me reports that it had lost attendance and also it's sponsor. It was also shown to have a surveyed rating to be near the bottom of attractions preferred by guests. So they wanted a thrill attraction to balance out the demographic appeal of EPCOT. Tony Baxter had already proposed a concept for that space based more on Sci-Fi and Aliens, but it was turned down by WDW and no one had a proposal. Our group proposed what you see there today. At first we were going to try and reuse the building, but for tax reasons it was torn down.

Tax reasons?

 

[flavious27]

It looks like WDI has a new logo.
http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hpho...28496781_145368478867126_310730_2189220_n.jpg
Well' there goes the idea of changing the name back to WED. I personally prefer the old Sorcerer Mickey logo. On the plus side I think the WED badges will probably remain popular.

This:

isn't that different than this:

 

[HMF]

This:

isn't that different than this:

Maybe but I like the old one better.

 

[Disneyparksgeek]

WDW showed us reports that showed Horizons had lost attendance and also it's sponsor. It was also shown to have a surveyed rating to be near the bottom of attractions preferred by guests. The name and the lack of visual excitement in the facade may have contributed to it's poor attendance in it's later years. I don't know. So WDW wanted a thrill attraction to balance out the demographic appeal of EPCOT. Tony Baxter had already proposed a concept for that space based more on Sci-Fi and Aliens, but it was turned down by WDW and no one had a proposal. Our group proposed what you see there today. At first we were going to try and reuse the building, but for tax depreciation reasons (and it was not readily adaptable) it was torn down.

I think one of the reason Horizons is beloved is because it was the only attraction that addressed futurism, the thing you expect the most from EPCOT. the other pavilions dodged the future by retelling lots of history and only hinted in the post show. The history of the future is an optimistic one and Horizons did a good job of portraying it. I give it a D plus. I don't fault Space or any other attraction for replacing it, it's just that not having the "story of the future" told in... dare I say Future World, leaves a gaping hole in the park.

Thanks for replying, I think it is too bad most of the original Future World attractions had to be replaced. I guess it was to make the park more relevant, but those original rides had so much character and personality and uniqueness to them.
I never knew Tony pitched an Alien type ride for that space, is there anything else you know about the ride?

 

[Eddie Sotto]

This:

isn't that different than this:

Look at Mickey...Upper management took away his wand and left him empty handed! No new magic without corporate approval.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Thanks for replying, I think it is too bad most of the original Future World attractions had to be replaced. I guess it was to make the park more relevant, but those original rides had so much character and personality and uniqueness to them.
I never knew Tony pitched an Alien type ride for that space, is there anything else you know about the ride?

It was more of how Hollywood portrayed Space. I think it ended in you getting off in a Space Station. It was well beyond the target budget and was deemed too passive like the Horizons ride that was there. Can't recall that much more about it. WDW wanted a thrill ride and our first version was the capsule on a coaster track creating G forces. You were not aware of the fact that you were going forward.

 

[Disneyparksgeek]

It was more of how Hollywood portrayed Space. I think it ended in you getting off in a Space Station. It was well beyond the target budget and was deemed too passive like the Horizons ride that was there. Can't recall that much more about it. WDW wanted a thrill ride and our first version was the capsule on a coaster track creating G forces. You were not aware of the fact that you were going forward.

I figured one of the reasons it wasn't approved was it was too Sci-Fi for EPCOT Center. That coaster ride version sounds interesting though.

 

[WDWGoof07]

So the issue you have hit upon in these situations, is that everything is the same underneath, but "different" on the surface to the guest.

The project was sold as being very intimate and as realistic as possible to space missions. In real missions you are prompted to do things like release the fuel tanks, etc. So we simulated that. We wanted to do more but landed at about the extent of the limitations of making it work for the whole crew.

For what it's worth, I think you guys hit a grand slam with Mission: Space, and part of that has to do with the intimacy of the capsule. I like the inclusion of all the knobs and instruments that you can play around with in addition to the ones you are prompted to interact with. Combine those with the physical sensations, let your imagination fill in the gaps, and I find you get very caught up in the whole experience. Makes for an awesome group ride with friends, but, if you're with strangers, the partitioning of the capsule prevents distractions from others well enough so you can just focus on your own ride. WDI toed a fine line between playing up the interactive angle and not diminishing the individual riders' experience, and I think you guys found the right balance. The ride one of my favorites anywhere.

 

[JimboJones123]

For what it's worth, I think you guys hit a grand slam with Mission: Space, and part of that has to do with the intimacy of the capsule. I like the inclusion of all the knobs and instruments that you can play around with in addition to the ones you are prompted to interact with. Combine those with the physical sensations, let your imagination fill in the gaps, and I find you get very caught up in the whole experience. Makes for an awesome group ride with friends, but, if you're with strangers, the partitioning of the capsule prevents distractions from others well enough so you can just focus on your own ride. WDI toed a fine line between playing up the interactive angle and not diminishing the individual riders' experience, and I think you guys found the right balance. The ride one of my favorites anywhere.

I'll disagree on this point. It is pointless to have pointless buttons. Couldn't the display be reprogrammed to make interactive buttons by this point? Maybe ones that actually flashed a light in the movie or something? Wouldn't actually change the ride mechanics, just the screen presentation. I'm sure it wouldn't be to costly at all to make the experience literally interactive instead of alluding to being interactive.

 

[flavious27]

Look at Mickey...Upper management took away his wand and left him empty handed! No new magic without corporate approval.

Didn't that happen when wed turned into wdi?

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I'll disagree on this point. It is pointless to have pointless buttons. Couldn't the display be reprogrammed to make interactive buttons by this point? Maybe ones that actually flashed a light in the movie or something? Wouldn't actually change the ride mechanics, just the screen presentation. I'm sure it wouldn't be to costly at all to make the experience literally interactive instead of alluding to being interactive.

The "pointless" buttons are there to allow you to play along with the action, they are not a requirement. They kind of can't be. We wanted true interactivity with consequences for sure, but in group settings you get limited very fast. If you were alone, yes, but in a group of four, you can't make then "branch" without issues. So you do sounds and tie it to the path of the show. Imagine the inverse that if one of the guests did nothing then the show would do nothing or be altered in a negative way for everyone else that did the right thing. All 4 windows have to show the same thing, so you need to program the motion for everyone. That cannot be altered. The buttons actually reflect the "steps" required in a real mission. If you don't release the "fuel tanks", Mission Control will, it's part of your test. We wanted you to feel the G forces more by asking you to reach toward the controls when the force was high. We flew in the real shuttle Simulator at NASA before designing the ride experience and copied the alarm sounds interior and button format from the basic steps taken during launch.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I figured one of the reasons it wasn't approved was it was too Sci-Fi for EPCOT Center. That coaster ride version sounds interesting though.

That was part of it too. At the time WDW had asked for something to address certain needs, one of which was to get kids to want to come to EPCOT with their parents. We developed MS as a science-fact thrill ride and that was exactly what they were looking for. there was a small budget for this ride, and a sponsor would have to be found as well. It also filled the need for some to not leave the property to go to Kennedy Space Center as it simulated shuttle flights. They held the check, so while Tony's ride concept was great for sure, it did not address (in their minds) the needs they had. That is life at WDI. You sometimes compete for the project and winning it means listening to and then fulfilling the "clients" request in a way that they think will best be marketed.

 

[wedenterprises]

Eddie, can you comment at all on Gary Sinise? He was the perfect choice for that role and now whenever I hear or see him I think M:S. It's obvious that he's reading cue cards, so I always wonder if he came in for half a day and cranked out a few shots, did the voices and left.

Were there other actors considered?

 

[Eddie Sotto]

For what it's worth, I think you guys hit a grand slam with Mission: Space, and part of that has to do with the intimacy of the capsule. I like the inclusion of all the knobs and instruments that you can play around with in addition to the ones you are prompted to interact with. Combine those with the physical sensations, let your imagination fill in the gaps, and I find you get very caught up in the whole experience. Makes for an awesome group ride with friends, but, if you're with strangers, the partitioning of the capsule prevents distractions from others well enough so you can just focus on your own ride. WDI toed a fine line between playing up the interactive angle and not diminishing the individual riders' experience, and I think you guys found the right balance. The ride one of my favorites anywhere.

MS is a love it or hate it ride for sure, I for one am happy to hear that it works as intended for you. One of the goals was to create a totally unique ride experience drawn from the experience of vertical launch and sustained G forces. They did that very well. Even thought it has shortcomings in some ways, it is very immersive and experiential. The alternate of being with a bunch of other guests with Earth gravity in a mock space station seemed like a cop out. Going to space means weightless, and we tried to give you a new sensation in the capsule. We could have done more. I have my own wish list of things to have changed, but I'm proud of the fact that like Pooh in TDL, MS broke new ground in ride systems and did not use off the shelf technology but evolved around the core experience of liftoff and real space travel.

I think it would have been even better if it had enough budget to be an entire pavilion and opened next to Horizons instead of in place if it, but they were bound to close Horizons so it happened in many ways because of that.

 

[devoy1701]

The "pointless" buttons are there to allow you to play along with the action, they are not a requirement. They kind of can't be. We wanted true interactivity with consequences for sure, but in group settings you get limited very fast. If you were alone, yes, but in a group of four, you can't make then "branch" without issues. So you do sounds and tie it to the path of the show. Imagine the inverse that if one of the guests did nothing then the show would do nothing or be altered in a negative way for everyone else that did the right thing. All 4 windows have to show the same thing, so you need to program the motion for everyone. That cannot be altered. The buttons actually reflect the "steps" required in a real mission. If you don't release the "fuel tanks", Mission Control will, it's part of your test. We wanted you to feel the G forces more by asking you to reach toward the controls when the force was high. We flew in the real shuttle Simulator at NASA before designing the ride experience and copied the alarm sounds interior and button format from the basic steps taken during launch.

I didn't even notice this was the case until you said something. Nice touch! :wave: