Eddie Sotto's take on the current state of the parks (Part II)

[Pixiedustmaker]

For me, there is a loss of magic for sure in the process. I do tend to get excited to see the guests reaction to a really good effect. Like a doctor looking at naked patients all day, there is no erotic aspect to it, it's just a process. For one thing, you can spend years worrying if the effect will work and if the whole show will fail due to something not coming together. You sit there rethinking every way that the guest will see it and if it is "wow" enough. You may decide to cut something that in the end threatens your ability to pull off the show, you worry about that. I tend to deal in varying degrees of "creative risk", constantly looking to "buy" risk back with various design decisions made throughout the life of the project. In the end, if it does turn out great, you can feel the magic to a degree through the eyes of the guests, but to me, all I can see is everything that was not the way I had hoped it would or could be, and exist eternally dissatisfied. The positive guest reaction is the only salve for this, as despite the flaws, they love the project.

Interesting.

This description is somewhat similar to the writing process as somewhere along the way you have to "kill your darlings" and focus on what the reader sees versus just pleasing yourself.

A lot of professional writers will recommend that you cut out 10% from a finished novel as writers tend to be verbose, and the reader often wants to cut to the chase. You have to "kill your darlings" by removing characters, plot elements, which don't necessarily help the story along, and are there for your personal gratification. You do this by putting yourself in the shoes of the reader, and the final product is unsatisfying as you took out all of the stuff that you wish you could have put in.

Many times, you start off a new novel/short story with a very new concept, and a lot of odd characters, but at some point you have the urge to "buy back some of the risk" by making things more recognizable, more formulaic, more likely to succeed. If its too un-related to everyday life, the reader won't get it, and if it is too like everyday life, why read the book?

One trick authors use to try to make sure they aren't too close to their project is to put the early draft away in a drawer, and come back to it later in a couple months to see if it still sounds good.

I kind of get the idea that Imagineers do this as well, shelving ride concepts, and bringing them back to life years later, as sometimes it helps looking at a project with "fresh eyes", or perhaps when technology has caught up with certain concepts.

In terms of enjoying a finished product, as an author I can't sit down and read one of my novels for 100% pure enjoyment, all I see are the decisions I made to get to that point, the compromises, things like that . . . though characters are different. Sometimes when writing a sequel (or even a prequel) I have to re-read stuff to get back into the character's head.

Maybe Imagineers re-ride classics dozens of times to get a feel of them before moving on to a similar project. I think I heard that Tony Baxter knows every ride in Disneyland like the back of his hand.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

Very much an evolving technology that likely is intended for applications beyond theme parks. Perhaps to hospitals and other places where machines will someday replace humans. Fascinating and terrifying all at once.

Can you imagine being operated on by a Mr. Lincoln style animatronic? "Welcome to the operating room my fellow American!," announces your robotic surgeon-Lincoln. Then he malfunctions, bends over at the knees and begins spewing red hydraulic fluid, while hacking up the tile floor with a scalpel. "Four Score and Twenty some years ago I took out an appendix much like yours . . ."

 

[Eddie Sotto]

True ... but I worry about John's vision sometimes and his own recklessness with money. Not that he isn't the closest thing to a Walt at the company today.

But was it really worth the ridiculous sum (over $175 million from what I've been told) to bring back the subs with a Nemo overlay? ... And mark my words but the Luigi's Flying Tires will wind up closing within 2-3 years and there'll be Al Lutz columns on them and the fact they exist is largely because John had a soft spot for the Flying Saucers at DL in the 60s. Guess he forgot how unreliable they were and they seem to having all sorts of issues from load speed to needing the beach balls to removing them to removing the controller etc. Seems like the perfect definition of a vanity project because no one told him 'no.'

True ... but I worry about John's vision sometimes and his own recklessness with money. Not that he isn't the closest thing to a Walt at the company today.

But was it really worth the ridiculous sum (over $175 million from what I've been told) to bring back the subs with a Nemo overlay? ... And mark my words but the Luigi's Flying Tires will wind up closing within 2-3 years and there'll be Al Lutz columns on them and the fact they exist is largely because John had a soft spot for the Flying Saucers at DL in the 60s. Guess he forgot how unreliable they were and they seem to having all sorts of issues from load speed to needing the beach balls to removing them to removing the controller etc. Seems like the perfect definition of a vanity project because no one told him 'no.'

Truth be told, bringing back the Flying Saucers goes back the ancient days of my tenure. Tom Morris, the designer behind Carsland has made his own attempts to bring it back over the years, so I don't think it was something John would be blamed for, although he may have strongly supported it. Those closer to the day to day testing should have forseen some of the things they are fixing now, like the interface or the speed. Seems like they are addressing that stuff now. I agree they may not stand the test of time, fixed or not, as the capacity of them is so low and the land so valuable.

As for the Subs, it was a money pit and a perfect one in that you are rehabbing something that is old and there are buried costs (and the operating costs are immense from what I hear). I would argue in John's favor that sometimes an idea well executed costs what it costs, and perhaps whatever they spent to do that idea right was the correct amount and beyond the budget they thought they could do it for. The inverse of that is a misguided attempt to pull off a projection ride with too little money. Was it worth it? Good question. I think anything you do with the Subs that is worth waiting for would cost a lopsided fortune.That beast is a tough one but i'm glad it's there. Did they reach their creative destination? I think so.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Interesting.

This description is somewhat similar to the writing process as somewhere along the way you have to "kill your darlings" and focus on what the reader sees versus just pleasing yourself.

A lot of professional writers will recommend that you cut out 10% from a finished novel as writers tend to be verbose, and the reader often wants to cut to the chase. You have to "kill your darlings" by removing characters, plot elements, which don't necessarily help the story along, and are there for your personal gratification. You do this by putting yourself in the shoes of the reader, and the final product is unsatisfying as you took out all of the stuff that you wish you could have put in.

Many times, you start off a new novel/short story with a very new concept, and a lot of odd characters, but at some point you have the urge to "buy back some of the risk" by making things more recognizable, more formulaic, more likely to succeed. If its too un-related to everyday life, the reader won't get it, and if it is too like everyday life, why read the book?

One trick authors use to try to make sure they aren't too close to their project is to put the early draft away in a drawer, and come back to it later in a couple months to see if it still sounds good.

I kind of get the idea that Imagineers do this as well, shelving ride concepts, and bringing them back to life years later, as sometimes it helps looking at a project with "fresh eyes", or perhaps when technology has caught up with certain concepts.

In terms of enjoying a finished product, as an author I can't sit down and read one of my novels for 100% pure enjoyment, all I see are the decisions I made to get to that point, the compromises, things like that . . . though characters are different. Sometimes when writing a sequel (or even a prequel) I have to re-read stuff to get back into the character's head.

Maybe Imagineers re-ride classics dozens of times to get a feel of them before moving on to a similar project. I think I heard that Tony Baxter knows every ride in Disneyland like the back of his hand.

I took a class from Robert McKee, the famed screenwriting teacher, where he put forth putting the central idea in a drawer and pulling it out later to see if your current work still had what made it good in the first place. Good advice. Another screenwriter friend told me of "killing your darlings". All true and it happens in ride development too. On the topic of "buying back risk", to me it was not watering things down as much as sometimes making the stagecraft or effects less risky so you know the idea will still come through.

Tony Baxter has had the same shelved idea of "Discovery Bay", a Vernian themed land for 40 years and instead of trying to get it all built, he's gotten the components built in various parks at various times (Discoveryland, Nautilus, etc.), but never gives up on it.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Can you imagine being operated on by a Mr. Lincoln style animatronic? "Welcome to the operating room my fellow American!," announces your robotic surgeon-Lincoln. Then he malfunctions, bends over at the knees and begins spewing red hydraulic fluid, while hacking up the tile floor with a scalpel. "Four Score and Twenty some years ago I took out an appendix much like yours . . ."

They have an extra figure at WDI specializing in frontal lobotomy. Sending it to Universal.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Maybe Imagineers re-ride classics dozens of times to get a feel of them before moving on to a similar project. I think I heard that Tony Baxter knows every ride in Disneyland like the back of his hand.

He does. Many of us grew up recording the soundtracks on Cassettes and the like and pretty much have the classics memorized. I did all of that as a kid. I re-ride the classics and lot and use them as a reference as to what you can and can't get away with. Simple things like hiding the lighting and exit signs, to the structural genius of the Tiki Room and it's revealing itself in plain sight. You can learn from these shows and hopefully with imagination, move beyond them to create a new classic.

 

[Alektronic]

He's in the "One Man's Dream" display and looks pretty lifelike, except for the fact that all of his components are showing

But that is the old technology using hydraulic and pneumatic actuators, I'm talking about the new state-of-the-art electric actuators, they have improved them quite a bit.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

In the Fantasyland Expansion discussion area, they have a thread with a video of Maurica's cottage from Beauty and the Beast. I must say it looks fantastic on video, leading me to believe it will even more bucolic in person. Amazing detail for "just" a Meet and Greet, and they use special effects to help telt the story. Amazing greenery, like the Norway pavilion, Merrie old England for sure, I'm sure the shade will help with the crushing crowds.

Its like a queue for an E-Ticket B&tB ride, especially considering the castle in the background!

The special effects mirror is much more than vaguely similar in concept, IMHO, to some stuff JK Rowling wanted Disney to put in Potterland when she went to them for the land, namely a 9 3/4 platform at King's Cross where guests would tape the platform and "be part of the magic" to enter into Hogwarts (possibly via train). Same idea here, a magic portal to the enchanted castle and mysterious west wing . . . Disney thought it would be impractical for a theme park's land, but I guess a Meet & Greet has less demanding crowd flow needs.

Can't help but think that Disney lifted Rowling's idea . . . oh, well, it is a great idea.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Truth be told, bringing back the Flying Saucers goes back the ancient days of my tenure. Tom Morris, the designer behind Carsland has made his own attempts to bring it back over the years, so I don't think it was something John would be blamed for, although he may have strongly supported it. Those closer to the day to day testing should have forseen some of the things they are fixing now, like the interface or the speed. Seems like they are addressing that stuff now. I agree they may not stand the test of time, fixed or not, as the capacity of them is so low and the land so valuable.

I understand the novelty of bringing back the Flying Saucers concept, but I really feel like the LPS system was the way to go on this attraction.

 

[WDW1974]

I thought that the subs was closer to $50 million? Seems like it was worth it as guests happily wait 40 minutes for the ride—I know, I'm one of them. Plus Nemo 2 is coming out, the ride may have also served the purpose of keeping the story fresh in the public's mind, probably a wise decision commercially. Plus Nemo is very popular with kids, they love that ride.

Nope. The most solid number I've had is, indeed, $175 million ... but I've heard even higher. The number kept going up because of mistakes made in tunnel infrastructure as well as plussing that JL demanded.

Wait time doesn't equate whether something is worth it. People wait hours for TT, for example. And I've also seen the popularity of the ride go down in the last few years.

I'm not saying whether Nemo Subs was a bad choice or not because I am not sure how I feel ... but I do think they spent more buck and got less bang than they could have.

I haven't ridden Luigi's tires yet (will in less than a week), but a lot of the general public seems to really like the ride. I think it is better than all of the stuff in Bugsland, though I like some of the Bugsland theming. Plus it adds kinetic atmosphere to Carsland.

I haven't as well. Got a month for me. But I sense that people aren't as thrilled with them as anything else in Carsland ... a lot of wild teens and college kids apparently enjoyed beating each other with the balls (that sounds bad!) ... I also wouldn't compare with A Bug's Land with Carsland. One was thrown together quickly 'on the cheap' while the other was lavished with money. Just two different circumstances.

I don't think Lasseter is reckless, as he seems to have "won" in terms of Carsland's success, and the merchandise flying off the charts. More of the general public has the intention to return to Carsland than Indiana Jones. It's OK to nitpick, but the whole thing is a massive success, I would wager than Lasseter will gain more influence as he's a down to earth guy that "gets it" in terms of what the public wants.

I think you misunderstand me about JL. I firmly believe Carsland was a great concept that was successfully executed and is getting the results it deserved ... of course, no saying that a Route 66/Cars area that wasn't completely themed to a movie franchise wouldn't have been as well, if they spent the same resources.

I think he gets what the public wants more than anyone at Disney today, but he has his blind spots ... we have, or many of us have, reached our too much point with some of his franchises such as Toy Story.

I'm not sure what you mean Lasseter's "recklessness" with money? Everything he's done theme parkwise has been at least a moderate success, and has pleased a lot of diehard fans too . . . ?

He spends like money is no object. That's OK to some degree. Walt was like that. But he doesn't have a lot of controls on him, much like a kid in a candy store.

 

[WDW1974]

Truth be told, bringing back the Flying Saucers goes back the ancient days of my tenure. Tom Morris, the designer behind Carsland has made his own attempts to bring it back over the years, so I don't think it was something John would be blamed for, although he may have strongly supported it. Those closer to the day to day testing should have forseen some of the things they are fixing now, like the interface or the speed. Seems like they are addressing that stuff now. I agree they may not stand the test of time, fixed or not, as the capacity of them is so low and the land so valuable.

Watch and see, Eddie. A prediction that within 2-3 years you'll be reading Al Lutz columns with headlines like 'Out of Air" ... and ''All Flat?'' that will chronicle what TDA and WDI are doing behind the scenes as the ride remains closed for its 6th or 7th straight month. It's gonna happen unless they put more money into it and figure a way to deal with some of its many issues.

Not sure I knew Tom was a fan of them, but I do know (like many failed or never created old concepts in Glendale) they had their fans at WDI. But JL was also in love with the concept (ask Tom, I'm sure he'll tell you the same thing).

Maybe blame is the wrong word, but I can see folks calling it a 'vanity' project when the tires sit idle.

I really hope they fix the issues.

As for the Subs, it was a money pit and a perfect one in that you are rehabbing something that is old and there are buried costs (and the operating costs are immense from what I hear). I would argue in John's favor that sometimes an idea well executed costs what it costs, and perhaps whatever they spent to do that idea right was the correct amount and beyond the budget they thought they could do it for. The inverse of that is a misguided attempt to pull off a projection ride with too little money. Was it worth it? Good question. I think anything you do with the Subs that is worth waiting for would cost a lopsided fortune.That beast is a tough one but i'm glad it's there. Did they reach their creative destination? I think so.

I dunno. It's a tough one. I like the subs, but the ride hasn't been a must-do for me. I like Crush's Coaster at DLP much better (think it captured the best elements of the subs as well as EPCOT's ride with a kewl ride system).

I know Tony had a concept for an Atlantis-based subs ride that would have been pricey as well, but died when the movie faltered at the BO. I never actually saw the film, but the idea still sounds more exciting than toon fish basically retelling the movie.

 

[WDW1974]

Tony Baxter has had the same shelved idea of "Discovery Bay", a Vernian themed land for 40 years and instead of trying to get it all built, he's gotten the components built in various parks at various times (Discoveryland, Nautilus, etc.), but never gives up on it.

THIS was the point I was attempting to make about nothing ever dying at WDI ... you could say many parts of the WRE expedition have found themselves elsewhere, including everywhere from EPCOT's WoM to DLP's Frontierland.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

In the Fantasyland Expansion discussion area, they have a thread with a video of Maurica's cottage from Beauty and the Beast. I must say it looks fantastic on video, leading me to believe it will even more bucolic in person. Amazing detail for "just" a Meet and Greet, and they use special effects to help telt the story. Amazing greenery, like the Norway pavilion, Merrie old England for sure, I'm sure the shade will help with the crushing crowds.

Its like a queue for an E-Ticket B&tB ride, especially considering the castle in the background!

The special effects mirror is much more than vaguely similar in concept, IMHO, to some stuff JK Rowling wanted Disney to put in Potterland when she went to them for the land, namely a 9 3/4 platform at King's Cross where guests would tape the platform and "be part of the magic" to enter into Hogwarts (possibly via train). Same idea here, a magic portal to the enchanted castle and mysterious west wing . . . Disney thought it would be impractical for a theme park's land, but I guess a Meet & Greet has less demanding crowd flow needs.

Can't help but think that Disney lifted Rowling's idea . . . oh, well, it is a great idea.

I'll have to check it out, thanks

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

Nope. The most solid number I've had is, indeed, $175 million ... but I've heard even higher. The number kept going up because of mistakes made in tunnel infrastructure as well as plussing that JL demanded.

Wait time doesn't equate whether something is worth it. People wait hours for TT, for example. And I've also seen the popularity of the ride go down in the last few years.

I'm not saying whether Nemo Subs was a bad choice or not because I am not sure how I feel ... but I do think they spent more buck and got less bang than they could have.

Not sure what the "mistakes" made in tunnel infrastructure were, but I don't think that they had to make any structural reinforcements to the Subs showbuilding, and the more frequently tossed around figure is $50 to $70 million. After all, they didn't have to build new subs, or a new ride, just do an extensive refurbishment, add electric motors and show scenes, though there might have been some plumbing issues. I haven't heard anything north of $70 million batted around anywhere.

Average daily wait time correlates well with popularity as they put those turnstiles at the end of the rides to see how popular they are. Rides with long lines won't be loading many empty load vehicles and will get higher daily ride counts. The leads on different rides in DLR to this day still love racing to see who can the highest ride count.

I think that the "gold standard" for ride popularity is still daily ride counts, especially in DLR as this signifies re-rideability, when related to ride capacity. Rides with long lines will be getting close to their capacity, I would wager that Nemo is successful as it always seems to be running at capacity, and guests are happy to wait 45 minutes for the ride too.

Mermaid has 10 minute lines, and a lot of the clam shells go by empty. If guests to DCA wanted to ride Mermaid five times before lunch they probably could, but the ride doesn't get anywhere need the lines need to sait the appetite of an omni-mover people eater.

Maybe you know of some other metric like a survey? But, I haven't really heard of specific questions regarding specific rides in DLR, mostly general questions regarding overall impression of DCA, though I guess for Carsland rides and Mermaid they were asking some specific questions.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

I'm not saying whether Nemo Subs was a bad choice or not because I am not sure how I feel ... but I do think they spent more buck and got less bang than they could have.

Nemo 2 could make the company a profit of $2 Billion in ticket sales, dvds, and Nemo merchandise once it is all said and done, even a low-ball estimate of something like $1-1.5 billion is about what DCA 2.0 costed. Given this, I would say that financially the Nemo subs made sense long term as the ride helps keep the characters in the public's mind, plus when Nemo 2 comes out, a lot of kids will want to go to Disneyland to ride Nemo.

But let me crunch some numbers (just guesstimates here):

Nemo Hourly Capacity: I'm guessing approximately 600 guests per hour.
Nemo Daily Capacity: Maybe about 6,000 guests per day, on average.
Nemo Yearly Capacity: Approximately 2,190,000.
Nemo Capacity Until Nemo 2 (2016): 8,760,000.

So, 2 million guests a year experience Nemo, and there will be almost 9 million individual riders on Nemo Subs before Nemo 2 comes out (without look at repeat riders). And these folks are exactly the demographic Disney wants to see the film, and buy the merchandise and DVDs.

Normally I wouldn't like all of the commercialization, but Nemo is probably Pixar's number 1 or 2 film, and it was a great film, IMHO. Maybe they can update Nemo Subs with stuff from the new film, might be easy as they use a lot of projections.

As crazy as it sounds, big budget films are spending around $100 million - $200 million just on marketing, that is as much as a good E Ticket costs. Maybe instead of advertising, film studios should just build attractions.

 

[flynnibus]

Not sure what the "mistakes" made in tunnel infrastructure were, but I don't think that they had to make any structural reinforcements to the Subs showbuilding, and the more frequently tossed around figure is $50 to $70 million. After all, they didn't have to build new subs, or a new ride, just do an extensive refurbishment, add electric motors and show scenes, though there might have been some plumbing issues. I haven't heard anything north of $70 million batted around anywhere.

I think you should do more digging.. even checking Al's columns for just 30secs turns up references like this
http://miceage.micechat.com/allutz/al022007b.htm - and the number only continued to climb after the ride was opened and more insider stuff was talked about.

And the subs were basically completely rebuilt except for the hulls themselves.. the lagoon itself was completely redone.. the interior show building was gutted.. 'might have been some plumbing issues'? Did you not follow the story when that large pipe ended up having to be ran along the queue building to reroute water after all the ground work was long done? I suggest going back and reading Al Lutz's columns of the time, and actually more detailed, Darkbeer's construction threads.

I think that the "gold standard" for ride popularity is still daily ride counts, especially in DLR as this signifies re-rideability, when related to ride capacity. Rides with long lines will be getting close to their capacity, I would wager that Nemo is successful as it always seems to be running at capacity, and guests are happy to wait 45 minutes for the ride too.

Happy? Know who waits more then 30mins for Nemo? People who have never ridden it..

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

I think you should do more digging.. even checking Al's columns for just 30secs turns up references like this
http://miceage.micechat.com/allutz/al022007b.htm - and the number only continued to climb after the ride was opened and more insider stuff was talked about.

And the subs were basically completely rebuilt except for the hulls themselves.. the lagoon itself was completely redone.. the interior show building was gutted.. 'might have been some plumbing issues'? Did you not follow the story when that large pipe ended up having to be ran along the queue building to reroute water after all the ground work was long done? I suggest going back and reading Al Lutz's columns of the time, and actually more detailed, Darkbeer's construction threads.


Happy? Know who waits more then 30mins for Nemo? People who have never ridden it..

Well, the link you provided mentioned a number of about $100 million, perhaps possible given the amount of work that needed to be done. The thing with construction projects is that costs can unexpectedly rise. Al Lutz said in this column,

". . . been significantly expanded at John Lasseter's insistence and the end result is a ride that will have some people waiting three hours or longer to ride only to run out the exit and jump right back in line again."

Even at a budget near $100 million, the ride showcases characters that will bring back in revenue many times that number.

I also don't exactly trust a lot of what Al Lutz has said regarding the Nemo Subs, he announced on Miceage that the Subs were being looked at for removal, for dubious reasons such as ride capacity, and then weeks later we got an annoucement saying that Nemo 2 is coming and Tony Baxter said that there are no plans to remove the Subs.

Obviously, Burbank spent a lot of money doing the Nemo Subs, and with Nemo 2, they're about to reap the benefits. I've ridden the new subs probably about a dozen times over the years, and I'd wager most folks in line are also "repeat customers", even if not, the ride is pretty amazing if you haven't ridden it before.

30 mins, or 45 mins, isn't so bad for Nemo as the queue has a roof over a good chunk of it, nice plants made to look like underwater plants, and a great view of the Matterhorn and the lagoon.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I'm sure we will never officially know what the ride really cost, but somewhere between"exhorbitant" and "astronomical" is a good place to start. Doing your best and giving the guest the best show you can (regardless of capacity) is always good business and I wish JL was there when I was around as the local atmosphere was just the opposite. Creatives having an advocate is a great thing if it is not abused by too many hands in the cookie jar, blowing cash on the wrong things. Credibility is even more precious and you have to at least appear responsible with the money. It used to be that a show had to have a certain minimum capacity to qualify as something you can market. Incremental attendance is what justifies a new ride and if you cannot market it, it's "sunk" costs and you cannot get budget for it. If you advertise something that only 2k people a day can see and 35k show up for it, you are giving out readmits. the difference with your audience being mostly AP's is that does not matter as much as they come back another day or get a special night to come out. Aladdin's Oasis or Tarzan's treehouse are not something you can go out and advertise, but to AP's they are a great promotion and reason to stop in.

I enjoy the Nemo Ride now that I feel I can handle the cramped quarters, as I love the experience of riding the Subs itself. It's a bit too much of a book report, and too driven by dialog, but it's fun for kids as they scream bloody murder when Nemo comes by their window.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

I'm sure we will never officially know what the ride really cost, but somewhere between"exhorbitant" and "astronomical" is a good place to start. Doing your best and giving the guest the best show you can (regardless of capacity) is always good business and I wish JL was there when I was around as the local atmosphere was just the opposite.

It makes senes to go all out on attractions that are C and D Tickets as I think a lot of these attractions develop a fan following of their own and the little rides that are well done is what makes Disneyland great, like going into a restaurant where everything on the menu is good.

I think that WDI kinda shot themselves in the foot when they made sure that Mermaid was a high capacity ride. As I understand it, a big concern with Paradise Pier is that you have some low-budget rides, like the Ferris Wheel, Goofy's Sky School, *however* guests have to wait a long time for a so-so ride. I honestly felt cheated when I had to wait something like 40 minutes for the Ferris Wheel, if it was just a 5 minute wait then that trade-off would have been OK. With Mermaid, it seems they went with the omni-mover as no matter what guests' opinions were of the ride itself, they could move the masses.

Other Fantasyland-style dark rides use a more open vehicle, such as in Toad, and I think it adds to the ride as you can look around at all the great details, get a glimpse of Sherlock Holmes in the London scene by looking behind yourself. With Mermaid, I think the Omnimover shell works against the ride.

In the Haunted Mansion, the Omnimover-Doombuggy is sort of security blanket you can press yourself against, and because much of the ride is dark, I don't get the same constrictive sensation, or give much thought to the presence of the "shell". On Mermaid, the great mass of Omnimovers and the shell of your Omnimover sort of cut-off the visual experience. I would have liked to "enter" the big Under the Sea scene by being in a ride vehicle which is a little more spaced out from other ride vehicles, and which would be more open so I could get the big 360 view.

Small World has a large showbuilding, but all of the space is used well and the guest is in the middle of the ride, you can look ahead, the right, left, up and even behind to take in the scenes. In Mermaid, you're back is up against the wall and the ride feels more like displays, IMHO.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

We talked about historic attractions versus branded or franchise attractions. My sense is that the lands themselves provide a grounded or consistent reality or context to bring credibility to the fantasy or branded attractions. they work togerInteresting how the myth of Splash Mountain plays well from the decks of the Columbia. Same with the Packard on Buena Vista Street. Probably why "Science Fiction" works so well, you gotta have the "Science" to make the "Fiction" so believable! Notice the difference in Nautical outdoor vending and serious theming of the ship itself.

The Columbia is probably my favorite attraction as the below decks are beautifully done.