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

[jt04]

Th resort looks amazing and has exceeded the AKL even. I know Joe Rohde didn't create the place on his own but it does seem every project he works on turns out this amazing. He does live up to the expectations everyone has of him and usually more. Now I just wish they would let him work on his signature theme park. Possibly with an Everest size budget for a new land. That is what is needed.

 

[trs518]

Here's a pretty detailed photo essay on the New Aulani hotel in Hawaii. Just opened. Thoughts?

http://www.yesterland.com/disneykoolina20.html

For comparison, here's a comparable "wow" hotel on the Big Island (entry level $199. night). Aulani is considered to be high end (entry level room $450. per night).

http://www.hiltonwaikoloavillage.com/

My wife and I booked at 7 night stay starting March 24th, 2012. We're DVC members staying on points, so we're getting to stay there for considerably cheaper. The maintenance fees for the points needed for 7 days will be around $650.

From a design side, I think it looks great. I hope that it is authentic to Hawaiian culture and architecture as they say it is.

Disney By Mark has a lot of great videos and pictures. http://www.disneybymark.com/

 

[flynnibus]

Here's one thing that I've never understood about Aulani: The way the buildings are angled, there seems to be only a narrow vertical strip of rooms on each one that actually faces the ocean--which are supposedly the Grand Villas. It would seem as though the ocean view would be a big deal for people staying in Hawaii--why would they construct it in such a way that the best virtually everyone will do, is sort of a slanted view of the ocean?

I think it's in part due to the location. Realize this resort isn't in a virgin area.. Disney's resort is part of a larger development Ko Olina with pre-defined resort pads for development.

See this image from yesterland's articles...

http://www.yesterland.com/disneykoolina18.html

Link to the resort itself - http://www.koolina.com/explore/interactive-map

 

[trs518]

A benefit of the having the two towers perpendicular to the beach is that the Imagineers have more control of the views when someone is in the valley.

If the towers were running parallel to the beach, maximizing ocean view rooms, when in the valley you could potentially see the other resorts.

 

[RSoxNo1]

With regards to DCA and Disney Parks in general, they represent idealized versions of whatever it is they're made to represent. This is why we all return.

One of the coolest things at Disney Hollywood Studios is how well written that dedication plaque is:

The World you have entered was created by The Walt Disney Company and is dedicated to Hollywood - not a place on the map, but a state of mind that exists wherever people dream and wonder and imagine, a place where illusion and reality are fused by technological magic. We welcome you to a Hollywood that never was - and always will be.

This was missing from DCA at the beginning. Something like Paradise Pier too closely resembled a run down pier - it wasn't romantacized the way it is now. I have been incredibly fond of all of the changes being made to DCA, all the way down to the non-change that was keeping Aladdin A Musical Spectacular.

 

[Mansion Butler]

Th resort looks amazing and has exceeded the AKL even. I know Joe Rohde didn't create the place on his own but it does seem every project he works on turns out this amazing. He does live up to the expectations everyone has of him and usually more. Now I just wish they would let him work on his signature theme park. Possibly with an Everest size budget for a new land. That is what is needed.

Careful. You're going to make the people here who think he likes details too much angry!

 

[lazyboy97o]

Careful. You're going to make the people here who think he likes details too much angry!

The issue is not so much the level of detail, be a perceived lack of balance. Is a highly ornate, hand carved, brick and stonework facade of any use if it leads to an interior space that is noticeably less?

 

[AEfx]

The issue is not so much the level of detail, be a perceived lack of balance. Is a highly ornate, hand carved, brick and stonework facade of any use if it leads to an interior space that is noticeably less?

Exactly.

It's when the queue trumps the actual attraction, like Everest. Bare bones inside (you can see steel beams!) and the Yeti was broken almost immediately - but the queue is full of junk from far away that most people pass and would never know, which they spent an inordinate amount of time and effort on (so much so an entire hour-long television program was dedicated to the junk collecting).

It's kind of the opposite of not seeing the forest for the trees, or in this case, more accurately spending way too much time on a few trees on one section and ignoring the rest of the trees that hold the forest together because you spent so much time/money/effort on one small portion of the trees.

Details are great - love 'em. When the actual experience lacks because of overthinking, or over doing, details on one place and ignoring glaring omissions and weaknesses of others, you have Joe Rohde, who is a cult figure 'round Disney boards because of his perceived "rebellion", where he's really a guy who should be given specific things to design in a project and not given the reigns as he just doesn't see the big picture - or at least his projects appear that way.

 

[jt04]

Exactly.

It's when the queue trumps the actual attraction, like Everest. Bare bones inside (you can see steel beams!) and the Yeti was broken almost immediately - but the queue is full of junk from far away that most people pass and would never know, which they spent an inordinate amount of time and effort on (so much so an entire hour-long television program was dedicated to the junk collecting).

It's kind of the opposite of not seeing the forest for the trees, or in this case, more accurately spending way too much time on a few trees on one section and ignoring the rest of the trees that hold the forest together because you spent so much time/money/effort on one small portion of the trees.

Details are great - love 'em. When the actual experience lacks because of overthinking, or over doing, details on one place and ignoring glaring omissions and weaknesses of others, you have Joe Rohde, who is a cult figure 'round Disney boards because of his perceived "rebellion", where he's really a guy who should be given specific things to design in a project and not given the reigns as he just doesn't see the big picture - or at least his projects appear that way.

Don't you think this has everything to do with budget cuts? I am pretty sure no Imagineer designs a project anticipating that the funds available are not what will be actually be allocated. See Kali or BK vs CMM.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Don't you think this has everything to do with budget cuts? I am pretty sure no Imagineer designs a project anticipating that the funds available are not what will be actually be allocated. See Kali or BK vs CMM.

How many times must history repeat itself before a lesson is learned? Budget issues are anything but new to The Walt Disney Company.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Don't you think this has everything to do with budget cuts? I am pretty sure no Imagineer designs a project anticipating that the funds available are not what will be actually be allocated. See Kali or BK vs CMM.

It's hard to speculate on this as many things play into it. Budget is a factor, but so is experience in ride design and animation. They may have assumed things you end up seeing in the ride would be better disguised and the whole engineering premise for the Yeti was obviously flawed. Lots of individuals are involved and each talent can make or break a show, so it's hard to say.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Exactly.

It's when the queue trumps the actual attraction, like Everest. Bare bones inside (you can see steel beams!) and the Yeti was broken almost immediately - but the queue is full of junk from far away that most people pass and would never know, which they spent an inordinate amount of time and effort on (so much so an entire hour-long television program was dedicated to the junk collecting).

It's kind of the opposite of not seeing the forest for the trees, or in this case, more accurately spending way too much time on a few trees on one section and ignoring the rest of the trees that hold the forest together because you spent so much time/money/effort on one small portion of the trees.

Details are great - love 'em. When the actual experience lacks because of overthinking, or over doing, details on one place and ignoring glaring omissions and weaknesses of others, you have Joe Rohde, who is a cult figure 'round Disney boards because of his perceived "rebellion", where he's really a guy who should be given specific things to design in a project and not given the reigns as he just doesn't see the big picture - or at least his projects appear that way.

The steal beams on Everest are a real tragedy because a black tarp would easily mask them inside the mountain.

 

[trs518]

Budget issues are a problem in every company :brick::hammer:

 

[Fade_to_Blah]

The steal beams on Everest are a real tragedy because a black tarp would easily mask them inside the mountain.

I seem to be the only person that hasnt seen the beams that everyone talks about......are they on the backwards portion of the attraction?

 

[Mansion Butler]

I seem to be the only person that hasnt seen the beams that everyone talks about......are they on the backwards portion of the attraction?

I've seen them, but I think they're no more glaring than things you can see on almost every other ride.

IF RS1 is right (and I use that if only because I don't want to assume to understand the inner workings of a ride I have only guest experience with), then he's right, the problem is not that they're an eyesore relative to what other attractions have; the problem is that they're one that could be easily remedied.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I've seen them, but I think they're no more glaring than things you can see on almost every other ride.

IF RS1 is right (and I use that if only because I don't want to assume to understand the inner workings of a ride I have only guest experience with), then he's right, the problem is not that they're an eyesore relative to what other attractions have; the problem is that they're one that could be easily remedied.

The ironic thing is that back in Walt's day, the Matterhorn was full of wood scaffolding and steel beams inside. (http://davelandweb.com/matterhorn/ see June 1963 skyway in mountain) Only years later were caverns and minimal dressing applied. As a kid I remember thinking "how fake!". Little was done to hide them. I'm not defending Everest because we should be learning from the past, but I'm just sayin'.

 

[jt04]

It's hard to speculate on this as many things play into it. Budget is a factor, but so is experience in ride design and animation. They may have assumed things you end up seeing in the ride would be better disguised and the whole engineering premise for the Yeti was obviously flawed. Lots of individuals are involved and each talent can make or break a show, so it's hard to say.

I see indications that this may be something that is changing. It appears to me Carsland and other portions of DCA 2.0 have not suffered from budget cuts that end up detracting from the experience. I could say the same thing about TWWoHP. (perhaps "whylightbulb" will show up to shed some light on that project :lookaroun Sorry pun not intended)

I know also that computer design is being used extensively on Mermaid. So perhaps the days of a project being built that ends up being severely changed from what the artist(s) had in mind may be a thing of the past. It is obvious both Everest and Kali were severly cut and I think it is possible Iger may demand that before a theme park project is greenlighted it is fully developed and funded. Perhaps Disney is leading this change in the industry.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I see indications that this may be something that is changing. It appears to me Carsland and other portions of DCA 2.0 have not suffered from budget cuts that end up detracting from the experience.

In some ways that is a benefit of how the Expansion was financed. Instead of each individual project (except Toy Story midway Mania!, and World of Color which were separate projects) having its own authorized budget, the entire project has one budget with allocation being flexible among the many projects. In order to fund the big ticket items like Cars Land other projects, like the Paradise Pier shops, have been put on the back burner.

I know also that computer design is being used extensively on Mermaid.

CAD is hardly new.

 

[jt04]

In some ways that is a benefit of how the Expansion was financed. Instead of each individual project (except Toy Story midway Mania!, and World of Color which were separate projects) having its own authorized budget, the entire project has one budget with allocation being flexible among the many projects. In order to fund the big ticket items like Cars Land other projects, like the Paradise Pier shops, have been put on the back burner.

I was specifically refering to Carsland which has not suffered from any pruning apparently. I understand some items have been scaled back or delayed mostly in the paradise peir area. My point was that if it is possible to keep themselves from harming the vision for Carsland then it is possible on any project. When compared to Kali or Everest it appears this is a new way of doing business. We are essentially stuck with those decisions wheras DCA can still achieve the original vision. In that sense I agree with you.

CAD is hardly new.

Really! Why I never knew that:lookaroun :lol:

There are newer tools available to Imagineering that they have not had before even as recently as Everest. CAD is so last century. Suprised people still use that term. :lol: But thanks for the information.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I was specifically refering to Carsland which has not suffered from any pruning apparently. I understand some items have been scaled back or delayed mostly in the paradise peir area. My point was that if it is possible to keep themselves from harming the vision for Carsland then it is possible on any project. When compared to Kali or Everest it appears this is a new way of doing business. We are essentially stuck with those decisions wheras DCA can still achieve the original vision. In that sense I agree with you.

It is not possible on any project because other projects are almost always budgeted individually and there is no reason for that to change. Neither Kali River Rapids or Expedition Everest were able to suck money from another project because they were not financially packaged with another project the way Cars Land, The Little Mermaid, Buena Vista Street, Paradise Pier, etc. are all technically one project with one budget. This only becomes a "new way of doing business" if Disney stops adding attractions individually and there is always another smaller aspect of the project that can be cut in order to free up money.

There are newer tools available to Imagineering that they have not had before even as recently as Everest. CAD is so last century. Suprised people still use that term. :lol: But thanks for the information.

Even BIM will not be able to do the work for them. It is all tools that are still dependent on their user.