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

[Pixiedustmaker]

I thought about that, because you can hear the screams and the Yeti roar. That being said, I feel the mine train coaster comparison to Matterhorn isn't correct.

The bobsled track is still mostly inside the mountain, and it's a wild mouse with smaller cars, i.e., less noise per vehicle. This mine train coaster is more akin to BTMRR. It will have longer, heavier trains, where more of the track sits outside the show building than inside, and in closer proximity to the walkways than the bobsled track in Fantasyland. That's the troubling part. This is essentially BTMRR with a fairy tale wrapper. Not sure it's the right setting.

The lift hill on EE uses new technology which makes it silent, without the clickity-clack of the older anti-rollback devices.

7DMT looks to be a lot different than Big Thunder in that the mine cars will move with the centripetal/centrifugal forces of the ride, get ready to be smushed next to somebody! If 7DMT has trees, that will muffle the sound some, I would guess.

 

[Big Baloo]

Hi Eddie, (First time comment-er, long time forum follower just wondering if you are aware of any unused ride or show ideas involving the Star Wars property for the Disney Parks? I love Star Tours, but there must have been different types of attractions left on the drawing board. As so many Disney fans are excited about the acquisition of Lucas Film by Disney and the possibility of more Star Wars themed lands, shows, or rides being added to the theme parks, could you share anything about Star Wars attractions that were never built? And what type of Lucas related attractions would you like to see the current Disney imagineers add to the parks?

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Hi Eddie, (First time comment-er, long time forum follower just wondering if you are aware of any unused ride or show ideas involving the Star Wars property for the Disney Parks? I love Star Tours, but there must have been different types of attractions left on the drawing board. As so many Disney fans are excited about the acquisition of Lucas Film by Disney and the possibility of more Star Wars themed lands, shows, or rides being added to the theme parks, could you share anything about Star Wars attractions that were never built? And what type of Lucas related attractions would you like to see the current Disney imagineers add to the parks?

My first week at WED in 1986, I was introduced, along with a small group of Imagineers to George Lucas. We discussed what could be done with DL's Tomorrowland. Star Tours was already in production. I took on transforming the Carousel theater into a giant spacecraft that could house a show of some sort. We discussed everything from a travelling show with Aliens to my personal favorite, a Droid dome, kind of a Medieval Times show with battling Droids from other planets. Lucas later returned to see a model of the building which he liked a lot. The land never went much further than that.

 

[SirLink]

My first week at WED in 1986, I was introduced, along with a small group of Imagineers to George Lucas. We discussed what could be done with DL's Tomorrowland. Star Tours was already in production. I took on transforming the Carousel theater into a giant spacecraft that could house a show of some sort. We discussed everything from a travelling show with Aliens to my personal favorite, a Droid dome, kind of a Medieval Times show with battling Droids from other planets. Lucas later returned to see a model of the building which he liked a lot. The land never went much further than that.

I know you may not b able to speak about it but it was often mentioned that the reason it didn't go any further was Eisner didn't think it belonged in a Disney park - or was it more a budgetary issue that transformed itself into an urban park myth?

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Star Tours was already in production, so it was not so much a creative issue. I believe it was related to a fear of the potential costs of licensing by having Lucas consult about everything, then you have to pay for that every year. That's what I recall.

 

[SirLink]

Star Tours was already in production, so it was not so much a creative issue. I believe it was related to a fear of the potential costs of licensing by having Lucas consult about everything, then you have to pay for that every year. That's what I recall.

Should of mentioned I was talking in regards to the Droid Dome and the other aspects involved in Tommorrowlan 2025(I believe thats the one!) project. Sorry for the confusion my dear Sir.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

Should of mentioned I was talking in regards to the Droid Dome and the other aspects involved in Tommorrowlan 2025(I believe thats the one!) project. Sorry for the confusion my dear Sir.

2055

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Should of mentioned I was talking in regards to the Droid Dome and the other aspects involved in Tommorrowlan 2025(I believe thats the one!) project. Sorry for the confusion my dear Sir.

Aaah. 2055 was a different Tony Baxter project that was not Lucas driven. Other than investigating the feasibility of putting the TDL Rocket Bike project in there, I was not involved. The "wheelie" popping Rocket Bikes we were developing for TDL (and hopefully DL) is what spawned the Rocket Rods BTW.

 

[MarkTwain]

Eddie, one of the most interesting aspects for me of the Fantasyland Expansion is how it revealed such a stark divide in the different ages of Fantasyland's design. Both the 1971 and the 2012 versions of Fantasyland offer creative takes on the "fairytale village," but the execution and quality of theming is so vastly different that they feel almost like two separate lands - I would say they feel more like separate lands than established lands like, say, Frontierland and Liberty Square.

The expansion's extravagant theming raises a unique problem in that it reveals just how dated and cheap/plasticy-looking the design is in the Fantasyland immediately surrounding it. I don't know of any other Disney park worldwide where such a problem is apparent, or for that matter where new construction was immediately adjacent to design from such a different era (although parts of California Adventure's "quality inconsistency" come to mind in places like where Buena Vista Street meets Hollywood Boulevard).

Any thoughts on this? It makes one wonder if a "Fantasyland retrofit" is now necessary in the older Fantasyland to keep the consistency.

 

[michmousefan]

Eddie, one of the most interesting aspects for me of the Fantasyland Expansion is how it revealed such a stark divide in the different ages of Fantasyland's design. Both the 1971 and the 2012 versions of Fantasyland offer creative takes on the "fairytale village," but the execution and quality of theming is so vastly different that they feel almost like two separate lands - I would say they feel more like separate lands than established lands like, say, Frontierland and Liberty Square.

The expansion's extravagant theming raises a unique problem in that it reveals just how dated and cheap/plasticy-looking the design is in the Fantasyland immediately surrounding it. I don't know of any other Disney park worldwide where such a problem is apparent, or for that matter where new construction was immediately adjacent to design from such a different era (although parts of California Adventure's "quality inconsistency" come to mind in places like where Buena Vista Street meets Hollywood Boulevard).

Any thoughts on this? It makes one wonder if a "Fantasyland retrofit" is now necessary in the older Fantasyland to keep the consistency.

Actually, it looks like the new pathway to Liberty Square with the restrooms and rumored Tangled theme is trying to use some of the design elements of the expansion, like rockwork and... I would assume... lots of trees. Sort of a design connection between the two areas? I guess we'll know more as it nears completion.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Eddie, one of the most interesting aspects for me of the Fantasyland Expansion is how it revealed such a stark divide in the different ages of Fantasyland's design. Both the 1971 and the 2012 versions of Fantasyland offer creative takes on the "fairytale village," but the execution and quality of theming is so vastly different that they feel almost like two separate lands - I would say they feel more like separate lands than established lands like, say, Frontierland and Liberty Square.

The expansion's extravagant theming raises a unique problem in that it reveals just how dated and cheap/plasticy-looking the design is in the Fantasyland immediately surrounding it. I don't know of any other Disney park worldwide where such a problem is apparent, or for that matter where new construction was immediately adjacent to design from such a different era (although parts of California Adventure's "quality inconsistency" come to mind in places like where Buena Vista Street meets Hollywood Boulevard).

Any thoughts on this? It makes one wonder if a "Fantasyland retrofit" is now necessary in the older Fantasyland to keep the consistency.

I think they will want to subtly upgrade the finishes and detail overall to make the two flow better. My guess would be that the new area is denser in detail and perhaps drawn of a more intimate scale that the Castle dominated, fuller scale 1971 zone. As I recall, the bavarian buildings in the '71 version are also more literally designed and lack that Storybook feel with the sagging roof lines present in the new area.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I've made early calls both for and against things based on photos and later seeing it in person had a different take. It's true that until you can experience it, you really don't know. Experiences are more than imagery, they are sensory. It seems that the Coaster is the heart of the area, so it makes sense to withhold final judgement on the place as a whole until you have that critical piece. The reports I've heard are good on the elements, and the production value appears to be pretty high (the level of Disneyland Paris). We won't know if it has the immersive power that WWHP has until it's done.

I think Fantasyland looks great but is lacking in substance. The Seven Dwarfs Mine Train being the heart is an idea that really bothers me. If that is the case, I think its a serious flaw in the bigger design when one considers that what is open was announced without this possibly central attraction. It means New Fantasyland was not going to have a heart. What if the coaster just never works and gets removed? The areas that have just opened really should have a heart all their own.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

I think Fantasyland looks great but is lacking in substance. The Seven Dwarfs Mine Train being the heart is an idea that really bothers me. If that is the case, I think its a serious flaw in the bigger design when one considers that what is open was announced without this possibly central attraction. It means New Fantasyland was not going to have a heart. What if the coaster just never works and gets removed? The areas that have just opened really should have a heart all their own.

Are you saying that you don't like the fact that 7DMT was "retro-fitted" into the design of FLE pre-PixieHollow?

I kind of follow what are you are saying in that I think they should have pushed 7DMT to the periphery to allow for a show building. I know that Disney doesn't really go back and re-boot bit E-Tickets/mountain rides, but what if BTMRR had room/plans for a showbuilding, and they added scenes to the mine train ride, in addition to the thrills? I think it is always good to have a clear path to improving/plussing an attraction.

As is, 7DMT will always have a small dark ride section, and the landscaping that is being built, (save for major reconstructive surgery). Most of it is rockwork that I doubt will change much over the ensuing decades.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

Actually, it looks like the new pathway to Liberty Square with the restrooms and rumored Tangled theme is trying to use some of the design elements of the expansion, like rockwork and... I would assume... lots of trees. Sort of a design connection between the two areas? I guess we'll know more as it nears completion.

I think, and I'm only guessing, that the Tangled area will have trees/rockwork similar to FLE as old Fantasyland is the "courtyard" area, inside of Cinderella's castle. And so the margins of this sub-land will have trees and a more rustic appearance. Also, the Tangled area has to transition to Liberty Square/Frontierland, so trees and rocks help with this.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Are you saying that you don't like the fact that 7DMT was "retro-fitted" into the design of FLE pre-PixieHollow?

I kind of follow what are you are saying in that I think they should have pushed 7DMT to the periphery to allow for a show building. I know that Disney doesn't really go back and re-boot bit E-Tickets/mountain rides, but what if BTMRR had room/plans for a showbuilding, and they added scenes to the mine train ride, in addition to the thrills? I think it is always good to have a clear path to improving/plussing an attraction.

As is, 7DMT will always have a small dark ride section, and the landscaping that is being built, (save for major reconstructive surgery). Most of it is rockwork that I doubt will change much over the ensuing decades.

No, I'm saying that there is a bit of a failure if the real heart of this project is in Seven Dwarfs Mine Train. It means that the project, which is physically large, would have lacked a heart had the meet and greet facilities been built. It means that, if for whatever reason, the attraction were to be removed, the area would again have no heart. I don't think a project as physically expansive as Fantasyland should be so dependent on one attraction.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

No, I'm saying that there is a bit of a failure if the real heart of this project is in Seven Dwarfs Mine Train. It means that the project, which is physically large, would have lacked a heart had the meet and greet facilities been built. It means that, if for whatever reason, the attraction were to be removed, the area would again have no heart. I don't think a project as physically expansive as Fantasyland should be so dependent on one attraction.

OK, I think I see what you are saying:

1. FLE 1.0 w/Pixie Hollow had a design flaw, no "heart".
2. 7DMT is meant to fix this design flaw, and without 7DMT, FLE will slide in mediocrity.

Well, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

FLE sans 7DMT is open for biz. I'm sure BoG will make $ for the park long term, ETwB looks to be a hit for young girls and families, a key demographic, so a hit, Little Mermaid . . . I think the ride will please Moms, and little girls will give a 3 out of 4 stars, (if not big time Ariel fans), and Ariel's new grotto will be a hit with those who visit it. Gaston's provides some much needed testosterone for us guys, so overall FLE is a plus for the park, and it will make money, despite the fact that I think Mermaid could have been an E-Ticket with a big enough budget.

Along with Dumbo & Circusland, FLE is the biggest human trap every built by a mouse to trap, entertain and feed, a substantial demographic cohort of guests: families with young girls, and to a lesser extent, young boys.

Yes, 7DMT is thematically linked to FLE, but should 7DMT "fail", (I think very unlikely as the ride has a novel ride mechanism and will add to the beauty of FLE's Belle area), this putative failure wouldn't necessarily negatively effect the rest of FLE.

Given that, I think we all know how 7DMT will work: Mom and young girls go to ETwB, and Dad and the boys wait the 45 minutes for 7DMT.

 

[ChrisFL]

I just felt like posting this for the prosterity of realizing that what they are talking about 1/2 way through the video are the computing power that EPCOT Center used when it opened and still amazed at how well they did back then.

Geeking out about bits and bytes (old computers)

http://www.tested.com/videos/449316-inside-adam-savages-cave-geeking-out-about-bits-and-bytes/

 

[The Empress Lilly]

I think they will want to subtly upgrade the finishes and detail overall to make the two flow better. My guess would be that the new area is denser in detail and perhaps drawn of a more intimate scale that the Castle dominated, fuller scale 1971 zone. As I recall, the bavarian buildings in the '71 version are also more literally designed and lack that Storybook feel with the sagging roof lines present in the new area.

To me, that's two reasons why FL71 is superior to the new area.

A literal Bavarian village is quaint, but slightly boring. A cartoonified Bavarian village is boring too, of no lasting interest for those above the age of six.
Disney, the Magic Kingdom of 1971, managed to strike the perfect balance between the two. That's why the MK sizzles, never fails to emotionally connect with people. As do the WS and the front end of DHS. (But not DAK, which in turn is too literally themed, instead of too little).

I think that the 'real life version of the cartoonified version of the Disneyfied version of a French village' is ultimately less magical than the Disneyfied Bavarian village.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

To me, that's two reasons why FL71 is superior to the new area.

A literal Bavarian village is quaint, but slightly boring. A cartoonified Bavarian village is boring too, of no lasting interest for those above the age of six.
Disney, the Magic Kingdom of 1971, managed to strike the perfect balance between the two. That's why the MK sizzles, never fails to emotionally connect with people. As do the WS and the front end of DHS. (But not DAK, which in turn is too literally themed, instead of too little).

I think that the 'real life version of the cartoonified version of the Disneyfied version of a French village' is ultimately less magical than the Disneyfied Bavarian village.

So you prefer the MK FL to the current FL at DL?

 

[The Empress Lilly]

So you prefer the MK FL to the current FL at DL?

For actual current experience, no. One can't beat five classic dark rides and a myriad of other offerings over WDW's abandonedland.

For looks, yes, certainly. Especially comparing vintage MK FL 71, even to DL FL post-83. Sadly, whereas DL FL kept getting better even after 83, the MK FL slowly declined.

But by default, by dna, the vintage MK FL is the prettiest one ever build, and that includes DLP. Nothing beats those soaring spires, the Alpine woodland, the streams and bridges, the jungle, the fountains, waterfalls, the grand scale of it all, the towering castle looming over it.

But really my point was that I prefer the more literal look of original FL over the more cartoony look of the current additions. I'll always prefer a Swiss chalet dotted Alpine hillside over an area resembling the cartoon world of Tangled.

However, the FLE seems to have a very toned down cartoon look. As if they were, perhaps intuitively, trying to prevent too large a clash with the literal FL.

The design does clash in another aspect. FL 71 is immaculate, pristine. No rust, no deterioration, no buildings sagging under the weight of centuries.
By contrast, the FLE tries to strive for authenticity and placemaking by making things look old, subject to wear and tear.
Compare the 'not a spot of rust anywhere' design of 20k with the shipwreck of Mermaid. The dirt and muck of Belle's village with the 'paint not even dry yet' perfection of the Bavarian houses in the original FL. The pristine surroundings of Cinderella Castle with the ruins leading up to Beast's castle.

This then all leads to the strange and fascinating conclusion that the literal FL is impervious to the wear and tear of old age such as can only happen in a cartoon world. Whereas the cartoon FL is subjected to all the wear and tear, all the deterioration and destruction and death of the real world.