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

[Eddie Sotto]

On today's Miceage, Kevin Yee has literally raved about Test Track 2.0 and now I'm wondering if a trip to WDW is in order. I watched a ride through video and it looks impressive. My fantasy of doing a Tron style world seems to have partially come true, or at least is feasible. The pre and post show has a subtle "1967 Tomorrowland" feel to it without being retro, which only reminds me of how they could just clean up the one at DL. A seasoned Imagineer (and friend) named Trevor Bryant was the Producer and Creative director, so a shout out to him and his team. Kevin claims it is better than New Fantasyland. Have any of you been on it, and if so, what are your thoughts? So so or so cool?

Disney and More has great art and video too.

http://disneyandmore.blogspot.com/2012/12/new-test-track-with-tron-inspired.html

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Politics and friction 1955 Style. Interesting read for you DL history buffs. Familiar territory in building parks.

http://www.disneyhistoryinstitute.com

 

[flynnibus]

Kevin claims it is better than New Fantasyland. Have any of you been on it, and if so, what are your thoughts? So so or so cool?

We've been discussing this in the Test Track Thread and I have some reservations in their choices.

after seeing the full ride throughs...

Visually - very impressive
The Queue - certainly done in that star trek style that much of early EPCOT was..
Post Show - reminds me a lot like Mission:Space.. lots of cool things to look at, but you never want to wait in line for.

I do feel a bit hollow about the actual ride experience though. For all the 'construction cones' type of props lying around in Test Track.. at least you had a good integration of what the ride system was doing and what you were being fed audible and visually. And it all tied into the overall concept. These videos make it seem like 'really cool visuals.. but very light (if any) integration between the ride system and the environment. 'Why I am doing this?' type of doubts.

Am I being whipped around in the dark for a reason.. or am I being simply ran from room to room? The tie in from the story to the ride's programming seems weak from the videos.

I'm cautious - even if visually it looks cool.

Ask yourselves this... Once the newness of the visuals wears off... Will you still yearn to repeat the attraction and if so... Which elements will draw you back?

What's the difference between Indy's emv and simply being thrown around in the dark? The integration between what you see and what you feel. Not just in making the movement more believable but to pull you into the story being woven. That connection seems weaker here. The reasons for the start stop.. The reasons for swerving, why am I going back and forth through these switchbacks?

I worry this lack of connecting tissue ultimately diminishes the enjoyment of the ride system (like being thrown around in the dark analogy).

I worry that the design portion isn't tied into the ride system's actions itself enough.. and the redressing that was done around the existing ride system isn't coupled enough to the ride system in places. The 'whip me around without a purpose' type of feeling. While TT1.0 looked cheezy to some.. at least it was clear what your car was doing and why. Now, that seems less integrated.

Why do I think it's important? Well at it's core.. TT was a thrill ride. Did people repeat the ride because they were enthralled with the theme? Not that I could tell.. they were there for the 'ride'. My concern is the 'ride' has been diminished because of weaker visual connections reenforcing the 'why' behind the movements.

Like M:S.. the interactive consoles are great - but they aren't what bring you back time and time again.

Another poster put it dead simple...

TT1 made more sense
TT2 looks better

Neither is WoM

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Good commentary. All good points.I'm not sure why guests repeated TT, but I'd guess it was for the thrill primarily. It will be interesting to hear why and if they repeat this version. I will see Trevor after the holiday and ask him for his insights.

No one mentions the pre/post show "design your car" continuum or the interactives that make it more of a pavilion. I think in addition to the ride we should evaluate the total experience. To me, the cones "wore off" while I was riding 1.0, at least 2.0 seems like another world that I would enjoy being in. I need to ride it to have a true feel. I understand the notion that 2.0 may be more look and less substance, but when you are overdressing the same track, where do you go with it except to make it all more interesting? I think it comes off as more seamless in the video and the pre and post shows blend into the ride as the story crosses over nicely. I like being in a "design studio" world more than a "test facility", but that's just me. The world they created is something I'd pay admission for versus a warehouse, etc.

I hope Kevin responds to the discussion as he reads this thread.

 

[flynnibus]

I concur the design element is more interesting than testing - in that the guest gets to be involved now. But unfortunately what they didn't achieve was the guest 'being part of the show'.

How long till they add some design consoles in the post-show area for the people that didn't get to design their own car in the preshow? And then, what's the difference between just hanging out in the post-show area and doing the whole three stages of the attraction?

Maybe the visuals are strong enough to keep people focused on that aspect and overlook the rest... I guess only time will tell. The good news is they seemed to put a lot of effort in the pre and post shows - and they look stunning. The post show elements seem more than just flashy ads and have repeatability.

The lack of audio at all outside seems odd. That would be the point I'd love to here about 'from the horses mouth'.

 

[wedenterprises]

As I said in another thread, the outside portion "problem" could have been solved through story, by way of "exiting" the sim track and entering the real world. You could add all sorts of props and music, but I like the idea of exiting the sim track and simply entering the "power track" or "Epcot power loop" or something. Don't hide the fact that you're in Epcot, because you've already stated that it's the Chevrolet Design Center at Epcot.

Before launch, have the narrator say "Exiting the Sim Track". It could be the metaphorical moment when a design on a computer screen becomes a real prototype.

Maybe it IS the metaphorical moment, maybe the designers DID think of this, but it's not clear.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Dying to ride it.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Check out this Lucas/Disney synergistic moment. Will they ruin the brand or was this always in the cards?

http://www.deadline.com/2012/12/wha...rought-star-wars-meets-extreme-home-makeover/

 

[ChrisFL]

I concur the design element is more interesting than testing - in that the guest gets to be involved now. But unfortunately what they didn't achieve was the guest 'being part of the show'.

How long till they add some design consoles in the post-show area for the people that didn't get to design their own car in the preshow? And then, what's the difference between just hanging out in the post-show area and doing the whole three stages of the attraction?

They already do have that as far as I could tell. Between the small race-track areas were 3 consoles that looked exactly like the pre-show ones and it did seem to be the same car design setup. Plus, the card they give you, you can dispose of, but it wasn't overtly obvious with anything other than a nearly blank box with a symbol. No recycling message or "please drop your card here" type of thing.

That makes me wonder if/how long it keeps the data. Not knowing how the system works exactly it may be a dumb question.

Edit: I also disagree that the guest isn't part of the show...quite the opposite, they're entirely part of the show now, beginning to end. In TT1.0 they weren't part of anything.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Edit: I also disagree that the guest isn't part of the show...quite the opposite, they're entirely part of the show now, beginning to end. In TT1.0 they weren't part of anything.

That was the impression I got too. But seeing is believing, I guess I need to go see it now.

 

[wedenterprises]

I actually feel the opposite. I feel the guest is less part of the show now. You design a car but it doesn't matter what it looks like, and the track has no bearing on your score. That score exists as soon as you make your car.

In TT1 you were cast as a test dummy, essentially. In TT2, you aren't really anything. You're just in the computer...as a digit? Not sure.

I'm not saying you're NOT part of the show, just arguing that it's much less now, and more abstract.

 

[Cosmic Commando]

I actually feel the opposite. I feel the guest is less part of the show now. You design a car but it doesn't matter what it looks like, and the track has no bearing on your score. That score exists as soon as you make your car.

Actually, I think that's the one gaffe from TT 2.0 that bothers me. From the videos I've seen, your scores (capability, efficiency, responsiveness, power?) show up immediately with your car in the design studio. You can see the scores fluctuate as you tweak your car design... umm, isn't that why we're taking our SimCar out on the SimTrack? To get the scores to these tests to let us know how our design really functions? IMO, they should give you hints in the design studio like, "Doing x will help your power but hurt your efficiency", but not show you your scores until you get on the ride and do the tests. Just a little detail that doesn't really fit the continuity. I'm still dying to ride.

 

[wedenterprises]

Actually, I think that's the one gaffe from TT 2.0 that bothers me. From the videos I've seen, your scores (capability, efficiency, responsiveness, power?) show up immediately with your car in the design studio. You can see the scores fluctuate as you tweak your car design... umm, isn't that why we're taking our SimCar out on the SimTrack? To get the scores to these tests to let us know how our design really functions? IMO, they should give you hints in the design studio like, "Doing x will help your power but hurt your efficiency", but not show you your scores until you get on the ride and do the tests. Just a little detail that doesn't really fit the continuity. I'm still dying to ride.

I agree.

I think the design should be purely visual without ANY mention of performance (power, capability etc). This ride should TEACH guests about design. Therefore, create a car based purely on looks, then AFTER the sim track you are taught WHY your car scored as it did.

(It would also be fun to find out how much your car would cost to buy - heh)

 

[Cosmic Commando]

I agree.

I think the design should be purely visual without ANY mention of performance (power, capability etc). This ride should TEACH guests about design. Therefore, create a car based purely on looks, then AFTER the sim track you are taught WHY your car scored as it did.

(It would also be fun to find out how much your car would cost to buy - heh)

I took "design" to mean form and function. Sure, the sexiest part of designing a car is making that wind-tunnel-perfect sleek shape, but it's also making the car work. Like architecture: you want to make the building pretty on the outside, but you also need to put in the bathrooms.

 

[sweetpee_1993]

Hi there, Mr. Sotto. I'm not at all a regular on this particular thread. I've mosied in a few times and read some but it's been quite some time. Another WDWMagic member reminded us all that you are here and how wonderful just having a non-biased but highly knowledgable person participating in conversation has been. So, before I ask my question I'd like to thank you. Certainly you're as busy as the rest of us if not moreso. It DOES mean something for someone such as yourself to take the time to converse with the fan base. For that, I thank you!

My question is more about the extent to which TWDC would utilize one business to support one of their others. We all know about the "synergy" thing, how the parks promote the films and television, and vice versa. I'm a bit surprised, however, at a new-to-me dynamic I think I caught yesterday with the 2014 itinerary release for the cruise line. There is truly no logic in the decision to pull all 4 ships to Florida for 4 months when they're struggling to fill them there. And for the parks blog to push the new additions at the parks was pretty obvious. To save from copying/pasting I'll just link my run-down on what I think and how it factors into pushing the parks. I'm no insider, don't get me wrong. I don't proclaim to have some special "in" that makes me privvy to anything. I wonder if my thoughts on this whole thing are even close to correct. Would TWDC allow their cruise line business to languish at the risk of driving some of their loyal guests to other cruise lines when it could do so much more on it's own in order to try to boost another portion of their business? Would they really do something like that? I'll admit, I'm kinda stunned at the gravity of the idea of it. It's crazy. But then again, it could make sense. I'm trying to set aside my fangurl hat and be objective on this one. Any thoughts?

 

[wedenterprises]

Thanks, and also, is it possible to have power, responsiveness, etc all at 100%?? Is that the goal of car design?

 

[Cosmic Commando]

Thanks, and also, is it possible to have power, responsiveness, etc all at 100%?? Is that the goal of car design?

If your designed car looks exactly like a Chevy Malibu, then you get a perfect score. It is the pinnacle of automotive design.

 

[bubbles1812]

Check out this Lucas/Disney synergistic moment. Will they ruin the brand or was this always in the cards?

http://www.deadline.com/2012/12/wha...rought-star-wars-meets-extreme-home-makeover/

LOL. I tried to make a thread based on this article, asking this very question. And it was moved to the Chit Chat thread! I'm glad to see you find relevance in it.

To answer your question is hard. I think "synergy" was always in the cards considering how Star Wars is integrated into the parks already. But it's a fine line that Disney will have to balance. For instance, I am ok with the Star Wars weekends involving a Jedi Mickey, ect. However, imagine if you will, had they adding Mickey into the revamped Star Tours? I think that would have been a disaster and a half. I love Mickey, but he doesn't have a place within the Star Wars universe as a whole. One thing is certain... they really need to "aim" for the original trilogy as much as possible. With the movies, I really think they need to get Harrison Ford, Mark Hamill, and Carrie Fisher back, even to play minor roles at least for the first one. I see fans being very upset if that doesn't happen considering they "are" the Star Wars universe for many people. Disney will have to balance carefully what would appeal to the general public versus the hard core fans, especially with how they synergize the too.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

LOL. I tried to make a thread based on this article, asking this very question. And it was moved to the Chit Chat thread! I'm glad to see you find relevance in it.

To answer your question is hard. I think "synergy" was always in the cards considering how Star Wars is integrated into the parks already. But it's a fine line that Disney will have to balance. For instance, I am ok with the Star Wars weekends involving a Jedi Mickey, ect. However, imagine if you will, had they adding Mickey into the revamped Star Tours? I think that would have been a disaster and a half. I love Mickey, but he doesn't have a place within the Star Wars universe as a whole. One thing is certain... they really need to "aim" for the original trilogy as much as possible. With the movies, I really think they need to get Harrison Ford, Mark Hamill, and Carrie Fisher back, even to play minor roles at least for the first one. I see fans being very upset if that doesn't happen considering they "are" the Star Wars universe for many people. Disney will have to balance carefully what would appeal to the general public versus the hard core fans, especially with how they synergize the too.

Agree. There is a fine line. I think they should make SW scarce fir a while and then create a demand for the franchise when the new films come out. Im getting burned out on the ironic use of the characters. Someday they will have no meaning.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Hi there, Mr. Sotto. I'm not at all a regular on this particular thread. I've mosied in a few times and read some but it's been quite some time. Another WDWMagic member reminded us all that you are here and how wonderful just having a non-biased but highly knowledgable person participating in conversation has been. So, before I ask my question I'd like to thank you. Certainly you're as busy as the rest of us if not moreso. It DOES mean something for someone such as yourself to take the time to converse with the fan base. For that, I thank you!

My question is more about the extent to which TWDC would utilize one business to support one of their others. We all know about the "synergy" thing, how the parks promote the films and television, and vice versa. I'm a bit surprised, however, at a new-to-me dynamic I think I caught yesterday with the 2014 itinerary release for the cruise line. There is truly no logic in the decision to pull all 4 ships to Florida for 4 months when they're struggling to fill them there. And for the parks blog to push the new additions at the parks was pretty obvious. To save from copying/pasting I'll just link my run-down on what I think and how it factors into pushing the parks. I'm no insider, don't get me wrong. I don't proclaim to have some special "in" that makes me privvy to anything. I wonder if my thoughts on this whole thing are even close to correct. Would TWDC allow their cruise line business to languish at the risk of driving some of their loyal guests to other cruise lines when it could do so much more on it's own in order to try to boost another portion of their business? Would they really do something like that? I'll admit, I'm kinda stunned at the gravity of the idea of it. It's crazy. But then again, it could make sense. I'm trying to set aside my fangurl hat and be objective on this one. Any thoughts?

Thank you for the very kind thoughts. Interesting discussion you linked. Welcome to this thread.

It is puzzling why they would do that, putting 4 ships in the same port. I would imagine that there may be some reason we are not aware of that makes the west coast strategy not work. It is not cheap to move ships and change strategies. There is the cost of sailing aginast downtime. The notion of supporting the NFL is in line with the typical corporate synergy agenda and perhaps they projected demand for the ships to be high because of it, but all 4? My guess is that demand was not there on the west coast to justify all of the infrastructure of running them here, or maybe they tried to do do too much too soon and the marketing was not there to fill the rooms, so they reacted and decided it was cheaper and more profitible to justify one support system for the whole line. The company does not like to bleed money if they can run back to something simpler that they know. And as you and others point out, the parks could use the synergy with universal out there plugging. At least they can figure the rest out by april.

I have never been aboard any of the disney ships, so it is not really my thing. But they do have a fortune tied up in them and it is a great business for the company.