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

[Eddie Sotto]

more disturbing to me is that Disney allowed them to be at the gate of DAK... What does that say about your own ambitions inside the park? I mean its not like there is a viable retail presence outside the DAK gates... its a remote island in the WDW property

It also says you are shortsighted and could not think of anything as good or better yourself, so you put a lesser themed product out there and let them make all the money. Cheapens the whole property, just like Planet Hollywood. Like putting a bag of Cheetos on the banquet table at the Royal Wedding. People will eat them and like them, but it says something about the family.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Tell that to rainforest cafe , etc

LOL, no I meant one cohesive theme. For example, Main Street has one theme. Buena Vista Street has one theme. I just think it would be weird for all of Downtown Disney to have one theme.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

LOL, no I meant one cohesive theme. For example, Main Street has one theme. Buena Vista Street has one theme. I just think it would be weird for all of Downtown Disney to have one theme.

Not weird, just different.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

It also says you are shortsighted and could not think of anything as good or better yourself, so you put a lesser themed product out there and let them make all the money. Cheapens the whole property, just like Planet Hollywood. Like putting a bag of Cheetos on the banquet table at the Royal Wedding. People will eat them and like them, but it says something about the family.

At least I'm not the only one who wants them to get rid of PH!

 

[flynnibus]

LOL, no I meant one cohesive theme. For example, Main Street has one theme. Buena Vista Street has one theme. I just think it would be weird for all of Downtown Disney to have one theme.

I hear ya..

What do you think of The Grove shopping district in LA? IMO, that type of cohesive design in setting has been used in recent years a lot to make what would be typical mall shopping more 'upscale' and mixing in entertainment, etc. You see it in a lot of variations... the walking town center, etc. Maybe this is more cohesive architecture vs themeing... but some certainly seem to be extreme.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

Downtown Disney is fine the way it is. I'm sure almost no one's going to be looking for a themed experience at a shopping and dining outlet OUTSIDE the parks.

I was talking about Downtown Disney at DLR. But don't see why DTD in Orlando couldn't be themed as well. Isn't a great creative success building something that people never knew they wanted in the first place?

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

LOL, no I meant one cohesive theme. For example, Main Street has one theme. Buena Vista Street has one theme. I just think it would be weird for all of Downtown Disney to have one theme.

Downtown Disney does have a theme, whether you recognize it or not, that of a standard outdoor high-end shopping district. Not expensively built, but not cheaply built, I feel like I'm in the everyday world when I walk around Downtown Disney, and decidedly not on the property.

Buena Vista street is a big hit because you feel like you're transported somewhere else. I don't see why that couldn't be achieved at Downtown Disney, and it would probably mean selling more stuff, as well as being a small draw for the resort as a whole.

The Grand Californian, DTD, were a big mistake, IMHO, because the real estate is prime, between two Disney parks. DCA could have used the space to build another land in DCA, maybe 1.5 lands, and these of course would have restaurants and shops. Another hotel, even a luxury hotel, could have been built elsewhere and the guests could have been transported via trams/monorails, now DCA will always be a smaller park when compared to Disneyland.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Not weird, just different.

Right. Very different and just a tad bit odd, heehee.

I hear ya..

What do you think of The Grove shopping district in LA? IMO, that type of cohesive design in setting has been used in recent years a lot to make what would be typical mall shopping more 'upscale' and mixing in entertainment, etc. You see it in a lot of variations... the walking town center, etc. Maybe this is more cohesive architecture vs themeing... but some certainly seem to be extreme.

I love the Grove. Now if it looked like that, then that's different. When I said one theme, I was thinking of it looking like Main Street. That kind of look would just be so odd. Now the Grove on the other hand is different. Like you said, it's cohesive and it would most likely work for Downtown Disney.

I was talking about Downtown Disney at DLR. But don't see why DTD in Orlando couldn't be themed as well. Isn't a great creative success building something that people never knew they wanted in the first place?

I know you were talking about DLR. I just think it would be odd if DD looked like Main Street. Maybe I misunderstood you? Like flynnibus said, if it were to look like the Grove, that'd be different. Have you been to the Grove?

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

It also says you are shortsighted and could not think of anything as good or better yourself, so you put a lesser themed product out there and let them make all the money. Cheapens the whole property, just like Planet Hollywood. Like putting a bag of Cheetos on the banquet table at the Royal Wedding. People will eat them and like them, but it says something about the family.

The overall entrance to AK is also very . . . underwhelming. They've got the Rainforest Cafe, which I don't visit because the mall has one, and entrance area which reeks of a public zoo.

I know some people love the oasis area of AK, but I wish there was a sort of 1930's jungle base camp for the entrance, sort of the Jungle Cruise writ large, maybe with a special dockside cafe. With Rainforest and the bland entrance, AK's opening act isn't themed like other parks, almost like the park itself is an after thought.

Most boring theme park entrance ever?

I'm sure the new Jungle Cruise movie will provide a lot of fodder for theme park rides/restaurants, maybe they could remove Rainforest and expand the entrance out a bit with a new retro-1930's theme.

 

[Californian Elitist]

The Grand Californian, DTD, were a big mistake, IMHO, because the real estate is prime, between two Disney parks. DCA could have used the space to build another land in DCA, maybe 1.5 lands, and these of course would have restaurants and shops. Another hotel, even a luxury hotel, could have been built elsewhere and the guests could have been transported via trams/monorails, now DCA will always be a smaller park when compared to Disneyland.

I agree that the Grand Californian is too big, but the beauty of the DLR is everything is close and you can walk to everything. The locals/APs ptobay wouldn't want to take a monorail just to get to their hotel. Everything is right there. I know I wouldn't want to take transportation somewhere when I've been able to walk to everything for the past twenty years. DCA may be smaller than DL but it works. If the company ever wanted to expand, they'll find a way, like they always do.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

I know you were talking about DLR. I just think it would be odd if DD looked like Main Street. Maybe I misunderstood you? Like flynnibus said, if it were to look like the Grove, that'd be different. Have you been to the Grove?

I'm not talking about making DTD look like Main Street, which is urban, albeit early 1900s, I'm talking about a rural area from the same time period. Sort of a cross between films like So Dear To My Heart, and Pollyana. There could be creative stuff, such as astroturfed green spaces where guests could picnic/play, and the shops could be incorporated into old looking victorian houses. Plus, these space larger than what is on Main Street could be used for special events. But it would have a very rural/country fair flavor, as opposed to a formal urban downtown which is what Main Street really is.

They could even have a "temporary permanent" Bizarre, such as the Bizarre from Pollyana, where you'd have musicians/vendors, similar to how it is now, but much more palatable to the eye, IMHO.

Obviously, vendors such as Lego couldn't have big modern signs, but they could still have shops. They could use reverse perspective, such as the American Experience Pavilion in Epcot, to make large buildings seem smaller than they are, and they could be "diguised" as houses.

You'd have a complete town, the laid-back rural area where the shop owners/employees on Main Street live, and Main Street the other half of the pie.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

I agree that the Grand Californian is too big, but the beauty of the DLR is everything is close and you can walk to everything. The locals/APs ptobay wouldn't want to take a monorail just to get to their hotel. Everything is right there. I know I wouldn't want to take transportation somewhere when I've been able to walk to everything for the past twenty years. DCA may be smaller than DL but it works. If the company ever wanted to expand, they'll find a way, like they always do.

Are all the locals/APers staying at the Grand Californian? It also isn't the closest rooms to the park, where I usually stay. I would guess that the locals/APers are driving in, or staying off property.

My impression was that the Grand Californian is the high end hotel, they moved the guests services for Club 33 there in fact, and of course celebs stay there.

Having said that, proximity is important. I would have been OK with a DLP style hotel straddling the esplanade, after all, it's just a big empty space now. Grand Californian really sprawls due to the trees and pool area, I think a more compact hotel would have left more room for expansion. Personally, I would have bought the convention center and built Carsland such that the backside of the Cadillac Mountain range was the Wheel Well Motel, which would have had its own theming, a Drive-In theatre/restaurant, in addition to shops and a special entrance to Carsland.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Are all the locals/APers staying at the Grand Californian? It also isn't the closest rooms to the park, where I usually stay. I would guess that the locals/APers are driving in, or staying off property.

It doesn't matter if everyone stays at the Grand. All the resort hotels are in walking distance. You don't need transportation to get to your hotel. That's the point I'm making.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

I'm sure the new Jungle Cruise movie will provide a lot of fodder for theme park rides/restaurants, maybe they could remove Rainforest and expand the entrance out a bit with a new retro-1930's theme.

IF Alan Horn left that movie on the development slate. However, an indoor/outdoor 1930's style restaurant could be an improvement from what we have now.

 

[Rasvar]

At one time, what is now Downtown Disney in Florida did have a theme. The Village Marketplace fit in well with the nearby Disney Village resort. When Pleasure Island was added, the entire property had a theme and back story even if it was somewhat downplayed except in the Adventurers Club. The whole Downtown Disney idea that came along with Westside kind of blew the whole thing up. It seemed like just throwing up hands and saying "we are just going urban center". No theming at all. I never noticed a real coherent theme at Downtown Disney in DLR either. It just came across as urban shopping center to me.

Even the resorts that get built are now themes draped over the function as an interchangeable overlay. It is why I have always actually disliked the value resorts. The problem is that there is so much of a price jump between that values and the moderates that I have had trouble justifying the cost. Plus, I have a camper. I'll take Ft Wilderness more often than not.

If there one thing I really did appreciate about AK is that there was a lot of effort put into the regional areas (Not including the after thoughts of Camp Minnie-Mickey and Dinoland). I don't think the realism put into these areas was appreciated and many complained it seemed too real. This seems to have lead to a pull back because the cheaper less real look is what many people seem to prefer. Almost give a built in excuse to go cheap.

So we have lost coherent themes and people complain if it looks too real. That is way too easily misread. If there is something that comes out of the New Fantasyland, I hope that the decorative details and theme get enough positive feedback that it is done again. I appreciate the work that went into bringing a nice overall theme back into play. While Cars Land was not perfect in its attractions (flying tires), I hope that this is the kind of project that returns to WDW with comprehensive themes. I can only hope at some point both DHS and Epcot can see some kind of restoration of theme and story instead of just being a group of experiences in what was Future Land.

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

Two days ago, I was in San Antonio for a family wedding. In the evening after the reception, we went to the River Walk. Enchanting, charming, bustling, full of people of all ages enjoying themselves. No drunkenness, family friendly crowd. It delivered everything all the Downtown Disneys have promised, but none but DLRs have been successful to deliver.

 

[RSoxNo1]

My main problem with Mermaid is that so much of the ride is devoted to the Under The Sea room, which I get is the movie's most famous song, but is pretty removed from the story, especially when it's given no context. And the way you just slowly crawl through that room, with a bunch of nondescript cartoon fish swaying back and forth just really drags down the experience.

I will say that I think the Ursula AA is FANTASTIC, and the Kiss the Girl scene is pretty great, too, but I wish they were framed better. The Ursula AA is good enough to make the whole attraction worthwhile, to me. I suspect that the ride would be better if it was less about "hear your favorite songs!" and more about "what scenes can we show that would make a great ride." I'm not against the use of video in a dark ride (just look at Pooh's Hunny Hunt) but it feels like it's used as a crutch in Mermaid.

I've had this conversation with @Pixiedustmaker previously - I don't think it's realistic to have a 5 1/2 minute dark ride tell the entire story of the movie. It's going to hit the highlights, and that's what mermaid does. It's like Star Tours, it's a best of even if not everything fits in chronologically. The other option is for the ride to be an extension of the story (not the approach they took with Mermaid). I think the Under the Sea scene is a lot of fun, and it really is the "show stopper" in the movie and the ride.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I've had this conversation with @Pixiedustmaker previously - I don't think it's realistic to have a 5 1/2 minute dark ride tell the entire story of the movie. It's going to hit the highlights, and that's what mermaid does. It's like Star Tours, it's a best of even if not everything fits in chronologically. The other option is for the ride to be an extension of the story (not the approach they took with Mermaid). I think the Under the Sea scene is a lot of fun, and it really is the "show stopper" in the movie and the ride.

This gets at why I think attractions like Mr. Toad's Wild Ride, Splash Mountain and even Peter Pan's Flight (to an extent) work so well. They're not about telling the story of the film. They're built within the worlds and take us on a slightly different adventure within these worlds, one that has been recontextualized for the medium of the dark ride. Even Star Tours is just a tour of the Star Wars universe, not reliving any one of the films. I think this is where The Little Mermaid hit its story faults, is in sort of waffling between giving us an experience of the world under the sea ("Under the Sea" and Ursula scenes) while also trying to make sure the ride follows some of the film. If one watches the extra on the Platinum Edition DVD from a few years ago somebody (Tony Baxter?) talks about reorganizing the scenes from the film to better fit the dark ride environment.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

I've had this conversation with @Pixiedustmaker previously - I don't think it's realistic to have a 5 1/2 minute dark ride tell the entire story of the movie. It's going to hit the highlights, and that's what mermaid does. It's like Star Tours, it's a best of even if not everything fits in chronologically. The other option is for the ride to be an extension of the story (not the approach they took with Mermaid). I think the Under the Sea scene is a lot of fun, and it really is the "show stopper" in the movie and the ride.

The Under the Sea scene makes sense for the ride because WDI could make a it a big amazing lavish show scene.

Outside of the Ariel animatronic, I don't get this feel from the Under the Sea scene, something's missing, and the dancing fish and what not are too close to the ride vehicle, and hence kinda looking plasticky and fake. It's not like any of the other big scenes at DLR like: the Wicked Wench (big boat firing on fort) scene in pirates, the graveyard scene in HM, Small World, Indy, or even Splash mountain's dark scenes.

It's a good scene, just not great. When you look at the rest of the ride, which is kind of half-finished and cramped in space and lacking in details . . . it is the sum total which makes the ride much less than it should be. Maybe Mermaid shows that you can spending $40-$50 million on a ride and still have it turn out mediocre if the artistry isn't there.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

This gets at why I think attractions like Mr. Toad's Wild Ride, Splash Mountain and even Peter Pan's Flight (to an extent) work so well. They're not about telling the story of the film. They're built within the worlds and take us on a slightly different adventure within these worlds, one that has been recontextualized for the medium of the dark ride. Even Star Tours is just a tour of the Star Wars universe, not reliving any one of the films. I think this is where The Little Mermaid hit its story faults, is in sort of waffling between giving us an experience of the world under the sea ("Under the Sea" and Ursula scenes) while also trying to make sure the ride follows some of the film. If one watches the extra on the Platinum Edition DVD from a few years ago somebody (Tony Baxter?) talks about reorganizing the scenes from the film to better fit the dark ride environment.

The beginning of Tony's CGI version of Mermaid starts off more subtly, I kinda don't like the how DCA's Mermaid starts off, you have Scuttle, and then right away Ariel in her Grotto/video screen Ariel. It spoils the moment, there needs to be more build up. I'm barely comfortable in the clamshell when, oh . . . hey, it's Ariel.

I think a better beginning transition would be a beach side landscape, or underwater landscape, such that you don't run into Ariel right away. Putting Ariel before the big Under the Sea, and you kind of lose Ariel's storyline as it gets chopped up between the big musical. I think it would work to have Ariel's grotto, Eric's ship, then a scene with Ariel at Eric's castle, may some humorous. As is, the story is a bite too disconjointed.

Plus a whole scene using a screen showing Ariel getting her legs?! The video loop is pretty meaningless, why not build another Ariel Animatronic and use a combination of fiber optics/Pepper ghost for something special? No matter what folks think of the ride, I think everybody recognizes that as being plain old cheapness.

Ditto for the Ariel gets her voice back after kissing Eric . . . seen via a shadow like the dancing Indian lady in Small World. I can't see how anybody would say that isn't being very cheap.