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

[Cosmic Commando]

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.

I think if you're looking at the movie and you're just starting to work on a ride, you're thinking you definitely need "Under the Sea", "Part of Your World" and "Poor Unfortunate Souls". Those three scenes I think are done pretty well. The rest of the ride I think suffers from trying to hit every plot point in the movie and DCA's space limitations. I agree that the first Ariel is probably too close to the beginning of the ride, but just look at that plot in DCA: the building is really wedged in there and there's almost no interior queue. They built as much ride as they could; I'm just not sure it was enough.

On somewhat of a side note, I think the "Under the Sea" scene would actually be improved by removing something. The two whirylgig spiral thingys right in the middle of the room are huge and, because of the construction method, I feel like you're seeing more behind-the-scenes support bar for the fish than you're seeing actual fish. My eyes were drawn right to them on every ride.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I like the TDS Ariel's "Mermaid Lagoon" where you are just in that world. There are lots of ways to use a story without literally telling it. It all depends.

 

[Californian Elitist]

I like the TDS Ariel's "Mermaid Lagoon" where you are just in that world. There are lots of ways to use a story without literally telling it. It all depends.

Which is exactly why I love the Fantasyland dark rides at Disneyland.

 

[Omnispace]

I truly miss the "Adventure through Inner Space" ride. It was one of my favorites as a kid. In seventh grade I made a model of one scene from the ride inside of a shadow box using blue Styrofoam balls and a pulsing nucleus. I had recorded my own voice and doing the narration and looping it so it played from a tape recorder inside of this cardboard box with a viewing window so it would be dark when you look inside. Yes, I was one obsessed junior high school student. I think I did get a good grade on it though. For those of you who never saw the attraction, here are some highlights you can check out.

Thanks for pointing out that video!! I hadn't seen so many scenes from the ride in one place. It's nice the way they pieced it together to try and recreate the experience somewhat. Like I mentioned earlier, the black void areas towards the middle of the attraction were really meant to represent the black void of inner space. The initial and closing scenes were more or less continuous sets or projections onto the walls or scrims. My two favorite parts of the ride were:

"YES the snowflake has melted. But there is no cause for alarm. You are back on visual and returning to your normal size."

and "MAGNIFICATION... MAGNIFICATION... MAGNIFICATION......." as it echoed though the interior of the ride.

I especially loved the way you entered the microscope moving forward and found yourself in the first scene moving backwards. Eddie, I hope you got pics of your school project with your Instamatic camera...!

 

[Omnispace]

I like the TDS Ariel's "Mermaid Lagoon" where you are just in that world. There are lots of ways to use a story without literally telling it. It all depends.

I like the reflective quality of the "ripples" on the ceiling. The accent lighting also has a magical quality...

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

On somewhat of a side note, I think the "Under the Sea" scene would actually be improved by removing something. The two whirylgig spiral thingys right in the middle of the room are huge and, because of the construction method, I feel like you're seeing more behind-the-scenes support bar for the fish than you're seeing actual fish. My eyes were drawn right to them on every ride.

If you look closely at the bars . . . they connect directly to the sides of the fish, which are of course visible when the fish rotates around. All they need to do was use wires to suspend the fish, assuming they aren't that heavy. A big heavy metal bar seems like overkill, and it really stands out. Small world uses wires to elevate things above guests heads, and the fish aren't even close to the clam shells.

Mermaid lagoon does some wonderful slight of hand as the popcorn "air bubbles" mesh with, and make the ceiling lights practically unnoticeable, and the reflective ripples on the "surface" also provide a great lighting effect.

By comparison, the Mermaid ride seems much more lifeless without the popcorn bubbles. Ariel has some project bubbles on the realistic seaweed added around her (the only realistic seaweed in the ride), and it doesn't match with the entire room.

Both rooms still lack a believable vanishing point, which I think is important believability-wise given that the ocean is huge. On Mermaid you instantly get how big the room is, as the walls are easy to pick-out, on Pirates and HM, there are scenes where it isn't so obvious, and you can more easily imagine you're in a large space.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Thanks for pointing out that video!! I hadn't seen so many scenes from the ride in one place. It's nice the way they pieced it together to try and recreate the experience somewhat. Like I mentioned earlier, the black void areas towards the middle of the attraction were really meant to represent the black void of inner space. The initial and closing scenes were more or less continuous sets or projections onto the walls or scrims. My two favorite parts of the ride were:

"YES the snowflake has melted. But there is no cause for alarm. You are back on visual and returning to your normal size."

and "MAGNIFICATION... MAGNIFICATION... MAGNIFICATION......." as it echoed though the interior of the ride.

I especially loved the way you entered the microscope moving forward and found yourself in the first scene moving backwards. Eddie, I hope you got pics of your school project with your Instamatic camera...!

I did. Hopefully like my old WED ID card, they will turn up someday.

 

[Cosmic Commando]

Both rooms still lack a believable vanishing point, which I think is important believability-wise given that the ocean is huge. On Mermaid you instantly get how big the room is, as the walls are easy to pick-out, on Pirates and HM, there are scenes where it isn't so obvious, and you can more easily imagine you're in a large space.

That's a good point. For Mansion, I'm thinking of the graveyard and the ballroom. @marni1971 (I think!) had posted pictures before of a "ghosts on bicycles" effect from the graveyard that's really hard to see in the darkness, even though it's only maybe 10 feet from the doom buggies. It's easy to think that world extends beyond what you see when you can barely make out what's right in front of you. With the way the balcony blocks your view of part of the ballroom, you feel like there's more there... even though the only thing you're missing is the "guts" of the Pepper's ghost effect.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Turner Classic Movies has been running a tribute to the industry people who had passed away in 2012. Suddenly the name "J Michael Riva" crawled across the screen and my wife called me over to see. This was shocking as he was only 63. Riva was a top Hollywood Art Director and taught a class on Production Design at UCLA (which I attended in 1987), and apparently died of a stroke on location last June. His method in design had a great impact on me, in that emotion and story drove every color and finish choice on his sets. He was a perfectionist. He taught how design should not overpower the actors, but barely suspend and support them. He made us take a script and break it down into scenes, mapping the design to the emotion. So much of how I work and think about design came from the class he taught and his passionate process.Thank you Michael. He was incredibly generous with his time and even invited me to visit the beautiful set of "Scrooged" with Bill Murray. I was wowed for sure. Being a production designer in movies was something I aspired to do and he kindly consented to have lunch with me to discuss it. Ultimately he talked me out of it! I am married and he said that the job requires lots of travel and separation causes alot of marital strain when you are on location for long periods. It's a tough atmosphere and also very political. Designers have to negotiate the egos of the director and the producer and still get their way. He was probably right. I decided movies were not for me and remained being an Imagineer. His process and some of those valuable methods stayed with me always. I did not see him after that class ended. His house was featured in a magazine once and we figured out that it was actually hidden off of our own street! I'd walk by but didn't have the nerve to knock. That was long ago, but I ran into Mike and his wife just this last summer and said hello and thanked him for his advice and all that he had done. He was still so kind. I believe he passed away shortly thereafter. It was great to see him again and have a chance to say thank you. This man was a true talent and by the way, did not draw his own renderings. He hired artists and directed them, yet he still got the look he wanted. That may be a lesson to some of you that think that literally being an artist disqualifies you from this field. Michael had skill, talent and taste, and knew how to break down any story into a stunning visual.

He will be deeply missed. I'm grateful that he was kind enough to share his wisdom with us.

He has done a ton of movies. You may enjoy reading the list.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/j-michael-riva-dead-335296

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0728951/

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Getting back to the Downtown Disney discussion, I think you'll see the company beginning to embrace theme again, maybe not to the extent that we'd like to see, but at least in the "warmth" department. They have seen "The Grove" and other "lifestyle" centers thrive long term, and so in turn will likely develop in that direction versus the neon and stucco "West Side" direction they've gone in the past.

I would love to develop and design shopping centers on my own as a real estate developer, that seems like a great frontier!

 

[Eddie Sotto]

That's a good point. For Mansion, I'm thinking of the graveyard and the ballroom. @marni1971 (I think!) had posted pictures before of a "ghosts on bicycles" effect from the graveyard that's really hard to see in the darkness, even though it's only maybe 10 feet from the doom buggies. It's easy to think that world extends beyond what you see when you can barely make out what's right in front of you. With the way the balcony blocks your view of part of the ballroom, you feel like there's more there... even though the only thing you're missing is the "guts" of the Pepper's ghost effect.

The composition of these scenes is critically important. Some scenes are deliberately lit as to draw your attention and if lit brightly enough "iris" down your eyes so you cannot adjust to see the wires and strings we do not want you to notice. It's a bit of "misdirection" as they say in the magic community. If the floating Candelabra in the hallway in HM is bright enough, your eyes read the hot flames and register down for that so they miss the wires holding the candlesticks. Similar with the other effects in that you use the lighting to direct your attention.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I want to point out something in regard to the Mermaid project. It is incredibly difficult to manufacture the "magic" we speak of. Like art, you can't set out to make it, it's the byproduct of lots of "things" (a Walt term) coming together in a harmonious way. Others tell you it is such.

On paper and even in the workshop, each scene and or element can be really great in of itself, but in the end, may not come together as a collective "wow" or give you that feeling. I'm not saying in that case it does or doesn't, but that risk exists with any project. There are literally a million decisions along the way (many not made by you) and it only takes a handful of them to cause it all to miss the bullseye. Movies are the same way to a degree. Emotion is a collective feeling of everything you've experienced. The designers on Mermaid are all very talented and not novices. However, they do not make every decision and do not control everything, as they are part of a system of collaboration. Omnimovers may have been chosen due to capacity concerns, that in turn drives how much you can spend, etc. Decisions are complex at times and are sometimes the result of a course taken that seemed safe. All of those subtle, "they'll never notice this" or that decision "does not hurt the show" kinds of choices sometimes DO have a cumulative effect and might erode the "magic". The simple answer is "don't make those decisions", but the reality is that sometimes you can't know if these smaller choices have a negative effect because many things evolve over time so until it's there, you have no context. The reality is you and the team have to make decisions and sometimes without mockups and fast. It comes down to instinct.

All I'm saying is that in hindsight, you can see the flaws pretty easily, but in construction, or even in planning where things evolve, it's really hard to know the emotional "score" of what you are doing as there are so many things that can go south that only show up at the end. Then it could be too late. There are too many disciplines you cannot even review properly and have to trust who is doing them to keep the balance. Lighting for example, is a big factor. Hard to see that on a model. Audio spill and vehicle noise, etc. True sense of proximity to the scenes for the guest. Is it all too far away to ever feel "in it"? Stuff like that you can simulate, but it's a cumulative thing in the field.

One way to minimize this is to be cautiously paranoid. It is more stressful. Assume it all is going to look bad, not work, and be boring. Then you stay awake at night dreaming of how seeing every light, flat scenery with shadows on the ceiling, and guests looking everywhere except where you want them to. Question everyone all the time and look for the problems. Know the decisions that can't be corrected later and try to build in "wiggle room" in case you are wrong. Paint the backdrops a bit larger in case the walls are the wrong size, make extra rocks to use to hide things, generally plan on everything being built the wrong size, the lighting being too bright, and that all the stuff they said "you'll never see", you actually do and it's painted flat black. So you try and hide everything or create a "visual logic" to your world that is achievable. Small World did that. Ask others to look at what you are doing and see what they say. Most of all, know what is supposed to be creatively "working" as the "wow" in the show and don't let that get cut. Make sure the whole team is on alert for what you think is important. Make that clear. All lighting is hidden behind the scenery, etc. You can lose the battles but you need to win the war and need the team to help you get there. Even after all that, you can still end up with something that just "misses". I've certainly had my share.

 

[Omnispace]

Getting back to the Downtown Disney discussion, I think you'll see the company beginning to embrace theme again, maybe not to the extent that we'd like to see, but at least in the "warmth" department. They have seen "The Grove" and other "lifestyle" centers thrive long term, and so in turn will likely develop in that direction versus the neon and stucco "West Side" direction they've gone in the past.

I would love to develop and design shopping centers on my own as a real estate developer, that seems like a great frontier!

He he, more like a great untamed frontier! Tastes in retail developments seem to change as quickly as the fashions in the stores. I can think of multiple concepts in retail that have come and gone over the years - often leaving a wasteland of underutilized real estate in its wake as retailers shift their business plans, (and locations), and jockey for the latest trends that appeal to consumers.

In general I think the "lifestyle" concept has validity to it since it meshes well with the traditional shopping experience of small towns, has a degree of nostalgia to it that invokes a sense of permanence, and creates a pleasant environment that fits the needs of human factors. But like themed attractions it takes an understanding of what works -- merely duplicating the design vocabulary can lead to disastrous results.

 

[Omnispace]

I want to point out something in regard to the Mermaid project. It is incredibly difficult to manufacture the "magic" we speak of. Like art, you can't set out to make it, it's the byproduct of lots of "things" (a Walt term) coming together in a harmonious way. Others tell you it is such. .......

I love this entire post. It speaks volumes about collaboration on a project. You can try the best you can and have other various elements of the team derail the entire endeavor. Then it's time for damage control. On the other hand, someone acting on their own intuition can come up with the most perfect thing you hadn't thought of and things will come together.

I don't want to nitpick, and I honestly haven't been able to see the Little Mermaid attraction first hand, but as a topic of discussion on what you said about show elements transferring properly from design to reality it seems like some of the ideas didn't "scale-up" properly. A simple example is the plastic hairdos on several of the characters. I would have expected a more realistic expression of that in the attraction. I think DEVO's plastic wigs have more detail to them. I can understand the intention to preserve the styling of the film but somehow it doesn't look right to me in an actualized environment.

 

[flynnibus]

All of those subtle, "they'll never notice this" or that decision "does not hurt the show" kinds of choices sometimes DO have a cumulative effect and might erode the "magic". The simple answer is "don't make those decisions", but the reality is that sometimes you can't know if these smaller choices have a negative effect because many things evolve over time so until it's there, you have no context. The reality is you and the team have to make decisions and sometimes without mockups and fast. It comes down to instinct.

Did you find in your experience the show producer/director roles strong enough to not just 'corral' the talent but actually have a 'single dictator' whose creative vision was the final say? Reading through your post made it sound like the risk of 'too much collaboration' and not enough Dictatorship.

It also made me wonder if all this pre-viz work builds in too much confidence and I wonder if they allow themselves enough time to actually 'ride it' and fix it once it's real. Or is it too late, at the point the ride is installed and they are stuck with what they envisioned vs what they want in the end?

In the movies.. they can ultimately do a reshoot if they can't edit their way out of the mess.. Does Disney give the designers enough time to 'reshoot' once they've seen the product come to life with all the little things that pre-viz didn't account for?

 

[trs518]

Happy 60th WDI!

http://disneyparks.disney.go.com/blog/2012/12/walt-disney-imagineerings-60th-anniversary/

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Did you find in your experience the show producer/director roles strong enough to not just 'corral' the talent but actually have a 'single dictator' whose creative vision was the final say? Reading through your post made it sound like the risk of 'too much collaboration' and not enough Dictatorship.

It also made me wonder if all this pre-viz work builds in too much confidence and I wonder if they allow themselves enough time to actually 'ride it' and fix it once it's real. Or is it too late, at the point the ride is installed and they are stuck with what they envisioned vs what they want in the end?

In the movies.. they can ultimately do a reshoot if they can't edit their way out of the mess.. Does Disney give the designers enough time to 'reshoot' once they've seen the product come to life with all the little things that pre-viz didn't account for?

Good questions all.

I try to be a benevolent dictator. What I mean by that is that I try and listen to what everyone has to say about something that in the end I know that I must make the final decision and live with its results. Being accountable does not scare me Unless I'm being held responsible without enough control of my destiny. I really don't think that projects run as democracies turn out all that well because sometimes they can lose their point of view. Steve Jobs is a good example of someone who has a point of view and made his products excellent and yet distinctive because he knew enough to get everyone to adhere to it. I also believe in partnerships. I was very fortunate to work with producers that were really good partners. There is a mutual respect that exists between a good creative executive and a good producer. Each one knows that their talents are complementary and they look out for each other. Your producer may question a creative decision you are about to make and you take it to heart. Both of you know that you're accountable for the creative outcome, but you always want to seem reasonable. The producer on the other hand, has challenges like schedule and budget in addition to the creative. So you try to be balanced in your demands as the project is measured on the success of all of it. However, it is true that a creative success can lead to commercial success and that of course lots out a multitude of financial sins. A creative failure even when it is on budget is a total loss because it fails to even return its modest cost.

I have read that in the case of the little Mermaid there were a significant amount of changes made after the fact that have enhanced the attraction. Especially in the lighting. John Lasseter and others have reviewed the show and made their lists of things to be enhanced or changed. So I guess that was what would be considered a reshoot. Of course, you can only really do so much with the finished brick and mortar product. If there are fundamental structural issues in a movie then it is prohibitive to reshoot and restructure most of it. It is true that you really can't re edit your way out of a ride as they are linear experiences. The sad thing about attractions is that if you have a failure it sits there costing the company a fortune running empty. It reminds them every day of what a mistake was made. Movies go back on the shelf and are quickly forgotten. Of course, when a whole park becomes a creative failure than the pain is excruciating.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I love this entire post. It speaks volumes about collaboration on a project. You can try the best you can and have other various elements of the team derail the entire endeavor. Then it's time for damage control. On the other hand, someone acting on their own intuition can come up with the most perfect thing you hadn't thought of and things will come together.

I don't want to nitpick, and I honestly haven't been able to see the Little Mermaid attraction first hand, but as a topic of discussion on what you said about show elements transferring properly from design to reality it seems like some of the ideas didn't "scale-up" properly. A simple example is the plastic hairdos on several of the characters. I would have expected a more realistic expression of that in the attraction. I think DEVO's plastic wigs have more detail to them. I can understand the intention to preserve the styling of the film but somehow it doesn't look right to me in an actualized environment.

You are not the first person to pick up on the plastic feel of the characters. I think some of this has to do with the level of sheen applied to the surfaces of the characters. Now that would seem like a relatively small decision in the context of everything else you have going on, but it does either give the illusion of life or it doesn't. Some characters have a difficult time translating from the two-dimensional world of animation to the three-dimensional world of life. Hanna-Barbera characters for instance, are really hard to translate because there's so crudely drawn and designed to be two-dimensional representations of themselves. I think part of the issue with some of the mermaid project is that things are trying to live underwater and must behave by those physics. So things have to appear like they're floating and moving very gracefully, such as Ariel's hair which has been the topic of much discussion. I think the imagine years of improved a lot of these details quite a bit since the ride opened here in California. But again, look at how an accumulation of seemingly minor details like the level of sheen applied to faces on characters, or the brightness of lighting can influence the outcome for a guest.

Every project needs a champion. Every project needs someone to creatively imagine the entire project finished and have good visualization in their mind, and see things going wrong before they do. Computer renderings can give you a false sense of security or hide some of the real issues that you're going to be facing. It's a great tool to get the management to write the check to start the attraction, but probably a bit less compelling metaphysical model if you're trying to figure out the true peripheral vision of the guest. I think both methods have their strengths.

 

[BlueSkyDriveBy]

Happy 60th WDI!

http://disneyparks.disney.go.com/blog/2012/12/walt-disney-imagineerings-60th-anniversary/

That was chilling.

Vaughn and Fitz were there, along with Rafferty and Mangum (I didn't know she wore glasses. Nerdette! 8^D) And for the fanboys, the ever-popular old school trifecta of Gurr, Sklar, and Crump.

Gee... where the heck was Tony?

Last time I checked, he was still working at 1401F. In fact, isn't he now the longest employed Imagineer? Jan 2nd will be his 43rd anniversary with WED/WDI.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

That was chilling.

Vaughn and Fitz were there, along with Rafferty and Mangum (I didn't know she wore glasses. Nerdette! 8^D) And for the fanboys, the ever-popular old school trifecta of Gurr, Sklar, and Crump.

Gee... where the heck was Tony?

Last time I checked, he was still working at 1401F. In fact, isn't he now the longest employed Imagineer? Jan 2nd will be his 43rd anniversary with WED/WDI.

He might be. I'm not sure when Kim Irvine started with WED.It's possible she started before him. Tom Morris is right up there too. I was only with the company for 13 years. It is a bit surprising to not see Tony Baxter in that video. Not that he has to be in everything, but you would expect to hear someone as exposed as he is commenting on the 60th Anniversary.