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

[flynnibus]

It must be said.. again.. Eddie, I love that you take the time to engage the community on such topics like this. It's a honor to be able to talk process with not just someone who has seen it, but was entrenched in it. Thank you again.

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

This is something I feel very strongly about as well - and lead to me getting out of a role because I was being asked to be responsible without the empowerment or freedom to be responsible. I found no joy in being told by people from afar who weren't the ones actually into the product or space.. what the product needed to be or do 'next'. When that often was burdened down with pet projects, flavor of the month, etc.

That said, I always started a project by trying to outline what the endgame was for that effort.. what are we trying to achieve.. and then continually used that as a guide to help decide if something really should be 'in' or 'out' as new things came along during the project or new ideas. Does it help strengthen our initial vision? Or detract? Does it make us ask if our vision is still valid? My world was products, not creative in the sense of art/show.. but I think your comments rang true to me in terms of running these projects and how to keep the product from becoming confusing, lost, and ineffective. (and from a business side.. keep it from getting off schedule or budget).

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 there talents are complementary and they look out for each other. Your producer may question a creative decision are about to make and you take it to heart. Both they and you know that your accountable for the creative outcome but you always want to seem reasonable

I put this under 'team' - one needs to respect the input and place of the people on the team. Else, why are they on the team? It sounds like the dictator needs to be willing to take constructive criticism and feedback.

Much like movies.. the directors have their own flair and style. There seemed to be a lot of continuity in that in the original generations of WDI too... with styles or art direction that you could easily see the common root in. As you said, you run the risk of that style being 'wrong' in the end.. but I think history seems to favor those 'winning' styles over the alternative of 'collages' of efforts. The 'collages' seem to lack any soul... so while they may be visually impressive, they are emotionally hollow. That's a feeling I've gotten from many recent attractions. Visual pow.. but no attachment.

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

I'd be really curious to what the culture is like about changes like these? Are they improvements? Or 'corrections' that someone is seen as screwing up on...

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.

Are there any of those in your career you could share? Or ones you knew the impression was that way internally? Of course it must be difficult playing the party line.. while one is personally disappointed.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I had forgotten that today was the 60th anniversary of Imagineering. But I guess I subconsciously commemorated by having today's lunch with Marty Sklar! He didn't happen to bring it up either.

Marty is no doubt someone who has experienced more Imagineering history than anyone. And of course, he made a lot of it. I'm looking forward to his new book. I mentioned this thread to him and our current discussion about teamwork "today versus the old days" and he had an interesting comment. It's true that WDI is now 1400 strong, but once attractions begin production, the groups are actually quite small and once management gets out of the way, they pretty much go off and do their jobs In relative isolation, so it is sort of like the old days at WED, where you have small teams working on something. I tend to agree with that.

Every now and then he comes out with some story or tidbit that I had not heard before. Today's tidbit was about Walt Disney and the Pirates of the Caribbean. We were talking about the richness of those attractions and he commented on it review of the auction scene that was mocked up for Walt to see. They had a "boat" mockup that they could push through the scene to give you a sense of it with all of the figures running. he mentioned that it was probably one of if not the last scene Walt got to see before he passed away. X. Atencio who was writing the dialogue was concerned that there might be too much of it going in between all of the Pirates at one time, and mentioned to Walt that perhaps they should cut down the amount of it. After riding through the scene, Walt said "Don't change anything". He explained that it was like being at a "cocktail party" and overhearing portions of different conversations. This aspect would make the guests want to go on the ride again to hear more of what was said.

I think that this observation is right on given the fact that Marc Davis is so good at creating pantomime. When you look at his vignettes you can tell immediately what is going on through the expressions and the poses of his characters. They read well. The dialogue is incidental and his scenes do not usually depend upon it. This was a great marriage of talent.

Anyway, it's always a thrill to spend some time with Marty and catch up. Had I realized it was the 60th Anniversary of Imagineering I would've asked him for a specific story or something. I guess the best part about these kinds of things is that were still alive to tell about it!

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Are there any of those in your career you could share? Or ones you knew the impression was that way internally? Of course it must be difficult playing the party line.. while one is personally disappointed.

I've worked on many projects that I was not satisfied with it all. The first thing I ever worked on at Knott's Berry Farm, I sat on a bench and actually cried on opening day because I hated it so much. I think my expectations were unrealistically high and I felt that all the details did not come together. It was incredibly hard lesson, but the end result is that it makes you stronger and more paranoid. The project, the "Wacky Soapbox Racer" ride was actually very successful. But I didn't like how it turned out. The ride system was so fun and addictive with kids (it was a competitive ride) that it overshadowed a weak show. I never forgot that, I kept trying with TDL "Rocket Bikes" and other competitive attractions to duplicate what I saw happening with those kids. Of course, they did one. The Radiator Springs Racers is a good example of a competitive ride that works.

Looking back at "Mission:Space", I really believed in the ride system as a highly realistic way of duplicating what space would really be like. I still believe that the way we treated the space subject was in the tradition of Epcot. I'm always looking for breakthroughs and things have not been done before. A centrifuge type ride vehicle with lots of interactivity seemed the closest thing to really being in a liftoff and something fun for kids. I quit the company before the ride went into construction so a lot of things including the story evolved from the point that I left, but I had always hoped that the ride would have been more popular. I'm very proud of what they did and how it ultimately works, although there might be some things I would have done differently. It ended up being more of a love-hate type thing with the guests. I can't help the fact that it replaced Horizons, and to fans that's a crime you could never recover from. Horizons conceptually embodied the futurism that people come to Epcot to see. Unfortunately they put it in the wrong place, it needs to be there right now. The fact that Horizons was going to be shut down anyway due to lack of attendance and a sponsor is long forgotten, so I guess it's better to have something than nothing. Or is it?

The other disappointment was "Aladdin's Oasis" at Disneyland. Here's a dinner show with live magic and all kinds of special-effects that was selling tickets like crazy but the cost of the entertainment was higher than the receipts of the capacity crowds. I believe it cost almost double what the Tahitian Terrace cost and was much higher attended but I believe the entertainment costs kept creeping higher and higher as the summers went on. You would think that the guest's admission would count for something or help subsidize the show. Especially since the Golden Horseshoe Revue was free and had no dinner! So it was eventually closed for business reasons. The ironic thing was that the idea only came about because the same business people were going to close the Tahitian Terrace and get rid of it. Of course, fans blame Aladdin's Oasis for the extinction of the Tahitian Terrace, unaware of its own looming demise.

I could go on with disappointment after disappointment but it's only 10 after 4 PM and not Cocktail time yet. I guess the point is that I'm more than willing to own the failures as long as I can learn from each of them. There are so many lessons that you learn along the way after 30 years of building attractions. Running a business today, I believe in working with the most talented people I can that can teach me something (and they do!) and keeping the teams very small and versatile. I'm looking out my window right now and feel really blessed that I'm still having fun, doing the best work of my career and that people want to work with me. Or do they?

The paranoia never really goes away.

 

[flynnibus]

Thanks for sharing Eddie..

I am one that is in awe of Mission:Space.. regardless of how much I enjoy the attraction or not. The idea that an actual centerfuge like that is open to the public.. that alone is worth a 'woah'. The experience the guest gets is unlike any other. I find the staging/setting exciting too. It has some cheeze in it.. but overall it leaves you with a feeling like 'no where but Disney..'. My humble opinion of it

You mention several times the burden of prior attractions. I can tell you as a fan.. I don't hold those kinds of things over designer's heads. Generally the last thing was going for it's own reasons. I think the only ones I really point a finger over are Tarzan Treehouse and Imagination.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Thanks for sharing Eddie..

I am one that is in awe of Mission:Space.. regardless of how much I enjoy the attraction or not. The idea that an actual centerfuge like that is open to the public.. that alone is worth a 'woah'. The experience the guest gets is unlike any other. I find the staging/setting exciting too. It has some cheeze in it.. but overall it leaves you with a feeling like 'no where but Disney..'. My humble opinion of it

You mention several times the burden of prior attractions. I can tell you as a fan.. I don't hold those kinds of things over designer's heads. Generally the last thing was going for it's own reasons. I think the only ones I really point a finger over are Tarzan Treehouse and Imagination.

Thanks. You saved me a Gin and Tonic!

 

[BlueSkyDriveBy]

He might be. I'm not sure when Kim Irvine started with WED. It's possible she started before him.

Actually, Tony edges her out, but not by much. He started the day after New Year's in 1970; Kim started later that year.

Tom Morris is right up there too.

I have no idea when Tom was hired. Delaney started in 1975 or 1976, working on the Starcade for DL's Space Mountain area. (Yeah, he's the one responsible for that hideous orange tile I loved to hate working in TL. Thanks for the retinal burn, Tim. LOL!)

I think Tom started around the same time, maybe a bit earlier. But I'm certain it was after Tony and Kim.

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.

My thinking exactly.

He's a Senior Vice President and responsible for some of Imagineering's Greatest Hits, so to speak. Tony should be there, right along with Fitz.

 

[Rasvar]

Eddie, while I miss Horizons, I am actually a huge fan of Mission:Space. I thought the attraction itself was well done. One thing that does hurt it is that it may not have as much re-rideability as some of the biggies. If I ride that thing two times in a short period, I need a good bit of recovery time. If I have one issue, it might be the use of recognizable actors. Granted Gary Sinise was reprising a role but he is in so many other things, it is hard to think of him as not being an actor. I'm sure that was not in any of your decision realm. Now, Johnny Depp for Captain Jack Sparrow, no other choice possible. Never really minded recognizable voice talent though for some reason. Phylicia Rashad in Extinction was another. Surprisingly, Patrick Warburton in Soarin' doesn't give me that feeling. It may just be seeing someone who is mentally established in another setting. Heck, I always thought it was weird to hear Jack Wagner's voice on the trams at Orlando International.

That little bit aside, I was actually quite forgiving of some of the "faults" in Under the Sea at DCA recognizing the restraints they had going into the project. What really bothers me is that many of the footprint restraints that the ride had to deal with at DCA did not have to occur in Florida. I was really hoping they would have taken the time to fix or do with the show the things that existing building footprint did not allow at DCA. Yet, there was zero deviation in that footprint from show structure to building layout. A lot of money was wasted on making a pretty queue instead of better attraction. It came across as a massively wasted opportunity and just a poor financial decision. I would be shocked if there were not things they would have wanted to add or change if given a chance.

 

[Omnispace]

The project, the "Wacky Soapbox Racer" ride was actually very successful. But I didn't like how it turned out. The ride system was so fun and addictive with kids (it was a competitive ride) that it overshadowed a weak show.

Wow! I haven't thought about the Soapbox Racers in a while though I remember it being a lot of fun. I can understand your challenges with theming the ride though -- that ride track was as wide as a freeway! You did do a good job of capturing the "homespun" quality of Knott's park.

 

[michmousefan]

I miss my Main Street Magic shop.

Me too. I still have the Haunted Mansion Hidden Panel Box that I got there in like '75 or '76.

 

[celluloid]

You are so lucky. I saw one on a Good Will auction site a long time ago but it went out of my range.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Wow! I haven't thought about the Soapbox Racers in a while though I remember it being a lot of fun. I can understand your challenges with theming the ride though -- that ride track was as wide as a freeway! You did do a good job of capturing the "homespun" quality of Knott's park.

Thanks. Knott's as a premise being "homespun" as you put it, and funky gives you room to be less than perfect. In fact, the foIksy-ness is its' strength and I did not "get" that yet and wanted to bring "Disney quality" to Knott's because I wanted to be an Imagineer. That was a lesson in of itself. I worked on this Oroweat Exhibit in the Grist Mill of Ghost Town, and did my best "Rex Allen" soundalike voice narrating the somewhat contemporary displays, making it sound like the Carousel of Progress! A designer friend took me aside and told me I needed to have the "farm" mentality. They were right.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Eddie, while I miss Horizons, I am actually a huge fan of Mission:Space. I thought the attraction itself was well done. One thing that does hurt it is that it may not have as much re-rideability as some of the biggies. If I ride that thing two times in a short period, I need a good bit of recovery time. If I have one issue, it might be the use of recognizable actors. Granted Gary Sinise was reprising a role but he is in so many other things, it is hard to think of him as not being an actor. I'm sure that was not in any of your decision realm. Now, Johnny Depp for Captain Jack Sparrow, no other choice possible. Never really minded recognizable voice talent though for some reason. Phylicia Rashad in Extinction was another. Surprisingly, Patrick Warburton in Soarin' doesn't give me that feeling. It may just be seeing someone who is mentally established in another setting. Heck, I always thought it was weird to hear Jack Wagner's voice on the trams at Orlando International..

When we were planning the show, there was to be a Preshow film that was more about Space History ("Do you have the Right Stuff for Space"? ) as more of an inspiration piece. We'd talk about all the challenges and risks of space flight and how training was the key to success. That was where you'd have the actor, not in the ISC Mission training part of the show. We wanted that to seem more real. In fact, the design of the training center interior was to be more "bare bones" and industrial, and less Hollywood. We actually rode military Centrifuges at High G forces, and "flew" the Shuttle Simulator at JSC in our research for the show. We recorded the alarm sounds in the Shuttle and sampled the colors of the screen graphics to steer the Capsules to feel as real as possible and not look too theme park. That was my fear. Theme park graphics can all look the same after a while, and you want that minimal F14 military feel. It adds threat. Some of that got there and some looks too pretty, but it's all really well done. I'd love to see them replace the "viewing windows" with Retina displays. It would really up the quality of the whole experience as the screens are magnified by a pancake lens that enlarges the pixels. The mission media in the capsule was done after I quit, but it could use a 2.0 redo now that Disney owns ILM.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

That little bit aside, I was actually quite forgiving of some of the "faults" in Under the Sea at DCA recognizing the restraints they had going into the project. What really bothers me is that many of the footprint restraints that the ride had to deal with at DCA did not have to occur in Florida. I was really hoping they would have taken the time to fix or do with the show the things that existing building footprint did not allow at DCA. Yet, there was zero deviation in that footprint from show structure to building layout. A lot of money was wasted on making a pretty queue instead of better attraction. It came across as a massively wasted opportunity and just a poor financial decision. I would be shocked if there were not things they would have wanted to add or change if given a chance.

I can't say that this is what occurred in the LM example, but there are great perceived economies in building the same thing twice. No one wants to open the "Pandora's Box" of rethinking the show as it will erode any cookie cutter economies that may have reaped on the first one. Usually molds and figures are the easiest savings to realize, the building less so. Once the budget and schedule is based on a replica (you're not waiting for drawings, just building another round of sets), it's hard to wiggle out of that. I say perceived economies in that most of the time, things get changed for practical reasons despite the drawings and the replica is only an indicator of scope. I'm sure the designers would have loved to rethink the show to a degree and make improvements, but the ship had likely already sailed.

 

[jt04]

I can't say that this is what occurred in the LM example, but there are great perceived economies in building the same thing twice. No one wants to open the "Pandora's Box" of rethinking the show as it will erode any cookie cutter economies that may have reaped on the first one. Usually molds and figures are the easiest savings to realize, the building less so. Once the budget and schedule is based on a replica (you're not waiting for drawings, just building another round of sets), it's hard to wiggle out of that. I say perceived economies in that most of the time, things get changed for practical reasons despite the drawings and the replica is only an indicator of scope. I'm sure the designers would have loved to rethink the show to a degree and make improvements, but the ship had likely already sailed.

Miceage has some pics of the completed exterior of Mystic Manor you might find interesting. I know you do not care for the content going into the structure but the exterior is quite compelling and I'd say WDI has created a new icon to add to an already impressive list.

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

I'd buy you a gin and tonic (my favorite), Eddie, and we can discuss Soap Box Racers, which I loved; Mission: Space, which I don't but do understand what was intended, and DLP's gorgeous Main Street- which I'll see again in two weeks or so.

 

[Omnispace]

I can't say that this is what occurred in the LM example, but there are great perceived economies in building the same thing twice.

They pretty much did the same thing for the Haunted Mansion -- essentially building two of everything and shipping it to Florida when it came time to install the show scenes so it's not anything new. What's interesting about the two Mermaid attractions are their differences and it begs the question, what is the role of the extended themed queue in telling the story in Florida? Is it essential? Does it distract from the scripted show seen from the Omnimovers? To me it would be like producing a movie and then after it is completed have someone come along and add several scenes to its beginning.

 

[Omnispace]

Thanks. Knott's as a premise being "homespun" as you put it, and funky gives you room to be less than perfect. In fact, the foIksy-ness is its' strength and I did not "get" that yet and wanted to bring "Disney quality" to Knott's because I wanted to be an Imagineer. That was a lesson in of itself. I worked on this Oroweat Exhibit in the Grist Mill of Ghost Town, and did my best "Rex Allen" soundalike voice narrating the somewhat contemporary displays, making it sound like the Carousel of Progress! A designer friend took me aside and told me I needed to have the "farm" mentality. They were right.

Thanks for that insight. It's interesting because to me the earlier days of Disneyland exuded lot more folksy-ness that I think contributed to the believability of the themed areas they created there. It's certainly what gave Knott's its slightly more authentic character. Disneyland has certainly developed into a beautiful park but as things move closer to perfection, they tend to move closer to being more contrived.

 

[BlueSkyDriveBy]

I had forgotten that today was the 60th anniversary of Imagineering. But I guess I subconsciously commemorated by having today's lunch with Marty Sklar! He didn't happen to bring it up either.

OK, that's a bit unnerving, seeing as how he made that 60th Anniversary video spot not too long ago.

Was this before or after the noontime cocktail?

Marty is no doubt someone who has experienced more Imagineering history than anyone. And of course, he made a lot of it.

Not to quibble, for you are absolutely correct about Marty's contributions to WED/WDI over the decades, but... whom do you feel had the bigger influence in Imagineering?

Marty Sklar... or John Hench?

Not necessarily the bigger impact, but the bigger influence. And if you wouldn't mind, I'd love some reasons why one had more influence than the other.


The reason why I ask, is because in terms of Imagineering culture, and the creative environment that existed and evolved over the years, I'm inclined to think that Hench was more instrumental to shaping the WED/WDI Legacy and the development standard it set for an entire industry for decades to come, than Sklar was.

Granted, these are only observations from the outside and as a listener to quiet dinner conservations held with former Imagineers. But it does make me wonder whom amongst the Imagineering alumni had the most direct influence regarding the WED/WDI history that made them the standard bearer for design conceptualization processes and futuristic thinking.

Makes me long for the past when Disney respected the elite thinkers of the day and pronounced them as Disney Fellows: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.12/rebuilding_pr.html

I feel as though the work that Bran Ferren, Danny Hillis, Alan Kay, and Marvin Minsky did at Disney failed to influence the Imagineering culture for the long term, given the quick shift towards consensus survey conceptualizing that has plagued Imagineering projects since the Fellows were disbanded. I believe that too many execs became more concerned with their annual compensation packages than in continuing the Disney Legacy of creating their own independent vision and not simply following others' myopic view of the universe.

I dunno. Maybe the passing years have dimmed my memories and WED was never that golden offspring from the industrial shotgun wedding of animation and engineering that Walt created. Perhaps in reality WED was more like the red-headed stepchild to the Studios that somehow managed to succeed in spite of its many shortcomings. (Sam McKim always referred to Glendale as the "salt mines" so maybe the stepchild is a more appropriate descriptor.)

All I know is that Disney parks are no longer the standard bearer for incredible fantasy locations that fully immerse their visitors. Wizarding World has out-Disney'ed Disney, up the highway at Uni. In comparison, MK is looking more tired and irrelevant with each passing year. The Fantasyland Expansion seems to be a good beginning for a major refreshment, but I fear too much time will lapse before the next phase of a massive overhaul begins in earnest. Kevin Yee's 'declining by degrees' is right on the mark. And it's simply grates against the Disney theme park experiences of my youth and young adulthood. So much so, I don't see Imagineering ever becoming the top design dog once more, at least not within my lifetime.

Somewhere in the cosmos, the old school Imagineers are looking down on the whole big bloated stinky synergistic One Disney marketing mess and quietly throwing up.

Anyway, it's always a thrill to spend some time with Marty and catch up. Had I realized it was the 60th Anniversary of Imagineering I would've asked him for a specific story or something. I guess the best part about these kinds of things is that were still alive to tell about it!

Send him an email and fast! Maybe it's not too late for him to add it to the new book!

 

[BlueSkyDriveBy]

Miceage has some pics of the completed exterior of Mystic Manor you might find interesting. I know you do not care for the content going into the structure but the exterior is quite compelling and I'd say WDI has created a new icon to add to an already impressive list.

Perhaps it's simply the camera angle and position of the photographer relative to the location of the exterior entrance, but something doesn't feel right about this place.

Is it me, or does the Manor seem too small for the billionaire tycoon world traveler who supposedly inhabited the place?

Obviously the various HM fronts are smaller versions of what real world mansions would entail. Yadda yadda forced perspective and all that jazz. I get it. But those other fronts are proportional to the environments which surround them, like DL's HM in New Orleans Square and DLP's Phantom Manor, which I find to be the most eerie of the bunch.

This building seems to sit too close to the walkway and too low to the ground, especially compared to PM. It's as if someone stole the hill it originally sat on and plopped it down at street level. While the architecture is a colorful, fanciful Victorian, the location combined with the size doesn't really work for me. Mystic Point feels very cramped and too small for the Manor to rise above it.

(ThemeParkGuy has a good shot of the Mystic Manor gates and the mansion behind them at his web site: http://www.thethemeparkguy.com/park/hong-kong-disneyland/)

 

[HMF]

When we were planning the show, there was to be a Preshow film that was more about Space History ("Do you have the Right Stuff for Space"? ) as more of an inspiration piece. We'd talk about all the challenges and risks of space flight and how training was the key to success. That was where you'd have the actor, not in the ISC Mission training part of the show. We wanted that to seem more real. In fact, the design of the training center interior was to be more "bare bones" and industrial, and less Hollywood. We actually rode military Centrifuges at High G forces, and "flew" the Shuttle Simulator at JSC in our research for the show. We recorded the alarm sounds in the Shuttle and sampled the colors of the screen graphics to steer the Capsules to feel as real as possible and not look too theme park. That was my fear. Theme park graphics can all look the same after a while, and you want that minimal F14 military feel. It adds threat. Some of that got there and some looks too pretty, but it's all really well done. I'd love to see them replace the "viewing windows" with Retina displays. It would really up the quality of the whole experience as the screens are magnified by a pancake lens that enlarges the pixels. The mission media in the capsule was done after I quit, but it could use a 2.0 redo now that Disney owns ILM.

Eddie, you just gave me an idea for a thread.
http://forums.wdwmagic.com/threads/mission-space-2-0-wishlist.857311/