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

[Eddie Sotto]

I still hear that John remains very involved and as recent as the DCA LM Ride, made his list of fixes that needed to be done, so in respect to getting money and creative advocacy, he is still very much in the driver's seat. Look at all the cash that flew into Carsland. I have to believe that he had alot to do with getting that much money and I heard that he is actively involved in the scope of what happens to Cars at WDW. As to his power waning, you may be right, I would hope based on the popularity of Carsland that they would listen to him.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Lovechild of Pixar and Apple? All I know is that I want one.

 

[BlueSkyDriveBy]

I still hear that John remains very involved and as recent as the DCA LM Ride, made his list of fixes that needed to be done, so in respect to getting money and creative advocacy, he is still very much in the driver's seat.

You've just indirectly made my point.

If John really had major influence inside Glendale regarding projects not tied to Pixar properties... then why wasn't he more involved at the beginning of TLM's development? Why was he fixing problems after opening instead of before? Why didn't the execs seek his advice before the criticisms started flowing from less-than-stellar reviews?

That speaks volumes about how John is truly regarded with respect to non-Pixar projects at WDI.

Look at all the cash that flew into Carsland. I have to believe that he had alot to do with getting that much money and I heard that he is actively involved in the scope of what happens to Cars at WDW.

Exactly. Carsland is a Pixar property, specifically his Pixar property. John's DNA flows through those films and characters. So Disney would be completely stupid if they didn't heed Lasseter's creative input.

As to his power waning, you may be right, I would hope based on the popularity of Carsland that they would listen to him.

They should. But this is 21st century Disney. I don't think they actually listen to anyone, other than the sharp pencil boys.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

I still hear that John remains very involved and as recent as the DCA LM Ride, made his list of fixes that needed to be done, so in respect to getting money and creative advocacy, he is still very much in the driver's seat. Look at all the cash that flew into Carsland. I have to believe that he had alot to do with getting that much money and I heard that he is actively involved in the scope of what happens to Cars at WDW. As to his power waning, you may be right, I would hope based on the popularity of Carsland that they would listen to him.

From what I've read, Lasseter was instrumental in getting a decent sized budget for Carsland, he has clashed with WDI executives over ridiculously low budgets, and it paid off big time. Carsland is a monster hit, much bigger than what the executives had imagined. I was just there this month and they still have a long line just for the Fast Pass for RSR. Doubtlessly, Lasseter will have the final say on what happens with Carsland at WDW (if that happens), and/or if it goes to Tokyo.

Lasseter was also involved with FLE, and he obviously gets that families with young children were facing a tough time waiting for long lines in summer in Fantasyland for relatively cheap rides, hence ETwB, Dumbo's indoor queue, and the shade that will be provided by the trees. Small improvements that don't wow middle-age fanbois, but which mean a lot to families with small children.

Sort of reminds me how Walt Disney wanted lower store windows on Main Street so that small children could look inside the shops. Also, like Walt, Lasseter developed the concept of Cars from film to theme park attractions. I don't doubt that the Dinosaur movie, and the thoughts inside a girl's head movie, as well as others, will make it into Disney parks at some point if well received.

If WDI brass ticks-off Lasseter enough, then the company would lose hundreds of millions, if not billions, if Lasseter and Co. decide to quit Pixar. Doubtlessly, the quality of films at WDA/Pixar would plummet.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

If John really had major influence inside Glendale regarding projects not tied to Pixar properties... then why wasn't he more involved at the beginning of TLM's development? Why was he fixing problems after opening instead of before? Why didn't the execs seek his advice before the criticisms started flowing from less-than-stellar reviews?

From what I gather, Lasseter didn't like the low budget that was given to Mermaid. No R&D was spent on a new ride system/vehicles, most the $$ went to some animatronics. Lasseter did wage a battle to keep funding up for Carsland, and he won. The fact that Lasseter was brought in to make changes to Mermaid after the fact, might well hint to rising influence.

It wasn't patently obvious from the start that Mermaid wouldn't be a big draw for DCA. I think the lesson from watching the guest reaction to DCA's Mermaid and Carsland's is that future additions should be part of a themed experience, versus trying to simply retro-fit an attraction into a land. DCA's Mermaid is sort of hidden, easy to miss, and just doesn't feel right in terms of where it is supposed to exist. Near the entrance of Mermaid you've got San Fran street, you can also see some of Grizzly River Run, in addition to Paradise Pier. If they had spent more money on Mermaid, by making a stellar ride, plus adding a D/C Ticket, and a restaurant/M&G it would have been something to write home about.

So, in essence, doing things the Lasseter-way won out. I don't think WDI's top brass, and more importantly top Disney brass are complete dullards, they know that Lasseter has a certain magic if given a big enough check, plus they've learned valuable lessons with Carsland, and have come full circle back to making quality attractions/lands for their theme parks.

I think something odd happened with Mermaid, especially given that Tony Baxter didn't have input on the project, which is very odd given that he conceptualized such a ride, though with a much different slant than the current one. Some "scenes" in DCA's Mermaid are amateurish and don't add to the ride, such as Ariel getting her legs back presented by a flatscreen tv, or Ariel kissing Eric and getting her voice back (not in the film), and also presented by a flatscreen tv. I think somebody tried to create a name for themselves by building a ride on the cheap that they thought would be a big success despite the low budget.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Having said all of this, WDI is so much better off than it was when I was there (mid to late 90's). At least you are arguing about someone who is in there making things marginally better. We sat in Operating meetings and had to help choose which attractions get closed. You did whatever it took to move dollars to get a rehab turned into the smallest piece of show. CM's were "empowered" to make design decisions because the attractions were "theirs". It was the era of Shows and Parades being subbed for New Attractions. The era of DCA 1.0 being the antidote to the criminal overspending on theme at Disneyland Paris. I was lucky to get TDL as a portfolio so I could still build a decent attraction.

 

[midwest_mice]

Having said all of this, WDI is so much better off than it was when I was there (mid to late 90's). At least you are arguing about someone who is in there making things marginally better. We sat in Operating meetings and had to help choose which attractions get closed. You did whatever it took to move dollars to get a rehab turned into the smallest piece of show. CM's were "empowered" to make design decisions because the attractions were "theirs". It was the era of Shows and Parades being subbed for New Attractions. The era of DCA 1.0 being the antidote to the criminal overspending on theme at Disneyland Paris. I was lucky to get TDL as a portfolio so I could still build a decent attraction.

Speaking of DCA, and if this was hit up already, what is your thought about potentially bringing Carsland to Hollywood Studios? Is cookie cutter attractions going to be the new norm after Toy Story Mania and Little Mermaid landed in both Florida and California within a year or so of each other?

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

Having said all of this, WDI is so much better off than it was when I was there (mid to late 90's). At least you are arguing about someone who is in there making things marginally better. We sat in Operating meetings and had to help choose which attractions get closed. You did whatever it took to move dollars to get a rehab turned into the smallest piece of show. CM's were "empowered" to make design decisions because the attractions were "theirs". It was the era of Shows and Parades being subbed for New Attractions. The era of DCA 1.0 being the antidote to the criminal overspending on theme at Disneyland Paris. I was lucky to get TDL as a portfolio so I could still build a decent attraction.

It seems to make good sense financially to fold minor attraction upgrades into schedule rehabs if only because the attraction is going to be down anyway. It was great to see the upgrade Tony added to Snow While in Disneyland, but the Matterhorn was down for an extended amount of time without any plusses to the show elements.

In the past, rehabs seemed to sort of fly under the radar, but with the internet/social media, it seems like the general public knows a lot more about the rehabs and rumored upgrades. Seems like an incentive to add a little something new during a rehab as it is sort of free publicity. I'm sure hundreds of thousands of APers will be following the DL BTMRR rehab, closely or otherwise.

Too bad there isn't a small anual budget item devoted to specifically looking at minor plusses for attractions, and for implementing these plusses during scheduled rehabs.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Speaking of DCA, and if this was hit up already, what is your thought about potentially bringing Carsland to Hollywood Studios? Is cookie cutter attractions going to be the new norm after Toy Story Mania and Little Mermaid landed in both Florida and California within a year or so of each other?

I do believe that it is an initiative of the company to try to maximize the value of the high cost of design by replicating attractions and the other parks. Of course, it's always fun to see a different version of the same attraction and that is another reason to visit our regional Disneyland. Identical versions of attractions don't really excite me much, and really don't incentivize me to visit other parks. One of my favorite examples of replication is the big thunder Mountain at Disneyland Paris. There are ways of still replicating the animated effects and certain show scenes without literally building the identical attraction. You still get the advantage of using the same ride vehicles and other technological similarities.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

It seems to make good sense financially to fold minor attraction upgrades into schedule rehabs if only because the attraction is going to be down anyway. It was great to see the upgrade Tony added to Snow While in Disneyland, but the Matterhorn was down for an extended amount of time without any plusses to the show elements.

In the past, rehabs seemed to sort of fly under the radar, but with the internet/social media, it seems like the general public knows a lot more about the rehabs and rumored upgrades. Seems like an incentive to add a little something new during a rehab as it is sort of free publicity. I'm sure hundreds of thousands of APers will be following the DL BTMRR rehab, closely or otherwise.

Too bad there isn't a small anual budget item devoted to specifically looking at minor plusses for attractions, and for implementing these plusses during scheduled rehabs.

I think social media has played an important role in marketing the smaller changes to annual passport holders and other guests. That should not be discounted. Because it really doesn't cost anything in marketing dollars, and it brings back annual passport holders which have a potential to spend if they're given a reason to do so.

 

[Omnispace]

For example, I used to try to memorize people's clothing while I was waiting in line, and then scrutinize the tiny figures traveling up the small part of the microscope to see if I could find them again...

Hehe -- I did exactly the same thing! I think the first time I went on Adventure Thru Inner Space I thought I would actually be able to look back out through the sides of the microscope glass and see the people waiting in the queue! My 4-year-old mind couldn't figure out why it was so dark at first -- then all of a sudden we were traveling backwards looking at the snowflakes falling around us. I remember the show had horrible acoustics -- everything just echoed in there! I'm sure they were trying to cover-up the noise from the omnimover but unfortunately that meant at times it was difficult to hear the narration coming from the car's speakers.

 

[Omnispace]

Yeah. The later TOT "hammerhead shark or letter T" shaped iterations does defy any sane architectural conceit. It completely lacks any grace and does not do the forced perspective any favors. TDs tried to corbewl it and transition a bit more, but it still looks top heavy. When you spend that much on ornament, it's hard to imagine the shape was strictly budget driven. My favorite will always be the WDW version. The wow factor of the cab leaving the shaft was also a big deal to me. That element is sorely missed too.

The car leaving the shaft is one of those unexpected moments that really sets off the WDW version of the ride. It takes the attraction out of the realm of being a glorified drop tower and turns it into something truly amazing. To me it seems to be one of those special elements that attraction designers search for and what park owners want to promote. I am surprised why it was cut from the subsequent versions. It would be like Universal building "Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey" at their CA park without the robotic arm technology to save on costs.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

The car leaving the shaft is one of those unexpected moments that really sets off the WDW version of the ride. It takes the attraction out of the realm of being a glorified drop tower and turns it into something truly amazing. To me it seems to be one of those special elements that attraction designers search for and what park owners want to promote. I am surprised why it was cut from the subsequent versions. It would be like Universal building "Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey" at their CA park without the robotic arm technology to save on costs.

I don't know if it's a phenomenon of our times, but coming up with sanitized ways of stating horrible consequences in order to repeat them is something that really stands out to me. Terms like "right sizing" or "restructuring" to soften mass layoffs in Corporate life, "ethnic cleansing" or "regime change" in political circles, and in design, the routine process of slashing budgets is called "value engineering". At times it's a great way to scour the fat off of a project and I'm all for scrubbing the numbers, but when success is determined by "wowing" the audience, sometimes the value is in the excess and or the project's ability to entertain. Someone at ILM probably asked Steven Spielberg how many digital dinosaurs running across the meadow it would take to provoke the first big moment of "awe" in Jurassic Park. He likely said, "How many can you do?, give me all you got". Walt was that way too.

Designers don't know for a certainty how much is enough, but they do know how much is too little.

 

[trs518]

I don't know if it's a phenomenon of our times, but coming up with sanitized ways of stating horrible consequences in order to repeat them is something that really stands out to me. Terms like "right sizing" or "restructuring" to soften mass layoffs in Corporate life, "ethnic cleansing" or "regime change" in political circles, and in design, the routine process of slashing budgets is called "value engineering". At times it's a great way to scour the fat off of a project and I'm all for scrubbing the numbers, but when success is determined by "wowing" the audience, sometimes the value is in the excess and or the project's ability to entertain. Someone at ILM probably asked Steven Spielberg how many digital dinosaurs running across the meadow it would take to provoke the first big moment of "awe" in Jurassic Park. He likely said, "How many can you do?, give me all you got". Walt was that way too.

Designers don't know for a certainty how much is enough, but they do know how much is too little.

A story I recently heard about Walt supports this point....When it's a small world was being designed, Mary Blair (I believe she was the one. It's late and I'm tired) asked what the budget was for the dolls. She was designing their clothes and wanted to know how much money she could spend. Walt's response was....Make it so that all the little girls want those clothes for their dolls. He never gave her a budget. I can't remember where I heard this from otherwise I would site it.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

Someone at ILM probably asked Steven Spielberg how many digital dinosaurs running across the meadow it would take to provoke the first big moment of "awe" in Jurassic Park.

Spielberg films always look great, and Jurassic Park was good in that it felt like every scene had a purpose and was filmed with a maximum "awe" factor, or dramatic or plot/tension angle.

In terms of "using the whole canvass", I'm always amazed how Imagineers can squeeze in details into every little space. I think RSR is a great example of using the whole canvas as the final McQueen/Mater scene in the caves before the unload is technically unnecessary, but gives the guests something to look at while waiting to disembark, and is a nice surprise. Similarly, the waterfall before the dark ride scenes in RSR is a sort of little moment which adds to the ride, (I guess it puts the guests into the mindset of a driver who is gawking at the scenery and in the next scene narrowly avoids miss Mac the Truck.)

I hope that eventually Hollywood land at DCA gets a Carsland/BVS level treatment. While BVS looks finished, I couldn't help but notice that the outside of the park part of Guest Relations wasn't really touched during the make over, if they moved the entrance, they could in the future run the Red Car Trolley past the entrance and around to Hollywood Land and make a circuitous route. I think a circuitous route would allow for faster loading, and would allow RCT to even be used as a form of transportation within DCA if they had enough cars going.

In terms of using all of the canvas, there are still a lot of areas that could take advantage of millions of guests a year looking at them.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

A story I recently heard about Walt supports this point....When it's a small world was being designed, Mary Blair (I believe she was the one. It's late and I'm tired) asked what the budget was for the dolls. She was designing their clothes and wanted to know how much money she could spend. Walt's response was....Make it so that all the little girls want those clothes for their dolls. He never gave her a budget. I can't remember where I heard this from otherwise I would site it.

While Small World is a nice ride, there is a lot that could be done to plus it.

Personally, I love the topiaries/garden area of Small World the most, the show scenes are great, but are dark. Why not build a couple of show rooms with a clear "bubble" to let in light during the day, and add plants, such as grass hills and miniature trees/topiaries for the dolls to sing on/around. IMHO, they could still use all sort of lights, and at night the lights would look the same as the other rooms. If adjusting to the light/dark was an issue, they could make the final couple scenes "green house" scenes.

 

[Rasvar]

While Small World is a nice ride, there is a lot that could be done to plus it.

Personally, I love the topiaries/garden area of Small World the most, the show scenes are great, but are dark. Why not build a couple of show rooms with a clear "bubble" to let in light during the day, and add plants, such as grass hills and miniature trees/topiaries for the dolls to sing on/around. IMHO, they could still use all sort of lights, and at night the lights would look the same as the other rooms. If adjusting to the light/dark was an issue, they could make the final couple scenes "green house" scenes.

I now have a horrible vision of Listen to the Land being converted to a new Small World ride.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

While Small World is a nice ride, there is a lot that could be done to plus it.

Personally, I love the topiaries/garden area of Small World the most, the show scenes are great, but are dark. Why not build a couple of show rooms with a clear "bubble" to let in light during the day, and add plants, such as grass hills and miniature trees/topiaries for the dolls to sing on/around. IMHO, they could still use all sort of lights, and at night the lights would look the same as the other rooms. If adjusting to the light/dark was an issue, they could make the final couple scenes "green house" scenes.

They could have transitioned into the ride that way with a solarium type scene and that could have been filled with the welcome banners and some characters.

 

[Omnispace]

A story I recently heard about Walt supports this point....When it's a small world was being designed, Mary Blair (I believe she was the one. It's late and I'm tired) asked what the budget was for the dolls. She was designing their clothes and wanted to know how much money she could spend. Walt's response was....Make it so that all the little girls want those clothes for their dolls. He never gave her a budget. I can't remember where I heard this from otherwise I would site it.

It demonstrates the mentality of giving your audience more than they could have expected -- not what you can get away with. It also demonstrates an honest desire on Disney's part to advance the art of the craft. That is a trait that is more characteristic of an endeavor run by a visionary person and is more difficult to achieve in a corporate environment.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

This might be a little bit off topic, but I couldn't help but notice that BVS (and Carsland) used a lot of LED Christmas lights. (Maybe they had a couple of incandescents in the plastic bells, but otherwise it was an LED christmas).

The tree.

And the garlands used retro-looking C7 Christmas bulbs which obviously had different colored LEDs at the base. Very similar to widely sold models such as below:

With LEDs, the spectrum is so narrow that the lights don't have that warm feel, which I think a lot of us associate with Christmases gone past.

I'm all for saving the environment, but I figure that Disney could specially build replica C7 light chains that utilize a broad spectrum warm white led that shines through different colored paint, versus just going with the narrow spectrum of blue, green . . . etc.

The DCA Christmas Tree looked nice, but it didnt' really jiv with the 1930s look they're aiming for.

Old school lights just have a different look and given that more and more people are using standard LED Christmas lights, they just don't seem that special anymore.