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

[Eddie Sotto]

The hub used to have these large olive trees, which partially obscured the castle, hence making it more of a fantastical horizon, something just beyond Main Street, visible, but not part of it. The Magic Kingdom's castle is large and can be seen from many different lands. I think that in general, the castle is sort of an exception in the various parks as it is a symbol of the park and is photogenic enough that people don't mind seeing it all the time. There's something magical about seeing the castle at the end of Main Street, it sort of works like peanut butter and jelly do on the same sandwich, I would say because MS and the castle both have this very positive/optimistic vibe, despite being historically/geographically separated.

The castle is also the weenie, drawing guests beyond Main Street and promising something "magical" besides just nostalgic. Being on Main Street with the castle in view is like eating chateaubriand, while having a perfect view of the desert tray, satisfaction and anticipation.

Instead of BVS, I wonder what a juxtaposition between a Victorian English street, circa Marry Poppins, with horse drawn carriages and a naturalistic/wicked looking, yet beautiful, Maleficent castle would have looked like.

You're making me hungry!

 

[Eddie Sotto]

This video made me stop and think. It is funny that we live in a society that has so much that we have to store it all offsite. Our ancestors did not have this problem in the last depression. All of these millions of storage lockers and who knows what is even in them? We forget what we even accumulate. My garage is a time bomb of random stuff. And like the useless and broken stuff Darrell comes across, it's just stored and someone was paying to hoard it. People bidding to get other's abandoned or foreclosed hoards to move to their locker. Run out of space? Just rent another locker. Signs of the times. A weird wow factor for sure.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I know Walt wanted something to draw people in, but why put a medieval castle at the end of Main Street? Doesn't that break the theme?

Of course, you can also argue that Castles existed back then, but not in middle America.

Despite being called medieval, Sleeping Beauty Castle is not a medieval castle. It is a very close copy of Neuschwanstein, "Mad" King Ludwig's own image of a fairytale castle built in the 19th century. It's not some Romanesque fortification. Cinderella Castle, Le Château de la Bell au Bois Dormant and I would assume Storybook Castle as well, all further reduce the imagery of fortification.

Main Streets also often had a focal building which signified the town at their end. In older towns it was church, and in later towns it was a civic structure, often the courthouse. At the Magic Kingdom it is a castle. A symbol of this place being familiar and yet strikingly different, given power by being an anachronism. So while the image is not fitting, typologically Sleeping Beauty Castle does fit on Main Street.

Specific and deliberate anachronisms can have power because they did not immediately belong to the environment, they stick out and grab for attention. John Hench talked about the chaos of the real world, and this was everything string to be that anachronism, a bigger and louder voice in an ever growing cacophony of signs and symbols trying to grab your attention.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Despite being called medieval, Sleeping Beauty Castle is not a medieval castle. It is a very close copy of Neuschwanstein, "Mad" King Ludwig's own image of a fairytale castle built in the 19th century. It's not some Romanesque fortification. Cinderella Castle, Le Château de la Bell au Bois Dormant and I would assume Storybook Castle as well, all further reduce the imagery of fortification.

Main Streets also often had a focal building which signified the town at their end. In older towns it was church, and in later towns it was a civic structure, often the courthouse. At the Magic Kingdom it is a castle. A symbol of this place being familiar and yet strikingly different, given power by being an anachronism.

Specific and deliberate anachronisms can have power because they did not immediately belong to the environment, they stick out and grab for attention. John Hench talked about the chaos of the real world, and this was everything string to be that anachronism, a bigger and louder voice in an ever growing cacophony of signs and symbols trying to grab your attention.

I'd guess that Walt went by his instincts and just felt it would "work". You are right in pointing out that Churches have that feel (Stone and spires) and are historically in the center of town, and certainly the Disney Castles are not threatening per se. Putting a Swiss Mountain next door with a futuristic house next door is a bit more complex to explain, but who wants to? I just enjoy the juxtaposition of it all. I'm at Disneyland!

 

[lazyboy97o]

I'd guess that Walt went by his instincts and just felt it would "work". You are right in pointing out that Churches have that feel (Stone and spires) and are historically in the center of town, and certainly the Disney Castles are not threatening per se. Putting a Swiss Mountain next door with a futuristic house next door is a bit more complex to explain, but who wants to? I just enjoy the juxtaposition of it all. I'm at Disneyland!

Can't really explain the house, but I have never understood how it was odd that an Alpine mountain was placed next to an Alpine castle.

 

[prberk]

OK, you've convinced me!

This also brings up a "whole 'nother" topic: Just exactly how good the Diney Magazine was.

To me the loss of the Disney Magazine itself just reminds me of another example of how shortsighted thinking (perhaps by MBAs thinking that they are "building a brand" that is modern and responsive to the bottom line in the short-term) undermines the long-range real value of the name and legacy. Some things build more than a "brand" (which is burnt onto things), but unstead build a NAME and real loyalty over years, by pointing out and constantly "telling the story" of an amazing organization. It inspires people and brings long-term loyalty.

The Disney Magazine started life as the Magic Kingdom Club newsletter, sent to members who signed up at work (usually offered "free" to employees who wanted it, as a corporate benefit that included the newsletter and a discount on tickets, hotels, and merchandise at the resorts). Over time, after about 30 years, they changed the MK Club to be a fee-based "Disney Club" (about $40 for membership), and slicked up the magazine (including offering it to the public) which came "free" with the $40 membership.

Of course the fee-based Disney Club did not do as well as the MK Club had, and it folded soon afterward. But the slick "Disney" magazine, by then sold at stores, stayed on, and in addition to subscribers and purchasers at stores, was given "free" to guests in the Disney resort hotels.

Over time, they decided to kill it, offering subscribers an option to switch to their "Family Fun" magazine.

I was an MK Club member, as had been my mother in her work many years ago. It originally offered a nominal discount to WDW on tickets and hotels, and helped drive a decision to go. The newsletter helpded, but I really enjoyed the new Disney magazine as things evolved. It really fed the Disney loyalty, and was well-done.

But I should have seen the writing on the wall when they created it by starting to charge for the new renamed Disney Club that brought about the color magazine. They were greedy and looking too closely for profits over long-term loyalty.

Later they shuttered the magazine itself, arguing that it did not contribute to the bottom line. It had "too many complimentary subscriptions" (at the hotels). They did not see the long-term value of product like this, which builds up the legacy and, with articles like the Tony Baxter article, sows seeds that germinate into loyalty to a company perceived to be worth the investment. Those seeds not only fell among the loyal Disney fans that sought them out, but in complimentary copies and newstand copies could be seen by casual fans (excellent advertising for the movies and resorts).

The decision to kill the Disney Magazine came from the same mentality that changed the well-balanced Disney Channel to the short-sighted pre-teen quarterly-profit machine it has become.

Anyhow, the Disney Magazine was good, and worth having... for fans and for the company.

 

[michmousefan]

Later they shuttered the magazine itself, arguing that it did not contribute to the bottom line. It had "too many complimentary subscriptions" (at the hotels). They did not see the long-term value of product like this, which builds up the legacy and, with articles like the Tony Baxter article, sows seeds that germinate into loyalty to company perceived to be worth the investment.

And some of that type of content makes it into the D23 magazine, but it's membership comes at a price point almost double the $40 for the MKC. Still, I'm one of those who pay the premium and for the most part I do enjoy much of it – particularly the features about the history of the parks. There's a bit too much emphasis on theatrical (the current issue covers Oz, and I'm sure that the next issue will feature Lone Ranger (or Monsters U if they are worried about it).

 

[RandySavage]

^ Along the lines of the discontinuation of the magazine was the discontinuation of the Annual Report. Not happy about that. I have about 20 years worth of old, lavish annual reports saved up. Before the internet (and the excellent magazine above) it was the only way for a kid to get a glimpse into secretive world of WDI - often showcasing pics of Imagineers at work on models/artwork/plans for never-before(or again)-released rides, parks. Film concept work was revealed as well. Growing up, I looked forward to it every January.

In 2009, Iger ended it on grounds of saving paper/money, replacing it the with standard all-print 10K and online "Year in Review" that sadly never showed the great behind the scenes glimpses again.

 

[prberk]

And some of that type of content makes it into the D23 magazine, but it's membership comes at a price point almost double the $40 for the MKC. Still, I'm one of those who pay the premium and for the most part I do enjoy much of it – particularly the features about the history of the parks. There's a bit too much emphasis on theatrical (the current issue covers Oz, and I'm sure that the next issue will feature Lone Ranger (or Monsters U if they are worried about it).

And without the broad discounts. They took something that was a good blend between a "club" for fans and good, broad marketing tool that spread the news of Disney, to a high-priced exclusive club (or $16 per issue magazine) that almost shut out the casual fans (whom could be made into loyal fans, but have to get cast in the net first). They did themselves a disservice, because they stopped casting at least one somewhat broad net that let them reach and teach new casual fans at the same time that they gave the older ones a reason to feel like an "insider."

Now, you are either a broke insider or outside the net.

 

[MouseketeerCole]

I'd guess that Walt went by his instincts and just felt it would "work". You are right in pointing out that Churches have that feel (Stone and spires) and are historically in the center of town, and certainly the Disney Castles are not threatening per se. Putting a Swiss Mountain next door with a futuristic house next door is a bit more complex to explain, but who wants to? I just enjoy the juxtaposition of it all. I'm at Disneyland!

I think another thing is a certain exemption can be given to the castle as the icon of the park. It's somewhat the park's conceit that this castle is at the centre of things. If any old thing was visible at the centre of the park, something not promoted as the park's symbol (perhaps something like the Treehouse), I don't think it would work. (So the lesson perhaps is, if you're going to break theme, do it with gusto!). Some academics have claimed that the castle in place of a church or civic building there at the end of the street transforms what would be an outdoor museum like Greenfield into something more magical. There are even people who claim it's a visual metaphor of Walt's life (a fairy tale dream at the end of a small town beginning), but, eh, I REALLY doubt any guests internalise that.

I also don't think the castle/HOTF/Matterhorn thing is too hard to explain. Like lazyboy said, an Apline castle next to an Alpine mountain is quite obvious. The hub is the one area of the park, essentially a neutral area, where the juxtaposition of the different lands is something rich and exciting, so having the House of the Future border on that is fine from the perspective of someone in the hub. The other way round (seeing the hub's elements from the House) is a bit more of a stretch. Being a primarily indoor attraction softens it somewhat, but the most important thing is that it's meant as a relatively contemporary exhibition piece, like those at a World's Fair; it's not a part of Tomorrowland that really tries to convince us we're in the future in the way the other lands do. If I was walking through it pretending it was the late 21st century, I'd be annoyed by the intrusions outside it, but Disney didn't ask us to do that. It stands to reason then that if an attraction that we did want to immerse ourselves in was put on the hub, guests wouldn't be happy with it, and, whaddyaknow, Astro Orbitor is routinely criticised (in addition to the other flaws of bottlenecking, being low on the ground and throwing off scale). When I ride that, I DO want to be Buck Rogers firing laser beams - don't be throwing a castle in my way.

Another thing is that I think it's quite easy to explain the Matterhorn from Fantasyland/Tomorrowland too. From Fantasyland we quite easily read it as a fairy tale Alpine mountain just like the ones on the canal boats, and Disney purposefully surrounds it with Swiss architecture, pine trees and other cutesy elements far more on that side. From Tomorrowland, it's far more rocky and imposing and surrounded by contemporary elements like the lagoon, monorail and modernist architecture, that to me come across as quite like the Winter Olympics. It also makes it easier with it already being round the corner from the main part of the land; if it was in Innovention's location, I doubt we'd think it worked in Tomorrowland. I think it's a terrifically skillfully blended area, not something that just works by coincidence.

I actually spoke to Steve Kirk about something similar to this with Mount Prometheus at TDS and he told me about this idea of 'correlation'. There, the main mountain can be seen from pretty much all of the lands, but the designers did specific things to make you 'read' the mountain in a different way depending on where you are through the use of colour, foliage and forced perspective. It actually has three specifically designed sides. In Med Harbor it's rocky and barren to be like Vesuvius, but from the other side with Lost River Delta, it has much more foliage and is far more tropical. From the Cape Cod side, forced perspective is heavily used to make it appear much smaller than it is to minimise the thematic contradiction. From any angle it's still Mount Prometheus, but how it fits into our current story adapts to whereabouts we are.

Steve actually said something to me like "We still can't explain why it erupts in Cape Cod, but heck it's cool!". I guess that's the golden rule with all of this, within reason.

 

[trs518]

... but heck it's cool!". I guess that's the golden rule with all of this, within reason.

I think this is the best way to explain why it works.

The castle is on so much of an icon, that seeing it is relaxing and reassuring.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

I actually spoke to Steve Kirk about something similar to this with Mount Prometheus at TDS and he told me about this idea of 'correlation'. There, the main mountain can be seen from pretty much all of the lands, but the designers did specific things to make you 'read' the mountain in a different way depending on where you are through the use of colour, foliage and forced perspective. It actually has three specifically designed sides.

Sightlines are important, and while DCA didn't have the budget of TDS . . . it seems like there weren't a lot of considerations made with regards to sightlines and clutter. In front of Mermaid you can see GRR, Paradise Pier Lagoon, San Francisco street.

Carsland is great, but the Tower of Terror spoils the atmosphere in certain areas, such as around Luigi's.

Then you've got the Soarin' showbuilding easily seen in Epcot, and the Swan and Dolphin.

There's something to be said for being in a land and just seeing what we are meant to be seeing, without a reminder than we're in a theme park.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I guess if I had to impose a rule of sorts, I'd say that once in a land you don't want those visual intrusions (other themed icons) above the rooftops to contradict the theme (Space Mountain peering over from Town Square), but the "weenie" is waiting at the exit to that land (Castle at the end of the Street) to take you into the next world.

 

[darthspielberg]

I think Adventureland is probably my favorite of the lands where you don't have any real intrusions from the other lands, and it even has a pretty great transition to Frontierland on one end, and the Castle on the other. Much less jarring than going from Tomorrowland to Fantasyland (not that I have a huge issue with it)

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

I guess if I had to impose a rule of sorts, I'd say that once in a land you don't want those visual intrusions (other themed icons) above the rooftops to contradict the theme (Space Mountain peering over from Town Square), but the "weenie" is waiting at the exit to that land (Castle at the end of the Street) to take you into the next world.

This rule makes sense, a weenie is meant to be walked to, whereas Space plainly visible from Town Square doesn't serve a purpose. If they do the alley project, I hope they plant some trees to fix this instrusion, if possible.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I think Adventureland is probably my favorite of the lands where you don't have any real intrusions from the other lands, and it even has a pretty great transition to Frontierland on one end, and the Castle on the other. Much less jarring than going from Tomorrowland to Fantasyland (not that I have a huge issue with it)

I like New Orleans Square for that reason too, as the other adjoining lands are complimentary to it, even expansive.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I really love the way the lands at Disneyland Paris each have such strong identities and yet sort of melt into each other. My favorite is the transition between Adventureland and Fantasyland. Peter Pan's Flight leads into the Jolly Roger and Skull Rock, which is just south of Pirates of the Caribbean.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I really love the way the lands at Disneyland Paris each have such strong identities and yet sort of melt into each other. My favorite is the transition between Adventureland and Fantasyland. Peter Pan's Flight leads into the Jolly Roger and Skull Rock, which is just south of Pirates of the Caribbean.

A lot of thought went into those transitions. That was conscious about Peter Pan and then eventual reveal of the Pirate Ship in Adventureland. Land Designers Chris Tietz and Tom Morris worked as a team to "blend" those lands. Tony focused on those details making the layout of the park conducive to smooth transition. We all had to do that to get the sightlines right, etc. Main Street's "Discovery Arcade" was a block long introduction and eventual transition into Discoveryland by introducing "patent model" displays and futuristic visions of the future. The "Liberty Arcade" opposite, was the appropriate pre-show leading to Frontierland and the western expansion.

 

[MouseketeerCole]

Eddie, a little bit back you mentioned how you and Tony had some differences of opinion in the design (like in all design teams, of course), and I was wondering if you could give any examples? I certainly don't mean this in a 'Who was right?' sense as it's obvious everyone on the team would be working towards the good of the project, rather I'm really interested in the design process that shaped the final product and how that core team worked together. Where did you stick with your ideas, where did you go with what Tony wanted, and what compromises were made between you?

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I

Eddie, a little bit back you mentioned how you and Tony had some differences of opinion in the design (like in all design teams, of course), and I was wondering if you could give any examples? I certainly don't mean this in a 'Who was right?' sense as it's obvious everyone on the team would be working towards the good of the project, rather I'm really interested in the design process that shaped the final product and how that core team worked together. Where did you stick with your vision, where did you go with what Tony wanted, and what compromises were made?

I'll give it some thought.