flynnibus
Premium Member
I would expect that maybe a from a teenager.. but a grown man like that?? No words...
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Eddie Sotto's take on the current state of the parks (Part II)
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
I would expect that maybe a from a teenager.. but a grown man like that?? No words...
Eddie Sotto
Premium Member
Take it outside please.
Nemo14
Well-Known Member
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
What about the photo of Horizons being demolished?
Pixiedustmaker
Well-Known Member
There's a great series of Tony Baxter podcasts on Miceage (amazing, and generous, that Tony took the time to give all of these free details/insights without having to buy, or wait, for a book, though that will probably be coming):
http://micechat.com/36693-disneyland-ups-and-downs/
(You have to scroll down about 70% of the page to get the podcasts).
Tony talks about his start in Imagineering, and how DLP's Big Thunder utilizes a "below grade" dip at the end so that the finale of this version of Big Thunder is more impressive than the versions in DL and MK. Amazing stories! Tony also talks about the art of rockwork and mine train rides, and how Disney makes sure that the rockwork is done so that it looks like the track conforms to the geography (versus the rockwork coming up to meet the track).
It will be interesting to see how the Seven Dwarf Mine Train does with regards to having the train track follow the geography. I kinda like the "piles of rubble" as they look naturalistic, but hopefully the horticulture work and filling in with real dirt will prevent the ride from looking as though the rockwork was built to follow the track (figuring the rockwork "rubble wall" is also a retaining wall for soil for shrubs and trees):
http://micechat.com/36693-disneyland-ups-and-downs/
(You have to scroll down about 70% of the page to get the podcasts).
Tony talks about his start in Imagineering, and how DLP's Big Thunder utilizes a "below grade" dip at the end so that the finale of this version of Big Thunder is more impressive than the versions in DL and MK. Amazing stories! Tony also talks about the art of rockwork and mine train rides, and how Disney makes sure that the rockwork is done so that it looks like the track conforms to the geography (versus the rockwork coming up to meet the track).
It will be interesting to see how the Seven Dwarf Mine Train does with regards to having the train track follow the geography. I kinda like the "piles of rubble" as they look naturalistic, but hopefully the horticulture work and filling in with real dirt will prevent the ride from looking as though the rockwork was built to follow the track (figuring the rockwork "rubble wall" is also a retaining wall for soil for shrubs and trees):
Pixiedustmaker
Well-Known Member
Very sad, that woman should not have died enjoying a thrill ride. Yes, morbidly obese people should lose weight, but they also should be able to enjoy a theme park, and if they walk a lot and avoid the "circus food" options, they might lose a bit of weight and get some needed exercise.
In terms of engineering rides, I would say that designers should aim to account for several standard deviations above the median weight. Nothing wrong with over-designing something. B-52's (bombers) last rolled off the assembly line in the 1960s, but because they were designed with a lot of tolerance and overbuilt, the Pentagon is still flying 77 of them, and they'll be in the air until the 2040's. 80 year liftspan for an airframe ain't bad.
In terms of roller coaster design, I'd start by making sure the cars can accomodate those who are morbidly obese (with tens of thousands of guests a day, you will be getting these folks), and I'd also design sensors in the "bar" so that you know when everybody's bar is locked. An audible "click" doesn't sound like much of a safety system. They could also design a train with a special car for those who are obese.
Also, safety system redundancy is important:
Star Tours - 3 redundant safety checks
1. Common Sense, guests make sure he/she is buckled properly.
2. Castmember visual check, is everybody buckled in properly (nobody sitting on the buckle, or not buckled).
3. Computer Check
The Six Flags roller coaster had sort of just 0-2 redundant safety checks:
1. Common Sense. Victim said that she was concerned she wasn't properly secured, though harder for her to tell as it is a bar type system, not a belt. If this wasn't a proper safety check, (i.e. hard for a guest to tell if everything is working), then it probably doesn't count.
2. Castmember check. Did the castmember push down on the bars to see if they stopped on the upswing? Or did the employee just rely on the guest hearing a click? (Not very reliable versus physically checking yourself.)
Something went wrong as the victim felt she wasn't secured and the employee had no way to verify this. I think that the safety checks should be independent of each other, and objective in and of themselves.
When you design safety systems with multiple layers of redundancy, you anticipate a failure rate for each step, let's look at Star Tours:
1. Common Sense belt buckle failure rate of 1/1000. A guest might be distracted and not realize that he/she is sitting on the buckle, or more likely, a teen tries to buckle it underneath them to fool the sensor.
2. Castmember visual check failure rate of 1/1000. Let's say that CMs are pretty thorough and only rarely miss a missing buckle (most they are checking to make sure teens are trying to trick the computer).
3. Computer failure rate of 1/10,000. Pretty conservative, computer can tell if it is buckled the vast majority of the time barring a sensor malfunction/maintenance issue. Maintenance and testing makes the computer even more precise.
Failure rate for unbuckled but overlap: 1/1000 times 1/1000 times 1/10,000 means that there is a 1/10 billion . . . a one in 10 billion chance you won't be buckled properly (through no fault of your own) and the computer and CM doesn't catch it. That's pretty good.
Let's look at the misbehaving teen on Star Tours who tries to buckle underneath them:
The computer would be fooled, and the teen did it on purpose, so there is just the CM to save the day, and that CM has a 1/1000 failure rate . . . but if the CM is instructed to look extra closely at teens, maybe just a 1/5000 failure rate.
So, if let's say 3,000 teens try to buckle underneath them to ride Star Tours without a seatbelt, only 1 will succeed . . . and what percentage of them will be physically injured? Pretty small, but they could hurt themselves or another guest. Legally, you can see why Disney might put a security camera inside the flight simulator, so that if somebody is injured by flying out of their seat, it was much, much more likely due to trying to buckle the seatbelt underneath them than a freak accident.
Pixiedustmaker
Well-Known Member
It is interesting how Grizzly Gulch uses less rockwork than Big Thunder, which allows for more trees/shrubs in some areas . . .gotta have soil if you want more folliage than monument valley, though you can see how hard they worked to try to blend the rockwork underneath the track with the soil.
.jpg)
Expedition Everest has rockwork underneath the track, with soil for plants a short distance from this, though I don't think it works as well here as it doesn't look like they put enough coloring agent in the concrete to make it look like dirt, (or they haven't spent the money on maintenance to paint it properly). 7DMT's "rubble" is actually painted . . . why on earth didn't they use a brown coloring agent for the cement?? Would last a whole lot longer. In fact, they could have added a "base color" for the Cadillac mountain range too. Maybe even used different colored cement for different layers, less repainting . . .
There were fan complaints when they re-did the bridge area to Adventureland in the hub at disneyland and used plain white cement for the small water feature . . . which stuck out like a sore thumb.
Expedition Everest has rockwork underneath the track, with soil for plants a short distance from this, though I don't think it works as well here as it doesn't look like they put enough coloring agent in the concrete to make it look like dirt, (or they haven't spent the money on maintenance to paint it properly). 7DMT's "rubble" is actually painted . . . why on earth didn't they use a brown coloring agent for the cement?? Would last a whole lot longer. In fact, they could have added a "base color" for the Cadillac mountain range too. Maybe even used different colored cement for different layers, less repainting . . .
There were fan complaints when they re-did the bridge area to Adventureland in the hub at disneyland and used plain white cement for the small water feature . . . which stuck out like a sore thumb.
The_Mesh_Hatter
Well-Known Member
I just got back from a four day trip to Tokyo Disney Resort and of course my favorite ride at Disneyland was Pooh's Hunny Hunt with Splash Mountain in a close second. The audio-animatronics on both were insane! I remember reading you played an integral role in the creation of Pooh. I must say, even after riding it a dozen times, I still couldn't quite figure out the layout. It's the only ride where I can't figure out the layout after a few run throughs. It's really strange and a brilliant layout. It must be the trackless ride system that throws me off.
I've tried drawing it out multiple times and it seems impossible unless the Tigger scene is on a turntable or something.
It's like an escher drawing. It must cross through another dimension somewhere...
I've tried drawing it out multiple times and it seems impossible unless the Tigger scene is on a turntable or something.
It's like an escher drawing. It must cross through another dimension somewhere...
Eddie Sotto
Premium Member
Although I quit the company before it opened, Pooh was a show I was responsible for developing with a highly talented team, and something I've very proud of. They did a great job at pulling off something that was a true breakthrough. Good Dark Rides should disorient you and even though there are less scenes, Pooh does that pretty well. Spinning and going backwards contributes to that. If you are entering another "world", it's important to leave your own behind. Omnimover rides can feel like an assembly line and in my opinion, that can threaten the immersion.
It is a huge challenge to get all those 5 passenger "Hunny Pot" vehicles in and out of a scene in the same total time (three enter a scene at once). When you add up the time it takes for them to roam the room individually, get into the scene and all of them to finally gather and leave, you are left with a surprisingly short time to stop and perform a scene. So the answer is that you have to make the entertainment aspect the journey itself. This means "looping" the action as you pass by and keeping dialog to a minimum. Very complicated. The Tigger scene was a motion base where the Pots bounce in sync to a moving and projected set piece. That had never been done as well. Very hard to pull off but it worked.
We needed a unique ride for TDL, but were not allowed to develop a new ride system. I took the TDS "Aquatopia" system which was a guided outdoor bumper boat technology, and repurposed it as an indoor trackless dark ride. At least that was the pitch to our Japanese operator. Truth be told, by the time we were done it was a new ride system. When developing the show I was reminded of how Walt approached Mary Poppins. He took every effect they knew how to do and jammed it all into one movie. I had learned from Tony that telling the linear story is less a priority than creating impactful scenes, and so to that end, tried to take some of the best effects WDI had developed for other shows, or had just invented and put them all as scene finales in Pooh. We used the star field effect from the then new TOT, developed the motion base floor,air cannons, peppers ghost, etc. We exploited every move the vehicles can do including going backwards, "dancing" with each other, all of it. It kept the guests continually guessing and helped make it feel "magic" with that "how did they do that?" sensation. It's been popular for years.
The nicest thing about that show was when the head of Operations (a very tough audience), who had been with the company since Walt came up to me after riding it and said, "Now THAT's Disney".
It is a huge challenge to get all those 5 passenger "Hunny Pot" vehicles in and out of a scene in the same total time (three enter a scene at once). When you add up the time it takes for them to roam the room individually, get into the scene and all of them to finally gather and leave, you are left with a surprisingly short time to stop and perform a scene. So the answer is that you have to make the entertainment aspect the journey itself. This means "looping" the action as you pass by and keeping dialog to a minimum. Very complicated. The Tigger scene was a motion base where the Pots bounce in sync to a moving and projected set piece. That had never been done as well. Very hard to pull off but it worked.
We needed a unique ride for TDL, but were not allowed to develop a new ride system. I took the TDS "Aquatopia" system which was a guided outdoor bumper boat technology, and repurposed it as an indoor trackless dark ride. At least that was the pitch to our Japanese operator. Truth be told, by the time we were done it was a new ride system. When developing the show I was reminded of how Walt approached Mary Poppins. He took every effect they knew how to do and jammed it all into one movie. I had learned from Tony that telling the linear story is less a priority than creating impactful scenes, and so to that end, tried to take some of the best effects WDI had developed for other shows, or had just invented and put them all as scene finales in Pooh. We used the star field effect from the then new TOT, developed the motion base floor,air cannons, peppers ghost, etc. We exploited every move the vehicles can do including going backwards, "dancing" with each other, all of it. It kept the guests continually guessing and helped make it feel "magic" with that "how did they do that?" sensation. It's been popular for years.
The nicest thing about that show was when the head of Operations (a very tough audience), who had been with the company since Walt came up to me after riding it and said, "Now THAT's Disney".
Last edited:
Eddie Sotto
Premium Member
Tony does not disappoint with his stories, required listening for sure.
Eddie Sotto
Premium Member
It is interesting how Grizzly Gulch uses less rockwork than Big Thunder, which allows for more trees/shrubs in some areas . . .gotta have soil if you want more folliage than monument valley, though you can see how hard they worked to try to blend the rockwork underneath the track with the soil.
In comparing the two, BTM is obviously more iconic. GG could have used an icon, even if it was architectural, like a miner's headframe that has fire coming out of the hole every so often or something. There is an exotic impact the red rock gives you that lends a strong sense of place. I tend to shy away from brown rock as it seems too ordinary. The trees at GG help hide the multitude of staircases and that's a good thing. It's a different feel. Thoughts?
Omnispace
Well-Known Member
It could just be that particular photograph but Grizzly Gulch seems the least successful at applying Tony's approach of having the track conform to the terrain as opposed to the alternative. Perhaps it's not something that one notices when on the ride itself but from other vantage points it looks like they carved-up the place to make the track fit. Perhaps once the foliage grows it will soften the landscape a bit.
Omnispace
Well-Known Member
Interesting comment about the Omnimover since its concept was influenced by assembly line operations. The first incarnation of it for Adventure Thru Inner Space tried it's best at disorienting you as they turned the cars quite a bit for each scene. Entering the microscope going forward and emerging into the first scene backwards was the perhaps the biggest surprise. Spaceship Earth seems to have the greatest assembly line feeling since they don't even attempt to conceal that one is riding in cars on a track. But even rides like Its a Small World and Pirates of the Caribbean can feel assembly-line-like when they pack the flume with boats end-to-end. Getting some separation between vehicles seems to be the way to create more immersive experiences and the original dark rides seem particularly successful at doing that.
I haven't had the fortune to visit TDL but you said that there is a honey pot with Pooh characters in it going around with the regular vehicles? Does it actually cycle around with the other pots, or does it just follow it's own course?
I think that a ride like Journey Into Imagination would benefit greatly from such a ride system. Tony's concept for the vehicles having some "intelligence" to them seems to fit with the idea of autonomous vehicles. Ironically, after Disney abandoned syncing the vehicles with the remarkable rotating sets, Universal applied the idea in their HP Forbidden Journey attraction.
Last edited:
thehowiet
Wilson King of Prussia
I haven't experienced GG so I'm just going off of the pics and videos I've seen, but I agree that GG could have definitely benefitted from an icon. I think GG looks like a really cool attraction and I think it's great for each resort to have their own unique experiences, but BTM is much more appealing to me.
The red rocks of BTM really draw you in from a distance. Then when you get close, you're transported to a magnificent place like Monument Valley. For me it's that whole experience of seeing it from a distance, being drawn in, and then the feeling of actually being there that makes BTM a superior experience. The atmosphere just appeals to me more and seems more immersive. Perhaps GG provides a similar experience, but even if it does, I think it would be tough to top the intensity of BTM.
Even though the mountain of Expedition Everest is so tall and stands out from so far away, the atmosphere and scale still doesn't work as well as BTM does for me. BTM isn't nearly as tall as EE, but I think the layout and footprint help to make it feel more immersive. It wraps itself around you while you're in the queue and while you're riding. Don't get me wrong, I think EE is a great experience and I think they really did do a great job, I'm just not sure that the atmosphere that is created by the scale and the forced perspective of EE feels as real to me as the atmosphere created by the rockwork of BTM. Perhaps it's because with EE they are so explicit about where you are, but with BTM it's a more fictional setting. Keep in mind that this is all just my opinion and how both attractions makes me feel when I see and ride them.
Now If only the effects in the third lift hill of BTM still worked. Without the falling rocks that part of the ride just isn't the same, but I guess that's a totally different discussion.
@Eddie Sotto , I'd love to hear your thoughts and feelings on EE vs. BTM with regard to atmosphere and experience. My apologies if you've covered this already.
Pixiedustmaker
Well-Known Member
I think BTMRR and GG both have their positives and limitations:
GG
1. Much more explicit storytelling, great animatronic bears.
2. The rockwork is very good, at least to my eyes, it looks like they were going for a Grand Canyon feel, with the look of the rocks and trees. I'd like to setup a picnic table on the ride and just enjoy the scenery.
3. Not as good place making as some other Disney rides as the use of "stone" walls, and other features doesn't really make you feel that this is a working mine, like BTMRR, or at least another place.
4. If you're not into the bear story (I like them though), then there aren't other secondary characters or thematic elements to occupy your thoughts. Everybody has a favorite little details in every ride they are familiar with, the GG you better like bears and wacky things gone wrong.
5. Less is more ethos, the animals/scenes that are there are blockbuster, but really surprised they didn't add posums in a tree or something like that. There is a kind of "rationed magic" as all of the expensive stuff is clearly staged so everybody gets a good look.
GG also reminds me of the Grand Canyon diorama at DL:
The whole "Grizzly Peak" as an icon didn't work for DCA, don't think it works well for Grizzly Gulch as it kinda screams miniature golf as it was obviously designed to look like a bear.
BTMRR
1. Place making and tons of details make the ride. It's the sort of attraction you don't mind spending sometime in line just to get a look at everything. The ride has a lot of little scenes, and fun little stuff to remember.
2. Less explicit storytelling. I kinda like the explicit storytelling on attractions, (Yeah I'm the type who likes to check his brain in a locker at the entrance of the park), if I'm on a ride like Space or Big Thunder, I love the details, but my mind drifts to other topics, and not necessarily imaging my own journey into outer space inspired by Disney's Space Mountain. Kinda think about work and other dry topics. HM might not have explicit storytelling, but the scenes imply enough to keep me thinking throughout the ride. I think that if Tony Baxter had a blank check to do BTMRR again, he might well put in some dark ride scenes like GG.
3. More is more. There are probably details I've missed on BTMRR and the Haunted House, even though somebody spent the time and money to design them. A great Disney experience is when you're not looking at what your "supposed" to be looking at in a scene, and spy some awesome detail anyway. I like to think of the bat with the wing behind it's back at the end of the line in the Haunted Mansion. They could have cut the wing off, but they knew that a certain (small) percentage of guests would notice. With GG, I get the sense that you are "supposed" to notice this, then that, then that . . . there isn't much of a desire to visually explore the attraction as outside of the major scenes, it is kinda the same thing everywhere.
I think that GG succeeds and becomes a classic attraction, but it certainly could have been better if there were little details between the big scenes, and an "iconic" feature would have helped.
GG
1. Much more explicit storytelling, great animatronic bears.
2. The rockwork is very good, at least to my eyes, it looks like they were going for a Grand Canyon feel, with the look of the rocks and trees. I'd like to setup a picnic table on the ride and just enjoy the scenery.
3. Not as good place making as some other Disney rides as the use of "stone" walls, and other features doesn't really make you feel that this is a working mine, like BTMRR, or at least another place.
4. If you're not into the bear story (I like them though), then there aren't other secondary characters or thematic elements to occupy your thoughts. Everybody has a favorite little details in every ride they are familiar with, the GG you better like bears and wacky things gone wrong.
5. Less is more ethos, the animals/scenes that are there are blockbuster, but really surprised they didn't add posums in a tree or something like that. There is a kind of "rationed magic" as all of the expensive stuff is clearly staged so everybody gets a good look.
GG also reminds me of the Grand Canyon diorama at DL:
The whole "Grizzly Peak" as an icon didn't work for DCA, don't think it works well for Grizzly Gulch as it kinda screams miniature golf as it was obviously designed to look like a bear.
BTMRR
1. Place making and tons of details make the ride. It's the sort of attraction you don't mind spending sometime in line just to get a look at everything. The ride has a lot of little scenes, and fun little stuff to remember.
2. Less explicit storytelling. I kinda like the explicit storytelling on attractions, (Yeah I'm the type who likes to check his brain in a locker at the entrance of the park), if I'm on a ride like Space or Big Thunder, I love the details, but my mind drifts to other topics, and not necessarily imaging my own journey into outer space inspired by Disney's Space Mountain. Kinda think about work and other dry topics. HM might not have explicit storytelling, but the scenes imply enough to keep me thinking throughout the ride. I think that if Tony Baxter had a blank check to do BTMRR again, he might well put in some dark ride scenes like GG.
3. More is more. There are probably details I've missed on BTMRR and the Haunted House, even though somebody spent the time and money to design them. A great Disney experience is when you're not looking at what your "supposed" to be looking at in a scene, and spy some awesome detail anyway. I like to think of the bat with the wing behind it's back at the end of the line in the Haunted Mansion. They could have cut the wing off, but they knew that a certain (small) percentage of guests would notice. With GG, I get the sense that you are "supposed" to notice this, then that, then that . . . there isn't much of a desire to visually explore the attraction as outside of the major scenes, it is kinda the same thing everywhere.
I think that GG succeeds and becomes a classic attraction, but it certainly could have been better if there were little details between the big scenes, and an "iconic" feature would have helped.
Pixiedustmaker
Well-Known Member
I find the whole discussion topic of icons in Disney parks fascinating, maybe because I'm kinda nebulous on a definition of an icon in a theme park, perhaps an attraction feature which resonates with such a large percentage of guests that it becomes recognizable as representing said attraction? If so, the Haunted Mansion has tons of iconic scenes, (some of which were paid homage to in that Eddie Murphy film some of us would like to forget):
You've got the grave digger, the mummy, the duelers, the singing busts, Madame Leota, Little Leota, the bride, the organ player, the hitchhiking ghosts . . .
Even BTMRR's goat is kinda an iconic and now stars in commercials:
Grizzly Gulch has scenes that might become iconic with frequent visitors of HKDL, the put the bears on a pin:
But everybody's "favorite" on GG is supposed to be the bears, less of a choice as without the bears and backwards/explosion effect, the ride is kinda boring. The Jungle Cruise in Disneyland probably has 4 times as many show scenes.
I get that roller coasters go fast, and you'll miss a lot of the detailed theming—so why not build a half and half roller coaster/dark ride? Have a dark ride section (maybe the roller coaster is pushed along via a hybrid system), and then finish with a bonafide thrill ride? 4 minutes of show scenes, and 3 minutes of coaster. This strategy seems to have worked for Splash and RSR.
You've got the grave digger, the mummy, the duelers, the singing busts, Madame Leota, Little Leota, the bride, the organ player, the hitchhiking ghosts . . .
Even BTMRR's goat is kinda an iconic and now stars in commercials:
Grizzly Gulch has scenes that might become iconic with frequent visitors of HKDL, the put the bears on a pin:
But everybody's "favorite" on GG is supposed to be the bears, less of a choice as without the bears and backwards/explosion effect, the ride is kinda boring. The Jungle Cruise in Disneyland probably has 4 times as many show scenes.
I get that roller coasters go fast, and you'll miss a lot of the detailed theming—so why not build a half and half roller coaster/dark ride? Have a dark ride section (maybe the roller coaster is pushed along via a hybrid system), and then finish with a bonafide thrill ride? 4 minutes of show scenes, and 3 minutes of coaster. This strategy seems to have worked for Splash and RSR.
Last edited:
Pixiedustmaker
Well-Known Member
I think Everest could have used a bigger budget. If you're going to built a Matterhorn decades later, you have the room to make it less of a box-type structure, and you can add some lesser "peaks" around the main mountain, instead of making it a big box. The tree to mountain transition is too abrupt . . .
Also don't get why they didn't try to combine the fast roller coaster with a slower version that small kids would be OK with. One parents takes the older kids on EE, and the other takes the young child on a little boat ride around the mountain, or something like that. Might as well use a great backdrop if you've got it.
Should have been a dramatic approach to Everest, and I don't like it that you can see Epcot at the top! The queue is better than the ride . . .
I also don't get the "bridge" between the temple and Everest . . . doesn't look right.
Last edited:
EPCOTCenterLover
Well-Known Member
Ah, DAK. So must wasted potential!
The_Mesh_Hatter
Well-Known Member
I remember being more impressed than I imagined with the ride paths on Pooh. It's amazing how perfectly timed everything has to be for the ride to coordinate, especially in the final room. The groups of three didn't just interact with each other, the sets had to be timed with the other sets as well. It really was spectacular.
I have a question for you about DisneySea. A model of the entire park frequently shown in Imagineering books shows a Tower of Terror with a building profile similar to WDW's TOT. Was the Disney World TOT ride system highly considered for TDS? I always found it interesting that the TDS TOT uses the newer technology as opposed to the more elaborate original version. Was budget the reason? Or did it have to do with reliability?
I have a question for you about DisneySea. A model of the entire park frequently shown in Imagineering books shows a Tower of Terror with a building profile similar to WDW's TOT. Was the Disney World TOT ride system highly considered for TDS? I always found it interesting that the TDS TOT uses the newer technology as opposed to the more elaborate original version. Was budget the reason? Or did it have to do with reliability?