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

[Eddie Sotto]

Eddie, I hate to disrupt where this thread is going, I could lament about the evils of the DDP for hours and I think Kevin's article is quite concise and shows real journalistic integrity. BUT a recent post on a different thread(Staggs, Cameron and Rohde at DAK), brought up an interesting question that I think you would have some great insight.

A poster on that thread brought Rohde's "greatness" into question. To paraphrase basically he said that Rohde was great at playing the politics but was just an average imagineer and relied heavily on his staff to create what he took credit for. Now I realize you would probably not want to say anything negative about Joe but the question is; as a Senior Imagineer on a project, how much of your vision is given to the hands of your staff? Is it your baby, and you see every aspect from inception to completion, or do you give general guidelines and parameters and let them run with it?

First off, Joe Rohde is a man I deeply respect and is someone extraordinary in his knowledge and depth as an intellectual and artist. I like him very much. His knowledge of art history and other subjects is vast to say the least. I think he is generous with allowing his team to run with ideas and he is focused on what something "is" or "isn't". Everest and Asia were his topics, close to his own personal experience, he owned those ideas and it shows. Good leaders guide and don't dictate. He is loved by his teams from what I hear.

On DLP MSUSA I was a micromanager and in pushing for quality as I saw it, drove some people crazy and or they were afraid of working with me. I had drawings continually redone or insisted things be done by hand and not on computer (to get the main street look, BTW computers were more primitive then). It was worth it and you can tell. Because I can draw and detail a working drawing, I would go right ahead and adjust anything I thought didn't work right on someone's board. This did not always go down well either. I'm not a "good enough" kind of person, so that got expensive. Eventually I learned to trust others that were passionate and got the idea of quality, and I deputized them rather than policing them. That worked better. I wish I was a better delegator, but over the years people have noticed when I have and have not touched something and so I still keep a pretty close eye on the things that are relevant. I've gotten better at that as I've learned a lot since then, but you basically hire people smarter than you are and while still managing the vision, encourage them to bring something to the table you can't. I'm a very hands on guy, others may not be and sometimes that's good and other times it hurts the project. I saw the talents of many others contribute to MSUSA and make it great, and I think driving and guiding it with design made it more special than if it had just been done on autopilot. It takes passion and a healthy fear of failure.

 

[janoimagine]

Here were the exact quotes for reference:

I have no attachment to Rohde, but it seems a lot of others do. I will admit that it seems like projects on which he works have an incredible amount of detail, but I have no idea if that's because of him, or coincidence. It also seems that his projects get huge budgets, sometimes unnecessarily so (for what it's worth, I think Disney way over-spent on Everest, and should have instead made a Matterhorn+ attraction, and allocated the rest of those funds on a couple C or D ticket attractions; but I understand the value in marketing Everest...)

I'd be interested to hear others' thoughts about this take on Rohde.

I think it's honestly no different from an Ad Agency or what Walt use to do back in his day ... you surround yourself with the most talented people you can, it only makes you and your ideas look better in the end. Typically when you have a great Ad Campaign they interview the Creative Director of the Agency, and not the Creative Team of Writer and Art Director who came up with the Ad, the truth is, the CD's role was just to approve the concept and sell it to the client, (not to make light of that because that is difficult to do too) but thats just how it goes ... I would imagine it is no different at WDI. Eddie Soto would be a good one to ask on this.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Here were the exact quotes for reference:

You have to remember that Neil Armstrong just got out and walked around. Just think of all the people it took to get him there. Theme parks are the same way.

 

[HMF]

On DLP MSUSA I was a micromanager and in pushing for quality as I saw it, drove some people crazy and or they were afraid of working with me. I had drawings continually redone or insisted things be done by hand and not on computer (to get the main street look, BTW computers were more primitive then). .

I probably would not enjoy working with you in that respect since though my intention is to be a Writer or Producer. I have recently been "Playing with Photoshop and really enjoy the ability to change color schemes and such in the parks. It is a great design tool for me since I cannot draw by hand at all.

 

[janoimagine]

You have to remember that Neil Armstrong just got out and walked around.

Good point.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I probably would not enjoy working with you in that respect since though my intention is to be a Writer or Producer. I have recently been "Playing with Photoshop and really enjoy the ability to change color schemes and such in the parks. It is a great design tool for me since I cannot draw by hand at all.

LOL. That's ok, but I wouldn't expect writers to be able to draw. Writing and producing are skills in themselves. At the time there were designers that used computers to quickly knock out designs and they looked like it. The point I was trying to make is that we needed MSUSA to feel like it was from the time where things (like signage) were done by hand and not digitally processed.

 

[HMF]

LOL. That's ok, but I wouldn't expect writers to be able to draw. Writing and producing are skills in themselves. At the time there were designers that used computers to quickly knock out designs and they looked like it. The point I was trying to make is that we needed MSUSA to feel like it was from the time where things (like signage) were done by hand and not digitally processed.

I completely understand trying to execute a vision and have to compromise certain things but what I find interesting is when you have an idea for something and someone else has an idea and the compromise ended up better than you expected as I found out on a recent team film project in College. Then again I have had experiences where compromise has completely destroyed my intention on creative projects, For example when I was 14 I was part of a creative team to decide what the theme of a School Dance would be. We all agreed on a 1970s theme and I helped selecting decorations and basically put a sort of themed show together and I wrote out a Play List of circa 70s music that I would like played at the event. When the event actually happens, everything looks wonderful but they completely dis-regarded my play-list and the next thing I knew they were playing the macarena, I was completely furious and walked out. It's a tough balance between compromise and compromising too much.

 

[MiklCraw4d]

I was at that event too!! As a fan of the antics of ________ Nunis over the years, I especially loved this story and wished there was photographic documentation.

The Main Street idea intrigued me. I can't say I'm in favor of it, but I totally understand his reasoning. I think that probably from a logical standpoint his argument makes more sense than keeping MSUSA as-is. Of course, MSUSA is now an institution unto itself (at Disneyland) and is so associated with Walt that most of us would be sad to see it change.

Still, the notion of having it stay 50 years behind the times so that it will evoke "real" memories of current parents and grandparents is a good point. MSUSA's time period wasn't selected randomly, it was because it hearkened back to the childhood memories of the designers. It was significant to them.

What's funny is that what was current when Disneyland opened is just as "in the past" as 1900 was then.

It's funny--I went to a talk by Jack Lindquist the other night, and he told a few stories about the Yippies. The climax was when he said one protester took off down Main St., and ________ Nunis chased him down to the Flower Mart. As the rest of them caught up, Lindquist saw Nunis standing over the Yippie with a handful of hair, and could only think "he scalped him!"

I also thought it was interesting that he mentioned thinking that Main St. should have constantly evolved forward in time, because he felt the charm of it was that the older members of the family should have direct memories of it...that it should constantly lag around 50 years behind the present day.

 

[MiklCraw4d]

I have *massive* respect for Joe's passion and knowledge, but I have to admit thinking that sometimes his projects disappear up their own tailpipe and miss the forest for the trees.

For instance, Everest. You can *tell* the team was into that, and the queue is incredibly lavish in its attention to detail. It's a great experience. But after you hit the backwards part of the coaster, it's just a *very* average coaster that basically goes in a big circle, there is no internal detail in the mountain, and 1) You barely see the Yeti and 2) The Yeti is broken.

This was a very expensive project but how much of that budget went into elements that don't pay off? An *incredible* AA that you barely got to see and that doesn't work anyway? I saw it when it was working and the effect was truly amazing but it was over before you realized what was happening. And now...

I guess the beef with something like Everest is that you can tell lots of time, effort, and money went into it but does it really pay off in the ride itself? Aside from the very start, it's less "fun" for me than the Matterhorn, so does all that queue detail just become window dressing for an average coaster? They didn't half- it, but wouldn't it have been better to have the meat of the experience - the coaster - be more compelling?

Just some thoughts. Respect for Joe, though.

A poster on that thread brought Rohde's "greatness" into question. To paraphrase basically he said that Rohde was great at playing the politics but was just an average imagineer and relied heavily on his staff to create what he took credit for. Now I realize you would probably not want to say anything negative about Joe but the question is; as a Senior Imagineer on a project, how much of your vision is given to the hands of your staff? Is it your baby, and you see every aspect from inception to completion, or do you give general guidelines and parameters and let them run with it?

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Average Coasters

Great coasters are not defined so much by speed, but are episodic. They keep you guessing with drops, twists and turns building to an ending. Expectation is what makes coasters great, "Fear minus death equals fun". Matterhorn is that way as it's not fast at all, but fun because it surprises you.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

It's a tough balance between compromise and compromising too much.

To your point, I've come to believe that the key to success is the art of compromise. The pressure from budget, schedule and politics all have an effect, but it's up to you to know how to deal with these real issues and also to know where the creative lines are that cannot be crossed.

This begins with the designer clearly understanding the vision of the attraction and what elements within the show are vital to it creatively "working". Like a doctor, you need to know how to read the "vital signs" during the operation and fight for your patient. If an intern is about to compromise the patient's health with small errors that weaken it's systems you have to see that coming and convince the rest of the team that they all lose if the patient is brain dead at the end.

Knowing what can be left out without killing the patient is critical. If you don't know what is essential then you are lost and the show turns out to be dull and pointless, albeit elaborate.

When management would come in and tell me what was going to be cut and it was a creative decision, I would tell them that by doing that, they are assuming the creative responsibility for the show from that point. No one wanted that and they left me alone. This does not mean I was not reasonable and did not cut something, it just means that there are certain lines you don't cross as they make the show not worth building. They actually depend on you fighting and doing this as they cannot see what you can and that is what you are getting paid to do. the process works when the show lands in between the ideal of both sides, the operation and the creative.

"Art without industry is stupidity, but industry without art is brutality."

So you have to compromise, but know what at the most bare bones level will make the shops a hit and never go beyond that. If you think that the budget is so unrealistically low that success could never be achieved, walk off the project and save your reputation or don't take on the assignment. I've done that. Tell them what it will cost at a minimum to have a creative success and see if they go for it. You have then done your best and have been honest. The crime is to shut up, unwittingly cut the guts out of the big idea, and let them built a giant elaborate dud with no "wow".

If you take on the job, own the vision. Know in a sentence what makes it tick and fight for the essence. You can let all kinds of stuff go if you know why it's fun and stick to that.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

It's a tough balance between compromise and compromising too much.

To your point, I've come to believe that the key to success is the art of compromise. The pressure of budget, schedule and politics are realities, and too much compromise due to any one of them can kill the show, but it's up to you to know how to deal with these choices as to where the creative lines are that cannot be crossed. They don't know this. You are supposed to.

This begins with the designer clearly understanding the vision of the attraction and what elements within the show are vital to it creatively "working". Like a doctor, you need to know how to read the "vital signs" during the operation and fight for your patient. If an intern is about to compromise the patient's health with small errors that weaken it's systems you have to see that coming and convince the rest of the team that they all lose if the patient is brain dead at the end.

Knowing what can be left out without killing the patient is critical. If you don't know what is essential then you are lost and the show turns out to be dull and pointless, albeit elaborate.

When project management would come in and tell me they were taking control of a creative decision, I would tell them that by doing that, they are assuming the creative responsibility for the show from that point. No one wanted that and they left me alone. This does not mean I was not reasonable and did not cut something, it just means that there are certain lines you don't cross as they make the show not worth building. They actually depend on you fighting and doing this as they cannot see what you can and that is what you are getting paid to do. The process works when the show lands in between the ideal of both sides, the operation and the creative.

"Art without industry is stupidity, but industry without art is brutality."

So you have to compromise, but know what at the most simplistic level will make the show a hit, and never go below that. If you think that the budget is so unrealistically low that success could never be achieved, walk off the project and save your reputation or don't take on the assignment. I've done that. Tell them what it will cost at a minimum to have a creative success and see if they go for it. You have then done your best and have been honest. The crime is to shut up, unwittingly cut the guts out of the big idea, and let them built a giant elaborate dud with no "wow".

If you take on the job, own the vision or get out. (SORRY FOR THE DOUBLE POSTING..BLAME IT ON OSX LION)

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Joe Rohde Story

When I lived in Paris, Joe came to visit and had one night to party. We decided at midnight to drive to Le Mont St Michel on the Normandy Coast and filled up a pillowcase with supplies from the minibar in the hotel and drove all night.

http://www.ricksteves.com/plan/destinations/france/mont.htm

As the sun came up we were there and it was awesome. We climbed the rock and were dead tired, but that did not stop us from beating it back to Paris because he had a dinner to go to. I realized driving back that Joe had an extensive knowledge of French history, cart and culture. He would try and read the French tour books even though he did not know the language. I was really impressed with his curiosity and thirst for knowledge. He told me that as a kid he wanted to be able to draw architectural ornament from any period without research imagery to go by. I believe him.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Unfortunate.

Universal Orlando Permanently Changes Dragon Challenge Roller Coaster After Injuries
Posted on October 20, 2011 by John Frost


Universal Orlando has permanently changed the nature of one of its most popular attractions after a pair of guest injuries on the roller coaster. Dragon Challenge, formerly Dueling Dragons, will never duel again. Instead it will become a chase with cars being dispatched so that they no longer pass close to each other.

The two trains of the coaster used to pass close to each other several times, including one moment when there was just a few feet between the feet of passengers. It was at this moment when flying objects injured passengers on the attraction. After the second reported major injury, Universal announced the attraction, a key part of the Wizarding World of Harry Potter area at Islands of Adventure, would change their dispatch procedure during the course of the internal investigation.

With the investigation completed, that change has now been made permanent.

There is, of course, a lawsuit and it will be interesting to see if Universal decides to settle in order to keep details of its investigation out of the public. What do you think of the changes? Does it make you feel safer?

More on the nature of the injuries and the lawsuit at the Orlando Sentinel.

All I would add is that was the feature that made it unique, and to lose that is really sad. They know the price of safety and probably did the right thing. i was trying to think of things they could do to prevent flying debris but that is dependent on the guest. What would you do?

 

[RSoxNo1]

Universal Orlando Permanently Changes Dragon Challenge Roller Coaster After Injuries
Posted on October 20, 2011 by John Frost


Universal Orlando has permanently changed the nature of one of its most popular attractions after a pair of guest injuries on the roller coaster. Dragon Challenge, formerly Dueling Dragons, will never duel again. Instead it will become a chase with cars being dispatched so that they no longer pass close to each other.

The two trains of the coaster used to pass close to each other several times, including one moment when there was just a few feet between the feet of passengers. It was at this moment when flying objects injured passengers on the attraction. After the second reported major injury, Universal announced the attraction, a key part of the Wizarding World of Harry Potter area at Islands of Adventure, would change their dispatch procedure during the course of the internal investigation.

With the investigation completed, that change has now been made permanent.

There is, of course, a lawsuit and it will be interesting to see if Universal decides to settle in order to keep details of its investigation out of the public. What do you think of the changes? Does it make you feel safer?

More on the nature of the injuries and the lawsuit at the Orlando Sentinel.

All I would add is that was the feature that made it unique, and to lose that is really sad. They know the price of safety and probably did the right thing. i was trying to think of things they could do to prevent flying debris but that is dependent on the guest. What would you do?

At this point now all you have are two decent steel coasters. I've long said that the steel coasters in IOA really disrupt that park for me. I enjoy Dragon Challenge but I really think the park could do without Dragon Challenge and The Hulk in favor of highly themed attractions.

The removal of the dueling aspect of the coaster removes a lot of the uniqueness. I'm hoping this can somehow be addressed as part of the Potter Expansion.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

At this point now all you have are two decent steel coasters. I've long said that the steel coasters in IOA really disrupt that park for me. I enjoy Dragon Challenge but I really think the park could do without Dragon Challenge and The Hulk in favor of highly themed attractions.

The removal of the dueling aspect of the coaster removes a lot of the uniqueness. I'm hoping this can somehow be addressed as part of the Potter Expansion.

It's funny. I recall that a coaster installed mirrors close to the track in a tunnel and that really freaked people out. You did not have time to figure it out, it was the sudden movement that bugged you. Maybe they can do that and have them both enter a tunnel and have mirrors in the dark that give you the impression that you are colliding.

 

[trs518]

I've been to Universal, so I'm not exactly sure of what they could have done.

I wonder if there if some kind of netting or clear plastic that they could have installed that would have kept up the illusion.

Either that, if it was a castle design, could they have put up crumbling castle walls. This would have reduced, but not eliminated, the dueling element.

 

[KevinYee]

I can't say that I would have done anything differently if I were Universal. You just know they are eating a multi million dollar settlement as it is, and are thinking to themselves that they need to prevent the next such settlement.

It's a shame. The "feet 18 inches away" part was a mind-blowing experience when I first saw it in 1999. Now it's just a coaster. But the queue is still good!

 

[HMF]

Universal Orlando Permanently Changes Dragon Challenge Roller Coaster After Injuries
Posted on October 20, 2011 by John Frost


Universal Orlando has permanently changed the nature of one of its most popular attractions after a pair of guest injuries on the roller coaster. Dragon Challenge, formerly Dueling Dragons, will never duel again. Instead it will become a chase with cars being dispatched so that they no longer pass close to each other.

The two trains of the coaster used to pass close to each other several times, including one moment when there was just a few feet between the feet of passengers. It was at this moment when flying objects injured passengers on the attraction. After the second reported major injury, Universal announced the attraction, a key part of the Wizarding World of Harry Potter area at Islands of Adventure, would change their dispatch procedure during the course of the internal investigation.

With the investigation completed, that change has now been made permanent.

There is, of course, a lawsuit and it will be interesting to see if Universal decides to settle in order to keep details of its investigation out of the public. What do you think of the changes? Does it make you feel safer?

More on the nature of the injuries and the lawsuit at the Orlando Sentinel.

All I would add is that was the feature that made it unique, and to lose that is really sad. They know the price of safety and probably did the right thing. i was trying to think of things they could do to prevent flying debris but that is dependent on the guest. What would you do?

Yay, The threat of lawsuits has destroyed the uniqueness of yet another Attraction.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

For example when I was 14 I was part of a creative team to decide what the theme of a School Dance would be. We all agreed on a 1970s theme and I helped selecting decorations and basically put a sort of themed show together and I wrote out a Play List of circa 70s music that I would like played at the event. When the event actually happens, everything looks wonderful but they completely dis-regarded my play-list and the next thing I knew they were playing the macarena, I was completely furious and walked out.

Great story. I commented on "the art of compromise" earlier, but I want to get back to this. Here's a 70's party from the actual 70's!

I was signed up to be the DJ at a "Jungle Cruise" sponsored (think Animal House reckless abandon) mega CM party called "The Banana Ball". It was a beer swilling end of summer affair in a rented fairground expo pavilion. CM's at the end of summer are like Marines on shore leave. Guys in hula skirts and nothing else. Not park sponsored. It was when disco and new wave rock were facing off and things got testy with the dancers. I had my playlist too, but like you, "the audience had spoken" (slurred) and basically scaled my little Jungle Boat styled DJ booth and demanded their Donna Summer disco till the needle would not stop skipping. I had to comply or face my equipment being drowned. Insane night. Door prizes were stolen sharks and from the Submarine Voyage.