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

[Eddie Sotto]

I understand having the brewery in Oregon for US mainland customers, but why not a small one in Hawaii?

They do that and if you're there you get the local stuff. Much better.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The Umberto Eco discussion got me thinking about Architecture and the Crisis of Modern Science by Alberto Pérez Gómez. The basic thesis is that architecture has suffered because it is no longer associated with the metaphysical, architecture is no longer full of symbolism and meaning, it is what it is and nothing more. I think his thesis provides an explanation for why theme parks have become so popular in relation to Eco's thoughts. Good parks by those like Disney and Universal are full of cultural meanings and symbols, so while they may not be real authentic places they still maintain that symbolism and meaning that contemporary architecture has been missing.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

The Umberto Eco discussion got me thinking about Architecture on the crisis of Modern Science by Alberto Pérez Gómez. The basic thesis is that architecture has suffered because it is no longer associated with the metaphysical, architecture is no longer full of symbolism and meaning, it is what it is and nothing more. I think his thesis provides an explanation for why theme parks have become so popular in relation to Eco's thoughts. Good parks by those like Disney and Universal are full of cultural meanings and symbols, so while they may not be real authentic places they still maintain that symbolism and meaning that contemporary architecture has been missing.

Super interesting topic. (pulls up VR chair and pours LazyBoy a cup of Coffee)

The funny thing is that the Sleeping Beauty Castle and MSUSA are "authentic" as to themselves now, not as replica's of anything, but as their own iconic experiences. Symbolism is powerful when connected to your childhood as you relive that to a degree at the parks, especially if you grew up going there.

While it is true that religious Temples and churches shaped much of the early history of architecture as cultures were centered around them, Stadiums, theaters, and even museums have become relative "shrines" or "cathedrals" to their purpose in our day.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

What Disney excels at (or used to at least) was taking their own ideas and making them into unique IP. And as far as the US parks are concerned, I really feel that Everest was the last true attempt at originality. Everest was successful in that regard, Mission:Space, not so much. And that might be why the company is willing to take less and less risks on original ideas and instead basing ideas on established IP.

I don't disagree overall, I would only add that M:S took more creative and technical risks as it had to completely invent it's ride system to deliver the sensations called for in the story (extended G forces at launch) than Everest, which is a repackaged coaster. I'd imagine more guests prefer Everest and it's a very fun ride, while Space is less original as it's bound by the more "science fact" EPCOT mantra. I would almost say that M:S original ride system limited it's mass appeal to a degree. Ironically it was supposed to be an enclosed coaster!

 

[jt04]

I don't disagree overall, I would only add that M:S took more creative and technical risks as it had to completely invent it's ride system to deliver the sensations called for in the story (extended G forces at launch) than Everest, which is a repackaged coaster. I'd imagine more guests prefer Everest and it's a very fun ride, while Space is less original as it's bound by the more "science fact" EPCOT mantra. I would almost say that M:S original ride system limited it's mass appeal to a degree. Ironically it was supposed to be an enclosed coaster!

I like Everest but M:S has more Disney "magic" in my opinion. I think it is one of those instances where it will grow more appreciated with time.

 

[KevinYee]

Super interesting topic. (pulls up VR chair and pours LazyBoy a cup of Coffee)

The funny thing is that the Sleeping Beauty Castle and MSUSA are "authentic" as to themselves now, not as replica's of anything, but as their own iconic experiences. Symbolism is powerful when connected to your childhood as you relive that to a degree at the parks, especially if you grew up going there.

While it is true that religious Temples and churches shaped much of the early history of architecture as cultures were centered around them, Stadiums, theaters, and even museums have become relative "shrines" or "cathedrals" to their purpose in our day.

Baudrillard called Disneyland more authentic than the Los Angeles around it, since Disneyland at least did not pretend to be more than it was (a theme park). It's still an upside down argument in many ways, but Baudrillard was correct in calling attention to the hyperreal, when the simulation REPLACES the reality.

I'm a victim of it, too. When I finally got to see Neuschwanstein, I was disappointed that it did not resemble Sleeping Beauty Castle in large scale (especially inside). The simulation had taken over for me.

HKDL's castle is a replica of a simulation - Baudrillard would probably call it a second-order simulation. A keychain purchased there would be third order... feeling like Neo in the Matrix yet?

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I like Everest but M:S has more Disney "magic" in my opinion. I think it is one of those instances where it will grow more appreciated with time.

Hope so. If it hadn't replaced Horizons and emerged in the shadow of the expectation that Disney would build a giant Space Pavilion (which they had no intention of doing by then) it might be viewed differently, but closing Horizons was inevitable. They had decided.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Baudrillard called Disneyland more authentic than the Los Angeles around it, since Disneyland at least did not pretend to be more than it was (a theme park). It's still an upside down argument in many ways, but Baudrillard was correct in calling attention to the hyperreal, when the simulation REPLACES the reality.

I'm a victim of it, too. When I finally got to see Neuschwanstein, I was disappointed that it did not resemble Sleeping Beauty Castle in large scale (especially inside). The simulation had taken over for me.

HKDL's castle is a replica of a simulation - Baudrillard would probably call it a second-order simulation. A keychain purchased there would be third order... feeling like Neo in the Matrix yet?

I thought of Nature's Wonderland Mine Train and how we visited Yellowstone for the first time recently. The wonder of the real geysers and colored mineral pools destroyed the romantic notions of that ride in that it became cheesy. I overlaid those good feelings from the ride on to Yellowstone and I ended up liking the reality that much more!

I'd say that the Castle, although inspired of Neuschwanstein, is still it's own icon. It's not really a "simulation", but it's own fantasy experience and the textures and surfaces, music and color are part of that. It uses references from the past to create a new ethic and suspend disbelief. So to me, the HKDL is just a copy of that Disney symbol.

As you know, it's bavarian ancestor was ironically, a "simulation" or fairy tale fantasy in itself of Ludwig, so it was a 19th Century romantic "folly" of earlier German Castles with it's own Swan Knight fictional "sagas" within.
http://www.neuschwanstein.de/englisch/idea/schwan.htm
So Ludwig out-simulated Disney by a century. I think my head is starting to hurt.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

!

I don't disagree overall, I would only add that M:S took more creative and technical risks as it had to completely invent it's ride system to deliver the sensations called for in the story (extended G forces at launch) than Everest, which is a repackaged coaster. I'd imagine more guests prefer Everest and it's a very fun ride, while Space is less original as it's bound by the more "science fact" EPCOT mantra. I would almost say that M:S original ride system limited it's mass appeal to a degree. Ironically it was supposed to be an enclosed coaster!

We prefer M:S, and strive to go on it every trip. Very realistic launch!

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

For me, Everest beats M:S hands down, functioning yeto or not. Sitting in front of a small video screen does not make a majestic attraction. Soarin', however, is a completely differently feeling.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I thought of Nature's Wonderland Mine Train and how we visited Yellowstone for the first time recently. The wonder of the real geysers and colored mineral pools destroyed the romantic notions of that ride in that it became cheesy. I overlaid those good feelings from the ride on to Yellowstone and I ended up liking the reality that much more!

I'd say that the Castle, although inspired of Neuschwanstein, is still it's own icon. It's not really a "simulation", but it's own fantasy experience and the textures and surfaces, music and color are part of that. It uses references from the past to create a new ethic and suspend disbelief. So to me, the HKDL is just a copy of that Disney symbol.

As you know, it's bavarian ancestor was ironically, a "simulation" or fairy tale fantasy in itself of Ludwig, so it was a 19th Century romantic "folly" of earlier German Castles with it's own Swan Knight fictional "sagas" within.
http://www.neuschwanstein.de/englisch/idea/schwan.htm
So Ludwig out-simulated Disney by a century. I think my head is starting to hurt.

Modernism really threw a wrench into thinking about architecture. The models that King Ludwig pulled from themselves likely pulled from previous models. It was a recurring story throughout the history of architecture. One built upon other established icons and elements, it was not stealing, it was carrying through and idea that would be understood. Then modernism came along and said it was all rubbish. Postmodernism returned to some of these forms for their aesthetic characteristics, but not for their associated meanings. Discussions on authenticity seem to be rooted entirely in the modernist ideal of "it is what it is," ironic since themed entertainment, in my opinion, is at its best when it takes on a similar view.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Modernism really threw a wrench into thinking about architecture. The models that King Ludwig pulled from themselves likely pulled from previous models. It was a recurring story throughout the history of architecture. One built upon other established icons and elements, it was not stealing, it was carrying through and idea that would be understood. Then modernism came along and said it was all rubbish. Postmodernism returned to some of these forms for their aesthetic characteristics, but not for their associated meanings. Discussions on authenticity seem to be rooted entirely in the modernist ideal of "it is what it is," ironic since themed entertainment, in my opinion, is at its best when it takes on a similar view.

Architecture is evolutionary. The thing that made Ludwig's example notable is that he was creating a castle based on fiction and legend with no other purpose, his own themed environment. Other Nobles had their follies. Ironically, one of the first garden parties we went to on Disneyland Paris was held at an Estate with a "folly" pyramid out in the countryside. Ironic as we were building what some would call "Disney's Folly"!

http://www.amazon.com/Follies-Europe-Architectural-Caroline-Holmes/dp/1870673565/ref=pd_sim_b_4

 

[yankspy]

Architecture is evolutionary. The thing that made Ludwig's example notable is that he was creating a castle based on fiction and legend with no other purpose, his own themed environment. Other Nobles had their follies. Ironically, one of the first garden parties we went to on Disneyland Paris was held at an Estate with a "folly" pyramid out in the countryside. Ironic as we were building what some would call "Disney's Folly"!

http://www.amazon.com/Follies-Europe-Architectural-Caroline-Holmes/dp/1870673565/ref=pd_sim_b_4

I have heard other reasons why some felt that it was a folly at first but it would be interesting to hear your take on it.

 

[lazyboy97o]

So I have been doing research and this discussion on authenticity got me thinking about the Magic Kingdoms. What constitutes an authentic Magic Kingdom? What needs to be present in order for a park to really fit this description? Is simply bestowing the name "Disneyland" enough?

 

[Eddie Sotto]

So I have been doing research and this discussion on authenticity got me thinking about the Magic Kingdoms. What constitutes an authentic Magic Kingdom? What needs to be present in order for a park to really fit this description? Is simply bestowing the name "Disneyland" enough?

My immediate take would be that a "Magic Kingdom" is an organizing principle based on thematic "lands" arranged in a hub and spoke type layout with a Castle filled with traditionally Disney content at it's core. The quality of execution is benchmarked to be very high as well. Part of that construct is a berm that makes each land immersive onto itself. Magic Kingdoms try and create these lands with a minimum of visual intrusions from other areas. We'll see how much Shanghai conforms to this. Rules were meant to be broken.

 

[wdwmagic]

I don't disagree overall, I would only add that M:S took more creative and technical risks as it had to completely invent it's ride system to deliver the sensations called for in the story (extended G forces at launch) than Everest, which is a repackaged coaster. I'd imagine more guests prefer Everest and it's a very fun ride, while Space is less original as it's bound by the more "science fact" EPCOT mantra. I would almost say that M:S original ride system limited it's mass appeal to a degree. Ironically it was supposed to be an enclosed coaster!

When you talk about an enclosed coaster, at that point in the early development of the ride, was there less of an emphasis on the G-element of the attraction? Obviously the ride system we have now is very much about the G's, which could not be achieved on a coaster. It sounds like a coaster experience would have ended up very similar to Space mountain. How was it going to be differentiated from that?

 

[ptaylor]

Hi Eddie.

As someone who is in the industry, what do you think will be the next breakthrough ride system. We've been through coasters, EMVs, centrifuges, Kuka arms, 3D tied to all the above. What else is there. Is there anything on the near horizon that we are waiting for technology to make possible that will offer a completely new ride system.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

The details mean something.

One reason I respect Steve Jobs is how he had goals and would even use his own money to achieve them. The glass cube he wanted for the 5th Avenue Apple Store in NYC was a dream of his. He wanted the Apple logo suspended in a perfectly clear cube. As minimal as possible. I identify with this as in countless WDI renderings artists have shown crystal glass structures as clear with little or no support, only to have the reality be a massive steel structure sheathed in a layer of glass. Fail.

Steve Jobs, after building a pretty darn awesome glass cube with his own money wanted it to be consistent with his expectations and rebuilt the cube! The store had been open and a huge hit already, so there was no fiscal reason for this other than to make it perfect. This article shows the breathtaking achievement of the clear cube and to me it was worth it. He got them to go from 90 panes of glass to just 15 and once again, set Apple apart as an innovator, even in architecture. You want it the way you want it.

http://www.cultofmac.com/128067/apples-redesigned-5th-avenue-store-is-revealed/

Thanks for paving the way Steve. All those renderings can now come true!

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Hi Eddie.

As someone who is in the industry, what do you think will be the next breakthrough ride system. We've been through coasters, EMVs, centrifuges, Kuka arms, 3D tied to all the above. What else is there. Is there anything on the near horizon that we are waiting for technology to make possible that will offer a completely new ride system.

It could be 3D without glasses (in motion from any angle) integrated into rides. I'm going to see a demo today of what is being hailed as "it". We'll see.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I have heard other reasons why some felt that it was a folly at first but it would be interesting to hear your take on it.

Disneyland as conceived was an amusement park without thrill rides. Most people in the industry thought that it was heresy to not have a roller coaster and carnival games in an amusement park. Why would they come? To sit on a bench on an old time street? Are you nuts? Disneyland was also in the middle of nowhere too, so it really was a huge risk that relied on Disney's ability to draw people with his brand, and the park's ability to deliver on these lands he had conceived. To hedge his bet, Walt used the power of TV to presell the park and no one really understood the power of this new medium, but through his Disneyland TV show (a big ad every week) he got the word out and so experiencing that content for real became the reason you drove out there over the intrinsic thrill of any unthemed ride. He sold story as the leader item and beat the odds. "Folly" in the eyes of some became a bonanza for Walt. I think he knew all the time that people would love it because he loved it. Greenfield Village in Michigan was a breed of theme park and so was Knott's and neither had thrill rides, but were more passive and told a story.

Many theme park operators still do not understand why the guests come back, but us fans do!