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

[RandySavage]

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?

As Eddie often mentions, quality of execution - including artistry - is really the key. Maybe not sufficient in creating something that qualifies as a Magic Kingdom (I would say a central icon (typically a castle-like structure) and lands covering the infinitesimally inclusive subjects of Yesterday, Tomorrow & Fantasy would be additional qualifiers), but in what makes something authentic & of value (whether a "fake" reproduction or not):

Same idea, different execution:

I'd say that the quality of execution of the things like the MiraCosta gives them significant value beyond just being an entertainment/recreation venue. It takes real artisans to re-create this kind of rare Trompe-l'œil & architectural ornament at such a high level:

I think theme parks can & should be executed at this popular, Rockwell-ian artistic level, both in their details and as a whole.

 

[RSoxNo1]

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!

The thing is, if the people wanted thrill rides they were added. They weren't necessarily made as off the shelf roller coasters, but thrill rides have been added.

I heard a story (not sure of it's validity or if I'm butchering it) regarding guests walking in an area that wasn't designed to be a path. Walt saw it and asked a cast member about it and the cast member said we need to stop the guests from walking over this area. Walt's response was, no the guests want this area to be a path, we'll make it a path.

You can compare that to present day Animal Kingdom - many (myself included) will argue that the park is meant to be savored, but if guests don't want to savor it who says they have to? If they're spending $85 and just want to hit up rides, they're not going to go to that park until its attraction line up changes.

 

[ChrisFL]

I heard a story (not sure of it's validity or if I'm butchering it) regarding guests walking in an area that wasn't designed to be a path. Walt saw it and asked a cast member about it and the cast member said we need to stop the guests from walking over this area. Walt's response was, no the guests want this area to be a path, we'll make it a path.

I hate to say this, but I'm fondly reminded of long hours of playing Rollercoaster Tycoon and feeling the same thing

 

[Eddie Sotto]

The thing is, if the people wanted thrill rides they were added. They weren't necessarily made as off the shelf roller coasters, but thrill rides have been added.

I heard a story (not sure of it's validity or if I'm butchering it) regarding guests walking in an area that wasn't designed to be a path. Walt saw it and asked a cast member about it and the cast member said we need to stop the guests from walking over this area. Walt's response was, no the guests want this area to be a path, we'll make it a path.

You can compare that to present day Animal Kingdom - many (myself included) will argue that the park is meant to be savored, but if guests don't want to savor it who says they have to? If they're spending $85 and just want to hit up rides, they're not going to go to that park until its attraction line up changes.

It's true that the Matterhorn was the first Disney thrill ride, but of course it reinvented the definition as well. Walt was interested in what the audience thought and would sit at the exit and watch their faces, so yes, he was sensitive to that and responded in kind as you point out. He did things his way and was not obviously derivative. So if there had to be a thrill ride, then it was going to be family oriented and a "wow".

 

[Eddie Sotto]

As Eddie often mentions, quality of execution - including artistry - is really the key.

I think theme parks can & should be executed at this popular, Rockwell-ian artistic level, both in their details and as a whole.

These images of Japan's "Dreamland" copy of DL at budget prices is a more dramatic illustration of the "magic" being in the execution. Also seeing Disney-esque icons next to raw steel coasters makes it point as well.

http://www.michaeljohngrist.com/2010/09/nara-dreamland-japans-last-abandoned-theme-park/

 

[ChrisFL]

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.

Please let us know what you think of the demo.

I know there have been some 3D technologies out there...like a fast spinning clear "screen" that creates a 3D image from any viewing angle...its cool, but I'd like to see other ideas.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Please let us know what you think of the demo.

I know there have been some 3D technologies out there...like a fast spinning clear "screen" that creates a 3D image from any viewing angle...its cool, but I'd like to see other ideas.

Well, it was beyond 3D without glasses,but to my surprise that was not the point of the demo at all. However, I was blown away by what I saw, but due to an NDA (Non disclosure agreement) I cannot discuss it.

Not unlike the man who landed in Hell and found it to be a golf course. After playing a dozen perfect games in a row asked the other golfer how this could possibly be hell. The other man sighed, "who can you tell?"

 

[ChrisFL]

Understood...

...In other news, found a really nice Steampunk themed house:

http://steampunkworkshop.com/visit-steampunked-home

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Understood...

...In other news, found a really nice Steampunk themed house:

http://steampunkworkshop.com/visit-steampunked-home

This is really fun. I've used many of those pieces on other Steampunk projects for clients. Thanks for posting1 We kind of specialize in this category.

 

[AEfx]

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!

Wow, you really are a super-fan, aren't you?

In all the articles and news reports I've seen, though, since his death, I haven't seen one single person say, "He was really kind to people" or "He was such a great person to be around" or "he helped a lot of great causes and charities", or really anything nice to say about the guy other than "he spent a lot of money really well with his design obsession, and the people who worked under him made great products". I've actually been actively looking, too, because I find the tributes and ongoing elevation of him almost surreal - because all anyone talks about are consumer products he worked on, nothing positive or even remotely complementary to the person he was.

I mean, the 5th avenue thing is great - but I would have thought a lot more of him if he had spent all that money on a new wing at a hospital than an even bigger ego monument to Apple to a store, as you say, was already fully functioning and perfectly serviceable. And he certainly didn't come up with a way to do so, he just paid a lot to the right people to figure it out (just like the rest of Apple's stuff).

The guy was influential, no doubt. I don't so much think revolutionary (I've said it elsewhere, but I highly doubt we'd all be still typing DOS commands in 2011 if he hadn't done the GUI first), but ahead of the curve and having the money to manipulate his will into becoming reality. That stuff is all great, the American dream - but it's so strange to me that with everything written about him, I can't find a single nice thing anyone has really said about him as a person. I guess if he was a "good guy", he would have finished last, LOL.

Just another perspective.

 

[AEfx]

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

How many real launches have you been on?






(Just kidding, I know what you meant, LOL)

 

[Eddie Sotto]

How many real launches have you been on?






(Just kidding, I know what you meant, LOL)

I see your point :lol:, how would i know? but we tried. In truth we went to Houston and "flew" the shuttle Simulator the Astronauts used, took photos of the buttons, interior and even recorded the alarm sounds. We also spent time in real military centrifuges and were subjected to simulations of launch at Wright Patterson AFB. We met with flight surgeons and so forth, so we tried as best as we could to find a happy medium between the "real feel" and what the average person could safely endure to give you that impression of launch.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Wow, you really are a super-fan, aren't you?

In all the articles and news reports I've seen, though, since his death, I haven't seen one single person say, "He was really kind to people" or "He was such a great person to be around" or "he helped a lot of great causes and charities", or really anything nice to say about the guy other than "he spent a lot of money really well with his design obsession, and the people who worked under him made great products". I've actually been actively looking, too, because I find the tributes and ongoing elevation of him almost surreal - because all anyone talks about are consumer products he worked on, nothing positive or even remotely complementary to the person he was.

I mean, the 5th avenue thing is great - but I would have thought a lot more of him if he had spent all that money on a new wing at a hospital than an even bigger ego monument to Apple to a store, as you say, was already fully functioning and perfectly serviceable. And he certainly didn't come up with a way to do so, he just paid a lot to the right people to figure it out (just like the rest of Apple's stuff).

The guy was influential, no doubt. I don't so much think revolutionary (I've said it elsewhere, but I highly doubt we'd all be still typing DOS commands in 2011 if he hadn't done the GUI first), but ahead of the curve and having the money to manipulate his will into becoming reality. That stuff is all great, the American dream - but it's so strange to me that with everything written about him, I can't find a single nice thing anyone has really said about him as a person. I guess if he was a "good guy", he would have finished last, LOL.

Just another perspective.

I'm a super fan of "getting it right' and respect those who do, as I have tried to set high standards for myself and others, yet achieve it with relative mildness and respect for those doing the work. He spent his own money to see it done right because it gave him pleasure. Who knows how he got to that result. You try and constructively criticize the work, not the person. I do not deify Jobs, rather to your point, he got what he wanted by intimidation at times. Not sure that course is the best in all cases, but I appreciate the results he got. I think that contrary to legend, Apple products are at times "design for it's own sake", as I've been a victim of cute clean things that fall apart or were poorly conceived, but they look good (AC power adapters for one). So no one's perfect, and along with "antennagate" must have drove Jobs to push harder. If you look at the great movies like "Gone with the Wind" or "Rebecca", and others, there is usually ugly conflict between the producers and directors at the heart of it all. Chaplin tortured himself over his features. I always wonder if that conflict and near death up all night passion makes them great? Do Movies that go smoothly in the making seem less notable? At Disney Michael Eisner wondered if the conflict between WDI and Operations was healthy, and to him that was a "yes" as they both had to compromise. Walt pitted talent against each other too in search of a great result. It got ugly at times. So in all that you have to have toughness or a "take no prisoners" leader there somewhere, right?

I have had to be ruthless to a degree in my career as well to cut through the "good enough" ethic. As you get older, you tend to find more elegant ways of getting there, but sometimes you have to be blunt.

You may be close to the truth about Job's seemingly self centered priorities, as I get the same impression. On one hand a hospital is noble, and on another he was still trying to active perfection as he saw it. Apple to him was his "other woman", a living thing. Like Disneyland was to Walt. they pour themselves into that. Once satisfied, maybe those easier things to do would come. I don't think Hospitals were important to him as anyone with means could do that. He was preoccupied with his own goals. I think that sometimes people become philanthropists as a later "phase" of their lives and perhaps Steve had not really gotten to that point mentally. Big money was a relatively recent thing. Selling Pixar got him there. Bill Gates has nothing on his creative plate, he's done, so now he's passionate about giving back. Walt Disney never built hospitals either, but donated to an Art School to feed him artists. Somewhat self serving. I think some creatives use their money to "climb creative mountains" and may see charity as getting in the way of that, just guessing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...philanthropy/2011/10/06/gIQA3YKKRL_story.html

My JobsBall Avatar is all about that mixed feeling. Any Mac user knows that the "spinning beach ball of death" means your Mac has entered a kind of purgatory. Everything stops and is suspended in time. It can be good and go away in a second or mean you've crashed and have to restart. Where will Apple go from here? That's the mixed feeling I have about Jobs and Apple at present. He too is kind of in that state as he's loved in many ways and shadowy in others.

I have read that he was either seducing you or berating you, but that's pretty harsh. I'd like to learn more as I don't want to judge him (that's worse!). When you have to write a book so your kids "know you", then you're pretty driven. I think the best way to see this is that we should look at the good things in people, as we can always find the bad. Learn from his ability to be passionate and lead, to have a clear vision and not settle for less. The Positive qualities we'd want to emulate. I guess the question is, do you have to demonstrate the bad examples in order to achieve the goal you seek? In leadership there are examples of both.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Steve Jobs interview.

I like this Steve Jobs a lot. So smart and pretty prophetic. Wonderful interview, outttakes and all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3vejMDbyrj4#!

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Michael Eisner Memo

Written while he was Chairman at Paramount Pictures prior to Disney. While there he pushed to get "Raiders of the Lost Ark" made and Saturday Night Fever. I think this shows a side of him that is very realistic.


“Often the big win comes with the single smash movie. The intoxication of a blockbuster hit can lead to an easy sense the luck will keep striking. Over the past 5 years, Paramount has either been number one or two in the motion picture business. Success tends to make you forget what made you successful, and just when you least suspect it, the big error shifts the game. Will success lull us into the fatal bad play?

We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make a statement. But to make money, it is often important to make history, make art, or to make some significant statement. In order to make money we must always make entertaining movies, and we make entertaining movies at times we will reliably make history, art, a statement, or all three. We may even win awards. We cannot expect numerous hits, but if every film has an original and imaginative concept, then we can be confident that something will break through.

An apparently no-risk deal is never a valid reason to produce a mediocre movie. A low budget can never excuse deficiencies in the script. Not even the greatest screen writer or actor or director can be counted on to save a film that lacks a strong underlying concept. Ans we should generally resist making expensive overall deals with box office starts and top directors, because we can attract them later with strong material.”

I just thought this would be worth reading as it shows us how the executives sometimes see things.

 

[HMF]

We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make a statement. But to make money, it is often important to make history, make art, or to make some significant statement. In order to make money we must always make entertaining movies, and we make entertaining movies at times we will reliably make history, art, a statement, or all three. We may even win awards. We cannot expect numerous hits, but if every film has an original and imaginative concept, then we can be confident that something will break through.
.

"Disneyland is a work of love., We did not go into Disneyland just with the idea of making money."-Walt Disney

 

[Eddie Sotto]

"Disneyland is a work of love., We did not go into Disneyland just with the idea of making money."-Walt Disney

I took the liberty of bolding the word "just". It was a business Walt was passionate about. Sometimes we forget that Disneyland was his love, but it was just as much a business in Walt's mind. He knew he'd have to make it work to keep it alive. He had creative ways to do so. He sold the Park guidebooks near cost so they would be on more people's coffee tables and thusly bring more guests to the park, so his business mind was like an application that works for you while you're busy on something else, "running in the background". of course, it was what was IN the guidebook that brought them back!

BTW- Great response to Michael's thoughts about art and commerce. Many times Eisner would look at a project being presented and ask where the "wow" was? or what was going to be "Disney" about it, or what would make it something that only Disney would do. He was sensitive to what made Disney different and saw that as a core component. Not every project achieved that, but it was on his mind. Even though he regretted doing it later, DLP was something he pushed the Disney quality limits on and so was TDS. He followed the quality formula in Paris.

 

[COProgressFan]

BTW- Great response to Michael's thoughts about art and commerce. Many times Eisner would look at a project being presented and ask where the "wow" was? or what was going to be "Disney" about it, or what would make it something that only Disney would do. He was sensitive to what made Disney different and saw that as a core component. Not every project achieved that, but it was on his mind. Even though he regretted doing it later, DLP was something he pushed the Disney quality limits on and so was TDS. He followed the quality formula in Paris.

Eisner had lots of flaws, but certainly a huge amount of successes as well. I am not so sure the current Disney management (Iger, etc.) think of the "Disney difference" as a core component of their business like Eisner, but rather a talking point which sometimes seems to get in the way of the business they want to run.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Eisner had lots of flaws, but certainly a huge amount of successes as well. I am not so sure the current Disney management (Iger, etc.) think of the "Disney difference" as a core component of their business like Eisner, but rather a talking point which sometimes seems to get in the way of the business they want to run.

Because Eisner's record ended on a low point, I think it's important from time to time to balance things out a bit with some of the insightful things he did do. Don't forget, there really was a creative vacuum in the front office after Walt. All those execs (Walker, Miller, Watson) had no experience in producing blockbuster films. Wilhoite came in and started with Splash, but that was it. Eisner and Katsenberg got into the details with the films and made them into a second Golden Age of animation. I think it was the best and most creative front office in Hollywood of a major studio at that time. They gave powerful and usually insightful creative notes on our attractions and challenged us all.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Sunday Fun Video

"If you had Wings" Attraction video. Maybe you recall this TL WDW MK dark ride.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vmfc8aVW-U