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

[HMF]

Agree. No shrines. (I guess if you did something for Jobs you'd have to do Steve Ballmer's Zunetown) I chose Apple here as a host sponsor because instead of preaching to us that we should be doing this and that, they are leading the world of tomorrow by example.

If you read my post carefully, it is not about deifying Jobs, but Apple hosting a "Pavilion of Design", what design is, where it's headed and why great design needs to be part of the future. Guests would learn that design is about solutions and each of us in our own way is a designer. Apple may have an "iHouse" of the future in the post show exhibition and design fair with other famous products past, present, and future from around the world. WIRED may be there, the MOMA from NYC, the DIY Make Magazine would have designs from kids. I'd even do a funny show of failures of design. The insights of many great designers would be explored in a American Adventure scaled presentation about what inspires designers to solve for us, beginning with lessons from the ultimate sustainable design, the Earth and our universe. We would leave inspired by not just designers, but in fact, that the solutions we seek in many ways lie in the world around us and it's up to us to look close enough to discover them. There is so much more to design!

To me, Jobs was more of a visionary who hired designers and sometimes lifted their work. In any case, his passion for great design changed things.

Well replacing Innoventions with "Applecore" seemed a bit much. Epcot obviously depends on sponsers but shoving the sponsors name into the pavillion is probably a bad idea also Innoventions (and Communicore before it) was designed to be a forum of the future where different companies showed off their new technology.( granted it has kinda drifted from that slightly)

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Well replacing Innoventions with "Applecore" seemed a bit much. Epcot obviously depends on sponsers but shoving the sponsors name into the pavillion is probably a bad idea also Innoventions (and Communicore before it) was designed to be a forum of the future where different companies showed off their new technology.( granted it has kinda drifted from that slightly)

Agree. I meant that they should take it over and make it their own. Actually WDI would never let you literally do that. The sponsors name is always below the attraction name. It would be World of Design or whatever presented by Apple.

 

[Magicalan]

Apple Attraction At Innoventions

Hi. I'm new here With all this talk of Apple being at Epcot, or taking over Innoventions, you do remember that Apple used to have an exhibit at Innoventions, right? There's a video about it on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puxmDsEnY1Y

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Hi. I'm new here With all this talk of Apple being at Epcot, or taking over Innoventions, you do remember that Apple used to have an exhibit at Innoventions, right? There's a video about it on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puxmDsEnY1Y

Wow. Great find, thank you so much. Seeing the Newton as the future is so bizarre when it functionally came true later as an iPhone and iPad. The theme of empowering you to create things you could not do any other way is powerful. That is what drew me to Apple in the first place.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Japan's Expo 70

One of my all time favorite "Tomorrowlands" is Expo 70 held in Japan. Remember, this was built a year before WDW, a decade before EPCOT (Imagination exterior is kind of ripped off from here), and 3 after DL Tomorrowland first redo. These guys know how to throw a future party and push the envelope. Lots of big "wow" types of modular design shown here. Check out the design. Thoughts?

http://pinktentacle.com/2010/03/photos-expo-70/
http://expomuseum.com/1970/

 

[lacrosse nut]

Innoventions idea awesome.

This has been one fantastic and thought-provoking post. i don't post often but I read many of them for years now. I like the idea of a pavilion like Communicore tht "leads by example", and feel that Epcot has strayed a little from that idea. I am disappointed that they took all the little jingles away from the attractions!!! When i listen to Disney parks music there is always a song from an attraction that was scrapped or refurbished and no longer exists. The Living with the Land ride is a perfect example of such and now a waste of time. They could do so much more with that. Part of the allure of Disney is the Theming, so when you take out the "little" things , such as music or shorten a ride, you chepen the theming. A person should be consumed by the theme and feel like part of the scene, not sit on a ride and cruise through the scenes like a moving movie (imagination). So i thank you guys for the intriguing posts.
I have two questions:
1.)do you think Disney would even consider reading some of these forums or chat lines? What better way to get a plethora of ideas (and call it your own if you want to) to enhance park experience or design. It woul dseem that this would fare better than those little surveys they get you with when exiting the parks. I have heard many good ideas and feel that this site (and i am sure others) have people that truly care about the parks and love to share theri ideas fo rmaking the parks even better. Talk about quality feedback!! just look at this thread alone let alone the thousands I have read since the early 2000's.


2.) If someone wanted to pursue a career as an imagineer, what course of action should they pursue? I realize there are many. The reason i ask, is my daughter (a junior in HS) is pursuing a degree in art and would lkike to work for the Disney company perhaps and she is totally into the theming, she and I read the books published about the designing of Disney parks and its history. her concentration in art with be 3d design, animation, digital design which all falls under Visula Arts as a major.. I ask this for myself but also wonder if anyone else out there was contemplating the same questions. maybe they are curious what it takes to be an imagineer or how te get involved with the Disney company.

Hoep this is not off topic or in the wrong thread.. In any case thanks so much for your input and insight thus far..

Bob

 

[monothingie]

Isn't HP the "official" computer company of WDW. Their workstations and POS (point of sale) units are everywhere and I would also bet the entire IT back office is HP. Plus Mission Space. I think it would be cool to see the interaction with Apple in Innoventions or even a new pavilion, but I don't know if it would be possible.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Isn't HP the "official" computer company of WDW. Their workstations and POS (point of sale) units are everywhere and I would also bet the entire IT back office is HP. Plus Mission Space. I think it would be cool to see the interaction with Apple in Innoventions or even a new pavilion, but I don't know if it would be possible.

I know Disney buys lots of Apple products if you push for them, as you can have a company iPhone or Mac Computer at WDI. Up until this year, I had never owned a PC, thanks to WDI buying me Macs as far back as the 1980's and I stuck with Mac exclusively. As you say, onstage is a different story.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

My first PC!

http://www.asus.com/Eee/Eee_Pad/Eee_Slate_EP121/

You can draw onscreen with a Wacom digitized pen, so you can do HD art anywhere. the iPad allows drawing but the stylus is like a crayon.

 

[IlikeDW]

http://www.asus.com/Eee/Eee_Pad/Eee_Slate_EP121/

You can draw onscreen with a Wacom digitized pen, so you can do HD art anywhere. the iPad allows drawing but the stylus is like a crayon.

Lenovo has a decent one also. It is android but a windows version coming soon.
http://youtu.be/k1yxYXMPXA0


http://shop.lenovo.com/SEUILibrary/...3A2177ABA63564CDF6AE8CD837B3&tabname=Features

 

[mgf]

Hi Eddie,

I had the privilege (for me at least) of listening to a GM at Disney speak to a very intimate group in a neutral setting. Most of the folks were primarily interested in this persons particularly job rather that the larger "Disney" aspect. Out of respect for the room, I refrained from asking any questions but someone in the group asked the standard: "What would Walt like and hate about the parks today?" I was not surprised that the answer was that Walt would be proud that Disney is an industry leader. What surprised me was the caveat - "but not always." The GM went on to talk about some of the great things being done by groups like Cirque du Soleil and Universal. In particularly, the GM openly acknowledged that Universal did an amazing job with WWoHP, pushed the industry forward, and that Disney passed on the IP.

I know that this is one person's opinion and it was given without their "Disney hat," but how seriously are things like this discussed within the company? It makes sense that all these groups would be looking over shoulders, but has anything sparked a knee-jerk reaction since MGM in FL? (Some would argue Avatar.) I guess, in short, is Disney more guided/blinded by the long term or are they responsive to market competition? And would threats to the Disney "quality" niche (vs profits) be enough to drive the company into a theme park war?

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Hi Eddie,

I had the privilege (for me at least) of listening to a GM at Disney speak to a very intimate group in a neutral setting. Most of the folks were primarily interested in this persons particularly job rather that the larger "Disney" aspect. Out of respect for the room, I refrained from asking any questions but someone in the group asked the standard: "What would Walt like and hate about the parks today?" I was not surprised that the answer was that Walt would be proud that Disney is an industry leader. What surprised me was the caveat - "but not always." The GM went on to talk about some of the great things being done by groups like Cirque du Soleil and Universal. In particularly, the GM openly acknowledged that Universal did an amazing job with WWoHP, pushed the industry forward, and that Disney passed on the IP.

I know that this is one person's opinion and it was given without their "Disney hat," but how seriously are things like this discussed within the company? It makes sense that all these groups would be looking over shoulders, but has anything sparked a knee-jerk reaction since MGM in FL? (Some would argue Avatar.) I guess, in short, is Disney more guided/blinded by the long term or are they responsive to market competition? And would threats to the Disney "quality" niche (vs profits) be enough to drive the company into a theme park war?

When I was there a decade ago, there was talk about what the other guys were doing. We actually rooted for them to outdo us so we'd get funded to so something better. WDI loves theme park wars. Big Thunder Mountain was actually a reaction to the Iron Ride wars of the 70's. Magic Mountain and Knott's were thriving with thrill rides and so DL had to come back with their own.

If I had to guess, Disney is preoccupied by what's missing demographically in their own parks and on the property. they will do anything to keep you there so they spend lots of time looking inward. They built hotels to steal market share from I Drive, but it seems Universal is stealing the tween and teen demo in families back, so they have to do something to keep the guest on the property. I'd speculate that they are looking over the fence more today.

Years ago an executive was reviewing ride designs at WDI and was not impressed by what he saw. He asked why they couldn't design a "dumb Spiderman" type ride. I could not resist asking what he meant. It was defined as a ride that used 3D like Universal's Spiderman, but not as expensive or elaborate. I knew right then, that when management was asking us to design attractions worse than the competition, it was time to consider my options.

Those executives fell by their own philosophy, so I'm not comparing them to the current crop.

 

[jt04]

When I was there a decade ago, there was talk about what the other guys were doing. We actually rooted for them to outdo us so we'd get funded to so something better. WDI loves theme park wars. Big Thunder Mountain was actually a reaction to the Iron Ride wars of the 70's. Magic Mountain and Knott's were thriving with thrill rides and so DL had to come back with their own.

If I had to guess, Disney is preoccupied by what's missing demographically in their own parks and on the property. they will do anything to keep you there so they spend lots of time looking inward. They built hotels to steal market share from I Drive, but it seems Universal is stealing the tween and teen demo in families back, so they have to do something to keep the guest on the property. I'd speculate that they are looking over the fence more today.

Years ago an executive was reviewing ride designs at WDI and was not impressed by what he saw. He asked why they couldn't design a "dumb Spiderman" type ride. I could not resist asking what he meant. It was defined as a ride that used 3D like Universal's Spiderman, but not as expensive or elaborate. I knew right then, that when management was asking us to design attractions worse than the competition, it was time to consider my options.

Those executives fell by their own philosophy, so I'm not comparing them to the current crop.

Yes, it seems things like Carsland, Mystic Manor, Avatarland and the concepts we are seeing for the new MK park in China are much more indicative of what the next ten years will bring as opposed to the last 10 years. I am not sure how much more 'proof' people need.

There were many reasons Disney passed on Potter not the least of which it would have ruined the Magic Kingdom IMO. Not to mention the capital was needed elsewhere including the need to sink a BILLION dollars into DCA.

It boggles the mind that people still cling to the meme that the loss of Potter was a bad thing for Disney. It was the best thing that could have happened. Let the theme park competition begin!

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Yes, it seems things like Carsland, Mystic Manor, Avatarland and the concepts we are seeing for the new MK park in China are much more indicative of what the next ten years will bring as opposed to the last 10 years. I am not sure how much more 'proof' people need.

There were many reasons Disney passed on Potter not the least of which it would have ruined the Magic Kingdom IMO. Not to mention the capital was needed elsewhere including the need to sink a BILLION dollars into DCA.

It boggles the mind that people still cling to the meme that the loss of Potter was a bad thing for Disney. It was the best thing that could have happened. Let the theme park competition begin!

Yes. Agree. Carsland seems to be every bit as immersive and even more excessively themed than the WWHP. I'm not sure how well the ride itself will stack up, but that remains to be seen. Disney can still go all out and they are at DCA.

Avatar is their shot at doing something in the "How did they do THAT?" category. They need that badly to maintain the mantle of being the Wowmeisters. The funny thing is that since Disney films are migrating into more intense PG13 territory, this means that the franchises are heading into Universal's turf. Pixar keeps the lid on that as their material is tamer. The source material tells you where they are headed. Marvel tells me the same thing. At some point, the franchises are taking Disney and Universal tonally into the same space. It's all about where they choose to use those things. If the DHS becomes Marvel, and more PG13, and the MK stays Pixar G, then that may make sense, but I'm not sure anyone is looking at that specifically.

 

[ScoutN]

Yes. Agree. Carsland seems to be every bit as immersive and even more excessively themed than the WWHP. I'm not sure how well the ride itself will stack up, but that remains to be seen. Disney can still go all out and they are at DCA.

Avatar is their shot at doing something in the "How did they do THAT?" category. They need that badly to maintain the mantle of being the Wowmeisters. The funny thing is that since Disney films are migrating into more intense PG13 territory, this means that the franchises are heading into Universal's turf. Pixar keeps the lid on that as their material is tamer. The source material tells you where they are headed. Marvel tells me the same thing. At some point, the franchises are taking Disney and Universal tonally into the same space. It's all about where they choose to use those things. If the DHS becomes Marvel, and more PG13, and the MK stays Pixar G, then that may make sense, but I'm not sure anyone is looking at that specifically.

I have a feeling that the ride in CarsLand will be wildly successful. If it provides the thrill aspect of TT and retains an even more family friendly apesct than TT it would be hard to not fathom it maintaining 60+ minute waits years from now. Who would have thought that a test course for cars would reel in families as it has.

On the note of AvatarLand, it truly is gaining the "why are they doing that when they do not even know if the movies have staying power?" argument at full steam. The fact that Disney is building a land around it will give the movie(s) staying power. Disney is going to construct a mindblowing land (more than likely) that will boost the movies and their popularity. To me each of the products will more than compliment and ensure the success of each. Is that too far off to think?

 

[jt04]

Yes. Agree. Carsland seems to be every bit as immersive and even more excessively themed than the WWHP. I'm not sure how well the ride itself will stack up, but that remains to be seen. Disney can still go all out and they are at DCA.

Avatar is their shot at doing something in the "How did they do THAT?" category. They need that badly to maintain the mantle of being the Wowmeisters. The funny thing is that since Disney films are migrating into more intense PG13 territory, this means that the franchises are heading into Universal's turf. Pixar keeps the lid on that as their material is tamer. The source material tells you where they are headed. Marvel tells me the same thing. At some point, the franchises are taking Disney and Universal tonally into the same space. It's all about where they choose to use those things. If the DHS becomes Marvel, and more PG13, and the MK stays Pixar G, then that may make sense, but I'm not sure anyone is looking at that specifically.

I agree that the MK should stay strictly G rated. I think this might be one of the reasons Space Mountain was scaled back. It is certainly why Alien Encounter was removed. My guess is they want the other parks to become known more as the 'thrill parks'. I think they realize that there is a real advantage to being able to tailor the individual parks to different demographics within certain boundries. This is a great luxury unique to WDW I think they will Imagineer to their benefit. Tons of potential!

About Pixar, I understand "The Bear and the Bow" is going to venture into a bit more intense material. And I actually hope this is true as I think it will be good for the brand. Certainly they won't stop making the G rated content that has been so successful but eventually they will need to expand on what they do. They also want to do live action. I think Disney realizes they need to adjust to the market and they need to keep the 'cool' factor Pixar brought to the market. Hopefully not in the manner the Disney Channel so often fails at. But rather with the creative genius Pixar is known for.

 

[Horizonsfan]

I agree that the MK should stay strictly G rated. I think this might be one of the reasons Space Mountain was scaled back. It is certainly why Alien Encounter was removed. My guess is they want the other parks to become known more as the 'thrill parks'. I think they realize that there is a real advantage to being able to tailor the individual parks to different demographics within certain boundries. This is a great luxury unique to WDW I think they will Imagineer to their benefit. Tons of potential

The problem with this line of thinking is that it will at a certain point lead a majority of demographic X to say "I have no reason to go to Y park." As much as I love old school EC, one of the key problems with it, DCA, and TDS (though to a lesser extent for TDS) had been their original orientation towards one group (adults in this case).

It's clear that MK will remain in the PG range (to say G rated seems awfully constricting). Yes other parks do and will continue to include not-MK friendly attractions but, at the end of the day, I can't imagine WDW having 4 parks with completely different demographics. TDO would never go for that. They want the same people at all four parks spending the same amounts of $$ each day. Like Eddie said I'd expect just more wow factor coming in the future rather than a "specialization" of the parks.

 

[IlikeDW]

Yes. Agree. Carsland seems to be every bit as immersive and even more excessively themed than the WWHP. I'm not sure how well the ride itself will stack up, but that remains to be seen. Disney can still go all out and they are at DCA.

Avatar is their shot at doing something in the "How did they do THAT?" category. They need that badly to maintain the mantle of being the Wowmeisters. The funny thing is that since Disney films are migrating into more intense PG13 territory, this means that the franchises are heading into Universal's turf. Pixar keeps the lid on that as their material is tamer. The source material tells you where they are headed. Marvel tells me the same thing. At some point, the franchises are taking Disney and Universal tonally into the same space. It's all about where they choose to use those things. If the DHS becomes Marvel, and more PG13, and the MK stays Pixar G, then that may make sense, but I'm not sure anyone is looking at that specifically.

The Pixar Film Brave is going to be PG
http://disney.go.com/brave/?cmp=wdsmp_brv_url_dcombrave#/video

 

[Eddie Sotto]

The problem with this line of thinking is that it will at a certain point lead a majority of demographic X to say "I have no reason to go to Y park." As much as I love old school EC, one of the key problems with it, DCA, and TDS (though to a lesser extent for TDS) had been their original orientation towards one group (adults in this case).

It's clear that MK will remain in the PG range (to say G rated seems awfully constricting). Yes other parks do and will continue to include not-MK friendly attractions but, at the end of the day, I can't imagine WDW having 4 parks with completely different demographics. TDO would never go for that. They want the same people at all four parks spending the same amounts of $$ each day. Like Eddie said I'd expect just more wow factor coming in the future rather than a "specialization" of the parks.

So to shape this argument a bit more, might be to say that tonally, each park has a personality and the contents of that park conform to that tone or essence. In advertising it's called positioning. It's true that MK is a family park with few attractions that exclude the whole family from enjoying it. There are "edges", yes, but they are not that sharp. Alien Encounter was such a show that even though there were warnings, it was so inconsistent with the personality of the park, people ignored that and went in anyhow thinking it would be ok. They trusted the MK as it was the most "Disney" of all the experiences. Especially when it triggered tourette syndrome in a guest!

EPCOT is more adult and fact based, although within that boundary, Mission:Space and Test Track try and add thrills "between the facts". Same is true as the characters are used as storytellers or messengers in this arena. The personality and positioning of that park is so defined that some wrestle with the characters being there at all as it seems to weaken it's credibility.

DAK and the DHS define themselves as well, although not being demographically defined, they have other ways of doing this, either by content where the Studio is a catch all that serves booze, or AK is organic and has a true life realism.

All in, every rule is made and has been broken, so it's hard to tell where an attraction should or should not land. All I was saying is that in the world of theme wars, the content being more intense has heightened the competition and narrowed the field.

 

[ChrisFL]

Years ago an executive was reviewing ride designs at WDI and was not impressed by what he saw. He asked why they couldn't design a "dumb Spiderman" type ride. I could not resist asking what he meant. It was defined as a ride that used 3D like Universal's Spiderman, but not as expensive or elaborate. I knew right then, that when management was asking us to design attractions worse than the competition, it was time to consider my options.

Those executives fell by their own philosophy, so I'm not comparing them to the current crop.

Thats very telling...I mean the EMV ride vehicle had the ability to do everything except spin, but add a 3D movie and live sets to that and anyone who was familiar with Spiderman would have called it an imitation.

I remember hearing a few people say that there was supposed to be 3 big E-ticket attractions that Disney had in the planning stages IF IOA drew enough of guests, but it didn't and we only got Mission:Space and possibly the Rock'N'Roller coaster.

Eddie, one of the attractions that was rumored several times in that period after IOA opened was to replace the Great Movie Ride with an interactive cutting-edge ride of some-kind using C.A.V.E. technology (also used in DisneyQuest on a small scale). Do you have anything you could share on that rumor?