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

[The Empress Lilly]

Hidden Mickeys in Paris?

Classical French gardens are formally laid out, unlike the substitute nature of the English garden. Hence, French gardens sport all sorts of unintentional objects. Including this lovely 'square-eared Hidden Mickey' from Versailles itself.

 

[AEfx]

I would fire someone if their prime reason for a coaster track configuration costing a hundred million bucks was so it could look like Oswald from space. I'd guess it's a very fun accident.

I'd fire someone for spending millions going on a wild-goose-chase around the world to buy a bunch of authentic "junk" to fill a queue that most people walk right past, excited for the ride that ends with an encounter with a broken Animatronic that wasn't put in the right place in the first place.

But that's just me.

 

[KevinYee]

Yes, the Joe school of design is very different from the Walt-era school, or even the Tony school.

Walt (and Tony and pretty much the rest of WDI) crafted artifacts to EVOKE something exotic, not to BE something exotic. There is a difference between a simulation and a facsimile (and a third thing entirely in an artifact):

simulation - completely fake, but looks like the real thing (or at least evokes its thingness)
facsilime - looks enough like the real thing that you start to wonder if it's real (see: oddly effective paint scheme on the Matterhorn, which only breaks illusion if you get super close)
artifact - the real, actual thing, imported from the other side of the world.

Disney parks built their reputation by hovering somewhere between the first two bullet points (perhaps inching closer to the second). DAK (and Joe in particular) pushes for the third.

On the one hand, the jump to artifact represents a real psych-out of the visitor. Accustomed to wondering if the fake object is a real object ("those Jungle Cruise animals look real!") visitors get an extra kick of "is it real or not" in Joe's attractions. I've heard people argue at the start of Kilimanjaro safari if the okapi and stork in the first enclosure are real or not.

But while that "playing with the visitor's mind" is undoubtedly fun for the designer (and for the visitor, at least at first), it represents a fundamental shift in "what the parks do" and why they do it.

Previously, the parks evoked exoticness (or fantasy, or escapism), without actually *being* exotic. It was a "safe" way to travel to risky jungles or politically unstable countries. Now, with the veneer of actualness on top, DAK takes a step away from the comfort that came with facsimile and shoves the viewer, sometimes rudely, toward reality.

In some ways, the Adventures by Disney concept continues the trend Joe sets, by inching us further from "safe fake exoticness" and toward "real exoticness" (that is hopefully still safe, since a Disney guide will only take you to safe places).


(I've been working for several years on a book on this topic, and a few related topics)

 

[ChrisFL]

Yes, the Joe school of design is very different from the Walt-era school, or even the Tony school.

Walt (and Tony and pretty much the rest of WDI) crafted artifacts to EVOKE something exotic, not to BE something exotic. There is a difference between a simulation and a facsimile (and a third thing entirely in an artifact):

simulation - completely fake, but looks like the real thing (or at least evokes its thingness)
facsilime - looks enough like the real thing that you start to wonder if it's real (see: oddly effective paint scheme on the Matterhorn, which only breaks illusion if you get super close)
artifact - the real, actual thing, imported from the other side of the world.

Disney parks built their reputation by hovering somewhere between the first two bullet points (perhaps inching closer to the second). DAK (and Joe in particular) pushes for the third.

On the one hand, the jump to artifact represents a real psych-out of the visitor. Accustomed to wondering if the fake object is a real object ("those Jungle Cruise animals look real!") visitors get an extra kick of "is it real or not" in Joe's attractions. I've heard people argue at the start of Kilimanjaro safari if the okapi and stork in the first enclosure are real or not.

But while that "playing with the visitor's mind" is undoubtedly fun for the designer (and for the visitor, at least at first), it represents a fundamental shift in "what the parks do" and why they do it.

Previously, the parks evoked exoticness (or fantasy, or escapism), without actually *being* exotic. It was a "safe" way to travel to risky jungles or politically unstable countries. Now, with the veneer of actualness on top, DAK takes a step away from the comfort that came with facsimile and shoves the viewer, sometimes rudely, toward reality.

In some ways, the Adventures by Disney concept continues the trend Joe sets, by inching us further from "safe fake exoticness" and toward "real exoticness" (that is hopefully still safe, since a Disney guide will only take you to safe places).


(I've been working for several years on a book on this topic, and a few related topics)

very interesting post, and I agree that would make a good book

 

[Eddie Sotto]

If you look at the evolution of film, you'll see acting styles and set design (use of real locations) becoming more "realistic" and "gritty". Film noir started some of this trend and wrapped it in a look. Even with the use of profanity and unhappy endings we were being edged toward overall realism in performance and look. The separation of fantasy (which can have lots of violence and other real aspects to ensure you buy it) has become more photo real in some cases.
I wanted Mission:Space to be more bare bones in look and less theatrical and more realistic too. I did not come out that way at all.

To me, DAK is more like a "reality show". It uses real elements but manipulates the plots and situations. I think it risks failing in the way reality shows fail as they promise real time drama, but we sense the product placements and fake situations more because against the backdrop of real life, fake situations stand out more. The Jungle Cruise lives up to it's expectation better, even if it isn't as thrilling for being plastic, as its tone is set by the host, as a series of obvious "cartoon" situations and does not claim to be real.

 

[DocAlan02]

Wow

I stumbled across this thread about 2 weeks ago. 420+ pages and 6200+ posts later, here I am. I am amazed at much of what I have read here....it's fascinating to share Eddie's insight into so many things Disney, and I appreciate the contributions of so many others as well.

A little background on me: I was a WDW Cast Member from 1991-1994. I started in Futureworld attractions at The Living Seas and added The Wonders of Life a few months later. I moved to Team Disney the following year, working in Convention Accounting. After a brief period away from Florida, I came back and worked out at the Disney Vacation Club resort and had my last position as a waiter in The Garden Grill restaurant in The Land. I loved my team at WDW, and part of me has wanted to go back every since I left. My kids are huge Disney fans, and have been to WDW every 2 or 3 years or so since they were born (in 94).

I used to imagine what it would like to be an Imagineer. Back in '92, I think it was, there was a contest for CMs where we could submit an idea for a new attraction, with the idea that the winner's idea would be made into reality. I submitted an idea for a rollercoaster based on Aladdin called "The Cave of Wonders." I was quite proud of it at the time, as I recall. I imagine it was pretty silly, but I used to love thinking about it being built someday. Years later, when I tried out the VR Aladdin stuff at DisneyQuest, I realized that real talent could make so much more of an idea than I could. I eventually became what I am now, which is the Director of Quality Assurance for a software company in Pennsylvania. I don't design much, but I do get to tell people what they are doing wrong, which is perfect for me.

Anyway, I am excited to see where the conversation goes in the future!

 

[CBOMB]

Aren't the old mining equipment artifacts used in Big Thunder Mountain Railroad genuine antiques? Since this ride opened in 1980 at Walt Disney World, it would seem that the Imaginers have been using authentic, as well as replicas in their presentations for a very long time.

I am curious as to the cost differential in fabricating an object from scratch, versus buying the authentic piece. Especially in an attraction like Expedition Everest - Legend of the Forbidden Mountain. I'm not ready to fire Joe Rohde yet. At least not until I see the bar tab that he put on his expense account while in Nepal.

 

[KevinYee]

Yes, good point about BTMRR. Those antiques are more targeted (they aren't everywhere) but more importantly they 'idealize' and 'romanticize'.

The Everest artifacts do the opposite - they try to convince you it's real and NOT a simulation.

Big Thunder done in the Everest style would have stinky horses and ________ everywhere. Exactly what 1955 frontierland had, in fact, except that the smell was the only authentic part back then. In Walt's day, there seemed to always be an element of artifice, if only to reassure the audience that it will all be all right.

 

[Bolna]

My good friend Tom Morris, the man responsible for the design of DLP Fantasyland was very serious about how Europeans would receive that area. He and I used to drive to remote parts of France on the weekends just to look at how the roof tiles were laid, how streets were done, or what the color palettes should be in your part of the world. I can't tell you how many hedge mazes or castles he visited. Everything was much more thought out than in DL as we had the time to do research. He'd photograph the canals of Brugge, then look at old book illustrations by Tenggren, so he could then create a fantasy version of them. I think the strength here is that Tom started from a sound reality and the right materials, then knew where to stretch things and didn't go so far that it lost credibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustaf_Tenggren

I think all those weekends spent travelling did pay off very much!

I looked up Tenggren, thanks for the link. This reminded me of an exhibition I saw in Munich in 2008. It was an updated version of an exhibition which was also at the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts in 2007 under the title "Once Upon a Time - Walt Disney: The Sources of Inspiration for the Disney Studios" http://www.mmfa.qc.ca/disney/index_en.html

In Munich the title was "Walt Disneys Wunderbare Welt und ihre Wurzeln in der europäischen Kunst" - which translates into "Walt Disney's wonderful world and its roots in European art". And that was what it was about - how the animated films had taken a lot of inspiration from all kind of art. But the thing that fascinated me the most was that I finally found out why there was a "Pinocchio Village Haus" restaurant at WDW. I had always wondered why Pinocchio which is an Italian story would end up with a Bavarian themed restaurant. I knew that the film did look Bavarian to me, which I found strange as well. But there in the exhibition they showed that Rothenburg had indeed been chosen as the model for Pinocchio's village in the film. And the wikipedia article mentions that Tenggren worked on Pinocchio - and it sounds like he is the one who was responsible for translating Rothenburg from real life into an animated version?

 

[WDW1974]

Aren't the old mining equipment artifacts used in Big Thunder Mountain Railroad genuine antiques? Since this ride opened in 1980 at Walt Disney World, it would seem that the Imaginers have been using authentic, as well as replicas in their presentations for a very long time.

I am curious as to the cost differential in fabricating an object from scratch, versus buying the authentic piece. Especially in an attraction like Expedition Everest - Legend of the Forbidden Mountain. I'm not ready to fire Joe Rohde yet. At least not until I see the bar tab that he put on his expense account while in Nepal.

Well, well ... look what the possum dragged in. Nice to see ya back oldtimer and Merry Christmas.:xmas:

BTMRR does indeed feature old artifacts. I'm almost 100% positive that all four versions have real props.

As to the Joe Rohde comment, I tend to read a lot of comments taking shots at him for the trips he took to Asia and the props he acquired. WDI has been doing that for a long time ... research trips go all the way back to Old Dead Guy Walt's days.

Now, whether they got their money's worth from JR's roadtrips is certainly open to debate.

 

[KevinYee]

So the question now is: what kind of "realism" will Pandora have?

By definition, there will be a fantasy element. And it will be hard to have artifacts

The SeaWorld Orlando Christmas decorations are not only omnipresent, they really invade the trees. The blinking (dripping?) lights that look like Spanish moss seem kind of Pandora-like, especially when your walkway is covered by several dozen of those lights going at once.

Eddie, what would YOU do in Pandora in terms of realism? Mix real trees with fake ones? Weave advanced luminosity and fiber optics (and food dye) into real plants only?

 

[AEfx]

Yes, the Joe school of design is very different from the Walt-era school, or even the Tony school.

Walt (and Tony and pretty much the rest of WDI) crafted artifacts to EVOKE something exotic, not to BE something exotic. There is a difference between a simulation and a facsimile (and a third thing entirely in an artifact):

simulation - completely fake, but looks like the real thing (or at least evokes its thingness)
facsilime - looks enough like the real thing that you start to wonder if it's real (see: oddly effective paint scheme on the Matterhorn, which only breaks illusion if you get super close)
artifact - the real, actual thing, imported from the other side of the world.

Disney parks built their reputation by hovering somewhere between the first two bullet points (perhaps inching closer to the second). DAK (and Joe in particular) pushes for the third.

But here's the thing - we can wax all day on the academic merits, but what does it do for the visitor? Practically. It's interesting to look at it from a studied perspective, but sometimes that gets in the way (as it did here) in judging the actual experience a visitor has.

The junk in the Everest queue is just that. Junk. Maybe people in warmer climates think it's all exotic, but come on up to New England and I'll take you to some old barns that have stuff laying around that is pretty much indistinguishable from the junk in that queue. Instead of going on a multimillion dollar trek around the world, he could have driven around New England for a weekend with a few thousand bucks and had truckloads of that stuff driven down to Orlando.

People go on and on about it's "authenticity". That's just fans on the internet gushing. Heck, some of them say it's the "best part of the attraction" - which I find terribly sad, and a statement I wouldn't be proud of making if the line to get in is better than what you are standing in line for. Most guests would have no idea where that junk came from, or care. They are waiting in line to get on a ride.

Yes, queues are important, they are part of what set Disney apart. But while Rhode was off busy finding his "artifacts" that no normal person actually cares about, the ride itself went to crap - indoor effects were eliminated, and the big "centerpiece" that they spent all kinds of money and media on (there were more than one TV special where they proclaimed "same power as a 747!" in the Yeti arm - maybe they should have gone with a twin engine? LOL) ends up broken for half a decade.

While it's a pretty view looking at Everest, when I look at it all I see is a pile of dung. They wasted so much on the queue, the interior of the mountain is threadbare, the Yeti is busted...all you are left with is a mediocre coaster, one that because of the certain way it goes backwards and forward doesn't do a lot for my tummy's well-being (and I almost never have any of those feelings on any coaster). I'm sure part of my extreme disappointment is I know what should have been, could have been, had Rhode not gone off on his little world tour and instead of searching for junk was actually sitting down on his behind and designing a good ride.

Notice he hasn't been part of any big project since then? I think we know why. He was walking around with Cameron, but I doubt Disney is dumb enough to let him waste 100's of M again, he's just a "look execs can be cool and have earrings" figure head now. Because, overall, he made the same mistake with AK - he built this lush, pretty place - but forgot to fill it with all kinds of attractions and things that people go to Disney theme parks for. "But the theming!" people cry. Well, if that's all I cared about, I'd go for a walk in the woods behind my house. It's pretty picturesque (actually, morseo than the "jungle"). Like 99.9% of the population, I go to WDW for fun rides and entertainment, not to just stare up at an extremely repetitive simulated forest.

So yeah, if it were up to me Rhode would be out on his can, because he has wasted so much money yet no one can really come up with any great thing he has been in charge of, besides some defunct bar in Pleasure Island. They should have kept him as just a designer, because the man has absolutely no right-brained sense, and people that are completely left-brained need to be molded and directed (picture the relationship of Walt and Roy - if Walt had been running the show alone, it's doubtful Disneyland would have ever opened, much less led to the world of Disney parks as we know them today).

 

[RandySavage]

I've got the opposite opinion. The Everest queue is excellent. The South Asian architecture, the quirky authenticity of the Serka Zong tourism company, the Nepalese artifacts, the hints about the Yeti's place in the local culture (and that it is to be feared) - it all builds up brilliantly to what feels like a realistic adventure (for a theme park) in the Himalayas.

Of course, the pay-off is the giant swiping yeti, and now that it is static the experience as a whole is greatly diminished. When the Yeti was working, Everest was a solid "A" attraction, and the queue was a major part of that.

Pay attention to the myriad of details & clippings in the queue and you'll be rewarded.

 

[AEfx]

I've got the opposite opinion. The Everest queue is excellent. The South Asian architecture, the quirky authenticity of the Serka Zong tourism company, the Nepalese artifacts, the hints about the Yeti's place in the local culture (and that it is to be feared) - it all builds up brilliantly to what feels like a realistic adventure (for a theme park) in the Himalayas.

Of course, the pay-off is the giant swiping yeti, and now that it is static the experience as a whole is greatly diminished. When the Yeti was working, Everest was a solid "A" attraction, and the queue was a major part of that.

Pay attention to the myriad of details & clippings in the queue and you'll be rewarded.

Two questions :

1) Where is the realistic adventure in the Himalayas? Everest is Queue - Side of Fake Mountain - absolutely bare interior of mountain - broken animatronic - exit.

2) Do you truly think you would have known the difference between a piece of rusty junk that was purchased in Nepal, or one that was in my Uncle's old barn? Do you honestly think the vast majority of guests could, or that they even know or suspect it's "authentic"?

(I guess that's 3 questions, LOL.)

 

[RandySavage]

Two questions :

1) Where is the realistic adventure in the Himalayas? Everest is Queue - Side of Fake Mountain - absolutely bare interior of mountain - broken animatronic - exit.

You're not being fair in your criticism.

As far as selling its story of being a Himalayan adventure, this "fake mountain's" realism is at least on par with Big Thunder as a runaway mine train through the canyon country (or Space Mountain as a flight through space or Matterhorn as a Swiss bobsled run; and Everest's realism far exceeds IOA's naked steel Dragon Challenge). Its exterior rockwork is supurb.

Saying it has an "absolutely bare interior" is not a fair criticism either.

There is the video show scene, interior rockwork, and, of course, the intricately-detailed Yeti cavern. I never noticed the interior support beams that some see when I experienced Everest over the course of a week-long vacation in 2008. Rode it about six times. The Yeti was fully-functioning back then, and the whole experience was my and several other family members' favorite ride of the trip.

When fully functioning, Everest's show-scenes are bigger & more impressive than any other Disney coaster, IMO. But the Yeti is down, and that is a major failure and hurts the ride. I think we agree on that much.

2) Do you truly think you would have known the difference between a piece of rusty junk that was purchased in Nepal, or one that was in my Uncle's old barn? Do you honestly think the vast majority of guests could, or that they even know or suspect it's "authentic"?

If the junk in your Uncle's barn was South Asian in nature (and he had giant Yeti footprint castings in there), then I wouldn't know or care that it didn't come directly from Nepal. But if you're suggesting putting an old Dartmouth trophy in place of a Yeti statue, I don't think that would sell the ride's setting as well.

But you operate under the assumption that millions of dollars - and a significant chunk of the budget for Everest - were spent acquiring all the queue stuff in rural Nepal (where things probably cost a lot less than here). But I think you're assuming far too high cost for the queue artifacts. I'd imagine the money spent acquiring all the queue items would be fairly small (<$150,000) less than 0.5% of the total budget.

Maybe Eddie can give us a better idea from his inside perspective on attraction budgeting (e.g. what was spent acquiring the British garden artifacts for the Hunny Hunt queue).

 

[WDW1974]

But here's the thing - we can wax all day on the academic merits, but what does it do for the visitor? Practically. It's interesting to look at it from a studied perspective, but sometimes that gets in the way (as it did here) in judging the actual experience a visitor has.

In the way? How? And can't that be said about anything in a setpiece of a queue? Do you really need the pirates playing chess? Do you really need Buzz Lightyear prepping us to go against Zurg? Do we really need the library scene (and those likely pricey antiques) to set the stage for ToT?

I say, yes to all.

The junk in the Everest queue is just that. Junk. Maybe people in warmer climates think it's all exotic, but come on up to New England and I'll take you to some old barns that have stuff laying around that is pretty much indistinguishable from the junk in that queue. Instead of going on a multimillion dollar trek around the world, he could have driven around New England for a weekend with a few thousand bucks and had truckloads of that stuff driven down to Orlando.

The thing is do you know what Joe and his team bought in Asia? What it cost? What part of the attraction's budget went for it? If it were $100,000 would that be too much in your mind? What about $10,000?

Some fans who love ripping him for the realism he tried to bring to EE (and DAK as a whole) seem to (falsely) believe he was given tens of millions to travel the world searching for what they view as junk.

People go on and on about it's "authenticity". That's just fans on the internet gushing. Heck, some of them say it's the "best part of the attraction" - which I find terribly sad, and a statement I wouldn't be proud of making if the line to get in is better than what you are standing in line for. Most guests would have no idea where that junk came from, or care. They are waiting in line to get on a ride.

Well, I do agree with much of that. The queue is NOT the ride. And when you have a truly awful ride like KRR, which for some reason escapes the hate of the fanbois, with a queue that leads you to believe you are in for a treat I can see where that argument comes from. ... But I'd also say whether guests notice most details isn't a reason for Disney to not provide them. It's all about layered storytelling and placesetting. If all you want to do is 'ride the rides', I always think a Disney park ... any Disney park is the wrong place to go.

Yes, queues are important, they are part of what set Disney apart. But while Rhode was off busy finding his "artifacts" that no normal person actually cares about, the ride itself went to crap - indoor effects were eliminated, and the big "centerpiece" that they spent all kinds of money and media on (there were more than one TV special where they proclaimed "same power as a 747!" in the Yeti arm - maybe they should have gone with a twin engine? LOL) ends up broken for half a decade.

It's ROHDE. Pet peeve. But people who rip him tend to always spell his name incorrectly ... much like John Lasseter. If you want to take a shot at him, you should at least make sure your arrow is hitting the right target!

And I don't wish to sound like I am defending him at all costs or in anyway justifying the pitiful show quality of Everest. But your shot above is just cheap all the way ... he wasn't off buying crap as you put it while the Yeti broke. And he was never given a choice -- second yeti or some more backpacks, propane tanks, cans and tents for the queue?

You want to make it simple and pin the blame on one guy and it isn't that simple.

While it's a pretty view looking at Everest, when I look at it all I see is a pile of dung. They wasted so much on the queue, the interior of the mountain is threadbare, the Yeti is busted...all you are left with is a mediocre coaster, one that because of the certain way it goes backwards and forward doesn't do a lot for my tummy's well-being (and I almost never have any of those feelings on any coaster). I'm sure part of my extreme disappointment is I know what should have been, could have been, had Rhode not gone off on his little world tour and instead of searching for junk was actually sitting down on his behind and designing a good ride.

Notice he hasn't been part of any big project since then? I think we know why. He was walking around with Cameron, but I doubt Disney is dumb enough to let him waste 100's of M again, he's just a "look execs can be cool and have earrings" figure head now. Because, overall, he made the same mistake with AK - he built this lush, pretty place - but forgot to fill it with all kinds of attractions and things that people go to Disney theme parks for. "But the theming!" people cry. Well, if that's all I cared about, I'd go for a walk in the woods behind my house. It's pretty picturesque (actually, morseo than the "jungle"). Like 99.9% of the population, I go to WDW for fun rides and entertainment, not to just stare up at an extremely repetitive simulated forest.

Joe and his team set out to design a rich detailed environment in which to explore animals. It was never designed as a ride park. Folks who find it boring do so largely because they are the types who want to ride Space Mountain 15 times in a row, grab a hot dog and then ride BTMRR 10 times. DAK certainly has flaws, but not because it isn't a ride park. It was never intended to be. It attracts one helluva lot of folks (yes, many on MYW multi-day tix who are there anyway ... but you could use that excuse on EPCOT or TPFKaTD-MGMS too) annually in its current state.

And I don't believe 99.9% of the population goes to WDW for fun rides because you can get rides that are a helluva lot better at UNI ... at SW ... at BG ... and many places outside FLA. Of course, it depends on what your definition of fun ride is too!

Of course, DAK was supposed to have more attractions and RIDES, but those were axed as you well know. ALthough I suppose many people would rather another rolley coaster or three instead of the Pangani Forest ... or basically ANY animal exhibit. Those people probably should stick to the MK mindlessly riding the same decrepit attractions over and over and over again.

As to Joe having a big project, he was given the Aulani, which is pretty important to Disney. But he makes big bucks and is getting up there in age ... there's plenty of chatter that he isn't long for the company ... same with Tony Baxter (of course, people have been writing his obit for 10-15 years now ... I bet that book he wants to write is likely keeping him employed!)

So yeah, if it were up to me Rhode would be out on his can, because he has wasted so much money yet no one can really come up with any great thing he has been in charge of, besides some defunct bar in Pleasure Island. They should have kept him as just a designer, because the man has absolutely no right-brained sense, and people that are completely left-brained need to be molded and directed (picture the relationship of Walt and Roy - if Walt had been running the show alone, it's doubtful Disneyland would have ever opened, much less led to the world of Disney parks as we know them today).

Oh no ... not the time tested Walt/Roy talk ... I bet fanbois will be talking about the same thing 50 years from now (if any human life remains on the planet!)

But then again, if I ran WDI I'd have put Tony Baxter in charge of Shanghai and had Joe on his team ... along with Tom Morris ... and Tim Delaney (who would still be with WDI) instead of giving it to Bob Weis, but that company is strange.

Oh, and I might have seen if that Eddie Sotto character wanted part of the action too!:wave:

 

[Eddie Sotto]

After reading all of this I'm not even sure what we're trying to discuss.

Having said that, DAK was built on a super tight budget and Joe and company had to really be innovative to get it to look like something. It was ride poor because it had so little money. Usually in this situation you try to get the infrastructure in place so over time you can add stuff. Same thing happened with MGM. That park had almost nothing. I agree that DAK while having rides or the intent to have rides was primarily targeted toward wildlife in real settings. Joe wanted to go the opposite direction to a Zoo, with more animals (a herd of, etc) in a closer proximity to the guest. they hid the trenches in the containments so you thought you were closer. Zoos were the comparison experience.

As for the props argument, I think that many fans love the Everest queue as much if not more than the ride. I only went on the ride once and felt the queue promises a lot. I don't know what that stuff cost, but there was a lot of it. Indiana Jones at DL gets the same critique and that queue for some is better than the ride with all the caves and campsite stuff. Queues immerse you in the world you are about to experience and even if you don't pay much attention, they build anticipation and enhance the ride. They are "appetizers" and either set the right or wrong expectation. My personal view is that you should manage expectations or even lower them, so the ride itself is a bigger wow. You could even argue that the stretching room and hallway for the HM is part of the queue for the ride, but most see it as so good that it's part of the total experience. Same with the Bayou for Pirates.

As to Kevin's question as to how I'd do Pandora, I'd probably blend real and fake as you can sense when something is fake en masse. You want it rich, but also you want to direct attention toward certain elements. I'd probably use real stuff as scene transitions and for masking of the wow moments. However, if it's all indoors, that is hard to do as shade plants have a hard time and cost a lot to maintain. Then you go all fake.

 

[HMF]

So yeah, if it were up to me Rhode would be out on his can, because he has wasted so much money yet no one can really come up with any great thing he has been in charge of, besides some defunct bar in Pleasure Island. They should have kept him as just a designer, because the man has absolutely no right-brained sense, and people that are completely left-brained need to be molded and directed (picture the relationship of Walt and Roy - if Walt had been running the show alone, it's doubtful Disneyland would have ever opened, much less led to the world of Disney parks as we know them today).

You should work for TDO.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I'd fire someone for spending millions going on a wild-goose-chase around the world to buy a bunch of authentic "junk" to fill a queue that most people walk right past, excited for the ride that ends with an encounter with a broken Animatronic that wasn't put in the right place in the first place.

But that's just me.

If you look at how many fans that ride has and how successful it has been, it possibly is just you. Everest made it on to this fan's chart, while everything I worked on got thumbs down. But that's just me!

http://www.imagineeringdisney.com/blog/2009/12/31/decades-in-review.html

One man's mud is another's uranium.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I stumbled across this thread about 2 weeks ago. 420+ pages and 6200+ posts later, here I am. I am amazed at much of what I have read here....it's fascinating to share Eddie's insight into so many things Disney, and I appreciate the contributions of so many others as well.

A little background on me: I was a WDW Cast Member from 1991-1994. I started in Futureworld attractions at The Living Seas and added The Wonders of Life a few months later. I moved to Team Disney the following year, working in Convention Accounting. After a brief period away from Florida, I came back and worked out at the Disney Vacation Club resort and had my last position as a waiter in The Garden Grill restaurant in The Land. I loved my team at WDW, and part of me has wanted to go back every since I left. My kids are huge Disney fans, and have been to WDW every 2 or 3 years or so since they were born (in 94).

I used to imagine what it would like to be an Imagineer. Back in '92, I think it was, there was a contest for CMs where we could submit an idea for a new attraction, with the idea that the winner's idea would be made into reality. I submitted an idea for a rollercoaster based on Aladdin called "The Cave of Wonders." I was quite proud of it at the time, as I recall. I imagine it was pretty silly, but I used to love thinking about it being built someday. Years later, when I tried out the VR Aladdin stuff at DisneyQuest, I realized that real talent could make so much more of an idea than I could. I eventually became what I am now, which is the Director of Quality Assurance for a software company in Pennsylvania. I don't design much, but I do get to tell people what they are doing wrong, which is perfect for me.

Anyway, I am excited to see where the conversation goes in the future!

It's great to hear your story Alan and welcome to the thread. I like how you hung in there to submit your ride concept. It's true that there are those who can take our ideas and really make them come alive. Hope to hear more from you in the future, we are always discussing something interesting.