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

[Eddie Sotto]

This is both frustrating and enlightening.

I am a big fan of Everest (when fully working), but from some angles, something has sort of felt off about the mountain itself, and it seems so obvious now that you bring it up.

Having a full-sized train moving through the miniaturized monastery temple and into mountain peaks completely throws off the scale & perspective of what should be a Himalayan peak, hurting the realism of the experience both before and during.

The train should have entered a "lift cave" well below the monastery, and then stayed within an enclosed mountainside emerging in the icy mountain peaks, out-of-view of the people on the ground. The train could later enter the foreground out of the big drop cave, never being directly visible against the things that are supposed to be high above. I did a couple mock-ups of what I mean:

This is frustrating because you've nailed it, and from now on I will always see Everest as lacking in this respect.

Thanks for posting the images and your mock-up solutions, as they make the point about relative scale very well. You could still get the wow out of the trains coming out of the lower face and not have them hurt the scale. You can cheat the "Forced perspective" effect by doing what you describe, or show the train ascending a closer peak and then having tinier snow sheds or a small train model on the mountain in the distance like they did with the Atomobiles in the ATIS. In any event, for me, the big thing was seeing this full size train on the tiny mountain.

Especially since the EE train is more obvious in silhouette, not to mention that the scale/span of the bridge structure in relation to the monastery and the peak seems obviously out of scale. On the Matterhorn, the sleds are partially hidden by rocks and stuff or seen full scale on the bridge, splashdown, all lower to the ground. The Matterhorn does not really threaten the scale above the snow line. Image attached.
http://geektyrant.com/storage/post-...jpeg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1309398723741

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Eddie, thoughts on Test Track...I don't mind the attraction, and I'm glad they plan to update it next year, but one thing that does bother me is the large overhang out front.

I really liked the simplicity of the old World of Motion building.

On the other hand, the new covering is a great place for shade/cover from bad weather.

I wonder if they'll find a happy medium, or if they are planning to change the exterior at all.

Any thoughts on this from an Imagineering standpoint?

I can't say I'm nuts about the exterior overlay, but I get the "factory" industrial ethic of using frameworks, etc. I think they were looking for something fresher and perhaps as you say, to protect from the sun. The big deal here is the car whizzing by in the mirror and whatever is done, making the most of that should be part of the objective in the update. That is the "wow" to the guest. They may be able to do LED screens showing the cars in real time on the curved walls of the building to really make it exciting. I like the building a lot.

 

[Mansion Butler]

What I don't understand is why the Everest trains don't bother me. From the first moment I saw them, I thought "that throws off the scale," something that would normally drive me nuts, and yet it does not. I like seeing the movement and that somehow outweighs the scale situation, I guess.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

What I don't understand is why the Everest trains don't bother me. From the first moment I saw them, I thought "that throws off the scale," something that would normally drive me nuts, and yet it does not. I like seeing the movement and that somehow outweighs the scale situation, I guess.

The ability to overlook one's faults to focus on what is good is a valuable trait. I guess it's just too easy to pick things apart!

 

[KevinYee]

Eddie,

Can you say more about "the wow factor"? I was thinking about this at Epcot the other day, and considering the original attractions. The wow (for me at least) in Horizons was the big Imax moment. In Spaceship Earth, it was the reveal of the planet in the starfield (also kind of a bigger-than-life moment).

I assume a "wow" is mostly about the "unexpected or surprising." Do designers think in terms of "here's what the audience thinks at this moment; here's what would NOT surprise them, etc"?

My other question is whether a wow moment is about scale more than any other feature. Certainly it was in Horizons and SSE. I guess technology can be a wow, too. The many sets of American Adventure, plus the 'walking' Franklin, were the wow for me there.

 

[KevinYee]

Eddie,

Can you say more about "the wow factor"? I was thinking about this at Epcot the other day, and considering the original attractions. The wow (for me at least) in Horizons was the big Imax moment. In Spaceship Earth, it was the reveal of the planet in the starfield (also kind of a bigger-than-life moment).

I assume a "wow" is mostly about the "unexpected or surprising." Do designers think in terms of "here's what the audience thinks at this moment; here's what would NOT surprise them, etc"?

My other question is whether a wow moment is about scale more than any other feature. Certainly it was in Horizons and SSE. I guess technology can be a wow, too. The many sets of American Adventure, plus the 'walking' Franklin, were the wow for me there.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

The "wow" to me.

It's the unexpected moment that greatly exceeds your expectations.

If you look at our website, (www.sottostudios.com) the whole process of experiential design is about figuring out what the "wow" wants to be and then designing an experience that builds up to it. We start with the result and work backwards. Because creative efforts don't succeed unless there is a wow, why not understand emotionally what you want to deliver and prioritize to build around that. You could even miss a few details and still deliver on what you set out to do. Too much of the time brands get caught up in themselves or adding unwanted features, and don't even know why people like their products in the first place.You can use scale, immersion, nostalgia, but a lot of it has to do with overwhelming the senses in a good way, so size can matter. But so can something tiny and meaningful. DL's Castle is not the biggest but there is connection to the TV show for some that makes it a " wow".

 

[RSoxNo1]

Eddie,

Can you say more about "the wow factor"? I was thinking about this at Epcot the other day, and considering the original attractions. The wow (for me at least) in Horizons was the big Imax moment. In Spaceship Earth, it was the reveal of the planet in the starfield (also kind of a bigger-than-life moment).

I assume a "wow" is mostly about the "unexpected or surprising." Do designers think in terms of "here's what the audience thinks at this moment; here's what would NOT surprise them, etc"?

My other question is whether a wow moment is about scale more than any other feature. Certainly it was in Horizons and SSE. I guess technology can be a wow, too. The many sets of American Adventure, plus the 'walking' Franklin, were the wow for me there.

Do you feel that the Spaceship Earth globe reveal has been worsened in the narration? I ask because for me the timing is off by a couple of seconds. In the Jeremy Irons narration he said, "...on this our Spaceship Earth" right as the vehicle turns and you see the globe emerge. In the Judy Dench version the vehicle turns, you see the globe emerge, and then she says, "...on this our Spaceship Earth". It's going to sound like nitpicking but for me, this is a bigger complaint that the dumbing down of the narration.

 

[Scuttle]

Do you feel that the Spaceship Earth globe reveal has been worsened in the narration? I ask because for me the timing is off by a couple of seconds. In the Jeremy Irons narration he said, "...on this our Spaceship Earth" right as the vehicle turns and you see the globe emerge. In the Judy Dench version the vehicle turns, you see the globe emerge, and then she says, "...on this our Spaceship Earth". It's going to sound like nitpicking but for me, this is a bigger complaint that the dumbing down of the narration.

The timing is definetly off a second or two. I wouldn't say it's nitpicking, it's the climax of the ride.

 

[ChrisFL]

Do you feel that the Spaceship Earth globe reveal has been worsened in the narration? I ask because for me the timing is off by a couple of seconds. In the Jeremy Irons narration he said, "...on this our Spaceship Earth" right as the vehicle turns and you see the globe emerge. In the Judy Dench version the vehicle turns, you see the globe emerge, and then she says, "...on this our Spaceship Earth". It's going to sound like nitpicking but for me, this is a bigger complaint that the dumbing down of the narration.

That doesn't bother me as much as the beginning of the ride, when the background music drowns out almost the first minute or two of dialogue.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Sse

I have not been on SSE in a VERY long time, but it's true that the finale is at the top when the dome is revealed and that has to be done right. It has always been difficult no matter what version you like, to sustain the "wow" all the way back down the hill. They keep trying to top it or sustain that moment with different effects or endings and it's really a tough one. You don't have the room to really do that much and so they have been very creative with doing the "face your in the future" video thing or similar. Guests seem to really like that although I've never seen it. The "Cronkite/Tomorrow's Child" version was my favorite, but even then it kind of dragged on and you got the impression it was playing for time. Generally speaking, when you do a show/ride you want to leave them on a high and bring the curtain down as soon as you can. Don't drag out the ending and the curtain calls. Let the bobsled splash down and leave them laughing.

 

[Scuttle]

I have not been on SSE in a VERY long time, but it's true that the finale is at the top when the dome is revealed and that has to be done right. It has always been difficult no matter what version you like, to sustain the "wow" all the way back down the hill. They keep trying to top it or sustain that moment with different effects or endings and it's really a tough one. You don't have the room to really do that much and so they have been very creative with doing the "face your in the future" video thing or similar. Guests seem to really like that although I've never seen it. The "Cronkite/Tomorrow's Child" version was my favorite, but even then it kind of dragged on and you got the impression it was playing for time. Generally speaking, when you do a show/ride you want to leave them on a high and bring the curtain down as soon as you can. Don't drag out the ending and the curtain calls. Let the bobsled splash down and leave them laughing.

Eddie, do you have any idea when the astronaut in the finale scene was taken out? I remember that as a child, but I know it has atleast been gone for a few years. I'm guessing it was taken out during the refurb?

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Eddie, do you have any idea when the astronaut in the finale scene was taken out? I remember that as a child, but I know it has atleast been gone for a few years. I'm guessing it was taken out during the refurb?

I'm sorry I don't, (I liked it too)...but I'm sure the other more WDW centric posters would know that answer.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Here's an article on floating hotels.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-17/travel/top.floating.hotels_1_room-prices-reef-luxury?_s=PM:TRAVEL

If the real estate is so valuable, or Discovery Island is too small to do anything and the animals are protected, why not attach the hotel to it? Why don't they theme a barge as a "Moving Island" that comes to you? Or a bunch of shipwrecked Riverboats or pirate ships cobbled into a massive floating hotel? I'd stay on that right now! Here's the best one of all floating in Canada and only accessed by air.

A Fisherman's dream.
http://www.kingpacificlodge.com/gallery.cfm
http://www.kiwicollection.com/hotel-detail/king-pacific-lodge

Where is the "wow"? I want to be blown away by a creatively driven hotel and would pay more for that experience.

 

[ChrisFL]

Eddie, do you have any idea when the astronaut in the finale scene was taken out? I remember that as a child, but I know it has atleast been gone for a few years. I'm guessing it was taken out during the refurb?

I believe it was gone in the 1994 refurb, maybe even before that.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Spaceman lost

That sounds right...I was still working there when it came out.

 

[Scuttle]

I believe it was gone in the 1994 refurb, maybe even before that.

Thanks guys. I figured it was the 94 refurb and not the latest refurb. Man I miss that astronaut. It really made that scene have an extra wow factor to me.

 

[CBOMB]

A Fisherman's dream.
http://www.kingpacificlodge.com/gallery.cfm
http://www.kiwicollection.com/hotel-detail/king-pacific-lodge

Where is the "wow"? I want to be blown away by a creatively driven hotel and would pay more for that experience.

The WOW factor would be the price tag for building something similar where all the building material, and labor had to be flown in. I wouldn't even begin to estimate the cost. I bet Lee MacDonald has a chart, and formula for it though.

I guess you could build something around the old Discovery Island in Bay Lake that would qualify as a Wow type resort. Possibly a 5 star DVC resort since that seems to be the way WDW is going these days.

 

[CBOMB]

This is both frustrating and enlightening.

I am a big fan of Everest (when fully working), but from some angles, something has sort of felt off about the mountain itself, and it seems so obvious now that you bring it up.

Having a full-sized train moving through the miniaturized monastery temple and into mountain peaks completely throws off the scale & perspective of what should be a Himalayan peak, hurting the realism of the experience both before and during.

The train should have entered a "lift cave" well below the monastery, and then stayed within an enclosed mountainside emerging in the icy mountain peaks, out-of-view of the people on the ground. The train could later enter the foreground out of the big drop cave, never being directly visible against the things that are supposed to be high above. I did a couple mock-ups of what I mean:

This is frustrating because you've nailed it, and from now on I will always see Everest as lacking in this respect.

Thanks for posting the images and your mock-up solutions, as they make the point about relative scale very well. You could still get the wow out of the trains coming out of the lower face and not have them hurt the scale. You can cheat the "Forced perspective" effect by doing what you describe, or show the train ascending a closer peak and then having tinier snow sheds or a small train model on the mountain in the distance like they did with the Atomobiles in the ATIS. In any event, for me, the big thing was seeing this full size train on the tiny mountain.

Especially since the EE train is more obvious in silhouette, not to mention that the scale/span of the bridge structure in relation to the monastery and the peak seems obviously out of scale. On the Matterhorn, the sleds are partially hidden by rocks and stuff or seen full scale on the bridge, splashdown, all lower to the ground. The Matterhorn does not really threaten the scale above the snow line. Image attached.
http://geektyrant.com/storage/post-...jpeg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1309398723741

While this does solve the perspective problem. You lose the initial anticipation of what lies within the mountain, as well as the fantastic view of the park. Do you think the perspective is worth that?

 

[c-one]

As someone else who's always been bothered by the strangeness of that tiny-village-on-a-rock next to the mountain, I say yes. Besides, an expanded mountain wouldn't necessarily destroy the views the riders have -- it just needs to make the train and track less visible from the ground.