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

Eddie Sotto

Premium Member
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?

I think there's a way of letting the guest in the train see over the rocks without revealing the whole train and it's track. The Matterhorn allowed you to see out at the highest point and it did that once you reached the top of the lift. You went up in the dark inside the mountain, which was scary, then you popped out in a cave over the park before speeding up. Very dramatic.
 

WDW1974

Well-Known Member
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.

I never used to be bothered by it ... but the more I visit DAK, the more it kinda sticks out to me.

I don't know whether it's the tiny village or the giant train by comparison, but something definitely feels a bit 'off' to me now that newness, the 'they actually built a major new attraction at WDW' has long since worn off! :xmas:
 

wdwmagic

Administrator
Moderator
Premium Member
Original Poster
Wow Eddie - never expected Epcot's now lost "Lights of Winter" to show up years ago in Paris! I always had wondered if they were built for Epcot, or came from somewhere else. If they weren't these exact arches, they were cut from the same cloth.

I agree they don't work as well on Main St, and the poles don't seem to fit theme either... Why this and why not copy the classic swag garland / wreath look from CA and FL?

They were indeed identical to LoW at Epcot. They looked a mess in the daytime but were awesome at night. They ran the full length of Main Street and were part of an elaborate tree lighting ceremony.
 

RandySavage

Well-Known Member
Now I feel kinda bad about bringing it up at all. Should have kept my cynical thoughts to myself! :shrug:

I, for one, appreciate your bringing up all aspects of park design, both the well-executed and the lesser. The Greeks thought the goal of one's life should be to pursue excellence - "arete" as they called it. There are many aspects of theme parks today (and of the past 50 years) that have sought and reached arete... and many aspects that have fallen short or regressed. I think it is worthwhile to examine the full spectrum - great to terrible - in order to understand the why's and how's of great theme park design.

I understand that criticizing the parks in up-mood threads can get tiresome and party-pooper-ish, but this thread, in my eyes, is an academic forum, and so it is necessary on occasion.
 

ChrisFL

Premium Member
They were indeed identical to LoW at Epcot. They looked a mess in the daytime but were awesome at night. They ran the full length of Main Street and were part of an elaborate tree lighting ceremony.

Agreed, thats what always bothered me about certain effects, if its ugly in daylight but good looking at nighttime that isn't very good strategy.

I will say that is one thing that Disney seemed to maybe have learned from when installing the lights on Cinderella Castle, they're nearly invisible in the daytime.
 

Eddie Sotto

Premium Member
I, for one, appreciate your bringing up all aspects of park design, both the well-executed and the lesser. The Greeks thought the goal of one's life should be to pursue excellence - "arete" as they called it. There are many aspects of theme parks today (and of the past 50 years) that have sought and reached arete... and many aspects that have fallen short or regressed. I think it is worthwhile to examine the full spectrum - great to terrible - in order to understand the why's and how's of great theme park design.

I understand that criticizing the parks in up-mood threads can get tiresome and party-pooper-ish, but this thread, in my eyes, is an academic forum, and so it is necessary on occasion.

We try to keep things on an objective and constructive level, so I'm glad you see the commentary that way. As to art (however it's spelled) I don't think you set out to make it, you do what you love and if enough other people react to it, they call it so. Theme Parks, like Movies can be powerful emotional engines and so it's not surprising that some call what has been done "art". Others call it kitch. To each their own!

Architects have called it their own (scripted spaces) after dissing it for about 50 years.
 

Eddie Sotto

Premium Member
Agreed, thats what always bothered me about certain effects, if its ugly in daylight but good looking at nighttime that isn't very good strategy.

I will say that is one thing that Disney seemed to maybe have learned from when installing the lights on Cinderella Castle, they're nearly invisible in the daytime.

Super good point! We always ask ourselves what it's like in the day as the vast majority of guests see the parks during daylight. Night is the bonus.
 

KevinYee

Well-Known Member
How much of an expert on color does a designer have to be? If I recall correctly, John Hench was big on this. Everything from which colors go with which other colors (do you take into account the various types of color blindness?) to which colors are "warm" and which are "cold."

I assume most designers don't learn academic color theory, but I'm curious about the balance of innateness and training on this issue. Are most designers tuned in to color and its meanings/shadings/effects intuitively? Or do most have to learn from a master?
 

Eddie Sotto

Premium Member
How much of an expert on color does a designer have to be? If I recall correctly, John Hench was big on this. Everything from which colors go with which other colors (do you take into account the various types of color blindness?) to which colors are "warm" and which are "cold."

I assume most designers don't learn academic color theory, but I'm curious about the balance of innateness and training on this issue. Are most designers tuned in to color and its meanings/shadings/effects intuitively? Or do most have to learn from a master?

You need to get good at it. Many architects are not, but in this business where emotion plays such a big role in the creative outcome, color can make or break what you are trying to achieve. It is one of the biggest areas projects fail in.If you are not technically skilled at it, you at least have to have a feel for it to set a direction. A production designer in movies designs the film based on a color spectrum that mirrors the story. Movies even have a signature palette or color accent that appears in the story. Pixar does this as well with a color storyboard that shows how the film progresses through color.

John Hench was the colorist supreme, although there are stylists you work with that are good advisors, like the one I worked with on Main Street, Katie Olsen.
Again, it's best if you can imagine the scene in color to begin with, or have a palette in mind. It can be a struggle at times when you get down to close swatches or complex interiors. Contrast is the key.

I learned mostly by observing and studying examples in movies and in the parks. Herb Ryman had the best nose for color I had known. He told us not to be afraid of it and he was not. Look at his paintings and he uses colors to elicit emotion that have nothing to do with realism at all. Ron Esposito, who did lots of exterior scenic art direction, had many great tricks in how you choose a base color and age on top of it. That is trickier as the color you start with is not always the color you end with. Certain designers have their own stylistic preferences they repeat and so do I. We just got a huge new set of color swatches at our office, so yes, it's a big deal.
History sometimes has traditions in color and its placement that you tend to follow as you want to make the land period legit to a degree.For example, the "painted ladies" practice of painting all the victorian trim and panels different wild colors is less period and more recent. Real victorian houses of the time period were for the most part darker, more coordinated richer colors and a bit less gaudy.

On MSUSA DLP we set some new directions in the use of color (inspired by European examples) that were copied and used in the other parks, such as using very saturated dark colors (maroon) on facades. That was considered to be too negative by John Hench, till he saw how we were using it and added accents to relieve it.
 

Eddie Sotto

Premium Member
Or a she is known within WDI "Katie, the color queen"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqYfp4ICbYo&feature=player_embedded

LOL Probably. There is a step in the process where you produce a colored elevation view of the facade and add the paint specification. This area was Katie's and for areas like Main Street she would produce those "color boards" based on our own discussions and her own recommendations as well. We'd take those to show John Hench once we liked the results. She was great to work with and became, along with her talented Imagineer Husband John Olson, good friends of ours.
.
 

BalooChicago

Well-Known Member
You need to get good at it. Many architects are not

I cannot tell you how many architects I have worked with who were, literally, color blind.

One of my classmates built a model sophomore year with these hideous colors. The teacher asked him, jokingly, if he was color blind. After a short pause my classmate said "Yes, why?"
 

Eddie Sotto

Premium Member
I cannot tell you how many architects I have worked with who were, literally, color blind.

One of my classmates built a model sophomore year with these hideous colors. The teacher asked him, jokingly, if he was color blind. After a short pause my classmate said "Yes, why?"

My take is that if you grow up using CAD or drafting in black and white, you are not used to color as part of the process, and when it comes time to apply it, it feels like an after thought that threatens the seriousness of the building. As you know, it's all about the building. Richard Meier is famous for his use of only shades of white. Could it be because white goes with everything?
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
My take is that if you grow up using CAD or drafting in black and white, you are not used to color as part of the process, and when it comes time to apply it, it feels like an after thought that threatens the seriousness of the building. As you know, it's all about the building. Richard Meier is famous for his use of only shades of white. Could it be because white goes with everything?
I cannot speak for everywhere, but in my experience color was not even an issue at the beginning of architecture school. Then it becomes more about the texture of the material than its color. That said, this does seem to be an area where BIM offers another advantage over CAD, as color can be part of the equation from the beginning (but that is also dependent on having a good computer).
 

Horizonsfan

Well-Known Member
I cannot tell you how many architects I have worked with who were, literally, color blind.

One of my classmates built a model sophomore year with these hideous colors. The teacher asked him, jokingly, if he was color blind. After a short pause my classmate said "Yes, why?"

Similar experience occurred to another student this semester in my architecture studio. Unfortunately for the person who was critiqued, the reviewer was scathing rather than joking and found out afterward about the student's color blindness. Awkward for all involved.:lol:

It's rather strange as color, at least at my architecture school was only focused on for about the first semester of the program. After that it's all about form and materiality (and presentation). It would be nice for these schools focus on color a little more. The need for white modern buildings is only so great.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom