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

[DubyooDeeDubyoo]

I just discovered this thread today, and have been reading it cover to cover. I'm currently on page 65 of the first thread in about 24 hours.

Eddie, I see that you left around the Pressler reign, so maybe you have some insight into what I'm about to ask or maybe not: What criteria were they working with on DL's Tomorrowland 96 when deciding what to slap a new coat of paint on and what to shelve entirely? I'm not asking you to name names, obviously; I just want to know what the discussions were like.

Even today I'm still surprised and a little shocked at, what I feel the collective message of TL 96 was. I'm not sure why the Rocket Jets were brought to the ground, but I'm fine with that; though I feel a little insulted that the machinery for the original ride is still up there turning around and doing nothing for the guests from an efficiency standpoint. I was startled when the last Mark III body, which had spent a decade sitting as a cast member motivator and photo op and had even been bolted onto a bus body and rolled around the country for the 35th had been dipped in Day Glo Purple and hung like a corpse in the old Circlerama building. When Buzz Lightyear was installed, the company supposedly trashed it suggesting they didn't wrap the body first or anything.

Meanwhile, things that had little to do with TL's new Discoveryland-inspired story remained, such as Star Tours and (of course) Space Mountain and were mostly unchanged or slightly improved (your surf guitar soundtrack, which was definitely an experiential plus even if the sound systems made the sleds too heavy.) I realize the Submarine ride needed closure, the numerous practical reasons to discontinue the Skyway, etc.

For simplicity's sake, let's not single out any specific attractions but just the story of the land as a whole. I felt that TL96 had a sinister intent to demolish anything Walt may have seen or touched. As a fan, it felt as though someone was gleefully running through Tomorrowland with a hammer and smashing anything that Walt had put his stamp on, and ran out of breath before reaching Autopia and the train station. Considering that DL's signature element through the 80s and 90s was "Walt Wuz Here," it certainly seemed like they couldn't about-face on tradition any harder.

I don't mean to say "this sucks; what were they thinking?", but there has to be a story there beyond simple budget because it doesn't even make fiduciary sense to leave a working Rocket Jets machine on the roof without rockets.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I just discovered this thread today, and have been reading it cover to cover. I'm currently on page 65 of the first thread in about 24 hours.

Eddie, I see that you left around the Pressler reign, so maybe you have some insight into what I'm about to ask or maybe not: What criteria were they working with on DL's Tomorrowland 96 when deciding what to slap a new coat of paint on and what to shelve entirely? I'm not asking you to name names, obviously; I just want to know what the discussions were like.

Even today I'm still surprised and a little shocked at, what I feel the collective message of TL 96 was. I'm not sure why the Rocket Jets were brought to the ground, but I'm fine with that; though I feel a little insulted that the machinery for the original ride is still up there turning around and doing nothing for the guests from an efficiency standpoint. I was startled when the last Mark III body, which had spent a decade sitting as a cast member motivator and photo op and had even been bolted onto a bus body and rolled around the country for the 35th had been dipped in Day Glo Purple and hung like a corpse in the old Circlerama building. When Buzz Lightyear was installed, the company supposedly trashed it suggesting they didn't wrap the body first or anything.

Meanwhile, things that had little to do with TL's new Discoveryland-inspired story remained, such as Star Tours and (of course) Space Mountain and were mostly unchanged or slightly improved (your surf guitar soundtrack, which was definitely an experiential plus even if the sound systems made the sleds too heavy.) I realize the Submarine ride needed closure, the numerous practical reasons to discontinue the Skyway, etc.

For simplicity's sake, let's not single out any specific attractions but just the story of the land as a whole. I felt that TL96 had a sinister intent to demolish anything Walt may have seen or touched. As a fan, it felt as though someone was gleefully running through Tomorrowland with a hammer and smashing anything that Walt had put his stamp on, and ran out of breath before reaching Autopia and the train station. Considering that DL's signature element through the 80s and 90s was "Walt Wuz Here," it certainly seemed like they couldn't about-face on tradition any harder.

I don't mean to say "this sucks; what were they thinking?", but there has to be a story there beyond simple budget because it doesn't even make fiduciary sense to leave a working Rocket Jets machine on the roof without rockets.

That was a Tony Baxter/Bruce Gordon project, so I was not in the meetings that led to it's design. It's not fair for me to speculate too much beyond my basic take on it. I know budgets got cuts during the project. From what I do understand Tony was trying to deliver on a less prediction based "future" as the '67 Tomorrowland (based on a prediction) had not come true. He believed that people did not dream of living in mylar space suits as the moon craze had come and gone, but rather a nature focused kind of sustainable future. Warmer. This led to edible gardens. The murals and so forth and theme tell the "tomorrow that never was" type story. It looks back and with Innoventions looks ahead. This was considered to be more timeless as it's a about our retro views of the futures, or futures. Space Mountain was painted in a more Vernian Discoveryland palette. Rocket Rods was the result of looking into something I was working on for Tokyo, which was Rocket Bikes, a dueling wheelie popping Motorcycle race on the beamway. It did not fit in the tunnels so we took it back to TDL. I think the Rocket Jets ended up out front to make the land appear new and different, I believe that was the reason. The palette changed more recently to the blues.


You might search for an interview with Tony from that period and see what was said about the story.

 

[DubyooDeeDubyoo]

Thanks for the reply.

It is interesting that something that turned out so divisive among fans can come from "old guard" guys like Tony and Bruce. It was one of those projects where people point fingers at anyone in a suit, I know some believe Eisner had a hand in the agricultural element since he was supportive of that theme at DCA 1.0.

I remember being awed at WDW's New Tomorrowland (That Never Was) when I saw it on Disney Channel. Living out west, I saw next to nothing about WDW except that they seemed to be always getting entire new lands if we got new attractions, and entire new parks if we got a new land. Now that I've been twice and read up on history, I know what was and wasn't touched and I'm still impressed compared to what Anaheim received.

Somehow, I feel like if Walt was in the room when the prediction-based Tomorrows were disposed of, he would have picked Asimov instead Verne; or at least something more along those lines.

I didn't know about the rocket bikes. Light googling took me to a page about Sci-Fi City. Man, do I wish that had been built! Perhaps my only issue is that the design of the concept artwork seems to borrow from both the art deco industrial era and pulp science, and I'm not sure how well they blend together. The logo reminds me of signage that I see frequently in Orlando and occasionally in Anaheim, where you have these dual 'fins' of a sort sticking off the edges of the sign, with increasingly larger (or smaller, depending on how you look at it) circles cut through them.

I think the only thing I have left to wonder is how they budget attractions VS dining, shopping, and assorted infrastructure. People rag on DCA, but I always felt the theming in the restaurants was very well done. Condor Flats, and the Taste Pilots Grill especially, have some great effort put into making a place that I can believe is an authentic parts garage. Carry onto the next land, and the people who are paying attention will notice that the 'rafts' in Grizzly River Run are actually airplane tires, and you can actually imagine them getting the tires from the 'airfield' next door. I love little transitional details that cross settings like that.

 

[HMF]

Thanks for the reply.

It is interesting that something that turned out so divisive among fans can come from "old guard" guys like Tony and Bruce. It was one of those projects where people point fingers at anyone in a suit, I know some believe Eisner had a hand in the agricultural element since he was supportive of that theme at DCA 1.0.

I remember being awed at WDW's New Tomorrowland (That Never Was) when I saw it on Disney Channel. Living out west, I saw next to nothing about WDW except that they seemed to be always getting entire new lands if we got new attractions, and entire new parks if we got a new land. Now that I've been twice and read up on history, I know what was and wasn't touched and I'm still impressed compared to what Anaheim received.

Somehow, I feel like if Walt was in the room when the prediction-based Tomorrows were disposed of, he would have picked Asimov instead Verne; or at least something more along those lines.

I didn't know about the rocket bikes. Light googling took me to a page about Sci-Fi City. Man, do I wish that had been built! Perhaps my only issue is that the design of the concept artwork seems to borrow from both the art deco industrial era and pulp science, and I'm not sure how well they blend together. The logo reminds me of signage that I see frequently in Orlando and occasionally in Anaheim, where you have these dual 'fins' of a sort sticking off the edges of the sign, with increasingly larger (or smaller, depending on how you look at it) circles cut through them.

I think the only thing I have left to wonder is how they budget attractions VS dining, shopping, and assorted infrastructure. People rag on DCA, but I always felt the theming in the restaurants was very well done. Condor Flats, and the Taste Pilots Grill especially, have some great effort put into making a place that I can believe is an authentic parts garage. Carry onto the next land, and the people who are paying attention will notice that the 'rafts' in Grizzly River Run are actually airplane tires, and you can actually imagine them getting the tires from the 'airfield' next door. I love little transitional details that cross settings like that.

It really perplexes me that they actually thought the Discoveryland aesthetic would work being overlaid onto an original Tomorrowland considering how successful Magic Kingdoms "Spaceport" concept turned out. Magic Kingdom should have been the model not Dicoveryland which is an entirely different concept

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Thanks for the reply

I think the only thing I have left to wonder is how they budget attractions VS dining, shopping, and assorted infrastructure.

Retail and food have a return on investment that can be directly measured, and so it's easier to justify spending more on those spaces. Attractions are amortized or spread out in cost across the project. Unless they bring new guests as a new draw to the park, it's tough to know what you should spend at times.

"Sci-Fi City" would have been more like the WDW Tomorrowland but with the richness in many facades as a city street. The styling was lifted from the "popular science" illustrations spanning the 30's through the 60's.

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

Never caught that detail on GRR rafts. Cool. I had always thought Condor Flats and the Golden State were the best themed parts of DCA. I wish the original designers had more follow through.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

It really perplexes me that they actually thought the Discoveryland aesthetic would work being overlaid onto an original Tomorrowland considering how successful Magic Kingdoms "Spaceport" concept turned out. Magic Kingdom should have been the model not Dicoveryland which is an entirely different concept

Tony has been partial to the Jules Verne 20,000 Leagues styling and darker color palette than the brighter "Popular Science" Art Moderne styles at WDW. Two different lands, two different authors.

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

^^ And I'd say, Eddie, both successful in different ways and varying degrees based on the dollar amount thrown at the project.

 

[DubyooDeeDubyoo]

I forgot you were on the Encounter restaurant at LAX. I keep meaning to see that, but naturally when I'm at the airport I'm usually loaded down with bags. To make it worse, I can never figure out how I'm supposed to get to that building from there. I know they have parking or a valet, but I never have a car in LA.

Of course, I should see Rivera, too; though the menu is perhaps a tad bit more authentic than my suburban taste buds are used to in destination dining (at Disney and Vegas restaurants I always gravitate towards the "safe choices" that are obviously meant to placate non-foodies who were pulled to the deep end of the pool.) Still, I see some stuff on the lunch menu that reads like it's tasty.


I'm sometimes curious what any Imagineers, especially the earlier generations, think of the cultural osmosis of the parks in other media today. If you see a show like The Simpsons slamming something that you worked on at some point (I know that DLP was the butt of so many jokes that it helped spur a name change), does it sting or do you just say 'yeah, I suppose they had a good point?' I suppose the typical "Disney is a soulless corporation who wants your dollars" gag on prime-time TV is easier to laugh at when you have managers telling you to cut your show budget and put in a plush store.

 

[Figment571]

Tony has been partial to the Jules Verne 20,000 Leagues styling and darker color palette than the brighter "Popular Science" Art Moderne styles at WDW. Two different lands, two different authors.

I think that is a strength of the Tomorrowland concept that has never been fully realized.Each park could have a very different take on it while retaining the same sort of spirit, that sense of "tomorrow" whether it be actually attempting to keep up with the times or a fanciful pulp take on the theme. WDW's is great in terms of the architecture and, well massively, lacking in attractions that capitalize on the themeing of the land.
Also, if all the parks were to have an individualistic take on that land it could help to differentiate themselves and maybe in a way put a kink in the "DisneyParks" hogwash that they insist on using.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I forgot you were on the Encounter restaurant at LAX. I keep meaning to see that, but naturally when I'm at the airport I'm usually loaded down with bags. To make it worse, I can never figure out how I'm supposed to get to that building from there. I know they have parking or a valet, but I never have a car in LA.

Of course, I should see Rivera, too; though the menu is perhaps a tad bit more authentic than my suburban taste buds are used to in destination dining (at Disney and Vegas restaurants I always gravitate towards the "safe choices" that are obviously meant to placate non-foodies who were pulled to the deep end of the pool.) Still, I see some stuff on the lunch menu that reads like it's tasty.


I'm sometimes curious what any Imagineers, especially the earlier generations, think of the cultural osmosis of the parks in other media today. If you see a show like The Simpsons slamming something that you worked on at some point (I know that DLP was the butt of so many jokes that it helped spur a name change), does it sting or do you just say 'yeah, I suppose they had a good point?' I suppose the typical "Disney is a soulless corporation who wants your dollars" gag on prime-time TV is easier to laugh at when you have managers telling you to cut your show budget and put in a plush store.

Critiques hurt most if they are unwarranted, mean spirited, or based on inaccurate information, but you have to learn to live with that. The good reviews feel awesome! If the audience "speaks" you need to listen to their crits as you ultimately work for them. Working on EuroDisney was heartbreaking as it was a labor of love for all of us. The fans that get what was done, say so and that's reassuring, but the overall business was so miscalculated it overshadowed a stellar product. I see that job as the Vietnam War of WDI. You kill yourself over there for 5 years and then when you come back you are vilified for doing it. The public perception was that the project was a flop because the product was bad, and that hurts. Then the reverse happened when corporate accused us of it being "too good". They'd say "Why did you make it that good? we should have spent less." The truth is that they told us to make it that good and approved every Franc.

In the end, I'd rather have the chance to build amazing things the majority enjoy (even if the reviews are mixed), then never get the rare opportunity to do anything. Getting beat up once in a while comes with the territory.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I think that is a strength of the Tomorrowland concept that has never been fully realized.Each park could have a very different take on it while retaining the same sort of spirit, that sense of "tomorrow" whether it be actually attempting to keep up with the times or a fanciful pulp take on the theme. WDW's is great in terms of the architecture and, well massively, lacking in attractions that capitalize on the themeing of the land.
Also, if all the parks were to have an individualistic take on that land it could help to differentiate themselves and maybe in a way put a kink in the "DisneyParks" hogwash that they insist on using.

It's nice to see a different take on the future in each park, as it could even be culturally driven as in Paris.

 

[DubyooDeeDubyoo]

One last thing and I'll move on for a bit: Since you're west coast, what's your take on Cathay Circle so far? The theater spire building has begun to 'stabilize' enough that your minds eye can fill in the remaining details.

I know purists will howl about DCA penetrating the berm, but going back to sightlines I think I wouldn't mind being able to see the top of the spire from inside Disneyland, from the hub/Main Street. I don't know if you can, but I think you should. And I wouldn't mind being able to see Main Street's Train Station from inside the Cathay Circle area either (though this is probably a given.) They've made sure to play up the "just like when Walt arrived in his twenties" aspect to this land, and I think it is fine to wind it in with Main Street and it's origins as Walt's nostalgia for his childhood. Imagine if going from the DL hub toward DCA felt like moving forward in history, while the other direction felt like 'going back home.'

And of course, managers like it because it makes park hopping seem natural, and anything that draws Disneyland guests southbound is a good deal by them.

The DL/DCA weakness has long been that tiny esplanade doesn't allow the narration to "take a breath". Given no agenda except the entrances to guide them, people would see the iconic train station and that rinky Golden Gate miniature and it's obvious which gate they'll go through. But a second park entrance that visually compliments MSUSA, instead of competing with it, is something that hasn't really been tried before at WDW or even in Tokyo.


What kind of plan do you prefer? Parks with distance between them to 'reset' the scenery (WDW), parks immediately next to each other (DLR), or parks that are next to each other but with entrances at different angles (TDR)?



(edited to add:
I just got to the page in the last thread where you mentioned working on the Ferrari/Maserati dealership for Wynn Las Vegas. Do you have any other Vegas projects?

And I don't know if you knew/heard of Todd-Avery Lenahan, as I don't know if he was part of WDI or what I've heard was a rival hotel group, but I'm pretty sure he had an interior decorator's gig at WDI. Either way, he was involved in hotels at WDW; I know the Boardwalk for certain but I don't of what else. He left to go independent, I suppose like you, and was hired by Wynn to be one of his decorators for the Encore tower, as Steve Wynn's long-time friend and head designer Roger Thomas had temporarily considered retirement and was less involved than he was with WynnLV and Bellagio.

I'm not sure what ALL of Todd's work there was, since Thomas is still the go-to man of Wynn Design & Development, but I do know he designed this spa:
http://images.oyster.com/las-vegas/...os/spa-encore-wynn-las-vegas-v141123-1600.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/YbYFf.jpg

Anyway, just food for thought.)

 

[Eddie Sotto]

What kind of plan do you prefer? Parks with distance between them to 'reset' the scenery (WDW), parks immediately next to each other (DLR), or parks that are next to each other but with entrances at different angles (TDR)?

(edited to add:
I just got to the page in the last thread where you mentioned working on the Ferrari/Maserati dealership for Wynn Las Vegas. Do you have any other Vegas projects?
Anyway, just food for thought.)

I know Todd, he's perfect to mimic the "Wynn/Roger Thomas" style. Not easy to do. Have not caught up with him in some time. As for Vegas, after Wynn we "re-skinned" the Aladdin facade as a "digital color organ" for the Planet Hollywood group that was taking it over. I can't say they have Wynn's appetite for quality, but it worked for them and set them apart on the strip. As to park location, I guess having them in singular settings is really nice as they feel more like destinations you can see over the horizon and lend more to a reveal.

 

[DubyooDeeDubyoo]

I like the PH facade, even though for obvious reasons I always feel a little sad when the 'themed' decorations of the old hotels are torn down and washed over with a generic party vibe. They took forever to put the "planet hollywood" letters on the top of the tower, with a pause that left "planet ho" being up there for a few days. A journalist who used to be here had an interview with Robert Earl (president of PH before it was bought by Harrahs/Caesars Entertainment) and when asked if that was deliberate he responded that it "may or may not" have been intentional. :shrug:

They recently made more modifications to the area around the casino entrance, since getting people to see the doors are and go inside apparently was still a challenge after new facade.

I'm still reading the old thread, and got to page 138-ish where you talked about Western River Expedition and that you weren't nuts for the backgrounds. I kind of agree. It inspired me to do some searching and I encountered a video 'walkthrough' of the ride narrated by Tony. The crowd cheered the scene of the man on horseback standing on the roof of the bar, and Tony cracked that "I want to have that put on the train, replace the dinosaurs" and got a bit of a laugh.

If he wasn't joking, I wish him luck. Primeval World makes me wince for the same reasons that the 60s House of the Future probably would if it was still around today. Since that display was made, we now know that many of those dinosaurs didn't exist at the same time and now that they would be covered in feathers and look like huge birds. They found a fossilized feather, even. So much for scaly green creatures.

WRE, as you said back then, feels like actors on a movie stage. Given the state of the train tunnel (if you look a little to the left you can see the rafters and lighting) I think Tony's off-hand remark to build WRE scenes in the Costuming/Dinosaur tunnel isn't a bad idea. On the other hand, some of this stuff might show up if rumors that Frontierland is being expanded from Festival Arena through the berm turn out to be accurate.

I enjoyed your comment that the magic is sapped slightly when you feel like you're on a stage. I think this is why The Great Movie Ride gets frequently slagged in articles like this one. Pirates and Mansion are amazing because they have sequences that appear to be doing their own thing, and you're merely an observer drifting by. Every single room in GMR feels like a jack-in-the-box that has been primed to spring open the moment you drive by; from the gunfight or bank robbery, to the aliens popping out of the walls, to the munchkins all popping up and singing.

I think the GMR team was trying to build a new Jungle Cruise, but the "drive up, hit the button, watch the sequence" pattern was repeated too much.



EDIT:
Darn! I got so caught up on GMR and WRE that I forgot my reason for posting again.

I was listening to a discussion with Thomas a few months ago where the journalist was asking him about the design changes that MGM has made to Bellagio in the past decade, since they were making dramatic renovations to the rooms last year. Thomas was nonchalant and not offended, saying "I wake up every morning and get to make my dreams come true."

This, I think, is what most fans looking from the outside into WDI think the creative process is like. From reading your posts, it seems more like you get to watch most of your dreams have holes blown through them and shot down. A fraction appear in a compromised form (MSUSA Paris), and if you're lucky you occasionally get to make the full experience you were thinking of (Honey Hunt).

Disney types and sometimes even the other fans feel that the fans can at times be rabid and difficult to satisfy, but I think the core issue is that guests who know the parks can tell the difference between something an Imagineer truly wanted to build, and something that they had to build. I'll admit that the rides at Dino-Rama at DAK (mostly cheerfully dino-themed off the shelf carnival rides) aren't my kind of draw given that I'm a tourist from the other side of the country. But the real reason I feel uncomfortable in that area is because it's blatantly obvious that it's nobody's dream. They did a good job, but nobody became an Imagineer to build an imitation parking lot carnival. Even Paradise Pier, which I wasn't fond of on paper, feels like a convincing world.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I never thought of the GMR like that. It IS a repetitive format. Interesting. The sets are better than WRE, but the set up/payoff is something that may get old.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

BTW- Re:Building YOUR dreams. WDI is a "team place" and we all lean on and love the input and contributions of all those who we work with to improve the show. No one does this stuff alone.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I like the PH facade, even though for obvious reasons I always feel a little sad when the 'themed' decorations of the old hotels are torn down and washed over with a generic party vibe. They took forever to put the "planet hollywood" letters on the top of the tower, with a pause that left "planet ho" being up there for a few days. A journalist who used to be here had an interview with Robert Earl (president of PH before it was bought by Harrahs/Caesars Entertainment) and when asked if that was deliberate he responded that it "may or may not" have been intentional. :shrug:

They recently made more modifications to the area around the casino entrance, since getting people to see the doors are and go inside apparently was still a challenge after new facade.

I'm still reading the old thread, and got to page 138-ish where you talked about Western River Expedition and that you weren't nuts for the backgrounds. I kind of agree. It inspired me to do some searching and I encountered a video 'walkthrough' of the ride narrated by Tony. The crowd cheered the scene of the man on horseback standing on the roof of the bar, and Tony cracked that "I want to have that put on the train, replace the dinosaurs" and got a bit of a laugh.

If he wasn't joking, I wish him luck. Primeval World makes me wince for the same reasons that the 60s House of the Future probably would if it was still around today. Since that display was made, we now know that many of those dinosaurs didn't exist at the same time and now that they would be covered in feathers and look like huge birds. They found a fossilized feather, even. So much for scaly green creatures.

WRE, as you said back then, feels like actors on a movie stage. Given the state of the train tunnel (if you look a little to the left you can see the rafters and lighting) I think Tony's off-hand remark to build WRE scenes in the Costuming/Dinosaur tunnel isn't a bad idea. On the other hand, some of this stuff might show up if rumors that Frontierland is being expanded from Festival Arena through the berm turn out to be accurate.

I enjoyed your comment that the magic is sapped slightly when you feel like you're on a stage. I think this is why The Great Movie Ride gets frequently slagged in articles like this one. Pirates and Mansion are amazing because they have sequences that appear to be doing their own thing, and you're merely an observer drifting by. Every single room in GMR feels like a jack-in-the-box that has been primed to spring open the moment you drive by; from the gunfight or bank robbery, to the aliens popping out of the walls, to the munchkins all popping up and singing.

I think the GMR team was trying to build a new Jungle Cruise, but the "drive up, hit the button, watch the sequence" pattern was repeated too much.



EDIT:
Darn! I got so caught up on GMR and WRE that I forgot my reason for posting again.

I was listening to a discussion with Thomas a few months ago where the journalist was asking him about the design changes that MGM has made to Bellagio in the past decade, since they were making dramatic renovations to the rooms last year. Thomas was nonchalant and not offended, saying "I wake up every morning and get to make my dreams come true."

This, I think, is what most fans looking from the outside into WDI think the creative process is like. From reading your posts, it seems more like you get to watch most of your dreams have holes blown through them and shot down. A fraction appear in a compromised form (MSUSA Paris), and if you're lucky you occasionally get to make the full experience you were thinking of (Honey Hunt).

Disney types and sometimes even the other fans feel that the fans can at times be rabid and difficult to satisfy, but I think the core issue is that guests who know the parks can tell the difference between something an Imagineer truly wanted to build, and something that they had to build. I'll admit that the rides at Dino-Rama at DAK (mostly cheerfully dino-themed off the shelf carnival rides) aren't my kind of draw given that I'm a tourist from the other side of the country. But the real reason I feel uncomfortable in that area is because it's blatantly obvious that it's nobody's dream. They did a good job, but nobody became an Imagineer to build an imitation parking lot carnival. Even Paradise Pier, which I wasn't fond of on paper, feels like a convincing world.

Thank you for a very interesting post.

First WRE...

If you ever experienced the DL AA Show "America Sings", you will be subjected to the format of abstractly cartooned flats with characters acting in front of them. This show opened when I was about 16, and I was so depressed. In that "theater" setting it was the right answer, but there was no magic whatsoever. We won;t get into the fact that it was set in Tomorrowland. So when I commented later on the look of the WRE, it was with this execution in mind. No "escape" to any other time or place, it was just these great characters plopped in a vanilla context. This makes the characters have to work that much harder as they have no magical world to extend their personalities, as in Splash or even Bear Country. IMO, Marc Davis' work works best when it's set in an established alternative world, not a plywood vignette.

The job..

You may run across this post in your reading but I believe that good art direction is partly the art of compromise. In the system you operate in, you will have to cut something or compromise the vision at some point, so knowing the idea and getting the decision makers above you to also know what works about the idea helps to protect it in the inevitable process of winnowing. If you know what can be left out and still give the guest the wow, then you are successful more of the time. You also have to be vocal and tough when the line of "the point of no creative return" is to be crossed and make sure those above you are assuming the accountability for the failure of the creative soul if they cut too much. You need to know where that line is and head it off. Usually, they step back because you are saying that they are feeding the project a "poison pill" and you are noting their actions. No money guy really wants creative responsibility as they will blame you later for not fighting them at the time they cut something. Lose/Lose.

I look back and see that I usually get at least 50% of what I was after and it still works to a degree. There are more things I would do differently in Space or Pooh than Main Street, although the 1920's theme at some level of execution would have been fun to pull off. Main Street was creatively gutted from that far reaching idea, but executed well beyond expectation for the traditional version that it is. So that project stands out and most like it. I quit before Pooh and Space were done and there were things I would have liked to follow through on that could have made a difference. Pooh has that great ride system and it is matched to the scenes and action so it's a hit even though there are small things I would adjust. It's a 90%.

The biggest thing was lack of autonomy (movies have directors), not to say my having more control would have made things better, but the amount of layers in the process had increased to the point where I spent the majority of my time aligning the management and very little doing what I was really good at which was the creative and design work. I remember in Tokyo, one person came up to me after a presentation on Pooh and said through a translator that it was nice that they would bring in Hollywood actors to present the projects. I had to get back to drawing again as I was becoming a salesman in the eyes of others.

Having said all of that, I'm still proud to have weathered the storms of the business and operational sides and still produced things that most people like. that combat training makes you stronger as those conditions and criteria exist in the real world as well. You need to be prepared to defend your design from many angles and in fact, it needs to respond to those issues if it is to survive. If you get 100M to build a show, you have truly earned it.

I hope this sheds light on those issues.

 

[ChrisFL]

I remember in Tokyo, one person came up to me after a presentation on Pooh and said through a translator that it was nice that they would bring in Hollywood actors to present the projects. I had to get back to drawing again as I was becoming a salesman in the eyes of others.

So they thought you were a Hollywood actor? I wonder which one...

 

[Eddie Sotto]

So they thought you were a Hollywood actor? I wonder which one...

Paul Lynde.