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

[Daannzzz]

I do share his mixed feelings.
I didn't see cars at the theater. It was my first BluRay I bought and watched. It was spectacular looking but I almost turned it off because I hated the main character. One they got to Radiator Springs I like it MUCH more. The town was realized in such a way that was very nostalgic and the characters there were interesting.
At DCA I was disappointed in the announcement of Carsland though I thought being able to be in Radiator Springs would be cool. The way it is turning out is quite incredible looking and I will hopefully enjoy the environment. I am deeply disappointed that the Racers ride will be all about the characters on the dark ride portion. I would love to see Disney create an immersive experience that didn't have to do with an animated subject. While the interior portion may be fine I do not expect it to wow me, just because of the subject. The other two attractions, while well themed are just carnival style rides to me. Yes. The Flyin' Tires will be like the flying saucers but it really doesn't look that fun. Maters appears to be a bit more fun but still a small ride.
I would have rather had Carsland to be less specific and able to open up to more inclusion from California and other car themes.
As it is it appears I will love the atmosphere and enjoy the attractions but it could have been so much more if opened up to other themes.

 

[flynnibus]

Love the "That’s like giving someone a solid gold set of bagpipes" line.

I echo the concern that simply spending doesn't make better. Yes, its great to see them finally spending in the details, but you can still make the most details, ornate thing, that leaves guests hollow or flat.

Disney internet fans study how method 'A' was used to make an attraction that was successful, and look to find that method used again, and if they see it, praise the lord! If it's not there, they scold. They generally miss the why that method was used, or what it's purpose in contributing to the final product is about. Here, many see 'details' 'details' .. so they are in praise the lord mode. Same thing happened with TLM.. seeing the building's details people were climbing the E-Ticket mountain and singing from up high... only to be let down when they actually experienced the attraction. High tech arial hair didn't offset the hole the attraction people felt at the end of the ride.

I really feel technology and details are leading the 'show' itself. Its like the movies were we get this crazy CGI, summer blockbuster, that looks insane, but doesn't resonate with you at all and you'll never watch again.

That soul and reaching the guest is lacking in alot of recent work.

I think carsland is amazing in that this has to be the largest, most 'realistic' re-creation of any defined place the company has ever taken on. You should be able to get lost in the story of radiator springs. The question I guess is.. how lasting will the impression or awe of Radiator Springs the vision will be.

I do think there is more to it then just Cars the movie though. The plays will resonate not just with fans of the movie, but the subject the movie was based on.. cars americana. You don't need to adore the movie to react to 50s-60s americana

 

[ChrisFL]

This is along the lines of our current discussion of immersive worlds.

What do you guys think of what Michael Crawford has to say about Carsland?

Do you share his mixed feelings? I wonder if his sentiments are shared. Whatever your view, I think he expresses himself very well.

http://progresscityusa.com/2011/12/18/the-carsland-conundrum/

Come back and let me know what you think.

The piece of information that's missing, and that I only saw at either some D23 event videos or something else, was that it wasn't Carsland to begin with...it was Carland.....having nothing to do with a Pixar movie, but with similar elements.

I don't know the details of whether they came up with this entirely before the Cars movie was hatched, but it is worth noting. Instead we get the impression that John Lasseter came on board and insisted on building his own land at DCA entirely for one franchise.

Besides that, I DO think that Carsland can fit, it has a nostalgia factor for the Route 66 era, it looks beautiful and it has plenty of attractions from what I can tell.

Of course the only other issue is that Cars as a franchise exists without humans....the cars ARE the only inhabitants.

 

[RSoxNo1]

The way I understand it, the creative Imagineers had several ideas for the Carsland plot, and as it was weeded up through management the Carsland concept was pushed the most because of the feeling that it would resonate best with John Lasseter. It does seem that this approach will inevitably result in an inferior product as the creative people are trying to produce ideas that they thing will get approved, not the ideas they think are best. That chain of command was explained to me by the people over at imagineeringdisney.com.

The other side of the story was explained in the Imagineering Carsland Discussion from the D23 Expo. In the discussion, John Lasseter explained that the origins of this land stemmed from an idea called "Carland" where it would be all about the California Car Culture. Personally, I think that land is also a bit thin as well.

The things that Carsland, The Wizarding World of Harry Potter, World of Avatar, and even A Bugs Land lend themselves to is that they have created worlds that people want to visit. While Cars may not have been the best of Pixar's movies, the environment is a cool place to visit. Right now, there is no franchise that compares to Harry Potter, and that too is a world that people want to visit. While Avatar has been met with criticism, there was a magnificent world that was created by James Cameron.

I think the criticisms that people are making right not is that guests always want new attractions. While Disney is certainly building new attractions, they're not projects that the public is really enamored with yet. Right now, those projects are being built at Universal. But with Avatar, there is also so much that's unknown. The specifics of that land aren't ready for public consumption, so it's really hard for me to criticize what I don't know yet. However, there's a problem with our society where everyone wants to be the first to review something, or give their opinion. More importantly, negative opinions often gain more traction.

My argument on Avatar has been as follows. Imagine the movie Avatar didn't exist. Now imagine that the announcement that Disney made on September 20th was that mythical animals are coming to the Animal Kingdom and James Cameron is going to help us create that world. James Cameron and the Imagineers will join forces to create the mystical World of Avatar, where the Direhorse, Mountain Banshee and Viperwolf (thank you wikipedia) entertain guests.

The two ideas that people are clamoring for instead of World of Avatar are Beastly Kingdom or Mysterious Island. The reason people are clamoring for these lands is because they know what they are. Usually when you ask fans what they want, they'll stick with something familiar. Beastly Kingdom has mountains of concept art, and to many fans Mysterious Island is a beautiful land that exists in Tokyo. They want the former because they feel it was promised to them. They want they latter because in all likelihood they'll never visit Tokyo and this seems to be a logical and beautiful choice.

But is Pandora really that different? I admit, if the word Avatar is everywhere, or if the emphasis is on the human characters and not the Flora and Fauna, odds are it will be disappointing. But in the end, James Cameron is a wildly creative individual that created a magnificent world. He just didn't know how to tell a story in that world.

 

[Cosmic Commando]

Imagine building a "Carland" in 2012 with no Cars characters. It would not happen, not for long. There was a "Carland" on the drawing board with Cars characters mixed in, but they (smartly IMO) realized that it was going to end up being the exact same type of thematic mish-mash that had plagued DCA since 2001. Without "Carsland", I don't think you get the amazing mountain range to block the outside world or the cohesive, immersive experience. Plus, I think the temptation with a whole Carsland would have been to do the rusty, worn out, lived in look. That works for Harambe, because it's exotic and unique to 99.99% of guests and adds to the sense of adventure. When you're dealing with something ordinary like cars, you're dealing with something completely familiar to 99.99% of guests. To do it "real", you're destined to underwhelm. I think you'd get another Dino-Rama. The story of Dino-Rama is beautiful: makes perfect sense, integrates perfectly into the story of the land, etc. Sure, it made sense that Chester and Hester would put their little carnival on a parking lot, but did people know or care that the imagineers put in all the time to put a fake, meticulously aged parking lot? If you're going with a "normal" theme, I think you have to go towards the fantastical. What would that be with cars? A speedway? The epitome of cold, lifeless concrete. Now with Cars? Boom. Instantly you know what the land should look like and what the E-ticket should be: Radiator Springs and a race through the desert/mountains. Not that you should bend to every whim of the masses, but I think this is more on the level of being intuitive to what people expect. Like the door chase scene from Monsters, Inc.; how many of us thought about riding on a door chase coaster when we saw that scene? This isn't just caving in to what people think they want; this is part of the imagineers' talent for building things that "feel right": proportion, color, theme. Carsland feels right to me.

I think people are just so used to complaining about California Adventure they can't help but look for every flaw, real or perceived. For years, everyone complained about the California theme. Now that Disney is pushing the boundaries of that theme, they complain about that, too. No, Radiator Springs was explicitly mentioned in the movie as NOT in California. The land still embodies the car culture, still tells the story of Route 66, still brings the topography of a yet-unrepresented part of California to the park. Sometimes the overall theme must suffer in order to deliver courtesy or a great guest experience. The Carsland bathrooms will be people bathrooms, not car bathrooms. Why did the Matterhorn get plopped down between Fantasyland and Tomorrowland, when it didn't really belong in either land? Walt wanted it there.

Maybe you can tell, but I didn't really care for the article. Bloggers certainly have no obligation to be fair and balanced, but it's very obvious the author hates Carsland in his gut and is whipping out any reason he can use to justify his hatred. He calls it a "concrete and steel monstrosity" because we're trained to think of those materials as cold, harsh, unfeeling, unyielding, etc. Well, what do you think Fantasyland or Mysterious Island or any other themed land are made out of?

Could the Cars characters become stale? Sure, but I'm sure Disney thought about that. They're taking a risk by sinking $500M into a Carsland. Don't we always hate when we think Disney does what we view as the safe thing? Don't we lament that there are so many newer movies that should be represented at the parks? To have a movie come out in 2006 and a huge, lavishly themed land open in 2012 is a bold move. Anyway, it seems like a strange argument to make when you're talking about the company who is probably better than any other at keeping characters "alive". The author lauds the offerings in Disneyland's Fantasyland, a place whose attractions are (correct me if I'm wrong) themed exclusively around movies from the 30's, 40's and 50's. Still relevant today. We also have the example of Splash Mountain. The characters are the opposite of relevant, but the ride is a masterful work and fun and so it is popular.

But, boy do I hate that name.

 

[RSoxNo1]

But, boy do I hate that name.

I agree (as well with much of what you said). I would much prefer the name Radiator Springs to Carsland, and I feel that Pandora>World of Avatar>Avatarland

 

[lazyboy97o]

The problem with Cars Land is that Cars is very much rooted in our world, in what happened here, but without us. It was that nostalgia that generated a response in so many except little boys who are infatuated with the cars. But I question that being an attachment to the characters, as little boys also love trains and planes and other cars. How do people enter such a world? Are we to pretend that we are cars? Or do humans actually exist in this world? Yes, little boys will not ask questions, but this is one of those issues that addresses how people relate to an environment. I think it is part of the issue with Cars 2, the whole spy premise assumed that people had become attached to the characters much more. The Cars Toons are short and done purely for laughs, but Cars 2 had little with which people could really relate. It was just a drawn out slapstick short based around characters with which the audience does not have a strong connection. I think Radiator Springs Racers could have worked in Carland. The disconnect would exist only in the dark ride scenes. Like the Cars Toons it would be temporary, not an entire world we are trying to fully enter but ultimately cannot.

This is why I really disagree with what Cosmic Commando said. Radiator Springs is the real, worn in and only now reviving town that supposedly would not work without being "fantastical". The film is all pulled from reality, but romanticized and adapted for the film's premise that the world is inhabited by vehicles instead of people. The same process should have been applied to creating Carland. Almost all of the land could easily be redone to remove the Cars characters and still work, because the basis is our world, not an entirely new one.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Good input.

Your comments are really interesting. Keep it up. Carsland does look well done and lavish, so what is the problem? Do you think that maybe some of this angst is drawn from some sense of being synergistically motivated versus purely innovative? Following the Nemo and Toy Story Rides, is this all just the cumulative effect of a backlash against the "movie to toy to ride" rollout strategy?

 

[ChrisFL]

Well to me Carsland's main attractions are going to be just as enjoyable by people who haven't seen the movies. I doubt there's going to be significant plot development devices in a racing ride, or the tires/flying saucers ride.

So, in that sense, I look at this like Splash Mountain...even if people aren't familiar with the source material directly, the thrill experience is entirely the same.

I think so far the look and feel of the land is incredible from the photos I've seen. Re-creating things on that scale is just going to add something stateside we haven't seen in ages.

Also, Cars still is a MUCH better sell to the general public than Avatar which doesn't have the benefit of being based on a familiar premise to everyone.

 

[combe2009]

Isn't Carsland exactly what we need in DCA? Most guests don't analyse their trip through a Disney park and worry about theme, detail, synergy v innovation, they just know when it "feels" right, when the sum is worth more than the parts. Main Steet USA feels like "Disney", AK's Asia feels like an exotic faraway place, so if Carsland can make us feel like we are IN Radiator Springs then the job is half done... combine it with what will hopefully be an amazing E ticket and we will have what DCA has always lacked, the reason we visit Disney park, the feeling of being transported to some other time/place combined with a great ride experience.
Also, with the current trend of forcing popular franchises into the parks in the wrong place (nemo in the seas, buzz in TL etc) we should be thankful we didn't end up with "The Tomorrowland Speedway featuring Lightning McQueen" or "Test Track brought to you by DinoCo"!

(Long time lurker, first time poster, be gentle!)

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I guess I'd be pretty depressed if I was an Imagineer and working on the Cars thing. You kill yourself to make it that good and then it's still not enough for some of the purists. That being said, I'm enjoying all of the points of view in the discussion as I like knowing why something appeals or doesn't. Crawford's article was interesting as he was questioning his own feelings as to why he wasn't going nuts over it.

I think guests will enjoy it, but you can't know till you experience it in person. Guests may even find that the reflective quality of all that tall concrete will create a blistering microclimate and it's own appropriate desert heat! Toontown bakes you that way because of all it's surfaces and the retention of heat.

 

[KevinYee]

Purists can come around.

When Space Mtn Disneyland had ________ Dale music first added, I didn't like it much (I wouldn't have used the term 'purist' at the time, but it would have been accurate).

Two things over time changed my mind:

1. I got used to it (the bigger reason)
2. I got the chance to interview you, the creator, and I learned a bit about the Batman origin of the 'launch' and really liked the trivia of it

So I submit to you that Imagineers ought to maybe take the 'purist' view with a LITTLE grain of salt. Not the world's biggest grain of salt - that would be a mistake, too - but maybe a little. We do come around.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Your comments are really interesting. Keep it up. Carsland does look well done and lavish, so what is the problem? Do you think that maybe some of this angst is drawn from some sense of being synergistically motivated versus purely innovative? Following the Nemo and Toy Story Rides, is this all just the cumulative effect of a backlash against the "movie to toy to ride" rollout strategy?

I'll have to elaborate later (iOS seems to hate this response being lengthy) but my issues are motivation (toy sales), scale (cars vs humans) and Disney's current attitudes towards themed entertainment.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Purists can come around.

When Space Mtn Disneyland had ________ Dale music first added, I didn't like it much (I wouldn't have used the term 'purist' at the time, but it would have been accurate).

Two things over time changed my mind:

1. I got used to it (the bigger reason)
2. I got the chance to interview you, the creator, and I learned a bit about the Batman origin of the 'launch' and really liked the trivia of it

So I submit to you that Imagineers ought to maybe take the 'purist' view with a LITTLE grain of salt. Not the world's biggest grain of salt - that would be a mistake, too - but maybe a little. We do come around.

Interesting. We wore ya' down! That music got more than 98% "very positive" guest reaction when surveyed. Many thought the ride was made faster. It was a shock. I used to get hate mail as there were some who preferred silence. Can't please them all. You could love or hate the Surf style, but I think we were able to sync the music very tightly to the action and that made it work.

I do take the purist view for what it is and knowing that every thematic "rule" has been broken somewhere, even by Walt himself helps with that. WDI does not design for purists as it would be impossible to evolve anything. Everyone has personal attachments to what something was and it's memories, changing something comes at a price, even if it is an improvement. As you know, what constitutes an "improvement" is in the eyes of the beholder. Therein lies the debate.
So having said that, I think it's about the motivation of what you design. The Cars argument at it's core might involve the sincerity of what gets built, versus it's being mere commercial exploitation.

I rode the DL 1967 Peoplemover many times and even at 12 years old it was a dull, clunky ride. The engineering of it with those tires made the vehicles noisy and rough on the hills, the TRON tunnel was lame, the audio crackled in and out like a bad cellphone connection (and half the time you froze up there). Having said that, visually and conceptually it was the right thing and totally I get why so many miss it and want it back. Rocket Rods IMO was not so much a creative improvement. It brought back kinetics, but over promised and under delivered. Peoplemover was a sincere prototype of a "Transportation system" and delivered on that simple goal and unified the dream of EPCOT and the land, it was not a gimmick. Now I sound like a purist! (I guess I am).

 

[ChrisFL]

I do take the purist view for what it is and knowing that every thematic "rule" has been broken somewhere, even by Walt himself helps with that.

Whenever I think about that, I'm reminded of this:

To me, that is something that looks very out of place thematically and it loses the forced perspective size of the Matterhorn, however I've read that Walt actually liked having it there.

:shrug:

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Whenever I think about that, I'm reminded of this:

To me, that is something that looks very out of place thematically and it loses the forced perspective size of the Matterhorn, however I've read that Walt actually liked having it there.

:shrug:

Exactly. But they did it.

 

[lazyboy97o]

As one who has been called a "purist" my issue is not really with rules being broken, the reason the rule is being broken. To me breaking theme just fit in the current hot character does nothing artistic to push the stories being told.

 

[WDW1974]

This is along the lines of our current discussion of immersive worlds.

What do you guys think of what Michael Crawford has to say about Carsland?

Do you share his mixed feelings? I wonder if his sentiments are shared. Whatever your view, I think he expresses himself very well.

http://progresscityusa.com/2011/12/18/the-carsland-conundrum/

Come back and let me know what you think.

I read this a while back ... Think Michael has some interesting thoughts and would like to see him here (so many have gone away to hide in the Twitterverse echo-chambers instead of talking with a wide audience and having real discussions).

I tend to agree with some of what he says ... but also think there's too much anti-Pixar/anti-Lasseter sentiment in there. For better or worse, John is the closest thing to a Walt that Disney has now. And sure he's blinded by his own 'babies', no more so than with the Cars and TS characters.

Would I have rather seen a true tribute to California's car culture that might have featured one or two cars themed attractions or shops etc? Yeah. But nowadays Disney (and other companies) don't wait decades to see how timeless the characters are. I happen to think these will stand the test of time. But it sure would have been nice to take a ride down a REAL US Route 66 and there were so many possibilities for what you could have added in the land ... hell, you could have rethemed the wharf area and therefore Route 66 would have ended exactly where it does in the real world -- the Santa Monica Pier (in this case PP would have fit in).

 

[Jim Handy]

I love Mr. Crawford's articles.

He does seem to be somewhat against Pixar, namely Lasseter.

Carsland doesn't really bother me. I think it looks fantastic and the barrier to the outside world was much needed. In terms of attractions, restaurants and shops the land is diverse. But I don't think making the land completely around the Cars franchise was smart. I don't think it has the longevity a franchise Toy Story has. So in 10 years, will the land still connect with audiences?

But the land could pull off the California car culture deal because the Cars franchise is rooted in that heyday of classic cars, diners, hippies and neon. So at least in appearance it can relate to California. And should they ever decide to strip the land of Cars, the land could pull of the more generic concept.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

As one who has been called a "purist" my issue is not really with rules being broken, the reason the rule is being broken. To me breaking theme just fit in the current hot character does nothing artistic to push the stories being told.

Ahh, good point. Another thing to consider is if the theme being broken has lost it's core appeal. If you can keep a themed area fresh and fun within it's realm, then you don't need to drop characters into it.