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

[John]

Without trying to hyjack the thread...I think that Avatar is a huge risk. I also think a Tron or John Carter land would fall into the "risk" catagory also. None of these franchises have really resonated with the masses. Sure Avatar was a huge box office success but it didnt transfer to merch. Niether did Tron and I guess the jury is still out on John Carter.

I think Disney missed the boat on two accounts and maybe three if were counting, Star Wars would have been perfect for a huge exspansion
(although I understand it wouldnt fit AK) and weather they want to admit it or not they want desperately to come up with a Potter swatter. A full fledged Pixar Land is another idea I think they could do wonders with. Lastly the one that dosnt matter at this point.... Potterland itself.

That said, I am not so sure that we would even be discusseing FL or Avatar Land without a Uni PotterLand.

 

[lazyboy97o]

My guess (and it's only a guess) is that Carsland will be a "wow" in that it's so immersive with that desert environment. While it's true that a theme devoid of humans is limiting, I don't think people will consciously dwell on it. You have the CM's and other guests to fill in that static gap.

This is why I am concerned about how literal the scale and dimensions of Radiator Springs will be built. A world built for cars is out of proportion to a world built for humans. People make like what they see and the rides, but that off scale will make them feel uncomfortable.

 

[jjharvpro]

Mr. Sotto,

If there ever was to be a 5th WDW Park, what do you think would work? What would the overall theme be (in your opinion)? Would it be a smart move to go ahead and begin designing a 5th Park?

Personally, I say stay with the 4 Parks. Perfect those, then MAYBE move on. But is there ever a perfect Park?

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Without trying to hyjack the thread...I think that Avatar is a huge risk. I also think a Tron or John Carter land would fall into the "risk" catagory also. None of these franchises have really resonated with the masses. Sure Avatar was a huge box office success but it didnt transfer to merch. Niether did Tron and I guess the jury is still out on John Carter.

I think Disney missed the boat on two accounts and maybe three if were counting, Star Wars would have been perfect for a huge exspansion
(although I understand it wouldnt fit AK) and weather they want to admit it or not they want desperately to come up with a Potter swatter. A full fledged Pixar Land is another idea I think they could do wonders with. Lastly the one that dosnt matter at this point.... Potterland itself.

That said, I am not so sure that we would even be discusseing FL or Avatar Land without a Uni PotterLand.

Agree, Star Wars is the biggest and easier win.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Mr. Sotto,

If there ever was to be a 5th WDW Park, what do you think would work? What would the overall theme be (in your opinion)? Would it be a smart move to go ahead and begin designing a 5th Park?

Personally, I say stay with the 4 Parks. Perfect those, then MAYBE move on. But is there ever a perfect Park?

I get paid to think of themes so I'm not sure this is the place to discuss it
but I agree on making the parks and hotels you have shine first. The perfect park to me is the one that always keeps you guessing, is in a state of becoming and is not entrenched in itself. I loved Disneyland when it was a work in progress and the little things changed as much as the big ones. The paint was always wet. Apple is great because there is always something better just around the bend. Like the HD iPad 3!

 

[RSoxNo1]

Without trying to hyjack the thread...I think that Avatar is a huge risk. I also think a Tron or John Carter land would fall into the "risk" catagory also. None of these franchises have really resonated with the masses. Sure Avatar was a huge box office success but it didnt transfer to merch. Niether did Tron and I guess the jury is still out on John Carter.

I think Disney missed the boat on two accounts and maybe three if were counting, Star Wars would have been perfect for a huge exspansion
(although I understand it wouldnt fit AK) and weather they want to admit it or not they want desperately to come up with a Potter swatter. A full fledged Pixar Land is another idea I think they could do wonders with. Lastly the one that dosnt matter at this point.... Potterland itself.

That said, I am not so sure that we would even be discusseing FL or Avatar Land without a Uni PotterLand.

Star Wars would have been the obvious theme to combat Potter, it's strong, it has stood the test of time, and there is already a marquee attraction to center it. Disney failed to use The Adventures Continue as a springboard of a new Star Wars themed land in DHS.

As for Avatar, Tron, or John Carter as viable park franchises - the environments in each of these movies lend themselves to theme park attractions. The problem is, the movies themselves do not have the commercial draw as other franchises like Star Wars, Harry Potter, or Cars.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Star Wars would have been the obvious theme to combat Potter, it's strong, it has stood the test of time, and there is already a marquee attraction to center it. Disney failed to use The Adventures Continue as a springboard of a new Star Wars themed land in DHS.

As for Avatar, Tron, or John Carter as viable park franchises - the environments in each of these movies lend themselves to theme park attractions. The problem is, the movies themselves do not have the commercial draw as other franchises like Star Wars, Harry Potter, or Cars.

Star Wars is pretty bulletproof. Name one person that would not kill to go to the Cantina. I'd wanna design the "Han shot first" shooting gallery.

 

[Figment571]

In terms of Avatar vs another "risky" franchise, specifically TRON, I think that TRON has an advantage on a few levels.

1. The environment is more easier to understand, inside of a computer vs far off alien world people come to get resources for dying Earth

2. The characters are more accessible. Blue People good Re/Orange/Yellow Bad. The mere fact that they are humans too also is easier to connect with more so than odd cat like aliens.

3. Merchandise: I know that many people may not like this but Disney is in the business of selling crud and the more the better. I would think that the environment and world of TRON would be easier to monetize than Avatar. Things like Identity Disks and Light Cycles appeal to people and they want to have those sort of things. Avatar does not have much in terms of things that can be easily sold.

I could go on for a bit but I think those sum it up rather nicely. Any thoughts Mr. Sotto?

 

[Eddie Sotto]

In terms of Avatar vs another "risky" franchise, specifically TRON, I think that TRON has an advantage on a few levels.

1. The environment is more easier to understand, inside of a computer vs far off alien world people come to get resources for dying Earth

2. The characters are more accessible. Blue People good Re/Orange/Yellow Bad. The mere fact that they are humans too also is easier to connect with more so than odd cat like aliens.

3. Merchandise: I know that many people may not like this but Disney is in the business of selling crud and the more the better. I would think that the environment and world of TRON would be easier to monetize than Avatar. Things like Identity Disks and Light Cycles appeal to people and they want to have those sort of things. Avatar does not have much in terms of things that can be easily sold.

I could go on for a bit but I think those sum it up rather nicely. Any thoughts Mr. Sotto?

Yeah. I think TRON is a bit like "Toad" or "Alice in Wonderland" Ride (Rides from flops). The world and the activities in it are really cool and fun to explore and as long as you focus on the world, then it's ok. I think TRON has a bit broader age target than Cars (Cars was obviously more popular). The assets can be young without being babyish. Night Clubs, music, games, and vehicles make TRON an urban construct that's easy to relate to. I know what I wanna do there, unlike Avatar. You can also add to the story by doing an indoor multi level "street" of TRON with a ride at the end. I'd be there right now. As we discussed before, doing a "book report" of the movie is a huge mistake, but being in a "Light Cycle" race or "Disc battle" would be fun. Just use the premise. The ElecTRONica event at DCA was a big hit and I would doubt that even half the guests saw the new movie. It was just a great place to be and a repeatable one. What if it was done well? TRON from a styling point of view, has a great Tomorrowland look and feel. Ok, I'm biased toward it as I think the design is really well done. Even shelled out for the Hurley TRON jacket (no art or logos super subtle). Star Wars would be the best franchise, but the world of TRON to me has a great overall look.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Giving too much away? Calculated?

What do you think of what this poster says about how New Attractions and their details are discussed and marketed? Let's discuss.

http://micechat.com/forums/disneyla...ce-enthusiasm-vs-selling-future-projects.html

 

[wdwmagic]

Star Wars is pretty bulletproof. Name one person that would not kill to go to the Cantina. I'd wanna design the "Han shot first" shooting gallery.

It amazes me that it still has not been done. I had previously chalked it up to not wanting pay the licensing fees when they have in-house material they can use, but now they are going outside for AVATAR, why not go all the way with Star Wars?

 

[Eddie Sotto]

It amazes me that it still has not been done. I had previously chalked it up to not wanting pay the licensing fees when they have in-house material they can use, but now they are going outside for AVATAR, why not go all the way with Star Wars?

I'd guess you are right. It is most likely money and how much disney is willing to do. Lucas wants them to do lots of cool things and they do not always want to spend. So it's likely the yearly fees and the investment.

 

[wdwmagic]

I'd guess you are right. It is most likely money and how much disney is willing to do. Lucas wants them to do lots of cool things and they do not always want to spend. So it's likely the yearly fees and the investment.

How do they convince themselves that going outside to AVATAR is a better bet than spending on Star Wars? Not saying that AVATAR can't be good, but Star Wars just seems so safe.

 

[KevinYee]

Forget walking Lucky the Dinosaur.

I want AT-ATs at full size tromping through the forest. It would be like Disneyland's old Mule Ride except, duh, AT-ATs!! What's not to love?

 

[Eddie Sotto]

How do they convince themselves that going outside to AVATAR is a better bet than spending on Star Wars? Not saying that AVATAR can't be good, but Star Wars just seems so safe.

Hmm. Avatar is a new, fresher franchise and perhaps because Cameron is doing more movies, they will be steered into areas ripe for synergy and theming. There may be a film distribution deal in it too, so the pot overall may be richer for the company. I don't know. Back when I was there Lucas wanted the Star Tours Rides upgraded and it was always put off. That was the previous management. Bob Iger was good enough to spend in that direction and it was the right thing. Maybe they will do both!

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Forget walking Lucky the Dinosaur.

I want AT-ATs at full size tromping through the forest. It would be like Disneyland's old Mule Ride except, duh, AT-ATs!! What's not to love?

Move over Kevin, no cuts! I was in line first!

 

[Keppyslinger]

What do you think of what this poster says about how New Attractions and their details are discussed and marketed? Let's discuss.

http://micechat.com/forums/disneyla...ce-enthusiasm-vs-selling-future-projects.html

I like surprises. I like questions. I like mystery.

I think movies are one of the best example of this. I love the "teaser trailer". I will never forget when "Batman" (the Michael Keaton one) was first getting the hype started. That trailer was so basic so simple and so NOTHING! It showed you nothing. However if you were into Batman it showed you EVERYTHING. By the time the movie came out a longer full blown trailer was available that was built to get those people who were not already invested.

At some point each consumer needs to look in the mirror and decide for themselves how much they want to be surprised. The information is there if you search for it. Do you want to be surprised? Really? Well if you really want to be surprised then skip typing "Disney rumors Avatarland" into your favorite search engine.

We live in the age where information is king. Consumers have a ton of options, and want to know what they are spending their money on. Every company has a division whose sole goal is to feed the machine, and Disney is no different, but you do not have to eat it

 

[Figment571]

What do you think of what this poster says about how New Attractions and their details are discussed and marketed? Let's discuss.

http://micechat.com/forums/disneyla...ce-enthusiasm-vs-selling-future-projects.html

I have to say I agree with this post. When I was younger, back in the 90's I got the Imagineering book that explained a lot of the references and hidden little details that were through the parks, that was cool, but it took effort, even the book did not lay out everything and blatantly tell you "hey, look here in scene 5 of this" and it added a bit of fun to the trips. Even in that video Walt is showing Julie that stuff and is going "well its in this style and it'll be this sorta thing" not delving too much into what the guest will experience but giving a sense that it is exciting and it is something someone will want to explore rather than merely see. With all the stuff that Disney puts out now I almost get a sense of fatigue, I don't want to know everything I want to be invited in to discover it myself.

Sure, we Disneyphiles want to see what's new and what's coming ahead but don't explain everything to us. We want to be Julie, show us little bits and pieces, tease us if you will with looks at the figures being built, but don't show us the whole show before we can actually explore and discover it.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Star Wars is pretty bulletproof. Name one person that would not kill to go to the Cantina. I'd wanna design the "Han shot first" shooting gallery.

Cost of maintaining the illusion may well be a reason why this has not been done. The Mos Eisley Cantina, or almost any other locale, would not work without a sizable cast wearing considerable make-up and costumes. Disney would probably have a hard time filling those roles with hourly Cast Members instead of more expensive equity actors.

What do you think of what this poster says about how New Attractions and their details are discussed and marketed? Let's discuss.

http://micechat.com/forums/disneyla...ce-enthusiasm-vs-selling-future-projects.html

As I said in that thread, I think a lot of it has to do with a loss of institutional history. Life-long employees are now a rarity inside the Company, but it is still a big part of the Disney image. So they put out these overdone videos as a means of trying to maintain the image of a family company that is full of people doing their passion, not just getting a paycheck and nice resume item.

 

[RSoxNo1]

It amazes me that it still has not been done. I had previously chalked it up to not wanting pay the licensing fees when they have in-house material they can use, but now they are going outside for AVATAR, why not go all the way with Star Wars?

Visiting the Cantina has long been the fanboy dream though. Considering that one of the biggest selling points of Potter has been the food and beverage, I really don't get why this has done. You can make it a dinner show and that would solve the issue of staffing with cast members vs. equity actors.