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

Eddie Sotto

Premium Member
What about pet projects and the ego issues that go with it?

Marc Davis championed WRE, while Tony Baxter championed Big Thunder. In essence, Tony won. Would Tony now want to back WRE in Disneyland?

I seem to recall also that Marc and Tony held different beliefs about rides. Marc was more about atmosphere and you-are-there; Tony was more about story and a clearly understood narrative.

The changes to Haunted Mansion and Pirates over the years have effectively removed the Davis-era mentality (unconnected vignettes) and made those same scenes now strung together with actual meaning and story.

My sense was that Tony did not embrace the Marc Davis sense of humor and as I recall, preferred attractions less dependent on sight gag comedy (more musical and linear) as they are more repeatable. (Tony did do the "hungry pirate" scene which I would consider a gag of sorts but that was a band aid.) That's why I think he would probably not back the WRE today, but he's the best judge of that. Funny how POTC is still number one in spite of the fact that we all know the Pirate in the Boat will never be able to balance all of those hats! Maybe it is is because it is music driven? Music does create a tempo and makes things less reliant on dialog which is usually lost in a ride. tony and i used to discuss this aspect. His argument is that you get less tired of a musical theme than you do a joke. I'd tend to agree with him. WRE and POTC, even IASW all a driven by musical themes. I'd guess you'd call them theme park musicals!
 

Pixiedustmaker

Well-Known Member
What about pet projects and the ego issues that go with it?

Marc Davis championed WRE, while Tony Baxter championed Big Thunder. In essence, Tony won. Would Tony now want to back WRE in Disneyland?

I seem to recall also that Marc and Tony held different beliefs about rides. Marc was more about atmosphere and you-are-there; Tony was more about story and a clearly understood narrative.

The changes to Haunted Mansion and Pirates over the years have effectively removed the Davis-era mentality (unconnected vignettes) and made those same scenes now strung together with actual meaning and story.

The train ride that eventually became BTMRR was a part of WRE, in that when the complex was built, there was supposed to be a runaway mine train and the river ride, which initially was a Lewis and Clark expedition river ride.

Tony, being the junior imagineer at the time, worked on the model for the mine train part of the ride and drastically improved upon it, and a decision was made to make just BTMRR instead of the whole complex. Had it been built, WRE would have boasted both a river ride and a train ride.

Tony Baxter is a really nice guy, and doesn't have any ego problems, he simply did the job he was given as best as he could. Marc Davis . . . most he didn't like the fact that WRE's river ride was axed, though this was more due to the massive budget.

There's a whole series of articles on JimHill about the development and quiet abandonment of the whole project.

Anyway, I think that Marc Davis was more about 'gags' and characters, while Tony Baxter learned a lot about atmosphere under Claude Coats. When you think about, BTMRR is about atmosphere, the rickety old mine train, the mountains . . . I doubt if the average guest remembers any of the human or animal characters, like the dynamite biting goat. Though Tony Baxter has worked on attractions with an explicit storyline like the submarines, which is narrated, has a beginning a middle and an end. Tony, as a master imagineer, has a full-breadth of skills, be it storyline heavy attractions or thrill attractions that weave in elements of story-telling, such as an immersive atmosphere.

I don't think that HM and Pirates have a clear story . . . Jack Sparrow was added to Pirates, the pirates are looking for him . . . he shows up in the 'loot room' in WDW's version. Pirates works because you get different snippets of conversation and your imagination sort of builds a narrative.

Also, I don't think that HM necessarily has a clear storyline that ties together the scenes, yes the story of the bride has been embellished, but you still get the impression that events are not linearly connected. You don't look at the ball scene and see the bride acting out another scene in her background story.

Haunted Mansion holiday, however, is much more of a story, one that begins when you enter the Haunted Mansion, but obviously, even the HM holiday overlay's story is anything compared to the movie, Nightmare Before Christmas, you really just have that one part of the movie where Jack tries to make over Halloweentown to celebrate Christmas.

A good example of actually telling a story would be Country Bear Jamboree, where you have characters, conflicts, tension, music and comedy and all of those things that make a story come together. These characters were, and remain memorable. Guests who remember the show understand why the big salad at the Hungry Bear is named after Big Al', you couldn't do the same with any 'character' in BTMRR.

Dynamite Goat Nachos?

Who?
 

HMF

Well-Known Member
What about pet projects and the ego issues that go with it?

Marc Davis championed WRE, while Tony Baxter championed Big Thunder. In essence, Tony won. Would Tony now want to back WRE in Disneyland?

I seem to recall also that Marc and Tony held different beliefs about rides. Marc was more about atmosphere and you-are-there; Tony was more about story and a clearly understood narrative.

The changes to Haunted Mansion and Pirates over the years have effectively removed the Davis-era mentality (unconnected vignettes) and made those same scenes now strung together with actual meaning and story.

Pirates, maybe. Mansion, Not so much.
 

StageFrenzy

Well-Known Member
My sense was that Tony did not embrace the Marc Davis sense of humor and as I recall, preferred attractions less dependent on sight gag comedy (more musical and linear) as they are more repeatable. (Tony did do the "hungry pirate" scene which I would consider a gag of sorts but that was a band aid.) That's why I think he would probably not back the WRE today, but he's the best judge of that. Funny how POTC is still number one in spite of the fact that we all know the Pirate in the Boat will never be able to balance all of those hats! Maybe it is is because it is music driven? Music does create a tempo and makes things less reliant on dialog which is usually lost in a ride. tony and i used to discuss this aspect. His argument is that you get less tired of a musical theme than you do a joke. I'd tend to agree with him. WRE and POTC, even IASW all a driven by musical themes. I'd guess you'd call them theme park musicals!


I think those sight gags are a lot more repeatable than story and dialogue. The dialogue and story can get tiring if you just want to experience it. Take in the sights, sounds and smells of the attraction. The music of the attraction is almost as important as the visuals, you remember what you saw but you walk away humming the music. Typing this I'm thinking of the music from Imagination, Splash and for some reason the mission space theme. I think Disney could kick BTM up a notch if they added a theme song and some classic Marc Davis sight gags. Even serious movies need a joke or two.
 

IlikeDW

Active Member
My sense was that Tony did not embrace the Marc Davis sense of humor and as I recall, preferred attractions less dependent on sight gag comedy (more musical and linear) as they are more repeatable. (Tony did do the "hungry pirate" scene which I would consider a gag of sorts but that was a band aid.) That's why I think he would probably not back the WRE today, but he's the best judge of that. Funny how POTC is still number one in spite of the fact that we all know the Pirate in the Boat will never be able to balance all of those hats! Maybe it is is because it is music driven? Music does create a tempo and makes things less reliant on dialog which is usually lost in a ride. tony and i used to discuss this aspect. His argument is that you get less tired of a musical theme than you do a joke. I'd tend to agree with him. WRE and POTC, even IASW all a driven by musical themes. I'd guess you'd call them theme park musicals!

I am curious about your thoughts on the Little Mermaid in this context. Does it succeed on a "Musical Level" I have only seen a you tube video and will not judge it by that so I will have to wait until our august trip to Disneyland to form my own opinion.
 

Jeanine

Member
I've attached three Castle images, one from 1957 DL. and the other more recent and one of the same design in Hong Kong (favors the original color scheme). There is the early 60's image of the Castle appearing beyond Main Street, which I think sells the soft scheme and it's intent to appear more distant (Daveland). Also attached a classical painting from the british master Turner, so you can compare the softness and the palette of color. Interesting to look at the upper tower as the windows are small but are intended to seem full size.

Which scheme works best? Does it even matter?

I like the original coloring better--the more subtle tones make it more believable to me as an actual place (versus a child's toy,) because no matter how sensitive King Stephan was, I have a hard time thinking any king would paint his castle those gaudy pink and blue colors. I've gone back and forth between the DL and HKDL photos, and for some reason the HKDL one feels like more of a facade than DL, although I can't specifically find any big omitted elements.

Regarding strollers: I wonder if the early lack of visible strollers has more to do with a higher proportion of adults in the park than with contemporary indolence? It always seemed to me that entertainment in general was basically adult-oriented until around the 60's-70's when younger people began to drive recreational spending choices and the market geared itself more towards juvenilia.

Sorry to dredge up old topics--I was out in WDW, where I "took the leap and didn't sleep..."
 

Eddie Sotto

Premium Member
I am curious about your thoughts on the Little Mermaid in this context. Does it succeed on a "Musical Level" I have only seen a you tube video and will not judge it by that so I will have to wait until our august trip to Disneyland to form my own opinion.

Funny you should ask I rode it for the first time today.

It was not bad,
as I had read online, and evidently they made some fixes so perhaps that accounts for it exceeding expectation. This show is geared to the very young set and my guess is that it over delivers for them. It is a musical for sure and that carries the show. There were very few dialog driven scenes and most were musical numbers. Not a lot of "surprises" as it is kind of a book report of the movie. A series of vignettes. It was the big AA show fans have been asking for, so they got it. A white light dark ride and that creates issues with seeing things that should be hidden, but I'm the wrong guy to ask because I seem to look everywhere you shouldn't as a habit. There are limitations to what AA's can do and they had some figures with very fluid and complex moves, other very limited, and to a degree the good ones by contrast accent the static ones, but that's the nature of shows like that. You could knit pick things all day, but at the exit the parents with the small kids had to take them on again. They liked it a lot. It succeeds for what it seems designed to do.
 

Eddie Sotto

Premium Member
I like the original coloring better--the more subtle tones make it more believable to me as an actual place (versus a child's toy,) because no matter how sensitive King Stephan was, I have a hard time thinking any king would paint his castle those gaudy pink and blue colors. I've gone back and forth between the DL and HKDL photos, and for some reason the HKDL one feels like more of a facade than DL, although I can't specifically find any big omitted elements.

Regarding strollers: I wonder if the early lack of visible strollers has more to do with a higher proportion of adults in the park than with contemporary indolence? It always seemed to me that entertainment in general was basically adult-oriented until around the 60's-70's when younger people began to drive recreational spending choices and the market geared itself more towards juvenilia.

Sorry to dredge up old topics--I was out in WDW, where I "took the leap and didn't sleep..."

Good comments all. I was at Disneyland yesterday and noticed the Castle paint colors are also impregnated with opalescent glitter and have a higher gloss, so I guess there is a definite "point of view" taken as to the "Princesses" and that phenom and how the Castle looks today. It seems less noble and more whimsical, embracing the Disney brand more than a specific film.

The amount of Strollers in the streets and on the sidewalks was staggering compared to images from the past.
 

yeti

Well-Known Member
I rode Mermaid for the first time back in August. I have to say, as much as I liked it, I found it to be a little garish. It may have been in part to do with the proximity between the ride vehicles and the sets/AAs (probably due to the ride's relatively small footprint compared to other big-budget dark rides), but I felt there was such an emphasis on the aesthetics and the "party" atmosphere that it didn't feel real. The grotto/cave scenes for instance...they didn't seem as real to me as the ones that can be found at PotC. The handrails and the floor beneath were so close and so striking that I didn't feel transported in the slightest. The same applies for the Under the Sea scene...instead of looking like seaweed and coral, everything looked like very clean and polished fiberglass. I guess the best way to put it is that I felt the whole ride was "decorated" rather than themed. As amusing and vibrant as the scenes were, they should have been bigger; more spacious.

It was so bizarre to see such a hybrid between an E and C ticket- the animatronics sold the entire experience. It was as though you replaced all the static figures on Snow White's Adventures with state-of-the-art robotics. You'd have the top-notch figures, but the sets would still bear the same C-caliber designs. Which are fine...but not outstanding. That's what Mermaid felt like to me. It was a great ride, very entertaining-it just wasn't the whole package.

The (very) visible show lights in the Under the Sea scene didn't help.
 

Pixiedustmaker

Well-Known Member
I had a very fun lunch yesterday with William Creber, a 20th Century Fox Production Designer who, beyond the many features he has done, has also overseen the design of the many "Hollywood Blvd" and New York Streets for the Disney "Studio" themed parks. His specialty is "forced perspective", (making the building appear taller or longer by shrinking different elements optically) and we discussed that at length.

One term he used that I've neglected to mention is "atmospheric perspective". The old masters used to create a soft haze or lighten the color of distant elements in their paintings to give the illusion of distance. we notice the same lack of color saturation in distant hills or skylines don't we? We discussed how the Castle at DL was very reduced in the upper areas and that it's color scheme being soft contributed to the effect, and he felt that by enhancing the colors it actually can work against that illusion of height and distance depending on how severe it is. I've attached three Castle images, one from 1957 DL. and the other more recent and one of the same design in Hong Kong (favors the original color scheme). There is the early 60's image of the Castle appearing beyond Main Street, which I think sells the soft scheme and it's intent to appear more distant (Daveland). Also attached a classical painting from the british master Turner, so you can compare the softness and the palette of color. Interesting to look at the upper tower as the windows are small but are intended to seem full size.

Which scheme works best? Does it even matter?

All of the photos of HKDL’s Sleeping Beauty castle don’t look as good as Disneyland’s, at least in my eye. I think this is because:

1. HKDL’s ‘brickwork’ isn’t as good as DL’s castle as the bricks all appear uniformly grey. DL castle’s brick pop out more.
2. HKDL’s castle doesn’t have the squirrel gargoyles.
3. The entrance archway in HKDL is simply grey, where in Disneyland the archway has been painted such that it is a light tan. The uniformity in color of HKDL’s castle makes it look like it cement was poured into a giant mold to make it, rather than creating the appearance that artisans worked on it.
4. There aren’t a lot of trees around HKDL’s castle, making the ‘stonework’ the prominent feature. More plants would create a more established look.

1957 Disneyland Castle Versus the Current Disneyland Castle Paint Job

There is something very subtle and nice about the 1957 castle paint colors that works well. The idea of atmospheric perspective when painting large structures is very interesting. (I can help but comment that the Cadillac peaks of Radiator Springs in Carsland uses atmosphere perspective to create the illusion that the cadillac mountain range is further away as the colors are definitely ‘washed out’ on the rock-work furthest away from the guest area.)

1957 Disneyland Castle Better Paint Job?

The 1957 castle also has some of the towers painted a greyish color, instead of pink, and the coloring on the roofs of the towers is heterogenous, I see light blue, dark blue, grey!

The 1957 version looks more grown-up, as if it could actually be a working castle. The interesting, and apparently very well thought out paint job makes the 1957 version look much bigger.

The current version is more whimsical, more areas are painted pink, plus some of the gold accents hung around from the 50th Anniversary. The current version communicates an atmosphere of celebration and accomplishment, which is a plus, but it is much less realistic. I guess a similar analog would be if somebody used temporary wash-away paint to make the Statue of Liberty Red, White and Blue to celebrate the fourth of July. There is a fine line between garish and festive

Though when walking around Disneyland on a recent trip, I thought that the castle looked too “miniature golf” like, and smaller than I remember. I figured that I’d simply spent too much time in Walt Disney World . . . but now I think that the paint job is too bright, the Pepto-bismol pink could be toned down a bit and a greater palette of colors could be used for the towers so you don’t get the pink blob on top of a grey blob effect.
 

Pixiedustmaker

Well-Known Member
Funny you should ask I rode it for the first time today.

It was not bad,
as I had read online, and evidently they made some fixes so perhaps that accounts for it exceeding expectation. This show is geared to the very young set and my guess is that it over delivers for them. It is a musical for sure and that carries the show. There were very few dialog driven scenes and most were musical numbers. Not a lot of "surprises" as it is kind of a book report of the movie. A series of vignettes. It was the big AA show fans have been asking for, so they got it. A white light dark ride and that creates issues with seeing things that should be hidden, but I'm the wrong guy to ask because I seem to look everywhere you shouldn't as a habit. There are limitations to what AA's can do and they had some figures with very fluid and complex moves, other very limited, and to a degree the good ones by contrast accent the static ones, but that's the nature of shows like that. You could knit pick things all day, but at the exit the parents with the small kids had to take them on again. They liked it a lot. It succeeds for what it seems designed to do.

Here’s my criticism of the Little Mermaid Ride (I was going to mail something similar to this to Guest Relations as I always get marked for surveys outside the parks.)

I was really looking forward to enjoying this attraction with my 4-year old niece, as she is a big Little Mermaid fan. Unfortunately, the ride didn’t appeal to her, or to myself. My comments are listed below:

1. The Ursula scene might have been a bit too scary for my 4-year old niece, who is an Ariel fanatic, probably due to the super-sized Ursula audio-animatronic. However, given that Snow White’s Scary Adventures, and Mr. Toad, also scared her, this is probably a minor point.

2. The show lights were far too bright for a dark ride. While I appreciate the time and effort that went into making the audio-animatronics, the bright lights made everything look plastic and fake as the light really glints off of everything and makes it look artificial.

3. The characters/music were way too loud. I know that a rendition of the songs from the Little Mermaid is a big draw for the ride, but I strongly feel that the volume is too high! Almost as though it was a musical instead of an attraction. I would have preferred a much toned-down, yet still perfectly audible, soundtrack.

4. The corkscrewing fish in the ‘Under the Sea’ scene looked fake as a thick twisted metal beam connecting them was plainly visible. Established dark rides like Peter Pan’s Flight don’t reveal the mechanical backbone of the effects, so I was disappointed with the unfinished feel of the ride.

5. One scene utilized a television screen (for the transformation of Ariel to a human), and a 2-D cut-out of Ursula. Somehow I was expecting more. (I recently heard that John Lasseter is changing the CG imaging of Ariel to make it look more like the movie, maybe this will help make it less cheezy.)

6. The outside of the show building looks like a Barnes and Noble. The sign introducing the ride is too high up for anybody to notice it. I wish that Disney went with sinking the show building into the ground, and building a King Triton’s eatery on top part of it, which would allow viewing of World of Color.

7. There isn’t a gift shop at the end of the ride. Though some guests complain about this, my niece wanted an Ursula doll, and probably would have wanted to buy a Little Mermaid t-shirt too, if we could have found one. I got something off of Amazon. The one time I counted on Disney using the gift-shop as an exit technique, and they . . . decided not to go there.

8. The use of the omnimover/clamshell as a ride system destroyed the immersive angle of the ride, restricting the view to 180 degrees. In the haunted mansion, which I believe uses a similar system, most of the ride is in darkness, so you don’t need, or, want to look around behind you. If the ride had the open feel of Peter-Pan, it would have been much more enjoyable.

9. My four year old niece missed the opening shot of Ariel in the water above the clam shell, which is sort of at an odd angle to begin with. The ride simply wasn’t as skillfully constructed as Haunted Mansion when it comes to coordinating Omnimover movement and field of view with actual scenes.

10. Lack of details. There wasn’t a lot of real-looking seaweed, or oceans plants, just fake cut-outs. I think that trying to make the ride look too much like the movie, (and thus cartoonish), worked to the ride’s disadvantage. I was expecting something on the scale of the graveyard scene in the Haunted Mansion, but on Mermaid you could pretty much take everything in in a couple of glances.

11. The ride just doesn’t gel. Certain scenes are taken almost verbatim from the movie, and the soundtrack sounds like the same one from the film, giving the ride a pre-recorded industrial feel to it. I thought that the ride might utilize instrumental versions of music from the movie, and mostly use visuals to tell a story slightly different from just plopping down scenes from the film. I would have liked riding in a vehicle similar to the one used in Crush’s coaster, with Ariel swimming next to the ride vehicle, so you feel that you are swimming under the ocean, similar to how you feel you are flying to Neverland in Peter Pan's Flight.

11. Little Mermaid is not as good as Peter Pan’s Flight. I really enjoy classic Disney dark rides such as Peter Pan, where you really feel like you’re inside of the world created in the movie. You feel like you were in the Darling’s nursery, and flying over London and Neverland . . . the animated ‘woosh’ of water on the clamshell, followed by a Small-World like musical rendition of the Little Mermaid doesn’t really transport you to Ariel’s world. I know that this may not have been the intent, (instead going for an exact musical review of the film’s songs), but knowing that Disney could make a great Little Mermaid ride makes riding the ride anticlimactic.
 

AEfx

Well-Known Member
My sense was that Tony did not embrace the Marc Davis sense of humor and as I recall, preferred attractions less dependent on sight gag comedy (more musical and linear) as they are more repeatable. (Tony did do the "hungry pirate" scene which I would consider a gag of sorts but that was a band aid.) That's why I think he would probably not back the WRE today, but he's the best judge of that. Funny how POTC is still number one in spite of the fact that we all know the Pirate in the Boat will never be able to balance all of those hats! Maybe it is is because it is music driven? Music does create a tempo and makes things less reliant on dialog which is usually lost in a ride. tony and i used to discuss this aspect. His argument is that you get less tired of a musical theme than you do a joke. I'd tend to agree with him. WRE and POTC, even IASW all a driven by musical themes. I'd guess you'd call them theme park musicals!

I don't think it has to do with either, to be honest.

I think it's because it's a wonderfully immerse ride that really exists (no video screen garbage) that takes you on a journey through a convincing and exciting environment.

I couldn't give a crap about pirates in general, but I find it one of the most exciting experiences I've ever had. Feeling like I'm transported to another place, like I'm really there - which I cannot say for the majority of the attractions Disney designs these days.
 

KevinYee

Well-Known Member
I think DAK sometimes really sells the "you are there" vibe... but it's not as interesting. My internal term is that great attractions provide Immersion Toward Interesting Illusion. It has to be an illusion because it's supposed to be idealized reality, not actual reality (DAK goes overboard there). It has be immersive so the suspension of disbelief faces the fewest possible distractions. And it has to be INTERESTING. Disney could build a very effective immersion in an illusion of being at the Florida Mall, but that wouldn't be interesting. Pirates are interesting; haunted houses are interesting.

Is a California seaside carnival interesting? I think 1930s Hollywood is interesting, but there's very little "immersion" in either DCA or DHS.
 

Eddie Sotto

Premium Member
Black light

I think that many of the issues on LM come from the fact that it is not a black light ride and you see everything for what is truly is. This is a bit of a game changer.

White light rides have a different "reality" than those lit with black light. They are a format you either accept or not. Like black and white movies. For example, the seaweed cutouts in LM have an automotive gloss finish as so many of the characters, (yet some are matte finish). Sheen level has a lot to do with how real things come off. Hiding arms that hold figures, safety rails, etc are easier in black light shows. Black Light rides have a different continuity as the shading is painted on to the flat surfaces (like the Seaweed). The room starts out "dark" and the black light only reflects from the painted elements that you decide you want the guest to see. White light is not controlled like that. I'm not saying that Black Light dark rides do not have issues or you can never see anything, I'm just pointing out that a decision like going white light brings it's own set of challenges that you either overcome or you don't. Fundamentally, you have to decide if you are treating things realistically everywhere or saying there are cartoon cutouts of Seaweed on realistic rocks, etc. It's hard to have continuity. "Cartoons" do not always translate well to incandescent rooms. the controversy over Ariel's Hair in part comes from the realistically lit and rendered world they chose for her. The video projections also have to live against real rocks and white light. We did white light in some scenes of Pooh in Tokyo (Blustery Day) and others we did not (Heffalumps Dream Sequence). We mixed it up and it worked as the mediums were matched to the task. I was told that they already went back in and shut off many of the lights to help with this issue. I'm not even saying LM should have been Black Light, but just saying that white light has challenges of it's own.

The massive LM Show building is a tough one as it creates a big expectation of the ride. The idea of a boardwalk building is an interesting one, I only question why you would not do small stands or interesting shops along the Boardwalk and hide the show building behind them, as you want to give the passerby guest more to do than walk a city block with just the LM line out there. The arch is a non entrance. I was waiting for a sign to be there. It begs you to enter, but in fact, the entry is over to the right. The scale and some of the finish choices hurt the period look they were going for as some are sensing the plaster techniques are the same used in malls that were applied to the facade. Hindsight is 2020.
 

pppapazo

Member
I haven't been on the Little Mermaid ride yet, but having watched the videos on YouTube, I noticed that very little seems to have been done to give the suggestion of floating during the undersea sequences.

Ariel's hair in the Grotto scene is a tremendous effect, especially paired with the natural movement of Flounder beside her. But aside from the Carp and Fluke, none of the fish in the Under the Sea sequence appear to move vertically at all. And all of that static seaweed is a missed opportunity -- it should at least be swaying back and forth. The overall effect seems very grounded instead of buoyant.

I would contrast this to Peter Pan, which doesn't have animatronics as sophisticated as Mermaid's, but the overall effect makes you feel like you're in flight. And that's the whole point, isn't it?
 

Eddie Sotto

Premium Member
I haven't been on the Little Mermaid ride yet, but having watched the videos on YouTube, I noticed that very little seems to have been done to give the suggestion of floating during the undersea sequences.

Ariel's hair in the Grotto scene is a tremendous effect, especially paired with the natural movement of Flounder beside her. But aside from the Carp and Fluke, none of the fish in the Under the Sea sequence appear to move vertically at all. And all of that static seaweed is a missed opportunity -- it should at least be swaying back and forth. The overall effect seems very grounded instead of buoyant.

I would contrast this to Peter Pan, which doesn't have animatronics as sophisticated as Mermaid's, but the overall effect makes you feel like you're in flight. And that's the whole point, isn't it?

"Underwater" is a tall order indeed and a logic (even in a cartoon or abstract way) that's hard to accomplish consistently. The seaweed could have been "flowing" and that would give you a fun sense of kinetics.
 

Eddie Sotto

Premium Member
I think DAK sometimes really sells the "you are there" vibe... but it's not as interesting. My internal term is that great attractions provide Immersion Toward Interesting Illusion. It has to be an illusion because it's supposed to be idealized reality, not actual reality (DAK goes overboard there). It has be immersive so the suspension of disbelief faces the fewest possible distractions. And it has to be INTERESTING. Disney could build a very effective immersion in an illusion of being at the Florida Mall, but that wouldn't be interesting. Pirates are interesting; haunted houses are interesting.

Is a California seaside carnival interesting? I think 1930s Hollywood is interesting, but there's very little "immersion" in either DCA or DHS.

It's not just that the environment is interesting, it's what you get to do in that environment to live out an aspiration of some sort. Fantasyland is a great immersive world that prepares you to depart on adventures within it.
 

Keppyslinger

Well-Known Member
Avatar= Bad, Beastly Kingdom = Good?

Hello Eddie,
I have been reading a lot of comments lately that the Avatar inspired project is on "life support" and a lot of people seem really happy about it. I will not go into all the various reasons and arguments as that is not the question I am driving at.

For me, this expansion is about creating a place of fantasy. (Which to my mind is what Disney has always pursued.) Both a Beastly Kingdom land and an Avatar inspired land would do that. However, one gets a lot more support then the other. Do you think that if Disney announced a new expansion, and that James Cameron had been asked to help inspire the concept it would be better accepted by Disney fans rather then saying they are creating a land based on Avatar?
 

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

Back
Top Bottom