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

[Bairstow]

I wonder: has the ever been an instance of an attraction being transplanted from one WDW park to another?
I'm wondering if they could, for instance, pack up Laugh Floor, move it out of Tomorrowland, and drop it in MGM.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Hasn't this phenomenon been forced upon WDI via executive (who care/understand/know little about theme park design) - orders regarding park development. I imagine the process is something like:

OLC Exec: "Because it's popular and meets our budget/financial goals, we want you to put a Turtle Talk with Crush in the 1915 NYC S.S. Columbia."
WDI: "Well, we have some ideas for that space that are original and better fit the theme of the area."
OLC Exec: "No. Crush lives in the ocean. The Columbia is a boat. The safer, proven option is Turtle Talk. Do it."
WDI: "Oh, boy." [comes up with backstory to justify]

Or:

WDI: "We have an idea for a replacement for The Timekeeper 360 at MK."
Exec: "Monsters Inc is a box office smash. Whatever you do, make it themed to that film."
WDI: "But that movie doesn't take place in the Future."
Exec: "Doesn't matter. Make it fit."

I imagine if WDI were in charge of park development, versus being the design vendors for WDP&R, you'd see less need for backstory because there'd be greater theme coherence.

While I have no proof, I am convinced that the Walt angle of Buena Vista Street came into being in this sort of fashion. Somebody was pitching the idea of this land based on Los Angeles, and somebody asked what franchise it was tied. Walt was used as a sort of trump card that could not be so publicly attacked (a la Partners) and suddenly it had to be the backbone of the land, not a part of it.

 

[wdisney9000]

I think the look they were going for was "1970s Lutheran Church".

Looks like your walking into a funeral home. Im not sure if I should pee or prepare for a wake.(swinging I hope)

 

[Bryner84]

We went through all the orders our sophomore year, then were required to spend two semesters in Rome studying, and traveling throughout Italy 3rd year. We weren't allowed to use CAD until our fourth year (of a 5 year professional - B.Arch program). It's a pretty cool program, and pretty unique.



Sadly I do not. The one project I can take full credit for designing is a classical project no-less, but my preference is modern, and my "designer" days are behind me. (I did interview with imagineering after Rome) My career has taken me in a more technical direction, designing and developing details that support other designers visions.

I do know many people who are practicing classicists - some of whom would make Wren jealous of their talents.

The Tuscaloosa Federal Courthouse by HBRA is, in my opinion, the best work of classical architecture in nearly a century.

I should have gotten into this thread earlier. This is right up my alley! Where did you go to school? You probably said and I missed it. I graduated from Georgia Tech with an architecture degree, and while not a classical program, I was able to take classical design courses in addition to my regular studio. We too drew by hand for the entire program. I truly believe it is the only way to learn design, but then the tool becomes less important once the understanding of design is in place.

As far as this applies to Disney...I think the importance of Classicism is that it is a developed language that appears to be understood upon viewing even if it is a feat to pull it off. With modern architecture, there is often an intent to intentionally defy immediate understanding of a building's construction. The Gehry building for example, that is a structure that when one sees it, one doesn't see building components that are inherently understood, but causes us to rethink our understanding of a building. As children we all draw a box for a house with a triangle for a roof. This is a language that we seem to almost inherently accept.

With Classical architecture, the key is to present a building that looks and feels sound, is automatically understood, but its simplicity is deceptive. As can be seen with so many terrible interpretations of Classical buildings, we think we know the components of these great works by memory, but we don't. What we often get are charicatures of classicism as can be seen by the white box "entablature" of the new AA restrooms. It is so difficult to make a building appear clear, simple, and well proportioned, while actually meeting the functional needs of the building (in this case, the giant box of a building housing the restrooms).

I think the average viewer can look at the AA restroom building and sense that something is off, but can't quite place their finger on it. It is the responsibility of the designer to know what is causing this; to painstakingly study the language of this architecture to accurately depict the details that the viewer then automatically interprets and processes and feels "comfortable" with. In this case, the lack of an end column makes the weight of the cornice above feel oppressive, as though the columns can't actually support the weight they are supposed to appear to carry. Even if they are just ornament in this case and not structural, they should feasibly appear to be able to function in the way they are designed to look like they are, because we see a column and think that it is holding something up. It is an architecture of language, and the nouns and verbs need to be in the right order for us to understand what is being said.

 

[Bryner84]

The inside seems to be a nice upgrade...However...considering all the exterior detail and cultural richness you find in the neighboring pavilions, you'd think that the USA learned little in 200 years. Like how to finish off a brick doorway with some trim. A blank wall as a focal point? That can't be finished, that's all I can say. So much for American "Adventure". Where is a Collection of American Roses, named for the first ladies? Benches with bronzes of Franklin and others? Something in that big empty area! and as you say, a bench or two..

I was talking about that brick opening in another thread:

If this is themed to resemble a period building that has been retrofit, then the detail of the brick over the large opening was a definite oversight. A period building would have been built using brick as a structural element, and brick does not span an opening unless it is built into an arch, a jack arch, or has some discernible beam element out of stone on which the brick bears. By running the brick across the opening in a simple running bond pattern, it is obvious the brick is just a pretty wallpaper being supported by a modern steel beam that is hidden. This may sound trite, but when the original buildings were so painstakingly detailed, it is a shame to see the new additions not follow suit. Gone are they days where imagineering brags about Moroccan artisans being used as consultants...and don't even get me started on that giant white box they are trying to convince us is an entablature.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I should have gotten into this thread earlier. This is right up my alley! Where did you go to school? You probably said and I missed it. I graduated from Georgia Tech with an architecture degree, and while not a classical program, I was able to take classical design courses in addition to my regular studio. We too drew by hand for the entire program. I truly believe it is the only way to learn design, but then the tool becomes less important once the understanding of design is in place.

As far as this applies to Disney...I think the importance of Classicism is that it is a developed language that appears to be understood upon viewing even if it is a feat to pull it off. With modern architecture, there is often an intent to intentionally defy immediate understanding of a building's construction. The Gehry building for example, that is a structure that when one sees it, one doesn't see building components that are inherently understood, but causes us to rethink our understanding of a building. As children we all draw a box for a house with a triangle for a roof. This is a language that we seem to almost inherently accept.

With Classical architecture, the key is to present a building that looks and feels sound, is automatically understood, but its simplicity is deceptive. As can be seen with so many terrible interpretations of Classical buildings, we think we know the components of these great works by memory, but we don't. What we often get are charicatures of classicism as can be seen by the white box "entablature" of the new AA restrooms. It is so difficult to make a building appear clear, simple, and well proportioned, while actually meeting the functional needs of the building (in this case, the giant box of a building housing the restrooms).

I think the average viewer can look at the AA restroom building and sense that something is off, but can't quite place their finger on it. It is the responsibility of the designer to know what is causing this; to painstakingly study the language of this architecture to accurately depict the details that the viewer then automatically interprets and processes and feels "comfortable" with. In this case, the lack of an end column makes the weight of the cornice above feel oppressive, as though the columns can't actually support the weight they are supposed to appear to carry. Even if they are just ornament in this case and not structural, they should feasibly appear to be able to function in the way they are designed to look like they are, because we see a column and think that it is holding something up. It is an architecture of language, and the nouns and verbs need to be in the right order for us to understand what is being said.

Welcome to the thread.
What I have tried to do as an Imagineer is be more of a set designer than architect. Set designers perform research to make sure they represent the period accurately. Herb Ryman and John DeCuir stressed that more than once. The detail convinces you, the overall design moves you. Mine the "mood" and build something to convey that. The better the design is the more "invisible" it will be as it will not distract you with it's flaws. If on sensing it, you feel something, like you would from seeing the Castle for the first time, then it's working. I took a class in production design once and was told that great sets don't dominate the actors, but they support them by "holding them up" so the performance can come through. Theme parks are a bit different as the places tell the story and you are the actor, so we need to give you the motivation for the scene so you can play it out.

Tom Sawyer's Island did this for me as a kid. The "set" was there, the caves and Fort beckoned me and the rest was an adventure. I was not trapped by a confining linear story to play out, it was a "premise" for me to enjoy. A found environment that was "unscripted".The "sets" in this case "held up the story", they did not dominate it.

Sets being designed originally for a 35mm "eye" became a slave to that aspect ratio, meaning they got carved into interesting bite sized pieces as there is no peripheral vision. You thought in scenes. I was taught that to hold interest, you "break up" the walls of a room, making them have more angles and shapes to please the camera. (Fireplaces, Bay windows, Arched doorways, stair landings, foreground columns). I tried this on my first projects and it was a good thing and you being to think like that when you sketch. Backlots and even Main Street are "broken up" by many facades that dance in and out to again, please the "eye' of the camera and of course us. So when you have a big building, you can break it up into more bite sized pieces, either by using plant materials or dodging the walls in and out with pilasters, columns and so forth.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Hasn't this phenomenon been forced upon WDI via executive (who care/understand/know little about theme park design) - orders regarding park development. I imagine the process is something like:

OLC Exec: "Because it's popular and meets our budget/financial goals, we want you to put a Turtle Talk with Crush in the 1915 NYC S.S. Columbia."
WDI: "Well, we have some ideas for that space that are original and better fit the theme of the area."
OLC Exec: "No. Crush lives in the ocean. The Columbia is a boat. The safer, proven option is Turtle Talk. Do it."
WDI: "Oh, boy." [comes up with backstory to justify]

Or:

WDI: "We have an idea for a replacement for The Timekeeper 360 at MK."
Exec: "Monsters Inc is a box office smash. Whatever you do, make it themed to that film."
WDI: "But that movie doesn't take place in the Future."
Exec: "Doesn't matter. Make it fit."

I imagine if WDI were in charge of park development, versus being the design vendors for WDP&R, you'd see less need for backstory because there'd be greater theme coherence.

My experience with OLC is that for the most part, they do not like development of new things but want sure things that have been done. Less risk. So you have a shelf of attractions big and small that WDI has done and they like to pick from that. The issue is that sometimes there is not a great fit for these things, so you "shoehorn" them in. I fought Rocket Rods to the death (and it would have killed me as they really wanted it), but thank goodness the ride fell apart before they could buy one.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I wonder: has the ever been an instance of an attraction being transplanted from one WDW park to another?
I'm wondering if they could, for instance, pack up Laugh Floor, move it out of Tomorrowland, and drop it in MGM.

Hmmm. Not that I know of on property. They could do that as Fantasmic! could have conceptually been in the MK and now it lives at the Studio. Parades like the MSEP have migrated across park lines. I wish they'd reopen 20K Subs at the DHS with a new adventure.

 

[HMF]

Hasn't this phenomenon been forced upon WDI via executive (who care/understand/know little about theme park design) - orders regarding park development. I imagine the process is something like:

OLC Exec: "Because it's popular and meets our budget/financial goals, we want you to put a Turtle Talk with Crush in the 1915 NYC S.S. Columbia."
WDI: "Well, we have some ideas for that space that are original and better fit the theme of the area."
OLC Exec: "No. Crush lives in the ocean. The Columbia is a boat. The safer, proven option is Turtle Talk. Do it."
WDI: "Oh, boy." [comes up with backstory to justify]

Or:

WDI: "We have an idea for a replacement for The Timekeeper 360 at MK."
Exec: "Monsters Inc is a box office smash. Whatever you do, make it themed to that film."
WDI: "But that movie doesn't take place in the Future."
Exec: "Doesn't matter. Make it fit."

I imagine if WDI were in charge of park development, versus being the design vendors for WDP&R, you'd see less need for backstory because there'd be greater theme coherence.

Well OLC seems to be more willing to give WDI creative license and though it is painful for me to say it at this point I am so fed up with WDC Executive incompetence that I would not mind a sale of P&R provided that whoever they sell it to cares as much as OLC. Sadly, American culture has declined so heavily in the last 12 years that I don't think an American Company will work.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

Welcome to the thread.
What I have tried to do as an Imagineer is be more of a set designer than architect. Set designers perform research to make sure they represent the period accurately. Herb Ryman and John DeCuir stressed that more than once. The detail convinces you, the overall design moves you. Mine the "mood" and build something to convey that. The better the design is the more "invisible" it will be as it will not distract you with it's flaws. If on sensing it, you feel something, like you would from seeing the Castle for the first time, then it's working. I took a class in production design once and was told that great sets don't dominate the actors, but they support them by "holding them up" so the performance can come through. Theme parks are a bit different as the places tell the story and you are the actor, so we need to give you the motivation for the scene so you can play it out.

Tom Sawyer's Island did this for me as a kid. The "set" was there, the caves and Fort beckoned me and the rest was an adventure. I was not trapped by a confining linear story to play out, it was a "premise" for me to enjoy. A found environment that was "unscripted".The "sets" in this case "held up the story", they did not dominate it.

Those are very interesting observations. Disney parks as sets for the guest, the actor, and how they should not overwhelm the guest.

TSI, classic Adventureland and Caribbean Plaza invited me to play. They provided a stage for me to act out my childhood fantasies. (As they still do!)

The set design of modern WDI with its penchant for contrived, overly specific backstories feels dictatorial. What is left for my imagination when I enter a set where '...it is the evening of August 26th, year X. A freak storm wreaked havoc (Typhoon Lagoo, Blizzard Beach, Tower of Terror, etc). Owner Y of the 'set' recently expanded his business (which explains the design incongruities). He needs your help to...'

 

[Omnispace]

Those are very interesting observations. Disney parks as sets for the guest, the actor, and how they should not overwhelm the guest.

TSI, classic Adventureland and Caribbean Plaza invited me to play. They provided a stage for me to act out my childhood fantasies. (As they still do!)

The set design of modern WDI with its penchant for contrived, overly specific backstories feels dictatorial. What is left for my imagination when I enter a set where '...it is the evening of August 26th, year X. A freak storm wreaked havoc (Typhoon Lagoo, Blizzard Beach, Tower of Terror, etc). Owner Y of the 'set' recently expanded his business (which explains the design incongruities). He needs your help to...'

I'm sure Eddie has better insight into the use of backstories to develop a concept. My impression is that they evolved as a tool to help the designers make logical decisions about what they were creating so that rules were applied consistently. But as you mention, as backstories become burdensome the designs become convoluted and difficult to understand.

What is interesting to note is that the original Imagineers had their beginnings in animation, which is extremely visual. Their skills were honed at creating visual cues to characters and places that would be easily recognizable. Marc Davis is an example of someone who was extremely talented at this. His designs allowed one to instantly pick up on the important aspects of the character but also allowed guests to use their imaginations to flesh out the story. So I guess the best approach to take is to keep it simple and straightforward -- at least in certain aspects of the design.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I'm sure Eddie has better insight into the use of backstories to develop a concept. My impression is that they evolved as a tool to help the designers make logical decisions about what they were creating so that rules were applied consistently. But as you mention, as backstories become burdensome the designs become convoluted and difficult to understand.

What is interesting to note is that the original Imagineers had their beginnings in animation, which is extremely visual. Their skills were honed at creating visual cues to characters and places that would be easily recognizable. Marc Davis is an example of someone who was extremely talented at this. His designs allowed one to instantly pick up on the important aspects of the character but also allowed guests to use their imaginations to flesh out the story. So I guess the best approach to take is to keep it simple and straightforward -- at least in certain aspects of the design.

To me, aspiration should drive the design versus a story. If the guest dreams of being in "Never Never Land", than yes we create that for you to roam and do as you please under it's auspice. If you are overlaying a theme on an existing coaster, this is where it gets tougher. Then a contrived story of a disaster is created and you have to save the stranded miners, etc. BTM is pretty timeless in that the story is super subtle and for the most part it's a coaster with some fun threats.

 

[Bryner84]

Those are very interesting observations. Disney parks as sets for the guest, the actor, and how they should not overwhelm the guest.

TSI, classic Adventureland and Caribbean Plaza invited me to play. They provided a stage for me to act out my childhood fantasies. (As they still do!)

The set design of modern WDI with its penchant for contrived, overly specific backstories feels dictatorial. What is left for my imagination when I enter a set where '...it is the evening of August 26th, year X. A freak storm wreaked havoc (Typhoon Lagoo, Blizzard Beach, Tower of Terror, etc). Owner Y of the 'set' recently expanded his business (which explains the design incongruities). He needs your help to...'

Yes, I think that there is a limit to what the backstory should allow the designer to do. If the designer has an inner dialogue about what narrative he chooses to convey, and then uses that to help inform decisions about certain details, then the result can be a cohesive theme. When the designer chooses some specific details he or she wants to use, then develops a story around them in order to make them fit, then the the space can be contrived or forced. I like the idea of the backstory never being specifically dictated by the designer, but instead serving as the personal impetus for design choices while still allowing the viewer to create their own story with what is presented to them. For example, I feel like in designing Storybook Circus, there was a meeting and someone said, "Hey it's about elephants, so wouldn't it be cool if we put peanuts in the floor? Let's figure out how to make that work with the story." Did they start with the trick, then build the story from there? Or did the story inform the design?

 

[the.dreamfinder]

As Eddie said, there is likely a good bit of over-familiarity on my part. I know Walt's story. I also know architecture and history. I know Walt did not show up with Mickey Mouse. I know there was not some singing trio turned restauranteurs behind the names of the Three Little Pigs. I know the Pan Pacific Auditorium and Carthay Circle Theater were not yet open. And it's not so much that the added story damages the physical environment if separated, but it does contract it by pointing towards an earlier time than the one portrayed. I am also not one to accept the justification of "most people will not know." To me, a big part of why I fell in love with Disney's built environments is because they were not purely fictional, they had a solid anchor that opened up new avenues of curiosity beyond the parks.

While I understand the reasons why the placemaking of DCA 2.0 did not include Hollywood Blvd (excluding Red Car for now), I still think if they wanted to do this "In Walt's Shoes" approach why didn't the animation building get an overlay to look something like this?

It's important to note WDI has tried to use the Hyperion St. Studio in the parks before with MGM's Mickey's Movieland from the "Disney Decade". I would love to know more about this particular concept Eddie, if you don't mind.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

While I understand the reasons why the placemaking of DCA 2.0 did not include Hollywood Blvd (excluding Red Car for now), I still think if they wanted to do this "In Walt's Shoes" approach why didn't the animation building get an overlay to look something like this?

It's important to note WDI has tried to use the Hyperion St. Studio in the parks before with MGM's Mickey's Movieland from the "Disney Decade". I would love to know more about this particular concept Eddie, if you don't mind.

I don't really have much history to enlighten you with as I was not part of those (Mickey's Movieland was Steve Kirk) efforts. It would have been nice to pay homage to the first studio. You never know, maybe they will? I did pitch a concept called the "Walt Disney Studio Grill", which was an "outside the berm" restaurant for Hollywood Blvd, kind of a "Brown Derby with Animators" set in the 30's. Very much the Hyperion type thing. We used the sign for our logo. Never happened. Was supposed to be below the El Capitan Theater.

 

[Wikkler]

I wonder: has the ever been an instance of an attraction being transplanted from one WDW park to another?

If they could move Carousel of Progress to Florida from California, they could move Monsters, Inc to DHS. Or not, considering Disney in 1973 is different than Disney in 2013...

 

[Californian Elitist]

I don't really have much history to enlighten you with as I was not part of those (Mickey's Movieland was Steve Kirk) efforts. It would have been nice to pay homage to the first studio. You never know, maybe they will? I did pitch a concept called the "Walt Disney Studio Grill", which was an "outside the berm" restaurant for Hollywood Blvd, kind of a "Brown Derby with Animators" set in the 30's. Very much the Hyperion type thing. We used the sign for our logo. Never happened. Was supposed to be below the El Capitan Theater.

Any possibility of this happening in the future? A concept like this would couple well with the El Cap, unlike the Soda Fountain.

 

[Omnispace]

Instead of building the Monsters Coaster it would be cool to remake that area of DCA into a version of the Hyperion Studio. They could do shows where guests interact with cartoon characters like in the Alice comedies, do some crazy dark rides based on Silly Symphonies, maybe even a Fantasia-type ride -- to list a few. I just don't understand the need to shoehorn these Pixar properties everywhere. I love what Pixar has created but it needs to be appropriate.

 

[jensenrick]

Speaking of special, "down the road" they are busy inventing new themed drinks people wish they could try and making a fortune, meanwhile Disney is obsessed with importing ordinary everyday experiences to replicate the world we left. Makes you think. Why can't the same effort go into things for Main Street that are uniquely Disney?

..

OMG, i love that picture so much!! When was this taken?

 

[unkadug]

I wonder: has the ever been an instance of an attraction being transplanted from one WDW park to another?
I'm wondering if they could, for instance, pack up Laugh Floor, move it out of Tomorrowland, and drop it in MGM.

Yes...The Micky Mouse Revue was originally at the MK but closed and was shipped to Tokyo in 1980.