-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Eddie Sotto's take on the current state of the parks
- Thread starter hpyhnt 1000
- Start date
- Status
xdan0920
Think for yourselfer
I think the vehicle is extremely important to the ride experience. Take Space Mountain for example, the single file rocket ship is an essential part to the feel of the ride for me. Now it is obviously possible to have a good experience if they went with a side by side seating, but IMO it would not have the same level of immersion in the experience. Another good example that ties into the precarious feeling would be splash mountain sans lap bars. I realize that the reasoning behind putting them in is to prevent folks from getting out mid ride, but the enjoyment factor at the end will be diminished without the feeling of danger. That feeling of being in danger is paramount to the thrill factor/enjoyment of the ride. I would be trying to keep that element if I was an imagineer involve in the redesign of Matterhorn.
HMF
Well-Known Member
Well' he seems to be taking his post-WDI life well. If I were in his position I would probably become depressed and not want to talk to people for a few months. Good for him.
MarkTwain
Well-Known Member
I also agree that the ride vehicle is very important to the ride experience. What would Peter Pan be without the flying pirate ships? Another less-obvious example might be the Doom Buggies - I think that having that limited, narrow field of vision (in whatever direction the Buggy is facing) can really increase that sense of insecurity and uneasiness that plays well into the mood of the Haunted Mansion.
After thinking about this, I wonder if the Matterhorn's famed jerkiness could actually bring down the realism and immersiveness of the ride. One would think that riding a bobsled down ice would be a very smooth, slick ride. Maybe they'll address that in a future refurb.
Speaking on the subject of ride vehicles, Eddie, I was wondering what your thoughts were about how ride vehicles can fit into the theme of a land? I've been thinking lately about how Disneyland's Frontierland could be improved, and it occurred to me that any period-appropriate land-based attraction would require either a horse, a steam engine (in other words, a train) or a backstory explaining how the vehicle works. Or do you think that perhaps the system of conveyance isn't necessarily important to the story of a ride?
I'm in a bit of a slump because Frontierland already has a train (Big Thunder) and horses don't really work well with attractions these days. :lol:
MarkTwain
Well-Known Member
Beautiful concept art; it's a shame that Tim parted ways from WDI. It'd be great if someday some of those concepts for an underwater, utopian research base could be folded back into the (Living) Seas Pavilion.
MiklCraw4d
Member
Thank you so much for pointing this out. I didn't know he'd set up his own site. What a loss for WDI...
Buried20KLeague
Well-Known Member
This actually raises an interesting question in my mind, I think.
When you design for Disney (or anyone else for that matter), is the material owned by both of you, or is it solely the property of TWDC?
For example... Your Sci-Fi City. What would happen if another park came to you and wanted to build it, exactly as you designed it? Would it even be an option? Would you have to get permission? Or is it a "whoever builds it first gets it" because it's yours?
You hear stories of how Beastly Kingdom won't ever get built for a number of reasons, one of which that many of the ideas for the signature attraction were "taken" or "stolen" by Uni for Dueling Dragons at IOA. I believe it was said that Uni hired away a bunch of imagineers and they imported what they had done at Disney for the que of DD. Is that right? Do you have any idea how close the two were in design?
DisneyDadof5
Member
Eddie Sotto
Premium Member
I think that may be the reason that Walt was so passionate about having his own "busy river" with lots of boats. They are the funnest and most diverse conveyance you can have that isn't a train or a horse. They tried the horse drawn stuff in the fifties and safety issues brought those down, so we got more water crafts. Look at the story power of seeing a Canoe, Raft, Keel Boat, or a Sternwheeler. They are intrinsically iconic and of course unique. The Western River Expedition was to be a water based ride like POTC. Still waiting for the Monitor and the Merrimac "Battle of the Ironclads" show! Jumpin Rivets! I won't hold my breath either.
Eddie Sotto
Premium Member
Eddie Sotto
Premium Member
Disney owns it if you invent it there. If it existed before that or is public domain then it's fair game. Having said that, Universal just used the name "SciFi City" for an area of their new park in Singapore. It does not look like the one for TDL, just the name got used. So I guess WDC didn't protect it or something.
I was told that that an element of the 3D technology for Uni's Spiderman is patented by Disney only they didn't go after Uni for it. That's pretty cut and dry. In the case of the Duelling Dragons or something like that, who is to say that the generic idea did not come up at Universal independent of WDI at some point? Quite possible and easy to say. These ideas are not really that unique and that happens alot. They would have to prove that the Ex WDI folks stole the idea in some way. Disney pretty much copied the entire Universal Tour format to beat them to Florida and opened MGM. This infuriated Universal. Disney argued that they thought of it years earlier and always wanted to do one. Neeener neener neener.
Also technology arrives in the world at the same time. The Kuka product of robotic arms for rides inspires both companies to invent using it and independently they arrive at the same conclusions too. Now that so much happens on the outside, conflict of interest for vendors will be a bigger issue.
Walt Disney took the basic layout ("inspired") for Disneyland from "Greenfield Village", complete with a Riverboat, a Main Street and a Train encircling it!
http://www.thehenryford.org/village/map.aspx
(especially similar to the park concept proposed across from the studio)
To answer your question, no, you can't shop ideas developed in house, but it's hard to prove and seldom prosecuted.
Eddie Sotto
Premium Member
My concerns exactly. Fear minus Death equals Fun. Meaning that if you can simulate the risk in your mind then you add thrill. A "precarious feeling" is just that, a feeling, and does not mean you have to compromise safety in any way. The "headknocker" arch in DL's BTM gets guests to duck although there is no way you could even come close to it. Your low center of gravity in a Splash Log does not allow you to fall out, but your mind may tell you otherwise. So the question is...What is ergonomically reasonable in the safe design of vehicles? These final decisions are not in the hands of the designer BTW, but fall into the engineer's per view as they are life safety details.
Eddie Sotto
Premium Member
If Fox does a park I'd want to see a "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" attraction with the Seaview and Flying Sub!
Buried20KLeague
Well-Known Member
I find this whole part of the business fascinating. LOVE reading you write about it.
I figured this was the way it was, but thought that maybe if you were hired in as an independant contractor to design (not actually an employee of TWDC) you might be able to negotiate your contract a little differently...
But Disney is pretty much the 900lb gorilla, and I'm certain they don't negotiate those types of terms. I'd imagine if you went to them and said you'd like to have a clause that would allow your designs to be built elsewhere after 10 years if Disney didn't build them, they'd laugh you out of the room and move to another extremely talented person just dying for their shot to work with Disney on whatever terms they like. Depressing, but true, I'd guess.
Plus, like you said... There's got to be so much grey area when it comes to ideas and designs and itellectual property. Tweak some things here and there, and POOF! Different product.
Eddie Sotto
Premium Member
Al Lutz speaks.
http://miceage.micechat.com/allutz/al050410a.htm
This article really gets to the heart of running 21st Century Annual Pass driven parks. Very interesting. Al relates how the management will try and cope with a bunch of unique issues, but since we are a thread that deals with the "trials of Imagineers", the part you should focus on is the miscalculation of how many guests fit into the new viewing area of the water show, the quality of that viewing and how that throws off the entire business model and capacity. The domino effect of underdesigning the viewing is hard to overstate. They have pretty much created a situation where an entire park becomes the pre and post show for a water event and slaves to that. They have to shut down most of their capacity to allow for the lighting to work 3 times a night so this thing eats up the park, not to mention the circulation. Once you've seen the show, you are a victim of the of the other two cycles of it (guests stored for the next show, can't get there from here, and rides being shut down) and can't do much else. The water show is in the middle of the whole park so you can't avoid it. Al explains it all better but as a designer, the reality of it scares me to death.
I know they can and will solve it, but in the meantime, these are great riddles for you guys to think on as they are real issues that face designers.
In all fairness, DL's Fantasmic! from some locations has lousy sightlines and so does the Fireworks at DL. The areas to really appreciate the show as was designed where you are not off axis and miss something are small.
These shows are shoehorned into existing park conditions that were never intended to be a show, and usually have to be good at something else when the show is not on, so it's a huge challenge for anyone. I directed the viewing area design for Fantasmic! at DL along the river, and still think it looks compromised no matter how hard we all tried to have it serve two masters.
So at any rate, it's a good read.
http://miceage.micechat.com/allutz/al050410a.htm
This article really gets to the heart of running 21st Century Annual Pass driven parks. Very interesting. Al relates how the management will try and cope with a bunch of unique issues, but since we are a thread that deals with the "trials of Imagineers", the part you should focus on is the miscalculation of how many guests fit into the new viewing area of the water show, the quality of that viewing and how that throws off the entire business model and capacity. The domino effect of underdesigning the viewing is hard to overstate. They have pretty much created a situation where an entire park becomes the pre and post show for a water event and slaves to that. They have to shut down most of their capacity to allow for the lighting to work 3 times a night so this thing eats up the park, not to mention the circulation. Once you've seen the show, you are a victim of the of the other two cycles of it (guests stored for the next show, can't get there from here, and rides being shut down) and can't do much else. The water show is in the middle of the whole park so you can't avoid it. Al explains it all better but as a designer, the reality of it scares me to death.
I know they can and will solve it, but in the meantime, these are great riddles for you guys to think on as they are real issues that face designers.
In all fairness, DL's Fantasmic! from some locations has lousy sightlines and so does the Fireworks at DL. The areas to really appreciate the show as was designed where you are not off axis and miss something are small.
These shows are shoehorned into existing park conditions that were never intended to be a show, and usually have to be good at something else when the show is not on, so it's a huge challenge for anyone. I directed the viewing area design for Fantasmic! at DL along the river, and still think it looks compromised no matter how hard we all tried to have it serve two masters.
So at any rate, it's a good read.
Eddie Sotto
Premium Member
If they pay you to think of it they own it. They don't like "drama" and splitting things up is messy and they'd rather not deal with it. What you do in this situation is that you list for them certain exclusions, meaning things you've published or developed on your own that you can show them in advance of brainstorming that are yours and "off the table". This does not mean they didn't come up with the same thing, but certainly makes your case clear up front and things can be ironed out before you work for them. I found Disney is very fair about this stuff and they are clear on what they will and won't do. You openly disclose these things up front as your property, and they can decide whether they want to engage you or not.
They don't look at ideas unsolicited.
HMF
Well-Known Member
You should know.:animwink:
HMF
Well-Known Member
I have no clue what to think of Bob Iger these days First I read this article and see he is endorsed by Warren Buffett.(My indirect boss.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/business/11iger.html
Then I read this.
http://disneymediocrity.com/
Who to believe?
MarkTwain
Well-Known Member
I have no clue what to think of Bob Iger these days First I read this article and see he is endorsed by Warren Buffett.(My indirect boss.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/business/11iger.html
Then I read this.
http://disneymediocrity.com/
Who to believe?
You can find a wide spectrum of opinions on any issue. For every Fox News, there's an MSNBC. :lol: I think the key is to be impartial, learn and understand both sides of the issue, and make up your own mind.
I think what DisneyMediocrity is failing to appreciate are the obligations Iger has to fill as a CEO. Although I tire of hearing this argument, Disney is a business... yet at the same time, one that relies on the creative output of its artists and designers. What that means is that while there are many forces within the company that are pushing for more budgets, more detail, more of what they want, that there has to be a leading figure to make sure it comes together, and does so in a manner that will bring the necessary level of return back to the company. That is a CEO's job, and it can be a difficult task to balance the wants of the creatives versus the needs of the shareholders (who, realistically, the designers need so they can keep designing). Given the huge complexity of this task, it's one Iger seems to be doing quite well.
Even Walt Disney had his Roy.
stitchcastle
Well-Known Member
yeah i read that earlier and it's kind of mind blowing that there would be such a dramatic oversight like that. The thought of having an entire park be a pre and post show for one attraction is to me kind of unfathomable.
as for crappy Fantasmic! sight lines, I think it's kind of inevitable with the staging of the show itself, which is why even the WDW version, with its custom theater, still has crappy sight lines. It's going to be very interesting how they deal with the DisneySea version where it has to be seen from all around, not to mention it also has to be super sized which I'm slightly wary of as the intimacy of the DL version is part of the show's charm.
- Status