Eddie Sotto's take on the current state of the parks

[yankspy]

My favorite book on WDW, was this black covered booklet on "The making of WDW Commemorative Edition". Pretty rare. I bought one on eBay recently ($30.) as I could not find my dogeared copy and it really gave me the sense of the "wow" that was and is WDW. You can see the vision behind the project in the way they describe the park and all of it's wonders. Many construction photos of things we take for granted today. It was unlike anything ever built on Earth, an extraordinary work. This booklet is a piece of history worth owning. I'd link to it on ebay but could not find one.

I think I have that one. Is it the one that has a cut out in the middle of the cover with the castle in it?

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I think I have that one. Is it the one that has a cut out in the middle of the cover with the castle in it?

Yeah. You got it. What a great booklet.

 

[Giraffe Lounge]

Note that the capacity will go down from 4 to 3 guests per sled as odd numbers are a bit harder to seat. To keep the numbers up, they will have to make an effort to "harvest" single riders aggressively to fill the odd seats (or just force the separation). All part of a designers per view to deal with. I know that some small kids (like mine) didn't want to ride alone in the big seat and want their parent holding them, so this will be something to deal with as well.

Thought it would be worth posting for Armchair Imagineer discussion. What would you do? Do you think the vehicle is that important? What shows suffer or are made successful largely by their vehicle design? Energy? Everest? HM? Autopia?

I was at the park the other day, and by my super-unscientific poll, I think capacity might actually go up. Though the max capacity is 4 per car, only every 3rd or 4th car actually seems to have cuddlers now-a-days, so average capacity is probably somewhere around 2.5 currently, where now it will be a straight 3 (though a single riders line would help). It will also speed up the queue ever so slightly by eliminating the politically correct, yet socially awkward, asking of every group if they're sitting alone or together. (ever end up behind a group of high school aged boys when they're asked this question? It's hilarious)

 

[Giraffe Lounge]

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.

That part that fascinates me the most about this is that after years of successful in-the-round lagoon shows and 3/4 stage spectaculars they decided to go with such a narrow viewing angle.

I understand the complexities of projecting on water (image only renders if rear projected), and that inherently the single view gives you much greater control. But as a designer I find the idea of working with those challenges to be quite exciting. Think of all the different layers one could build to (for a good reference, check out Cirque du Soleil's Corteo). It also inherently allows for a different experience each time. They went out of their way to add this feature to Indiana Jones and Tower of Terror, but they're eliminating it from their nighttime show.

It also troubles me a bit because they're fighting the layout of the environment, something that I personally feel is incredibly important. That article talks about shooing people out of Paradise Pier so they can experience the show as the park wants them to, what an odd idea. All this capacity could easily have been had by finding a more appropriate viewing scheme for the site.

I'm reminded of a theater director I worked with long ago who "didn't care about those seats"... seats that accounted for 1/3 of the audience. I've always felt that those people deserve a good show too, maybe not the same show, but I enjoy trying to include a little easter egg just for them.

 

[OnWithTheShow]

Note that the capacity will go down from 4 to 3 guests per sled as odd numbers are a bit harder to seat.

But arent there two sleds linked together? So the actual capacity is 6, which is easier to seat.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

But arent there two sleds linked together? So the actual capacity is 6, which is easier to seat.

Yes they are, but it's 3 per sled. GL points out that it;s less awkward so you get better utilization, so i'm anxious to go and watch how it's doing. I just remember how the OPs folks would frown on odd numbers in vehicles as they thought it was wasteful, but 6 total may be ok as you point out.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I was at the park the other day, and by my super-unscientific poll, I think capacity might actually go up. Though the max capacity is 4 per car, only every 3rd or 4th car actually seems to have cuddlers now-a-days, so average capacity is probably somewhere around 2.5 currently, where now it will be a straight 3 (though a single riders line would help). It will also speed up the queue ever so slightly by eliminating the politically correct, yet socially awkward, asking of every group if they're sitting alone or together. (ever end up behind a group of high school aged boys when they're asked this question? It's hilarious)

Now i'm interested in going out there and seeing how it works in person. Hmmm.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

It also troubles me a bit because they're fighting the layout of the environment, something that I personally feel is incredibly important. That article talks about shooing people out of Paradise Pier so they can experience the show as the park wants them to, what an odd idea. All this capacity could easily have been had by finding a more appropriate viewing scheme for the site.

The amphitheater they did faces the show pretty directly, not sure what you mean. By what I've seen in the test videos, there will be enough nozzles for every guest. Hopefully they've addressed that.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I was at the park the other day, and by my super-unscientific poll, I think capacity might actually go up. Though the max capacity is 4 per car, only every 3rd or 4th car actually seems to have cuddlers now-a-days, so average capacity is probably somewhere around 2.5 currently, where now it will be a straight 3 (though a single riders line would help). It will also speed up the queue ever so slightly by eliminating the politically correct, yet socially awkward, asking of every group if they're sitting alone or together. (ever end up behind a group of high school aged boys when they're asked this question? It's hilarious)

So they allow 2 to a seat?

 

[Giraffe Lounge]

The amphitheater they did faces the show pretty directly, not sure what you mean. By what I've seen in the test videos, there will be enough nozzles for every guest. Hopefully they've addressed that.

The amphitheater itself is very well put together, but they took a round body of water that lends itself to a 360degree show and added a proscenium like viewing area along one small part of it.

My point is just that they could have carved little viewing niches around the entire lagoon and created a show that played all around it. Would have lead to double or triple the viewing capacity.

 

[OnWithTheShow]

Yes they are, but it's 3 per sled. GL points out that it;s less awkward so you get better utilization, so i'm anxious to go and watch how it's doing. I just remember how the OPs folks would frown on odd numbers in vehicles as they thought it was wasteful, but 6 total may be ok as you point out.

Space Mountain at WDW has had this seating arrangement for quite awhile now and it rarely rolls with empty seats and has no need for a single rider line. Only with a party of five do you need singles. 2's, 3's, 4's and 6's are all grouped easily.

 

[HMF]

Hi Eddie ' just a heads up there is a very interesting debate heating up in this micechat thread. I would love to hear your thoughts.
http://micechat.com/forums/disneyla...rs-america-thread-breakdown-river-scenes.html

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Hi Eddie ' just a heads up there is a very interesting debate heating up in this micechat thread. I would love to hear your thoughts.
http://micechat.com/forums/disneyla...rs-america-thread-breakdown-river-scenes.html

I guess the debate is about being too explicit in the spiel about what you're seeing and what river you are supposedly travelling on. Very subjective and something you have to ride on to know. Over the last 15 pages the debate and non toxic venom has raged into what is a "story" ride and what is an "experience" ride? Meaning which rides are narrated and spell everything out (JC) in a literal and linear way, and the others where you experience the scenes and you must decide what is happening without narration (POTC). The complaint is that the new river experience now has gone from one to the other with the new narration "force feeding" you which American river you are on, etc. instead of letting you just enjoy the scenes and figure it out. (If they hate it that much, then ride a canoe where they don't have a spiel).

I can see the point that is made. I once felt that the JC had too many scenes and not enough dead transition area, that it became a skipper driven run on sentence that in the end destroyed any pacing that was there. So there may be a point that too much stuff along the river creates a distractive and constant narrative. That may or may not be the case. Not sure what the new River experience will be till I ride it (looks great in pictures) so I'll reserve any judgement other than to say its great that they are doing new things and we should appreciate that. I get the feeling that most of the debaters have not ridden it yet.

The show "type" seems like a stylistic choice in the design to me. Is there room for both? The HM is VERY guided and you are told many things and some of it is left for you to decide, Pirates is less so, except that you are set up with the skull as the "opening title." and some abstract narration in the caves. In movies there is both too. This reminds me of different styles of filmmaking, and since DL is borne of film, the comparison may make sense. ("Sunset Blvd." "Bladerunner") and other Noir type movies carry themselves with a very explicit narration that occasionally enhances the action and is a commentary as if they are retelling the story. Other films are less explicit and just show us the action as if we are there. It depends on the material and the best way of getting the point across emotionally. The AFI top 100 is filled with both types. Some movies that open with a paragraph or titles that tell us up front where we are and what year it is. John Ford almost did that as a rule. Billy Wilder and Orson Welles loved the radio inspired narrations and did them well. On the other hand, Chaplin rarely hinted where we were or what city. So rides like the Mark Twain can either be a "guided tour" or a "pleasure cruise", it's a subjective decision on the part of the designer. Walt did "Storybookland" and the "Jungle Cruise" where every river and place change is spelled out. As you can see on the debate thread, you can either love the idea or hate it.

 

[misterID]

Not sure how it is done. Voice filter seems probable. I think the only danger in doing this is not the cast member saying something off color, it's the synergy department having him whisper to the kids to con their parents into joining the Disney Vacation Club or to apply for a Disney Visa card. "MIC.. See ya' real soon.. at the new Boca Raton Vacation Villas!" One day they could use him to do employee layoffs and have him in an office. That way you can't blame your boss for picking you, because Mickey himself gave you your pink slip and said "here ya' go, your very own pink slip, just like the one I gave Dreamfinder...it's collectible! see ya' pal!".

The possibilities are virtually endless. I think they did a good job with it.

:ROFLOL:

I wonder why it seems creepy? You are not the only one to say that. I thought it was awkward having him with no mouth move in all those shows. Covering his mouth and gesturing. BTW what is so unusual about a gigantic talking mouse?

Maybe it has to do with me just being used to the silent Mickey. But the with mouth moving and the voice... :lookaroun

There was something very unnerving about that giant talking mouse character. Its like a fear of dolls coming to life.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Space Mountain at WDW has had this seating arrangement for quite awhile now and it rarely rolls with empty seats and has no need for a single rider line. Only with a party of five do you need singles. 2's, 3's, 4's and 6's are all grouped easily.

So they probably based the design on the successful track record of WDW SM. Now I want to ride it and see how it compares to the old experience.

 

[HMF]

I guess the debate is about being too explicit in the spiel about what you're seeing and what river you are supposedly travelling on. Very subjective and something you have to ride on to know. Over the last 15 pages the debate and non toxic venom has raged into what is a "story" ride and what is an "experience" ride? Meaning which rides are narrated and spell everything out (JC) in a literal and linear way, and the others where you experience the scenes and you must decide what is happening without narration (POTC). The complaint is that the new river experience now has gone from one to the other with the new narration "force feeding" you which American river you are on, etc. instead of letting you just enjoy the scenes and figure it out. (If they hate it that much, then ride a canoe where they don't have a spiel).

I can see the point that is made. I once felt that the JC had too many scenes and not enough dead transition area, that it became a skipper driven run on sentence that in the end destroyed any pacing that was there. So there may be a point that too much stuff along the river creates a distractive and constant narrative. That may or may not be the case. Not sure what the new River experience will be till I ride it (looks great in pictures) so I'll reserve any judgement other than to say its great that they are doing new things and we should appreciate that. I get the feeling that most of the debaters have not ridden it yet.

The show "type" seems like a stylistic choice in the design to me. Is there room for both? The HM is VERY guided and you are told many things and some of it is left for you to decide, Pirates is less so, except that you are set up with the skull as the "opening title." and some abstract narration in the caves. In movies there is both too. This reminds me of different styles of filmmaking, and since DL is borne of film, the comparison may make sense. ("Sunset Blvd." "Bladerunner") and other Noir type movies carry themselves with a very explicit narration that occasionally enhances the action and is a commentary as if they are retelling the story. Other films are less explicit and just show us the action as if we are there. It depends on the material and the best way of getting the point across emotionally. The AFI top 100 is filled with both types. Some movies that open with a paragraph or titles that tell us up front where we are and what year it is. John Ford almost did that as a rule. Billy Wilder and Orson Welles loved the radio inspired narrations and did them well. On the other hand, Chaplin rarely hinted where we were or what city. So rides like the Mark Twain can either be a "guided tour" or a "pleasure cruise", it's a subjective decision on the part of the designer. Walt did "Storybookland" and the "Jungle Cruise" where every river and place change is spelled out. As you can see on the debate thread, you can either love the idea or hate it.

It is a interesting challenge isn't it Saying too much vs. Saying too little.
anyhow I would like tho hear your thoughts on this particular post
http://micechat.com/forums/disneyla...breakdown-river-scenes-14.html#post1055983710

I am definitely more on the Davis side of the fence. Me and Fitzgerald tend to have polar-opposite creative philosophies.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

It is a interesting challenge isn't it Saying too much vs. Saying too little.
anyhow I would like tho hear your thoughts on this particular post
http://micechat.com/forums/disneyla...breakdown-river-scenes-14.html#post1055983710

I am definitely more on the Davis side of the fence. Me and Fitzgerald tend to have polar-opposite creative philosophies.

The link gives you the whole page with about three or four topic changes. If you can be more specific.

I do think that this quote is interesting.

"Funny how, from rotted wood on the Mark Twain to dangerously reduced maintenance, from shuttered restaurants to closed rides, from reduced quality merch to reduced quality food, no matter the issue that fans have with Disney over the years, the same labels are slapped on them. Labels that invariably point to "the only problem is you just don't like change."

Not true at all. Change and upkeep are two different things. I don't think anyone slaps the label on someone not "liking change" for burned out light bulbs, in fact Disney often reads this stuff and it shames them into fixing it. The debate about bringing things back is about enhancements to the parks and changing the shows themselves, stuff like that. The ReImagineering site is all about that kind of critique. nothing wrong with those debates, but I think they are confusing two issues.

 

[HMF]

The link gives you the whole page with about three or four topic changes. If you can be more specific.

I do think that this quote is interesting.

"Funny how, from rotted wood on the Mark Twain to dangerously reduced maintenance, from shuttered restaurants to closed rides, from reduced quality merch to reduced quality food, no matter the issue that fans have with Disney over the years, the same labels are slapped on them. Labels that invariably point to "the only problem is you just don't like change."

Not true at all. Change and upkeep are two different things. I don't think anyone slaps the label on someone not "liking change" for burned out light bulbs, in fact Disney often reads this stuff and it shames them into fixing it. The debate about bringing things back is about enhancements to the parks and changing the shows themselves, stuff like that. The ReImagineering site is all about that kind of critique. nothing wrong with those debates, but I think they are confusing two issues.

I was referring to post 204

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Ok, here's post 204...

But you, the guest, filled in the story based on what you're experiencing.

Now, you are being TOLD a story based on what Barbossa is yelling out to the soldiers firing back at him from the fort.

There are two very different forms of storytelling right there. The WED-era experience-based "storytelling" and the WDI-era explicit narrative-based "storytelling"


It went from this:
"We don't have a story, with a beginning, an end, or a plot. It's more of a series of experiences building up to a climax. I call them experience rides."
- Marc Davis, 1969
To this:
"We’re adding a layer of storytelling from the films to the attraction [ . . . ]."
- Tom Fitzgerald, on the 2006 Pirates of the Caribbean enhancements

I don't think that you can make that leap of "from this to this". History just does not support it. The Jungle Cruise, Submarine Voyage, Haunted Mansion, COP, Flight to the Moon, Monorail, Steam Trains, Mark Twain and Storybookland, all WED creations and all had some form of explicit narrations, or a "host" character, there to take you though something and add commentary. The HM ghost host sets up just about everything you are looking at. Your host rides with you. Pirates sets the premise with the voices in the cave and "Dead men tell no tales". Even the Skull sets things up. Just because Marc said that, and I personally agree with his definition of how story should be approached (especially in the design of a land), does not mean that it changed post Walt as to being narrated. He's just saying that you are not literally retelling the movie scene for scene like a book report. Mr. Toad is not the whole story, just the chase scene. I think there are examples of both and they are case by case based on the story.

 

[HMF]

Ok, here's post 205...

But you, the guest, filled in the story based on what you're experiencing.

Now, you are being TOLD a story based on what Barbossa is yelling out to the soldiers firing back at him from the fort.

There are two very different forms of storytelling right there. The WED-era experience-based "storytelling" and the WDI-era explicit narrative-based "storytelling"


It went from this:
"We don't have a story, with a beginning, an end, or a plot. It's more of a series of experiences building up to a climax. I call them experience rides."
- Marc Davis, 1969
To this:
"We’re adding a layer of storytelling from the films to the attraction [ . . . ]."
- Tom Fitzgerald, on the 2006 Pirates of the Caribbean enhancements

I don't agree with that you can make that leap of "from this to this". The Jungle Cruise, Haunted Mansion, COP, Flight to the Moon, Monorail, Steam Trains, Mark Twain and Storybookland, all WED creations and all had some form of explicit narrations. The HM describes just about everything you are looking at. Your host rides with you. Just because Marc said that, and I personally agree with his definition of how story should be approached (especially in the design of a land), does not mean that it changed post Walt. I think there are examples of both and they are case by case based on the story.

I don't really buy their "They are naming the individual areas of the river thus we are being spoon fed a story" argument. It's just an extra layer of theming and in my opinion enhancing the experience. The premise is basically the same. Besides the fact that Jungle Cruise used key words like "Rivers of Africa" etc. Also I think their constantly pointing fingers at Kim Irvine is misplaced and somewhat immature. That being said I wish Kim Irvine would stop giving them ammunition like overuse of the term "story" because obviously some people take it the wrong way.