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

[Eddie Sotto]

Well they went through the trouble of changing Feature Animation to Animation Studios.

True enough, but this would be a big shift in the style guide with logos and the fact that it involves walt's private company initials etc. As you say, if they want to they will.

 

[HMF]

True enough, but this would be a big shift in the style guide with logos and the fact that it involves walt's private company initials etc. As you say, if they want to they will.

Well judging by what I have seen and heard I would say there is about a 50/50 chance.

 

[misterID]

When I was there, the expense per figure was so high that you could not afford them and in the end, were they that convincing? Could you afford enough moves to make it do what it needed to do? Video solutions (Pepper's ghost, video on scrim, shadow projections, etc) provide movement that is more realistic and more often lives up to expectation. The over use of this (or too literal application of it's use) runs the risk of the guest becoming aware of the video and then you ARE just watching a movie! So balance is needed in all of this. Indy had lots of figures but the cost was through the roof, so post budget, we ended up with a few select figures of just Indy and some AA Snakes, with other effects and the vehicle being a big part of the show, etc. I think the great shows work the best with all of it in small doses, not just the pervasive use of one medium. TDL Pooh was all of it in small doses to keep you guessing. The vehicle did that too to a degree. The AA being the weakest of them all in my opinion. Whatever is the best way to achieve the most convincing look.

Here's a 2 part review of HARRY POTTER Attraction at Universal where they discuss some new ways to achieve lifelike movement (in part 2).

http://thedisneyblog.com/2010/05/18...-potter-preview-for-pow-wow-attendees-part-1/

Man, the AA was the best thing about a Disney ride, even when they looked fake. I thought with the advancements, like with the Pres Obama AA, they'd start making a return to the attractions. Because they've definitely started disappearing from them.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Well judging by what I have seen and heard I would say there is about a 50/50 chance.

Once you do that, you have to live up to it. The funny thing about WED and the first Gen Imagineers is that they worked for one master and had a clear vision to follow. Simple but challenging. Imagineers today have many masters and layers to navigate. To me "WED" defined an era. The "just go do it" world of building attractions was so much less complex than it is today. Those great guys and gals and the times they lived in will always be WED to me, but somehow changing back to that name does not change the system and it's process does not bless it, as you can never go back. Kind of like renaming the "LA Dodgers" the "Brooklyn Dodgers". I'm also proud to say that I worked for "Walt Disney Imagineering", nothing to apologize for either. BTW- I get the idea of rekindling the spirit by wearing the badges and I'm all for that. I'd wear one too. It was a special time and to me is "locked" to a degree. I was issued a WED ID card a week before they changed the name, could not believe my mugshot was next to THAT logo. Wish I could find it!

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Man, the AA was the best thing about a Disney ride, even when they looked fake. I thought with the advancements, like with the Pres Obama AA, they'd start making a return to the attractions. Because they've definitely started disappearing from them.

What do I know, they might! They didn't invest in the Lincoln head to not use those advancements in the future, so to me, that head represents a return to investing in AA. I'm thinking there's hope in that medium. They are outsourcing the AA stuff so they can afford it where it makes sense.

 

[HMF]

Once you do that, you have to live up to it. The funny thing about WED and the first Gen Imagineers is that they worked for one master and had a clear vision to follow. Simple but challenging. Imagineers today have many masters and layers to navigate. To me "WED" defined an era. The "just go do it" world of building attractions was so much less complex than it is today. Those great guys and gals and the times they lived in will always be WED to me, but somehow changing back to that name does not change the system and it's process does not bless it, as you can never go back. Kind of like renaming the "LA Dodgers" the "Brooklyn Dodgers". I'm also proud to say that I worked for "Walt Disney Imagineering", nothing to apologize for either. BTW- I get the idea of rekindling the spirit by wearing the badges and I'm all for that. I'd wear one too. It was a special time and to me is "locked" to a degree. I was issued a WED ID card a week before they changed the name, could not believe my mugshot was next to THAT logo. Wish I could find it!

It's really interesting if they actually go back to it. Heck' I jokingly told some of my friends that I don't want to work for WDI anymore. I want to work for WED.

 

[misterID]

Its kind of a shame you didn't get a crack at working on DisneySea. The oversea parks like Paris, TDL and Sea really seem to have that kind of oldschool Disney park philosophy, where they want to make awesome attractions just to be awesome.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

It's really interesting if they actually go back to it. Heck' I jokingly told some of my friends that I don't want to work for WDI anymore. I want to work for WED.

I remember that card! It did not read quite that way last time. As a "state of mind" we all want to "work for WED".

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Its kind of a shame you didn't get a crack at working on DisneySea. The oversea parks like Paris, TDL and Sea really seem to have that kind of oldschool Disney park philosophy, where they want to make awesome attractions just to be awesome.

The Main Street El Train got there without me, so I guess that's one way of helping!

 

[ptaylor]

Great thread - enjoying all the info Eddie, thanks.

A question that I have always wondered regarding WDI. It seems from the outside that the big-name, key designers at WDI may only have a project actually realized every 5 years or so at most. So my questions is, what are they doing for the rest of the time? Working on proposals, designing things in the hopes of them being green lit? Thanks!

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Great thread - enjoying all the info Eddie, thanks.

A question that I have always wondered regarding WDI. It seems from the outside that the big-name, key designers at WDI may only have a project actually realized every 5 years or so at most. So my questions is, what are they doing for the rest of the time? Working on proposals, designing things in the hopes of them being green lit? Thanks!

Pretty much, yes. I know in my own case that it took 5 years at almost full time hours to design and open Main Street in Paris. there are quieter times in that period where you guest in meetings for other projects, but you are still on the larger one as a priority. In the case of DLP we were made a year behind the other lands (once the 20's MS was cancelled we had to start over) so it was full time and intense for 3 years. Depending on the designer and the level of oversight they have a project can suck you up for it's entire cycle. Tom Morris, a good friend over there is overseeing CarsLand at DCA, but also shepherds smaller jobs that are in concept or very early stages. What you don't want to have happen is to come off of a project overseas and then find out that there's nothing for you to do. So you have several "irons in the fire". Some designers are best used in concept and they continue churning out art and designs, others are better in production. Guys like Tom can go the distance overseeing a whole park, something I've never had the chance to do.

So it varies, but I'd say big projects that guys like Bob Weis get can keep you off the market, but in secret from us they usually have something else going on in concept overlapping it.

 

[HMF]

I remember that card! It did not read quite that way last time. As a "state of mind" we all want to "work for WED".

What' you mean this one?

 

[TP2000]

Personally, as someone not affiliated with the company, I like the old WED logo purely from a design standpoint. It probably looked "old fashioned" in 1986, but now that it's 50 years old it looks fresh and modern and unique again. It's obviously of it's time (early 60's I imagine), but it has a much stronger presence than the current WDI logo.

Part of that probably stems from the fact the "Disney" script and random Mickey Mouse graphic looks so bland and corporate now, as if it could be peddling direct-to-DVD sequels or Princess sheet sets at Target or discounted All-Stars hotel packages or timeshare condos in South Carolina or some bubblegum pop star. Or, God forbid, all of those things at once. It all looks so blandly corporate Disneyfied. But I'm also a sucker for mid-century modern stuff, and that WED logo looks really cool to my eyes.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

What' you mean this one?

that's it! thanks

What comes to mind is the fact that if someone said they worked at WED, most people had no idea it had any connection with Disney or what they did for a living. It was very CIA hush hush in a way. "Those WED guys are up to something". You have to love the whole stealth thing. Off to dig for that old ID card!

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Personally, as someone not affiliated with the company, I like the old WED logo purely from a design standpoint. It probably looked "old fashioned" in 1986, but now that it's 50 years old it looks fresh and modern and unique again. It's obviously of it's time (early 60's I imagine), but it has a much stronger presence than the current WDI logo.

Part of that probably stems from the fact the "Disney" script and random Mickey Mouse graphic looks so bland and corporate now, as if it could be peddling direct-to-DVD sequels or Princess sheet sets at Target or discounted All-Stars hotel packages or timeshare condos in South Carolina or some bubblegum pop star. Or, God forbid, all of those things at once. It all looks so blandly corporate Disneyfied. But I'm also a sucker for mid-century modern stuff, and that WED logo looks really cool to my eyes.

That was the time when they standardized all of the fonts (on stationary and cards) for all the divisions and used the same WD script everywhere. I think it was in 1986 of 1987. They changed the name from "..Productions" to "The Walt Disney Company". Eisner's Napoleonic stamp. It did make things seem fresh. So the WDI logo looks generic by design. It was a way of demonstrating that new word.. synergy! One reason it may look cool to you now... it seems very much inspired of another famous logo. Herman Miller.

http://www.hermanmiller.com/global

 

[MouseketeerCole]

Hey Eddie, I have something I've been wondering about. What exactly is the process that Imagineers go through when they pitch new ideas? I've heard stories about pitching to Michael Eisner and other executives and was wondering about it.

When is an idea, say for a new ride, first pitched and to who? I guess it's just to colleagues at first - what stage is it put to somone higher up? Is it delivered as a written document, or is it pitched in person like a presentation? What type of information is included, such as ride capacity and cost? I guess artwork is included.. what is it of primarily? Is it artwork to communicate the feel of the ride or the realities of the ride? How much artwork is presented? What about other forms of communication to get the idea across; prose, music or video? How much needs to be figured out to get the green light to develop it? Who else is pitched to and at what stage; marketing, accounts, sponsors? What type of feedback is given in return - and how much of it is acted upon?

I guess I'm interested in the logistics of how an idea is presented in the most effective way possible. Thanks!

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Hey Eddie, I have something I've been wondering about. What exactly is the process that Imagineers go through when they pitch new ideas? I've heard stories about pitching to Michael Eisner and other executives and was wondering about it.

When is an idea, say for a new ride, first pitched and to who? I guess it's just to colleagues at first - what stage is it put to somone higher up? Is it delivered as a written document, or is it pitched in person like a presentation? What type of information is included, such as ride capacity and cost? I guess artwork is included.. what is it of primarily? Is it artwork to communicate the feel of the ride or the realities of the ride? How much artwork is presented? What about other forms of communication to get the idea across; prose, music or video? How much needs to be figured out to get the green light to develop it? Who else is pitched to and at what stage; marketing, accounts, sponsors? What type of feedback is given in return - and how much of it is acted upon?

I guess I'm interested in the logistics of how an idea is presented in the most effective way possible. Thanks!

About 7 questions in there, so I'll try to take the whole thing on here. I'd say that in my time there most concepts were either requested by a program or need by the operations side, or the film side, or there is a goal in the brainstorming meeting. So your pitch comes out in whatever best conveys your idea. If you are a sculptor, you make a model if you're a writer, you describe it, etc.

Here's an article that says it better.

http://forums.wdwmagic.com/showthread.php?t=14976&highlight=eddie+sotto+pitch+idea

 

[MouseketeerCole]

Thanks, that pretty much answered my general question! And thanks for the link, I hadn't read that article before - very interesting.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Thanks, that pretty much answered my general question! And thanks for the link, I hadn't read that article before - very interesting.

As to the amount of art, it varies. In my own case, in the early stages you only invest enough hours ($$$) to get the "big idea" across to get you to another stage of funding. Herb Ryman called that level of concept art "Specifically vague". His was at times just that. Ryman said to "paint the verbs, not the nouns". Focus on what is going on and what is exciting, not what it literally is. Architects and designers sometimes fall in love with the objects and forget that the magic is not the architecture, it's what happens there. I was guilty of this big time and Herb straightened me out right away. I still love the architecture, but now understand that it's secondary to the action. Sometimes you can make a powerful point with few illustrations and get an early "buy in". Let the person you are presenting to join you in imagining the idea by leaving room for them to see it their own way. If you go too far, flaws may show up in premature details and then it gets shot down. You should tease them into wanting more, not less. Impressionist paintings do this, they invite us to finish the image in our minds.

 

[HMF]

Hi' Eddie I got the new WDI book (A behind the dreams look at making MORE magic real" and noticed a few interesting things about projects you were involved in including "A cluttered office in the Jungle Cruise queue with a custom printed scene-setting newspaper with headlines detailing shipping disasters" that I stupidly did not notice when I went to DL in 06. Also some really awsome stained glass work in the Main Street Emporium at DLP.