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

[flavious27]

It's funny that there is no end to the number of character breakfasts, but you can't get live talent into restaurants for other concepts. I loved it when the street talent used to go into the Brown Derby, but that's just scratching the surface. The Adventurer's Club proved to me how powerful an experience can be and that it's repeatable.

Part of the reason you don't see talent is that the way things are financially justified. The restaurant's balance sheet has to "pay" for the talent and it is not seen as "profitable" so they don't do it. AC sold alcohol so that probably covered the costs better. In my day, they used to see each facility as it's own "business", not sure if they still do that. Character breakfasts are surveyed and guests will stay in a hotel that has them so they can measure that. Of course, inside the park is different. The guest has paid a huge admission so what does that cover? Shows can be measured as to you coming to the park just to see it so they can justify it, or if you pay a ticket above the admission for the dinner show, they can measure that. Everything in between is harder to rationalize. How much show is enough?

Interesting business models sometimes determine how things are justified.

Why not design and build a resort that would be fashioned in the same style of the AC, with the same elements spread out through the lobby and different restaurants and bars.

 

[lazyboy97o]

In my day, they used to see each facility as it's own "business", not sure if they still do that.

I believe that is still the current practice. It started in the 1980s and was pushed to its limits by Paul Pressler. In the past, the parks were easier to justify costs as each ticket was associated with a monetary value. There was however, more focus on the whole being profitable and not necessarily the individual components. Not too long ago on Passport to Dreams Old & New, Foxxfur ran a great article, Snapshot: Olde World Antiques, in which she mentions how Disney knew that the Olde World Antiques shop was losing money but a part of the Liberty Square show. It is definitely a fine balance between showmanship and good business sense.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I believe that is still the current practice. It started in the 1980s and was pushed to its limits by Paul Pressler. In the past, the parks were easier to justify costs as each ticket was associated with a monetary value. There was however, more focus on the whole being profitable and not necessarily the individual components. Not too long ago on Passport to Dreams Old & New, Foxxfur ran a great article, Snapshot: Olde World Antiques, in which she mentions how Disney knew that the Olde World Antiques shop was losing money but a part of the Liberty Square show. It is definitely a fine balance between showmanship and good business sense.

That, IMHO is the right approach, the key of course to Antiques or specialty shops is the buyer. It's good to hear that thought process is there. What happened in Anaheim was they lost the "One of a Kind Antiques" buyer and slowly the unique stuff filtered out and was replaced by ton of a kind stuff that was not great, so the store slumped even more. Buyers have the "eye". Eventually it was replaced by merchandise that was more topical. Buyers make or break retail as they know what people will want and what the right mix is in volume and unique merchandise. Sid Cahuenga's was another great shop that has lost a bit of it's antique edge. I bought a scrapbook from 1942 filled with autographs and pictures of all the celebs that visited the real Brown Derby that year. All collected by a waitress. That was cool. They still have vintage stuff and I love to browse there, but not like it was. Shopping, even in a flea market is timeless, as it's all about the "thrill of the hunt" and finding some great, unusual object that has a story.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Just to Mansion it...

Our good friend HBG2 has posted another interesting tibdit on his HM blog, and it addresses some of possible origins of things we've come to know in that attraction. To me, this only brings to light how Art Directors back then would do "research" and then use or lift things they saw and recycle them pretty literally into their movie projects. He explores those sources and speculates if they are just a coincidence? or more, you decide. Another great post.

http://longforgottenhauntedmansion.blogspot.com/

How do you feel when you find out the things you may have thought were "design masterpieces" came from some book or magazine?

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Overdue recognition.

The THEA awards which is an organization that services the themed entertainment industry has chosen to honor someone who works tirelessly to make DL as good as it can possibly be, Kim "Possible" Irvine. She loves the product as her mother ("Madame Leota" Toombs) did and this drives her. I worked with Kim at DL in the early nineties and she gives 200% even with modest resources to make the impossible possible with and without budget. Tony Baxter has relied on her (we all have) to take on many of his most precious projects and values her as a key player. Being responsible for "enhancements" sometimes puts you on the hot seat with fans and she handles this very well. Classy lady. Irvine has a great attitude backed by a winning smile and her career has been underscored by a willingness to make things happen with a "Can Do" approach to any assignment. I worked down there with her and her "platoon" to learn that DL truly is the political "Battlezone" of art and commerce, not the "Washington" of WDI. I learned alot down there from Kim.

Congrats Kim!! Overdue honor!


Thea Awards Announced for ‘World of Color’ and Disney Imagineer Kim Irvine
Longtime Disney Imagineer Kim Irvine was recognized for a lifetime of distinguished achievements with The Buzz Price Award. Kim began her career at Walt Disney Imagineering in 1970, where she worked alongside many of the Walt Disney Imagineering legends such as John Hench, Mary Blair, Marc Davis and Claude Coats. She worked on many attractions for both Magic Kingdom and Epcot at Walt Disney World before joining Imagineering’s Disneyland Design Studio team in 1980.

Kim has long been the Art Director for Disneyland park and was responsible for projects such as Disneyland’s 50th anniversary celebration, including a new look for the iconic Sleeping Beauty Castle. Recent projects include adding ‘new magic’ to classic attractions such as ‘it’s a small world’ and in locations like the Rivers of America. Kim also created designs for the new Disney Gallery and interiors for the new The Disneyland Story presenting Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln attraction on Main Street, U.S.A.

 

[ChrisFL]

How do you feel when you find out the things you may have thought were "design masterpieces" came from some book or magazine?

That's one of those difficult things. I mean we all know that WDI takes inspiration from many things. Fantasyland takes much of it's design from classical european buildings and of course World Showcase at EPCOT is basically miniature versions of the real thing.

On the other hand, when you come up with something completely original there's always a chance that the guests won't appreciate it because it doesn't "feel" familiar. Thats why I think part of the reason we see a lot of movie tie-ins with attractions these days, they're nearly guaranteed to bring in people to see them since they're already popular.

I often think about this when thinking of attraction projects. Take for example, the original Journey into Imagination. A completely new concept as far as the main characters, the storyline, etc. So much in fact that the entire first 3-4 minutes of the ride are an introduction.

That is a tricky thing to pull off. Giving the guests who are experiencing something unique a chance to get familiar and enjoy what they're seeing in only a couple of minutes vs. using an existing franchise where they already know the characters/story.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

That's one of those difficult things. I mean we all know that WDI takes inspiration from many things. Fantasyland takes much of it's design from classical european buildings and of course World Showcase at EPCOT is basically miniature versions of the real thing.

On the other hand, when you come up with something completely original there's always a chance that the guests won't appreciate it because it doesn't "feel" familiar. Thats why I think part of the reason we see a lot of movie tie-ins with attractions these days, they're nearly guaranteed to bring in people to see them since they're already popular.

I often think about this when thinking of attraction projects. Take for example, the original Journey into Imagination. A completely new concept as far as the main characters, the storyline, etc. So much in fact that the entire first 3-4 minutes of the ride are an introduction.

That is a tricky thing to pull off. Giving the guests who are experiencing something unique a chance to get familiar and enjoy what they're seeing in only a couple of minutes vs. using an existing franchise where they already know the characters/story.

It is one of the great conundrums. Of course, the thing you copy had to be unique first. Someone has to take that risk! As for the copyists, I consider myself one, if not from man from creation itself (the best source), you can't avoid it. I guess my process is usually taking three elements that exist and combine them in a new way to make something new. That hopefully takes it to the next level. The smartphone combined a telephone, a computer and a walkie talkie, etc.

 

[wishesjake]

Eddie, kind of off subject, but do you think nature/things that already exist is truly the best inspiration or do you believe true creation comes from the human mind? I know it's just a rehash of the impressionist/abstractionist debate I'm just wondering what side you come down on being experienced in themed design. Also, what examples in Imagineering has come directly from the mind of the Imagineer? It seems like everything imagineering designs is based on reality. Maybe adventure through inner space?

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Eddie, kind of off subject, but do you think nature/things that already exist is truly the best inspiration or do you believe true creation comes from the human mind? I know it's just a rehash of the impressionist/abstractionist debate I'm just wondering what side you come down on being experienced in themed design. Also, what examples in Imagineering has come directly from the mind of the Imagineer? It seems like everything imagineering designs is based on reality. Maybe adventure through inner space?

Wow, what a question.

Imagineering is for the most part in the "fantasy" or "time travel" business. Virtual Reality prior to computers.

To create a fantasy world that is convincing, you have to ground it in a logic or a reality. So usually you are blending things that seem impossible in a possible premise that you can relate to. A Swiss Mountain next to a Castle is not really impossible, but in Anaheim it's highly improbable. Walt took existing fairy tales and through his breakthroughs in Animation introduced a high art sense of realism, character, and color, even depth to give those impossible stories (talking animals) a jaw dropping reality that made the fantasy compelling. He invested in that art so his worlds were places you could see yourself in. Same is true of the parks. Bambi moved like a real deer, the snow looked real and Bambi's emotions seemed so human you bought into being sad for Bambi when his mother died. I was told once that Fantasy cannot take too much reality, just enough to sustain disbelief. It's a balance. When you're in a dream, you occasionally stop to see if it's real or a dream, you look for holes. In a theme park, I think you do the same subconsciously. You sense contradictions in the design that either confirm the spell or deny it. Crowds do that for me. When you find none and the immersive environment continually convinces you that you are in a remote part of 19th Century America (out on the Rivers of America), you enjoy it even more. At least I do.

So the process of Imagineering is creating immersion, or VR in the real world. So have a place or environment and you have what goes on in it. You seek to create events you cannot do anywhere else, like Flying with Peter Pan, stuff people aspire to do that they could not do elsewhere. Soarin' does that to a degree and succeeds not because the film is any good, but because as a system, it does a good job of making you believe you can fly. Emotionally that is universally satisfying.

I'm addicted to "pushing the envelope" and trying things that have not been done. Not always successfully. The safest way to do that in my book is to combine the most unlikely elements and try them in new ways. (Test it first BTW) On Mission:Space, we discussed using a roller coaster to give you the extended "G Forces" of blast off, but instead spun you and rotated the pod to give you the sense of extended vertical lift. More real. Stuff like that. Some love it some don't. Pooh in TDL was created by taking advantage of a bumper boat wireless ride system and adapting it to a dark ride environment so we could do things no dark ride had done before, like roaming freely or going backwards, or spinning. I don't engineer this stuff, but I hunt down the elements and suggest combining them.

As to your "human mind" question, my personal belief is that the world had a masterful designer. Why? Because everything including the single cell is incredibly complex and all of the earths systems are so interdependent as if they were aware of each other at the outset. It's like finding a furnished house. The deeper Science looks into the natural world, even the single cell, the more questions arise. That's my take anyway. All of these things including ourselves borrow from the same kits of awe inspiring parts so we are related, even creatively at some level to our natural world. The veins in a leaf look like those in our hand, etc.

We also share certain universal feelings as a species and so the desire to entertain those primal universal aspirations is part of Imagineering. (To believe in something, to fly, peaceful existence IASW, good vs. evil, etc.). I do love man's creations as well, like architecture, but even that goes back to divine proportions and structural systems found in nature. For example, the wheel is not found in nature so that is new. For me, the humbling notion is that man is a copyist and a keen observer (bird=plane, eye=camera) is a good one. We build on an innovate versus direct invention. You asked, so that's my feeling. Now for story.

It's interesting that even fantasy stories follow similar formulas too that grow from Mythologies. (The writer's journey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Writer's_Journey:_Mythic_Structure_for_Writers) It's hard to come up with something wholly original that isn't based on something. (They say "I love Lucy" is the DNA of all sitcoms.) Walt used what amounted to the "licensed properties" of his day, which were public domain fairy tales that were low risk as they were well known already. Cinderella, Tom Sawyer, Sleeping Beauty, etc. were well known in pop culture, and he just Disney-fied them and made them real. Even Haunted House and Pirates were popular topics that kids read about or spired to explore. He was smart about that. Main Street was "retro" or nostalgic to the generation that first came to the park. He did things "people will like" as Herb Ryman has him saying.

We are also continually surprised by the technology dig up from ancient times that are more advanced than we thought. Like this sextant and ancient calculator. Casio-pia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism

BTW- "Adventure thru Inner Space" which opened in 1967 (fave of mine!) was not based on a Disney film, but is similar to "Fantastic Voyage" a Fox "Inner Space" film that had a Disney artist, Frank Armitage as it's creative consultant and Richard Fleisher, Director of Disney's 20k at the helm. The novel of the book came out in 1966. Not sure how much this inspired the ride, but it was a Fox film and many of the same art direction staff were involved in DL. Expedition Everest is a new property, Main Street USA is original as well, and so is Haunted Mansion. They are generic to an extent. HBG2 continually unveils the Mansion's inspiration, or not.

Sorry thread for the long and rambling answer, I'm not sure that even covers it, but this is a discussion so we'd like to hear all of your thoughts.

 

[HBG2]

"Art comes from other art," said one of my teachers back when I was a Graphic Designs major in college (before I switched to English and took an Art minor). For some reason I always remembered that. Even if an artist could produce something utterly original, with no trace of influence from either pre-existing art or from Nature, why is it assumed that this would be a good thing? The vague notion that what is of most value is something utterly apart from our shared reality seems to be a widespread sentiment, but I think it's pretty much peculiar to our age. When Hieronymus Bosch tried to go there (and he did it pretty well), he was painting Hell. Is it a coincidence that so much "fantasy" art is obsessed with depictions of the demonic and the destructive? I'm not saying artists shouldn't go there, I'm just asking why doing so is considered more "creative" than sensitive and perceptive presentations of what is really there, or what has really happened.

 

[HBG2]

Oh, BTW, I wrote the above post before I saw Eddie's, so it's not a reply or a reaction to his, even though some of it almost sounds like it, eh?
*Cue the Twilight Zone deedle-deedle music*

 

[wishesjake]

Wow, thanks for the reply. It seems obvious to me after your response that pop art (which is the best way I can describe the Disneyland-style park) must be grounded in realism. The realism that you talked about that Walt grounded his films in can be found all throughout popular art. There are real human emotions and feelings in Pixar films and Lord of the Rings. We can sympathize with Gollum while simultaneously being enchanted by his role in the greater myth. Frankly, this all began with the Iiad and Odyssey and it's amalgamation of fantasy elements (which provide a sense of wonder and escapism so prevelent and necessary with pop culture) with real heros that have realistic human feelings (to provide something for the audience to relate to and an impetus for an emotional response).

However, along with that mesh of reality (emotional attatchment) and fantasy (wonder and awe), it seems necessary that pop culture and pop art must also provide some sense of shared cultural values. Lord of the Rings originally resonated because of narrative resemblence to WWII. Main St. plays on the important cultural ideal of nostalgia (which we Americans are so fond of). Star Wars gives us Luke Skywalker, a self made true American hero. The best pop art includes shared cultural values. I'm pretty sure I don't have to detail how the Disneyland-style park provides those shared cultural values. To use your example, Mission Space represents a spirit of discovery that has pervaded America since it's discovery. And the list goes on and on.

Sorry for the ramble, but it is just fascinating to me that the greatest of all pop art/culture uses three things that we human's love. 1. A foundation of reality 2. A sense of wonder 3. Shared cultural values. Maybe that's what separates pop art from fine art. There is no need for the abstractionist to provide any of those three things because he's not trying to make popular art. Fascinating.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Wow, thanks for the reply. It seems obvious to me after your response that pop art (which is the best way I can describe the Disneyland-style park) must be grounded in realism. The realism that you talked about that Walt grounded his films in can be found all throughout popular art. There are real human emotions and feelings in Pixar films and Lord of the Rings. We can sympathize with Gollum while simultaneously being enchanted by his role in the greater myth. Frankly, this all began with the Iiad and Odyssey and it's amalgamation of fantasy elements (which provide a sense of wonder and escapism so prevelent and necessary with pop culture) with real heros that have realistic human feelings (to provide something for the audience to relate to and an impetus for an emotional response).

However, along with that mesh of reality (emotional attatchment) and fantasy (wonder and awe), it seems necessary that pop culture and pop art must also provide some sense of shared cultural values. Lord of the Rings originally resonated because of narrative resemblence to WWII. Main St. plays on the important cultural ideal of nostalgia (which we Americans are so fond of). Star Wars gives us Luke Skywalker, a self made true American hero. The best pop art includes shared cultural values. I'm pretty sure I don't have to detail how the Disneyland-style park provides those shared cultural values. To use your example, Mission Space represents a spirit of discovery that has pervaded America since it's discovery. And the list goes on and on.

Sorry for the ramble, but it is just fascinating to me that the greatest of all pop art/culture uses three things that we human's love. 1. A foundation of reality 2. A sense of wonder 3. Shared cultural values. Maybe that's what separates pop art from fine art. There is no need for the abstractionist to provide any of those three things because he's not trying to make popular art. Fascinating.

What a thread! So many great responses. A good discussion. Keep it up.

The thing that stands out about Star Wars to me is that it is centrally about faith. Luke cannot win without exercising faith that he must "trust the force" and not his own understanding of what he can see. They are outnumbered and out tech'ed but have something else on their side. This is another biblical foundation as well and permeates many myths and religions too. Wishing upon a star, etc. goes toward this too, but requires no action other than to ask. Luke has to demonstrate his belief in the force by surrendering to it. The Death Star was hit with his eyes closed.

The other thing is "hope". From the recent elections to IASW, to why people want a real optimistic Tomorrowland, Hope is that they want to see demonstrated in real terms that the future is brighter, even in fantasy environments can be real. EPCOT is the one reality type park and I think many are frustrated by it's inability to deliver on that. Maybe it's impossible given that human government is part of the picture and so far has not been able to deliver it. I think Walt saw that and decided to privatize the future and bypass the politics and make his own progress. A grand notion indeed.

 

[HBG2]

What a thread! So many great responses. A good discussion. Keep it up.

The thing that stands out about Star Wars to me is that it is centrally about faith. Luke cannot win without exercising faith that he must "trust the force" and not his own understanding of what he can see. They are outnumbered and out tech'ed but have something else on their side. This is another biblical foundation as well and permeates many myths and religions too. Wishing upon a star, etc. goes toward this too, but requires no action other than to ask. Luke has to demonstrate his belief in the force by surrendering to it. The Death Star was hit with his eyes closed.

Star Wars (at least the original series) has been recognized from day one as a classic, old-fashioned morality tale in space garb. It's not the lasers, it's the timeless story that accounts for the enduring popularity. "Long ago, in a galaxy far away" is the only conscious lie it tells.

The other thing is "hope". From the recent elections to IASW, to why people want a real optimistic Tomorrowland, Hope is that they want to see demonstrated in real terms that the future is brighter, even in fantasy environments can be real. EPCOT is the one reality type park and I think many are frustrated by it's inability to deliver on that. Maybe it's impossible given that human government is part of the picture and so far has not been able to deliver it. I think Walt saw that and decided to privatize the future and bypass the politics and make his own progress. A grand notion indeed.

I hear what you're saying, but I think those last statements can use some nuance. Walt bypassed politics in the narrow sense, perhaps, but in a larger sense he certainly did not. His vision of future hope is emphatically capitalist and American, as opposed to socialist/Marxist/communist, which after all was thought by many to be a credible and even preferable alternative in his day. Take the 1967 "New Tomorrowland," which I suppose gives a fair enough vision of Walt's outlook on the future. Disneylanders tend to idealize the 67 TL, I notice. Maybe too many of these nostalgic fans are too young to remember, but criminy, the '67 TL was a non-stop, heavy-handed, unembarrassed barrage of commercials for many of America's biggest corporations. The message was blunt and overt: the utopian future will be made possible by big businesses following the optimistic, American, capitalist model. You would never be able to be that blatantly political today. I'm not criticizing this view (I actually have some serious sympathies in that direction), I'm just saying that the description of Walt as an apolitical futurist can only be defended in a very narrow sense.

 

[ChrisFL]

The message was blunt and overt: the utopian future will be made possible by big businesses following the optimistic, American, capitalist model. You would never be able to be that blatantly political today. I'm not criticizing this view (I actually have some serious sympathies in that direction), I'm just saying that the description of Walt as an apolitical futurist can only be defended in a very narrow sense.

Well it also was the driving force behind his parks, without major corporate sponsorship, Disneyland and the other Disney parks wouldn't have existed

 

[HBG2]

Well it also was the driving force behind his parks, without major corporate sponsorship, Disneyland and the other Disney parks wouldn't have existed

Yep, Walt believed in the system because he knew it worked, from experience. In addition to everything else he was, Walt was quintessentially American.

 

[wishesjake]

Yep, Walt believed in the system because he knew it worked, from experience. In addition to everything else he was, Walt was quintessentially American.

I don't want to start a political debate by any means, but I think Walt believed in this system because he was under a false assumption about how companies would be run. Walt believed that most companies were focused on creating and inventing new things for the betterment of the future of mankind. Walt could never imagine that a company would sell a shoddy project to get people to spend more money to replace it. I think he was right to have faith in American capitalism in 55, but what we now consider "Late Capitalism" would have shattered Walt's dream of a great big beautiful tommorow. A discussion of the pitfals of late capitalism is not necessary, but it seems clear that Walt was too optimistic about the beneficence of Corporations.

 

[HBG2]

I don't want to start a political debate by any means, but I think Walt believed in this system because he was under a false assumption about how companies would be run. Walt believed that most companies were focused on creating and inventing new things for the betterment of the future of mankind. Walt could never imagine that a company would sell a shoddy project to get people to spend more money to replace it. I think he was right to have faith in American capitalism in 55, but what we now consider "Late Capitalism" would have shattered Walt's dream of a great big beautiful tommorow. A discussion of the pitfals of late capitalism is not necessary, but it seems clear that Walt was too optimistic about the beneficence of Corporations.

Well, the only point I wished to make was that Walt did indeed have a political orientation with regard to his hopeful visions of the future. That bare statement will not, I think, be very controversial. Whether he was naïve or not, or whether such optimistic capitalism fits well the world of 1967 but not the world today—I think we'll all agree that those debates belong in a different forum than this.

 

[ChrisFL]

Well, the only point I wished to make was that Walt did indeed have a political orientation with regard to his hopeful visions of the future. That bare statement will not, I think, be very controversial. Whether he was naïve or not, or whether such optimistic capitalism fits well the world of 1967 but not the world today—I think we'll all agree that those debates belong in a different forum than this.

Thinking of the time he was alive...the world saw massive, sweeping changes...he was born in 1899, practically before cars were around, before air travel, and just after the true beginning of the industrial revolution.

Consider by 1967 how much had changed, and much of it was driven by large corporations I can understand it.

However, at the same time, with the EPCOT City plan, he knew there was some bad effects that had to be resolved as well, urban sprawl, pollution, traffic, etc.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Thinking of the time he was alive...the world saw massive, sweeping changes...he was born in 1899, practically before cars were around, before air travel, and just after the true beginning of the industrial revolution.

Consider by 1967 how much had changed, and much of it was driven by large corporations I can understand it.

However, at the same time, with the EPCOT City plan, he knew there was some bad effects that had to be resolved as well, urban sprawl, pollution, traffic, etc.

Very true. Your point is well made and I think the whole hippie thing was coming of age then too. He might have seen that coming with having limited control of Progress City. (BTW- WD was born in 1901)