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

[HBG2]

If you look at the souvenir maps of the day, they called the interior of the Matterhorn "Glacier Grotto" and gave it an attraction "star", so it may have been a money thing or a future upgrade they never got to. I would think that meant that they at least intended to make it more of a "show" than two by four framing.

Well, by the mid-60's they did put a sort of tunneling around the skyway path with a glacier theme to it. [OR NOT: See below] Changed this...

...into this...

...but it wasn't very interesting. In fact, it was more interesting before, when you could look all around in there. I guess you could put that forward as an example of "proper" theming that actually made the attraction less fun, not more.

And I always wondered why they didn't at least paint the ride's pathway white, to simulate snow, like a real bobsled run.

 

[HMF]

You're right about the Tiki Room show not holding up as well as one could wish. There are too many "contemporary" gags that haven't been contemporary for decades, to the point of incomprehensibility. How many guests recognize a Maurice Chevalier impression for what it is? Heck, how many have even heard of Chevalier (be honest)? I'd be curious to know how well understood the Crosby or Satchmo impressions are too. It's a steadily diminishing percentage of the audience, that's for certain. But my favorite is, "Because if we don't make you feel like that, we're gonna wind up on a lady's hat." Sheesh, that joke was dated even in 1963.
.

Careful you don't want Tiki Room Under New Management, Trust me.:animwink:

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Well, by the mid-60's they did put a sort of tunneling around the skyway path with a glacier theme to it. Changed this...

...into this...

...but it wasn't very interesting. In fact, it was more interesting before, when you could look all around in there. I guess you could put that forward as an example of "proper" theming that actually made the attraction less fun, not more.

And I always wondered why they didn't at least paint the ride's pathway white, to simulate snow, like a real bobsled run.

Yeah, a pretty weak attempt. I love the granite X bracing, just like in Switzerland.

To me, this example points out that during the reign of Walt Disney, not all things were executed to the "pink of perfection" that we imagine him demanding. Walt allowed this ride to be that way for a long time after opening, and if WDI had done the same with Everest we'd be all over them (of course, DL Space Mountain took the same liberties, only recently has the light level been dealt with properly). Matterhorn opened with the themeless interior structure and never really got properly themed until the Snowman upgrade long after Walt's death. A learning curve for Walt as well?

 

[HMF]

Yeah, a pretty weak attempt. I love the granite X bracing, just like in Switzerland.

To me, this example points out that during the reign of Walt Disney, not all things were executed to the "pink of perfection" that we imagine him demanding. Walt allowed this ride to be that way for a long time after opening, and if WDI had done the same with Everest we'd be all over them (of course, DL Space Mountain took the same liberties, only recently has the light level been dealt with properly). Matterhorn opened with the themeless interior structure and never really got properly themed until the Snowman upgrade long after Walt's death. A learning curve for Walt as well?

Actually Walt had the Snowman upgrade in the original plans but the cost of building the mountain and the realization that the ride was popular without it held up the re-theme until 1978 after Space Mountain debuted.

 

[HBG2]

Actually Walt had the Snowman upgrade in the original plans but the cost of building the mountain and the realization that the ride was popular without it held up the re-theme until 1978 after Space Mountain debuted.

Younger fans may not be aware of it, but just as Space Mountain is the big overall favorite today, so the Matterhorn bobsleds was the undisputed champ from 1959 until it was finally de-throned by Pirates. I clearly remember my dad telling us early in 1967, "They say that Pirate ride is going to be even more popular than the bobsleds," which seemed to us a daring prediction. The Matterhorn was king of the hill (okay, clumsy choice of metaphor), holding its own well into the AA revolution.

 

[HBG2]

I've been trying to pin down the year when they put the glacier tube around the skyway path inside the mountain, and I'm starting to think I was mistaken in my earlier post when I said it was during the mid-60's. It may not have been done until the 1978 upgrade with Harold. Sorry about the inaccurate report. "Memory is the most convincing liar," blah blah.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I've been trying to pin down the year when they put the glacier tube around the skyway path inside the mountain, and I'm starting to think I was mistaken in my earlier post when I said it was during the mid-60's. It may not have been done until the 1978 upgrade with Harold. Sorry about the inaccurate report. "Memory is the most convincing liar," blah blah.

At least you're right about the Matterhorn being the most "popular" ride till Pirates. For me it was also Mr. Toad and Tiki. The funny thing is that it was one of those "thrill" type rides they thought they'd never need. I never knew Walt had the snowman in mind from the outset, that kind of depresses me.

 

[HMF]

At least you're right about the Matterhorn being the most "popular" ride till Pirates. For me it was also Mr. Toad and Tiki. The funny thing is that it was one of those "thrill" type rides they thought they'd never need. I never knew Walt had the snowman in mind from the outset, that kind of depresses me.

Harriet Burns actually did a mock up of the Snowman and went to lunch and the other Imagineers made the Snowman "Anatomically correct" in her absence. Story from the book "The Disney Mountains-Imagineering at it's peak" by Jason Surrell. Also it mentions how Harriet never rode the Matterhorn despite the fact she designed it due to acrophobia. Sadly less than a way after the book was published she passed away.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Harriet Burns actually did a mock up of the Snowman and went to lunch and the other Imagineers made the Snowman "Anatomically correct" in her absence. Story from the book "The Disney Mountains-Imagineering at it's peak" by Jason Surrell. Also it mentions how Harriet never rode the Matterhorn despite the fact she designed it due to acrophobia. Sadly less than a way after the book was published she passed away.

I never bought that book, but knew Harriet. She probably got a big laugh out of that Snowman.

 

[TinkerBell9988]

I just read through about twenty pages of this thread, and I love it! Eddie Sotto, thanks so much for your insight!

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I just read through about twenty pages of this thread, and I love it! Eddie Sotto, thanks so much for your insight!

You are more than welcome. We try to keep it generally positive and on topic. We're all glad you like the discussion, now we hope to see you join in and give us your thoughts.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

A previous posted brought up the notion of "striving for authenticity" in reference to potentially adding needless costs. I can see where experiencing the original provides a good foundation for design, but in many cases (and certainly the case with Everest) people’s perception of authenticity is the byproduct of what they have seen in other mediums, and not from experienceing the real thing firsthand. Since we are trying to connect with people’s perceptions how important is being true to the original versus creating a piece of fantasy that will touch the viewer?

To the other posters point if I spent less worrying about it being authentic (not to be confused with cheap) I could us that money to provide more which might be better for the quests.

Disney Parks have never carried the burden of being purely "authentic" as museums do, as the core intent is escapist entertainment. Having said that, using real events and history as a basis allows the guest to suspend disbelief to buy into the greater fantasy. Where you decide to "blur" the reality into the fantasy (Realistic Steamship design for the Mark Twain married to fictional riverfront) is purely subjective and something that best is viewed in case by case basis.

 

[Buried20KLeague]

Eddie -

Wanted to get your thoughts on something being discussed in another thread.

Regarding the long journey from the parking lot to the MK. We all understand it was done both to build up anticipation, and also so you might feel more "transported" to this Magical Kingdom.

Do you think this still works and is an important part of the experience?

The two viewpoints are that:

1. The "average guest" doesn't visit WDW often, so this build-up really still serves its purpose, and it still an important part of the story.

OR...

2. That Disney might be surprised at the survey resulted if they decided to look into it. That after a long day, the trek back to the parking lot is too much, and that the long trip to the park is either lost on most, or in today's "instant gratification" age, it just doesn't ring with people.

I'm curious as to what you think. Also, I wonder if this is something WDI would even spend time talking about, or if this is something that would get dismissed right away in a "leave well enough alone" type brush-off, due to cost, or space, or infrastructure, or any other issue in between. ??

Thoughts?

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Eddie -

Wanted to get your thoughts on something being discussed in another thread.

Regarding the long journey from the parking lot to the MK. We all understand it was done both to build up anticipation, and also so you might feel more "transported" to this Magical Kingdom.

Do you think this still works and is an important part of the experience?

The two viewpoints are that:

1. The "average guest" doesn't visit WDW often, so this build-up really still serves its purpose, and it still an important part of the story.

OR...

2. That Disney might be surprised at the survey resulted if they decided to look into it. That after a long day, the trek back to the parking lot is too much, and that the long trip to the park is either lost on most, or in today's "instant gratification" age, it just doesn't ring with people.

I'm curious as to what you think. Also, I wonder if this is something WDI would even spend time talking about, or if this is something that would get dismissed right away in a "leave well enough alone" type brush-off, due to cost, or space, or infrastructure, or any other issue in between. ??

Thoughts?

It's all about when you decide the "experience" begins. If you decide it begins when you drive upon the property, certainly the lot is a part of that. The expectations are not that high, but in other parks a central shaded "mall" with music etc. has been added (a moving sidewalk in paris) so the guest understands that you "care" about them and that there is a sense of arrival, not abandonment. So yes, WDI does consider those things.

 

[TP2000]

It's all about when you decide the "experience" begins. If you decide it begins when you drive upon the property, certainly the lot is a part of that. The expectations are not that high, but in other parks a central shaded "mall" with music etc. has been added (a moving sidewalk in paris) so the guest understands that you "care" about them and that there is a sense of arrival, not abandonment. So yes, WDI does consider those things.

That doesn't explain the rather industrial and bland surroundings of the tram loading area at Disneyland's parking structure. Not a single speaker playing music, and just some basic flat signage placed around a facility that has all the charm of a frugally-built international airport. That seems to be a missed opportunity for Disneyland Resort, although I can understand it considering when that facility was built and who was in charge of the place at that time.

Still, there appear to be opportunities to go back and rethink the amenities and sense of place in established properties and locations like that. They're addressing most of those misses inside the park at DCA, but there are some rather glaring opportunities still around outside of the DCA and Disneyland park boundaries themselves.

I also think it's time to look at WDW's Transportation and Ticket Center area for the same reasons. It's Nixon-era utilitarian look needs a thorough rethink for the 21st century, in my opinion. Either go full-tilt Mid Century Modern on the thing and polish it up with 21st century detailing, or level it and go faux Victorian like Tokyo Disneyland has done with its entrance facilities. Or maybe some historically accurate grand regional architecture that I'm unfamiliar with?

A glamorous sense of arrival, and that your hosts care for you, are important to getting the visit off on the right foot. Similarly, those same facilities send the visitors home at the end of the day, and their deficiencies can be even more glaring at night than they were first thing in the morning. That seems to be a big opportunity for the American resort properties, in my opinion.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

That doesn't explain the rather industrial and bland surroundings of the tram loading area at Disneyland's parking structure. Not a single speaker playing music, and just some basic flat signage placed around a facility that has all the charm of a frugally-built international airport. That seems to be a missed opportunity for Disneyland Resort, although I can understand it considering when that facility was built and who was in charge of the place at that time.

Still, there appear to be opportunities to go back and rethink the amenities and sense of place in established properties and locations like that. They're addressing most of those misses inside the park at DCA, but there are some rather glaring opportunities still around outside of the DCA and Disneyland park boundaries themselves.

I also think it's time to look at WDW's Transportation and Ticket Center area for the same reasons. It's Nixon-era utilitarian look needs a thorough rethink for the 21st century, in my opinion. Either go full-tilt Mid Century Modern on the thing and polish it up with 21st century detailing, or level it and go faux Victorian like Tokyo Disneyland has done with its entrance facilities. Or maybe some historically accurate grand regional architecture that I'm unfamiliar with?

A glamorous sense of arrival, and that your hosts care for you, are important to getting the visit off on the right foot. Similarly, those same facilities send the visitors home at the end of the day, and their deficiencies can be even more glaring at night than they were first thing in the morning. That seems to be a big opportunity for the American resort properties, in my opinion.

Agree. You won't catch me parking in that structure either. It's ironic that lifestyle malls (the Grove in LA) have better and more colorful structures than that. Flowers, music, valets, all of it. The sheer numbers of cars have an effect too as the cost of the structures add up. I think when you are in a situation of where you have to choose where the money is going (and there is never enough), you don't want to rob the attractions for the structure, but it is true that those experiences are negative, below market, and can be much better and should be. I hear they need to build a second structure to deal with all of the AP comings and goings, so we'll see what they address and how. In fact, I don't go to DL as often because the entry sequence is so miserable and I won't endure it. I'll gladly spend less time, get validated at Downtown Disney or the hotel to be able to easily come and go. The whole experience of lines, trams, searches and structures is very airport-like as you say. Not fun in the least. WDW has transport issues that dwarf the parking, it's the whole Bussing mess.

 

[_Scar]

I thought WDW transportation was pretty simple and effective? What would you change about it if you could?

 

[TP2000]

In fact, I don't go to DL as often because the entry sequence is so miserable and I won't endure it. I'll gladly spend less time, get validated at Downtown Disney or the hotel to be able to easily come and go.

I also do the Downtown Disney valet thing when heading to the park. If I have a cocktail at Catal coming or going, it's a five hour validation and all you owe is the 6 dollar valet fee and the few dollars tip for the valet runner Cast Member. You rarely wait more than 2 minutes before your car pulls into the valet loop.

I'm positive they had no intention of the DTD parking lot becoming the defacto theme park parking for most AP's, but that's what it's become. And I know several folks who do the valet option mostly when parking there.

Disneyland now has to have the only valet parking system for theme parks in the known theme park industry. Although, again, I'm sure they never planned it to devolve into that. It's just they planned and operated the structure so cheaply and poorly that the smart folks don't have any other option but to valet the car at Downtown Disney. :lol:

And then there's the WDW bus system. Never again will I subject myself to that!

I made the mistake of staying once at the Animal Kingdom Lodge without a rental car. My vacation was at the mercy of the WDW bus system, the CM's who operate it, and the fellow visitors who ride it. It was miserable, and very un-resortlike. It's just so dreary and crowded and poorly managed. :hurl:

 

[SeaCastle]

And then there's the WDW bus system. Never again will I subject myself to that!

I made the mistake of staying once at the Animal Kingdom Lodge without a rental car. My vacation was at the mercy of the WDW bus system, the CM's who operate it, and the fellow visitors who ride it. It was miserable, and very un-resortlike. It's just so dreary and crowded and poorly managed. :hurl:

We stayed at the Animal Kingdom Lodge a few months ago and completely relied on resort-transportation and found it to be the opposite of what you described. :shrug:

I guess when it comes to these sorts of things, you always have experiences on two completely different ends of the spectrum.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

The issue with the bus system is that some routes with connections can take forever. If you're on vacation, every minute counts. WDW in it's inception was supposed to be a place where you left your car behind and escaped from urbanity. Over the years, traffic was "imported" to the property, busses and cars just choked the relaxed feeling you had in the 70's. My first visit just had the 2 hotels and the monorail. there was less to do for sure, but I can't tell you how magical that was.

At WDI (1990s), there were meetings about looking at alternative ways for guests to circulate and have a better time getting around. Internally it's a known issue, but very costly and busses are the most cost effective thing right now.