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

Status
Not open for further replies.

KevinYee

Well-Known Member
We love the cute-ifications!
Our boys (4 and 7) were and are bored by attractions which features no characters, if there also not some element of physical thrill to them. The only thing which redeems such attractions (Carousel of Progress, Impressions de France, etc) is repeated viewing, which we do as weekly visitors. But the majority of visitors around us are not weekly visitors, so I can well understand the need to keep the nation's 4 and 7 year olds happy, not mine.

We hate the cute-ifications!
This is not the vision of EPCOT, or Progress City, or Progressland. For that matter, it's not the vision of the Magic Kingdom. It's the vision of Fantasyland alone. If Adventureland is meant to be a semi-serious glance at "exotic" (as defined by a white male), then Aladdin has no place here. Tomorrowland was meant to be much more Werner von Braun than Stitch and Mike Wazowski.

Put both together, and you have a summary of why the parks are themselves schizophrenic - the audience kind of demands it.
 

Eddie Sotto

Premium Member
We love the cute-ifications!
Our boys (4 and 7) were and are bored by attractions which features no characters, if there also not some element of physical thrill to them. The only thing which redeems such attractions (Carousel of Progress, Impressions de France, etc) is repeated viewing, which we do as weekly visitors. But the majority of visitors around us are not weekly visitors, so I can well understand the need to keep the nation's 4 and 7 year olds happy, not mine.

We hate the cute-ifications!
This is not the vision of EPCOT, or Progress City, or Progressland. For that matter, it's not the vision of the Magic Kingdom. It's the vision of Fantasyland alone. If Adventureland is meant to be a semi-serious glance at "exotic" (as defined by a white male), then Aladdin has no place here. Tomorrowland was meant to be much more Werner von Braun than Stitch and Mike Wazowski.

Put both together, and you have a summary of why the parks are themselves schizophrenic - the audience kind of demands it.

Very true. Good comparison. Some of the audience demands it, or should I say till their kids outgrow it. Fantasyland, as you point out was part of the "mix" of attractions in the park that skewed young with Dumbo, etc and was the thematic home for all of that. It was the aisle in the supermarket for characters. What happens when more and more shows get "cutetified", is that the "mix" is thrown off and there are less and less attractions that provide a more realistic or adult form of "escape". In TDL, the Pooh ride combines "cute" story with high end effects and ride system, so to that audience it has a huge appeal and both kids and adults like it (and they love cute over there). If Woody and Jessie hosted Big Thunder and sang to us during the ride, etc. would you cringe? ( I would and so would our kids). As you say, your kids would love it, but it would limit it's overall appeal. Basically parents want to see their kids love the park and whatever does that, they will go along with. If they are the majority, then doing the character thing ups the average guest ratings the most.

We have 12 yr. old B/G twins and have raised them "inside the berm" so to speak and it is surprising to me how fast they outgrow the characters and begin to view those attractions as too young for them. As with most kids, they evolve from characters into the thrill rides, but this "growing up" happens sooner and sooner. Toy companies call this "age compression". Barbie and Mickey have been abandoned earlier and earlier. The Epic Mickey Wii game is a good way to extend his life and image IMHO. My son sees the park as "too girlie" now as there was such an emphasis on Princesses and characters everywhere. They used to tell him Prince Philip was "off hunting" or on vacation when he'd ask princess Aurora. They still love the parks but not like they used to. The TRON property is a good addition to the mix and my son will likely get into that. He is sick of POTC.

Rant alert- The company also tends to overexpose certain properties and burn us out on them as in the Princess thing. The minute they see a glimmer of success, it's painfully obvious that the steamroller of marketing is heading your way and you will have to prepare to be burned out on it in minutes. They can't seem to wait for anything to organically grow and fill demand. I know that if I see tons of merchandise on something like TRON, I don't want it. If it trickles in, then I'm more apt to feel like I discovered something versus being part of the herd. I guess the numbers are too great for that, so they have to. Over time they may find more success with the slow build, than the forced entry to the market. Vinylmation seemed an exception to this, but they are beginning to overwhelm with that too.

So as you say, the character thing is a love/hate. There was a time when Fantasyland was where we spent all of our time, but that's over. My son asked why they got rid of the Swiss Family Tree House as he loved that movie and wanted to see it again now that he's older. He grew into it. To me, it's like having to listen to the wait staff sing "happy birthday" ten times in a restaurant. It makes it more memorable for those ten, but dilutes the experience for the rest. I guess I have to eat in better restaurants!
 

RandySavage

Well-Known Member
Put both together, and you have a summary of why the parks are themselves schizophrenic - the audience kind of demands it.

Part of my problem with development at Disney parks over recent decades is just that. They (TWDC management) have been jumping from one foot to the other trying to supply what the audience demands, rather than being innovative & creating something spectacularly original for which there was no previous demand (like Disneyland or EPCOT Center), because it wasn't part of the public consciousness. Creating such things requires courage & vision.

I see Carsland being built, and it will doubtless be impressive & popular, but it is the ultimate example of this new Disney franchise synergy. "We know our guests love Cars! Surveys say they want a cars attraction. So we are giving them the ultimate Cars attraction." How I wish all that money, energy and rockwork were being put towards something never before seen, which having been designed brilliantly, would have created new demand among the public.

And Eddie is on point: no company knows how to over-market, over-synergize and kill an intellectual property like the New Disney (see High School Musical, Who Wants to be Millionaire, etc.).
 

ChrisFL

Premium Member
Part of my problem with development at Disney parks over recent decades is just that. They (TWDC management) have been jumping from one foot to the other trying to supply what the audience demands, rather than being innovative & creating something spectacularly original for which there was no previous demand (like Disneyland or EPCOT Center), because it wasn't part of the public consciousness. Creating such things requires courage & vision.

I see Carsland being built, and it will doubtless be impressive & popular, but it is the ultimate example of this new Disney franchise synergy. "We know our guests love Cars! Surveys say they want a cars attraction. So we are giving them the ultimate Cars attraction." How I wish all that money, energy and rockwork were being put towards something never before seen, which having been designed brilliantly, would have created new demand among the public.

And Eddie is on point: no company knows how to over-market, over-synergize and kill an intellectual property like the New Disney (see High School Musical, Who Wants to be Millionaire, etc.).


I agree wholeheartedly with this post. Some people have the gift...it's the gift of knowing that what you create, people will LOVE, even before they themselves are aware of it. That is risk taking. That is what Walt did his whole life, but he had the gift.
 

RandySavage

Well-Known Member
^ I would add, when doing something, anything creative - movies, themeparks, cuisine - and your underlying motive is servicing the wants/desires/expectations of children - you are going to end up with a lesser product. Less timeless, less sophisticated, less wide appeal. Think of the films you loved as a child... how many were aimed at children? For me, I can't think of one.

Put a few great minds in a room and they could come up with plenty of ways to re-invigorate The Living Seas - ways that would support and enhance the original theme of Future World and not turn the place into a mish-mash and Seas into a Nemo-based attraction that panders to children.
 

flavious27

Well-Known Member
Part of my problem with development at Disney parks over recent decades is just that. They (TWDC management) have been jumping from one foot to the other trying to supply what the audience demands, rather than being innovative & creating something spectacularly original for which there was no previous demand (like Disneyland or EPCOT Center), because it wasn't part of the public consciousness. Creating such things requires courage & vision.

I see Carsland being built, and it will doubtless be impressive & popular, but it is the ultimate example of this new Disney franchise synergy. "We know our guests love Cars! Surveys say they want a cars attraction. So we are giving them the ultimate Cars attraction." How I wish all that money, energy and rockwork were being put towards something never before seen, which having been designed brilliantly, would have created new demand among the public.

And Eddie is on point: no company knows how to over-market, over-synergize and kill an intellectual property like the New Disney (see High School Musical, Who Wants to be Millionaire, etc.).

well the problem for disney is that for a gate to be successful, it has to have an appeal. look at dak, I doubt that there was a guest demand for a living zoo and it has the lowest attendance. and yes it opened with less traditional attractions, but tdo has added them to increase attendance.

the only place that wdi can create a theme is with the hotels because as long as the room doesn't look run down, guests will still book rooms.

as for the synergy, it creates a familiar theme for guests but the attraction can still be newish in its approach. carsland should succeed as long as the theming is excellent.
 

RandySavage

Well-Known Member
^ Regarding DAK's lower attendance - I think at first much of that was attributable to park over-saturation (although poor accessibility (no boat or monorail access) and having few rides are certainly pieces of the equation), rather than lack of guest demand for a Busch Gardens type park.

For instance, if Animal Kingdom had been built 3rd (opened in 1989) instead of MGM, with an adjoining resort area akin to the Swan/Dolphin Yacht/Beach, I bet it would have enjoyed the popularity and success that MGM had from its debut, if not more so.

That decade (1989-1998) probably represented the efficiency paradigm as far as effectively covering a typical WDW visitor's capacity.
 

RandySavage

Well-Known Member
^ And with words, as well. If one could enforce a moratorium banning the use of the following words:

"Dream"
"Magic"
"Wonder"
"Fantasy"

or any derivation thereof, the entire Disney parks/entertainment department would grind to a halt and sit in dumbstruck silence in their conference rooms. These words have been over-used to the point of saccharine cliche.
 

juan

Well-Known Member
I see the FLE and DCA expansion as Disney starting to get back to the "basics" of providing quality magic instead of easy money and over-marketed brands.

If management continues to develop on these "new" standards, I see the future becoming very bright for the parks. I would imagine attendance figures and certain public opinions would improve too.


Now if they can only bring back the magic of the original JII.
 

flavious27

Well-Known Member
^ Regarding DAK's lower attendance - I think at first much of that was attributable to park over-saturation (although poor accessibility (no boat or monorail access) and having few rides are certainly pieces of the equation), rather than lack of guest demand for a Busch Gardens type park.

For instance, if Animal Kingdom had been built 3rd (opened in 1989) instead of MGM, with an adjoining resort area akin to the Swan/Dolphin Yacht/Beach, I bet it would have enjoyed the popularity and success that MGM had from its debut, if not more so.

That decade (1989-1998) probably represented the efficiency paradigm as far as effectively covering a typical WDW visitor's capacity.

well dak and dhs had about the same amount of guests last year, I wouldn't say that DHS has had runaway success.
 

flavious27

Well-Known Member
I see the FLE and DCA expansion as Disney starting to get back to the "basics" of providing quality magic instead of easy money and over-marketed brands.

If management continues to develop on these "new" standards, I see the future becoming very bright for the parks. I would imagine attendance figures and certain public opinions would improve too.


Now if they can only bring back the magic of the original JII.

well dca was just a management disaster, there was just no disney magic with it.
 

RandySavage

Well-Known Member
well dak and dhs had about the same amount of guests last year, I wouldn't say that DHS has had runaway success.

They're about the same now (I believe AK beat DHS the year Everest opened), but in its early years, DHS was considered a very big success. It was built quickly, as a small, half day park and for not a lot of money (I think around $450 million). In its early years it would quickly reach capacity... requiring doubling of the parking lot in size and the swift addition of a number attractions (Star Tours, Muppets, Sunset Boulevard)

Check out this opening day guidebook:
http://www.florida-project.com/disney-hollywood-studios-guidebooks-guidemaps/1989-early
Like AK, there was very little to the park at opening, but it was enough to make the standard WDW vacation around a week (4-6 nights). That is where the huge payoff came.

By the time DAK came along, a lot of Americans were not going to extend their vacations into a second week to take advantage of all WDW had to offer.
 

Eddie Sotto

Premium Member
What people will like versus what they demand.

Herb Ryman told me a story about how frustrated he was when he asked Walt what he should design next for the park. Instead of a straight answer, Walt looked at him and said "Do something people will like".

In retrospect that is a rather profound comment!

Focus groups can only tell you what people want based on what is, not what can be. Imagineer's must dream the dreams we wish we could have and then make them real. No one was asking for Pirates, Bobsleds, or Ghosts, but once presented they lined up for blocks. Would a focus group describe "Star Wars" in 1975? No. "Singles" and "Doubles" are the result of requests granted, "Home Runs" are borne of perfect storms of vision and zeitgeist.

My best times at WDI were the tough moments called "hard fun". That means that you are going way out on a limb creatively and technically in service of an idea. Solving and trying stuff. The thrill of design is not knowing exactly what you're doing while you're doing it, but at the same time being crystal clear on where you need to end up and why it's critical that you succeed. Once you know that, all that's left is the tedious process of making what you want to accomplish possible.

I love that you all expect to be blown away and see things not envisioned. Thank heaven! That's why I still love this business. There is so much left undone! "Book Reports" of movies seen through a lap bar does not thrill me either, but "flying on a broomstick"? Now THAT sounds like it was "hard fun".
 

Eddie Sotto

Premium Member
Btw

I just wanted to take a second to say thanks to all of you for making the thread a great one this year. Discussions are always more than one person and those of you out there who contribute to the thread really had some great things to ask and say. We passed a half million views which is quite shocking to me. I enjoyed all of your questions, opinions and insights that kept this read a constructive one and kept me on my toes. I hope the discussion has been worthwhile to those quietly reading out there, and that it was of some value to those of you that want to pursue your own dreams of design in the future.

As Walt said "for those of you who think it's time to rest on your laurels, forget it... there's always next year!"
 

ChrisFL

Premium Member
And thank YOU Eddie for being very open and honest about all of your thoughts and insights with these questions, it's a wealth of information and you've helped my thoughts on my own imagineering ideas.
 

wdwmagic

Administrator
Moderator
Premium Member
I just wanted to take a second to say thanks to all of you for making the thread a great one this year. Discussions are always more than one person and those of you out there who contribute to the thread really had some great things to ask and say. We passed a half million views which is quite shocking to me. I enjoyed all of your questions, opinions and insights that kept this read a constructive one and kept me on my toes. I hope the discussion has been worthwhile to those quietly reading out there, and that it was of some value to those of you that want to pursue your own dreams of design in the future.

As Walt said "for those of you who think it's time to rest on your laurels, forget it... there's always next year!"

Thanks Eddie for taking part in the discussions. Have a great new year!!
 

Nemo14

Well-Known Member
I always enjoy reading this thread, although I am imtimidated to contribute. Thanks to all who do though, and Happy New Year!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom