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

[Mansion Butler]

Isn't splash mountian based on the movie "Song of the south"?

Yes, but I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[CrescentLake]

Well said!

And its simply sad that TDO's logic is that everything built must be tied in to a popular franchise.

Like you said, I wanna see more original concepts with original characters. It really makes disney feel more advanced and mature rather than just a big commercial for the movies.

You know I really don't think thats fair. Just because an attraction has a movie tie in does not mean its a "commercial for the movies." When I see a movie, I see the world that it is based in, and in some cases, want to experience that world. Thats what an attraction is for, to allow guests to experience that world, if only for a second. I like new and fresh ideas as much as the next guy, but there isnt anything wrong with rides based on a popular franchise, in fact those seem to attract me more. Rides like Star Tours, Tower of Terror, Splash Mountain, the fantasyland dark rides, MILF (I'm going to get flamed for this, I know), are some of my favorites because you become immersed in the movie.

I still do love HM, BTMRR, Space Mountain, ect though. Its just different.

 

[lazyboy97o]

And its simply sad that TDO's logic is that everything built must be tied in to a popular franchise.

Team Disney Olando does what their boses want. Iger has made this clear in public interviews.

 

[HMF]

Team Disney Olando does what their boses want. Iger has made this clear in public interviews.

The Walt Disney Company: Milking the franchises till they're dead. I have to say that Eisner (at least the pre-Wells helicopter crash Eisner) seemed to be a much nicer guy than Iger who talks like a cold PR machine and pushes franchise ad nauseum.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The Walt Disney Company: Milking the franchises till they're dead. I have to say that Eisner (at least the pre-Wells helicopter crash Eisner) seemed to be a much nicer guy than Iger who talks like a cold PR machine and pushes franchise ad nauseum.

Even for all of its faults, Disney's California Adventure, as it opened in 2001, was something totally different. Even after Wells died, Eisner did continue to take some risks.

 

[HMF]

Even after Wells died, Eisner did continue to take some risks.

Except those risks failed miserably.

 

[ChrisFL]

Even for all of its faults, Disney's California Adventure, as it opened in 2001, was something totally different.

that's one word for it I guess

 

[hokielutz]

Except those risks failed miserably.

That's why they are called risks.... there is a "Risk" of failing miserably.


Ultimately... one cannot really succeed until you've gone through some failures.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Except those risks failed miserably.

Not all of them.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

That's why they are called risks.... there is a "Risk" of failing miserably.


Ultimately... one cannot really succeed until you've gone through some failures.

This is quite true. I've heard it said that if you're not failing, you're not out there trying enough either, hence the hundreds of "failed Edison light bulbs" legend. It's ok to fail when you take risks, the only thing I'd add to that is what are you risking in the process? What is the goal?

If your desire is to break new ground in entertainment by giving the guest something that will blow them away, then fine, Fantasia was a shot and so was Tron. They broke new ground but didn't win over as many people as they wanted, but they still moved the medium forward for the next attempt to do that. If however, your risk is doing something that exploits the company's name and attempts to do it on the cheap, then those risks are far more deadly as they take down the brand and have little or no intrinsic value.

 

[KevinYee]

That begs the question about the culture of failure.

Smart managers will encourage their creative staff to be bold enough to try things that will, indeed, fail. My research suggests Walt was such a manager - you weren't fired for a single failure. Pick yourself up, learn from the mistake, and do it RIGHT this time seemed to be the message in his tenure.

But what of the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s? Let's pretend each was its own era (a dubious claim to begin with). On the whole, I sense timidity in the 70s (what would Walt do? was a crippling question sometimes) and hit or miss in the 80s. I see a lot of successes in the 90s in WDI. By the 00s, it seems to be that the culture of "not failing" seems to have taken over the culture of "please try, fail, and try again." Maybe I'm over-simplifying, though?

 

[ChrisFL]

That begs the question about the culture of failure.

Smart managers will encourage their creative staff to be bold enough to try things that will, indeed, fail. My research suggests Walt was such a manager - you weren't fired for a single failure. Pick yourself up, learn from the mistake, and do it RIGHT this time seemed to be the message in his tenure.

But what of the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s? Let's pretend each was its own era (a dubious claim to begin with). On the whole, I sense timidity in the 70s (what would Walt do? was a crippling question sometimes) and hit or miss in the 80s. I see a lot of successes in the 90s in WDI. By the 00s, it seems to be that the culture of "not failing" seems to have taken over the culture of "please try, fail, and try again." Maybe I'm over-simplifying, though?

The early 90's WDI had great success, but after then, it was "we're going to give you a budget for one attempt, and if you fail, you don't get another attempt"

Luckily, it changed for DCA and they're getting a larger budget to fix the failure than the original budget entirely.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

That begs the question about the culture of failure.

Smart managers will encourage their creative staff to be bold enough to try things that will, indeed, fail. My research suggests Walt was such a manager - you weren't fired for a single failure. Pick yourself up, learn from the mistake, and do it RIGHT this time seemed to be the message in his tenure.

But what of the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s? Let's pretend each was its own era (a dubious claim to begin with). On the whole, I sense timidity in the 70s (what would Walt do? was a crippling question sometimes) and hit or miss in the 80s. I see a lot of successes in the 90s in WDI. By the 00s, it seems to be that the culture of "not failing" seems to have taken over the culture of "please try, fail, and try again." Maybe I'm over-simplifying, though?

John Lassiter reportedly said something like "make as many mistakes as you can as early as possible". Meaning that you want to get through the learning curve right away and test the limits, as it's expensive and deadly to make those mistakes further down the production line. Early on you can usually survive bigger errors as they are in model or paper stages, later you may have to abort the project. Failure here again is in service of a vision or goal. Apollo 1 was a mission of death that taught NASA a bitter lesson early on. It must have led to the ultimate result of getting to the moon and back.

The DL Monorail redesigns of a few years ago seem to me to have been avoidable or anticipated mistakes that only appeared at near opening (can't turn, no AC, windows can't open, etc). Those failures could have been discovered earlier.

Is that a cultural omen?

 

[RandySavage]

One would hope that the lessons that came out of the financial failures of DCA, WDSP & HKDL boil down to "if you build it small, with few attractions &/or not up to design standards, they will not come." We will know whether the lessons have been learned as Shanghai is unveiled/built over the coming years.

But during the development of DCA, Eisner's Disney was likely operating under the idea that inexpensive parks/resorts can bring big financial success (MGM), while expensive parks/resorts can bring big financial pain (DLP) (not to impugn Eddie's brilliant work on that jewel of a park), so scrapping the $3 billion WestCOT, which would have been bold & risky, for the $600 million DCA must have seemed like a safe, prudent bet.

Had boldness and vision prevailed, perhaps a stellar 2nd Gate could have brought a financial windfall from opening day... we'll never know.

***

I understand the Eisner & Disney tried to shop an inexpensive Disney-MGM-style park to the Oriental Land Company when they were moving to develop a 2nd park. OLC, showing boldness & vision that TWDC had maybe lost, refused the Studios park and instead built DisneySea.

Eddie, since you were a WDI exec in Japan, can you shed any light on the early development of DisneySea and what OLC's thoughts were on the proposed Studios park.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Eddie, since you were a WDI exec in Japan, can you shed any light on the early development of DisneySea and what OLC's thoughts were on the proposed Studios park.

My role in Japan was being the creative executive in charge of TDL, it's master planning and design. We also did the Monorail station outside the gate, entry sequence, Bon Voyage retail shop etc. TDS was in the hands of Steve Kirk, and other than being a good partner, I didn't have much insight into what they were doing. We did try to make sure that what we were doing did not creatively tread on TDS and vice versa. I don't recall much conversation about a MGM type park being proposed although it may have happened.

The main point here is that post EDL, there was a gun shy nature to taking risks as the Paris effort was considered to be a gross overspend and the result not worth the investment. Even thought they had built the biggest hotel development in Europe and overestimated demand and underestimated labor costs, etc, the park was blamed. It's true that you could have spent less. Tony and the rest of us in his shadow took huge hits for that park and had to reshape our own images out of the perception that we live to waste money. Not fun times. The good news is that almost 20 years later the park and it's rich quality is probably responsible for the repeat visitation that has kept it having a pulse in lean times and poor economies. Europeans do "get" quality even if they don't buy T shirts and souvenirs. So that is the context of the times. WDI is in the Doghouse. They can't be trusted, so we have to be more creative and do things cheaper. Epic "E tickets" are out, big ideas that don't cost as much like "Fantasmic!" (created by the Entertainment Dept.) get respect. I accepted the TDL job partly because I knew OLC would still spend for quality and did not want to have to build something less.

Enter Paul Pressler, who had used the Disney name and hit movies to spearhead a rollout of high grossing Disney Stores. Certainly a "coat tails" success that eventually resulted in collapse and closure of many units. This early rise in my opinion, gave management the idea that you could leverage the name and style it to create a less expensive Disneyesque experience without the same investment. So Paul rode herd with the fiscal experts in the development of a Disney "lite" DCA park driven first by a strict and prudent business plan. That frugal plan eliminated basic rules about immersion and sight lines to the outside world and redefined "Disney quality" as leaning more on the creative conceit than the physical quality of the placemaking and production values. Quite risky at that. I do think that lessons have been learned in that you have to execute "Disney quality" and Bob Iger does respect quality, this is even apparent in his personal demeanor. He wrote the check to spend millions restoring DL for the 50th when it was falling apart and to dump billions into placemaking at DCA. So to me, he's proving the past to be foolish. The new parks on the boards seem to be more in that model than the "cheap is beautiful" mantra.

 

[HMF]

Here is the complete audio of the updated Pirates of the Caribbean ride.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REYMRiagudk&feature=related
2 things.
1.You can make a drinking game out of how many times they say Captain Jack Sparrow
2.Try and make any logical sense of the new dialogue and Story.

 

[lazyboy97o]

so scrapping the $3 billion WestCOT, which would have been bold & risky, for the $600 million DCA must have seemed like a safe, prudent bet.

WESTcot, by the time it was scrapped, was not the big, grand project initially shown to the public. Once it was clear that Disney was staying in Anaheim the park began to be scaled back, some of it in reaction to Euro Disney and some of it to appease the neighbors who balked at such things as the gargantuan SpaceStation Earth.

[Iger] wrote the check to spend millions restoring DL for the 50th when it was falling apart

I do not know how much unofficial power Iger had by that time, as it was clear he was next, but he was not elected to be CEO until March 2005 and did not officially become CEO until 1 October 2005.

Iger definitely seems to understand that theme parks are not just about the big money makers, but he is does not have that excitement about doing new things. I cannot see him ever excitedly spilling the beans on a big new attraction, like Eisner did in 2003 when he let Forbidden Mountain slip.

For all of his well know arrogance and ego, the more I read about Michael Eisner the more I get the impression that his biggest problem is his own insecurity and fear of failure. Pre-1994 he was described as the creative to Frank Well's businessman, but after 1994 he became the big business boogey-man. It seems more like, until he very end of his career, he stopped having people around who were reassuring and willing to go along with new ideas, they pointed to Disneyland Paris and told him it was all his fault. Maybe it was SaveDisney, maybe it was the big vote of no confidence, but somebody he, but he was there before Disneyland's 50th when the current momentum at that Resort began, and that sort of turn around seems odd for somebody as arrogant and stubborn as he supposedly was by that time.

 

[RandySavage]

Enter Paul Pressler, who had used the Disney name and hit movies to spearhead a rollout of high grossing Disney Stores. Certainly a "coat tails" success that eventually resulted in collapse and closure of many units. This early rise in my opinion, gave management the idea that you could leverage the name and style it to create a less expensive Disneyesque experience without the same investment. So Paul rode herd with the fiscal experts in the development of a Disney "lite" DCA park driven first by a strict and prudent business plan. That frugal plan eliminated basic rules about immersion and sight lines to the outside world and redefined "Disney quality" as leaning more on the creative conceit than the physical quality of the placemaking and production values. Quite risky at that. I do think that lessons have been learned in that you have to execute "Disney quality" and Bob Iger does respect quality, this is even apparent in his personal demeanor. He wrote the check to spend millions restoring DL for the 50th when it was falling apart and to dump billions into placemaking at DCA. So to me, he's proving the past to be foolish. The new parks on the boards seem to be more in that model than the "cheap is beautiful" mantra.

Thanks, Eddie, for this succinct and eloquent explanation of the principle tenet (emboldened above) of the Pressler (and Rasulo) mindset at Disney. It was painful to many of us who love the parks to see it implemented over the years and explains so much of what has gone wrong. I can appreciate why it affected your decision to leave WDI.

To me, among DCA's most grievous failures was/is this lack of immersion (e.g., ugly outside hotels and high tension power lines visible from all over the park). It's good that these things are being addressed, albeit piecemeal. A Paradise Pier won't feel up to standard until every inch has high place-making production value (e.g., the exterior of Midway Mania) and more importantly, some type of landscaped or rockwork berm to block the outside world and really sell it as going back to a turn-of-the-century amusement pier.

Unfortunately, with every step forward, Disney seems to take step back (sacrificing immersion for a 'quick buck' install), as demonstrated most recently by the Wild Africa Trek at Animal Kingdom, which seems nice for those on it, but significantly diminishes the "wild Africa" aspect for those on the Kilimanjaro Safaris attraction (who now see overhanging wire bridges, new roads, additional unthemed trucks, huts on the savanna and WDW tourists moving around in the habitat background).

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Unfortunately, with every step forward, Disney seems to take step back (sacrificing immersion for a 'quick buck' install), as demonstrated most recently by the Wild Africa Trek at Animal Kingdom, which seems nice for those on it, but significantly diminishes the "wild Africa" aspect for those on the Kilimanjaro Safaris attraction (who now see overhanging wire bridges, new roads, additional unthemed trucks, huts on the savanna and WDW tourists moving around in the habitat background).

I have not seen it, but like the real "Savannah" or wide open spaces, it seems like "Civilization" eventually takes over! Hmmm.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Here is the complete audio of the updated Pirates of the Caribbean ride.

Such good quality, even in Spanish! I forgot those safety spiels were there. It's amazing to me that Youtube allows all of this bootleg material up there. These seem like they are mixes coming from masters and not handheld recordings. I have the "DL Forever" collection that was sold legally (as we never endorse "piracy" from corporations, even if Jack Sparrow does) and this track seems just as good. Thanks.