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

[Eddie Sotto]

Thank you.



Did you mean to say it will not go over budget? :lookaroun:lol:

If this ride is anything like the "Finding Nemo" Subs project, where John Lassiter took a "hands on" personal interest, they all just stood back and let the creatives do whatever they wanted to enhance the show. By the size of those rocks, it looks like it could be the same situation. I'm sure he'll make it good and the Imagineers on that project are 2G vets, so they know what they are doing. Nemo went far beyond it's budget and even for it's capacity would be considered very expensive. So I'd guess Carsland will follow suit. Just a guess, I have no hard data, they may be under budget for all I know.

 

[flavious27]

You are right that I don't look at ideas and yes, it's the same legal stuff that prevents that. Usually you both sign a mutual non disclosure statement meaning that both parties won't discuss the idea and keep it a secret. That does not mean if you told me something and I said "I was already working on that same idea" or "we already thought of that" that I could not do it and then we're at odds. WDI says that frequently because they have been brainstorming so many things for years. Of course, if they did steal something they'd have to prove they were developing it. Remember this? http://www.disneylawsuit.com. No wonder they don't want to see things.

To answer your question, you get everything submitted through lawyers, the same way scripts are protected then submitted. Unless you are looking for ideas, no one encourages that approach because it still leaves you open.

Kind of discouraging. I was lucky because the legal noose didn't exist when I was out trying to get into the business and just went in and pitched ideas with no legal anything. I just wanted a job.

There is some crazy going on there.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

There is some crazy going on there.

Intellectual property law has made presenting ideas a tangled web, it's not just Disney. Big corporations are seen as having deep pockets and are targeted by those who come back years later and sue for the ideas they claim were stolen. They sometimes win and that is not forgotten.

The reaction to that is to hear and see nothing, it's not worth it when you already have a staff of Imagineers paid to think of things that you own. A little guy like me does not want nor can I afford that liability so I'm the same way.

It's crazy, but an unfortunate reality.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

An article to clear things up.

Thank you for responding. I have another question or two but I am out of time. More later. Thanks again.:wave:

We occasionally get kind of "academic" on this thread, so here's an article from an IP law firm about copyright protection and what is protected.

http://www.mcafeetaft.com/Resources...So-Common-Sense-Copyright-Misconceptions.aspx

(Big "chewbacca" hair alert.)

 

[flavious27]

Intellectual property law has made presenting ideas a tangled web, it's not just Disney. Big corporations are seen as having deep pockets and are targeted by those who come back years later and sue for the ideas they claim were stolen. They sometimes win and that is not forgotten.

The reaction to that is to hear and see nothing, it's not worth it when you already have a staff of Imagineers paid to think of things that you own. A little guy like me does not want nor can I afford that liability so I'm the same way.

It's crazy, but an unfortunate reality.

I know it is an unfortunate reality, but with companies settling instead of spending millions to defend themselves in a trial that they will win anyway, people will sue.

And if someone has ideas that disney could use for its existing franchises, they should get training and then interview as a writer.

 

[kashmir]

(Big "chewbacca" hair alert.)[/QUOTE]

She must be in the Witness Protection Program! :ROFLOL:

 

[Lee]

Hey Eddie,
I came across this little sketch of a character that was apparently a part of your ill-fated Tokyo Tomorrowland work.
Can you shed some light on what sort of attraction it was? The character was described as an "alien P.T. Barnum."
Very cool...

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Hey Eddie,
I came across this little sketch of a character that was apparently a part of your ill-fated Tokyo Tomorrowland work.
Can you shed some light on what sort of attraction it was? The character was described as an "alien P.T. Barnum."
Very cool...

It looks like something done by Thom Shillinger, someone we currently employ at Sottostudios. Very talented guy. I don't recall this one as part of anything I was doing, it's been a long time, I could be wrong. There were others that did their takes on Alien shows.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Star Tours 2.0

Is anyone excited about the new Star Tours? My kids can't wait!

 

[Mansion Butler]

Is anyone excited about the new Star Tours? My kids can't wait!

I'm extremely stoked. I think there's a good chance if will be up there with Splash Mountain and the Haunted Mansion if it delivers as promised.

 

[darthspielberg]

I actually am, despite my overall disappointment in the new trilogy.

I think the new elements they are adding into the show will make it fun, and they got some super talent involved, so it should be a great attraction. Can't wait to ride it in November.

 

[RandySavage]

My feelings are that the new ride will boil down to:

Original Trilogy = Star Tours
Prequel Trilogy = Star Tours 2

If you or your kids enjoyed the prequels, I think you'll love the new version of the ride. My expectations are well in check, however. My biggest concern is the use of CG for living characters - I expect that when seen on the viewscreen, everyone from Yoda, JarJar & Chewbacca to Vader and the New Skytroopers will all be rendered in CG. While I prefer models, I can see that CG works pretty nicely with inorganic objects like planets, cities and spaceships.

I don't think CG comes close to duping the eye/brain for living things, even ones in masks. So I'm expecting Star Tours 2 to feature CG characters that shake me out of the moment and plenty Lucas-approved cringeworthy dialogue.

On the positive side, I am really looking forward to some aspects, like the multiple destinations/events, the Death Star under construction, (hopefully) more convincing projection system and the Original Trilogy production design (e.g. skytroopers looking like Stormtroopers rather than clones from the prequels).

 

[DisneyMusician2]

Hey, you can always take bad movies and create great rides.

Mr. Toad and Song of the South weren't well-received movies, and yet great attractions were made around them.

If Disney does it right and doesn't cut the corners, even something based around the new movies could turn into a great ride experience.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I am surprised I find myself rather "meh" about the new version of Star Wars. Some of the things have me a little perplexed and wary, like Aly San San or the action figure of what looks like Darth Vadar on a flying platform. I am though interested if this is part of C-3PO's character development and his fear of space flight.

If I make it down to Walt Disney World this summer then I will definitely go check out the attraction a few times, to get in different versions. But if I only find the time and money for a short trip I will go to Universal Orlando, as I have an Annual Pass to those parks.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

moving forward

You brought up CG in some posts. I think CG in movies is having an unexpected effect on the viewer in that once you assume everything is done in CG, the suspense/peril you used to associate with a daring stunt is gone. When you see a silent film or an old pre CG film, you'd grit your teeth as you believe there is a risk being taken. It's more real. It becomes "cartoon suspense" like in a Warner Bros. Cartoon. CG to me when overused has a numbing effect. How many times can you see someone flying out in front of a fireball when a building blows up and just walk away?

 

[Eddie Sotto]

moving forward

I am really pleased that they are finally using one of the core advantages of a simulator. Software based experiences. One of the selling points early on was that you could change it, offer different destinations, etc. There are 4 vehicles so eventually you could have had 4 unique shows. Thanks to digital projection, you can also change the "destination" in real time into lots of unexpected "branches" of the show. All great IMHO. A good remedy for AP's that get bored with the same old show. So it's a step forward in my book.


Will Jar Jar Binks and Duffy be there dancing to "Jedi Rock"?.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

If you or your kids enjoyed the prequels, I think you'll love the new version of the ride. .

I didn't show them the prequels.:fork:

 

[Bonemachine]

You brought up CG in some posts. I think CG in movies is having an unexpected effect on the viewer in that once you assume everything is done in CG, the suspense/peril you used to associate with a daring stunt is gone. When you see a silent film or an old pre CG film, you'd grit your teeth as you believe there is a risk being taken. It's more real. It becomes "cartoon suspense" like in a Warner Bros. Cartoon. CG to me when overused has a numbing effect. How many times can you see someone flying out in front of a fireball when a building blows up and just walk away?

This is always an interesting discussion. I agree that it takes away the suspense and excitement but to me the negative effects of it go beyond that. CG was impressive the first time we saw it done effectively, which for most people was the first dinosaurs in Jurassic Park in 1993. To me, it has only looked cheaper and cheaper as the years progress. The creatures that Stan Winston (among others) created always had a much more realistic feel to them even if you could clearly tell how mechanical and clunky they were. You get the feeling that they at least physically made something. With CG it's like, "If I wanted to play a video game, I'd play a video game." It feels like the studio robbed you of a chance to have empathy for the characters, engross you into the story, the cinematography, etc. like how all good movies do.

This is a great article about CG, particularily colors. Nearly every scene in any summer blockbuster these days is composed of just orange and teal. http://theabyssgazes.blogspot.com/2010/03/teal-and-orange-hollywood-please-stop.html

 

[HMF]

Screen capture from new Little Mermaid video
What does that name tag say?
http://i.imgur.com/HEyvs.png

 

[flavious27]

You brought up CG in some posts. I think CG in movies is having an unexpected effect on the viewer in that once you assume everything is done in CG, the suspense/peril you used to associate with a daring stunt is gone. When you see a silent film or an old pre CG film, you'd grit your teeth as you believe there is a risk being taken. It's more real. It becomes "cartoon suspense" like in a Warner Bros. Cartoon. CG to me when overused has a numbing effect. How many times can you see someone flying out in front of a fireball when a building blows up and just walk away?

That is always the catch 22, the better the cgi, the more real it looks, more of a chance that the viewer has gotten cgi fatigue and does not believe it looks real.