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

[flavious27]

But it's definitely NOT authentic Chinese food (or pizza for that matter). In fact, a lot of the things we assume are Chinese food were invented in the US.

Same with Mexican food. Even if it is not authentic and part of our cuisine, it is not what would be classified as American Cuisine. If we want to get technical, American Chinese food would be fusion food. As for most of the pizza that is sold has its basis with the Margherita, flat bread with tomato sauce and mozzarella.

 

[flavious27]

A Death Valley desert dessert?

Just a bowl of finely crushed vanilla cookies.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Same with Mexican food. Even if it is not authentic and part of our cuisine, it is not what would be classified as American Cuisine. If we want to get technical, American Chinese food would be fusion food. As for most of the pizza that is sold has its basis with the Margherita, flat bread with tomato sauce and mozzarella.

BTW Chop Suey is an American invention

 

[darthspielberg]

BTW Chop Suey is an American invention

Which is funny considering there is a variation of it called American Chop Suey. How redundant. Still delicious.

 

[WDW1974]

I suppose that really speaks of the progression of society, and Disney's need to keep up with it. We mentioned this back a few pages ago when we spoke about the interactive queue's and I said that Disney needed to incorporate the technology to keep their guests engaged. The same can be said about Epcot, and so many of the changes we have seen over the years. I fear that the days of trying to educate the guests as they did in the 80's and 90's is gone. The mindset of people has changed dramatically from this time, and now they really want to escape when they vacation instead of being reminded of the world around them. This is why in order to educate people, Epcot has to be very careful and display as much of it as entertainment as they can. While I might not love the chages, I understand them from Disney's perspective. The Living Seas was a dying pavilion, even with having an absolutely incredible aquarium. Now that they incorporated Nemo they have given people the opportunity to learn about the oceans...even if they are tricking them in the door with a bit of misplaced story. Times have changed all around and Disney needs to evolve with their guests...you don't see people wearing slacks and dress shirts to the parks anymore either do you?

Interesting post, Evan ... but if you dumb/Walmart your product down continually under the notion that you are simply 'keeping up (or down as the case is) with the times' or 'giving people what they want' just where does it all end?

Seas was a dying pavilion because United Technologies pulled out and TWDC didn't want to spend a penny of its own money on the place (and the tank itself had -- and possibly still has -- some issues). Former EPCOT VP Brad Rex wanted to shutter the entire place, which would have just killed FW. There were numerous plans tossed about for Seas redos, including one that was pretty intense and also featured a Mermaid show addition (think Tony Baxter may have been behind the idea, but not sure ... Eddie may know). But much like Space could have been taken to another level (should I call it a Potter level?) with a full pavilion, clearly Seas could have been updated and brought to a whole 'nother level as well. They went the easiest (and cheapest) route possible.

I'd also argue that guests have ALWAYS wanted to escape when visiting Disney parks. I'm not sure that part of the mindset has changed all that much.

You say Disney needs to evolve. What I see is society devolving (Planet of the Apes anyone? ... where's the monkey smileys?)

At some point, you don't just accept the LCD or your society becomes just that (and I could easily argue that is what has happened to the USA in the last 10-15 years, but when I suggest that on this site the mods tend to get trigger fingers).

Oh, and you do see people dressing up at the parks ... in Paris, Hong Kong and Tokyo ... hell, even some in Anaheim. I went to HKDL for five hours one afternoon/night after work last December wearing very nice clothes and I didn't look out of place at all.

Anyway, if your point is people are dumber today (something I am very much a believer in ... the Internet has actually made things worse because people read something and believe it without ever actually researching anything, questioning anything) and Disney has to just give in, I just refuse to go along for that ride. Disney has been all about conditioning guests ... from back in the 1950s when DL was kept near pristine because amusement parks were filthy and falling apart and Walt didn't want that and knew people would treat a place to the degree it was maintained ... to constantly pushing the bar higher with immersive themed entertainment right on into the 1990s (to this day in Japan).

Now ... can I catch 16 and Pregnant, Jersey Shore and the Housewives of Beverly Hills before bed?

 

[WDW1974]

Originally Posted by DisneyInsider
While you would probably get some looks, the Dapper Day events look nice. Never even knew those existed. I would be willing to settle though if people would dress a little nicer at just the signature restaurants...

DOUBLE POST!!

When I go to WDW, I usually go to many of the nicer restaurants (California Grill, Jiko, Narcoossee's, etc), and I always wear nice slacks and a dress shirt. And I can also say the people who show up in their theme park outfit (t-shirt and shorts) ALWAYS stick out like sore thumbs, to the extent that I think next time they will know to dress more appropriately.

I think there are FAR too many folks who dress like swine at the signature locales due to two factors: Disney won't enforce its own dress code (i.e. turn away $$$) and the DDP has allowed people who would never have 'felt comfortable' dining at those places to do it now.

I've seen this so many times in the past five years. Not to mention the bumpkins who seem to think they should be able to order a burger or 'just a plain steak and potato' at the California Grill, while wearing shorts, WDW 2011 logo tee, sandals, and an Expedition Everest cap.

Sorry, but when the least expensive entree is almost $30, that just is NOT acceptable. And, no, the folks don't learn ... because I see more of it all the time ... even folks dressing that way on Formal Nights on a two-week Transatlantic DCL cruise last spring.

People will act as boorishly as a company allows. Disney has fallen mightily in this department, most noticeably in FLA.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Originally Posted by DisneyInsider
While you would probably get some looks, the Dapper Day events look nice. Never even knew those existed. I would be willing to settle though if people would dress a little nicer at just the signature restaurants...



I think there are FAR too many folks who dress like swine at the signature locales due to two factors: Disney won't enforce its own dress code (i.e. turn away $$$) and the DDP has allowed people who would never have 'felt comfortable' dining at those places to do it now.

I've seen this so many times in the past five years. Not to mention the bumpkins who seem to think they should be able to order a burger or 'just a plain steak and potato' at the California Grill, while wearing shorts, WDW 2011 logo tee, sandals, and an Expedition Everest cap.

Sorry, but when the least expensive entree is almost $30, that just is NOT acceptable. And, no, the folks don't learn ... because I see more of it all the time ... even folks dressing that way on Formal Nights on a two-week Transatlantic DCL cruise last spring.

People will act as boorishly as a company allows. Disney has fallen mightily in this department, most noticeably in FLA.

You would be shocked at what posters wear to this thread! What do you wear to a thread anyway?

 

[WDW1974]

if we can't get GE to pay any federal taxes when they make $14 billion in profits, I doubt we can believe that they will work for a better future for everyone.

I sure wish when I posted things like that they actually ... stayed around.

More importantly, I think (to get back on topic or the current one) if people say the EPCOT ideals are dead, then what they really are saying is 'we have a very bleak future' because things like communication, land, energy, seas, transport, imagination are TIMELESS.

And the need to learn more about the people we share the planet with, their cultures, history, foods, entertainment etc... are probably more important in the 21st century when the world is vastly smaller (although more complex) place than it was in 1982.

I remember being at EC on 10/1/82 and walking around the WS and thinking how exotic all the countries were (hadn't been outside the USA as a kid) ... now, I've been to all of them except for Morocco, Norway and Germany (and pretty sure I'll knock the latter of my list soon), yet I realize that fewer Americans than ever are seeing the world (money and fear-mongering by our government and media has helped foster this 'tude) and that makes these pavilions even more important. People need to get off this nationalism kick and realize we're all in this together (where's the HSM soundtrack?:ROFLOL::drevil and WS can help in that regard just with simple CM to guest interaction.

I feel very strongly that the EPCOT foundation is more important in the very effed up world of the 21st century then it ever was back before terrorism on US soil, governors who ignore laws and aren't jailed, education/healthcare being national embarrassments, smart phones that make people dumber, 765 TV channels (with lousy content on 90%) and ... the Internet with so many Disney fan sites to argue endlessly about new interactive queues.

 

[WDW1974]

You would be shocked at what posters wear to this thread! What do you wear to a thread anyway?

You don't wanna know ... :ROFLOL:

But I am fairly certain that folks dress a bit nicer to visit Rivera (which I'll get to one of these days!) then than they do to at Jiko or Artist Point.
And Rivera doesn't have to add a 19% increase, not counting 'regular' annual price increases to justify a dining plan scheme, either.

 

[flavious27]

I sure wish when I posted things like that they actually ... stayed around.

More importantly, I think (to get back on topic or the current one) if people say the EPCOT ideals are dead, then what they really are saying is 'we have a very bleak future' because things like communication, land, energy, seas, transport, imagination are TIMELESS.

And the need to learn more about the people we share the planet with, their cultures, history, foods, entertainment etc... are probably more important in the 21st century when the world is vastly smaller (although more complex) place than it was in 1982.

I remember being at EC on 10/1/82 and walking around the WS and thinking how exotic all the countries were (hadn't been outside the USA as a kid) ... now, I've been to all of them except for Morocco, Norway and Germany (and pretty sure I'll knock the latter of my list soon), yet I realize that fewer Americans than ever are seeing the world (money and fear-mongering by our government and media has helped foster this 'tude) and that makes these pavilions even more important. People need to get off this nationalism kick and realize we're all in this together (where's the HSM soundtrack?:ROFLOL::drevil and WS can help in that regard just with simple CM to guest interaction.

I feel very strongly that the EPCOT foundation is more important in the very effed up world of the 21st century then it ever was back before terrorism on US soil, governors who ignore laws and aren't jailed, education/healthcare being national embarrassments, smart phones that make people dumber, 765 TV channels (with lousy content on 90%) and ... the Internet with so many Disney fan sites to argue endlessly about new interactive queues.

The themes are timeless but as said in earlier posts, really none of the sponsoring companies have squeaky clean pasts. the presentations that we see and interactive with at epcot need to be updated with the times, with a minimal design input from the sponsors. The only pavilion that lacks that discretion is tt, the post show can not just be a salesroom.

 

[Krack]

Not to change the subject (believe me, discussing original EPCOT Center is just about my favorite topic), but Eddie, could you give me a rough estimate of what it would cost Disney to build a Peter Pan sized (style and scope) dark ride from the ground up? And I guess a follow-up question would be, how many of this kind of attraction could be built for what it costs to build MK's new Little Mermaid attraction or, alternatively, the cost of something like the Tower of Terror?

The reason I ask is that, for the longest time, I've said the best way Disney could use money right now would be by building a "Fantasyland" (kiddie dark ride land) in Animal Kingdom and I'm curious to know just how many of those types of rides they could have conceivably built for what they are spending on the Fantasyland Forest expansion.

 

[Pioneer Hall]

Interesting post, Evan ... but if you dumb/Walmart your product down continually under the notion that you are simply 'keeping up (or down as the case is) with the times' or 'giving people what they want' just where does it all end?

Seas was a dying pavilion because United Technologies pulled out and TWDC didn't want to spend a penny of its own money on the place (and the tank itself had -- and possibly still has -- some issues). Former EPCOT VP Brad Rex wanted to shutter the entire place, which would have just killed FW. There were numerous plans tossed about for Seas redos, including one that was pretty intense and also featured a Mermaid show addition (think Tony Baxter may have been behind the idea, but not sure ... Eddie may know). But much like Space could have been taken to another level (should I call it a Potter level?) with a full pavilion, clearly Seas could have been updated and brought to a whole 'nother level as well. They went the easiest (and cheapest) route possible.

I'd also argue that guests have ALWAYS wanted to escape when visiting Disney parks. I'm not sure that part of the mindset has changed all that much.

You say Disney needs to evolve. What I see is society devolving (Planet of the Apes anyone? ... where's the monkey smileys?)

At some point, you don't just accept the LCD or your society becomes just that (and I could easily argue that is what has happened to the USA in the last 10-15 years, but when I suggest that on this site the mods tend to get trigger fingers).

Oh, and you do see people dressing up at the parks ... in Paris, Hong Kong and Tokyo ... hell, even some in Anaheim. I went to HKDL for five hours one afternoon/night after work last December wearing very nice clothes and I didn't look out of place at all.

Anyway, if your point is people are dumber today (something I am very much a believer in ... the Internet has actually made things worse because people read something and believe it without ever actually researching anything, questioning anything) and Disney has to just give in, I just refuse to go along for that ride. Disney has been all about conditioning guests ... from back in the 1950s when DL was kept near pristine because amusement parks were filthy and falling apart and Walt didn't want that and knew people would treat a place to the degree it was maintained ... to constantly pushing the bar higher with immersive themed entertainment right on into the 1990s (to this day in Japan).

Now ... can I catch 16 and Pregnant, Jersey Shore and the Housewives of Beverly Hills before bed?

Don't get me wrong... I don't necesarily agree with the changes Disney makes on a personal level but I do understand it on a business level. While I don't sit and cry nightly over the loss of Horizons or the Original Imagination pavilion, I don't think that they need to make everything teenager friendly either with an interactive component. At the end of the day Disney is a big corporation who answers to their shareholders. Money rules the world, whether we like it or not, and will continue to be the driving force behind their decisions. I don't consider it "walmarting" if they make something more audience friendly by changing it's theme or lesson as long as they do it well. I consider walmarting to be something along the lines of Imagination. You took something good, and turned it in to a mess because you thought the money in your pocket at the time was better than investing in it for the long term. Now they have a pavilion that they couldn't pay people to go to. It seemed that this was a trend for some time in the Pressler/Rasulo era, but I personally believe that things are starting to really look up now. While technology is being incorporated in a number of the big ideas for the future I think that theme and story are becoming major forces again and for now I like what I see.

 

[tirian]

Interesting post, Evan ... but if you dumb/Walmart your product down continually under the notion that you are simply 'keeping up (or down as the case is) with the times' or 'giving people what they want' just where does it all end?

You're right. Any creative exec should use that phrase cautiously. Although it's true that some things, especially useability, should be designed and governed by concern for people, the best entertainers have given the public something it didn't know it wanted at a quality level so high they suddenly "needed" it. Disney, Welles, Henson, Spielberg, and (to some degree) Lucas knew this. George Lucas is a great example because his earliest work was his best; when he later gave the public what he assumed they wanted (i.e. mindless action flicks), they resented him for it.

 

[comics101]

Mr. Sotto,
I've been browsing your thread for quite some time now (I may have posted before, this thing is so big there's no way for me to take the time to check) but I do finally have a question to ask that's probably already been asked, and if it has, then oops :lol:. Anywho, I was just wondering why you decided to leave WDI. Were you just ready to move on, or was the culture as vicious as some on these boards make it sound?
Idk. I suppose I'm asking because as much as I'd love to work at WDI, I wonder if I'd find myself extrememly dissapointed by the way WDI works. I imagine it a very cut-throat business, esspecially if it's anything like Disney War made TWDC sound haha. A lot of times I think we fanboys have this vision of what we believe WDI is, and I'm wondering if maybe our "ideal WDI" is completely off, or if it was a great place to work and you really did enjoy your time there, or maybe it was both? :lol: Idk.
Thanks so much for such an informative and fun thread!

 

[Eddie Sotto]

You're right. Any creative exec should use that phrase cautiously. Although it's true that some things, especially useability, should be designed and governed by concern for people, the best entertainers have given the public something it didn't know it wanted at a quality level so high they suddenly "needed" it. Disney, Welles, Henson, Spielberg, and (to some degree) Lucas knew this. George Lucas is a great example because his earliest work was his best; when he later gave the public what he assumed they wanted (i.e. mindless action flicks), they resented him for it.

Good example. I think that sometimes our early work is our best as we are less self conscious. Orson Welles could not top "Citizen Kane" and Lucas "Star Wars". (they did succeed when they dod something different like "Indy" or "War of the Worlds). In my book, "Snow White" was Walt's masterpiece on many levels. "American Graffiti" was my favorite of Lucas as it was wholly unique and a breakthrough.

Walt Disney told Herb Ryman himself to never forget that they are there to "satisfy people's needs" or do something "people will like". Walt was focused around pleasing the audience, it's how he did it that was key as he was deeply in tune with them. What we liked, they wanted and his deeper values resonated with them. Focus groups will never get you a Matterhorn. You have to dream it and know it's cool, then just do it really well. The most successful projects are those that tap into the deeper zeitgeist of society and reveal something aspirational they did not ask for directly. Peter Pan primally allows you to "fly". Eternally popular. Usually it is simple things executed beyond expectation. Promise and fulfill. In the case of EPCOT, it's tougher as the park sets itself up around a mission or a message to a degree. Your expectation is set both conceptually and experientially. It's a tough hill to climb and to some degree portray the future or the world.

When I was there, I'd ask my team if what we was doing was something you had seen or experienced before and if so, why repeat it? Main Street in Paris was one big depressing repeat, so how could we make each shop or visual unique and story driven enough to make it worth a picture in the guest's camera? How do you treat each space as something worth remembering?

"Mission:Space" for all it's controversy begat a ride system that was wholly unique (sustained G Force), designed to simulate the launch experience. I'm proud of that aspect, and like Pooh in TDL is wholly unique and takes risks (If they succeed is another discussion). The company replaced the emotional moments we had written in to have more "thrill" as a gesture toward a younger audience and to "give them what they want". (I quit WDI while both Pooh and MS were in production).

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Mr. Sotto,
I've been browsing your thread for quite some time now (I may have posted before, this thing is so big there's no way for me to take the time to check) but I do finally have a question to ask that's probably already been asked, and if it has, then oops :lol:. Anywho, I was just wondering why you decided to leave WDI. Were you just ready to move on, or was the culture as vicious as some on these boards make it sound?
Idk. I suppose I'm asking because as much as I'd love to work at WDI, I wonder if I'd find myself extrememly dissapointed by the way WDI works. I imagine it a very cut-throat business, esspecially if it's anything like Disney War made TWDC sound haha. A lot of times I think we fanboys have this vision of what we believe WDI is, and I'm wondering if maybe our "ideal WDI" is completely off, or if it was a great place to work and you really did enjoy your time there, or maybe it was both? :lol: Idk.
Thanks so much for such an informative and fun thread!

Sure. I have told this story before, so I'll try and tell it shorter and hopefully better. I was 40, my wife was about to have twins, and in that context I felt the urgent need to creatively "reinvent" myself as I had gone as far as I felt I could go at WDI (SVP Concept Design), and to me that still was not enough autonomy. As great a place as it was and is, the management at the time was not into "best in class" breakthrough stuff, it was about less (DCA quality). Not a good omen for guys like me. I was spending 80 percent of my time navigating the politics of getting things funded and built, instead of doing what I was best at. My portfolio was pretty rich, but heavy in theme parks, and to endure the next decade as a designer I felt that I had to be more versatile for the 21st Century. I had sold a pilot series concept to ABC TV and so television was a new frontier that looked appealing. An internet TV network offered me a creative director type position and was willing to buy me out of WDI. So you get seduced by the "cash is always greener" and the freedom. Looking back, the internet company lasted only 9 more months, but I have learned how to do everything from video production and web design, to designing and owning a modern restaurant. You get to do more in the real world faster than at WDI, so it was like a paid crash course. You also learn how to run a Disney quality (and beyond) design studio VERY EFFICIENTLY. It was tough at times and I miss the talent there and of course my WED ID card, but I've grown tenfold in experience and hopefully are a more valuable and well rounded designer. Over the years WDW and WDI have been our client, but not in the attraction area.

So it's fun to go there and visit your old friends and I think they are in better hands today than in the past. But WDI, is part of a giant corporation and has to respond in that way and lives in that culture, it's not the free wielding WED we chat about. I think it was an awesome experience (Very proud to have been a part of it) and for the right person with the proper expectation, it could still be.

 

[comics101]

Sure. I have told this story before, so I'll try and tell it shorter and hopefully better. I was 40, my wife was about to have twins, and in that context I felt the urgent need to creatively "reinvent" myself as I had gone as far as I felt I could go at WDI (SVP Concept Design), and to me that still was not enough autonomy. As great a place as it was and is, the management at the time was not into "best in class" breakthrough stuff, it was about less (DCA quality). Not a good omen for guys like me. I was spending 80 percent of my time navigating the politics of getting things funded and built, instead of doing what I was best at. My portfolio was pretty rich, but heavy in theme parks, and to endure the next decade as a designer I felt that I had to be more versatile for the 21st Century. I had sold a pilot series concept to ABC TV and so television was a new frontier that looked appealing. An internet TV network offered me a creative director type position and was willing to buy me out of WDI. So you get seduced by the "cash is always greener" and the freedom. Looking back, the internet company lasted only 9 more months, but I have learned how to do everything from video production and web design, to designing and owning a modern restaurant. You get to do more in the real world faster than at WDI, so it was like a paid crash course. You also learn how to run a Disney quality (and beyond) design studio VERY EFFICIENTLY. It was tough at times and I miss the talent there and of course my WED ID card, but I've grown tenfold in experience and hopefully are a more valuable and well rounded designer. Over the years WDW and WDI have been our client, but not in the attraction area.

So it's fun to go there and visit your old friends and I think they are in better hands today than in the past. But WDI, is part of a giant corporation and has to respond in that way and lives in that culture, it's not the free wielding WED we chat about. I think it was an awesome experience (Very proud to have been a part of it) and for the right person with the proper expectation, it could still be.

That makes sense. It seems like you do alot! And I kinda figured one of the reasons you left was due to who was running the place at the time...seems like it probably would've been very dark times in the WDI offices :lol: and I can imagine how annoying it must have been to constantly be told that project's too expensive, or that's not "hip" enough, etc.
I think a lot of fanboys including myself still like to think of WDI as that exclusive group of animators designing attractions for Walt, even though we know that's not really the case anymore. Disney for me will always be Walt taking us on a personal tour of the POTC models, or sitting at a piano with the Sherman Bros singing Great Big Beautiful Tomorrow, etc. It seems to me Disney used to have so much more of a connection with people even just 20 years ago...not that I really know what I'm talkin about. I say I'd love to work with WDI, but part of me wonders if I really would. I doubt I'd ever be given the opportunity, I don't have near the amount of talant you guys have, and being such a Disney nerd I'd probably just get stuck on trying to resurect Horizons :lol:.

On a side note, what kinds of projects have you done for Disney since leaving WDI (should I just read the thread? Haha I'm worried I'm making you rewrite stuff you've already talked about. If so just lemme know, I'll do my research :lol.

 

[ChrisFL]

Good example. I think that sometimes our early work is our best as we are less self conscious. Orson Welles could not top "Citizen Kane" and Lucas "Star Wars". (they did succeed when they dod something different like "Indy" or "War of the Worlds). In my book, "Snow White" was Walt's masterpiece on many levels. "American Graffiti" was my favorite of Lucas as it was wholly unique and a breakthrough.

Walt Disney told Herb Ryman himself to never forget that they are there to "satisfy people's needs" or do something "people will like". Walt was focused around pleasing the audience, it's how he did it that was key as he was deeply in tune with them. What we liked, they wanted and his deeper values resonated with them. Focus groups will never get you a Matterhorn. You have to dream it and know it's cool, then just do it really well. The most successful projects are those that tap into the deeper zeitgeist of society and reveal something aspirational they did not ask for directly. Peter Pan primally allows you to "fly". Eternally popular. Usually it is simple things executed beyond expectation. Promise and fulfill. In the case of EPCOT, it's tougher as the park sets itself up around a mission or a message to a degree. Your expectation is set both conceptually and experientially. It's a tough hill to climb and to some degree portray the future or the world.

I agree, I often refer to that kind of planning that Walt and co. did like giving people what they want, before they even realize that is what they want...a tall order for sure, but one that has to come from emotion, not from a focus group as mentioned

 

[Eddie Sotto]

On a side note, what kinds of projects have you done for Disney since leaving WDI (should I just read the thread? Haha I'm worried I'm making you rewrite stuff you've already talked about. If so just lemme know, I'll do my research :lol.

Mostly "outside the berm" type things. Did some "blue sky" technology innovation for the R&D Dept. a few years back and the occasional brainstorm. We worked extensively with WDW developing what eventually became "Photopass". Can't get specific on any of this, as you might imagine.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Well said. It was always a fantasy wasn't it? but rooted in a plausible scientific reality. That plausibility gets harder to swallow as we as a society become more cynical, especially toward corporations. EPCOT today reminds me a bit of the 1939 New York Worlds Fair. Shortly after opening, WW2 had already made strides in Europe and pavilions began to close or come into question. The "World of Tomorrow" optimism dimmed as the shadow of war headed to America. It was still great in 1940, but the focus went away from the tutorial and purposeful exhibits and instead relied on the carnival midway and its escapist distractions. EPCOT too has strayed from is mission driven roots to more populist thrills, etc.

I disagree that we are more cynical. It is an idea that sort of seems to be like taxes and death, a certainty. When Disneyland opened children were learning to "[…] ducal! / … And cove-r! / Duck! / … And cove-r!" with Bert the Turtle and city fallout shelters were known and stocker locations, not forgotten remnants of the past (I know of one in Ridgewood, NJ that is still marked, but I have no idea what is behind the door). Walt Disney was criticized for being cheesy and so optimistic. The idea that we have become cynical just keeps occurring and yet we have never hit a level of total despair and advances continue, today at an astounding rate. I think the bigger issue with with sincerity. Walt Disney was a man and you saw his films or shows or park and associated with him. Even though he was not personally involved, we know know (both consciously and unconsciously) that people cared about this or that. Today everything comes branded from [font=Myriad Pro, Times New Roman]The Walt Disney Company[/font]. It is a big corporate that wants you to know it is a big corporation and it can do all of these things; and people know that. Go over to Universal Orlando and the presence of GE is minimal, I think the biggest being the GE Money ATMs. It is why I think the Wizarding World of harry Potter has worked, it is so closely associated with Rowling and a personal care for the experience. A big company can do this, while Eisner was criticized for playing host and the face of the company, I think it was part of people looking back at Disney as something sincere, because it was again being associated with people. I think that does trickle down into a company's culture, because people are out there showing this and being associated. Iger wants none of that, he wants franchises and brands, and I think the decision to drop the possessive from branding will ultimately be a very bad decision, even if nobody can ever point to that. The only faces we see are little corporate photos on the DisneyParks® and the same Imagineers and public relations personelle, regardless of their actual involvement.

I see that the train is a meter taller overall, though I wonder if it could be changed to be the same height as the mark vi. They are about a half meter wider also, which would be nice but it would matter what that means to the existing platforms. I like that the scomi propulsion looks smaller than the current alweg.

Even with those modifications, which may be possible but may not if it makes standing difficult, you are getting back into the realm of a custom project, not standard equipment in a pretty wrapper.

While you would probably get some looks, the Dapper Day events look nice.

You do not get looks, you get lots of questions, complaints and a few people will storm off and even complain about your less than acceptable service. In Orlando I have deemed it no longer worth the effort of having to explain that I am not a low level manager.

In 2011, Future World works better when its pavilions focus on the wonders of the real world, as opposed to a brighter industrial future. For this reason, as much as I'd love to see an updated Horizons back in Epcot, the original attraction would seem laughably naïve.

I think the focus on nature can still include technology. It is the current "thing" in technology and design right now.

Well blackstone and merlin owns very other major park in florida.

I don't see GE going through to build walt's epcot, or really any other company. It is very ambitious and would scare shareholders.

Merlin is owned by Blackstone, but they are looking into divesting themselves of their involvement in Universal Orlando Resort.

The idea of going to GE was about locking in a perpetual sponsor, that at the time, had been at the forefront of a lot of new technologies. The biggest problem with EPCOT, Tomorrowland and to a lesser extent Future World is they all depicted a future that is no longer needed, but one that was significantly larger in what it built. The internet and computers made much of what was promised irrelevant. Though we did get video calling and jumpsuits, to a degree as the idea behind jumpsuits was cheap and easy to mass produce clothing not the fashion. One of the things we seem to forget when looking at old photographs is that many of these people did not own many more articles of clothing. The idea of the masses having multiple items of clothing is very recent and industrial idea. For much longer and for many more if you were able to save up enough for a suit that was your only suit and you would wear it multiple days a week and your "Sunday best" really was your best outfit that you wore Sunday after Sunday.

You say Disney needs to evolve. What I see is society devolving (Planet of the Apes anyone? ... where's the monkey smileys?)

And plenty from every single generation before you have said the same.