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

[Eddie Sotto]

Eddie left a comment at my blog earlier today that brings up an interesting point. He related how a veteran Imagineer from "back in the day" told him recently that Marc Davis used to interact with attractions as they were being built. As a stage or set began to take shape, Marc would note things like the dimensions and layout, and then go back and do new sketches of the characters in the scene. We tend to think of the artwork as the starting point only, but in reality it would sometimes evolve as the attraction began to set in concrete.

It reminded me how deeply involved the classic Imagineers often were with every aspect of the show, right down to the end product. It was Davis, for example, who decided when the HM should open!

My question is, How did this change? Walt liked to recruit jack-of-all-trade types, artists as comfortable with a screwdriver as with a paint brush. Tinkerers. It seems like everybody did anything and everything back in the Golden Age. The full-time staff was a small number. Nowadays, WDI seems like a small army, with departments and specialties, and the casual disregard for those types of boundaries seems like a thing of the past. (At least that's how it seems from here.) I'd like Eddie's take on the dynamics behind this evolution.

It's funny you should bring this up.

In my small studio being versatile is job one. When I'm speaking at an art school and I'm asked about the type of people we hire, I show a slide of a Swiss Army knife. That means that there is one thing you do exceptionally well with a big blade, but you can also switch into other minor tasks and cover other bases. A Swiss Army knife is not the best bottle opener in the world, but can do it. It's not the best pair of shears but in a pinch can be a reasonably good set of scissors. So in our studio, we look for designers that also have computer skills, infield art direction skills, writing, and hopefully media skills such as editing or shooting video.

When I was at Imagineering I would often redo sketch designs in order to have them more closely match what we were building. There was nothing really "precious" about art as it was first and foremost a tool for visualization. I think the difference today is there are more people in management than there are in creative, and in many cases the creative people are further away from the action and the management has to bring in many specialists to accomplish all these tasks.

As to your question, it would be hard for me to address the evolution from generalist to specialist, without a much more recent inside view. I would imagine that the way you breed generalists is by throwing artists into the field and making them be personally responsible for what they pitch by having to see their assumptions come to life on the frontlines. It's funny, there was an certain respect for being someone who had been "field tested". I got field experience the first year I was in design at Knott's and that's how you learn to creatively solve problems under pressure. You make lots of mistakes and hopefully you don't make them more than once. Then once you're on the drafting board again you remember your experience in the field and then you design with those pitfalls in mind. If you are smart, you watch and listen to those building the project so you can see things from their perspective. So I guess the evolution away from generalists might be attributed to less conceptual talent being experienced in the field. One lesson was ("if you expect to see it, make sure it's on the drawing, assume nothing").

As in the field, there are less people to save you and you must be more resourceful as a producer. Imagineering was one of those great places where you did have the blessing of these other disciplines that are beyond your frame of reference. For example, lighting design is a science in itself, but I only have a cursory instinct. You need them. Being a "know it all " is the other extreme that can lead to a weak project. Landscape design is another specialized discipline I have a feel for, but need expert guidance. If you have the luxury, it's always ok to surround yourself with people smarter than you! It works great and you learn alot!


So Imagineering is also putting all the great disciplines around an idea and hopefully that never goes away.

 

[Duckfan]

Eddie,

Thanks for such a great thread, it's one of the reasons I registered here!

My question for you has to do with the current trend of park attractions being built that are based on films or other Disney properties(such as Carsland at DCA), rather than original ideas(like Expedition Everest, the most recent example I can think of). Personally, I don't mind if an attraction is based on a property that the company wants to cross-promote, as long as the ride is great, but a lot of people in the online Disney fan community seem to have a problem with it. I know that it has kind of always been a part of the parks, like the original dark rides at Disneyland, but those were later balanced out with original ideas like the Jungle Cruise, Big Thunder Mountain, and The Haunted Mansion(Interestingly, Pirates started as an original idea, but became a film series which found itself being inserted into the original ride!).

Anyway, I was wondering what your view as an Imagineer was on this issue: would you prefer an original idea, or working to adapt an existing property into a theme park attraction?

 

[flavious27]

It's funny you should bring this up.

In my small studio being versatile is job one. When I'm speaking at an art school and I'm asked about the type of people we hire, I show a slide of a Swiss Army knife. that means that there is one thing you do exceptionally well with a big blade, but you can also switch into other minor tasks and cover other bases. A Swiss Army knife is not the best bottle opener in the world that can do it. It's not the best pair of shears but in a pinch can be a reasonably good set of scissors. So in our studio, we look for designers but also have computer skills, infield art direction skills, writing, and hopefully full on media skills such as editing or shooting video.

When I was at Imagineering I would often we sketch designs in order to have them more closely match what we were building. There was nothing really precious about art as it was a tool for visualization. I think the difference today is there are more people in management than there are in creative and in many cases the creative people are further away from the action and the management has to bring in many specialists to accomplish all these tasks.

As to your question, it would be hard for me to address the evolution from generalist to specialist, without a much more inside view. I would imagine that the way you breed generalists is by throwing artists into the field and making them be personally responsible for what they present by having to produce it and make mistakes on the frontlines. It's funny, there was a whole aspect to respect by being someone who was field tested. I got field experience the first year I was in design and that's how you learn to creatively solve problems in the field. You make lots of mistakes and hopefully you don't make them more than once. Then once you're on the drafting board again you remember your experience in the field and then you design with those pitfalls in mind. So I guess the evolution away from generalists might be attributed to less of a conceptual talent being experienced in the field. As in the field, there are less people to save you and you must be more resourceful as a producer. Imagineering was one of those great places where you did have the blessing of these other disciplines that are beyond your frame of reference. For example, lighting design is a science in itself but I only have a cursory instinct about. Landscape design is another discipline but similar to that.


So Imagineering is also putting all the great disciplines around an idea and hopefully that never goes away.

Well the problems at wdi are amassed in the character of buckle:

Creative beyond imagination, but lost on the higher ups because their ideas are either too costly and or not family friendly enough.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Eddie,

Thanks for such a great thread, it's one of the reasons I registered here!

My question for you has to do with the current trend of park attractions being built that are based on films or other Disney properties(such as Carsland at DCA), rather than original ideas(like Expedition Everest, the most recent example I can think of). Personally, I don't mind if an attraction is based on a property that the company wants to cross-promote, as long as the ride is great, but a lot of people in the online Disney fan community seem to have a problem with it. I know that it has kind of always been a part of the parks, like the original dark rides at Disneyland, but those were later balanced out with original ideas like the Jungle Cruise, Big Thunder Mountain, and The Haunted Mansion(Interestingly, Pirates started as an original idea, but became a film series which found itself being inserted into the original ride!).

Anyway, I was wondering what your view as an Imagineer was on this issue: would you prefer an original idea, or working to adapt an existing property into a theme park attraction?

It depends on how great the original "idea" or the "franchise" is. Both can work. "Carsland" will no doubt be a hit. But there is more out there for sure. To me, developing history based properties is a good idea and creates balance. History usually brings a built in "awareness" just like a franchise does. "Pirates" and "Dinosaurs" are already known by the public. You don't have to educate them as to what they are. "Davy Crockett" was both historic and a cultural phenomenon that became a franchise. History ("the hard facts that created America") is a part of the Disney legacy and a good place to mine ideas. The "Lafitte's Island" (TSI upgrade) concept was just that, so I'm a bit biased. Why not inspire and entertain if you can pull it off? As a kid, the "SS Columbia", NOS, Matterhorn, and the "Mark Twain" drove me into books to learn more about the real thing. They are "must see" attractions that are not cute, but bring some reality that "grounds" the lands. ATIS did the same thing in Tomorrowland. Classic literature is a good source too as it has a certain awareness. "Tarzan's Tree" is well done for what it is, but I'd rather live the dream of the "Swiss Family Robinson" any day. To me, too much cute/character infused in the more "true to life" lands hurts their overall credibility and the balance that is Disneyland.

 

[flavious27]

It depends on how great the original "idea" or the "franchise" is. Both can work. "Carsland" will no doubt be a hit. But there is more out there for sure. To me, developing history based properties is a good idea and creates balance. History usually brings a built in "awareness" just like a franchise does. "Pirates" and "Dinosaurs" are already known by the public. You don't have to educate them as to what they are. "Davy Crockett" was both historic and a cultural phenomenon that became a franchise. History ("the hard facts that created America") is a part of the Disney legacy and a good place to mine ideas. The "Lafitte's Island" (TSI upgrade) concept was just that, so I'm a bit biased. Why not inspire and entertain if you can pull it off? As a kid, the "SS Columbia", NOS, Matterhorn, and the "Mark Twain" drove me into books to learn more about the real thing. They are "must see" attractions that are not cute, but bring some reality that "grounds" the lands. ATIS did the same thing in Tomorrowland. Classic literature is a good source too as it has a certain awareness. "Tarzan's Tree" is well done for what it is, but I'd rather live the dream of the "Swiss Family Robinson" any day. To me, too much cute/character infused in the more "true to life" lands hurts their overall credibility and the balance that is Disneyland.

Interesting, I wonder if disney has looked into using tall tale characters like Paul Bunyan.

 

[Fractal514]

Interesting, I wonder if disney has looked into using tall tale characters like Paul Bunyan.

There was an entire series in the 60's I believe. Johny Appleseed, Paul Bunyan, Sleep Hollow, Casey at the Bat, all sorts of great Americana inspired cartoons.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

There was an entire series in the 60's I believe. Johny Appleseed, Paul Bunyan, Sleep Hollow, Casey at the Bat, all sorts of great Americana inspired cartoons.

We used "Casey" as the basis of a baseball themed version of "Coke Corner" (Casey's Corner) on Main Street at DLP. It was repeated in WDW. That "layer" of story tied the menu with the space thematically, added historic depth to something that had no other identity than to sell Cola. We married Hot Dogs, Coke and Peanuts with the theme of baseball, and used the space as a way to showcase the graphic history of the sport. A small thing but it worked.

http://www.photosmagiques.com/gallery/disneyland_park/main_street_usa/caseys_corner.php

The reality is that if you are going to spend a fixed amount of money, you will likely go for the property that your audience knows best, and in some cases where there is already an established line of merchandise. The marketing from a big movie has been the investment for the ride. Indiana Jones had a built in demand that the ride satisfied, same with Cars, etc. Having said that, you could then add native American exhibits (store with turquoise) or geologicial things (Rock shop) into Carsland to enhance it historically.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Eddie,

I checked the Kevin Yee link that you provided above. What is your take on the classic vs. creative debate? As a former Imagineer, do you appreciate the more whimsical entrance, or the original somber version? What is the merit of your preference as a creative person working within the business?

I have not seen it in person, but in general I like the concept of restraint and that less can be more. As much as I love "enhancements" to attractions ( I was in charge of them at DL for a while) at times I'd find myself wondering if we were filling empty space that should be left that way. I recall the OP's folks saying they wanted something in the dark cave just before the Pirate ship in POTC. I fought this at the time, explaining that it was the "build" to the reveal of that scene, creating anxiety in the darkness and no one got that. It was seen as "boring" and a place to stick something. Nothing is wasted, even the so called "dead" areas are not really dead but add contrast in the rhythm of the show.

To me, the parks and their shows are like a great musical score or soundtrack with crescendos and rests. You build to something in pace and emotion and then let it sink in. I'm afraid that society with it's ADD mentality is causing us to think we have to fill in any empty space with filler and pick up the pace till it's all at one frantic level. That's the paranoid side of me as we are far from that, but it is my concern. Emotionally being either too sinister or too cute can create an emotional conflict as well. Even repainting a facade changes the emotion of a land or space. Too much color or cold tones makes the land frantic or pessimistic, etc. It all matters as were taking it all in.

I found the 1Gen Imagineers had great taste (sense of scale, color and proportion) and being from movies had a sense of restraint in this area. Some of them were former architects, so the underlying draftsmanship of the lands was historically solid too. NOS has that and is my favorite land. Richness, historic depth and a soft palette that knows where to direct your eye. The stores used to pay that off. It was not Mardi Gras 24/7 as the land was rich enough to carry itself. Like the Real NO, it became tourist driven and lost it's period feel. It's all a "story" in the sense that you create a linear thread of moments that may not be obvious, but felt. Are we so worried that the guest will turn elsewhere that nothing is left to chance? So it's good to add new things, but to question yourself first as to weather it is really an enhancement or a distraction.

 

[rsoxguy]

^
Your comments on "empty space" are very insightful. Thanks!

 

[RSoxNo1]

Eddie,

How do you feel about the Space Ship Earth descent? I apologize if that's already been asked and answered in this thread.

 

[Disneyparksgeek]

Hi Eddie, first time poster long time lurker. I have a question for you. I am in High School right now (Home School) and I have always wanted to be an Imagineer since I was about six or seven years old. I can draw very well, but I (as of now) can't paint very well. I hope to become a show or concept designer and I was wondering if I need to be able to create paintings for that specific job (if I ever get it). Thank you in advance.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Hi Eddie, first time poster long time lurker. I have a question for you. I am in High School right now (Home School) and I have always wanted to be an Imagineer since I was about six or seven years old. I can draw very well, but I (as of now) can't paint very well. I hope to become a show or concept designer and I was wondering if I need to be able to create paintings for that specific job (if I ever get it). Thank you in advance.

Drawing is enough. Now that there are digital paint programs you can do it all. A knowledge of the use of color is very important.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Eddie,

How do you feel about the Space Ship Earth descent? I apologize if that's already been asked and answered in this thread.

No real opinion, I have not been on it in years, but am aware of it.

 

[Disneyparksgeek]

Drawing is enough. Now that there are digital paint programs you can do it all. A knowledge of the use of color is very important.

Thanks for replying back. I do try to study, as much as possible, the usage of colors. I have the Designing Disney book that John Hench wrote and it helped me out a lot figuring out how color relates to an audience.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Angelina in Paris..

Thanks for replying back. I do try to study, as much as possible, the usage of colors. I have the Designing Disney book that John Hench wrote and it helped me out a lot figuring out how color relates to an audience.

Speaking of color, here's a Disneyland Paris story of desperation and getting "the right feel" in a space.

The Plaza Gardens Restaurant near the hub has a very ornate Victorian interior, and one of our interior designers who had taken the lead on this chose the color mauve which when applied in great quantity can have a rather fleshy and intestinal quality. On a color board it looked fine as it was small and everything went well. I approved it not fully understanding the immense effect of it all. My bad. So when I went into the restaurant and saw, or more importantly "sensed" the overwhelming quantity of that color painted in one corner I was terrified. What if it is everywhere! Of course, there are gold highlights and other colors to set it off, but the sheer quantity of this particular color in that restaurant just did not set well with me. I knew I would have to go ask the project before the restaurant got completely painted to change the color. Yikes. We were very close to opening so changes like this do not go down well because the management for obvious reasons would just like to complete the project. But of course that's only half of the battle. The other half is to almost instantly choose a color that will go well with everything else that has already been painted because we could not change the entire space. That ship had sailed.

That was on a Friday. So Saturday morning my wife and I went to breakfast in Paris. And of course my mind was 1,000,000 miles away because all I could think about was the problem that was facing me for Monday morning. My wife chose a very elegant ladies tea salon downtown. It's known for its hot chocolate and light lunches. So we went there and when we sat down I noticed that the trim colors were very similar to what we were doing in the Plaza Gardens and that everything else in the space looked absolutely gorgeous and all of a sudden it dawned on me. My wife had chosed a restaurant that was almost architecturally identical to the Plaza Gardens, murals and all! The color scheme of that restaurant is exactly what the PG should look like and there were only two colors required to transform the space as the gold gilding was all in the same locations. I had been taken to a full scale mock up of the new color scheme! Suddenly my mood changed and I went to the area of the restaurant that had flaking paint by the door and helped myself to a chip of this mocha beige. Very rich color with lots of life. So the Plaza Gardens Restaurant at Disneyland Paris owes a debt of gratitude to "Angelina" in Paris. SHAMELESS! But true...only the mauve marble remains.

Angelina Image
http://news-e.hoosta.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/angelina-paris-2.jpg
http://www.parisiensalon.com/2009/11/angelina-a-tea-salon-even-parisians-love/
Plaza Gardens
http://www.photosmagiques.com/gallery/disneyland_park/main_street_usa/plaza_gardens.php

The moral of the story is that there are lots of great color schemes around you if we just notice them and think about how they feel because sometimes you can't know from a sample board or a swatch, but will feel it when you there.

 

[Disneyparksgeek]

^ That's a funny story Eddie. From the pictures I could see the resemblance to the Plaza Gardens. Thanks for sharing.

 

[maxairmike]

Eddie, I was wondering if you had any insights into the city-planning aspect that goes into the Disney resorts, particularly WDW? I know that for the development of the Florida land, Imagineering and Reedy Creek worked practically hand in hand. Do you know if that is still the case, or has the relationship sort of separated, and RCID does "their own" city planning for things like infrastructure updates outside of attraction-specific instances, while Imagineering has moved to simply attraction and park issues? If you have any stories relating to that end of things (that hasn't already been shared, as I haven't looked through all 300+ pages), I would certainly be interested. I have an odd affinity for trying to solve things like traffic flow, so the city-planning side of the Florida Project has always fascinated me.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Eddie, I was wondering if you had any insights into the city-planning aspect that goes into the Disney resorts, particularly WDW? I know that for the development of the Florida land, Imagineering and Reedy Creek worked practically hand in hand. Do you know if that is still the case, or has the relationship sort of separated, and RCID does "their own" city planning for things like infrastructure updates outside of attraction-specific instances, while Imagineering has moved to simply attraction and park issues? If you have any stories relating to that end of things (that hasn't already been shared, as I haven't looked through all 300+ pages), I would certainly be interested. I have an odd affinity for trying to solve things like traffic flow, so the city-planning side of the Florida Project has always fascinated me.

Excellent question, but I'm afraid I have no recent insight into that. I can tell you that Industrial Engineers are used in design and planning of projects to work with operations in guest traffic flow and there are certain standards that are maintained. "pinch points" in the lands are studied to maximize flow before and after, say a new parade or "Fantasmic!" type event occurs. That has to be planned in advance, same for the sizes of open viewing areas where you allow 15 Sq. feet per person. So the expertise is used and occurs at all levels, at least it did.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Buzz Price Part 2

This is a "must read" for all posters. Great article. Hear what four amusement park experts had to say when they examined the Ryman rendering of Disneyland and Walt's reaction to their thoughts. Who could imagine that anyone would look at it and not think it was a place that you'd want to go? Find out why...Is today's mindset like those who critiqued the plan back then?


http://micechat.com/forums/blogs/samland/1809-wheres-window-buzz-price-story-part-ii.html

 

[redshoesrock]

This is a "must read" for all posters. Great article. Hear what four amusement park experts had to say when they examined the Ryman rendering of Disneyland and Walt's reaction to their thoughts. Who could imagine that anyone would look at it and not think it was a place that you'd want to go? Find out why...Is today's mindset like those who critiqued the plan back then?


http://micechat.com/forums/blogs/samland/1809-wheres-window-buzz-price-story-part-ii.html

Fantastic article Eddie, thank you for bringing it to our attention. I had heard of the story regarding Walt's pitching the idea of Disneyland to established amusement park operators and being told how much of a failure it would be, but I never actually read what they had to say. There were two important ideas I took away from the article:

>>The process that he used when working with Walt was a “Yes if” line of attack. Price said, “Yes if…is the approach of a deal maker. It points to what needs to be done to make the possible plausible. 'No because'…is the language of a deal killer. Creative people thrive on ‘Yes if.”<<

So true. It reminds me of improv, where the first rule is to always say, "Yes and...", and to never say "no". No is a creative brick wall, a dead-end; you can't do anything with "no".

>>Price summed up the thoughts of the participants with this statement. He wrote, “Mr. Disney’s park idea is too expensive to build and too expensive to operate.” Their advice was, “Tell your boss to save his money. Tell him to stick to what he knows and leave the amusement business to people who know it.”<<

It's always easier to criticize than to create. Plus, I hope everyone noticed how the amusement park owners thought of their paying customers: "the public doesn’t know the difference or care", "people will vandalize the ride vehicles and destroy the grounds no matter what you do, so you may as well go cheap", "he will lose his shirt by over spending on things the customers never really notice", "without barkers along the midway to sell the sideshows, the marks won’t pay to go in. Customers are likely to leave with money left in their pockets." How many businesses do you know that treat their customers merely as means to the business' end, or just don't like their customers period? Sadly, I can think of too many. In treating his "customers" as "guests", that just goes to show one more time the superior vision of Walt Disney.