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

[Mansion Butler]

It's interesting for me to see M:S called "love it or hate it" because I am neither. I like it, I have fun on it. I wish it were better maintained and a bit more intense (yes), but for how little I usually have to stand in line, I enjoy it.

Hopefully I'm not out of line being frank with my opinion on it, I don't want to offend anyone who worked on it who's generous enough to share their time and wisdom with this board. :lol:

 

[Eddie Sotto]

It's interesting for me to see M:S called "love it or hate it" because I am neither. I like it, I have fun on it. I wish it were better maintained and a bit more intense (yes), but for how little I usually have to stand in line, I enjoy it.

Hopefully I'm not out of line being frank with my opinion on it, I don't want to offend anyone who worked on it who's generous enough to share their time and wisdom with this board. :lol:

No worries. I've heard it all from both sides, and in the end you are there to please others with these shows. Like the Tea Cup ride, spinning is not for everyone and so goes with Space. did you know that only 20% of the gate rides Space mountain? Thrill rides edit themselves. You learn that not everyone will be happy or even want to ride. It's not all I'd want it to be either, you are serving many masters. One of the reason I'm here is because I enjoy illustrating the tough challenges that designers go through in creating these projects and why they are compromised at times. All in, I think MS does what it sets out to do and does it well.

 

[Mansion Butler]

did you know that only 20% of the gate rides Space mountain?

Wow, no I did not. I would have guessed under 50%, but not that low.

 

[xdan0920]

did you know that only 20% of the gate rides Space mountain?

To me that sounds crazy. It seems like Space Mountain is one of the most popular rides in the MK. Although, I guess when you take into account ride capacity, maybe it just does not push a huge amount of people through it's turnstiles. Plus with the height requirement, I am sure that eliminates a huge % of the guests right off the top.

This leads me to wonder if, when designing an attraction, is there a goal in mind for how many people will ride. Using M:S as an example, where you trying to hit a certain percentage of gate? M:S I would guess, does a lower percentage of guests then Space Mountain, so maybe 15%. Was Space Mountain's 20% a target? Is it a disappointment to you if the ride misses its attendance goals?

A couple other questions regarding % of gate. To the best of your recollection, what attraction gets the highest %? Also, have you done work on an attraction that you knew was good, but did not think would capture the public's imagination and got a big gate %?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Look at Mickey...Upper management took away his wand and left him empty handed! No new magic without corporate approval.

Well they did get some freedom, as "Imagineering" is close to, but not in Myriad which has slowly been replacing Times New Roman on the uniform logos. Does anybody know exactly what font that is? It looks close to Myriad, but that font uses a single-story g (g) but the shown logo uses a double-story g (g). Or is Disney using a proprietary modified version?

That was part of it too. At the time WDW had asked for something to address certain needs, one of which was to get kids to want to come to EPCOT with their parents. We developed MS as a science-fact thrill ride and that was exactly what they were looking for. there was a small budget for this ride, and a sponsor would have to be found as well. It also filled the need for some to not leave the property to go to Kennedy Space Center as it simulated shuttle flights. They held the check, so while Tony's ride concept was great for sure, it did not address (in their minds) the needs they had. That is life at WDI. You sometimes compete for the project and winning it means listening to and then fulfilling the "clients" request in a way that they think will best be marketed.

I quit the company in late 1999. So the project was still in development and those elements had not gone into production. Alot changed after I left. Usually, due to the cost of talent they come in and out pretty quickly. Tom Fitzgerald approves all story and produced/directed all media for all the attractions, so his division was called "Theme Park Productions" (no longer exists) did that type of thing for each project. Tom edited the storys and scripts personally at that time. Every script! He was always swamped. I liked working with him as he was very nice and always wanted to push things to make them better. You pretty much just design it at that point in collaboration with them.

So you would not know then if the choice to use Gary Sinise was at all related to Mission to Mars? Since the film was in production while you were still at Imagineering, did your team ever discuss tying Mission: SPACE to the film?

Perhaps it was not very clear in the show, but the idea behind MS was that someday all of us would train to go to space, not just a few. The early versions of the show had you going into orbit, repairing the ISS, instead being struck by debris and marooned, then an emergency return, but that did not use the spinning enough, so Mars became the new direction.

The problem with going to Mars or anywhere is that you have to deliver on it. Where is the Space Suit? What do you do there that does not have Exit Signs and Handrails? "Space stations" filled with screaming kids and guests end up being too much of the real world for me. "Weightlessness" is the big "wow" on other worlds and how do you deliver on that in a believable and mass capacity way? It was this issue of not going down a road you can't deliver on. Especially when the budget is that tight. My belief, right or wrong was that Space is essentially boring and there is no "there" there, that's why they call it space. Gas and rocks. The thing that most people wanted to experience was blasting off and weightlessness. Simulating it in training made it ok for things to "go wrong" and create drama while avoiding the touchy territory of real space disasters that we could not get away with doing. Excuses Excuses!

I do not think they are excuses. They all sound like very valid reasons that, while not exotic as a far off space fantasy adventure, do provide a very realistic (realism being very EPCOT Center if you ask me) and, I think more importantly, complete experience.

You also mentioned sponsorship, was Compaq on board when you were working on the project and if so what role, if any did they play?

 

[Slowjack]

Perhaps it was not very clear in the show, but the idea behind MS was that someday all of us would train to go to space, not just a few.

[...]

The problem with going to Mars or anywhere is that you have to deliver on it.

Maybe I didn't explain myself well. I don't mean that I thought the ride was literally a recreation of the Apollo program, and I understood the story element as you mentioned. But that still makes it a case of saying, "in the future...you will get to undergo the kinds of training you've seen astronauts do for decades!"

Here's another way to put it. A few years ago I got one of those official WDW planning DVDs. The theme that year was "the place where dreams come true" or something similar, and you had guests and cast members talking about how they lived out childhood dreams through the magic of WDW. Well, I might have had dreams about visiting a "Star Trek" space station, where you can sip a drink from an oddly-shaped glass, standing in front of a huge window, watching the star ships dock, as a hologram sings a warbling tune in the corner. I haven't ever dreamed of going through the kind of training that would make that possible.

Believe me, I understand how difficult it would be to make a realistic version of going to Mars. Instead I would have made a sci-fi version, so you're on a station on mars with glass tubes connecting different pods, and outside you see strange flora that resulted from mutations, hovercraft skimming by, etc.
But of course I understand that it would cost too much to have the current portion of M:S exist simply as a lead-in for a huge show set, regardless of how it was themed.

Just to be clear, although I don't love M:S, I don't hate it, either. It's just not for me.

 

[Slowjack]

We used to joke about the whole "Sorcerer's Apprentice" being the mantra/mascot for WDI. He steals the "magic" and abuses it, loses control, (but produces a pretty cool water show) then gets punished by corporate and begs for forgiveness. Pretty accurate?

Ha! Sounds about right. I'm guessing any number of Imagineers could testify about feeling a broom across their backsides.

 

[Slowjack]

So let me get this straight: You hate the Wand but love the Sorcerers Hat? Well one is already gone and the other does not have much of a future.

HMF, not sure if you are making a joke there. I was just talking about the hat as per its appearance in Fantasia, and its implications for the WDI logo. I want to be absolutely clear that I have no love for the giant hat at the Studios!

 

[Eddie Sotto]

So you would not know then if the choice to use Gary Sinise was at all related to Mission to Mars? Since the film was in production while you were still at Imagineering, did your team ever discuss tying Mission: SPACE to the film?

The actual sets from MTM were used in the preshow (big wheel) so yes, there was a synergy. Compaq was being wooed shortly after I left. They paid for the post show.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Maybe I didn't explain myself well. I don't mean that I thought the ride was literally a recreation of the Apollo program, and I understood the story element as you mentioned. But that still makes it a case of saying, "in the future...you will get to undergo the kinds of training you've seen astronauts do for decades!"

Here's another way to put it. A few years ago I got one of those official WDW planning DVDs. The theme that year was "the place where dreams come true" or something similar, and you had guests and cast members talking about how they lived out childhood dreams through the magic of WDW. Well, I might have had dreams about visiting a "Star Trek" space station, where you can sip a drink from an oddly-shaped glass, standing in front of a huge window, watching the star ships dock, as a hologram sings a warbling tune in the corner. I haven't ever dreamed of going through the kind of training that would make that possible.

Believe me, I understand how difficult it would be to make a realistic version of going to Mars. Instead I would have made a sci-fi version, so you're on a station on mars with glass tubes connecting different pods, and outside you see strange flora that resulted from mutations, hovercraft skimming by, etc.
But of course I understand that it would cost too much to have the current portion of M:S exist simply as a lead-in for a huge show set, regardless of how it was themed.

Just to be clear, although I don't love M:S, I don't hate it, either. It's just not for me.

I hear you, but to me that's where the line between Tomorrowland and EPCOT lie. It's a fine line. Sci-Fi to me (maybe you don't mean that when you say StarTrek) is more of WDW Mk Tomorrowland material (like TDL SF City) as it borders on fantasy, and EPCOT although futuristic, has it's leaps of faith a bit more grounded or fact based. Not always but it's a guiding principle. If I was to deliver on your request, I'd do it justice as a space themed resort or hotel which is more passive. The bar or restaurant would be what you describe, for as those experiences are not as much ride based as they are immersive.

 

[ptaylor]

Eddie, any idea why over the last 20 years or so, Disney have made such little use of the Star Wars franchise? There seems so much material to draw from, things such as themed restaurants, additional rides, and even entire lands. Star Wars just seems such a safe bet to base park experiences on. Is it due to licensing, or some other behind-the-scenes issue?

 

[misterID]

I think you hit the nail on the head there. I think the implicit message of the original EPCOT as a whole was that the future was going to be a great place to live--great technology, countries living side-by-side in harmony, etc. Horizons was the most explicit expression of that message.

The problem with M:S is that it replaces an optimistic look to the future with a realistic look that's almost to the past, in that it recreates a training run like would have been done back during the original Space Race. And it's explicitly a simulation--we're not told that we are going to Mars, but that we're going to experience the kind of training an astronaut who might go to Mars would receive.

I don't fault the replacement, mind you. Horizons was a ghost town the last time I rode it[/B], and that's when Test Track was behind schedule so there was nothing else to ride, even, and M:S draws good crowds, so it was the right call. I just wish the thrill ride could have included the original EPCOT sense of awe and wonder.

I have to take up for Horizons here, in the fact that when it lost its sponsor in 93-94 it was rarely open and the reason there wasn't a line was because of the ride system and it was a great people eater. On top of that, it never received a proper refurbishment. Every attraction needs a refurb to keep it crisp, and Horizons never got one.

I do agree that M:S receives flack for replacing it, Horizons is what EPCOT is all about. TBH, I was actually really excited about M:S before it opened...

And it's not nostalgia talking, it's not nostalgia that makes me think the original Imagination was far supperior than what's there now. Not comparing M:S to that, I think M:S could have co-existed with Horizons if it recieved that much needed refurb. Too bad Richard Branson didn't become a sponsor of Horizons...

 

[devoy1701]

I hear you, but to me that's where the line between Tomorrowland and EPCOT lie. It's a fine line. Sci-Fi to me (maybe you don't mean that when you say StarTrek) is more of WDW Tomorrowland material (like TDL SF City) and EPCOT is although futuristic, it's leaps of faith are more grounded or fact based. If I was to deliver on your request, I'd do a space themed resort or hotel. The bar would be more of what you are looking for as those experiences are not as much ride based as they are immersive.

So tell me more about this space themed resort...

I think I agree with what both of you are saying, and although I love Mission: Space for what it is, I would still love a more immersive "Space" or "Star Ship" experience, that goes beyond just the zero G aspect, whether it be from the pavilion and pre and post shows of the attraction or the main attraction itself. One thing that shows like ST, SW, and Battlestar has shown us is that space adventure doesn't have to focus on Zero Gravity and Space Suites...you rarely see any of those elements on any of the mainstaples in Sci-Fi. And there are always thematic ways to explain away the lack of need for the Space Suits...or why you aren't floting about around the cabin. But I definitely agree that an experience like that is more Tomorrowland than it is Future World.

I would love for Disney to be able to pick up on the Star Trek franchise since Paramount seems unwilling to do so in their parks and the Experience is no longer around.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Jacque Tati's Playtime

I want to recommend a obscure french film to you threadsters. It's a favorite of mine by France's rival to Chaplin, Jacque Tati.

This film is all about observation, a skill you use as a designer and if you are a creator of "worlds", everything in that world means something and has an impact. The film uses the sounds of devices as it's comedic moments. You also become a keen observer of people and what is going on in a space and how it effects them good and bad. One sequence is about a restaurant that opens prematurely as it is not finished being built, complete with bad design, falling debris, bad circulation and more torturing the drunken guests. I LOVE THIS. So true. This film Playtime is a comedy that you have to pay attention to, as it appears to move very slow, but if you are paying acute attention to detail has a million things going on.

Here's a commentary on it. I think it's available on Netflix.

http://adampaolozza.blogspot.com/2007/06/tatis-playtime.html

http://www.tcm.com/this-month/article/382998|208646/Playtime.html

http://www.amazon.com/Playtime-Crit...ef=sr_1_4?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1305742067&sr=1-4

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Eddie, any idea why over the last 20 years or so, Disney have made such little use of the Star Wars franchise? There seems so much material to draw from, things such as themed restaurants, additional rides, and even entire lands. Star Wars just seems such a safe bet to base park experiences on. Is it due to licensing, or some other behind-the-scenes issue?

Not sure, they could have done more for sure. Paul Pressler wanted to use SW more. They pay millions for the rights to each ride and give up a piece on the merchandise, so I'd imagine if you have a Cars movie that is killing at the box office with huge merchandise, and no rights issues to pay, then you do that first.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

So tell me more about this space themed resort...

I think I agree with what both of you are saying, and although I love Mission: Space for what it is, I would still love a more immersive "Space" or "Star Ship" experience, that goes beyond just the zero G aspect, whether it be from the pavilion and pre and post shows of the attraction or the main attraction itself. One thing that shows like ST, SW, and Battlestar has shown us is that space adventure doesn't have to focus on Zero Gravity and Space Suites...you rarely see any of those elements on any of the mainstaples in Sci-Fi. And there are always thematic ways to explain away the lack of need for the Space Suits...or why you aren't floating about around the cabin. But I definitely agree that an experience like that is more Tomorrowland than it is Future World.

I would love for Disney to be able to pick up on the Star Trek franchise since Paramount seems unwilling to do so in their parks and the Experience is no longer around.

The challenge on the table was to do an "E Ticket" for $70M. Not a pavilion, not a spaceport, but a thrill ride. If there was enough cash to to it right, I would have pushed for a space station as a post show like Seas. I guess I have an aversion to things that in the end become a theme park cliche of themselves. I want deep immersion and try to avoid the typical pitfalls building codes and the usual bag of effects tricks bring along with them. One critique I have is that the on screen graphics all feel the same and are usually over designed for the setting. Real shuttle and space graphics are more like an F14, than motion graphics from the networks with grids and glows and flying icons. You want to create a realism and every detail either helps it or defeats it.



We barely got the post show and pre show. We accepted the challenge and even though it rose above 70, that was the assignment. Just to give you a perspective on how things happen.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

So tell me more about this space themed resort...

I think I agree with what both of you are saying, and although I love Mission: Space for what it is, I would still love a more immersive "Space" or "Star Ship" experience, that goes beyond just the zero G aspect, whether it be from the pavilion and pre and post shows of the attraction or the main attraction itself. One thing that shows like ST, SW, and Battlestar has shown us is that space adventure doesn't have to focus on Zero Gravity and Space Suites...you rarely see any of those elements on any of the mainstaples in Sci-Fi. And there are always thematic ways to explain away the lack of need for the Space Suits...or why you aren't floting about around the cabin. But I definitely agree that an experience like that is more Tomorrowland than it is Future World.

I would love for Disney to be able to pick up on the Star Trek franchise since Paramount seems unwilling to do so in their parks and the Experience is no longer around.

But you don't see families with screaming kids running around with strollers in Battlestar either. You basically end up with a white fake interior with screens outside running footage of stars and planets like the queue for SM. to me, even with more going on it's a big zero. I find that the guests defeat the magic in many of those situations. Just my take.

Sadly, what you wanted from Star Trek closed in Vegas, truly well done and something way cooler than MS.
http://www.exploringlasvegas.com/attractions/star-trek-the-experience.html

 

[devoy1701]

But you don't see families with screaming kids running around with strollers in Battlestar either. You basically end up with a white fake interior with screens outside running footage of stars and planets like the queue for SM. to me, even with more going on it's a big zero. I find that the guests defeat the magic in many of those situations. Just my take.

Sadly, what you wanted from Star Trek closed in Vegas, truly well done and something way cooler than MS.
http://www.exploringlasvegas.com/attractions/star-trek-the-experience.html

Eddie, you're insight is remarkable and helps very much to put things into perspective for us armchair Imagineers. It's so easy to say "I would have done this" or "I can't believe the went cheap on us what that" when you're in our shoes thinking limitless possibilities and limitless budget. You make it very clear that much of the time you and your fellow designers are saying "we were thinking the same thing too! We wanted to do that! But we could only do so much with the budget we were given."

Thanks again! :wave:

 

[lazyboy97o]

I want to recommend a obscure french film to you threadsters. It's a favorite of mine by France's rival to Chaplin, Jacque Tati.

This film is all about observation, a skill you use as a designer and if you are a creator of "worlds", everything in that world means something and has an impact. The film uses the sounds of devices as it's comedic moments. You also become a keen observer of people and what is going on in a space and how it effects them good and bad. One sequence is about a restaurant that opens prematurely as it is not finished being built, complete with bad design, falling debris, bad circulation and more torturing the drunken guests. I LOVE THIS. So true. This film Playtime is a comedy that you have to pay attention to, as it appears to move very slow, but if you are paying acute attention to detail has a million things going on.

Here's a commentary on it. I think it's available on Netflix.

http://adampaolozza.blogspot.com/2007/06/tatis-playtime.html

http://www.tcm.com/this-month/article/382998|208646/Playtime.html

http://www.amazon.com/Playtime-Crit...ef=sr_1_4?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1305742067&sr=1-4

We were tasked with watching Playtime in my architecture studio class last spring.

 

[RSoxNo1]

To me that sounds crazy. It seems like Space Mountain is one of the most popular rides in the MK. Although, I guess when you take into account ride capacity, maybe it just does not push a huge amount of people through it's turnstiles. Plus with the height requirement, I am sure that eliminates a huge % of the guests right off the top.

This leads me to wonder if, when designing an attraction, is there a goal in mind for how many people will ride. Using M:S as an example, where you trying to hit a certain percentage of gate? M:S I would guess, does a lower percentage of guests then Space Mountain, so maybe 15%. Was Space Mountain's 20% a target? Is it a disappointment to you if the ride misses its attendance goals?

A couple other questions regarding % of gate. To the best of your recollection, what attraction gets the highest %? Also, have you done work on an attraction that you knew was good, but did not think would capture the public's imagination and got a big gate %?

I would guess Kilimanjaro Safaris.

Eddie,

My future step father in law insists that the ride was longer early on (perhaps during previews). Was there a longer version of the attraction that you worked on? Perhaps where your shuttle didn't stop at the barriers?

I was lucky enough to be on the first groups of the guest previews, and it is the same ride today as it was then.

I missed this earier. Thanks Steve.