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

[maxairmike]

Eddie, I'm having a discussion/debate on the matter in another thread here and thought I would ask you what your thoughts are on using larger, more robust and thrilling roller coaster designs in Disney parks? I think it is very possible to include such attractions in the parks, but it would require a completely different approach even than what they did with Everest. I'll leave you with what I posted over in that thread (the one about Stark Expo possibly inhabiting Innoventions in DLR) to give you an idea of my feelings on the topic. Also, a bit of a disclaimer is that I grew up around larger, more thrilling coasters; my first Disney park experience was in 2010, and obviously, I've been hooked.

There's no need for light themeing, you can have the environment elaborately themed. However, you have to accept a new way of looking at rides and ride systems for this, which what I think a lot of people here don't understand. The rides, in the simplest form, are the theme. You cannot approach a coaster moving at 45+mph. in the same way you approach most other rides around Disney. The visual elements don't work during the ride course as you move too fast. The physical ride and layout has to embody the story you are trying to tell, it has to tell that story through its curves and forces.

California Screamin' is a great example. Although the theme is light and easy to pull off, you don't need the visual elements during the course. The environment is the themeing, a classic boardwalk like Santa Cruz. The layout and forces of the ride (are supposed to) take you back to when the wooden roller coaster was the art form and staple of a park.

I challenge some of you who are detracting larger roller coasters as ugly, industrial pieces of steel graffiti to take some time out of your day the next time you visit a Six Flags or Cedar Fair park (or Universal or Busch, or a smaller independent local park) and study the imagery of the rides. The lines created by the layout, the raw power the structure and the sound exudes, the energy it creates in the surrounding area. These are all great qualities to harness and incorporate into a richly themed experienced.

What better way to capture a lioness in the chase of a hunt in ride form than a twisting, high-speed race hugging the ground, dodging trees in a forest, or savannah features (say, something like Prowler at Worlds of Fun)? The flight of a beautiful bird or graceful swimming of a sea creature with something like Manta?

The doors are there to open to endless and fantastic possibilities, you just have to open up and look at things a little differently. Just because it is a larger coaster doesn't mean it has to be executed with minimal themeing like your regional Six Flags or Cedar Fair park.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Eddie, I'm having a discussion/debate on the matter in another thread here and thought I would ask you what your thoughts are on using larger, more robust and thrilling roller coaster designs in Disney parks? I think it is very possible to include such attractions in the parks, but it would require a completely different approach even than what they did with Everest. I'll leave you with what I posted over in that thread (the one about Stark Expo possibly inhabiting Innoventions in DLR) to give you an idea of my feelings on the topic. Also, a bit of a disclaimer is that I grew up around larger, more thrilling coasters; my first Disney park experience was in 2010, and obviously, I've been hooked.

Well to me, big iron looping, etc. coasters are just that. Coasters really don't theme too well. California Screamin' works as it's theme is that it IS a coaster from the past and nothing more. So Disney gets a free pass there. They tried it with RNRCoaster and Space Mountain in Paris, both with loops and they are intense by Disney standards.. but there is a difference. They were indoors and the tracks were hidden. I get that people want more thrills, namely teens, but that is limiting. Disney is a family place so it's dumbed down for that. Grandma goes with the kids. BTM gets a huge % of the gate because of that. It's a wimpy family ride. So they know that. SM gets under 20% because people avoid it and it's a meek ride by most standards of coasters. I have seen proposals years ago for flying coasters in Adventureland that involved making the tracks look like bamboo etc, so it has been considered. Sightlines from other lands are a concern and the fact that they remind us of real world rides is a factor too.

I think the best way to look at this is examining the Matterhorn or Space Mountain. The environments do not try and tell elaborate stories at all but are an aspirational setting for the organic thrills to happen. Simple does it. One is a Bobsled with hidden tracks in a "Mountain" that you conquer and the other is Outer Space with hidden tracks. Both have one thing in common that makes them Disney (besides the fact that no one has bobsledded inside the Matterhorn or raced in Space). They hide the tracks (or attempt to) and have a logic that allows you to fantasize that you are doing something you can only dream of. The theming (including the vehicle) supports it. I kind of think "Duelling Dragons" or coasters themed around Super Heroes are a bit of a waste as they are what they are and that's kind of it. I never bought the themes other than the signage and a few props. The audience for those are there (as you say) for the coaster sensation as it is the theme. I doubt they even care about the "Wonder Woman" theming in those cases.

"Fear minus death equals fun", that's the underlying theme as it's a Coaster. Just an opinion.

 

[maxairmike]

I think part of the issue (with theme, disregard the demographics of the riders, because I think that would naturally work itself out through design) is that to this point, almost all of the coasters Disney has used (apart from Screamin') are all used in a central point of view/focus, and as such are forced to be hidden behind/within mountain facades to obscure their structure. If you're making a focal point out of the entire attraction - which is what they have done almost every time - you obviously cannot use a larger scale coaster. However, if it were not used as a focal point, I think exposing riders to the structure during the course of the ride has nowhere near the negative effects as seeing them as a bystander on the path.

For example, something I think would be great in DAK; a fairly low-lying (100-125ft. lift hill at the tallest) wooden roller coaster that takes place mostly away from the guest area, beyond some dense trees and scenery. All you allow the guest to see is whatever range of the initial hill cannot be obscured above the tree-line, and a very small bit where you can see the ride and riders to entice (similar to how Everest has the very visible helix element). I think the wooden structure would be almost "organic" in a way to its surroundings if done right for the section that is visible to bystanders. Out on the ride course, I don't think the structure would intrude at all on the experience.

I obviously would not be advocating something comparable to most coasters at Cedar Point, because I get the demographics issue, but I don't think a more thrilling coaster would be bad at all visibly or in terms of its draw. It obviously requires you to have the story strongly imparted to the guests by the time they board the ride, but I think the story telling and impact possibilities are great. I hold Hulk as a great example, and though I know it is far beyond what would be the limit in terms of intensity for Disney, that kind of story setup and execution with the ride is what I think is not only possible, but actually would apply and be received very positively in a Disney park.

Again, not suggesting Disney start building lots of coasters, because the teen demographic is not a money-making one by any means either, but I think a few spread around the parks would not be a bad thing by any stretch, and would push Disney to tell stories in a new (and I think, beneficial way).

EDIT: I have an amazing visual in my head of the above-mentioned DAK concept, but nowhere near the skills to make it reality. I really wish I could find a way to get it out of my head and into this post, because I think it would really help explain how my mind is approaching the subject.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I think part of the issue (with theme, disregard the demographics of the riders, because I think that would naturally work itself out through design) is that to this point, almost all of the coasters Disney has used (apart from Screamin') are all used in a central point of view/focus, and as such are forced to be hidden behind/within mountain facades to obscure their structure. If you're making a focal point out of the entire attraction - which is what they have done almost every time - you obviously cannot use a larger scale coaster. However, if it were not used as a focal point, I think exposing riders to the structure during the course of the ride has nowhere near the negative effects as seeing them as a bystander on the path.

For example, something I think would be great in DAK; a fairly low-lying (100-125ft. lift hill at the tallest) wooden roller coaster that takes place mostly away from the guest area, beyond some dense trees and scenery. All you allow the guest to see is whatever range of the initial hill cannot be obscured above the tree-line, and a very small bit where you can see the ride and riders to entice (similar to how Everest has the very visible helix element). I think the wooden structure would be almost "organic" in a way to its surroundings if done right for the section that is visible to bystanders. Out on the ride course, I don't think the structure would intrude at all on the experience.

I obviously would not be advocating something comparable to most coasters at Cedar Point, because I get the demographics issue, but I don't think a more thrilling coaster would be bad at all visibly or in terms of its draw. It obviously requires you to have the story strongly imparted to the guests by the time they board the ride, but I think the story telling and impact possibilities are great. I hold Hulk as a great example, and though I know it is far beyond what would be the limit in terms of intensity for Disney, that kind of story setup and execution with the ride is what I think is not only possible, but actually would apply and be received very positively in a Disney park.

Again, not suggesting Disney start building lots of coasters, because the teen demographic is not a money-making one by any means either, but I think a few spread around the parks would not be a bad thing by any stretch, and would push Disney to tell stories in a new (and I think, beneficial way).

EDIT: I have an amazing visual in my head of the above-mentioned DAK concept, but nowhere near the skills to make it reality. I really wish I could find a way to get it out of my head and into this post, because I think it would really help explain how my mind is approaching the subject.

Way back when we designed a teen oriented all thrill park for WDW. To me that's the place to do that kind of thing and avoid polluting the other parks.

 

[maxairmike]

Fair enough, its obvious there's no desire for it.

 

[RandySavage]

I think, MaxAirMike, you are saying that there is a certain aesthetic beauty to a naked coaster (like IOA's Hulk) that can be attractive in an otherwise heavily-themed park.

I think there could be a place for such a mega coaster in a Tomorrowland, a Superhero Land or a Steampunkland (if done right, with supports and trains that are in theme), as these environments can better support a large, twisted steel, flying machines into their broader stories.

But if you're talking pre-modern themed environments (e.g. medieval, frontier, myth, adventure), I think a big coaster requires a mountain(BTM), castle/temple ruins(Raging Spirits), fake trees, bamboo supports, etc. to make it work within its context. I agree with Eddie that Dueling Dragons was a great example of what should NOT be done. It starts with this fantastic, transportative queue, only to traverse a modern, unthemed, gray,blue & red twisting steel coaster, which may be cool looking in isolation, but destroys the story, time and place built up in the queue and wider land.

If you go to the bottom of this page, you'll find some great artwork by ex-Imagineer Thom Schillinger on the bamboo, pre-Industrial Adventureland coaster that I think Eddie was referencing:
http://3dconceptualdesigner.blogspot.com/search?q=coaster

 

[ChrisFL]

Way back when we designed a teen oriented all thrill park for WDW. To me that's the place to do that kind of thing and avoid polluting the other parks.

Hmm, would that be the oft-rumored and maligned "Villains" park concept?

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Hmm, would that be the oft-rumored and maligned "Villains" park concept?

No.

 

[RSoxNo1]

I think, MaxAirMike, you are saying that there is a certain aesthetic beauty to a naked coaster (like IOA's Hulk) that can be attractive in an otherwise heavily-themed park.

I think there could be a place for such a mega coaster in a Tomorrowland, a Superhero Land or a Steampunkland (if done right, with supports and trains that are in theme), as these environments can better support a large, twisted steel, flying machines into their broader stories.

But if you're talking pre-modern themed environments (e.g. medieval, frontier, myth, adventure), I think a big coaster requires a mountain(BTM), castle/temple ruins(Raging Spirits), fake trees, bamboo supports, etc. to make it work within its context. I agree with Eddie that Dueling Dragons was a great example of what should NOT be done. It starts with this fantastic, transportative queue, only to traverse a modern, unthemed, gray,blue & red twisting steel coaster, which may be cool looking in isolation, but destroys the story, time and place built up in the queue and wider land.

If you go to the bottom of this page, you'll find some great artwork by ex-Imagineer Thom Schillinger on the bamboo, pre-Industrial Adventureland coaster that I think Eddie was referencing:
http://3dconceptualdesigner.blogspot.com/search?q=coaster

I do think that a mass of steel can work in a Tomorrowland that is also designed as a mass of steel. Things like the Alien Encounter type fins that lined Tomorrowland could help theme an otherwise bare steel coaster into the surroundings. Even still I don't feel that The Hulk accomplishes that.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I do think that a mass of steel can work in a Tomorrowland that is also designed as a mass of steel. Things like the Alien Encounter type fins that lined Tomorrowland could help theme an otherwise bare steel coaster into the surroundings. Even still I don't feel that The Hulk accomplishes that.

It's true that most beamways can be integrated into the land. Just look at the DL Peoplemover. It could have been steel pylons and structure, but is more elegant than that. With enough cash you do most anything. So I guess the question in my mind is "why build something so generic in the first place?". "Is that what I'm paying such a high admission to see?" Won't you know instantly that it's just an overdressed iron ride?

One thing that hurt DCA in my opinion is the overwhelmingly generic impression Paradise Pier evokes on first sight. A Ferris Wheel and a Steel Coaster is a "been there, done that" to me and I know that from a distance. Disney is more than that. Even the Rafting ride is barely enough as the ride experience isn't that unique. The Matterhorn and SM are just the opposite. If CS were a REAL wood coaster that gave you the danger and rickety feel and the detail was really rich and I was being transported back to the 1890's or the 20's like a movie set, then the rides just support an immersive world I'd love to hang out in. I guess I go to Disney for the escape and rides I can't see anywhere else. You'd have to do more than theme the structure to get me excited.

 

[GiveMeTheMusic]

No.

Were you ever involved in design work for a villains park or attraction? When I was younger the idea of a "Tragic Kingdom" was so mystifyingly awesome - the baddies have always gotten the shaft (that whole kharma thing no doubt).

BTW - been reading this thread for ages. It's fascinating and your willingness to discuss your craft and career is fantastic. Thank you!

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

Eddie- I'm curious whether you have any opinions or whatnot on the restructuring of jobs (Meg Crofton becoming president of all the parks and resorts)? What's your take on the situation?

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Were you ever involved in design work for a villains park or attraction? When I was younger the idea of a "Tragic Kingdom" was so mystifyingly awesome - the baddies have always gotten the shaft (that whole kharma thing no doubt).

BTW - been reading this thread for ages. It's fascinating and your willingness to discuss your craft and career is fantastic. Thank you!

We discussed it more as on online thing for a Virtual DL. That idea was floated as a themed bar once too.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Eddie- I'm curious whether you have any opinions or whatnot on the restructuring of jobs (Meg Crofton becoming president of all the parks and resorts)? What's your take on the situation?

I don't really know her and have not heard much. What I have read on message boards is pretty scathing and make her the new enemy. Is it possible that fans need to have someone to hate in management? Rasulo has moved out of that role so there has to be someone out there to attack. So Meg for her apparent lack of charisma will be that person (maybe its justified, but I'm just sayin'). I think it's all good as it says to me they are shaking up the management and trying some new things. I'm not forgetting that Bob Iger did not like what happened under Pressler/Harris and did something about it, so to me I doubt he'd repeat that. Bob also "Greenlit" DCA and that is going well, so I think he invests, then watches and tests his staff, giving them rope. Some use the rope to pull the parks out, others get their neck caught in it. Paris is very different than WDW in some ways so she'll have to get used to that culturally. In light of BTM being patched up, maybe the changes will be good ones at WDW. She no doubt had to explain that tarp thing to someone... I'm an optimist and hope the best for Meg and if she is blowing it, I'm confident that Staggs and others will make another change. She has a tough job and it just got tougher. In my opinion, Bob Iger is making more right moves than wrong ones, but they take time to play out. I'm not one to panic.

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

I'm hoping you're right. I'm going to give it a while before i make a judgement on the new decisions. I'm interested in the upcoming D23 event next month (wanna see what they unveil there). And i'm going to monitor the maintenance to see if it does indeed get better. I was happy to hear about the rock on BTM getting replaced finally, though i'm still skeptical that it might have just been management cramming for the board's arrival. I hope it's more than just that...:shrug:

Thanks for the answer, i really appreciate hearing what you have to say about stuff. You always have time for random people too lol!

 

[wedenterprises]

One thing that hurt DCA in my opinion is the overwhelmingly generic impression Paradise Pier evokes on first sight. A Ferris Wheel and a Steel Coaster is a "been there, done that" to me and I know that from a distance. Disney is more than that. Even the Rafting ride is barely enough as the ride experience isn't that unique. The Matterhorn and SM are just the opposite. If CS were a REAL wood coaster that gave you the danger and rickety feel and the detail was really rich and I was being transported back to the 1890's or the 20's like a movie set, then the rides just support an immersive world I'd love to hang out in. I guess I go to Disney for the escape and rides I can't see anywhere else. You'd have to do more than theme the structure to get me excited.

YES. That makes too much sense.

I like the Grizzly River area design, It's my favourite area of the park actually. I always thought the entire park should have been a collection of various national park themes. Rockies, coastal, northwest, northern cali etc. Disney's National Park? With the hotel, and around to Soarin', the whole area is really nice and the national park thing hadn't been done yet (camp minnie-mickey doesn't count imo LOL).

 

[HMF]

I don't really know her and have not heard much. I think it's all good as it says to me they are shaking up the management and trying some new things. Paris is very different than WDW in some ways so she'll have to get used to that culturally. In light of BTM being patched up, maybe the changes will be good ones at WDW. I'm an optimist and hope the best for Meg.

Eddie, about the potential sale of the Disney Parks & Resorts to outside companies ala, TDR. Should we be on disaster watch or not because apparently Tony Baxter is terrified of what could happen.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Eddie, about the potential sale of the Disney Parks & Resorts to outside companies ala, TDR. Should we be on disaster watch or not because apparently Tony Baxter is terrified of what could happen.

Where did you read/hear that? I googled around and found a few message boards that said it was a Wall Street rumor that the company was fishing to sell them in a license type thing. Seems like a rumor. Tony should be scared. Imagine pitching rides to Donald Trump! (To be honest, I hope Apple buys EPCOT).

That seems radical to me as the parks have compensated in revenue over the years for bad times at the box office. If you sell them you just get a piece of that. Keeping the rights and selling the management seems shortsighted as the percentages are low at TDL in Japan and they really regret that 5% deal. TDL makes more in merchandise than any park and Disney only gets a shred of that. TDS allowed the Resort concept to happen and made it an overnight stay. The good news is that this arrangement has not hurt quality, in fact OLC does a better job. Look at the genius of selling the Disney stores and then getting most of them back. That can't be very successful.

My guess after 5 big minutes of deep thought is this..I think OLC and Disney have talked in the past of their operating the other Asian parks. Just sell the management of those parks. That would make sense as they probably don't get along with the Chinese government (Who does?). That would make sense as they actually run the parks better than Disney does and have a cultural advantage, and if the parks are not doing well now, then the lower percentage makes sense as OLC may make them a success and that means more money, even if a smaller cut.

I guess they could, but there are few companies that could run such a big, complex, and convoluted operation, so it seems unlikely. Disney is not a fun partner and lots of companies know this. Let's watch. I still hope Apple buys EPCOT...they have the cash and are so much smarter.

 

[HMF]

Tony should be scared. Imagine pitching rides to Donald Trump!

Trumps plan for the Disney Parks_ send them into bankruptcy then bring them out of bankruptcy then back to bankruptcy then back out and so on and so forth until it's the future.

 

[KevinYee]

The current rumor suggests an unnamed Chinese company (consortium?) to be a 49% owner of the US parks (well, and Disney's share of DLP). I'm not getting why this would be done, if true. Surely the only benefit is raising cash quickly - do they need the money to buy MGM or something?