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

[Pumbas Nakasak]

We don't have sports here. We have obsessions. Followed by riots.

So football (proper use of word) has finally caught on. :animwink:

 

[jt04]

So football (proper use of word) has finally caught on. :animwink:

Oh yeah starting a few decades ago. Soccer continues to struggle however.

 

[CBOMB]

Well as I've pointed out using examples such as Mission Space there is either some real exaggeration with respect to publicized numbers or some amazing waste that even our current federal government couldn't duplicate.

I remember when I first started at WDI and my boss was giving me the tour. He took me into a room where three people were sitting around sculpting and painting fairies. While my boss was taking a call I asked one of them what this was for. She shrugged her shoulders and replied, "I don't know...they just want us to paint fairies." It was very comical but indicative of what goes on that contributes to project budget waste. My boss didn't know what they were for either by the way. I still to this day don't know what those fairies were for.

I think a lot of it is because they have it to waste. i remember when I was first exposed to a project outside of Disney or Universal where we didn't have the enormous budgets they are so lucky to have. We actually had to be just as creative in value engineering and planning as concepting the story and creative elements. This is something that most at WDI don't have experience with. They'll design to budget and rely on expensive technology rather than rely on innovation and creativity to derive entertainment value from.

Ego is another huge money waster. Because certain managers have to put their mark on each element of a project they will assign countless extra hours to mock-ups and POC that don't need to be done. It's true that the devil is in the details but many at WDI have taken that to an innefficient extreme.

Another reason is simply because many of them don't have the ability to think in terms of balance between managing a budget and producing an entertainment product. This is something you either have or you don't in my opinion. These project managers should be working at general construction jobs rather than a creative-based job.

Thanks so very much for the insight.

After reading so many of your post, and now Eddie Sotto's also, I still find it amazing the pasion you, and he have for not only your profession, but for Disney also. After listening to ideas, and thoughts that you and Eddie have kicked around it's very apparent that you guys don't just think outside of the box. You reinvent the box, then you think outside of it.

I just don't know if true talent like that can flourish within the restrictions of what TWDC has appeared to become, to me anyway. Maybe it is a good thing for more contract work to be done outside of WDI.

 

[CBOMB]

So football (proper use of word) has finally caught on. :animwink:

We can't even spell tyre or colour properly. Why would you think we could call a sport by it's proper name like the other 5 billion people around the world do?:shrug:

 

[Wilt Dasney]

whylightbulb's post is an interesting perspective.

I've always gotten the impression on these boards that WDI would be able to do amazingly creative things, if the accountants ("bean counters," if you will) would stop tying their hands with insufficient budgets.

It sounds like the problem might actually be the opposite: Too much money and not enough creativity or imagination to go with it. That's almost the complete opposite of the usual complaint.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

One reason I left WDI was to create outside of the corporate system. What I found in many cases what that I as just creating inside someone else's more messed up system and they had less appreciation for how hard it is to do the things we do and needed to be educated which was a hassle. Sometimes there is less common ground. Other clients give you carte blanche. I do find the freedom liberating. Just now returned from the beach where I was sketching designs and billing my time. Wearing old shorts and drinking whatever I want to at my desk or watching the game at the bar downstairs while doing email. We work with lots of designers and artists and that's fun too. I love what I do and only want to do it more, either at Disney or elsewhere. Basically, post Disney it's all about "edit the politics, cut to the fun".

I've always seen myself as an Imagineer, just doing it for hire.

 

[The Conundrum]

Why do you hate Mission Space?

because it isn't good

 

[jt04]

We can't even spell tyre or colour properly. Why would you think we could call a sport by it's proper name like the other 5 billion people around the world do?:shrug:

I am greatful everyday we are not like everyone else. I've been to those other places and I've seen the spelling etc. OV-ER-RATED...OV-ER-RATED... OV-ER-RATED...

 

[Horizonsfan]

I am greatful everyday we are not like everyone else. I've been to those other places and I've seen the spelling etc. OV-ER-RATED...OV-ER-RATED... OV-ER-RATED...

U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!

America...________ ya!

 

[jt04]

U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!

America...________ ya!

I wasn't talking about England.

 

[whylightbulb]

I just don't know if true talent like that can flourish within the restrictions of what TWDC has appeared to become, to me anyway. Maybe it is a good thing for more contract work to be done outside of WDI.

Well, I haven't started my diatribe yet on independent companies LOL:drevil:. Actually there are several good companies, besides mine and Eddies', that would be able to get things done more efficiently.

That being said, most of these companies are just as bad if not worse than WDI from what I've seen. Maybe I'll get into that in another post if anyone is interested. The bottom line is I have mixed feelings about WDI. I want the legacy and the amazing creative culture to be revived but on the other hand, I want more business from them.

 

[whylightbulb]

whylightbulb's post is an interesting perspective.

I've always gotten the impression on these boards that WDI would be able to do amazingly creative things, if the accountants ("bean counters," if you will) would stop tying their hands with insufficient budgets.

It sounds like the problem might actually be the opposite: Too much money and not enough creativity or imagination to go with it. That's almost the complete opposite of the usual complaint.

I would never say they had too much money. More than likely it is a combination of poor management of the resources given and not enough emphasis on value engineering to enable more bang for the buck. I have been surprised at how working with lower budgets sometimes enables us to come up with ride and show elements that end up being better than if we had taken the "easy" way out. A great example in my opinion is Cranium Command. Designed and executed on a shoestring budget and schedule in relative Disney terms, yet a wonderful production. But attractions like that notwithstanding, I would still expect attractions on the scope that only Disney and universal could afford. The problem is that $100 million buys you so much less than it should when spent by WDI these days.

 

[whylightbulb]

One reason I left WDI was to create outside of the corporate system. What I found in many cases what that I as just creating inside someone else's more messed up system and they had less appreciation for how hard it is to do the things we do and needed to be educated which was a hassle. Sometimes there is less common ground.

Oh yea, I've always found the "education" process in our industry quite frustrating. Clients like that always use terms like, "can't you just..." or "just add.." There is nothing in our custom design/build world that is a "just" do this or that. Everything takes time and thought from designing the aesthetic quality to the facility integration to how it fits in with the rest of the story to safety to...

 

[Eddie Sotto]

whylightbulb's post is an interesting perspective.
It sounds like the problem might actually be the opposite: Too much money and not enough creativity or imagination to go with it. That's almost the complete opposite of the usual complaint.

There has been a belief over the years, (with some truth to it) that argues that less resources unleashes more creativity to overcome it's restraints, whereas endless resources tend to produce something lacking. They always say that to me when I ask for more cash. :-(

I think that the problem is not committing enough resources in the beginning to accomplish the vision on a level for it to exceed expectation. Some ideas just shouldn't be attempted without a reasonable amount of capital. (There is never enough, no matter how much you get.) What I think you are saying is that a great idea can be executed modestly and still be a great idea, but a bad idea can have tons of money thrown at it and still be dull.

A core belief of mine is that wise editing is the art to it all because cutting stuff happens to everyone. If you spend your time understanding, as simply as possible what makes the project work, why you are doing it, what is the "big idea" or story that will move people? Make the show crystal clear to that end. Then you can cut things out because you know what has to be there at minimum to make it a success. Where projects get into trouble, is when they have no core, it's been through too many revisions and no one has ownership of the idea. It's a Frankenstein of details with no soul. Then when the cutting comes, it's picked at in a random way and the basic things remain and the emotional ones are lost. You end up with an attractive but usually pointless show. Guests walk out going "what the heck kinda dang deal was that there show?".

 

[whylightbulb]

There has been a belief over the years, (with some truth to it) that argues that less resources unleashes more creativity to overcome it's restraints, whereas endless resources tend to produce something lacking. They always say that to me when I ask for more cash. :-(

I think that the problem is not committing enough resources in the beginning to accomplish the vision on a level for it to exceed expectation. Some ideas just shouldn't not be attempted without a reasonable amount of capital. (There is never enough, no matter how much you get.) What I think you are saying is that a great idea can be executed modestly and still be a great idea, but a bad idea can have tons of money thrown at it and still be dull.

A core belief of mine is that wise editing is the art to it all because cutting stuff happens to everyone. If you spend your time understanding, as simply as possible what makes the project work, why you are doing it, what is the "big idea" or story that will move people? Make the show crystal clear to that end. Then you can cut things out because you know what has to be there at minimum to make it a success. Where projects get into trouble, is when they have no core, it's been through too many revisions and no one has ownership of the idea. It's a Frankenstein of details with no soul. Then when the cutting comes, it's picked at in a random way and the basic things remain and the emotional ones are lost. You end up with an attractive but usually pointless show. Guests walk out going "what the heck kinda dang deal was that there show?".

Very good analysis. I have seen examples of this too many times. On the other hand, I have seen projects executed well because the vision had been clearly laid out with specific expectations and a well-defined plan. When you can get both your creative and technical team to buy into the vision and communicate it on an emotional level you will most likely have a winner.

 

[WDW1974]

Very true unfortunately. Many of the talented ones were either chased away or left seeing the writing on the wall.

I have seen so many "clones" of Rasulo stay at WDI and Disney in general while the truly talented and passionate are chased away. You are right...until Rasulo is replaced it will be very difficult to get anything accomplished.

When I look at the Steve Kirk's and Bruce Gordon's and Craig Hanna's and ... even that weird guy who posts here ... what's his name? Ah ... gimmee a sec ... oh yeah, Eddie Sotto's that are no longer with Disney (and those are just a very few ... I could do a much longer list) it seems like there's more talent that's left Flower Street than is currently employed there.

But more importantly is the way the talent is used and managed and the product they are throwing out. You see quality ... Disney quality ... but it is almost entirely overseas. And with both HK expansion and Shanghai on the agenda, that's likely to continue.

I don't know Bruce Vaughn on a personal basis, but when I hear someone I once considered the biggest WDI/Burbank apologist referring to him as nothing more than 'Jay Rasulo's hatchet man' ... I wonder if Bruce is suited to the job or is simply biding his time until Jay leaves (which shows no sign of happening soon).

Either way, WDW beyond DAK has been an embarrassment largely with new projects for the past decade ... popular or not ... things like Test Track, Mission Space, Dino-Rama, Imagination 2.0 and 3.0, SGE, MILF etc ... all lack that special something that Disney used to have ... oh yeah ... magic.

 

[WDW1974]

One reason I left WDI was to create outside of the corporate system. What I found in many cases what that I as just creating inside someone else's more messed up system and they had less appreciation for how hard it is to do the things we do and needed to be educated which was a hassle. Sometimes there is less common ground. Other clients give you carte blanche. I do find the freedom liberating. Just now returned from the beach where I was sketching designs and billing my time. Wearing old shorts and drinking whatever I want to at my desk or watching the game at the bar downstairs while doing email. We work with lots of designers and artists and that's fun too. I love what I do and only want to do it more, either at Disney or elsewhere. Basically, post Disney it's all about "edit the politics, cut to the fun".

I've always seen myself as an Imagineer, just doing it for hire.

Pssst ... hey Eddie ... I hear there's a new Main Street in Shanghai that could use an expert's touch.

 

[WDW1974]

Well, I haven't started my diatribe yet on independent companies LOL:drevil:. Actually there are several good companies, besides mine and Eddies', that would be able to get things done more efficiently.

That being said, most of these companies are just as bad if not worse than WDI from what I've seen. Maybe I'll get into that in another post if anyone is interested. The bottom line is I have mixed feelings about WDI. I want the legacy and the amazing creative culture to be revived but on the other hand, I want more business from them.

I just want to be wowed from them.

They used to do it all the time ... all the time. ... Oh, and it would be nice if they could do it Orlando just once in a while ... as nice as wracking up all those frequent flyer miles is and all!

EDIT: BTW, thanks Eddie and Lightbulb for a truly great thread!

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

Very true unfortunately. Many of the talented ones were either chased away or left seeing the writing on the wall.

I have seen so many "clones" of Rasulo stay at WDI and Disney in general while the truly talented and passionate are chased away. You are right...until Rasulo is replaced it will be very difficult to get anything accomplished.

OK, so...question time:


Who or what chased them away? What broke TWDC/WDI's system. Up until 1996, like you said, they were great. What caused this new change?

We don't have sports here. We have obsessions. Followed by riots.

:ROFLOL::sohappy:

You UNDERSTAND...:lol:

whylightbulb's post is an interesting perspective.

I've always gotten the impression on these boards that WDI would be able to do amazingly creative things, if the accountants ("bean counters," if you will) would stop tying their hands with insufficient budgets.

It sounds like the problem might actually be the opposite: Too much money and not enough creativity or imagination to go with it. That's almost the complete opposite of the usual complaint.

You make a very good moderator.:lol:

 

[Studios Fan]

There has been a belief over the years, (with some truth to it) that argues that less resources unleashes more creativity to overcome it's restraints, whereas endless resources tend to produce something lacking. They always say that to me when I ask for more cash. :-(

I think that the problem is not committing enough resources in the beginning to accomplish the vision on a level for it to exceed expectation. Some ideas just shouldn't not be attempted without a reasonable amount of capital. (There is never enough, no matter how much you get.) What I think you are saying is that a great idea can be executed modestly and still be a great idea, but a bad idea can have tons of money thrown at it and still be dull.

A core belief of mine is that wise editing is the art to it all because cutting stuff happens to everyone. If you spend your time understanding, as simply as possible what makes the project work, why you are doing it, what is the "big idea" or story that will move people? Make the show crystal clear to that end. Then you can cut things out because you know what has to be there at minimum to make it a success. Where projects get into trouble, is when they have no core, it's been through too many revisions and no one has ownership of the idea. It's a Frankenstein of details with no soul. Then when the cutting comes, it's picked at in a random way and the basic things remain and the emotional ones are lost. You end up with an attractive but usually pointless show. Guests walk out going "what the heck kinda dang deal was that there show?".

Well said.