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

[Eddie Sotto]

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.

Don't be too nice to me. I worked on M:S through the early development and design! (What you have conceptually was my ride but the media and story is not.) I do happen to think it is good overall and very EPCOT. Could it be more or better? Sure. I know too much about how much less of a project it could have been, so I see what all the post show and pre show they got built in the end as a colossal win. (At one time they just wanted to have the ride part and nothing much else.)

A side note of trivia..

One aspect that was cut from the show at some point was a classical Kubrick style moment we had when you really pause to look back at the Earth (its what sold the show to Eisner in our demo) I think it was cut for time, and another where an ISS spacewalker restores power to your dark and freezing ship, looks into your cabin and pans a real maglite into your window and across the cabin, proving the window is real, and not a TV or video game. I think that those moments may have given it the "magic" that you feel it lacks. (maybe not!) It was a complicated effect but very cool. Vehicle Weight is a factor on these projects as well, and of course when you have to duplicate an effect for dozens of cabins it gets really costly and heavy.

 

[fyn]

... and another where an ISS spacewalker restores power to your dark and freezing ship, looks into your cabin and pans a real maglite into your window and across the cabin, proving the window is real, and not a TV or video game. I think that those moments may have given it the "magic" that you feel it lacks. (maybe not!) It was a complicated effect but very cool. Vehicle Weight is a factor on these projects as well, and of course when you have to duplicate an effect for dozens of cabins it gets really costly and heavy.

Much like the guy in the catwalk/crawlspace in Alien Encounter. The difference little details like that make is indeed something that's been missing recently. M:S feels like a thrill ride, and doesn't go that extra bit to make you feel like you're in space. Little show elements like that go a long way. Look at the hydrolators from TLS. Yeah, they you could say they were lame if you're just interested in going and seeing an aquarium. The cool thing about them was that they kept you in there just long enough such that even the most cynical "first time guest" would get a little shot of optimism and think "Are we really going down?" Nemo loses that important show element (the queue walking you underwater is nicely done, just a much weaker show element), M:S doesn't really have those little touches, and Test Track certainly doesn't.

 

[whylightbulb]

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?

For me it was the obvious switch to a new management philosophy and the offer to come over to Universal Creative where a little ride named Spiderman needed a development team. There were budget cuts, terrible management decisions, people that couldn't care less about the parks and had no experience in this industry getting promoted and hired on etc. I did get to come back for a bit to work some on TDS and that was great.

Many were simply laid off and saw the signs of mediocrity and so decided to either try it on their own or go into a different line of work. many didn't care what kind of product they were producing and stayed on for the paycheck. To sum it up there seemed to be this new philosophy coming from upper management that they need to bring WDI in line with the rest of corporate America. While there can be some good in that, ie trimming some of the fat and tightening up project management, they ended up taking way too far in my opinion. Especially putting people in charge that have no business being in this business.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

For me it was the obvious switch to a new management philosophy and the offer to come over to Universal Creative where a little ride named Spiderman needed a development team. There were budget cuts, terrible management decisions, people that couldn't care less about the parks and had no experience in this industry getting promoted and hired on etc. I did get to come back for a bit to work some on TDS and that was great.

Many were simply laid off and saw the signs of mediocrity and so decided to either try it on their own or go into a different line of work. many didn't care what kind of product they were producing and stayed on for the paycheck. To sum it up there seemed to be this new philosophy coming from upper management that they need to bring WDI in line with the rest of corporate America. While there can be some good in that, ie trimming some of the fat and tightening up project management, they ended up taking way too far in my opinion. Especially putting people in charge that have no business being in this business.

Wow. First off...Thank you for TDS.:lol: That's quite the amazing park you have over there. One of my top "Disney Goals" to go over there. The detail and the thought put into it, has not been seen in ages.

Second...Such a shame what you described to me. Managment...Ugh. That makes me incredibly sad for WDI and TWDC. Hopefully they can recover?

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Why we leave.

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?

I can't speak for others only myself. I wasn't chased, just lured by my own restlessness and what most artists have, the need to continually create. As you have read, I'm a big believer in the "pendulum" of extremes and at that time (late 1999) it was swinging into an management extreme that I felt (given the fact that I was running my own studio within WDI) was not productive for me or innovation in general. Simply put, "nothing fun to do" is the kiss of death and I could see it was about a quarter away. Artists left alone will wander away and find something to do. The WDI crew, when not kept busy with projects can become a Galleon full of whining, paranoia, creative scurvy and eventual mutiny. I did chose the latter because I was temped by other things. The "sirens" of architecture and TV were calling. On the side, I had a TV pilot in development at ABC and so I thought I might head that direction. I was knee deep in design for the ABC Times Square Studios which was a building entirely made of LED screen, tied to live feeds. "Media as Architecture" was my new passion, not rides. So by comparison, the whole pace of doing attractions and the effort to do them was glacial compared to these other new things. Ships passing us by while we were to be dead in the water. In any case, I tried to stay at Disney and investigated going to the WDC Internet group, but the "online world" thing I was interested in was premature (again the pendulum). So in the end, I was approached by an Ex Disney producer (who had bought my pilot) with a very creative opportunity to be SVP creative of a net start up (Digital Entertainment Network) that would allow me to grow quickly into that medium in a meaningful way and was willing to give me "autonomy" which was the uranium of WDI. I'd learn to produce web-isode video content, build their new site, and innovate user interface. My perspective back in 1999 was that the internet was a new storytelling medium I needed to master and this would be a ground floor investment into that. That opportunity did not exist in a meaningful way at WDI back then. The pace was ten times faster so you can make your mistakes and grow very quickly. My fear was lack of growth, not being creatively relevant in the future and my portfolio being limited by just doing rides, or worse yet, nothing getting built, and the rest of the world was learning a new language. I did love WDI and all that it meant, but I wanted to learn and grow. I had accomplished all I had set out to and the appetite for breakthrough innovation had subsided for a while. Tough decision. The cash was there and so I jumped off the "SS YENSID" (gave back the "Yukon" :-( ) to learn something new. I thought I'd wait for the pendulum to swing back, and it did, but that was 10 years ago! I now run a very successful small Studio (Black Pearl?) that for me is ideal.

BTW-The "uranium" turned out to be "fools gold", (at least the cash was real) and the net company was gone in 9 months. LOL. Note to self. Never stand in FRONT of the pendulum.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

I can't speak for others only myself. I wasn't chased, just lured by my own restlessness and what most artists have, the need to continually create. As you have read, I'm a big believer in the "pendulum" of extremes and at that time (late 1999) it was swinging into an management extreme that I felt (given the fact that I was running my own studio within WDI) was not productive for me or innovation in general. On the side, I had a TV pilot in development at ABC and so I thought I might stay in TV. I was knee deep in design for the ABC Times Square Studios which was a building entirely made of LED screen, tied to live feeds. "Media as Architecture" was my new passion, not rides. So by comparison, the whole pace of doing attractions and the effort to do them was glacial compared to these other new things. Shiny nickel vs. dull dime. In any case, I tried to stay at Disney and investigated going to the WDC Internet group, but the "online world" thing I was interested in was premature (again the pendulum). So in the end, I was approached by an Ex Disney producer (who had bought my pilot) with a very creative opportunity to be SVP creative of a net start up (Digital Entertainment Network) that would allow me to grow quickly into that medium in a meaningful way and was willing to give me "autonomy" which was the uranium of WDI. I'd learn to produce web-isode video content, build their new site, and innovate user interface. My perspective back in 1999 was that the internet was a new storytelling medium I needed to master and this would be a ground floor investment into that. That opportunity did not exist in a meaningful way at WDI back then. The pace was ten times faster so you can make your mistakes and grow very quickly. My fear was lack of growth, not being creatively relevant in the future and my portfolio being limited by just doing rides, or worse yet, nothing getting built, and the rest of the world was learning a new language. I did love WDI and all that it meant, but I wanted to learn and grow. I had accomplished all I had set out to and the appetite for breakthrough innovation had subsided for a while. Tough decision. The cash was there and so I ankled the best job in the world to learn something new. I thought I'd wait for the pendulum to swing back, and it did, but that was 10 years ago! I now run a very successful small Studio that for me is ideal.

BTW-The "uranium" turned out to be "fools gold", (at least the cash was real) and the net company was gone in 9 months. LOL. Note to self. Never stand in FRONT of the pendulum.

So interesting how everything changed, Eddie. Thanks for these perspectives...I never even thought of all of the other options and "distractors" there were.

 

[SirGoofy]

For me it was the obvious switch to a new management philosophy and the offer to come over to Universal Creative where a little ride named Spiderman needed a development team. There were budget cuts, terrible management decisions, people that couldn't care less about the parks and had no experience in this industry getting promoted and hired on etc. I did get to come back for a bit to work some on TDS and that was great.

Many were simply laid off and saw the signs of mediocrity and so decided to either try it on their own or go into a different line of work. many didn't care what kind of product they were producing and stayed on for the paycheck. To sum it up there seemed to be this new philosophy coming from upper management that they need to bring WDI in line with the rest of corporate America. While there can be some good in that, ie trimming some of the fat and tightening up project management, they ended up taking way too far in my opinion. Especially putting people in charge that have no business being in this business.

So you worked on Spidey...and Harry Potter.

You are my hero.:lol:

 

[Eddie Sotto]

So interesting how everything changed, Eddie. Thanks for these perspectives...I never even thought of all of the other options and "distractors" there were.

Sure. "Distractors" may be somewhat unique to me as I tend to seek them out. I'm continually bored and feeding on everything that is going on around me. So when the company bought ABC, I immediately went over there and got involved creatively with their marketing, development execs, and all kinds of stuff hoping to land a project for the concept studio. It was a whole new thing to learn. My only experience with Bob Iger was when he ran ABC. He knew exactly what he was doing.

 

[Master Yoda]

Sure. "Distractors" may be somewhat unique to me as I tend to seek them out. I'm continually bored and feeding on everything that is going on around me. So when the company bought ABC, I immediately went over there and got involved creatively with their marketing, development execs, and all kinds of stuff hoping to land a project for the concept studio. It was a whole new thing to learn. My only experience with Bob Iger was when he ran ABC. He knew exactly what he was doing.

I would plan on JT quoting you no less than a thousand times in the next month.:lol:

 

[jt04]

For me it was the obvious switch to a new management philosophy and the offer to come over to Universal Creative where a little ride named Spiderman needed a development team. There were budget cuts, terrible management decisions, people that couldn't care less about the parks and had no experience in this industry getting promoted and hired on etc. I did get to come back for a bit to work some on TDS and that was great.

Many were simply laid off and saw the signs of mediocrity and so decided to either try it on their own or go into a different line of work. many didn't care what kind of product they were producing and stayed on for the paycheck. To sum it up there seemed to be this new philosophy coming from upper management that they need to bring WDI in line with the rest of corporate America. While there can be some good in that, ie trimming some of the fat and tightening up project management, they ended up taking way too far in my opinion. Especially putting people in charge that have no business being in this business.

Doesn't the fact that Pixar's success, which is based on creative ideas, and the fact that this mind set is being brought to Disney feature animation bode well for the future of WDI? It appears to me Disney has at least learned the lesson that it is the truly creative ideas that work in the end and stand the test of time.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

^^ Rich...
:lol::lol::lol:

Sure. "Distractors" may be somewhat unique to me as I tend to seek them out. I'm continually bored and feeding on everything that is going on around me. So when the company bought ABC, I immediately went over there and got involved creatively with their marketing, development execs, and all kinds of stuff hoping to land a project for the concept studio. It was a whole new thing to learn. My only experience with Bob Iger was when he ran ABC. He knew exactly what he was doing.

Very interesting. I have no idea how you could be bored with WDI...but hey, that's you.:lol:

 

[jt04]

Much like the guy in the catwalk/crawlspace in Alien Encounter. The difference little details like that make is indeed something that's been missing recently. M:S feels like a thrill ride, and doesn't go that extra bit to make you feel like you're in space. Little show elements like that go a long way. Look at the hydrolators from TLS. Yeah, they you could say they were lame if you're just interested in going and seeing an aquarium. The cool thing about them was that they kept you in there just long enough such that even the most cynical "first time guest" would get a little shot of optimism and think "Are we really going down?" Nemo loses that important show element (the queue walking you underwater is nicely done, just a much weaker show element), M:S doesn't really have those little touches, and Test Track certainly doesn't.

Not trying to be contrary but I could not disagree more. I prefer the queue experience of "The Seas" over the hydrolators. Just something really special about the queue.

But as Martin points out it is pretty much ruined by the exit doors from the pavilion that destroy the "underwater effect".

As for M:S, you are in a trainer and not in space. However, I keep holding out hope they will reimagine the entire storyline and make the Space pavilion an "actual" journey to mars. I sometimes think they fear being too immersive in their presentations. It would be so easy to take that extra step in many instances and yet they hold back. Odd. :shrug:

 

[HMF]

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.
.

You do know Bruce Gordon died' Right?

 

[HMF]

Don't be too nice to me. I worked on M:S through the early development and design! (What you have conceptually was my ride but the media and story is not.) I do happen to think it is good overall and very EPCOT. Could it be more or better? Sure. I know too much about how much less of a project it could have been, so I see what all the post show and pre show they got built in the end as a colossal win. (At one time they just wanted to have the ride part and nothing much else.)

A side note of trivia..

One aspect that was cut from the show at some point was a classical Kubrick style moment we had when you really pause to look back at the Earth (its what sold the show to Eisner in our demo) I think it was cut for time, and another where an ISS spacewalker restores power to your dark and freezing ship, looks into your cabin and pans a real maglite into your window and across the cabin, proving the window is real, and not a TV or video game. I think that those moments may have given it the "magic" that you feel it lacks. (maybe not!) It was a complicated effect but very cool. Vehicle Weight is a factor on these projects as well, and of course when you have to duplicate an effect for dozens of cabins it gets really costly and heavy.

I actually have plans to plus the postshow if/when I get into WDI.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

Not trying to be contrary but I could not disagree more. I prefer the queue experience of "The Seas" over the hydrolators. Just something really special about the queue.

But as Martin points out it is pretty much ruined by the exit doors from the pavilion that destroy the "underwater effect".

As for M:S, you are in a trainer and not in space.g However, I keep holding out hope they will reimagine the entire storyline and make the Space pavilion an "actual" journey to mars. I sometimes think they fear being too immersive in their presentations. It would be so easy to take that extra step in many instances and yet they hold back. Odd. :shru:

That actually might have been done because it would have been near impossible to theme the Centrifuges. Seeing that they are both On and Off stage, it was just easier to make it "training"


Disappointing, for me. The room where the Pods are could have been very well done. Make screens for windows into space...Earler in the preshow make one of the waiting rooms a hydrator esque rocket ride upto a space station...

Sooooo much potential.

 

[fyn]

Not trying to be contrary but I could not disagree more. I prefer the queue experience of "The Seas" over the hydrolators. Just something really special about the queue.

That queue would be spectacular for Fantasyland. Putting it in Future World is really, really random, and the transition from the queue to the ride is abrupt and awkward.

As for M:S, you are in a trainer and not in space.

I'm pretty sure we all get that. What I got from Eddie's post is that the original concept was that you were actually in space, and that's a much stronger concept. Star Tours immerses you in the mythos of Star Wars, instead of copping out as a "training simulator." The same for Cranium Command and Body Wars. Calling it a simulator gave justification to scope out expensive (from an engineering standpoint, but also a literal cost standpoint) but probably crucial design elements.

 

[CBOMB]

Just a couple of quick questions for whylightbulb, and Eddie Sotto if you guys don't mind. During your careers to date what was your most challenging project, and what was your most satisfying project?

 

[CBOMB]

^^ Rich...
:lol::lol::lol:

May I join you...
:lol::lol::lol:

 

[WDW1974]

Don't be too nice to me. I worked on M:S through the early development and design! (What you have conceptually was my ride but the media and story is not.) I do happen to think it is good overall and very EPCOT. Could it be more or better? Sure. I know too much about how much less of a project it could have been, so I see what all the post show and pre show they got built in the end as a colossal win. (At one time they just wanted to have the ride part and nothing much else.)

I know you did. Everyone isn't always going to see eye to eye on things. I still think you're a damn talented guy. FWIW, I love the actual ride experience of MS, but the whole attraction leaves me cold (not frigid like TT, but cold nonetheless)

I am sure you had many issues to deal with on MS. Considering some of the WDW characters, I'm sure of it (that we might discuss when I make it to your fine dining establishment if you're in the house!)

To me, though, MS is a huge missed opportunity because not only do you have way too many people becoming ill on it (usually their fault, although liftoff isn't a sensation they'll get in any theme park!), but it doesn't take you anywhere. You have a great simulated voyage (and it's clear that's what it is) in a big soundstage like building with a kewl facade.

I would have loved MS as part of a larger space pavilion. Much like the original Living Seas created the illusion of taking you to a futuristic sea base with unlimited possibilities, that's the route I would have liked Disney to take with Space. It would have been great to take a mission to someplace ... like a future base in the cosmos (maybe a less bleaker Deep Space Nine type place) where you then could dine amidst a view of everything from black holes and supernovas and shuttles flying in ... or take in a film about the universe ... attraction possibilities could have been almost limitless.

That's why MS feels very cold. It's kewl. No doubt. But then it's done. You haven't really gone anywhere. You haven't done much. Of course, that's the same issue with Test Track.

A side note of trivia..

One aspect that was cut from the show at some point was a classical Kubrick style moment we had when you really pause to look back at the Earth (its what sold the show to Eisner in our demo) I think it was cut for time, and another where an ISS spacewalker restores power to your dark and freezing ship, looks into your cabin and pans a real maglite into your window and across the cabin, proving the window is real, and not a TV or video game. I think that those moments may have given it the "magic" that you feel it lacks. (maybe not!) It was a complicated effect but very cool. Vehicle Weight is a factor on these projects as well, and of course when you have to duplicate an effect for dozens of cabins it gets really costly and heavy.

Interesting. I may have heard the first part, but never the other. They both would have added something, no doubt.

Just out of curiosity, did you ever hear legit rumblings of MS being cloned in some form for DL's T-Land? That was a very popular Internet rumor that flew around in the 2002-2004 period and I don't know anyone at Disney that said that was the plan.

 

[WDW1974]

Sure. "Distractors" may be somewhat unique to me as I tend to seek them out. I'm continually bored and feeding on everything that is going on around me. So when the company bought ABC, I immediately went over there and got involved creatively with their marketing, development execs, and all kinds of stuff hoping to land a project for the concept studio. It was a whole new thing to learn. My only experience with Bob Iger was when he ran ABC. He knew exactly what he was doing.

Of course he did.

His whole career was television before the Disney/Cap Cities deal ... and I agree he did know what he was doing in that field.

Disney is a whole lot more than broadcast television though ... and I still think that's his comfort zone.

Eisner was much more interested in every aspect of the company (sometimes to the detriment of projects). I don't get that from Bob. So long as Wall Street is happy with the numbers, Bob is blissfully happy (unaware?) of what his division heads are really doing ...