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

[Eddie Sotto]

That's my problem with Iger. Eisner cared too much' Iger cares too little.

True. Iger cared so little for DCA he threw a billion bucks at it.:animwink: Eisner lived in the denial that DCA would turn around. Bob also wrote the check no one was willing to write to repair DL from it's Pressler-ific demise for the 50th.

 

[HMF]

As for Horizons, I still get beat up for that as well, which is fine. I thought it had some great moments in it, especially the IMAX scene and the retro future stuff. The "pick your future" thing was poorly executed IMHO. .

Not as poorly done as the "Choose your Future" ending of Spaceship Earth but I won't spoil that for you.:animwink:

 

[HMF]

True. Iger cared so little for DCA he threw a billion bucks at it.:animwink: Eisner lived in the denial that DCA would turn around. Bob also wrote the check no one was willing to write to repair DL from it's Pressler-ific demise for the 50th.

Oh absolutely! He can do good things. What I mean is he lets the individual departments run themselves and does not have that much oversight. Now Eisner micro-managed things and that was obviousley un-healthy but it appears to me that Iger does not manage enough.

 

[mcjaco]

As for Horizons, I still get beat up for that as well, which is fine. I thought it had some great moments in it, especially the IMAX scene and the retro future stuff. The "pick your future" thing was poorly executed IMHO.

The one scene that always mesmorized me as a kid was the under sea city. The water refelctions on the sae floor, the kid looking out the restaurant window at the seal. It felt to plausible, and it kind of tied into what you saw at The Living Seas. I think the reason the choose your own adventure ending was so cool, was that there was nothing like it at the time. It wasn't mind blowing, but where else could you do such a thing?

BTW- I was shown guest exit surveys that gave Horizons in comparison to other shows a very low or "not even remembered" rating. To WDW management, this was a telling sign and the fact that GE was leaving and no one wanted to sponsor it made it vulnerable.

This completely shocks me. Although Horizons was always a walk on when we went. We used to exit, and walk right back around and get back on. Three rides, one for each ending.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

The one scene that always mesmorized me as a kid was the under sea city. The water refelctions on the sae floor, the kid looking out the restaurant window at the seal. It felt to plausible, and it kind of tied into what you saw at The Living Seas. I think the reason the choose your own adventure ending was so cool, was that there was nothing like it at the time. It wasn't mind blowing, but where else could you do such a thing?

Right. That's what was incredible about it. This was EPCOT: The Ride. Everything you had already seen in FW was about to be linked together to show that it was almost impossibly possible.:lol:

 

[hpyhnt 1000]

Fair point. I love those environments too. Especially Space Mountain, but it isn't the payoff, it sets it up which is great. Seabase Alpha (it is well done BTW) delivers in it's own way in part because it is validated by a big tank of real fish and the real divers. Space is a bit tougher and if that was the core experience instead of the ride, then it was a risk not enough of a payoff and may be too close to Seas in format. You end up weighing these things in your mind. In the end, it wasn't like we could choose for a lavish pavilion as that was already rejected. The assignment was to do a "thrill ride" based on Space for $$$ figure, so all the chips went on that bet and we pitched that show and won the funding.

To me, it is that much more compelling to be in the dark on a ride in a more or less first person experience. I just prefer it that's all. I used to love to go out to the ends of the DL Rivers of America because I don't see people and can "believe". It's the time traveler in me. You make good points and I'm glad you like those big spaces as it keeps us all employed!

Oh, no doubt! I can only imagine the cuts to the budget that must have really limited the final product. My only thing was that those large immersive spaces are appreciated. I can relate to your going to the ends of Rivers of America and being alone. In the early morning we sometimes go to the back of World Showcase to France and Morocco and we're all alone back there... it does feel sort of like you're in France or Morocco, if only for a minute or so.

I guess what I was saying is that I hope outside factors don't limit or detract Imagineers like you from going as far as possible with the immersive theming. Disney can't be perfect, so of course any allusion it creates will be broken somehow, but a good allusion (even if its not perfect) is better than none at all.

 

[Mr.EPCOT]

I think we all know, especially after Pleasure Island, that those surveys can be manipulated to provide a favorable response for whoever is commissioning them. From my personal experience as a Cast Member, whenever Horizons would come up in conversation with Guests (as it fairly often did, being my all-time favorite attraction), even if they didn't recognize the name, they would almost always remember it once I mentioned the choose-your-own-ending part.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I think we all know, especially after Pleasure Island, that those surveys can be manipulated to provide a favorable response for whoever is commissioning them. .

True enough, but I'm just reporting what was shown to me :shrug:

 

[Mr.EPCOT]

I understand, I didn't mean that as attack, I'm just sharing my doubts on the objectivity of those surveys. I wouldn't be surprised if they could have conducted surveys for Haunted Mansion and Pirates around the same time and have gotten the same results as Horizons.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

I understand, I didn't mean that as attack, I'm just sharing my doubts on the objectivity of those surveys. I wouldn't be surprised if they could have conducted surveys for Haunted Mansion and Pirates around the same time and have gotten the same results as Horizons.

I would think...


Horizons was EPCOT's classic. Shame they did not treat it as such.

 

[WDW1974]

Fair point. I love those environments too. Especially Space Mountain, but it isn't the payoff, it sets it up which is great. Seabase Alpha (it is well done BTW) delivers in it's own way in part because it is validated by a big tank of real fish and the real divers. Space is a bit tougher and if that was the core experience instead of the ride, then it was a risk not enough of a payoff and may be too close to Seas in format. You end up weighing these things in your mind. In the end, it wasn't like we could choose for a lavish pavilion as that was already rejected. The assignment was to do a "thrill ride" based on Space for $$$ figure, so all the chips went on that bet and we pitched that show and won the funding.

To me, it is that much more compelling to be in the dark on a ride in a more or less first person experience. I just prefer it that's all. I used to love to go out to the ends of the DL Rivers of America because I don't see people and can "believe". It's the time traveler in me. You make good points and I'm glad you like those big spaces as it keeps us all employed!

It's those large immersive pavilions that made EC so great to begin with. You could spend hours in them ... especially Imagination, Seas, Land, WoL.

The only pavilion in FW that seems to have kept its soul and even gotten better is The Land. And with two major attractions, one minor attraction, behind the scenes tours, a full serve restaurant and a great food court, you could spend hours in there today.

The other ones all feel hollow, although I do enjoy the Nemo ride 'for what it is' ...

Maybe that's my biggest complaint with MS. You go in, have your thrilling ride (again which would be much more enjoyable if it had random adventures and not the same every time) and that's it. The post show was good for one visit from me. And the shop is tiny and sells crap. MS certainly isn't bad. It's fun for me. But by Disney's internal metrics it isn't what they expected because they never planned to turn two of the 'fuges into glorified simulators. And as much as I enjoy the ride, it is in no way a 'must' when I visit.

 

[WDW1974]

True. Iger cared so little for DCA he threw a billion bucks at it.:animwink: Eisner lived in the denial that DCA would turn around. Bob also wrote the check no one was willing to write to repair DL from it's Pressler-ific demise for the 50th.

Yeah, Eddie, but let's be honest ... what else could Iger (or anyone do)?
DCA needed a major fix. And they pretty much laughed at Tony's idea of taking away the gates. Do I give Bob credit for doing the obvious? I guess.

And Michael was the one who greenlit the 50th. I am sure Bob had input as he was being groomed by that time. But Michael was still in control.

BTW, what was your opinion of Paul? I liked him personally, but I never had to work for/with him. I do know that my pal Lee MacDonald used to post on LP.com that the Imagineers generally liked him, which I always found hard to swallow considering how WDI was basically tossed aside on DCA. Any insight? Thoughts? (Wishes? Dreams? Magic?) oops, forget the last three!

 

[WDW1974]

I understand, I didn't mean that as attack, I'm just sharing my doubts on the objectivity of those surveys. I wouldn't be surprised if they could have conducted surveys for Haunted Mansion and Pirates around the same time and have gotten the same results as Horizons.

I know folks who were intimately involved in those surveys and their results ... and they were always intended to justify decisions already made or ones that TDO wanted to. They were as legit as an election in Iran ... or Florida:drevil:

The only time in memory I can recall the results being honest were the awful responses that Disney's Shangri-La (AKA as Night Kingdom) got. It was over 8 to 1 against it ... and many of the folks had been given Disney Dollars, free meals and FPs for their time, so that was shocking ...

Horizons didn't have to die for MS to be birthed at all. To me, it was the soul of FW because it took everything from all the other pavilions and combined them into a cohesive experience that sold the EPCOT story. Just a terrible decision, even if the thing needed lots of changes by the mid-90s.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

Yeah, Eddie, but let's be honest ... what else could Iger (or anyone do)?
DCA needed a major fix. And they pretty much laughed at Tony's idea of taking away the gates. Do I give Bob credit for doing the obvious? I guess.

And Michael was the one who greenlit the 50th. I am sure Bob had input as he was being groomed by that time. But Michael was still in control.

BTW, what was your opinion of Paul? I liked him personally, but I never had to work for/with him. I do know that my pal Lee MacDonald used to post on LP.com that the Imagineers generally liked him, which I always found hard to swallow considering how WDI was basically tossed aside on DCA. Any insight? Thoughts? (Wishes? Dreams? Magic?) oops, forget the last three!

You naming Disney Firework Shows or cruise ships?:lookaroun

 

[ClemsonTigger]

Yeah, Eddie, but let's be honest ... what else could Iger (or anyone do)?
DCA needed a major fix. And they pretty much laughed at Tony's idea of taking away the gates. Do I give Bob credit for doing the obvious? I guess.

And Michael was the one who greenlit the 50th. I am sure Bob had input as he was being groomed by that time. But Michael was still in control.

BTW, what was your opinion of Paul? I liked him personally, but I never had to work for/with him. I do know that my pal Lee MacDonald used to post on LP.com that the Imagineers generally liked him, which I always found hard to swallow considering how WDI was basically tossed aside on DCA. Any insight? Thoughts? (Wishes? Dreams? Magic?) oops, forget the last three!

In truth, the simple answer is NOTHING...a path many others have and would have chosen. He does deserve more credit for pulling the trigger. something that is counter to most of current industry practice.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

I know folks who were intimately involved in those surveys and their results ... and they were always intended to justify decisions already made or ones that TDO wanted to. They were as legit as an election in Iran ... or Florida:drevil:

The only time in memory I can recall the results being honest were the awful responses that Disney's Shangri-La (AKA as Night Kingdom) got. It was over 8 to 1 against it ... and many of the folks had been given Disney Dollars, free meals and FPs for their time, so that was shocking ...

Horizons didn't have to die for MS to be birthed at all. To me, it was the soul of FW because it took everything from all the other pavilions and combined them into a cohesive experience that sold the EPCOT story. Just a terrible decision, even if the thing needed lots of changes by the mid-90s.

Funny, that was mentioned in the Flap thread today..

 

[ClemsonTigger]

I know folks who were intimately involved in those surveys and their results ... and they were always intended to justify decisions already made or ones that TDO wanted to. They were as legit as an election in Iran ... or Florida:drevil:

The only time in memory I can recall the results being honest were the awful responses that Disney's Shangri-La (AKA as Night Kingdom) got. It was over 8 to 1 against it ... and many of the folks had been given Disney Dollars, free meals and FPs for their time, so that was shocking ...

Horizons didn't have to die for MS to be birthed at all. To me, it was the soul of FW because it took everything from all the other pavilions and combined them into a cohesive experience that sold the EPCOT story. Just a terrible decision, even if the thing needed lots of changes by the mid-90s.

I had the opportunity to visit Epcot a number of times in it's "early years", and regardless of formal surveys....the popular buzz was that it was "boring", there was nothing for kids to do but look at "stupid countries" and sit in "stupid slow rides". Interest in Epcot was not great. While I may have loved it for the way it was and as a fond memory of the '64 Worlds Fair...it was apparent that many did not share my level of enjoyment.

I enjoyed Horizons, but do not disagree with the lack of real support when it was open.

 

[WDW1974]

In truth, the simple answer is NOTHING...a path many others have and would have chosen. He does deserve more credit for pulling the trigger. something that is counter to most of current industry practice.

I disagree quite strongly.

He couldn't, nor could ANY Disney CEO, allow DCA to fail. (I'd go so far as to say ANY park, but one across from DL?)

There was just no other option. Now could he have said 'let's spend $500 million instead of $1.9 billion' (which is the real figure if you toss in TSMM and WoC, which were budgeted seperately)... yeah, he could have gone cheap.

But I think by that point he could plainly see that would be throwing more good money after bad. When you look at everything from big things like ToT and Bug's Land to all the entertainment and seasonal crap thrown in to DCA by prior management at TDA, it all added up to a very large sum and had done very little to improve the park's bottom line or rep. ... So he just saw that half-arsed moves that still cost the company made no sense.

Again, just like with Pixar some people want to say Iger was a man of vision. I totally disagree. He was simply a smart man who saw what was right in front of him and acted accordingly.

As an aside, I have actually heard more than once that Jay Rasulo was against Iger's DCA: Extreme Makeover plan, but opted to shut his mouth with a new 'Sheriff' running the show.

 

[WDW1974]

I had the opportunity to visit Epcot a number of times in it's "early years", and regardless of formal surveys....the popular buzz was that it was "boring", there was nothing for kids to do but look at "stupid countries" and sit in "stupid slow rides". Interest in Epcot was not great. While I may have loved it for the way it was and as a fond memory of the '64 Worlds Fair...it was apparent that many did not share my level of enjoyment.

I know that is a common perception that a lot of folks toss around as an excuse for the Walmarting of the park.

I know I was there virtually every other month during the 80s (often for days at a time) and my anecdotal experience wasn't that.

I mean I heard people say that they had 'heard' that ... but I never heard one person in the park ever saying that.

So while I don't doubt it may have been an issue to some degree, I think it was very much overblown and used as an excuse to cheapen the product.

 

[wickedfan07]

I know that is a common perception that a lot of folks toss around as an excuse for the Walmarting of the park.

I know I was there virtually every other month during the 80s (often for days at a time) and my anecdotal experience wasn't that.

I mean I heard people say that they had 'heard' that ... but I never heard one person in the park ever saying that.

So while I don't doubt it may have been an issue to some degree, I think it was very much overblown and used as an excuse to cheapen the product.

I know everyone is still bitter about horeizone ten years later. however, I don't understand how adding attractions that WIDEN the park's audience somehow equals CHEAPENING the experience.

For example, and with sponsorships set aside, if few people were riding Horizons, WHY should Disney have kept the attraction? If a thrill ride about space had the potential to bring more people into the park (who will then visit other educational attractions during their day), why should Disney have chose to put that very same money into an update of Horizons, which is really just adding a new mask to the same beast.

A similar thing happened with Spaceship Earth. The touchscreen animation was made to help the attraction appeal to a wider audience, including younger children. The attraction as it was before was not bad, but despite its grandeur and inspiration, it was a lecture. (I almost feel bad for saying this, because I did enjoy SEE before the refurbishment. But it is true nonetheless.) The new version has found a way to help the ride appeal to more people. If the descent had been completely finished on opening, I think fanboy opinion on the attraction would have been more positive. The point is, things change because the audience changes. why si it always bad when Disney chooses to add or change something that might actually help expose more people to Epcot's message?