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

[HMF]

Hey I said I like it too. I would love it if it was executed better; it was part of a pavilion complex similar to The Land and TLS (sorry Mr. Sotto!); and if I had no idea of what it replaced .

Sorry' I think it can be better executed too and I have plans to plus it in my Imagineering notebooks.:animwink:

 

[RSoxNo1]

If you mean "interactive" as in making a difference in how the show turns out, yes that would be great. We started out in that direction, but as time goes on some of it falls by the wayside. The button pushing is good for kids as they do light and respond as they should on a real spacecraft, like releasing the tanks, etc. The only cheat to that is if you don't do it you don't wreck the mission for the other guests. Landing is another issue entirely. The good news is that all the tools are there, so doing that is a matter of software and media programming. What i have found in the "multiple scenario or ending" interactive ride designs, is that it's hard enough to get one good show paid for let alone four, let alone fifty iterations. And given that most guests ride once, you face the choice of less money to work with overall for the whole show to pay for lots of scenarios and options. I'm not defending the status quo, but this is what you face economically from the corporate side. Until you do one and see how many AP's come back again and again it's tough. Indy at DL has 3 choices and most guests don't notice. Star Tours may have this kind of multiple ending show in development, so hopefully they are moving in that direction. I think you are right that the interactivity, given today's technology would a be great enhancement.

Now I know it's not quite the same thing but Mission: Space could act as a glorified video game. We see it in arcades where your joystick controls certain things, and the screen has some degree of variability. As for Indy in Disneyland - There are 3 paths you can take at the beginning but when it comes to the ride itself what is the real difference? Is it just what Indy says to you? Don't all of the tracks converge to the same path rather quickly?

The concept of inviting guests to try a space simulator offers very little opportunity to craft an interesting story. There is no protagonist or antagonist for example. In some cases this is okay if you can place the guest in one of those roles, but in MS there is no occasion to do this. One can argue that by the guests braving the challenge of the thrill they are the protagonist - but I would say to what end? If this is the extent of desire for the "protagonist" than how is that different from any other thrill ride, themed or not? I certainly can't point to any plot, inciting incident or climax. Within the context of the simulation there is danger but since we know it's only a simulation and is sold as such in the setup we are robbed of the opportunity to suspend disbelief. The poor graphics don't help in that department either. It almost comes across as a ride that doesn't know what it wants to be. Is it simply a thrill ride where we get to try out the lastest in space program simulation technology, or are we supposed to believe we are about to fall off a cliff on Mars?

The formulaic Disney ride doesn't necessarily have a protagonist or an antagonist, it just has "something go horribly wrong". Except in the case of Toy Story Mania where they've eliminated conflict (and to a lesser extent story) in favor of interactivity. Test Track also lacks the "something goes horrible wrong" moment. A shallow attempt at it is set up with the barrier test, but aside from the pre-show and the obviously fake (and often broken) demo there isn't much buildup to this portion. Everyone going on the ride is aware there is a high speed section, and that's really where the anticipation build up is, not in the controversy or story.

With Mission: Space, I actually feel the story isn't too far off from being a prototypical Disney story. We have an objective, we're going to Mars, but then we wake up in an asteroid belt, and have trouble landing. What would make the attraction better would be different options at the point of controversy. Ok, we get in the asteroid belt and we have options: steer out of it, shoot some sort of weapon to destroy the asteroids or what have you. Much like the current system, this could also feature the same type of override, but the ride would feature choices with different ramifications. As it continues the ship could be steered to different canyons on Mars with different endings as well.

Now I was told that while spinning, the pitch/angle of the cabins themselves have to be consistent across all of the arms of the centrifuge. I find that somewhat hard to believe, but if it's true, it doesn't mean that the different on screen options couldn't be coordinated with the same cabin movement.

 

[TalkingHead]

The formulaic Disney ride doesn't necessarily have a protagonist or an antagonist, it just has "something go horribly wrong". Except in the case of Toy Story Mania where they've eliminated conflict (and to a lesser extent story) in favor of interactivity. Test Track also lacks the "something goes horrible wrong" moment. A shallow attempt at it is set up with the barrier test, but aside from the pre-show and the obviously fake (and often broken) demo there isn't much buildup to this portion.

The "something goes horribly wrong" cliche is something missing from many of the classic attractions: Space Mtn, Pirates, Mansion, Small World, even Big Thunder.

Of course many of the classic rides excelled by suggesting a specific atmosphere and providing small vignettes along the way instead of a convoluted storyline that doesn't always get communicated very clearly.

I, for one, don't know if I would have picked up on the Gran Fiesta Tour storyline if I hadn't read it online first.

 

[jt04]

Now I know it's not quite the same thing but Mission: Space could act as a glorified video game. We see it in arcades where your joystick controls certain things, and the screen has some degree of variability. As for Indy in Disneyland - There are 3 paths you can take at the beginning but when it comes to the ride itself what is the real difference? Is it just what Indy says to you? Don't all of the tracks converge to the same path rather quickly?




The formulaic Disney ride doesn't necessarily have a protagonist or an antagonist, it just has "something go horribly wrong". Except in the case of Toy Story Mania where they've eliminated conflict (and to a lesser extent story) in favor of interactivity. Test Track also lacks the "something goes horrible wrong" moment. A shallow attempt at it is set up with the barrier test, but aside from the pre-show and the obviously fake (and often broken) demo there isn't much buildup to this portion. Everyone going on the ride is aware there is a high speed section, and that's really where the anticipation build up is, not in the controversy or story.

With Mission: Space, I actually feel the story isn't too far off from being a prototypical Disney story. We have an objective, we're going to Mars, but then we wake up in an asteroid belt, and have trouble landing. What would make the attraction better would be different options at the point of controversy. Ok, we get in the asteroid belt and we have options: steer out of it, shoot some sort of weapon to destroy the asteroids or what have you. Much like the current system, this could also feature the same type of override, but the ride would feature choices with different ramifications. As it continues the ship could be steered to different canyons on Mars with different endings as well.

Now I was told that while spinning, the pitch/angle of the cabins themselves have to be consistent across all of the arms of the centrifuge. I find that somewhat hard to believe, but if it's true, it doesn't mean that the different on screen options couldn't be coordinated with the same cabin movement.

I know what you are saying but I think there is a fundamental problem with the scenario. The video must match the ride system movements in a very precise manner. Not only are you sharing the individual pod with 3 other riders, you are sharing the same centerfuge with dozens of other riders. The spin rate that provides most of the g-forces are felt the same by all the riders on that centerfuge and must be sync'd to the ride video exactly or the entire effect won't work. To have individual controls you would need a ride system akin to the Space Mountain simulator at Disney Quest. The idea that the M:S system could provide the individual a unique experience is impossible I think. But I am interested in what ES has to say about it since he knows a lot more than me about it.

 

[marsrunner]

As for Indy in Disneyland - There are 3 paths you can take at the beginning but when it comes to the ride itself what is the real difference? Is it just what Indy says to you? Don't all of the tracks converge to the same path rather quickly?

Actually, take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Jones_Adventure#Chamber_of_Destiny

There's actually only one track and the panels above the doors rotate so that you appear to be going through one of three different doors. The effects you see in the hallway depend on how the scrims are lit and there are different colored lights as well. There are random variations of effects throughout the ride.

That's definitely oversimplified as the changes to the scenery are pretty complex, but you get the drift. One track around which the scenery changes depending on which "door" you go through.

I don't believe that stuff is working, or at least didn't appear to be in Feb. I rode it about ten times in one day and got the same door everytime. Maybe just a bad day.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

It's true that the centrifuge and the aspect of 4 riders in the cabin acting as a team limit the customization of the experience. That's kind of why it is what it is. I don't think you can easily make each rider have so much sway that it causes the whole show to be entirely different as they and every show has to end on time to make capacity. I think you can vary the landing, etc how you land, some media, more minor stuff and still live in the overall envelope of time and spin effect.

Alot of the story or inspiration for MS was "do you have what it takes to go to Space yourself, because in the future it is possible that anyone can go." That was the core motive. "Do you have the right stuff for Space?" The simple idea was to demonstrate to guests, G forces and all. what it may be like to train to go to Mars and be part of that elite group. Feel the forces, push the buttons. It does that really well. You would also gain an understanding that space travel is not without risk. It's hard to compete with memories and unbuilt pavilions as they will always be ideal in our minds eye.

Sci-Fi City needs to remain unbuilt so I can always get praise on how great it was! :drevil:

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Actually, take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Jones_Adventure#Chamber_of_Destiny

There's actually only one track and the panels above the doors rotate so that you appear to be going through one of three different doors. The effects you see in the hallway depend on how the scrims are lit and there are different colored lights as well. There are random variations of effects throughout the ride.

That's definitely oversimplified as the changes to the scenery are pretty complex, but you get the drift. One track around which the scenery changes depending on which "door" you go through.

I don't believe that stuff is working, or at least didn't appear to be in Feb. I rode it about ten times in one day and got the same door everytime. Maybe just a bad day.

I worked on the development of Indy for DL and that result is what happens when you cannot afford to build several truly unique tracks (we had explored that) with different shows.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Why is it that I seem to be the only die-hard Epcot enthusiast here who likes Mission Space?

Make that two. (plus a few million guests).

 

[Eddie Sotto]

The idea that the M:S system could provide the individual a unique experience is impossible I think. But I am interested in what ES has to say about it since he knows a lot more than me about it.

I think you could pool each team of fours responses and score it as a team testing score over your pod at the end, and change the media to a degree inside to reflect what each person did. The spinning is a result of the atmosphere you are passing through, how you do in that segment could be altered inside as to response time, etc without effecting the show. It's true that to avoid sickness the media and the movement have to locked frame to frame. So within that locked movement you can shoot asteriods and things along the flight path, but not change the flight path. Landing is an issue and the joystick could be averaged or assigned to a team member and graded. maybe each centrifuge has a testpod winner or best average. that would make your interactivity count without changing the whole flight.

 

[tirian]

Nobody but Lasseter can hit a home run with every project :lookaroun.

Yeah, too bad nearly every movie he personally directs is boring.

 

[tirian]

Make that two. (plus a few million guests).

Make that three. I wish MS didn't replace Horizons, and I wish it were a full pavilion (for Guest flow/absorption), but I do like it.

 

[marsrunner]

Make that three. I wish MS didn't replace Horizons, and I wish it were a full pavilion (for Guest flow/absorption), but I do like it.

Make it four as long as its enough to "like" it. I like it better than anything else in Future World currently except for SSE. About even with Test Track. Problem is its a ride it and forget it kinda thing. Its fun while you are on it, though, and that's more than I can say for some of the stuff in Epcot today!

 

[whylightbulb]

As for Indy in Disneyland - There are 3 paths you can take at the beginning but when it comes to the ride itself what is the real difference? Is it just what Indy says to you? Don't all of the tracks converge to the same path rather quickly?

It's not literally three paths but instead three doors that index into place to give the illusion of three paths. When the vehicle approaches one of the doors, due to the placement of that door and its reference to the other two, there appears to be multiple paths. The main difference in terms of show audio is Indy's dialog. Indy at the gate, the snake and the finale have about 3 different audio tracks that can play.

The formulaic Disney ride doesn't necessarily have a protagonist or an antagonist, it just has "something go horribly wrong". Except in the case of Toy Story Mania where they've eliminated conflict (and to a lesser extent story) in favor of interactivity.

The "something goes horribly wrong" is common to any good script. It's known as the inciting incident. This is the point in a well crafted story when the protagonist encounters forces or circumstances that upset his or her normal routine and sets the plot into motion. In a Disney attraction, or any well themed ride or show or even video game, the protagonist can be the guest. As show and interactive technologies become more advanced the possibilities to use these technologies as tools in conjunction with the standard Disney story formula as it applies to ride and show can be exciting. What Disney has been doing lately however is ignore story and even basic themeing conventions in favor of technology/interactivity. When you take out the conventional story elements and/or elaborate themeing you basically either have a video game or a ride that only relies upon visceral thrills. In my opinion these are empty shells and cold shadows of what WDI should be producing. Toy Story Mania, Test Track and Mission Space are examples of this design approach.

With Mission: Space, I actually feel the story isn't too far off from being a prototypical Disney story. We have an objective, we're going to Mars, but then we wake up in an asteroid belt, and have trouble landing. What would make the attraction better would be different options at the point of controversy. Ok, we get in the asteroid belt and we have options: steer out of it, shoot some sort of weapon to destroy the asteroids or what have you. Much like the current system, this could also feature the same type of override, but the ride would feature choices with different ramifications. As it continues the ship could be steered to different canyons on Mars with different endings as well.

I disagree. I think it's far from a prototypical Disney story. The story, as I read it, is that we get to try out a space simulator. That's it. No plot, no characters, very little themeing...because the "story" doesn't call for any of it. Why do you need themeing if you are basically doing what the story says you are doing? Then, after riding in the simulator, are we supposed to change our perspective and how we relate to our place in the "story"? Are we now actually encountering real asteroids or are we still in a simulator? If we are still in a simulator, which I think is the case based on how I experience the attraction, then there is no reason to suspend disbelief or be scared or feel any emotion other than what is derived from the visceral thrill. After a minute of that I personally have had enough. The bad graphics and lazy storyline leave me wanting a lot more from this alleged $150 million ride.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

Make that three. I wish MS didn't replace Horizons, and I wish it were a full pavilion (for Guest flow/absorption), but I do like it.

I think everyone who has been to EPCOT at least once when Horizons was open, and is a bit of a Disney fan agrees here.:lol:

 

[hpyhnt 1000]

Make that five! :wave: As much as I wish Horizons was still operating (just so that way I'd be able to ride it!) I gotta see Gary everytime I visit.

 

[HMF]

It's not literally three paths but instead three doors that index into place to give the illusion of three paths. When the vehicle approaches one of the doors, due to the placement of that door and its reference to the other two, there appears to be multiple paths. The main difference in terms of show audio is Indy's dialog. Indy at the gate, the snake and the finale have about 3 different audio tracks that can play.

The "something goes horribly wrong" is common to any good script. It's known as the inciting incident. This is the point in a well crafted story when the protagonist encounters forces or circumstances that upset his or her normal routine and sets the plot into motion. In a Disney attraction, or any well themed ride or show or even video game, the protagonist can be the guest. As show and interactive technologies become more advanced the possibilities to use these technologies as tools in conjunction with the standard Disney story formula as it applies to ride and show can be exciting. What Disney has been doing lately however is ignore story and even basic themeing conventions in favor of technology/interactivity. When you take out the conventional story elements and/or elaborate themeing you basically either have a video game or a ride that only relies upon visceral thrills. In my opinion these are empty shells and cold shadows of what WDI should be producing. Toy Story Mania, Test Track and Mission Space are examples of this design approach.

I disagree. I think it's far from a prototypical Disney story. The story, as I read it, is that we get to try out a space simulator. That's it. No plot, no characters, very little themeing...because the "story" doesn't call for any of it. Why do you need themeing if you are basically doing what the story says you are doing? Then, after riding in the simulator, are we supposed to change our perspective and how we relate to our place in the "story"? Are we now actually encountering real asteroids or are we still in a simulator? If we are still in a simulator, which I think is the case based on how I experience the attraction, then there is no reason to suspend disbelief or be scared or feel any emotion other than what is derived from the visceral thrill. After a minute of that I personally have had enough. The bad graphics and lazy storyline leave me wanting a lot more from this alleged $150 million ride.

Walt did not want the ride to tell stories. He wanted them to be immersive experiences.
http://imagineerebirth.blogspot.com/2006/11/myth-of-story.html

 

[Auburnjobu]

...the storyline and experience of M:S has officially been debated Ad nauseam. Lets change the subject a bit.

A question for Eddie Soto -

A couple years ago a story leaked about Disney Imagineering looking at "re-branding" Future World into a type of "Discoveryland." The concept surrounded a green view of the park, reducing the concrete, softening the overall experience. Supposedly the concept was to tie what was Future World into a more natural approach and the "nature" aspect of Disney's films and entertainment, possibly allowing a more varied story to be told. Most can argue what we have now really isn't purely about "future world" anyway. It could be argued that "Discoveryland" is being carried out, even if its name isn't being implemented.

Personally, I believe predicting the future in built form is futile, as no matter what you do it eventually becomes dated. As a culture we have also somewhat lost some interest in staring to the stars thirty years ahead. One can debate that this is due to the culture of instant gratification, but either way dreams of Buck Rogers have faded.

-Did you ever work or hear of the "Discoverland" concepts?

-What do you think the future of "Future World" is as it becomes increasingly difficult to place pavillions and attractions that represent where we are headed?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

...the storyline and experience of M:S has officially been debated Ad nauseam. Lets change the subject a bit.

A question for Eddie Soto -

A couple years ago a story leaked about Disney Imagineering looking at "re-branding" Future World into a type of "Discoveryland." The concept surrounded a green view of the park, reducing the concrete, softening the overall experience. Supposedly the concept was to tie what was Future World into a more natural approach and the "nature" aspect of Disney's films and entertainment, possibly allowing a more varied story to be told. Most can argue what we have now really isn't purely about "future world" anyway. It could be argued that "Discoveryland" is being carried out, even if its name isn't being implemented.

Personally, I believe predicting the future in built form is futile, as no matter what you do it eventually becomes dated. As a culture we have also somewhat lost some interest in staring to the stars thirty years ahead. One can debate that this is due to the culture of instant gratification, but either way dreams of Buck Rogers have faded.

-Did you ever work or hear of the "Discoverland" concepts?

-What do you think the future of "Future World" is as it becomes increasingly difficult to place pavillions and attractions that represent where we are headed?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Thank God it's dead...:lookaroun:lol:

 

[whylightbulb]

Walt did not want the ride to tell stories. He wanted them to be immersive experiences.
http://imagineerebirth.blogspot.com/2006/11/myth-of-story.html

I wouldn't say Walt didn't want to tell stories, but rather that he wanted to tell stories with immersive experiences. Most of the stories were simple and that's okay. If you read through my posts (not just the one you were responding to) you'll see that I don't believe every attraction must follow a strict story formula either. The fact is there are examples of amazing Disney attractions that follow the classic story structure and others that are mostly elaborate environments and others that are a little of both.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, Pirates and Mansion don't follow the archetypal story model I referenced but they include enough visual and auditory stimuli to be the classics that they are. Indy, Star Tours and Cranium Command do follow the standard story structure and are classics in their own right.

One of my points with respect to Mission Space was that it tries to present a story rather than just being what it is. So in my opinion it comes off as cheesy and pointless. It's a G-force simulator with mediocre graphics. It would be fine as part of a pavilion, not as a major attraction marketed as an E-ticket themed thrill adventure.

 

[Auburnjobu]

Dead?

...what makes you so sure it is dead and not just evolved?

While EPCOT remains my favorite park, mostly due to the memories it evokes from my childhood, I can't say I really feel the vision of what it once stood for. Look at the latest additions... Soarin and Nemo... what portion of "Future World" do you feel they represent?

Oh don't get me wrong, my statement is not to condemn either as I do enjoy them.

I just question the need for the word "Future" other than its place in the park's history.