-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Eddie Sotto's take on the current state of the parks
- Thread starter hpyhnt 1000
- Start date
- Status
disneysroyal411
New Member
I wish there would be more exploration of the castle! Kind of missing the walk around hallways, go to classrooms, eat in the castle, and have interactive objects that work with wands you can buy. Everything else is great though. Well except the outside of the show building.
Aurora's#1Fan
New Member
That is exactly what I thought. I was thinking " Oh nice castle... except for the fact that you can see the dang blue show building next to it " :ROFLOL:
Eddie Sotto
Premium Member
It's all good. Anything that draws more vacationers to Orlando is good for both WDW and Universal. If HP draws new guests they will likely visit WDW too. At WDI we would root for Universal to do good shows because it sometimes made management want to compete. In the past, UNI IOA didn't put that much of a dent in WDW, in fact it took guests from their own Studio park. I did hear once that UNI appeals to preteens and teens more as it's edgier than the MK, has more for boys. Whatever.
Eddie Sotto
Premium Member
Have not seen images pointing that out yet. They probably dismiss it as a "sound stage".
misterID
Well-Known Member
I'm actually glad UNI got it and not Disney.
Every review is pretty much the same. The ride and theming is fantastic, but the shop space is a nightmare. I think the wand shop could be the worst, seeing that it puts on a small show.
And from what I've been reading, there's going to be a flood of Brits coming to Potterland.
Every review is pretty much the same. The ride and theming is fantastic, but the shop space is a nightmare. I think the wand shop could be the worst, seeing that it puts on a small show.
And from what I've been reading, there's going to be a flood of Brits coming to Potterland.
Swfewrmco
Active Member
Probably, but seeing this is IoA and not the Studio park, I think they really can't pull it off as that. It's just weird that they were going for such an immersive environment that they left the "weenie" almost incomplete.
bkheart
Member
There is a review on
http://www.wdwinfo.com/disney-podcast/listen.htm
http://www.wdwinfo.com/disney-podcast/listen.htm
Eddie Sotto
Premium Member
They have a pretty loose "logic" at IOA with that kind of thing. The Duelling Dragons coaster had all of this extensive theming in the castle queue and then it's all attached to 2 big outdoor coasters with no effort to hide any of that. You "buy in" and then "sell out". Never quite got that logic, Why not pick an approach and be consistent? So I just shook my head. Either you're theming it or your not.
Eddie Sotto
Premium Member
Agree and it is in the wallet. The truth is that no matter how wide the aisles and how massive the shop, it will be jammed to oblivion for at least a year or more. It's Easter Sunday for them and with that good of a ride there is no end in sight. If you built the "Big Box" Potter shop, when the crowds die down you are left with an overscaled heartless retail experience. What to do? Selfishly I like the idea that the shops are inefficient and intimate, as when the crowds die down they will still be cool. I'm sure the money guys are kicking themselves already as they are losing sales because some people will not wait to buy stuff or worse, they solve the problem with a fleet of tacky merchandise carts making things hideous. Yikes! I'm sure there is a middle ground and they probably chose to retheme or use typical existing store plans or something and didn't think of the popularity.
BTW- Here's a firsthand review of a show that does not seem to live up to it's hype (the opposite of HP) according to one reviewer, "The World of Color" water show at DCA. It seems to me like the last minute changes may have had an effect on the product. If you read the comments, there are those who think the reviewer is being too tough on the show and that her opinion is contrary to the audience reaction. Interesting read. Brings up the importance of "story", or not. Good discussion for here.
http://miceage.micechat.com/suekruse/sk060910a.htm
Eddie Sotto
Premium Member
Nor I..Not a fan at all. But the ride sounds incredible and I'd love to experience the technology.
As to capacity, Fantasmic! was the same way when it first opened in that very few of the total number of guests that came could actually get in to see it, and that was a crowd control and PR nightmare. World of Color may have the same issues.
misterID
Well-Known Member
Yeah, the WOC reviews really surprise me. I thought it was going to be a slam dunk. It sounds great, but I think the wind is really hurting it and how cramped it is.
Here's another review that talks about that:
http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_h...-color-is-a-dazzling-new-addition-to-dca.aspx
I still want to see it.
Here's another review that talks about that:
http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_h...-color-is-a-dazzling-new-addition-to-dca.aspx
I still want to see it.
Quite true. They could of put 50' wide isles in the shops and they would still be packed for the first year. What concerns me is that some of these shops are so small that they are packed with 20 people in them. That is fine for a quaint little shop in the artsy part of town or a shop with a very limited clientèle but a candy store in a theme park does not fit that criteria.
In spite of all that the place looks awesome. I hope is gives the Disney decision makers in Orlando a swift kick in the backside and they realize that they can no longer sponge off of the success of the past and need to continually innovate.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
The size of the spaces within Hogsmead almost makes me think that, unless these are true 1:1 recreations of the film sets, that maybe Universal does not expect the Wizarding World to be the grand slam that finally gets things going for Islands of Adventure and Universal Orlando as a whole. The park, in my experience, is full of space for handling crowds that I never see it actually needing. It could be that Universal decided to suffer through the initial hype with a limited capacity because it does not expect to need more in the long run.
Eddie Sotto
Premium Member
This is a good review in that it compares the two shows. Interesting. A friend at lunch pointed out a very obvious thing between F! and WOC. No live talent in WOC. Maybe that is why some are saying it's not as emotive to them. My Imagineer friend also suggested a genius idea. Why didn't they theme the show around a world of color?, like the sad moments and emotional stuff in a celebration of blue, then the evil stuff in arrays of reds, the yellows and golds with the Lion King, etc. Of course theres a rainbow of color at the end. It seems like you were in story that took you through emotions in musical numbers of Color, the magical Disney way. MSEP is abstract and works in that way as well. It is simple and not too literal. I thought that was a great, great idea, worth sharing. Since the show is changable I hope they do that someday.
HMF
Well-Known Member
It is a slam dunk. A show or attraction does not need to have a linear story to be great. It is about giving your guest an experience they can't get anywhere else. World of Color succeeds beautifully. Steve Davison and company did a fantastic job.
BTW' check out this video and point out one Imagineer who is not wearing a WED name tag.
http://www.youtube.com/mintcrocodile
OK there are three wearing the WDI name tag but I really have a gut feeling about this. Chris Crump looks a lot like his father.
tirian
Well-Known Member
The problem is that the "[nonlinear] story" is tarnished with noticeable cuts and abrupt atmosphere changes. The intro and finale soar, but the middle has obviously been designed by committee (and it was).
The poor editing doesn't detract from the show's technical achievements, which are still jaw-dropping; and since WOC can be reprogrammed, I hope Davison is allowed to fix the rough spots.
IMO, the show needs to be more abstract than it is, similar to Illuminations: ROE, to better distance itself from Fantasmic.
Eddie Sotto
Premium Member
I heard the same on this point.
Missing20K
Well-Known Member
I'm catching up a bit so I apologize if I bring up a few old comments/ideas from the discussion.
First, in regards to WOC, the decision to make it a "theater" type of show, in which there are only a few "good" seats, puzzles me. With the promenade wrapping around the lagoon, and the ability to see the lagoon from a few different attractions, I think a more "in the round", for lack of a better term, like illuminations, show would have been more presentable, and more guests would have been able to enjoy it. But it still looks like an amazing show, just an interesting choice as far as logistics, crowd control, capacity are concerned.
Second, WWHOP looks legit. From the reviews and pics, its appears to be as an immersive themed experience as nearly anything Disney has done. Maybe not quite up to the level that Africa of AK, parts of disneysea in tokyo, and the Main Street of Paris, but darn close. Greatly enjoy the fact they did not break the theming for merchandise and dining, and am looking forward to visiting.
Third, a couple pages ago, within the discussion of WWHOP and how it affects Disney and themed entertainment in general, there was some talk about some posters wanting to work for WDI or Universal Creative, etc. My question to you, Eddie, and it seems your recent work reflects this, is about the future of themed experiences. My recent research, coursework, and designs, most with an emphasis on themed experiences, are surprisingly leading me away from theme parks. It seems as though, while still being an incubator, innovator and "museum" (hate using the term, but haven't found a better one yet) to the themed experience/attraction business, theme parks seem to be increasingly marginalized as the "best" places to be immersed in another "world." Obviously, Las Vegas led the charge, and Dubai is taking the reins (financial difficulties notwithstanding), but I look to experiences like your Aston Martin dealership, Rivera, Star Trek the experience in vegas, and the Shuttle Launch Experience at Kennedy Space Center, as an emerging sector of themed entertainment. I was just curious if you wouldn't mind elaborating on your views of the future of themed experiences, beyond what is conveyed in your work. Also, what are your thoughts about creating "common man" themed experiences, ones that are available to a greater percentage of the population, not just those able to afford trips to Disney, et al? I realize the high costs would hinder creating public themed experiences, but I still hold out hope, as that is a personal interest of mine.
Sorry for the long winded post, as I said I had to play catch up. Hope no one minds.
First, in regards to WOC, the decision to make it a "theater" type of show, in which there are only a few "good" seats, puzzles me. With the promenade wrapping around the lagoon, and the ability to see the lagoon from a few different attractions, I think a more "in the round", for lack of a better term, like illuminations, show would have been more presentable, and more guests would have been able to enjoy it. But it still looks like an amazing show, just an interesting choice as far as logistics, crowd control, capacity are concerned.
Second, WWHOP looks legit. From the reviews and pics, its appears to be as an immersive themed experience as nearly anything Disney has done. Maybe not quite up to the level that Africa of AK, parts of disneysea in tokyo, and the Main Street of Paris, but darn close. Greatly enjoy the fact they did not break the theming for merchandise and dining, and am looking forward to visiting.
Third, a couple pages ago, within the discussion of WWHOP and how it affects Disney and themed entertainment in general, there was some talk about some posters wanting to work for WDI or Universal Creative, etc. My question to you, Eddie, and it seems your recent work reflects this, is about the future of themed experiences. My recent research, coursework, and designs, most with an emphasis on themed experiences, are surprisingly leading me away from theme parks. It seems as though, while still being an incubator, innovator and "museum" (hate using the term, but haven't found a better one yet) to the themed experience/attraction business, theme parks seem to be increasingly marginalized as the "best" places to be immersed in another "world." Obviously, Las Vegas led the charge, and Dubai is taking the reins (financial difficulties notwithstanding), but I look to experiences like your Aston Martin dealership, Rivera, Star Trek the experience in vegas, and the Shuttle Launch Experience at Kennedy Space Center, as an emerging sector of themed entertainment. I was just curious if you wouldn't mind elaborating on your views of the future of themed experiences, beyond what is conveyed in your work. Also, what are your thoughts about creating "common man" themed experiences, ones that are available to a greater percentage of the population, not just those able to afford trips to Disney, et al? I realize the high costs would hinder creating public themed experiences, but I still hold out hope, as that is a personal interest of mine.
Sorry for the long winded post, as I said I had to play catch up. Hope no one minds.
- Status