LET THE IMAGINEERS IMAGINE

[POLY LOVER]

I'm hearing the imagineers might not have a free hand with the upcoming projects anyone else hear this? I think unrestrained these guys will knock your socks off. What would they do if they had a free hand and what projects would have turned out better? Would we have such gaps in projects?

 

[wdwmagic]

They never have a free hand. Lots of factors come into play, with many of those not related to design.

 

[lazyboy97o]

There is no such thing as free reign in design. The Inagineers are also not infallible gods.

 

[POLY LOVER]

They never have a free hand. Lots of factors come into play, with many of those not related to design.

I can imagine there is a delicate balance but who has the final say? are they on an equal decision making level as the folks that hold the purse strings? who intervenes when a great design idea gets scaled down to just a so so end product?

 

[seafoodbuffet]

I can imagine there is a delicate balance but who has the final say? are they on an equal decision making level as the folks that hold the purse strings? who intervenes when a great design idea gets scaled down to just a so so end product?

A complicated set of factors govern the decision of how far to go in any direction for an attraction. Organizations that tend to be uncompromising aren't generally too successful. Imagineering is no different. I'm sure we could get phenomenal designs that are amazing, but then it's hourly capacity might be terrible, or it could be unreasonably expensive to build, or it would be an environmental nightmare, or whatever else. Point is, the set of restrictions both natural and artificial do exist and the engineering half of Imagineering is to mitigate but perhaps not entirely overcome all of those restrictions.

What happens when you ignore that? Look to Dubai for a glimpse...

 

[POLY LOVER]

A complicated set of factors govern the decision of how far to go in any direction for an attraction. Organizations that tend to be uncompromising aren't generally too successful. Imagineering is no different. I'm sure we could get phenomenal designs that are amazing, but then it's hourly capacity might be terrible, or it could be unreasonably expensive to build, or it would be an environmental nightmare, or whatever else. Point is, the set of restrictions both natural and artificial do exist and the engineering half of Imagineering is to mitigate but perhaps not entirely overcome all of those restrictions.

What happens when you ignore that? Look to Dubai for a glimpse...

I guess when Walt was alive and he being a dreamer and a designer and his focus was the parks and the films only he could let the ideas control the direction and not be so focused on those other factors it was his show and he wanted what was cool above all else. Now I know the goal was to make money but he did not seem to have the restrictions. Its good to be the boss.

 

[seafoodbuffet]

I guess when Walt was alive and he being a dreamer and a designing and his focus was the parks and the films only he could let the ideas control the direction and not be so focused on those other factors it was his show and he wanted what was cool above all else. Now I know the goal was to make money but he did not seem to have the restrictions. Its good to be the boss.

You're right in that from what I understand, Walt placed a much lower priority on money and profits. It almost seemed like he made money only to fund his next big idea. However, keep in mind that attitude had the Disney company constantly teetered on the edge of bankruptcy. Disneyland was so far over original budget that had they not done a TV deal and given away 100% of concessions money, the park likely would not have been built. We are fortunate that the right set of events made things happen, but the point is, that set of events was very much not by design but by luck. That's a terrible way to run a company. Yes money is a higher priority now. I bet we lose out on some crazy (or crazy awesome) ideas as a result. I rationalize that that's okay because I don't have to worry about Disney not existing because they are financially strong. The alternative seems too horrible to even contemplate

Of course I wish I got more for my money spent, but I along many others continue to vote with our wallets that the current state of affairs is acceptable.

 

[POLY LOVER]

You're right in that from what I understand, Walt placed a much lower priority on money and profits. It almost seemed like he made money only to fund his next big idea. However, keep in mind that attitude had the Disney company constantly teetered on the edge of bankruptcy. Disneyland was so far over original budget that had they not done a TV deal and given away 100% of concessions money, the park likely would not have been built. We are fortunate that the right set of events made things happen, but the point is, that set of events was very much not by design but by luck. That's a terrible way to run a company. Yes money is a higher priority now. I bet we lose out on some crazy (or crazy awesome) ideas as a result. I rationalize that that's okay because I don't have to worry about Disney not existing because they are financially strong. The alternative seems too horrible to even contemplate

Of course I wish I got more for my money spent, but I along many others continue to vote with our wallets that the current state of affairs is acceptable.

can he be placed in someways in the category of Howard Hughes? not the crazy parts but the drive to make ideas come alive at any cost.

 

[JIMINYCR]

I guess when Walt was alive and he being a dreamer and a designing and his focus was the parks and the films only he could let the ideas control the direction and not be so focused on those other factors it was his show and he wanted what was cool above all else. Now I know the goal was to make money but he did not seem to have the restrictions. Its good to be the boss.

Well times are different and there is a contrast between the way Disney as a company had been run and is being run ( for a long time now since Disneys actually had the control ) requires it to be more money orientated to stay competitive and solvent. Harsh decisions have to be made in scale of profit and loss across the board. Walt had much less to worry about and who he had to answer to. He had the focus of all the losses if they came affecting mostly his family's fortune, giving him the luxury to decide to risk it all at times.

 

[POLY LOVER]

Well times are different and there is a contrast between the way Disney as a company had been run and is being run ( for a long time now since Disneys actually had the control ) requires it to be more money orientated to stay competitive and solvent. Harsh decisions have to be made in scale of profit and loss across the board. Walt had much less to worry about and who he had to answer to. He had the focus of all the losses if they came affecting mostly his family's fortune, giving him the luxury to decide to risk it all at times.

So the big question is and maybe it can not be answered except by the imagineers themselves , let's say when the new fantasyland finished how close was it to the way they designed it? What did they want and did not get due to cost that would have made it a smashing success.

 

[lazyboy97o]

In terms of pure dollars, Walt Fisney Imagineering is not at all short for project funding. It costs Disney a lot more to do something compared to others.

 

[POLY LOVER]

In terms of pure dollars, Walt Fisney Imagineering is not at all short for project funding. It costs Disney a lot more to do something compared to others.

Why does it cost them more?

 

[Hakunamatata]

Why does it cost them more?

They have deep pockets.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Why does it cost them more?

A lot of it is just the size of the organized, bureaucracy and red tape. Meetings are expensive. Decisions are not always final, so things change a lot even as projects move forward. Disney also goes into far, far more detail on everything.

 

[POLY LOVER]

They have deep pockets.

I would think they get better pricing due to the sheer size and volumes of work they engage in. They must have many construction relationships developed over the years?

 

[lazyboy97o]

I would think they get better pricing due to the sheer size and volumes of work they engage in. They must have many construction relationships developed over the years?

Contractors don't make the materials that are used. Things like steel prices are driven by global market demands. Large construction projects often have lower margins, so there is not as much room for any sort of price discounts.

 

[POLY LOVER]

Contractors don't make the materials that are used. Things like steel prices are driven by global market demands. Large construction projects often have lower margins, so there is not as much room for any sort of price discounts.

Unprecedented low interest rates and oil prices should be a huge factor in getting more for your money.

 

[danlb_2000]

I used to work for a Disney sized conglomerate company and was amazed at how massively inefficient they were, especially when it came to getting projects done. That's why I say I "used to" work for.

 

[copcarguyp71]

Imagineers imagine just fine...and then this guy steps in!

 

[POLY LOVER]

Imagineers imagine just fine...and then this guy steps in!

That,s what I hear