D23 posted a video today of Tony Baxter showing his design that he made in college for a Mary Poppins themed ride for Disneyland. So cool! https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1314830398528998&id=147415861937130&__tn__=C
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Unbuilt Mary Poppins Attraction for Disneyland
- Thread starter SpaceMountain75
- Start date
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
Build this instead of SWL!!!
^this x 1,000,000
Stevek
Well-Known Member
Pretty amazing, especially for a kid that wasn't working at Disney at the time. Would have been (and still would be) a great addition to Fantasyland.
NobodyElse
Well-Known Member
Perhaps just one more hint that you're unhappy with SWL will convince them to reverse the whole project.
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
Perhaps just one more hint that you're unhappy with SWL will convince them to reverse the whole project.
I wish.
Figments Friend
Well-Known Member
Yet another example of why Tony Baxter rules.
A teenaged Tony can design far more entertaining and appealing concepts then today's current mindset 'Disney'.
You go, boy!
-
A teenaged Tony can design far more entertaining and appealing concepts then today's current mindset 'Disney'.
You go, boy!
-
I don't know...Guardians of the Galaxy - Mission: BREAKOUT! sure does ooze genius Imagineering.Yet another example of why Tony Baxter rules.
A teenaged Tony can design far more entertaining and appealing concepts then today's current mindset 'Disney'.
You go, boy!
-
Figments Friend
Well-Known Member
Part of the problem today is even when you still have some excellent talent wandering the halls of Imagineering, they are only allowed to do so much.
Some truly cool concepts are likely brought to the table during any development session but they don't get developed due to the current Company mandates that need to be satisfied or for budgetary concerns.
It also has to be said that inter-Company politics also influence decisions.
I don't place all the blame on the Imagineers for the influx in IP related material.
They are only doing what they are being told is 'needed' for the Parks and what is 'wanted' by the Company.
I blame the uppers in Burbank and Marketing for pushing the mandate to develop current 'hot IP' properties into Attractions.
Now it seems a proposed concept that could be really neat has a snowball's chance in Hades of even being looked at if some current IP brand is not already attached to it.
It's disheartening to see, as many of best Attractions ever designed were all 'original' non-IP based entities in my opinion.
Now the game has changed and nobody wants to take a chance or invest in something unproven in the field.
It was not that long ago that Disney relished such a challange and took it on head first.
Today, it's a different story.
-
Some truly cool concepts are likely brought to the table during any development session but they don't get developed due to the current Company mandates that need to be satisfied or for budgetary concerns.
It also has to be said that inter-Company politics also influence decisions.
I don't place all the blame on the Imagineers for the influx in IP related material.
They are only doing what they are being told is 'needed' for the Parks and what is 'wanted' by the Company.
I blame the uppers in Burbank and Marketing for pushing the mandate to develop current 'hot IP' properties into Attractions.
Now it seems a proposed concept that could be really neat has a snowball's chance in Hades of even being looked at if some current IP brand is not already attached to it.
It's disheartening to see, as many of best Attractions ever designed were all 'original' non-IP based entities in my opinion.
Now the game has changed and nobody wants to take a chance or invest in something unproven in the field.
It was not that long ago that Disney relished such a challange and took it on head first.
Today, it's a different story.
-
Last edited: