Disney Purists vs. Disney Traditionalists

[PintoColvig]

Most of what Disney has been building lately have been big thrill rides. As much as I love thrill rides, that divides and alienates their audience. Older people don't want to ride them. Very young children are afraid of them. Some children are too small to ride them even if they wanted to.

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/05/21/six_flags_embarks_on_a_new_adventure/?

This article, as refered to in another thread, indicates that Six Flags apparently has learned the hard way that a thrill park is not the most profitable theme park. After a decade of building thrill after thrill while driving down profits, SF is embracing a brand new philosophy that's as old as Disneyland: a park with rides for ALL people. Thrill rides? I like them. But they're not all that thrill me. Here's to more money spent on broadly appealing attractions (but no more stunt shows, 3-D movies, or 360 movies!)

 

[JustinTheClaw]

I mean no harm

I am well aware. As I've mentioned before, this is merely a friendly discuss-and-debate session where all opinions should be accepted and tolerated. I take no offense from what you say, in fact I am very much enjoying the passionate expressions of opinions this thread has sparked. I will however express my disagreement where applicable and correct any misinformation when necessary.

 

[JustinTheClaw]

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/05/21/six_flags_embarks_on_a_new_adventure/?

This article, as refered to in another thread, indicates that Six Flags apparently has learned the hard way that a thrill park is not the most profitable theme park. After a decade of building thrill after thrill while driving down profits, SF is embracing a brand new philosophy that's as old as Disneyland: a park with rides for ALL people. Thrill rides? I like them. But they're not all that thrill me. Here's to more money spent on broadly appealing attractions (but no more stunt shows, 3-D movies, or 360 movies!)

Ah...Six Flags. Or as my brother prefers to call it, McThemePark. Why am I not surprised that they're not doing well?

 

[speck76]

This only enforces my point that the Imagineers could do better things with more money.

ANYBODY can do better with more money....the best can do better and stay within a budget.

WDI could design the best attraction ever created, but if it is not feasible, there is no reason to build it.

 

[JustinTheClaw]

ANYBODY can do better with more money....the best can do better and stay within a budget.

WDI could design the best attraction ever created, but if it is not feasible, there is no reason to build it.

I guess my point is, yes, the Imagineers need to have some sort of cap on their budget in order to encourage them to find cost efficient ways to complete their projects, but when it becomes clear that there is no way to complete the project without more money, instead of cutting the big ideas from the project, they should be allotted more money to complete the project in the same cost efficient way that got them that far.

For example, going back to the Expedition Everest example I've used so much, when it became clear that the Imagineers and construction crews could not finish the actual mountain with the time/money left in their budget, they should have been allowed more money in order to finish the building. Yes, it's more money, but at that point it was pretty clear that the project was almost done and they wouldn't need any more money after that.

The most important clause here is not "more money," but rather "cost efficient." Cost efficient does not mean cheap. I guess that sounds really complicated, but I hope someone will understand what I mean by it.

 

[wannab@dis]

I guess my point is, yes, the Imagineers need to have some sort of cap on their budget in order to encourage them to find cost efficient ways to complete their projects, but when it becomes clear that there is no way to complete the project without more money, instead of cutting the big ideas from the project, they should be allotted more money to complete the project in the same cost efficient way that got them that far.

How do you know they were being efficient in the first place with the budget? That's a major assumption to make.

For example, going back to the Expedition Everest example I've used so much, when it became clear that the Imagineers and construction crews could not finish the actual mountain with the time/money left in their budget, they should have been allowed more money in order to finish the building. Yes, it's more money, but at that point it was pretty clear that the project was almost done and they wouldn't need any more money after that.

How do you KNOW the initial design of the mountain did not include the show building as it is today?

The most important clause here is not "more money," but rather "cost efficient." Cost efficient does not mean cheap. I guess that sounds really complicated, but I hope someone will understand what I mean by it.

Controlling costs is a major part of the design phase of a project. Since there's no way to control every contingency, tough decisions sometimes have to be made. If the budgets are not controlled, it could affect future projects.

 

[speck76]

I guess my point is, yes, the Imagineers need to have some sort of cap on their budget in order to encourage them to find cost efficient ways to complete their projects, but when it becomes clear that there is no way to complete the project without more money, instead of cutting the big ideas from the project, they should be allotted more money to complete the project in the same cost efficient way that got them that far.

For example, going back to the Expedition Everest example I've used so much, when it became clear that the Imagineers and construction crews could not finish the actual mountain with the time/money left in their budget, they should have been allowed more money in order to finish the building. Yes, it's more money, but at that point it was pretty clear that the project was almost done and they wouldn't need any more money after that.

The most important clause here is not "more money," but rather "cost efficient." Cost efficient does not mean cheap. I guess that sounds really complicated, but I hope someone will understand what I mean by it.

What part of the building is not done? It looks done to me....it looks more "done" than any other major WDW attraction......

Anyway...so....If the budget is $200million, which is considered for XX project to be the most they can spend to get some value from the new attraction, and they find, after spending $185million, that it will take at least another $100million to "do the attraction correctly", you feel the corporate accountants should just open up the bank account?......not likely....and it would only ever happen with cuts in other places....

money does not grow on trees.....

 

[sabian]

I know some of you will shriek at this, but i have to quote Michael Eisner at the opening of The Disney MGM-Studios, "You know, you can sit here and look around and say, everything is great. But it's not. Time moves on, and you have to re-invest."

 

[sabian]

What part of the building is not done? It looks done to me....it looks more "done" than any other major WDW attraction......

Anyway...so....If the budget is $200million, which is considered for XX project to be the most they can spend to get some value from the new attraction, and they find, after spending $185million, that it will take at least another $100million to "do the attraction correctly", you feel the corporate accountants should just open up the bank account?......not likely....and it would only ever happen with cuts in other places....

money does not grow on trees.....

I wasn't aware that there were any cost cutting measures used at Everest. It certainly appears as if no expense was spared on this gorgeous attraction.
Ultimately, in business, budget is, and will always be, a concern. However, i hope that Disney under Iger gets back to how Eisner was in the early days. Place just as much emphasis and attention on non-thrill rides as you do on thrill rides. Contrary to popular belief, it does not take a masiive roller pukester to motivate someone to travel to Disney for vacation. Just look at how the refurb of Its a Small World affected attendance. Philharmagic, also, drew quite a bit of attention. I, myself, am going to the World in July, anxious to see the refurbed Pirates of the Caribbean.
Ultimately, Disneyworld is frequented by families, most of all. I for one am looking forward to my first ride with my 2 year old. The memories i will have from my upcoming trip, and the memories i have of my past trips are what keeps me coming back.
So, to get back to the main topic, i believe there is a fine line between purist and traditionalist approaches. I feel that that line must be walked.
Great traditional attractions need updating, to some degree. Whether that is animatronic upgrades, ride technology upgrades, or other improvements to keep the attraction viable doesn't matter. What is most important, i feel, is that the classic attractions continue to be upgraded to maintain its integrity, as long as the attraction remains true to its original premise. If there is too much change on a classic attraction, it can change the attraction totally, even though it has the same name, and that would be harmful. Classic attractions can be updated and still remain the same. You have to be somewhere between the traditionalists and the purists. You have to maintain that balance between the two.

 

[speck76]

I wasn't aware that there were any cost cutting measures used at Everest. It certainly appears as if no expense was spared on this gorgeous attraction.
Ultimately, in business, budget is, and will always be, a concern. However, i hope that Disney under Iger gets back to how Eisner was in the early days. Place just as much emphasis and attention on non-thrill rides as you do on thrill rides. Contrary to popular belief, it does not take a masiive roller pukester to motivate someone to travel to Disney for vacation. Just look at how the refurb of Its a Small World affected attendance. Philharmagic, also, drew quite a bit of attention. I, myself, am going to the World in July, anxious to see the refurbed Pirates of the Caribbean.
Ultimately, Disneyworld is frequented by families, most of all. I for one am looking forward to my first ride with my 2 year old. The memories i will have from my upcoming trip, and the memories i have of my past trips are what keeps me coming back.
So, to get back to the main topic, i believe there is a fine line between purist and traditionalist approaches. I feel that that line must be walked.
Great traditional attractions need updating, to some degree. Whether that is animatronic upgrades, ride technology upgrades, or other improvements to keep the attraction viable doesn't matter. What is most important, i feel, is that the classic attractions continue to be upgraded to maintain its integrity, as long as the attraction remains true to its original premise. If there is too much change on a classic attraction, it can change the attraction totally, even though it has the same name, and that would be harmful. Classic attractions can be updated and still remain the same. You have to be somewhere between the traditionalists and the purists. You have to maintain that balance between the two.

which ride are you going to choose?

 

[dxwwf3]

money does not grow on trees.....

Hey Disney makes their own money, so it shouldn't EVER be a problem

 

[JustinTheClaw]

If the budget is $200million, which is considered for XX project to be the most they can spend to get some value from the new attraction, and they find, after spending $185million, that it will take at least another $100million to "do the attraction correctly", you feel the corporate accountants should just open up the bank account?

In a word, yes. Walt did it numerous times through the course of animation and Imagineering. In fact, read Pirates of the Caribbean: From the Magic Kingdom to the Movies by Jason Surell to find out just how often and easily he did it on that Attraction alone.

Are you proposing that if an Attraction is already costing $185 million and is only half complete that they should just stop working on it, or do a half-hearted job on the rest of it? And as I've mentioned many times before, from inside the park the building looks completed, because that's the side they focused the most attention on, but from outside the park it is obvious that it is not. I suppose I will have to take a picture of it and share a link to it for people to understand what I am saying.

To borrow from sabian's post

to quote Michael Eisner at the opening of The Disney MGM-Studios, "You know, you can sit here and look around and say, everything is great, but it's not. Time moves on, and you have to re-invest."

Michael Eisner may have gotten a little too cheap and power hungry in his last few years, but sometimes we forget that this is the man whose imagination saved the company from an uncertain, but not promising fate.

 

[JustinTheClaw]

Hey Disney makes their own money, so it shouldn't EVER be a problem

Nice

 

[speck76]

In a word, yes. Walt did it numerous times through the course of animation and Imagineering. In fact, read Pirates of the Caribbean: From the Magic Kingdom to the Movies by Jason Surell to find out just how often and easily he did it on that Attraction alone.

Are you proposing that if an Attraction is already costing $185 million and is only half complete that they should just stop working on it, or do a half-hearted job on the rest of it? And as I've mentioned many times before, from inside the park the building looks completed, because that's the side they focused the most attention on, but from outside the park it is obvious that it is not. I suppose I will have to take a picture of it and share a link to it for people to understand what I am saying.

To borrow from sabian's post
Michael Eisner may have gotten a little too cheap and power hungry in his last few years, but sometimes we forget that this is the man whose imagination saved the company from an uncertain, but not promising fate.

I know what you are talking about.....it is just that you are wrong if you think this is different from any other attraction.......and it makes no sense to spend millions of dollars to "fix it"

 

[wannab@dis]

Are you proposing that if an Attraction is already costing $185 million and is only half complete that they should just stop working on it, or do a half-hearted job on the rest of it?

If it's off that bad, somebody should be fired, and it's not the accountant...

And as I've mentioned many times before, from inside the park the building looks completed, because that's the side they focused the most attention on, but from outside the park it is obvious that it is not.

You're kidding... right? They should only focus on the inside of the park... that's the stage. Almost all attractions (including Splash mountain) are completed for the stage only... nothing else. I would be upset IF they ever finished EE for wasting money. :wave:

 

[imagineer boy]

You're kidding... right? They should only focus on the inside of the park... that's the stage. Almost all attractions (including Splash mountain) are completed for the stage only... nothing else. I would be upset IF they ever finished EE for wasting money. :wave:

Imagine if you will, a stage. There is an excelent prop for the play, that is used. Its a fantastic set piece, and looks great for the audience. But the set piece is so big, that it has to be placed in an outdoor area behind the theater in full view of the public ( it does happen sometimes ) and it kinda ruins the great effect it made in the play, plus spoils it for the people who havn't seen it yet. Not that great of an example, but you get my drift.

The thing is, the backside of E:E is VERY visible to people just arriving to the park in the parking lot. When they first see it, they go, "ehh its a building." And when they finally see E:E it its full glory in the park they'll go "Oh, look at that big building that's supposed to be a mountain. Not the awe inspiring effect we want to achience right?

I mean, come one. How many other ride buildings are painfully visible? Haunted Mansion's is hidden, POTC's is hidden, Splace Mountain's is hidden, and look at the Indiana Jones ride at DL, they managed to cover the huge ride building with fake trees and camoflage. Its not perfect, but atleast its something. Anythings better than a dull building.

 

[wannab@dis]

Give the trees some time and I doubt you'll see it from the parking lot. Even so, it's still NOT the stage. I just can't believe that some people around here will complain about anything. Disney builds a brand new awesome attraction and they STILL find something to whine about.

 

[imagineer boy]

Gee, I didn't know trees grew that tall.

 

[wannab@dis]

Based on the trees I've seen in pictures, it's very likely the siteline will be hidden or at least mostly obstructed. If they don't... oh well. It won't change the fact that EE is still a great attraction with awesome theming.

 

[JustinTheClaw]

Almost all attractions (including Splash mountain) are completed for the stage only... nothing else.

And as I'm sure I've already pointed out, Splash Mountain's off-stage area is not visable by the Guests. That's the major difference. Guests don't see a huge box shaped building sticking out of the back of an elaborately detailed "mountain" in the Magic Kingdom. From Animal Kingdom you can easily see the show building from the parking lot and the highway approaching the park, both of which are considered on-stage areas.

Like I said, I'll take some pictures tomorrow or Saturday to illustrate my point.

As far as the $185 million Attraction is concerned, had you been reading you would have realized I was using the hypothetical situation presented by speck76 and not any real situation or real dollar amounts.