Missing20K
Well-Known Member
What they say happens to be true, Walt was about changing things that didn't work. But what are the motives for change? A better show or more revenue? Was it an improvement or a desecration? The eternal debate. That's the hard part as an Imagineer. If the mandate was to keep it pristine and not do anything it would be easy, but it's not. The Walt mandate is to run the gauntlet of change by keeping the park conceptually fresh while never betraying the core ideals of why it worked in the first place. So the drill is that you need to really understand exactly why people liked something before you "improve" it. It can be done, and as you point out, sometimes better than others.
Walt sure didn't make it easy on anyone huh?
"We need to change this, but I don't want it to be betray our core concepts and ideals."
I know about the research surveys Disney uses to help get ideas about attraction likeability, but do they ever have "focus groups" about potential attractions or decisions?
As far as ride design goes, I imagine it would be quite difficult, but what is the process of prototypes? With the computer age, I would guess designers could create the entire attraction digitally, and have people "ride" it, via a simulator or even just a computer screen. Has this been done before? With SSE07 for example, WDI could have created a computer program to virtually experience the ride, and make adjustments accordingly.
Real world research and fact finding is important in most all other design professions, so I was curious as to how much this exists at WDI. I wonder if this would help ease the discord between nostalgia and novelty that seems inevitable for WDI.
Ever get a chance to ask Marty about the transition of FW from exposition-style to story-driven?
I hope you are enjoying this thread as much as I am. There have been some really great discussions and for the most part staying on topic. Thanks to all!
Yes, it's my favorite thread since I've joined.