EE Update Feature

[EpcotServo]

I don't care if you don't like EE. Just don't undermine such a great ride because it's not an all out EFX indoor animatronic light and sound show. Expedition Everest is a great ride. Like it or not, it's a great ride. Why? Because it's fun. I've always judged rides by one factor; Are they fun? Did I have a crazy grin the entire way thorough? Because that's all a ride needs to do. Come on, it's just a ride. Made only to have fun, not to raise the bar. I think that some of you are taking it way too seriously. We're here to have fun. I have a great time whenever I ride Everest. I can't stop smiling when I go rushing past the Yeti, who's hand is a good five feet above my raised hand. (gotta high five the Yeti!) So you can go ahead and nitpick over that stuff, but remember, we go on rides to have fun. Not to judge them by an imaginary bar.

 

[Buried20KLeague]

Ok, I see now that you are splitting successful and creative into two separate points of view. i.e... AE may have been creative, but it was not really successful.

You say that you 'agree' with fundesign, but it looks like you have a more open mind about other viewpoints, whereas, his posts have been basically closed off. He makes EE out to be a failure just because they didn't go to the extreme with more creative theming or didn't use his ideas. I think that's wrong. Where is the cutoff point? If they can create a successful attraction that will bring in the guests and entertain for years with $X worth of theming, then why should they spend $X+$Y just to add something else?

I'm just not getting your side of the argument. I think fundesign has made his point very clear... That EE will be "successful", but that it wasn't the most efficient use of money spent and other things could have been done under that same price tag. The attraction as a whole is great, but there's nothing groundbreaking about it, and nothing about it that you walk away going "That's like nothing I've ever experienced before". His point isn't to "spend $X+$Y just to add something else"... It's to spend $X the most effient way possible to make people walk away amazed. His ideas are HIS OPINIONS of how he'd have done that.

I guess I just don't get why everyone has jumped him for his ideas... Especially when he's outlined them consistently and intelligently between posts. What he's shared has been opinion... You say his arguments have been closed-minded... But from the outside looking in, I don't believe that to be the case. In fact, it seems to me the other way around.

Wannab@dis, I've read your posts for a LONG time, and have almost always been on the same page with you. But I'm just not getting this one.

Fundesign, I've seen your posts for what I believe you've intended them to be. Your personal opinion on a new attraction. Some may feel threatened by your opinions because you say you're "in the business"... I personally don't care. And here's the key... When someone spends a reported $100 million on a new attraction, there's QUITE a bit of room for opinion on how things were done. I'm not sure I understand why someone should have to defend their IDEAS... Regardless of if he's someone with history with WDI, or if he's a "used car salesman from Kansas". He in no way has tried to hold his background over anyone's head in a "I know more than you" way... The main thing I've taken from his posts about that end of things is that red tape and BS that often times hampers the creative process both in time and money. That makes all the sense in the world, and I'm not sure anyone can argue this to be not the case currently within WDI.

I for one appreciate the ideas he brought to the table, and his take on WDI in general. Regardless of his background.

:wave:

 

[wannab@dis]

I don't care if you don't like EE. Just don't undermine such a great ride because it's not an all out EFX indoor animatronic light and sound show. Expedition Everest is a great ride. Like it or not, it's a great ride. Why? Because it's fun. I've always judged rides by one factor; Are they fun? Did I have a crazy grin the entire way thorough? Because that's all a ride needs to do. Come on, it's just a ride. Made only to have fun, not to raise the bar. I think that some of you are taking it way too seriously. We're here to have fun. I have a great time whenever I ride Everest. I can't stop smiling when I go rushing past the Yeti, who's hand is a good five feet above my raised hand. (gotta high five the Yeti!) So you can go ahead and nitpick over that stuff, but remember, we go on rides to have fun. Not to judge them by an imaginary bar.

Good job saying what I was trying to say. I thought what I had posted was fairly clear, but I've been working too many hours.

I'm just not getting your side of the argument. I think fundesign has made his point very clear... That EE will be "successful", but that it wasn't the most efficient use of money spent and other things could have been done under that same price tag. The attraction as a whole is great, but there's nothing groundbreaking about it, and nothing about it that you walk away going "That's like nothing I've ever experienced before". His point isn't to "spend $X+$Y just to add something else"... It's to spend $X the most effient way possible to make people walk away amazed. His ideas are HIS OPINIONS of how he'd have done that.

I'm probably seeing this from a little different perspective and that may have been lost in my posts. It appears to ME that Fundesign is saying that if they did it his way, Everest would be fun AND would raise some creative bar. He also claims that money is wasted and if they would do things his way then they would spend less money and have a better attraction.

I've seen this same type of attitude in my business. The problem is that too many people think they understand the full impact of project design, management and implementation, but they don't have a grasp of the details of how things work in the real world or outside their "box of responsibilities". I would never argue that money is not wasted everyday in the corporate world, but I would argue most of the time, it's not because of negligence, but it's a byproduct (however annoying) of the corporate structure.

My problem with Fundesign's posts is 1) we don't know what his position truly is... (grunt or manager, disgruntled employee, Imagineer wannab, or just a fake), 2) we don't know if his claims have merit (could Everest really be changed with minimal financial impact but yet create major creative & thematic improvements), and 3) some just don't agree that this "bar" has to be raised as a requirement for success of a new attraction.

 

[Jose Eber]

I don't know -- I think something truly creative can be measured - - by its popularity.

To me creativity is when someone combines two seemingly disparate concepts or ideas (and old ideas mind you) to create something new.

Pirates took the concept of a movie set (filled with robots, not actors I guess) and put a boat ride through it -- although tunnels of love have existed for a while the idea of 'riding the movies' I think was something new.

Take an amusement park (carnival) marry it with the concept of a controlled permanent facility on private property, like a mall -- and you get a Disneyland.

Something like a DisneyQuest did not become popular because it married two old ideas that weren't so disparate -- a permanent disney facility with an arcade --- it was already done.

So to me, success in creativity is directly linked to rabid spike in popularity and a sort of thumb to the nose to the status quo.

So -- is EE status quo?

I think there were some new elements introduced, and I think if you gauge how popular it is over time -- therein you'll find its success in the creative department. Space, BTMR, Splash, Indy -- those seem to be fairly popular - note how they are also pretty amazing creations.

Intense experiences like a coaster at a Six Flags -- albeit a great thrill -- aren't as popular as a theme park at Disney because the concept of a coaster has been around since the 1800's (probably earlier). The concept of a themed attraction -- that creative idea is relatively new (since the 50's).

So when fun design comes around and says 'hey, we need to raise the bar'. Part of me says: no, you have it all wrong. To be really creative, technically perfecting elements of an existing layout don't do e. You have to introduce something completely 'out there' and have it blend with the ride to be 'the next level'. The unco-operative creative type in his or her head get's two seemingly disparate concepts working together.

As it stands -- EE is a ride through a story -- you have the set (a mountain) and its fun enough. Could they have thrown in more animatronics -- sure. But that won't make a big difference. You are just throwing gadgets at the public.

Could they have thrown a technically crazy situation where the yeti drags the coaster sideways up into his lair? Sure -- but again, that's a technical adjustment which only fine tunes things -- doesn't 'blast people away' (although it might be intense -- not everyone wants intensity in their rides -- see Fantasyland).

That said, the really creative folks that want to create a new experience and blow the public away probably won't work for a Disney because really creative people tend to be unco-operative. I.e. don't work well within a corporate system. So I don't entirely write fun design off because he's doing his own thing.

Disney departed from all conventions and left the carnival industry alone while he did his own thing and had his own movie studio (didn't work for another). So it worked for him and Roy.

So, if fundesign wants to create this whole new experience, be my guest -- but 'plussing' an attraction is so the wrong direction and he's completely off in that matter.

All he's doing is criticizing the rides apparent inadequacy. Whop de doo. An innovative person doesn't criticize -- they depart and innovate and come up with a whole radical concept. i.e. they are so involved with their idea -- they don't look or care too much about others -- because it is inadequate.

And frankly -- doesn't sound like this guy has the resources to do that -- either with an imagination or financial backing.

Roy and Walt were an interesting pair - - you had someone very innovative together with someone very entertaining -- that's a rare pair in my opinion.

Best of luck to everyone within the industry -- but to the critics within the industry -- you are so off in your direction (criticism) as a means towards improving the field.

True entertainers aren't the critical sort.

True innovators aren't the critical sort either.

The Disney brothers were both entertaining and innovative. Rare pair.

EDIT:
I guess my point is know your place -- the artists and engineers within the industry are very important facet, they make these dreams concrete reality. However -- if you are one of them -- don't start believing you are creative all of a sudden or entertaining and funny. If you have an engineering background and love it or are artistic and love the detail of rock work or lighting etc. be critical fine, that's a part of your job -- but don't think you know how to do someone else's job -- where creativity or an entertaining tale is involved. I get so tired of hearing 'story' from certain imagineers saying that's what Walt was all about. B.S. -- he was about entertaining folks -- that was through animal adventures (which have no story) or talking about the future etc. Walt wasn't about 'story' -- Walt was about presenting anything that would entertain folks.
Rant off.

 

[fundesign]

*sigh*




Can't say I agree... I haven't seen anything of substance. The basic premise of his posts (and some of the other 'claim to be theme park designers' that just show up to bash new attractions) is that it could always be better. When you break it down just to that point, noone can really argue with them. But, it seems they have an ulterior motive in their posts... the claim that WDI is bumbling and inept, but they could do better and give Disney a new classic. That, is laughable at best.

What do I have to do to make it clear that this is not about me? I have said several times that I am not perfect and have made mistakes and have fallen prey to the quality killers such as politics etc. You obviously have not read all the posts. The basic premise of my posts have been that due to the list of lackluster attractions the past 10 years and the shortage of truly breakthrough attractions, the public has come to expect no more from Disney Than EE or Philarmagic. Any decent designer could make any attraction better. In fact, my kids could make them better conceptually because they are not bound by politics, ego or the like. But concept is only the beginning. It takes a team working together to come as close to the original scope as possible. It takes dedicated and astute engineers and managers to catch the potential problems during the design reviews and head off budget and schedule issues.

It has gotten to the point where Creative barely even tries to "blue sky" because they already know what will be cut. The past 20 years have trained Creative to be more practical as opposed to imaginative and daring. The old strategy was to design beyond what you think will be green lighted. Now that bar has been lowered to the point that you have Creative Charettes on how to save money before the first pitch to management.

I'm not holding myself up as the only answer. There is plenty of talent out there...I am not the only one. Do I need to repeat this again?:brick:

By the way...I have been involved in the design of at least two "Disney Classics." So when I say Disney could do better I'm not guessing. Notice I said "Disney" as opposed to "myself." Once again...it's a team that makes it work, not one person. You could have the best project manager, but if your Creative team is hindered by the new corporate culture their ideas will be uninspiring. All the PM can do is help bring the uninspiring ideas to life on time and on budget. You could have the most exciting and original ideas in the world but if your senior Engineer drops the ball most likely the PM will not catch all the mistakes and cost the project money and time and most likely the final product scope will have been reduced.

So am I just ranting or do I have a solution? Well...I received a call yesterday from a buddy at WDI letting me know that they will be doing callbacks sometime in April! This is GREAT news! This means the signs of the "Pixar takeover" are becoming more evident. There is some major development planned. This entire debate may become obsolete when you begin seeing the kind of attractions I'm referring to.

 

[wannab@dis]

maybe those with a chip on their shoulder

What do I have to do to make it clear that this is not about me?

I have been involved in the design of at least two "Disney Classics."

I received a call yesterday from a buddy at WDI letting me know that they will be doing callbacks sometime in April!

:lookaroun

 

[Jose Eber]

I don't know.

i don't like the direction pixar is heading -- me thinks they've lost their mojo a little.

(seen the cars trailers? NOT FUNNY -- Saw incredibles? A lot more saw Nemo).

J.

lol about fundesign clamoring to get back to Disney

 

[Lee]

Well...I received a call yesterday from a buddy at WDI letting me know that they will be doing callbacks sometime in April! This is GREAT news!

I heard something similar.
Iger, I'm told, doesn't like the business model WDI was turning into, with a few managers and farming all the other stuff out to independant design firms. Part of what he wants Lassater to do is to begin turning back the clock to the old WDI way of business.

 

[Buried20KLeague]

Good job saying what I was trying to say. I thought what I had posted was fairly clear, but I've been working too many hours.


I'm probably seeing this from a little different perspective and that may have been lost in my posts. It appears to ME that Fundesign is saying that if they did it his way, Everest would be fun AND would raise some creative bar. He also claims that money is wasted and if they would do things his way then they would spend less money and have a better attraction.

I've seen this same type of attitude in my business. The problem is that too many people think they understand the full impact of project design, management and implementation, but they don't have a grasp of the details of how things work in the real world or outside their "box of responsibilities". I would never argue that money is not wasted everyday in the corporate world, but I would argue most of the time, it's not because of negligence, but it's a byproduct (however annoying) of the corporate structure.

My problem with Fundesign's posts is 1) we don't know what his position truly is... (grunt or manager, disgruntled employee, Imagineer wannab, or just a fake), 2) we don't know if his claims have merit (could Everest really be changed with minimal financial impact but yet create major creative & thematic improvements), and 3) some just don't agree that this "bar" has to be raised as a requirement for success of a new attraction.

This post helped me understand where you're coming from. Thanks for that. I guess my take on your 3 problems you have with fundesigns' posts are:

1. I don't really care what his position is. Not to seem rude. But for the basis of his arguement, it doesn't matter to me where he fits in on the food chain. To me at least. His points make decent sense to me.

2. You said we don't know if his claims have merit. THIS is absolutely a good point and something I hadn't thought about. I agree with you on this point. I have no idea if what he was talking about can be done using the dollar figures he gave. And that's a big part of what the discussion is about. Very valid point.

3. You said some don't agree that the "bar" has to be raised to make an attraction a success. And I think that's just a difference of opinion. I don't think anyone's right or wrong in that sense. His point, which I tend to agree with, is that the public is satisfied with less than they used to be satisfied with... Which is why it takes less to awe some. Your point is that success isn't determined by pushing the boundaries of what we're familiar with, but rather the way in which what we're familiar with is presented. Both sides of the fence I can see here.

 

[Buried20KLeague]

I don't know -- I think something truly creative can be measured - - by its popularity.

To me creativity is when someone combines two seemingly disparate concepts or ideas (and old ideas mind you) to create something new.

Pirates took the concept of a movie set (filled with robots, not actors I guess) and put a boat ride through it -- although tunnels of love have existed for a while the idea of 'riding the movies' I think was something new.

Take an amusement park (carnival) marry it with the concept of a controlled permanent facility on private property, like a mall -- and you get a Disneyland.

Something like a DisneyQuest did not become popular because it married two old ideas that weren't so disparate -- a permanent disney facility with an arcade --- it was already done.

So to me, success in creativity is directly linked to rabid spike in popularity and a sort of thumb to the nose to the status quo.

So -- is EE status quo?

I think there were some new elements introduced, and I think if you gauge how popular it is over time -- therein you'll find its success in the creative department. Space, BTMR, Splash, Indy -- those seem to be fairly popular - note how they are also pretty amazing creations.

Intense experiences like a coaster at a Six Flags -- albeit a great thrill -- aren't as popular as a theme park at Disney because the concept of a coaster has been around since the 1800's (probably earlier). The concept of a themed attraction -- that creative idea is relatively new (since the 50's).

So when fun design comes around and says 'hey, we need to raise the bar'. Part of me says: no, you have it all wrong. To be really creative, technically perfecting elements of an existing layout don't do e. You have to introduce something completely 'out there' and have it blend with the ride to be 'the next level'. The unco-operative creative type in his or her head get's two seemingly disparate concepts working together.

As it stands -- EE is a ride through a story -- you have the set (a mountain) and its fun enough. Could they have thrown in more animatronics -- sure. But that won't make a big difference. You are just throwing gadgets at the public.

Could they have thrown a technically crazy situation where the yeti drags the coaster sideways up into his lair? Sure -- but again, that's a technical adjustment which only fine tunes things -- doesn't 'blast people away' (although it might be intense -- not everyone wants intensity in their rides -- see Fantasyland).

That said, the really creative folks that want to create a new experience and blow the public away probably won't work for a Disney because really creative people tend to be unco-operative. I.e. don't work well within a corporate system. So I don't entirely write fun design off because he's doing his own thing.

Disney departed from all conventions and left the carnival industry alone while he did his own thing and had his own movie studio (didn't work for another). So it worked for him and Roy.

So, if fundesign wants to create this whole new experience, be my guest -- but 'plussing' an attraction is so the wrong direction and he's completely off in that matter.

All he's doing is criticizing the rides apparent inadequacy. Whop de doo. An innovative person doesn't criticize -- they depart and innovate and come up with a whole radical concept. i.e. they are so involved with their idea -- they don't look or care too much about others -- because it is inadequate.

And frankly -- doesn't sound like this guy has the resources to do that -- either with an imagination or financial backing.

Roy and Walt were an interesting pair - - you had someone very innovative together with someone very entertaining -- that's a rare pair in my opinion.

Best of luck to everyone within the industry -- but to the critics within the industry -- you are so off in your direction (criticism) as a means towards improving the field.

True entertainers aren't the critical sort.

True innovators aren't the critical sort either.

The Disney brothers were both entertaining and innovative. Rare pair.

EDIT:
I guess my point is know your place -- the artists and engineers within the industry are very important facet, they make these dreams concrete reality. However -- if you are one of them -- don't start believing you are creative all of a sudden or entertaining and funny. If you have an engineering background and love it or are artistic and love the detail of rock work or lighting etc. be critical fine, that's a part of your job -- but don't think you know how to do someone else's job -- where creativity or an entertaining tale is involved. I get so tired of hearing 'story' from certain imagineers saying that's what Walt was all about. B.S. -- he was about entertaining folks -- that was through animal adventures (which have no story) or talking about the future etc. Walt wasn't about 'story' -- Walt was about presenting anything that would entertain folks.
Rant off.

EXCELLENT post.

Made me think about things a little differently than I had been.

Although I might disagree that innovators and entertainers aren't the critical sort. Different people are motivated in different ways... Especially artists. Some positive, some negative...

 

[Buried20KLeague]

I heard something similar.
Iger, I'm told, doesn't like the business model WDI was turning into, with a few managers and farming all the other stuff out to independant design firms. Part of what he wants Lassater to do is to begin turning back the clock to the old WDI way of business.

Which I think we can all agree would be a WONDERFUL thing... And potentially make a good amount of our discusstion moot. :lol:

 

[fundesign]

So when fun design comes around and says 'hey, we need to raise the bar'. Part of me says: no, you have it all wrong. To be really creative, technically perfecting elements of an existing layout don't do e. You have to introduce something completely 'out there' and have it blend with the ride to be 'the next level'. The unco-operative creative type in his or her head get's two seemingly disparate concepts working together.

As it stands -- EE is a ride through a story -- you have the set (a mountain) and its fun enough. Could they have thrown in more animatronics -- sure. But that won't make a big difference. You are just throwing gadgets at the public.

Could they have thrown a technically crazy situation where the yeti drags the coaster sideways up into his lair? Sure -- but again, that's a technical adjustment which only fine tunes things -- doesn't 'blast people away' (although it might be intense -- not everyone wants intensity in their rides -- see Fantasyland).

That said, the really creative folks that want to create a new experience and blow the public away probably won't work for a Disney because really creative people tend to be unco-operative. I.e. don't work well within a corporate system. So I don't entirely write fun design off because he's doing his own thing.

Disney departed from all conventions and left the carnival industry alone while he did his own thing and had his own movie studio (didn't work for another). So it worked for him and Roy.

So, if fundesign wants to create this whole new experience, be my guest -- but 'plussing' an attraction is so the wrong direction and he's completely off in that matter.

All he's doing is criticizing the rides apparent inadequacy. Whop de doo. An innovative person doesn't criticize -- they depart and innovate and come up with a whole radical concept. i.e. they are so involved with their idea -- they don't look or care too much about others -- because it is inadequate.

And frankly -- doesn't sound like this guy has the resources to do that -- either with an imagination or financial backing.

Roy and Walt were an interesting pair - - you had someone very innovative together with someone very entertaining -- that's a rare pair in my opinion.

Best of luck to everyone within the industry -- but to the critics within the industry -- you are so off in your direction (criticism) as a means towards improving the field.

First off, I knew putting a thumbnail description of an improved version of Everest would be risky. It's all about context. That wasn't what I, or my team would have come up with if we were starting from scratch. I worked within the confines of the existing structure. Besides which there was all of five minutes thought put into it. It's not hard to think up ideas like that if you do it for a living and there is certainly nothing special about them. Point is, anyone could have come up with a better plan initially. See my last post for where I place the blame...it's not all Creative. I mean come on, the basic Creative concept here is it's a big mountain with a train ride and a big animal tearing up the track. Not a complicated concept by any means. Hard for Creative to botch that one up. Ideas like that are a dime a dozen. It's in the follow-through and the details where things are messed up. Basically the, "it's good enough to get by" attitude.

That being said I submit that even if those changes were integrated as is, it would increase the popularity of the ride and genereate more word-of-mouth.

I agree with you that simply adding effects and new show action pieces willy-nilly doesn't necessarily raise the bar. However, going to the extreme on the other side of the aisle certainly can lower the bar. If you think that watching the track in front of you being torn apart, or having the Yeti lift your train to come face to face with him would not improve the experience or add anything, than why even have the Yeti in the first place? Why bother installing the moving walls "gadget" in the Indy ride? I mean the ride system is fun as is...why throw all those effects in? I'll tell you what, perhaps you'd prefer to keep a 4 effect limit on each new ride. Maybe that will make them as good as Everest. I don't mean to sound like a smart **s (well maybe a little) but I would truly like to understand your thinking.

There is something to be said for "sensory overload." But certainly in the Everest example all I've done is enhanced the story telling, the experience and the thrill. Rather than another Big Thunder or Mattehorn with a little more visceral thrill you'd also have a show that stands out in its own right.

In the past Disney has created experiences that "blow the public away" and embody the things I'm talking about. The renegades you speak of have worked for Disney and contributed quite a bit. As I've pointed out before, some of us still do work for WDI. So to be clear, are you saying the "really creative people" don't work for Disney?

I appreciate you not "writing me off" but than you say an extremely funny thing. You somehow know that I lack imagination and resources to bring about radical new concepts to the marketplace LOL. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion but allow me let you in on few facts. My business partner does have the financial means and contacts. I bring the imagination and know-how. I hold several patents. I have four full project development plans and concept packages containing over 30 new, groundbreaking concepts that would beat anything Disney has done in the last 10 years. I worked with a team of 8 people to complete this work. We are currently in negotiation to provide a radical new type of restaurant and another interactive show concept. I would love to share these things but obviously I can't and still maintain anonymity. I just love showing the renderings to people and watch their jaw drop.

 

[Tim G]

That wasn't what I, or my team would have come up with if we were starting from scratch. I worked within the confines of the existing structure.

Errrr..."Your" team??? :lol: :lol: :dazzle: :lookaroun

 

[wannab@dis]

1. I don't really care what his position is. Not to seem rude. But for the basis of his arguement, it doesn't matter to me where he fits in on the food chain. To me at least. His points make decent sense to me.

Not rude and is understandable.

2. You said we don't know if his claims have merit. THIS is absolutely a good point and something I hadn't thought about. I agree with you on this point. I have no idea if what he was talking about can be done using the dollar figures he gave. And that's a big part of what the discussion is about. Very valid point.

True. It's a very valid point for the discussion. But, back to number one, if his position is questionable, then any claims automatically lose a lot of merit for me.

3. You said some don't agree that the "bar" has to be raised to make an attraction a success. And I think that's just a difference of opinion. I don't think anyone's right or wrong in that sense. His point, which I tend to agree with, is that the public is satisfied with less than they used to be satisfied with... Which is why it takes less to awe some. Your point is that success isn't determined by pushing the boundaries of what we're familiar with, but rather the way in which what we're familiar with is presented. Both sides of the fence I can see here.

You're right. I think the point I'm trying to make is this. If an attraction can be built that *wows* the guests and brings them in by droves, then does it necessarily need to up some "bar"? My answer would be no. The success of the attraction did what WDW's primary goal is... bring in guests and ultimately, money.

Does that mean that "raising the bar" should no longer be a goal of WDI? Of course not, but it doesn't need to be a requirement of every project. There's the big difference that I'm trying to make. So many around here think the success of WDI should be measured by this "bar". The problem is that everyone and their brother is out there building theme park attractions and it's getting much harder now than it used to be (even 10 years ago) to come out with a novel, unique attraction that raises some "bar" and is also successful.

See, I would actually categorize Everest as a novel, unique and creative attraction. It's yet to be seen if it will ultimately be successful, but the early indications are that it will be. Whether is raises the bar is extremely opinionated.

 

[Buried20KLeague]

Not rude and is understandable.


True. It's a very valid point for the discussion. But, back to number one, if his position is questionable, then any claims automatically lose a lot of merit for me.


You're right. I think the point I'm trying to make is this. If an attraction can be built that *wows* the guests and brings them in by droves, then does it necessarily need to up some "bar"? My answer would be no. The success of the attraction did what WDW's primary goal is... bring in guests and ultimately, money.

Does that mean that "raising the bar" should no longer be a goal of WDI? Of course not, but it doesn't need to be a requirement of every project. There's the big difference that I'm trying to make. So many around here think the success of WDI should be measured by this "bar". The problem is that everyone and their brother is out there building theme park attractions and it's getting much harder now than it used to be (even 10 years ago) to come out with a novel, unique attraction that raises some "bar" and is also successful.

See, I would actually categorize Everest as a novel, unique and creative attraction. It's yet to be seen if it will ultimately be successful, but the early indications are that it will be. Whether is raises the bar is extremely opinionated.

I get you now. "Pie in the sky" vs. "reality", in a sense. The best of what the most creative minds "in theory" could come up with vs. what in this day and age is practical and good business sense. And you're saying that one is not determinate upon the other for "success".

It's a good ride, will appeal to the masses, and make Disney money. It may not "raise the bar", but to you that's not a positive requirement in your mind. It tells it's story, does it with quality, and you don't feel cheated. It may not "move the earth", but it does the job. I hear you.

 

[Jose Eber]

I appreciate you not "writing me off"

Meh, I've done renderings and digital/physical models and people have gone crazy too -- dreaming is one thing, doing it /building it is another.

When I talk resources -- I'm talking about having your own brand content/small economy and cash (even if its through a bank) to open up your own venue/location. That's why I was 'sort of' writing you off. You are no Walt or Roy Disney (Sr!).

You can talk a great game -- but honestly -- you are still talking about creating things within the existing Disney Theme park model of doing business.

For me, a true innovator will come up with something outside of that -- outside of the parks, on his or her own in his or own arena, whatever that may be.

Really creative people are not terribly co-operative -- history shows us that the inventors, the poets, the creative type -- they are off doing this on their own or in a pair at most.

For me, there is little to be said for sensory overload -- all that is is some designer with little ability to think through an attraction and just 'turns up the volume' or intensity so to speak and walks away (see: Dinosaur and parts of A Bugs Life -- and Stitch or even Mission Space).

Again, I'm only focusing on creativity -- which to be honest -- I'm not sure Walt had a whole lot of -- I think his skills were in the entertainer field. People just gave freely their time and money to be entertained by his films and attractions.

What happened when Walt, then Roy died -- is you had the entertainer and the innovator pass on, and what was left was a room full of engineers and artists with a total vacuum of creative/entertainer leadership. Now these folks took the company's WDI into a whole different direction.

EPCOT -- from a conceptual standpoint is utterly retarded. There is no thought behind 'permanent world's fair'. Walt envisioned something utterly different. Walt was smart -- he stopped with the MK -- too bad WDI hasn't really figured that one out yet. All you engineers or artists or detail oriented folks havn't (and might never) figure out -- is that you lack the goods to entertain folks.

Period.

Even creative folks alone don't have the entertainment 'bone' if you will.

I wish someone who was a real entertainer and then paired him up with an innovator like Roy Sr. came along and took over the company.

But this criticizing the Disney company saying Disney lost it in the details just sooo smacks of engineer/artists speak.

Disney Co. knows details -- those sorts of folks these days aren't too hard to come by -- its the idea man and entertainer which are a dying breed.

Now once you've figured out WHY they are a dying breed, then come talk to me -- we'll be on the same page.

Good luck working along side Disney! There's nothing wrong with it -- just don't present yourself as a creative visionary when the more you speak, the less it sounds like you are one. You sound like someone with an art background, stick to that.

 

[Jose Eber]

Back on to the subject at hand...

Today EE was down because 'apparently' they wanted to reduce the wait time on the first track switch segment.

Now this source also seems to say that will make the ride longer -- and they can try to get a 5 th train.

This makes no sense to me, but I'm reporting it anyway (wait longer in the projection room?)

J.

 

[peter11435]

Back on to the subject at hand...

Today EE was down because 'apparently' they wanted to reduce the wait time on the first track switch segment.

Now this source also seems to say that will make the ride longer -- and they can try to get a 5 th train.

This makes no sense to me, but I'm reporting it anyway (wait longer in the projection room?)

J.

Yeah I went over there today. I knew it wouldn't be running but thought I could get some shots of the Tarzan theater. Unfortuantatly they had the path blocked off at Dinorama so I could not get any. They even completly removed EE from the information board.

 

[mousermerf]

Make it longer? I can see it upping O/THRC as every second counts, but how could that make it longer?

And on other points.. There's a difference between artisan and artist as well as designer and technician. An engineer? That's getting into a whole can of worms, but I don't think engineers are inherently creative people (exceptions to the rule of course) and that their "designs" will always focus on the physical rather than the emotional statement being made.

A good designer will, however, lock onto the emotional statement (which if you like Poetics is what brings about entertainment/enjoyment via catharsis) and then use the physical to reinforce the idea.

I used to think it was story story story too. Then a good designer (Eddie Sotto incase you care) posed the question of why the Dumbo ride was so popular to me.

A few revisions in my thesis later, I started to accept the idea of "theme" not as product of merely story, but a combination of the elements. The better you get, the more you can say with each.

Another important idea posed to me more recently, is that the notion of "director as god" has been fading and nearly removed in recent years. No longers are shows typically designed with a single person's vision and a plethora of artisans/technicians bring his/her idea to life. In the present, this means mismatched concepts on a show as individuals try to force their idea to the head (often merely because of ego rather than merit)

Together with the focus on physical - which is inherent in the discipline of engineering (they don't force them to study Poetics now do they?) - the lack of a God designer leads to muddled ideas and generally weak products. They're neither entertaining nor poignant, because everyone stepped on each other in the process.

This is what I feel needs to be fixed at Imagineering. I always found it funny that the term implied engineers, but the best of them were most certainly not. At the moment, I fear it's overrun with them.

Oh, and before anyone think i'm some froofy studio artist, I am a designer. The difference is that I care if someone understands my artwork or not.

 

[Tim G]

I heard something similar.
Iger, I'm told, doesn't like the business model WDI was turning into, with a few managers and farming all the other stuff out to independant design firms. Part of what he wants Lassater to do is to begin turning back the clock to the old WDI way of business.

1st. Mr. Lassiter only has some kind of supervising power, (again a newly created job) but absolutely NO power over Creative...

2nd. I can imagine, Mr. Iger is not satisfied with with the current WDI business model...

3rd. He did NOT say which model or era he wants to return to...

At the moment, noone knows what he's up to... for that matter, it could well be going in a totally different direction, one that we're not thinking of...
He doesn't mean, "the good old days" when[FONT=verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif], Imagineering was insulated from much financial scrutiny. [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif]The days of "You can't put a price tag on creativity" are long gone and will be for ever...[/FONT]

The problem is... As long as BOTH, Mr. Iger & Mr. Lassiter, still talk about, 'How tiny Imagineering can be and still maintain a strategic advantage,' in discussions about whether Imagineering should be zero." as competitors like Universal Studios do much of their theme park development using outside contractors, keeping fewer than 100 creative employees on the payroll.
And Nowadays this Mr. Iger is wondering, whether Disney should follow that model.

So Mr. Iger has no plans on changing these ideas, but we finally know where Mr. Iger is heading... and if he gets his way, Disney will fall back about 15 years, and that's not good (at least not for Creative)

I've said it before... I don't trust Mr. Iger... (mind me the expression, and I'm glad I retired just in time... IMO