epcot wand....

Legacy

Legacy

Well-Known Member
EPCOT Explorer said:
How is this illogical?Walt loved what he did and DL was the personifiction of his dream...Most thought it would fail.Roy certainly did but look what happened.Disney Parks are some of the most famous and enchanting entertainment venues on the face of this earth.I'm sure this was all Walt's evil plan to make big $$$...Did you NOT see the quote?!?


I know..I know...Sorry.:eek:
Click to expand...
Dude,

Have you ever heard the phrase, "Poor, starving artist?"

A poor starving artist is an artist who designs for no one else but themselves. Some are very happy, but they don't get a lot of money because they don't really design for other people.

Stable, rich artist make their money by designing things that people will enjoy. They may not enjoy creating them as much, but it gets them the money.

Walt. Wanted. Money.

Disneyland is what is known as an "investment." By creating an "ultimate escape," he laid waste to the competition so he could get more money. In the back of his mind, he loved what he was doing, but the motivations weren't for the people; the motivations were for their wallets.

It's obvious you could never be a business man.
 
EPCOT Explorer

EPCOT Explorer

New Member
Legacy said:
Dude,

Have you ever heard the phrase, "Poor, starving artist?"

A poor starving artist is an artist who designs for no one else but themselves. Some are very happy, but they don't get a lot of money because they don't really design for other people.

Stable, rich artist make their money by designing things that people will enjoy. They may not enjoy creating them as much, but it gets them the money.

Walt. Wanted. Money.

Disneyland is what is known as an "investment." By creating an "ultimate escape," he laid waste to the competition so he could get more money. In the back of his mind, he loved what he was doing, but the motivations weren't for the people; the motivations were for their wallets.

It's obvious you could never be a business man.
Click to expand...



I agree there...Don't want to anyway.Lawyer though...:cool:I like to argue.Obviously.

OK,fine,Disney is a corporation,I get that.But isn't Disney supposed to be that company that is the paramount above all the others?Aren't they they ones that pioneered this thing called a theme park?If they acted like they are,they would stop using these cheap gimicks and thrills to rope guests...And start being REALLY creative again.C'mon?Can we get away from all the characters PLEASE?!?Let's go back to the kind of unique story telling we had...not this prequel/sequel movie tie in stuff.
 
tirian

tirian

Well-Known Member
Legacy said:
Dude,

Have you ever heard the phrase, "Poor, starving artist?"

A poor starving artist is an artist who designs for no one else but themselves. Some are very happy, but they don't get a lot of money because they don't really design for other people.

Stable, rich artist make their money by designing things that people will enjoy. They may not enjoy creating them as much, but it gets them the money.

Walt. Wanted. Money.

Disneyland is what is known as an "investment." By creating an "ultimate escape," he laid waste to the competition so he could get more money. In the back of his mind, he loved what he was doing, but the motivations weren't for the people; the motivations were for their wallets.

It's obvious you could never be a business man.
Click to expand...

I agree with the sentiment expressed in your post. However, companies like Disney—companies that are expected to deliver the best product possible—are also supposed to abide by another design rule: The Public Is Fickle and Never Really Knows What It Wants. As an artist (whether that be fine art or Imagineering), your job is to research public opinion, then create something that goes beyond their imaginations.
 
Legacy

Legacy

Well-Known Member
EPCOT Explorer said:
And by public opinion,I'm sure you mean all of it,so the crazy "purists" are included there.:cool:
Click to expand...

But in gauging public opinion, percentages of the public come into the play. The opinions of a smaller percentages are not as important than the opinions of the larger. That's the reality of economics and politics.

The "purists" are a incredibly SMALL percentage of the overall public and the Disney's target demographic. Are you going to stop going if they keep adding characters (what they've done from the beginning)? Probably not. If you do... there will probably five more families that will go BECAUSE of the character. Disney cuts its losses. They don't care about what the purists want... only what the money (the "stupid" guests who have no standards and the sponsors) want.
 
G

gettingsmaller

New Member
Legacy said:
Dude,

Have you ever heard the phrase, "Poor, starving artist?"

A poor starving artist is an artist who designs for no one else but themselves. Some are very happy, but they don't get a lot of money because they don't really design for other people.

Stable, rich artist make their money by designing things that people will enjoy. They may not enjoy creating them as much, but it gets them the money.

Walt. Wanted. Money.

Disneyland is what is known as an "investment." By creating an "ultimate escape," he laid waste to the competition so he could get more money. In the back of his mind, he loved what he was doing, but the motivations weren't for the people; the motivations were for their wallets.

It's obvious you could never be a business man.
Click to expand...

I don't think you're totally right on the poor vs. rich artist thing.
I think the 'real' artist creates what's in his heart. Some are lucky enough that those creations coincide with the public's desire. They become the rich artists. Others are not so lucky. They are the poor ones. Both create for the sake of creation.

Hmmm... well, I'm going to change this a bit... There are also those who enjoy entertaining people. I like to cook--even to be creative in my cooking--BUT I don't really like to cook just to eat it myself or to throw it away. I like to cook FOR someone--to make something special for them. My enjoyment lies in watching THEM enjoy what I have 'created' for them. In this case, taking the 'customer's' desires into account is not a 'drag' on the creativity or on the joy of the creation. Instead, it is PART of the creation.

Anyway, I'm not going to say that Walt didn't want money, BUT--not having read any diary, etc.--I AM going to say that it is possible that his primary motivation was to create this place for people to enjoy and lose themselves in. The great thing about the money is that it allows you to KEEP creating (not doing part-time dishwashing to pay the bills), and it allows you to dream bigger and bigger.

Businessmen and artists are rarely inside the same body. I think Walt was one of those rare people with both parts. I think Bill Gates is one (or was), as is Steve Jobs. It's these people who usually make the big bucks, and are called names like 'visionary' and 'pioneer'. Generally, there is a passion beyond money that drives these visionaries. The problem is that the visionary is rarely followed by another one in the same company. They usually are replaced with someone more interested in counting beans than in creating and providing that special vision for a company, industry, country, or world. Just as a company will rarely be successful with an artist-run-amok at the helm, it will also have trouble succeeding with a short-term-profit-obsessed bean counter running the show. Profit at all costs is just as deadly as creativity at any cost.

Anyway, to touch back on my original thought: I have not seen anything to suggest that Walt's driving motivation was the money. In fact, I think Disney would not have been so successful if it WAS.
 
EPCOT Explorer

EPCOT Explorer

New Member
Legacy said:
It says nostalgia is profitable.
Click to expand...

So why not make attractions based on these nostalgic needs?

gettingsmaller said:
I don't think you're totally right on the poor vs. rich artist thing.
I think the 'real' artist creates what's in his heart. Some are lucky enough that those creations coincide with the public's desire. They become the rich artists. Others are not so lucky. They are the poor ones. Both create for the sake of creation.

Hmmm... well, I'm going to change this a bit... There are also those who enjoy entertaining people. I like to cook--even to be creative in my cooking--BUT I don't really like to cook just to eat it myself or to throw it away. I like to cook FOR someone--to make something special for them. My enjoyment lies in watching THEM enjoy what I have 'created' for them. In this case, taking the 'customer's' desires into account is not a 'drag' on the creativity or on the joy of the creation. Instead, it is PART of the creation.

Anyway, I'm not going to say that Walt didn't want money, BUT--not having read any diary, etc.--I AM going to say that it is possible that his primary motivation was to create this place for people to enjoy and lose themselves in. The great thing about the money is that it allows you to KEEP creating (not doing part-time dishwashing to pay the bills), and it allows you to dream bigger and bigger.

Businessmen and artists are rarely inside the same body. I think Walt was one of those rare people with both parts. I think Bill Gates is one (or was), as is Steve Jobs. It's these people who usually make the big bucks, and are called names like 'visionary' and 'pioneer'. Generally, there is a passion beyond money that drives these visionaries. The problem is that the visionary is rarely followed by another one in the same company. They usually are replaced with someone more interested in counting beans than in creating and providing that special vision for a company, industry, country, or world. Just as a company will rarely be successful with an artist-run-amok at the helm, it will also have trouble succeeding with a short-term-profit-obsessed bean counter running the show. Profit at all costs is just as deadly as creativity at any cost.

Anyway, to touch back on my original thought: I have not seen anything to suggest that Walt's driving motivation was the money. In fact, I think Disney would not have been so successful if it WAS.
Click to expand...

That's what Disney was...And still could be.People go becaue it simply is Disney.
 
wannab@dis

wannab@dis

Well-Known Member
jennc2001 said:
so....what's a fanboy?? :) (just trying to keep up here) LOL
Click to expand...
It's pretty obvious based on the posts who's a fanboy around here. :lol:

But, look for those statements such as "It should be a labor of love, not to make money" or "Whether the people like it or not doesn't matter, it should make them think." or "Can we get away from all the characters PLEASE?"

Pretty good indicators. Also, 'boy' is usually a good clue. For the most part, they are young, most haven't worked in the real world and they think the parks are their own little playground where things should catered to their wants and narrow point of view. Rarely do they think something "new" is better than something "old" even if they were in diapers when it was torn down. :lol:
 
tirian

tirian

Well-Known Member
gettingsmaller said:
Businessmen and artists are rarely inside the same body. I think Walt was one of those rare people with both parts. I think Bill Gates is one (or was), as is Steve Jobs. It's these people who usually make the big bucks, and are called names like 'visionary' and 'pioneer'. Generally, there is a passion beyond money that drives these visionaries. The problem is that the visionary is rarely followed by another one in the same company. They usually are replaced with someone more interested in counting beans than in creating and providing that special vision for a company, industry, country, or world. Just as a company will rarely be successful with an artist-run-amok at the helm, it will also have trouble succeeding with a short-term-profit-obsessed bean counter running the show. Profit at all costs is just as deadly as creativity at any cost.
Click to expand...

You've got a great point, and many businesspeople are unable to accept visionaries who excel in both business and art. The business-minded people usually accuse the visionary of being too artistic simply because they don't have the imagination to see beyond their college textbooks.

Vice-versa, many artists refuse to accept the visionary because they accuse him of selling out. It's not called "selling out"; it's called "being multi-talented."

So what does the visionary do? He pushes forward anyway by researching public opinion, then creating something that goes beyond their imaginations.
 
wannab@dis

wannab@dis

Well-Known Member
tirian said:
You've got a great point, and many businesspeople are unable to accept visionaries who excels in both business and art. The business-minded people usually accuse the visionary of being too artistic simply because they don't have the imagination to see beyond their college textbooks.

Vice-versa, many artists refuse to accept the visionary because they accuse him of selling out. It's not called "selling out"; it's called "being multi-talented."

So what does the visionary do? He pushes forward anyway by researching public opinion, then creating something that goes beyond their imaginations.
Click to expand...
You're correct. But we should never forget one simple thing. Vision, imagination and creativity all need one item to come to fruition... money. This is a point that I've tried to make over and over and over. Having the parks accepted by the largest percentage of consumers will create larger revenues which will be available for expanded vision, imagination and creativity.

Build something that is not accepted by the consumer, and the coffers dry up quickly.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom