Episode III: Return of the Imageworks?

mcjaco

mcjaco

Well-Known Member
WDWFigment said:
For all of you doubting this poster, this isn't really that telling. Of course it's a mistake--none of this stuff is open right now, which makes it a mistake.

Now, whether he means it's a mistake because it's outdated, or it's a mistake because it was posted too soon, remains to be seen.
Click to expand...

It's a mistake because Disney's info for the website team is a complete mess. They pull stuff that's outdated, and incorrect all the time.

I sent Martin a direct quote from the repsonse I got back from one of the team members. He's laughing at this entire thread.
 
WDWFigment

WDWFigment

Well-Known Member
mcjaco said:
It's a mistake because Disney's info for the website team is a complete mess. They pull stuff that's outdated, and incorrect all the time.

I sent Martin a direct quote from the repsonse I got back from one of the team members. He's laughing at this entire thread.
Click to expand...

Not that I believe this at all, but just to play devil's advocate: even if this were intended for the future, do you think someone on the web team would know? If they did know, do you think they'd admit, "yeah, we accidentally posted something early"? My bet is they'd deny it, regardless of whether it's true, saying it was a mistake.

That said, I don't buy it, either.
 
jt04

jt04

Well-Known Member
mcjaco said:
It's a mistake because Disney's info for the website team is a complete mess. They pull stuff that's outdated, and incorrect all the time.

I sent Martin a direct quote from the repsonse I got back from one of the team members. He's laughing at this entire thread.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it just be more appropriate to remove the page, if it is really wrong? The fact that the haven't makes me wonder. Perhaps the are seeing the response they will get to the idea.
Who knows?
 
WDWFigment

WDWFigment

Well-Known Member
jt04 said:
Wouldn't it just be more appropriate to remove the page, if it is really wrong? The fact that the haven't makes me wonder. Perhaps the are seeing the response they will get to the idea.
Who knows?
Click to expand...

Another good point. They could very easily be leaking teases of information to see what kind of response they get. Who knows, maybe this is part of some odd viral campaign to get people talking about JII 4.0? :shrug:
 
mcjaco

mcjaco

Well-Known Member
WDWFigment said:
Not that I believe this at all, but just to play devil's advocate: even if this were intended for the future, do you think someone on the web team would know? If they did know, do you think they'd admit, "yeah, we accidentally posted something early"? My bet is they'd deny it, regardless of whether it's true, saying it was a mistake.
Click to expand...

He's told me on many occasions that info they pull from is a complete disaster. It's all over, outdated, and not organized in any fashion.

You have to remember, it's a job for most of these people. They're paid to code webpages, not fact check. They're just cutting and pasting.

jt04 said:
Wouldn't it just be more appropriate to remove the page, if it is really wrong? The fact that the haven't makes me wonder. Perhaps the are seeing the response they will get to the idea.
Who knows?
Click to expand...

It's very possible (hint, hint), that this is the first time it's even been noticed. Externally, and now internally.

WDWFigment said:
Another good point. They could very easily be leaking teases of information to see what kind of response they get. Who knows, maybe this is part of some odd viral campaign to get people talking about JII 4.0? :shrug:
Click to expand...

No, no, no, no, no. :hammer:
 
marni1971

marni1971

Park History nut
Premium Member
Okay, this discussion about the original Imageworks has meant I`ve brought forward a project I`m working on. It`s a bit rough, but I`ll shortly post the original layouts of both upstairs versions (surprise - there were indeed 2!)
 
EpcotServo

EpcotServo

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
1: It can be found just by navigating to it on the WDW website, not hidden. Got the tip from a another WDW website that's name can't be said because it has many of the words of ANOTHER website that can't be said.

2: I have noticed and addressed the error in the Title, and am filled with shame. The people responsible have been sacked.

3: Can't wait to see that, Martin!
 
MichWolv

MichWolv

Born Modest. Wore Off.
Premium Member
marni1971 said:
Okay, this discussion about the original Imageworks has meant I`ve brought forward a project I`m working on. It`s a bit rough, but I`ll shortly post the original layouts of both upstairs versions (surprise - there were indeed 2!)
Click to expand...

Thank you for validating my memory of 2 different upstairs layouts at Imageworks.
 
DisneyMusician2

DisneyMusician2

Well-Known Member
Lee said:
For sure.
Me? Liked them better than TTA, overall. Even with the annoying "revving" noises.
Of course, having the better track layout at DL helps...
Click to expand...

That was something I always watned to experience, but I couldn't get out there before they closed.

I can't believe that they have left the track vacant, though.

It's a shame about Imageworks, but I guess that when they listed it was still Kodak sponsored, that should have been a tip-off. Kodak barely has enough money to get out of their own way.
 
marni1971

marni1971

Park History nut
Premium Member
Okay, here we are. After a few years of on and off research I`ve recently been able to nail down the original layouts of the upstairs Imageworks:

Imageworks_1982_layout_copy.jpg


Imageworks_1991_layout_copy.jpg


Discuss :D
 

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

Back
Top Bottom