Fire Mountain ?

[tirian]

Although Disney College grads are preferred, Imagineering hires many people. One of my co-workers is majoring in Engineering at college and will soon leave for a type of Disney Imagineering training...but you don't need a BA from the Disney College first. You do have to be accepted into a program, then you might get hired.

I have two connections: my mom's friend's brother-in-law (got that? ) is the VP over WDW operations, and my dad's friend's best friend (got that, too, right?) was offered a top position at Imagineering but turned it down for Lucasfilm. He still has friends in high places, though.

Anyway, I don't want to mislead anyone. I haven't talked to either one of these folks yet, so I don't have any special inside info. If I did, it would be all over these boards. You know...accidentally... :lol:

I will, however, be contacting these people soon for information on getting into Imagineering. When I know more, I'll post it... and I'll ask about the arm/wand over SE (just kidding).

...I DID speak to a WDW intern rep: when Mikey Eisner shut down traditional animation, Imagineering and Graphic Design internships were discontinued at WDW. I don't know about the rest of the company.

 

[Hobnail Boot]

Disney doesn't realize how popular some of their less-marketed classics, such as "Melody Time" and "Robin Hood" actually are.

Amen to that. I've actually designed a ride based on Robin Hood. It is one of my favorite classic Disney films and would fit PERFECTLY into Fantasyland. I mean Peter Pan, Snow White, Robin Hood....makes perfect sense. It keeps with the fairy tale theme.

 

[MickeyMan101]

Fire Mountain!

so if i wanted to become a Imagineer you have to go to a different collage than disney?? Because that's EXACTLY what i want to do! So if anyone has nany more info please let me know!

MickeyMan101
___________________

~One man's dream is another man's Adventure!~

IM me at Manutdwanab18
or e-mail me
Schwenkietwo@hotmail.com

 

[Indy95]

Yes, the 20K site has enough room for a mountain: if the coaster got too large, WDI could easily add another tunnel to the RR.

Although I like both concepts, I think Fire Mountain should be built before Bald Mountain. First, it would re-establish Disney as a pathfinder in attraction technology (Mission: Space was supposed to do this, but it's basically just a centrifuge). Secondly, while the 20K site needs another attraction ASAP, WDI needs to fully realize the concept first. I don't know about anyone else, but I find the "Villain's Conference" theme incredibly lame. Disney has already slapped all the princesses together into one pink, plastic-grinned, cookie-cutter, big-busted conglomerate. They don't need to smash any other characters together. Don't get me wrong--I would love to see Bald Mountain constructed; and if done correctly, it would look great behind Cinderella's Castle (yes, I know I'm contradicting what I said earlier; but I remembered the Matterhorn after I posted). Maybe if Guests rode through the Magic Mirror and into a sort of villain-third-dimension... Anyway, "Hercules" is a pathetic film compared to Walt's films, and not worth plugging in the classic-inspired MK. And I'd rather have Malificent transform and attack me as a dragon than have Chernabog (which really just means "Satan" in another language) futilly grasp for me.

Regarding Mary Poppins and Sleepy Hollow, Disney released more information about the Africa pavilion that was supposed to be built in Epcot (but never fully planned) than they did about these two dark rides.

A few things:

1. How many OTHER centrifuges have you ridden at other parks? Why is M:S not a "pathfinder attraction?"
2. Hercules is far from pathetic. Look at almost every animated film that Disney has made since then (maybe besides Mulan), and every animated film that OTHER studios (besides Pixar) have made, and you'll see that Hercules is vastly superior. Now, it doesn't compare to Walt's old movies, of course, but it is still a really good movie.
3. So Stitch, Iago, Zazu, and Buzz Lightyear can be "plugged" at the "classic-inspired MK," but Hercules can't?!
4. "Chernabog" does NOT mean "Satan" in another language. The correct spelling is "Czernobog," and though he is the Slavic god of evil, he is not a Satan figure, but more of an anti-Christ. His destiny is to forever battle with his other benevolent half, Bielabog, and they both lived in the same body. At times of stryfe, Czernobog would be dominant, but in times of peace it was Bielabog.
5. Disney released information about the Africa Pavilion at Epcot because it was ALREADY ANNOUNCED that it would be built. And yes, it WAS fully planned. So completely, in fact, that it was featured on the original Epcot 1982 map as "coming attraction," and Disney even did a half-hour series on the continued constructon of the pavilion! THAT is why there there is concept art available for the Africa Pavilion. On the other hand, Fire Mountain has NOT been officially announced, therefore no concept art is available.

 

[tirian]

My local Six Flags has a centrifuge. M:S is an excellent attraction--that's not my point; but instead of simply theming an attraction to an existing technology, Fire Mountain would be a new experience altogether. WDW deserves that.

As for Chernobog, I simply meant that he's the Slavic equivilent of Satan. In the planning stages of Fantasia, and in the film itself, the character is referred to as "the devil." Although the music is about Chernobog, Disney only recently referred to the character as such, probably to avoid controversy. The anti-Christ, by the way, is supposed to be someone possessed by Satan, so the technicality is moot.

I agree: Hercules is better than the other modern films, but it hasn't established itself as enough of a classic to have a spot in the Magic Kingdom. Aladdin, The Lion King, and Toy Story, on the other hand, are tried-and-true favorites.

Besides, Fire Mountain will probably not be built for a long time, if ever.

 

[Testtrack321]

My local Six Flags has a centrifuge. M:S is an excellent attraction--that's not my point; but instead of simply theming an attraction to an existing technology, Fire Mountain would be a new experience altogether. WDW deserves that.

As for Chernobog, I simply meant that he's the Slavic equivilent of Satan. In the planning stages of Fantasia, and in the film itself, the character is referred to as "the devil." Although the music is about Chernobog, Disney only recently referred to the character as such, probably to avoid controversy. The anti-Christ, by the way, is supposed to be someone possessed by Satan, so the technicality is moot.

I agree: Hercules is better than the other modern films, but it hasn't established itself as enough of a classic to have a spot in the Magic Kingdom. Aladdin, The Lion King, and Toy Story, on the other hand, are tried-and-true favorites.

Besides, Fire Mountain will probably not be built for a long time, if ever.

an enterprise is NOT a centerfuge, using that same logic the tea cups are a centerfuge too.

 

[ToTBellHop]

comparing Mission: SPACE to a spin-and-puke flatride at your local Six Flags is a bit of a stretch...I'll be happy to let the Imagineers do their job, even though I do like Hercules, I'm sure they have something great up their sleeves, as always.

 

[tirian]

Oh, wait...M:S isn't a spin-and-puke ride? :lol:

Just kidding. You're right; M:S shouldn't be compared to a Six Flags ride. In fact, no Disney park should possess the ability to be compared to Six Flags, which is why the infamous "If it's good enough for Six Flags..." remark is so vile...and why many people (but not everyone) dislike DCA.

However, I think many of you missed my point:

Although I like both concepts, I think Fire Mountain should be built before Bald Mountain. First, it would re-establish Disney as a pathfinder in attraction technology (Mission: Space was supposed to do this, but it's basically just a centrifuge).

I never said that M:S is a bad attraction; in fact, I really like it. My point is that whereas Fire Mountain would utilize completely new technology (by converting from a sitting to a hanging coaster), M:S was based on existing technology. That fact doesn't make M:S a bad ride: I neither said nor implied this. But with its one-of-a-kind conversion system, Fire Mountain would re-establish Disney as an attraction technology leader among the general public. Although M:S is impressive, few people say, "OOOOOO, a centrifuge! I've never seen one of those before!" Fire Mountain, on the other hand, would have every die-hard coaster enthusiast from around the world vying for a Fast Pass! If it were possible, radio stations could probably give FPs away as contest prizes! (But it's not possible.)

 

[Testtrack321]

Oh, wait...M:S isn't a spin-and-puke ride? :lol:

Just kidding. You're right; M:S shouldn't be compared to a Six Flags ride. In fact, no Disney park should possess the ability to be compared to Six Flags, which is why the infamous "If it's good enough for Six Flags..." remark is so vile...and why many people (but not everyone) dislike DCA.

However, I think many of you missed my point:



I never said that M:S is a bad attraction; in fact, I really like it. My point is that whereas Fire Mountain would utilize completely new technology (by converting from a sitting to a hanging coaster), M:S was based on existing technology. That fact doesn't make M:S a bad ride: I neither said nor implied this. But with its one-of-a-kind conversion system, Fire Mountain would re-establish Disney as an attraction technology leader among the general public. Although M:S is impressive, few people say, "OOOOOO, a centrifuge! I've never seen one of those before!" Fire Mountain, on the other hand, would have every die-hard coaster enthusiast from around the world vying for a Fast Pass! If it were possible, radio stations could probably give FPs away as contest prizes! (But it's not possible.)

Do you think it's in Disney's best interests to start competing against Cedar Fair and Paramount for the trill people? I don't think so. Psst... changing a vehicle into another vehicle isn't new too. M:S and Fire Mountain are both NEW rides that use never before used technology.

 

[peter11435]

Oh, wait...M:S isn't a spin-and-puke ride? :lol:

Just kidding. You're right; M:S shouldn't be compared to a Six Flags ride. In fact, no Disney park should possess the ability to be compared to Six Flags, which is why the infamous "If it's good enough for Six Flags..." remark is so vile...and why many people (but not everyone) dislike DCA.

However, I think many of you missed my point:



I never said that M:S is a bad attraction; in fact, I really like it. My point is that whereas Fire Mountain would utilize completely new technology (by converting from a sitting to a hanging coaster), M:S was based on existing technology. That fact doesn't make M:S a bad ride: I neither said nor implied this. But with its one-of-a-kind conversion system, Fire Mountain would re-establish Disney as an attraction technology leader among the general public. Although M:S is impressive, few people say, "OOOOOO, a centrifuge! I've never seen one of those before!" Fire Mountain, on the other hand, would have every die-hard coaster enthusiast from around the world vying for a Fast Pass! If it were possible, radio stations could probably give FPs away as contest prizes! (But it's not possible.)

A bit misinfromed, eh.