October82
Well-Known Member
I think one of us is not understanding the other and I'm not honestly sure who. I was saying the imagineers should be able to mess with the Disney formula from time to time. That in pushing the boundaries, even if it doesn't quite work, will teach them new things going forward.
The comment that I quoted was in response to a claim that Disney shouldn't "mess with the formula". That formula is a set of long established practices about how theme parks and attractions are designed, which is broken by the mandate to market a franchise in the parks. The point you're making here is inconsistent, you are not talking about pushing boundaries, you are talking about designing attractions to market franchises, which is an explicit restriction on the ability of creatives to innovate.
I would love creatives to make decisions, but I do not in any way imagine a company that can function with a bunch of artist's starting off with blank pages. Every step in a project, whether starting with an IP or "wholly original" will have it's borders and restrictions defined along the way. From budget, theme, accessibility, technology, time-frame, etc.
This is a great example of doubling down on that inconsistency. It's an attempt to justify how decisions are made by relabelling restrictions placed upon them as innovative, while not actually arguing for anything that resembles innovation. You don't innovate by telling creatives what they should consider innovative.
Of course, that doesn't mean that business realities don't exist. Innovation is expensive. Sometimes you can't afford to innovate. But you don't get around that problem by calling whatever you do "innovative" or "boundary pushing". That's just marketing.