I found a real eye opening article about WDI

[CaptainMichael]

Yensid "Common Courtesy . . . sadly it's becoming extinct" tlaw1969

STR8 "Thank goodness life is back to normal" FAN2005:sohappy:

 

[wannab@dis]

No, the world is fine :lol: , I just took note of who complained about them in some other thread and decided not to do the little separation of my name thing when quoting those people. If it annoys them, why do it to them? .


Yensid "Common Courtesy . . . sadly it's becoming extinct" tlaw1969

Not a major complaint. In fact, I think if you add that to every post, then it becomes just another part of a signature that may not be read. But if you pick and choose the times to add it, then it will have more impact and punch. Know what I mean?

Abuse reduces the worth?

 

[peter11435]

The fluff is nice, I would rather have a complete attraction.

Personally I think the fluff is what makes Disney - Disney. Sure the money spent on some of those themed elements at AK could have went to more attractions, but I don't think it would have been worth it. Look at DCA. No matter how much they add to the park, it won't change the fact that many of the parks areas are mediocre. The exact reason they are redoing many of the parks areas now. With AK what the park already has is incredibly themed, and very well done. It’s much easier to build out, and expand the park into a great full day park when they already have a solid foundation to build upon. I wouldn't trade any of AK's detail for an additional attraction or two.

 

[ballewclan]

Personally I think the fluff is what makes Disney - Disney. Sure the money spent on some of those themed elements at AK could have went to more attractions, but I don't think it would have been worth it. Look at DCA. No matter how much they add to the park, it won't change the fact that many of the parks areas are mediocre. The exact reason they are redoing many of the parks areas now. With AK what the park already has is incredibly themed, and very well done. It’s much easier to build out, and expand the park into a great full day park when they already have a solid foundation to build upon. I wouldn't trade any of AK's detail for an additional attraction or two.

I agree, its harder to stuff a pillow after its been stitched up. Its nice to have an empty pillow but I'd prefer to have the get the fluff then sew the pillow around it...

anyone get it? :hammer:

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

I agree, its harder to stuff a pillow after its been stitched up. Its nice to have an empty pillow but I'd prefer to have the get the fluff then sew the pillow around it...

anyone get it? :hammer:

I think I get it, and find it to be quite an interesting analogy:lol: .

Yensid "It's a compliment" tlaw1969

 

[CaptainMichael]

anyone get it? :hammer:

Yeah, I got it.

 

[speck76]

Personally I think the fluff is what makes Disney - Disney. Sure the money spent on some of those themed elements at AK could have went to more attractions, but I don't think it would have been worth it. Look at DCA. No matter how much they add to the park, it won't change the fact that many of the parks areas are mediocre. The exact reason they are redoing many of the parks areas now. With AK what the park already has is incredibly themed, and very well done. It’s much easier to build out, and expand the park into a great full day park when they already have a solid foundation to build upon. I wouldn't trade any of AK's detail for an additional attraction or two.

But what is the price? If realism is what they wanted, DAK has plenty of it...but how much of the detail is lost on 99% of the visitors?

At what point does the detail lose its ROI? If EE did not have "authentic" details, would anyone even know, or care? Are people paying extra to get into DAK because it is more immersive than MGM? Do people pay for the bike tracks in the "mud" paths, or the power lines....or would more people come with a better assortment of attractions?

There is a level above mediocre that is not the "best" but certainly better than average.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

I think a good example of what Speck is talking about is Monsters Inc - Mike and Sulley to the Rescue.

When people first saw the facade for the attraction (this is months before it opened, by the way), they were like "That's it? We're getting some new paint on an old facade. Wow, shows how cheap the company is". While it is true that the budget wasn't very high, people were wrong in thinking that a cheap facade lead to a cheap attraction. Infact, while it is not the biggest or best attraction we've ever seen, it is certainly a well done darkride. Why? Because the Imagineers working on it decided to put as much money as thoy would toward the show rather than to the facade and queue, which is also very bland, to say the least. However, there have been mostly positive reviews of the attraction there. People tend to forget the facade and queue line once they get on the attraction.

So maybe Speck is right. Then again, I wish we were back in the days where you got both a great facade, great queue, and great attraction and the company wasn't afraid to spend money on it. Disneyland's Haunted Mansion is a prime example of this. Maybe it's just a pipe dream.


Wow, for such a short post it took me a long time to post it! Multitasking is hard!


Yensid "Grim Grinning Monsters Come out to DCA!:lookaroun " tlaw1969

 

[wedenterprises]

Animal Kingdom is the most beautiful, relaxing park in WDW. However, I feel it is too lush in places. I think a lot of the details get lost in the trees and are pretty small. there is an overall "colourful" theme on discovery island that is nice but doesn't really make sense. It reminds me of Coronado Springs.

I think AK will benefit from more rides, but also a nighttime show and the return of the river boats. A new land (BK!) with a nighttime show or something would be awesome. I think there needs to be an immersive land at AK. Africa comes the closest, but imo the best environment in all of Disney's parks in america is Adventureland in the magic kingdom. it is long and complete. you enter under a very cool sign on that wooden bridge and pass all the great architecture, the swiss family robnson tree, the bazaar (i could do without the flying carpets actually) and the amazing jungle cruise design, THEN you come to POTC. its just a great land and its huge. What I have always hated about DCA is the small size of the lands. Tokyo Disney Sea looks like they have larger lands which allow for a more immersive experience.

The details are always important, but under a tight budget you need to figure out what is important. details get lost on guests all the time, i've been countless times to wdw and i always see something new. the details support the story.

and just to add - i hate tomorrowland in MK. half is 70's and half is the really cool "future that never was" (which i love) - sorry just had to rant, i hardly post on this site but i do read it every day!

:wave:

 

[peter11435]

At what point does the detail lose its ROI? If EE did not have "authentic" details, would anyone even know, or care? Are people paying extra to get into DAK because it is more immersive than MGM? Do people pay for the bike tracks in the "mud" paths, or the power lines....or would more people come with a better assortment of attractions?

I understand what you are saying but where do you draw the line. Detail is what Disney is all about. Im sure more people would come with a better assortment of attractions. And from a business standpoint that would have most likely been the better way to go. But I am glad they didn't go that way.

I mean seriously the general public would pack into AK to ride Everest even if there were no story, themed queue, mountain, yeti, or anything else but the coaster. But I am sure that is something none of us would like to see Disney start doing. I mean Everest could have been built for under 20 million if you got ride of all of the themeing and detail. And Im sure their ROI would have been huge then.

 

[wannab@dis]

I understand what you are saying but where do you draw the line. Detail is what Disney is all about. Im sure more people would come with a better assortment of attractions. And from a business standpoint that would have most likely been the better way to go. But I am glad they didn't go that way.

I mean seriously the general public would pack into AK to ride Everest even if there were no story, themed queue, mountain, yeti, or anything else but the coaster. But I am sure that is something none of us would like to see Disney start doing. I mean Everest could have been built for under 20 million if you got ride of all of the themeing and detail. And Im sure their ROI would have been huge then.

I think there has to be a happy medium somewhere. Maybe it's where we're at right now. Take a look at some of the posts... some people still don't think EE has enough theming.

It was my 4th or 5th trip to AK before I ever noticed the tire tracks and all the animal tracks in the walkways. I was always to busy looking up at everything around me to notice them. Does that mean they were a waste of time and money? I don't know. For a first time visitor who may not return for years? Maybe. But for people that go back time after time and find the new details, they're happy with that depth of work.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

There's no doubt that many of his points are out of context, exaggerated or just misleading. While WDI may have some problems, the current fad of blaming WDI for some opinionated faults is getting annoying.

Yes, he *may* have some valid points to make, but too much of the article seemed like spin to me. I also would dispute some of the proof he offers of how customers have suffered, such as getting the new and unique Indy ride as opposed to an attraction with a rollercoaster, the Jungle Cruise and train all intertwined using existing technology. Considering the ride has been so successful and the technology copied at AK and TDS, I think it was probably the right choice. Also, isn't it contradictory to complain about cost overruns involved with using new technology while simultaneously complaining that Everest is hardly groundbreaking?

On the other hand, he probably has a point about Imagineers often not achieving much with what they're given, as in the case of DCA and WDSP. Once again, though, is this the fault of people like Tony Baxter who, to the best of my knowledge, didn't work on either of these projects but has worked on both expensive Disney classics and cheap but effective redos like Tarzan's Treehouse and Autopia at DL? Those of us who were following the development of Rocket Rods at the time will remember the sponsor dropping out, with the budget immediately being slashed and concerns being raised before it opened about the inability to properly retrofit the track. Also, complaining that the ride had no story seems a weak argument to me. That said, TL98 even as it was conceived was a pretty crappy idea.

Also, Eisner actually chose DCA out of several proposals presented to him and presumably Imagineers, who it must remembered are paid by Disney to design according to whatever specifications they're given, have to be mindful of the budget they're given and how many shops and resteraunts (a decision I doubt the creative division makes) are to be built. I'm always sceptical of those who blame Imagineers for not standing up for quality when it has to be remembered that they have to earn money to support themselves and their families, but I have to say that this is the first article which I have seen which simultaneously berates WDI for allowing budgets to be cut and spending too freely.

Hmm, no, not a convincing article for me.

 

[bgraham34]

The article was a good read and very interesting.

 

[Shaman]

So um...would it be a bad idea if I brought Space Mountain back into the conversation? :lookaroun

I mean, can someone really say Space Mountain (at WDW) is more themed than EE? Um...no. Is Space Mountain not a classic popular attraction? Yes.

But essentially, isn't Space Mountain just a coaster ride in the dark? No AAs worth mentioning on that thing...oh wait there's that one scene...but....

Oh and how much sense does it make that you're riding in space on an open-top rocket? :lookaroun

I'm not understanding the complaints EE is getting....Sounds to me like we should all march up to the powers that be at Disney and demand a full rehab of the under-themed Space Mountain. With actual rockets....



If you don't like EE, that's fine, your opinion is valid. Honestly, I hope more people feel the same way....less wait time for me...

 

[Shaman]

Actually, that's a brilliant comparison, because with the exception of "The Sixth Sense", I have found all of M. Night Shyamalan's movies to be a disappointment.

What's your opinion on Hitchcock? His work disappointing as well?

 

[speck76]

So um...would it be a bad idea if I brought Space Mountain back into the conversation? :lookaroun

I mean, can someone really say Space Mountain (at WDW) is more themed than EE? Um...no. Is Space Mountain not a classic popular attraction? Yes.

But essentially, isn't Space Mountain just a coaster ride in the dark? No AAs worth mentioning on that thing...oh wait there's that one scene...but....

Oh and how much sense does it make that you're riding in space on an open-top rocket? :lookaroun

I'm not understanding the complaints EE is getting....Sounds to me like we should all march up to the powers that be at Disney and demand a full rehab of the under-themed Space Mountain. With actual rockets....



If you don't like EE, that's fine, your opinion is valid. Honestly, I hope more people feel the same way....less wait time for me...

Good points....and pretty much kills the "activist" argument that things used to be so much better/WDI has been killed by Eisner/whine whine cry cry...

Space Mt, Mission to Mars, TL Grand Prix....none were highly themed....none were very realistic, and only Mission to Mars really told a story.

I think of WDI like WDFA.....which was broken before Eisner took over, and then had a major renaissance, and then gradually broke again......but nobody remembers the post-Walt / pre-Eisner years, and how bad things were.

 

[Ghostbuster626]

Yes, he *may* have some valid points to make, but too much of the article seemed like spin to me. I also would dispute some of the proof he offers of how customers have suffered, such as getting the new and unique Indy ride as opposed to an attraction with a rollercoaster, the Jungle Cruise and train all intertwined using existing technology. Considering the ride has been so successful and the technology copied at AK and TDS, I think it was probably the right choice. Also, isn't it contradictory to complain about cost overruns involved with using new technology while simultaneously complaining that Everest is hardly groundbreaking?

On the other hand, he probably has a point about Imagineers often not achieving much with what they're given, as in the case of DCA and WDSP. Once again, though, is this the fault of people like Tony Baxter who, to the best of my knowledge, didn't work on either of these projects but has worked on both expensive Disney classics and cheap but effective redos like Tarzan's Treehouse and Autopia at DL? Those of us who were following the development of Rocket Rods at the time will remember the sponsor dropping out, with the budget immediately being slashed and concerns being raised before it opened about the inability to properly retrofit the track. Also, complaining that the ride had no story seems a weak argument to me. That said, TL98 even as it was conceived was a pretty crappy idea.

Also, Eisner actually chose DCA out of several proposals presented to him and presumably Imagineers, who it must remembered are paid by Disney to design according to whatever specifications they're given, have to be mindful of the budget they're given and how many shops and resteraunts (a decision I doubt the creative division makes) are to be built. I'm always sceptical of those who blame Imagineers for not standing up for quality when it has to be remembered that they have to earn money to support themselves and their families, but I have to say that this is the first article which I have seen which simultaneously berates WDI for allowing budgets to be cut and spending too freely.

Hmm, no, not a convincing article for me.

A couple of corrections first of all the article is worded bad when it talks about the Indy adventure..originally it was going to include the jeep adventure, the train roller coaster (similar to the one in paris) and the Jungle Cruise and Disneyland Railroad would cruise through it.

The creative force behind DCA consisted of three people: Micheal Eisner, Paul Pressler, and Barry Braverman..imagineering had an extremly small say in both its design and execution. Paul Pressler then cut the budget in half and then later cut the budget in half again.

Similar story with TL98, the grand TL 2055 was cancelled and then Eisner was like "I think the future will be like Montana" and the imagineers were like . So they basically designed an american version of DLP's Discoveryland and then Paul Pressler took the budget for that and cut it in half.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

A couple of corrections first of all the article is worded bad when it talks about the Indy adventure..originally it was going to include the jeep adventure, the train roller coaster (similar to the one in paris) and the Jungle Cruise and Disneyland Railroad would cruise through it.

That's what I'd remembered from earlier articles I'd read, but then isn't the inclusion of the technology used for the jeeps that which he claims blew out the budget, forcing earlier plans without this technology to be disguarded? Is their a more primative technology which does more or less the same thing out there?

The creative force behind DCA consisted of three people: Micheal Eisner, Paul Pressler, and Barry Braverman..imagineering had an extremly small say in both its design and execution. Paul Pressler then cut the budget in half and then later cut the budget in half again.

This is precisely the impression I had, but I guess the author would argue that this is evidence of the real culprits, i.e. the Imagineers, refusing to acknowledge their own culpability. Still, I always remember Eisner himself talking about choosing the idea for DCA over all the others presented to him by Imagineering and Pressler talking about pedantically sticking to the budget (eg. he felt they should add the golf ball to Soarin', but to compensate trimmed a corresponding amount of the budget elsewhere).

Similar story with TL98, the grand TL 2055 was cancelled and then Eisner was like "I think the future will be like Montana" and the imagineers were like . So they basically designed an american version of DLP's Discoveryland and then Paul Pressler took the budget for that and cut it in half.

I had always wondered who had come up with such a crappy idea for a new Tomorrowland. So it was really Eisner who came up with this Montana future idea??

 

[Shaman]

Good points....and pretty much kills the "activist" argument that things used to be so much better/WDI has been killed by Eisner/whine whine cry cry...

Space Mt, Mission to Mars, TL Grand Prix....none were highly themed....none were very realistic, and only Mission to Mars really told a story.

I think of WDI like WDFA.....which was broken before Eisner took over, and then had a major renaissance, and then gradually broke again......but nobody remembers the post-Walt / pre-Eisner years, and how bad things were.

I think sometimes people take the whole Eisner blame game too far....I mean sure for a couple of years the parks were in need of some TLC, and they eventually got it....I only blame Eisner for staying at the helm for too long...way passed his prime (as can be seen with the way he handled several things including the companies relationship with some of the big names in the industry). There's no doubt Eisner MADE WDW. Without him who knows where the resort and the company would've been today. But Eisner should've called it quits after the mid 90s....I personally think he had lost sight of the working equation. But hey most of us are all looking at this from the outside...we weren't there....

In Walt's time you could come up with attractions like IASW, with something like PotC...and people loved it. Walt knew though that things could never be constant, that they had to change. They had to come up with new attractions.

EE brings two things to AK...it adds depth to the park's overall theme, and it's a crowd pleasing thrill ride (which AK needed). At the end of the day Disney will achieve what they set out to do with their investment, get MORE people through the turnstiles; and MORE people equals MORE money, and that's MOSTLY what the company cares about.

It's all business....Disney doesn't make rides for the super fan....which is a sad thing for us (because I would love to see a BK at AK)...but it makes sense, they have a business to run. But it's not like they totally forget the core values of the company and it's dedication to quality....

People complained AK needed more rides, Disney knew this, they had done the research...thus, AK got a major attraction....so.....

 

[Ghostbuster626]

I think sometimes people take the whole Eisner blame game too far....I mean sure for a couple of years the parks were in need of some TLC, and they eventually got it....I only blame Eisner for staying at the helm for too long...way passed his prime (as can be seen with the way he handled several things including the companies relationship with some of the big names in the industry). There's no doubt Eisner MADE WDW. Without him who knows where the resort and the company would've been today. But Eisner should've called it quits after the mid 90s....I personally think he had lost sight of the working equation. But hey most of us are all looking at this from the outside...we weren't there....

In Walt's time you could come up with attractions like IASW, with something like PotC...and people loved it. Walt knew though that things could never be constant, that they had to change. They had to come up with new attractions.

EE brings two things to AK...it adds depth to the park's overall theme, and it's a crowd pleasing thrill ride (which AK needed). At the end of the day Disney will achieve what they set out to do with their investment, get MORE people through the turnstiles; and MORE people equals MORE money, and that's MOSTLY what the company cares about.

It's all business....Disney doesn't make rides for the super fan....which is a sad thing for us (because I would love to see a BK at AK)...but it makes sense, they have a business to run. But it's not like they totally forget the core values of the company and it's dedication to quality....

People complained AK needed more rides, Disney knew this, they had done the research...thus, AK got a major attraction....so.....

This is all very true however Disney needs to know they need more capacity at AK. At least one more family friendly ride and one more thrill ride would do the job..and beastly kingdom, even if they reimagined it, would fit that bill perfectly. Once they add BK, Animal Kingdom will become a perfect full-day park and it will get people coming through the turn styles and staying longer and spending more money.