Is it Imagineering or is it Management?

[zooey]

I was reading this article:
http://progresscityusa.com/2011/12/18/the-carsland-conundrum/#more-5575

and I think this does a pretty good job summing up why these new Park offerings (Carsland, Avatarland) are less than satisfying to old timers, and likely not good investments for the company in the long term.

The comments are interesting too, as a discussion comes out as to whether it is WDI or Management to blame. I've always assumed that management is the one who does all the data analysis and says something like, "Tomorrowland needs X because of Y" and then that task is passed on to creative.

Or, is it the other way around, where WDI is coming forth with their best efforts--interactive screens and other tech wizardry based on franchises--with management then signing off on it.

So, when it comes to actual new content that goes into the parks, who is actually behind it, or where does it originate? Management or creative/WDI?

 

[RandySavage]

Like most things in life, it's gray, rather than black or white.

I believe project origination begins outside or above WDI.

E.g., Rasulo: "We need an aspirational attraction (thrill ride) for Animal Kingdom in order to boost attendance, guest satisfaction & spending, etc. And the budget is set at $100 million).

Then, WDI goes to work coming up with various bluesky concepts, say, a dragon flume, a simulator, and a coaster featuring a Yeti encounter.

Then there are meetings with Rasulo (now Staggs) & other execs who whittle the options down and pick the Yeti coaster. From that point on, the majority of the result is the responsibility of WDI, and its success or failure falls on their shoulders.

And while execs with poor taste, little vision & no design skill can meddle & mandate lesser design choices or guidelines that can be detrimental to the park experience, I believe most of the buck stops with WDI.

 

[thelookingglass]

I feel its more management. Like, if WDI wanted to do what they realllly wanted, I'm sure Carsland is not something they'd choose. Its more like, "the Cars franchise is our biggest moneymaker so we need you to make a Cars attraction, with XXX budget."

Not saying Radiator Springs Racers isn't going to be great, but still, its, you know, Cars.

 

[hemloc]

Wow... Is that guy a bitter fan boy, or what? Exactly the kind of person who really doesn't amount to much, as for a target customer. Honestly... Even if they DIDN'T build new stuff at any of the Disney parks, people would still come in droves from all over the world.

 

[haveyoumetmark]

Both! I'd like to think that management is limiting WDI, financially and creatively as well, which is why we've been getting crap lately. I don't want to believe in a hamstrung WDI. Pardon the drama, but WDI is the only shred of hope we have... especially with management whose thinking equates with the post above mine.

 

[The Duck]

Wow... Is that guy a bitter fan boy, or what? Exactly the kind of person who really doesn't amount to much, as for a target customer. Honestly... Even if they DIDN'T build new stuff at any of the Disney parks, people would still come in droves from all over the world.

I didn't find him bitter at all. If you want to see bitter, all you have to do is check out some of the other Disney sites. This site as well as his blog are among the most fair and reasonable in the Disney fan world. That said, I found much truth in his post about skepticism with Avatar and Carsland and their place in the Disney realm. I would even wonder if DCA might one day undergo a name change altogether since the California theme is all but discarded. As far as placing blame on the current situations, I believe it's 75% management and 25% Imagineering. Management, basically for knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing and Imagineering, for not challenging management as well as themselves in order to produce a superior product.

 

[CountryBearFan]

Wow... Is that guy a bitter fan boy, or what? Exactly the kind of person who really doesn't amount to much, as for a target customer.

I agree that the person running the Progress City blog is overly-negative. Just as nihilistic as MiceAge, the Re-Imagineering blog, Epcot Central, Discussion Kingdom, the LaughingPlace.com forum and even here at WDWMagic.

 

[Duckberg]

I agree that the person running the Progress City blog is overly-negative. Just as nihilistic as MiceAge, the Re-Imagineering blog, Epcot Central, Discussion Kingdom, the LaughingPlace.com forum and even here at WDWMagic.

I was NOT aware of some these Disney blog sites you referenced. Just went to Discussion Kingdom few posts compared to here ,but one of the largest posters here in the past doing same thing over there :brick:

 

[zooey]

I agree that the person running the Progress City blog is overly-negative. Just as nihilistic as MiceAge, the Re-Imagineering blog, Epcot Central, Discussion Kingdom, the LaughingPlace.com forum and even here at WDWMagic.

Trust me, I don't like being negative about Disney either. I LOVE to be positive about them and laud them for a job well done when it is so. These sites are all negative about Disney not because they experience schadenfreude, but because Disney is just slipping all that much.

 

[zooey]

I feel its more management. Like, if WDI wanted to do what they realllly wanted, I'm sure Carsland is not something they'd choose. Its more like, "the Cars franchise is our biggest moneymaker so we need you to make a Cars attraction, with XXX budget."

Not saying Radiator Springs Racers isn't going to be great, but still, its, you know, Cars.

Well, my fallback to the "See, see, they're not all property based," was always Expedition Everest. I'm not really sure how the heck that got made, to be honest. The Parks and Resorts division of today seem to be hell bent on backing every single addition to the parks with an intellectual property. I guess that equals "security" in their mind because it is already established in the minds of the audience, so marketing it is easier, and toyification is easier. Everything about it is easier, but not necessarily better. I think the writer of that piece is correct in stating that these franchises are not tried and true and don't have an air of timelessness about them to warrant such massive capital spending in their honor. Cars is not beloved like say, even the Toy Story films are, and certainly not as much as a classic Disney animated film. Carsland could just as easily have been developed as a Route 66, 1950s car culture "land" that allowed the guest to fill in the story with their own ambitions as a guest. Now, can you imagine that EVER happening today? No, I can't either. That's because they've completely changed how an idea gets developed, and that is for the worse. The writer is right about unvetted IP's making a park age faster and less gracefully than a non-IP based attraction that doesn't have that baggage. Hence POTC and HM being the most popular rides in the park after nearly 50 years.

 

[yeti]

I feel its more management. Like, if WDI wanted to do what they realllly wanted, I'm sure Carsland is not something they'd choose. Its more like, "the Cars franchise is our biggest moneymaker so we need you to make a Cars attraction, with XXX budget."

Not saying Radiator Springs Racers isn't going to be great, but still, its, you know, Cars.

To me, a good ride is a good ride, regardless of whether it's based on a movie franchise or not. I hate Cars but CarsLand looks incredible. I hated Avatar even more, but I think AvatarLand will be terrific. I'm pretty sure nobody liked the Transformers movie, but the ride looks brilliant.

It's about immersion- who cares about how bad the movie is when you're experiencing an unbelievable attraction? Surely a hollywood movie's story and setting-no matter how bad the film itself is- can suffice for a theme park ride.

I agree that the person running the Progress City blog is overly-negative. Just as nihilistic as MiceAge, the Re-Imagineering blog, Epcot Central, Discussion Kingdom, the LaughingPlace.com forum and even here at WDWMagic.

Well, there's lots to warrant complaint. If Tokyo Disney was their only property on the globe...that would be nihilistic.

 

[The Duck]

The biggest problem that I have with movie themed attractions (or a movie themed park, for that matter) is that unless a film is a tried and true classic or a blockbuster that is guaranteed to stand the test of time, the attraction that it's based on is in danger of becoming irrelevant. Some are relatively easy to retheme, like Back to the Future changing to The Simpsons. But to build an entire Carsland or an Avatarland or a Potterland is risky. Will people be interested in any of these 20 years from now? Hopefully.

 

[wolf359]

The biggest problem that I have with movie themed attractions (or a movie themed park, for that matter) is that unless a film is a tried and true classic or a blockbuster that is guaranteed to stand the test of time, the attraction that it's based on is in danger of becoming irrelevant. Some are relatively easy to retheme, like Back to the Future changing to The Simpsons. But to build an entire Carsland or an Avatarland or a Potterland is risky. Will people be interested in any of these 20 years from now? Hopefully.

Walt took the same gamble when he made Disneyland; Very few of the films the Fantasyland attractions were based on that we now consider classic were more than a few years old when Disneyland opened, and he built Frontierland and Tomorrowland specifically to cash in on what was popular at the time.

I don't think you can always wait until a property has become classic without looking like you're too late to the party.

 

[disney fan 13]

Wow... Is that guy a bitter fan boy, or what? Exactly the kind of person who really doesn't amount to much, as for a target customer. Honestly... Even if they DIDN'T build new stuff at any of the Disney parks, people would still come in droves from all over the world.

Us ''Bitter fan boys'' (And People get mad at us for name calling) are talking about the decline of the quality product we pay for. lack of new attractions when we go. and lack of Maintenance for ride's that should have been updated years ago (example Ellen's energy adventure, The entire imagination Pavilion, Soarin, maelstorm, peter pan's flight, jungle cruise, space mountain, buzz lightyear, speedway, splash mountain, backlot tour, and i could go on) plus lack of new attraction's in HS, EPCOT and AK ( a expansion in 7 years is pretty far off) so please don't act like we are haters who have no basis in our arguments and live in our parent's basement. thank you :wave::xmas:

 

[zooey]

Wow... Is that guy a bitter fan boy, or what? Exactly the kind of person who really doesn't amount to much, as for a target customer. Honestly... Even if they DIDN'T build new stuff at any of the Disney parks, people would still come in droves from all over the world.

Those types of fans are exactly who Disney should want to please most. They're the ones who go (or would go) ALOT, more than once every 3 years (like most families) and when that kind of fan goes, they spend a ton of money. That kind of fan is also more likely to engage in word of mouth advertising, and help the product grow on that basis. They are a company's loyal bread and butter. To discredit them for moderate fans is simple short-term thinking; the kind of business model that will eventually bite any company that partakes in the butt. To say, "oh well most people don't notice" is basically saying that the details don't matter, because most people do NOT notice the details. But they do feel them on some level, which is what has always set Disney apart from the rest, and that steady decline is what the "bitter fan boy" is trying to stop on whatever level they are able.

 

[The Duck]

Walt took the same gamble when he made Disneyland; Very few of the films the Fantasyland attractions were based on that we now consider classic were more than a few years old when Disneyland opened, and he built Frontierland and Tomorrowland specifically to cash in on what was popular at the time.

I don't think you can always wait until a property has become classic without looking like you're too late to the party.

Agreed, but individual attractions can be changed out or altered a lot easier than redesigning an entire "land" or themed area. In other words, changing Mr. Toad for Pooh was a relatively simple procedure compared to a theoretical turning all of Fantasyland into an entirely different theme. If a single Avatar attraction was being added to one of the parks, it could one day be changed out for something else if the Avatar franchise grows stale but an entire themed land is another matter entirely. When Walt was planning Disneyland, he designated the generic titles of "Fantasy", "Adventure" etc. If he had planned an entire land to Peter Pan or Alice in Wonderland, it would have been a much greater risk.

 

[hpyhnt 1000]

Agreed, but individual attractions can be changed out or altered a lot easier than redesigning an entire "land" or themed area. In other words, changing Mr. Toad for Pooh was a relatively simple procedure compared to a theoretical turning all of Fantasyland into an entirely different theme. If a single Avatar attraction was being added to one of the parks, it could one day be changed out for something else if the Avatar franchise grows stale but an entire themed land is another matter entirely. When Walt was planning Disneyland, he designated the generic titles of "Fantasy", "Adventure" etc. If he had planned an entire land to Peter Pan or Alice in Wonderland, it would have been a much greater risk.

This.

When you think about it, you could argue that the original lands of Walt's Disneyland were (and remain today) basic humanistic ideas: dreams and wishes coming true (Fantasyland); exploration and the pursuit of the discovery (Adventureland); looking forward and imagining a better future (Tomorrowland). These are themes that are nearly universal and understandable to just about everyone. They were not shaped by one person, but by humanity as a whole, which is why we easily identify with them. And it means that there are many ideas that can be used for attractions.

This is what franchises like Cars and Avatar lack. They are the visions of one person so they lack that intrinsic emotional connection that the lands of the Disneyland parks instantly generate. And it is what ultimately makes them underwhelming subjects for a theme park "land". They limit originality and creativity.

 

[MiklCraw4d]

I was reading this article:
http://progresscityusa.com/2011/12/18/the-carsland-conundrum/#more-5575

So, when it comes to actual new content that goes into the parks, who is actually behind it, or where does it originate? Management or creative/WDI?

Thanks for the link!

As for the question, unsurprisingly "it's complicated." I tend to think management is where the buck stops. They decide what gets built, and where, and with how much money. WDI can make proposals, they can make "menu" recommendations, but in the end they almost only act in an advisory capacity until design begins. Bad decisions about things being added/not being added can be placed at the foot of management and even park ops before WDI.

Now, mistakes in the design process itself can be attributed to WDI, but even that's not so simple. Like any organization there are factions, so there are people who "get it" and espouse the old-school ideals and there are people who simply don't get it and are just there because it's a career. And then there are "stealth" projects like NGE which almost operate "above the law" with almost infinite budgets and WDI gets sidelined. OR things like the awful Stitch stage in Tomorrowland that Entertainment slipped by, before WDI could do anything about it.

So each situation has a unique set of circumstances, but when people want to blame WDI I say - if WDI were in charge, wouldn't we have Western River Expedition? Discovery Bay? Six more EPCOT pavilions? You get the picture.

Like most things in life, it's gray, rather than black or white.

I believe project origination begins outside or above WDI.

E.g., Rasulo: "We need an aspirational attraction (thrill ride) for Animal Kingdom in order to boost attendance, guest satisfaction & spending, etc. And the budget is set at $100 million).

Then, WDI goes to work coming up with various bluesky concepts, say, a dragon flume, a simulator, and a coaster featuring a Yeti encounter.

Then there are meetings with Rasulo (now Staggs) & other execs who whittle the options down and pick the Yeti coaster. From that point on, the majority of the result is the responsibility of WDI, and its success or failure falls on their shoulders.

And while execs with poor taste, little vision & no design skill can meddle & mandate lesser design choices or guidelines that can be detrimental to the park experience, I believe most of the buck stops with WDI.

This is pretty much how I think it happens too, but I cut WDI some more slack. They can make mistakes, of course, but they're always beholden to both corporate management and their own middle management. Think of Hyperion Wharf; it's not that WDI designers can't think of anything good to do there, management can't make up their mind and commit adequate resources to make it happen.

Wow... Is that guy a bitter fan boy, or what? Exactly the kind of person who really doesn't amount to much, as for a target customer.

Aww, bless your heart!

I was NOT aware of some these Disney blog sites you referenced. Just went to Discussion Kingdom few posts compared to here ,but one of the largest posters here in the past doing same thing over there :brick:

I know what you're saying, but I would encourage you to give it a chance. There are some good folks posting over there. But yeah, I know what you're saying.

 

[MiklCraw4d]

Agreed, but individual attractions can be changed out or altered a lot easier than redesigning an entire "land" or themed area. In other words, changing Mr. Toad for Pooh was a relatively simple procedure compared to a theoretical turning all of Fantasyland into an entirely different theme. If a single Avatar attraction was being added to one of the parks, it could one day be changed out for something else if the Avatar franchise grows stale but an entire themed land is another matter entirely. When Walt was planning Disneyland, he designated the generic titles of "Fantasy", "Adventure" etc. If he had planned an entire land to Peter Pan or Alice in Wonderland, it would have been a much greater risk.

Exactly. The lands that appeared in Disneyland sort of encapsulated the different genres of stories that Disney was telling at the time. It allowed you to live your own adventures in those worlds; even if Davy Crockett might make an appearance you weren't in "Davy Crockett Land". The lands had these greater themes that could encompass a variety of stories and adventures. Locking something down to "Avatar" limits you to Avatar setting, and Avatar characters, and Avatar themes...

 

[sweetpee_1993]

Exactly. The lands that appeared in Disneyland sort of encapsulated the different genres of stories that Disney was telling at the time. It allowed you to live your own adventures in those worlds; even if Davy Crockett might make an appearance you weren't in "Davy Crockett Land". The lands had these greater themes that could encompass a variety of stories and adventures. Locking something down to "Avatar" limits you to Avatar setting, and Avatar characters, and Avatar themes...

....and excludes the portion of the audience who could give a flip about Avatar as a story, movie, or land. Nothing turns a person off more than feeling excluded. That's another facet of brilliance in the original, more broad land themes: they didn't exclude anyone. Everyone could identify in some way on some level and they were/are allowed to indulge their own imaginations to fill in the blanks for themselves.

As excited as I am to see Carsland, my feelings about Avatarland are the opposite. One I identify with and am drawn to while the other I could care less about and have zero desire to ever see. These specific themes with no room for guests to identify in their own ways are risky indeed.

As far as the original question, WDI is handed projects and told what to do with what budget constraints. I know for a fact that many things that have been done in the parks were dictated to them and not things they wanted to do at all. Management and budget dictates so much to WDI that it severely limits what they can accomplish. Go look at the Tokyo parks and you'll see just how right WDI can do things.