New Jim Hill article

[JLW11Hi]

Agree with Enderikari ^^

There are companies where "good enough" is heard way too often. Then there are companies that work to reach that extra mile no matter what limitations they have on them. And I am certainly not just talking about theme parks.

 

[tirian]

I think the general public has become inured to large sums of money. When I hear about a budget of $70 million for one attraction, I think of exactly what that means. In no world should $70 million not be enough for ANYTHING that goes into a theme park. Think of what Walt could have done with that sum, even adjusted for inflation. And I am sure as shoot that nobody would have had the brass ones to approach Walt with a request for more money. Could you imagine Marc Davis, Claude Coates, or Fred Joerger saddling up beside Walt with a figure like that? They built all of Disneyland on $17 million.

Creativity happens when you are forced to contend with budgets.

Excellent point. Bravo. :sohappy: Inflation has affected attraction costs, but creativity--not the amount of money spent--should dictate an attraction's success.

To that degree, TSMM is very successful, and has finally provided the Studios with an excellent family attraction that spreads out Guest flow.

****

Regarding the "unconditional praises":
I think that people are trying to say they know that every attraction misstep isn't always Imagineering's fault, not that it never is. Maybe people are just trying to make sure they don't look like immature, ranting fanboys. :shrug:

 

[tirian]

There are companies where "good enough" is heard way too often. Then there are companies that work to reach that extra mile no matter what limitations they have on them. And I am certainly not just talking about theme parks.

Yes, which is why I go back to my original statement: if the letter is legit*, this Imagineer has no business complaining to the public, because public criticism is part of the creative field. If something is just "good enough," people will notice; if it's excellent, people will appreciate that, too. Empty fanboy rants should be ignored, but constructive criticism should not. And only a mature artist will be able to tell the difference.

*IF...

 

[po1998]

I have a couple of questions...The imagineer mentions how the casual visitor loves all the new attractions, but if that is the case, why go to the level of making sure the bricks match the ones at the pixar studio? Would the casual visitor(let alone the WDW diehards) even notice this or even better...who cares?

 

[Mr.EPCOT]

You know, in the creation of Disneyland, the money was extremely tight. And it wasn't because "bean-counters" were in charge of the company; it was because there simply was no money to give to the Imagineers.

Creativity happens when you are forced to contend with budgets.

I've noticed it's not just budget, but almost any kind of restriction gets the Imagineering creative juices flowing. Most notably at the Disneyland Resort, which is much smaller than everything here in Florida. Disneyland itself is a much more intimate park than the Magic Kingdom, the way it has been designed due to the size limitation creates a much more personal experience. The whole cave areas of Pirates of the Caribbean only came about as result of having extra space to fill, due to the ride having to go underground because it wouldn't fit within the park berm. I also think their Downtown Disney is much better designed even though it is much smaller than ours. Admittedly, though, part of that is that it has more interesting venues to me, and was designed all at once as opposed to three different sections that came about individually.

One Imagineer even wrote an essay about procrastination, how he seems to thrive creatively when he's running out of time on a project.

 

[RSoxNo1]

I have to believe that imagineering operates under the assumption that things will be cut from the budget. For a ride like Toy Story Mania, I'm guessing that at some point there were animatronics in the ride or something else in addition to the screens.

If I were designing a major attraction, I would intentionally propose ideas that are well over budget, and then give the impression that you're conceding some of your ideas for the sake of the budget.

 

[ChrisFL]

I have a couple of questions...The imagineer mentions how the casual visitor loves all the new attractions, but if that is the case, why go to the level of making sure the bricks match the ones at the pixar studio? Would the casual visitor(let alone the WDW diehards) even notice this or even better...who cares?

That's true. It also reminds me of those people who defend DinoRama as being "highly themed" because of the "elaborate backstory". But the average guest has no idea what the back story is supposed to be, or even where to read about it.

 

[WDWFigment]

Just a quick note, since a lot of people around here are praising Imagineers almost unconditionally. Now there are some fantastic Imagineers that work in the Disney Company. Creative geniuses who are equal to none. But it seems that in the recent years, anytime anything isn't liked by the general internet going public, there is a lot of defensive statements for the Imagineers, with a major portion of the blame going to whom the armchair internet imagineers call "Bean-Counters."

You wanna blame the "bean-counters" for the quality of attractions, go ahead. Stick out your lip, pout, and cite "not having enough money to do the job" as the reason for any performance, and really that just ends up being a cop out.

Go back to the time where you had Imagineers who were truly creative, before the solution to every problem was "throw money at it until it goes away." You know, in the creation of Disneyland, the money was extremely tight. And it wasn't because "bean-counters" were in charge of the company; it was because there simply was no money to give to the Imagineers. The creation of some of the classic Disney attractions which still survive today, (Peter Pan, Mad Tea Party, Dumbo, Pirates, Haunted Mansion) hinged upon the fact that when the money was tight, Imagineers got creative. Haunted Mansion (pre-refurb) is a collection of simple, inexpensive magicians tricks which have been around for hundreds of years. Dumbo is a highly themed amusement park ride which has become a treasured memory. Heck, even the much-beloved Mr. Toads Wild Ride was a Coney-Island special.

It wasn't the money that was spent, it was the loving attention to the story, the theming, the painting with a wide brush which seems to have been forgotten. Heck, back in the day, when Bill Evans didn't have enough money to put themed plants into Adventureland, Walt didn't hand him a stack of bills and say "get to buying." They went through the land, putting placards with the Latin names of the weeds that were growing in the California wildlands. It was sure as heck creative, and it wasn't about Walt "cutting corners to save a buck" it was about getting it done with what you have.

I think the general public has become inured to large sums of money. When I hear about a budget of $70 million for one attraction, I think of exactly what that means. In no world should $70 million not be enough for ANYTHING that goes into a theme park. Think of what Walt could have done with that sum, even adjusted for inflation. And I am sure as shoot that nobody would have had the brass ones to approach Walt with a request for more money. Could you imagine Marc Davis, Claude Coates, or Fred Joerger saddling up beside Walt with a figure like that? They built all of Disneyland on $17 million.

In short, budgets are budgets. In the olden days, Imagineers stuck to their budgets because they had to. Going over budget was allowed to an extent, but at some point, there was no more money to go around. Now that the Disney Company has a good bit of coin, there is still no excuse for not getting the job done. You cannot replace creativity by "throwing money at it."

Creativity happens when you are forced to contend with budgets.

I don't really know how to add to this in any way, because I have to say I agree wholeheartedly. Excellent, excellent point.

 

[wannab@dis]

In short, budgets are budgets. In the olden days, Imagineers stuck to their budgets because they had to. Going over budget was allowed to an extent, but at some point, there was no more money to go around. Now that the Disney Company has a good bit of coin, there is still no excuse for not getting the job done. You cannot replace creativity by "throwing money at it."

Creativity happens when you are forced to contend with budgets.

I agree, to a point. The issues brought up in this thread go beyond "bean counters" or "creativity." I believe the crux of the article goes more to the judgment of that creativity. The difference brought out in the article is the different judgments passed by fanboys and those of the average guest. Can you imagine the outcry of "sloppy imagineering" today if someone placed a placard in front of a weed in the parks? The forums would be buzzing with calls for firing everyone involved... same reaction we saw in many of the SSE threads.

The judgment of the creativity is the problem...

 

[imagineer boy]

I think the general public has become inured to large sums of money. When I hear about a budget of $70 million for one attraction, I think of exactly what that means. In no world should $70 million not be enough for ANYTHING that goes into a theme park. Think of what Walt could have done with that sum, even adjusted for inflation. And I am sure as shoot that nobody would have had the brass ones to approach Walt with a request for more money. Could you imagine Marc Davis, Claude Coates, or Fred Joerger saddling up beside Walt with a figure like that? They built all of Disneyland on $17 million.

Creativity happens when you are forced to contend with budgets.

DL was built with as much money that they had at the time. DCA was built with tons of money to spare. Big difference.

 

[tirian]

DL was built with as much money that they had at the time. DCA was built with tons of money to spare. Big difference.

Enderikari is pointing out that creativity can exist even among budget cuts. Every attraction Walt oversaw (he "created" few, and none alone) had to deal with budget issues, too. The difference is that the corporate culture wasn't poisonous back then.

 

[Mr Bill]

You know what gets criticized more than WDW on here? Jim Hill Media :lookaroun

 

[ryguy]

I guess we can be happy that at least one imagineer looks at our comments. Also it shouldn't matter if your a passholder or first time guest, the attraction should be designed to please both parties. Its kinda sad that Disney could care less about those who spend a lot of time and money at the parks. There really should be a frequent visitor program to reward those who spend a lot of time and money at Disney. Magic Kingdom club was a nice perk, but as usual that was yanked. Now I know why.:hammer:Maybe Disney should take a cue from Vegas and reward its big spenders. Most companies do, its good customer service. Truthfully I hope this twit gets fired for his cry baby comments. I know his comments have made me think less of Disney and thats never good for business.

PS
I bet this is the turd who designed Alien Encounter and The Tiki Room under Horrible Management.:kiss:

 

[blm07]

File another complaint:

Videos & films should only serve as a preshow, not as what to expect during a ride or as a finale.
(UNLESS presented as a supplement to MANY physical props)

 

[Missing20K]

slight thread drift here....but could someone (preferably a sixth grade English teacher) please email that idiot Jim Hill and teach him some freaking grammar.....I swear he has the worst writing style, if you can even call it that, of any blogger I have ever read, Disney or otherwise. "Why For?" Heavens to Betsy, that doesn't even make sense. Complete drivel.

And a question, has he ever really "broke" a story? I mean, completely exclusive, no one else has any of the same information. It seems he just regurgitates what are easily found internet rumors.

 

[Enderikari]

I guess we can be happy that at least one imagineer looks at our comments. Also it shouldn't matter if your a passholder or first time guest, the attraction should be designed to please both parties. Its kinda sad that Disney could care less about those who spend a lot of time and money at the parks. There really should be a frequent visitor program to reward those who spend a lot of time and money at Disney. Magic Kingdom club was a nice perk, but as usual that was yanked. Now I know why.:hammer:Maybe Disney should take a cue from Vegas and reward its big spenders. Most companies do, its good customer service. Truthfully I hope this twit gets fired for his cry baby comments. I know his comments have made me think less of Disney and thats never good for business.

PS
I bet this is the turd who designed Alien Encounter and The Tiki Room under Horrible Management.:kiss:

2/10 - Your troll-fu is weak.

 

[jakeman]

File another complaint:

Videos & films should only serve as a preshow, not as what to expect during a ride or as a finale.
(UNLESS presented as a supplement to MANY physical props)

Say's who? You?

If that is your opinion you are welcome to it, but I'm not sure that is in a rule book anywhere.

Additionally, you realize how many attractions that would exclude? Here are 10 off the top of my head:

Soarin'
Muppetvision
Philharmagic
It's Tough to be a Bug
Honey I Shrunk the Audience
O Canada
Wonder of China (name?)
Monster's Inc
Toy Story Mania (assumption, I have not ridden it or read any previews)
Star Tours

 

[terp79]

We should all get something straight...when it comes to criticism WDI is kinda tender about it at the moment especially coming from the Disney Geeks and foamers. Do we all not understand that our whining caused a major uproar/rift at WDI over the IASW referb which got national attention and now we're attacking another attraction, a new attraction, an attraction designed for us? Come on, they have every right to hate us.

We all assume the Imagineers can take the "constructive criticism" from the fans? We all assume we know everything. But really how many of us actually work for an integrated matrix based entertainment corporation? I think most of us don't therefore how can we give constructive criticism?

We don't know the exact budgets, we don't know the real time frames, the constraints, we really don't know all the much when it comes to all the "hows and whys" when building an attraction. We all assume we could do better but it comes done to it, but really could we? We can't answer that question.

We should be grateful that WDI has talented people on hand to create experiences for us. Will I say everything by WDI is brilliant...no. But I will say that it's all FUN! I think that's the underlining point we're all missing.
So what if things don't match 100% especially dealing with cross properties such as recreating an animated feature which is flat on the screen into a 3 or 4 dimensional experience. Things will get lost. Period.

We need to stop being picky and be more grateful, appreciative, happy and delighted.

I'm one who supports Imagineers in all that they do. It's a tough act. Give em a break!

 

[MousDad]

We should all get something straight...when it comes to criticism WDI is kinda tender about it at the moment especially coming from the Disney Geeks and foamers. Do we all not understand that our whining caused a major uproar/rift at WDI over the IASW referb which got national attention and now we're attacking another attraction, a new attraction, an attraction designed for us? Come on, they have every right to hate us.

This reasoning was the basis for my comment in page 3 of this thread. I have no problem thinking an actual imagineer said these things.

I view it as a possible off-the-record affirmation of the feelings of upper management, perhaps embellished a little by the reporter. The writing/speaking style thing can be easily explained by JH's transcribing skills (or lack thereof).

As unskilled and annoying as JH is, I have a hard time believing he would completely make this whole thing up. I think jedi concurred with this earlier.

 

[ClemsonTigger]

I would say this horse is pretty much hamburger...