Came across this on Tim Lawrence artstation page.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Nice piece of art for 1992 Beast attraction
- Thread starter RandySavage
- Start date
BayouShack
Well-Known Member
Charming. Shame it’s hard to get a point of reference. Though the show building in the upper right corner looks like Pinocchio’s.
montydysquith-navarro
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
I wonder though, did they use this piece of concept art as a reference for the BATB section in New Fantasyland in TDL/WDW?
All we know is the cancelled Beast Show (animatronic) was to go in space shown below. I'm assuming the artwork is the exterior facing the Teacups.
BayouShack
Well-Known Member
Ha! I thought this thread was in the TDL forums.
AndyS2992
Well-Known Member
It was supposed to go where the Pizzaeria and Gelato place is opposite Small World and the Teacups. Here's a 1992 map which also included placements of future attractions such as Beast, Mermaid, Discovery Mountain and such.
choco choco
Well-Known Member
Terrific. The old imagineers had such an incredible grasp of scale and (for lack of another term) syncopation in their designs. It's really incredible. How was this a skill that was lost?....
...if it has been. The last time Imagineering showed this level of understanding about this was the Princess Fantasy Faire area at Disneyland. That wasn't that long ago. Is it still there, lying nascent? Are the people who are approving things not approving designs that display this type of quality?
...if it has been. The last time Imagineering showed this level of understanding about this was the Princess Fantasy Faire area at Disneyland. That wasn't that long ago. Is it still there, lying nascent? Are the people who are approving things not approving designs that display this type of quality?
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
Which I believe was the last project supervised by Tony Baxter.
The original WED designers had a background in film, animation, theater, etc and the second generation learned from them.
Now WDI is led by people who have taken courses in theme design, not the fundamentals that created the art form.
It's like going to the Venetian Casino to learn about Italian art, and not the real Venice.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Leadership is still some of those second generation Imagineers. Its weird to think that the guy who supervised Hollywood Blvd and Sunset Blvd, with a background is now in charge with all of the weird boxes with parts glued on that are produced today.
It’s hard to imagine that Imagineering could fit decent attractions in either pad today.
choco choco
Well-Known Member
Which is why I contend it's got to have something to do with "upper management" or executives or whoever calls the shots for Imagineering. Bob Weiss (his designs for Disney's America were amazing) knows how to do much better than "weird boxes with parts glued on," but somehow, that may be the cheapest way of getting a fascimile of what he was going for, and so they choose that way.
There's just sooo much empty space in attractions from modern Imagineering. It's almost unbelievable the amount of space some of them take up (what the heck is in Little Mermaid? How does that attraction take up 19,000 square feet, over double the size of Peter Pan).
They are probably sizing the building out with off-the-shelf standard warehouse dimensions, and then then covering it all up with as much theming as the budget allows, instead of custom dimensioning the building out based on what the attraction and theme calls for.
montydysquith-navarro
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
I actually agree. The Imagineering Story touches on this actually, on the influence of executives on Imagineers which has led to some good stuff (e.g.: Michael Eisner and Euro Disneyland) and not-so-good stuff (e.g.: Eisner and every Disney park that opened in the 2000s solely operated by TWDC). We don't know how pitches are done in Imagineering, but I'm pretty sure they also present the different ways a project's cost could be offset (i.e.: use a similar ride system from another ride, buy off-the-shelf designs, etc.). Naturally, they'll go for the cheapest option possible.
I think the queue might be the reason why the ride takes up so much space. The space for the queue is almost as big as the show building itself.
Compare that to DCA's queue:
Attachments
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Weis is not in the position where he himself is really doing much drawing, but he is still approving the work. Cost is not really a good explanation as Disney is spending more than ever to get even simple projects done.
It's not just in the rides themselves. Look at Shanghai Disneyland, a massive park but it is not the park with the most attractions. It's massive attractions plopped down with paths connecting them. The organization of space has been largely abandoned for suburban style development. There are obviously some changes over the years in things like accessibility codes versus 30 years ago, but they don't dictate things like off proportions for building massing or decorative ornamentation.
Warehouses utilize a lot of common elements and systems, but their dimensions are not standardized. Disney's facilities are still very much custom. Even if you were to try to utilize a stock design of a pre-engineered metal building, a warehouse is a Storage occupancy with much less restrictive code requirements compared to the Assembly, Special Amusement occupancy requirements of a ride.
Last edited:
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
Or just strange decisions, like building a RR station for a RR that doesn't exist.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
I’m sure someone would tell us that Chinese people don’t understand trains...
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
But they get TRON. Something that has confused Americans for decades.
montydysquith-navarro
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
Didn't they say in The Imagineering Story that Shanghai Disney didn't get a locomotive train (and Main Street USA as a whole) because it might come off as imposing Americana on the Mainland Chinese?
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
I try to block out the trash of the last few episodes. I'm sure they have some sort of reasoning and that is what I was mocking. When all collected together many of the reasons paint a rather negative picture of the intelligence of Chinese peoples.
montydysquith-navarro
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
Haha I see, but I'm genuinely wondering though, did the people of Hong Kong have a negative reaction to having Main Street USA? Their reaction might have played into the decision to go for Mickey Avenue instead.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
The original announcement included Main Street, USA and Frontierland, a land Disney would later claim the Chinese don’t understand. And while this is a few years removed, the number of people in the streets last year waving American flags makes me think it wasn’t that big of an issue. While less specific and socially nostalgic, Mickey Ave is still very American. Even if Main Street, USA was deemed too American, I can’t help but think how interesting a Main Street, China could have been at Shanghai Disneyland celebrating the huge variety of vernacular architecture in China.
choco choco
Well-Known Member
It could have been awesome. A small scale land imitating the hutong alleyways (that are increasingly more endangered). More appropriate than the traditional "Imperial" style Chinese architecture. And definitely trying to avoid the Westernized streets of old Shanghai.
Part of me thinks Disney got lazy about the research and careful composition. Part of me thinks they were worried about cultural sensitivity (Western company trying to imitate Chinese architecture). Part of me thinks they really just didn't have the guts. Big opportunity lost.
But for what its worth, I really loved the Small World Castle idea that was conceptualized for Hong Kong. Something that could have been really unique and creative for that park.