Rumor Siemens is going to end their sponsorship with the parks - Spaceship Earth and IllumiNations

[trainplane3]

There are lots of Figments hanging out on people's desks throughout Glendale and Orlando.

That's what I want to hear. He's always been the secondary symbol of Imagineering to me, right behind sorcerer Mickey. The day he gets pushed aside is probably the day I'll probably lose hope in WDI.

 

[ford91exploder]

Not quite true, if you really want to know. Everyone on the internet likes to make it seem like Bob and Bob are the only ones making decisions. Iger has so much more to deal with than just the Parks. He weighs in when necessary, and he can send missives if someone else makes a convincing case to do something. In the case of Marvel, of course he wants to make wide use of the IP in the parks. He pushed through a huge deal that he has to answer for. But usually a lot of the decision making is done at a lower level, then brought to him for sign off or input and changes. He didn't say put Guardians in Epcot. He said let's see how we we can make use of this within the parks, Consumer Products, Licensing, etc. Then it's up to WDI and Chapek's group to figure out where things fit - literally - then go back with concepts and ideas, first to the individual parks heads and Bob Chapek, then to Iger. WDI and P&R and multiple other divisions within Disney worked to build a new strategy for Studios over months. It's not a matter of simply being told by an exec to put IPs in. They came up with a strategy, based on input from many parties, including Chapek and Iger, then Chapek and Iger signed off. Disney is a corporation. Decisions are made with the input of many people. Bob and Bob listen to the people they have around them. Attractions are designed and built with lots of people and departments giving input. Sometimes this is good, sometimes it's too many cooks, but it is the way it works.

Well said,

your description of the process ignores the groupthink which infects most major corporations and I suspect Disney is not immune. The general direction comes from the top that senior leadership prefers X, If you are a typical middle manager you are not going to stick your neck out you are going to push X to your direct reports. And that's how X whether good or bad gets pushed to all levels of a company.

Very rarely these days are company divisions run on the basis of we don't care what you do as long as it makes money for the company which allow those lines of business to ignore X from senior leadership if they don't feel that it's appropriate for their division.

 

[ford91exploder]

Putting billions into the parks for items like SWL, TSL, and Epcot changes is quite the expensive publicity stunt.

Considering that the ACTUAL SPEND is like $800 million per year on these projects including ALL THE WDW and DL park MAINTENANCE while the same company is on track to spend 10 BILLION on Stock Repurchases yes it falls very much into the 'publicity stunt' category.

I

 

[shortstop]

I don't know if I've seen anyone here mention that (I believe) Siemens is also ending their sponsorship of IASW in DL. And never in a million years would they touch that attraction (well, besides to put in Disney characters...). This makes me think that Siemens pulling its sponsorships isn't because of anything at Epcot per se but rather because of a more macro level issue? Am I offbase?

 

[articos]

That's what I want to hear. He's always been the secondary symbol of Imagineering to me, right behind sorcerer Mickey. The day he gets pushed aside is probably the day I'll probably lose hope in WDI.

Well, don't forget, you are one of millions of opinions from various consumers of Disney Magic. He won't be pushed aside, but at some point, like all of Disney, he will be relegated to the Magic Merchandise History Bin of Making Money On Past Characters. If he doesn't fit the new concept, he will go. He won't go forever, and I'm sure the project design team will find a way to keep him in there somewhere as a decoration or part of the art, but time, progress and characters march on. It also gives an opportunity to bring back long lost friends in 10 years. Or maybe someone in Creative Entertainment may push to have Figment show up as a walk around with Dreamfinder sometime down the line. You never know. Don't ever lose hope.

 

[articos]

But then that doesn't explain why they didn't go Guardians fits more in the park to do with films that park that is supposed to be about science and technology. Or lets demo Theatre in the Stars and build Runway Railroad and just update GMR. When you have too many departments giving input on attractions it slows down schedules and instead of being speedy it ends up being too slow.

It does, though. There are lots of reasons - maybe the replacement of GMR makes more sense logistically, or budgetwise than putting Guardians in Studios. Maybe there is concern on throughput or guest numbers in one part of a park - an area being swamped or dead at certain times. Maybe they wanted to keep the option of putting Guardians in Tower - NOT SAYING THIS IS HAPPENING - but maybe they wanted to preserve the option, and they don't want two Guardians attractions in one park. There are so many factors that go into these decisions. Maybe they have a great concept that incorporates sci-tech using the Guardians theme, or, at least, they think they do. And they know putting a Guardians in Epcot will give an attendance boost.

"When you have too many departments giving input on attractions it slows down schedules and instead of being speedy it ends up being too slow."

Absolutely true.

 

[articos]

Well said,

your description of the process ignores the groupthink which infects most major corporations and I suspect Disney is not immune. The general direction comes from the top that senior leadership prefers X, If you are a typical middle manager you are not going to stick your neck out you are going to push X to your direct reports. And that's how X whether good or bad gets pushed to all levels of a company.

Very rarely these days are company divisions run on the basis of we don't care what you do as long as it makes money for the company which allow those lines of business to ignore X from senior leadership if they don't feel that it's appropriate for their division.

Group think is one of the reasons we get mediocre attractions and ideas. It's not always that way though.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

Group think is one of the reasons we get mediocre attractions and ideas. It's not always that way though.

Could you say it all depends on who's 'in the room where it happens'?

 

[articos]

Could you say it all depends on who's 'in the room where it happens'?

You could, Mr. Hamilton. Or who's not in the room, depending.

 

[PizzaPlanet]

There are lots of Figments hanging out on people's desks throughout Glendale and Orlando.

I'd assume there aren't quite as many Inside Out knick-knacks lying around...

 

[Emm]

Dear God, no. Just... no.

Walter Cronkite. Jeremy Irons. Dame Judy Dench. Bill Nye the Science Guy. -- Which of those does not fit with the others? (Yes, I know I'm leaving Vic Perrin out) *IF* there's going to be a new narrator, it needs to be someone with a distinctive, bold voice. Of course, they need to write a script that doesn't treat guests like mindless idiots, like the current one does.

Patrick Stewart or someone like that is a much better choice

 

[Monorail_Orange]

Patrick Stewart or someone like that is a much better choice

Good one. I'd also like James Earl Jones.

EDIT: to be clear, as narrator, no goofball Star Wars tie-in suggested.

 

[ford91exploder]

Patrick Stewart or someone like that is a much better choice

Neil DeGrasse Tyson or Morgan Freeman or even Dennis Haysbert

 

[RSoxNo1]

Actual answer, without getting too specific: Energy needed something new. It is way past its sell by date, more money than worth it to put into new AA's and projectors and FX and the amount of stuff in there that is now due to be replaced, especially when you know it needs either a new attraction or a complete update. Satisfaction ratings aren't great and daily numbers aren't near what they once were. There are blue sky concepts proposed by WDI based on a number of factors: IPs other divisions have asked to get into the parks. IPs the parks want to capitalize on. Ideas WDI has to incorporate into the parks. Ideas Creative Entertainment has to incorporate into the parks. Ideas executive management has to incorporate into the park. Etc, etc. The ideas may be specific to a park or an attraction within a park or a land within a park or World or Land or they may just be an idea that then gets floated by various execs involved. The concept or concepts are narrowed via all the relevant parties, then WDI gets to work. Other times WDI proposes what they want to do from the start, then the parks management give feedback, then WDI goes to work.

In the case of Epcot and FW, WDI has been working a master plan in coordination with TDO and Epcot's management that included Energy. Would they put up a fight? No. They would have questions and concerns that needed to be addressed through the process. They tend to defer to the creative team that's led by the guy who was on the original Epcot team. That team is going to put the best attraction they can in there, and the management groups all know that. Believe it or not, they look forward to new attractions as much as everyone else. We don't get to redo major attractions all that often. Whether they personally agree with the request to incorporate an IP or not, they are excited for something new. There were multiple ideas for Energy, and everyone signed off on the attraction that is planned. Disney runs by committee more than most realize, and there's a lot of factors that get considered in all of these decisions. So, plans considered. Meetings had. Ideas discussed. Some execs liked certain ideas over others, but this is the idea that was greenlit. Safe to say everyone is happy to have something new in there.

Are you able to address whether or not the Peter Quill visited EPCOT Center line from the D23 Expo was anything more than lip service?

On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being the photo in the queue w/no other EPCOT Center narrative and 10 being a love letter to classic EPCOT (perhaps using the Time Stone to take guests on a tour of classic Epcot), where does this rank?

 

[MisterPenguin]

Well said,

your description of the process ignores the groupthink which infects most major corporations and I suspect Disney is not immune. The general direction comes from the top that senior leadership prefers X, If you are a typical middle manager you are not going to stick your neck out you are going to push X to your direct reports. And that's how X whether good or bad gets pushed to all levels of a company.

Very rarely these days are company divisions run on the basis of we don't care what you do as long as it makes money for the company which allow those lines of business to ignore X from senior leadership if they don't feel that it's appropriate for their division.

Don't you want to criticize Articos for leaving out how Wall Street dictates what happens in the parks?

 

[Kman101]

Not quite true, if you really want to know. Everyone on the internet likes to make it seem like Bob and Bob are the only ones making decisions. Iger has so much more to deal with than just the Parks. He weighs in when necessary, and he can send missives if someone else makes a convincing case to do something. In the case of Marvel, of course he wants to make wide use of the IP in the parks. He pushed through a huge deal that he has to answer for. But usually a lot of the decision making is done at a lower level, then brought to him for sign off or input and changes. He didn't say put Guardians in Epcot. He said let's see how we we can make use of this within the parks, Consumer Products, Licensing, etc. Then it's up to WDI and Chapek's group to figure out where things fit - literally - then go back with concepts and ideas, first to the individual parks heads and Bob Chapek, then to Iger. WDI and P&R and multiple other divisions within Disney worked to build a new strategy for Studios over months. It's not a matter of simply being told by an exec to put IPs in. They came up with a strategy, based on input from many parties, including Chapek and Iger, then Chapek and Iger signed off. Disney is a corporation. Decisions are made with the input of many people. Bob and Bob listen to the people they have around them. Attractions are designed and built with lots of people and departments giving input. Sometimes this is good, sometimes it's too many cooks, but it is the way it works.

Thank you. I'm sick of him going on about the Bobs acting as if he knows how it works. And I really appreciate your insight! Very much.

 

[Kman101]

Don't you want to criticize Articos for leaving out how Wall Street dictates what happens in the parks?

But he's determined to be "right" ...

 

[Bob]

Not quite true, if you really want to know. Everyone on the internet likes to make it seem like Bob and Bob are the only ones making decisions. Iger has so much more to deal with than just the Parks. He weighs in when necessary, and he can send missives if someone else makes a convincing case to do something. In the case of Marvel, of course he wants to make wide use of the IP in the parks. He pushed through a huge deal that he has to answer for. But usually a lot of the decision making is done at a lower level, then brought to him for sign off or input and changes. He didn't say put Guardians in Epcot. He said let's see how we we can make use of this within the parks, Consumer Products, Licensing, etc. Then it's up to WDI and Chapek's group to figure out where things fit - literally - then go back with concepts and ideas, first to the individual parks heads and Bob Chapek, then to Iger. WDI and P&R and multiple other divisions within Disney worked to build a new strategy for Studios over months. It's not a matter of simply being told by an exec to put IPs in. They came up with a strategy, based on input from many parties, including Chapek and Iger, then Chapek and Iger signed off. Disney is a corporation. Decisions are made with the input of many people. Bob and Bob listen to the people they have around them. Attractions are designed and built with lots of people and departments giving input. Sometimes this is good, sometimes it's too many cooks, but it is the way it works.

Group think is one of the reasons we get mediocre attractions and ideas. It's not always that way though.

 

[articos]

Are you able to address whether or not the Peter Quill visited EPCOT Center line from the D23 Expo was anything more than lip service?

On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being the photo in the queue w/no other EPCOT Center narrative and 10 being a love letter to classic EPCOT (perhaps using the Time Stone to take guests on a tour of classic Epcot), where does this rank?

A bit too specific for me to comment right now.

 

[articos]

And I really appreciate your insight! Very much.

Quite welcome.