I'm just saying look at their most recent work. I think it's reasonable to say that things are moving in the right direction.
Star Tours 2
Test Track 2
FLE
New MMY castle show
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Test Track refurb???
- Thread starter NicNoc12
- Start date
I'm just saying look at their most recent work. I think it's reasonable to say that things are moving in the right direction.
Star Tours 2
Test Track 2
FLE
New MMY castle show
Also known as...
Something talked about in 1989.
Something Disney did not pay for.
A restaurant, a MnG, and an omnimover that people are already reporting parts are not working properly.
An updated projection show that people say is now more about advertising.
SirLink
Well-Known Member
- ST2 - Burbank forced TDO that they had to do film and queue. TDO wanted to value engineer it
- TT2 - GM knew it needed updating, paid for and manufactured parts for the update. TDO had no choice otherwise they would be paying for yet another pavilion in Epcot.
- FLE - Burbank forced it through much against the wishes of JR and TDO, and opted to do the cheapest of the plans
- Projection castle show - I believe I read someone saying that TDO weren't all that pleased with the fact people once they viewed it once weren't interested in seeing again, so they changed it. Is it as good as DLP?Nope.
I'll praise TDO from the rooftops when all the attractions around property have the majority of effects working on a constant basis! When unique merchandise actually is only available from the land or ride shop and not having Mickey back-scratcher's available in Main Street, Frontierland, Mouse Gear, DHS! When a new attraction isn't value engineered to a M+G!
flynnibus
Premium Member
Unlike other projects - reports (including here..) have stated that not just concepts, but actual design and construction of parts of the attraction were handled by GM people as well. This redo is more than just concepts being approved or initiated by outside people.. but actual development and implementation as well.
and let's not go down the 'acknowledge the grunts..' angle. Unless you plan on padding the backs of the construction contractors instead of WDI?
Oddysey
Well-Known Member
Yet Disney gets the blame when an attraction goes bad (Imagination etc.). It has to go both ways. Both companies deserve credit in this case. It is a Disney park after all.
phi2134
Well-Known Member
I am not sure how it works, but its WDW for a reason, they shouldnt let that kind of garbage go in there park. If Kodak created a horrible ride, Disney should have put its foot....or ears down.
SirLink
Well-Known Member
Not when the sponsor designed, built parts of it as well as paid for the rest of it. Nope no credit should be given. Unless giving credit for the fact TDO weren't complete idiots to lose more sponsorship my declining the update.
Kodak didn't design any of JI nightmare- WDI did.
Oddysey
Well-Known Member
I agree with this statement, but I also believe Disney should recieve credit when they allow and help integrate a new credible attraction that fits into the overall theme of what Epcot's FW is supposed to represent. You sort of aided in making my point. If Test Track 2.0 turned out to be a horrible attraction that did not fit with the theme Disney has made for the park, many would be clamouring that Disney should not have allowed this abomination into their parks. The same way you are clamouring that Disney should have put their foot down with imagination.However, if the new attraction is considered succesful in the eyes of forum members, then many give Disney none of the credit, and all of the credit goes to GM.
I am not convinced that this is entirely accurate. I find it hard to believe Kodak had no input on an attraction they funded. source?
ExtinctJenn
Well-Known Member
I do indeed pat the backs of the contractors!and let's not go down the 'acknowledge the grunts..' angle. Unless you plan on padding the backs of the construction contractors instead of WDI?
I'm a project manager so maybe it's a point of view thing but for me, whenever a project is complete, I recognize and celebrate every single person who had impact on the finished project. EVERY person. Doesn't matter how small their role or how big.
Funny how that works huh?
Oddysey
Well-Known Member
Agreed, I am planning my annual family Christmas day Christmas party in the lounge before anybody else gets the same idea.
SirLink
Well-Known Member
Yes Kodak gave input, they didn't design it. GM designed the whole revamp of Test Track and told WDI what to do
WDWFREAK53
Well-Known Member
Hmmm...if this truly IS the case, then why can't James Cameron tell WDI what to do with Avatar?
Lee
Adventurer
'Cause Cameron isn't paying for it like GM did.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
We can debate who, GM, TDO, contractors, etc, should recieve credit for Test Track all we want, but the key question is, can what has been done with Test Track be taken as an indicator of what TDO might do with other attractions. I think given GM's heavy involvment in this, we can't assume that it's a sign of other things to come. If Disney had done this all on their own, with thier own money, I would be more optomistic.
The Empress Lilly
Well-Known Member
Wow, what a pointless discussion. Schools out early today?
Edit: who designed what, what does this mean for the design prowess of WDI, what does this say about the importance of quality and investment to TDO is important. Fanboyish boo-hoo-hoo-ing about it is not.
Edit: who designed what, what does this mean for the design prowess of WDI, what does this say about the importance of quality and investment to TDO is important. Fanboyish boo-hoo-hoo-ing about it is not.
The Empress Lilly
Well-Known Member
What c-one said.
EPCOT had a very distinct design about it. What's more, when the park was new, everything was of the same design. That permeated everything, from the architecture to logos to music to letter fonts to the concept of the park itself.
Now, three decades on, there is design that is late eighties, nineties, naughties. Different styles, different takes on what EPCOT should be and how it should look. To me, nearly every addition got it wrong, ended up detracting from FW's beauty, instead of adding to it, or evolving it.
I didn't expect this in the eighties. EPCOT's design was bold, powerful, confident. It therefore never ocurred to me how brittle and vulnerable it is. In the MK, you can add clutter and the place still looks largely the same. In EPCOT, add a Mickey wand, and SSE's majesty is diminished. Add a rock festival canopy to WoM, and the minimalist power of the pavilion is ruined.
It's a bit sad the futuristic park should be so vulnerable to the progress of time, should be so defenseless against intrusion.
On the flipside, classic EPCOT's design has stood the test of time extraordinary well. Almost unbelievably so. It still looks as majestic, powerful, profound as when it was build. Timeless.
The picture below is not just an abstract advert, it this is what WoM really looked like, it's grand finale, CenterCore. Here then we come to the answer of your question, what is it about TT 2.0 that makes people call its design EPCOT-y:
The Empress Lilly
Well-Known Member
Wow, I wonder who had to pull some favours. This NYT article is really about WDW preparing its audience for NextGen and...
...nah. Let's leave it.
No, Disney had something to do with it. Saying otherwise would be well, stupid.
I sense a small bit of argumentative sarcasm in your tone. Perhaps that's why you were scalded.
Lee
Adventurer
Cute...but you need to accept the truth about the other article.