What If joe rhode were CEO?

[Dinoman96]

As for Joe, he hasn't fixed the Yeti but did build Pandora, replaced ToT with Guardians and destroys an EPCOT original for a superhero thrill ride.

Honestly, I don't think Pandora belongs in that sentence.

It's a well crafted land that features one of the best modern theme park attractions that also manages to not tramble all over Animal Kingdom's themes and messages as a theme park. Unlike, say, Frozen Ever After or Guardians of the Galaxy in EPCOT. Really, the only greviance I have towards Pandora is that it's not Beastly Kingdom, lol.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

While Iger may not often impose the sort of direct creative input that Eisner was know for, the franchise mandate is a big creative limitation. The criteria is not the best story and experience, but the best box office permance.

Franchise First is a bad mandate. But is it more of creative limitation? Is 'design Pandoraland, based on Avatar imagery' more restraining than 'design Frontierland, based on Western imagery'? Did Joe Hrode have more creative limitation than Burke?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Franchise First is a bad mandate. But is it more of creative limitation? Is 'design Pandoraland, based on Avatar imagery' more restraining than 'design Frontierland, based on Western imagery'? Did Joe Hrode have more creative limitation than Burke?

Frontierland at Disneyland Paris being so Western came out of the creative process and is a distinct iteration The limitation was born from the story. Would you really say “Do an attraction based on Guardians of Galaxy” is the same creative process that created the EPCOT Center pavilions?

 

[FettFan]

What impact do you think it would have on Disney?

The company would go bankrupt.

Rohde is a creator, designer, and artist; he's not a businessman.

 

[Phil12]

Reading some of the posts, no one seems to know who can be put in charge to get the old Disney magic back?

The Disney magic is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Goofyernmost]

The Disney magic is in the eye of the beholder.

So you're saying that the only thing that WDW needs is a new group of guests that have even a slight amount of imagination and are still impressed by the degree of technology in a Theme Park ride? You may be onto something there!

 

[Tom P.]

I think a lot of times when people harken back to the days of Walt Disney's leadership, they forget that it took two people to make Disney a success -- Walt and Roy. I firmly believe that if either member of that team had been removed, it wouldn't have worked. Walt could see the business side of things, but was first and foremost a creative individual. Roy appreciated the creative, but was first and foremost a businessman. They didn't always see eye-to-eye, but they complimented each other nicely and built a successful company.

Perhaps that is what is missing today. Everyone keeps looking for the one individual who can best run Disney. But perhaps it's not one individual. Maybe what is needed is a dynamic team, in the vein of Walt and Roy, who can effectively merge the creative and the business aspects of the company. Who those individuals would be, I certainly do not know. But I think it bears consideration.

 

[copcarguyp71]

Joe is a dreamer (think the movie Tomorrowland) but certainly not an economist. I see him maybe in charge of imagineering and park planning but not really CEO material. I think his imagination is probably far beyond ROI for the parks.

 

[FigmentJedi]

Franchise First is a bad mandate. But is it more of creative limitation? Is 'design Pandoraland, based on Avatar imagery' more restraining than 'design Frontierland, based on Western imagery'? Did Joe Hrode have more creative limitation than Burke?

Western imagery has a broader scope of what can be incorporated into the design then designing after a single movie that's taken its merry time getting to making sequels.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I think a lot of times when people harken back to the days of Walt Disney's leadership, they forget that it took two people to make Disney a success -- Walt and Roy. I firmly believe that if either member of that team had been removed, it wouldn't have worked. Walt could see the business side of things, but was first and foremost a creative individual. Roy appreciated the creative, but was first and foremost a businessman. They didn't always see eye-to-eye, but they complimented each other nicely and built a successful company.

Perhaps that is what is missing today. Everyone keeps looking for the one individual who can best run Disney. But perhaps it's not one individual. Maybe what is needed is a dynamic team, in the vein of Walt and Roy, who can effectively merge the creative and the business aspects of the company. Who those individuals would be, I certainly do not know. But I think it bears consideration.

Even in Walt’s time, his focused was never properly spread around the company. The company should be run by a businessman who appreciates and respects the various creative mediums of the company. A big part of what has allowed the Studio to flourish has been a hands off approach that has allowed storytelling to take a stronger role than it has at rival studios. That sort of approach has not beeen applied to Parks and Resorts while experience is a disqualification for top leadership.

 

[Fantasia Gardens]

The Disney magic is in the eye of the beholder.

*Shareholder

 

[AdventureHasAName]

I'm thoroughly unimpressed by Rohde. His body of work over the last 25 years have not been stellar.

 

[Goofyernmost]

I'm thoroughly unimpressed by Rohde. His body of work over the last 25 years have not been stellar.

OK, sure! Have a nice day.

 

[THEMEPARKPIONEER]

I say they just houseclean the board and all of upper management and hand it to real creative dreamers.

 

[JimW]

I'm thoroughly unimpressed by Rohde. His body of work over the last 25 years have not been stellar.

In my opinion, that's a pretty bold statement. However, I'd like to hear you out before passing judgment. Can you please provide some specific examples that have made you come to this conclusion?

 

[AdventureHasAName]

In my opinion, that's a pretty bold statement. However, I'd like to hear you out before passing judgment. Can you please provide some specific examples that have made you come to this conclusion?

Animal Kingdom - It's the worst of the four Orlando parks. It was a 1/4 day park on the day it opened. The park has also never recovered from the decision to scrap Beastly Kingdom (yes, I know that was supposedly Eisner's decision; however I put part of the blame on Imagineering for not impressing upon him that Dinoland over BK would be a monumental error).

Expedition Everest - Terrific ride. It broke instantly and they've never seriously approached repairing it.

Aulani - I've never been there. I'm sure it's nice. As themed hotels go, I feel like the architecture does not stand up against any of the moderate or deluxe resorts at WDW and the Polynesian Resort architecture (which is similarly themed) shames it.

Pandora - $500 million, 12 acres, 6 years to build ... 2 attractions. The land has nothing to do with the original theme of the park and Rohde's defense of how it fits probably is the thing that annoys me the most about him. It's also centered on an IP that nobody cares about on the day the land opened (again, I know this decision was made over his head, but I provide him with partial blame for not making sure his superiors were well aware that this would happen).

Mission Breakout - It's a skin on an already-popular attraction that relies on video screens. Again, the new attraction does not fit, at all, with the park or land in which it resides. They just shoved it in and then jerry-rigged an explanation of why it fits (with Rohde, again, serving as Apologist-In-Chief"). The original attraction fit perfectly in theme where it resided. The Rocket AA is excellent.

 

[copcarguyp71]

To be fair...Pandora was forced upon Joe and he had to make the best of a poorly conceived park expansion. Given his own personal choice I am sure the Beastly Kingdom would have happened well before the land of big blue people.

I still scratch my head for how a franchise that Disney has no real skin in the game with made such inroads into the park TBH.

 

[MisterPenguin]

I still scratch my head for how a franchise that Disney has no real skin in the game with made such inroads into the park TBH.

<Looks at post. Looks at avatar.>

You realize that same thing could have been said for Star Wars with regard to the Star Tours ride at one time?

 

[AdventureHasAName]

<Looks at post. Looks at avatar.>

You realize that same thing could have been said for Star Wars with regard to the Star Tours ride at one time?

The differences, of course, are as follows ...

1. 3 films vs. 1 film
2. As Forbes put it, Avatar left no pop culture footprint, while at Star Tours inception, it was probably the most famous IP in the world (and had been for a decade)
3. Star Tours fit perfectly in Tomorrowland, while Pandora makes zero thematic sense in Animal Kingdom

 

[copcarguyp71]

<Looks at post. Looks at avatar.>

You realize that same thing could have been said for Star Wars with regard to the Star Tours ride at one time?

Yes, yes I do...because the avatar was ironic. But one ride an entire land does not make either....