Iger Planning to Kill Imagineering?

[airlarry!]

No it's not.

The term "Imagineering" is a portmanteau word that combines "imagination" and "engineering." The term was coined by Richard F. Sailer in an in-house article written for the National Carbon Company Management Magazine, and reprinted by the Union Carbide Company. The article "BRAINSTORMING IS IMAGINation enginEERING" was published and copyrighted in 1957, and gravitated to Disney by unknown means. WED Enterprises applied for a trademark for the term in 1967, claiming first use in 1962.

Holy Avoid The Subject Batman!

 

[YoHo]

As an Electrical engineer, I can tell you that not every aspect of the job is innovative technologically.

And, the Steam engines were built from scratch by the studio under the control of WED enterprises. Your definition is too strict.

Mainstreet is a movie set. Plenty of real honest to goodness movies sets had forced perspective. Further, There were plenty of tunnel of love rides prior to the steamship and they ran on tracks underwater. That was a showmanship thing, not engineering.

And finally, Your talking about Big thunder Mountain, I'm talking about the Minetrain through nature's wonderland.

 

[Another Voice]

We're really just talking semantics.

Yes and no.

The whole “suspension of disbelief” effect, while the audience is willing to work with you on it, is still very difficult to pull of. It involves thousands of little nuances of sight, sound, smells, textures that all have to be perfectly balanced in order to work. That has traditionally been Disney’s strength – it’s why walking into the Polynesian Village resorts feels like you’re entering a unique world, but walking into the Paris Hotel in Vegas feels like you’re just walking into a glitzy hotel.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

And finally, Your talking about Big thunder Mountain, I'm talking about the Minetrain through nature's wonderland.

I honestly don't know what ride you're talking about then.

 

[MJMcBride]

Yes and no.

The whole “suspension of disbelief” effect, while the audience is willing to work with you on it, is still very difficult to pull of. It involves thousands of little nuances of sight, sound, smells, textures that all have to be perfectly balanced in order to work. That has traditionally been Disney’s strength – it’s why walking into the Polynesian Village resorts feels like you’re entering a unique world, but walking into the Paris Hotel in Vegas feels like you’re just walking into a glitzy hotel.

Why must you argue with me even when I agree with you. Sheesh.

 

[YoHo]

I honestly don't know what ride you're talking about then.

If you don't know what the Minetrain through nature's wonderland is, Walt's Favorite attraction (well, besides Wally Boag and the Golden Horseshoe), how can you have the background knowledge to know what is and isn't imagineering?

http://www.yesterland.com/minetrain.html

 

[Another Voice]

Why must you argue with me even when I agree with you. Sheesh.

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to agrue with you. I was just trying to expand on my comments. To me the problem with 'Mission: Space' is more than just the decision to make it a simulator simulator. I alos think there's flaws in it's execution.

That's also why I think 'Test Track' is more poplar. Everyone has thought "what would be it like to ride in one of the crash cars" from time to time. Maybe it's a guy thing - there isn't a boy out there does play "smash-up" with thier Hot Wheels. Through the extensive pre-show and the on-ride set design, you really do feel like you're riding in a test car (especially the 'crach test' acceleration room - everyone knows what's going to happen because we've all seem a thousand TV commericals filmed in the same room).

The only way Disney is going to get better is for people to understand the real difference between "good" and "not-so-good". An educated consumer base is the best support any business can have. That's especially true with Disney.

 

[mrsR123]

Slow down, AV! You're typing like a consultant today!

 

[sanctumsolitude]

Just kill the Imageneering altogether. None of the new rides are innovative anyway. Most of the times their imaginations are tied by budgetary constraints, so what's the point of having that department.

Look at Stitch: a rehash of AE
Look at Soarin': it's an old IMAX technology already available in France for several years with a little tweaks (the only difference is the seating mechanism, the one by IMAX is actually better, the movie is projected in-front and BELOW the audience)
Look at Indy Jones, Dinosaur rides: based on Journey to the Centre of the Earth from Tokyo Disneyland, which was created by a third party private company hired by Tokyo Disneyland, which is only a Franchise of Disney -- not Disney owned park).
look at L,M,A!: It's cool, but uses old generic stunt cars technology from eons ago.

There is nothing new and imaginative coming from the Imagineering department anymore. Too bad.

Umm...

Stitch was an update to AE. It wasn't meant to be a completely new attraction.

Indiana Jones and Dinosaur are nothing like Journey to the Center of the Earth (which came after both of them). As mentioned, Journey to the Center of the Earth resembles Test Track more then anything else.

Its not like imagineering has always been about new and exciting technologies. Look at the teacups, at dumbo, at the variety of other "off-the-shelf" rides that we have come to love.

You want imagineering at its best? Go to Tokyo Disneyland and ride their Winnie the Pooh ride. That is a modern imagineering masterpiece.

 

[MJMcBride]

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to agrue with you. I was just trying to expand on my comments. To me the problem with 'Mission: Space' is more than just the decision to make it a simulator simulator. I alos think there's flaws in it's execution.

That's also why I think 'Test Track' is more poplar. Everyone has thought "what would be it like to ride in one of the crash cars" from time to time. Maybe it's a guy thing - there isn't a boy out there does play "smash-up" with thier Hot Wheels. Through the extensive pre-show and the on-ride set design, you really do feel like you're riding in a test car (especially the 'crach test' acceleration room - everyone knows what's going to happen because we've all seem a thousand TV commericals filmed in the same room).

The only way Disney is going to get better is for people to understand the real difference between "good" and "not-so-good". An educated consumer base is the best support any business can have. That's especially true with Disney.

I essentially agree with everything you say here. There may be flaws with the design but I think the attempted to create a fantasy (training to be an astronaut) and may have done a good job at that. I don't really know since I never been an astronaut. But my sense was, the ride was declining in popularity even before the tragedies.

I love Test Track. I think they did a great job on that ride.

And I love a good argument. Heck, I'm a lawyer.

 

[dbm20th]

I essentially agree with everything you say here. There may be flaws with the design but I think the attempted to create a fantasy (training to be an astronaut) and may have done a good job at that. I don't really know since I never been an astronaut. But my sense was, the ride was declining in popularity even before the tragedies.

Despite whatever spin you want to put on this, M:S did not decline in popularity because it didn't meet AV's standards of imaginative-ness. It declined because it was too intense and too often caused adverse physical effects, not meaning fatal ones, even for those who love thrill rides and ride regularly. Many came off feeling...not right, and didn't ride it 3 times a day like they do for so many others in WDW. Pile tons of bad press on that, and you have tiny lines, though I do hear the lines are better since the lighter version came in.

 

[raidermatt]

Despite whatever spin you want to put on this, M:S did not decline in popularity because it didn't meet AV's standards of imaginative-ness. It declined because it was too intense and too often caused adverse physical effects, not meaning fatal ones, even for those who love thrill rides and ride regularly.

Its a combination of the two.

And its not AV proclaiming the right level of imaginative-ness. Its AV pointing out that the ride doesn't meet the right level of imaginative-ness for enough people.

The ride is nearly pointless. Yes, the g's are a neat feeling. But it really does stop there for a lot of people (those that don't get ill).

First off, some sort of ride where you are meant to believe you ARE travelling in outerspace would have much wider appeal from the get go. More people want to truly experience the wonders of space than want to know how the g's feel. Star Tours, Mission to Mars and even Space Mountain don't try to show you what its like to simulate a simulator. They go for the story and adventure aspect, and that's a big part of their success.

But we are talking about the execution of the simulation of a simulator.

There's problems in that area as well. Sure, there's some appeal in getting to pretend you are an astronaut in training, but other than what we all know is a watered down physical effect, it doesn't even pull that off.

We have no real control over any aspect of the flight. They give us the obviously phony instrutions about pushing 2 buttons, then tell all 4 of us to steer the ship at once? Its a transparent attempt at finding some kind of interactiveness. Certainly it adds nothing to the repeatability of the attraction.

Then there's the graphics, which are not well done at all. If that's the quality astronauts really see, then this would have been a good time to veer away from reality.

It just doesn't stimulate the imagination of most people.


Test Track has the same conceptual problem, but I do have to admit it executes its mission better. It does seem to give you some sense of what its like to be in a test car.

They just could have done so much better by using the same ride mech and making the thing into a REAL story, be it a James Bond type of car chase, some sort of futuristic transportation story, whatever.

 

[YoHo]

If I want to Imagine I'm an Astronaught in training, I'll go to space camp which has much more imersiveness to it. (Or I would go, if I weren't too old to go to space camp.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

And its not AV proclaiming the right level of imaginative-ness. Its AV pointing out that the ride doesn't meet the right level of imaginative-ness for enough people.

The ride is nearly pointless. Yes, the g's are a neat feeling. But it really does stop there for a lot of people (those that don't get ill).

First off, some sort of ride where you are meant to believe you ARE travelling in outerspace would have much wider appeal from the get go. More people want to truly experience the wonders of space than want to know how the g's feel. Star Tours, Mission to Mars and even Space Mountain don't try to show you what its like to simulate a simulator. They go for the story and adventure aspect, and that's a big part of their success.

But we are talking about the execution of the simulation of a simulator.

There's problems in that area as well. Sure, there's some appeal in getting to pretend you are an astronaut in training, but other than what we all know is a watered down physical effect, it doesn't even pull that off.

We have no real control over any aspect of the flight. They give us the obviously phony instrutions about pushing 2 buttons, then tell all 4 of us to steer the ship at once? Its a transparent attempt at finding some kind of interactiveness. Certainly it adds nothing to the repeatability of the attraction.

Then there's the graphics, which are not well done at all. If that's the quality astronauts really see, then this would have been a good time to veer away from reality.

It just doesn't stimulate the imagination of most people.


Test Track has the same conceptual problem, but I do have to admit it executes its mission better. It does seem to give you some sense of what its like to be in a test car.

They just could have done so much better by using the same ride mech and making the thing into a REAL story, be it a James Bond type of car chase, some sort of futuristic transportation story, whatever.

And those two examples, my friends, are good reasons to kill Imagineering department. They simply don't execute their job properly.

 

[Another Voice]

Despite whatever spin you want to put on this, M:S did not decline in popularity because it didn't meet AV's standards of imaginative-ness.

It never developed any popularity in the first place.

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

And those two examples, my friends, are good reasons to kill Imagineering department. They simply don't execute their job properly.

Ah, but there's a big difference between the decision makers and the practitioners.

If the decision makers — the Disney executives above WDI who decide how to spend Disney's capital — are only willing to pay for the cheaper "it's good enough" options, then that's all that WDI will be able to deliver.

One day, I wish the top Disney executives would say, "WDI, We need another attraction that captures the public's imagination the way that Pirates, Small World, and Haunted Mansion did in the 1960s; don't be foolish with money, but you'll get the budget you need to do it right. People don't spend thousands of dollars on Disney vacations because of Dinorama." I have no doubt that Imagineers would rise to the task, with a combination of internal resources and qualified contractors (often former Disney Imagineers).

Unfortunately, the executive direction has been along the lines of, "We need a Pooh ride because Pooh sells merchandise. So shoehorn a cheap Pooh ride into an existing building, and make sure we can run it with the same number of people as the ride it replaces."

So is it right to blame the skilled artists, writers, designers, and engineers? Or does the blame belong somewhere else?

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Ah, but there's a big difference between the decision makers and the practitioners.

If the decision makers — the Disney executives above WDI who decide how to spend Disney's capital — are only willing to pay for the cheaper "it's good enough" options, then that's all that WDI will be able to deliver.

One day, I wish the top Disney executives would say, "WDI, We need another attraction that captures the public's imagination the way that Pirates, Small World, and Haunted Mansion did in the 1960s; don't be foolish with money, but you'll get the budget you need to do it right. People don't spend thousands of dollars on Disney vacations because of Dinorama." I have no doubt that Imagineers would rise to the task, with a combination of internal resources and qualified contractors (often former Disney Imagineers).

Unfortunately, the executive direction has been along the lines of, "We need a Pooh ride because Pooh sells merchandise. So shoehorn a cheap Pooh ride into an existing building, and make sure we can run it with the same number of people as the ride it replaces."

So is it right to blame the skilled artists, writers, designers, and engineers? Or does the blame belong somewhere else?

But I'm not blaming the Imagineers, only the Imagineering Department. If the head honcho is going to keep cutting budget, keep cutting the true abilities of the Imagineers, why bother having an Imagineering Department.

Imagineering Department was created to be creative, but if the creativity keeps being stifled by budgetary constraints (or political, or whatever), what's the point of having it, right?

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

Imagineering Department was created to be creative, but if the creativity keeps being stifled by budgetary constraints (or political, or whatever), what's the point of having it, right?

The reality today seems to be that the "point of having" WDI is to coordinate and manage work that is increasingly performed by outside companies. After all, over a billion dollars per year is invested in the five Disney resorts (with 11 major theme parks) around the globe. Even when outside contractors perform much of the work, Disney is ultimately responsible.

Creativity is a separate issue. For example, the executives who made the decisions about California Adventure's layout, themed areas, imagery, and attractions — too many clones, lack of compelling and original "E Tickets" — made many poor choices. The wrong people were in charge. But there was still a need for Disney resources to implement those questionable decisions (and to sneak in some charming details). So there's still a need for an Imagineering department.

Ideally, we will see better direction and decision making in the future. So far, Robert Iger seems to saying and doing the right things. And John Lasseter seems to be the perfect choice for Chief Creative Officer. It remains to be seen whether The Walt Disney Company is really willing to invest properly in the future of Disney's theme parks. It takes more money to design and build unique, 21st century "E Ticket" attractions than to spread clones of existing attractions or to decorate "off the shelf" rides.