Iger Planning to Kill Imagineering?

[ChrisFL]

Joe Rhodes is a useless twit who mistakes urban tribalism/piercings for creativity. I wouldn't put any stock in what he tells you.

For being such an expert on him you should at least be able to spell his name right.

After watching a special on the making of EE, my opinion of him would be quite the opposite

 

[YoHo]

After watching him wax poetic about AK in general and reading a lot of books about real imagineers like Hench and Broggie, I've determined he's a twit

 

[hawkrn]

Do you think that any of the current Imagineers are "real"?

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

Joe Rhode is agood guy and is not part of the problem even if he isn't part of the solution.

 

[MJMcBride]

I agree with YoHo. I find Rohde to be particularly annoying on those Travel channel shows. The earring is just plain stupid. However, my understanding is that he fought hard to keep Beastly Kindgom alive so I'll give him credit for that at least but he's brings nothing to the table.

 

[YoHo]

Do you think that any of the current Imagineers are "real"?

All the Imagineers with creativity and vision and an understanding of "Disney" were fired or quit over the last 10 years as the place decended into it's current state.

 

[Keyser]

I agree with YoHo. I find Rohde to be particularly annoying on those Travel channel shows.

I haven't seen those shows - my one experience with him was hearing this talk. But, I honestly think that had YoHo or you (or AV) heard the talk, you would have been hard pressed to find much to disagree with, in terms of what he discussed (I could see his style getting annoying...).

I'm also not sure how to take the comment (from YoHo) to not put stock in what he says - do you mean that he doesn't really believe what he says, that though he believes it, it's not what actually occurs, or that it's not reflective of what will actually happen in the future?

The earring is just plain stupid.

I wondered about that. Actually, I couldn't even tell whether it was an earring or something hanging from his hair. What's the deal with that?

 

[MJMcBride]

. But, I honestly think that had YoHo or you (or AV) heard the talk

I never thought I would be clumped together with Yoho and AV on an issue.

 

[YoHo]

I don't mean to speak for AV, but I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that he's heard more then he cares to from Mr. Rohdes.

As to why he's saying what he says. He's a shill for the company. You wouldn't expect the ONLY Imagineer left on staff with even an ounce of clout to bash the company and it's policies would you? He wouldn't have a job and at this point, probably would sturggle getting hired anywhere else as he's likely alienated former co-workers. So yeah, he spouts the company line. Smoke and mirrors while the middle managers play their games.

Even Lasseter who I think has every intention of doing right by Imagineering(he may not be allowed to), toes the company line even as people are fired.

 

[MJMcBride]

I don't mean to speak for AV, but I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that he's heard more then he cares to from Mr. Rohdes.

As to why he's saying what he says. He's a shill for the company. You wouldn't expect the ONLY Imagineer left on staff with even an ounce of clout to bash the company and it's policies would you? He wouldn't have a job and at this point, probably would sturggle getting hired anywhere else as he's likely alienated former co-workers. So yeah, he spouts the company line. Smoke and mirrors while the middle managers play their games.

Even Lasseter who I think has every intention of doing right by Imagineering(he may not be allowed to), toes the company line even as people are fired.

In fairness though, when you work for a company you can't publicly knock them without risking your job and I would not expect anyone to do that, thats not fair.

But I do wish Rohdes would stop talking. He comes across as a doofus.

 

[YoHo]

Even Sklar who became the King of the Shills sometimes stuck his neck out.

 

[crazy4wdw]

Joe Rhodes is a useless twit who mistakes urban tribalism/piercings for creativity. I wouldn't put any stock in what he tells you.

Warrning - please be careful about posting insulting comments regarding disboard members or disney cast members

 

[Another Voice]

Everything he discussed about the ride (other than the initial directive to put together a thrill ride for AK) seems to have been done with a lot of thought.

That’s exactly the weakness of this entire process. He was told “here’s a roller coaster, make it look pretty.”

No one grows up with a life long fantasy of riding a tea train in Nepal. You might meet a few that are interested in the Yeti myth (although I think more would be interested in Bigfoot) – but for the most part people just don’t care about that one. It’s a rather obsure and interesting topic.

Take a look at all of Disney big classic attractions. All of them focus on a widely held, impossible to fulfill childhood fantasy. People want to explore a haunted house, ride a steamboat through the Frontier, fly to the moon or Mars, sail with pirates, share a favorite character’s adventure.

‘Expedition: Everest’ just doesn’t fit. Not only does it lack in the “life long wish” factor, but is riding a train through they Himalyas really impossible? I can’t explore a house and see real ghosts, I can’t zoom off to shoot the bad guys with Buzz, I can’t listen to Lincoln give a speech – but one call to a travel agent and I sure can be out their searching for yellow snow. Why should I drop five grand to visit WDW to fulfill my fantasy when it’s cheaper to go to the real place?

People are willing to pay big bucks to have their dreams brought to life. That’s the reason Disneyland and WDW are mega-billion dollar earners.

The reality of the situation was that the suits decided they need to put another rollercoaster at WDW. The initial idea was to put it in the Magic Kingdom because of Disney’s desire to compete against Universal’s Islands of Adventure for the teenage bucks (I mean, it’s work so well for U.O., hasn’t it). But there were enough Power Point presentations of marketing surveys to show them that maybe Animal Kingdom wasn’t keeping the guests around long enough.

It wasn’t “what’s a great experience people have always want to have that involves animals?”. The design exercise was to make the coaster “fit”. That’s a fundamentally weak way to start any project and it shows up the overall weakness of ‘Expedition: Everest’. It’s a cheap thrill ride with no lasting impact. It’s this decade’s ‘Body Wars’ ( an attraction that had a very similar design history as ‘Everest’).


P.S. Plastering eighteen hundred yeti references and a plate of faux yeti poo in the line isn’t storytelling. That’s been a problem with Joe since the beginning. He can’t tell the difference between “story” and “plot”. He really should be designing for Vegas.

 

[exDS vet]

Take a look at all of Disney big classic attractions. All of them focus on a widely held, impossible to fulfill childhood fantasy. People want to explore a haunted house, ride a steamboat through the Frontier, fly to the moon or Mars, sail with pirates, share a favorite character’s adventure.

Why should I drop five grand to visit WDW to fulfill my fantasy when it’s cheaper to go to the real place?

People are willing to pay big bucks to have their dreams brought to life. That’s the reason Disneyland and WDW are mega-billion dollar earners.

A.V. I took your message out of context because I wanted to point out one major descrepency. I agree with much of the childhood fantasy, but fantasy is for the MK. People do spend money to see things at Disney that they can also see at the "real" places. Take World Showcase for example. It seems that if you had your way, it just wouldn't exist. Why would people shell out thousands of dollars to visit replicas of other countries?

People do it because it is Disney. They don't go to to see replicas of Paris and Venice. They go there to gamble, shop and see shows. They go to Disney to see theme parks and be immersed in the magic. Maybe people can't afford to see 10 different countries on one vacation, but at Epcot, they can.

At first, E.E. seemed to be getting good reviews. Now it is back to complaining that WDI didn't go far enough. Or this flaw or that. How different is the Yeti from the Abominable Snowman on the Matterhorn? I haven't rode E.E. yet, but hey, it's a Disney roller coaster. I'm sure it's a good enough experience. And good enough is what we have grown to expect from Disney during the past decade or so.

Disney's last great attraction was the Indiana Jones Adventure. Others, while good, aren't that great. At least Disney can take the steel looping coaster and put it inside a darkened building to give you a different experience. They also took a typical free fall ride and turned into another unique adventure. I think we all should cut WDI some slack and be appreciative for the things that they have accomplished. Especially during Ei$ner's run.

 

[WBHoenig]

First off, Iger knows that Walt would not be happy with these changes. So did Michael Eisner. So did Ron Miller (to an extent). Think about the P.R. issues. Think about the DISers that would stop gutting him so much of their hard-earned cash each year. I know I would be infuriated, and so would be Roy Edward Disney. Do we really need the third forceful ousting of a CEO by the last Disney family member to be activly engaged in the company?
Also, I'd like to comment on his numbers. 200-300 is NOT the majority of WDI. From Disney's WDI website:

Nearly 2,000 Imagineers representing over 140 disciplines are responsible for all phases of a project's development -- from master planning and "blue sky" conceptualization to design, engineering, production, construction and final installation. This blending of creative imagination with technical know-how has produced the world's best stories in the theme park vernacular.

It would be quite a blow, but not enough to kill off WDI completly. Iger would be very smart to streamline the operations, but he is NOT dumb enough (IMO) to do what this article describes.

Just my $0.02.

 

[YoHo]

Epcot is about the World's fair/ tomorrowland style quest for the future.

World showcase represents an aspect of that World's fair ideal. It's not just about seeing other countries, it's about how each of those countries is a part of the global village, and how we as a world are moving to the future. It's something that is, or at least was almost impossible to grasp outside of Epcot. The internet, may do the same.

 

[Keyser]

That’s exactly the weakness of this entire process. He was told “here’s a roller coaster, make it look pretty.”

OK, I can see what you're saying (I snipped a bunch of the related bit below) - maybe the whole corporate process is/has been broken. He said that his directive was to put a high-capacity thrill ride into AK (or something like that - I assume he had some other directives, too). But, that doesn't mean that he (or rather Imagineering) didn't do a good job at working under the constraints they were given. Again, I'm speaking only from having heard the talk and his examples - he might have cherry-picked the cases that fit the theme of his talk, and there might be a lot more that's poorly done.

No one grows up with a life long fantasy of riding a tea train in Nepal. You might meet a few that are interested in the Yeti myth (although I think more would be interested in Bigfoot) – but for the most part people just don’t care about that one. It’s a rather obsure and interesting topic.

I assume you meant uninteresting. Rohde talked for a while about why the Yeti was chosen as a theme, speaking about it's status of being revered in part as a symbol of a protector of the undeveloped/uninhabited/wild. He discussed why he thought this fell in well with the theme of Animal Kingdom - i.e. it's not just some random choice but one selected to "fit" in several ways. He even talked about the importance of making sure a ride would be an integral part of the theme of the whole park, and how it was important not to just slap a "decorative" story onto a given ride, but rather make sure the ride and everything about it fit the story you were trying to tell. He mentioned that it shouldn't be seen as a coaster ride in the park, but rather as a story that the guest experienced.

Take a look at all of Disney big classic attractions.
...
Why should I drop five grand to visit WDW to fulfill my fantasy when it’s cheaper to go to the real place?

Wow, I wouldn't think of going to the Himalayas, or on an African Safari as something really practical - I doubt I'll ever get to do either for real in my lifetime, and I travel more than most folks. Personally, I find the idea of exploring the Himalayas pretty cool, but to each his own...

P.S. Plastering eighteen hundred yeti references and a plate of faux yeti poo in the line isn’t storytelling. That’s been a problem with Joe since the beginning. He can’t tell the difference between “story” and “plot”. He really should be designing for Vegas.

I'll agree that a plate of faux yeti poo is very weak, and I see why he woudn't have mentioned it in his talk! But, the majority of his talk was actually discussing things like the differences between setting, theme, and story; the different ways you tell a story when the control varies (people exploring parts on their own, and forced through other parts); why a backstory has to be fundamental to the design of the ride from the beginning, rather than something that is later thrown on to justify a previously reached conclusion; ways of achieving subtle authenticity instead of making things seem decorated; etc. As YoHo said, maybe he was just copyng the company line here, and maybe he was just picking a few ideal examples, but he did at least have clear examples of all of these things from the EE design process. As you point out, though, the very ride itself (being given the directive to fit a coaster into AK) violates one of the principles...

 

[Another Voice]

Take World Showcase for example.

And it’s been a problem since the day it opened in 1982. I remember the first reviews of EPCOT Center – the vast majority of them blasted World Showcase a kitsch, as tacky, as bland and as pedestrian. And for the most part they right.

The point of great design is not that the place should look like its subject, the goal of design should be to make you feel that your in that place. Although the France pavilion does everything it can to appear like its Paris – even down to the silly mini Eiffel Tower, you don’t get the emotions of being in Paris, the feeling, the “this is exactly what I thought it would be like” kick in the gut. Some pavilions work – wander the narrow alleyways in the back of Morocco and get a whiff of the saffron from the restaurant, and you feel like you’re there.

Good design is hard to do. Even Disney at the height of its power didn’t get it right all the time. But that’s no excuse from sloppy and poor work at any time, especially today. No one gets the same rush walking into World Showcase as you get when you walk under the train tracks at step on Main Street. The difference is in the design.

Now it is back to complaining that WDI didn't go far enough.

Exactly. Thrill rides offer nothing but a short, sharp kick to the adrenal gland. It’s a physical thrill that leaves no lasting memory. But a good, story based attraction leaves an emotional impact that you remember long after the fact. People can recall riding ‘Pirates’ and ‘Mansion’ when they were little kids with great clarity. That’s the kind of attraction that people expect from Disney. They want wonder and awe and real magic – not two minutes of a runaway train.

I think we all should cut WDI some slack and be appreciative for the things that they have accomplished.

What – are we hurting their self esteem? Cutting them slack is the worst possible thing that anyone – especially the fans – can do. Disney biggest problem is the “its good enough” attitude that infects the company and the infects the fans.

The public doesn’t cut businesses slack. No one goes to the same restaurant month after month just to cut them some slack. No on pays to see a bad movie to cut the director some slack. No one watches a television show for a year to cut the producers some slack.

With all the resources Disney has we have a right to demand they at least live up to what they’ve accomplished in the past. No company survives by getting worse over the years – and the attendance record of California Adventure shows just how brutally the public can punish a firm that slacks off on the job.

Rohde talked for a while about why the Yeti was chosen as a theme, speaking about it's status of being revered in part as a symbol of a protector of the undeveloped/uninhabited/wild.

That may be the case – so how exactly is that communicated on the ride? You’re riding on an old train? How they Yeti suddenly get upset now when the trains be around for a hundred years? What part of the ride shows the Yeti protecting the wilderness, all he does is attack us? Maybe if he pushed a water buffalo off the track before we hit it – but there’s nothing like that on the ride. The Yeti is there as nothing more than a cheap thrill.

Personally, I find the idea of exploring the Himalayas pretty cool…

Again – there’s a huge difference between the impossible and the impractical. You can’t board a rocketship and fly around the Moon, no matter how much money I have (even $20 million would only have gotten Lance Bass a 100 miles high). Going on a safari (and yes, I went on one as a honeymoon) is just a matter of going to expedia.com. Given the amount of money you have to drop for a WDW trip these days, it’s probably cheaper to go to Africa. In the first instance Disney is fulfilling a dream, in the second it’s offering a discount. How magical is that?

…things like the differences between setting, theme, and story;…

Except that he doesn’t really understand them in a real, storytelling sense –the way Walt built Disneyland. Rohde doesn’t understand that viewpoint – the real difference between plot and story. He got where he was not because he’s a good designer, but because he did things on the cheap. You didn’t survive the last ten years at WDI based on your ability; you survived based on following orders from people like Pressler and Eisner.

To be blunt – there never would have been a sudden need to drop in another thrill ride into Animal Kingdom to prop up sagging attendance if Rohde has designed a place that wowed the public in the first place.

 

[WBHoenig]

To be blunt – there never would have been a sudden need to drop in another thrill ride into Animal Kingdom to prop up sagging attendance if Rohde has designed a place that wowed the public in the first place.

I have to agree. Before 2003 or so, Animal Kingdom IMO was the worst Disney park ever. We went once in 1998, thought it was a complete bore, and only came back in 2006 because of Everest. Then we realized it had immensly improved over those eight years.

What I know Iger also understands, if he denies it, is that this is NOT just WDI that has this attitude - it is all of corperate high-level Disney. Especially under Eisner. He does have right to change, but he can't just try to change WDI.

 

[ChrisFL]

I have to agree. Before 2003 or so, Animal Kingdom IMO was the worst Disney park ever.

...ever been to DCA?