Iger Planning to Kill Imagineering?

[MJMcBride]

Turn on Animal Planet. Better yet, get out of the house and explore. The exhibits at Disney's Animal Kingdom are on the low end of what people are doing today. In fact, they're at the low end of what people were doing a decade ago - take a look at the Monterey Bay Aquirium. And thirty years ago you could drive through Lion Country Safari, get a lot closer to then animals AND learn a lot more – and they didn’t have to have a “Save Little Red” After School Special plotline.

Disney looks amazing as long as that’s the only thing you look at. The rest of the world has caught up.


Illusions are great aren’t they? The “roaming the African veldt” is a lie. In reality what you see is on a tiny part of the animal’s life. For most of the time they are herded backstage in the same dingy concrete boxes of all the places you hate. Disney does a far worse job then dozens and dozens of other wildlife parks and sanctuaries. If Disney really wanted to do something more – they could have. Instead they built cages. Take the train and see.

Every animal exhibit in the world is an illusion. I have taken the train. Disney's "backstage" area for animals is far far better than most. How many "employee" only areas have you been to in a zoo. Disney's exhibits are far from the "low end" as you put it. That is (as is usual) an unfair shot.

As far as those drive thru safari's are concerned. They typically do not realistically depict the animal's environent, an important aspect of most zoological exhibits. And if you could get any closer no less a lot closer, it is unsafe for the animals. As for Monterrey Bay, sure its a great aquarium. In fact most experts in the field feel its the best in the world.

As for your determination as to DAK being on the low end of the zoo world. You are just plain wrong. sorry. Having been to numerous zoos, read numerous articles, journals and books on zoos, having been a docent at a zoo for over 15 years, and speaking with docents and employees of over 20 of the leading zoos in this country, I'm pretty sure I have a good idea of whats going on in that particular field.

 

[raidermatt]

I don't know if its in the low end of zoos, but I do know its not what it could and should be. Either from an innovation pov, or from a scope pov.

 

[MJMcBride]

I don't know if its in the low end of zoos, but I do know its not what it could and should be. Either from an innovation pov, or from a scope pov.

If you want to be critical of the rides and theming so be it. But the zoological exhibits are top notch. As is the "backstage" and veterinary facilities. Backsatge areas are necessarily cages. The animals are kept in smaller spaces to keep better care of them. Grooming, cleaning, feeding and monitoring is general done "off exhibit".

 

[dbm20th]

No not at all. So Vivid Video doesn't get an attraction?

Sorry, no. But I don't think that would have anything to do with themeing

You can easily fit in Tv shows and Movies into the theme of MGM. You can't fit in Aerosmith, you can't fit in that ride. What movies have they been in? Cause their music has been in movies?

But how? If we take it literally, and you eluded to Eisner's speech, there is little that television has to do with the "golden age of hollywood". It's a stretch.

I understand Aerosmith is a monumentally larger stretch, but if you really want to torture yourself, you can go watch Sgt. Pepper's and see Aerosmith starring as the Future Villian Band. (Not to mention cameos including Wayne's World.) Now, they have had quite few songs in films, and it does take place in LA, but this is getting away from my point. I agree with you that it doesn't belong. But it's not like they put Test Track here. The precedent for stretching themeing goes back all the way to Walt.

I haven't discussed Walt, MK, AK, Epcot, DCA or Disneyland. I'm just talking about MGM.

And that is fine. But to get my point, you really have to.

What does the Matterhorn have to do with Tommorowland? (or even Fantasyland for that matter) Or 20k Leagues? Or race cars? Or America Sings?

What does It's a Small World have to do with Fantasyland?

What does Splash Mountain have to do with Frontierland?

What does a Haunted Mansion have to do with Liberty Square?

What part of Test Track is about the future ,making it part of Future World? Or Journey into Imagination? (Yes, even the beloved original)

Do you understand what I mean? I can go on and on, and we can debate each of these until the cows come home, but nobody can argue that these don't somehow seem to fit into their areas a little less snuggly then The Great Movie Ride, Spaceship Earth, or Big Thunder Mountain. These are all great attractions that did not really fit exactly into any themeing that existed at the time. SO we stretch it a bit and we are the better for it. All I am saying is that RnR is a similar stretch.

It doesn't fit, but it really doesn't fit anywhere. But I like it, and therefore I try not to get hung-up on something that really has never been adhered to, even by Walt.

 

[BRERALEX]

It doesn't fit, but it really doesn't fit anywhere.

You're right

What does It's a Small World have to do with Fantasyland?

It's fantasy that it's a world of laughter. That one was easy.

SO we stretch it a bit and we are the better for it. All I am saying is that RnR is a similar stretch

We'll just disagree.

I've only traveled to Disneyland once and I was too young to remember. I can't speak for Disneyland except to say their castle is inferior.

 

[raidermatt]

But the zoological exhibits are top notch. As is the "backstage" and veterinary facilities.

Great, but its nhatazu. Further, from a guest POV, the exhibits are not extraordinary. I haven't been to a lot of zoos, but enough to know that.

If the backstage areas are that great, wonderful. I don't really know.

But as a theme park, which is what it is, it remains weak on both the number and quality of its attractions.

 

[MJMcBride]

Great, but its nhatazu. Further, from a guest POV, the exhibits are not extraordinary. I haven't been to a lot of zoos, but enough to know that.

If the backstage areas are that great, wonderful. I don't really know.

But as a theme park, which is what it is, it remains weak on both the number and quality of its attractions.

Why do you feel that the zoological exhibits are ordinary? I understand you feel there needs to be more and better attractions. I agree with that especially your criticism on the muber of them. I hope we get a new land soon like America or Beastly Kingdom.

 

[SoCalKDG]

Wrong because AV, as usual, makes up stuff to support his argument. There are not dozens and dozens. In fact, there might be 3. In terms of zoological parks, only San Diego and the Bronx zoo's are are on par with DAK in terms of immersive exhibits. Most zoos have some immersive exhibits, but also have old, dingy unrealistic exhibits or even cages.

Even the top two zoos in the country (mentioned above), can get a little cramped. San Diego packs a boat load of animals in a relatively small size (I'm talking zoo, not the animal park -which by the way is one of only 2 zoos that I can think of that have comaprable rides to Kilmanjaroo). DAK never really has that "crowded" or "old and dinghy" feel that are found at just about every other zoo.

I'll go out on a limb and say that the San Diego Zoo is top 5 in the U.S. Having said that, I could never spend more than one day at the zoo(I go yearly, occasionally getting a season pass). I could visit AK 2-3 times no problem on our yearly vacation. As just a zoo SDZ would win out, but when you throw in the shows, rides, and yes, theming, AK wins out not problem. Not even close.

I've also been to the San Diego Wild Animal Park multiple times as well, and the safari at AK is much better than the standard safari at the SDWAP(note I said standard, they also offer a photo safari for additional money - alot of additional money to the tune of $90).

 

[MJMcBride]

Thw Bronx Zoo and the San Diego Zoo are most often counted by people in that field as the top 2 zoos in the country probably by a wide margin. Not just in exhibits but in breeding, conservation, veterinary sciences and educational programs. If you want to include aquariums that throw in Monterray Bay.

Most of the "safari" rides in zoos are monorail rides which I find to be substandard to the Safari ride at DAK.

 

[airlarry!]

re R'n'R at MGM.

Easy. The park was supposed to be a celebration of the entertainment industry. First, it would show you the Hollywood that never was and always will be...which includes music, television, and yes the movies. All of these are created each and every day in and around L.A.

So, if Airlarry! designed the ride....well first the name would have to go...but second, the ride would be about the making of a record, not some lass **** attempt at getting to a concert on time.

The queue is detailed to the max...but doesn't fit what should have been the real theme of the attraction.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

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.

 

[MJMcBride]

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.

What about Turtle Talk or, dare I say it, Mission Space.

 

[ChrisFL]

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).

Thats not what I've heard...Im pretty sure Journey to the Center of the Earth is the same technology as Test Track and was built long after Indy opened.

 

[Another Voice]

New or old technology isn't the problem.

It's what you do with it that's been Disney's shortcoming.

'Mission: Space' was cutting edge twenty different ways, and now it's you get free Fast Passes begging you to go on the thing. Yet 'Soaring' uses an old basic Big Format Movie with slightly fancy seats and the lines are out the door.

No one cares about mechanics.

Transport a guest into a fantasy and make them feel it's real using hundred old tricks and they'll beat down the door to give you money.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

'Mission: Space' was cutting edge twenty different ways, and now it's you get free Fast Passes begging you to go on the thing.

Yet 'Soaring' uses an old basic Big Format Movie with slightly fancy seats and the lines are out the door.

1. M:S uses 30 yeard old technology, plain and simple, outside of that, it's purely cosmetics, nothing needs to be "imagined" there.

2. Soarin' it's popular because it's Disney and it's the only kind in the US. If you've travelled the real world (as opposed to just Disney World), the realistic effect of the IMAX technology used in France is more immersive and realistic than Soarin'.

3. Turtle Talk also based on presets (and they do have lots of presets) and the mouth movements are based on real-time digital motion capture that's been available more than 8 years ago.

The Tiki Room... now that's a true Imagineering feat
It's a Small World another Imagineering feat
Halls of Presidents (started with just Abe Lincoln, CoP, even the Matterhorn are Imagineering feat.

There were no synchronized music vs doll vs wave-driven ride ever built before.

Tiki Room, no smooth and natural moving animatronics before, no animatornics period, actually. Same goes with Abe Lincoln and all the characters of CoP and its rotating building.

There was no tube-steel-based roller coaster before Matterhorn.

Those are the engineering part comes to Imagineering. Now they are just playing dress-up. No innovation anymore.

 

[MJMcBride]

New or old technology isn't the problem.

It's what you do with it that's been Disney's shortcoming.

'Mission: Space' was cutting edge twenty different ways, and now it's you get free Fast Passes begging you to go on the thing. Yet 'Soaring' uses an old basic Big Format Movie with slightly fancy seats and the lines are out the door.

No one cares about mechanics.

Transport a guest into a fantasy and make them feel it's real using hundred old tricks and they'll beat down the door to give you money.

I agree with that. But doesn't Mission Space transport you to the fantasy of actual space flight. Now I know the ride has been taking major press hits and maybe it would have done that without the press and deaths, but I think the idea was to transport you to the fantasy of actual space flight and may have worked to that end.

I agree Soarin's is good old fashioned imagineering. So is Turtle Talk in my book.

 

[YoHo]

Mission space dropped it's journey to space theme in exchange for a cheaper to implement astronaut training theme. IT fails.


Soarin works really really well, I wish they had built up a better theme around it.


Kelly, you're bein way to critical. Wasn't the Railroad Imagineering? What about the Mine Train, or the Steam ship. What about Main Street?

Imagineering isn't about new and fantastic technologies, although new technology is a great tool. It's about storytelling using the methods of film and stage.

 

[Another Voice]

But doesn't Mission Space transport you to the fantasy of actual space flight.

'Mission: Space' is a simulation of a simulation. They tell you what you're about to experience is just training. It's called a "training center". You, as the audience, are left having to pretend you're on a pretend mission.

That's not really anyone's fantasy.

Had 'Mission: Space' actually been about going to Mars it would have been more successful.

But that would have required money to create a show.

 

[MJMcBride]

'Mission: Space' is a simulation of a simulation. They tell you what you're about to experience is just training. It's called a "training center". You, as the audience, are left having to pretend you're on a pretend mission.

That's not really anyone's fantasy.

Had 'Mission: Space' actually been about going to Mars it would have been more successful.

I don't disagree really. We're really just talking semantics. All I mean is that attempted to create a fantasy, i.e. being an anstronaut, the training, the space center. I agree thats its not really anyone's fantasy. Hence its popularity even before the recent problems. I have always enjoyed Test Track more.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Mission space dropped it's journey to space theme in exchange for a cheaper to implement astronaut training theme. It fails.

that means both sides of Imagineering failed. The imagination part fails, the engineering part fails.

Soarin works really really well, I wish they had built up a better theme around it.

The imagination part fails, therefore Imagineering fails

Kelly, you're bein way to critical. Wasn't the Railroad Imagineering?

No, the railroad is not part of Imagineering, at least not based on the Disney history. It's there because Walt liked trains

What about the Mine Train,

based on Imagineering's invention of tubular rollercoaster frame and greast theming, so both it's an Imagineering feat

or the Steam ship.

creating a steamship that's actually guided on rail, yet it feels like a real steamship. That's an Imagineering feat. It was never done before Disney too.

What about Main Street?

An inventive twist of forced perspective (both on the Y and Z axis, something that's never been done with actual building until Imagineering did it) plus great theming. A feat of Imagineering.

Imagineering isn't about new and fantastic technologies, although new technology is a great tool. It's about storytelling using the methods of film and stage.

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.