Mission Space article

[airlarry!]

Scoop:

Three quick replies to your essay.

First, on your post about why worry about rumors, 'cause every attraction can be made better.

I'll bet Joe Disney Fan doesn't really want anything to change on Pirates, or IASW, or Space Mountain or anything. The Classics don't need fixing. Sure its possible to make 'em better, but nobody is clamoring for it, so what's the point?

Hmm. Here's my example. Most of us know the story behind Big Thunder. What was supposed to go there, instead of what actually went. Hear anybody really complain about the loss of Western River Expansion? Nah. What we got from WDI was knocks your socks off, has a great story line, presentation and queue, and makes one wistful for what could have been but satisfied for what is here.

Second: Honestly, isn't there a little part of you that is scared that the limitations that have been placed on M:S are going to deprive us of that knock-your-socks-off experience? That Disney is going to hit a double instead of a home run? We know it has happened with Dinosaur, RnR, (both of which I like a lot) Chester & Hester's etc. Admit it, Scoop, you are worried. Or you should be.

Third, on your point about car 3'ers not giving today's Disney enough credit.

I honestly believe that if people "from this side of the aisle" would not have posted, voicing their displeasure in what is happening at WDW so vociferously, you may never have seen the error of the Ei$ner regime. (see your post below). I can't prove it -- yet-- but I believe your posts over the past couple of years have signified a shift in your thinking, away from ME is not the ogre we make him to be, to your current thinking that ME is bad and WDI is lazy. (paraphrasing of course).

So maybe thanks to AV and WFH and LB and RM and others are in order? How else would you have seen the light? How else can we convince you to expect more out of M:S than The Next Big Spinner?

Monsieur Scoop said:

The current Disney management needs to go. They've grown stale and lazy in their approach to creating so that lately they are not giving the consuming public alot a compelling reasons to treat Disney as the heads above leader rather than simply another company which puts out great, good, bad, and, yes sometimes, terrible offerings

 

[raidermatt]

Wasn't this entire thread started on a discussion of what Jim Hill "rumored" was some original plans for Space?

Call me an ostrich if you want, but my perception is still that rumors like Jim's and what Larry heard are examples of things that fit our expectations, not formed them.

Again, as others have said, our expectations are formed by our past experiences with what Disney has created. When we hear a rumor, its natural to see how it stacks up to expectations, but that doesn't mean the rumor is setting expectations.

Oh, sorry. I missed the fact that AV has actually seen the attraction, or maybe he was on the design team . AREN'T? How can anyone say that now.

He says he has seen and/or heard things from his sources, and I'm sure he is not about to divulge who those sources are now. Ultimately, we will all form our own opinions when we see it for ourselves. Based on what he has heard, he has stated his opinion.

So I guess you and AV have a problems with RnR, ToT, Space, Splash, Thunder

Can't speak for AV on this, but yeah, I have some problems with some of these. Its more of an overall trend than something that can be tied to any single attractions. However, as I've pointed out, just about every recent "slam-bang" attraction, as well as the vast majority of what is rumored, is based on physical thrills. No balance, and yes that is a problem.

At least wait until the ride opens and you have some experience with it before you condemn it as another Disney misstep.

As far as the story and show goes, I will, and have said as much. However, as far as the physical thrill portion of it, there is no need to wait, as that has been pretty well established.

 

[DisneyKidds]

However, as far as the physical thrill portion of it, there is no need to wait, as that has been pretty well established.

Yes, but all that established is that there will be a major physical thrill portion to the pavillion - and there is nothing wrong with that. Sure, some people might not like it, but there are a lot of people who don't like a lot of things for a lot of reasons. That doesn't mean the pavillion won't contain anything else, does it? Let's wait and see what else there is. Pre show, post show, hands on exhibits, etc.

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

I'd much rather have an attraction at the level of Toy Story than one at the level of Dinosaur because keeping it in-house just doesn't mean the same as it did in 1960

Right. "Keeping it in house just doesn't mean the same as it did in 1960." We apparently agree up to this point.

So, why doesn't it mean the same as it did in 1960? You seem to suggest that it's because today's Imagineer is less creative than yesterday's. I suggest it doesn't mean the same because Disney's management made a choice. Disney's management decided that having Imagineering mean what it did in 1960 was a bad business strategy, that doing more out-sourcing, cutting down on plussing and making more use of economies of scale were the components of a better strategy.

In other words, Disney's management decided to abandon the unique viewpoint which made Disney distinct from their competitors, and started managing Disney about the same as everyone else managed their companies.

The inherent problem with believing that "The Pixar Approach" can create Disney Quality is that it means Disney itself is not necessary to create Disney Quality. I mean, if Disney did end up going under tomorrow and Fox ended up distributing Finding Nemo, would the quality of the actual film change? Of course not.

So is Pixar producing Disney Quality without benefit of Disney's production unit, or is Disney distributing a movie that is not of Disney Quality? Rhetorical question, because the answer is moot: either way you look at it, "Disney Quality" just doesn't mean what it used to.

Which, because I feel the Imagineering efforts were the greenhouse in which Disney Magic grew, is actually just another way of stating your point above, that we agree on.

In the end, I don't think using ETC for attractions is anymore troubling than using Pixar for animation as long as ETC or whomever else maintains Pixar level standards and offerings.

Okay, let's try to say the same thing from the other direction.

It seems that most of us agree that the Disney-Pixar deal's days are numbered. If Pixar is producing Disney Quality films for Disney to distribute, aren't they going to be producing Disney Quality films for someone else to distribute in a couple years? And isn't Disney Quality, Disney Magic, precisely the undefinable something that forged all of our relationships with Disney?

The troubling thing about The Pixar Approach is that's it an admission that there is nothing Magical about Disney's structure, focus, or processes; and any company who chooses to can produce "Disney Magic" all on their own.

Personally, it's the Magical, Disney Quality product that I'm interested in. I'll select that product no matter what brand name is on it. It's kind of interesting that you would bring up "The Pixar Principle" as a point for "your" side: boiled down, The Pixar Principle just means that I'm likely to get my Disney Quality products in the future, even though they won't say Disney on the side, anymore. If anything, The Pixar Principle should be a salve for the spirits of Car 3 and 4 riders, as that which we miss is likely to return under another name. Car 1, on the other hand, should fear The Pixar Principle, as it is a tacit admission that while Disney cannot seem to produce Disney Quality, someone else can.

-WFH

 

[airlarry!]

...that your "side of the aisle" is just full of rhetoric and banter...

Oops. I'll fix it.

 

[DisneyKidds]

You seem to suggest that it's because today's Imagineer is less creative than yesterday's.

Could it be that outsourcing certain aspects could work not because today's Imagineer is less creative, but because other companies/vendors/suppliers have gotten that good or stolen the talent (or took the talent Disney let slip away )?

In other words, Disney's management decided to abandon the unique viewpoint which made Disney distinct from their competitors

But did they really? After all, for M:S it appears the ride mechanism was outsourced. Frankly, I doubt it is the type of mechanism any Disney Imagineer could produce even without limitations placed upon them by management. Beyond the mechanism, isn't Disney Imagineering still responsible for the overall story and show? Isn't it that aspect that makes Disney what it is/has been?

Even with animation and "The Pixar Principle", while Pixar may do the CG work, doesn't Disney still have responsibility for the storyboarding and all those other important aspects that make a Disney story Disney?

In the end, while Disney might need ETC to create M:S, could ETC create what will become Disney's M:S on their own?

Heck, look at RnR, in which you think the "store bought" mechanism sets a low bar for Disney expectation. I don't agree. If anyone could have produced RnR, how come they didn't? I have yet to see another store bought coaster that has the backstory of a RnR. Coasters everywhere else don't tell a story - but at Disney they do. Who cares if the track and cars were bought from a company that specializes in that kind of thing.

Same for ToT. I can go on a Free Fall ride any number of places. Imagineering took the common free fall mechanism and made it 'Disney'.

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

Chad, at this point, I simply don't know what to say.

I don't really care what company, whether it be Disney or whomever, is creating the "Magic".

After all, what is Disney? It's just a company that provides entertainment options. In other words, if it were to pass on, it really wouldn't be that big of a deal in the big picture.

if Universal or someone else committed themselves to designing an entire resort using the creativity of the Spiderman attraction, then I'll be the first in line.

As far as I can tell, you've just described the fundamental mindset of Car 3. Everything you just said sounds like what I've been saying for three years.

There's not much of a gap in quality, if there is any gap in quality, between Disney and Everybody Else. If Universal starts making the decisions that Disney no longer will, at some point, all of the Cars will be headed for Universal. I agree.

Disney pretty much created a new way of doing things.

Yes, they did. You like to talk about that as if it was easy... as if changing the definition of the American Family Vacation was a no-brainer of an idea and associated with guaranteed financial success.

The problem was not that Disney was suddenly set upon by hordes of copy-cats who could do what Disney did more cheaply, the problem was that Disney legitimized those copy-cats by retreating back to that business plan, themselves. Instead of continuing to innovate and further expand the definition of what a theme park should be, Disney became a cheap copy-cat of itself. They stopped trying to top themselves and settled for trying to top the copy-cats. Disney competes so closely with Universal because Disney chose to abandon its position as innovator, as creator; and was content to be just one of the crowd slugging it out in the copy-cat ring.

So, I agree with pretty much all of the first post: Disney is just another product vendor, "Disney Quality" can be generated by any company who chooses to do so, and Disney could easily lose the custom of vacationers like yourself who want to purchase quality, should another company choose to do so.

And I disagree with what appears to be the gist of the second post: I don't think everyone else has gotten so much better, I think Disney has quit the habits that set them apart.

-WFH

PS: I'm trying hard to let the whole "blame Imagineering" thing go, but I really find it an astonishing attitude from a person with your education. If one goes on the Atkins diet and eats potatoes and wheat bread with every meal, it's difficult to take them seriously when they say "The Atkins diet isn't working." Same thing with Imagineering. The personnel cuts and out-sourcing erode what Imagineering is. Now that it's eroded far enough that it bears no resemblance to its former self, you decide it's time to say "Imagineering isn't working."

Once again, I believe our disagreements have their root in the differences between what concepts like "Imagineering" and "Disney Magic" meant to the company in 1972 and what they had come to mean in 1998.

 

[raidermatt]

I really only have a minute here, but wanted to make a quick comment...

Do you think that today's Imagineers are working under more difficult circumstances than the Imagineers that first worked on Disneyland?

There's a difference between working under difficult circumstances for somebody who you know is giving you everything they can, and for somebody who is imposing those difficult circumstances because they wanted to reduce a line item expense.

 

[Bob O]

Part of the problem for Imagineering is that they have lost alot of talented people who left due to the major cutbacks or creative reasons and that has to hurt them.
RNRC coaster is just a clone of a ride that is found in other theme parks. The ride isnt unqiue at all as far as the ride mechanism goes. The only thing disney did was put it in a building and use some over-rated supposed stars to make up a weak storyline, little creativity in either story or the ride itself!! Now they should get some credit for sticking it into a building but since even Cedar Point has put a coaster in a building, and disney has done so already that hardly is unique.

 

[Testtrack321]

*flies in*

RNR was debuged by WDI. Vekoma produced the ride but Imagineering thought it up. WDI then debuged the LSM launch. Vekoma has sold the same debued layout to some amusement parks. And CP's only indoor coaster is one that is falling appart and makes Peter Pan's Flight look like Raptor.

*flies out*

 

[pheneix]

It is still a Vekoma, and sooner or later Disney will regret ever associating themselves with them. Even now RnRC is getting rougher than it was when it initially opened.

Ever noticed that Busch Entertainment and Universal Creative have been working with B&M? This is why.

 

[Testtrack321]

Originally posted by pheneix
It is still a Vekoma, and sooner or later Disney will regret ever associating themselves with them. Even now RnRC is getting rougher than it was when it initially opened.

Ever noticed that Busch Entertainment and Universal Creative have been working with B&M? This is why.

I never said Vekoma was a GOOD idea, just that Imagineering did chip in a bit and debugged quite a few things...

 

[pheneix]

I'm sorry, I just like to pick on Vekoma anyway.

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

Do you think that today's Imagineers are working under more difficult circumstances than the Imagineers that first worked on Disneyland?

Yes, because even though I know both sets had to work long hours, sometimes not knowing how much longer they'd have a job, I think the Imagineers in the early days were truly inspired by what they were working on, and knew from experience how much effect their hard work could have on the finished product. Those two positives feed on each other, and I believe morale at Disney Imagineering is at an all time low because they have neither of those motivators working for them.

I do not believe the business environment at Disney is conducive to any kind of creative process.

Even if you do, it still doesn't explain how they've really dropped some creative bombs lately.

Well, I believe you vastly underestimate the psychological effects of corporate culture on creativity, but beyond that, there are other factors involved in creating bombs. If you watch folks around you doing good work and getting fired for it (Splash is legendary as the point where Michael finally lost all patience and respect for Imagineering, many jobs lost; Dinosaur was a stunning piece of visual movie-making, but Imagineers lost jobs after the management-dictated story-tinkering rendered the movie under-popular and under-profitable, a more classic baby-and-bath-water story you're never likely to hear), there are a number of reasonable responses. Find a new job comes right to mind, so, whatever Imagineers were left after the bloodlettings, you're going to lose some of the more ambitious and daring of your staff. Those that won't/can't find another job, have to find some way to work within the system... so pre-stifling your suggestions in step with prevailing business trends is certainly reasonable. Both those responses would serve to dilute the quality of work and make "creative bombs" more likely.

The conditions that create these perfectly reasonable human responses are the conditions Disney's management has chosen to create. Sounds like you're waggling a finger at folks responding to conditions in a reasonable and predictable manner.

Just because Imagineering isn't being given open coffers doesn't mean they can't still be expected to create Magic.

So, I repose a second question: How can we explain the fact that things like "Little Red" and DinoRama were the creation of WDI?

I think we still have different concepts of Imagineering. The Imagineering I'm talking about wanted something called the Excavator rather than DinoRama. DinoRama was not an Imagineering creation, but an Imagineering decorated Accountanteering creation.

That's the way I feel about the Mega:Spinner, to tangent back on topic. Saying "it's the best Imagineering could do for $170 million" is somewhat misleading, in my book. More like "it's the best Imagineering could do for $20 million, at decorating this $150 million ride mech."

I have reason to doubt M:S will be the $170 million ride Imagineerining wanted. I believe this is what left of the $300 million pavilion when you remove almost everything but the ride mech. Again, this was a concious choice of management: did they want the $170 million old-school Disney themed Soarin' clone based pavilion, or did they want a ride mech with the horsepower to make Spider-Man look puny.

Nope, the point is that just because something was designed by Imagineering doesn't mean a lick--yesterday or today.

You're just wrong. Yesterday, Imagineering was more than just an accounting department code label. Imagineering does not have a modern equivalent of the nine old men that kept Disney's output cohesive and standards high; Disney's structure is designed only to keep costs low.

Worshipping Imagineering because its Imagineering isn't any better than being one of those folks who worship anything and everything Disney puts out because its Disney.

Again, I use the term Imagineering as it applied before you were around to experience it. When it meant focus and consistency and standards and doing things with the intention of creating something timeless and Magical.

I value that kind of Imagineering because of the results produced through their focus and consistency and standards and intentions.

Besides, your condescending analogy isn't even accurate: there's been no worshipping of Imagineering for the sake of the term: only regret that it doesn't mean what it once did.

If the theory is that Disney management has killed Imagineering and Imagineering has been helpless in the process, then how did those attractions get created.
...
More likely, you had creative people creating as creatively as possible---even under the circumstances of who was head of The Company at that time.

I've already mentioned a couple different points when there were substantial Imagineering cuts... no one shut off a valve such that Imagineering dried up overnight. Again, kind of ironic that Splash, a favorite example of management's for why Imagineering should be hamstrung, ended up being one of the favorites mentioned.

So some of these last bits of Magic were created by people who would soon be fired for their trouble. Have a Magical Day!

Your last sentence was dead on target about Imagineering. I have no idea how it follows from anything else you said.

-WFH

 

[Another Voice]

“Do you think that today's Imagineers are working under more difficult circumstances than the Imagineers that first worked on Disneyland?”

Yes.

In the “olden days” they worked for a management that both cared about and understood quality. They demanded quality from Imagineering and supported those people who produced it.

Today’s management is concerned about brand image. They are interested in producing the greatest returns possible with the least amount of resources.

It’s the difference between artists creating something good and employees assembling something that's good enough.

 

[Testtrack321]

Originally posted by pheneix
I'm sorry, I just like to pick on Vekoma anyway.

Me too, but Premiere Rides has to be worse than Vekoma...

 

[Bob O]

Vekoma is known thru-out the roller coaster industry for producing sub-standard coasters, and head bangers at that!!!
And i wasnt saying that Disaster transport at Cedar Point is a great ride, just that a indoor coaster is nothing new and has been done by others besides disney!!!
Someday disney will get the heads straight and decide to work with the best coaster company B & M!!!