Roy Disney Sues Disney Company

[SoCalKDG]

One of the things I've noticed is that the story of a ride no longer seems to be of the utmost importance. When I think of Mission: Space, I think of a simulator. When I think of Test Track, I think of a car.

When I think of Spalsh Mountain, I think of the briar patch and the laughing place. When I think of Tower of Terror, I think of seeing a decrepit hotel. When I think of Pirates of the Caribbean, I think of floating through a pirate battle, and a ransacked town.

See what I mean? All of those rides pre-95: it's seemingly the story that endures. The stuff post-95: it's the ride mechanism. The stuff that I look at lovingly transports through the story. The others transport through the use of a vehicle.

And while we're at it - MOST of the stuff that's out there now, I like too! But I don't see it as living up to the same standard that the older rides lived up to.

You should be happy with the following sign that was photographed at Expedition Everest then:

"Its not a ride, its a story."


See the actual photo here.
http://allearsnet.com/tp/ak/ak_ee1.htm


I disagree with MS and TT though. I think of TT as a car testing facility with me in a ride along. MS I do feel like a prospective astronaut about to do some initial tests/trials/practice runs.

 

[DVCconvert]

Snacky-

One thing to keep in mind is/was the increasing importance ME assigned to the strategic planning department (which he basically created after Frank Well's death), and it's empowered ability to nuke budget funding from WDI.
In fact, it got so bad internally, that strategic planning became known as the 'business prevention department'.

'Stitch's Great Escape' is just the most recent example of how badly strategic planning could screw up a plan.

WDI had proposed something so much better, but costly, that had it not been involved would not have produced an 'attraction' that achieved the highest level of guest dis-satisfaction of any attraction ever made.

 

[SnackyStacky]

Snacky-

One thing to keep in mind is/was the increasing importance ME assigned to the strategic planning department (which he basically created after Frank Well's death), and it's empowered ability to nuke budget funding from WDI.
In fact, it got so bad internally, that strategic planning became known as the 'business prevention department'.

'Stitch's Great Escape' is just the most recent example of how badly strategic planning could screw up a plan.

WDI had proposed something so much better, but costly, that had it not been involved would not have produced an 'attraction' that achieved the highest level of guest dis-satisfaction of any attraction ever made.

I'm aware of strategic planning, its purpose, and its disbandment under Iger.

As for Everest, I thought I'd already said it on this thread - I'm cautiously optimistic. I'm really excited to try it out.

 

[crusader]

I disagree with MS and TT though. I think of TT as a car testing facility with me in a ride along. MS I do feel like a prospective astronaut about to do some initial tests/trials/practice runs.

I agree. I happen to know a guest who got so caught up in the run on M:S, she actually thought the shuttle would crash land if she didn't pilot it correctly. Now that's a great Epcot attraction. Same with Test Track. Excellent run throughout - especially on the break away. Obviously, judging by the lines, I'm not alone in this sentiment.

But for me, Tower of Terror wins hands down as the best attraction built during Eisner's tenure of the HM caliber. And being a veteran of the original MK park, I view only two originals which really fit the full bill of what Snacky describes prior to this era - HM and PoC. Everything else is debatable.

 

[DancingBear]

Getting a bit OT, perhaps, but I gotta disagree with SnackyStacky on a couple of points:

Hasn't Illuminations been around since the 80's, meaning it was inclusive in the time period I was talking about?

IMO, the current Illuminations show blows away the original. Much more coherent story, and the globe is spectacular.

Disney FINANCED it. They really had nothing to do with the creation of it. That credit belongs to Julie Taymor.

Disney produced the show. They HIRED Julie Taymor, which was a bold move at the time, and supported the production. The music was from the movie. By your standard, when would Disney get credit for anything?

[Re Fantasmic!]Maybe at Disneyland, but the WDW version? Had our feet not been so tired, we would have left. Splashy spectacle does not a Disney show make.

Yeah, I sat on the cobblestones (ouch) and saw the DL version--what made that any better?

 

[tomerin]

i have read this entire thread again after posting earleir and i can say i am impressed with the anwers to previous posts. all of the answers were informative and well presented in a non-combative way. this is the way a discussion should be.


i consider myself to be a bit of a veteran here and this is IMHO one of the best threads i have ever read.

thank you all

 

[SnackyStacky]

Getting a bit OT, perhaps, but I gotta disagree with SnackyStacky on a couple of points:



IMO, the current Illuminations show blows away the original. Much more coherent story, and the globe is spectacular.



Disney produced the show. They HIRED Julie Taymor, which was a bold move at the time, and supported the production. The music was from the movie. By your standard, when would Disney get credit for anything?



Yeah, I sat on the cobblestones (ouch) and saw the DL version--what made that any better?

Sorry - Disney DOESN'T get any credit for The Lion King! They outsourced - that's what you do in theatre. That would be like saying Disney did a fantastic job on Toy Story, Toy Story 2, A Bug's Life, Monster's Inc., Finding Nemo, and The Incredibles. Same deal with the Broadway show. And just for the record - if you followed Aida at all, it flopped under it's original concept: it was titled Elaborate Lives: The Legend of Aida at the time and Robert Jess Roth had directed it. Roth gets the credit (or lack their of) for that one, and not Disney. And Robert Falls gets credit for the final, Tony Award winning version - not Disney.

And I'm not saying that the Disneyland version of Fantasmic is better. I'm saying that it's all hyped up as this fantastic show, and I was saying MAYBE the one at Disneyland is something special, but the one at Disney World ain't all that.

 

[mitros]

Regarding MS, the original plan for the ride was to have quite a story line, which, incidently, was kaboshed by Ei$ner. There was a story line before the ride, and after the ride, you were deposited on a space station, not right out the door into the gift shop. Don't get me wrong, Walt liked to sell merchandise too, but he at least let the Imagineers do their thing and not cut their ideas to ribbons, and cause them {the rides} to become mere shells of their former selves. THAT is where Ei$ner erred over and over.

 

[SoCalKDG]

Regarding MS, the original plan for the ride was to have quite a story line, which, incidently, was kaboshed by Ei$ner. There was a story line before the ride, and after the ride, you were deposited on a space station, not right out the door into the gift shop. Don't get me wrong, Walt liked to sell merchandise too, but he at least let the Imagineers do their thing and not cut their ideas to ribbons, and cause them {the rides} to become mere shells of their former selves. THAT is where Ei$ner erred over and over.

I thought MS deposited you into the childrens play area(great thing to have) and the gaming area? I missed the gift shop.

 

[DancingBear]

Sorry - Disney DOESN'T get any credit for The Lion King! They outsourced - that's what you do in theatre. That would be like saying Disney did a fantastic job on Toy Story, Toy Story 2, A Bug's Life, Monster's Inc., Finding Nemo, and The Incredibles. Same deal with the Broadway show.

Again, I really don't get this. Does that mean Disney doesn't get credit for "Down and Out in Beverly Hills" because Paul Mazursky wrote and directed it? Disney owned the source material, including the music (or do they not get credit for that because Elton John and Tim Rice wrote it?), and Walt Disney Theatrical Productions produced the play. They made the single most important major decision in hiring Julie Taymore, and gave her the resources to make her vision come true. They could have hired a more middle-of-the-road director, and got another "Beauty and the Beast" type of production. As you say, that's what you do in theater. Under your standard, would a Broadway producer ever get credit?

Does Pixar not get credit for "The Incredibles" because they hired Brad Bird to direct it?

The Pixar relationship is very different--Pixar creates all of the content (vs. the Lion King material being handed to Julie Taymore) and hires all of the creative talent, including the director.

 

[mitros]

I must have been drunk. You have to walk through the gift shop to get out of the building, no?

 

[SoCalKDG]

I must have been drunk. You have to walk through the gift shop to get out of the building, no?

Knowing Disney there had to be a gift shop somewhere in the exit.

So does Disney get credit for creating Disney Sea?

 

[SnackyStacky]

Knowing Disney there had to be a gift shop somewhere in the exit.

So does Disney get credit for creating Disney Sea?

I'm not too up on my DisneySea, but it's my understanding the financing and ownership was outsourced, but the design is pure Imagineering. If that's the case, Disney absolutely gets credit.

If I'm wrong, then I dunno!