Rumor About Imagineering

[james2009]

I read on MiceChats forums that there is an article in the NYtimes about disney not needing imagineers anymore and that they're looking into contracting engineers for temporary projects because it will be cheaper...

I somehow doubt this but I would like any feedback thanks

 

[YoHo]

Sadly, that's what we've been hearing.

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

There's a recent, long thread about this subject: Iger Planning to Kill Imagineering?

 

[MJMcBride]

I think we can all agree that this would suck canal water.

 

[YoHo]

BUT, can we all agree that this is the exact type of canal water Disney's been providing for some time?

 

[MJMcBride]

No. I think it would be worse than it is. I don't think its been THAT bad.

 

[Another Voice]

I think we can all agree that this would suck canal water.

Then let me offer you a straw.

The demolition of WDI's campus is already well underway. Disney is building a new complex for the Consumer Products division on the land. At this point only one of Imgineering's building is supposed to be left - but internal whispers say this one is going too. Furthermore, there won't even be a WDI headquarters anymore - just offices at each of the parks and a VP wedged somewhere into an Attractions office.

WDI is the project management office within Attractions. It manages contracts, approves designs, sets budgets and approves invoices.

The days of it sitting around and creating magic for Disney's parks are dead.

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

That is very sad. It's fine to change things for progress sake but as a strict bottom line change it just proves to me that management isn't interested beyond maintaining the market share and hitting the profit numbers...Good things to be sure but not as the driving force at Disney! Tsk, tsk, tsk.

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

I have a slightly different view of this.

What really matters is that we get attractions that are immersive, compelling, creative, innovative, entertaining, and that can be enjoyed many times without getting stale.

Those attractions should be designed by artists (painters, sculptors, illustrators, model builders, designers), writers, engineers, architects, and other highly skilled individuals who follow in the footsteps of the great Imagineers of the 1950s and 1960s.

However, that doesn't mean that the artists and other skilled people must all have "The Walt Disney Company" on their paycheck statements. Disney has always used contractors to some degree in the past. Today there are a number of companies that have the skills to produce turn-key park attractions.

When it comes to Disney movies, I care about how good the movie is — not whether or not it was produced in-house. Along the same lines, if a company like BRC Imagination Arts were to create an "E" Ticket attraction in the tradition of the great rides of the 1960s, I'd be happy.

The decisions about how to enhance the Disney parks — how to reinvest the profits from the parks — should be made by executives with the instinct and insight that Walt Disney possessed. (They should have it easier today because Walt and his staff showed the way.) But this is where the problem is! Too often, the business decisions have been along the lines of, "Replace an attraction that doesn't drive merchandise sales with a relatively cheap Winnie the Pooh attraction that empties into a gift shop." That's not how Walt Disney was thinking during Disneyland's first decade.

Before someone says that Disney is a business and needs to make decisions based on sound business judgement, let me point out that people have been spending money visiting Disney parks and resorts because of the great attractions such as the Haunted Mansion and Pirates — which were great business decisions that were made four decades ago.

 

[MJMcBride]

I essentially agree with Horace, but the problem I think those things are less likely to be compelling and immersive with imagineers not employed by Disney.

 

[Another Voice]

Today there are a number of companies that have the skills to produce turn-key park attractions.

I disagree – you have a lot of people with experience in making an Olive Garden look “Tuscanny”, with making a Rain Forest Café seem “animated” and that can decorate a Vages casino to look like Paris. You also have a bunch of people that can slap some racing stripes on a coaster and call them “drag racers” or build a queue that looks like a ruined castle.

But only Disney was able to create the full-blown immersive story-telling attraction.

Those skills aren’t taught at Art School. They have to be learned, oft times through trail and error.

Disneyland was so successful from the beginning because the people who created the place learned their craft by decades of movie making. They knew set design, they knew visual storytelling, they knew non-verbal entertainment – because that’s what you need for films. At Disneyland they took those exact techniques and built them full out and in the round for people to experience.

The “theme” companies today don’t know anything about storytelling. They know about restaurant flow and retail sales patterns. They know other amusement parks work and how to maximize the food cart to foot traffic patterns. But that’s not Disney. Look at California Adventure, a park built with “outside contractors” and you’ll see the problems. Compare the original Pleasure Island to the “outside” Westside.

No one is going to pay Disney prices for “turn key” attractions (again, witness DCA). By shutting down WDI, Disney has destroyed to only place that could actually train Imagineers. Disney has tossed aside all the hard learned lessons and all the craft they learned over 50 years.


And Mr. Pirate – am I detecting just a hint of disappointment with Disney?

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

But that’s not Disney. Look at California Adventure, a park built with “outside contractors” and you’ll see the problems.

Yes. California Adventure has all sorts of problems. The decision makers made bad decisions. The Disney people calling the shots were Real Estate folks and Marketing folks and Disney executives who were largely clueless about why the original Disneyland attracts guests from all over the world, and why so many locals visit Disneyland every year.

California Adventure doesn't have a problem with immersive "E" Ticket rides that were poorly executed by outside creative companies. That's because the decision makers didn't think the park even needed to open with such attractions.

Using outside companies doesn't have to mean ordering a bright blue, steel roller coaster from a thrill ride vendor, and calling it "Stich: The Ride." (Fortunately, Disney hasn't done that.) A turn-key attraction doesn't have to mean a "themed" ride as defined by Six Flags.

Using an outside company doesn't have to mean mediocrity.

Disney didn't create "Men In Black: Alien Attack" at Universal, but it's a darn good ride — better than most of what Disney has opened in recent years. Universal relies largely on outside companies. Although there's a lot that's wrong with the three Universal parks in the United States, there are also things that are very good.

It's my opinion that there are outside companies capable of producing Disney quality attractions and immersive environments, with all the charm and "magic" we expect from Disney. Many former Imagineers are employed at such companies. And there are plenty of creative people who understand what makes Disney parks work, love the parks, and would jump at the chance to do something great for a Disney park.

I'm not saying that I'm glad about what Disney's senior management has done to WDI over the years. However, it doesn't have to mean an end to positive changes at the Disney parks.

The “theme” companies today don’t know anything about storytelling.

The new Abraham Lincoln Museum in Springfield, Illinois, is all about storytelling. That's what I was thinking about when I mentioned BRC Imagination Arts in my previous post in this thread. Sure, it a museum, not a theme park. However, in many ways, it's what an Epcot pavilion should be.

 

[KidDurango]

The thing that people also need to understand about this is that much of what everyone one holds in such high regard about WDI left over the past decade and a half. True, there are still some good people left, but the majority are the ones who were willing to continue to water things down or play the political game in order to keep their jobs.
I am not as opposed to the outside contractor angle, because I know that much of the truly talented WDI team of the past is there. In fact, the previous post mentions the wonderful Lincoln Museum, and many of the key people on that project were long time WDI that left out of frustration and joined BRC. My hope is this house cleaning that we are hearing about at WDI will allow them to lose the weak, meek and watered down, keep the bold and strong that are left, and allow them to contract to the companies that they know are run by the good Imagineers that left.

 

[dbm20th]

I wonder if Lasseter is driving this decision. And if so, what's he got up his sleeve? Considering the creativity he has and wants to push, this would seem strange, unless he's just completely disgusted with what WDI has been doing.

 

[raidermatt]

Using an outside company doesn't have to mean mediocrity.

Maybe not, but in this case, it seems we are faced with mediocrity no matter where we turn. Durango is right. WDI is a shell of its former self. It is all about mediocrity due to the way its been managed and utilized. Yeah, they do some good work sometimes. They also do poor work sometimes. Mediocrity.

That's why its hard to question shutting it down. The only real reason I can come up with to keep it going is "for old times sake".

But do you really think shutting it down will improve things creatively? Sure, in theory it could, given what WDI has become. But the reason WDI has become what it has is that the kind of work they did is no longer a priority for Disney. They can get mediocrity cheaper elsewhere.

For your scenario to play out, Disney would have to be committed to creative excellence, in the same way they were in decades past. But if they actually had that committment, WDI wouldn't be what it is today, and it wouldn't be so easy to say they can find the same thing elsewhere.

I'm not saying that I'm glad about what Disney's senior management has done to WDI over the years. However, it doesn't have to mean an end to positive changes at the Disney parks.

It doesn't HAVE to, but all the evidence points to this not being an end to the problems you describe, but merely the natural progression of those problems.

 

[cxcelica]

I think it is a very interesting situation. On one hand you have the imagineers saying they are the creative heart of the entire operation and have designed wonderful in depth rides over decades, which consistently for the most part have been huge successes. Sure we may spend more money than we are budgeted for and take longer than the higher ups would want, but that is the price you have to pay for quality and great "art".

On the other hand you have the segment in the company who say, that the imagineers are overrated in the sense that they spend way way more than they are budgeted and take way too much time. Their argument is that we can have the ideas ourselves, have outside companies build them cheaper and quicker, and there would not be a difference in quality.

It is enticing to think that it is possible to do the second choice. It's nice to think that their rationale would be we can build two good attractions with the money and time it takes the imagineers to build one. I would favor that thinking if their plan was to take the money they save and reinvest it in new attractions. However something tells me that may be a little too optimistic.

 

[mjstaceyuofm]

Then let me offer you a straw.

The demolition of WDI's campus is already well underway. Disney is building a new complex for the Consumer Products division on the land. At this point only one of Imgineering's building is supposed to be left - but internal whispers say this one is going too. Furthermore, there won't even be a WDI headquarters anymore - just offices at each of the parks and a VP wedged somewhere into an Attractions office.

WDI is the project management office within Attractions. It manages contracts, approves designs, sets budgets and approves invoices.

The days of it sitting around and creating magic for Disney's parks are dead.

I thought in our other Imagineering thread we were talking about a drastic downsizing. Now we're talking elimination?

Not good....

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

I wonder if Lasseter is driving this decision. And if so, what's he got up his sleeve? Considering the creativity he has and wants to push, this would seem strange, unless he's just completely disgusted with what WDI has been doing.

The phase-out of WDI was in the works long before John Lasseter became the Chief Creative Officer of The Walt Disney Company. He has to deal with the reality of situation. Disney Imagineering and Disney Real Estate were combined a number of years ago. Through reorganizations, Imagineering lost much of its power and influence. Real Estate people are in key positions. Many Imagineers were let go. Many others quit.

I realize that some people on this board are "disgusted" with what WDI has been doing. But the real question is where that disgust should be directed. I think it's a shame that Pixar's "A Bug's Life" is represented in California Adventure as a handful of low-budget kiddy rides rather than as a big "E" Ticket ride (for all age) which immerses guests in a city of oversized bugs, with imaginative scenes inhabited by Animatronic characters from the Pixar movie and additional characters that add humor and charm to ride. Is that WDI's fault? No. WDI was given a budget and direction. They tried to make A Bug's Land as fun and imaginative as possible, given the limitations that they had to work with.

For your scenario to play out, Disney would have to be committed to creative excellence, in the same way they were in decades past. But if they actually had that commitment, WDI wouldn't be what it is today, and it wouldn't be so easy to say they can find the same thing elsewhere.

We're in violent agreement.

Disney has not properly reinvested in parks. There's been a commitment to "good enough," not a commitment to excellence in the parks. That's why we have California Adventure, the Winnie the Pooh rides on both coasts, and the miserable 1998 redo of Tomorrowland in California.

I hope that Robert Iger's appointment of John Lasseter as Chief Creative Officer — including Imagineering — is a real indication that things will change. (Yes, I'm an optimist.)

Now, put yourself in the position of John Lasseter. You need to prove that Robert Iger's decision was sound. Do you slowly rebuild an Imagineering organization? Or do you deal with the reality, and look for talented people to create park attractions with the same excellence as Pixar movies — even if that means contracting with outside companies?

Oh, by the way, Pixar is a perfect example of Disney using an outside company to produce creative products that could supposedly only be produced in-house.

 

[EUROPACL]

Oh, by the way, Pixar is a perfect example of Disney using an outside company to produce creative products that could supposedly only be produced in-house.

...but wasn't Pixar created with much of the talent let go by Disney in the first place?

 

[YoHo]

The Pixar guys weren't really "Let go" They left.

Yeah, Paying $7.1 BILLION to buy back your own heritage is a brilliant move.

Nobody doubts that other companies can make "Disney Magic." Although in the case of Imagineering, there isn't a single other themepark besides the Disney ones that make true Disney style attractions, not even IOA, so there's no incentive for an outside company to develop the skills. There was plenty of reason to develop animation.

Further, even if an outside company did develop that kind of rep, you'd have to be a fool to think Disney would actualy pay for it. They've been shown to be cheapskates with no demand for Story. So, the entire discussion is academic.