Rumor About Imagineering

[Horace Horsecollar]

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

Yes. Exactly. That's why the analogy works!

For example, BRC Imagination Arts was founded by former Disney Imagineer Bob Rogers (the "BR" in "BRC") and employs other former Disney Imagineers, as well as other highly skilled creative and technical people. I would say that Bob Rogers understands how to create immersive experiences better than the Real Estate people at WDI.

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

John Lasseter was fired by Disney before he joined Pixar. Read the Wikipedia entry about John Lasseter for details.

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

That's another discussion. Pertinent to this thread, the acquisition of Pixar shows that Robert Iger is willing to pay for quality. Robert Iger recognized that slapping the Disney name on Valiant and The Wild was not the road to success.

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.

The question is not whether there are other theme parks that are in the same class as the Disney parks. (Many people would say the two Universal parks in Florida qualify, but I don't want to start a debate about them in this thread.)

The question is whether the companies that have supplied immersive, experience-based attractions to well-funded museums, non-Disney theme parks, and other high-quality visitor sites can produce attractions for Disney. I contend that the answer is yes — if Disney expects excellence and is willing to pay for excellence. Again, we're not talking about thrill rides for Six Flags here. We're talking about things like the Star Trek Experience in Las Vegas (which leaves Star Tours in the dust) or the Lincoln Museum in Springfield (which brilliantly uses immersive storytelling to teach history).

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.

I think I've just been called a fool.

If Disney wants to see their Parks and Resorts segment prosper in the long run, then Disney will continue to invest in enhancements to the parks. And with John Lasseter as the Chief Creative Office, the Disney Company may initiate better park enhancement projects than in the days of Paul Pressler.

 

[YoHo]

Iger has explicitly said no capital expenditures on the parks. So, academic discussion.

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

Iger has explicitly said no capital expenditures on the parks.

Wrong.

Please back up your statement with a link or other evidence.

Take a look at http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/orl-talking1106apr11,0,1523391.story?coll=orl-home-headlines

 

[YoHo]

I've got to step back and root through some old posts and links, but I offer you this,

The plan that was reported on to revamp DCA was axed, because they didn't want to spend the money. They're adding one small change dark ride, maybe

If the single biggest drain on their Domestic theme park business, the single worst thing Disney has ever created isn't worth the money to fix, then how do you figure they'll find the money to expand theme parks that actually draw guests?

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

The plan that was reported on to revamp DCA was axed, because they didn't want to spend the money. They're adding one small change dark ride, maybe

See page 2 of Al Lutz's MiceAge column on September 12, 2006. According to Al, the previous "Placemaking" plan for California Adventure has been shelved at the direction of John Lasseter — so that they can develop and implement a bigger and better redo of the troubled park. Al's column even mentions the possibility of a "big-budget family E-Ticket based on the movie Cars and themed to San Francisco, including cars zipping down a remade Lombard Street." (Of course, it's all just a rumor of internal planning at this stage, but Al has a better track record than other Disney park pundits.)

Robert Iger has said there are no current plans for another domestic Disney theme park, such as a 5th gate at WDW. That's all he's said "no" to.

It is completely incorrect to say that "Iger has explicitly said no capital expenditures on the parks," or that "the plan that was reported on to revamp DCA was axed, because they didn't want to spend the money."

Only time will tell if the park enhancements over the next ten years will be better than those of the past ten years. I'm guessing that they will be better.

If the single biggest drain on their Domestic theme park business, the single worst thing Disney has ever created isn't worth the money to fix, then how do you figure they'll find the money to expand theme parks that actually draw guests?

"Single worst thing Disney has ever created?" I guess you haven't been to Disney Studios Paris. That park makes California Adventure look fantastic in comparison!

 

[raidermatt]

He has not said "no capital expenditures in the parks". Repairing benches can be classified as a capital expenditure.

What he has said is that the company is going to contain capital expenditures, relative to past levels, and they expect to drive growth in the parks through marketing, not capital expenditures.

This has been stated in past earnings calls.

But the real proof is what they do. Certainly up until now, the evidence favors:

They've been shown to be cheapskates with no demand for Story. So, the entire discussion is academic.

You're speculating that will change significantly, in particular due to Lasseter being involved.

I'm not so optimistic. Its not that I lack faith in Lasseter's ability (though certainly he's unproven when it comes to attractions), but its still not clear to anyone exactly how much control he has over the entire process.

"Single worst thing Disney has ever created?" I guess you haven't been to Disney Studios Paris. That park makes California Adventure look fantastic in comparison!

This doesn't exactly help the arguement that Disney can and is willing to do what is necessary.

 

[EUROPACL]

Yes. Exactly. That's why the analogy works!

For example, BRC Imagination Arts was founded by former Disney Imagineer Bob Rogers (the "BR" in "BRC") and employs other former Disney Imagineers, as well as other highly skilled creative and technical people. I would say that Bob Rogers understands how to create immersive experiences better than the Real Estate people at WDI.

Don't you think that its a little bit of a stretch to hope that another Pixar type company made up of just the right people and managment comes along to save the day again?

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

You're speculating that will change significantly, in particular due to Lasseter being involved.

I'm not so optimistic. Its not that I lack faith in Lasseter's ability (though certainly he's unproven when it comes to attractions), but its still not clear to anyone exactly how much control he has over the entire process.

I share your concern that the honeymoon between John Lasseter and The Walt Disney Company could end if there are disagreements over money or clashes with executives in Parks & Resorts. However, I'm sure that Lasseter has great ideas, and we know he loves Disneyland. If Lasseter's initiatives pay off from a business perspective, he will have support and control where it counts.

Which "team" do you trust more?

• CEO - Michael Eisner (micro-manger who never really understood the parks)
• Chairman, Parks & Resorts - Paul Pressler ('nuff said)
• Chief Creative Officer - none

• CEO - Robert Iger (diplomatic; listens to others; making good moves; named John Lasseter as Chief Creative Officer)
• Chairman, Parks & Resorts - Jay Rasulo (the jury's still out on him)
• Chief Creative Officer - John Lasseter (one word: Pixar)

This doesn't exactly help the arguement that Disney can and is willing to do what is necessary.

Keep in mind that I wrote, "only time will tell."

However, it's unfair to say that because the old "team" made poor choices, the new "team" is destined to do no better.

For example, the old "team" thought that guests would flock to new "gates" that were built cheaply. I think the new team will either do it right, or not at all — which, initially, will mean "not at all" (no new domestic gates).

 

[Another Voice]

Which team do I trust?

Iger's been running ABC for twenty years, the last ten or so with Disney. If he can't properly manage a business he's been at his entire adult life, what kind of ability does he have with something so unique as a theme park? He got the top job becuase he was the last man standing. That's not a great resume when your only qualification is "Eisner never thought highly of me enough to perceive me as a risk".

Rasulo turned Euro Disney from "struggling but afloat" to "defaulting on our loans" through the addition of Disney Studios Paris. Remember - that park was his baby. If you're trashing that park, then you've already trashed "the new team". He was the one the approved the designs, set the budget and maintened the lofty goals to which it aspired.

And now's he's created all that great "Disney Parks" merchandise. Nothing says "I don't get it" more than generic castles and clouds.

 

[kidsister]

I'd like to chime in here and say first, that I think everyone who has posted has really given lots of thought to what might be happening at Disney, and has expressed their opinions really well. Although this is a debate of sorts, it is a civil and 'learning' type of debate, because both (or several) viewpoints have been articulately expressed and have caused me to rethink several of my long held opinions.

The bottom line is that Disney has made some mistakes in the past: ticking off talented Imagineers, losing Pixar, shall we mention Stitch, the Ride
And maybe and maybe not will Iger and his bunch be able to repair some of the damage. Maybe they'll create their own damage. Or maybe, they will find a balance. I think that Imagineers died because the Disney company couldn't afford the Imagineers. INstead of figuring out HOW to afford them, they got rid of em. Not a smart thing. There have been (and maybe still are) so many egos butting heads, that its a wonder anything new has come out of DIsney the last 10 years. (just my opinion). And maybe now, people are willing to rethink the bad decisions of the past and try to do something better.

You know, all these guys have to find a way to make money for Disney (and the stockholders). In the good ole days, Roy kinda did that for Walt (and he also forced Walt back to earth a few times). It would be great if someone with billions of bucks decided to 'bankroll' Disney and just let it do what it DID best..but since I don't think there's a sugar daddy out there quite up to the task, my guess is that we have to hope that putting the bucks into creativity actually brings in the bucks down the road. And hey, i'm the eternal optimist!

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

And now's he's created all that great "Disney Parks" merchandise. Nothing says "I don't get it" more than generic castles and clouds.

I have to agree with you on that one!

 

[cxcelica]

I think its very easy to just put the blame on Eisner and think that getting rid of Eisner will just solve the problem. Don't forget that when Eisner came on board he all but saved the company. For the first ten years he was there, the company boomed and grew like it never had before!!

I think though that Euro Disney did such damage to the parks as a whole that it never recovered. Eisner was very involved in that and was spending money hand over fist to try to make that park perfect. For example he believed that with all the beautiful castles of Europe you could not just put up a regular "cinderella castle" like the ones you had in the US, because it could not compare. So he spent loads of cash building an overwhelming castle. Alot of the problems with Euro Disney might have been Eisner's own fault (he supposedly chose the location when everyone advised him against it), but when he spent all that money on the park and ended up humilated in front of the whole world, well that could not be good for imagineers and park projects.

 

[yalegracey]

I think its very easy to just put the blame on Eisner and think that getting rid of Eisner will just solve the problem. Don't forget that when Eisner came on board he all but saved the company. For the first ten years he was there, the company boomed and grew like it never had before!!

Good point, but he should of left after ten years.

I think though that Euro Disney did such damage to the parks as a whole that it never recovered. Eisner was very involved in that and was spending money hand over fist to try to make that park perfect. For example he believed that with all the beautiful castles of Europe you could not just put up a regular "cinderella castle" like the ones you had in the US, because it could not compare. So he spent loads of cash building an overwhelming castle. Alot of the problems with Euro Disney might have been Eisner's own fault (he supposedly chose the location when everyone advised him against it), but when he spent all that money on the park and ended up humilated in front of the whole world, well that could not be good for imagineers and park projects.

Euro Disney didn't do well in the company's eyes because the company made its estimates based on data from WDW. Of course, Ei$ner hired the people that made the estimates-its his fault that he was humilated

 

[raidermatt]

Exactly how much credit Eisner deserves for those first ten years, and more importantly, in what areas he had any positive influence, is a matter of debate. What can't be debated is that there was a MUCH stronger overall management team in place for those first 10 years. That's another discussion, but just something to chew on.

If Lasseter's initiatives pay off from a business perspective, he will have support and control where it counts.

Will he?

Who is defining the success parameters, and who is determining whether those parameters are being met?

The biggest problem is one of company culture. It would be difficult for the top man to change that, and Lasseter isn't the top man.

Further, even if his skills translate across mediums, and even if he gets a fair shake initially, what happens when he has the inevitable failure? We've heard the flak caused by the "failure" of Cars. That's the culture in place that he must overcome.

This is an extremely difficult task, even for someone as talented as Lasseter, and that's assuming that really is his ultimate goal.

I'm not saying it can't happen. Just that this move, should it come to pass, is neutral at best when it comes to evidence.

 

[VampHeartless]

Honestly, as much as I hoped to be an imagineer one day, this does sound like the right fiscal move for disney. The current imagineering department is crowded, and I know how corporate politics can ruin a project. WDI is a place so exclusive, I can imagine the type of infighting that goes on there. I think Robert Iger is seeking a return to Walt's original business model, which is a good thing to me.

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

I think you need to look at Iger's history a little closer Vamp. He's more 'user friendly' than Eisner but also more 'corporate', IMO. Is that good for a creative company?

 

[DVCconvert]

Quote:
Originally Posted by YoHo
Iger has explicitly said no capital expenditures on the parks.

Wrong.
Please back up your statement with a link or other evidence.


YoHo
If you have any poo to fling, now is the time.

I've to step back and root through some old posts and links


=====>Still awaiting YoHo's reply to this

 

[YoHo]

Others have already clarified and explained what I was saying:

What he has said is that the company is going to contain capital expenditures, relative to past levels, and they expect to drive growth in the parks through marketing, not capital expenditures.

This has been stated in past earnings calls.

Contain capital expenditures=no new big fancy new attractions.

 

[ShadowWind]

Roy Disney was just as corporate and was constantly concerned about the money as Walt dreamed his dream. But the difference is that Walt knew that if you spent the money on solid storytelling, immersive environments that people would come and the money would follow. In the creative outlet, you can't be defined by what some pencil pusher thinks is worth it, or you'll wind up with a park like California Adventure.

In contrast if you decide to commit the money like the Oriental Land Company did in Tokyo (especially DisneySeas), you will get the return back in droves.

But you need a really dedicated Imagineering staff, and since they've been treated badly, the truth is Disney does not have that option anymore. So their only choice really is to hire outside companies and hope they can get as good a quality as they can. But even then, they still might not be willing to fork out the cash.