PDA

View Full Version : Have the Imagineers lost the imagination?



MotorBoat Cruiser
04-27-2004, 10:29 AM
These thoughts stem from my recent visit and also from reading the thread about a “Finding Nemo’ overlay and the reactions to it.

Over the weekend, while riding Pirates, I couldn’t help but marvel at how wonderful rides like Pirates, Haunted Mansion, and Jungle Cruise really are, in that they transport you to a different place and time, yet do not rely on a movie to tie things in. Yes, I know that JC was loosely based on “African Queen”, but it was not too blatant.

Now, it seems that everything has to be tied into a movie. I cannot recall the last attraction that didn’t follow this formula. So, what gives? Where is the imagination? Surely there are other themes to explore, different worlds to place us in and let us use our own imagination.

It saddens me to think that this is the future of the park, to be another Universal Studios, where you basically ride the movies (or TV shows, as in TOT). This approach just doesn’t require the same amount of thinking as something like Pirates and HM, where the imagineers thought of a fun concept and immersed the guests into a total atmosphere. In fact they did this so well, that a movie was developed from the attraction. This seems to be their strength and one of the things that always placed Disneyland above the competition.

I’m sure Pirates cost a bundle to develop and implement. I’m sure it was a risk. And yet, the payoff was immense. Just look into a child’s eyes as they ride it, or anyone who rides it for the first time. The looks of wonderment are priceless and timeless. The imagineers need to start taking risks again and using their imagination. I’m sure Tony Baxter still has some magic up his sleeves.

And obviously, we need someone in charge who can realize the value of taking risks. That is the only way that Tomorrowland is ever going to recapture it’s former glory. Not by a Finding Nemo ride, but by putting us in an atmosphere where our imagination can run wild and we can forget the outside world. A place where the future seems exciting and filled with wonder, as it did when we shrunk through the big microscope.

I know the talent is still there. The question is, will the imagineers ever have the ability to create again, for real. Can they ever get back to the glory days, where they build a ride that lets us actually use our imagination.

What are your thoughts?

SteveK
04-27-2004, 10:33 AM
I don't think it's a question of Imagineers, it's a question of management and costs. From everything I've read, there's designs/ideas sitting on the shelves of WDI that would blow people away. Problem is, there's no money made available to build them.
-Steve

iwannabeanimagineer
04-27-2004, 12:11 PM
I cannot recall the last attraction that didn’t follow this formula. So, what gives? Where is the imagination?
"Soarin' Over California" is my favorite example of a recently-imagineered attraction that has imagination, ingenuity and no movie tie-in. I think "Test Track" and "Mission: Space" at Epcot may fall into the same category, but I have not ridden them yet, so it's hard for me to judge.

I also put "The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror" in this category because it is very loosely based on a long-ago-canceled TV series to which Disney doesn't even hold the rights, so there's no direct link between the success of the attraction and successful DVD/video sales. I say this because you brought it up. But personally, I see nothing negative about using characters and elements already familiar to us as a way of plunging us more quickly into the storyline of the attraction. I guess I would put "Splash Mountain" in the same category; they are Disney characters, to be sure, but Disney has no plans to re-release the original movie in theaters or on video or DVD.

sediment
04-27-2004, 12:19 PM
Problem now is that new attractions get the "How much revenue will it make?" question. I don't think this question was asked in the past for the classic attractions. Someone thought and knew that an attraction would generate visits, or perhaps thought differently, nay more holistically (big picture), at the parks.
Since the question cannot be confidently answered, it becomes difficult for someone responsible to a Board of Directors to greenlight a "risky" and expensive project that might or might not, by itself, return its investment.

What probably needs to be done instead is to have someone in parks be responsible for a budget and for getting projects out of imagineers. Park gets a Budget approved by B-of-D, based on, "The parks need $X billion over the next five years for new attractions and maintenance, or else people will not show up as often and buy as much as they did, etc.," and responsible party then decides what gets greenlit and what doesn't.

AP2CM
04-27-2004, 12:34 PM
I have to agree with sediment: capital expenses (i.e. attractions or other major expenditures) are absolutely driven by whether their addition will drive increased attendance and ticket value...it's just a sad fact of the business, especially when the economy and stock prices are deflated.

sediment
04-27-2004, 01:05 PM
Cool: another dollar!

iwannabeanimagineer
04-27-2004, 01:40 PM
I have to agree with sediment: capital expenses (i.e. attractions or other major expenditures) are absolutely driven by whether their addition will drive increased attendance and ticket value...it's just a sad fact of the business, especially when the economy and stock prices are deflated.
Of course it's a fact of business, but I don't see what makes it sad. What's sad is that it appears from the recently-opened parks and attractions within older parks that the economic model Imagineering is using doesn't take into account the "magic". In other words, their economic model told them that DCA would have an acceptable Return-On-Investment as is, without anything more imaginative and that any additional capital expenditure would be too risky or too wasteful or would result in a lower ROI or maybe the debt-to-assets ratio would just be too high by spending more. And I believe their formulas assume that more "magic" means more dollars for design, construction and maintenance, which is not necessarily the case. The other option is to design based on an instinctive understanding of what will have a high yield. This is a much riskier way of doing business, especially if you don't have the benefit of Walt's genius anymore. I would rather have the current group of parks and attractions than have more imaginative parks that can't stay afloat financially.

I think we have all been spoiled by the original generation of Imagineers who were perhaps the best the world will ever see. Holding up Hench, Atencio, et. al. as the standard makes the current generation look almost mediocre. And there is no doubt that Walt pushed the former Imagineers to their limits, whereas the current leadership does not appear to push as hard except perhaps in the bottom line.

So my point is that the current Imagineers are very good and the leadership is very good and designing to a specified economic outcome is a very good way to do business. They are just not as good as we have come to expect from past experience and maybe we will never see the likes of the Walt-driven Imagineering again. Of course, if they hired my brothers and me... ;)

Not Afraid
04-27-2004, 01:47 PM
Sadly, Disney Imagineering isn't what it used to me. They have gotten rid of many writers, animators, people with imagination who were like those who created Disneyland.

We were just talking today about some of the cool thingd Disney Imagineers have done - after leaving Disney such as, The Grove, several hotels in Las Vegas, Theater productions. It's just sad.

Tigertail777
04-27-2004, 01:57 PM
Dont forget things they contracted out for as well... in my opinion Tokyo Disneysea is highly comparable to the original Imagineers, and in some ways actually surpasses them. I have a friend that went recently and brought back pics for me... I was astounded at the beautiful details and just drooling on the keyboard! LOL TDS looks to be one of the most beautiful and entertaining parks in the world, second only to Disneyland in my book and thats a darn close second. This only goes to show what Imagineering is indeed capable of if they are given a good budget that is stuck to and not hacked and sliced along the way as they design things. It also goes to show what taking a little bit of a chance can do for a business, Disney sea still gets record number of hotel guests, and attendance. And dont forget that Disneysea, even though the park hasnt been open very many years, they are already adding some major big budget attractions, with plans for even more.

jrad32
04-27-2004, 03:35 PM
Some of the newer attractions like Soaring and Test Track are very well done, and one of a kind experiences, so I think it can be done, it just isn't done all that often, and that has a lot to do with costs, and the ease of bringing in a clone like Tower of Terror or Buzz.

You have only to look to Islands of Adventure in Orlando to see that great new attractions and themeing are possible. Sure Spiderman is a property, but that ride system is incredible and had that one of a kind feeling I got when you ride Indiana Jones, Pirates or Mansion. Imagine a planet exploration ride Mars rover type ride in Tommorrowland using the Spiderman technology.

Also from the looks of things the Mummy ride at Universal and the Journey to Atlantis ride at Sea World are going to be very unique experiences. It seems like a lot of other companies have caught up to Disney, and are doing more thinking outside the box.

cemeinke
04-27-2004, 03:46 PM
Of course the original "lands" of Disneyland were based on the different entertainment genres of Disney's Films: Fantasyland obviously came from the original fairytales; Adventureland, friom the "True Life Adventure" serries; Frontierland, from Westerns like Davy Crockett and Zorro; and Tomorrowland, from the space and science films/cartoons of Ward Kimble.

I personally think the broad genres/themes give a great amount of freedom to develop cool attractions, but don't fool yourself by thinking the original imagineers weren't influenced by films they were also working on.

If anything I'd say the original imagineers benefited by starting out as animators, artist, and storeytellers. I think the best rides started out as imagineers trying to figure out how to tell their stories. It seems the approach these days is to start with a ride (e.g. We need a thrill ride, how about a roller coaster) and then try to figure out how to make it fit into a theme.

AP2CM
04-27-2004, 04:27 PM
tigertail --

I agree, TDS is one of the most beautiful themeparks ever. However, this is entirely because the imagineers are encouraged to design attractions with additional detail and features (such as the fiber optics and special flourescent tubing used in their version of jumpin' jellyfish) and actually see those designs to completion because the OLC is willing to PAY good money for the added features and guest experience. Unfortunately, business is different in the states -- the parks are owned by the Disney company which has to watch its other divisions (i.e. KABC, Fox Family, ESPN, etc) for profitability too. This places a lot of pressure on the company to minimize spending while attempting to maximize utility per dollar spent. The result of this? Attractions like Pooh AND attractions like Tower. Some of them are fantastic and hit the nail on the head, dispite the budget cuts (i.e. tower), and some fall flat because after all the cuts, the attractions looses too much of it's character and personality to be a true winner (i.e. pooh).