Originally Posted By leemac <<Some of these guys are just as guilty as Eisner in thinking their position is some sort of monarical birthright.>> I don't think there is that attitude amongst the majority at WDI. It is the same as any job. I wouldn't want to be evaluated solely on the one job that went pear-shaped. You look at the contribution overall to see whether you belong in the organization.
Originally Posted By leemac <<I'm sure it's tough when subordinates as well as customers are consistently telling you how much of a genius you are.>> Very true. That is the problem when you only have four real clients: WDP&R, OLC, EuroDisney and HKDL's mgt company. I've always advocated opening up WDI's services to the pressures of the commerical world and turning it into a profit center rather than a cost burden.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom In terms of Stich, I really wonder how much flexibility WDI was given on the job? They were probably told, here's your budget, you can't change the seats, you can't change rooms, just add an AA. At least when they took out Mr Toad.. they gutted the attraction and completely changed it for an all new Winnie The Poo. Its a shame Stich didn't get the same respect.
Originally Posted By danyoung >Personally I don't think they handled the reverse as well as they should have. I don't think a flapping AA would make any difference.< That may or may not be true. But to have an effect that's right up there with the taxidermist's critters in DL's Grand Canyon Diorama is simply below par. No effect here at all would have been better than this plastic lump of a bird. It's my only gripe with Everest, an attraction that I overall totally love!
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>I don't think there is that attitude amongst the majority at WDI.<< I think WDI is top heavy on the executive level and that IMO hurts new, fresh ideas from breaking through to the top. Please don't misunderstand that. I'm aware of some of the avenues WDI takes to foster blue-sky, creative stuff. I'm talking about getting fresh perspectives from folks on approved projects. On the stuff that gets the money. If I was going to play Mr. CEO, I wouldn't have ANY management at WDI. A radical, un-realistic idea, but I really do think the sign-off authority needs to be streamlined straight to a Jay or a Bob. On another front (tied into the above because of the high hopes for John L.), it has become part of Disney lore to be critical of Walt because he didn't share the recognition. I think Walt knew what he was doing, he knew the importance of a central figure not only getting the credit but solely making the big-level decisions. Whether it's accurate or not, it's kind of nice to hear the various Disney insiders proclaim John is riding lead. >>It is the same as any job.<< It's not though. There are a handful of folks in highly desirable positions. They have been in those positions for a VERY long time. They enjoy the many, many perks, the many many dollars, and the authority. I feel some have stayed past their prime. I figure that they do so because of what good comes to them, not neccessarily what good they bring to the company. Why I brought up Ward. I really liked his take on staying past your prime, even when it was aimed at a set of highly popular & loved individuals. >>I wouldn't want to be evaluated solely on the one job that went pear-shaped. You look at the contribution overall to see whether you belong in the organization.<< I just don't find anything wrong with being responsible for everything that you do. Each and every time. I agree that the overall view should be of importance. However when fanboys can write a better script (SGE) then you, you are not earning your paycheck or your role. Time to give somebody else a chance. If WDI had not been specifically ran like it has been for the last 12 years I'm sure I would mirror your viewpoints. But after seeing soooo many people go and a select few exploit the circumstances, I can't cut much slack to those that have remained. I'm all for promoting a lot of the people currently at WDI. I'm not trying to paint with a broad brush.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>I've always advocated opening up WDI's services to the pressures of the commerical world and turning it into a profit center rather than a cost burden.<< Once again, I guess it's open for interpretation. I can understand why we disagree even though we obviously both love this whole system. I think that would be the worst thing they could do. Currently treating the parks as the client, IMO, has destroyed what WED & MAPO where all about. As I said in my above post, there should be a handful of directors who report directly to the head of WDP&R or President of WDC. Once again fanboy mode: I would love to see the top ranks completely cleared out and bring about another renaissance with some directors from WDFA and Pixar. WDI needs to stop being treated as a business unit, it needs to stop billing hours like a law firm and get back to it's roots as an ecentric workshop. Once again, fanboy ramblings.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <I've always advocated opening up WDI's services to the pressures of the commerical world and turning it into a profit center rather than a cost burden< this could be a two way street to be sure --my fear would be the loss of creativity as your R7D type arm is now required to make certain cost/profit margins.....at what lengths do they go to do this ? How much creativity gets stifled under the thumbs of CFO's who had a margin to make-- and usually a quarterly target which really stifles strategic planning.. However leaving a unit with little or no accountability also can create lackadaisical focus on creating what they are paid to do also. tough call on this one
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>However leaving a unit with little or no accountability also can create lackadaisical focus on creating what they are paid to do also.<< And that's the flipside. A good point VBDad. Something that Eisner tried to honestly convey and he was villanized for it. When it comes to WDI, most of his unfiltered views were pretty right on. The problem wasn't that there was no accountability. It was that there was no central leadership that could tell certain personalities "NO". That vacuum is what Eisner was to blame for, not his accountability demands.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Nope. It is a question of priorities. And where do you draw the line? It should have been a fully-fledged outdoor AA? You can extend that argument to a lot of things. Personally I don't think an AA would help there anyhow. There is too much airtime, period.>> You could say the same about BTMRR though. How many people see the animal AAs? How many miss them entirely? A lot, I'm sure. But they sure add that extra Disney detail to the rides. That's what a lot of folks say should be added to DCA's raft ride, and I'd agree. <<Point taken. But everyone involved with greenlighting Stitch should have lost their jobs.>> <<Extreme position. You have to look at the contribution that the imagineers on that job have made to the parks in general. Take Kevin Rafferty as show writer. He has spent twenty years scripting attractions and he usually has a great eye. It's Tough to be a Bug, Mickey's PhilharMagic, MI at DCA....>> That's a good point. Kevin definitely is a quality guy. I wasn't aware he was even involved with the Stitch disaster. So my question to you is how do you think something like SGE is able to go so (AA figure excepted) totally wrong? Does everyone just lose their faculties at the same time? I just don't see how anyone could have thought this is a good idea ... and on the money side as well, how they could have thought this is a good use of capital? What am I missing?
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<WDI needs to stop being treated as a business unit, it needs to stop billing hours like a law firm and get back to it's roots as an ecentric workshop.>> I truly hope John Lasseter can help reign in the culture of corporate madness that resides in Glendale now. There's a best-seller in what's gone on in that place on Flower Street over the past few decades. Intrigue, politics, back-stabbing, tragedy and, of course, some kinky sex too.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Kevin definitely is a quality guy. I wasn't aware he was even involved with the Stitch disaster. So my question to you is how do you think something like SGE is able to go so (AA figure excepted) totally wrong?>> Kevin was show writer. And I honestly don't know. I don't think Kevin knows either.
Originally Posted By leemac <<I think WDI is top heavy on the executive level and that IMO hurts new, fresh ideas from breaking through to the top. >> I don't agree with this Mike. The exec group just isn't that large. You need to have people running the various practices like architecture, R&D, Creative etc. You can't run the unit any other way. <<They have been in those positions for a VERY long time. >> On the Creative side that isn't really the case. Most of the S-VPs and E-VPs are people who have been promoted in the last 5 years. The clearout from TDS and DCA eras shepherded more promotions.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>I don't agree with this Mike. The exec group just isn't that large. You need to have people running the various practices like architecture, R&D, Creative etc.<< I know, I don't suspect many to agree with me. It's fine I understand I have a unique view towards WDI. After reading a dozen years of fans blaming money and greedy Eisner, I probably feel a little too compelled to present the other side. There was a lot, and I mean a lot, of money that has been given to WDI. Michael Eisner (to an extent I admit) doesn't write the scripts. He doesn't set the pacing. He doesn't decide how much should be spent on a new hybrid of dark ride vehicle. That's all. While I'm sure many would disagree, I would hope they would at least understand the my intention. Even if I am talking about two or three individuals I feel it is 'top-heavy'. >>You can't run the unit any other way.<< Realistically, I understand that. I guess I am wishing for simplier times. At John will be able to cut through "the unit" and bring some of that workshop-attitude back. >>On the Creative side that isn't really the case. Most of the S-VPs and E-VPs are people who have been promoted in the last 5 years. The clearout from TDS and DCA eras shepherded more promotions.<< And I think that is great. I'm not anti-WDI, by my very statement, I'm anti-tenure. Other than what happened to TDS people, especially Steve, I think those kind of promotions can be good. Yes, I was talking about the non-creatives such as your EE ride-mate.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>At John will be able to cut through << Sorry. I hope John will be able .....
Originally Posted By leemac <<Yes, I was talking about the non-creatives such as your EE ride-mate.>> I love Don. I really do. He is a great guy and I do believe he is the right guy to be president but then I have always advocated having non-creatives running WDI to keep the creatives in check (not necessarily creatively in check but definitely fiscally). He does get it but naturally the rabid fanboys see him as the root of all evil. I have tremendous respect for his style of management. He listens to ideas and can be brought around on things. That is very different from his predecessor.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Other than what happened to TDS people, especially Steve, I think those kind of promotions can be good.>> I don't want to get into the Kirk situation but Steve really did himself no favors at WDI. He burnt a lot of bridges with both his own TDS team and WDI management. I think that will make it hard for him to work with WDI with his new venture. Time will tell.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo "I have always advocated having non-creatives running WDI to keep the creatives in check (not necessarily creatively in check but definitely fiscally). He does get it but naturally the rabid fanboys see him as the root of all evil." I hear where you are coming from. Walt Disney would have never been as successful if it was not for the voice of reason of Roy and his business sensibilities. There must be balance in the force.
Originally Posted By danyoung I wish you insiders would use full names when talking about Kirk or Steve (or maybe you did earlier and I missed it). There are plenty of us outsiders who are still interested in the inner workings of the company, or at least your perceived view of it.
Originally Posted By leemac Sorry Dan. Steve Kirk was the executive producer for TDS (ie. responsible for the overall look and execution of the park). His equivalents at other recent parks were Tom Morris at HKDL, Barry Braverman at DCA and Tony Baxter at DLP.
