Originally Posted By leemac <<I venture to be so bold as to say that WDI shouldn't exisit for itself, but for its target audience. The consumers who are going to pony up (or not) for a unique and yes, magical, experience.>> No disrepect JB but I wholly disagree. WDI shouldn't be guided by what their audience want - they should anticipate trends and great attractions that guests didn't even conceive as possible. Globally the parks attract 100m people - it just isn't possible to cater to everyone - that forms homogeneous experiences that look like Imagineering By Committee. You need to empower your imagineers to do what they feel is right based on their experience and expertise. Parks need something for everyone and should be looked upon as a single entity - the sums of the parts need to provide experiences for every taste but you can't build individual attractions like that. You need to look at the overall masterplan and decide what is needed and where. Otherwise you end up with HISTA in Tomorrowland and a park like DCA will no true family experience when it opened. SSL doesn't count. I'm passionate about WDI and wish it had greater creative independence again. It needs to bring more ideas through Blue Sky without running the risk of them getting nixed by committees along the way. There needs to be room for gut instincts. Michael Eisner always told me that you need to take risks. Every single projection told him NOT to build Tower of Terror. It was too expensive and didn't look like it would have sufficient impact. However the park needed another signature experience so he went with it. It was entirely the right decision and he made the choice on gut. Everyone else thought it was too expensive. Michael acted as CEO and took the risk. Bob and Jay rule by committee after committee. It becomes like joining the Masons - it only take one black ball to nix the whole thing. And you may never find out why. WDI needs to get back to being the creative heart of the whole Company. It is such a diverse organization and every single imagineer could have a positive influence on every other business unit. But that is my 2 cents.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Sometimes, a creative person comes up with innovative things no one who follows the "rules" would ever come up with. They aren't going to be perhaps as boxed in as a person who is a "hotel guy.">> But it needs to function as a hotel! It is a huge commitment for the company - almost as much as the entire DCA project. You need to be able to appoint the right talent in the right roles. I do trust Joe implicitly but I just don't see why he is leading the project execution.
Originally Posted By hopemax > The Art of Disneyland presented as a portrait book that features almost exclusively landscape images? What were they thinking? < If I remember what Jeff Kurti said at the NFFC seminar correctly, and if you believe him... They wanted it as a landscape book, publisher vetoed it. I think they said a cost issue, but it might have been something else. And rather than shrink the images so they would fit on a portrait page, they decided fans could handle turning the book 90 degrees and would prefer the larger pictures. I have the seminar on cassette tape, but I don't have time to figure out which one it is on before I go to FL on Thursday.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<I do trust Joe implicitly but I just don't see why he is leading the project execution.>> Perhaps to keep him from walking? Rumor on the grapevine awhile back suggested Rohde and Trowbridge were not happy campers and threatened to leave if not given something major to work on.
Originally Posted By hopemax >Jeff Kurti < It would be nice if I spelled his name right, wouldn't it...Kurtti.
Originally Posted By hopemax Okay, I actually found a post I made about the Art of Disneyland seminar back in 2005. <a href="http://mb.laughingplace.com/MsgBoard-T-59406-P-4.asp" target="_blank">http://mb.laughingplace.com/Ms...-P-4.asp</a> And I may have had things mangled up. "Jeff shared another "difficulty" with the publishing of the book. Most of the art is long and narrow. Not really appropriate for the standard 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper. So his great idea was that they would just print some of the artwork turned 90 degrees. So you'd have the normal sized book, and periodically you'd see that the art was sideways and you'd turn the book to look at it correctly. Apparently, management thought that their readers would not be able to figure out that they needed to turn the book, or that people might tear the pages out of the book while trying to look at these pages. And the publisher was concerned about the added printing costs (you all know how easy it is to print something landscape instead of portrait, right). Well, eventually sanity prevailed. So everyone, remember to turn your books sideways at the appropriate times. " However, from this, written when events were fresher in my mind...it appears it was Jeff's decision, not Bruce's.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Perhaps to keep him from walking? Rumor on the grapevine awhile back suggested Rohde and Trowbridge were not happy campers and threatened to leave if not given something major to work on.>> Scott has been passed over for Shanghai so I'm guessing he isn't a happy camper. He sticks at R&D. A terrible shame as he is a talented fellow - and he has the people management skills that are sorely lacking at WDI. He was sold a lemon when he agreed to leave UniC.
Originally Posted By leemac Cheers for the info, hopemax. I still don't like the design in his books - it just doesn't look professional enough to me (especially when compared to the various Disney Editions/Chronicle Books work for the Studios). I just think that the artwork from the WDI Archives deserves a better presentation but it is only my opinion. There are many people that don't like the design of a certain magazine that I'm involved with either.
Originally Posted By leemac I should add that the previous senior editor at Disney Editions was obsessed over a small collection of writers and designers - Kurtti and Gordon were her favorites. I'd personally prefer to see some new writers and designers and hopefully that will happen now that particular editors has been moved on.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<FYI Lee is putting to much responsibility of the mess of Pooh on Tony's shoulders. If anyone was at fault it was the late Bruce Gordon; but some feel even pointing things like that out is speaking ill of those who have passed.>> Actually, Lee got this one partially correct. Tony put too much faith in his team and allowed them too much free rein. Granted, Tony wasn't making decisions he should have been making as creative lead. But other individuals, particular one, were responsible for many of the problems. It wasn't Gordon who messed up Pooh. That honor goes to former Imagineer, John Stone (WDI's answer to Rob Blagojevich). John was shown the door shortly after Pooh opened, for assorted reasons, but mostly because of screwups on Pooh. Some people, like Stone and Gordon, are terrific individuals and highly talented creatives. But when it comes to their personal lives or aspects of their professional careers, well... it's not always peaches and cream. Doesn't mean they're not valuable. Just means you need a different tactic in dealing with them. And Tony should have known better than to trust John to this extent.
Originally Posted By DlandJB <<However I do take issue with someone that played Russian Roulette with his own life. I just can't understand what would lead someone to make such poor lifestyle choices. Therefore I do think it is relevant as to the makeup of the man. I just find it incredibly sad. >> This is off topic, so I won't dwell, but there are plenty of "lifestyle choices" that are considered self destructive -- smokers, drinkers (even social drinkers), people who drive too fast, people who burn the candle at both ends...and so on. I would not point fingers at anyone else's life style or necessarily consider it dangerous or sad. Even runner Jim Fixx, who was presumably in excellent condition, dropped dead at age 52. 'nuf said.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Scott has been passed over for Shanghai so I'm guessing he isn't a happy camper. He sticks at R&D. A terrible shame as he is a talented fellow - and he has the people management skills that are sorely lacking at WDI. He was sold a lemon when he agreed to leave UniC.>> Ditto on the kudos for Trowbridge, an amazing talent. Totally sucks that WDI is not utilizing his skills to the fullest. Watching the WDI meltdown now is so painful.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>But it needs to function as a hotel! It is a huge commitment for the company - almost as much as the entire DCA project. You need to be able to appoint the right talent in the right roles. << It will function as a hotel, but it will be MORE than that. Personally, I can't wait to see what they come up with. No one does themed environments like Disney at their best, and I am sure Mr. Rhode and his team will come up with something innovative, amazing and wholly functional, too.
Originally Posted By DlandJB <<No disrepect JB but I wholly disagree. WDI shouldn't be guided by what their audience want - they should anticipate trends and great attractions that guests didn't even conceive as possible. Globally the parks attract 100m people - it just isn't possible to cater to everyone - that forms homogeneous experiences that look like Imagineering By Committee. You need to empower your imagineers to do what they feel is right based on their experience and expertise.>>> No disrespect felt. I appreciate your opinion. And I should clarify that I don't mean things should be run by the crowd for a vote. But I think when the air gets too rarified by "experience and expertise" then you do end up with something that looks like it was done by committee. I think you and I disagree on this one, but to me, DCA is a perfect example of a park that was created by committee and ended up being something that much of the public couldn't have cared less about. If imagineers do get out of the door and meet the public, there are likely to have a better sense of what people enjoy and why. You can't see much from an ivory tower. I love to go and sit in the room where the zoetrope is in DCA and watch the excitement and awe as people come in and watch it in action. If an imagineer would come and sit there for a little while, it might help to spark their imagination, so that when they call on their expertise and experience they have a reminder of what that awe looks like.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Good point. (I know this is a little off topic, but the technology used in the zoetrope would be pretty cool in a ride, wouldn't it? You could have fully animated "animatronics" that were actually a series of non-animated forms. Just a random "what if" moment.)
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<I would not point fingers at anyone else's life style or necessarily consider it dangerous or sad.>> But there are behaviors which people engage in, that you can point fingers of judgment at, if those behaviors are clearly known to be dangerous. For example, excessive alcohol consumption with known diabetes or liver disease, or recreational drug use with known heart conditions, are recipes for disaster. <<Even runner Jim Fixx, who was presumably in excellent condition, dropped dead at age 52.>> Totally different circumstance. Jim's father died from a heart attack at age 43, and Jim was once obese before he took up running. His death could have been completely avoided had medicine been more advanced, placing heavier emphasis on genetics and cholesterol levels as we do today. (His cholesterol was over 250 at the time of his death.) All four major coronary arteries were at least 70% blocked (two around 90%); he was a heart attack waiting to happen. Had he not taken up running and lost his excess weight, he probably would have dropped dead from a heart attack much, much sooner, like his dad. When an individual knows they have a health problem but continues to engage in physically destructive behavior anyway, it's difficult to feel sympathetic for that person when said behavior becomes fatal. Bruce knew the risks but didn't care. It's amazing he didn't die sooner.
Originally Posted By MPierce Some people also prefer a certain lifestyle rather than a long life. That's their decision to make as long as it effects no one else.
Originally Posted By Doobie I've removed some posts that discuss (directly and tangentially) details of Bruce Gordon's personal life and death. Please keep that discussion off the boards. Thanks. Doobie.
Originally Posted By DlandJB but the technology used in the zoetrope would be pretty cool in a ride, wouldn't it? You could have fully animated "animatronics" that were actually a series of non-animated forms. Just a random "what if" moment.)>> I'd love it as long as they didn't have to spin me like a Waring Blender to do it!
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Yeah, and it would have to be something other than strobe lights or people would be going into seizures right and left.
