Originally Posted By 2001DLFan <<Dabob2: <"Lifestyle choices" would seem logical factors. > Is this referring to smoking?>> No. Gordon didn’t smoke. It’s probably referring to his fondness for French Fries (as I understand it).
Originally Posted By RandySavage LeeMac writes: "You also have situations where technology has effectively replaced your job. That happened to John Horny - a tremendously talented illustrator (one of the finest at WDI with my personal favorite Dan Goozee) but there just isn't the need for the giant concept paintings that he specialized in." I'm surprised and saddened to learn this. I can see it being the case with model-makers as parks and attractions can be modeled in a laptop computer rather than using half a warehouse, but I would think the big concept painters (of whom Horny is my favorite) would still be a highly valued asset. Which leads to my chicken-or-egg question on attraction development? Take animal kingdom as anexample: A)A layout put together by architects and planners: <a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_NB7Bwdam9SY/SPAXXfdJvbI/AAAAAAAABAw/rj-7yZ6R7_U/s1600/comstack_concept2DAK.jpg" target="_blank">http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_NB7B...2DAK.jpg</a> Or this: B)A detailed conceptual painting: <a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_OO7WbmARD08/SZn9gp8hljI/AAAAAAAAOuA/jMIJ67ykeFo/s1600/ak%2Boverview.jpg" target="_blank">http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_OO7W...view.jpg</a> Was A based on B or B on A? I assumed concept designers first come up with attractions and rough layout of a park, then a concept artist such as Horny takes what they give him and creates a large concept painting, then the architects, engineers and ride designers go about the task of creating the actual blueprints based on the master concept painting.
Originally Posted By DlandDug A recurrent theme running through the side discussion that has develped in this thread is that of the old making way for the new. At WED/WDI this has become a troubling issue. Yes, new ideas, and new ways of doing things are vitally important. But without an orderly transition, it is too often the case that much good is lost, or much bad is simply repeated due to lack of continuity. A case in point here is the description of how Disney came to be involved with the Wizard of Oz. As stated in post #68: >>It was Tony Baxter that was the driving force behind the Oz concepts. In the '80s he was the leading proponent of using third-party intellectual properties for attractions... Tony is a huge Oz fan... he thought that Baum's fantasy world would be a perfect fit. Ultimately the concept didn't fly with management who felt it was too dark for Disneyland... Thankfully Disney had reached agreement with MGM... for inclusion of the Wizard of Oz in the Great Movie Ride - but it was a one-time licensing deal.<< While this is certainly factual, it's far from the whole story. Disney's involvement with Oz actually dates back to 1954, while Tony Baxter was still a school child. That year, Walt Disney purchased the rights to the first eleven sequels to The Wizard of Oz. (The first book was, of course, tied up in both stage and screen rights, which were held by MGM.) What Walt ultimately wanted to do was never entirely clear, other than he wanted to create another great entertainment. Most people thought, obviously, he would create an animated feature. He actually started work on a two part Disneyland TV show version. That then was to be a lavish musical, which was to star the Mouseketeers. Excerpts of this phase of the project were shown on the Disneyland Fourth Anniversary show in September, 1957. But none of these came to fruition. At Disney, no good idea ever really dies, it seems, and Oz next appeared headed for Disneyland. Here's a description from The National Geographic: "Some of the things planned for Disneyland were coming off the drawing boards... I saw Emerald City in the Land of Oz, a metropolis inside a magic mountain, guarded by animated soldiers. This is in model form now; it will reach Disneyland in two or three years." That was published in October, 1962, four years before Tony Baxter began working in Disneyland as an ice cream scooper. It was not until 1985 that Return to Oz finally reached the screen as a Disney film. Yes, it was the object of intense interest by Tony Baxter, who is indeed an Oz fan. And it was deemed too dark (and frankly not well enough received) to form the basis of a major attraction. The Great Movie Ride sequence was based, of course, on the MGM film, and was unrelated to Walt Disney's original desire to create a new entertainemnt based on a continuation of the Oz stories. The point of all this is to point out that there is a growing disconnect in WDI, and the Company as a whole. People like Bruce Gordon and David Mumford and Tony Baxter, the second generation Imagineers, were able to simply walk down the hall to find out about things like this. The same was true of the animators and story tellers working in the film division. But the wholesale removal of this generation will, I fear, have a long term negative effect on the Walt Disney Company. It is certainly a sound business plan to hire talented people who will work for lower wages, and release the older workers who cost more. But there is more than just talent walking out the door. What is being lost is the creative legacy, which is no longer being imparted on a day-to-day practical basis, in a controlled and nurturing environment.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Which leads to my chicken-or-egg question on attraction development?... Was A based on B or B on A?<< That's a great question, and one for which the answer is... Yes. It really depends on the scope of the thing and who is involved. Sometimes the artists are handed a fully developed plan and told to create the atmospheric sketch. Other times the planners are handed an inspirational drawing and told to figure out how to make it real. The first full drawing that actually became Disneyland (by Herb Ryman) was based entirely on the latest of a series of carefully worked out plans created by Marvin Davis. Davis was a master at space planning, but Walt knew there was no "magic" in his meticulously drafted plan views. So he hired Ryman to create a perspective view, based on the plans, filled with atmosphere and detail. Another case in point is the Enchanted Tiki Room. It was originally to have been a restaurant, with some sort of "live" dinner show utilizing robots (later dubbed Audio-animatronics). Walt had originally thought of this as a Chinese Restaurant, but with the great interest in the South Seas and exotic dining in the early 60s, it was changed. In one of the inspirational paintings, the artist included a few colorful parrots perched among the hanging baskets of tropical foliage. Walt spotted them and thought they should be animated, too. Where this eventually led, we all know. So it is sometimes A to B, and sometimes B to A....
Originally Posted By princessmarilyn That is wonderful! I saw Tony Baxter several years ago in the Disney Gallery. He was very nice and personable with the cast members there. And I remember that he looked somewhat different than he did on t.v. He looked hipper and had blonde highlights in his hair...that seemed interesting to me.
Originally Posted By RandySavage Dug, in the "Mountains of Disney" book there is a gorgeous example of John Honry's work: a detailed concept painting of Blizzard Beach. It is so close to the final result that I believe it is on a billboard at the park to serve as a map (not the same map in the guidebook). In the planning of the Blizzard Beach, do you - or anyone - know if the Horny painting predated the architects' blueprints? I can envision a team of WDI architects taking the Horny painting and designing the park to look like it. I can also see Horny looking at blueprints and creating the painting. Knowing which led to the other will help me understand how vital the concept painter is to the process. If the concept painter, in the case of Blizzard Beach, laid out what would be the final, albeit not scientific, design of the park, then he is the keystone to the development of a park and cannot be "value-engineered" out of it.
Originally Posted By leemac <<In the planning of the Blizzard Beach, do you - or anyone - know if the Horny painting predated the architects' blueprints?>> Depends. The old way of pitching projects had massive concept drawings that helped to sell the design internally. Concept artists like John Horny, Nina Rae Vaughn and Dan Goozee were asked to "think big" to get the wow factor to make executives sign off on the project. Usually they will be accompanied by a host of other artwork. Blizzard Beach is a case in point - the entire project was triggered by a snow globe in Eric Jacobson's office. Many of the original sketches (literally cartoony penwork) was also included but you needed the big concept artists to help executives understand what WED/WDI was trying to do. There is a reason why Herb Ryman's original paintings of Oriental Disneyland pre-date the approval of Tokyo Disneyland by over three years - they were an integral part of pitch. These days the likes of Chris Turner use IT design packages which is why they all look alike. Check out all of the recent "concept" art releases like Finding Nemo Submarine Voyage, The Seas with Nemo & Friends and Pirate's Lair. All CAD work and it just doesn't have the same effect. But then the advent of PowerPoint has killed the need for original concept oils. Why cart around massive concepts for pitch meetings (which are numerous and endless) when you can flick between them electronically.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Dabob2: <"Lifestyle choices" would seem logical factors. > Is this referring to smoking?>> Dabob2 - his family expressly requested that the true nature/cause of his death not be disclosed. It is sad that they felt the need to impose such a restriction (especially as it might have helped certain charities with fund-raising activities particularly within WDI/WDP&R) but it is their right.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>In the planning of the Blizzard Beach, do you - or anyone - know if the Horny painting predated the architects' blueprints?<< I checked out the rendering in question. With that degree of detail and accuracy, I am pretty sure it was based on blueprints and elevations. Horny may have even had a model to use as reference. Going clear back to Disneyland planning in 1953-55, photographs of scale models were sometimes used as reference-- or even simply painted over. (I have used photos of scale models as guides in creating my own presentation art work.) CAD modeling is simply a high tech way of doing the same thing. The difference is that when it is all rendered inside a computer, the results can be chilly and technical. The other problem is often a technician ends up doing the work of a designer-- and while it may all fit together, it is somewhat unsatisfying. It's like the difference between writing and typing. Both involve putting letters on paper. But the results can be very, very different.
Originally Posted By DlandDug As long as the subject is concept artists, may I mention one my favorites, Bryan Jowers? He wasn't at WDI for a very long time, but he created some great pieces of true fine art. I miss that.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Bryan Jowers? >> Good call, DlandDug. Bryan did some great work on DL's Adventureland - especially around all of the IJA area improvements that never happened.
Originally Posted By RandySavage Just looking through some books with concept art: there are the old school legends (Sam McKim, Herb Ryman, John Hench) and there are some extraordinary more recent works by John Horny, Bryan Jowers, Tom Gilleon, Dan Goozee, Collin Campbell, Wes Cook, Ray Spencer, Clem Hall, Tim Delaney, Carol Grosvenor, Jim Michaelson, Frank Armitage, among others. Are any of these great talents still with the company or did Disney let them go?
Originally Posted By 2001DLFan <<DlandDug: As long as the subject is concept artists, may I mention one my favorites, Bryan Jowers? He wasn't at WDI for a very long time, but he created some great pieces of true fine art. I miss that.>> Word is that Bryan has recently been seen in the halls of Imagineering. So maybe he's still providing them with more great pieces.
