Originally Posted By ChiMike oops. sorry >>I do think while of course "technically" is not his title<< I do think, while of course, technically it is not his title .....
Originally Posted By danyoung Wow, have I ever enjoyed this intellectual discussion over the past few days. I have very little to contribute, as I know very little about the inner workings of the Disney corporate structure. But I did want to respond to this leemac comment - >Do people like Pete Docter and Andrew Stanton know how to build an attraction or develop a show? No. And they would be foolish to divert their talent to an arena that they know little about.< Did Sam McKim? Did John Hench? When Ward Kimball started his film career do you think he had any inkling that he'd end up making so many contributions to a theme park? The success of Disneyland has a lot to do with the technical cutting edge that the company lived on for 30 years or so. But it has even more to do with their ability to tell a story, with the philosophy of coming up with the cool story and then coming up with a great new way to tell it. And whether this story was in the form of a ride or in a restaurant or in a walkway from Main Street to Adventureland, every little nook, cranny, fence, lamppost, bit of siding or hunk of concrete - EVERY detail was put into place to serve that story. Over the last 20 years or so the Disney company has lost that ability to tell a story. You can see it in their mediocre movie output. You can see it in their limited park adventures. And you can really see it in this summer's blockbuster pirate movie - all flash and no story. We now have that pool of talent at Pixar who value story above all else. They've proved their abilities over and over again. I'm all for letting them expand out from the silver screen and into the physical world, and see what kind of brand new technologies can be created to tell their stories.
Originally Posted By leemac Very true Dan and I don't mean to detract from the contribution of Hench, Ryman, Davis et al from Disneyland and theme park history in general. Story-telling is key. However the marketplace is very different from the one that Walt created in the '50s. I'm not sure that story-telling per se is the problem at WDI. There are plenty of excellent story-tellers. The problem is either marrying that will the technology that the average guest demands now or getting it approved by WDP&R. My point was that I personally think the Pixar team should concentrate their efforts on the Studios where they can best serve the Company. I suspect their employment contract stipulates that too.
Originally Posted By danyoung >I'm not sure that story-telling per se is the problem at WDI.< I would argue that storytelling is indeed the major problem. It may be as you say that there are stories there that aren't allowed to get out. But look at recent attractions within the Disney parks. What's the story of Grizzly River Run? Of California Screamin'? Of Mulholland Madness? Of Superstar Limo? (Coincidence that all of these are in DCA???) The average Fantasyland dark ride is no big deal, but they are still immensely popular because the story was so perfectly integrated into them. I'm not saying that today's crowds would be impressed by a new Peter Pan. But give us a proper story and an attraction like SSL would still be in place, not yanked and replaced at huge cost, both in dollars an in reputation.
Originally Posted By leemac <<We now have that pool of talent at Pixar who value story above all else. They've proved their abilities over and over again. I'm all for letting them expand out from the silver screen and into the physical world, and see what kind of brand new technologies can be created to tell their stories.>> My problem is that that talent pool has little breadth (or depth depending on your POV) to it. The problem becomes when too much power is concentrated in a small team that have known each other for years and have a particular style of doing business. I don't think the Emeryville culture suits Glendale and Burbank. It suits Pixar as a stand alone unit. It suited it as an independent movie producer making one movie every 18 months or so. Even Jobs was clear that he couldn't see Pixar surviving in the marketplace and that he wanted his baby to have a larger impact. I'm sure it will. I expect to see Bob ensure that Pixar sticks to its knitting but it doesn't hurt to contribute to other business units once in a while. But concentrating power in 7 individuals in a company the size of Disney isn't something I want to see. I'm not sure that Dick Cook or Jay Rasulo will be keen to see their business units dominated by Pixar. <<And you can really see it in this summer's blockbuster pirate movie - all flash and no story. We now have that pool of talent at Pixar who value story above all else.>> Maybe but Dead Man's Chest will probably earn twice as much at the box office (and globally probably even more) than Cars. DMC was a more expensive movie but it seems that is what audiences wanted this summer. Cars is flawed IMO. Particularly in the storytelling and I am a little worried about that. No doubt it has turned its underperforming opening weekend gross into something very good but I don't think it will have the lasting legacy of Pixar's other movies. I'm also a little worried about next year's movie. I hope I'm wrong.
Originally Posted By leemac <<I would argue that storytelling is indeed the major problem.>> All a matter of opinion. DCA has a lot of backstory to it if you go looking for it. The problem becomes communication and I don't think DCA gets that across well. Every district has a different backstory (particularly Golden State and its attractions). I look to product like Legend of Mythica and ToT at TDS & Everest at DAK and see a level of story-telling that is rich and repeatable. You notice something different every time. Shows like Soarin' and Mickey's PhilharMagic also convey stories that are perfect for Disney theme parks.
Originally Posted By ChiMike I think the last two posts were great reads and wanted make a related aside. I remember chuckling to myself when watching the Everest promo on Discovery Channel. During a time when there was criticism lobbed at WDI while at the same time all this positive attention given to Pixar's story ideas, it was almost a little over-the-top to see the segment where everyone emphasized and hammered on "telling a story". It's great to hear it straight from the mouth of babes (and as Lee said certainly not all that one needs), but it would be even better to see it become a positive reality in future projects.
Originally Posted By leemac I think the problem is that WDI have been fried too often recently on original concepts and so it becomes easier to adapt stories from Pixar and other Disney animated movies. The likes of Superstar Limo tainted the ability of WDI to tell a compelling story. That is a bad example though as it was WDP&R that forced the changes in that show that left Neil Engel's original concept out to dry. It became a shell of what it should have been. There is doubt about whether even SSL 1.0 would still be around but it was a big enough gamble to have lasted longer than SSL 99.99 IMO.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>My problem is that that talent pool has little breadth (or depth depending on your POV) to it. The problem becomes when too much power is concentrated in a small team that have known each other for years and have a particular style of doing business. I don't think the Emeryville culture suits Glendale and Burbank.<< I'm sorry Lee I just can't disagree more. What is to say that the Glendale culture is not so diseased that the last vestiges simply need to be euthanized. I don't know how much of you personally I should separate out from your points, but I have to say that this idea that proven executives and groups need to conform to what currently exists at WDI just does not pass muster. WDI has proven that what they are, what they do, is a failure. Maybe too much power has been concentrated in the halls of Glendale? Perhaps a small team or talent pool need to be given the reigns. Like Dan & I said earlier, what made Disney was that a group similar to the guys at Pixar came over and took what they already were good at and adapted it to fully realized environments. The results speak for themselves. In a time where fanboys can write better scripts for SGE, I really have a hard time believing that the seven aren’t up to the task to creatively direct.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>But concentrating power in 7 individuals in a company the size of Disney isn't something I want to see. I'm not sure that Dick Cook or Jay Rasulo will be keen to see their business units dominated by Pixar.<< I don't think anyone has suggested that. I don't think the 7 would be even running WDI. You know better than anyone else how much outside of the creative wings there is to manage, especially with the studio. Not to speak for others, but I think the point is that the idea that these individuals can play the role that Walt once did as a final arbiter is not that far-fetched and somewhat historically relevant.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Wow, have I ever enjoyed this intellectual discussion over the past few days. I have very little to contribute, as I know very little about the inner workings of the Disney corporate structure. But I did want to respond to this leemac comment ->> It's OK, Danny. As much as it pains me to say this, you can more than hold your own in an intellectual discussion ... unlike a more famous Texan ;-) >Do people like Pete Docter and Andrew Stanton know how to build an attraction or develop a show? No. And they would be foolish to divert their talent to an arena that they know little about.< <<Did Sam McKim? Did John Hench? When Ward Kimball started his film career do you think he had any inkling that he'd end up making so many contributions to a theme park? The success of Disneyland has a lot to do with the technical cutting edge that the company lived on for 30 years or so. But it has even more to do with their ability to tell a story, with the philosophy of coming up with the cool story and then coming up with a great new way to tell it. And whether this story was in the form of a ride or in a restaurant or in a walkway from Main Street to Adventureland, every little nook, cranny, fence, lamppost, bit of siding or hunk of concrete - EVERY detail was put into place to serve that story.>> YES! YES! YES! It's ALL ABOUT THE STORY! <<Over the last 20 years or so the Disney company has lost that ability to tell a story. You can see it in their mediocre movie output. You can see it in their limited park adventures. And you can really see it in this summer's blockbuster pirate movie - all flash and no story. We now have that pool of talent at Pixar who value story above all else. They've proved their abilities over and over again. I'm all for letting them expand out from the silver screen and into the physical world, and see what kind of brand new technologies can be created to tell their stories.>> Dan, this may be the most profound words I've ever seen you post. STORY is the essence of TWDC. STORY is what's been missing in most animated features Disney has put out in the past decade. STORY has been woeful in most attractions added to US parks in the past decade. STORY was why ABC was a joke as a network and why it has rebounded of late with shows like Lost, Grey's Anatomy and Boston Legal. But when I look at why Disney isn't what it should be, it's due to forgetting about story. When the MK is watered down by sticking characters everywhere or putting the same merchandise in every store or by having every CM wear khakis and a tan polo to symbolize 'Adventureland' ... well, other than a cheapening of the product that should be obvious to anyone that's been a longtime Disney follower/visitor, is that the whole concept of story is getting thrown out the window. It's all a homogenized mish-mash of just 'Disney.' The MK's lands don't stand for anything anymore. The park is simply Disney's Magical Park ... where's the story? It's long gone. You may not individually have enjoyed World of Motion, but it told a story. Test Track doesn't anymore than Primeval Whirl. Danny has already added all those great DCA examples in his latest post, but everything used to revolve around story. It's the heart and the soul of the creative process and it's been missing in much of what Disney does, even a great attraction like Soarin will have a limited shelf-life because it is simply a travelogue with a bit of a ride added. There's no story there ... just look at the pretty Caifornia landscape. That's ultimately why buying Pixar is Disney's best hope for getting back to what it did best. Because if there's one thing the Pixar folks do better than anyone today is tell a story.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>Maybe but Dead Man's Chest will probably earn twice as much at the box office (and globally probably even more) than Cars.<< Very true, but come-on, that doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things. Robin Hood was the most profitable animated feature at it's release. Big Deal. Many have been hoping for the studio to cut back on it’s quantity and it now looks like we will get our wish. Let’s hope the limited output comes from the best material and we won’t get a remake of Gus with Tim Allen. >>DMC was a more expensive movie but it seems that is what audiences wanted this summer. Cars is flawed IMO. Particularly in the storytelling and I am a little worried about that. No doubt it has turned its underperforming opening weekend gross into something very good but I don't think it will have the lasting legacy of Pixar's other movies.<< I agree to a point. I think audiences wanted more of POTC I and only a segment of them felt satisfied after seeking that out in POTC II. It is probably wise that POTC III will have Barbossa back and will be released when the summer begins. Cars in my mind was also a bomb. Using your same standards though it was a success. I too am troubled by it's story. I do believe Joe Ranft was a HUGE reason why the project might have gone off-track in areas. Even Walt bombed with Alice. A somewhat parallel place in relation to Pixar's catalogue. Although I doubt history will be as kind to Cars as it was to Alice. Nevertheless the animation was meticulous… Glenn Keane was at CalArts showing off Rapunzel and I guess he made a favorable comment regarding John's involvement with WDFA. >>I'm also a little worried about next year's movie. I hope I'm wrong.<< If anyone can save it, Brad Bird can. That and Pixar has the trailer/upfront curse.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <But to what end? To create two problematic resorts instead of one? Why keep entering into agreements where you can't completely control your product? It sounds like they really are trying to use the McDonald's franchise model. < But McDonalds still always retains the right to buy back - buy out any franchisee...with due cause if the brand name can be hurt in any way-- and this is one BIG loophole they always hold-- as the franchisee who lost the entire country of France due to poor quality...
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <No doubt it has turned its underperforming opening weekend gross into something very good but I don't think it will have the lasting legacy of Pixar's other movies. I'm also a little worried about next year's movie. I hope I'm wrong.< I think this depends on the demograhic imvolved -- for those in my age range-- the lifelong links to Route 66 will make this endure as well as any PIXAR movie. Also using my 12 year old as a gauge -- only Monsters Inc surpsasses this in her eyes from PIXAR.... ( now I don't agree with that but just using another demographic to guage )
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>DCA has a lot of backstory to it if you go looking for it.<< That's kind of self-defeating though, isn't it? I mean it shouldn't be an exercize in art appreciation to visit a Disney theme park. I think the bigger issue is that it was a park put together piecemeal with little product offerings. There are large issues with DCA that you can't blame on WDI. There are many small issues with DCA that you can. >>I look to product like Legend of Mythica and ToT at TDS & Everest at DAK and see a level of story-telling that is rich and repeatable.<< I very much agree. >>You notice something different every time. Shows like Soarin' and Mickey's PhilharMagic also convey stories that are perfect for Disney theme parks.<< I agree, even with Soarin', where as others might think that it has no story because there isn't some linear 'something goes terribly wrong' adventure stuck to it.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<My problem is that that talent pool has little breadth (or depth depending on your POV) to it. The problem becomes when too much power is concentrated in a small team that have known each other for years and have a particular style of doing business.>> I agree, but would turn it around to say that the culture in both Glendale and Burbank has been TOXIC over the past decade and that style of business needs to be changed, not vice versa. <<I don't think the Emeryville culture suits Glendale and Burbank.>> No, it doesn't ... if you base it on the politically charged atmosphere of paranoia that has surrounded Disney for the last 10 years (maybe more). Isn't it interesting that so much success, both creatively and financially, has come out of the Emeryville campus which resembled the old days at Disney? It's telling to me. Disney had it right and broke the model. Burned it and threw it in the trash. With the consultants yelling 'you go girl!' in the background. Did it work? Let's be serious and drop the fanboy fun we have ... creatively Disney's product has fallen so far overall and financially the stock has stagnated throughout the start of the new century. <<I expect to see Bob ensure that Pixar sticks to its knitting but it doesn't hurt to contribute to other business units once in a while. But concentrating power in 7 individuals in a company the size of Disney isn't something I want to see. I'm not sure that Dick Cook or Jay Rasulo will be keen to see their business units dominated by Pixar.>> Maybe not. But they should look at the product that's been successful during their tenures, much of it is from Pixar. And let's be blunt, Disney never would have bought Pixar if it weren't in dire straights creatively. I'm also not sure that either Cook or Rasulo may be in their positions a year from now. I don't think the Pixar folks are the types to BS around ... Lasseter's involvement and changes on the subs shows that. So they'd be wise to not think they run independent fiefdoms anymore (more Rasulo than Cook). <<And you can really see it in this summer's blockbuster pirate movie - all flash and no story. We now have that pool of talent at Pixar who value story above all else.>> <<Maybe but Dead Man's Chest will probably earn twice as much at the box office (and globally probably even more) than Cars. DMC was a more expensive movie but it seems that is what audiences wanted this summer. Cars is flawed IMO. Particularly in the storytelling and I am a little worried about that. No doubt it has turned its underperforming opening weekend gross into something very good but I don't think it will have the lasting legacy of Pixar's other movies. I'm also a little worried about next year's movie. I hope I'm wrong.>> I put Pirates and Cars on the same level creatively. They both were disappointing to me. Not bad. Just not what I expected. But both will bring in billions to Disney's bottom-line now and in years to come from DVD's, products and theme parks shows/attractions. Much like Superman Returns, which I enjoyed more, Pirates was a lot of style, but little substance.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 ^^^^^^^^ To me also there are plenty of 'excitement' rides, I like Soarin' as a relaxing adventure ( I just wish it was longer )
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>I think the problem is that WDI have been fried too often recently on original concepts and so it becomes easier to adapt stories from Pixar and other Disney animated movies.<< But then what is the excuse for SGE, DL's Pooh, & MK's Tiki. All three replaced original concepts.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
