Originally Posted By MPierce >> You must have missed my brief return to a MAGICal realm (don't think I'm going back) on a thread about what WDW pays its CMs, which degenerated into a discussion of everything but the issue at hand. << That's pretty much what happens over here isn't it? >> But ... you make a very good point as Congress holds unemployment benefits hostage in the worst economy since the Great Depression. People are so clueless, but I don't want to go all negative heading into a magical weekend. << Extending unemployment might cut into the mony they have ear marked for their private gym expansion. Just how much should those ignorant constituents expect from their Lords, and Protectorates? We will support the scum of the earth with free money, and bail out the greediest slugs out there, but we won't help out hard working honest Americans that have fallen on hard times due to nothing they've done wrong. What's wrong with our Magical Congress.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Artist are temperamental, and have no concept of cost, only their final vision.<< Plus, they dress in black and play bongoes and love their reefer. I mean, if were gonna stereotype, let's go whole hog.
Originally Posted By MPierce Ask any Imagineer, past or present. The budget is never big enough. Is that stereotypical enough for you?
Originally Posted By Manfried I think Disney's tail is twisted by Harry Potter, and I think the hard core fan base is the biggest obstacle in Disney's way. How many of the hard core fans are against things like Marvel, Pixar and even having Lucas' characters in the parks? Well its time for Disney to grow up and join the 21st century. They should also be adding to the World Showcase instead of expanding the Animal Kingdom.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Ask any Imagineer, past or present. The budget is never big enough.<< Now you've moved the goalposts. You said the creative side were "artists have no concept of cost, only their final vision." I don't believe that's true. Certainly, especially early in the planning/blue sky stage, you allow everyone to dream big and go nuts. But do Imagineers typically throw tantrums and walking off the job, unable to compromise for budgetary reasons unless every project is completed to their original level of detail and embellishment? I doubt it. It seems to me that they adapt, adjust, re-engineer to fit within narrower guidelines all the time. They are commercial artists, with a goal of attracting and entertaining an audience who I am sure understand a lot about their business. Not fine artists in a gallery somewhere who don't care if the public likes or understands their crucifix in a jar of urine.
Originally Posted By Manfried There are quite a few Imagineers who throw tantrums. Or do it in less open ways. If they don't get their way, they don't try to make things work with the money at hand.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<They should also be adding to the World Showcase instead of expanding the Animal Kingdom.>> Why? DAK needs a hell of a lot more than EPCOT does.
Originally Posted By Manfried Because EPCOT needs more new countries. Animal Kingdom is just fine as it is for a while. Attendance at EPCOT is down, in particular at World Showcase, because it is becoming old and stale.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> I doubt it. It seems to me that they adapt, adjust, re-engineer to fit within narrower guidelines all the time. << Of course they do. That is if they care to remain Imagineers. I also remember Eddie Sotto commenting about how he learned from the best. You always pad your figures because you know they are going to be cut. I don't think most Imagineers working as teams thrown temper tantrums while they are part of a team. I also know the egos sometimes collide big time when working on major projects. That's just to be expected when you are working with a whole group of talented, and gifted people. Since you were there I suppose you know that better than most people. What I said was not intended as disrespect or trying to stereotype a group of people. Merely observations of how talented people tend to be when thrown together into a collective.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> Since you were there I suppose you know that better than most people. << That was meant to come out for Manfried. I was getting ahead of myself.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<Because EPCOT needs more new countries. Animal Kingdom is just fine as it is for a while. Attendance at EPCOT is down, in particular at World Showcase, because it is becoming old and stale.>> A) I'd like to see the numbers that say Epcot's attendance is down, especially in WS, because I don't buy it. B) Epcot doesn't need new countries at all. It needs attractions to finish the current pavilion. Because a new country without a substantial attraction isn't going to attract squat.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> But do Imagineers typically throw tantrums and walking off the job, unable to compromise for budgetary reasons unless every project is completed to their original level of detail and embellishment? << I wish LeeMac would address this one without naming names. I bet you some people on the payroll are their own worst enemy.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> They are commercial artists, with a goal of attracting and entertaining an audience who I am sure understand a lot about their business. Not fine artists in a gallery somewhere who don't care if the public likes or understands their crucifix in a jar of urine. << I guarantee you they look at their works just like any other artist does. Manfried is here. I bet he'll voutch for that.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> Because EPCOT needs more new countries. Animal Kingdom is just fine as it is for a while. Attendance at EPCOT is down, in particular at World Showcase, because it is becoming old and stale. << Plus the fact that Epcot is a high capacity Park, with restaurant row, and really needs to eat the people up. Without nighttime expansion DAK is good for the time being.
Originally Posted By leemac <<>> But do Imagineers typically throw tantrums and walking off the job, unable to compromise for budgetary reasons unless every project is completed to their original level of detail and embellishment? << I wish LeeMac would address this one without naming names. I bet you some people on the payroll are their own worst enemy.>> Not in my experience. I can't recall anyone "walking off" a job. Occasionally folks have given up on projects that they believed in passionately like the Morris/Delaney vision for PirateLand at HKDL or Baxter's "DCA is the entrance to Disneyland" concept. You do yourself no favors in any walk of life by simply giving up when you don't get your way or the going gets tough. You have to believe in yourself to deliver the best possible experience. All this talk of creative versus non-creative is baloney too. It is never black or white. I'm a "non-creative" but I'm always accused of siding with the creatives. I need to understand what they want to do and find a way to make it happen or moderate the compromises.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>They shouldn't be making any creative decissions. Only overseeing the projects budget.<<< Agreed. Look at how Iger butchered WoC. I want Little Squirt!!!!
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>B) Epcot doesn't need new countries at all. It needs attractions to finish the current pavilion. Because a new country without a substantial attraction isn't going to attract squat.<<< Doesn't need a new country? I think ANY addition to WS is needed at this point, be it a new (FULL) pavilion, or finishing one of the other ones. Honestly...I'd pull for a new one. WS seems to be fine with how it's current pavs have restaurants where queues should be.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper ^^^A new country without an attraction isn't going to drive numbers.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>>^^^A new country without an attraction isn't going to drive numbers.<<<< That's why I said FULL PAVILION.
