Originally Posted By leemac <<Yea Tim Delaney. Carnival rides? what was he thinking.>> Tim designed and executed that entire land for significantly less than DAK spent on Everest alone. All of the pressure was on Paradise Pier to deliver as many ride experiences as possible. Tim's original ideas for the Pier were breath-taking - but DCA was a $1.5bn project originally. It just got hacked away. I'm still amazed he got it built for as cheap as the final bill was. I remember the conversation about the lagoon. The menu planning called for a lagoon show to open during the first five years - it was on the plan. So Tim said to Barry, Paul and Timur that they needed to get the infrastructure in place when it was being built. The problem was that that was going to cost more initially and that isn't how their mindset worked. So instead all of the lagoon is going to be ripped apart to put in basic utilities for World of Color before even considering the special stuff that Steven Davison needs for the show. It is now costing nearly ten times what it would have done back in '99. Same on the entrance sequence at DCA - no-one wanted to do it. There was no budget and no singular vision for the entrance. So it got dumped on Tim's lap with no guidance. He literally designed and built that entranceway for next to nothing. He went with titanium for the Sun icon as it would last forever and never need cleaning. He is just very smart when it comes to that type of planning.
Originally Posted By dennis-in-ct << It is now costing nearly ten times what it would have done back in '99. >> I remember that point was brought up by Al Lutz when the park was being built.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< It is now costing nearly ten times what it would have done back in '99. >>> They were determined to do it cheaply no matter how much money it cost!
Originally Posted By ArchtMig >>>Yea Tim Delaney. Carnival rides? what was he thinking. <<< Yes, Tim Delaney was the designer of some of my most disliked parts of DCA, BUT... Thank you leemac for your post #21 above expressing what I felt all along. I'm sure Tim Delaney was saddled with the extreme low budgets and expectations for these areas, and I can't even begin to imagine the frustration he must have felt in only being able to produce the schlock that became the final results. My hatred is for the guys calling the shots, like Paul Pressler and Barry Braverman, not the working schlubs like Tim Delaney who's full powers were bottled up like genies, never to be allowed to escape.
Originally Posted By leemac ^^ Not a problem. Tim is my favorite conceptual designer at WDI - he has an incredible gift as an artist. Plus he is popular - there aren't many imagineers who can claim to have worked on four of the five resorts - and as an executive producer on individual lands at three of them.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>^^ Not a problem. Tim is my favorite conceptual designer at WDI - he has an incredible gift as an artist.<<< Amen. His design for Discoveryland was abolutely inspired, and Space Mountain de le Terre au le Lune was a work of art. I just feel so sad when I see what has happened to DL in DLP.
Originally Posted By mousermerf A question i was going to bring up before but had an internet issue and forgot until now: Why do we only name names when speaking positively about projects? How come we (the fan community in general) don't know who is responsible for Imagination? Like with the mention of Tim, we know he produced a clunker but also redeemed himself to most with other work. I'm curious if those responsible for some of the major blunders are merely roaming from blunder to blunder (I hope not, there better not be an Imagination-Stitch-1st Narnia-MILF person who is still employed), or actually has some cool work out there? IF anything, if we're all going to be disney "fanatics" the least we could do is analyze the work of people and look for their trademarks and style. However, we're never told who produces some of the less popular attraction, so there's bi gaps in the history of the parks from an informational perspective.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Why do we only name names when speaking positively about projects?>> Good point 'merf. I always get vexed when people ooze about certain personalities - there is a direct correlation between their exposure to the fan community and how they are perceived. Tony Baxter is a perfect example - always lauded for Big Thunder, Fantasyland '83 and Splash Mountain - but rarely called out for Tomorrowland '98 or DL's Pooh Ride. <<How come we (the fan community in general) don't know who is responsible for Imagination? >> Because they aren't still with WDI. WDI has been very visible this century - you can pretty much find out who was the show producer etc. for any project. I'm happy to fill in some blanks. Ultimately it is a balance - do I think Stitch's Great Escape! was a bust? Yup. But then two of the most talented folk at WDI were intimately involved - show writer Kevin Rafferty and WDI's technical genius Rick Rothschild. Sometimes it just doesn't work. As long as the hits outscore the failures then we should be okay. No-one is going to have a 1.00 average.
Originally Posted By mousermerf Twas thinkin.. <a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=r2vWdbjv5T8" target="_blank">http://youtube.com/watch?v=r2vWdbjv5T8</a> In my mind, i've used that clip as a sort of mental block, a defense, against really getting down on Tony Baxter's work. However, if i really look at it subjectively, i loathe Tom Fitzgerald doing the same exact thing with Toy Story Mania - soured me on the ride concept in general. Maybe putting yourself out there liek that back in the day was more palatable and seemed less.. slimey, swindler, used car salesman like, ya know?
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<^^ Not a problem. Tim is my favorite conceptual designer at WDI - he has an incredible gift as an artist. Plus he is popular - there aren't many imagineers who can claim to have worked on four of the five resorts - and as an executive producer on individual lands at three of them.>> The fact I've never heard one person utter a bad word about the man speaks volumes as well. And Tim's orginal art and concepts for PP were a whole lot more impressive than what he wound up having to build. And that was my whole point about having talented individuals doesn't matter if the team leadership is weak and the concept is ill-conceived and the budget is puny. And as Dennis pointed out, Al Lutz discussed the folly of not installing lagoon show infrastructure a decade ago. It was simply common sense, and common sense was accountaineered out of the budget for DCA. Sadly, this mentality still exists. I've seen things at WDW that need small doses of capital to fix, but they get ignored ... so instead of spending $15,000 now, Disney will spend hundreds of thousands down the line. Bad management makes these type of shortsighted decisions.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 Ultimately it is a balance - do I think <<Stitch's Great Escape! was a bust? Yup. But then two of the most talented folk at WDI were intimately involved - show writer Kevin Rafferty and WDI's technical genius Rick Rothschild. Sometimes it just doesn't work.>> My argument would be that SGE should never have been approved to begin with. The powers that be should be able to tell a turkey before tens of millions are spent. The MK would have been better keeping AE until they came up with a better concept. And as a Stitch lover, I'm saddened that the chance for a quality attraction with the character has also been lost ...
Originally Posted By ArchtMig >>>The powers that be should be able to tell a turkey before tens of millions are spent.<<< The "powers that be" are not the creatives. They are the suits that don't know the difference between creativity/greatness and mediocrity/marketability. They hear "movie tie-in/Stitch", they think they see $$$$ signs, and that's all they need to pull the trigger on something like SGE.
Originally Posted By mousermerf But the creatives had to come up with it for approval, no? A couple of things i want to comment on, starting with the concept art vs. finished product. Designers are not studio artists. Not to say they may not have the skills, creativity, ability, etc.. of a studio artists, but their job is not to do studio art but rather to create a finished product. Their art is that finished show, all the elements, coming together. Their art is not something rendered, painted, or drawn. Those are ways to express the ideas to people and to help formulate them. Great art is the designer's tool, not their trade. They have to be able to realize that concept, and in matters like DCA, know what limitations they have. We can sit around and blame budget all we want, but the ability to know what can be accomplished with a given amount of money is the designer's job - knowing how to do something justice. You don't attempt to do a broadway musical with a kazoo and a cowbell. Editing, knowing where to cut, knowing what's important, knowing how to do things cheaper, making cardboard and duct tape look good - all marks of a good designer. It's entirely possible to come up with something amazing on a kazoo and cowbell budget - most likely not a broadway musical. I think some people had to learn some very hard lessons. Hopefully they grew from it.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox "I always get vexed when people ooze about certain personalities" ditto "there is a direct correlation between their exposure to the fan community and how they are perceived" Not always true. Braverman got plenty of exposure on the Travel Channel and is still hated. "Tony Baxter is a perfect example - always lauded for Big Thunder, Fantasyland '83 and Splash Mountain - but rarely called out for Tomorrowland '98 or DL's Pooh Ride." For the same reason Kevin Rafferty is never called out for Under New Management or AE Stitch. Pre-Pressler budgets were bigger. Much bigger. Everyone has produced turkeys since the Pressler WDA reign. Even Fitzgerald.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox "It's entirely possible to come up with something amazing on a kazoo and cowbell budget - most likely not a broadway musical" Before middle management exploded, yes. No more. Those days of spit and bailing wire Imagineering are long gone.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<We can sit around and blame budget all we want, but the ability to know what can be accomplished with a given amount of money is the designer's job - knowing how to do something justice. You don't attempt to do a broadway musical with a kazoo and a cowbell.>> Sorry, merf, but I disagree. If the powers tell you you're going to attempt a broadway musical with a kazoo and a cowbell, then if you value your job you do it. Maybe you raise a few concerns about the viability of the concept, but after those are shot down, you do the best you can given the parameters. Designers aren't miracle workers. If you need $35 million to make a project work, just to toss a figure out, and the accountaineers give you $15 million the project is going to suck. There's no two ways about it. <<Editing, knowing where to cut, knowing what's important, knowing how to do things cheaper, making cardboard and duct tape look good - all marks of a good designer. It's entirely possible to come up with something amazing on a kazoo and cowbell budget - most likely not a broadway musical. >> Agreed. BUT if Paul Pressler and Michael Eisner tell you 'we want a broadway musical' you do your best and hope you can put one over on the customers. We can all see from DCA's history that Disney guests aren't as stupid as management thought.
Originally Posted By mousermerf I guess i'm making the wrong assumption that proposals have budgets attached which are either approved or not approved and management isn't quite dumb enough to think that if they axe part of the budget that they're not axing part of the proposal and thus it should be reevaluated after the cuts for viability within the constraints. In short, i believe it's X-money for Y-spot/purpose and they overshoot that goal, or they propose Y-purpose and get X-money allowance and don't kill the project if it needs to die at that point.
