Originally Posted By ChiMike >>I do think I am more with Lee on this one, Mike. Power and decision making funnels downward ... and management has the power to ultimately do great things or crappy ones.<< Now. Today. Now, Spirit, that's how it is now. That wasn't the case for the JII debacle. That wasn't the case for Stitch. WDI had the full support of the company to leverage Stitch, and leverage him quickly. Some eViL bean counter didn't tell them to go to an extreme cost in over designing the Stitch AA. The 'downward' effect wasn't even the case for some of the successes like Soarin'. Corporate didn't dictate the concept, need, request parameters, for Soarin'. It was a WDI invention that they were able to secure funding for, and then, as funding was reduced, still make happen. So while I agree that WDP&R leadership has been toxic and detrimental to WDI, not all decision making is 'downward' It's just a another excuse in a long line of defenses for these guys. There is a reason why today most decisions are driven from corporate. That wasn't always the case, especially for the examples I give above. And if you ask anyone from the corporate leadership team from 1989 - 2002 if they think the new 'downward' decision making system is smart (considering good corporate leadership) a lot of them will say YES because they remember how badly they were burned back then by WDI. They were lied to. They were over-promised, under-delivered. They all remember how badly Eisner wanted to reign in waste and then how he was repeatedly villainized for it. Look, I love the history of WED. I love it. I like current imagineers like Tony and a lot of the unsung heros who don't have that producers persona. I like that side of the company. What I don't like are those who have ruined what I loved through their own selfishness and incompetence. I've said it before but they use to be an eclectic workshop that could turn water into wine. Now, they are run by a group of self-preservationist technocrats. That group hasn't created anything of merit with their own brain-power for quite some time.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>I doubt Eric or Tom is in any danger right now. I fully expect Tony to announce his upcoming 'resignation' at D23. And I think Joe isn't far behind.<< I would guess that you're right.
Originally Posted By leemac <<That wasn't the case for Stitch. WDI had the full support of the company to leverage Stitch, and leverage him quickly. Some eViL bean counter didn't tell them to go to an extreme cost in over designing the Stitch AA.>> Not a good example in my book. WDI had to leverage the existing infrastructure - despite the fact that it was the infrastructure that Eisner wanted out of that park. The set and seating was a huge part of the scare factor for Alien Encounter but WDI had to work with it. SGE! had some of the best talent from both WDI and WDFA - we had Rick Rothschild working on the engineering, Kevin Rafferty writing the script and Stitch's own creator Chris Sanders heavily involved throughout the process. No-one would deny that it didn't work - but I'm not sure that is the best example of an unrestrained WDI.
Originally Posted By ChiMike Lee, Looking back I'm sure, like most things, it is a grey area. I feel the need to point out the other side of the story at times with the 21st century WDI, because they always have an excuse why they aren't to blame. Combine that with the talent drain of the wrong people leaving wdi for whatever reason, and I think there is a case to be made that its time for a radical rethink of why wdi needs some of the remaining senior folks.
Originally Posted By leemac <<So while I agree that WDP&R leadership has been toxic and detrimental to WDI, not all decision making is 'downward' It's just a another excuse in a long line of defenses for these guys. There is a reason why today most decisions are driven from corporate. >> The reason why WDI was marginalized has nothing to do with the quality of the product - it was an attempt to consolidate power in Burbank. I can tell you firsthand how different the approval processes for even minor attractions is now compared with even under Pressler. You can't get anything done without WDP&R's approval. It is an incredible frustrating process. Rasulo was a bully - an out-and-out bully. I was one of the lucky ones as he "liked" me - but I saw people beaten black and blue (verbally) by the man. He liked nothing more than to humiliate an presenter in committee meetings and charettes. It is entirely demoralizing. Take Tom Fitzgerald's "demotion" - instead of taking the guy aside and telling him in private, Bruce's promotion into his role was announced by Rasulo and Tami Garcia (SVP, HR) to a room full of Tom's peers and fellow executives. He had the strength of character to joke what it meant for him but you shouldn't treat anyone like that - it is truly sickening to treat and 25 year plus career imagineer that way. Similar story for Tim Delaney who just got told to leave 1401F until they agreed on severance. Rasulo ruled with an iron fist and that is not a way to run any creative organisation.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Looking back I'm sure, like most things, it is a grey area. I feel the need to point out the other side of the story at times with the 21st century WDI, because they always have an excuse why they aren't to blame. Combine that with the talent drain of the wrong people leaving wdi for whatever reason, and I think there is a case to be made that its time for a radical rethink of why wdi needs some of the remaining senior folks.>> I do agree - to a point. However it isn't about passing the buck on blame - ask Kevin Rafferty about Stitch and he will happily admit that it just didn't work. The issue is that the vast majority of the time WDI is simply working under indicts from corporate - "push this character into that location" - there isn't any real creative free-thinking anymore. Blue sky conceptualization has been pushed to the background. Instead of coming up with truly innovative ideas and then working out how to leverage them into the park, it is the other way around. HR at WDI has been a disaster as long as I can recall. Instead of having a stratified hierarchy of varying ages and seniority you have a huge gap between the kids (cheap labor) and the senior executive ranks. The folks squeezed in the middle just leave. However Marty protected Creative Development which is why you have so many veeps and above in that group.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Rasulo was a bully - an out-and-out bully. I was one of the lucky ones as he "liked" me - but I saw people beaten black and blue (verbally) by the man. He liked nothing more than to humiliate an presenter in committee meetings and charettes. It is entirely demoralizing.<<< What an ass. And how does Staggs compare?
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Matt was a great president and his tenure was perfect timing, however Greg was the real brains of the operation. While I didn't agree with everything he did at MK @ WDW, he really brought the operational discipline that MK @ WDW had in the nineties over to DL. I think the WORLD of Greg and was very sad to see him leave DL.>> Greg had his issues in the 90s at WDW, but he was/is a quality parks guy. From what I know, he was not happy (mildly) when he left DLR. But the ones who give a damn about quality never seem to be. Interesting, wouldn't you say? ~D23: Don't Expect Us to Actually Build This Stuff!~
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<I've tried, but I just can't be that excited or interested in the goings on behind the scenes at Disney. I don't even know who most of these people are.>> <<That's mostly how I feel.>> And that's mostly how most of the fans generally feel. I guess that's to be expected. However, it's those folks behind the scenes and their machinations that determine everything from the price you pay for your chicken fingers to the hours your favorite park is open to how clean that restroom you take your child into is to whether the world's 'alleged' No. 1 theme park goes 19 years and counting without a major new attraction added. If fans can't be bothered (maybe interested is a better term) with anything beyond what they like/dislike, then really who can?
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Now. Today. Now, Spirit, that's how it is now.>> That wasn't the case for the JII debacle. That wasn't the case for Stitch. WDI had the full support of the company to leverage Stitch, and leverage him quickly. Some eViL bean counter didn't tell them to go to an extreme cost in over designing the Stitch AA. The 'downward' effect wasn't even the case for some of the successes like Soarin'. Corporate didn't dictate the concept, need, request parameters, for Soarin'. It was a WDI invention that they were able to secure funding for, and then, as funding was reduced, still make happen. So while I agree that WDP&R leadership has been toxic and detrimental to WDI, not all decision making is 'downward'>> No, but it has been like that for a very long time now. Everything is done by committee and bureaucracy, even when Disney says all the 'right' things about trying to reduce that (look for that to come up when Disney lets a load of folks go this fall, much like ABC Daytime and the Studios are going through now, right after a giant commercial at D23 where they show all sorts of amazing art to drooling fanbois who won't get that most of what they see will NEVER get built -- 'Disney Decade: The Sequel' coming to a fan mind control event in Anaheim soon!') Not defending some bad choice in Glendale from everything to who got to keep their jobs to creative choices they made, there is definitely merit to that criticism. <<It's just a another excuse in a long line of defenses for these guys. There is a reason why today most decisions are driven from corporate. That wasn't always the case, especially for the examples I give above. And if you ask anyone from the corporate leadership team from 1989 - 2002 if they think the new 'downward' decision making system is smart (considering good corporate leadership) a lot of them will say YES because they remember how badly they were burned back then by WDI. They were lied to. They were over-promised, under-delivered. They all remember how badly Eisner wanted to reign in waste and then how he was repeatedly villainized for it.>> There's been waste, though, for as far back as anyone I know (and that goes back to Walt's days) can remember. It's always been there. ... I think the issue that started to arise in the 1990s was WDI began to actually produce/create/build crap. And poorly received crap in many cases, which to the money guys is even worse. Eisner shouldn't have been criticized for trying to control costs. But he did go overboard and did blame folks who were doing things the right way (Baxter and Co in Paris). The result has been small, underwhelming parks that open and no one shows up and then they spend billions to fix them. Wouldn't it have been better to simply spend $2-3 billion on DCA to begin with? Or build HKDL with the 60% of the original 'menu' that got lopped off? Or built BK and Asia from Day 1 at DAK? etc ... <<Look, I love the history of WED. I love it. I like current imagineers like Tony and a lot of the unsung heros who don't have that producers persona. I like that side of the company. What I don't like are those who have ruined what I loved through their own selfishness and incompetence. I've said it before but they use to be an eclectic workshop that could turn water into wine. Now, they are run by a group of self-preservationist technocrats. That group hasn't created anything of merit with their own brain-power for quite some time.>> C'mon, doesn't stuff like TSMM, Star Tours 2.0, and Mermaid represent the best of what Disney (and anyone else) can possibly create in the 21st century? have I mentioned my major concerns with how little is being built in Shanghai yet? I'd love to chime in more, but have to run ... interesting conversation though.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>If fans can't be bothered (maybe interested is a better term) with anything beyond what they like/dislike, then really who can?<<< To tie into another infamous thread and line of thought on these boards... ...isn't that the fan's fault... themselves? I mean, if someone can't be bothered to try a new attraction or park, or resort, because they like Disney's Hollywood Studios or EPCOT or __________, I think the same can be said that fans aren't going to be bothered to expect more out of WDC. I think this all centers back around the ideas that fans go to Disney to illicit a certain response in them, ALL of us included. Granted, that's not bad thing, thoughts and actions govern everything we do. The problem is, I think, most don't realize this, and if it left unchecked it allows for less than perfect lines of thought, expectations, and even habits. ...Or is this something I should save for dinner tonight?
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>The reason why WDI was marginalized has nothing to do with the quality of the product - it was an attempt to consolidate power in Burbank.<< I disagree. You very well might be right, but I disagree. My take is that WDI's marginalization happened prior to the scenario you point out. That your scenario was the effect to an earlier cause. As I mentioned earlier, the impetimus had to do with them wasting ridiculous amounts of time and money on projects. While at the same time losing touch with mainstream appeal and what makes Disney, Disney. In the first case, I would point out Test Track and TL98 as a waste of money/time. In the second case I would point to JIYI and DCA as far as losing touch. >>I can tell you firsthand how different the approval processes for even minor attractions is now compared with even under Pressler. You can't get anything done without WDP&R's approval. It is an incredible frustrating process.<< I understand that, I tried to reference that very thing a few post ago - calling out 2002 as a point of time. While I am sympathetic with the current conditions, and give you personally a lot of credit, some of the senior executives did it to themselves. Again WDI IS NOT a birthright. It is a job. Completely hypothetical, but if I ask someone during the Green or even Pressler era, hey, do you think the new way is better, chances are the answer will be YES, given there are executives who get it. This issue as I see it, is that WDI was put under a stricter process while at the same time WDP&R leadership devolved. A nasty receipe and unfortunate timing. I agree with your earlier sentiments regarding Tom Staggs and hope you are right. Which leads me to... >>Rasulo was a bully - an out-and-out bully. I was one of the lucky ones as he "liked" me - but I saw people beaten black and blue (verbally) by the man. He liked nothing more than to humiliate an presenter in committee meetings and charettes. It is entirely demoralizing.<< I use to have a boss who did exactly that. And while I too was a favorite, I was not even immune from his constant performances. I can honestly testify that it is a poor management style and does much more harm than good. It typically emanates from those who are insecure in their own knowledge which is the basis for driving their executive decision. It is intended to keep subordinates in disarray and from questioning leadership. Ask the military. Lee, you open the door for me to bring something up. While some folks on here and in other Internet nooks have a short memory. I do not. I strive to stay consistent in my guiding principles and ideology. So with that said, let me just say that I have not forgotten when folks where championing Rasulo. One example, I remember when Al Lutz was so thrilled to have Rasulo. Celebrating his supposed visits to DLR, with his tirades against Cynthia. Al proclaimed a great new leadership for WDP&R. "[Jay understood on first glance how badly DL was under capacity]" Yeah right! haha, Jay had the gut instinct.. See, funny how quickly the tables turn. The fact is, that most folks, even you and I, have no idea how someone's promotion will pan-out. Now Tom very well could be a breath of fresh air, but I have learned through many years of my life to not be so quick to appoint a new hero in any company. Tom very well may champion some great reforms, but he also might miss out on some opportunities or carry his own negative issues.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>I do agree - to a point. However it isn't about passing the buck on blame - ask Kevin Rafferty about Stitch and he will happily admit that it just didn't work<< Kevin seems to be a nice guy, and I trust your high opinion of him, however, there are a lot of great people out there with great imaginations. It might be cold, but I still maintain that there should not be much room for mistakes as big as this. The creative marketplace in conjunction with new youth from USC, CalARTS, etc. allows for Disney to have a screw up like this be reason enough for him to move on from the organization. Even if it is temporary to recharge his creative batteries and come back with a clean palate. It would be entirely different, and I wouldn't be able to earnestly make such a crazy suggestion, if they had not been laying off the 'middle guys' as you call out during the same time period, but rather if they were hoarding talent... But they weren't. >>The issue is that the vast majority of the time WDI is simply working under indicts from corporate - "push this character into that location" - there isn't any real creative free-thinking anymore. Blue sky conceptualization has been pushed to the background. Instead of coming up with truly innovative ideas and then working out how to leverage them into the park, it is the other way around. HR at WDI has been a disaster as long as I can recall. Instead of having a stratified hierarchy of varying ages and seniority you have a huge gap between the kids (cheap labor) and the senior executive ranks. The folks squeezed in the middle just leave.<< Very well said. While it sucks to see you write this, it's simply a nice sum up of what the reality has been. I do want to again give you a very honest expression of how sorry I am to hear of your frustration. It's not pleasant. Which leads to... >>However Marty protected Creative Development which is why you have so many veeps and above in that group.<< Which is one of the things a handful of us have been going bonkers about, almost rabidly, for years now. We figured Marty out a long time ago, and this is the issue that many have pointed to, tirelessly trying to point out, as something that simply wasn't proper or good for the company.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>But the ones who give a damn about quality never seem to be. Interesting, wouldn't you say?<< Sure look no farther then to see how AK operations are currently being managed. Or how drastically the WDW deluxe resorts have fallen from grace. Loews, or even the new Hilton @ Bonnet Creek, them to shame as far as theme park accomodations are concerned.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>If fans can't be bothered (maybe interested is a better term) with anything beyond what they like/dislike, then really who can?<< Thank you for responding to that and bringing up this point. It is exactly what I was thinking. Everyone's opinion is interesting, but it tends to help me form my opinion when I can take things such as this into consideration.
Originally Posted By leemac <<As I mentioned earlier, the impetimus had to do with them wasting ridiculous amounts of time and money on projects.>> This really is a separate topic but the whole costing model is a noose around WDI's neck. When Jim Hunt pushed SAP timesheets into every nook and cranny of WDI we saw budgets explode. Even EAs have to bill their time to projects now. Everyone is looking for a WBS code to charge time. It is a busted model - WDI should be a sunk cost of WDP&R - it should be able to do two things very well - create product that leadership want and also blue sky conceptualization which will show leadership want they should want. Instead we have a homogenized product (like 3 TSMMs) because it is the cheapest option. Much easier to pick up existing plans and roll those out again. That doesn't mean there isn't excess - Lasseter's pointless roadtrips for CarsLand on route 66 is one example. How pointless is it to have a roadtrip to see the real Route 66 when you only intend to reproduce the movie's version?
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>Eisner shouldn't have been criticized for trying to control costs. But he did go overboard and did blame folks who were doing things the right way (Baxter and Co in Paris). The result has been small, underwhelming parks that open and no one shows up and then they spend billions to fix them.<< A very unfortunate history. There's not much more to say, that hasn't already. It's unfortunate. This was a case where WDI was blamed unfairly for many bad decisions, not just hotels, not just climate, culture, economy, etc. It was a perfect storm of problems. WDI included. The after-shocks though are what is really sad to think about, especially domestically. Still, they were given a lot of respect and breathing room thereafter. It was more an issue of the development group coming in and diluting/misdirecting the organization. >>Wouldn't it have been better to simply spend $2-3 billion on DCA to begin with? Or build HKDL with the 60% of the original 'menu' that got lopped off? Or built BK and Asia from Day 1 at DAK?<< Of course, but that wasn't en vouge in the strategic thinking of the company. There were too many other distractions for growth outside WDP&R. (Sorry Lee) Spirit, please don't use the expression of 'menu' in conversation with me again. That way of thinking/talking drives me up the wall. ... Menu, pft.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Kevin seems to be a nice guy, and I trust your high opinion of him, however, there are a lot of great people out there with great imaginations. It might be cold, but I still maintain that there should not be much room for mistakes as big as this.>> I'd defend Kevin until the day I die. He is one of the finest imagineers that the company has ever had. Immensely passionate about the parks and a darn good show writer. He virtually created TSMM from scratch with Robert Coltrin. His original concept for CarsLand is some of the finest concept work I've ever seen. Sadly it will never see the light of day. Kevin absolutely deserves his job - he is probably the most prolific imagineers at work today. And only a director - when other creative development folks are at least one grade higher (Baxter is 2 grades higher, Tom Fitzgerald is 3).
Originally Posted By ChiMike >> Even EAs have to bill their time to projects now. Everyone is looking for a WBS code to charge time. It is a busted model - WDI should be a sunk cost of WDP&R<< I can't agree more with you Lee. Just because lawyers and accountants have clients and matters to bill to doesn't mean that it translates to a R&D group. >> - it should be able to do two things very well - create product that leadership want and also blue sky conceptualization which will show leadership want they should want. Instead we have a homogenized product (like 3 TSMMs) because it is the cheapest option. Much easier to pick up existing plans and roll those out again.<< Again, very well said. >>That doesn't mean there isn't excess - Lasseter's pointless roadtrips for CarsLand on route 66 is one example. How pointless is it to have a roadtrip to see the real Route 66 when you only intend to reproduce the movie's version?<< .rolls eyes. .snickers. What more is there to say, again, selfishness, indulgence. I can't imagine in the sixties these Disney legends having to bill hours or going on junkets to the caribbean.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>I'd defend Kevin until the day I die. He is one of the finest imagineers that the company has ever had. Immensely passionate about the parks and a darn good show writer. He virtually created TSMM from scratch with Robert Coltrin. His original concept for CarsLand is some of the finest concept work I've ever seen. Sadly it will never see the light of day. Kevin absolutely deserves his job - he is probably the most prolific imagineers at work today. And only a director - when other creative development folks are at least one grade higher (Baxter is 2 grades higher, Tom Fitzgerald is 3).<< Thank you for fleshing your thought out. As I said, I value your opinion - highly. I just have not been as impressed. TSMM, yeah, not impressed. On the other hand, as you pointed out a few days ago, everyone has stinkers. Someday, hopefully we all can learn more of Kevin's take on Carsland.
