Originally Posted By Manfried I don't normally agree with Al, but he hit the WDI snob factor and their treatment of the Disneyland and WDW operations and cast members right on the money. I applaud Al for talking openly about what has traditionally caused lots of problems within Disney. Yes, WDI has a long history since EPCOT of basically ignoring the folks at the parks. It used to not be that way. Walt used to want the Imagineers, in particular the ones that built the attractions, not the designers, to go down and work with the park's operations and maintenance folks. But alas, the main crop of Imagineers bred in the eighties do not want to do that. I'm talking of Rhode, Fitzgerald, Baxter and a few others. Instead of admitting they screwed up they claim either lack of money, or that the parks don't maintain things like they should. Did they ever think that maybe they could have designed things in a way that were creatively as exciting as they wanted, yet also worked operationally? In Rhode's case I'm speaking of the Yeti. Baxter, the infamous Rocket Rods and some of Indy. Fitzgerald, well the hotel is just one of many oversights. So on this one I give Al major points.
Originally Posted By crapshoot Blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda. If in Al's and your opinion everything regarding WDI was so cut and dry and simplistic. But it isn't. Sure up until Eisner came on scene it didn't take a team of Project Management suits, an army of Accountants, a covey of Safety Engineers in order to paint a fricken iron fence around Tea Cups, for instance. Reality sucks, but it is reality. Now go get yourself (and Al) a 10' step ladder (OSHA approved of course) and try and get over yourselves.
Originally Posted By Manfried Crapshoot, I do not normally agree with Al and his frequent opining. But his key point that WDI does not talk to, and looks down upon the park operators was in place well before Eisner came to town. And gee, for a change I'm actually applauding Al. I agree that there is way too large a bureaucracy at Disney overall, but WDI is famous for ignoring common sense that comes from the folks that have to run the things. And it is famous for not wanting to deal with safety rules that are there for a reason. Example, while I've seen photos of what was done to Alice in Wonderland and don't like it; I understand the reasoning behind it. What WDI, in the person of Tony Baxter, did not want to do was deal with the reality of it. Had they worked with the park, instead of ignoring them, I am sure they could have come up with a workable solution that would have looked great and met the regulatory requirements.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt I don't know. I get the impression that Al either has praise to give or an axe to grind. I guess my question is why is he suddenly being so hard on WDI and so generous to park operations when in the past he's been pretty critical of everyone in the park from the bottom up. While his status reports are far kinder than they used to be, I still feel like I'm looking at someone's stolen unlaundered underwear whenever I read them.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<But his key point that WDI does not talk to, and looks down upon the park operators was in place well before Eisner came to town.>> Before Eisner, WED was a pretty loose group who didn't need to fill out timesheets, worry about Job Numbers or have to play slick games of chess with budgets. Imagineers were able to do what they did without worry of Accounteers questioning each and every gallon of paint being slathered on scenery. I agree that there are problems among different divisions playing in the same space at the same time. Imagineers vs Entertainment vs Decorating vs Custodial vs Maintenance vs Operations vs Accounteers vs Project Management vs . . . . . . . It's a very complex problem and in certain situations, the processes fail. But to zero in on one group and say that they walk around with their noses in the air and that is offensive, is ludicrious.
Originally Posted By Manfried Yeah, crapshoot, I think you're right. Too many departments fighting over some of the same stuff and just out to protect their turf. Hmmm, sounds like our county government here.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "It's a very complex problem and in certain situations, the processes fail. But to zero in on one group and say that they walk around with their noses in the air and that is offensive, is ludicrious." Exactly, which makes me wonder what was the motivation for putting them under the magnifying glass this week. Sounds to me like one of Al's informants has a few issues with WDI.
Originally Posted By TP2000 Hans, according to the article (which was fascinating), the motivation was a waterslide project that is nearing completion but is rife with problems and design flaws. Someone at the hotel squawked, and Al used it as an example of a continuing problem within WDI. If it was just one random example of a bad design, it would be forgotten. But if it's not the first time it has happened with a WDI design, and the WDI staff have an attitude about it (as they appear to have), then it becomes a story.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Hans, according to the article (which was fascinating), the motivation was a waterslide project that is nearing completion but is rife with problems and design flaws." Yes I know, but when Rocket Rods was mis-engineered and DCA was pieced together on a shoestring budget Al blamed the "sharp pencil boys" and not the “We’re darn important” Imagineers for whatever inherent flaws those projects had. Now, all of a sudden, Imagineering’s swollen heads are to blame for the latest design gaffe rather than the budget or TDA’s poor judgment. So which is it? I don’t know Al personally, but he sure does strike me as a sort of all or nothing type of guy. “Someone at the hotel squawked, and Al used it as an example of a continuing problem within WDI.” Yep, and isn’t that the problem with these sorts of blog reports – it's a one-sided story being told, which gets expanded upon in the fan-o-sphere, and suddenly Imagineering is the bad guy. None of us really knows what went down, whether or not the tipster has something against WDI, or even if any of this is true. I tend to agree with Crapshoot that the reality is that the relationship between all the various divisions and subdivisions within Disney Parks & Resorts is far more complex than the way Al presents it. He often exhibits a strongly opinionated viewpoint that shifts depending on which way the wind is blowing each season. I’m not judging Al, and I admit that I find his posts entertaining, but like most bloggers you have to take what he says with a grain of salt.
Originally Posted By Manfried All good points Dr. Hans, and so are crapshoots, and skinnerbox's in the other version of this topic (which happened because my stupid PC double posted the topic) and while Al in the past used others to blame, WDI shared equally in that blame for a lousy theme park in DCA. Remember, all the Imagineers (including Sklar and Fitzgerald) said it was the right park for the right time.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox I'm going to copy and paste my post from the duplicate thread here, since Manfried already referenced it: <<But alas, the main crop of Imagineers bred in the eighties do not want to do that. I'm talking of Rhode, Fitzgerald, Baxter and a few others.>> Those Imagineers were not "bred" in the eighties, but started working at WED in the seventies. The Imagineers that started during the "Disney Decade" in the nineties are the ones responsible for this shift in attitude. They were the ones who began treating onstage CMs like dirt, as if they didn't know anything. Imagineers from the seventies and eighties did not take this condescending attitude with the front line workers, for the most part. As for sighting Yeti and Rocket Rods as problems with these four particular old school Imagineers you despise... that's bunk. All Imagineering projects have had problems. I remember Matterhorn's refurbishment in 1978, when I worked at DL. Egads! What a mess! Programmable logic board headaches, new sled headaches, new ice tunnels headaches, ad nauseum. And the old guard like Fred Joerger worked on this refurb, not the new kids. My friends who worked in FL attractions were not treated like dirt, but respected by the WED team and utilized in trying to fix these problems and meet the opening deadline. Problems happen to everyone. What Al wrote about today is basically correct. But this problem started in Glendale in the nineties, not with the Senior Vice Presidents who began their WED careers two decades prior.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox OK, there's something I'm not getting here. A former Imagineering exec told me a few months ago that the new pool was being outsourced to another company and not being designed in-house. If so, that could easily explain the problems which have popped up with the pool. WDI should be at the front line, dealing with these issues and making sure the outside company isn't letting them slip under the radar. But if the WDI manpower hasn't been allocated in the project budget because the bean counters won't allow for it (and I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case), then to blame individual Imagineers for these issues is wrong. Blame Burbank management and the accountaneers who hold the pursestrings. If this project has a budget that's too small, with too much dependence upon outside companies left to their own devices, this type of crap is bound to happen. I agree with previous posters about Al having an axe to grind. I've rarely seen him go after WDI this harshly. Hmm... maybe this has something to do with Tom Fitzgerald, since he's The Big Imagineering Cheese in Anaheim™ now that Bob Weis is leading Shanghai's development, and was the one pushing for this pool rehab last year. Sounds like Al might be singling out Fitzgerald without actually mentioning his name.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I think it's strange that this all comes to a head over a pool slide. Considering the complexity of WDI's recent projects - WOC, RSR, ST2.0, LM - designing a kiddie slide at a hotel pool doesn't seem like much of a challenge. The specific issue provided - sightlines for lifeguards - also isn't exactly a major issue. The apparent unfortunate result - more staffing required - seems like a drop in the bucket. And the larger allegations that WDI engineers are arrogant towards frontline employees doesn't seem to be borne out by the example provided. In Al's perfect world, these engineers would have met with the pool lifeguards to find out what they need to do their job. In actuality, they likely met with the facility supervisors - multiple times - to determine any number of things from available square footage and materials, to color palettes and suggested heights. So Al is making allegations of arrogance on the part of WDI, but using small potato examples like this pissant pool slide to illustrate his point. If this is truly a problem, perhaps there are better go-to examples than the slide and some disgruntled lifeguards.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>A former Imagineering exec told me a few months ago that the new pool was being outsourced to another company and not being designed in-house.<< My first reaction when I read the article was that at least the slides were likely outsourced. While they're increasingly common in the Disney hotels, WDI doesn't really have any expertise on building waterslides. I would assume that they were involved at a conceptual stage ("we want it to look like Monorails"), and then left the subcontractor to do the rest of the work. It seems likely that the constraints given by WDI (the Monorail overlays, which require long straight sections on the slides) may have led to the sightline issues, but that's the kind of thing that they usually discuss during a project's design. Some of the smaller things, like the lights for the stairs, seem like they are pure oversights, which can happen when you outsource the work. Most waterslides close down around dusk, so lights aren't needed. If Disney didn't specifically say that they wanted to keep them open at night (did the Neverland Pool slide stay open after dark?), there would be no reason for the subs to even consider putting lights on the stairs. I'm not saying that WDI is blame free, but there's definitely more to this story than Al is sharing. As for the name of the restuarant, I'm glad that they tried to go for something a little (very very little) less self referrential. I know that is what the Disney company has become, and is a particular problem at DLR, which caters to a local crowd, and an even bigger issue with the DLH, which is themed to the park, but I'm getting a little tired of it all. With the change of the tower names to the lands in the park, calling the restuarant Walt's doesn't seem quite so corporate as it would, had it been surrounded by Magic, Wonder, and Dream. I don't think that Disney is going to stop the trend any time soon, but I give the Imagineers credit for doing something slightly out of the ordinary.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Can't really comment on most of this issue, as I don't spend my time in long distance psychoanalysis of designers I don't know. I will, however, take umbrage with this statement: >>Wing [Chao]’s thinking... was the last vestige of an era when playing up the Walt angle was taboo amongst the executives who wanted to get away from that 20th century emotional baggage of focusing on quality like Walt did.<< What a stupid, fatuous thing to say! Wing Chao is the last person I would ever accuse of losing focus on quality, or of ignoring the Company's debt to Walt Disney's creative legacy. I have no idea where this stuff comes from, but it really does seem motivated by some sort of twisted animus.
Originally Posted By DlandDug I was reacting to a specific statement made in the article in question.
Originally Posted By 2001DLFan <<I agree with previous posters about Al having an axe to grind. I've rarely seen him go after WDI this harshly. Hmm... maybe this has something to do with Tom Fitzgerald, since he's The Big Imagineering Cheese in Anaheim™ now that Bob Weis is leading Shanghai's development, and was the one pushing for this pool rehab last year. Sounds like Al might be singling out Fitzgerald without actually mentioning his name.>> Sounds reasonable to me as I understand that Fitzgerald was involved with the pool project. It's apparently just an off-the-shelf water slide product with Disney version of Magic Mountain "theming" applied. Once the whole courtyard is finished, I see a lot of disappointment with the expanse of concrete that the new area will consist of. As for lifeguards, that's hard to determine. the "pool" directly under the water slide will only be around 8 inches deep. They probably will have someone up on the structure, but I seriously believe that the CM's Disney will require are due entirely to their over zealous safety division and NOT due to any Imagineering failure to work with DL operations.
Originally Posted By Westsider I've worked alongside Imagineers several times over the years, cycling attractions being tested after major rehabs, ferrying them around the river, etc. Some of them are quite nice and pleasant. They may chat a bit during slow times. They even say words like "please" or "thank you", or use your name conveniently written on your nametag when speaking to you. About 15% of them fall into that category, and most of them are over 50 years old. But some of them are really quite nasty and snotty. I've gotten the "operator" treatment a couple times, where they call you that instead of referencing the name on your nametag and the one your manager introduced you by when the shift or project started. And then when the manager leaves and goes back up to his office, they make jokes about him behind his back. They seem to have no respect for anyone who wears a nametag on their clothing instead of clipped to their lanyard. You can cut their attitude with a knife. Really quite nasty people, and for the most part they are the ones under 40. About 25% of them fall into that category. Then there's the other 60%. Those are Imagineers that really just sort of ignore you, and maybe give a quick smile or a nod at the end of the day but otherwise don't speak to you. They treat Operations CM's like elevator operators; just sort of ignoring them as part of the machinery, but never being outright rude or nasty. I suppose that's all we really are, elevator operators, but it goes against the company propaganda that we "make the magic" and all that noxious blather. Most Imagineers don't pretend to agree with that propaganda, they just put hourly CM's into the elevator operator role and ignore you. I'm not sure that it's quite as black and white as the Al Lutz article portrays it, but he definitely is right about WDI rarely asking Operations for their thoughts or wishes. And some Imagineers are really quite rude. Unfortunately, the rotten apples seem to have gained a bad reputation for too many of their otherwise innocent peers.
Originally Posted By HMButler79 We met Jacobson and Rogers during the '07 Mansion rehab and they were very nice and gracious to us. They truly saw how devoted the Cast was to the Manse. I am not surprised to hear this attitude shift. Imagineers like Baxter and Gordon started WORKING in the park as front line CMs. To hear that this started in the 90s is not a shock. These are the people that gave use condescending New Tikis and Imagination 2.0 and 3.0. The fact that they've never been "punished" for thier work also must have contributed to thier hubris.
