Originally Posted By HokieSkipper Very, very good post skinnerbox. I like John a lot. He gets most of the Disney culture. But I don't know if he's the right man for the job when it pertains to theme park attractions...
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper Very, very good post skinnerbox. I like John a lot. He gets most of the Disney culture. But I don't know if he's the right man for the job when it pertains to theme park attractions...
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 I do think John is the closest thing to Walt going at TWDC in 2010. But I also think he has blinders, and wouldn't anyone with his track record/success?, when it comes to his franchises and characters. If drowning in Stitch is bad, how is drowning in Nemo or Buzz any better? FWIW, Carsland really looks like a winner to me ... but it is very fair to ask if it would have been better to theme an actual area (not lipservice like DCA 1.0 did) to California's car culture, even if it meant including the Cars franchise (one would argue it would have been stupid to not have any connection). I would have liked to have seen/heard what Kevin had in mind. And I am sure it will make a coffee table book by 2016!
Originally Posted By Manfried Some good points skinnerbox. But in fairness it should also be pointed out that Rafferty's track record isn't all that good. Rafferty worked on Toy Story, but Pixar had a very heavy hand in that. Rafferty also worked on the horrible Tiki Room under new management show. He also worked on Alien Encounter and the tacky show that replaced it. He also worked on early development of Little Mermaid ride, so his stock will probably go up because of that. So the fact is that all of them have had successes and some not as successful. However, are you going to bet money with someone who has done some successful attractions, or someone who has made you a ton of money? I think the latter is what any business is going to do.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<However, are you going to bet money with someone who has done some successful attractions, or someone who has made you a ton of money? I think the latter is what any business is going to do.>> Which is a shame, because I strongly believe that Lasseter's blind spot for his own Pixar properties is effectively stunting future development of the parks. I'm also not convinced that his skill set is varied enough for making these important decisions. At the end of the day, Nemo Subs is nothing but a weak rehash of the film at a huge expense to Disney. Given the cost of Carsland and RSR, I'm extremely cautious regarding how the final product will turn out. Lasseter's theme park development experience is far too limited for him to be the deciding factor for major additions like Carsland that don't extend beyond a Pixar tie-in. Blending Carsland with Route 66, IMHO, would have been less risky and more expansive. I still believe that a greater percentage of park guests will tire more quickly of Radiator Springs as the only representation of the California car culture than they would with a Cars/Route 66 hybrid. Putting Pixar and Disney properties in the parks is good, but only in moderation. Oversaturating the parks with Pixar franchises is a mistake. I'd really like to see some balance here. But I'm afraid Lasseter's ego has taken us way beyond that point with Carsland.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>> But I'm afraid Lasseter's ego has taken us way beyond that point with Carsland.<<< Still....is that just an excuse for synergy? I think they could have blended both like you mentioned.
Originally Posted By Britain Could have. I wouldn't have preferred it that way. And it isn't MY ego dictating that. Golly, maybe some people actually PREFER the idea of Radiator Springs instead of generic Route 66, regardless of whether or not they directed the film!
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Personally, I have nothing against Radiator Springs and Carsland in general. What I'm not happy about, is knowing that another option was on the table to expand on the car culture theme through non-Pixar branded offerings, that Lasseter rejected in favor of a 100% Cars-related district. Merging the two districts, I believe, would have been a better choice. Pixar fans and car culture fans get represented. Focusing strictly on the Cars franchise seems less encompassing and comes off as egotistical, even if Lasseter didn't make his decision for those reasons. But it sure seems as if he did.
Originally Posted By Manfried <<At the end of the day, Nemo Subs is nothing but a weak rehash of the film at a huge expense to Disney.>> But that cost was not really Lasseter's doing. It was the technology, and a whole bunch of other WDI and structural issues. And the attraction still has very long lines.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Compared to what other attractions? Subs is infamous for low capacity. Do those long sub queues exist only when other lines in the park are also long? Or do those lines shrink back when park attendance goes down? And I hate to burst your bubble, but Lasseter was responsible for increasing the makeover's budget. Sure, the technology was expensive. But JL wanted to "plus" the ride with even more goodies once the installation began, and as such, drove the budget even higher. Given the mediocre presentation, I'm hard pressed to say whether or not those additional costs were justified. I find the ride experience very weak beyond the fact that you're traveling in a submarine under water. In many ways, I find the Nemo attraction at EPCOT to be just as entertaining if not more so, especially with regards to the angler fish and the aquarium tank at the end.
Originally Posted By Manfried Different strokes for different folks. The line for the attraction, in spite of the capacity issues, suggests audiences like it. And you're not bursting my bubble. John suggested changes, which is no more than many Imagineers do and have done which have always increased the cost and tremendously so. Splash Mountain and Indiana Jones, both Tony Baxter led attractions, had tremendous cost overruns. Yet because Tony did them are you giving them a pass?
Originally Posted By skinnerbox I'm not giving either one a pass. The cost overruns on Splash stemmed from incompetence with engineering screwups. Ditto for Indy regarding the ice machine. Both of these fiscal nightmares were avoidable. Who cares if those projects were led by Baxter. Tony has screwed up plenty over the course of his career. But Baxter's cost overruns do little to exonerate Lasseter from pouring bucks into his pet Pixar projects, especially at the expense of other non-Pixar branded projects led by talented Imagineers who've been working in the Disney parks longer than JL.
Originally Posted By Britain That's right, they should have pressed forward with a mediocre Nemo sub ride instead of plussing it. Or they should have plowed it under like WDW's I suppose.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<That's right, they should have pressed forward with a mediocre Nemo sub ride instead of plussing it.>> I don't think that's the point he's trying to make. I believe he's saying the additions JL pushed for were so minuscule, yet expensive, that the money would have been more wisely spent somewhere else.
Originally Posted By Manfried skinnerbox is entitled to his opinion on that. The same thing happened with Baxter's projects. But to continue my point. Baxter's projects were well done, but Disneyland's attendance has not grown beyond the approximately 15 million a year it has been for some time. And yes, that includes the year Indy opened. Plus, no film to make money off of. Lasseter's films have added growth to the bottom line. So the old style Disney hardliners may not like him, but if I was making the decision I would go with John as he has a pretty darned good track record. Let's see recently Baxter put in Lincoln, something all the Disney hardliners said is a good thing. Yet, by all business measurements, it is a failure. No line, no pickup in attendance, and so on. The Nemo subs brought in a big bump in attendance. So, despite dislikes, the attraction worked. So right now, I think its change that Disney needs, and need I remind everyone that is what Walt wanted, and change Disney is going to get. After all, that is what everyone wants at the parks right? So quit complaining so much.
Originally Posted By Manfried skinnerbox is entitled to his opinion on that. The same thing happened with Baxter's projects. But to continue my point. Baxter's projects were well done, but Disneyland's attendance has not grown beyond the approximately 15 million a year it has been for some time. And yes, that includes the year Indy opened. Plus, no film to make money off of. Lasseter's films have added growth to the bottom line. So the old style Disney hardliners may not like him, but if I was making the decision I would go with John as he has a pretty darned good track record. Let's see recently Baxter put in Lincoln, something all the Disney hardliners said is a good thing. Yet, by all business measurements, it is a failure. No line, no pickup in attendance, and so on. The Nemo subs brought in a big bump in attendance. So, despite dislikes, the attraction worked. So right now, I think its change that Disney needs, and need I remind everyone that is what Walt wanted, and change Disney is going to get. After all, that is what everyone wants at the parks right? So quit complaining so much.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 No one asked (not that it matters) but I find a lot to agree with in both skinner and manny's points above. I think a blended Route 66 area with a Cars component (likely the RSR and perhaps a shop ... the other two attractions are not needed) would have been better. I also can't fault John for pushing his stuff any more than I can fault Tony ... or Kevin ... or anyone. And I tend to feel the subs were worth the investment, much like Indy and Splash, even if the budget went haywire. The biggest 'issue' I have with any of the above is Manfried again making a big deal out of Lincoln. It's not as if Tony had a choice ... you can make an E-Ticket in the Festival Arena or T-land with a large budget or you can do the umpteenth redo of what has been (at least since the 70s) a small-scale attraction in the Opera House and chose the latter. Lincoln has never been a driver of attendance except perhaps in its earliest days after the NY World's Fair. To expect it to be so in 2010 is a bit out there. But it's all kewl ... because George K (who has considerable clout with WDI -- you can feel the sarcasm here, right?) said Tony will figure out something for the Peoplemover tracks ... yep ;-)
Originally Posted By vbdad55 ^^^^^^^^^^^ doesn't Lincoln always win in polls of the most favorite president ever ? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...d_States</a> I know my high school age daughter has always been interested in Lincoln and the civil war..so the choice does not seem odd to me when one considers polls over decades and decades that place him 1 ,2 or 3 also in a period when yahoos on both sides of the political spectrum deem it necessary to voice their opinion on recent presidents..they can go back to sleeping thru the show instead of disturbing those who want to see and hear it without applause or booing.
