Wherefore art art?

[Captain Schnemo]

(OK, "wherefore" means "why", but it ruins the flow, so screw it.)

After making this post, I really got to thinking about the lack of zing in most new Disney attractions. I'm not talking about the technology itself, but the use of the tech and the lack of thoughtfulness.

Let's imagine, for kicks, that Iger is hit on the head with a bowling ball and suddenly pulls a Regarding Henry and decides all new park creations should be emotionally rewarding and visually stunning. So he goes to the Imagineers and asks them to knock his socks off...money is no object.

Do you think they could even do it? Does the necessary talent exist there? How could it?

Think about it, if you were an artistic young freethinker in 1937 when Snow White came out, or in 1955 when Disneyland opened, you'd be dying to work at Disney to express all the wonderful ideas in your head. Disney would an obvious route to fulfill your greatest dreams.

But fast forward to today, in a time when Disney's customers don't even understand a product if it isn't marketed to them in a specific way ("What? This hotel has no Nemo? How will I know it's Disney?!?"), could any young artist think of a worse fate than being absorbed into a soulless corporate behemoth?

Without going to outside artists and thinkers willing to compromise their better judgment and sell out to The Man, where would the innovation even come from? Are they even capable of thinking outside the box, after Disney has spent decades putting up a security system around the perimeter?

[Cheshire Cat]

So he goes to the Imagineers and asks them to blow his socks off...money is no object.

I don't think they would be able to think for themselves. They'd probably go through archives and find something and even then it wouldn't come out as great as orinally envisioned. Tokyo Disneyland and DisneySea are the best examples of what they can do with no (or at least, less) restrictions. They're incredible parks, but they're not mind-blowing like EPCOT Center or Disneyland when it was first introduced. The more I go to the Universal parks the more I believe that they are the new Disney. It seems like they're just getting started with "impressing". I have a stronger emotional connection to Seuss Landing than epcot at this point. I'm highly anticipating Harry Potter.

[JWG]

The more I go to the Universal parks the more I believe that they are the new Disney. It seems like they're just getting started with "impressing". I have a stronger emotional connection to Seuss Landing than epcot at this point. I'm highly anticipating Harry Potter.

If I'm not mistaken, Universal has a few of Disney's former imagineers working for them. Also, focused on HP if i'm not mistaken.

[Cheshire Cat]

If I'm not mistaken, Universal has a few of Disney's former imagineers working for them.

I guess it was all the good ones.

[Esmeralda]

Since when was the CEO of the company so concerned about money? Walt never knew how to limit spending, he was a dreamer. Yes, he had Roy to keep him in check and that's how the business succeeded. So Disney needs a dreamer to lead the way and a CFO to keep them on track.

I'd love to be an imagineer and let my imagination run wild with no strings attached. Disney outsources a lot of park work now. I interviewed with a company in Minnesota who no longer works on Disney rides (dang it!), because they said the project was never complete until there was a lawsuit. Sad indeed.

[Captain Schnemo]

I don't think they would be able to think for themselves.

This is what I worry about. I know we're all waiting for the next guy to take over and really do something special (or, at the very least, suck less), but I wonder if this is even technically possible, given the last couple of decades. There's so much inertia to continue the downward spiral there would have to be a massive shake-up before Disney could even begin to approximate its previous levels of innovation.

The more I go to the Universal parks the more I believe that they are the new Disney.

I'd like to believe this, but they're still too inconsistent in my eyes. I think they have produced the greatest single attraction in theme park history, but then they flub a simple dark ride like Cat in the Hat.

And I know there were a number of issues with the company who designed and built Do-Right Falls, but the theming on that attraction is an embarrassment. (The ride itself is tremendous fun, however, and it wouldn't take much to effectively spruce things up.)

The Studios is still an incredibly weak park (probably even worse than the lame Disney Studios), but Islands of Adventure has magical elements that are superior to some of Disney's best work.

I have a stronger emotional connection to Seuss Landing than epcot at this point.

I completely agree there, although it needs a paint job.

If you look at Spider-Man, they really knocked themselves out to combine the best elements of many great attractions to create something, well, amazing. When's the last time you were literally amazed at Disney?

Not just, "Oh, that was cute", but "OMG that was awesome, how did they do that?!?".

New Disney attractions seem to be one trick ponies ("oh, look, the turtle is talking to us!"), they aren't the complex combinations of effects and storytelling that went into something like the Mansion or Horizons.

Despite the abject stupidity and depressing lameness of the Poseidon show at Islands of Adventure, you have to admit that the combination of effects produces something you've never seen before. It might be a great show for those who don't speak English!

Even a successful attraction like Everest isn't a new concept, it's just a very well-executed version of something Disney has already done.

[Cheshire Cat]

Poseidon is one of my favorite attractions at IoA... but the storyline sort of stinks now. I like the Cat in the Hat though . I'm a Seuss fanatic though. That area is incredible to me. They've managed to take all 42 books off the page and put them in the real world.It's amazingly detailed too. I still find something new in there every time.

The rumors flying around about WDW's 40th anniversary seem promising though. I think it was WDW Today (an affiliate of of JHM ) where I read an article about how The Tiki Room, CoP, JII are supposed to be updated to be more like their former selves. I don't have trouble believing this rumor... it's good marketing and will probably get lots of people back to the parks. If they update anyone of these... I will be amazed. In a pavilion dedicated to Imagination, there's no reason why they can't use everything they've got.

If I actually think about it though, the last time I think I was amazed was ToT. It wasn't just a ride that picks you up and drops you. It has a good story, neat effects and high re-rideablity. So if I had to choose the last time Disney created something completely amazing, I'd go with ToT. That was what, 1993? Although I have to admit, it didn't get truly amazing until they implemented the random drop sequence.

[Captain Schnemo]

I am not as much of a fan of the Tower as most people, since I think the dark ride portion is extremely weak, and that's the least tricky part to get right. I think the drops are great fun, the queue is great, and the smashing window thing is awesome.

As a whole, though, it just doesn't hold up for me, since the family getting struck by lightning thing is lame and there's no "Twilight Zone" zing...no clever plot twist or intelligence to the thing.

It's clear that they were actually trying to raise the bar with that one, though, so it's not like I dislike it or anything. I just think it's a missed opportunity.

I'd have to say the last time Disney did something that really wowed me was the Tree of Life. A simple idea, executed extremely well, and unlike anything else I'd ever seen. (The decor in the D&D-type restaurant in IoA is either homage or cheap knockoff, depending on your sensibilities.)

Of course, then they ruined it by putting that bug 3D movie inside it. Not that that's a bad attraction either, but it's hardly appropriate for a park icon.

I agree with you in general on Seuss Landings. The Once-ler's house is one of my favorite single items in the universe, and there are lots of great touches. The fish that spit when you throw pennies in their mouths are another of my favorite details. As well as the Hidden Geisel.

In terms of marketing, they finally stopped making t-shirts that stupidly said "Thing 1" on the front and "Thing 2" on the back, which made no sense and completely ruined the opportunity for siblings to each buy a shirt. Now they've taken my unsolicited advice from a decade ago and one-upped it...they even offer Thing 3 and Thing 4! I saw a family of four, each in their own shirt.

As for Poseidon, the first act was never any good, but the original plotline was much better. Now it's like some stupid WWE Smackdown, with a made-up character that would be rejected as a Power Rangers villain.

All that attraction needs is a good writer. The effects are great. (Much like the new Batman movie, but that's another story.)

Cat in the Hat, on the other hand, tells a perfect story (the part where the Cat winks at you at the end is pure magic), but the effects are weak. Something is wrong with the pacing and the lighting. They needed to study what worked on Mr. Toad a bit more closely.

[MintJulepRoo]

At first I agreed with somethings you were saying but now I’m just a little...irked. The uninspiring Pixar based attractions are something that I just ignore. How on earth can we combat with Disney and their decision making process? I know they are trying to do what the people "want". It is clear that some traditionalists don't want silly Pixar rides or anything to do with Hannah Montana or High School Musical. I like the Pixar movies as much as anyone but I have no desire to experience them in the parks. As for Hannah Montana and High School Musical, the concepts of these things make me uncomfortable and embarrassed. I don’t even consider those to be Disney because well, they aren't! To say that the Imagineers can't think for themselves is partially true. I don't know whose idea it was to replace the Submarine Voyage with Nemo. The film was good but that’s it. They didn’t need to transform a wonderful experience into a sickening one. Can’t I watch the movie anytime? Do I really need to see it under water? So with regard to Pixar based rides and the whole Disney Channel debacle that continues to creep its way into the parks, I agree that Disney has strayed from its roots that made it so remarkable originally.

However, I am not by any means at the point to be turned onto Universal Studios. My gosh, I went there for the first time and wanted to leave after four hours. I have spent nineteen hours in one day at the Magic Kingdom and still wanted more. (Got there at 7 am and stayed till 2 am thanks to extra magic hours) To answer the question “when as the last time you were amazed at Disneyâ€

[Captain Schnemo]

We're mostly talking about new attractions, and where WDW is going from here. I note that most of the attractions you speak highly of are old ones, and when you say you never get tired of the MK, you're talking about the large foundation of goodness that Disney built up before it started turning sour. As you say, you simply ignore a lot of the crap.

The reason we're discussing Universal (specifically Islands of Adventure) is because that's where the real innovation has taken place recently. We're not suggesting that you abandon the Disney parks (although I have), we're just focussing on innovation.

However, I am not by any means at the point to be turned onto Universal Studios. My gosh, I went there for the first time and wanted to leave after four hours.

Did you go to the Studios only or did you visit Islands of Adventure? I agree that four hours in the Studios is my max. I can easily kill a whole day in IOA, and could probably do so even without going on any attractions. That place has serious quality atmosphere.

I am still baffled by Universal's horrible advertising. In ten years, they still have not made the necessary effort to make it clear that IOA is a completely different park. I suppose it would be tough to say "If you hated our crappy Studios park, never fear, we've got a new one that doesn't suck!", but there's got to be some way to artfully make that point.

Frankly, if I weren't a theme park geek who pays attention to these things, I'd have no interest in going back to Universal Orlando based solely on my experiences at the Studios in the 90s.

Come to think of it, maybe you are talking about Universal Hollywood, which further confuses the issue.

Also, in Disneyland in Anaheim, when I saw the “Remember Dreams Come Trueâ€

[MintJulepRoo]

I do understand that the focus is on new attractions but I guess it’s obvious I cannot defend those. I must use the “classicsâ€

[Cheshire Cat]

I'd have to say the last time Disney did something that really wowed me was the Tree of Life. A simple idea, executed extremely well, and unlike anything else I'd ever seen. (The decor in the D&D-type restaurant in IoA is either homage or cheap knockoff, depending on your sensibilities.)

Of course, then they ruined it by putting that bug 3D movie inside it. Not that that's a bad attraction either, but it's hardly appropriate for a park icon.

While I agree the show in it's current Pixar state shouldn't be in Animal Kingdom I think showcasing bugs inside the tree was a great idea. Much like how, even though Spaceship Earth is the central icon of epcot, it showcases (or showcased ) communication; hardly a central theme of technology, but probably the most important cornerstone. That's what insects are to the animal kingdom, an important cornerstone quite literally at the "foundation" of the rest of the animal world.

[Captain Schnemo]

I get where you're coming from, and I think it's an interesting thought, but even in that context, I don't think the Pixar tie-in leads to an appropriate examination of the topic. The importance of insects is mentioned and all, but only in the context of singing cartoony creations.

I don't think that has much to do with the spirit of the AK itself...or at least it's not fitting for the park icon. The jokes about poop and stank don't match the majesty of the Tree of Life.

[DisBeamer]

Do you think they could even do it? Does the necessary talent exist there? How could it?

I think it's awfully hard to judge this without knowing who's there and how the company functions 'for reals' on the inside, isn't it? I mean, it's entirely possible that there are a lot of creative underlings in WDI having their souls crushed by middle and upper management. Maybe it's the optimist in me, but I'd find it easier to believe that proliferation of non-artists at mid and upper levels of management has more to do with the decline in creativity than that they just can't find creative types to hire. That's probably the single biggest difference between the old days and now, to my mind. Walt was, quite literally, an artist. Now the people at the top are businessmen.

But fast forward to today, in a time when Disney's customers don't even understand a product if it isn't marketed to them in a specific way ("What? This hotel has no Nemo? How will I know it's Disney?!?"), could any young artist think of a worse fate than being absorbed into a soulless corporate behemoth?

This is a tricky one. There are a number of talented and creative artists I've seen online (on devArt, for instance) who seem very, very interested in working for Disney. There's also a lot of chatter about what a crummy employer Disney is (for artists, as well as everyone else), and lack of job security and such.

Part of me wonders if society hasn't changed sufficiently since the 50s (ish) that really leading edge creative talent wouldn't turn up their noses at Disney entertainment at this point, because of its reputation for being wholesome (which, evidently, isn't cool anymore). On the other hand, the folks at Pixar aren't all that old, and they're creative without feeling the need to paint a big black H on a canvas and sell it for 3 million, so I can only assume there are others out there who'd fit the Disney bill.

I guess the bottom line is I find it hard to criticize the bottom-tier Imagineers for having no creativity when all we have to look at is the final result, if the final result is, presumably, filtered through x^n levels of management. Especially if the management tiers are peopled with bean counters and not artists. Criticizing the setup as a whole is just, though. I'm honestly not sure what the odds are there'll ever be a creative team like Walt and Roy. It seems like the company's been chasing the dragon for a long time now. Maybe the downward spiral is inevitable.

[Cheshire Cat]

I take my previous comment back. It's all upper managment.
Look what they can do without restrictions. The structure alone is incredible...
http://disneyandmore.blogspot.com/2008/ ... t-wdi.html