| # | Author | Message |
71
| crapshoot
Sat 6/28/2008 10:12p | <<"It's a shame folks here are so quick to diminish John Lasseter's contributions behind the scenes."
More Pixar rides?>>
I don't believe that Lasseter has anything to do with those types of decisions. I believe that he is merely consulted on story content, and probably very little of that.
I never got a warm fuzzy feeling that he was all that impressed with Buzz at DL for instance. And I have heard that he was presented with a very elaborate Cars attraction concept when first arriving at WDI only to then be told that a much more modest version would be all that they could pull off.
Sort of a bait and switch tatic of sorts, if that makes sense. |
72
| Zwitek
Sun 6/29/2008 8:45a | <<<< I believe Carsland is being planned not because it was the best idea that WDI had for DCA, but because Cars merchandise sells so well to the Nascar, Wal-Mart and Larry the Cable Guy crowds. >>>>
I couldn't care less about Nascar, I loathe WalMart, and I've never watched Larry the Cable Guy, and I LOVED Cars.
I can't wait for Cars-Land. My inner 8 year old cannot WAIT to enter that world.
|
73
| skinnerbox
Sun 6/29/2008 10:26a | "And I have heard that he was presented with a very elaborate Cars attraction concept when first arriving at WDI only to then be told that a much more modest version would be all that they could pull off."
Typical.
The Principle Creative Advisor position was the "first sample is FREE" enticement for Lasseter to approve the Pixar acquisition. Jay Rasulo had no intention to let Lasseter make any big boy decisions, let alone spend any serious money for park projects that Fanboy John drooled over.
As crapshoot said, it was bait-n-switch. Pure-n-simple. |
74
| Dabob2
Sun 6/29/2008 1:10p | On the other hand, reports are that the Nemo subs ended up costing more than originally budgeted because Lasseter insisted on a certain level of quality that initial tests were not showing. Don't know if that's true, but that's what was going around. |
75
| crapshoot
Sun 6/29/2008 3:11p | <<On the other hand, reports are that the Nemo subs ended up costing more than originally budgeted because Lasseter insisted on a certain level of quality that initial tests were not showing.>>
I would imagine that that was more of a software issue. But certainly nowhere near the high percentage that the over runs of the magnetic induction drive system ended up costing them.
Or even the huge number of digital projectors that were used with excessively costing, yet short duty projector lamps that the park has to maintain and constantly replace at $1500 a pop.
Another rumor is that due to construction cost over runs, the dry for wet boxes did not get the proper cooling/ventilation systems that the projectors require. So they are failing at a much greater rate than the manufacturer warranted for.
Lastly, as a result of the new drive system for the Subs themselves, they travel at a slower speed than was originally planned for so the per hour ride capacity is less than desirable.
But all those problem areas that I mention are definetly a result of WDI/DL Project Management and Bean Countateers first and foremost. |
76
| bean
Sun 6/29/2008 7:07p | ""And I have heard that he was presented with a very elaborate Cars attraction concept when first arriving at WDI only to then be told that a much more modest version would be all that they could pull off."
not exactly sure where you heard this but the original Cars attraction version was much more modest than the one being designed and built now.
That attraction was basically a street with shops and eateries and the attraction at the end. This new version is much more emmersive.
Unless there is another version i am not aware off but to say the version being built is modest is incorrect. Its a huge expensive and elaborate project |
77
| crapshoot
Sun 6/29/2008 8:43p | <<Unless there is another version i am not aware off but to say the version being built is modest is incorrect.>>
What was pitched originally to Lasseter were three Cars attractions layered ontop of one another. 1st being something akin to Test Track, 2nd being something akin to Autopia, 3rd being something akin to Knott's Tijuana Taxi RIP.
|
78
| Dabob2
Mon 6/30/2008 9:33a | Re #75: I know there were various reasons for the Nemo cost overruns, but several sources said that one of them was that Lasseter was not satisfied with initial tests and wanted something better.
Also, I think bean is correct (he usually is) on the current Cars project being more elaborate than originally proposed.
Both of which would contradict the idea that Lasseter can not "make any big boy decisions, let alone spend any serious money." |
79
| dshyates
Mon 6/30/2008 9:47a | Mr. Lutz also claimed that it was JL who pushed the LM ride's cost up and expanded its footprint to include the restrooms next to the GD theater. |
80
| Hans Reinhardt
Mon 6/30/2008 10:04a | "What exactly is wrong with Pixar rides if they're high-quality?"
May I chime in?
Too often the Pixar stories are out of line with the theme (ie: Nemo/Monsters in Tomorrowland) In addition, with all the characters proliferating about the place, the experiences are becoming more and more similar. As Spokker said, it's more about synergy than creativity. In the end the customer is served an experience that is overtly commercial and far less compelling. Clever technology aside, all these new Pixar attractions are about the same thing: cartoons. |
