John Lasseter the New Walt Disney?

[tmh331]

Originally Posted by Robert Cook

I've certainly heard this argument a number of times before and have considered it, but I do see fundamental differences between young people raised in different cultures, and I believe that the culture of every society does change in some ways over time. Putting these two ideas together, it stands to reason that there will be real differences between different generations within a society. To this I add the notion I have that everybody--not just young adults--these days seems to always be in a hurry and have attention deficit disorder. Twenty years ago, I never, ever saw people reading things while driving, but lately I've noticed one woman reading a novel, a bus driver reading a newspaper, and several people apparently texting (I was riding shotgun at the time, which allowed me to notice these things), not to mention all the people who yap-yap-yap constantly on their cell phones while gesticulating wildly at the wheel. Back when I was a teenager, people sometimes didn't pay enough attention or were putting on makeup while operating vehicles, but there has definitely been some "progress" made in the types and level of distractions available to the average person. It's like comparing the availability and utilization of credit cards between generations--some people were nuts back then, but nothing like how nutty even more people are today.

Have you considered that maybe some things do keep getting worse over time as civilizations "progress" farther and farther away from our natural state? Rome was growing decadent, and so are we. Once in a long while, there is a "reset" as old civilizations decline and new ones arise, only to go through the same basic process that the previous ones did.



I'm comparing my general observations of others from then and now, not of myself at that age. If I look at just myself then and now, I'd say that although I've consciously resisted many changes that others have freely embraced, I am definitely more distracted now than I was back then, even though I was already on the Internet at the time. Maybe I was wrong to frame this issue just in terms of young people, but that seemed like the most relevant point of view when I wrote it.



These are universal truths with which I am familiar, but society has changed and therefore kids have changed in some ways with it. In this case, it is easy to separate what you've described from the actual changes because the latter seem to have affected adults over a wide range of ages, as well.



Well, there you have it! Maybe it's true or becomes increasingly true over time.

But what I really meant was that it's not a major attraction in most people's minds. As a young child, I liked it just fine, but I rarely visited because to me the whole of Disneyland was like an even bigger and better Tom Sawyer Island.

Most certainly we are changing as a civilization, the level of productivity required from today's worker far exceeds anything previous generations could comprehend.

What I disagreed with is the statement that "kids today...", had you stated, Society today, I would have probably agreed with you. I think we both agree that society is changing, where we differ is in the logical parallels we feel that entities us to make. I also agree that at some point if we don't change our path we will end up like the Romans (if you follow their history you can easily make many comparisons) but this is not the right forum for that discussion.

But we will never agree that TSI is not a major attraction. Once my chidren are fully grown maybe, but for now it is definitely a favorite!

[disneylanddad]

Wow, I never thought I would get such a conversation started. I sometimes like to ask questions that cause sharp lines to be drawn in opinion. Good conversation! Two of my favorite story tellers, Lasseter and Disney. I would have to agree with the majority and say they are both very gifted, but no one could EVER replace Walt.

[CASurfer65]

Originally Posted by Mr Wiggins

Walt was Walt because of many things, including his talent, his personality and the position he held in his company.

Walt ran Disney. John works for Disney.

Walt was Disney.

Saying that John works for Disney sums it up nicely.

There will never be another Walt Disney.

[animagusurreal]

Originally Posted by Mr Wiggins

Walt was Walt because of many things, including his talent, his personality and the position he held in his company.

Walt ran Disney. John works for Disney.

Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if Pixar had not taken the Disney deal, eventually went on to distribute their own films, grew into a larger studio, and built their own theme park. Is that kind of thing even possible today? I’d like to see somebody do it. I think what Disneyland needs is competition from another full-fledged theme park (and I mean theme park, not coaster park or studio park )


Anyway, I think John cares about story and character and pushing the envelope the way Walt did, and I think he also has a talent for being a distinct "personality" that represents his company they way Walt did. However, Walt is Walt and John is John and Disney is Disney and Pixar is Pixar, even though Disney owns Pixar

[Mr Wiggins]

Originally Posted by animagusurreal

Disney is Disney and Pixar is Pixar...

I wish.

With Buzz in Tomorrowland, Nemo in the Submarines, Woody strolling the streets of Frontierland, and Toy Story, Monsters and Cars in DCA, it seems Disney doesn't care what it is, so long as it makes money.

[animagusurreal]

Originally Posted by Mr Wiggins

I wish.

With Buzz in Tomorrowland, Nemo in the Submarines, Woody strolling the streets of Frontierland, and Toy Story, Monsters and Cars in DCA, it seems Disney doesn't care what it is, so long as it makes money.

I guess I was thinking more of the film studios when I wrote "Disney is Disney and Pixar is Pixar." Pixar has their own unique style, which is why I suggested a separate "Pixarland" a while back. Even though I like elements of some of the Pixar based attractions, I don't think any of them really feels Pixar the way a great Disney attraction feels Disney (whether or not it has pre-existing Disney characters in it), nor do any of the Pixar rides really represent the individual film properties they're based on. There are now two Toy Story attractions at the DLR, and neither is really devoted to taking us into the world of Toy Story.

[bfdf55]

Originally Posted by DisneyIPresume

It's exactly Pressler who I was referring to there.

I said, "Even if the decisions were to save money, there excuse was always for the betterment of the park." (Oops -- I should have said their).

I know that all Pressler did was cut costs which led to decrease in quality of the park. But although I can't recall anything specific, I'm sure the spin generated to justify such cutbacks were to accentuate that these cutbacks would ultimately lead to a better experience, which in the case of Pressler was not the situation 99% of the time.

I really don’t think Pressler even tried to make excuses, especially that what he was doing was for the betterment of the park. If he did make an excuse, it probably was that he didn’t have a choice. Eisner wanted his results.

Originally Posted by DisneyIPresume

Lasseter has done and is doing good things for the parks and animation. I just don't see the same level of enthusiasm as Walt had, and I wish he had more influence over the others especially Jay Rasulo like Walt had over his colleagues.

As I said, Lasseter’s entheusiasm has been tempered by Disney’s management. Lasseter’s position gives him NO major significant roll beyond what Iger allows. To be a true new Walt. there can be NO restraints. Even Rasulo is allowed more “enthusiasm” (not that he has any) than Lasseter.

[bfdf55]

Originally Posted by tmh331

Honestly, I think it is a better park today than it was 20 years ago. While many may disagree with specific decisions of previous managers/executives the end product is a great park which, IMO, continues to improve and adapt.

The only reason the Disneyland is in the relatively good condition it’s in today is because of Matt Ouimat. If he hadn’t been put in place to invigorate the park for the 50th, there’s no telling how bad it would be today.

And, consider how great the park would have been if Pressler hadn’t had his stint at DL. If Ouimat had been there over that entire period, the park would probably be glowing and still be at the top of it’s game.

[Datameister]

Originally Posted by bfdf55

The only reason the Disneyland is in the relatively good condition it’s in today is because of Matt Ouimat. If he hadn’t been put in place to invigorate the park for the 50th, there’s no telling how bad it would be today.

And, consider how great the park would have been if Pressler hadn’t had his stint at DL. If Ouimat had been there over that entire period, the park would probably be glowing and still be at the top of it’s game.

Just like we have to be careful about assigning blame on just one person, we have to be careful about giving all the positive credit to just one person. Big companies are a lot more complicated than that. One person high up in the hierarchy can make big differences, yes, but let's not oversimplify the issue. Ouimet did some very cool things for the park, but he couldn't have done it alone.

Also...some bad choices have certainly been made and are probably in the process of being made and probably will be made in the future, but Disneyland is still "glowing" for me. The mistakes Disney has made in recent years haven't been enough to destroy the monumental achievement that is Disneyland.

[Robert Cook]

Originally Posted by Datameister

I guess my point was just that as much as I get frustrated with things that were done in the last decade or two, it's reassuring to know that the park hasn't been irreparably damaged.

The old parking lot, on the other hand...

DCA's issues aside, ahem, I have to say that I miss walking across that big old parking lot with Disneyland growing ever closer. Back then, it wasn't until one actually walked through the entry tunnels under the berm that the rest of the world completely disappeared. While expanding the resort in this manner was all but inevitable, this carefully designed magical transition from reality to Walt's fantasy world has largely been lost or rather blurred. I also miss trying to locate my car from the Monorail as it traversed the old parking lot.

Originally Posted by TwilitWings

Also, although many would argue that the Pixar movies have not reached the heights of say, Beauty and the Beast, one must also admit that there was a pre-existing story/fable with many of the Disney stories whereas the Pixar movies do have a slightly more "original" take on things.

While credit must be given for taking risks and being able to succeed with original stories (A Bug's Life notwithstanding ), it was Walt who started out in animated features by making rather original and creative versions of classic tales, much to the eternal chagrin of literary purists (especially since Disney's versions tend to become the "official" ones over time ). I suppose his reasons were the name recognition and the fact that most of the greatest stories have already been told, but even the newer movies are pretty original beyond the initial setup. For instance, the importance of the Beast's side of the story in Beauty and the Beast is something that I have not come across in the many versions of the story I've read.

I was just trying to say that to me the Pixar movies, taken as a group, are a bit overrated in comparison to Disney's own animated features before the animation department essentially went belly-up. For those who agree, this tempers the view that somebody from Pixar is going to be some kind of savior for Disney's hand-drawn animation as well as its theme parks. John Lasseter is very talented and I wish him all the luck and success in the world, but I'm hardly ready to anoint him as the next Walt Disney--we'll have to wait and see what happens.

Originally Posted by tmh331

Most certainly we are changing as a civilization, the level of productivity required from today's worker far exceeds anything previous generations could comprehend.

I think that's an exaggeration. I'm pretty sure that many people had to work hard just to survive in previous generations, especially without modern conveniences such as indoor plumbing. Actual productivity may change because of various factors such as the development of more efficient tools and working methods, but on an individual basis, I doubt that people work any harder today. If anything, there is much more of a sense of entitlement today, as if the world somehow owes each person a certain standard of living, including many luxuries, whether or not a person can actually afford it. The easy availability of credit in the form of plastic cards has largely destroyed any sense of the value of money and the time it takes to earn money. Time in particular is just not relevant to most people these days--they'll pay it all back "someday." This chronic form of procrastination most likely insinuates itself into other aspects of behavior, too. No wonder so many recent college graduates of my generation and later move back home with mom and dad. It's not that the cost of living is too high, it's because they've already filled up eight credit cards going to Starbucks several times a day for $5 coffee in addition to many other chronic abuses of luxury items (e.g. video games at $50 a pop, stacks of DVDs, a top-of-the-line bleeding-edge designer laptop or overpriced Mac, a plasma TV in their dorm ) and services that really add up.

Originally Posted by tmh331

What I disagreed with is the statement that "kids today...", had you stated, Society today, I would have probably agreed with you.

Well, kids growing up in today's society don't know any other way of life, and this all started early enough to have high-schoolers now that are the children of the generation that was first subjected to this latest paradigm shift. I only mentioned "kids" specifically because most of the visible CMs are young adults and teens, but it still applies to them.

Originally Posted by tmh331

But we will never agree that TSI is not a major attraction. Once my chidren are fully grown maybe, but for now it is definitely a favorite!

Fair enough, we all have different opinions and perceptions. I certainly do have fond memories of TSI from my own childhood.

Originally Posted by animagusurreal

Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if Pixar had not taken the Disney deal, eventually went on to distribute their own films, grew into a larger studio, and built their own theme park. Is that kind of thing even possible today? I’d like to see somebody do it.

I suppose that it's still possible, albeit unlikely. Then again, it was unlikely back in Walt's day, too. It all depends on who the "power players" are and the circumstances surrounding the studio. In this specific case, it was always rather unlikely because Disney and Pixar have such an obvious synergy that a deal was almost certainly going to be worked out somehow. Walt Disney himself really only strove for independence in terms of marketing and distribution after he was badly "burned" a few times, and I'd hardly say that Pixar was ever burned in this manner by Disney.

Originally Posted by animagusurreal

I think what Disneyland needs is competition from another full-fledged theme park (and I mean theme park, not coaster park or studio park )

Well, nearby Knott's Berry Farm used to compete directly with Disneyland, and it still does to some degree. Although self-billed as "America's 1st Theme Park" (there had been earlier ones ), it only had Ghost Town initially, and actually built Disney-style themed attractions such as the Calico Mine Ride and the Timber Mountain Log Ride a little later. Unfortunately, this park is quite messed up now as a theme park because of all of the rollercoasters installed in such a limited space by current owner Cedar Fair. There is also Universal's Islands of Adventure park in Orlando, Legoland in Carlsbad (San Diego County), and the SeaWorld parks, but not a whole lot else that is comparable within the United States.

So would a Pixar theme park provide better and/or more direct competition with the Disney theme parks? Well, any competition is a good thing for maintaining quality at DLR and WDW, but I haven't been overly impressed with anything based on Pixar's movies thus far (It's Tough To Be a Bug is the best of the bunch). They're a great group of movies that show much creativity, but much of it is hard to translate into theme park attractions without making everything seem rather plastic and fake. The whole concept behind "Disney" is broader and essentially based on a cult of personality, which is something that is hard to duplicate.

If you want more competition, let's wait and see what happens over at Dubailand (and how viable the concept is in the long run).

Originally Posted by animagusurreal

Anyway, I think John cares about story and character and pushing the envelope the way Walt did,

He cares about story and character, definitely, but so far he hasn't pushed the envelope the way that Walt always had. I'd say that even Disney's animated features of the 1990s pushed the envelope farther in some ways, for that matter.

Originally Posted by animagusurreal

and I think he also has a talent for being a distinct "personality" that represents his company they way Walt did.

No offense intended to anybody, but in the scope of the general public, John is not the figure that Walt was and still is decades after his passing. If you asked John I'm sure that he'd tell you the same thing himself with no false modesty.

[Uncle Bob]

I think that one day someone will develop the next generation theme park, but who knows where is might come from. I'm not sure that it will be an animation studio again. It might be so different from DL that many of us Disney fans won't like it. It might be so cool that we all love it and Disney has to really compete to keep its fans.

In any case, I do think it could happen, but I also realize that the cost of creating something that really blows us away there days is immense, so it will take an individual with enough money and influence like a Walt, who had a personal passion for making the idea a reality. How often does someone like that come around? Not too often obviously, and they also have to meet with the right timing and circumstances. But, what one man can do, another can do, eventually when the time is right, another Walt like person could come around. But to be honest, I'm not holding my breath.

[hollywood1939]

I would say that John is the closest thing to the "New Walt Disney" (him or Tony Baxter IMO). He certainly get's it. I believe he has pushed the envelope and has tried to before when he got fired from Walt Disney Studios. Also him looking at FNSV and telling them to re-work a lot of it.

I just hope it doesn't get to his head. He gets it, he gets what Walt was trying to do. If you ever hear John Lasseter talk about Walt Disney you will see that he knows what Walt did and tries to do the same thing with his own twist and with how Pixar has done, I say it has worked.

We can't tell what he'll do as head of WDI but we'll see. I'm sure glad he is very hands on with the DCA changes and they have put a lot of his ideas into it.

I sure look forward for things to come with the way his mind works.

[Mr Wiggins]

Originally Posted by hollywood1939

We can't tell what he'll do as head of WDI but we'll see.

John is not the head of WDI.

[hollywood1939]

Originally Posted by Mr Wiggins

John is not the head of WDI.

Well whatever he is.

[Coheteboy]

Originally Posted by hollywood1939

I would say that John is the closest thing to the "New Walt Disney" (him or Tony Baxter IMO). He certainly get's it. I believe he has pushed the envelope and has tried to before when he got fired from Walt Disney Studios. Also him looking at FNSV and telling them to re-work a lot of it.

I don't think John gets it, to be honest. He pushes for better quality.. which is definitely the heart of Disneyland and everything that came after, but a lot more is needed.

If it were me, Subs would get that budget and restoration... and without the finding nemo overlay. Building A Bug's Land with more than the cheap assortment of kiddie attractions would be getting it.

There's just too many Fantasyland going on around the entire resorts and an over-presence of Pixar... and I love pixar movies. He just needs to stop and ask himself what makes Jungle Cruise a classic (he should know, he was a skip). Why do people love Pirates and Haunted Mansion? Is it only the themes? Or is there a greater mind at work?

I think John is letting the inner geek and love for his own characters get the best of him when it comes to WDI.