> 2. Disney has a POOR record for technical quality. <snip>
>
> For any of you who have worked for Disney interactive, I am
> curious, are the quality issues due to non-negotiable
> deadlines for getting the product out, that just don't allow
> for sufficient testing/debugging time? With someone like Kerry
Thompson on their team in
> the past, that obviously is not the case. So what gives?
Thanks for the confidence ^_^
I think Disney has a problem with their basic approach. What it boils
down to is that they hire really, really talented management and
producers--people at the top of the industry. Unfortunately, the
industry they're at the top of is film and theme parks, so they approach
computer entertainment the same way they approach movies. They don't
understand the unique demands and capabilities of the medium, nor of
their audience.
They don't hire education professionals (or at least didn't--I left
about 5 years back). They don't hire designers who understand kids or
teaching.
Case in point. I was "production manager" (a film term) for their
biggest game project to date. The creative lead was brilliant--he had an
Oscar nomination for best screenplay. But that brilliance didn't lead to
a super game, but a mediocre one that you've probably never heard of
("Villains' Night Out" I think it was--I left before it was done).
I've also never seen a successful interactive company so legally-driven,
nor with such a ponderous bureaucracy. We'd work in a frenzy for weeks
on a concept, and produce reams of storyboards and scripts, plus some
working proof-of-concept demos. Then we'd basically sit and wait for a
couple of weeks for approval to move on to the next step. What usually
happened was a busy Disney V.P. would come in, see our 15-minute
presentation, tell us we should make this and that basic change, and oh
by the way we can't use this particular Disney character, then he or she
would disappear for another 6 weeks.
Meanwhile, I'd wheedle and cajole the lawyers to get the contracts ready
for our free-lancers (true to Hollywood style, Disney has relatively few
employees, and relies heavily on outside talent). When I'd finally get
the contracts, if the talent hadn't moved on to something else, the
contract language was so draconian that only people who really needed
the work would agree to it. Did you know that if you do work for Disney,
you can't even legally say on your resume that you worked for Disney?
(Hollywood again--actors' resumes (or cinematographers or production
accountants) never say they worked on a Disney or Sony film, just that
they played such-and-such a role in a certain movie). And, of course,
everything you produce belongs to Disney--an artist has to give up all
originals, for example.
I think you're starting to get the picture of a company with just
fantastic potential, and some of the best franchises in the world
(Mickey Mouse, Pooh, Lion King--the list goes on forever), but with a
structure that discourages excellence, at least in the interactive
field.
My take from having been on the inside, anyway.
Cordially,
Kerry Thompson
[To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to
http://www.penworks.com/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list, email [EMAIL
PROTECTED] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]). Lingo-L is for learning and helping
with programming Lingo. Thanks!]
