Attendance at Universal declines becasue of WDW's recent marketing

[crazy4wdw]

Universal posts record profit
Earnings rise to $35.3 million despite attendance drop

Scott Powers | Sentinel Staff Writer
Posted April 1, 2006

Universal Orlando overcame a steep drop in attendance last year -- which it blamed in part on Walt Disney World's aggressive marketing -- to earn record profits.

The parent company, Universal City Development Partners, on Friday reported a 3 percent improvement in operating profit in 2005, to $141 million. After paying debt interest, Universal finished with a net income of $35.3 million, up from $22.5 million in 2004.

Yet Universal Studios and Islands of Adventure suffered a combined 11 percent plunge in paid attendance, to 10,772,000, according to the annual report. That drop is even steeper than the 8.5 percent estimated by a widely cited trade magazine, Amusement Business.

Universal offered several reasons for the smaller crowds: The year 2004 brought record attendance, which was tough to sustain in 2005. Gas prices kept people away. Consumer sentiment weakened. And Disney's big 50th-anniversary promotion and new flexible ticket plans lured people away.

Still, the privately held Universal -- which in 2004 became part of General Electric Co. -- made money partly by getting the average visitor to spend 8 percent more on everything from soda to T-shirts. It also earned 6 percent more from such sources as hotel contracts and corporate sponsorships. And Universal cut operating costs nearly 3 percent, employing 700 fewer people in 2005.

"Our positive financial performance during 2005 is a credit to the strength and dedication of our management team and our employees," Bob Gault, president of Universal Orlando Resort, said in a written statement. "During a year that included some attendance challenges, we were able to control our costs and increase our revenue-per-guest so that we actually grew our operating income. We are a stronger business today."

Company officials would not comment further.

Universal hopes to boost attendance this year with a new advertising campaign, its own flexible ticket plan and a "kids get in free" deal.

Several industry observers said the company needs to, because attendance is the driving factor of theme-park income.

Dennis Speigel, president of the Cincinnati-based International Theme Park Services, said Disney's big campaign has been "knocking down attendance" at all competing parks.

"Plus, Universal's been going through a difficult time. I think with the new ownership there's certainly been a strong undercurrent [of talk] in the industry that they're not supporting the parks very well," he said.

Universal officials have denied that support is lacking. And the report says the company intends to spend $65 million on improvements this year, up from $30 million last year.

Still, the 2005 report states that Universal Orlando employed 12,900 workers, while the previous one reported 13,600 employees.

Scott Powers can be reached at spowers@orlandosentinel.com or 407-420-5441.

[peter11435]

Good excuse. Blame it on the competition.

[ChrisFL]

Good excuse. Blame it on the competition.

why start the hate?

[peter11435]

why start the hate?
No hate.

But I mean really. As a company saying you performed poorly because of the competition is not the best move. Pepsi isn't going to come out and say our sales declined but it wasn't our fault its because Coca-Cola did so well.

[TheBellhop]

why start the hate?

Universal kind of deserves it. Did you see their commercials?

[WillyDogs]

you know you're number one when you don't have to talk about the competition. Coke never brings up Pepsi. McDonalds never talks about Burger King or anyone else. Disney doesn't talk about Universal. You know you're number 2 when you feel you have to talk about the competition and put them down. Pepsi always makes fun of Coke. Burger King has trampled on McDonalds. Miller Lite constantly picks on Budweiser. And Universal took a jab at Disney.

[TheBellhop]

you know you're number one when you don't have to talk about the competition. Coke never brings up Pepsi. McDonalds never talks about Burger King or anyone else. Disney doesn't talk about Universal. You know you're number 2 when you feel you have to talk about the competition and put them down. Pepsi always makes fun of Coke. Burger King has trampled on McDonalds. Miller Lite constantly picks on Budweiser. And Universal took a jab at Disney.

I'd never thought about it that way, good observation.

[MUFFYCAT]

you know you're number one when you don't have to talk about the competition. Coke never brings up Pepsi. McDonalds never talks about Burger King or anyone else. Disney doesn't talk about Universal. You know you're number 2 when you feel you have to talk about the competition and put them down. Pepsi always makes fun of Coke. Burger King has trampled on McDonalds. Miller Lite constantly picks on Budweiser. And Universal took a jab at Disney.

Excellant point :thumbsup2

We went to Universal once and left a day earlier, we didn't like it at all. :sad2:

[bicker]

As a company saying you performed poorly The company performed well, not poorly.

[peter11435]

The company performed well, not poorly.
The parent company performed well, Universal Orlando performed poorly.

[bicker]

Read it again. "Our positive financial performance during 2005 is a credit to the strength and dedication of our management team and our employees," Bob Gault, president of Universal Orlando Resort, said in a written statement. "During a year that included some attendance challenges, we were able to control our costs and increase our revenue-per-guest so that we actually grew our operating income. We are a stronger business
today."

[peter11435]

[left]Read it again.
They had a positive performance because they made more per guest and cut back spending by among other things cutting back by 700 workers. If you look at this http://www.orlandosentinel.com/media/graphic/2006-04/22727543.jpg you will see that revenue decreased in theme park passes, merchandise, and food. The only reason they were able to come out ahead was because they cut costs. That is not performing well. For a company to be successful revenue needs to increase. You’re not doing well if the only way to increase profit is to decrease costs. They are a theme park. Attendance is key to a theme park and you can't spin an 11% dip in attendance around and try to say that’s performing well.

[bicker]

They had a positive performance because they made more per guest and cut back spending by among other things cutting back by 700 workers.Precisely. The company performed well, not poorly.

The only reason they were able to come out ahead was because they cut costs. That is not performing well.Uh, yes it is.

For a company to be successful revenue needs to increase.Not necessarily.

You’re not doing well if the only way to increase profit is to decrease costs.In the context of one year, yes, you are doing well.

[peter11435]

Cutting costs to mask the fact that revenue decreased by a large amount IS NOT performing well, even in the context of 1 year. And again I say that as a theme park attendance is key. For a parks attendance to drop 11% is not good, and can not be seen as performing well. The park did not perform well in 2005, they simply made changes (costs, employees, etc.) so that it would not be as bad for them.

[bicker]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[peter11435]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Sounds good.

[Spectro is #1]

I will agree that to have a successful operation your goal is to GROW. Cutting your staff can be a direct result of losing customers. Decreasing services can also create a downward effect of losing more customers.

They didn't hire staff because they had less customers.

How is this performing well? Don't fall into the spin. I will bet you that the big wigs at GE did not look at the numbers and say "well its a good thing we hired less people this year. Travel to OIA is past pre 9/11 numbers but our parks have less customers. What a positive year!"

I can tell you I find US and IOA need to give me more reasons to visit. They are slow to add rides and shows. Sea World is expanding and adding new shows based on the same problem. All of central Florida uses the amount of traffic through OIA as a gauge to determine potential market share. If travel is down attendance numbers may reflect that however if travel numbers are up so should your attendance.

And can someone please tell me when all of these companies sighted that they out marking one another as a reason for market share loss.

Yes ads do compare and contrast one brand to the next but that is not the issue. We are talking about an excuse for poor performance. I only remember politicians sighting being out spent as an excuse for losing.

[Luv2Roam]

It appears Magical Express and DDP (free or not) has been a terrific marketing tool. :banana: Way to go somebody! :thumbsup2 :rotfl2:
Why didn't USO come up with something to counter that?
We enjoy USO/IoA. But they really are no comparison to WDW. They try to target a different crowd because they can't compete on the same level as Disney.

[ChrisFL]

It appears Magical Express and DDP (free or not) has been a terrific marketing tool. :banana: Way to go somebody! :thumbsup2 :rotfl2:
Why didn't USO come up with something to counter that?
We enjoy USO/IoA. But they really are no comparison to WDW. They try to target a different crowd because they can't compete on the same level as Disney.


That may be YOUR opinion but there are many of us who enjoy US/IOA as much if not more than Disney. I try to enjoy both and think that Disney still is magical, but many of the reasons people go to US/IOA and enjoy it is because they've seen the magic go down in quality at Disney.

But for those of you who complain that Universal targets Disney in their ad campaigns, you all seem to have so much fun bashing Universal any single time there's a mention of them.

You're no better than these campaigns and articles you complain about.

[peter11435]

they've seen the magic go down in quality at Disney.

People like to say this but they never provide any proof. The truth is as Ben Franklin says in the AA "The golden age never was the present age."

[ChrisFL]

People like to say this but they never provide any proof. The truth is as Ben Franklin says in the AA "The golden age never was the present age."

no proof? Are you kidding? Have you read these boards at all?

[peter11435]

no proof? Are you kidding? Have you read these boards at all?
Yeah. I have been reading these boards for 6 years. I have heard many on these boards talk about how they feel the magic is less. But that doesn't constitute proof. I can say with 100% that I don't see any less magic in 2006 then I did in 1971. As I said "The golden age never was the present age."

Most of the time we remember things being far better than they actually were. A quick check of your profile shows you are under 30. Thus you would have only been a child in the supposed "golden age" of WDW. As a child things always seem better than they really are. WDW is no less magical today than it was in 1978. The only difference is you have grown up.

[2Xited4Disney]

Yeah. I have been reading these boards for 6 years. I have heard many on these boards talk about how they feel the magic is less. But that doesn't constitute proof. I can say with 100% that I don't see any less magic in 2006 then I did in 1971. As I said "The golden age never was the present age."

Most of the time we remember things being far better than they actually were. A quick check of your profile shows you are under 30. Thus you would have only been a child in the supposed "golden age" of WDW. As a child things always seem better than they really are. WDW is no less magical today than it was in 1978. The only difference is you have grown up.



I just learned about this in psychology. There is actually a specific term for this. It is sort of like "Kids had respect in my day"... well actually no they didn't you just precieved that they did.. If i can find the term i'll put the actual deffinition in here

[Spectro is #1]

The golden age is right!
Does anyone remember WDW in fiscal trouble because they were running on a shoestring budget?

ME took Disney public to raise capital. And the Disney Decade saw huge growth (some say too much).

I have to agree, I think people tend to remember things much better then they actually were.

[peter11435]

ME took Disney public to raise capital.


Just to correct you Eisner did not take Disney public. Disney went public long before Eisner came around. In fact it was Walt who took Disney public.

[Spectro is #1]

Yes I miss spoke 1957 was the year that Disney sold stock.

I was making a point that before ME and Wells, the stock was so under valued that the company was almost taken over. The point is things are not always as magical as we remember.

[peter11435]

I was making a point that before ME and Wells, the stock was so under valued that the company was almost taken over. The point is things are not always as magical as we remember.

Excellent point.

[ChrisFL]

Yeah. I have been reading these boards for 6 years. I have heard many on these boards talk about how they feel the magic is less. But that doesn't constitute proof. I can say with 100% that I don't see any less magic in 2006 then I did in 1971. As I said "The golden age never was the present age."

Most of the time we remember things being far better than they actually were. A quick check of your profile shows you are under 30. Thus you would have only been a child in the supposed "golden age" of WDW. As a child things always seem better than they really are. WDW is no less magical today than it was in 1978. The only difference is you have grown up.

So you're saying things like the off the shelf amusement rides like the DinoRama area, the new Stitch Encounter, the new Imagination ride, Mission:Space, could have been made in the past and people would love it?

Not to mention the entire blog from Imagineers about how things really were better. This is not a psychological situation.

Yes, I've been going to Disney all my life, my father helped to open EPCOT in '82 and worked there for many years, I've seen the changes, I've seen the employees themselves tell me how cheap things have become.

[peter11435]

So you're saying things like the off the shelf amusement rides like the DinoRama area, the new Stitch Encounter, the new Imagination ride, Mission:Space, could have been made in the past and people would love it?.


You mean off the shelf rides like Walts Dumbo, Mad Tea Party, and Carousel. These things are nothing new. I'll give you stitch and Imagination but to be honest Disney struck out in the past too. I can't even believe you lumped M:S into this.

And how can you mention those "failures" without mentioning Soarin', Expedition: Everest, and Mickey's Philharmagic.


Not to mention the entire blog from Imagineers about how things really were better. This is not a psychological situation. .

How do you know it was not a psychological situation. How do you know they were even Imagineers.



Yes, I've been going to Disney all my life, my father helped to open EPCOT in '82 and worked there for many years, I've seen the changes, I've seen the employees themselves tell me how cheap things have become.

You have also grown up a lot while going to WDW. You went from child to teen to adult in that time frame. Perception changes.

As for talking to employees. I never said that they have not cut costs in certain areas. I said that the magic is just as strong as ever. Money has nothing to do with magic.

[ChrisFL]

You mean off the shelf rides like Walts Dumbo, Mad Tea Party, and Carousel. These things are nothing new. I'll give you stitch and Imagination but to be honest Disney struck out in the past too. I can't even believe you lumped M:S into this.

And how can you mention those "failures" without mentioning Soarin', Expedition: Everest, and Mickey's Philharmagic.

M:S is not a Disney family friendly attraction in the classic sense. Many, many people get sick, feel queasy, have headaches and also say they'll never go on it again. I can think of no other previous Disney attraction that elicits that response from people.

The failures happened at the point when Universal was coming out with incredible new attractions, a whole new theme park and high end resorts. Disney has begun to improve recently, but there's a lot of work to do. Meanwhile when people were upset about the changes at Disney, they tried Universal and found out there's more than just one place in town for a great family vacation.

You could say that Soarin' is one bright spot in the rest of California Adventure which by all accounts was not created in the Disney spirit, once again evidence of Disney's decline in quality and passion at that time.

Then there's all of the imagineers that Disney's let go over the years. By the way, many ended up working at Universal Creative.

How do you know it was not a psychological situation. How do you know they were even Imagineers.

If I have to explain the difference between classic Disney quality and storytelling and what they've been giving us the past few years, then you may not understand what Disney used to represent.

Here is the blog Im referring to, see for yourself:

http://imagineerebirth.blogspot.com/



You have also grown up a lot while going to WDW. You went from child to teen to adult in that time frame. Perception changes.

As for talking to employees. I never said that they have not cut costs in certain areas. I said that the magic is just as strong as ever. Money has nothing to do with magic.

Again, I refer to the blog posted above since those articles written can go into much greater detail about the decline of Disney than I ever could.

[Luv2Roam]

I don't want anyone to think I was slamming USO. We have Premium APs there too and enjoy Universal and IoA. The Team members are very good. It is not unusual to see a Team Member approach a guest and sincerely ask if they are having a good time.
I am not sure I have ever seen that at WDW. Although I sure I have sometime. But I witness this almost every visit to USO.
We were balloon handlers at a Macy's Day parade this year at USO and LOVED it! :thumbsup2 It was a very magical moment. And something Disney does not have, and would not allow guests to do if they did.
IoA is great for tweens.
USO offers great times. But how many times can someone see Jaws or Twister, etc. (Although I have heard people say this about HM. But I would take HM any day over Jaws.) MIB and Mummy are about the only rides I can think of at USO worth going to on a regular basis.
I can see where USO would not get the return guests on a regular daily basis like Disney does.
USO needs Mardi Gras, bands, and HHN to really pull in guests. And yes, just my opinion. :thumbsup2 :wave: :moped:

[peter11435]

Meanwhile when people were upset about the changes at Disney, they tried Universal and found out there's more than just one place in town for a great family vacation.

Funny thing is there attendance does not and has never supported that claim.

[Another Voice]

Funny thing is there attendance does not and has never supported that claim.
Do you honestly believe half the stuff you type, or do just like to disagree with people?

Have you ever honestly read up on the history of Disney? Having an annual pass and the neighborhood's largerst trading pin collection doesn't really make you the expert. Opinions don't gain more relevance simply because they're repeated; they need to be presented rationally and with support.

[Sylvester McBean]

They had a positive performance because they made more per guest and cut back spending by among other things cutting back by 700 workers. If you look at this http://www.orlandosentinel.com/media/graphic/2006-04/22727543.jpg you will see that revenue decreased in theme park passes, merchandise, and food. The only reason they were able to come out ahead was because they cut costs. That is not performing well. For a company to be successful revenue needs to increase. You’re not doing well if the only way to increase profit is to decrease costs. They are a theme park. Attendance is key to a theme park and you can't spin an 11% dip in attendance around and try to say that’s performing well.

attendance numbers are only a partial factor in the equation. squeezing the most pennies out of each guest and operating efficiently is the winning combo. the more people WDW can keep on property and buying the $2.50 bottles of soda that they purchased for a nickel is key. UO's just doing the same thing.

[peter11435]

Do you honestly believe half the stuff you type, or do just like to disagree with people?

Have you ever honestly read up on the history of Disney? Having an annual pass and the neighborhood's largerst trading pin collection doesn't really make you the expert. Opinions don't gain more relevance simply because they're repeated; they need to be presented rationally and with support.

I have read dozens of books on Disney History including your beloved Disney War. I never claimed that costs were not cut. I never claimed that some standards have not been lowered. I simply stated, and I stand by my claim, that the "magic" at WDW is just as strong as ever. WDW today is not perfect, but contrary to what you and many others seem to think, it never was.

My post that you quoted is not my opinion it is fact. The numbers do not show that people have moved from Disney to Universal in large numbers. UO attendance this year went down. Disney's went up. The attendance at MK is larger than both Universal parks combined. And WDW's least attended park had attendance that is still millions ahead of either UO park.

And lastly I do not have a pin collection.

[peter11435]

attendance numbers are only a partial factor in the equation. squeezing the most pennies out of each guest and operating efficiently is the winning combo. the more people WDW can keep on property and buying the $2.50 bottles of soda that they purchased for a nickel is key. UO's just doing the same thing.
I agree 100%. There are far more factors than simply attendance. However a decrease in attendance is never a positive think.

[ChrisFL]

Funny thing is there attendance does not and has never supported that claim.

Oh of course, we should always go by the numbers and not opinions whenever we go to purchase something, right?

I mean, millions of people bought AOL memberships but that doesn't mean it's actually better than anything else.

Now please, before I get hate mail, Im not comparing AOL to Disney, far from it, Im just posting an example of flawed logic. I do enjoy Disney and Im actually going there to try out Everest (despite my better spring break crowd judgement).

These constant attacks against Universal tells me that things aren't always perfect in Disney, if they were no one would ever posting negative things about the competition.

[Sylvester McBean]

I'm a firm believer that some of the changes, additions, and programs at WDW lately have been prompted by UO and their successes. I love WDW, but I'm a happier consumer at UO. guest satisfaction doesn't seem to be a driving goal at WDW anymore in an overall sense. my wife is a flippin' WDW freak, and she's the first to critique WDW to me. the whole property has become a giant, cloned gift shop with attractions interspersed between them.

[Foladar]

Repeat after me.
Disney IS NOT Universal Orlando.
You are allowed to like them both.

Personally, I prefer USO because it seems less pricey, AP was $189 or $15 a month, compared to $400+ .. I don't mind hotel rooms, as I rarely stay onsite. But really, they're two different things - apples and oranges. Your allowed to like both of them, really. And I think peter11435 is just here for arguements :confused3

[susan1]

probably something to do with doing away the free fastpasses. the cost of buying them mounts up!

[peter11435]

You are allowed to like them both.

I actually do like them both.



And I think peter11435 is just here for arguements :confused3

You obviously do not know me or my history.

[All Aboard]

Precisely. The company performed well, not poorly.

Uh, yes it is.

Not necessarily.

In the context of one year, yes, you are doing well.

In the context of one year, you DID well. DOING well is growing your customer base and your top line revenue. Cutting costs, jetisoning employees and losing customers at the rate of 11% isn't DOING well. Keep that up for a few years and see how well you are doing.

[Sarangel]

In the interests of avoiding a "yes it is," "no it isn't" type of discussion, Peter can you refine this blanket statementI simply stated, and I stand by my claim, that the "magic" at WDW is just as strong as ever.into some specifics? How exactly do you feel that the magic is as strong as ever?

Personally, I find that I hear more grousing by CMs and see more neglected maintenance than when I first started visiting Florida's parks - for me this has reduced the magic (slightly, but still some). And just for reference, my first visit was in 2001 as an over-30 adult.

Sarangel

[peter11435]

Personally, I find that I hear more grousing by CMs and see more neglected maintenance than when I first started visiting Florida's parks - for me this has reduced the magic (slightly, but still some). And just for reference, my first visit was in 2001 as an over-30 adult.

Sarangel

I agree that I see more poor CM's nowadays. And there are a few maintenance issues (the Innoventions sign that hasn't lit for over 6 months) that I don't remember seeing in the past either.

However to me those do not represent the "magic" that is WDW. If you only look at the negative (and there was negative in 1971) anything will look bad. I agree there is slightly more "negative" to be seen at WDW today. But the magic is made up by the thousands of happy children and families enjoying themselves, the great CM’s (there still are many), the music and shows (watching FOTLK and the MK welcome show), the mix of great new and old attractions (Soarin’, POTC), the nightly fireworks (Wishes!), etc. If you want to go to WDW and see bad show and negative things you can, but to be honest you always could. And while there may be more negative these days it doesn't change the fact that if you want to go and have a magical time, you still can. Just as magical as ever. If you go to WDW and do not see "magic" then that’s your fault.

[Another Voice]

If you go to WDW and do not see "magic" then that’s your fault.
So if I go to a movie, I have to sit there and make it "good" no matter the filmamker decides to put up on the screen?

In other words, Mr. Peter, if you didn't like Shrek 2 it's all your fault. There were millions and millions of happy familes that saw the movie (just look at the box office). If you didn't see the magic, it's all because you just looked for the negative.

That's silly.

It's the job of the filmmaker - and the job of the theme park - to present an enjoyable experience. It is not my job as an audience to lower my expectations to accommodate whatever is presented to me.

Disney became a successful company because they didn’t demand their audience “find the magic” – it was because Disney constantly exceeded the public’s expectations, respected to the public and never settled for “good enough”.

You can replace your entire post with “lower your expectations and you’ll be happier”. Telling people what they enjoy is creating magic, it's marketing down.

[peter11435]

So if I go to a movie, I have to sit there and make it "good" no matter the filmamker decides to put up on the screen?

You can replace your entire post with “lower your expectations and you’ll be happier”. Telling people what they enjoy is creating magic, it's marketing down.

That is not what I said at all. I never said you have to lower your expectations. The fact is the Disney experience is good, the disney expereince is magical. The only reason some think otherwise is that they make it bad, not the other way around.



It's the job of the filmmaker - and the job of the theme park - to present an enjoyable experience.

Disney does present a very enjoyable expereince and the majority of park visitors see that. Only those who focus on the negative and try to have bad time don't see the that. If you go to WDW and try to me a critic you might be dissapointed. But the Disney parks were never meant to be experienced by critics they were meant for people looking for a good time.

[Another Voice]

That is not what I said at all. I never said you have to lower your expectations. The fact is the Disney experience is good, the disney expereince is magical. The only reason some think otherwise is that they make it bad, not the other way around.
You just said it again in the very same paragraph. You said that it’s my responsible to see the “magic” instead of Disney’s responsible to make me feel the “magic”. I have to accommodate to what Disney presents instead of Disney having to accommodate my desires.

Going to Disney World isn’t like Dad forcing us to eat our brochilli – “you going to eat it and you’re going to like it!!!”

“Magic” is going to different for every person. For you to say that “the Disney experience is magical” is just as wrong as for me to say “the Disney experience is not magical”. Some people will find it so, others will not. Just as you dislike Universal Orlando, millions and millions and millions of other find it so.

The issue when you’re running a business, like Disney, is to please lots and lots of people. That’s where Disney has been stumbling. People on this board represent only a tiny fraction of the guests WDW and Disneyland need every year. Since the beginning of 2000, fewer people have found WDW “magical” enough to visit than before.

The real question should be “why do people feel that” instead of bashing them because “they’re just looking for the negative”.

Disney does present a very enjoyable expereince and the majority of park visitors see that. Only those who focus on the negative and try to have bad time don't see the that.
Again – a value judgment that doesn’t mean anything in the real world. Why does the Magic Kingdom attract so many more people than the Animal Kingdom – is it because people are “negative” on the south end of the property but not on the north? What about California Adventure. Is that park empty only because us evil master villians on the Internet made people negative. If the vast majority are seeing the magic - why do only a fraction walk the 75 yards from Disneyland to DCA?

they were meant for people looking for a good time.
And that’s the difference between Walt and Mike. Walt made his park to overcome the objections and “seriousness” of adults of all types – and he created magic. Mike created parks already sold on “Disney” and expected people just to love the place no matter what he bothered to put in. And his parks failed.

That’s why we discuss “the philosophy” – it resulted in success.

[peter11435]

You just said it again in the very same paragraph. You said that it’s my responsible to see the “magic” instead of Disney’s responsible to make me feel the “magic”. I have to accommodate to what Disney presents instead of Disney having to accommodate my desires.

Going to Disney World isn’t like Dad forcing us to eat our brochilli – “you going to eat it and you’re going to like it!!!”


Your missing the point. You don't have to look for the magic at WDW, it's all right there for you. Disney works very hard and does a great job to make you see the magic. But if you constantly look the other way and pick everything apart what do you expect.



“Magic” is going to different for every person. For you to say that “the Disney experience is magical” is just as wrong as for me to say “the Disney experience is not magical”. Some people will find it so, others will not. Just as you dislike Universal Orlando, millions and millions and millions of other find it so.



The thing that has always been the case.

[Spectro is #1]

Peter you are letting them throw you off track. The topic "has the Magic declined" Is what sets WDW apart in the paint, roofing shingles, off the self rides?

I can only say that to me the answer is no. Disney entertains all the time! It is in the themeing even in the ques, the fun of finding a hidden mickey, walking down main street and meeting the mayor. It's a barbershop that cuts hair and is not just a phoney store front. The surprises skits and live music that are not in the park schedule. The gardens and landscaping.
Traveling into the CR on the Monorail. A South Pacific themed hotel that has torches at night when they could just have put up lights. Fireworks shows that are unmatched. Million dollar parades that run every or almost every day and night.

And the one thing no other park has is the Disney franchise of characters.

I think US has lost some magic over the past 10 years. I went in 93 and loved it. How many attractions and shows are now gone or have changed for the worse from US?

You can like both parks but the point of the thred was does US get it? I say no? They lost market share and put a happy spin on it.

[YoHo]

I feel like I'm in the middle of a monty Python Sketch

[pedro2112]

I feel like I'm in the middle of a monty Python Sketch

No you don't.

[Another Voice]

I can only say that to me the answer is no.
And that’s a perfectly rational and valid opinion. It’s not a blanket statement that “the magic is better now than ever”, but a statement of how you see things and how you want to see things. And I appreciate that you listed those things that “make the magic” for you.

[peter11435]

And that’s a perfectly rational and valid opinion. It’s not a blanket statement that “the magic is better now than ever”, but a statement of how you see things and how you want to see things. And I appreciate that you listed those things that “make the magic” for you.
I never said the magic was better now than ever. I said it was just the same as it has always been. And I too listed the things that "make the magic" for me.

[YoHo]

Your missing the point. Peter, you're stating a personal opinion that applies only to you. It loses almost all meaning when we're trying to discuss the company, the theme parks, the magic as it applies to the population as a whole.


Also, Yes I do.

[peter11435]

Your missing the point. Peter, you're stating a personal opinion that applies only to you. It loses almost all meaning when we're trying to discuss the company, the theme parks, the magic as it applies to the population as a whole.

I would say my opinion does apply to the population as a whole.

What you and other on this board say about the decline of Disney is nothing more than personal opinion also.



Also, Yes I do.

You do what?

[Another Voice]

I would say my opinion does apply to the population as a whole.
And that just about sums it all up.

[peter11435]

And that just about sums it all up.
Can you show any evidence to prove I'm wrong.

I bet you can't.

The public speaks with their wallets. And milliions of people still head to WDW every year.

[Foladar]

That is not what I said at all. I never said you have to lower your expectations. The fact is the Disney experience is good, the disney expereince is magical. The only reason some think otherwise is that they make it bad, not the other way around.
Ever think people may not enjoy the same things as you? Maybe someone along the way made their trip less magical? Not everyone has to "make it bad" to make the trip nonmagical, whether you think so or not.

[peter11435]

Ever think people may not enjoy the same things as you? Maybe someone along the way made their trip less magical? Not everyone has to "make it bad" to make the trip nonmagical, whether you think so or not.
That’s going even further off topic. Obviously someone or something could make someone's trip less magical. But that has always been the case. And I am well aware that not everyone enjoys the same thing as me. That is exactly how it should be. However people have always had different tastes, that is nothing new.

In the 1970's there were people who did not "get" WDW. That doesn't mean it was not a great place. The same can be said today.

My position (and I stand by it) is that if you felt the magic of WDW in the 1970's, then you will fill the magic of WDW in 2006. The only way you won't is if you go into it looking to pick apart, criticize, and bash.

[All Aboard]

My position (and I stand by it) is that if you felt the magic of WDW in the 1970's, then you will fill the magic of WDW in 2006. The only way you won't is if you go into it looking to pick apart, criticize, and bash.

Curious. Did you experience the WDW of the 1970's?

I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle. But, I cannot dismiss the opinions of those who see and feel deterioration in many areas since that time, just because I don't wholeheartedly agree with them. There are more than just a few random people on this discussion board who were displeased with the direction that the Eisner-run Disney company was headed. Do you recall the 2004 annual meeting? Amongst the displeasure was the theme parks. The limited attraction offerings at newly opened parks, the addition of cheaper attractions that lacked the level of quality that folks had identified with Disney.

Indeed, people who have started thier WDW experience rather recently will find all the magic in the world. But, I know so many that have a very valid opinion that things began to make a turn for the worse in the mid 1990's.

[MJMcBride]

I don't think there's any doubt that Disney has had its share of "clunkers" of attractions in recent years. Just whats occurred with the old Mission to Mars buidling is testament to that. We could go on and on about what new attractions suck and which hit the mark. I think more hit the mark than some of the other people on this thread like YoHo, DancingBear, AnotherVoice and others I've had this argument with before. But I agree with them that since the 1990s imagineering has not quite been as good. But hey I love a lot of the new rides and shows.

Anyway, I think DISers being such disney fans can be hypercritical of the company and yearn for the old days, or can't take off their rose colored glasses. Which side are you on?

[Sylvester McBean]

UO should just continue to follow Disney lead. raise our AP renewals to $325 each instead of $99. kill all AP discounts except the resort rooms, but divide all existing resort rooms in half. then you've doubled your room capacity and can overcharge for the same cracker boxes as on WDW property. those pesky dining discounts we've removed from the AP holders? charge them extra each year as a 'dining plan'. refillable mug program in the parks, gone. merchandise discounts, gone. what attractions are doing well out in US hollywood, we're having a hard time coming up with new, good attractions on the east coast. revenge of the mummy? we've got one here... but it'll fit perfect inside of the spiderman building's footprint? make it happen, the crowds at IOA will love it, they always love everything we do. JPRA is getting expensive to maintain? well, bulldoze it and put up a winnie the pooh playground. we don't own the rights to pooh? well, pick one of our movies we continue to remake because we're running out of original ideas without Pixar. oh crap, we don't own Pixar? put up a gift shop, there's never enough of those. and make the exit of the gift shop funnel through another gift shop, we're brilliant!

a rant, but still my opinion. WDW just doesn't seem interested in guest satisfaction anymore in the parks, they've got a captive audience. we keep our AP's, but the 'magic' is waning. my daughter picked Busch Gardens over WDW on Sunday. that's a little disheartening when it comes to 12 year old.

[Foladar]

My position (and I stand by it) is that if you felt the magic of WDW in the 1970's, then you will fill the magic of WDW in 2006. The only way you won't is if you go into it looking to pick apart, criticize, and bash.
You do realize alot changes between 1970s and 2006? That's a good 30 years right there .. things change.


Edit: After reading the post above, does Disney offer a refillable cup in the parks in which you can get water free? Summer time is hot, I plan to visit both parks, but I usually just visit Universal and I know they allow you to buy the refillable cup and get water every time.

[patsal]

You do realize alot changes between 1970s and 2006? That's a good 30 years right there .. things change.


Edit: After reading the post above, does Disney offer a refillable cup in the parks in which you can get water free? Summer time is hot, I plan to visit both parks, but I usually just visit Universal and I know they allow you to buy the refillable cup and get water every time.


Disney will give you free cups of ice water--tap not bottled.

[peter11435]

You do realize alot changes between 1970s and 2006? That's a good 30 years right there .. things change.

Your 100% right. Times do change. But that is why the WDW experience has changed over the years. It may be different but it is no less magical. Except to those who can't accept change of any kind.

[Another Voice]

It may be different but it is no less magical. Except to those who can't accept change of any kind.
When was your first trip to WDW? When was your first trip to Disneyland?

It's been my experience that the only people who describe the world in absolute terms ("no less magical") tend to be people who are ignorant of it.

[peter11435]

When was your first trip to WDW? When was your first trip to Disneyland?

It's been my experience that the only people who describe the world in absolute terms ("no less magical") tend to be people who are ignorant of it.

So essentially what you are saying is that if I don't share your opinion that WDW has gone down hill and lost its magic then I am ignorant.

[Another Voice]

You are the one comparing the two periods - what was your experience like in 1971? What was your experience in 1982? What was your experience in 1989? What was your experience in 1996? What was your experience in 2001?

You are the one making the blanket statement that today is better/no worse than yesterday.

How to make that judgement? What is your reference? What do you base your claim on?

Anything - just tell us.

[Sarangel]

I said on page 3 that we should avoid turning this into a "yes it is," "no it isn't" type of discussion, and we're bordering perilously close to that at the moment. Please play nice with your fellow posters, debate the point but not the poster. No name calling. Make your point, cite your references and then let others make their points. Debate & Rebuttal - just like in High School.

Sarangel

[peter11435]

How to make that judgement? What is your reference? What do you base your claim on?



I have already answered all of those questions.

[Barbers2005]

Wow, maybe we should just bulldoze WDW. Many of you act like this would be a better option then having things continue the way they are. I think that it is very amusing that a lot of the people that constantly bash WDW are the same people that are at the park every weekend. If you prefer US, great you’re entitled to your opinion. If you have some things you don’t like about Disney, then you’re also entitled to that opionoin. But people that do nothing but criticize the park and then spend every opportunity visiting it, are hypocrites in my opinion.

I do not claim to be an expert on the subject, but I do know that a lot of kids/adults still find WDW to be a very magical place. Since I doubt a scientific tool will ever be created to measure “Magic” (even if one was created we would need a time machine to compare samples from the 70’s), we will have to go by personal opinion. I personal think that if WDW has lost any of its “Magic”, it’s hardly noticeable.

[YoHo]

I have already answered all of those questions.


No, you really haven't.

If I may make an on topic but somewhat personal observation, Peter, I've found you to be very irrational in your opinions when it comes to someone finding fault with modern Disney. Whenever we get into this type of discussion, you end up sounding JUST LIKE THIS!!!:

http://danielosullivan.com/judgedoom.jpg

I don't understand at all your seemingly pathological need to refute those of us that are unhappy with the direction the parks have taken. It's one thing to disagree. It's another to be so offended by another viewpoint that you seem to get angry about it.

[YoHo]

Wow, maybe we should just bulldoze WDW. Many of you act like this would be a better option then having things continue the way they are. I think that it is very amusing that a lot of the people that constantly bash WDW are the same people that are at the park every weekend. If you prefer US, great you’re entitled to your opinion. If you have some things you don’t like about Disney, then you’re also entitled to that opionoin. But people that do nothing but criticize the park and then spend every opportunity visiting it, are hypocrites in my opinion.

Now see, this offends me and it's been answered so many times on this board that it's ridiculous.

Nobody thinks it would be better to Bulldoze WDW. Although I sometimes wonder if it would be better to bulldoze DCA. We do not live in aworld of absolutes and just because I would prefer Disney not continue down it's current path doesn't mean I want it gone forever. This drives me nuts. I want Disney to return to what it was.
And further, the reason I go to Disneyland and world so regularly is to remember the faded glory of once was. To go on Pirates and Haunted mansion. To walk into the mainstreet magic shop, to see the castle and ride the teacups. The company hasn't destroyed everything and I'll be D@#mned if I'm going to stop enjoying what remains of that because of some idiots in Burbank. Heck, I even find some fun in the new rides. THAT doesn't mean I don't want and expect better.

Tell me, when you have a favorite resturant that has excellent food and you go there all the time. Then one day you order something new that you've never tried and you hate it, do you stop going to the resturant forever? Or do you just not order the offending dish?
It's the same thing. I'm not hipocritical for enjoying The magic of Disney but hating the foolishness of Eisner. That's ridiculous.

[All Aboard]

Peter, the one question you most certainly haven't answered (and it's been posed by at least me and Another Voice) is "what was the first year of your first hand experience in a Disney theme park?" Don't you agree that if one is making an iron clad statement such as:
the WDW experience has changed over the years. It may be different but it is no less magical.
the statement may have some validity if the person making it actual experienced the "WDW experience" during the periods that he or she is referencing?

And, just for my sake, Peter - do you see the stark difference between each of these three statements?:

A. In my opinion, the WDW experience is just as magical as it ever was.

B. The WDW experience is just as magical as it ever was.

C. It may be different but it is no less magical. Except to those who can't accept change of any kind.

[pedro2112]

I think the problem is there is no operational definition of the word "magical" in this discussion. I've been to WDW in the 70s 80s 90s and this decade, and frankly I find myself enjoying my trips more than before. However, I concur that there are many things about Disney during the last decade that are troublesome. On the negative side, I' not too happy with disney getting rid of toad and putting in the pooh ride, or the sillyness that has occured in the WOL pavillion over the last few years. I"m also certain that the "friendliness" of the CMs has decreased somewhat, although that is more of a societal function than a disney function. Furthermore, turning in the main street shops into a generic WOD was disheartening.

On the positive side, there is so much more to do, and most of it is great. I can't comment on AK as we haven't been there yet, but my wife and I love MGM (yes, even with the silly hat), DTD, Epcot, MK, the resorts etc. We also love some of the newer attractions (Mickey's Philharmagic, Mission Space).

I guess my opinion on the matter is that while I do enjoy WDW more now than I did before (and also think that it is "better" now), I always wonder how much better it could be if certain people high up in the origanization didn't make the decions they did over the last 10 to 15 years.

[Barbers2005]

Now see, this offends me and it's been answered so many times on this board that it's ridiculous.

Tell me, when you have a favorite resturant that has excellent food and you go there all the time. Then one day you order something new that you've never tried and you hate it, do you stop going to the resturant forever? Or do you just not order the offending dish?
It's the same thing. I'm not hipocritical for enjoying The magic of Disney but hating the foolishness of Eisner. That's ridiculous.

True, but if the restaurant is my favorite I have more good things then bad things to say about it.

I have probably read at least 50 of your posts in the last month and would have to estimate that 49 were of a negative nature. Again, you’re entitled to your opinion, but if we are going by what you have posted I would guess you dislike WDW. You seem very bitter about Disney and I think it's sad. I'm sure at one point you loved Disney and it probably brought you a lot of happiness. I would love to see a post were you had something positive to say.

[peter11435]

It's one thing to disagree. It's another to be so offended by another viewpoint that you seem to get angry about it.

Im not affended or amgered by your opinions. I simply disagree with you (and many others on this board) who essentially tell all of those who disagree with them that they are wrong.

[Barbers2005]

YoHo, to go back to your Restaurant analogy, imagine you’re a food critic. You write an article and you say:

Food Critic: “This restaurant is getting cheap. The atmosphere is not as good as it used to be and the food tastes like it came from a box. The breadsticks were OK, and I thought the steak was dry”.

Reader: “Wow, I guess you don’t like that restaurant”.

Food Critic: “Now, I’m offended. I love this restaurant. How could you say such a thing.”

[2Xited4Disney]

I have noticed many disbutes on these (this) board arise because of lack of citation. Many times when a disbute occurs I am not on YoHos or Another Voices side, but 95% of the time they sway me by their posts. They give specific examples, cite magazines, show examples from the orlando sentinel, pull out numbers from 1993. If you two aren't involved in Politics you really should be. Honestly you deffinatley have a way of words, hell I'd vote for you.


Peter, make me believe that the magic hasn't changed since 71.... give me some examples, honestly I would LOVE to believe it but I just can't with the evidence I have been shown (in this post and on MANY others)

[peter11435]

Peter, the one question you most certainly haven't answered (and it's been posed by at least me and Another Voice) is "what was the first year of your first hand experience in a Disney theme park?" Don't you agree that if one is making an iron clad statement such as:

I have visited WDW (but not Disneyland) during every time period I have referenced.


A. In my opinion, the WDW experience is just as magical as it ever was.

B. The WDW experience is just as magical as it ever was.

C. It may be different but it is no less magical. Except to those who can't accept change of any kind.

They’re really not all that different when you look at them in context. A and B are essentially the exact same. Sure one starts with "In my opinion" but it goes with out saying that this topic is entirely based on opinion. As another poster already pointed out there is no was to scientifically measure "magic" thus any discussion of the subject is obviously based on opinion. Prefacing my statement with IMO is unneeded.

As for C that was in reference to the fact that people and there tastes change. Similarly WDW itself is forced to change. When I said WDW is different I simply meant that the source of magic had to be altered but that doesn't make it any less.

[Sylvester McBean]

Wow, maybe we should just bulldoze WDW. Many of you act like this would be a better option then having things continue the way they are. I think that it is very amusing that a lot of the people that constantly bash WDW are the same people that are at the park every weekend. If you prefer US, great you’re entitled to your opinion. If you have some things you don’t like about Disney, then you’re also entitled to that opionoin. But people that do nothing but criticize the park and then spend every opportunity visiting it, are hypocrites in my opinion.


well then, I'm a hypocrite.

[All Aboard]

I simply disagree with you (and many others on this board) who essentially tell all of those who disagree with them that they are wrong.

Even if this statement were entirely true, I can't find a piece of text in this thread that is a more glaring example of your accusal than this:

It may be different but it is no less magical. Except to those who can't accept change of any kind.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't read this as just setting forth your own opinion. I read it as "it's just as great, and if you don't see that, then there's something wrong with you."

[peter11435]

Peter, make me believe that the magic hasn't changed since 71.... give me some examples, honestly I would LOVE to believe it but I just can't with the evidence I have been shown (in this post and on MANY others)

Nowhere in this particular thread have AV or Yoho provided any tangible evidence that the magic has deteriorated. All they have done in this thread thus far is attack me and my opinions simply because they are not in line with theirs.

[peter11435]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't read this as just setting forth your own opinion. I read it as "it's just as great, and if you don't see that, then there's something wrong with you."

Maybe I went a little far with that statement. Obviously it is entirely possible for someone to go to WDW and have the opinion that the magic has deteriorated and have nothing "wrong" with you.

The problem I see is that there are people on these boards that have the mentality that anything the WDC does today is bad. They believe that any decisions made, attraction built, or park opened is inherently bad simply because it is the work of current Disney/Eisner. That is simply not true. I find that many refuse to even give these things a fair chance because the pre judge them.

[Barbers2005]

Like I said before I don’t think there is any way to prove that the “Magic” has or has not diminished since the 1970’s. All I can say is my daughter is just as excited to visit WDW as I was when I was her age. And she is just as excited to ride “Winnie the Pooh” as she is to ride “Dumbo”. On a whole I don’t think the rides are any worse today as they were in the 1970’s and a lot of the same themeing that was around back then is still there today. Maybe I don’t go to WDW enough to see all of the negative things I have seen posted.

[DancingBear]

First, Peter, I don't see anyone here who thinks that all change is bad.

It is true that some are reluctant to give any credit to Mr. Eisner, but at least they are willing to discuss the reasons why.

In the end, it's futile to argue about each other's lists of what attractions are good and bad. And arguing about the existence or lack of "magic" approaches total silliness.

To me, it's far more interesting to explore (1) what made Disneyland and Walt Disney World something extraordinary, (2) how Disney took its eye off the ball, and (3) what recent improvements have we seen, and what else does Mr. Iger need to do to reach extraordinary heights again.

It seems like we lose you at item (2). Certainly there have been some good things created over the last 10 years (or whatever Eisnerian sub-period anyone wishes to examine); however, I'm thoroughly convinced that Eisner was taking many actions which over time were diminishing the greatness of the parks and resorts. Until the Ouimet regime, Disneyland was allowed to physically deteriorate, and its Tomorrowland essentially dismantled. Imagineering lost personnel, financing, scope of work, and influence. Feature animation, which feeds so much into the parks (including the actual Animation building at the Studios), was left to wither away. Merchandising became more aggressive, at the expense of the experience--see Main Street's shops before and after. Largely due to the extremely low unemployment in the Orlando area, hiring standards were lowered. At the same time, CM training was reduced. Elements of "good show" were lost, such as by opening Adventureland later, or closing Future World earlier. I'm sure A-V and YoHo could enhance this list.

So, in the minds of the Element, this is about more than the loss of Mickey Head Butter, or whether Mission:Space is enjoyable, or whether you can still have a great time at WDW (I know I still do). Heck, I've defended any number of changes, such as the closure of the CA Grill deck. It's about the larger issue of whether those folks at the Company who are now entrusted with the care and development of these places that we have an idiosyncratic affection for, "Get It."

It's not about whether Walt would have put Jack Sparrow figures into Pirates. Rather, it's about whether these things are being done with the same Philosophical goals as what (to our minds) made the Disney parks great in the first place--driven by story, excellence, and enhancing the guest experience.

[Sylvester McBean]

The problem I see is that there are people on these boards that have the mentality that anything the WDC does today is bad. They believe that any decisions made, attraction built, or park opened is inherently bad simply because it is the work of current Disney/Eisner. That is simply not true. I find that many refuse to even give these things a fair chance because the pre judge them.

I give every new addition at any of the parks a chance. the more the companies keep building, the better my weekends are. MS, Philharmagic, and EE are the only attractions or additions at WDW that have impressed me in the last few years. I love WDW, always will. but lately it seems the company is just going through the motions, content.

[peter11435]

I give every new addition at any of the parks a chance. the more the companies keep building, the better my weekends are. MS, Philharmagic, and EE are the only attractions or additions at WDW that have impressed me in the last few years. I love WDW, always will. but lately it seems the company is just going through the motions, content.
Thats great. I respect your opinion 100%.

But there are people on these boards who won't even admit that the attraction you mention are succesful let alone that they are impressive.

[Spectro is #1]

the problem is there is no operational definition of the word "magical" in this discussion


Read my last post.


I don't get why Toad was so great :confused3
They were cut outs for COL! Kids have no idea who toad was? Pooh makes money! Pooh won't cause an 11% drop in attendance.

US removed Kong? The movie came out in the 30s, 70s, and 20006. I miss Kong. Isn't that the same thing? The Mummy????? It is a cool ride but will people remember that movie 10 or 20 years later?

My point is I don't think US or Disney rips down an attraction if people use it or see it. They match total attendance to daily riders and determine the attractions draw. Poor performs that can't justify their pay are axed. People and attractions, why is that so hard to understand?
Pooh did not replace 10KL. It had been closed for years. It was a matter of removing it and putting something besides another character greeting area. Pooh can be removed at anytime if the go ahead for another attraction is given.

[Another Voice]

But there are people on these boards who won't even admit that the attraction you mention are succesful let alone that they are impressive.
Again - the way you've written that statement says that a) the rides you mentioned are, in fact, successful & impressive and b) people who disagree with your declaration are "at fault".

You have stated your opinion as fact - but can not back up your own feelings, let alone "prove" they represent "truth".

So enlighten us - how is 'Mission: Space' "impressive" to everyone else?

[ChrisFL]

Read my last post.


I don't get why Toad was so great :confused3
They were cut outs for COL! Kids have no idea who toad was? Pooh makes money! Pooh won't cause an 11% drop in attendance.

US removed Kong? The movie came out in the 30s, 70s, and 20006. I miss Kong. Isn't that the same thing? The Mummy????? It is a cool ride but will people remember that movie 10 or 20 years later?

My point is I don't think US or Disney rips down an attraction if people use it or see it. They match total attendance to daily riders and determine the attractions draw. Poor performs that can't justify their pay are axed. People and attractions, why is that so hard to understand?
Pooh did not replace 10KL. It had been closed for years. It was a matter of removing it and putting something besides another character greeting area. Pooh can be removed at anytime if the go ahead for another attraction is given.


I can't disagree on the Kong vs Mummy remark, however its difficult to tell why Kong was chosen to be replaced. One ride replacement doesn't mean Universal is losing its way.

I'd venture to guess that Shrek 3D is more popular than Alfred Hitchcock was, Jimmy Neutron and Spongebob are more recognizable to kids than Hanna Barbera, MIB was a whole new building and done much better and obviously a much larger budget than Buzz Lightyear.

[peter11435]

So enlighten us - how is 'Mission: Space' "impressive" to everyone else?

The fact that you need me to explain to you why Mission: Space is impressive proves my point.

[peter11435]

I'd venture to guess that Shrek 3D is more popular than Alfred Hitchcock was, Jimmy Neutron and Spongebob are more recognizable to kids than Hanna Barbera, MIB was a whole new building and done much better and obviously a much larger budget than Buzz Lightyear.

And Buzz Lightyear is more popular than Dreamflight was, Winnie the Pooh is more recognizable to kids than Mr. Toad.

[ChrisFL]

And Buzz Lightyear is more popular than Dreamflight was, Winnie the Pooh is more recognizable to kids than Mr. Toad.

But I don't consider shooting at cardboard cutouts to be a magical experience like Dream Flight/Take Flight was.

That's not to say that Take Flight shouldn't have been replaced, but Disney should be able to put the same amount of work into their new attractions that was put into them in the past.

If Universal is able to do it, why can't Disney?

[MJMcBride]

But I don't consider shooting at cardboard cutouts to be a magical experience like Dream Flight/Take Flight was.

That's not to say that Take Flight shouldn't have been replaced, but Disney should be able to put the same amount of work into their new attractions that was put into them in the past.

If Universal is able to do it, why can't Disney?

I'm not exactly sure how Dreamflight/Take Flight were magical? Frankly I always thought they were pretty lame and if my memory serves me, nobody ever went on them. Buzz it seems to me is a lot more popular. And I have enjoyed that ride from the beginning.

There are definately people on these threads who are in my humble opinion way too critical of present day Disney. I understand that comes from a passion about the Parks. If you didn't have that passion, I doubt you would wasting time on this website, but some of you guys cannot say one good thing.

So come one Yoho or AnotherVoice and the rest of you, just gimme one attraction that has opened at WDW in the last 5,6,7 years that you just love to go on. There must be at least one.

[Sylvester McBean]

our version of the TOT is the most perfect and complete attraction at any park in the world, in my opinion. but where disney is proving to be their own worst enemy is inconsistency. they port it out to DCA, and then wreck that version.

[ChrisFL]

I love to go on Soarin'.

I also enjoy Rock'N'Roller coaster because its a complete attraction from start to finish, you're in a rock studio, you meet Aerosmith, you take a nice looking caddy and you go through everything and arrive at a really cool "outdoor venue" where you watch the concert, well kinda.

Other than that, Im guessing I'll enjoy Everest but I havent been on it yet.

[ChrisFL]

our version of the TOT is the most perfect and complete attraction at any park in the world, in my opinion. but where disney is proving to be their own worst enemy is inconsistency. they port it out to DCA, and then wreck that version.

I'll find that out myself soon, but yes I've seen pics of the unthemed hallway before you board your elevator, what's up with that?

Anyway, the problem is that Disney held itself to a higher standard than any other park, it's when they start to lower their standards like we've seen that I feel the magic starts to go away. Things get budgeted too far.

Another fine example is the difference between DCA and Tokyo DisneySea. It doesn't take an expert to see which park is better themed and has better attractions. Guess which one Disney didn't have to pay for (mostly).

So while it was mentioned that money doesn't make the difference I say it really does make a big difference. You can only budget so far before the quality goes down.

[YoHo]

YoHo, to go back to your Restaurant analogy, imagine you’re a food critic. You write an article and you say:

Food Critic: “This restaurant is getting cheap. The atmosphere is not as good as it used to be and the food tastes like it came from a box. The breadsticks were OK, and I thought the steak was dry”.

Reader: “Wow, I guess you don’t like that restaurant”.

Food Critic: “Now, I’m offended. I love this restaurant. How could you say such a thing.”

Let me rewrite this so it reflects my feelings accuratly.

Food Critic: "The resturant is becoming nothing but a cheap chain. The atomosphere has become worse, the new menu items taste like Swansons, the breadsticks are hard as billyclubs and the Steak was horrendous. Fortunatly, they still serve their famous Cherries Jubilee and it is as magnificent as ever. Using the same formula as the day the resturant was opened 50 years ago this exquisit dessert is still a delight for the senses and enough to wipe the horrendous meal from your mind and make you think everything is still right in the world. Don't expect the same great meal at a reasonable price that brought you here years ago, but don't let that stop you from coming in for a quick unforgettable dessert.





I have no obligation to accept what I don't like about the modern parks or stop going. That's silly and I'll be positive in one of these discussions when I see something to be positive about. Actually, I was really positive about that rumor regarding Monsters Inc. Coming to Universe of Energy, so there!

[YoHo]

So come one Yoho or AnotherVoice and the rest of you, just gimme one attraction that has opened at WDW in the last 5,6,7 years that you just love to go on. There must be at least one.


I love Soarin over California.

It's no E-Ticket attraction and it's absolutly stupid that it was copied lock Stock and Barrel to Florida, but I really like it.

I also go to Whoopi saves California a lot, but that's mainly to laugh at how stupifingly dumb it is.

Anyway, I'm giving up on discussing anything with you Peter. Every post you make boils down to this:

"You don't respect others opinions"
"You're wrong about everything because I say so"

You're a hipocrit and I'm fed up with it.



But, just to fuel the fire.

Mission:Space as originally designed was what twice as big? With a more complex story and more attractions in the pavilion. It's budget was slashed, the story was hacked and people get sick on it a lot.
Why exactly should I be impressed by something like that. Imagineering shot so high and then the accountineers hacked them at the knee. just why the h#$% is that so impressive?

I was at Ariels grotto with three little girls a couple weeks ago and they couldn't get enough of seeing me wearing the princess crown while eating. Disney should hire me to sit their and eat since I was the most magical darn thing in the park to those 3. I'm much cheaper then an over grown carny ride and I don't require a barf bag (well maybe I do. ;))

[SoCalKDG]

For some of us the magic has actually increased. Since riding the mules at Disneyland in the late 60's, to my first ride on BTMMR, I started making annual, then semiannual, then eventually monthly trips to Disneyland, then DCA, finally yearly trips to WDW. I've seen an increase in the past 5 years in the magic of Disney.

Why, it was the birth of my first daughter 4 years ago(she is really tall for her age). Riding Small World and Pirates while she was a baby, watching her eyes dart everywhere, to the first rides on Splash, BTMRR, hearing her gleeful laugh, watching her interact with the characters, trust me the magic has increased 10 fold for myself.

Her favorite moment(and one of mine), last year around Halloween, came at a park many love to bash, DCA. It was their Halloween party, very enjoyable. She was all dressed up as a princess, had interacted with the princessess and had pictures taken, grabbed candy, when we rode Mulhulland Madness, a first for her. She rode with her mom first, when they get back she says with a big smile "that was awesome; Daddy, what does awesome mean? Come on dad, lets go again". When I rode with here she screamed in delight, leaving her hands in the air the whole time. This below average ride to me had just increased its entertainment value because it was a favorite of my daughters, capping a wonderful evening of music, spending time with family and friends, interacting with cast members, listening to music, etc.

With new rides opening at WDW in the last few years the only basis I can compare WDW old to new is in reviewing film of some of the older rides. So far I'll take the new ride everytime. I'll take Soaring, Test Track, Mission Space, even the new Imagination.

Here is why Mission Space is amazing. I rode it by myself two years ago and on our past trip talked my wife into riding it with me. After the ride she looks at me as says, "That was incredible, I've never experienced a ride like that in my life". We then discussed the feeling that we felt as we launched, the difficulty of interacting with the buttons due to he G's, and we wondered about how accurate that ride was when compared to the space shuttle. Unlike Soaring, another great ride, this one won't be for everyone, but it does provide an oppurtunity for many people to experience something that for many is amazing.

Whats funny is that in the 100's of visits to DLR or WDW I've never had a bad time with a cast member. Maybe its the smile on my face and the hello I say to them, I don't know, but they are as good as ever and when you consider in general how much of the service industry has changed for the worse, I'm even more impressed with cast members.

[YoHo]

D00d I'm sorry, but there's just no excuse for you're love of DCA.

I was there sunday and ran through 2 carnivals on the way up that had the exact same roller coaster as Mullholland madness and they were only a couple bucks, not $50+ Save yourself some money there please. Plus, the only thing that makes that place tolerable is the super short lines. If you keep going, odds are you'll end up in front of me in line and that just cuts in to my magic. ;)

[All Aboard]

I have visited WDW (but not Disneyland) during every time period I have referenced.

Peter, my point of reference for when WDW began to regress in some areas was 1995. Would you agree that a 9 year old isn't equipped to formulate a critical opinion on the philosophy under which a theme park is developing, the depth and breadth of attractions, park maintenance or Cast Member training? Certainly, 11 years later he or she is going to have different perspective and maturity and thus have difficulty pinpointing comparisons to when he or she was a child, no? And, clearly that person would have absolutely no first hand experience with the WDW of the 1970's.

[Spectro is #1]

I can't disagree on the Kong vs Mummy remark, however its difficult to tell why Kong was chosen to be replaced. One ride replacement doesn't mean Universal is losing its way.

My point is I don't think US or Disney rips down an attraction if people use it or see it. They match total attendance to daily riders and determine the attractions draw. Poor performs that can't justify their pay are axed. People and attractions. as Donald would say "your fired"

I'd venture to guess that Shrek 3D is more popular than Alfred Hitchcock was, Jimmy Neutron and Spongebob are more recognizable to kids than Hanna Barbera, MIB was a whole new building and done much better and obviously a much larger budget than Buzz Lightyear.

I didn't say US lost its way! I simply comparing parks. Pooh for Toad, Kong for Mummy. I don't post on this board often but when I read this board and this debate comes up Toad is often mentioned as proof on how WDW "jumped the shark." My problem is US did the same thing with Kong and made a big deal about it. Didn't they have some kind of event for AP holders to ride it for the last time? This point seems to escape the debate.

Buzz is just different themeing, they had to use a smaller show building and Buzz was up first so it would be easier to top. I think Buzz is more Kid Friendly than MIB and Buzz might have a larger GPH capacity given the omni mover ride system. I like them both but think of them as apples and oranges, both the same family but different.

[DancingBear]

For the record:

Soarin's a blast, though I'm not crazy about the airport entryway and I wish it had more "story"

Lights Motors Action is a cool show, but the aluminum bleacher seating seems cheesy to me (compared to the ampitheaters for Fantasmic and Indy for example).

I love visiting AKL, although I've never stayed there. Boma and Jiko are two of my favorite restaurants on property, and I think the animal viewing areas and lobby are terrific.

Enjoy Philharmagic.

Enjoy Pooh as a pleasant "C" ticket ride (but wish WDW had Tokyo's version).

I like Test Track and Mission:Space, although I wish M:S had more to it, and having those two right next to each other (with UoE and closed WoL next door) makes FW feel unbalanced to me.

I like all of AK, except for Dinorama and the lack of a sit-down restaurant.

And I really enjoyed the Disney cruise.

[peter11435]

"You don't respect others opinions"
"You're wrong about everything because I say so"

You're a hipocrit and I'm fed up with it.




Nice one.

Nowhere in this tread have I been a hypocrite.

[DancingBear]

I believe what YoHo was referring to is that you keep asking for evidence to back up everyone else's opinions but present your own statements as conclusive. I for one tried to address in detail the issues and you've completely ignored my posting.

[dbm20th]

Everyone expresses their opinions as fact here, and I am sure Yo-Ho would admit he is as guilty of this as the rest of us. After all, we are discussing our opinions here and there is no reason not to stand behind them. Some folks love the new things WDI has done, some prefer the old way. This will go on like this forever. Embrace it and have fun...or the boss will shut it down :confused3

[peter11435]

I believe what YoHo was referring to is that you keep asking for evidence to back up everyone else's opinions but present your own statements as conclusive.

I never meant to state by opinion as conclusive. And I did provide examples of what the "magic" is to me.

My problem is not with their opinions. I understand that not everything is for everybody. And I agree that the WDC has made some poor decisions over the years. I also agree that they have built some very poor attractions in recent years (stitch, imagination, sounds dangerous, etc.). My problem is simply that they seem to pre-judge everything the WDC does and decided it is bad purely because it was done in the Eisner/post-Eisner time period. Even in Yoho's list off things he likes he took shots at them cloning Soarin' and said he does another often just because it is so dumb.

But the biggest issue I have with them is that they don't seem to think it is possible that someone could experience WDW in 1971 and 2006 and not see a decline in the "magic." I have no problem with that being their opinion. But they don't simply have a different opinion they try to tell me that I either never experienced WDW of the 70's or that I am ignorant simply because I don't share their opinions.

[DancingBear]

I believe that the reference to ignorance was in the sense of "lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified" as opposed to a general condition. I think A-V said his experience in discussing these matters is that the view that there has been no decline generally comes from those who did not personally experience WDW between, say, 1971 and 1984.

Believe me, I've shared your frustration with A-V and Yoho from time to time. But they do have something worthwhile to contribute to these discussions. Again, I think we get bogged down talking about individual attractions and such--the "Philosophical" issues regarding the structure and emphasis the Company is employing is much more interesting.

[dbm20th]

I think A-V said his experience in discussing these matters is that the view that there has been no decline generally comes from those who did not personally experience WDW between, say, 1971 and 1984.


And there is where things are subjective, though sometimes expressed as objective. There are people, me among them, who have experience WDW at that time and think that it is even better now. Great hotels, new thrill rides, great restaurants, etc., etc., have all been added since that time and that is why I still go and keep going. The "purist" view is simply that, a view. It is only fact in one's mind

[DrTomorrow]

Two comments:

1. Magic - whether Disney, Middle Earth or Hogwarts variety - is NOT quantifiable. There's no objective tool - a magicometer? - to definitively measure how much magic there is in a theme park. As such, there is simply no sense in making statements along the line of there is more / less / the same magic now than X years ago. 'Tis all subjective, all personal opinion, and carries whatever weight someone's opinion carries.

2. IMHO, there is no inherent magic at WDW; it is in the hearts, minds and souls of those who go there. Grind up every brick of the castle, titrate every drop of water in Seven Seas Lagoon, autopsy every stuffed animal in every store - you won't find a shred of magic. But simply take a look at the faces of many folks as they enter the MK; see the smiles of children on Dumbo; see the grins of amazement from those leaving M:S (the ones who aren't puking, that is ;) ) and that's where the magic is.

IMHO - YMMV - Be well!

[Another Voice]

IMHO, there is no inherent magic at WDW; it is in the hearts, minds and souls of those who go there.
So if we gathered all 14 million people in an empty field, charged then $62 per head to stand there, and all scream “DISNEY!” we’d all be as happy?

“Disney Magic” is the response to the artistic arrangement of sights, sounds, colors, smells and textures intentionally created to produce strong emotions. A theme park is like a movie, a play, or a story that moves the audience to feel and experience emotions outside of their everyday live.

The “magic” is very tangible, very concrete, and very real. It also is extremely difficult to make, harder to maintain, and impossible to recreate once it is lost. The issue is to what degree the Disney company is willing to spend the resources and the efforts to create this "magic", and how much they want live off of past successes. It's not by accident that all the fireworks show are named "Remember...".

The people who create “the magic” know it exists. It exists because of their hard work. To dismiss it as nothing but a brand name – which is all Disney has become these days – really is to be ignorant of how and why Walt Disney World works.

[MJMcBride]

But since "magic" is different for each person, it can not logically be quantifiable. What one person finds magical in an attraction (like the smell of oranges in the old Horizons attraction) means nothing to the next person.

[Sylvester McBean]

The people who create “the magic” know it exists. It exists because of their hard work. To dismiss it as nothing but a brand name – which is all Disney has become these days – really is to be ignorant of how and why Walt Disney World works.

perfectly worded. :thumbsup2

[ChrisFL]

But since "magic" is different for each person, it can not logically be quantifiable. What one person finds magical in an attraction (like the smell of oranges in the old Horizons attraction) means nothing to the next person.

Ok, Im going to add this idea to see if this helps the discussion.

When I think of what Disney magic means, it means the way Disneyland was built in the 50's and what kind of experience it gave people. When you create something so well that the outcome makes it more than the sum of its parts, and in turn, takes the guest to something they've never experienced before, or can at any other park, that is what I consider to be magical.

Space Mountain is an example...off the shelf coaster when its out in the open, simply put it inside a dark building, project stars and asteriods all over, add some space themed elements and bam, you have an experience you couldn't get anywhere else and it felt like nothing else. Sometimes making it magical is simple, sometimes it isnt.

Disney continued to raise the bar. I still think their greatest achievements are before 1995. Splash Mountain is a huge, long and overall very well themed and fun ride. Tower of Terror (the original) is IMO the pinnacle of theming of a ride. I'd ride it even if it didnt have more than one drop, the rest of the ride is SO GOOD. From the entryway, the types of foliage, the hotel itself outside presenting a very stale and old feel, to the inside with expertly made spiderwebs and real props from the shows.

[All Aboard]

I still think their greatest achievements are before 1995. If I could edit and ad the words "in the U.S. parks" after achievements, I completely agree with you.

And, that shouldn't be the case. The early 1990's were extremely promising to me with Temple of the Forbidden Eye, Splash, Tower, Wilderness Lodge, the artist renderings for Animal Kingdom, etc. But, then, it has been largely disappointing with a few exceptions since. The same can be said for Feature Animation.

[YoHo]

And there is where things are subjective, though sometimes expressed as objective. There are people, me among them, who have experience WDW at that time and think that it is even better now. Great hotels, new thrill rides, great restaurants, etc., etc., have all been added since that time and that is why I still go and keep going. The "purist" view is simply that, a view. It is only fact in one's mind


This is not entirely true and I bristled earlier when you claimed I state my opinions as facts.

There are facts, and their are my opinions and my opinions come from those facts.

The problem is that we're not talking about facts that are universally known. Not everybody has read say Disney War or Storming the Kingdom and even some people that have read those books, read them in Isolation with no other knowledge. Some people actually know more about the company then others.

I base my opinions of attractions and the direction of these parks and this company based on the FACTS about the company that I have. Because of what I know about the Walt Disney Company, I'm disinclined to be forgiving when they do something like clone a ride or build half a theme park.
Some others either are ignorant by choice or not or refuse to believe the facts, or have no faith in the facts because they don't want to. They're doubting thomas's. That doesn't change anything.

And I try to back up my opinions with fact such as oh, newspaper articles.

[YoHo]

But since "magic" is different for each person, it can not logically be quantifiable. What one person finds magical in an attraction (like the smell of oranges in the old Horizons attraction) means nothing to the next person.


See this is true, Not everyone likes action movies or Scifi movies or romantic comedies, but there still may be magic in them.

Obviously, not everyone responds to the same stimuli, but the point AV made, the point that any of the original imagineers would make is that Magic is about Art. There is no art in what Disney builds anymore.

[MJMcBride]

See this is true, Not everyone likes action movies or Scifi movies or romantic comedies, but there still may be magic in them.

Obviously, not everyone responds to the same stimuli, but the point AV made, the point that any of the original imagineers would make is that Magic is about Art. There is no art in what Disney builds anymore.

But like magic, art is in the eye of the beholder, too. You may think there's no art anymore, but many others feel there is.

[YoHo]

But like magic, art is in the eye of the beholder, too. You may think there's no art anymore, but many others feel there is.

No, Art really isn't in the eye of the beholder. If I spend my life painting, but nobody likes any of my work, am I not an artist?


There is the act of Art and the appreciation of Art. Just because I have no use for much modern art doesn't mean that artistic effort wasn't put into it.

More to the point, Art is a process. The Art, the magic is in how Disney did things, building dinorama, because a powerpoint said that people said there wasn't enough to do is not art, designing an entire themepark using the artisitc methods of filmmaking to draw people in and create story is very very very much art and magic.



And I guess that's where the breakdown is, If you don't understand what makes something art, or artistic, then you I suppose think all art is subjective.

[pedro2112]

So if we gathered all 14 million people in an empty field, charged then $62 per head to stand there, and all scream “DISNEY!” we’d all be as happy?


That is a strawman argument. The poster meant that magic is when the excitement that people feel when experiencing the sights, sounds, feels of disney. As the poster stated,"But simply take a look at the faces of many folks as they enter the MK; see the smiles of children on Dumbo; see the grins of amazement from those leaving M:S (the ones who aren't puking, that is ) and that's where the magic is." To suggest that this reaction by the guests is similar to forcing people to stand in a field, charge them $62.00 and tell them to scream disney, is silly.

I am not suggesting I concur with this definition of "magic," but your analogy was way off the mark.

[dbm20th]

No, Art really isn't in the eye of the beholder. If I spend my life painting, but nobody likes any of my work, am I not an artist?


There is the act of Art and the appreciation of Art. Just because I have no use for much modern art doesn't mean that artistic effort wasn't put into it.

More to the point, Art is a process. The Art, the magic is in how Disney did things, building dinorama, because a powerpoint said that people said there wasn't enough to do is not art, designing an entire themepark using the artisitc methods of filmmaking to draw people in and create story is very very very much art and magic.

And I guess that's where the breakdown is, If you don't understand what makes something art, or artistic, then you I suppose think all art is subjective.

Here we go your opinions as fact again. Man YoHo, at least I admit to it.

Art has many definitions, and yours is by no means the absolute or even entirely accurate. But rather than engaging you in a debate about the meaning of art, the post you take to task was, at least as I read it, referring to the type of art that exists in WDW and not whatever you do with a paint brush in your spare time. He was being casual with the word. What you call art, others may not. This is a debate that has gone on for ages. And a simple wave of your musket wielding hand does not change that.

MJMcBride was taking to task the fact that you have definded things they have done in WDW as not containing "Art". That's ridiculous! The Tree of Life contains more incredible art then anything produced before it anywhere in any Disney park. Of course, that's my opinion. I can name others, but it wouldn't change your opinion...aaaa...I mean facts...anyway

[peter11435]

There is no art in what Disney builds anymore.

You forgot to add the phrase "In my opinon."

[YoHo]

No, Art is a process, Disney no longer uses that process, Disney is not art. It's not an opinion, it is fact.

If a new Attraction were to be built using the methods that created Disneyland and world, then it would again be art. That is not what happens now, therefore no art.


See how that works, take some facts (what is art, how Did Disney design and build their parks back then, how do they do it now) draw conclusion. simple.

[Sarangel]

If a new Attraction were to be built using the methods that created Disneyland and world, then it would again be art. That is not what happens now, therefore no art.That would be (by all accounts, anyway) Expedetion:Everest, wouldn't it? And, as much as I hate to admit it, that was started in the last years of Eisner's tenure.

I think the point is that overall Eisner's team worked off of powepoint presentations and surveys while Walt's team worked from vision and the desire to tell a story.

Sarangel

[dbm20th]

That would be (by all accounts, anyway) Expedetion:Everest, wouldn't it?

Sorry Sarangel, but YoHo says it is not...so therefore, it is not.

[YoHo]

I may have a bit of a blind spot on Expedition: Everest, because it is my OPINION that Joe Rhode is a useless twit.

[dbm20th]

No, Art is a process, Disney no longer uses that process, Disney is not art. It's not an opinion, it is fact.

If a new Attraction were to be built using the methods that created Disneyland and world, then it would again be art. That is not what happens now, therefore no art.


See how that works, take some facts (what is art, how Did Disney design and build their parks back then, how do they do it now) draw conclusion. simple.

Art is not only a process, this is a fact. Disney creates art, always have, still do, whether you like the art or not. Creative people are still creating. That is fact.

See how easy, take facts, draw conclusions, simple (...not so simple when people throw in there opinions as facts.)

[YoHo]

Sorry Sarangel, but YoHo says it is not...so therefore, it is not.

Have I made a comment on Expedition: Everest?

I can't speak to Sara's statement directly though I can say that it also had it's budget cut and I think people are making it out to be more then it really is as far as it's "e-ticketness." But that's a whole other conversation and it's a discussion on definitions that I don't want to get into here and now.

Perhaps AV has some specific knowledge about the process of E: E.

[peter11435]

No, Art is a process, Disney no longer uses that process, Disney is not art. It's not an opinion, it is fact.

Wrong Yoho. That is an opinion not a fact.

I believe that Expedtion Everest, Animal Kingdom Lodge, The Tree of Life, and many other recent Disney developments are works of art. That alone makes your opinion an opinion and not a fact. And I am sure there are more people who would agree with me than who would agree with you.

[DisneyKidds]

That would be (by all accounts, anyway) Expedetion:Everest, wouldn't it? And, as much as I hate to admit it, that was started in the last years of Eisner's tenure.

I think the point is that overall Eisner's team worked off of powepoint presentations and surveys while Walt's team worked from vision and the desire to tell a story.

Sarangel
Thanks, Sara, I was just going to insist that Yoho make this very clarification. You know him, he get a little carried away sometimes ;). such as with this statement:
There is no art in what Disney builds anymore.
With my retort being E:E.

He may feel, and he may be right, that Disney has ceased to allow artistic influences to guide the overall design approach to parks and attractions, but that must be separated from the piece parts. There are a lot of extremely talented artisans who spent countless hours making the base of E:E a recreation of a Himlayan village. Is there no art in that? As someone once said........
If I spend my life painting, but nobody likes any of my work, am I not an artist?
Just because someone might not like the story that E:E tells, it doesn't mean that a lot of art is present in what is presented.

However, this bickering over art, not art, etc. clouds the salient point, that Disney used to strive first to make great story and show, to allow the art of the storytelling to guide the design. While there is still a lot of artistic endeavour to be appreciated at WDW, the guiding principles have changed, and so has the overall flavor of the offerings, offering that are still pretty darn good, but pale in comparison to what was produced when story and art were valued more than dollars and cents.

[dbm20th]

Wrong Yoho. That is an opinion not a fact.

I believe that Expedtion Everest, Animal Kingdom Lodge, The Tree of Life, and many other recent Disney developments are works of art. That alone makes your opinion an opinion and not a fact. And I am sure there are more people who would agree with me than who would agree with you.

Agreed.

[peter11435]

Have I made a comment on Expedition: Everest?


You didn't mention EE specifically. However with statements like this:

No, Art is a process, Disney no longer uses that process, Disney is not art. It's not an opinion, it is fact.

If a new Attraction were to be built using the methods that created Disneyland and world, then it would again be art. That is not what happens now, therefore no art.

You are essentially talking about EE just as much as anything else.

[YoHo]

Art is not only a process, this is a fact. Disney creates art, always have, still do, whether you like the art or not. Creative people are still creating. That is fact.

See how easy, take facts, draw conclusions, simple (...not so simple when people throw in there opinions as facts.)


Where is your evidence to back up this assertion.

TDC fired almost all of imagineering, They then switched control for park expansion and attraction decisions from WDI to Park managment. So there are very few if any artists involved at all.

So again, where's your evidence to back up your supposed facts?

[YoHo]

Wrong Yoho. That is an opinion not a fact.

I believe that Expedtion Everest, Animal Kingdom Lodge, The Tree of Life, and many other recent Disney developments are works of art. That alone makes your opinion an opinion and not a fact. And I am sure there are more people who would agree with me than who would agree with you.

Define: Art

# a superior skill that you can learn by study and practice and observation; "the art of conversation"; "it's quite an art"
An occupation requiring knowledge or skill. The conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects.


Sorry, not opinion.

[YoHo]

There are a lot of extremely talented artisans who spent countless hours making the base of E:E a recreation of a Himlayan village.


I find this extremely unlikely. There were a few, a handful. Not a lot. A heck of a lot of them were fired!

[YoHo]

You didn't mention EE specifically. However with statements like this:



You are essentially talking about EE just as much as anything else.

I'm so glad that you're here to tell me what I'm talking about. I'd be lost without you.

[peter11435]

Sorry Yoho. It IS still an opinion.

[peter11435]

I took the liberty of underlining all those that apply to Disney.

Also notice that no where does it use the term 'process.'

art (ärt)
n.

1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.

2. aThe conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
b.The study of these activities.
c.The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
3.High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.
4.A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.
5.A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.

[Sarangel]

Allright gentlebeings, this has gotten *way* too personal. I'm going to delete the relevant posts and close this thread, since you have demonstrated that you can't play nice.

Sarangel