Question for Another Voice and others

[larry_poppins]

What do you think the future is for the Walt Disney Co.? I really respect Another Voice's opinions so I would look forward to reading a response from him, but others are invited to respond as well.

I am finding it hard to believe in the big, bright beautiful tomorrow anymore. Even before Sept. 11 Disney seemed out of touch with its core audience. Anyone who has visited Disney's California Adventure knows what I mean! Do you think it is possible for Disney to reclaim the creative edge in popular entertainment? Or are the best years behind us? Know that America is in a financial recession/depression and a bio-terror war, it will be hard enough for Disney to survive let alone regain its mastery in film and theme park entertainments. Will Disney emerge in the post-war American unrecognizable to us fans who have been following the Mouse for decades.

I am trying to keep hope alive. But it was hard enough prior to 9/11/01. Look forward to reading your insights and opinions regarding what the future may hold.

Sincerely,

Larry

[YoHo]

Previous to the last two weeks, there was a lot of rumbling even from AV's direction that things might be getting better for the theme parks. I can only hope that that remains true. I'm not so sure about feature animation. I hope, but I don't have faith.

[johare]

I think they will be acquired by another major corporation within 2 years. What happens after that is anyones guess.

[JeffJewell]

Do you think it is possible for Disney to reclaim the creative edge in popular entertainment? ...anything is possible, the question is, does/will Disney _want_ to reclaim that creative edge.

The current regime has made it very clear that they do not feel a "creative edge" is necessary in this business: that marketing, advertising, and budget cutting is sufficient to achieve their goals. This might very well be true, assuming your goals do not include having the "creative edge" you mention.

There is a general consensus that something big is looming on Disney's horizon: there are a number of crises coming to a head contemporaneously. The problem is that the whole of the world economy is in such a state of flux right now, that it is not clear precisely what "something big" entails.

I believe AV's allusion that things might get better in the parks in the not-too-distant future comes from a feeling that the board finally gave Eisner enough rope to hang himself, and that the "profitability-through-budget-cutting" policy was a significant section of the noose. I'm quite certain AV will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the feeling is that those policies have worn out their welcome, and their current champion is readying to hit the golden silk (determining whether he jumped or was pushed should give the Discussion Boards some excellent fodder, next year sometime).

Exactly how all this will play out is still anyone's guess, and until we know who's going to be next to wear the hat with the propellor on it, there's no good way to determine if they will be a creator or a marketer, and therefore, whether having a "creative edge" over the competition even appears on Disney's future radar.

Jeff

[Captain Crook]

Since AV hasn't yet drafted his thesis and others have commented, I will, as well...Although, since it is AV's voice you were seeking mine will, quite obviously, be dissenting.

Disney is safe. Anyone interested in buying them is on shaky ground as well. The specture of 9/11 is hanging over business like a ton of bricks and because Disney is particularily susceptible to unfortunate economic woes as the Theme Parks are the most profitable venue, suitors of specific content won't dare take the risk on such a diverse package. But this isn't just econmic woes, the threat of terrorism still exists and can be reinforced at any time, making Disney's situation even bleaker. The good news is the balance sheet & Disney's cash situation...Both strong. Further, I believe that Disney will surpise the street next month, short circuting the gloom & doomers (you heard it here first).

As to down the road, lets say we somehow put a crimp on terrorism, ease America's fear of flying & turn the economy around. Disney will flourish with the plans on the table (still to be announced in DEC, IMO).

But for now, what we have is what we have. Disney will continue to react to day by day issues (and DIS'ers will continue to overeact as has happened this last month). If Floridians continue to pack the Parks on weekends, I think weekends will normalize very quickly. The weekdays are a different story, but Disney is just starting a media advertising blitz so it should be assumed that they do want to resume things to "normal".

In closing, I will say that I hink Disney will recover to the form of the late 90's which I and many others consider to be very good times indeed (although this view is certainly not shared by many here). The chance of Disney ever returning to the oft lamented good ole days (that I think never really existed) is zip...Because like I said, they never really existed.


:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[larry_poppins]

I just wanted to thank everyone for their replies. It is true I was hoping for AV to respond, but I am enjoying everyone input. My biggest fear is that Disney might be purchased. However, if Disney is content to pursue a pure marketing strategy and not attempt to regain a creative edge they might as well be swallowed up by another company. Although with the current world/business environment I can not imagine who that would be. Only time will tell.

Right now I just feel sad that as a Disney lover I could care less about Monsters Inc, but I can't wait for Harry Potter to be released!

Thanks again for all of your comments,

Larry

[DVC-Landbaron]

... Waitin' for AV to check in...

I really believe it may not be too late. BUT a serious change in philosophy is needed. And quite frankly, I don't see that change coming from this administration.

[Captain Crook]

And quite frankly, I don't see a change coming from this admisistration.
Landbaron...What's Bush got to do with it?;) ;) ;) :D :D :D
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[Another Voice]

It’s nice to know that some of my ramblings are respected, although I truly hope my opinions are considered just one of the many good views around here. No one should give them any more weight than anyone else’s opinion and I’ll be the first to admit that I’ve been wrong on more than a few occasions. Of course being wrong in the past won’t slow me done in the present…

I’ll try and keep this short (yes, I’ll fail again).

In my mind there are two Disney’s – the company and the idea. The company uses “Disney” as a brand name and produces product, the idea of Disney is a spirit and a set of ideals. Until the late 1990’s, I think the two were indistinguishable and both those who ran the company and the public that bought the product knew it. Over the last six years or so, I think the two Disney’s have drifted apart from each other. The separation may be felt by some, may not be apparent to many, and is ignored by a few.

The future of The Company is extremely uncertain now. Before it was a simple case of a company being mismanaged into a takeover. The entire media industry is going through the greatest change since the inception of the industry over a hundred years ago. The Company, forced to the sidelines by a management without the vision to see what is happening, has far too many good assets and eventually someone is bound to steal the jewels. It is the ultimate irony that Michael Eisner has placed The Company in the same position that allowed him to take control all those years ago; truly a case of those ignorant of history and their damnation.

Yet, what are bad times for The Company may lead to the re-emergence of The Idea. The era of free spending, nothing’s important, what’s in it for me, consumption is the reason for life is over. And with it has gone the easy life that The Company enjoyed for so many years. Simply read all the comments about cuts in park’s operating hours. People aren’t really complaining about loosing ninety minutes to ride the rides; people’s values have changed in ways that we have not been able to articulate yet. It’s not losing E-Nights, it’s that there’s this vague unease about spending lots of money to go to an amusement park to see nothing new. Too many things in life have an importance now, spending thousands to see a painted carny ride with a concrete dinosaur seems so damn shallow. Slickness, carpet-bomb marketing and Brand Worship are things of the past; people are going to have to work for their customers now.

If I had to name just one reason why Walt Disney was a genius as a creator, I would have to boil it down to this sentence: Walt knew there is more to a story then the words you hear or the images you see. Magic is never seen, it’s felt. A true artist connects with an audience’s emotions and expresses them back to the audience. Walt knew how to do that in both film and in three dimensions – that’s why his films has the depth, the “something more”, that still keep them in demand six decades after they are created.

People are in desperate need of that “something more” and are rejecting the products that are only surface deep. There is a reason why ‘Pearl Harbor’ and California Adventure both flopped, yet ‘The Princess Diaries’ and DisneySea are resounding successes. Whether Disney The Company survives is directly linked to their ability recapturing Disney The Idea and creating product the new audience wants. People who can do that still exist – many outside of the company and few that still struggle inside. It will take a massive change for that change to occur, but there is hope. There is even hope, a slim hope, that those running the company might wake up before it’s too late (and California Adventure is making a great alarm clock). If that sense of “true Disney” is reborn, the Company will be safe as it was in the other times of great troubles.

And in a lot of ways, what happens to The Company is no longer as important to me as to what happens to The Idea. To me, ‘Toy Story’ or ‘Shrek’ is not any less “magical” because it wasn’t made by a person on the Disney payroll, but because they were made to a “Disney” level of quality. “Disney” without the talent is nothing but a brand name, and labels don’t make “magic”.

Who owns who is no longer important; it only matters that people carry on with the ideas.

[DVC-Landbaron]

The LandBaron rises from his seat and applauds wildly!!

BRAVO!! AV!! Well said!! Bravo!!

Thank you!!!!

[larry_poppins]

Thanks Another Voice for your comments. I agree with your premise that there are two Disneys: the company and the idea. I think that Disney the company is in trouble right now because it has diverged from the idea. Like you I find the idea of Disney in other places. Islands of Adventure Park is one place I find a lot of quality even though there are some areas of the park that could use some work. I am also looking forward to the Harry Potter film a great deal. I guess when I stay focused on Disney quality and the ideals of Disney regardless of what company is producing them than I don't feel so depressed. Maybe tomorrow will be beautiful after all.

Larry

[lodgelady]

Yes, it is discussions like this that keep everything in perspective! Good Question-excellent replies. Thanks.

[Another Voice]

I get somewhat miffed when people take about how great Disney is, or how magical Disney is, or how wonderful Disney products are. “Disney” is a company and doesn’t do anything on it own. Films, theme parks, tee shirts, hotels are all created and run by people. THEY are responsible for the “magic”, not a corporation.

Unless you have the talent, sitting in front of a drafting table on the Walt Disney Studios lot does not “magically” make you an artist. And if you do have the talent, sitting at a drafting table across town does not “magically” take it away. Disney at its best is a place where talented people are given the resources they need to create tremendous works. If either the people or the resources are lacking, there can be no magic.

And as we’ve seen with Pixar and even at Islands of Adventure, other companies are capable of putting together teams and giving them a good working environment. There is nothing special about Disney The Company, and Disney The Idea has spread far and wide.

[Captain Crook]

Is this a set up?;) I think even Landbaron would have some problems with this post. Who will be brave enough to (really) respond first? ...
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[JeffJewell]

Who will be brave enough to (really) respond first ...well said, AV.

Jeff

[DVC-Landbaron]

JJ, as usual, beat me to the punch! So - "DITTO"


Captain:

Why would you think I would have a problem with anything AV said? That's what I've been trying to say (and apparently not doing a good job) since you and I met a year and a half ago. Walt himself was the "Great Facilitator". Really nothing more. I'm going to go search for my book and come up with the quote that says just what he thought his job was at the Disney Company.

In the meantime, please let me know how you think AV's and my thoughts are different on this subject. Maybe I haven't been clear enough.

[HorizonsFan]

Walt knew there is more to a story then the words you hear or the images you see. Magic is never seen, it’s felt.
WOW!!! Why can't I ever say brilliant stuff like that?

[Captain Crook]

Disney at its best is a place where taleted people are given the resources they need to create tremendous work.
Disney is a Company and doesn't do anything on its own.
As we've seen with Pixar and even at Islands of Adventure other companies are capable of putting together teams and giving them a good working environment.

Wow, you've argued the business principal like you were Scoop or myself. Disney certainly is just a business. But like Coca-Cola & McDonalds it is also the premier business in its sector. To be what the Disney Company is can only come from the evolution of what the Disney Company was...Walt Disney. Walt set the motion, Roy built on that, Mike & Frank added more. But the basics were set by Walt and still are entrenched at Disney today. How else can you explain CM's? IOA has employee's but they aren't CM's, Busch has employees, but they aren't CM's. Even Disney peers in the historical world of business (Coke & McDonalds don't have anything more than employees). The only thing that I've heard about that even comes close to CM's in the business place are some of the early relationships in Silicon Valley (Microsoft, Apple, even Amazon in their infancy), do they still have that feeling now that the gleam is off? And what about Pixar? Oh, they have a wonderful creative environment, but have they been tested? Will they survive some failure? Will Steve Jobs offer them the leadership & ideology for them to say years later "what would Steve have done?" Doubtful don't you think.

So Mr. Voice, you can discount pixie dust & Disney Magic as fanciful, hogwash or simply subjective if you choose and I will concur that any company can build quality, any company can be successful but any company cannot be Disney, for if your position is true, Walt was nothing more than a facilitator as Landbaron supposes (and this is where you surprise me, my friend). A "Disney" would not have grown by happenstance. It was Walt's to do, much as Microsoft was Bill Gates'. IOA is a nice Park, but few people see any magic in it. Sure there are rides that are top notch, some theming that's disneysque but the place isn't, won't be and in fact can't be anything more than Disneyesque. For that to happen Vivendi would have to create the loyal, instill the belief and foot the bill that in this day and age won't happen.

Disney is Disney because of Walt's legacy and that can't be duplicated. Without WDW the pretenders to the thrown wouldn't be a factor and if Disney fades from independence they too will become what you say they already are. You can continue to hope that I'm wrong...That the next guy will be more understanding to the creative muse and in fact I'm hoping right along with you. But the best chance for continuing Disney enjoyment is an independent Disney.

I guess I will close by saying that my exception to a lot of your views (all of you) is that you discount the opinions of those of us who actually still love WDW. By saying all of the negative things you feel, you're saying we're chumps for still believing and perhaps thats true, but I'm a chump who has truly enjoyed WDW 21 nights so far this year not to mention enjoying myself at Princess Diaries, Spy Kids, Serendipity & even Pearl Harbor (though I know it's not fashionable to admit).

Disney is certainly not what it once was, but what it once was is an impossible ghost of the past. I agree that many things could and should be done better, but why, when the enjoyment factor for my family is still there, should I ruin it by purposly being too introspective?
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[hopemax]

In other places I've tried to ask the question, "How does Disney make the magic?" I started asking that question, because I realized that the "pixie dust" wasn't real but it was just regular ol' human beings making choices. And Disney had a reputation for making different choices than company X and the outcomes of those choices were impressive. Then I saw Disney making other choices, and I believe that there is a cause/effect relationship so the outcome would have to change. Like taking a recipe, if you change the ingredients or even change the quantity of some of the ingredients, what you pull out of the oven will taste different. But other people didn't seem to think that way; that the changes behind the scenes affected the outcomes of what we see "on-stage" so I started asking how they thought Disney made it's magic.

But what I found is that a lot of people don't like to answer that question. The typical answer was along the lines of Tinkerbell's pixie dust. What makes Disney special? Magic. What makes it magical. Because it's special. What makes it special? Magic. Round and round.

And I guess if people have never considered "how" it all happens, then I guess that's a big part of the "why" people can't fathom anyone else being capable of providing the types of experiences that Disney typically have provided. I've read a lot of comments since the cutbacks started along the lines of "Why would anyone stop going to WDW even with the changes?" As if there are no other choices that could be as fulfilling as a trip to WDW at the same price as a trip to WDW. I fear what choices the management will make if that is the predominant belief among them, because it provides no motivation for things to change. "If you don't build it, they will still come because there is no other choice."

But as my dissatisfaction with Disney grows, I've spent more time looking for options. It does take more effort on my part than calling CRO every year, but it's amazing to find where little bits of the "idea" have spread. I've been reading the message board on www.themedattraction.com (http://www.themedattraction.com) for awhile. Ex-Imagineer Eddie Sotto is the moderator. It's not a very active board, but there are people from within the industry who post little bits. Well, one of the posters started adding a sig file which promotes *his* theme park. They are expanding from a miniature golf couse to a few rides this off-season, so it's certainly not a "destination." It's called Giggle Ridge (http://www.giggleridge.com/). I was amazed to find this was only 40 minutes from where I live, and amazed by what I saw in the few pictures online, and when I saw the 2001 prices of $6.50 CN (~$4.10 US) I was blown away. The down side is that it's closed for the season, so I have to wait for the spring to see it first hand. I emailed the owner, and told him my delight and he emailed back a piece of the expansion plans. And in reading some other things he's said, 70% of the visitors are adults so when he designs the fanciful, whimsical things, that is in his mind, not just pleasing kids which is a big YEAH! for me. Learning about this place, gave me hope that the concept of one thing being able to please both "the young and the young at heart" was still valid, and not be cost prohibitive and others could pull it off if they set their mind to it.

P.S. A week ago, I could have helped with Landbaron's quote, I'm pretty sure it's in the Quotable Walt Disney but I had to return my Dad's copy to my Dad before he would let me borrow the Herb Ryman book. :D

P.S. 2 Here's to the pollinators! :D

[hopemax]

I guess I will close by saying that my exception to a lot of your views (all of you) is that you discount the opinions of those of us who actually still love WDW. By saying all of the negative things you feel, you're saying we're chumps for still believing and perhaps thats true, but I'm a chump who has truly enjoyed WDW 21 nights so far this year not to mention enjoying myself at Princess Diaries, Spy Kids, Serendipity & even Pearl Harbor (though I know it's not fashionable to admit).



Would it be surprising for you to hear that you aren't the only one who feels like a chump over Disney? Over the years of posting about when I see things that disappoint me about Disney, I can't count the times that I've been told that I should just stop noticing things. My nature and personality is one that examines things and thinks of ways to make them better. There have been so many times when I wished I could turn that part of my brain off that asks the questions and does the analysis. But I can't.

And I can't speak for anyone else, but when I sit and type out that analysis, as it applies to Disney, it isn't to prove to anyone that they are wrong for liking something, but to explain why someone else, usually me, might not feel the same way (for reasons other than being a grouch).


Disney is certainly not what it once was, but what it once was is an impossible ghost of the past. I agree that many things could and should be done better, but why, when the enjoyment factor for my family is still there, should I ruin it by purposly being too introspective?


If it's not in your personality to examine, there may be little reason to do so, but in the same regards if it is in someone's personality to do so, I would hope that it would be recognized as a reasonable action instead of coming from some sort of "troublemaker" mentality.

[DVC-Landbaron]

OK Mr. Captain. Evidently I have been unclear. Let’s take it one step at a time. And unlike AV, I’m not even going to try to keep it short. (BREAK OUT THE QUOTE FUNCTION – FULL STEAM AHEAD!!!)
To be what the Disney Company is can only come from the evolution of what the Disney Company was...Walt Disney You are talking about what AV calls the “Idea” and what I always refer to as the “Walt philosophy”. And truly it is what brings us all together and sets the company apart from anything else I can think of. Walt set the motion, Roy built on that, Mike & Frank added more Right, sort of (I suppose) and dead wrong.

Right - Walt did indeed set things in motion and his philosophy or “Idea” was central to the way he did business.

Sort of (I suppose) – Roy, creatively added little to the mix. It wasn’t his “Idea” and there are some stories out there that point to the fact that he didn’t quite ‘get it’. But he did live with his brother long enough to have the Idea rub off on him and, to his credit, he did a good job carrying on after Walt was gone.

Dead Wrong – Mike and Frank, in the early days didn’t do much to take away from the the “Idea”, but they certainly didn’t add to it. And lately Ei$ner has done his best to… well… let’s just say… ‘ignore’ the “Idea”.

And what about Pixar? Oh, they have a wonderful creative environment, but have they been tested? Will they survive some failure? Will Steve Jobs offer them the leadership & ideology for them to say years later "what would Steve have done?" Doubtful don't you think. WOW!! For as much as an optimist that you are for all things Disney, that is how pessimistic you seem when Disney’s name isn’t attached to the product!! I’ll bet if Jobs did take over as CEO at Disney, you’d be the first to say, “what would Steve have done”. ;) So Mr. Voice, you can discount pixie dust & Disney Magic as fanciful, hogwash or simply subjective if you choose Now, far be it from me to answer for the exalted Mr. Voice (chances are he’ll answer before I finish this thing anyway) but, I don’t think he’s discounting it! In fact the opposite is true, for me at least. I embrace the pixie dust. It’s part of the “Idea” we were talking about earlier. It is just that kind of thing (and the CMs you mentioned as well) that set Disney apart from the drivel that’s out there. It was Walt's to do, much as Microsoft was Bill Gates'. Correct!! Give the man a cigar!! Walt did it!! And Gates set the tone and direction for his company. Certainly Microsoft wouldn’t be the same if not for Billie Boy! It may be better, it may be worse. But it sure wouldn’t be the same! I think that’s the point.[/quote] For that to happen Vivendi would have to create the loyalty, instill the belief and foot the bill that in this day and age won't happen. [/quote] And the only reason it won’t is because it does not have that all important “Idea”. BUT!! But, if it did have a creative “Walt” type at the head, it’d pass up Disney in a New York second!! Why? Because it’s PEOPLE that make the magic, NOT the company or the brand name. Talented people. Visionary people. “Idea” people. And I think that that is AV’s point.
Disney is Disney because of Walt's legacy and that can't be duplicated. Sure it could, Captain!! All it takes is a Walt kind of guy. Now they’re not a dime a dozen, I’ll grant you. But somewhere out there I think someone can be found that understands the concept of the “Idea”!! Heck, half the people on the board understand the concept. Even you!!!! ;)
I guess I will close by saying that my exception to a lot of your views (all of you) is that you discount the opinions of those of us who actually still love WDW WHOA!!! Hold on there partner-Captain!!! By saying that you infer that we do NOT love Disney!! And you know, in my case anyway, that that’s simply not true!!!!
Disney is certainly not what it once was, but what it once was is an impossible ghost of the past. Ah-ha!!! At last we can agree on something!! But I don’t think it should be an “impossible ghost”. Not if we have the right “Idea” man at the helm. He doesn’t have to be the second coming of Walt. He just has to ‘get it’. Maybe it’s because I ‘get it’ that I run my business that way. I surround myself with more talented people than myself. I set the tone and the goals. I delegate to an almost ridiculous degree. I make myself available. And then I push them to do better!!! Same as Walt!!!! But it all boils down to people. for if your position is true, Walt was nothing more than a facilitator as Landbaron supposes (and this is where you surprise me, my friend). Ok, the following is for you my good Captain. It’s a heck of a lot of typing!! I hope you appreciate it!!

The Quotes of the “Idea” man – Walt. First he put a team together:
Togetherness, for me, means team work. In my business of motion pictures and television entertainment, many minds and skillful hands must collaborate…. The work seeks to comprehend the spiritual and material needs and yearnings of gregarious humanity. It makes us reflect how completely dependant we are upon one another in our social and commercial life. The more diversified our labors and interests have become in the modern world, the more surely we need to interrogate our efforts to justify our individual selves and our civilization. The whole thing here is the organization. Whatever we accomplish belongs to our entire group, a tribute to our combined effort. Look at Disneyland. That was started because we had the talents to start it, the talents of the organization. And our World’s Fair shows – what we did was possible only because we already had the staff that had worked together for years, blending creative ideas with technical know-how. We developed so many talents as we went along that I lay awake nights figuring out how to use them. That’s how we became so diversified. It was a natural branching out. You can dream, create, design, and build the most wonderful place in the world… but it requires people to make the dream a reality.

And then it’s what he did when the team was together:
I haven’t drawn a single character in over thirty years. It’s not only that I have no time for it any longer, but I’ve found development of the stories themselves much more intriguing than drawing. This seems all the more amazing when one considers that each film. No matter how many people have worked on it, has what is called the “Disney touch”. The secret is teamwork. Each character is arrived at by group effort. An artist might have a lot of talent and come up with an excellent idea, but if, after it is thoroughly analyzed, the character cannot be adapted and worked with by the group, we discard it.Of all the things I’ve done, the most vital is coordinating those who work with me and aiming their efforts at a certain goal. I think if there’s any part I’ve played… The vital part is coordinating these talents, and encouraging these talents, and carrying them down a certain line. It’s like pulling together a big orchestra. They’re all individually very talented. I have an organization of people who are really specialists. You can’t match them anywhere in the world for what they can do. But they all need to be pulled together, and that’s my job. My role? Well, you know I was stumped one day when a little boy asked, ‘Do you draw Mickey Mouse?’ I had to admit I do not draw anymore. ‘Then you think up all the jokes and ideas?’ ‘No,’ I said, ‘I don’t do that.’ Finally, he looked at me and said, ‘Mr. Disney, just what do you do?’ ‘Well,’ I said, ‘sometimes I think of myself as a little bee. I go from one area of the studio to another and gather pollen and sort of stimulate everybody. I guess that’s the job I do.’

It's people Captain. Plain and simple. People who have the "Idea". And are not just some corporate type that barely made it through business 101. Or as our friend bicker is fond of referring to them as "Professionals doing their jobs". Nah! I’ll take a talented dreamer any day of the week.

Your turn!! ;)

[Another Voice]

Captain, sir. You speak of “magic” as if it was the birthright of a corporation. That once granted, it shall always exist and none other shall possess it. Somewhere, deep in a vault buried deep beneath Burbank’s soil, there is The Secret Recipe of Disney that grants a luster of unimagined joy. You also speak of Cast Members as a different breed of human – for they too can exist only at Disney theme parks and not others.

Sir, you are wrong. Cast Members are normal people, just like you and me, who day in and day out perform an incredible job in circumstances more difficult than you can know (and I do know what’s it like – I worked my way through college paddling guests around The Rivers of America way back in that impossible ghost of a time). And in two decades working on the Disney lot, I never saw the vault, the glow from a secret lab, or anyone wave a magic wand over a can of film. I did see, and continue to see, thousands of people working damn hard at their jobs. It has nothing to do with their location or the brand name that gets slapped on the product – what you see and enjoy is the result of their sweat, their effort, and their creativity. To explain those efforts as if it was just something in the water is a great disservice to all.

Disney is not a tiki god that needs to be thanked for the bounty it provides. “Disney” is the result of thousands and thousands of cast members, employees and others who work at their jobs. Disney is a living, breathing entity filled with fallible human beings. These people are not granted special powers because their paycheck has a mouse on it, nor are people who don’t work at Disney somehow a lesser form of artist.

The vast majority wants to do a good job, but some do not. Some lack the skill to achieve their goals, other are prevented from achievement through no fault of their own. And leadership is not always wise – the Universe did not grant the top floor of the Team Disney building an exemption from ego, greed or vice. Disney, like any human endeavor, occasionally makes mistakes. People should be told of great successes (‘The Princess Diaries’, DisneySea), but those projects that fall short of the goals should not be denied out of some misplaced sense of loyalty.

You write of Walt’s legacy and that is good – because that is what many, many of us are trying to uphold. Walt’s legacy can be duplicated by anyone who believes in it. It is not tied to a single place, nor does it have to come wrapped only in one kind of package. A living legacy only requires hard work and an attitude that does not accept anything less. To say that only a select few are capable of understanding what Walt was trying to accomplish means you are saying that he had nothing to say to the rest of the world. And I don’t believe that for a moment.

And let me close where you did, “…those of us who actually still love WDW”. That is why I am here. I do not want to see Disney diminish or disappear. I do not want them to slide into mediocrity. I want others to get the same enjoyment and enrichment that I found. And I will not let the legacy slip away or be turned into nothing but a marketing slogan.

You cannot measure what “Disney” means to me based on the number of nights stayed each year – but that doesn’t make it any less important.

[Captain Crook]

Oh, you guys. Do you even read what you write?:D :D :D

First off Hopemax, I am a very introspective person by nature...The bane of my miserable existence, I fear. But I am also a pragmatist. I can see beyond the good & the bad decisions of management and still enjoy WDW for what it is. Despite the Eisnerization of Disney (like that Landbaron?), WDWis still a fun place to visit. Much more fun than US/IOA, SeaWorld or Busch Gardens. Therefore, in my book, Disney is still the best and this is what really matters to me.

From here it's helter skelter...

Mr. Another, What other logical conclusion do you offer for the majority of WDW CM's being special, seeing themselves as special & servicing the guest in a far superior manner to their Orlando counterparts if it isn't an ingrained "Disney feeling?" I am fully aware that these CM's are "just people" but in my many conversations with them, they know they are different than the employees at other Parks and they relish in that. Oh, to be sure there is the oddball, but by and large this is an extraodinary group of people behaving in a way that I don't see or experience in any other venue. This is a result of a "Company mentality" started by Walt and maintained to this day. US/IOA would love this devotion but they can't have it. Why not? Because they don't have the history that people (including employees) love, cherish, honor & get all goose-bumpy over that Disney does. You see. it doesn't have to be tangible, hell, it doesn't even have to be real!

Further, in this day and age, this "magic" feeling will never again be seen. The human animal has changed and the devotion necessary to foster this far reaching socialogical behavior isn't at all likely in today's world. Sure there will be individuals with the talents, but greed & power will corrupt even them. There will be no new Walt Disney (until he is thawed). Other great men will walk the earth, many great new stories will be seen, but Walt's has been told and to assume that some great, imaginitive, business fellow who idolizes Walt's ideology will suddenly appear at the helm of Disney and start making the right choices for the right reasons is niave. We are far more likely to see Ted Turner or Rupert Murdoch in Mikes chair...

Disney IS a Company, like all other companies except for one thing. A special legacy of Walt Disney that I believe still exists today. It doesn't shine as bright and maybe someday that light will be extinguished. But I loved the WDWof the 90's and it isn't that big of stretch to get back to that place. Is my glass half full? Well, yes, maybe more. But my faith is in the on-going system that has run a particular way for many, many years but will cease to exist under a new system run by another, totally independent meglamaniac like Gates, Case or Murdoch...
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[JeffJewell]

I must have been dozing, for it appears the Landbaron and AV have beaten me in replying to your post, CC, and both did so with style and aplomb, I'd say, but don't think for a second that's going to affect the length of my own post... ;)But the basics were set by Walt and still are entrenched at Disney today. Well, at least we get to the heart of the disagreement right up front.

To me the basics of Disney Magic had to do with creativity, storytelling and lush detail. I just can't agree with you that these are still entrenched at Disney as the central foci of what the Company does.How else can you explain CM's? You explain CM's with the extensive new hire and continuing training programs that have largely fallen victim to budget cuts over the years (Disney's training methods are no longer the benchmark for the corporate world they once were). No one is born with a "CM" birthmark on their forehead, branding them forever as a quality Disney Cast Member. It takes training and dedication to make a CM in the way you're using the term. Simply cashing a Disney paycheck doesn't do it.you can discount pixie dust & Disney Magic as fanciful, hogwash or simply subjective if you choose Actually, he didn't do any of those things. He merely stated the correct opinion that a "copyright Disney" sticker does not, in and of itself, inbue any Magic into a project.

When you first saw the Power Rangers, did you think "well, another UltraMan... and there's five of them, now," or did you think "now, _that_ is a production that meets Disney's standards for Quality and Magic?" When you see them again next year with the Disney stamp of approval on them, what will have changed about the episodes themselves?

The name Disney, in this context, means absolutely nothing.if your position is true, Walt was nothing more than a facilitator as Landbaron supposes (and this is where you surprise me, my friend). A "Disney" would not have grown by happenstance. "Facilitator" doesn't imply anything about the nature of that which is facilitated. Eisner is "nothing more than a facilitator" as well, it's just that he facilitates share-oriented goals whereas Walt facilitated creative goals. It's the focus, not the function, that is crucial.It was Walt's to do, much as Microsoft was Bill Gates'. Although I know what you mean, MS/Gates is a bad comparison: Gates is much more of an Eisnerian marketer than a Disneyesque creator.IOA is a nice Park, but few people see any magic in it. I've read and heard a number of dissenting opinions on that topic.For that to happen Vivendi would have to create the loyal, instill the belief and foot the bill that in this day and age won't happen Yeah, but it's not happening in this day and age at Disney, either.I guess I will close by saying that my exception to a lot of your views (all of you) is that you discount the opinions of those of us who actually still love WDW. And I will say that my exception to a lot of your views (all of you, and you "all" know who you are) is your assumption that I do not love Disney, simply because I am willing to point out the places where I think it could be much better.By saying all of the negative things you feel, you're saying we're chumps for still believing and perhaps thats true, but I'm a chump who has truly enjoyed WDW 21 nights so far this year That's nonsense. If that were true, I'd be calling _myself_ a chump for preparing my twelfth through nineteeth nights this year at WDW come December.

Car #3 is still going to Disney World, okay? We love it, too. We're complaining so things will change so it will flourish in the future, instead of continuing down the path of becoming more and more like every other media conglomerate in the world.Disney is certainly not what it once was...[snip] I agree that many things could and should be done better That sounds like an application for at least Car #2.why, when the enjoyment factor for my family is still there, should I ruin it by purposly being too introspective? So you think we're ruining our enjoyment of Disney by suggesting that things could be even better, from several different perspectives, if the creative focus of the early had not given way to the marketing focus of recent years? It doesn't ruin _my_ enjoyment of Disney, I'm still going.

Believe me, everyone will know if I ever get into Car #4 so I can see Disney in the rear view mirror.

what it once was is an impossible ghost of the past. I disagree: I believe that a CEO with a skill for handling creators and a commitment that the company be creative can result in Magic on an old-time Disney scale.

Jeff

[DVC-Landbaron]

Despite the Eisnerization of Disney (like that Landbaron?)I LOVE it!!! http://www.wdwinfo.com/sites/family/mirror.gif

But you left out the all important "$"!

It should read: "Ei$nerization" http://www.wdwinfo.com/sites/family/baby11.gif

[YoHo]

Captain my Captain, The Harley is hitting the brakes and pulling up alongside the Another Voice Woody. :)

I will grant you this. Disney, The Name, Does attract people with a certain bent. Their history helps them to draw creative people and friendly people to work there.


BUT


The notion that no other company could have done it, or that no other company will ever be able to do it again is just dumb. An I apologize for being so harsh. I don't like using words like that, but you should no better.

The fundimentals that make Disney disney, that make the magic magical are a way of thinking and doing. I could do it, you could do it, anyone with the desire to do it could.

It would take a genious of Walt's caliber to run the company the way he did, but certainly anyone could foster those ideas and with the appropriate people in the creative departments, you could create magic.

[hopemax]

Further, in this day and age, this "magic" feeling will never again be seen. The human animal has changed and the devotion necessary to foster this far reaching socialogical behavior isn't at all likely in today's world. Sure there will be individuals with the talents, but greed & power will corrupt even them. There will be no new Walt Disney (until he is thawed). Other great men will walk the earth, many great new stories will be seen, but Walt's has been told and to assume that some great, imaginitive, business fellow who idolizes Walt's ideology will suddenly appear at the helm of Disney and start making the right choices for the right reasons is niave. We are far more likely to see Ted Turner or Rupert Murdoch in Mikes chair...

And this may be where the divide really lies.

I do believe that the "Magic" can be seen again. Are the business leader's of today really more ruthless than the JP. Morgan's or the Rockefeller's? Are the leaders in Hollywood really more controlling than the Louis B. Mayer's and Charlie Mintz's? Union busting, blackballing and all the other underhanded tactics of the business world used in the last bit of the 19th and the first part of the 20th century, if in all of that a Walt Disney could be found, why not now?

[Another Voice]

Captain, sir. I wish you had been around the company twenty years ago – the very time your idol took over. You would have heard the exact same things then that you are writing today: It’s Our Traditions, It’s Walt’s Men’s, No One Can Do It Better, The Others Won’t Understand, Only We Have The Magic…..

Not only were the people who had worked with and had been trained by Walt shoved out the door, do you know what this new guy’s claim to fame is? ‘Flashdance’ – that pour the water from the bucket, dance in your leotard, all I want to do is perform gem of a movie, that 100 minutes of cinematic “magic” was Michael Eisner’s big ticket into Hollywood fame and fortune. And he didn’t even make it, he was just the junior executive that signed the check. THAT was the company’s future. And you seem to have liked the results. If Walt’s legacy is strong enough then, why do you lack the faith today?

Walt’s legacy is not a brand name, a system, or a bunch of loyal customers. It is a commitment to the hard work it takes to change imagination into reality. Anyone who chooses to follow that lead – no matter where they work – can uphold that legacy. And on the opposite side, assuming the brand name of the founder does not reduce the workload, grant the imagination, or “magically” overcome laziness and greed.

Good work can exist without the Disney brand name – and a Disney label does not guarantee quality. We do not attack Disney when we like something outside of The System nor when we dislike something from The Brand.

[Captain Crook]

Scoop, as with DisDuck in past brouhaha's, you certainly CAN speak for me!
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[YoHo]

Scoop, Capt. Your missing it.


the Part of DIsney that makes it like Steve McQueen is not magically connected to the Disney name.


The Differences between the Hyatt Grand Cypress and the YC/BC are the Story. the Disney Grand Cypress wouldn't magically be better. but the Hyatt YC/BC if it were built with the same story to the same specs would be just as magical.

I feel like I'm on the cusp of a break through and Its driving me nuts that I can't get you to understand.

[Captain Crook]

I feel like I'm on the cusp of a breakthrough...
Take two aspirin and post again in the morning.;)
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[JeffJewell]

I feel like I'm on the cusp of a break through and Its driving me nuts that I can't get you to understand. ...welcome to my world.

Jeff

PS: Four in a row? Landbaron? Anyone?

[hopemax]

Ohh...I have mind tricks...hmm...Disney management must be either Jabba the Hut or Watto..."Your Jedi mind tricks do not work on me...only money..." Hmm...maybe that would explain a lot, Disney is being taken over by Toydarians!

I don't know much about Steve McQueen though, I remember my Dad watching the Towering Inferno though. I don't remember looking at the screen and exclaiming, "Who is that man?!" and finding myself sitting down and watching it. So I don't know how much "special something" McQueen really had, he certainly didn't do anything for me that day.

<------ also sees the cusp, and hopes Yoho can make it up the hill.

I think I see in the haziness of my mind things like being in a car and the driver has it in cruise control, and from my seat I can see that the gas gauge is below a quarter of a tank. We're just passing the sign for "gas 1 mile, next gas 111 miles" and the driver changes into the left lane and is telling me, "Don't worry we've driven the last 111 miles just fine, why should the next 111 miles be any different?"

[YoHo]

(whho-khhhhhhh whhho-khhhhhhhhh)

It is....Too Late for me my friends. The Landbaron is your master now. HE will show you the TRUE meaning of the MOUSE.

:):):):)

[JeffJewell]

In all seriousness though, besides Captain, does not anyone else feel the intangible? Do you all really believe that Hyatt running the YB/BC would be the same? I absolutely feel the intangible, but I'm convinced that the greater portion of that intangible something is actually coming from my own memories, not anything that Disney is doing much differently from anyone else, these days. I've alluded to the fact that we'd still be going to Orlando in December even if Eisner decided that torching the parks and collecting the insurance money is the best way to remain profitable: it's a family trip with significance that dates back 29 years, now. We would stand on the ashes of Cinderella Castle, take our pictures, and still feel Magic, because a big chunk of "our" Magic is 1972 Magic.

It comes down to how we're each defining "Magic," again. Yes, I feel Magic at the Contemporary (as long as I'm looking away from the Garden Wings), but that's not because they've done such a good job maintaining and adding to the Magic, it's because of the effect the place had on me when I was six.

I still believe the "intangible" something is actually the result of very tangible story-telling and detailling: that the Magic isn't the brand name on the product, it's what _in_ the product.

To pick at a scab we haven't opened up for a while, now: consider Dino-Rama, particularly Triceratops Spin. Even though you and I might be in the "I'm finally back in WDW, back-stroking in the Magic: this is the best spinner I've ever been on," I feel that Magic was instilled in us before we saw the ride itself.

I simply have no idea what it might be about Triceratops Spin that will provoke that Magical feeling in new guests, someone who wasn't already Disney-addled before this trip.

That's the thing, to me. Will Triceratops Spin "ruin" my ride on Space Mountain? Of course not. Will the six-year-olds of today, in thirty years, have the same attachment to Triceratops Spin as I have to Space Mountain, even if they enjoy the ride, now?

I just don't think so.

Jeff

[All Aboard]

Will the six-year-olds of today, in thirty years, have the same attachment to Triceratops Spin as I have to Space Mountain, even if they enjoy the ride, now?
Why not? Do you have an attachment to Dumbo or the Mad Tea Party? Why wouldn't someone who's first trip to WDW included the Magic Carpets of Aladdin and Tricertops spin share the same feelings or attachments that we do to Dumbo?

If I were a CM right now, and I had to choose my "magical memory" for the bottom of my name badge, it would likely read "Space Mountain." That's the best memory from my first trip. That doesn't proclude me from having positive memories about Dumbo.

I do get an enormous thrill out of being able to take my daughter on Dumbo and recalling near-thirty year old memories of it. Our daughter will likely remember Dumbo in a similar manner to how she remembers the Carpets or the Spin, I believe.

[JeffJewell]

Our daughter will likely remember Dumbo in a similar manner to how she remembers the Carpets or the Spin, I believe. Well, yeah, because Dumbo is just a cheap spinner, too.

I apologize for that, I'm weak and I couldn't resist.

For the sake of this argument, I'm gonna call back the Pop Century thread real quick, but this time, I'll agree with you that the All-Star Movies, with its 40 foot Buzz Lightyear, does qualify as traditional "Disney Magic," on the basis that it recalls Disney memories. Dumbo, therefore, is themed in a Disney Quality fashion: you see the big ears, you remember the movie; Disney Magic.

What Disney Magic is there in a Triceratops? Quite literally, _anyone_ can build a spinner with a Dino theme. If the gist of the question still concerns the 'scoop's point of that intangible Disney something-or-other, there is nothing that Disney is contributing to this ride that another company could not.

I'm not saying your daughter won't remember it fondly, I'm just saying that she'll remember it fondly in the same way she'll fondly remember other good times with her dad, and not because of the Disney Quality, Story, and Detail packed into the ride; not because of the "intangible Disney essence" stuff that spurred me to post.

Jeff

PS:Do you have an attachment to Dumbo or the Mad Tea Party Actually, not a lot, no. Even at six, I had been enough places that the Dumbo-style spinners and Tea Party style hurlers were old hat. My Space Mountain example was supposed to carry with it the implication that it was the extra attention paid to Space Mountain in contrast to the detail on similar but non-Disney small scale steel coasters that delineated the Disney difference(obviously, my example was slacking off its intended duty). The fond memories I have of Dumbo mostly involve my mother trying to keep her wig on (hey, it was the early 70's: that kind of thing was fashionable, then) and my little sister seated at the same time, not the incredible detail on Timothy's hat.

It can also go the other way: in my younger days, I was bored silly by Pirates of the Caribbean. Now, I have to ride it on every trip to MK, if only to see that first scene with the skeleton lashed to the wheel and the storm boiling behind him. Stunning, chilling effect that was simply lost on me as a youngster.

[YoHo]

I don't think that Eisner, or Eisner/Wells have added nothing. There are any number of things that they added that will be classics. (on the flip side, I loved the old Frontierland station that was bulldozed to make Splash mountain)


What I'm trying to say is that anyone can do this.

The only Intangible Disney has is Memories, History. And that would be the only intangible that they exclusivly have even if Eisner was so good that he made Walt look like a ****.

The skills and attitude that it took to create the Disney parks can be had by anyone. The history of those parks cannot. Children of today and tomorrow will remember the history through their parents eyes and so on and so forth.
In 15 years, You might see that kind of Devotion to the Universal parks as well.

Again, History is the only intangible.

[Captain Crook]

In 15 years, You might see that kind of Devotion to the Universal Parks as well.
See, this is where I disagree. While US/IOA have many fans and even a few rabid ones I don't think you could characterize it as anything that approach's the devotion to things "Disney". Certainly, the possibility exists for this to happen but it is so miniscle I don't even take it seriously. This devotion & care would have to be fostered over much time, even generations, and Vivendi doesn't care about that...Heck Disney seems to care only because it's their legacy...;)
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[YoHo]

Its possible Uo doesn't have what it takes, I don't know. BUT, Even if they failed, it doesn't mean someone else couldn't succeed. Given the right attitude, a good start and a way into the collective memory (Disney Films were Walt's way in) someone else could easily duplicate that success.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Will wonders never cease!!!!

YoHo wrote:
In 15 years, You might see that kind of Devotion to the Universal Parks as well.And the Captain answered:See, this is where I disagree. While US/IOA have many fans and even a few rabid ones I don't think you could characterize it as anything that approach's the devotion to things "Disney". Captain, hold on to your tri-corner hat! Here it comes… Get ready… Get set… I AGREE WITH YOU!!

While I certainly understand YoHo's point I think he took a wrong turn in the logic of the subject. I think that instead of pointing to devotion to Universal or IOA, a better argument could be made at the loss of 'rabid' fans at Disney to equal what Universal enjoys! Why? Because in today's market, thanks to the brilliant management team headed by Ei$ner, there is very little difference.

You see, when Disney was the only game in town, and could have easily dumbed down the experience, they chose to achieve excellence over the "good-enough" mentality that is currently employed. So while much credit should be given to Universal for striving to meet Disney head on, an awful lot of BLAME should be given to Disney for discarding their once high standards, and being satisfied with merely matching their competition.

So I agree, Captain!! Universal will not garner the rabid fans that Disney once enjoyed. But neither will Disney. They are both merely part of a corporation. Nothing less, but certainly nothing more. Surely you can see that!

Heck Disney seems to care only because it's their legacy Well, I knew it couldn't last. You made a mistake with this statement. You left out the word "fans". It should read:
Heck Disney fans seem to care only because it's their legacy

;)

[hopemax]

In all seriousness though, besides Captain, does not anyone else feel the intangible? Do you all really believe that Hyatt running the YB/BC would be the same?

The Sheraton and the Westin run the Swan and Dolphin and I don't hear too many complaints that staying there doesn't feel like a Disney vacation. It may not "feel" Disney to you because of your suitcases full of memories, but to the people who haven't been at the World since they were 6 and are bringing their wife and 6 year old down for the first time? I don't think they would feel that strong of a difference between a Hyatt hotel (or another high reputation chain) on Disney property and a Disney hotel. And I've already felt more Disney-than-Disney places to stay already. Now when they start building Disney theme parks around them, watch out!

Or is DVCLB's opinion that nothing has been value-added since Eisner/Wells began in the early 80s really that pervasive

I do know go as far as Landbaron, back to the 80's, like others I pin it around 1994, and the death of Frank Wells. Not everything that was done in the decade prior, made me ecstatically happy, but I can look at what was done between 84 and 94 and the ratios between the Wows! and the "that's nice" and "why did they bother" fall into an "acceptable" range for me. And for the record, I consider things like Tower of Terror and Animal Kingdom from the Wells/Eisner era even though they opened later. The ground work was done in 1990, 91, 92. But I think it was Wells' death that created the juxtaposition that AK is. Some things in Africa, Tree of Life are Wows of the highest order, and other things like Conservation Station...aren't. Half the park enjoyed the luxury of creative being slightly more important than money, and the other half where they were reversed, and I think the outcome is obvious.

Maybe, MGM didn't open with the greatest attraction slate but in the 5 years after opening you can see an effort to add great things like Star Tours, Muppets, ToT, Mermaid, stage shows. And I compare that to what is happening with Animal Kingdom and how their first five years are shaping up to be? It just sits wrong with me.

I see Jeff already asked, "What is there about Disney that is doing today that will endear itself to future generations?" The problem as I see it isn't so much that they are building the Triceratops spinner and the Aladdin spinner, but that there aren't enough of the Wow! rides to come along with it. Maybe 4 years olds now are developing the same sort of love of Aladdin that I did for Dumbo, but it wasn't my love for Dumbo that got my parents to agree to a trip back to Disneyland (being a west coaster and all). And it wasn't my 4 year old love for Dumbo that made the 9 year old me and the 13 year old me want to return to Disneyland either. And it certainly isn't Dumbo that gets the 25 year old and childless me on the plane. Personally, I go for things like the HM and Pirates (DL's), American Adventure, Splash Mountain, ToT and things like Horizons, COP. But those old rides have a limited shelf life, more limited now because of the different maintence policies, and what happens when those attractions get like COP and it just costs too much to restore? A MK without HM or Splash? It will happen, and then what will people see?

What is Disney building now that will want families to return to WDW on a regular schedule, instead of "I took my child to WDW like a good American family does, now it's time to take them to other places that good American families go?" Are Test Track and RnRR really enough? I hear a lot, now, about how it's still fun to go because the children are happy there. But what caused Walt to build Disneyland in the first place? He got tired of simply watching his daughters have fun on the carousel.

If the draw of WDW deteriorates to the point of a place where parents go predominantly to watch the kids have fun, a place where Mom and the baby ride the spinners and Dad and the teens go ride Mission Space? I can't see how that that environment will generate the love and devotion to equal the love and devotion of people who grew up and saw the opening of the things Walt built in the 1960's that everyone rode and were still relatively new enough that the kids of the 70's and 80's were still affected strongly by them. And without the love and devotion, I can't see the money rolling in either.

I don't fear for WDW that people will stop coming, but that it will turn into a place where people go once as a child and then return once, as an adult with their kids. And if Disney wants it to be a cash cow, they need to be thinking about what can we do so that people come once every 3-5 years from the time they are 4 until they are 65 and bringing the grandkids.

[hopemax]

I see lots of posts while I was writing....

I'll take it another direction. Prior to the opening of Disneyland and the installation of the interstates, people didn't really take road trips, they stayed close to home. But the world changed. By the 70's when WDW opened, a road trip was common, but cross-country airline trips weren't. Now we think nothing about flying across the country for a vacation.

Well, what happens in another 30 years? Will travel to foreign countries like Japan or Europe still be "out of the norm" for American families? And if it's not, what is WDW doing to make it a better choice than say, the Tokyo Disney Resort?

[Another Voice]

Mr. Jewell is absolutely correct – “magic” is 100% subjective. It’s an emotional reaction based on thousands of factors, and all of the factors are within the beholder. Each person will react differently and the same person will react differently at different times.

My grandfather would always tell us about his glowing memories of his weekend pass into New York City and the “magic” of Coney Island (okay, I think the grandkids only got the edited version of events…). As a small town boy from southern Arizona, the place was truly “magical” to him – a combination of the time (WWII), the place (small town meets big city), and the circumstances (right before boarding ship). When I went to Coney Island, I thought the place was a dump. I had flashbacks of really bad ‘Starskey and Hutch’ episodes. I left as soon as I could. Different time, different circumstances – no magic.

So, is Coney Island a “magical” place or not? The only answer you can give is: “it depends”. The same thing with Walt Disney World or Universal Parks – it depends. The Contemporary Resort – it depends. It was the first Disney resort I stayed at; it was magical to me at the time. Years later I stayed there for a six week stretch (a long story) and the magic wore off. Years beyond that I brought my family there and saw the magic of the place through the eyes of a child. So – magical or not?

The job of the artist in creating magic is to somehow connect the place, the circumstances and the times to a person’s emotions. It is extremely difficult and very rarely achieved. Why is the movie ‘Dumbo’ magical – because it connects to your emotions. On its surface, it’s about a circus elephant with big ears. But underneath it is about emotions that everyone has: the fear of being different and of not fitting in. It is about the process where every child (and many adults) discovers that their own uniqueness changes from being “different” into being “special”. That connection is the “magic”, your emotions are suddenly made tangible.

‘Dumbo’ the attraction works not because it’s a well decorated spinner, it works because it’s an extension of the movie. The attraction takes on the “magic” many people feel about the film. Seeing the flying elephants already gives the audience a strong jolt of “magic” because they already have an emotional connection. That’s also why the Dino-O-Rama attractions don’t seem magical to many people. Without that fog of prior memories, the ride is seen too clearly to be a carnival spinner.

To declare something “magical” or not, to declare that this person always creates “magic” or that this person never can, is silly. Magic depends mostly on the audience, not the showman. Some artists can create “magic” for many people most of the time, some artists can create “magic” for a few people all of the time, and most of Hollywood never creates any magic at any time. It is always shifting and always changing.

[hopemax]

Hope, you must a missed a quite lengthy thread awhile back. I'll try to dig it up...but suffice to say, if Baron and some other Car Threepers aren't all over this quote, then they're just playing nice with their car mates...

Well, then I guess I better clarify what I mean before then. I didn't say that I liked the S&D, personally I want them bulldozed. But the S&D have it's fans, and if you, Scoop, think the S&D fits with Disney, why not the Hyatt run Y&B that you seem to be objecting to earlier? What would be the difference?

[YoHo]

UGH, THAT WAS NOT MY POINT

My Point was that if Hyatt fostered there employees to be like Disney employees. If Hyatt ran things at the YC/BC 100% the same. CMs acted 100% the same and everything was the same, it would make no difference whether Disney or Hyatt or Motel 6 owned it.

there is nothing stopping Hyatt from doing this except corporate choice.

The Ghost of Walt is not magically holding other companies back to keep them from making things magical.

[YoHo]

You Think the Ghost of Walt is Holding them back.........

That is COOL!!

Now, Why won't he go Haunt Eisner?

j/k

[hopemax]

Okay now I think we're back to AV & YoHo's original point, or at least as how I interpret the point.

If the only difference is attitude of the CM's and architecture. Those aren't unique to Disney, they aren't truely "intangible." Any company can set up a hiring policy that is more stringent and looks for things like courtesy and smiling faces. Disney keeps laying off WDI employees, which means someone else is free to hire them and put them to work desiging the look of the hotel or the costumes of the employees.

[JeffJewell]

if Baron and some other Car Threepers aren't all over this quote, then they're just playing nice with their car mates Context is everything, 'scoop.

Had Hope started talking about the "Disney Quality" of the theming at the Swan and Dolphin, that's where we would have had words: not only does the Swan and Dolphin lack the immersive theming required by my personal definition of "Disney resort," the buildings actually destroy carefully planned and constructed visual effects from World Showcase.

I think the Swan and Dolphin were a horrible idea from many angles, but "because their workers are not called CM's" is not one of them.

I've stayed at the Dolphin, and my own experience was that the staff in general was on a par with the Disney resorts where I've stayed (except for the Wilderness Lodge. We seemed to have tremendous luck finding all the "A" CM's when we stayed at Wilderness Lodge).

You asked: "Do you all really believe that Hyatt running the YB/BC would be the same?" If the grounds are the same, yes, there's no reason to believe the guest's experience would suffer. Hotel staff is hotel staff: you're gonna get some good, some bad.

If you're in a mood that the term "CM" carries an inherent Magic, you'll undoubtedly find examples to back that. If that term isn't "loaded" in such a fashion, I think it's likely you'll find the staffs to be, overall, pretty equivalent.

Jeff

PS:Mr. Jewell is absolutely correct Sorry for wasting the bandwidth, I just wanted to see that one more time...

[DisDuck]

scoop and the rest--- I leave tomorrow for San Diego and mouse points North. Will advise on what I find upon my return.

I AM AN EBBETS FIELD DODGER FAN. Burn Yankees Burn.

[Captain Crook]

Speaking as one of the "others", have a great trip Duck...

Jeff, The Swan/Dolphin employees are CM's, just like House of Blues employees, etc. I'm sure what the distiction relevent to them is, but they are CastMembers...
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[JeffJewell]

something about the Disney Cast Member screams magic to me ...before we go any further, let me just say that none of the following is intended to dissuade you from that opinion.The bellhop at the Waldorf is a very nice and helpful guy. The CM at OKW is magical...JMHO. That's fair enough: I'm not going to try to convince you different.

But, if _you_ are going to try to convince _me_ of that, you're going to need more detail as to the precise difference between "very nice and helpful" and "Magic." I'm afraid that this distinction, while true for you and some others, is going to be lost on the majority of customers; particularly if they don't have a lifetime of Disney memories. I don't believe the difference is as obvious as you perceive it to be, anymore.Roger Clemens is a Blue Jay uniform is a great pitcher..but Clemens in Yankee pinstripes, well, the aura, history, glory, whatever...to me, he, like so many other players...become so much more than just a baseball player...they become a Yankee. See, this is what I mean. You have a mental "program" for what it means to be a Yankee. Personally, the Yankees hold no Magic for me. Red Sox, Blue Jays, Yankees, makes no difference: Clemens is obviously the same guy: it's just the name on the uniform to which you attribute the aura, history, glory (actually, I realize I'm on real tenuous ground with extending this analogy, because there _is_, in fact, a tangible something the Yankees are doing differently from other teams that has a direct effect on the quality of product they're putting on the field: they pay more in salaries than any one else in the Major Leagues [well, they did last year, anyway, and I'm not going to look it up]).

For me, the analogy would have been the Miami Dolphins: that's the team that, however it happened, I associated with as a kid. I remember racing around the house wildly after the undefeated season, I remember crying when that evil b****** Kenny Stabler led the even more evil Oakland Raiders to beating us in the AFC Championship two years later (hey, I was, like, eight).

But right now, this season, the Dolphins (just like the Yankees) aren't really doing anything significantly different from the other teams (again, except for the Yanks' payroll). Clemens is the same pitcher he was in Boston and Toronto, but he's on "your" Yankees, now. Fiedler is the same qb he was in Jacksonville, but he's on "my" Dolphins, now.

Methinks the difference between "very nice and helpful" and "Magic" has more to do with your own attachment to the locale, rather than any real differences in the service.

Jeff

[hopemax]

The Billion dollar question?

Are there more Scoop's or YoHo's in the world?

Do more people love the Yankees because they're Yankees or because they win? What would happen to the Yankee mystique if the Yankee front office was replaced by the Marlin front office? How many years would it take before the Yankees lost their aura?

History is full of the ruins of empires sustained on the belief that no one can possibly defeat them.

[All Aboard]

What would happen to the Yankee mystique if the Yankee front office was replaced by the Marlin front office?
See 1997 for reference.

[YoHo]

Ironically I'm a Cubs Fan, so I must be Schitzofrenic or something :)

[YoHo]

dscoop, I agree with everything you said, but the reason Disney CMs are like that is because of Policy. Disney (supposedly) Used to put plainclothes managers in the parks to make sure everyone had a smile and such.

Its a corporate policy and just, because the Hyatt Chooses to not have that policy doesn't mean they couldn't, or wouldn't under appropriate circumstance.

[Captain Crook]

Scoop is saying what I think, as well. It isn't that CM qiality couldn't never, ever be created elsewhere, but the fact is the process that it would entail is way too prohibitive for any company to consider (can you imagine any company - even Disney today implementing a personnel policy that won't pay big dividends for 10, 15 or 20 years down the road?
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[Another Voice]

Okay, let me boil down the argument –

“Cast Members” are special because a brand name some people enjoy is stapled to their foreheads. Others may be just as hardworking but since they lack the label; they are not “magical”.

If this “magic” is only available through the traditions of one particular company, way does Disney convince corporations to spend millions of dollars every year on “Disney Way” seminars? Is this not fraud on the part of The Company? And if the hallowed “personnel policy” is so bloody special, why has it been cut by two thirds over the last few years? Isn’t this jeopardizing the future of the Company?

I hate to break this to many of you, but Cast Members are regular people. I have met and worked with many good ones, and I have met and worked with many bad ones. I have met and worked with many good people outside of Disney, and I have met and worked with many bad people outside of Disney. If you perceive that only good people work at Disney, or that Disney somehow makes them better, or that people are “lesser” because they happen to work for Hilton – I suppose that’s a prejudice that cannot be logically argued.

Enjoy the Brand and everything that labeled with it.

[YoHo]

But Disney's CM policy paid Disney Dividens on Day 1 as well.

Perhaps the Hyatt is a bad Choice, since they already exist.

Lets say its YoHotels Corp If I created a program like traditions and hired people based in part on their commitment to my program, it would be the same. It may take me 46 years to create the memories, but from Day 1 you would feel that special magic at YoHotels. And If the YoMovies Division managed to create a good movie that resonated the way a Disney film did and I somehow included that in my hotel (or used that kind of expireance in the hotel) it would be every bit the same.

There is nothing mystical here. it is a set of circumstances that combined to create our collective conciousness and create the magic.

[Captain Crook]

AV, don't be disingenous. We realize all of the things you mention, but you fail to accept history, it seems. It doesn't matter that Disney is slowly (or not so slowly) dismantling the system. It doesn't matter that the formula could be followed by others. What matters in this context is that the formula and the distinctive results would not show their disneyesque results for years to come.

Yoho, I absolutely loved the idea of Yohotel! And I agree that a personnel formula could emulate disney-type results from the get go, but they could not emulate the Disney myth & legend.

:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[JeffJewell]

If you perceive that only good people work at Disney, or that Disney somehow makes them better, or that people are “lesser” because they happen to work for Hilton – I suppose that’s a prejudice that cannot be logically argued.

Enjoy the Brand and everything that labeled with it. ...I'm sure glad you got here first to say this. My history suggests that you did it much more politely than I ever could have.

Jeff

[YoHo]

But Captain, the only thing I would need to create Myth and Legend is time. And I'm quite certain Disney DOES NOT hold any patents on that.

[Captain Crook]

That is exactly my point. What company, fearless leader or head-honcho type guy do you know that will make this commitment upfront and wait and wait and wait for the result? My point is that no business plan will allow for it. They are all far more like what Disney is becoming...Which generally sees no further into the future than the quarterlies...Disney's benefit is that the myth & legend are already in place and the concept is holding together despite the cutbacks and troubles, it's become second nature...

:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[Another Voice]

I think we may be getting somewhere. It’s not “magic” you’re after, you’re searching for a particular “disneyeque” kind. And that’s perfectly fine. You want to experience all the emotions you associate with “Disney” – and you’re right, that will only happen with Disney itself. It’s not a generic “magical experience”, but a very specific one with a very specific background and a very specific connection. It's also a connection that you've spent your entire life developing. That’s a perfectly valid position, and most of Walt Disney World is set up to give you exactly that. And I can certainly appreciate why that particular kind of “magic” means more to you than other kinds.

From my perspective, there are many “magical” experiences that come from many places and from many different people. My experiences are different than anyone else’s and so my desires are different too. For example, I do not find the Grand Floridian “magical”, not because it’s not a nice hotel, but because I know the Hotel del Coronado (the model for Disney’s hotel). The hotel in San Diego is a place were history seeps out of the woodwork. It is true Victorian splendor, not the pretend stuff and to me that makes it “magical”. The Captain, I suspect, feels exactly to opposite and wouldn’t trade a single night at the Grand Floridian for a week at the Hotel del. Again, it’s personal preference and an equally valid opinion.

What I object to is this thought that only Disney could create “magical” experiences. I have stayed at many hotels with staffs just as nice, as friendly and as helpful as the ones at WDW. But I can’t expect sit in a hotel lobby in San Diego and expect to be reminded of castles, Snow White and fireworks. Because the hotel doesn’t give me those emotions doesn’t mean it’s not “magical”, and just because the staff doesn’t try doesn’t mean they’re incapable – it just means it’s not Disney.

[hopemax]

I find this discussion interesting because it seems that the usual refrain is that Car 3 are the cynics and Car 1 are the optimists. But it the price of that Car 1 "World" optimism comes at the price of being cynical about the rest of the world, maybe I'm glad I'm not in Car 1.

I am not yet convinced that it will always take years and years to mount a sucessful assault on Disney, especially in light of Disney's mis-steps. Yeah, I know Universal tried, but aside from the marketing mistakes, I think a big mistake was building their new park in Disney's already saturated backyard. Aside from wondering what IOA would have done in S. CA, I would love to see someone try to build a true competitive park in a neutral location with an existing tourism base. I don't know enough about the country's tourism to know where that might be, maybe somewhere between St. Louis and Branson.

But basically, I don't believe the sucessful attack will never come. As long as Disney keeps getting sloppy and counting on the "brand" to protect them, a "nobody" will be sitting somewhere quietly building up their forces and planning guerilla warfare and waiting for the right day. Just becasue we don't know who, doesn't mean that there isn't someone who can. Charlie Mintz and Universal weren't scared of what Walt Disney could do and we know how that turned out.

[Captain Crook]

Well Hope, you and I will just have to disagree because I can't see any company making the business decision to undertake the creation of the 'personnel formula' that Disney has created and followed for all of these years. I see Disney even pulling away from the agenda because of cost, the 'magical formula' continues on in some manner due to tradition (for how long, who knows).

AV, we are getting closer although you're dead off on your assumption on where I'd rather spend a week (GF or Hotel Del). I will always take the real over the imagined (Del Coronodo over GF, Hawaii over the Poly & Africa over, my beloved AKL). Disney adds these wonderful, but not quite real, illusions to their Resorts as an enticemnt to WDW lovers & for people who don't really want to travel in the real world. In my case WDW is my (hold your hat) second favorite destination...The Captain's handle speaks of Bonaire, NA, which if given the opportunity, wins out over a WDW trip for priority every year...I love WDW but the real world still offers more. Unfortunately, the real world requires time for travel & money and while the money factor could be 'arranged', my travel limitations due to my business contraints precludes the trip to Austrailia, for example, that I dream of.

One of my amazements here on the DIS is the number of people willing to spend big bucks to go to TDS...While I'd love TDS, the fact is I've never seen the far East and were I travelling there I think a Disney Resort of any kind wouln't be in my top priority.

I will try to check back but hurricane preperation calls...:(
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[airlarry!]

Man, take a few days off to enjoy your high school reunion, and sheesh....

Aren't we looking at this the wrong way? It occurs to me that JeffJ may be right when he says that no amount of posting is going to change the good Captain over to the Oust Ei$ner camp ---although I am enjoying having YoHo! on the good team now, keep up the good work Baron! ;) ---

Isn't the question--why do *other* people go to Disney? Asking Scoop or Baron or Cap or me why we go to Disney just yields different variations of the same answer, namely, that we are hopelessly enamored Disn-noids.

Why is my friend who owns a grocery store but has never ever visited a Disney fan web site or even bought a guide book going to WDW again? Or, in Yoho! language, why did the casual movie fan watch StarWars?

For the answer, I will use an analogy, a parable maybe even. When I go to WDW, I always ride with my kids the Dumbo spinner. Everytime, every trip, no matter the wait. But I've ridden the AstroOrbiter once ever. ONCE. Yes, it is themed, yes it is fast, yes it is cool looking. But there's just something that is not as...fun? Disneyesque? pixie-dustful?...about it.

Hmm....why is that? Cause AV touched on it...it reminds us of the movie, it reminds us of all Disney movies and the wonderful experiences we have watching them. Let's fact it, I would bet all of us consider ourselves animation fans or buffs.

Now before somebody challenges me on this...yes I know that Space Mt and Big Thunder are not any reminders of Disney movies. But there was always at least two parts to Walt's pollination genius...one, creating memorable animation works of art, and two, creating stories. So, my analogy does not fall just because Big Thunder or Pirates are not from an animated feature. We love them because of the stories, the backstories. There is no backstory in AstroOrbiter. I'll reserve judgment on the Triceratopper for when I see it.


Back to the original point. Why do the casual Disney fans go every year to WDW? Heck, I know people who don't even like Disney movies or the Disney products who are still talked into or plan themselves trips to WDW? Why?

[YoHo]

dscoop, that was a great argument, to bad your in the wrong court room.
I agree that right now, November 4th 2001, there is noplace that offers the same level of top to bottom service as Disney, but that doesn't mean that no one else could. All it takes is to have the right components. Disney has them. Someone else could get them.