I Was Totally Wrong [Archive] - The DIS Discussion Forums

Peter Pirate 2

10-25-2006, 04:05 PM

I know there aren't too many of the old guard still around but for those who are here I think it time I publically admit I was wrong.

I thought Disney could still be Diseny and exist in the modern landscape pursuing periferal business, maximizing tie ins, using synergy to the max, exploiting classics and operating as a normal Fortune 500 Company OUTSIDE the realm of the core business that made Disney 'Disney'.

Boy does that sound stupid in retrospect and even though I know I could still argue good portions of what I believed it is painfully obvious to me now that Corporate America and its trappings are too large for any Company to stand up to. Disney is publically held and must behave as such which ultimately tramples on the basis of what Walt intended, IMO.

I recall many fellow DIS'ers hoping for a Disney breakup in hopes that more 'magical' people, folks who 'got it' could control the core business like theme parks and animation, the parts that current Disney probably cares the least about and while I relish this dream, what happened with Pixar pretty much puts a kibosh on that, after all they were more Disney than Disney in the animation field over the past few years but they eventually had to succomb to the huge windfall dangled by, ironically, Disney. Which, IMO seems to indicate that creativity can only succeed so far before the big bad wolf will come a calling.

Does anyone think Walt , with all his genius could accomplish things of the magnitude he did if he were just starting out today? I'm not saying he couldn't but doesn't the deck seem stacked against creativity and quality in favor of mass production and marketing???

OK. I'm done.
pirate:

daber

10-25-2006, 05:38 PM

I thought Disney could still be Diseny and exist in the modern landscape pursuing periferal business, maximizing tie ins, using synergy to the max, exploiting classics and operating as a normal Fortune 500 Company OUTSIDE the realm of the core business that made Disney 'Disney'.

......
Does anyone think Walt , with all his genius could accomplish things of the magnitude he did if he were just starting out today? I'm not saying he couldn't but doesn't the deck seem stacked against creativity and quality in favor of mass production and marketing???

I think you captured the essence of it. If you are a publicly held stock company with a board and all the trappings, then no because the standards are pleasing the board, stockholders, etc.

But if you are a privately held Co and don't have to report to them, then I think the dream is still alive for the creative entrepreneur.

raidermatt

10-25-2006, 06:51 PM

Stinks, huh, Pete.

Unlike some others, I've never argued that its impossible. My point was always that the guys who were/are in charge of Disney aren't the right guys to pull it off. Unfortunately, like you, I'm starting to believe its not possible. Perhaps not practially realistic is a better way to put it.

Anybody (or group) that might actually possess all the tools/talents/resources to pull it off probably wouldn't see Disney as the best use of their tools/talents/resources. Why fight against all that corporate momentum when you can start from scratch somewhere else and build things the way you want them?

Could Walt do today what he did years ago? I think so. In what medium his creations would take form I have no idea, but I think he could pull it off again. Same basic philosophy, but different methods. Some of the tactics would be different, like his management style for example, but just like anybody who would be transplanted from a different era, we have to assume they would be able to conform in those types of areas.

The roots, the core beliefs, would still be the same. He would still have the ability to know what customers wanted before they knew it. He'd still be able to attract and inspire the most creative people around. He'd still know he needed a complement (Roy) to help with the areas in which he was weak. In short, he'd still be the consumate showman with tremendous instincts and drive.

The question, to me, is would it be possible to keep his dream sheltered from all of the corporate BS this time after he was gone?

I guess another way to ask it is could it have happened with the Disney we do know, and what could have been done differently?

DVCconvert

10-25-2006, 07:34 PM

OK. I'm done

Is this Yet Another Grand Exit????????????

Peter Pirate 2

10-25-2006, 08:07 PM

Edited a second time so I can continue the fun. pirate:

ChrisFL

10-25-2006, 08:59 PM

Good post and I do understand the complexities of the problem, being public vs. private and how there's many different ideas about what today's "Disney" should stand for.

I think the question that needs to be asked is: What is the most important division of Disney right now? Once that is established I think the main focus needs to be making sure that enough of investment goes into sustaining it long-term.

I mean, if we consider how many things Disney has involved itself with in the past 10-15 years, including the standards like movies and animation (and the many changes that have happened to animation), theme parks, merchandising, then there's the non-Disney stuff that they acquired, the sports teams (now no longer Disney), the networks, ABC, ESPN, the websites like Go.com.

I truly think Disney should focus only on what Disney really means to people, instead of taking all of these outside parts to make more money and attempt to synergize everything. I think Disney should focus on its animation, theme parks and the merchandising that is involved with that, plus keeping the Disney Channel. Everything else can go.

MJMcBride

10-25-2006, 09:18 PM

Peter Pirate 2

10-25-2006, 09:29 PM

Thanks Chris, I know we haven't always agreed on everything specifically but I think we do see things pretty much the same way in the big view.

Matt, I appreciate your tactful response. With our history you certainly could've given me the good natured bronx cheer!

daber, you disected my feelings well.

Voice and I have discussed this a little and I don't know whether he agrees or not but the main focal point for my (personal) disillusionment was actually ESPN (surprising, huh?). I watch their crap programming, the crap commentating, the obvious demographic choices, the choice to be part of the problem rather than make any attempt at being positive totally disgusts me. They coddle the masses, the pop culture and they blur the issue of right and wrong in the name of ratings. Just look at the handling of Barry Bonds and TO for example. The major sports information programmer in the world could certainly take a proactive stance and be a positive influence but no, they choose to take the easy route.

After this it's easy to look at the way the've been operating their restaurants at WDW lately or their domestic parks, animation and feature film and see that they are making absolutely no concessions to the Mouse himself.

Like all of you (MJ), I still like Disney and will continue to enjoy what they're offering for now. But I'm happy my kids are growing and "my Disney" was far less homoginized than the Disney of the future is shaping up to be.
pirate:

MJMcBride

10-26-2006, 07:58 AM

Voice and I have discussed this a little and I don't know whether he agrees or not but the main focal point for my (personal) disillusionment was actually ESPN (surprising, huh?). I watch their crap programming, the crap commentating, the obvious demographic choices, the choice to be part of the problem rather than make any attempt at being positive totally disgusts me. They coddle the masses, the pop culture and they blur the issue of right and wrong in the name of ratings. Just look at the handling of Barry Bonds and TO for example. The major sports information programmer in the world could certainly take a proactive stance and be a positive influence but no, they choose to take the easy route.

And thats different from every other network how? Frankly, I like some ESPN.
ESPN News for example is great. Programs like Baseball Tonight and Outside the Lines are superb. Berman and Jackson are much much better on Sunday night than Costas. But Sportscenter with all their "Booyahs" is awful. And their Monday Night coverage is absolute overkill. But I think you're being a little unfair in your critique of ESPN.

Peter Pirate 2

10-26-2006, 10:36 AM

"But I think you're being a little unfair in your critique of ESPN."

Fair enough, I may be.

The difference between ESPN & ABC and the other networks is they are owned by the Walt Disney Company and I have (foolish or not) always expected much more from them as for years they gave us much more than everybody else.
pirate:

mt2

10-26-2006, 10:59 AM

Does anyone think Walt , with all his genius could accomplish things of the magnitude he did if he were just starting out today? I'm not saying he couldn't but doesn't the deck seem stacked against creativity and quality in favor of mass production and marketing??? pirate:

I think Walt could accomplish anything he set his mind out to do because of his personality. From what I have read he was a difficult man to work for but many many people were loyal to him. He had Charisma.

He was a man that lead from the front not the back. He didn't expect people to do things that he himself didn't do. He surrounded himself with people that were great at what they did. He gave them the ideas of what he wanted and let them run with it. He tweeked thoses ideas and they became better.

Not many people have that ability. Richard Branson is the only person off the top of my head right now that I can think of. (That is alive). Kelly Johnson of Lockheed Skunkworks (40's and 50's) was another. People gravitated toward them. Their employees wanted to do their best because they didn't want to disappoint their employer (or themselves).

I remember reading about how Peter Ellenshaw moved from England to be near Walt Disney after working with him on Mary Poppins. Disney didn't even offer him a job but he moved anyway. Ellenshaw only wanted to work for Disney.

Do you know anyone that would do something like that? I sure don't.

The Stockholder and the corporate board have been around for decades. Didn't they start selling stock in the 40's? He had the charisma, showmanship, and personality to get everyone on board. They might have said something in whispers but Disney was a Pied Piper. Everyone followed whether they wanted to or not. They couldn't help themselves.

I'm sorry that this has hit you hard. It did for me too. I still go to WDW and DL. My kids love Disney too but I refuse to participate in the DVD sequel junk, and the rest of the fad bandwagon that they seem to be jumping on.

I am teaching my kids what classic Disney really is and not to fall to hard for the flash and blink of Disney now.

ChrisFL

10-26-2006, 11:05 AM

mt2, yeah I really admire some of the works from people who are able, as an individual to come up with something spectacular.

People I consider to be greats at that are Walt Disney, Gordon Murray (creator of the McLaren F1 supercar), Colin Chapman (founder of Lotus), Steven Speilberg, even Peter Jackson and his work on Lord of the Rings took an enormous amount of his own wisdom and hard work to get it accomplished how he wanted it.

So seeing as most of those people I've mentioned have had more recent success, I would say that it IS still possible to do the same kinds of things Walt did, but it would now take a massive change in how the Disney company conducts its business.

Another Voice

10-26-2006, 11:26 AM

Wow.

There’s a lot to say, but not enough time to say it.

Walt built his organization to support his creative endeavors. It takes a certain amount of resources to market a film, to build a theme park, etc. – but the company was always in a supportive role. The “Wall Street makes it impossible” is just flat out wrong. Raising capital for the public is many times easier than what Walt had to do, convince the stodgy board of Bank of America to hand over a couple bucks every time he wanted to make a movie. Things are different now, but not harder.

The Disney you see today isn’t a place built to support creative works. It’s a machine designed to fund the greed of one man (Michael Eisner) and the swarm of maggots that were drawn to the honey. The Walt Disney Company is not about making things, it’s about figuring out the easiest way to get you to hand over your cash. ESPN, princess dinners, US Weekly photo spreads of Madonna’s latest slave child, what they sell isn’t important.

It’s only important that you buy. And when people don’t care about what they’re selling, they tend to sell garbage (much like when fans don’t care what they’re buying, they grab it eagerly).

Disney as a company has been dead for over a decade now. It’s only capable of regurgitating what it’s already created and strip mining its past. It’s a downward spiral that will last as long as Bob Iger and the next generation can squeeze money out of it. Places like WDW are only of interest for what was created before; the recent “additions” hold no interest.

But I’m still very optimistic about the survival of Disney – the real Disney. There are too many people now who understand what it all really means. And people are the only thing that matters. It’s the spark in John Lassiter, the talent of Andrew Stanton, the enthusiasm of Brad Bird that made Pixar – not the bricks, computers and stock options. It also lives in the kid with his first video camera making movies out in the back yard. She is no different than Walt setting up his first drawing table in his uncle’s garage.

Real Disney is all around. It shows up whenever a child is touched by a fifty year old film, whenever a filmmaker says “we can make this better”, when an adult gets the momentary thrill of "playing make beleive" again. That is what we should celebrate and support. Fake Disney – ESPN, ‘Dancing With the Stars’, Tinkerbell window stickers and all the other commodities of no value – will disappear soon enough.

It’s just too bad they torn down Walt’s legacy to hock them.

DisOrBust

10-26-2006, 11:55 AM

Its hard to take off the rose colored glasses. It happen for me after reading Disney War. Yea I knew it had all the croporate greed, backstabbing etc that happens in any company. However Eisner and his cohorts took it to an art form. After I read that book I thought how stupid are we to support that mess with hard earned money.

Mickmse2002

10-26-2006, 12:11 PM

When did Disney go public? I also believe there was DIsney gizmo's and gadget's sold at Disneyland when it oppened. How is that different from today? Scale perhaps?

MJMcBride

10-26-2006, 12:16 PM

But I’m still very optimistic about the survival of Disney – the real Disney. There are too many people now who understand what it all really means. And people are the only thing that matters. It’s the spark in John Lassiter, the talent of Andrew Stanton, the enthusiasm of Brad Bird that made Pixar – not the bricks, computers and stock options. It also lives in the kid with his first video camera making movies out in the back yard. She is no different than Walt setting up his first drawing table in his uncle’s garage.

Real Disney is all around. It shows up whenever a child is touched by a fifty year old film, whenever a filmmaker says “we can make this better”, when an adult gets the momentary thrill of "playing make beleive" again. That is what we should celebrate and support. Fake Disney – ESPN, ‘Dancing With the Stars’, Tinkerbell window stickers and all the other commodities of no value – will disappear soon enough.

Excuse me while I pick myself off the ground. Is that AV being positive? About the future of Disney?! I agree with virtually everything AV said. Except Tinkerbell window stickers are cool. And Disney has always hocked meaningless merchandise. Its called souvenirs.

dbm20th

10-26-2006, 12:43 PM

Except Tinkerbell window stickers are cool. And Disney has always hocked meaningless merchandise. Its called souvenirs.

So do you have a Tinkerbell window sticker??

Eisner is gone, and Iger placed John Lasseter into a very important role. Things can get better.

And I am sorry, but to consider ESPN something that will "will disappear soon enough" is just silly.

raidermatt

10-26-2006, 04:49 PM

so what now. We're not going to Disney anymore. Its not the same. So what? What is the same that it was 50 years ago. Not movies. Not TV. Certainly not music. Its not like they turned the parks into Great Adventure. They still are great.

This misses the point. For decades Disney did its best to top itself over and over again. Of course things didn't stay the same. Tastes change. Societal norms change. But Disney also forced change by trying to do things better and better, and to try new ways to innovate and entertain.

Saying they didn't turn their product into crud wasn't good enough.

Not everything succeeded, of course, but this remained a core piece of their philosophy, and its why they could strike it big so many times when everyone around them said they were crazy.

THAT'S what is gone. It doesn't mean nobody likes visiting the parks. It doesn't mean they can never make an entertaining movie. It means that Disney used to mean so much more than that. If Disney were run from the beginning the way it is run today, many of the wonderful things that drew us here would not even exist.

If you want to defend Disney as still being a viable company that still comes up with some popular products, that's fine. That's all true enough.

The point, however, is that is nothing but a shadow of what Disney meant at one time. To point to all the amazing things Disney has done over the decades, and at the same time not lament what the company itself has become, is something I can't quite reconcile.

raidermatt

10-26-2006, 04:58 PM

Excuse me while I pick myself off the ground. Is that AV being positive? About the future of Disney?!
I believe AV is using Disney as a name for the type of creative spirit that filled Walt and his company for so long.

And Disney has always hocked meaningless merchandise. Its called souvenirs.
The difference is focus and purpose. The merchandise use to be a means to an end. They were a way to capitalize on creative successes in order to fund further endeavors.

Now, in many ways, it is the end itself.

And I am sorry, but to consider ESPN something that will "will disappear soon enough" is just silly.

To me, ESPN is just another commodity, not a true creative endeavor. It was bought, along with ABC, and is just as likely to be sold again as not. Disney fans love it because the Walt Disney Company bought it and owns it.

I watch it, and certainly I don't believe its disappearing anytime soon. But there's nothing "Disney" about it, and for all I know they will sell it one day. If it is, nobody will lament that "true Disney" is being sold off.

MJMcBride

10-26-2006, 05:27 PM

The difference is focus and purpose. The merchandise use to be a means to an end. They were a way to capitalize on creative successes in order to fund further endeavors.

Oh please. So you're saying those mickey mouse T-shirts they have been selling for decades was something more than making money.

And I know exactly what the point is. I'm sorry that the 1950s are gone. I can't do anything about it. To me, (and I know I'm beating a dead horse here), but Disney has designed some great things in the last decades which I won;t rehash now. To paint Disney as some sort of creative wasteland of a theme park is ridiculous and oversimplyfing things.

raidermatt

10-26-2006, 06:23 PM

Oh please. So you're saying those mickey mouse T-shirts they have been selling for decades was something more than making money.

No, they weren't for anything more than making money. The difference is that's the end of it for today's Disney. Walt's Disney didn't really care about selling t-shirts, but they needed the revenue to fund the greater and greater endeavors. Not just to say "look, we made money".

And I know exactly what the point is. I'm sorry that the 1950s are gone. I can't do anything about it.

No, I'm afraid you still don't get the point. If you did, you'd realize that telling me the 50's are gone would be completely irrelevant.

Its not about being in a different time period. Its about a company having a different strategic vision.

To paint Disney as some sort of creative wasteland of a theme park is ridiculous and oversimplyfing things.

And that's not what I did.

sueg

10-26-2006, 09:32 PM

I have lurked here for years(using my wife's tag) and have enjoyed these discussions. I am fascinated by the the ideas that are exchanged.

I am outside the demographic now. I have been watching espn since1981. Sports reporting is not creative it is reactive.When espn tries to get creative it misses its best attribute---the ability to acquire and spread information. I don't like that Sportscenter has devolved to sports talk radio witout phone calls, but I love PTI and Baseball Tonight.As we mature things change, and we have to adjust. The content may not be the same, but the information and most editorial content are superior to anything Fox has ever delivered. And if you are a sports junkie that is why you tune in.

I believe in the company. I hope that Lassiter can revive the creative spirit without having his own broken. I think that they need to be given a cycle or two to show what they can produce before I can say that they will never bring back the ability to take something simple and make it great.

ChrisFL

10-26-2006, 11:13 PM

To paint Disney as some sort of creative wasteland of a theme park is ridiculous and oversimplyfing things.

Right, unless you're referring to DCA.

But seriously, DCA is a prime example of Disney and its problems, especially when you put it up against another Disney park created at nearly the same time...Tokyo DisneySea. The difference in the quality of these 2 parks is literally night and day and it's also the same difference in what Disney paid for vs. what the Oriental Land Company paid for.

It is a very sad state when it gets to the point where company heads at that time thought they could build anything, put a mickey logo on it and sell it like crazy to the masses. Thank goodness they were wrong, people arent buying into it and we may see something positive come out of it.

cristen

10-27-2006, 01:37 AM

wow, is right.

It always makes me sad to hear this. It's not a good day when you finally accept that something you hold dear to you, whatever it may have been, is lost. (i'm letting go, i really am)

It does suck Matt.

And to answer your question Pirate, I do believe that Walt could have done the same if he were to start now. Look at what they had to work with then and what they invented just to make his dreams a reality. Imagine what he would be able to do today with technology. I think people get lost in the huge Disney brand name and marketing machine that it is today and have forgotten all that Disney invented, all that he influenced. Unfortunatly, the company has made that same mistake. They are caught up in their own hype.

I continue to go to DL because there is still enough of the real Disney there to make it a pleasure to go. I don't even bother with DCA, DTD or WDW for that matter. The minute the park loses the Walt feel, sadly I will stop going all together.

I'm sorry Pirate.

Mickmse2002

10-27-2006, 07:06 AM

I'm curious to know what the "Walt Feel" really is? We have frequented WDW for going on 10 straight years now and have immensely enjoyed each and every experience. We have built numerous lasting memories for the family but I believe those memories and experiences turned out this way because we chose to let it happen. WDW, and by extension the entire Disney operation, can create an atmoshpehere and framework for people to have a magical experience(s) but it is really up to the individual to live it. I am willing to bet there were a lot of people who didn't find the DL of Walt's time a magical place nor their movies and productions all that special.

Peter Pirate 2

10-27-2006, 08:07 AM

Mickmse02, Your feeling are absolutely not wrong, IMO. Particualrily in the Parks there is still plenty of 'magic' to be had as the system, for lack of a better word, runs on auto...Kind of like the bunny, it just keeps going and going...

Frame of reference is very important. For those who went, knew and absorbed earlier in time the magic of old is lessening in many areas where it was Disney that supplied the magic. My old friend Landbaron used to always talk about the extremes Walt went to to get it right even if only a minimal % of his guests would ever notice (the outrageously expensive chandilers, for example). New Disney did it occasionally (the kids fountains in Epcot for example) but more begrudgingly as time has gone on. But I think that Eisner does deserve some credit for trying, especially early on.

Ultimately though the Parks still offer families (especially) a chance to feel a special magic due to the combination of the environment and the family. I was always willing to overlook the negativity while my kids were younger. We WERE making memories (and still do to a lesser extent) that wouldn't have been possible without WDW and they are some of our most cherished memories. So the answer isn't that 'it's' gone...'It' still can be found in large doses, which highlights the brillance of what was created, IMO, for those looking for it.

The bigger problem that I see doesn't lie in the Parks, nor even animation anymore (since Disney bought Disney, I mean Pixar). But the Company does not revolve around these two units anymore. The big picture including ABC, ESPN, cell phones, tie ins, what have you, is what it's all about now. I thought ABC and even ESPN could fit a Disney mold by being better than the rest, as they'd always done with the Parks and animation, it simply didn't pan out. Gone were dream makers and risk takers. Gone were the folks who care to do it right or not do it at all. Note: It isn't that the Parks don't need some serious, serious adjusments but it isn't really relevent right now because the Parks are not even in the forefront of what current Disney is all about, again, IMO.

The Disney soul is still there but I don't think it lives in people like Bob Iger (my opinion) for example.
pirate:

MJMcBride

10-27-2006, 09:05 AM

Right, unless you're referring to DCA.

Fair enough. I have never been to DCA so cannot comment on it. Some times I think a lot of you look at the past with rose colored glasses, don't you?

dbm20th

10-27-2006, 09:40 AM

Fair enough. I have never been to DCA so cannot comment on it. Some times I think a lot of you look at the past with rose colored glasses, don't you?

MJ people have been longing for the good ole days forever. Whining about how music, movies, what-have-you were "better in my day". The fact is, no matter what the fundamentalists have to complain about, and it seems to be virtually everything, there is NO other company in the entertainment or vacation business that has hundreds of websites, blogs, messageboards, podcast, etc., etc., dedicated to it like Disney does.

Something has been and is being done right. There is no place like WDW, whether they replaced Mr. Toad or Horizons or anything else. WDW is STILL the best theme park in the world and the most popular tourist destination.

Sure things are done differently now, and the days of Walt are behind us. This may come as a shock to some but to many people, and I know quite a few, the classic dark rides and traditional animated movies are old hat and not exciting. To MANY people who come to WDW, they want to see Jack Sparrow, Buzz Lightyear, and the Tower of Terror, and not educational dark rides about growing plants in space or a carnival ride with an elephant on it.

cristen

10-27-2006, 10:53 AM

Some times I think a lot of you look at the past with rose colored glasses, don't you?

There is no place like WDW, whether they replaced Mr. Toad or Horizons or anything else. WDW is STILL the best theme park in the world and the most popular tourist destination.

Here is where people don't understand us very well. And I know it has been said millions of times on this board, but just in case.....

It's not that we look at the past with rose colored glasses and think everything done back when Walt was alive was perfect. Becuase frankly, I am glad we no longer have the bathroom of tomorrow in the park.

And it's not that we say WDW or DL is no longer fun, that we hate it when we go, becuase we continue to go every year. And we have fun. And we make memories. And we do feel that it's a better theme park than most others. For the life of me, I don't understand why people can not accept that we can criticize the decisions made and still love the parks, movies, what have you.

What we look at is the days when things were done with a different mind set. No Walt didn't give us all great things, but we were pretty confident that we were getting the best that he could give at that moment in time. We are pretty sure from his record, that 50 years later, when a new attraction was going in, it wouldn't be a spinner.

You may feel that Disney is giving all that it can, but I don't. I am not confident that the Disney of today is really pushing the envelope and pouring love into everything they do. I don't feel it when I ride through Monsters Inc at DCA. That's the difference.

Another Voice

10-27-2006, 11:06 AM

Something has been and is being done right.
But far too much “has been” and very little “is being”.

Maybe that’s way The Mall of America has no far surpassed Walt Disney World as America’s number one tourist attraction.

MJMcBride

10-27-2006, 11:32 AM

It's not that we look at the past with rose colored glasses and think everything done back when Walt was alive was perfect.

Yes they do and yes they do.

Mickmse2002

10-27-2006, 11:40 AM

For the life of me, I don't understand why people can not accept that we can criticize the decisions made and still love the parks, movies, what have you.

I think people can and do accept this. I think some of the debate comes into play when the Disney Company and Walt specifically are prtrayed as something they may not have actually been. We generally tend to have romantic visions of the past whereas the reality may have been something entirely different depending upon your worldview at the time.

cristen

10-27-2006, 12:30 PM

Yes they do and yes they do.

If you say so. I'm not going to argue with you.

I think people can and do accept this

I will disagree with you on that.

We generally tend to have romantic visions of the past whereas the reality may have been something entirely different depending upon your worldview at the time.

And you are probably right. But I look at the level of work left behind by both old and new Disney. It's pretty simple. I know DL is a better piece of work with a better vision all around than DCA. I am not romanticizing it at all.

MJMcBride

10-27-2006, 12:38 PM

If you say so. I'm not going to argue with you.

Yes you will.

dbm20th

10-27-2006, 12:44 PM

Maybe that’s way The Mall of America has no far surpassed Walt Disney World as America’s number one tourist attraction.

Come on AV, put the axe aside. You know how silly that statistic is.

dbm20th

10-27-2006, 12:57 PM

You may feel that Disney is giving all that it can, but I don't. I am not confident that the Disney of today is really pushing the envelope and pouring love into everything they do. I don't feel it when I ride through Monsters Inc at DCA. That's the difference.

And there in lies the rub. Those of us who do enjoy it now, and think the success out-weighs the failures, see the same problems all along. I don't feel a lot of "love" was put into taking carnival rides and masking them as tea cups, elephants, or rocket ships. I think TSI and SFRT were nice concepts that were poorly executed and left to stand that way for decades. I think that past regimes had the chance to update attractions like JC and failed to do it, so now the ride is dependant on the CM and not the AA's. There are missteps all along, even when our beloved Disney Legends were leading the charge. But the good, PotC, HM, BTMRR, etc., out weighed the bad.

And I think that is still the case. I do not see a lack of "love" in KS, EE, Soarin, TT, the new Nemo ride, as well as the huge list of other amazing attractions, hotels, and cruise ships all created in the last 15 years. The margin for error is much larger now, as WDI doesn't have just 1 park and 2 hotels to worry about anymore.

Another Voice

10-27-2006, 01:15 PM

You know how silly that statistic is.
It’s far less silly than your claim that WDW is “doing things right” because it’s the number one tourist draw in America. If attendance is your judge on what’s “right” – then there’s more right going on at The Gap than at the Magic Kingdom.

But what it really mean is that you’ve completely missed the point that Mr. Pirate is making.

There’s a difference between doing what is right vs. what’s popular. Real Disney’s basic belief was that if you poured everything you had into your work, created the absolute best that you could – then people we rush to you. Great success comes from exceeding your audiences’ expectations and their desires. You don’t want to be better than your competition – you want to be beyond your competition.

Today’s Faux Disney isn’t interested in that. It’s too much work and you can make a lot of money by doing a lot less. Instead of leaping ahead of the audience, they want to pander to them. We don’t get something as revolutionary as ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ was in 1969, we get a Jack Sparrow figure wedged into an empty spot. That works fine with your “MANY people” who want to see Buzz Lightyear. I’ve worked too long in the business not to understand that there’s always a market for the lowest common dominator.

But there are a lot more people who either remember or want Disney to be that imaginative, forward thinking, give-us-their-all company; the company that was so amazingly successful. It was that attitude that made Pixar worth more than Disney.

And it’s that lack of pride that leads to ESPN “read the scores with a joke” mentality. They don’t care about doing the best possible sports coverage; it’s only important that they do it better than other people. They don’t have any internal goals, their focus is on making more coin than the guy next door. They don’t see a “right way” of doing things, everything is measured only with pennies.

It all comes down to a measure of standards. Some of us don’t settle for “just good enough to make a buck”.

dbm20th

10-27-2006, 01:49 PM

There’s a difference between doing what is right vs. what’s popular.

You also are forgetting that "right" is an opinion, and as you can see from these boards, well all have different opinions. What's right for you is, thankfully, not always right for me.

Attendance is not an opinion. As much as someone may want to stick his/her head in the sand and feel that their opinion is the only one that matter, it is not.

It all comes down to a measure of standards. Some of us don’t settle for “just good enough to make a buck”.

Sure you do, and you always have. How many people have settled for Dumbo, Astro-Orbiter, or some silly carousel for years and years, and then kill the current crew for TS not being imaginative? You don't like these thing that are coming out now, that fine. You are entitled to your opinion. But stop pretending it is anything more than that.

Another Voice

10-27-2006, 02:18 PM

Attendance is not an opinion.
Exactly.

So compare the opening year's attendance of Disneyland, the Magic Kingdom and EPCOT Center (Real Disney) to the opening year's attendance of Animal Kingdom, California Advenuture, Disney Studios Paris and Hong Kong Disneyland (Faux Disney).

The only issue of "opinion" is the path that lead to Disney's original success, and the different path that has lead them to failure after failure.

And yet again you fail to address Mr. Pirates central issue - Disney was a company that used to pour all its efforts into making the best products they could - yet today they are simple content go along with "the flow" and lower themselves to the common demoniator. It's not "ESPN the best coverage possible"; it's "ESPN, we're better than the guy who does professional bowling".

MJMcBride

10-27-2006, 02:31 PM

So compare the opening year's attendance of Disneyland, the Magic Kingdom and EPCOT Center (Real Disney) to the opening year's attendance of Animal Kingdom, California Advenuture, Disney Studios Paris and Hong Kong Disneyland (Faux Disney).

I disagree that DAK is faux Disney. I love the place. I can't comment on DCA as I have never been. Have you been to the Paris Studios or HK Disney? Are the Tokyo Parks' real or pretend?

dbm20th

10-27-2006, 03:24 PM

And yet again you fail to address Mr. Pirates central issue - Disney was a company that used to pour all its efforts into making the best products they could - yet today they are simple content go along with "the flow" and lower themselves to the common demoniator. It's not "ESPN the best coverage possible"; it's "ESPN, we're better than the guy who does professional bowling".

And as per usual you have glossed over my points and only defended your own.

I'll repeat...

How many people have settled for Dumbo, Astro-Orbiter, or some silly carousel for years and years, and then kill the current crew for TS not being imaginative?

raidermatt

10-27-2006, 08:20 PM

Yes they do and yes they do.

There's nothing to argue about, because you know its not true.

I don't feel a lot of "love" was put into taking carnival rides and masking them as tea cups, elephants, or rocket ships.
I ask this seriously... what have you read on the creation of Disneyland?

MJMcBride

10-27-2006, 09:06 PM

There's nothing to argue about, because you know its not true.

But it is true

dbm20th

10-28-2006, 10:56 AM

I ask this seriously... what have you read on the creation of Disneyland?

Much, too much. But that doesn't change what they are. They are midway rides themed well. The theme appeals to you while othjers do not. That doesn't chnage that they are midway rides

MJMcBride

10-28-2006, 11:25 AM

Much, too much. But that doesn't change what they are. They are midway rides themed well. The theme appeals to you while othjers do not. That doesn't chnage that they are midway rides

Exactly. The carousel is basically the same one you see at state fairs.

YoHo

10-28-2006, 01:19 PM

GAHHHHHHHH!!!!

Mr Pirate, Welcome to the dark side, Punch and Pie is on the left.

Everyone who starts talking about Spinners and midway rides? no punch and pie for you.

I've avoided this place for a couple weeks, because I'm basically fed up with you people.

You guys just keep adding to your snowglobe collection. We'll be here when the light goes on.

Galahad

10-28-2006, 05:13 PM

I know there aren't too many of the old guard still around but for those who are here I think it time I publically admit I was wrong.

pirate:

I was wrong right along with you Pirate......... :wave2:

MJMcBride

10-28-2006, 10:11 PM

BRERALEX

10-28-2006, 10:37 PM

popcorn::

cristen

10-29-2006, 01:09 AM

This is exactly what I'm talking about raidermatt and cristen

What? No where did yoho say anything about Walt being perfect.

Here's the thing, and I mean this in the kindest way. It's very hard to have a discussion with someone who is not on the same page as you.

If you can't see the difference between Walt selling everything he owned to build his dream and did what he could at that particular time, which included a spinner and a carousel (which btw, from my understanding, fantasyland was a medieval fair in the courtyard of the castle, so it fits perfectly) and a multi billion dollar company 50 years later still relying on spinners in every land as 'improvments', then how can we go any further?

MJMcBride

10-29-2006, 06:44 AM

What? No where did yoho say anything about Walt being perfect.

Here's the thing, and I mean this in the kindest way. It's very hard to have a discussion with someone who is not on the same page as you.

If you can't see the difference between Walt selling everything he owned to build his dream and did what he could at that particular time, which included a spinner and a carousel (which btw, from my understanding, fantasyland was a medieval fair in the courtyard of the castle, so it fits perfectly) and a multi billion dollar company 50 years later still relying on spinners in every land as 'improvments', then how can we go any further?

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Walt builds spinners as he's some sort of genius. Eisner builds spinners and he's the anti-christ. Listen I'm not saying the the Tricertops Spin is some great improvement to DAK. But Disney has done some nice things in recent years like Soarin', Turtle Talk, some of the resorts, the cruise line, etc.

dbm20th

10-29-2006, 11:27 AM

Exactly. The carousel is basically the same one you see at state fairs.

In fact, they didn't even build it. It was an old carousel that was used at a carnival-style park in Maplewood, NJ. All they did was find it and restore it.

Another Voice

10-29-2006, 01:40 PM

In fact, they didn't even build it.
You don't understand a single thing we're talking about. Too bad in all the reading you did about Disneyland you still don't understand (nor do you wish to learn).

Enjoy your snowglobes. Sit on 'Mission: Space' and tell yourself that you're thrilled beyond imgination. Wander through California Adventure and pat yourself on the back for "getting it" when all us other people are too stupid. Twirl about on your spinners and convince yourself it is better than anything Walt created. Eat dinners with princesses and trade pins and watch "Dancing with the Stars LIVE!".

Enjoy. Have a great time. Laugh at us "old timers" and wallow at everything the brand gives you today.

If you really think that since Walt didn't build a merry-go-round by hand invalidates Mr. Pirates concern that Disney isn't doing things was well as it can today, far be it from anyone to pop your bubble of ignorance.

MJMcBride

10-29-2006, 02:46 PM

You don't understand a single thing we're talking about. Too bad in all the reading you did about Disneyland you still don't understand (nor do you wish to learn).

Enjoy your snowglobes. Sit on 'Mission: Space' and tell yourself that you're thrilled beyond imgination. Wander through California Adventure and pat yourself on the back for "getting it" when all us other people are too stupid. Twirl about on your spinners and convince yourself it is better than anything Walt created. Eat dinners with princesses and trade pins and watch "Dancing with the Stars LIVE!".

Enjoy. Have a great time. Laugh at us "old timers" and wallow at everything the brand gives you today.

If you really think that since Walt didn't build a merry-go-round by hand invalidates Mr. Pirates concern that Disney isn't doing things was well as it can today, far be it from anyone to pop your bubble of ignorance.

AV I don't think you or the rest of the so-called "element" gets it. Mission Space sucks. Pins are lame. But the "element" or whatever, continues to view things through rose-colored galsses.

Yes, Walt was a genius. Yes, Imagineering was at an all-time low. But give me a break. Walt had midway rides too. Walt did cross promoting too. Thats all we're saying. That and Disney has produced some great things in recent years. Thats it. Thats all.

And I will have a great time when I go next month. I will greatly enjoy the Haunted Mansion and Pirates. I will greatly enjoy Soarin' and Kilimanjaroo Safari too. And I'm sure to skip Mission Space and Carousel of Progress (assuming they bother opneing it).

YoHo

10-29-2006, 04:13 PM

dbm20th

10-29-2006, 07:47 PM

Good lord almighty, this is ridiculous.

Just give up, It's like we're speaking english and you're responding in African Clicking language. MJMcbride, you're responses have so little to do with what we're actually saying, that metaphysically speaking, you aren't even typing.
It's like I'm saying the sky is blue and you hear me say it's pink.

You don't understand the point on such a fundimental level that it's useless.

And I'm not trying to be mean here. This stuff happens all the time. It isn't a mark of intelligence or lack there of, but it IS frustrating as hell.

It is also frustrating that you and AV continuosly turn to insult. I understand the point just fine. We disagree, but I would never insult you or AV. no matter how ridiculous blind I may find your statements. But hey, it's all in good fun, right?

And AV, please get a grip. My point was to explain to MJ that the carousel wasn't "built" by Walt or WDI. It was the verbage HE used, not you. As hard as it may be for you to believe, but us "ignorant" people do sometimes talk to someone other than you.

MJMcBride

10-29-2006, 08:13 PM

You don't understand the point on such a fundimental level that it's useless.

And neither apparently do you.

SteveN73

10-29-2006, 08:35 PM

sueg

10-29-2006, 08:57 PM

As an observer, let me say that perception is truth. So from everyone's particular angle of vision they are right. It seems to me that the truth is somewhere in between. I hated Eisner, in the end, but he did run the company during the revival. Lion King, Alladin, Little Mermaid and Hunchback were released during that time. He was not the creative force, but he allowed them to be produced. He also allowed tripe to be produced. His decisions were bottom line decisions. Some good some bad. The company became to interested in maintaining and not growing following the original plan.

I start every trip with at least two rides on Peter Pan. I've never ridden Mission Space, and never will. That is my choice. I hated that they replaced Mr. Toad. I would love to see more attractions that stimulate the imagination.I would love to see more hand drawn movies, in fact I'd really like them to bring back Return to Neverland at the animation exhibit. But that won't happen. I don't like it but I understand, on a rational level, that I'm older than the people they need to attract as a business. I hope that they come up with fresh ideas for that group that will be stimulating.

The conflict between old and new is not the true conflict. Peter Pan is a simple ride made extraordinary by the theming. Mission Space is a spectacular concept that never was achieved. The expectations from the marketing of Ca and Mission Space left them vulnerable to failure based on those raised expectations.And that is the perception that leads to opinion that becomes entrenched.

The new regime has been in place for a few months. I'd like to see them come back to the siplicity. Maybe they can watch the original "Miracle on 34th Street " and relearn about magic.So maybe Pirate wasn't all wrong.

ChrisFL

10-29-2006, 09:08 PM

^^Agreed sueg.

What we're facing is what Im sure much of Disney management and imagineers are facing....everyone has different ideas about what Disney is supposed to stand for.

We have the purists who believe that everything should be done the same way that Walt would have wanted, and there is valid evidence as to why, he ran the company brilliantly for its time.

Then there's those who believe that Walt's era has passed and that modern times dictate that other types of attractions need to be made. There's a lot of validity in that belief also.

I do understand how people can think of rides like the carousel and Dumbo and realize that they weren't the pinnacle of theming that other attractions are, but there were budget issues that had to be addressed just like today.

I think the main problems with modern Disney as it relates to theme parks is:

1.) Theme Parks have not been a major focus of the company as whole, or at least not a large enough focus

2.) Budgets for attractions have been slashed quite badly, not allowing the imagineers to make every attraction unique or special (consider how many recent attractions are re-doing of old ones or building copies)

3.) Corporate synergy ideals taken too far

4.) Making money becoming more important than putting on the best show possible (gift shops taking over classic places on main st., etc.)

YoHo

10-29-2006, 09:23 PM

It is also frustrating that you and AV continuously turn to insult. I understand the point just fine. We disagree, but I would never insult you or AV. no matter how ridiculous blind I may find your statements. But hey, it's all in good fun, right?

We don't disagree, we can't disagree. Disagreement presupposes you understand what the other is saying.

AV/Yoho: Disney Management no longer even understands the hows and whys of the Walt Disney company. Disney management does not seek to create or entertain as their sole focus, rather, their focus is to make money.

The peanut gallery: Nuh uh, they still make nice things sometimes and Walt wanted a paycheck too! purple monkey dishwasher.

Here's the fracken point one more time.

There was the Disney way, and the Disney way was predicated on the notion that the company is one of artists.
You see, there are these people, that derive actual satisfaction from their jobs. It's not just a paycheck to them. There are millions of these people, some, like Walt and the people he hired have the opportunity to turn avocation and talent into a buttload of cash money.

Walt Disney, today is run, not by people seeking to create art, but by people seeking to create wealth. How that's created is irrelevent.

Of course every now and then these people manage to come up with something good, but it is inevitably an accident, not a function of management brilliance or support of artistic merit.
The best companies across the globe foster creativity in their fields to go rise above others. DIsney doesn't do that anymore, Disney shovels bantha poodoo at it's core of mindless brandslaves. Eventually, much like what happened to PAramount w/ Star Trek, the gravy train will run out. And then poof, the company will be nothing but a memory and some dilapidated DVC buildings.

But YoHo, they spent $7 Billion on Pixar, they really want to make it work.

Yeah, sure, they spent that money, because Iger likes his job and the board wouldn't let him keep it otherwise. He sure didn't fire the middle managers at DFA, which by the way managed to weasel their way into control where Lasseter was suppose to have it.

Yes yes, bold statements about DCA, too bad they all seem to get squashed out of monetary fears.

I'm sorry, I've listened, but no matter how many times you tell me how rich and ornate the clothes are, I see nothing but a naked man here, and at that, all the overcompensation is understood now.

Disney's a hollow shell of what used to be the pinnacle of American cultural and corporate achievment.

Anyone that would make the claim that they still are, or that the current managment is even capable of achieving it is so divorced from reality, that they really are speaking African Clicking language.

In short all that matters is intent and Disney's intentions are horrid and don't even relate to those that made the company great. Everything else is irrelevent and a waste of words.

dbm20th

10-29-2006, 09:48 PM

We don't disagree, we can't disagree. Disagreement presupposes you understand what the other is saying.

You are completely correct. It does. And the problem is that you do not understand anything anyone says except yourself, and even that seems fuzzy at best. Go ahead and fire away. We're all used to hearing that axe grind away.

To make my point to those who do seem able to understand the language, I am not trying to say that Walt's midway attractions were bad at all. In fact, they are probably the best and most enduring ever built. But they were midway attractions. Now that may frustrate you into insulting people, but there is nothing I can do about that.

The rest of this nonsense about corporate yada, yada, yada...well, that's fine and good, and we all get it. WDW is out to make money. Wow, what a bunch of evil jerks!! How can they even think of such a thing?!?! It's not the motivation that I am talking about, it is the end product. You don't like it as much as I. That's fine, but what's the point of insulting people about frickin rides??

YoHo

10-29-2006, 10:56 PM

The question is, what difference does it Frackin make that they were midway attractions?

It makes zero difference. The fact that Walt put in a standard Carny spinner is 100% irrelevent to the point I and my good friend AV and the rest of "us" have been trying to make. It's a tree, yet it stands in a forest.

Your point appears to be that I'm a hypocrite, because I don't think Aladdin's spit and spin was a good addition EVEN THOUGH Walt himself put in Dumbo.

It's a terrible point, because Aladdin's fun time with Camel mucus isn't bad because it's a carny ride, it's bad because it's a terrible concept.

More to the point, not including WDW's construction (they were just copies of DL) how many Simple Carny rides did Walt install after the 4 he started with?

One wonders why it took the DIsney Company the better part of 45 years to dip back into that well of magic.

YoHo

10-29-2006, 11:10 PM

The rest of this nonsense about corporate yada, yada, yada...well, that's fine and good, and we all get it. WDW is out to make money. Wow, what a bunch of evil jerks!! How can they even think of such a thing?!?! It's not the motivation that I am talking about, it is the end product. You don't like it as much as I. That's fine, but what's the point of insulting people about frickin rides??

I see, you're pointless blathering is important and relevent, mine is not.

WDW is out to make money, and yes, they are evil jerks, because WDW, just like Cinderellla, Beauty and the Beast, Mehnken music etc is a WORK OF ART. WDW and DL are creative works designed and crafted in the tradition of Theater and moving pictures, Walt's intention and the intention of the first generation to follow him was to inspire people the way only art can inspire, but NO, they're just out to make money and so was Walt, he never had creative aspirations beyond turning a profit. Sure, he's the same as Eisner and Iger and all the rest.

Don't you get it at all?

Walt Disney created the Art of the themepark, that's why there are dozens of books on Imagineering and the Disney way. It's an artistry and Eisner stomped that artistry into the ground. What Iger is left with is so far removed from Art that, even if I were to accept that he isn't a twit, he wouldn't be capable of understanding that it is art.

Tell me, were Picasso and Rembrant and Hitchcock and WC Fields and Mozart and the Stones only in it for the money?

Another Voice

10-29-2006, 11:19 PM

It's not the motivation that I am talking about, it is the end product.

This is where your understanding fails and the reason why Mr. Pirate started this thread in the first place. Disney has changed, and the change has not been for the best.

Motivation has always been at the center of how and why Disney did things. That motivation has changed and so has the company.

Disney used to strive to always improve, to always attempt to better itself. They believed if you delivered an honest show to the audience, you would be rewarded buy those people. They thought of themselves as artists practicing a craft. As stupid as this sounds to you, there are people who still believe there is a right way and a wrong to deal with the public. Disney used to try to be the example of the “right way” of doing things.

That made a lot of people “fans”. They fell in love with the work. They enjoyed the respect of being a guest at a Disney park. They admired the craftsmanship in Disney films. They became hooked on the notion that tomorrow would bring unexpected surprises and delights.

Now we get twenty princess diners, shuttered attractions and every con job a tourist attraction can pull. You blast ‘Dumbo’ as a midway ride – we see Triceratops Spin as an insult to very notion of “trying to do better”. Half a century on and all Disney can accomplish is to recycle the past. ‘Stitch’ gets tossed into a ride, not because the show is good, but because he’ll sell DVDs and plush.*

And why, – it’s that today Disney’s ONLY is to make a buck. The artists are long gone, replaced with self-proclaimed business people. People with a very different motivation than the people that drew Snow White or designed ‘The Haunted Mansion’. Right, wrong – good, bad…it doesn’t make a difference anymore to the company. It’s whatever gets your buck the fastest.

If I understand Mr. Pirate correctly, he had hoped that Disney’s traditional sense of excellence would work its way into the new company’s endeavors. It did not. Worse still, the regressive business practices has now worked their way back into what used to be Disney’s core – the heart of the company is now rotting.

But hey – you don’t see that. Fine. Enjoy what you have for as long as it lasts. Tell yourself this is the best it ever was and the best it ever could be. Tell yourself it’s magic because the poster said so, tell yourself that liking “Disney” is all that matters. Tell yourself that “home” is a condo timeshare. Tell yourself that the more you spend the happier you’ll be. Just keep telling yourself…

Just don’t expect us to follow.

* Yes, Disneyland opened with a couple of film based rides. But this was 1955 – no DVDs or tape…hell, there wasn’t even cable way back then. Outside of the seven year re-release cycle this was the only way people could experience the story. There was nothing that Walt could sell; the rides kept his stories alive and vibrant for generations.

cristen

10-30-2006, 01:02 AM

how many Simple Carny rides did Walt install after the 4 he started with?

Motivation has always been at the center of how and why Disney did things. That motivation has changed and so has the company.

Which is exactly what I was thinking when I posted. Thank you guys for saying it better than I could..........again.

Peter Pirate 2

10-30-2006, 07:46 AM

Mr. Voice, you got my sentiments to a "t" ...Thanks. :thumbsup2

Until Disney can program ESPN with the best intention for sport rather than simply being the best sports network for the masses, until ABC and Family are programmed for the best entertainment they can possibly give rather than strictly for the Nielson's, until Disney makes movies without first consulting (or being hamstrung) by the suits regarding 'tie ins' and 'synergy' then Disney is broke and needs fixing, IMO...

It isn't that the theme parks are lousy (they certainly are not), it's that they are not improving in the Disney way. Look at E:E (and I love this ride). It's got great theming and a really fun Disney coaster but for as great and fun as it is it is still just a rehash. Mountains, coasters, some inside, some outside...The only new technology added was the backward shift, which without would have totally neutered the ride and I think anyone other than Paul Pressler probably could've seen that.

My personal metamophisis centers around exactly what Mr. Voice attributed to me, not the theme parks specifically, but the philosophy:

"If I understand Mr. Pirate correctly, he had hoped that Disney’s traditional sense of excellence would work its way into the new company’s endeavors. It did not. Worse still, the regressive business practices has now worked their way back into what used to be Disney’s core – the heart of the company is now rotting."

pirate:

dbm20th

10-30-2006, 10:19 AM

I see, you're pointless blathering is important and relevent, mine is not.

WDW is out to make money, and yes, they are evil jerks, because WDW, just like Cinderellla, Beauty and the Beast, Mehnken music etc is a WORK OF ART. WDW and DL are creative works designed and crafted in the tradition of Theater and moving pictures, Walt's intention and the intention of the first generation to follow him was to inspire people the way only art can inspire, but NO, they're just out to make money and so was Walt, he never had creative aspirations beyond turning a profit. Sure, he's the same as Eisner and Iger and all the rest.

Don't you get it at all?

Walt Disney created the Art of the themepark, that's why there are dozens of books on Imagineering and the Disney way. It's an artistry and Eisner stomped that artistry into the ground. What Iger is left with is so far removed from Art that, even if I were to accept that he isn't a twit, he wouldn't be capable of understanding that it is art.

Tell me, were Picasso and Rembrant and Hitchcock and WC Fields and Mozart and the Stones only in it for the money?

To be honest, your holyer-than-thou attitude is really amusing. Thanks for that :thumbsup2

And thanks for the lecture on how great Walt was, and what the point of the post was, but none of that has anything to do with this, so go ahead and hammer away on your soapbox and put down everyone who doesn't agree with your position as "pointless blathering".

The difference here is that you have a position that "art" is no longer produced by WDI, and I have a position that it is. WE DISAGREE!!! DO YOU COMPREHEND THAT??? I respect your opinion, as hard as your attitude may make that, and I don't throw around 5th grade insults when you express it. But, honestly, I wouldn't want you to stop. It's funny...

dbm20th

10-30-2006, 10:38 AM

This is where your understanding fails and the reason why Mr. Pirate started this thread in the first place. Disney has changed, and the change has not been for the best.

There is no argument on that, and there never has been. But unlike you, I am not grinding an axe here, I am just pointing out some things to MJ about spinner rides and carousels. You can ascribe whatever you want to them

Motivation has always been at the center of how and why Disney did things. That motivation has changed and so has the company.

But I can only say this so many times, "THAT WAS NOT WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT". You want to turn it into that so you can keep grinding this axe, go ahead. But please stop twisting the points here.

But hey – you don’t see that. Fine. Enjoy what you have for as long as it lasts. Tell yourself this is the best it ever was and the best it ever could be. Tell yourself it’s magic because the poster said so, tell yourself that liking “Disney” is all that matters. Tell yourself that “home” is a condo timeshare. Tell yourself that the more you spend the happier you’ll be. Just keep telling yourself…

Is this what I said? Do you have any comprehension at all as to what I like and don't like? What I spend and don't spend my money on? Or are you just looking to use my comments to grind your axe?

Just don’t expect us to follow.

Believe me AV, I could care less if you do or don't. That's not why I talk about these things. I go to WDW because I love it. I love old things like PotC and HM, and I love newer things like Soarin and ToT. If I am "ignorant" or whatever because I don't appreciate the motivation behind it...well whatever. First of all, I don't consider someone on a message board to be the "source" of the companies motivation. And second, I just don't care what the motivation is. I care if I enjoy the product. (And I also don't own a single snowglobe, so you can go insult snowglobe owners all you want.)

* Yes, Disneyland opened with a couple of film based rides. But this was 1955 – no DVDs or tape…hell, there wasn’t even cable way back then. Outside of the seven year re-release cycle this was the only way people could experience the story. There was nothing that Walt could sell; the rides kept his stories alive and vibrant for generations

And you are making an assumption that the Disney brothers would have conducted themselves in the exact same manner if they had all the media options we have now. That's an assumption, and you are welcome to it. I happen to agree with you.

DancingBear

10-30-2006, 10:48 AM

dbm, surely you must agree that a company that has creativity as its core value will produce more good creative product than a company that has marketing as its core value? And clearly Disney used to be the former, but is now the latter.

Apple didn't just stumble upon the I-pod. Pixar didn't just happen to produce a string of great movies. For all his quirks, Jobs has a knack for encouraging creative product development.

I shop at both Wal-Mart and Nordstroms. Do we want Disney to be a Wal-Mart experience or Nordstrom's?

Disney marketing has been trading heavily on the sentimental attachment to lots of old products. Iger said he bought Pixar largely because he realized Disney hadn't created a memorable character in 20 years. I think Disney is headed down a similar path as Major League Baseball--you can make a lot of money trading on the memories of middle-aged folks, but if every World Series game ends at midnight, you won't be creating a lot of new young fans.

dbm20th

10-30-2006, 11:30 AM

dbm, surely you must agree that a company that has creativity as its core value will produce more good creative product than a company that has marketing as its core value? And clearly Disney used to be the former, but is now the latter.

OK, that's fine. But the last sentence turns us, as it always does, into subjectivity. First of all, there are MILLIONS of examples when marketing doesn't make a bad product good. As much as the purists want to assume that those of us who like the newer additions are knuckle dragging sheep who only like what the marketing tells us to like, the fact is we like it because we do. WDW is very successful, no matter what AV wants us to believe, at getting people there to spend money. Are we really trying to conclude that marketing is the only reason that is the case? Please, it is popular because the product works. Just because it doesn't work on the "purist" is not the question here.

I can put up a list of the great things WDI has produced over the last 15 years if you like. I can mention 2 incredbile cruise ships, unbelievable resorts (i.e., AKL, BW, WL, etc.,). We can discuss the list of great rides like Soarin, ToT, KS, Splash, Star Tours, E:E, RnR, and so on. I can talk about Broadway hits, and on and on. But if the purists don't like these things, then we are at a brick wall.

I shop at both Wal-Mart and Nordstroms. Do we want Disney to be a Wal-Mart experience or Nordstrom's?

I do NOT believe that Disney is the Wal-mart of the industry. I'm sorry, but that's my opinion.

I think Disney is headed down a similar path as Major League Baseball--you can make a lot of money trading on the memories of middle-aged folks, but if every World Series game ends at midnight, you won't be creating a lot of new young fans

Though I agree with you, MLB is at such a high point in attendance and revenue to the point where the players union and owners can't even find something to argue about. Again, it may not work for us, but it works for many other people. Yes, the World Series is on too late, but most of the 162 regular season games are not. This has been the case for many years and a complaint of mine forever, but attendance keeps increasing. Is that because of marketing? Maybe, but more likely it is because the problem is mine and not the public's at large.

MJMcBride

10-30-2006, 12:04 PM

Thank god we have AV and Yoho here. Where else we can find our daily fill of self righteous indignation.

Yoho: to say that anytime Disney comes up with something good now is a pure accident is ridicluous and frankly dumb. The people who work at imagineering now work just as hard as they did before and it pays off sometimes. Sometimes it doesn't. The point about Dumbo was this ( I guess you missed it). Not everything Walt did was innovative or even good. Thats all.

Peter Pirate: You say Expedition Everest is just a rehash. Fine. Then so is Big Thunder Mountain. They all stem from the Matterhorn correct? And Disney has come up with innovative things since Disney dies. The first motion simulator ride I believe was Star Tours. Turtle Talk and Soarin are innovative.

YoHo

10-30-2006, 12:55 PM

Actually, Dumbo was innovative in it's way, Certainly the decorations on it are far more advanced then anything that came before it.

Of course, that's a single attraction focus which is as incorrect as anything else in this thread. Fantasyland is about the sum of it's parts. THAT's innovative.

Yoho: to say that anytime Disney comes up with something good now is a pure accident is ridicluous and frankly dumb. The people who work at imagineering now work just as hard as they did before and it pays off sometimes. Sometimes it doesn't. The point about Dumbo was this ( I guess you missed it). Not everything Walt did was innovative or even good. Thats all.

If you knew ANYTHING about the people in Walt Disney Imagineering right now, you'd know that NO, they don't work as hard, in fact, most of them are mindless paper pushers. To equate the current crop with the likes of Hench, Broggie, etc etc is not just insulting because of talent, but also an insult to their work ethic. Please stop insulting people. Oh, I'm sure there are one or 2, but they're drowned out by the idiots.

And, for the record, I've talked to former Disney employees about how they viewed the product under Eisner, it's pretty much universally hated. Have you?

But I can only say this so many times, "THAT WAS NOT WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT". You want to turn it into that so you can keep grinding this axe, go ahead. But please stop twisting the points here.

If that's not what you're talking about, then you aren't really keeping on the topic that Peter Pirate laid out, and therefore, it's you who has an axe to grind.

raidermatt

10-30-2006, 01:09 PM

dbm20th

10-30-2006, 01:43 PM

I'm going to make this as simple as possible.

We know you are simply comparing the end product. Walt had successes, Walt had failures. Today's Disney has successes, today's Disney has failures.

Find. Understood. Point conceded.

The fundamental question is, do you believe that different, but viable, methods will have different rates and levels of success? Again, to keep it simple, one way of operating is "good". Another way is "better". While both will generate sucesses and failures, will there not be a difference in the rate and scale of the results?

Well, that does pre-suppose that we are in agreement that things produced before a certain time period are in fact better than those produced after that time period. Without that, we can not qualify one as producing "better" results than the other. Now, I can't speak to things because I have only been at WDW since the late 70's, but in that time frame there are things produced now that many people like a lot more...

For example, and I am going to get murdered for this but oh well, I think TT is a much better experience than World of Motion. I think Soarin in a great addition to a boring area. I loved Alien Encounter and it was much better than the Mars attraction before it. Buzz was better than it replaced. I can go on and on. My point it, you can NOT pre-suppose these things becaue everyone has a different view of what is "good", "fun" or "boring".

Having said all that...I agree. When there were 2 brothers controlling a film studio and one theme park, that was probably better. I just don't know how you get back to that without someone grinding an axe at management. There is always someone in a corporation with better ideas and a limitless budget. My point is, I can only judge these things on how I like the end product, nothing else. The motivation is meaningless to me. And to me and my family, the end product is still terrific. (I guess this is where I get some nuanced "snowglobe" comment or the less nuanced "pointless blathering" description.)

The way Disney does it today is fine. Its more or less the way everybody else does things.

I know there is much more to what you said than this, but let's just look at this one part. I don't think this is true. I've been to hotels, theme parks, and cruise ships all over the country. Disney does it better. This Disney...today's Disney does it better. From service to themes, they are the best vacation company in the country...in my humble opinion.

The company at large is not what it was, to me. To some, the "golden age" of animation was the Katzenberg era. The best films were those, and not Walt's. To others, the Eisner era that produced Splash Mountain, the Tower of Terror, Soarin, and other great thrill rides is the golden age of the attractions, and not the dark rides from 64' fair. I am not saying I agree or disagree with that notion, but it is what it is. People have different views, and those who think that what has been produced at the parks over the past 15 years is great are certainly not the minority as far as I can tell.

YoHo

10-30-2006, 02:14 PM

Well, that does pre-suppose that we are in agreement that things produced before a certain time period are in fact better than those produced after that time period. Without that, we can not qualify one as producing "better" results than the other. Now, I can't speak to things because I have only been at WDW since the late 70's, but in that time frame there are things produced now that many people like a lot more...

For example, and I am going to get murdered for this but oh well, I think TT is a much better experience than World of Motion. I think Soarin in a great addition to a boring area. I loved Alien Encounter and it was much better than the Mars attraction before it. Buzz was better than it replaced. I can go on and on. My point it, you can NOT pre-suppose these things becaue everyone has a different view of what is "good", "fun" or "boring".

First of all, you're crazy on World of Motion, but that's just a personal opinion. More importantly, there is a difference between simply being better, because it's newer, fancier, what have you and being better because it's innovative, different, transcendent.
We try not to argue about what people like, we try to argue about the method. Alien encounter is fun for some, others hated it. The attraction they originally designed was far more exciting and innovative, but it would have cost licensing money and been scarier.
Animal Kingdom Lodge is nice, some people really like it, but the African Village hotel complex was beyond the pale different and more innovative then any resort or hotel on the planet. It's not just the same, but with better service. It was innovative.
Disney isn't about doing it better, that's the problem here. "Disney does it better then the others" is a mark of failure.
Disney used to be in the business of doing things that never occurred to anyone else.

Having said all that...I agree. When there were 2 brothers controlling a film studio and one theme park, that was probably better. I just don't know how you get back to that without someone grinding an axe at management. There is always someone in a corporation with better ideas and a limitless budget. My point is, I can only judge these things on how I like the end product, nothing else. The motivation is meaningless to me. And to me and my family, the end product is still terrific. (I guess this is where I get some nuanced "snowglobe" comment or the less nuanced "pointless blathering" description.)

Yes, those Bank of America people were all Lollipops and Ponies in the 50s

I know there is much more to what you said than this, but let's just look at this one part. I don't think this is true. I've been to hotels, theme parks, and cruise ships all over the country. Disney does it better. This Disney...today's Disney does it better. From service to themes, they are the best vacation company in the country...in my humble opinion.

Again, being better then others in the same field is fundamentally different then striking new innovative ground.

The company at large is not what it was, to me. To some, the "golden age" of animation was the Katzenberg era. The best films were those, and not Walt's. To others, the Eisner era that produced Splash Mountain, the Tower of Terror, Soarin, and other great thrill rides is the golden age of the attractions, and not the dark rides from 64' fair. I am not saying I agree or disagree with that notion, but it is what it is. People have different views, and those who think that what has been produced at the parks over the past 15 years is great are certainly not the minority as far as I can tell.

Over the Past 15 years? Among people who actually think about this stuff? Yeah, you might be in the minority. There is no doubt that the Walt Disney Company has been on a death spiral since at least 1996. Prior to that, I could see some people thinking it was the golden age. We didn't see what was going on yet.

dbm20th

10-30-2006, 02:27 PM

Among people who actually think about this stuff?

And here we go again. So I guess unless they agree with you, they don't "think"? Honestly YoHo, when you say things like that, I lose complete interest in whatever else you write. But just because I find your insults mildly amusing...

(I edited a paragraph out here, because I have had enough of being insulted, no matter how fun it may be.)

YoHo

10-30-2006, 02:39 PM

No, I meant as opposed to the average person who doesn't really think about how multinational corporations do things, not even Disney specifically.

The vast majority of guests don't distinguish what was built when beyond comments about what they rode when they were little. They evaluate Disney discreetly each time they visit.

This board is filled with people who do think about that. This board is filled with people who put Disney in it's historical context. Neither is right or wrong, it's a distinction on what people are interested in.

Most people don't think about it, but they still notice it when it's missing.

But, way to take a statement that was not in any way an insult and assume it was one.

Among people who actually sit down and contemplate what's been added over the past 10 years versus the previous 10 and the 15 before that, most would disagree with your contention that what's been produced over the past 15 years has been great when compared to what was previously there.

Another Voice

10-30-2006, 02:44 PM

The motivation is meaningless to me.
Which is why we're all talking past each other.

To us - the motivation is everything. We believe the motivation is why we used to get 'Pirates of the Caribbean' and these days we get 'Mission: Space'. The motivation is why we used to be able to ask divers in 'The Living Seas' questions about science, and why now all we can do there is shop. And the motivation is what enticed millions of people to visit EPCOT Center, and today's motivation why they can't get anyone to visit California Adventure when they give admission away for free.

But if you enjoy it - more power to you.

raidermatt

10-30-2006, 03:23 PM

Now, I can't speak to things because I have only been at WDW since the late 70's, but in that time frame there are things produced now that many people like a lot more...

Well, in trying to stay focused on the basic point, I used words like "good" and "better". But if we are clear on the rest of it, we can move on.

Yes, as YoHo said, its not about a ride created in 2000 being more popular than a ride created in 1955. Really, that should be a given. There are precious few companies that can go 50 years without upgrading their product offerings and still remain a giant in their respective industries.

But in this case, its all about context. When you look back at what was in Disneyland in 1955 its easy to say "eh, it was a nice start, but no big deal". But for the time period, it was a HUGE deal. Just as Snow White was nearly 20 years before. Fantasia. The way TV was utilized. The idea of a "Disney World". An entire CITY of tomorrow!

In their time period, these were monster ideas which sprung from a completely different vision and strategy. There is absolutely NOTHING that Disney does today that comes close to what the company used to do when you look at things in their historical context.

THAT'S what we lament. And from a business perspective, its a tremendous opportunity missed for the company.

If you don't care about all of that, and just like visiting WDW on your vacation, or popping The Lion King or Cinderella into the DVD player, that's fine. As others have said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

But if we are going to engage in the discussion of what has changed, then the motivation, the methods, and the strategic vision cannot be ignored. Without looking at those things, you can only see what's in front of you. You can't see what a continuation of those ideals WOULD HAVE put in front of you. Or could again if somehow, someway, the WDC could recapture those ideals.

That doesn't mean we can't have a blast at WDW. We do! (or at least most of us do). Its about seeing something that might be fine, good, or even great, and acknowledging that it had, and maybe still has, the very real potential to be so much more.

Its not about wanting to step into a time machine and go back to Disneyland in 1955 (although that would be really cool!). Its about seeing something you love and cherish not be anything close to what it could be due to the decisons made by its leaders.

dbm20th

10-30-2006, 03:41 PM

Among people who actually sit down and contemplate what's been added over the past 10 years versus the previous 10 and the 15 before that, most would disagree with your contention that what's been produced over the past 15 years has been great when compared to what was previously there.

Tell me where I said that?? You like to cast insults at people for not following your "logic". Tell me where this is written. What I said was that there are accomplishments in the past 15 years. Fun and terrific stuff. Never once, did I say it was better than the Walt years. Never once.

YoHo

10-30-2006, 03:48 PM

Greatness is relative to expectation.

MJMcBride

10-30-2006, 03:57 PM

If you just want a concession that Disney does fine today, that they produce some things we like, no problem.

Not just like, but are great and worthy of the name "Disney". I think many things produced since Eisner came on board are worthy of it. I won't list them again.

If you want a concession that Disney Imagineering is not what it used to be and Disney too often goes for the easy buck. "No problem."

And never once did I say the parks are better now than they were. I don't know what the heck Yoho is talking about. Yoho, reading, try it, its a wonderful thing. Really, it is.

MJMcBride

10-30-2006, 04:01 PM

Greatness is relative to expectation.

Let me aski you this. In the last 15 years, what has Disney produced that has been great?

mt2

10-30-2006, 04:03 PM

Let me aski you this. In the last 15 years, what has Disney produced that has been great?

Illuminations: Reflections of Earth.

raidermatt

10-30-2006, 04:13 PM

Not just like, but are great and worthy of the name "Disney". I think many things produced since Eisner came on board are worthy of it. I won't list them again.

There's no need to. They've been listed and debated umpteen times by dozens of posters over the years. It always leads nowhere.

As it relates to this discussion, it doesn't matter whether we call the cruise line, or anything else, worthy of the name Disney.

When you look at the criteria, the standard, I was talking about in my post, NOTHING being done by Disney today matches the grander ideas that Disney executed in the past.

That doesn't mean the cruise line doesn't deserve to have Disney's name on it. It doesn't mean its not a well run cruise line, or even the best cruise line out there. It doesn't even mean its not something yesterday's Disney would have done.

What it means is that if Disney had not wavered from its vision, when we said what is Disney's "Disneyland", "Snow White", or "Disney World" of today, we wouldn't point to the cruise line. I don't pretend to be smart enough, or imaginative enough, to guess what we would point to. But what I do know is that it wouldn't be the cruise line.

To try to draw a parallel, the cruise line might be the equivalent of what the MK was to the DisneyWorld project. Something Disney decided to do better than had been done before, yes, and most definitely worthy of the Disney name. But not the thing that naysayers would point to and say "Impossible!".

MJMcBride

10-30-2006, 05:31 PM

When you look at the criteria, the standard, I was talking about in my post, NOTHING being done by Disney today matches the grander ideas that Disney executed in the past.

And I don't believe that. Some of the things built over the last 10 years are some of the best things ever built at a Disney Park. Obviously, thats subjective.

MJMcBride

10-30-2006, 05:32 PM

Illuminations: Reflections of Earth.

And thats It? Please

YoHo

10-30-2006, 05:45 PM

And I don't believe that. Some of the things built over the last 10 years are some of the best things ever built at a Disney Park. Obviously, thats subjective.

None of it matches the grandness of scope.

That's not subjective, it's measurable fact.

raidermatt

10-30-2006, 06:09 PM

And I don't believe that. Some of the things built over the last 10 years are some of the best things ever built at a Disney Park. Obviously, thats subjective.

Look again at the things I'm talking about. Snow White. First full-length animated feature. Disneyland. A park built and promoted like nothing before it. DisneyWorld/Epcot the City. Wow! These were things that simply had not been done before. Things that people said could not be done, certainly not for a profit.

Yes, they would probably be building new theme parks, like today, each trying to top what they did before, unlike today. But they would also either be building/creating or planning something else. Something that would shock and amaze people the way plans for Snow White did, the way Disneyland did, and the way DisneyWorld did.

The strategy and vision behind those things is what has been lost.

MJMcBride

10-30-2006, 08:26 PM

That's not subjective, it's measurable fact.

Maybe in your head "grandness of scope" is a definable, measurable "fact." But only in your head.

YoHo

10-30-2006, 08:41 PM

You're cookoo for coco puffs my friend.

The scope of a project is easily measured, Heck, I do that on a weekly basis. The level of ambition, risk and potential reward of any project is easily definable. So, yes, Grandness of scope is a measurable objective. And it's my contention that the Grandness of Disney's scope is terrible. I'd like to see some examples otherwise.

MJMcBride

10-30-2006, 08:54 PM

Grandness of scope is a measurable objective.

How does one measure grandness of scope? It seems to me its a subjective idea.

YoHo

10-30-2006, 09:59 PM

Grandness of scope is very simply an evaluation of risk v. reward.

For example, Timeshares have been a well understood concept for decades now. Therefore the risk of DVC is pretty darn low.

On the other hand, Creating the first full length animated movie when you have little to no money and are barely able to meet payrole.

Building a resort city based on new untried technology top to bottom, embracing the new medium of televsion completely.

Buying a spinner off the shell, not very risky.

cristen

10-31-2006, 01:07 AM

Snow White. First full-length animated feature. Disneyland. A park built and promoted like nothing before it. DisneyWorld/Epcot the City. Wow! These were things that simply had not been done before.

First steel tube roller coaster, invented the multiplane camera, Skyway, first system of it's kind in the US, DL monorail, first monorail operated in the western hemisphere, the innovative magnetic mechanism for the Peoplemover, invented the film technique circle-vision 360........

If any of you are interested in reading exactly how much Walt influenced the times and the culture, I can provide a link. It's a fascinating read.

eh.

DancingBear

10-31-2006, 08:20 AM

I agree with A-V's post that we're talking past one another. For the record, I thoroughly enjoyed our Disney cruise in 9/05, and our WDW visits in 9/05, 12/05 and 5/06. For subjective opinions (most of which A-V would disagree with me about), the current Illuminations show is the best ever, AK is very underrated, Soarin' is an awesome ride (although it could use a "story," and the airport queue is awful), Disney deserves credit for making The Lion King on Broadway an amazing show, the Swan and Dolphin are really cool (and I don't care that I could see them from World Showcase--in fact, I've never noticed them when I'm in Epcot) and the Alladin ride really doesn't annoy me at all.

My concern is exactly the one that Iger expressed as a big reason that he bought Pixar. He said he realized Disney had not created a memorable character in 20 years (and Pixar had created many). Witness how much a show like "Wishes" depends upon the sentimental attachment to past Disney creations.

dbm, I appreciate your thoughtful discussion style, but as a Disney fan I don't see how you can NOT care about Disney's internal workings. It is simply indisputable that during the second half of the Eisner era (and particularly in the last 5 years or so of that era), that the emphasis within the Company was shifted away from Imagineers and animators and other creators, and toward marketing, merchandising and accounting. This just can't be a good thing for those who want to see more and better creations from Disney.

That's not to say that merchandising is evil per se, or that Walt and Roy didn't do it. And it's not saying that change is always bad (I was never crazy about World of Motion either). It's just saying that it's a bad thing when choices are made like closing up side streets on Main Street to enlarge all of the shops.

dbm20th

10-31-2006, 08:55 AM

Folks, we all know Walt took risks and was a pioneer in theme parks and film making. We all know that, and we all understand that Disney does not do that now. They stand on the back of their creator and build on his ideas. Honestly, that is exactly what I would want the focus to be.

I am talking, not so much about the OP, as I am about the other thigs mentioned between the patrionizing garbage that came out of folks grinding their axes. For example...

From the ever polite and enjoyable YoHo...
Of course every now and then these people manage to come up with something good, but it is inevitably an accident, not a function of management brilliance or support of artistic merit.

This is interesting on the surface, but nothing but sour grapes in the end. What we don't like becomes non-artistic or an accident. Was KS and accident? Or E:E? What about the DCL? Or Lucky? Are these accidents that knuckle-dragging morons happen to be lucky in coming up with? That very idea is such non-sense that it is hard to even debate. Are they produced and imagined in the same style as Wlat? Of course not, but the differences that exists everywhere in the company, world, etc, between now and 1955 make it nearly impossible to expect something else?

We just left a down time in Disney, but it seems that Lasseter and the more creative people may turn this around. Will they turn it back to dark rides, educational exhibits and such, probably not, so I don't expect the purists to jump for joy. But there is reason to hope, and reason to appreciate what has been done.

From the all-knowing AV...
Now we get twenty princess diners, shuttered attractions and every con job a tourist attraction can pull. You blast ‘Dumbo’ as a midway ride – we see Triceratops Spin as an insult to very notion of “trying to do better”. Half a century on and all Disney can accomplish is to recycle the past. ‘Stitch’ gets tossed into a ride, not because the show is good, but because he’ll sell DVDs and plush.*

First of all, besides twisting the word "blast" whoch never occured here, what this is doing is taking a few examples, like TS and Stitch and forgetting the rest, like E:E, Soarin, and others. This is precisly why we point out some of the terrible thins that were done in past years. Not because we think that is the story of those eras, but because we don't think that TS is the story of this era.

And my favorite...
None of it matches the grandness of scope.

That's not subjective, it's measurable fact.

That last one is really amusing. YoHo's Grandess of Scope meter will soon be on sale at E-Bay, so stay tuned. I would be willing to bet that there are many, many people who find an enourmous "grandness of scope" in things like ToT, KS, E:E, Lucky, and Soarin, but it doesn't read well on the meter so we must be incorrect.

YoHo

10-31-2006, 10:34 AM

Folks, we all know Walt took risks and was a pioneer in theme parks and film making. We all know that, and we all understand that Disney does not do that now. They stand on the back of their creator and build on his ideas. Honestly, that is exactly what I would want the focus to be.

I am talking, not so much about the OP, as I am about the other thigs mentioned between the patrionizing garbage that came out of folks grinding their axes. For example...

From the ever polite and enjoyable YoHo...

This is interesting on the surface, but nothing but sour grapes in the end. What we don't like becomes non-artistic or an accident. Was KS and accident? Or E:E? What about the DCL? Or Lucky? Are these accidents that knuckle-dragging morons happen to be lucky in coming up with? That very idea is such non-sense that it is hard to even debate. Are they produced and imagined in the same style as Wlat? Of course not, but the differences that exists everywhere in the company, world, etc, between now and 1955 make it nearly impossible to expect something else?

We just left a down time in Disney, but it seems that Lasseter and the more creative people may turn this around. Will they turn it back to dark rides, educational exhibits and such, probably not, so I don't expect the purists to jump for joy. But there is reason to hope, and reason to appreciate what has been done.

From the all-knowing AV...

First of all, besides twisting the word "blast" whoch never occured here, what this is doing is taking a few examples, like TS and Stitch and forgetting the rest, like E:E, Soarin, and others. This is precisly why we point out some of the terrible thins that were done in past years. Not because we think that is the story of those eras, but because we don't think that TS is the story of this era.

And my favorite...

That last one is really amusing. YoHo's Grandess of Scope meter will soon be on sale at E-Bay, so stay tuned. I would be willing to bet that there are many, many people who find an enourmous "grandness of scope" in things like ToT, KS, E:E, Lucky, and Soarin, but it doesn't read well on the meter so we must be incorrect.

There are many people who've never read word one on Disney history. There are many people that think coming up with the iPod must be simple because they don't understand it.

But of course, reject the point and attack the poster. It's your thoughtful style.

Comparing ToT, KS, E:E, Lucky and Soarin to the inventions and accomplishments of the past is a joke. Not a very funny one at that.

The company isn't building on ANYTHING anymore. They're in autopilot.

DancingBear

10-31-2006, 10:55 AM

Folks, we all know Walt took risks and was a pioneer in theme parks and film making. We all know that, and we all understand that Disney does not do that now.And that doesn't bother you?

They stand on the back of their creator and build on his ideas. Honestly, that is exactly what I would want the focus to be.Really?

DisneyKidds

10-31-2006, 11:09 AM

Motivation has always been at the center of how and why Disney did things. That motivation has changed and so has the company.

But I can only say this so many times, "THAT WAS NOT WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT".

Then please clarify what you were talking about when you made the statement. The motivation is at the core of what Disney was and what it has become. The motivation is at the core of our disagreements.

For Walt, the animation and theme parks were a labour of love that was brought about by a desire to create things that had never before been created, be it a multiplane camera for animation, or a new take on a tired and limited theme park concept. That labour of love would have Walt risk everything he owned and his family's future so that those endeavours could be pursued and carried out with the highest degree of quality, in ways seen and unseen, such that Disney delived more than the guest even knew they wanted, much less exceeding their expectations. Yes, in the process Walt employed a repackaged and themed carny spinner. Yes, he also made a pretty penny (after some very lean times) along the way. However, it was the process, the dedication, that made Disney what it was.

That is how the "old guard" and those who have delved deep into the history and progress of what has become today's Disney view the past, and look at how things have changed in arriving at the present. It was always the process, the ideals, the standards, the Traditions. What have we of those today?

In today's Disney, the closest that we have is whatever of the Pixar mentality has survived in the acquisition. For the most part, it seems today's management performs their labours not out of love, but out of desire to have the best possible quarterly financial report. Today's management risks very little of their own and creates not out of love for the creation, but for the bottom line impact the profits whatever creations that are made will have. The pretty penny that was the byproduct of Walt's goals and processes has displace those goals and processes and become the goal in and of itself.

Not that there is anything inherently wrong with that being the case. In today's day and age most of the corporate world operates this way, and there is nothing evil about the individuals in pursuit of those goals.

But the motivation is different. And the difference in motivation has a tremendous impact on what is delivered to the guest and how/why it is delivered.

We can argue over what has or has not been created. We can argue over the merits of one ride over another. We can argue over a lot of things while still agreeing that the Disney parks and resorts are still incredible places to behold. But if we get caught up in arguing the details, we lose sight of the big picture. Today's Disney is not motivated by the same thing yesterday's Disney was.......and we can still enjoy that which exists today while lamenting what could have been.

dbm20th

10-31-2006, 11:57 AM

There are many people who've never read word one on Disney history. There are many people that think coming up with the iPod must be simple because they don't understand it.

But of course, reject the point and attack the poster. It's your thoughtful style.

You really aren't criticizing someone for attacking a post are you?

Comparing ToT, KS, E:E, Lucky and Soarin to the inventions and accomplishments of the past is a joke. Not a very funny one at that.

Show me where I did that.

The company isn't building on ANYTHING anymore. They're in autopilot

Present Axe!

dbm20th

10-31-2006, 12:01 PM

And that doesn't bother you?

Of course it does, but not to the point where I can't see the good that's been done there.

Really?

Yes, I think standing on the back of a man like Walt Disney and building to make his ideas relevant in this century is exactly what WDW should do. Some here think that is not done because of corporate whatever. My point is that there are things, amny things, that are examples of that.

dbm20th

10-31-2006, 12:12 PM

Then please clarify what you were talking about when you made the statement. The motivation is at the core of what Disney was and what it has become. The motivation is at the core of our disagreements.

In the particular discussion, I was talking about liking the end product and not caring to much what the motivation was behind it. Ballplayers are accused of "playing for the paycheck" but that only seems to happen when they don't play well. If they do, no one cares that they are after a great paycheck. I believe that WDI has done well, and I don't care what the corporate suits have in mind, just like I don't care if Derek Jeter is making 20mil. The end product is what is meaningful to me...in that particular discussion.

Another Voice

10-31-2006, 12:42 PM

and I don't care what the corporate suits have in mind,
Which is basically saying you don't care about Disney per se - only what you can get out of it.

That's a valid point of view.

But a lot of people are here because they're interested in the "behind the scenes" of the company - the real news and rumors. We're interested in the process that makes good or bad shows; we don't view "Disney" as a buffet where we only pick out the tasty bits.

There's a vast difference between seeing something as "I like this, I don't like that" and "this is a good show, that is a bad show". There are plenty of "good" movies that I don't like - but I can still admire and respect the craftmanship behind them. Just as there are a lot of popular shows that lack to elements required to appeal to large numbers of people over the long haul.

That's where the whole issue of "motivation" comes in. It's required to judge a show on its commerical & artist level rather than just on the basis of personal preference.

dbm20th

10-31-2006, 12:57 PM

That's where the whole issue of "motivation" comes in. It's required to judge a show on its commerical & artist level rather than just on the basis of personal preference.

And I am not arguing the validity of the motivation argument. I was only making a specific point in this discussion and the "element" seems incapable or unwilling to seperate one point from another.

So then answer me this. If I think that there are many, many things that I find terrific produced over the last 15 years, do I then have to except the motivation was artistry and innovation?

Another Voice

10-31-2006, 01:20 PM

If I think that there are many, many things that I find terrific produced over the last 15 years, do I then have to except the motivation was artistry and innovation?
No - they are separate issues.

In the first case you are judging what interests you - what at WDW makes you buy the DVC membership and visit the place multiple times in a year. If something doesn't matter to you, then it doesn't matter in your opinion. It doesn't matter how it's produced, you are only judging the outcome

Now that's a great way to look at the world if you're trying to figure out how you're going to spend your $5,000 in vacation money. But it also limits your view.

WDW gets about 14 million visitors a year. Each one has a different set of likes and dislikes. But the success of the business means that you have to generally please all those 14 million people - not just you.

But to those of us interested in the survival and growth of Disney - we worry about those 13,999,999 other people. It's an issue that goes beyond my personal likes and dislikes as a consumer. I hate seafood, that doesn't mean I want to banish all fish dishes from all the restaurants; I like roller coasters, but I understand that WDW is not the place for a mega coaster with a 400 foot vertical drop.

It's impossible for a group of people to know how to please a lot of others. The best we can do is learn from the past. Disney was successful over the long run becasue it developed a set of rules and traditions that resulted in a large number of shows that pleased a large number of people. It doesn't matter that I like each and every one of them - only that they pleased a large chunk of Disney's guests.

What we in 'The Element' see today is that those rules and traditions have been abandoned. The guidelines that helped Disney achieve success in the past have been replaced by ideas to make a quick buck or in a shortsighted attempts to save costs. There is a reason that the "midway ride" Dumbo has a longer line than ubermegaextreme 'Mission: Space'. That reason is found in Disney's motivations which in turn impacted how those rides were constructed.

Just as "motivation" doesn't matter to your interest, a success here and there doesn't much impact our concern for the bigger trends we're seeing. Getting 14 million people to do anything is more difficult than you can image. Disney is making its job much more difficult than it needs to be - and that endangers everything.

raidermatt

10-31-2006, 01:28 PM

If I think that there are many, many things that I find terrific produced over the last 15 years, do I then have to except the motivation was artistry and innovation?

No they are two separate points. Its in the quote you copied from AV. You're accusing him and others of not separating the two, but its right there in what you pasted in.

The fact that you like these things is a matter of personal preference.

If you want to know about artistry and innovation, then you have to study the things going on behind the scenes.

In short, you're looking at the ends, others are looking at means.

dbm20th

10-31-2006, 01:45 PM

Just as "motivation" doesn't matter to your interest, a success here and there doesn't much impact our concern for the bigger trends we're seeing. Getting 14 million people to do anything is more difficult than you can image. Disney is making its job much more difficult than it needs to be - and that endangers everything.

Oh my god, AV. How many times do I have to say this? How many times?? This was a specific comment not related to the overall point that you simply can not get out of your head. Please, give it a rest!!! As far as the rest of that paragraph is concerned, "here and there" is the absolute root of our disagreement. I believe it is better than "here and there" and you don't. The rest of this how debate is secondary.

The rest of what you said makes perfect sense, but here's the thing. I think a lot more thought and care went into the finished Mission:Space product then Dumbo. Is that bad? If it appeals to me, then how can I possibly conclude that it was done for any reasons other than to appeal to me? Also, do we really want to name all the bad things previous regimes created that are now gone? I mean, that is the only fair way to compare the end products, don't you think?

Another Voice

10-31-2006, 01:58 PM

Sigh...

It's a difference between judging something based on your personal interests and judging something based on whether or not it is in the best long term interest of Disney.

They are not always the same thing.

When you look at things from a company point of view - just because you don't like a movie doesn't make it a bad movie - and just because you love a ride doesn't make it a good ride.

The decision of "good" and "bad" is left up to the 14 million people that go to WDW and that millions that decide not to. Your personal preference only applies to you. Period.

It's great that you love what you see at WDW. A lot of us like a lot of it to - but we see something different when we switch from personal to corporate.

When you can make that leap, then we'll have something to talk about. I don't care about matching up "favs" list - I'll leave that for the preteens elsewhere on this board. If that's all you're interested in, then like I said, have fun munching on your churros.

dbm20th

10-31-2006, 02:04 PM

The fact that you like these things is a matter of personal preference.

EXACTLY!!! And the same goes for the element. If we were only debating what was the means, that would be one thing, but we are not. Examples...

It’s only capable of regurgitating what it’s already created and strip mining its past.

It’s just too bad they torn down Walt’s legacy to hock them.

I don't even bother with DCA, DTD or WDW for that matter.

Some of us don’t settle for “just good enough to make a buck”.

That works fine with your “MANY people” who want to see Buzz Lightyear. I’ve worked too long in the business not to understand that there’s always a market for the lowest common dominator.

You guys just keep adding to your snowglobe collection. We'll be here when the light goes on.

Sit on 'Mission: Space' and tell yourself that you're thrilled beyond imgination.

Of course every now and then these people manage to come up with something good, but it is inevitably an accident, not a function of management brilliance or support of artistic merit.

It's an artistry and Eisner stomped that artistry into the ground.

Matt, I haven't even scratched the surface here. When this was only about whether or not the corporate structure of Eisner slowed the creative process at Disney, I offered no debate. But when someone starts to tell me that terrific things are no longer produced, that's when I have a debate.

dbm20th

10-31-2006, 02:11 PM

When you can make that leap, then we'll have something to talk about. I don't care about matching up "favs" list - I'll leave that for the preteens elsewhere on this board. If that's all you're interested in, then like I said, have fun munching on your churros.

AV, you are too smart and well spoken to reduce yours posts to nonsense little 4th grade jabs. Your points are all well taken. I agree that things have changed at the company for the worse, but don't sit here and try and tell me that you like what has been produced over the past 15 years. You have made your displeasure known over and over again, and that is where this debate comes from.

MJMcBride

10-31-2006, 02:13 PM

Another Voice

10-31-2006, 02:13 PM

But when someone starts to tell me that terrific things are no longer produced, that's when I have a debate.
Who decides if 'Mission: Space' is terrific?

Do you judge "good" if you focus just on 'Soaring Over California' or if you look at California Adventure as a whole. What viewpoint do you have to take if you're running Disney?

You have made your displeasure known over and over again, and that is where this debate comes from.
In otherwords, you think I'm wrong to not like what you think is good?

What I'm saying is I don't care what you like and what you don't like. I care what the public like because THEY - not you - are going to determine the future of Disney.

Screach all you want about "terrific things being made" - almost no one buys a ticket to Califorina Adventure. Bully whoever you want on the Internet, Disney is giving away a lot of free food to get people to travel to WDW. No one lines up outside a theater anymore for the latest Disney animated flick.

Business is business. It doesn't care about you at all.

MJMcBride

10-31-2006, 02:15 PM

raidermatt

10-31-2006, 02:31 PM

Matt, I haven't even scratched the surface here. When this was only about whether or not the corporate structure of Eisner slowed the creative process at Disney, I offered no debate. But when someone starts to tell me that terrific things are no longer produced, that's when I have a debate.

And do I need to dredge up all the quotes about killjoys, whiners, complainers, pessimists, glass half empty, etc, etc, etc?

If all we are going to do is sit here and debate hyperbolic points, are we ever going to get anywhere? What is this, Congress?

Nobody is faulting anyone for liking DCA or AK. If I say AK is crap, that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with you thinking AK is great.

That's personal preference, and that's fine.

When I say the process that spawned DCA, AK, DSP, the cruise line, etc, is flawed when compared to the process that was once in place, that's a completely different matter. You cannot counter that argument by saying DCA is great, or even that x number of other products are great.

I'm talking means and your talkng ends. I'm saying that no matter what you think of the ends you see, if the means were what they could be, you'd be seeing end products far better than what you see today. That's a point we can discuss, regardless of whether you think AK is glorious or you think its crap. But we can only get there if we ignore each other's personal preference on the place.

simzac

10-31-2006, 08:14 PM

Keyser

11-01-2006, 12:22 AM

First, as a long-time member (mostly lurking), let me say it's nice to see a thread that brings in some of the "old-timers" I haven't seen in a while...

Since it has been brought up repeatedly, what about Mission:Space’s development makes it such a shining example of lack of effort/innovation/motivation/whatever? It looks to me like an innovative, immersive ride with a good story, one that uses cutting-edge technology to support the story, not just provide thrills. It’s thrilling, but not a “thrill-ride”. It looks to me like Disney took a risk, putting in a tremendous amount of money and effort to provide an experience that people could say “wow – I can’t believe they did that.” Maybe it didn’t work out perfectly – the technology turned out too intense for many people – but it doesn’t seem to be an issue of lack of trying to create a unique experience of the type that people dream about. It’s certainly not clear to me that this ride is the result of a messed up process. It seems like this is exactly the type of process some of you are saying that the current Disney won’t do anymore.

I see some (no, not all, and not as many as Walt himself might have created) of other recent Disney theme park additions (and even some other corporate decisions regarding media moves) and see similar things. I'm not (and I don’t think any others are) saying that the process is not flawed, but I don’t think it’s flawed to the extent that is being claimed.

ChrisFL

11-01-2006, 12:29 AM

cristen

11-01-2006, 12:32 AM

One question, how do you or any of the other so called experts in this thread know for a fact what is in the best long term interest of Disney?

By studying the history of the company, recognizing the business model that worked and follow it. They are not doing that anymore.

One could say that what Walt accomplished, is still paying off today. That's pretty long term, no?

It's very simple.

Do you believe the business model they are following today is benefiting the company? Better than how it was ran in the past? Think about that for a moment. How exactly did buying Fox Family, sports teams, go.com, etc... help the company in the long term? Short term?

simzac

11-01-2006, 05:41 AM

By studying the history of the company, recognizing the business model that worked and follow it. They are not doing that anymore.

One could say that what Walt accomplished, is still paying off today. That's pretty long term, no?

It's very simple.

Do you believe the business model they are following today is benefiting the company? Better than how it was ran in the past? Think about that for a moment. How exactly did buying Fox Family, sports teams, go.com, etc... help the company in the long term? Short term?
If a business is going to stay in business for the long term, they must continue to change how they do business. Disney is no different. Not all business decisions are sound, and Disney executives make mistakes just like everyone else. Bottom line is this. Disney is still operating, and until it folds or is bought out, your thoughts are just that, your thoughts. Only time will tell. And more than likely you and I will not be around to see what the results will be. One other thought. Disney will more than likely not be around forever, but when will it end, and why? Not even you can predict that. JMO

DancingBear

11-01-2006, 07:42 AM

One question, how do you or any of the other so called experts in this thread know for a fact what is in the best long term interest of Disney?Of course not. Nobody does, not Bob Iger, or Steve Jobs, or A-V. Does that mean we shouldn't study up, think about and discuss those issues?

DancingBear

11-01-2006, 07:45 AM

If a business is going to stay in business for the long term, they must continue to change how they do business. Disney is no different. Not all business decisions are sound, and Disney executives make mistakes just like everyone else. Bottom line is this. Disney is still operating, and until it folds or is bought out, your thoughts are just that, your thoughts. Only time will tell. And more than likely you and I will not be around to see what the results will be. One other thought. Disney will more than likely not be around forever, but when will it end, and why? Not even you can predict that. JMODoes this post contribute anything to this discussion? Is it JYO that we can't discuss these things until Disney folds or (as almost happened in 1984 and more recently with Comcast) is bought out? Should all of the Wall Street analysts who follow Disney just stop?

Also, the discussion here largely is not about whether Disney can survive as just another big media company, but whether Disney can be a meaningful creative force in family entertainment.

crusader

11-01-2006, 08:02 AM

But a lot of people are here because they're interested in the "behind the scenes" of the company - the real news and rumors. We're interested in the process that makes good or bad shows; we don't view "Disney" as a buffet where we only pick out the tasty bits.

or maybe you guys are just bored.

Funny - I've waded through pages of nonsense and can't find Pirate anywhere anymore!

I've got a few questions - if the internal dynamics of the corporate structure are so flawed beyond contention, how did ABC manage to turn on a dime?

And how come you can't book a deluxe room anywhere on property next week?

And why did Pixar fold????

And how does every darn character breakfast and the whoop de doo review continue to sell out over and over and over!

I think Disney knows how to successfully rule its' industry. Like it or not, that market - riddled with cheap commercialization - is thriving because the general public repeatedly purchases and consumes it on a worldwide scale.

DisneyKidds

11-01-2006, 09:50 AM

Bottom line is this. Disney is still operating, and until it folds or is bought out, your thoughts are just that, your thoughts.
Thoughts are all any of us have here. Some thoughts focus on the surface (i.e. Disney is still operating, therefore everything must be fine.), while some probe a little deeper (i.e. Is allowing Disney Feature Animation to become a shell of what it once was likely to hurt Disney in the future?).

Of course the Disney ship isn't going to sink tomorrow, or the next day, or next year, or next decade. As Crusader says.....
Disney knows how to successfully rule its' industry.
....which I think they do. However, that was never enough in the past. In the past they were truely leaders in their industry, to the point of creating an industry unto themselves. And by leaders here I don't mean top dog, first place in the quarterly financials, highest theme park attendance, etc. All of that just puts them in the class of being better than the next guy, but should that be good enough? By leaders I mean forging ahead in new techniques of animation that nobody else thought of. Leaders in theme park, attraction and resort design. Stuff like that. Yes, Disney currently rules their industry, but are they truely leading it anywhere, innovating anything, developing animation and entertainment on the cutting edge?

Be it the sad sack state of affairs of Disney animation, or the demise of Imagineering, or the dilution of resources brought about by sprawl of the Disney mega-media goliath.....there are a lot of things that keeping Dinsey from being what it might have been, some say should have been. Disney should pay heed to what Mufasa said to Simba......."You are more than what you have become."

That is what the debate should be about. Not whether Disney is still operating and turning a profit. Not whether Disney is ruling their industry. But is Disney being the leader they once were, the leader they were bred to be, the leader that will develop the things that will allow them to be as successful over the next 50 years as they have been over the last 50 years.

DancingBear

11-01-2006, 10:00 AM

And why did Pixar fold????Surely you're not serious. Jobs (and the other shareholders) get billions, Jobs gets a seat on the board, and Pixar execs demand and get primo positions at Disney, and that equals Pixar folds?

As for the rest of your list, so what? Should we make a competing list of Disney Studios Paris, California Adventure, the Alamo, etc.?

crusader

11-01-2006, 10:34 AM

Surely you're not serious. Jobs (and the other shareholders) get billions, Jobs gets a seat on the board, and Pixar execs demand and get primo positions at Disney, and that equals Pixar folds?

Well it's nice to finally hear whom Disney really has holding those primo positions. And I thought it was just a bunch of mindless suits.

But is Disney being the leader they once were, the leader they were bred to be, the leader that will develop the things that will allow them to be as successful over the next 50 years as they have been over the last 50 years.

Yes.

They continue to demonstrate leadership ability - leadership capability - industry adaptability - and long-term commitment. That includes change. That is why they are one of the VERY FEW publicly held organizations bred 50 years ago still independent today.

What I'd like to know is, if Walt's formula really hasn't been practiced for over the past twenty-five years, what is the secret to this company sustaining itself as an industry leader today?

Another Voice

11-01-2006, 10:41 AM

Like it or not, that market - riddled with cheap commercialization - is thriving because the general public repeatedly purchases and consumes it on a worldwide scale.
Which is the world of animation in the 1920s - cheap gag reals filled with simple sight gags and the lowest of low brow humor. Disney changed that - he gave animation a voice, he gave it color, he gave it story. And that is why generations have grown up watching Snow White while RKO, MGM, Universal, Columbia and all the others disappeared or were swallowed up.

And its the world of amusement parks in the 1950s - cheap run down lots crammed full of miserable arcade rides. Disney changed that too by turning the parks into stories-in-the-round. And now generations flocked to Disneyland while Coney Island rusts on the shore.

Wave your corporate pom-poms as much as you wish. Pretend that "better than everyone else" is the same as "good". Comfort yourself by saying "things could be worse".

You measure "success" on the cheapest and most narrow scale possible. There are others that want more - or at least what Disney used to deliver as a matter of routine.

what is the secret to this company sustaining itself as an industry leader today?
By stripmining the past

Disneyland brings in the crowd - not California Adventure
Imgaine the crowd Animal Kingdom would draw on International drive instead of a bus ride from Epcot.
The DVD stores are filled with Snow White and Dumbo - not Hot Chicks and Pearl Harbor.

Faux Disney exists only because it's been sucking the life out of past accomplishment.

Peter Pirate 2

11-01-2006, 10:43 AM

Just kind of feels like we're arguing different topics half the time.

I'll go back to me (and AV's quote again). I was always expecting (hoping) Disney was going at some point step up and once again be the Disney of old. I thought they'd fine tune the operation, do their cost cutting, etc. and eventually see that while manipulation internally and selling crap externally (brand exploitation) will work for awhile it can't be a good long term strategic plan (and don't everyone get all upset because I said "crap"...I mean it generally, not all inclusively). I had more confidence in Eisner (although I know that ticks off AV) than Iger at this point because Eisner at least thought he was creative. Iger knows he's not and his decisions thus far have been of the standard 'business' variety. This doesn't bode well for the creative side, IMO.

I look at the theme parks and what animation was for Disney (and now Pixar) and see truly great things. Imagine if Disney was so creative with ABC? Maybe instead of turning a profit they could turn the industry upside down!

ESPN? Imagine if they used their clout to make things better in sports? What if they really took on the NCAA and its archaic ways? What if they tired of TO's antics and just quit talking about him unless he actually did something. What if they made it NOT alright to break major records that wouldn't have been broken without 'juice'? They could be a force beyond scores and highlights, but it seems easy profits through pandering is easier.

Another point I will rehash is the standard that we expect from Disney. I agree that Disney is the leader in their industry but I agree with Matt in asking how are they leading? Is it that they are just better than the competetion or are they leading by innovation? I believe it's the former and that's just not the Disney way. The competetion shouldn't even be a blimp on their rader, IMO.

What about exceeding guests expectations? Are they doing this? I know many newbies and non disneyphiles are still "wowed" by what they do. Are we dinosaurs wrong in lamenting the loss of "show" as we knew it? The loss of creativity for creativities sake because profit motives point another direction?

Disney is still Disney, especially the Parks. Great things have been added along with duds but is the experimentation, the envelope pushing really happening? It seems like M:S was in this realm but it fell so short with the masses. Was it the cutbacks that hamstrung it?

We all can agree that we love Disney for the escape it allows us but we just can't agree on where they should go from here, I guess.
pirate:

DisneyKidds

11-01-2006, 11:16 AM

Yes.

They continue to demonstrate leadership ability - leadership capability - industry adaptability - and long-term commitment. That includes change. That is why they are one of the VERY FEW publicly held organizations bred 50 years ago still independent today.

What I'd like to know is, if Walt's formula really hasn't been practiced for over the past twenty-five years, what is the secret to this company sustaining itself as an industry leader today?
Uhh-uh, you aren't going to get off easy with a quick yes followed by hollow statement and a quick turn of the question back on me. Nice try, though.

Please give some examples things that demponstrate leadership ability, creativity, adaptability...and most of all long term committment. And not examples of decisions that any well educated suit could make. Where are the examples of true innovation. What have they done to assure that Disney will do more than just continue to operate at a profit in the future, as I don't believe that is enough.

I'll tell you one of my biggest problems with Disney. Animation. That is where it all started. That is what everything was built upon. Disney hasn't created a film in 4 years that has netted any real enduring characters, and that was marginal at Lilo & Stitch. You really have to go back more than 10 years to hit a film that has made a lasting impression the likes of Snow White, et. al. Now the capabilites of Feature Animation have been decimated. Disney seems to have no interest in the next great breakthrough in animated films. All that leads to the answer to your question which AV already provided. They have survived by relying on that which was created in the past. But how long can they, should they, do that.

MJMcBride

11-01-2006, 12:01 PM

ESPN? Imagine if they used their clout to make things better in sports? What if they really took on the NCAA and its archaic ways?
pirate:

Absolutely nothing would happen. There is just little chance ABC could anything about the NCAA or TO even if they wanted to. Thats wishfull thinking to nth power.

crusader

11-01-2006, 01:01 PM

Faux Disney exists only because it's been sucking the life out of past accomplishment

Not true. ABC is on top because of today's programming. Pirates broke records having been produced in today's motion picture industry. Disney on Broadway is completely attributable to today's art in theatre. The cruise lines aren't remotely connected to any past business segment of Disney.

Not to mention the weddings; conventions; timeshare; group divisions and great shows and restaurants throughout the parks and resorts.

The list goes on.

Please give some examples things that demponstrate leadership ability, creativity, adaptability...and most of all long term committment.

hopefully I just did.

I get tired of hearing about the lack of innovation while Walt gets a complete pass for building the Magic Kingdom in the first place. I've grown tired of being told the business model doesn't work. That's a crock!

Yes, animation took a backseat while the company was content to outsource to Pixar. So what? Show me how this has hurt the company in any way right now.

One could counterargue that the strategic plan to own the competitor's product outright which put Pixar in play was genius. It enabled the company to restructure that long-term investment as a full purchase.

The difference is their animation investment wasn't in-house but again, so what?

The bottom line is - they own everything. So, they have zero problems with animation today. Doesn't Disney now have the absolute best talent the industry has to offer? Geez. How the heck did that happen?

Pirate - I hear you with respect to ESPN. But we're not going to get away from the tabloid mentality driving our media airwaves and sports is no exception. If Disney tries to set an example - they lose their market share.

What about exceeding guests expectations? Are they doing this? I know many newbies and non disneyphiles are still "wowed" by what they do. Are we dinosaurs wrong in lamenting the loss of "show" as we knew it? The loss of creativity for creativities sake because profit motives point another direction?

Tough question. The bar is pretty high for long time patrons. Exceeding it becomes extremely judgemental. I don't believe the company should focus on what you or I personally expect. They have to appeal to the masses.

In the 70's all it took was Space Mountain, Pirates and the Haunted Mansion to forgive attractions like 20,000 leagues and Snow White. Today - that philosophy continues to hold true. Tower of Terror; Turtle Talk; Soarin and Festival of the Lion King are prime examples of Disney generating enough of a wow factor to keep the audience begging for more.

DancingBear

11-01-2006, 01:35 PM

Yes, animation took a backseat while the company was content to outsource to Pixar. So what? Show me how this has hurt the company in any way right now.
Disney's out $7.4 billion.

We're all hopeful that Lasseter and Catmull will be able to turn around Disney animation. If they do, it'll be because they are bringing to Disney exactly the philosophy that you are excoriating--bringing the focus on cultivating creativity. If they can't, it'll likely be because the entrenched empty suit barriers which Eisner built up chase the creators away again.

One could counterargue that the strategic plan to own the competitor's product outright which put Pixar in play was genius. It enabled the company to restructure that long-term investment as a full purchase.Yeah. It takes real genius to exchange a $1 billion long-term investment for a $7 billion acquisition.

Seriously, I've argued before that the Pixar co-Production Agreement could have been played to great advantage. Allow Pixar to be your production arm while the competitive technologies advanced, then build up your own creative team so you didn't need Pixar when the Production Agreement expired. That ain't what happened, eh?

Another Voice

11-01-2006, 01:54 PM

Tower of Terror; Turtle Talk; Soarin and Festival of the Lion King are prime examples of Disney generating enough of a wow factor to keep the audience begging for more.
Exactly - look at the hordes of people lined up outside California Adventure to see 'Soaring' and 'Tower' and 'Turtle Talk' and the Pixar Parade (okay, we don't have 'Lion King', but it's about the same thing).

Notice the thoudsands of wow'd faces - all anxious to explore the glories and and wonders that Disney is giving them. Listen to the traffic reports every morning about all the people clammoring to get into the park that offers all the wonders you describe!!

Ah...what...oh - they want to into Disneyland? The run down park that has all those stupid and lame rides like 'Jungle Cruise' and 'Snow White'. What - don't the masses KNOW that Disney makes the best. Why are they wasting their time on that cr*p!?!

THEY SHOULD BE ON THEIR KNEES BEGGING FOR MORE 'STITCH'!!! THEY'RE JUST STUPID I TELL YOU - STUPID GUESTS THAT DON'T GET IT!

rantnnravin

11-01-2006, 03:53 PM

What I'd like to know is, if Walt's formula really hasn't been practiced for over the past twenty-five years, what is the secret to this company sustaining itself as an industry leader today?

they are sustaining themselves on the emotional investment of those who remember what the business model of the past was able to produce.
Mickey is still popular not because of mass merchandising, but because of those of us who remember sitting in front of our TVs watching him and Uncle Walt talke about the great things that were being imagined and made reality.
Those of us who remember the Disney "brand" as a symbol of outstanding quality and commitment to excellence in production are disappointed when the "blow up princess pool" that we buy for our child is riddled with holes right out of the box. The Disney name brings with it certain expectations of quality and innovation to use "old timers". We expect greatness beyond simply being better than the guy down I-Drive. New experiences that haven't been considered before. A "show". Tell me walking through the backstage area to get to/from Fantasmic brings the same warm fuzzies that walking down main street brings? Walt's business model would NEVER have allowed that! I don't want to see the dumpsters. I don't want to see a CM grumbling about "policies" "procedures" and "poor paychecks" I want to see people who truly enjoy working for the company with Walt's ideals.

And, POC the movie would never have been made without POC the ride. How is that not sucking the life out of past accomplishments?
How is building a boat innovative? Cruises already existed before DCL. Feature length animation did not exist before Snow White.
How is buying an established media outlet innovative? What has the Disney Company done to make the network a family-friendly, trend-setting entertainment outlet? I wouldn't consider "The Bachelor" a cutting-edge show (it's been done -- ever seen elimidate?) and we won't even go into how UN family-friendly the programming is - how can you expect to generate loyalty if the younger generation can't watch the channel?
I remember watching the Mickey Mouse Club and The Wonderful World of Disney. Will my 7 year old child develop the same fond memories of desperate housewives?
The problem is that what may prove profitable in the short term will not generate the same type of loyalty the iconic Disney brand that Walt created has. The well will run-dry, my friends. When those who remember Walt are but a memory themselves, who will be there to tell the younger generations who Mickey is?

crusader

11-01-2006, 04:27 PM

Ah...what...oh - they want to into Disneyland? The run down park that has all those stupid and lame rides like 'Jungle Cruise' and 'Snow White'. What - don't the masses KNOW that Disney makes the best. Why are they wasting their time on that cr*p!?!

Voice - you need to head East. CA doesn't make the Disney Corporation a complete failed enterprise. But I do admire your persistence.

they are sustaining themselves on the emotional investment of those who remember what the business model of the past was able to produce. What?

crusader

11-01-2006, 04:33 PM

deleted

DisneyKidds

11-01-2006, 04:42 PM

they are sustaining themselves on the emotional investment of those who remember what the business model of the past was able to produce.
This is somewhat true, but a difficult argument to make to the crusaders of the World. Afterall, there are still millions upon millions of new visitors coming every year. And, warts and all, the Disney experience is a wonderful one. If one doesn't know how things were they wouldn't even be aware of many of the warts. The parks are great, the entertainment wonderful, etc., etc. However, something is missing, and it relates to what you mention above. I don't believe the Disney of today is creating a new generation that has that same emotional attachment as those of us who remember the magic as it was developed in the past. The new "classic" rides aren't there, the new characters for people to fall in love with aren't there. Disney isn't seen today the same way it was back in the 70's, now being a somewhat colder corporate media giant that people don't fall in love with the same way. While none of that is going to put Disney out of business, that loss of emotional attachment will limit Disney in the future, IMHO.