New perspectives: Changes at WDW [Archive] - The DIS Discussion Forums

DVC-Landbaron

03-11-2002, 02:49 PM

… But another thought on your post, Mr. Scoop!!

I love the Bellevue Room at BW. Just love it. And even without the old radio programs I'd still love it...but with them...ahhh....what a wonderful extra "touch". Sure, it cost a little extra, but it sure is nice.Now suppose for a moment that on your next trip you go visit the Bellevue Room at BW, but there is no old radio. Hmmm. You think to yourself. Something is missing. A little Disney 'touch' is gone. OK. Well, 'stuff' happens. You casually mention the absence of the radio to a CM, who tells you that the audio device broke down three months ago. And due to recent budget constraints they've decided NOT to repair it. She also looks a little shocked and points out that you are only the second person that noticed, and that there hasn't been one single cancellation because of it!!

You, of course, agree with her and commend Disney on the smart fiscal move. While personally annoying to you, you have to admit it was the smart business move!! I mean, where's the payback! Have I got that right?

Bob O

03-11-2002, 03:39 PM

I would agree with DVC. Its all about the money. They arent into adding to the guest experience(unless of course a sponsor can be found to pay for it). They used 9/11 as a excuse to get rid of EE. And if you have seen the statements by eisner and his cronies all the talk is of increasing revenue once attendance picks up and nothing of bringing back what was taken away. Their mindset is use the parks as a cashcow to fund their numerous bad business decisions because they realize that alot of fans will blindly follow disney no matter what they do and not look back at all to how things once were and what they have no become. Apparently some people think bigger is always better but i would perfer they had no animal kingdom and used that money to fill out the other parks that badly need a infusion of new rides/attractions.

DVC-Landbaron

03-11-2002, 03:43 PM

Flame the person making the point without actually addressing the point. Very effective for those who merely scan the posts...but for us obsessive types...No Good.I certainly didn't mean to flame, Mr. Scoop. And I did address the point!! I told you, in no uncertain terms, that they do cut those little touches and they DO NOT replace them!! Period!! How more direct can I be?

You've told us that you are not in a position to judge the quality or quantity of those little touches from years past. Fine! Then take my word for it. And the word of all the posters on that other thread! They were there and now they are not!! Again - Period!! And again - How more direct can I be?

But you, on the other hand, did exactly what you accuse me of. What about the radio scenario? Nothing? Silence? Misdirection perhaps? Rather, I wonder weather even though we don't have "Mickey Margarine" anymore (or do we?) that we might have something as equally subtle yet magical.Why does it have to come down to an either/or thing for you? I don't get it.

So, take the radio example one step further. Instead of the equipment breaking down, the CM tells you that they've replaced the radio "touch" with a cold towel "touch) at the mini golf! I guess according to the Scoop perspective - all is right with the world. So what if there is no radio. We've got cold towels!!!! Hurray!! The magic isn't dead. Just transformed!!

Another Voice

03-11-2002, 03:52 PM

The correct quote from Eisner is “Let's screw'em outta Mickey butter because my options are worth **** these days!!!!!!!!!"

Funny, I always thought that the “little touches” were what made Disney special and unique. I guess not. All that’s required is the DISNEY® sticker.

We old folks used to think that Disney was doing a good job when they exceeded our expectations. I guess the new standard is that when we’re not too disappointed by the latest round of budget cuts.

I’d be interested in hearing about all the “extra touches” they’ve added to the guest experience in the last five years. Let’s get a list about all those non-revenue generating bits the Company has added just to be better than the competition.

Any one?

And yes, they’ve been giving away flowers on Mother’s Day and towels on the golf course for decades.

DVC-Landbaron

03-11-2002, 04:32 PM

If the radios died... ...yes, it would be sad.THAT'S AN ANSWER!?!?! What kind of an answer is that? Come on Scoop, you can do better than that. (Or is it more misdirection?? ;)) but Baron, you mock the "cold towel" but embrace the "Mickey margarine".NO!!!! I do not 'mock' at all!!! I embrace all of it!! I don't know how to write this without sounding sarcastic, but believe me, I am VERY sincere when I say: I'm thrilled to pieces that they gave you a cold towel!! I really am!! That is truly a Disney "touch". But what in the world does that have to do with chocolates or Mickey head butter!?!? Why do I have to give up one to have the other?

I've been to Prime Time. My kids LOVE it!! And those stickers are indeed wonderful! Now, I don't want to sound like a Disney snob, but I expect no less from them. And I definitely don't expect to trade in the butter, chocolate, radio experience or cold towels for that 'touch'! We're not talking about ride replacement. We're talking those little extras that sets Disney apart! It is an intricate (if not the most important) part of the 'MAGIC". Sure, some don't care about cold towels on a hot sunny day but that sure meant a whole lot more to me that slopping "Mickey Margarine" on my baguette.I'm not the one who says you can't have both, Mr. Scoop!! You keep excusing the elimination of one touch, with the introduction of another. Why are you so willing to trade those TOUCHES? Why are you so willing to settle?

Peter Pirate

03-11-2002, 04:37 PM

Add to the list, the new headstone Leota, at HM. It's cool. She opens her eyes, glances around and then back to "sleep". Disney didn't need to imagineer this. It probably wasn't too expensive but the point is, they did it...The AP lounge and illuminations area in Epcot. We saw illuminations from the AP area two weeks ago and wow! I guess I never really paid attention to it, but with a nice touch like an AP area, I finally slowed down to watch the show. How about Kidcot? You know the little booths at each Country where the tykes get to make masks with the Countries CM's? Any revenue there? Free fun for tykes sounds good to me...
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

DVC-Landbaron

03-11-2002, 05:04 PM

Add to the list, the new headstone Leota, at HM. It's cool. She opens her eyes, glances around and then back to "sleep". Disney didn't need to imagineer this. It probably wasn't too expensive but the point is, they did it...I agree Peter!! I haven't seen it, but it sounds cool! So do all the other things on your and Scoop's lists (although some of them can be argued that they do increase revenue). And I hope they keep it up! I see it less and less frequently lately.

I readily and happily admit that I agree with almost every word that comes from AV's keyboard. The operant word being 'almost'. As you know, I don't do lists (sorry AV). Just for the very reason stated in paragraph one. While I agree that some are 'touches' in the true sense of the word, other are clearly not, IMO. And then we start picking apart lists instead of discussing the root of the problem. And the root of this problem, Mr. Pirate and Mr. Scoop, is why does that headstone cost us the chocolate or butter for example (or any other 'cut' in the past twenty years)? I don't understand the rational. Please explain the concept to me.

raidermatt

03-11-2002, 05:35 PM

Baron, maybe I'm being presumptuous in speaking for Scoop, but I don't think he is implying that touches have to taken away in order for others to be added.

What he is saying, or at least what I am saying, is that its hard to believe that nothing that would have been described as a touch in 1955 ever disappeared until current management took over. Are you really saying that no touches of any kind were ever eliminated or went away?

The point some of us are trying to get across is not that we think current touches were traded for old ones, but that things do change, and they always have. It sounds like you expect every touch ever added to never go away, and new ones to be added all the time. That's your right, but even Walt had to make choices, and its unrealistic to expect any management to be immune from those choices. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but at one point, wasn't DL closed on Mondays? Not a very magical touch for those who couldn't make it any other day...)

It truly sounds as though you are expecting current Disney management to live up to a philosophy that never was...

Here are my contributions to "the list". My last two Disney trips were in 9/00 to WDW, and 8/01 to DLResort. Here's a few touches that come to mind (besides all of the pre-requisite smiling and helpful CMs):

Free taxi (including tip) to Golf courses at WDW

Course personnel offer to clean clubs after rounds.

"Towel" animals left by Mousekeeping on several occasions at CBR.

Photographer at DL entrance took pictures of our group with every camera we had (with a smile).

CM approached me while I was walking in DL with map open and offered his services in helping me find anything in the park.

Upon returning to our room at CBR on my son's 2nd birthday, we found an autographed photo of Disney characters, and a plush Simba.

All Aboard

03-11-2002, 05:42 PM

Back to the original question. There doesn't really seem to be much substance to that thread. Most people have responded with menu items that they wish were still there. For me, the loss of EE is about the only thing I really fume over. The 10 am opening of FW kinda stinks. The addition of Dinorama when AK needs something more to pull it up by the bootstraps baffles me. They seem to be correcting the JIYI mistake (hopefully). Outside of that, I'm not too terribly upset over changes/losses. It's those things that put me in car #2. It's just at the margin where I see the trouble. And, it's been pretty recent. 90+% of what I've always loved about WDW is still there. And that includes the extras that I don't get anywhere else.

I guess I would need to see a more comprehensive list of losses (more than those whose time had just "come".) One poster mentioned the Magic Shop and the Penny Arcade. The Magic shop was always a "skip past" to me, never had any appeal, nor did it really seem to fit well with the "turn of the century" theme of Main Street. At least the Athletic Shop is themed properly, and it makes a solid transition to Casey's.

hopemax

03-11-2002, 06:50 PM

First, system busy message...ARGH!

I'm glad to see this "list" stuff. I was going to suggest that the Car 1's with short Disney park histories make a list of the special touches that are important to them. Write it down, tuck it in a file somewhere and 3 years down the road, 5 years re-examine the list and see if those things are still there, are they no longer important to you, what new "touches" are out there, etc.

My fear for the newbie WDW vacationers is that 5 years from now, you'll go to the park with expectations like "it's a hot day, thank goodness they have those towels on the mini-golf" and when you get there, they won't offer you one and when you ask for one the CM will look at you as if you've made an unreasonable request. Or if your wife will want to go on the free garden tour at the YC/BC she'll find out that the free tour is only for people staying in the suites or it has been discontinued. Of course I imagine, you'll come back to the board and comment on your disappointment and a newbie vacationer will jump on you for your inappropriate response to such a minor thing. Disney is a for-profit company you can't expect something like that for free, never mind that you remember the days when those things were for free. Waxing nostalgia, get over it already.

In the carpool thread 65% of respondees believe the magic has faded. People disagree to the degree and whether it's fixable. But 65% are feeling some type of "back of the neck tingling" that something is different. I don't know what that means, but if I were in Car 1, I think I would at least question that maybe there is something to this decline theory even if I can't see it. After all, how many times have Car 3ers have had their hands slapped with the "Just because *YOU* feel differently, doesn't mean that's the way it is." How come Car 1 people never have to think that, perhaps, they are the ones in the minority?

raidermatt

03-11-2002, 07:06 PM

But 65% are feeling some type of "back of the neck tingling" that something is different. I don't know what that means, but if I were in Car 1, I think I would at least question that maybe there is something to this decline theory even if I can't see it.

Sure, I appreciate the opinions of Cars 2, 3 and 4. Their thoughts help me view things with a more critical eye. But I draw my own conclusions, and they are just as valid as anyone else's.

I also know the old theory that if you have one happy customer, they tell one other person. An unhappy customer tells 10. I don't know if that ratio is really true, but experience tells me the concept is a valid one.

I also know that the "good ole days" concept is a valid one as well. In other words, when we are harking back to the days of our youth and lamenting the good ole days, its frequently us that have changed and not whatever we are examining.

So while I'm interested in seeing the results of these poles, and the comments of those who are less than happy, I hardy view them as anything resembling proof that things are as bad as some claim.

Peter Pirate

03-11-2002, 07:21 PM

hopemax, what an unfair representation of Car #1'ers. To my knowledge Scoop is the only "newbie" and I believe you can concur that he's "smarter than the average bear". As for me, I've been visitng since WDW opened, so when is it that you expect I'll start feeling your pain (as LB likes to say)?

Sure, I will acquiesce to Landbaron and acknowledge that there are things missing from previous experiences that I miss, but I'm a big boy, I can look at the big picture and accept that sometimes things don't go my way - even if they were magic, plus I'm always elated by new surpises that would make any whining about missing the old touches seem, well whiney...

Sometimes things have to go away. Brother Curling misses EE and while I've NEVER availed myself the use of it, I DO feel his pain and while he gets really "hot" discussing it, I am totally sure he understands the rationale (i.e. Disney's official explanation - although I'm not sure he believes it)...
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

Eeyore2U

03-11-2002, 08:48 PM

In the carpool thread 65% of respondees believe the magic has faded. People disagree to the degree and whether it's fixable. But 65% are feeling some type of "back of the neck tingling" that something is different. I don't know what that means, but if I were in Car 1, I think I would at least question that maybe there is something to this decline theory even if I can't see it. After all, how many times have Car 3ers have had their hands slapped with the "Just because *YOU* feel differently, doesn't mean that's the way it is." How come Car 1 people never have to think that, perhaps, they are the ones in the minority?

I am a diehard Car #1'er. I was just at WDW and looked hard for the fading of the magic or things that weren't right. I had my contacts in so my "Disney Colored "glasses weren't on. I'm still looking for the lost magic. Is this discussion more of, I wanted WDW to stay as it was in 1971? Times change. I think Disney has stayed the course and stayed to their values while trying to stay current.

I said this another reply to the good Baron and I'll say it here. I believe if Walt were here today you would see pretty much the same things being done to keep his business viable. I'm pretty sure the big picture was more important then the individual thought to Walt. He wanted to build Disneyland so he sold himself and his product to a television network. Life today isn't what it was in Walt's heyday. I can only imagine what he would have done with CoP as a virtual ride.

I guess my point is, if I expected WDW to be the same as my other trips I wouldn't spend the money and just look at my photo albums.

DVC-Landbaron

03-11-2002, 08:52 PM

Scoop: So a good part of upper management (but not all I'm sure AV will confirm) has taken the Pressler Stance. Too bad, yes. But "this too shall pass" probably.

Paul Pressler is the problem these days. He was great at making the Disney Stores really strong. But, then he tried to use his successful methods in merchandising with theme parks. Now let me get this straight. You are now agreeing with me, but think it’ll pass. Is that it? You have me totally confused!!!

oh, and baron, I'll be really displeased if Disney just refused to fix the radios even though guests complained that no radios affected their qualitative experience.NO!!! That’s exactly opposite of the premise. The idea was that only you and one other guest complained! I would guess that many, many people noticed. But no one said anything. After all, “It’s Disney”!! How bad could it be! Let’s face it you’re not going to cancel a stay there just because they don’t have the old radio going, are you? And Disney takes this to mean that they did the right thing. Bookings didn’t slip. No sit-ins, protesting the move. Just two people vocal enough to say something. Don’t you see what a slippery slope that is? It boils everything down to dollars and cents. No ‘extras’ without a payoff. What can we get away with cutting? That’s not Disney! That’s a cold, sterile institution!!

Hopemax, Thank you! It’s good to know that someone understands what I’m talking about.

Peter: Sure, I will acquiesce to Landbaron and acknowledge that there are things missing from previous experiences that I miss, but I'm a big boy, I can look at the big picture and accept that sometimes things don't go my way Again, Peter, you miss the point. If it were changed to keep things fresh, I’d gladly (for the most part) accept it. But it isn’t. It’s the sharp pencil crowd (sorry Greg) that put a stop to some of these ‘touches’. It has nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with profits. Plain and simple!!

Sometimes things have to go away. Brother Curling misses EE and while I've NEVER availed myself the use of it, I DO feel his pain and while he gets really "hot" discussing it, I am totally sure he understands the rationale (i.e. Disney's official explanation - although I'm not sure he believes it)...I disagree Peter. I think you used it and benefited from it more than you know. But I’m toying with starting a new thread along these lines. Still in the back of my head. We’ll see.

Peter Pirate

03-11-2002, 09:05 PM

Eeyore2U is right & Landbaron, we continue to argue different topics, I guess.

Changes will happen. They must happen. Not everyone will be happy with everything that is done. I'm not happy with everything thats done. But for me it's a "wash" in the worst case scenerio & the changes are positive in the best case scenerio. How can you possibly expect "things" to never change?
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

hopemax

03-12-2002, 12:29 AM

If you think the Car 3ers stance is "we want things to never change" then you are totally misinterpreting our position. In fact, in this Car 3-ers mind change is an ESSENTIAL part of the package.

Eeyore2U mentioned wondering about COP as a virtual ride. SO DO I! That's the type of thing I expect and want the Disney company to be doing! I'd be jumping for joy if Disney were to announce something like that. But that's not what they're doing, are they?
And in this thread I didn't think we were talking about "attractions" per se.

There are things, yes, that we don't want to change but those are more limited to services and attitudes.

Here's a west coast version....how many people have used package delivery? At Disneyland you can no longer send a package to be picked up at the front of the park. They now have package storage, which means if you don't want to carry your Splash Mountain photo around so it won't get bent you have to physically walk to the front of the park and "check it in." Also, if you are staying in one of the Disney hotels you have to do the same thing - walk to the front of the park and from there send it to your room.

Disney made it easy to spend your money. Now I've got to ask myself each and everytime, "Do I want this item enough to carry around, will it break? Is it worth the time and energy to walk back to the front of the park?" Disney is supposed to take you away from such mundane thoughts, isn't that part of the "magic?"

Planogirl

03-12-2002, 01:45 AM

And I agree with the posts about Main Street on the other thread.

For goodness sake, I love to shop, I think that I've made that very clear. :) But I don't like seeing Main Street turned into a giant gift shop (or open-air mall) with a street running down the middle of it. The individual shops made Main Street a unique spot and fullfilled Walt's vision IMO. It had charm and a distorted but "perfect" view of small town living. The little touches meant a lot to this section of the park and I don't see any replacements of these special touches in this area.

I also agree with hopemax's comments about change. I can't recall a time when WDW wasn't constantly changing and improving and adding. Opening another theme park and water park that both charge admission don't replace those expected features and "extras" that used to be commonplace and now seem to be vanishing one after the other. I want Early Entry back and I want FutureCorps back and I want the barrel-bridge on Tom Sawyer Island reopened and I want the "Singin' in the Rain" umbrella to be sprinkling water again in MGM. But that's just me. :)

Another Voice

03-12-2002, 02:50 AM

“..the theme parks have become more GOODS driven.”

Mr. Scoop, no truer words have been posted on these boards. We could argue for weeks over resort-specific shampoo, free valet parking, towels on golf courses, and butterfly release ceremonies. Some find Early Entry essential; others dismiss it out of hand. Perhaps the specifics are nothing but preferences.

For me, it’s perhaps not so much that a favorite perk is gone or that a ride is closed. Anyone who understands anything about the parks knows change is mandated in their design. No one wants the places put in a deep freeze. But I find a common spirit that used to pervade the parks is missing these days. It’s a spirit that used to drive every detail at all levels.

It’s the joy of creating.

‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ was created because people wanted to create it. They had a great idea, they had a new technology to play with, and they wanted to push their art as far and as fast as they could. ‘Pirates’ was made because it was fun to make. The Polynesian Resort was built because the idea for it is fun. EPCOT Center was built because it was as an attempt to redefine what an amusement park could be. It was interesting and fun work. And you could feel the care and joy the artists put into it.

Little perks like having the shampoo kits themed to the individual resort are not a big deal in and of themselves. But they are evidence of that spirit. They were done because it was the right thing to do. It was important to the feeling of the resort; it was the artist thing to do. Anyone who thinks that the seventies were such a boom time that money could be wasted on those frivolities (as opposed to the harsh, brutal business conditions that St. Michael struggles under) needs to spend several hours watching The History Channel.

The Company has never had more resources, more disposable money than right now. Yet Dino-Rama was created by a spreadsheet. Pop Century was created because it was the highest profit margin they could squeeze out of the focus group. And no one, NO ONE, will ever look back at California Adventure as a highlight of their design career. The attitude has changed. No one wants to create; all they want to do is sell.

Yes, there is more to do now then there was in 1971, 1981 or in 1991. There are plenty of additional ways I have to spend money now. But do I really want to go to Walt Disney World to shop in a Virgin Megastore, to eat in a Planet Hollywood or to buy same Pooh plush in forty-seven locations? Do I want to go to Disneyland to ride the same wild mouse roller coaster that can be found at the county fair? Do I want to stay in a standard box motel and pretend that a fifty foot football replica is “magic”?

What I want is for an artist to say “we built this because we thought it would be wonderful”.

Peter Pirate

03-12-2002, 07:34 AM

You're going to push Pop, DR & DCA back into this discussion? You may see the parrellels but my mind is just too feeble to grasp it all in sameness. We're talking about "special" items Voice & I think we 1'ers have proven that they're still being given.

Now rearding what they will do...The COP virtual ride scenerio. You "3'ers" think something like this will never be done. We "1'ers" say perhaps (if feasible) it could be done. But again, we all know what we WANT, but we don't know the whole story. What if the COP building is in the same state as Horizons was? We can whistle tunes out of our *** and the ride is still going to be closing.

Package delivery? Nothing we used much, but it was a business touch, not a magical one & I beleive that if Disney notice's (sooner or later) that revenues have dropped on in- park sales sales, this perq will find its way back.

EE? Come on Hope. If what Disney says is true, that simply not enough on-site guests were taking advantage of it, then how can you clamor for its return, regardless of how much you used it? This wasn't a minor investment, this was a huge chunk of change everyday for very few guests. Great perq for the guest, poor business for the Company...

Lastly, in reiteration of my car #1 stance, we see change, we see things we would prefer not to see, but we also see lots of new things (every trip) that still thrill us to no end. We can get past little items that others don't seem to be able to do. I am sorry to say it, but once again, I believe it's an anti-Eisner thing. I believe Mike could greenlight BK, Fire Mtn & a Living Seas rehab in one month and certain factions would find only a profit motive behind it...
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

d-r

03-12-2002, 07:45 AM

A year or so ago I got off rock n roller coaster and realized that one of the little nose pad things on my glasses was gone. I had no idea how or why or where, but I quickly realized that without it, one side of my glasses was just a piece of metal that would eventually be uncomfortable and digging into my nose. So I stopped in the big shop in MGM, thinking that they might have either or an eyeglass repair kit to buy, or a pair of sunglasses that I might be able to cannibalize and engineer something, or at least a pencil that I could nab the eraser off of to make a make shift repair to last the day. I explained to the cm what had happened, and she said "oh, wait just a minute" and made a phone call. A couple of minutes later a cm comes from backstage with a huge fishing tackle like box, with pull out racks of all sorts of eyeglass pieces. It was sort of remotely like Gerry's repair kit in toy story II. He takes a look at my glasses, rumbles through the kit and finds a match, and fixes it right there in the shop in about a minute. I used those glasses fixed like that for about a year until my next scheduled eye exam when I got a new pair. Of course, there was no charge, and everyone seemed just happy to spread a little pixie dust.

Let's see, pixie dust...we've found a bottle of champaigne and fruit basket in our room at wilderness lodge when we stayed in the honeymoon room. Wow, how about ranger Stan and the lodge tours? Once we received a gift basket at old port orleans. They brought out champaigne at Artist Point on our last anniversery - how many stories have you heard about deserts or champaigne showing up at birthdays or anniversaries?

I've heard that the watch store on main street will no longer make watch repairs due to liability if the watch is damaged, but I've walked in before and had a Disney watch re-sized.

About the chocolates. My recollection is that at deluxe resorts they now ask you if you want turn down service, and if you say yes you get the turn down and chocolate. That is different from when every room got turn down service, but probably does save a buck or two by not having to provide a cm to turn down the bed for guests who don't want it or don't care. I don't think that is much of a big deal. Personally, I haven't noticed the difference between butter and margarine, but I have seen on the internet where people from Wisconsin who take their dairy products seriously have noticed. I've seen other people notice differencs in coffee at some restaurants. I think that the butter and coffee are restaurant specific changes (these occur all the time, not just recently), and it seemed to me that the butter we had at the flying fish in Jan. was pretty much butter (but I'm not expert). Things do change, and they play with trying out new things from time to time.

What bothers me more than cost savings by elimination are cost savings that try to maximize profits by appealing to the lowest common denominator. An example of what I'm talking about here in a broad way is pop century. A more specific example is big river. Melissa and I always liked going to the big river in Chattanooga, and when we first went to the big river location on the board walk we were a bit let down. But we thought that this was a new location and it might take them a while and we would give them another shot, which we did a year later, and it did seem a little better. We thought there was some constrant improvement, and in fact, last fall we thought that there were three beers that were pretty good - an acceptable porter, a very hoppy and lively amber, and a mild but bannanna-ey wheat. So in January we stopped by with a couple of other couples who enjoy a good beer. Although they were still on the menu, the porter and the wheat were gone - the server said that they were seasonal beers, but that there were no new seasonal beers right now to take their place on the menu. So what was left were the decent amber, and an uninspired lager and pilsner. I felt like they were trying to appeal to the miller light and budweiser crowd with these mediocre yet easily accessible beers, and it was really dissappointing. No stout, no porter, no wheat, and for that matter no creative or interesting beer really. Admittedly, that was during January and not a very busy time of the year.

Do you see what I'm getting at here? It isn't simply eliminating small things to save some money - it isn't surprising to me that things change, and I think there is a lot of magic and pixe dust floating around. But I don't like it so much when things are cheapened to appeal to marketing forcasts or demographics, rther than quality. But then again, Disney is a business and they need to appeal to the broadest range of guests. And it is all probably subjective anyway, the one man's garbage = another's treasure thing.

DR

DVC-Landbaron

03-12-2002, 11:58 AM

We start our journey with our resident sage - AV:Some find Early Entry essential; others dismiss it out of hand. Perhaps the specifics are nothing but preferences.Now some have accused me of dismissing their 'touches'. I hope I have convinced most of them that that is certainly NOT the case. I embrace ALL the extras. Old or new, it doesn't matter. Anything extra is just plain cool! And for me it defines the Disney experience. I never used EE. Yet I lament it passing. I can intellectualize the concept. I can fully understand how something like that can define the magic for some. While it didn't float my boat, I understand the feeling of loss for those that did.

I never used a cold towel on the golf course. Yet the same intellectual process takes place in my head and I can fully appreciate the value of this very nice Disney 'Touch'. I nod my head enthusiastically and say, "YES!!! That's what makes Disney, Disney!!"

Yet, when I mention my Mickey head butter or after dinner chocolates I get the feeling that most people read the post, shake their heads and say, "GEEZE! LandBaron!! GET OVER IT!! PLEASE DON'T MENTION THAT F****** BUTTER AGAIN!!! LOOK AT WHAT THEY'VE ADDED!!" And I'm left arguing a trade-off of touches!! Absurd! So, perhaps AV is right. Arguing specifics will get us nowhere. But that leaves us with the even more intangible to debate. Again from AV:But I find a common spirit that used to pervade the parks is missing these days. It's a spirit that used to drive every detail at all levels. Little perks like having the shampoo kits themed to the individual resort are not a big deal in and of themselves. But they are evidence of that spirit. This is really what I want to discuss. This is the core of the matter. It goes right to the heart of the opposed philosophies. But it's awfully hard to do without specifics. And it's very easy to counter, minimize or outright dismiss many of these examples. Or, as Scoop has a habit of doing, bring up a few isolated 'missteps' from the past, and before you know it, I'm defending some stupid move Card Walker made thirty years ago, instead of getting to the heart of the matter! Or, as Peter likes to do, bring up some wonderful thing they've done lately (as far and few between as they may be). And then we are expected to heap on praise and thank Disney for the bone!! Talk about frustrating!!

My good friend, Peter Pirate says:You're going to push Pop, DR & DCA back into this discussion? You may see the parallels but my mind is just too feeble to grasp it all in sameness.Peter, if you really can't grasp the 'sameness' all further conversation is futile. It is the same because it points to the following, again from AV:The attitude has changed. No one wants to create; all they want to do is sell.Can anyone deny the truth of this statement?

Peter says:Package delivery? Nothing we used much, but it was a business touch, not a magical one & I believe that if Disney notice's (sooner or later) that revenues have dropped on in- park sales, this perq will find its way back. And while talking about EE and our friend Greg not liking the elimination:Great perq for the guest, poor business for the Company...Excuses. Justification. And dismissive! Why can't we be on the same page? Even if you 'never used it much', I would think that you could understand that others would find the elimination a downright disaster!! No matter what the subject is.I am sorry to say it, but once again, I believe it's an anti-Eisner thing. I believe Mike could greenlight BK, Fire Mtn & a Living Seas rehab in one month and certain factions would find only a profit motive behind it...OH GOD!!! YES!!! PROVE ME WRONG!! PLEASE LET HIM TRY!! JUST LET HIM TRY!!!

Anyone who has read anything I've written on Disney knows that I am very schizophrenic about it. Disney is my love, but at the same time I deplore the direction the company is taking. d-r you seem to be as confused as I am. Or at least a part of you is. This passage could have been written by me:Do you see what I'm getting at here? It isn't simply eliminating small things to save some money - it isn't surprising to me that things change, and I think there is a lot of magic and pixie dust floating around. But I don't like it so much when things are cheapened to appeal to marketing forecasts or demographics, rather than quality.Scoop, you still contend that you're in car number 1, but everything you write lately (other than the garden wings ;)) could have been written by me!! Only two observations:
handicap me with your "newbie" title if you must (ironic how I tried to explain myself through my perspective and now others use it as a means to dismissing my POV....sad)Why do you feel that it is a handicap? It is what it is! You are! If anything, I think it adds to the discussion because you're relatively new. It adds perspective and gives the conversation some depth.Yet, I don't think this issue so endangers the company that it's worth giving up on as some have suggested...Scoop, I don't know why you always turn it into a black and white thing. To me Disney is (and always has been) thousands and thousands shades of gray. No one's giving up on it yet. At least no one on this board. But the gray is getting darker and darker and for me at least, it's getting harder to find a lighter hue.

hopemax

03-12-2002, 12:12 PM

...hopemax...handicap me with your "newbie" title if you must (ironic how I tried to explain mysefl through my perspective and now others use it as a means to dismissing my POV....sad), but please don't act as if I'm just bumbling around looking for the Golden Mickey...

It's not meant to be dismissive of your POV. However I do tend to give more weight to someone who has seen a greater chunk of the evolution process. Knowledge does seem to come out of experience. However there are lot of posts that say "Disney hasn't changed at all." I've got to wonder how someone who has only been visiting since 1999 knows what the parks were like in 1995 or earlier? I don't know law, it's history etc. and I would not feel "dismissed" if a lawyer told me that maybe my perspectives would change if I took a couple of classes, attended a few trials, etc.

It's interesting because you also say Yet, true to my roots, I am optimistic that such an approach will succeed or (more likely) fail by the market or customers' reaction.

However when a customer's reaction gets typed out on a message board the response is something like Peter Pirate's

We can get past little items that others don't seem to be able to do. I am sorry to say it, but once again, I believe it's an anti-Eisner thing.

But I suppose this isn't meant to be a broad sweeping generalization of Car 3'ers nor is it meant to be dismissive.

I could thoughfully make a list of issues, but what's the point if the reaction is going to be, "____ was unimportant" what's the point? I certainly didn't come here to be told how stupid and insignificant the things that matter to me are, and how petty it is for me to care about them in the first place.

And it's also hard because a lot of it is "the back of the neck tingling." I used to walk around the parks feeling Disney was like the gigelo "wining, dining, whispering sweet nothings about beauty in my ear, distracting me from the real goal of seperating me from my money," rather than the more tough-line, rest of the world, "Hand over the money and get out of my way."

Like Mary Poppins, "A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down." Truth is though, a lot of people are used to getting their medicine without the sugar so I guess there's just no reason to give the sugar. Give it long enough and the people who knew about the sugar will be gone anyway.

d-r

03-12-2002, 12:13 PM

Baron-

d-r you seem to be as confused as I am. Or at least a part of you is. This passage could have been written by me:

I do sometimes have mixed emotions.

How much of the variation in the cars - whether the discussion is about broad things or about small perks - is based upon idividual differences in the riders? I mean, some see the cup half empty, some see it half full. My engineering friend tells me that it is time to design a new glass that more accurately fits. Personally, I usually get excited that it is almost time for another one.

DR

Peter Pirate

03-12-2002, 12:45 PM

Landbaron states:Peter, if you rally can't grasp the sameness all further conversation is futile.
Futile?...Well, I like ceramic tile, tile fish & I've been called infantile...But now my attempts at conversation are futile...Oh so much tile, so little time...Carry on my friends I'll try not to interrupt again (bahahahahaha)...:jester:
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

JeffJewell

03-12-2002, 01:35 PM

Is that assessment of the default accurate? ...it's the way you say "default" (and to an even greater extent, the way Peter continues to dismiss any and all complaints as being merely symptomatic of Eisner-itis) that's the difference.

My "default" for decades was to trust that the Disney name meant I could expect a certain level of quality to be present in the product (outside the violently skewed bell curve of these boards, I'm still considered a huge Disney fan and supporter). To use the half empty/half full analogy, I became a Disney fan while the glass was consistently overflowing.

My current "default" has nothing to do with some character flaw that I can't be happy unless I'm knocking Disney or Eisner personally. It has to do with the relative amount of "give it all you've got" to "see how mauch we can make off of this" in the American parks and animation (the parts of Disney that are important to me). It is the demonstrated actions of the Company that logically lead to a pessimistic view of it's future.

Peter's posts in the sequels thread are dead on: Disney is making money off of the crap... so why should they stop making crap? The answer is, they're not going to stop, they're going to pick up the pace of crap production. It's the logical thing to do if your only yardstick is "how much can we squeeze from guests' wallets."

It's obvious to everyone that the glass is no longer particularly full... the arguments now are that "it's still the fullest glass available," which is nothing but an assessment of personal preference, or the "it'll fill back up after people forget those mean old terrorists," an argument for which there is little compelling evidence.

Jeff

DVC-Landbaron

03-12-2002, 01:56 PM

But now my attempts at conversation are futile...Oh so much tile, so little time...Carry on my friends I'll try not to interrupt again (bahahahahaha)Peter, Peter, Peter!! Where's the old fight? Where's the swashbuckling Pirate!! Where's the Basil Rathbone (to my Errol Flynn)? You were supposed to answer why you do not find the sameness in it. You were supposed to find, in paragraph 3, subsection 4a, an apparent contradiction in my logic! You were supposed to respond!!

Bad day at work? Not pleasant enough weather for you in the Keys? The wife grumbling about your internet addiction? Maybe it's time to talk to the Captain for a while. ;)

I mean, some see the cup half empty, some see it half full. My engineering friend tells me that it is time to design a new glass that more accurately fits.d-r, Thanks for the laugh!! :p

Scoop!

Yes, you're right. Disney has positioned itself in a mode where they have to prove themselves (to me at least). It was never like that. It is a recent development. Maybe that is what Mr. Max (Mr. Hope?) was saying. With time, your perspective may change. After being disappointed, time after time, you become a little jaded. That doesn't mean that everything they do is bad. Far from it. It just comes down to not believing, out of hand, their spin on all issues. It's the little hairs standing up when I hear about early closing, resort closing, no ride replacements or any of the miniscule items that we've touched on in this thread. On the other hand though, it thrills me no end to hear about the towels. Or the radio stuff you mentioned (which I never heard, but will definitely check out).

One more thing, Mr. Scoop. You mentioned that the chocolates and butter still exist. WHERE??? Thanks.

JJ: As always - Ditto!!!!!!! :bounce:

hopemax

03-12-2002, 02:01 PM

But, finally, thank you for recognizing that I have worked hard to examine the WDW aspects which I think are bad. To you, that may sound like Car #3, but to me the only difference between #1 and #3 is a default optimism vs. a default pessissism these days

Which is where, IMHO, the Disney tenure comes into play. Do you believe us Car 3'ers were born default pessimists? The strange thing is aside from Disney newsgroups friends, family, co-worker, teachers all consider me one of the most optimistic people they know. They also say however that I am extremely intellegent and tend to notice things about 3 steps before they do.

And I feel that a lot of my frustrations are a result of how stupidly optimistic I feel. That if I could just stop dreaming, then these little things wouldn't bother me anymore. If I could just stop imagining the possibility of a Mickey dark ride (dark rides are C-tickets too, so please no "does everything have to be an E-ticket") that another 3-D movie wouldn't seem so bad. That if I just stop imagining the next POTC-family style ride, that another ride that my husband won't ride with me because he doesn't do thrills would be nice.

Where did the pessimism come from? April 1989, I went to DL and Star Tours and Captain EO were the new attractions. The carousel theater had closed a few months earlier, obviously a new attraction would be coming. Bear Country was under rehab something called Splash Mountain was coming. Blast to the Past was going on and they had a game where you could win free prizes. Frankie Avalon was performing at Videopolis.

Went back in March 1995. The Carousel Theater was still empty, what happened? Also Mission to Mars was empty now too. Splash Mountain, Indy and Fantasmic! were fabulous though.

Back again in 1996, Tomorrowland is getting ready to go down for rehab, finally something great will be done with the land, maybe it will get jazzed up like WDW's. And yes, MSEP is going away but they have a new parade already lined up - I think it's called Light Magic?

Back in 1998, New Tomorrowland was extremely disappointing, Light Magic had already come and gone and after 25 odd years of having a different day parade and night parade, that era had ended.

That 1998 trip was the end of the default thinking "something new is coming, it will be wonderful" because that may not be so.

Journey into Imagination, Tiki Room Under New Management, and the carnival elements of Dinorama haven't helped either and several other attractions that have left me disappointed but I won't mention because I don't want to start another "You must be some sort of snob to not enjoy ____."

hopemax

03-12-2002, 02:04 PM

Maybe that is what Mr. Max (Mr. Hope?)

First name Hope, last name Maxwell and it's not Mr! :D

DVC-Landbaron

03-12-2002, 03:25 PM

But what I am pretty sure of is that Disney will survive this purported problemYes, Scoop. I agree. They will go on. The parks will not be sold off to land developers and they won't turn the castle into condos. On this we agree 100%.

But in what condition will it survive?

I don't know about you, but I don't belong to any other message boards, internet site, or any other form of communication, other than those relating to Disney. I used to check out a Lord of the Rings site every other week or so, for an update on the movie, and I dabble in home recording, but lately even that's fallen to the wayside. And there certainly aren't any other companies I follow. I know some on RADP follow TV or movies. Still others talk about airlines. I don't. I simply don't have the interest.

But one company, in all my years, has interested me enough to get involved. Only one place has sparked enough within me to spend the time and energy required to, admire it, think about it, form philosophies about it and at times take issue with it. Disney.

Disney stands alone. Why? What made it so special? Why am I (and many, many others) drawn to it? Maybe AV can put it into words, I can only point to the feeling that a stay in WDW gave me. It's very hard to articulate. It's the philosophy that 'exceeded your expectations'. It the quotes that I use in my signature. It's the idea that quality will win in the end. It was giving people more than they expected for what they paid. It's all of those things (times thousands more) and yet not one single thing alone.

So when you say it will survive, I agree. But will it survive as the company I fell in love with, or only a slightly better version of Universal? That is what I fear most. That it will indeed survive. It will come out smelling like a rose, in fact. But only a shadow of what it once was. Almost equal with the competition. Nice places to visit, but I have never book-marked one of their sites. Have you?

JeffJewell

03-12-2002, 04:07 PM

Why am I so confident? Because Disney has a history of surviving. In law we call it precedence. ...there's the rub... I'm not willing, simply because some corporate entity still exists, to say that "Disney" survived.

The precedent set by this generation of Disney management is to slap a label on anything they can get their hands on in the hopes that someone will buy it. PT Barnum's truism ensures that Disney will not go broke with this strategy.

To me, that doesn't matter. I want Pirates of the Caribbean, and it honestly doesn't matter to me what label is on it. I want the great product, not a crappy product with the same name on it that once adorned great products.

Disney will continue to lurch around, a soulless zombie of sequels and spinners, and still manage to turn a profit... and you'll say that's a good thing. Hey, it's your value system, you can set it wherever you like.

But if you want to ride the next Pirates of the Caribbean, you will have to go somewhere other than Disney's US parks. Disney doesn't make that kind of product any more, they have no interest in making that kind of product anymore, and enough people are willing to pay them for the acquired crap such that there's no monetary reason for them to make that product anymore.

One of the more frustrating things about your argument is that you defend cheaper-is-better decisions on the basis of "business," then have the stones to suggest that good stuff will return if they make enough off of the crap. That makes no sense at all. If they make enough off of the crap, they're just going to make more crap.

Making quality stuff is hard, expensive, and sometimes doesn't pay off in the short term. Selling relabelled crap also sometimes doesn't pay off in the short term, but at least it's easy and cheap.

The precedent set by current Disney management is clear.

Jeff

hopemax

03-12-2002, 04:37 PM

I'm quite sure that "this too shall pass"...because much worse has passed under the same level of leadership.

See this is where I get confused. This is my personal Car philosophy. It's a two part statement

Part 1: Status - Rough seas or calm waters
Part 2: Recovery Outlook - good, unknown, bad

Car 1: Calm/ N/A-no recovery needed
Car 2: Rough/Good
Car 3: Rough/ Unknown
Car 4: Rough/Bad

"This too shall pass" sounds an awful lot like a "recovery outlook" which isn't necessary for a Car 1 rider to have. So Scoop, umm, are you really Car 2 rider?

"The magic has faded, but I am optimistic it will return."

JeffJewell

03-12-2002, 04:53 PM

So Scoop, umm, are you really Car 2 rider? ...everybody duck!

Chad hates it when you point out enormous logical inconsistencies between his statements and his choice of cars... ;)

Jeff

daannzzz

03-12-2002, 04:57 PM

Training the guests.

I have been to Disneyland 32 times and my first trip to WDW was 1996 at age 40. We stayed at the Carribean Beach and I feel in love with Disney resorts. 80% of the full service meals had Micky chocolates accompanying the bill. Mickey butter was indeed served often but the 20,000 leagues lagoon was empty and I had missed World of Motion for the soon to come Test Track.
Since 1996 I have been 7 times and spent large sums of money staying at most of the resorts from the Grand Floridian and Animal Kingdom Lodge to the All Star Music. While I am generally happy with my experiences I do see some of the "little" things missing that helped exceed my expectations. How much do these things cost? If each full service restaurant added a penny charge to every item that should be enough to reinstated the chocolates with the bill. I can only assume that the "maximaization of profits" people made their mark here. The chocolates were taken away to maximize that profit. It may seem like just a bit but it adds up. So if they raise the price the "maximum profit" people still don't want to add back the chocolate as a cost. And like said above, maybe only 40 people actually complained about it.
Taken on a bigger scale we have The addition of Alladin's Carpets, which in their own right are not a terrible thing ( though I don't care for the location). But add that in with Triceatops Spin, Prime evil whirl, the bugs land at DCA (which will look great but has unimigainative out of the box, rides, and alot of DCA and I see a trend. A trend to train Disney guests. There was a young lad on another message board in a discussion about the Matterhorn at Disneyland. He said he thought that the Abominable snow man inside was unneeded. There's those who say that the mouse coaster at DCA is fun. It was okay and cetainly fun for lots of people. I wonder if it exceeded their expectations. Still there seems to be more people who love DCA than who question it's quality. We also have this neat trend of closing attractions and leaving the facilities in a state or arrested decay. That saves some more money. But the complaints about the empty skyway stations at Disneyland have dwindled down.
And we have these sequels to the animated classic. Indeed this will maximize profits quickly. People will buy them for the kids and they will become a staple.
But complaints will come in for all this stuff. And Disney is ready to tuff it out through all these complaints. Soon the complaints will slow. You will pay $200 a night at the moderates resorts but the Mickey soaps will have been replaced with the paper thin generic bar. And the complaints will slow even more. And when they install that new 30 million dollar coaster with the minimal dragon theming on it everyone will rave about it being fantastic since a 30 million dollar attraction has not been put in for a few years. And the training will be complete and The execs will smile!!!

mmouse52

03-12-2002, 06:35 PM

Went to WDW for my 20th birth in 72. Those were the days. Two hotels. Poly and Contemp. Great potroast dinner at Liberty Tree Tavern. Wonderful icecream sundaes at Polynesian. It was to use an old expression "charming". No arcades in the hotels. I love Disney but it got too big for its" own good.

Bob O

03-12-2002, 10:03 PM

dscoop Im not ready to cash it on in regards too disney. If i was i wouldnt be here, But i am pessmistic because the direction ive seen since my first time going their(1982) is downhill. And that direction has mainly been the last 5 years with all the cutbacks and little improvements to the existing parks. They have gotten a lot bigger but i dont think neccesarily better. And now due to alot of bonehead company decisons they either wont or cant spend the money they need to improve the parks and update the attractions needed. And then all you hear from the head honchos is how once attendance improves they will make loads of money with little talk of how they are going to improve their product. And i fear that younger generations arent going to have the love for disney we have and that will only make matters worse. I see little on the horizon to be optimistic, they may add a carny attraction here or their(like they have) or a bigger attraction(if they can find a sponsor to pay for it) but it seems the MO is too maximize parks profits as the expense of the guest experience. And from speaking from my kids perspective they already perfer Universal to disney and with a recent article about disney having trobule with the"tweeners" i hope they arent wearing out the goodwill that they have built over generations for only a short term viewpoint. I think disney takes alot of us for granted and feels we will buy whatever they give us just because it has a disney label attached to it.

Planogirl

03-12-2002, 11:30 PM

Bob makes a real good point IMO. The little kids love Disney but what about the older kids and the teenagers? My son at the tender age of 9 keeps asking to go to Universal. As he puts it: "we don't have to go to Disneyworld every year." Danger, danger Will Robinson! :eek:

OK, so kids his age lose interest in WDW "for a while". The question is do they come back? Presumably, they come back with their own kids. I can't help but wonder what they'll find and if Pop Century will be a luxury resort by that time. :confused:

By the way, I love this:
Disney will continue to lurch around, a soulless zombie of sequels and spinners, and still manage to turn a profit... and you'll say that's a good thing.

Great comment JeffJewel, a bit too harsh IMO but still wonderful. :)

hopemax

03-13-2002, 02:03 AM

But what I am pretty sure of is that Disney will survive this purported problem just like they survived Walt testifying at the McCarthy hearings, Steinberg attempting to take over, violent union confrontations, etc. Why am I so confident? Because Disney has a history of surviving. In law we call it precedence.

Hmm, found an interesting article while doing some research. Seems like there was this company that created a brand new market, they dominated it for awhile, then another player entered the game and they started losing ground. Then the company lost a visionary to the new player, and then the economy went sour. They brought in a new guy, a tough-business type. He cleared out the executives and turned losses into profits. Another economic downturn hit, and this guy lead the company through in superb condition. But then the CEO thought the company needed to do one thing to prepare for what he believed were "economic certainties" and anyone who disagreed with him was fired. It took 10 years for this CEO to be replaced and a new regime brought in. This company never recovered from the stagnation inflicted by the CEO who was at one time the savior of the company. There was no return to market domination, but the company did survive another 42 years before declaring chapter 11. And this former "institution" disappeared entirely in 2000.

Of course that company was Montgomery Ward, and the CEO that they could never really recover from was Sewell Avery. Avery in his prime, led Montgomery Ward through the Great Depression and WWII, something that parallels to some degree Eisner & Disney in the 1980's and early 90's. I do have a "back of the neck tingling" fear though that Eisner's stance on the internet and computer world, the mishandling of go.com, and the philosophies regarding capital improvements & maintence Pressler has brought to the parks, may turn out to be like Avery's stance that the US was going to go into a deep depression following WWII and opening more stores like Sears would be folly.

Maybe Disney is different than Montgomery Ward in that Disney originally had an even larger "brand" and an even bigger market share, maybe entertainment is different enough from retail, but to say that survival is "guaranteed?" I'm not sure I can go that far.

So to your latest post...

After all, does anyone really believe that Disney is fragile enough that Pressler or Eisner alone could ever destroy the magic?

I don't know, history credits Avery Sewell as the root of Montgomery Ward's collapse. 40 years, new strategies, infusion of cash by Mobil and General Electric didn't fix it. I don't know... in 1955 when Avery was removed did people believe that Montgomery Ward would never return to a retail leader?

If I could place a bet, I'd put a $20 down on Disney surviving, but I'd get my husband to put a $20 down on "not surviving." I just don't know. Depends a lot on how long Eisner & Pressler stay.

d-r

03-13-2002, 06:59 AM

Originally posted by thedscoop

p.s. Baron, based on what d-r said, the chocolates are still at the deluxes with turndown. Also, someone PM'd me to confirm that Mickey butter is still at Chef's Mickey. I'll check in May to confirm both.

The trick about it is that now they do not do turn down for all rooms by default, you have to say that you want turn down service when you are asked, or ask for it if you are not. Now, what I'm not sure about is if the resorts still have their own chocolates. For example, the polly used to have chocolates with a pineapple on them, the grand floridian had their own as well. I'd guess they still do, it isn't that big of a cost.

Also, someone mentioned resorts having their own toiletries. The Grand Floridian does, they are shaped like old fashioned victorian bottles, (and I think they still have "white rabbit brand" cotton... it was on this show on the travel channel at least). Most everywhere else I've stayed in has the traditional Mickey stuff, with the all stars having dispensers - I can't remember ever seeing anything different.

Honestly, the butter thing, I think that is a local decision of the restaurants themselves - some of them still have butter, others have margarine - I don't think it was a an over-all decision. But of course the decision of a given restaurant was probably to cut costs to meet some budget constraints that were decided by higher-ups.

DR

Captain Crook

03-13-2002, 07:55 AM

hopemax, interesting analogy between monkey wards and Disney, I guess...But the last time I checked WDW still has no real competetion. Sure US/IOA is nice...But it's a two park locale with a couple of hotels...A nice diversion for a day or two, which Disney could address if they felt compelled (and I hope they soon will)... And Planogirl, as to "tweeners" & Disney, Disney has never been cool to this group as a whole so why should that be an issue now? But, as an aside, my 12 year old daughter went to IOA last year and thought it was nice. She liked some of the rides, thought their employees sucked and has no desire for us to return as a family (not a bad WDW endorsement for a "tweener").

Bob o says "they have gotten a lot bigger but not necessarily better". Well, I just disagree. WDW is A LOT better today than it was in 1971 or 1981 or 1991. There is more to do, better places and more choices to stay and 4 parks to enjoy...We've gone down this road before and I guess it's purely subjective. If you liked the one or two parks and two hotels better, I can't refute that, but I like 4 parks, 2 water parks and a choice of hotels & restaraunts to choose from (the catagory depending upon how many old ladies purses that Peter Pirate pilfered that week).;)

...there's the rub...I'm not willing, simply because some corporate entity still exists, to say that"Disney" survived.
Wow! That's a rub alright. Because the fact is Disney was almost always a cororate entity. If you're willing to overlook that fact and say 'yeah, but Walt was in charge'...Then Disney was gone for you the moment he was placed in the deep-freeze. He ain't coming back, neither is the company you remember...

Sorry folks, I know you hate to hear it (some more than others) but you still sound like a lot of folks who hate Michael Eisner. You give me little evidence otherwise (keep trying). You say no, no, no, but every complaint is leveled squarly at him with absolutely no nod to the successes. You don't care that Space is on the way, you choose to focus on Dino-Rama. You seethe about Pop Century and yet generally refuse to hail accolades on the AKL (which has only been open 1 year). You lament the losses of little touches that obviously were caught in the numbers game & don't accept the new touches (because you want both). Yes, Landbaron, I get it, you want it all...But you can't have it all... Nobody gets it all. It wouldn't be prudent for Disney to give, give, give & ignore the concerns of Wall st. or the stockholders. Walt didn't give it all either. Remember his opening DL with virtually NO WATYER FOUNTAINS to insure soft drink purchases??? No one gets it all!

I see many things different about Disney today. Most is good (IMO), but still some I don't like. My recent fear is the 'generic menu' hitting the fine WDW restaraunts. I liked the fact that the unusual could be tried and I dislike the trend toward sameness. I have no problem with Aladdin, the ride or the lcation. I like the DR, but I too, beleive that 3 spinners is enough. The shorter hours bug me and they took away the free valet parking (just kidding-that doesn't bug me). So I don't think all the moves are great, but I'd rather have some cost cutting, profitizing & belt tightening if it means Disney can continue as it is for another 10-20 years. I still believe the current, independent corporate Disney is better than AOL/TWX/DIS, or whatever...Many of you simply see that change as already having taken place under Eisner...
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

JeffJewell

03-13-2002, 08:20 AM

quote:"...there's the rub...I'm not willing, simply because some corporate entity still exists, to say that"Disney" survived"
Wow! That's a rub alright. Because the fact is Disney was almost always a cororate entity. ...well, you once again completely misrepresented what I actually said. It is clear in my statement that I understood Disney was always a "corporate entity," but that they were once more than that. If the one and only qualification of what "Disney" means is that someone will pay for a product that says "Disney" on it, then you're absolutely right, Disney is hugely successful. And you will continue to have value-engineered knock-off products to consume rest of your life... enjoy!

You never did answer the question "where will the next Pirates come from," and few of the rest us care where the next Triceratops Spin will go up. More and more people are realizing that Disney's current offerings are a very generic flavor of Magic.

Sorry folks, I know you hate to hear it (some more than others) but you still sound like a lot of folks who hate Michael Eisner. I still don't see how reducing anyone's opinion to a character flaw advances your position one iota; it just makes you sound unwilling to accept that someone might think differently than you do.

You still sound like a total homer, but it doesn't promote a lot of intelligent conversation to point that out, now does it?

Jeff

Captain Crook

03-13-2002, 08:47 AM

Yes I am. No doubt about it. :D I love WDW and I won't apologize for it. I have great trips each & every visit and I won't apologize for it. My last trip was for one night & two days and it may have been the most fun ever! WDW is still fitting the bill & whether it's in the context of 'family building' or not, it's irrelevent. The truth is the truth whether it's your truth or my truth...

As to your opinion, well it's yours & your welcome to it. I don't begrudge it, I embrace it. That's what the DIS is all about.

You ask where the next "Pirates" will be coming from? Well, I'm sure there are some that will argue "TGMR" is the next "Pirates" or "Dinosaur" is the next "Pirates". You just look from your POV which, IN MY OPINION seems stuck in a particular time warp that you were happy with... Fine, not a thing wrong with that, it's your view...But new generation's will see the next offerings with the same delight. Grow with them just like we did and when the time comes to compare "Dinosaur" with the next generation they will cry inferior bloody murder, just like we do...They will ***** & moan about the closing of "Test Track" or "Pooh" (when the time comes) just like the last generation did about "Horizons" or "Mr. Toad".

You accuse me of blatenly dismissing opinions in my post and I feel the same about yours. Scary though it seems, our styles may be closer than we'd like to admit :eek: (or not)...
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

JeffJewell

03-13-2002, 09:38 AM

As to your opinion, well it's yours & your welcome to it. I don't begrudge it, I embrace it. ...hmm. I guess I don't see reading a complaint and concluding "This guy just hates Esner" as equating to "embracing" an opinion.You accuse me of blatenly dismissing opinions in my post and I feel the same about yours. Whatever. I've routinely pointed out that I believe in and fully support the notion that you and your family enjoy riding Triceratops Spin... and you've even managed to work up unbrage at _that_ on at least one occasion.

I say you appear to be a homer, and you follow up with the statement that you _are_ a homer. You say I'm an Eisner basher, I try to show that I'm bashing a business strategy, not a man, and you say I'm still an Eisner basher, no matter what I say.

Your "embrace" is a distinctly chilly one.

Jeff

Captain Crook

03-13-2002, 10:16 AM

I say the car threepers in general seem to be Eisner bashers. Everyone has varying degrees of disdain toward the man, the policies & practices of the regime. If I ever said "Jeff Jewell you're an Eisner basher" I can't recall it...Although I know for a fact that there have been innendo & tounge in cheek comments I've made (that have been taken too seriously). Half the time you respond to my posts that are generally pointed at one of the others. I guess thats my fault for not being more specific...

As to the "chilly embrace", well that too is your perception. Ask Landbaron & gcurling what kind of guy I am (as they've both met me face to face) and I seriously doubt "cold" is the word you'll hear (but I do worry about Landbarons characterization:eek:). That is why I am looking forward to this summers "meets"...To put more faces & real life personality with the opinions...
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

DVC-Landbaron

03-13-2002, 12:10 PM

But the last time I checked WDW still has no real competitionCaptain!! Listen carefully. This is an emergency!! You must do what I say!

First, close your eyes! Place your hands near the temples of your head. Go slowly. No sudden movements. Now take the fingers of your hands and GENTLY grasp the objects going toward your ears. Now lift away from your head slowly, but steadily. OK!! Put your hands and the object you hold, in your lap. Very good!! Now you can open your eyes. Go on. Look at you hands. Do you know what those are? Yes!! You're right!! Those are the famous rose-colored-glasses you've heard tell about.

Now!! Look around you. There!! Isn't that better? See! The real world. Now turn around and look over your shoulder. Do you know what that is? Yes! That's right!! It's universal and IOA. I know, I know. They look very close and you're a little surprised. It's the glasses. Instead of blueblockers, they're competition blockers. And yes, they are still behind us, but they are gaining on their own. See how big they are? To the younger generation, they're even bigger!! Now look down at our speedometer. Yes, we seem to be slowing. Again you're surprised!! WOW, we're not traveling at the speed of light with cutting edge technology and artistry any more. No! In fact if we keep up the current pace, IOA and Universal may pass us by. NO!!! STOP!!! Don't turn around any more!! Just use the rear view mirror. Otherwise, it's too scary!!

OK! OK! My, you're sweating. You look a little pale. And what's with the shallow breathing? I guess that's enough for now. You can put your glasses back on. I know! You're saying, "Hey!!! Where did Universal go?!?! And look at the speed!! My GOD!! I didn't think we could go this fast!!!!!"

Walt didn't give it all either. Remember his opening DL with virtually NO WATER FOUNTAINS to insure soft drink purchases??? No one gets it all!That's a lie and you know it!!! Come on Captain. It's hard enough to discuss these lofty concepts without muddying the waters with revisionist history!!

and I seriously doubt "cold" is the word you'll hear (but I do worry about Landbaron's characterization'Cold'? No, not cold. Hmmm. Let's see… (thumbs through thesaurus) Wild eyed. Silly. Far off. Cheery. Engaging. Fun. Amusing. Enthusiastic. Devoted. Spirited. Happy. Light-hearted. Talkative. Lively. Effervescent. Vivacious. Excitable. Charming. Ridiculous. Absurd. Inconsistent. Frivolous. Silly. Pleasant. Likeable. Jovial. And not a logical bone in his body!!!!!

OH!! Wait!! That was Peter! I don't know about the Captain!! ;)

hopemax

03-13-2002, 12:22 PM

hopemax, interesting analogy between monkey wards and Disney, I guess...But the last time I checked WDW still has no real competetion.

But the Walt Disney Company is more than just WDW. I know this is a WDW thread, but Scoop’s question required a view on the company at large.

I’m not sure how healthy ABC really is. This month the news & entertainment departments are at odds, before it was ABC trailing in the advertising wars, poor schedules, relying to much on Millionaire. I remember ABC and NBC duking it out for top honors, now I hear more about ABC struggling to keep up with the newly vamped CBS and the WB whose pulling in all the young viewers.

Feature Animation is up in the air, but the Pixar people proved that someone other than the Disney people could make a good film. Pixar's biggest unknown is can they stand alone or do they really need the Disney name, but I can't imagine Jobs & Lasseter not attempting to go it without Disney; finding some other studio to work with perhaps. And the other question is how will Dreamworks be able to capitalize with Shrek? Will "from the people who brought you Shrek" be able to get people into the theaters the way Disney uses the "people that brought you Snow White, or the Lion King."

Inside the theme parks, I wonder if it's not competition that's going to be the achilles heel; but something else. I know a lot of you don't follow Disneyland much. But an interesting thing seems to be happening down there. The Fantasyland sewer system reached critical last fall as a result most of Fantasyland needed immediate closures, the Matterhorn has been fighting intermitant closures as the steel structure is in the process of being replaced. The Haunted Mansion's rehab following Nightmare was delayed because one of the walls had severly rotted (they haven't been painting the building). All through the park, years of neglect are starting to rear their ugly heads. Tom Sawyer Island, Tiki Room, not to mention the failure of the New Tomorrowland At what point does the only viable solution become bulldozing and starting over and would that even be too expensive? Off-season is starting to mean that 10+ attractions are down at the same time, including 3 or 4 E-tickets when it used to be that 1 or 2 E-tickets and no more than 5 overall. At WDW you can kind of see the same phenomenon at Epcot - so many areas are still in need in revitalization and Epcot's attendance does seem to be reflecting the public's dissatisfaction.

The life-action parts of the studio...I don't know I guess the sense I feel is Disney's studios are becoming more of a foot-note instead of the power player. Disney seemed surprised that Pearl Harbor did poorly, and surprised that Princess Diaries did so well. How long can you misread the public before it catches up with you.

So although I wouldn't expect Disney to completely follow the path of Montgomery Ward. I can definetly envision that type of thing happening to ABC. And seperately maybe happening to animation (although this is highly dependant on what Dreamworks and Pixar decide to do). An entirely new problem could affect the parks; deterioration to the point that a 5 billion dollar investment would be like using a bandaid to cover a nicked artery.

But the analogy was more to counter-point Scoop's "precendence." Companies are not guaranteed future recoveries simply because they survived before and they are "institutions." Montgomery Ward survived Sears intially entry to their market, the defection of Robert Wood to Sears, the Great Depression and WWII. Also it provides precendence for a "savior" CEO taking the same company and running it into the ground later in his career.

Captain Crook

03-13-2002, 01:45 PM

Landbaron...Without my glasses, I'm blind!:eek: But if you want me to be unhappy and beat myself up over the loss of imagination at Disney or Eisner's total egocentricity I can give it a try. I can even try to see the failings of Disney animation & ABC...But the theme parks? Why would any of you, my good, close cyber friends want me to see WDW through your eyes?

Think, if you will, of entering your favorite Park, seeing all of the magical things you've come to know over the years. Feeling totally at peace with your family smiling, laughing and playing right by your side under the beautiful Florida sky. Think of the mickey bars and those turkey legs that always smell sooo good (but never quite taste that way:p ). Think of the joy of eating at your favorite Disney restaurant or accidentaly running into the big cheese himself (Mickey, not Mike). Harken back to the days of showing your kids the Disney Magic. Think about those wonderful Castmembers, who AV points out are really just ordinary people, yet somehow rise to the Disney occasion at least 9 times out of10. Think of all of the best memories you've had and then think of ole Captain Pirate who still sees all of these things without noticing peeling paint, burnt out light bulbs or dirty bathrooms. Who sees each new attraction as an opportunity instead of (potentially) another nail in the coffin. Who can still enjoy the new magical touches as grand without crying over spilt milk.

Would you, my friends, really want me to see it through your eyes? Or do you wish you could maybe still see it through mine?
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

larworth

03-13-2002, 02:09 PM

It would have been interesting to discuss the importance of the “little touches” in the overall magic equation. Are they critical elements in the average guest’s experience? Do they really make a big enough impression on a sufficient enough percent of the curve to be nurtured and expanded, or it is money better spent elsewhere (not banked)?

But alas “Car Wars” is back on the tube again.

At least for me its not about Eisner, its not about entitlements, its just about what is in the best interest of the parks. I have no problem with them running it to maximize its revenue generating value. Just as long as they do it for the LONGTERM.

The parks were built around certain philosophies and strategies. It created that wonderful competitive advantage that exists today and decades of apparently very healthy returns. If market conditions change than philosophies/strategies might need to evolve. It just isn’t clear to me that the old business model is outdated.

I think there was a clear change starting in the mid 90’s. A dip into that great pool of goodwill to finesse some extra profit out of the division by doing less than the guest deserved. I’m open to the idea that it was even a result of being a victim of past success, rather than outright greed. If you really think you have to deliver 20% annual growth (that was their stated target back than) you start to make some poor short-term decisions when the assets you got can’t support this anymore.

Now, a clever manager doesn’t do this by abandoning all standards outright, but by cutting them back here and there. While our lists are often impediments in our discussions, it really is all about batting averages. Is the effort being made today, on average, as good as it should be? Clearly seem less than it use to.

I’m willing to entertain how saturation, changes in customer wants, the discovery that cash flow is really king makes this the right approach in the new order and how we should demand more of the same in the future. It just ain’t Eisner bashing (I’ll leave that to AV he seems to have it down).

Funny, in some ways it makes me cherish the great things in the parks even more. I think I no longer take some things for granted.

DVC-Landbaron

03-13-2002, 03:35 PM

Ahhhh! How refreshing. It would have been interesting to discuss the importance of the "little touches" in the overall magic equation.Exactly what I wanted to do!!

Actually I linked to this other thread because I was hoping to point out that some of the non-'regulars' have very similar complaints. And the way I read it, it could have gone two ways. First was the overall theme that delineated how some very small things were very, very important to these people. What was insignificant to one guest may very well define the magic for another.

The other course it could have taken was a discussion regarding overall philosophy. What especially caught my eye was the shopping mall theme on Main Street. Those little shops, eclectic and different somehow 'fit' with the magic. A change has occurred in management's thinking over the years that many people have noticed. And many people don't like. At least that's how I read the thread.

It was a starting point for discussion. It was NOT supposed to be about trading touches and keeping things the same. It was NOT supposed to be about Ei$ner bashing (although I personally don't know who else is responsible). It was to go deeper than that. But in the end, you're right, it turned into yet another, "My car is better that your car".

So let's try again. The parks were built around certain philosophies and strategies. It created that wonderful competitive advantage that exists today and decades of apparently very healthy returns.I couldn't agree more with this statement. No truer truism could ever exist!! If market conditions change than philosophies/strategies might need to evolve. It just isn't clear to me that the old business model is outdated.Again, the nail being hit squarely on the head!! But I'd go further than that (part hyperbole and part to spark a little debate). I'd say it is very clear to me that the old business model is not outdated!! Instead the company has willfully chosen a different strategy. One that concentrates on short term gains only and totally ignores and dismisses the long term philosophies that used to serve the company so well. I think there was a clear change starting in the mid 90's.It's a fine point, I know, but I really think that it started way earlier than that. It was the mid-90's when it became apparent to the masses (myself included). I believe it started the first time they opened the vault and deliberately sold the item for the sole purpose of boosting the bottom line for the upcoming quarter only. Now, I'm not saying that it was a mistake. I'm saying they saw a golden goose, recognized it for what it was and made that sucker lay eggs until it's very health was in danger. Now, a clever manager doesn't do this by abandoning all standards outright, but by cutting them back here and there.No one (with the exception of Mr. Scoop and Mr. Pirate of course) has accused Ei$ner of being a 'clever manager'. ;) It just ain't Eisner bashing (I'll leave that to AV he seems to have it down).HEY!! He doesn't have a monopoly on it, ya know!! I was bashing Ei$ner here before AV ever got his first DSL!!! ;) Funny, in some ways it makes me cherish the great things in the parks even more. I think I no longer take some things for granted.AGREED!!! That's why I'm spending a month down there this year!!!

Captain Crook

03-13-2002, 05:07 PM

Ahhhh, how refreshing.
Well! I can certainly take a hint.
:( :( :wave: :( :(

DVC-Landbaron

03-13-2002, 05:15 PM

Captain!! Lighten up!! You forgot the smilie faces! ;););)

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

:p :D :jester: :crazy:

So, what'd think of Mr. larworth's post?

raidermatt

03-13-2002, 07:16 PM

First, I just want to clarify my car #1 position. IMHO, a car #1'er does not necessarily believe that the "goods" philosophy has had no negative impact whatsoever on the parks. (And I'll extend it to the resorts, since we have had so much fun with chocolate and butter...)

There are a few things that have bothered me. The ride closures without replacements is the big one, but I still don't see this as being out of control. But, for me at least, there is so much Magic in the things that are there, the negatives are not nearly enough for me to say the Magic has faded. To me, the negatives are little things that any dynasty is going to go through. Its inevitable that over time, mistakes will be made. But, with respect to the parks and resorts, I don't see any mistakes that are siginficant enough to fade the Magic, and certainly nothing that makes me think Disney is in a death spiral.

Shops on Main Street? I really believe this is another one of those "taste" questions. I can understand how someone would want the eclectic mix that many are lamenting. But take the magic shop for example. Its a nice, quaint idea, but frankly, it does not interest me in the least. I PREFER it to be more of a general goods store. As long as the CMs are still Disney quality, the architecture and "feel" remain Disneyesque, I am happier. Now I know, there are many who consider this catering to the lowest common denominator, and if that's how I am to be defined, so be it. This is one guest whose experience is enhanced by many of the changes.

Baron, you are absolutely right when you say:

What was insignificant to one guest may very well define the magic for another.

Replacing the magic shop may have hurt the Magic for some, but keep in mind it enhanced it for some as well.

I'd say it is very clear to me that the old business model is not outdated!! Instead the company has willfully chosen a different strategy. One that concentrates on short term gains only and totally ignores and dismisses the long term philosophies that used to serve the company so well.

I agree that the strategy has at least been modified. But I am not yet convinced that the long term philosophy has been abandoned. Hopefully you will at least grant that it is at least possible to increase short term gains without sacrificing long term gains?

Making sequels, in and of itself, does not hinder long term success. As long as new, successful product is created, success will endure. However, if creativity is abandoned, then long term goals have also been abandoned. But I believe Atlantis was a successful attempt at creativity and innovation, it just was not a commercial success. I am very interested in Lilo & Stitch and Treasure Planet, and even moreso in the company's reaction to their commercial success or failure.

But back to the parks/resorts...

If the info posted by others is correct, chocolates and turndown are still available on request. I can see where somebody who thinks these are wonderful services would be upset that they must now request the service. However, there are those who don't want to be bothered with Mousekeeping in the evening. They are at least sometimes in their rooms at this time and actually don't want the intrusion. So making it an on-request service, in theory, makes everybody happy.

What is my point? Wait, what IS my point.... Oh yeah, its very easy to jump to the conclusion that everytime a decision is made that we don't like, its an example of a short-sighted, penny-pinching philosophy. I'm just saying that there is frequently more to it than that, and while its clear that current management has been tightening the belt, its not nearly to the extreme many portray it to be.

roymccoy

03-13-2002, 07:31 PM

Couldn't agree more with you about the ride closures with no replacements. It's the big one for me, too.
Roy

raidermatt

03-13-2002, 09:01 PM

Yeah, I'm willing to cut some slack for 20k. There were issues with keeping it open, and there are issues with trying to replace it. But they can only put it off for so long. They can at least pretty the area up...

Closing CBJ at DL was kind of a bummer, but things seem to be full steam ahead with the replacement. The skyway is a good spot for a restaurant or something, but again, not a big deal to me. But Tomorrowland at DL is in sad shape (as you well know), and the closures of CoP and Timekeeper at MK without any clear replacement strategy was very troubling. However, they have opened back up on busy days, and I guess its not clear whether they will both permanently close or not, so we'll just have to see.

DisDuck

03-13-2002, 09:29 PM

This thread reminds me of the late 2000 and 2001 thread on the same topic. Where is JeffH and his many lists when you need him. Since by June it will be a 2year gap in my visits (I don't know how I survived it - oh yes I went to DL last year for my fix - It helped). My not so tweener 17 yo daughter wants to go every year. I want to go every year. Gee, something must be drawing us back. Maybe to visit my 'money' :D

I have been to Universal 3 or 4 times and IOA twice over the last years. Give me WDW anytime. I finished IOA in 6 hours and Universal in 8. And that was with a line at Spiderman. The lands in IOA just don't flow like MK and unless you like to be turned inside-out you are pretty much left with Suess only. Also, those 'great' rides known as Pterodon Flyer and Tricerotops Encounter.

Three months to my next visit and I have already begun my countdown.

Long Live Car#1.

Bob O

03-13-2002, 09:55 PM

I think alot of people are taking Universal not as serious as they should at disney's peril! When the younger generations grow up who always watched nick/rugrats etc and not the disney channel will they always switch back to disney, which is considered their parents park?? I dont think mine will as they already prefer Universal with its more exciting rides/attractions and using their movie lineup to add more updated attractions/rides that are more compelling to their generation.
DIsney hasnt done a good job at all of updating their outdated rides/shows, most of epcot-future world is dated with old shows as is alot of mgm unless star tours/Indiana jones is still considered cutting egde. And disney shows no willingness to improve their product but content to rest on their laurels and people who will blindly follow them just encourage them to contuine this behavior to maximze park profits at the expense of guest experience. Which explains disney opening a half day park like Animal Kingdom yet still charge full price and now to try to boost attedance by adding up souped up carny rides rather then actually completing the park like it was orginally supposed to be. Then they dont learn from their mistake and do the same thing, but worse at DCA. But in a foreign country where disney doesnt pay the bills they apparently open a complete park from day one and have to turn people away because attendance is high if press reports are accurate.
This is a circular debate that wont be solved but the amen chorus of disney apparently is unwilling to push disney to improve itself but is content with whatever small bone disney will throw their way. And with that attitude we we contuine to see Universal improve its product and disney stagnate.

Eeyore2U

03-13-2002, 10:01 PM

Bob,

Are you going to put a 6 y/o on "The Hulk"? Maybe the niche is tweeners for US/IOA but neither are a kids park. Disney bridges generations and IMO US/IOA caters to tweeners and thrill seekers.

Bob O

03-13-2002, 10:30 PM

Eyeore2U If my 6 yr olds met the height limit, yes he would be on the ride. Disney IMHO appeals way too much to kids and not to the overall population. Universal has a more adult appeal which i truely enjoy and feel disney could learn from. Their is no reason a park cant appeal to all age groups, but the more thrills the better!!!

Eeyore2U

03-13-2002, 10:44 PM

And what happens if your 6 or 8 or 10 y/o isn't a daredevil. Then IOA is lost on him. I think you overestimate US/IOA. We did both in one day with a 15 and 16 y/o a couple weeks ago. It reminds of a Canobie Lake Park (amusement park a mile from my front door) on steriods.

OnWithTheShow

03-14-2002, 12:32 AM

Wow, I am gone for a few days and look at the insanity that erupts. After spending the better part of an hour wading through this 6 page headache of a thread. I still have no idea what was said, and DEFINITELY dont try explaining it to me. So here is my 2 cents (or several dollars depending on your point of view). The gas torches at Polynesian are coming back. I always found it unerving to cut into mickey even if he was in butter form. There is a definite decrease in ammenities at the resorts. The attitude now (as shown with valet parking) is "everyone else is doing it so why not us?". Your average cast member is still willing to go the extra step (the champagne and gifts on anniversaries and birthdays) but the higher up you go the more you lose touch with that feeling.

raidermatt

03-14-2002, 01:35 PM

Forget the 6 year-old, what am I supposed to do with my 3 year-old at Universal? What about my wife, who doesn't like coasters or big thrill rides either?

Disney has never aggressively gone after the tweeners and daredevils because to do so would be detrimental to their overall target, families. Putting in a couple of major coasters in the exisiting parks would still leave them inferior to Universal in the thrill area, and would hurt them with families. Does Disney need to develop new and innovative rides? Yes. Should they be trying to out-thrill Universal or Six Flags? No. (At least not in the current parks.)

I also wouldn't worry too much about kids watching Nickolodeon cartoons. My cartoon watching years (70's), had little to no Disney in them either. They just weren't available to me. It was Bugs Bunny, Porky Pig, Popeye, Woody Woodpecker, etc. Sure, I enjoyed them, but do I have a craving to watch them now? No way. They have no heart. I'd like to see Disney getting Mickey and the gang out there more, and they are through the House of Mouse. But 25 years from now, new parents aren't going to be getting teary-eyed at watching a Jimmy Neutron cartoon with their kids.

Disney IMHO appeals way too much to kids...

...the more thrills the better!!!

Diseny appeals to families, and that's how they got to where they are. Thrills are a dime a dozen and can be had by the fistfull at Six Flags, Paramount, Busch Gardens, etc. If Disney were to take the thrill route, why would I go to Orlando when there is a Six Flags and a Paramount park both within an hour from my house?

Bob O

03-14-2002, 02:29 PM

Putting in a couple of coasters in the park would be what Universal has now. They only have 2 Coasters in their parks, 3 if you count the kiddie coaster (and maybe 4 if you count DD as two separate rides). So disney isnt far behind in quantity but they are far behind in quality of the coasters, Magic Kingdom has 2 coasters itself. I think the younger generation as they grow up will not be impressed with alot of the rides disney has, they will seem to them outdated. But with the new technology of rides such as spiderman/flying/mib coasters etc their is alot out there for disney to work with and do a better job at than other parks but apparently they dont care to do so at their own peril!
I think disney has to work at getting the teenage crowd interested in their parks because when they become adults you cant assume that they will all of a sudden fall in love with disney when there is little connection now. I believe in the family concept but thats no reason disney cant have world class thrill rides or more adult type shows for a younger/thrill orientated crowd.

raidermatt

03-14-2002, 03:14 PM

I think disney has to work at getting the teenage crowd interested in their parks because when they become adults you cant assume that they will all of a sudden fall in love with disney when there is little connection now.

I really do understand the point, I'm just saying that this is an old issue for Disney. And unfortunately, its very difficult to go after the big thrill-seekers without alienating the families that are the heart of Disney's guests. Take Rock n Roller Coaster for example. Some would argue that it is TOO thrill-oriented for Disney, but I think its still tame enough that many families will still enjoy it. If they replace it with a monster coaster though, many more families would not want anything to do with it. They would rather the money be spent on a ride they can all enjoy.

I do hear you, Bob, I love coasters too. But not at the expense of spending time with my family in the parks. I'd rather have a new dark ride, parades/fireworks, etc. These things can still be technologically advanced.

Again, I'd be more receptive to a 5th gate that housed most of the big thrill stuff.

larworth

03-14-2002, 03:20 PM

I have a feeling this thread is not in Reedy Creek anymore

Universal definitely has a different target audience. “Not that there is anything wrong with that”, it is just different. Most of their rides are geared towards an older audience. Seems pretty logical for them to try to serve a different niche/genre, rather than taking Disney head on.

Is Disney really short on thrill rides? I guess it all depends on ones definition.

Disney US/IOA

Splash - Jurassic
RnR --- Hulk *
Space - Dueling *
ToT ---- Dr Doom
Kali ---- Popeye *
StarWars - BTTF *
BodyWars
TestTrack - Dudley
Dinosaur
BTMRR
Mission Space

For this list the average is about the same (4 per park). Now, several of the US offerings are kicked up a notch (*) over their Disney counterparts and maybe this is the biggest difference.

Planogirl

03-15-2002, 01:33 AM

Universal appeals to an older crowd? My son is just 9 so if he is representative then Universal appeals to anyone 9 and up?

Don't get me wrong because I don't like most roller coasters. The RnR Coaster is about as wild as I get. But I've done research on Universal and there seems to be very few coasters in those parks. So we can go to Universal for a few days, Sea World for one day, the Space Center for another day, maybe revisit Gatorland and Cypress Gardens for old times sakes, visit the beach (oh yes, the beach :rolleyes: ) and maybe Disney too. And Disney doesn't have competition? I haven't even mentioned the very wonderful Busch Gardens.

None of them match up to Disney right now primarily because of this Disney "magic" we seem to have so much trouble describing. If the magic fades then the others come closer particularly for the less devoted. That's what worries me. :(

Captain Crook

03-15-2002, 07:35 AM

Planogirl, look at the numbers. I recently looked over some recent trip reports and it seems US/IOA isn't too full (and still offering that bogus FOTL promo - that should tell you something). SeaWorld & Bush Gardens are still offering year round return entrance for 49.95 (a one day admission - What does that tell you about their crowds?). SeaWorld is a GREAT park, but hard to enjoy more than once every couple of years, IMO. Busch is a hodgepodge & their last attempt at 'stardom', 'Rhinorally' has been nothing but a headache and an unkept promise.

US/IOA...I can't for the life of me see how you could "spend a few days" there. As for your 9 year old liking IOA better, well, of course there are exceptions to the rule...I have told you about my "tweener" who MUCH prefers WDW to IOA...The opposite exception, perhaps...

As you mentioned, none of these Parks comes close to the Disney ambiance and the gap isn't thinning, IMO. To be sure, Disney (even the Parks) do have problems but the return of some of the things taken away is a great step forward (another thread). But the fact that the other guys are still forced to offer huge discounts and absurd offers shows how desperate they are to try and tap any percentage of the Disney market.

Note: I call FOTL "absurd" because it's a stop-gap measure only. Any true, sustained success of the Hotels and Parks will result in the elimination of this perq.
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

All Aboard

03-15-2002, 10:32 AM

The thrill-factor comparison can be viewed another way. How many attractions have height limitations and how tall are those restrictions?

People under 54" can ride everything at WDW but are restricted from 2 attractions at UO

Under 52" still can ride everything at WDW but are out of 3 at UO.

Under 48" - WDW 1, UO 3

Under 44" - WDW 3 - UO 4

Under 42" - WDW 3 - UO 7

The thrill attractions at UO are generally more restricitive than at WDW. The majority of attractions at WDW that have height restrictions are capped at 40" (Dinosaur, Splash, Big Thunder, Tower, Star Tours, Body Wars). This seems to be an indication that the thrill attractions at UO are more "thrilling" than those at WDW and are designed to restrict more younger guests from experiencing them. That's the tradeoff.

Of course, the list of attractions that CAN be experienced by the younger guests is much larger for WDW than UO. Simply because 1) there are 4 parks v. 3 and 2) Magic Kingdom has SO many attractions.

Capturing that age 9-18 market segment has been difficult for WDW for quite some time. From my perspective, capturing the "family" market is a far smarter strategy. The breadth and depth of WDW offerings make it the destination in Central Florida. WDW is going to lose a day or two to other parks for a PORTION of its guests, not nearly all of them.

The guests at USF/IOA are distinctly different than those at WDW. Far more locals and far more American teens without adults. But these are not the big ticket guests. These are not the guests paying $200 - $300 a night for accomdations. True, UO has added on-site resorts. But the the total number of rooms in all three of their resorts is fewer than Port Orleans (RS & FQ).

UO is certainly competition, but not a major threat to WDW. One tell-tale sign comes when the rain starts to fall. Suddenly, 100's of bright yellow ponchos adorned with Mickey are strolling around IOA. Seems the Mouse is still the king of Central Florida.

raidermatt

03-15-2002, 12:19 PM

scoop- Thanks.... I knew I should have went the consulting route...:D

gcurling's comparison is exactly what I am talking about. I was just too lazy to actually count the rides. This comparison shows my family has to split up on far more rides in two parks at Universal than we do in 4 parks at WDW. Also, gcurling's point about the more restrictive rides being at Universal impacts my wife, as she will do tamer thrill rides, but not the harsher ones.

Yes, there are exceptions to the rule, but its clear Disney has a strategy in mind and it has served them well. Especially when one considers gcurlings point about spending on accomodations, and I'm sure it applies to merchandise, food, etc.

Bob O

03-15-2002, 02:00 PM

I think people understimate Universal and have to realize that they havent been around as long as disney has, they have room to grow and also have a good amount of movies to use to create rides/attractions in the future and their live action segment has outshone disney who apparently think so little of their live action movies that i cant think of a new/recentactionmovie they have converted into a attraction. Their was talk of doing something based on Amraggadeon but that apparently has fallen thru.
These kids who are 9 thru 18 yrs old will grow up and i dont think you can assume they are always going to go to disney as much as we have. They will have their own childhood memories and if they have better memories/more recent ones at Universal that can cut into the amount of days they stay at either site, escpecially when Universal does decide to build a 3rd park.
I can easily spend several days at Universal, as easily sometimes as at wdw. Disney's great attractions are top notch but so many have gone stagnat and are in need of replacement but there is little indication its going to happen.

Conure

03-15-2002, 02:13 PM

Well, after reading some posts, I think the general problem is that Disney has spent so many years of exceding expectations, that now when they simply try to meet them, many Disney fans don't think it is enough. So, actually, years of topping expectations has lead more people to have more lofty standards, so I believe Disney should strive to excede those, because that is what has made so many people enjoy Disney.

All Aboard

03-15-2002, 02:14 PM

BobO says:
These kids who are 9 thru 18 yrs old will grow up and i dont think you can assume they are always going to go to disney as much as we have. They will have their own childhood memories and if they have better memories/more recent ones at Universal I grew up in Virginia. I spent far more time during my teens at Busch Gardens and Kings Dominion than I did at WDW. I loved those parks because I wanted maximum thrills and had general disregard for the qualities of "magic". Even as a young adult living in North Florida when USF opened, I tended to go there quite a bit (even compared to WDW) because of the more adult orientation.

Now, as a father with a family of his own, most of our vacation dollars are spent at WDW. It's the place that gives us the most family fun. Not only because of past memories, but it's ability to deliver today.

Disney's great attractions are top notch but so many have gone stagnat and are in need of replacement OK, I'd really like to see a list. Just which stagnant attractions do think need to be replaced?

Conure

03-15-2002, 02:26 PM

Bob O,
You can't possibly think kids think Disney World is boring in contrast to Universal. For your proof, I am twelve years old! I love Disney and would rather spend a vacation there than at Universal. If I wanted "exciting" stuff, I would go to the thrill ride dominated small-scale theme park about 1 hour away from my house. It's a well-known falsehood to me, because right off the top of my head two of my friends who are both going to Orlando in April and are going to spend time in Disney World. I also have many friends who prefer Disney World over any other park, and love going there. Enough with the stereotypes and think about what you're saying.

Bob O

03-15-2002, 02:37 PM

Gcurling i love the magic but also love the thrills so i go to the type of parks you mentioned where i love the thrill rides. But theirs no reason disney cant make thrill lovers and magic lovers happy. People talk of Universal as being thrill parks but they dont have that many more thrill attractions than disney, they are just superior. Disney in Magic Kingdom makes a buzz ride which is ok, but done on the cheap using the same bldg etc. While Universal makes a great attrzction like MIB, not on the cheap and using the latest in technology which is something disney was known for at one time.
Thinking off the top of my head of outdated rides(wont count attractions that have been removed and not replace)
MK -Tiki Room/Country Bears/COP
Epcot-Universe of Energy/Living Seas/Most of the films in the countries(most are orginal)/Body Wars/JIYI(not old/just bad!)
MGM-Star Tours/Indiana Jones/Back Stage Tour/Canyon ride/Animation film W/Walter Cronkite
AK nothing is old but only a half day park.
Their may be more but those come to mind off the topf of my head.
Conure I think you are right!!!! Disney has exceeded expectations in the past, i think Universal has been the park to come up with innovative rides/attractions that disney used to do but is content to rest on their laurels. My fear is disney doesnt want to push the envelope due to cheapness and believes we will come back so they are content to take us for granted.t

All Aboard

03-15-2002, 02:43 PM

Disney in Magic Kingdom makes a buzz ride which is ok, but done on the cheap using the same bldg etc. While Universal makes a great attrzction like MIB, Bob, you've selected a perfect example here. MIB has a minimum height requirement greater than that of Tower of Terror and Test Track, plus it scares the willies out of alot of kids. Buzz on the other hand is an attraction that virtually every single member of the family can enjoy together, and is every bit as popular as MIB. In fact, had longer queues than MIB the last couple of times I was at both parks.

Bob O

03-15-2002, 02:51 PM

My daughter who was 4 when we last went to both parks much perferred MIB to Buzz even though she likes Buzz. The movement of the ride was alot more fun for her. Disney could have made Buzz from scratch by tearing down the building and starting new but did it on the cheap by using same type of ride mechanism. When ive been to both parks MIB was alot busier but with FOTL it was great to ride it numerous times to try to best your score. I guess everybody will have their own perferences but i see Universal as trying to create new experinces while disney is satisfied with getting by. As a example TDS gets a pooh ride that is new while we get a pooh ride thats runs on the same track with cutouts and a bigger store.

All Aboard

03-15-2002, 04:36 PM

Disney likely could not have torn down the Dreamflight Building and started from scratch. Certainly not without shutting down and rebuilding a portion of TTA, destroying the CircleVision 360 theater and making Tomorrowland look horrible for a period of time.

Universal built a new structure for MIB, true. They did not for Twister. Why not? Simple, they made efficient use of an existing structure. Same for Hanna Barbera.

WDW built a new structure for RnR because it made sense. They tore down Horizons to build Space from scratch. They retained the World of Motion building and adapted Test Track to it. It's on a case by case basis. Personally, I don't want them to start ripping out existing MK structures to make room for more technologically advanced attractions. Many show buildings are shared by 3 or 4 attractions, it's just not feasible.

Conure

03-15-2002, 05:42 PM

I agree with gcurling. Every time Disney creates a new attraction it can't rebuild from scratch. They need to find an efficient and consistant way of doing that with minimum wait time. (have they?) Anyway, it's a lot nicer to not have something ripped up and a lot closed.

raidermatt

03-15-2002, 07:01 PM

Bob, without getting into a debate about whether Tiki Room and CBJ are outdated, you have to acknowledge that many people would be very upset if these were closed. And, if they were replaced with a "height requirement" ride, families have been alienated.

We're going to WDW for 2 weeks and will be spending one day at Universal. MIB was something I wanted to try, but if its got a height requirement of anything over 40", I'll most likely be skipping it.

I do agree with a couple of your attractions on your list, Star Tours and the Living Seas. But absolutely disagree on Universe of Energy. Ellen maybe outdated, but one does not have to know anything about Ellen to get the show. And the remainder of the ride/show is fun without scaring 90% of the little ones.

JIYI- Not really fair to crack down on this one, since it hasn't re-opened yet.

Really, most of the stuff you named is not outdated, its just relatively tame.

Again, I agree on the need for innovation, but still have to disagree on the move towards more thrills. Its just not what Disney has built itself on. "WOW!", does not have to become "WOW! AHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!"

hopemax

03-15-2002, 07:28 PM

Bob, without getting into a debate about whether Tiki Room and CBJ are outdated, you have to acknowledge that many people would be very upset if these were closed. And, if they were replaced with a "height requirement" ride, families have been alienated.

See this is what gets me about the WoM -->Test Track, Horizons -->Mission, Space conversions. 2 non-requirement rides were replaced with ones with requirements. And it's just not height requirements, but physical requirements. There are a lot of people out there with back problems who probably shouldn't be riding some of the more thrilling rides but don't want to miss out on all the good Disney attractions or separate from their other family members. Some of those people get hurt, and then some of them file complaints, reports, hire lawyers. I just wonder if the need to put your body at risk would be lessened if there were a few more high-quality, signature rides like HM that are ridable by everyone regardless of height or physical condition.

Conure

03-15-2002, 07:28 PM

A lot of the stuff that sets Disney aprt is the focus on family. take that away and there's really no difference between it and just another cheap carnival ride. I completely agree that "height requirement" rides should be minimum. The family focus is what has kept Disney from being overpassed entirely by Universal.

daannzzz

03-15-2002, 08:04 PM

I thought IOA was a great start to a new park. I only stayed until 3:00 P.M. though as I ran out of stuff to do. I didn't hit the 3 coasters or Dr. Dooms. What they need there are a few more attractions like Cat in the Hat, Jurrasic park ( maybe a little longer in the show scene department) and such. Spiderman is awesome but almost the limit on my motion sickness scale. Jurassic Park and Dudely are both fine. If they add more etreme thrill rides though, without adding other major attractions they will loose me as a guest. Give me rides with lots of visuals!!!

Bob O

03-15-2002, 11:49 PM

No disney didnt have to tear down the building but they could have gutted the interior and did something from scratch rather than use the old ride mech. which severly limits what the ride can offer in the way of being interactive.(Buzz Ride)
I think Hanna barbera was always the way it was, i remember riding it when the park was very new.
Raidermatt no matter what you do people will be upset, thats just a fact of life. We have people complaining about World Of Motion being gone when it was replaced(imho) by a superior attraction. If you worry about complaints you would never have progress!!I wasnt commenting on the new JIYI, the old one that was inferior to the ride it replaced. I like Universe of Energy, hate the ellen portion but EVERBODY else in my family dislikes it so i ride it by myself, the dinosaur part is great but the rest is dated IMHO.

Hopemax i would love more rides like HM/POC but disney isnt into making those type of rides anymore. Regarding lawsuits that will happen no matter what ride is built. Didnt somebody step off Its a Small World(or was it POC) last year and sue, with our current culture being sued will happen no matter what the ride and how badly the patron behaves and causes their own injury.