So, who has led since Eisner....and do we like him/her? [Archive] - The DIS Discussion Forums

~Kik-Kik~

08-08-2008, 11:16 PM

Park wise, I'm not too sure. At this very moment in time I am not too happy, but with what Lasseter has said about the future of the parks and the rumored coming attractions in Shanghai Disneyland I would be happy.

Right now they are putting all their time, money and energy in WDW in Pixar and things like resorts, DTD, ect... They aren't putting enough focus on the Disney aspect of Walt DISNEY World. At this point I just with they opened a 5th gate and shoved all the Pixar rides in there because they are taking away the magical feel the parks had and they just keep popping up!

I don't mind Pixar in the parks if it's done right, but they are just whoring (selling them selves, couldn't think of a better word, sorry) Pixar to sell merchandise.
-TSM in DCA fits in flawlessly, PP is theamed to Midway games.
-A Bugs Life in the tree of ife fits.
-If Tomorrowland got WALLE, great! I think it would fit in great.
-Woody, Jessie and Bullseye in Westernland in Shanghai Disneyland is great.
-Nemo's Subs is an amazing way to bring a dead attraction from the grave too.
-Buzz in Tomorrowland, which in theory could be pushing it too far, fits in tomorrowland amazingly!
It's Monsters in Tomorrowland, Nemo in the future of the Seas, Toy Story and Monsters in a backlot, Race Cars on a basic road in Tomorrowland and a Nemo Musical in AK that get me upset. In the later why no use the stage for an actual Disney musical about the Jungle and it's animals (The Jungle Book)? I say if it fits in like it was there for years, give it the ride. If you are grasping for ideas just to put something in, dont bother or MAKE it's own place in a park where it would fit. I personally think TSM should have gone in Frontierland and a Nemo ride in an expansion to Fantasyland (if a Little Mermaid ride was included in the expansion). But whatever, they see money, and though we all see what could be they dont.

On to what I do like, Lasseter has said that in the future rides and attractions will be built in time for that movie's release. This to me is a HUGE step forward in so many ways. If the movie flops or just does ok, but the ride is amazing for instance this could make them take risks like the did with Haunted Mansion, Small World, Jungle Cruise and Pirates. I believe this would start with Rapunzel, which comes out in 2012. And on the other side, it the ride flops(ala The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh at DLC) at least they took that step forward and took a risk, hopefully they will devlop on the huge ammount of land right behind Fantasyland and extend the whole land with The Little Mermaid Dark Ride, Repunzel's Tower and whatever else will fit in well.

I see the parks going into more and more Pixar, untill Disney proves that it can in fact make relevant movies with The Princess and the Frog and Rapunzel (the later imo will be like Aladdin, romantic, but funny). Then I think Disney will get back on the REAL Disney train, and stop with the whoring of Pixar. I would love to see Pixar get it's own park in WDW in the future. Wether DHS is converted into DPS, or it's the 5th gate it will be a great addition.

ChrisFL

08-09-2008, 12:10 AM

Iger did NOT have to buy Pixar and made a devastatingly poor decision in doing so. Disney was doing, let's say "pretty well" with such little films as The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King. Then they stopped altogether when Pixar came along. I don't see any theatrical shows based upon Pixar films, but I do see all of them based on their traditional animation. There was no reason why Iger couldn't have gone back to what made Disney famous in the late 80s. Eisner's decision was to let go of Pixar, realizing they were not worth the money or the headache on the executive board. Iger's decision was to abandon traditional Disney animation and dump $8 billion on a company whose entire roster has made half - that's right - half the total dollar amount of the traditional animated films Disney made prior.

I love Pixar as much as anyone. I think they can do no wrong. But they weren't worth $8 billion - a bill Disney will be paying off for the next ten years. I've heard Lasseter say he will bring back traditional Disney animation. That was years ago, with plenty of time to churn out the promise. What are we waiting for? The Princess and the Frog? Uh, no. Live up to the promise.

Bad decision by Iger. But hey, that's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. I'd just hate to work at Disney, knowing we'd given up on ourselves and outsourced our very own heartbeat.

I do recall the story of Iger watching a Disney parade and saying he saw nothing indicative of Disney's talents from the past ten years. It was then that he decided to join Team Pixar. What he should have done was march right into Disney Animation and flick on the light switch.

Finding Nemo has a theatrical show (if that's what you're referring to) and Disney didn't stop making traditional animation, they stopped making GOOD traditional animation. And until The Princess and the Frog comes out, who knows how good it will be.

Sure Iger could have turned away Pixar and then been in competition with them and Dreamworks and Fox animation every year but that doesn't sound like the best idea to me. Pixar has become a big name in a short time.

DisneyFanatic1072

08-09-2008, 01:00 AM

My 2 cents on the topic.

I feel that Disney has lost some of it's traditional magic for 2 reasons, one is cost. I think the cost of exceptional service has skyrocketed in the past 10 years, the economy is to blame for the most part. With the "family" being broken up more and more 2 earner incomes, the kids that make up most of Disney's staff have become lazier and lazier, yet want more and more money for doing less work. Disney confronts this with a high turnover rate for employees, which costs more money... and the cycle continues. Also i think Disney doesn't need the WOW factor as much anymore as people look to a vacation as a get-away from work, and not so much taking time with the family anymore.

Secondly,
We are arriving at a age when people do not remember anything at all about Walt Disney, or his early works in movies and T.V. The whole "It started with a mouse" era is starting to fade. I am in my mid 30's and can barley remember Disney on T.V. as for the generations that follow me, there is not much to spark a memory or anything out there to get kids to do some history on a amazing man and his dreams.

I personally am trying to keep Walt's dream alive for my kids, but everyday that dream get's a bit more disolved.

DancingBear

08-09-2008, 07:09 AM

Disney was doing, let's say "pretty well" with such little films as The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King. Then they stopped altogether when Pixar came along.As said above, they didn't stop making films, they stopped making good ones, and they killed the feature animation department with stupid decisions.

I don't see any theatrical shows based upon Pixar films, but I do see all of them based on their traditional animation.So what?

There was no reason why Iger couldn't have gone back to what made Disney famous in the late 80s.Yeah, no reason except that Eisner had shut down facilities, outsourced, driven away talent, allowed Pixar to become the mecca for animation creativity, and chased Katzenberg away to create a second credible alternative. Disney was THE place for animation talent to go, and they chased it away (including Lasseter).

Eisner's decision was to let go of Pixar, realizing they were not worth the money or the headache on the executive board.Too bad he was making that decision at the same time he was decimating Disney's feature animation and helping build Pixar.

Iger's decision was to abandon traditional Disney animation and dump $8 billion on a company whose entire roster has made half - that's right - half the total dollar amount of the traditional animated films Disney made prior.That's a meaningless statistic. In any event, it's not the $8 billion that's ruining the company.

I love Pixar as much as anyone. I think they can do no wrong. But they weren't worth $8 billion - a bill Disney will be paying off for the next ten years. I've heard Lasseter say he will bring back traditional Disney animation. That was years ago, with plenty of time to churn out the promise. What are we waiting for? The Princess and the Frog? Uh, no. Live up to the promise.I'm waiting also. But given the sorry state that Disney was in, the competition for talent that Disney is in (and Eisner allowed to develop), and the lead time for creating an animated feature (how long have they been working on Rapunzel?), I wouldn't yet say he's had "plenty of time."

deej696

08-09-2008, 08:51 AM

OK, so your last line says it all...as long as your Disney stock is in an upward motion, you don't care what happens at the parks. :confused3

Its not that I dont care what happens, its that what other way is there to determine success? Disney is a company, one that is required by shareholders to make a profit. How else are we to guage success? Can you put a number on "How 'Disney' the parks feel these days," because I cant. And I dont think in Igers contract it says, "We reserve the right to fire you if you arent Disney enough."

My point was that anytime there is change people throw up there hands and say "Thats it! WDW is going to pot and I'm not going back." There is another thread about this and I used the examples of MGM, Pleasure Island, and the huge expansion into hotels. Back then I'm sure people said Disney was losing its way. That MGM was a copy of Universal. That no one would want to go to a night club at Disney. That Disney didnt need more hotels. All those decisions turned out to be good ones.

So again I say, until people stop going to the parks and my share price is effected as a result, then I'll just flow with the winds of change. Even if I am not a huge fan of them myself.....

rantnnravin

08-09-2008, 09:40 AM

Sure, there are profits- but you have to ask why.
For the most part, it's because the "sharp-pencil guys" have been whittling away at the product quality over the past several years. Will crowds still be willing to pay Disney prices for six flags amenities? That is where they are headed.
and as for the Pixar thing- DB put it better than I ever could. Eisner decimated the animation department- the core of the company. All of the quality animators were fired/driven away. The current Disney cannot [read: will not] afford to win them back from other studios. Eisner lost Pixar not because he didn't feel they weren't worth the money. He lost them because his own over-inflated ego could not contend with the creative genius (and similarly - but justifiably - inflated ego) of Steve Jobs.
When all is said and done, Disney as we know it will become no more than the facades we see at DHS- and when was the last time you spent a substantial amount of time and money on the "Streets of America"?
Then there will be nothing left pare down to show a profit - except the pieces. You know- like when a clothing store goes out of business and sells the racks?
Iger doesn't understand that sometimes you need to shrug off the sharp-pencil guys and create the quality product the right way. You know, like "spending a million dollars on a castle-spire you don't need, then in the end realizing that you needed it all along"? People will be far more willing to pay first class prices for first class experience.

DancingBear

08-10-2008, 08:08 AM

My point was that anytime there is change people throw up there hands and say "Thats it! WDW is going to pot and I'm not going back." There is another thread about this and I used the examples of MGM, Pleasure Island, and the huge expansion into hotels. Back then I'm sure people said Disney was losing its way. That MGM was a copy of Universal. That no one would want to go to a night club at Disney. That Disney didnt need more hotels. All those decisions turned out to be good ones.Really? You sure about that?

The Studio is the messiest park on the property--the fact that it was rushed out really shows. There is no logic to the layout. Three of the big attractions at its opening were the backlot tour, which is a shadow its former self, the Great Movie Ride, which was never updated and now never draws a line, and the Animation studios, which really died when they fired all of the actual animators. Disney never put enough actual production at the Studios to make the connection meaningful. A major attraction right off of the hub has been empty for a long time, and thanks largely to Eisner's ego clashing with George Lucas we've never gotten an update to Star Tours.

Pleasure Island is a memory.

The second half of Pop Century is rotting away. Eisner's attempt at upscale hotelry was such a failure that they've effectively sold off a big chunk of Walt's land to Four Seasons.

DancingBear

08-10-2008, 08:24 AM

Its not that I dont care what happens, its that what other way is there to determine success? Disney is a company, one that is required by shareholders to make a profit. How else are we to guage success? Can you put a number on "How 'Disney' the parks feel these days," because I cant. And I dont think in Igers contract it says, "We reserve the right to fire you if you arent Disney enough."....So again I say, until people stop going to the parks and my share price is effected as a result, then I'll just flow with the winds of change. Even if I am not a huge fan of them myself.....What I'd be worrying about as a stockholder is that what Eisner largely did was to exploit all of the "magic" created by the "true Disney" and then destroy the elements of the Company that created that magic (feature animation and Imagineering). The marketing campaigns seek to evoke the sentimental emotional connection folks have with Disney from their childhoods, but they're undermining the elements of the Company that created that connection. A-V can say this much better than I, but the "magic" didn't just happen, it was the creation of people. And management hasn't valued that.

I don't think Iger really gets it, but he showed a glimpse of understanding the long-term problem for the Company in his moment watching the parade and realizing that Disney hadn't created a memorable character in a decade.

The issue is not with any individual decision, but with the whole Philosophy. For example, merchandise has become standard throughout the parks, and between the sections of the parks. I'm sure this makes perfect sense in terms of lowering costs, and they're all slapping themselves on the back for the profits. What they don't realize, however, is that the original merchandising scheme, where the shops carried out the themes of where they were located, was part of an overall Show, and contributed to the "magic". At some point, long term you pay a price for that.

deej696

08-10-2008, 07:18 PM

mitros

08-10-2008, 07:26 PM

deej696

08-10-2008, 07:30 PM

And I also must state that a goodly number of those millions have been "dumbed down" by the "dumbing down" of the resorts and parks by the Corporation.
Of course, I would not include anyone here on disboards to be a part of those "dumbed down" millions..............................;) {To quote Rodney Danderfield in Caddyshack,: What, do you get a bowl of soup with that hat?, Oh, but it looks good on you though" :goodvibes

And yet, I have never heard a clearly wise Diser say they are no longer going to go to WDW as a result of the "Dumbing Down" either....;)

Condorman

08-10-2008, 07:59 PM

Personally, I will continue to go to WDW in spite of the myriad changes that occur each year. However, the breaking point is nearing. For example, when we first started going in 2004 we did MVMCP. There were few people in the park and it was a special experience. They rumored at the time, and still do, that only 20,000 tickets are sold. I think that's BS. I don't care if they set up those signs outside that say it is "sold out". I think they sell tickets until the party is over. I've seen it more crowded on a MVMCP night than a Saturday afternoon in July.

And don't get me started on the DDP. They've stripped away the quality and make you pay more for less.

On these boards, I take away the impression that most of us truly like Disney and particularly the parks. We "get it" whereas others don't. But we also like to fantasize about what could be done better, and that's why we read and post to the Rumors Board. I will continue to visit WDW because it's a no-brainer vacation where, from the moment I step off the plane, everything is taken of for me. But the MVMCP and the DDP are coming to an end for me. I'm a kid at heart but I'm also nobody's fool, and Disney doesn't wield enough magic to put a spell on my sensibility.

mitros

08-10-2008, 08:03 PM

And yet, I have never heard a clearly wise Diser say they are no longer going to go to WDW as a result of the "Dumbing Down" either....;)

OK, while we have NOT YET said "we won't go anymore" we have cut way back on our number of visits................

wdw4us2

08-10-2008, 08:25 PM

The issue is not with any individual decision, but with the whole Philosophy. For example, merchandise has become standard throughout the parks, and between the sections of the parks. I'm sure this makes perfect sense in terms of lowering costs, and they're all slapping themselves on the back for the profits. What they don't realize, however, is that the original merchandising scheme, where the shops carried out the themes of where they were located, was part of an overall Show, and contributed to the "magic". At some point, long term you pay a price for that.

This is the reason why we don't buy souvenirs anymore. There is nothing unique about what's offerred, especially when you can usually find the same items at your local Wal-Mart.:sad2:

ChrisFL

08-10-2008, 08:40 PM

The issue is not with any individual decision, but with the whole Philosophy. For example, merchandise has become standard throughout the parks, and between the sections of the parks. I'm sure this makes perfect sense in terms of lowering costs, and they're all slapping themselves on the back for the profits. What they don't realize, however, is that the original merchandising scheme, where the shops carried out the themes of where they were located, was part of an overall Show, and contributed to the "magic". At some point, long term you pay a price for that.

Agreed, finding Pirates and Hanna Montana merchandise in Future World at Epcot still doesn't sit well with me.

Honestly it doesn't make as much sense either. I would think that people would be more willing to buy at the moment they're at the location... when they think they don't have a chance to find that item again. I guess I'm wrong.

rantnnravin

08-10-2008, 10:22 PM

All valid points, but I still stand by mine. The Disney of my generation is not the Disney of my parents, and my children's Disney will not be the same as mine. Many could argue that the expansion of the 80's was a change in Philosophy, and I think we turned out ok. Clearly WDW is no less popular today than it was in the early days when the "Philosophy" you speak of was intact.

What defines the "True Disney" is up to the guest in my opinion, and they are flocking in by the millions.

good answer....here's your snowglobe.

Popularity is built on reputation. Just because more people nowadays have heard of and have the opportunity to experience WALT DISNEY World, doesn't mean that it is better than it was. It was the attention to detail, the performing beyond GUEST (not stockholder) expectations and commitment to quality (Mr. Disney would never agree to put his name on anything that did not uphold the highest quality standards - that is no longer true) that built the reputation that made WALT DISNEY World popular. When tptb consistently put forth a mediocre product, those who come will shrug and say, "we should've stayed home and saved the money and gone to Six Flags New Jersey" and when others ask them how their trip was they'll give that same review. They will not line their curio cabinets with trinkets that can be bought 80% cheaper at the K-mart down the road. Their house guests will not see mementos of their family vacation at WDW and the popularity will fade. They talk about magic and hawk pretty pictures of the family with tinkerbell photoshopped in - but they no longer MAKE any magic (not in the movies, not at WDW). When the customers - can't call us guests anymore because we are literally (and figuratively) treated like cattle - aren't made to feel special or valued, there is no reason to return.

You are right, there is no emotional connection with the Disney Corporation as there once was with Walt Disney. I'm a fan because I have that connection. My daughter is a fan because I share that connection with her - but she has no way to connect with this homogenized incarnation of the company, so it is unlikely that her children will be very interested in the dime-a-dozen-timeshare-waste-land in central Florida. So what if they sell the castle spire to thee highest bidder - the stockholders get dividends this quarter.:3dglasses As a fan, I can't abide that view.

DancingBear

08-11-2008, 06:14 AM

The Disney of my generation is not the Disney of my parents, and my children's Disney will not be the same as mine.The Disney of your generation was built on the Disney of your parents. Disney had a sterling reputation for quality Show, remarkable service, family-friendliness, as THE unquestioned leader in feature animation. What will the Disney of your grandchildren be built on?

LITTLEKID58

08-11-2008, 12:10 PM

Wow did not think about it that way.. TFS

disneyfan67

08-11-2008, 01:50 PM

The Disney of your generation was built on the Disney of your parents. Disney had a sterling reputation for quality Show, remarkable service, family-friendliness, as THE unquestioned leader in feature animation. What will the Disney of your grandchildren be built on?

Wow! Very good point and I hadn't thought of it that way either.

DisFlan

08-11-2008, 04:34 PM

When you stepped on WDW property 20 to 25 years ago, you knew you were in for a magical, white-glove experience - and that you were VERY unlikely to confront anything that would break the magic spell during the whole trip - no matter where you stayed, what you ate or what you did. You didn't need a plethora of mega discussion boards and paid Disney sites to explain the minutia of the best way to maybe get at least a small piece of that magic. That feeling of going and expecting a special cocooned environment lined with pixie dust hasn't existed in well over a decade. I miss it and I've always blamed Eisner - he may have "saved" Disney early on, but I've never cared for how he did it and he stayed way too long. Iger has been only a marginal improvement - or at least not as bad.

The first time we visited the Studios, we knew something had seriously changed. The whole place was jarring compared to what we had come to expect of Disney. When we began finding too many CM's who were less concerned with "guest experience" and great service than in the past; when we became swamped with souvenir/commercial overload in too many shops, we knew the old WDW was gone. It didn't matter what was built or added from that point onward. Goofy, Donald and Cinderella were no longer characters aimed at enhancing the magic, they became sales vehicles for an abundance of junk and mediocre character meals. Walt's original corporate mindset had changed - and has never changed for the better.

We still visit WDW not because we like all the changes - we go because it's still better than anything else out there. In spite of the overpriced, blanded food and less-than-deluxe resorts, we still enjoy much of it and find corners of the old magic here and there - and we want to grab it before it's gone, too. When we're gone and fewer people remember what the original magic COULD be like, it'll be far beyond saving. It probably already is.

DisFlan

proteus

08-14-2008, 11:24 AM

From what I hear on the restaurant boards the quality of food is dropping since Eisner left.

DisFlan

08-14-2008, 11:37 AM

From what I hear on the restaurant boards the quality of food is dropping since Eisner left.

The food was up and down while Eisner was there, too. The control of food quality is more local to the problem. Maybe Iger should pay more attention to it, but I don't think he keeps close track of it. He mostly looks at the bottom line.

DisFlan

DVC-Landbaron

08-14-2008, 01:54 PM

The Disney of your generation was built on the Disney of your parents. Disney had a sterling reputation for quality Show, remarkable service, family-friendliness, as THE unquestioned leader in feature animation. What will the Disney of your grandchildren be built on?

What a beautiful paragraph!!! Thanks you for saying it. And it didn't take you four or five pages to do it either!!

GOOD JOB!!!

rutgers1

08-17-2008, 01:42 PM

I keep reading this trying to buy into what you are all saying, but I just can't do it. If you are arguing that things can be better, I am all for that. We all hold Disney to a higher standard because Disney has held itself to a higher standard. But this is nothing new. I remember going there when I was in 7th grade and my father saying that the park wasn't as clean as it used to be. For as long as Disney has been operating a park, people have been saying, "It ain't what it used to be."

So, what are we lamenting? Prior to Epcot, we had Magic Kingdom, which was being slammed by some because it was too similar to Disney Land. Then we had Epcot, which was slammed by just about everyone for being...well, for not being what it was supposed to be. That was over 25 years ago, and the complaints were coming fast and furious. Just as people started to see the magic in Epcot, they had MGM Studios to complain about, and then Animal Kingdom. All I know is that, when I was a kid, the only things I recall at Disney were the Magic Kingdom and two hotels - the Contemporary and Polynesian. I didn't like the Contemporary from the start, and the Polynesian wasn't my cup of tea. It was pretty clear that our days of going to Disney would be over upon my entry into the teen years, as there was nothing to satisfy me beyond Space Mountain.

So, what were my family's complaints back then?
1) lack of hotels
2) lack of dining options
3) not enough interaction with characters
4) lack of stuff to do for teens
5) lack of stuff to do for adults (Yes, many adults DO like to shop.)
6) lack of stuff to do once you get your fill of Magic Kingdom

Fast forward 25 years, and there are hotels galore, many with truly unique theming. If you don't like one, try another. If you want to feel even closer to the parks, you can buy into the Disney Vacation Club (which I just did). If you don't like Hollywood Studios, get your park hopper pass, go on the rides that you do like, and head back over to Magic Kingdom. Hop around till your heart's content. If you don't want to eat at your hotel, make reservations at any of the unique dining options all around Disney - and there ARE great options. We totally loved our first experience at Whispering Canyons this year. And while I had a tough time finding characters 25 years ago, we not only saw a bunch of them in Toon Town this year, but we also had two or three dining experiences with the characters. As for rides, there are truly enough of them to keep my family happy for at least a week. In fact, next year, we are going to spend THREE weeks in Disney, and I am sure that I will still miss a few favorites along the way. They might not all be in the same park, but if you don't mind traveling a bit, you can have an incredible experience, regardless of age. My parents came with us this past trip, and they thoroughly enjoyed walking around Epcot and Downtown Disney, eating out, and spending time at Fort Wilderness (which is a great campground). Although I haven't gone on the cruise line, I think that was a great idea, too. From what I understand, contrary to what some say on this board, it is more than just a regular cruise ship slapped with a Mickey logo.

I also don't buy the argument that the new attractions lack imagination. We loved the Everest coaster. In fact, we went on it so many times one night that I almost had to take the next day off. The theming was there, and it was definitely not your run-of-the-mill Six Flags coaster. Everest, Dinosaur, Buzz Lightyear, Philharmagic, are just some of the rides that, in my mind, would be well-received by Walt and truly add to the Disney experience.

Can it be better? Sure. But until I see a plan that is truly better, I will side with the folks at Disney.

epaddon

08-17-2008, 02:37 PM

Rutgers, I don't know about you but I'm one of those kids who went to WDW a dozen times between 75 and 93 (the last year it was possible to still feel the old WDW magic IMO) and I wasn't one of those slamming the Magic Kingdom or EPCOT for that matter. I loved them both and I also enjoyed the fact that the sense of isolation you had because there weren't that many on-property hotels helped add to the concept of the whole WDW experience like that of going to another realm removed from the real world. Flash forward to my last visit in 2004 and first since 93 and I saw nothing but property overly cluttered with hotels, attractions shuttered or kept open only on "seasonal" periods with little upkeep and a host of great classics that personified the magic of WDW and EPCOT that made a trip special senselessly gone forever.

I had a track record of 18 years of going to WDW where I never found myself lamenting for the past because in that span I saw enough casual development and the core essence of what I'd always enjoyed still there. That was all swept away over the course of the next decade and most of it for reasons that strike me as motivated only in (1) cheap budget cutting (2) destroying all sense of intelligent theming for the sake of being trendy and hip with a narrower demographic and (3) absolutely no appreciation for the legacy of the original vision of what WDW and Disney theme park entertainment was supposed to represent.

Condorman

08-17-2008, 04:24 PM

mitros

08-17-2008, 04:56 PM

I think a lot of folks feel that this "dessert" costs a small fortune of their hard earned money, and they would just like to get their moneys worth. And when Disney starts to "cheap-out" on things, {cleanliness, food, prices,rides, etc.| I think these ladies and gentlemen feel they are being short changed.The main reason why you'll hear anyone on here complaining about WDW is because it is the "Rumors and News" board. We are all fans of WDW or we wouldn't be discussing it; but some of us are caught between the reality that is and the fantasy in our minds of what it could be, as if to say Disney had billions to splurge on theme parks for the sake of our imaginations.

I go to WDW once a year and enjoy it for what it is. Did it used to be better than what it's become? Would you agree that most everything from our youths holds a magical spell over our memories? When we were kids were weren't paying, reserving, driving - that was all done for us. I'm an adult now and WDW is my much-needed escapism.

Visiting an amusement park is not a necessity of life, it's a luxury. It's not the entree you need, it's the dessert you want.

Don't complain about the sweet things in life.

deej696

08-17-2008, 05:02 PM

The main reason why you'll hear anyone on here complaining about WDW is because it is the "Rumors and News" board. We are all fans of WDW or we wouldn't be discussing it; but some of us are caught between the reality that is and the fantasy in our minds of what it could be, as if to say Disney had billions to splurge on theme parks for the sake of our imaginations.

I go to WDW once a year and enjoy it for what it is. Did it used to be better than what it's become? Would you agree that most everything from our youths holds a magical spell over our memories? When we were kids were weren't paying, reserving, driving - that was all done for us. I'm an adult now and WDW is my much-needed escapism.

Visiting an amusement park is not a necessity of life, it's a luxury. It's not the entree you need, it's the dessert you want.

Don't complain about the sweet things in life.

Very well said Condor:thumbsup2

I'm with you Rutgers. There will always be those who think things are in the wrong direction, whether its WDW, politics, etc. The fact that what we have today is different does not make it worse by default, its simply different. I love the Disney of today just as much as I did the Disney of 1990, and its not possible fore me to imagine something that would change that.

As far as our original topic here, being CEO of Disney is my dream job, but I'm not sure its one I would want. Everyone who has followed Walt has lived in the shadow of his ghost, and no matter what you do with the company there will always be those who think its not good enough and who feel their ideas of what it should be are better. Its like the game of golf.... Perfection is unattainable....

zulemara

08-18-2008, 12:01 AM

wow, great thread, keep the discussion going! I'll add in my thoughts later, I'm kinda tired atm

KYMickey

08-18-2008, 07:42 AM

Very well said Condor:thumbsup2

I'm with you Rutgers. There will always be those who think things are in the wrong direction, whether its WDW, politics, etc. The fact that what we have today is different does not make it worse by default, its simply different. I love the Disney of today just as much as I did the Disney of 1990, and its not possible fore me to imagine something that would change that.

As far as our original topic here, being CEO of Disney is my dream job, but I'm not sure its one I would want. Everyone who has followed Walt has lived in the shadow of his ghost, and no matter what you do with the company there will always be those who think its not good enough and who feel their ideas of what it should be are better. Its like the game of golf.... Perfection is unattainable....
I think your statement demonstrate some of today's frustrations. Recent CEO's have not tried to live in the shadow of Walt. Instead they've tried to completely change the concept and direction of the parks and company. As mentioned by many others the magic is gone, it's been replaced by cheap knockoffs much like the rest of the world. The original has been change so much that today's generation can't even conceive one the original feeling of visiting the parks was! Hopefully it been the CEO of Disney is your dream job I hope that you can remember Walt's dream enough.

minnie61650

08-18-2008, 08:18 AM

...... The original has been change so much that today's generation can't even conceive one the original feeling of visiting the parks was! .........

Maybe a lot of us have visited so many times we no longer have the same feelings we use to have when visiting the parks.

Please do not lose hope.

I assure you from reading these boards I think there are still a lot of guests who feel the same type of Magic that I felt the first time I visited DL in 1959 when I was 9 years old.

Mom bought a DL wall map and hung it my room when we returned. For years I looked at that map and dreamed about returning to the "Happiest place on Earth." But since we lived in Michigan and big trips were few and far between we did not return again during my childhood.

Dh took to me WDW in Oct. of !971 and for me it truly was a Dream Come True.

There are others who have posted on these boards telling stories of how they and their children feel the same type of magic that I felt.

Take a look at this thread on the Theme Parks Board:

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?p=26975213#post26975213

Just back...final magic moment tugs at my heart..

We have just returned from another marvelous week in the World. The trips have changed over the years as our kids have grown from 11, 8 and 3 to 19, 16 and 9. Yes, the "novelty" is gone after 8 annual trips, but the "magic" is as powerful as ever.

I was reminded of that magical power as we began to exit MK at 2:30 a.m. Saturday morning--our final "goodbye" to the World for 2008. My thoughts had already drifted to the realities of returning to work and painful credit card bills coming my way.

My 9-year-old son clearly wasn't thinking about work or credit card bills. As my wife encouraged him to turn and face the castle for a final goodbye, my son found the experience far too painful. He peaked back briefly and then his head sank--and then the tears came like a river. Then came our flood of tears.

At that moment, I was reminded precisely why we work so hard to make it back to the World every year. What happens to our family during that week is nothing short of magical. And the magic seems to get stronger every year.

Tucking my son into his bed at home last night, we could tell his heart still ached to be back at Disney. He, of course, wanted to know how many more days until our next trip. He expressed how he will always miss Disney and how he never wants his Disney days to end.

In fact, he's concerned about going to heaven because he'll miss Disney so much. My wife tried to assure him that heaven will be better than the World, but try making that concept sink in with a 9-year-old--or his 45-year-old parents for that matter.

So to all who are going to the World for their first or fiftieth time, embrace the magic--and never let go!

Just my cents.

deej696

08-18-2008, 08:34 AM

Thank you Linda. I dont think the point could have been better made:thumbsup2

KYMickey

08-18-2008, 11:57 AM

minnie61650

08-18-2008, 02:00 PM

Maybe it's just a sign of the times but the closed attractions, uncleanliness and overall lack of maintenance (painting, repair, etc.) just takes away a lot of the magic. Maybe it's because people expect less these days since the same type of thing have become generally accepted everywhere.

For me one of the big sources of the original magic was how everything sparkled, things were painted before they needed it, trash was picked up almost before hit the ground and everything was always open. Now trash cans are overflowing, attractions are always closed or open only on a limited schedule and everything that is open needs repair of one type or another!

If people think this is magic then I'm not sure what the would've thought the parks were like originally. Today you certainly need rose colored glasses to think the park's still have the same magic.

As I stated before I have been going to WDW since Oct. 1971 when WDW was brand new.

Ever since the mid 70's when we visited some of the WDW attractions have been closed for refurbs and /or maintenence.

20K was closed for maintance during most of our stays.
It seems that ride hardly ever worked correctly.

I can't remember a time other than 1971 when everything was open.
( Well actually a couple of rides were closed but construction on them was not yet finished so Iwont count those.)

I really think in the last 2-3 years there has much more attention to keeping the parks and resorts clean and sparkeling again.

I feel WDW is really working overtime trying to play catch up with refurbishing the rooms in their resorts.
The Poly, CR, and GF, ASmu, ASsp,have been recently refurbished. Presently they are working on, BC, BWI, FW cabins and CBR ( complete with a new zero entry pirate themed pool ) and CSR is switching out beds right now with the refubishment scheduled this fall.

The resorts had really gotten run down and now attractions are taking longer for refubs because a lot of the equipment is older and I really think that Eisner let the resorts and the attractions go as he followed his own personal agenda.

The MK recently had refubs complete with (I think stunning) updates added to the HM and PotC.
The is a very probable rumor that SM may be closed for at least 6 months but that much time is needed to make some updates and to make much needed repair work to an attraction that is over 25 years old and has had (AFASIK) only miminal maintence work the last 10 years or so.

So while most people hate it when a fav attraction is closed we must also remember without those closures rides might not have "the sparkle" , or that fresly painted look, and they could very well reach a point they are no longer safe.

Last Sept.(2007) at All Star Music the CM's at food court were asking if they could take our trays when we were done eating but while we were still enjoying our drinks. I noticed that tables were cleared and cleaned as soon as the guests left.
I also saw this at the counter service places and the resturants at the parks.

I saw many a CM bend down to pick up a map or a wraper that accidendly ( I hope ) fell out of someone's hand or their stroller.
I really feel that lately a real effort is being made by the staff.

As for overflowing trash cans I did not see any on my last visit.

I will admit I did however see a few paper towels on the floor in the rest room...
But never more than few since it seemed the staff was making a real effort to keep up with the maintenance in the rest rooms.

Those have been my experiences and as I said I feel a real improvement has been made in the last couple of years.

My hope is that when I return again this year I will see even more improvements.

Just my 2 cents.

Condorman

08-18-2008, 02:46 PM

As far as playing CEO, while I am no fan of Iger, I will acknowledge that it's no enviable position. We think in terms of visible Disney, i.e. WDW, stores, films, TV, etc. However, he has to deal with back-of-house issues like unions, litigation, expansion, corporate competition and espionage (I know it sounds ludicrous but all multimedia conglomerates deal with it) and so on.

I would never want that job, only to be VP of the Parks Divison with $15 billion to play with. Yeah, that'll do it.

epaddon

08-18-2008, 03:09 PM

minnie61650

08-18-2008, 07:41 PM

***Ever since the mid 70's when we visited some of the WDW attractions have been closed for refurbs and /or maintenence.***

There is a difference I think, between being an attraction that is just down for some temporary maintenance, and being an abandoned spot of emptiness for 10 years before being senselessly bulldozed over into the most unimaginable idea possible (as we saw happen with 20K). To which you can add abandoned Skyway Stations and an abandoned EPCOT pavilion (Wonders Of Life).

I will agree I too am saddened about these closures.

I will try to explain why those attractions were closed to the best of my ability.
------------------------------------------------------------
20K...........

The ride was closed in September , 1994 for a variety of reasons, but mainly because there were many maintenance problems with the show scenes. The decision to scrap the attraction was made in 1996 but didn't actually happen until 2004 -- ( credit for this info goes to Buzz Litebeer)

After filling in the 20K Lagoon Pooh's Playful Spot was built on a very small area of the land that once was the 20K Lagoon. I feel the Pooh area was built not just to entertain the little ones but with a hidden agenda.

What agenda you ask?
Why to hold the area for future attractions!

What attractions you ask?

Blue Sky has some rumors out about new attractions for Fantasyland in WDW.
The rumors include a Little Mermaid Ride, A Seven Dwarfs coaster, A Beauty and Best Dark Ride,
and a "Pixie Hallow" meet & Greet for Tink.

From what I heard from some pretty good sources the Little Mermaid is very probable.
I think the Seven Dwarfs coaster makes sense because of the timing of the predicted ride opening about 2011-2012 also coincides with the 75th anniversary of Snow White. The Disney studios had a big 50th celebration for Snow White and I think a new Snow White ride for the 75th anniversary would be a big draw.

From the Blue Sky Buzz......

http://blueskydisney.blogspot.com/2008/07/blue-sky-buzz-orlando-its-just-fantasy.html

Here is an excerpt......
Blue Sky Buzz (Orlando): It's Just A Fantasy...

.........
Imagine that Little Mermaid attraction we talked about before... it's basically going to be the ride we have here, although it might be a bit smaller and the exterior should be envisioned differently, but all around Fantasyland you'll notice a great deal of detail and a great deal of difference in a bout four or five years if it all comes to pass.

How would you like to get through with your adventures with Ariel and Sebastian and walk out looking around the Florida sunshine basking in that new roller coaster that's been put in for Disney Fans/Geeks to ride. A roller coaster? What are you talking about? The one themed to the Seven Dwarfs, that one. Lavishly made up with details that are closer to something you'd see in Tokyo that stateside, but it's there...

Now what about the other areas of the land that are proposed to have a radical makeover? I mean, there is that Pixie Hallow that looks like you've wandered into the forest in Neverland, there's a meet and greet for Tinkerbell, but the details of this little area are going to make little princess run screaming through this area and really bring a smile on the face of every Disney fan.

There's a new area for a meet-and-greet with the Princess that's quite nice as well.

Oh and remember I talked a while back about there being very few attractions based on the Animated films of the Second Golden Age? I specifically talked about none for my favorite Disney animated film... well, if this comes to pass that will no longer be true. That's right, there is a very nice "Beauty and the Beast" attraction planned for this area as well. I only hope that take some of the great ideas that were proposed for the "B and B" attraction that was to be built in Paris over a decade or so ago...............

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The abandoned Skyway Stations

Those Skyway Stations were left because they do serve a purpose.

What Purpose you ask?

Answer:

To hide other areas of the parks from our sight line.

The Haunted Mansion would be visible from Fantasyland if they removed any of the height from where the Skyway Station is.

Space Mountain is hidden behind the Tomorrowland Skyway station.

--------------------------------------------
Wonders Of Life pavilion closed.

To me this is the saddest of all.

After MetLife pulled their sponsorship from the WoL pavilion WDW was not able to find a new sponsor and so sadly the pavilion was closed.

Just my 2 cents.

KYMickey

08-18-2008, 09:30 PM

The magic has been lost in so many ways. Little things that created the magic have disappeared without most people knowing. Things like the living statues at the French pavilion, the roving acrobat in Epcot, preshow music (most recently from Beauty and the Beast) etc. Then there are the noticeable things like the double decker buses at Epcot, discontinuing the fireworks cruises on Seven Seas Lake, removing characters from character meals (most recently Liberty Hall), reducing the hours of restaurants and their menu selections etc. Lastly are the attractions themselves, I don't mind attractions being closed for rehab (as long as the time is reasonable and the results noticeable) but just closing attractions (Wonders of Life for example) reducing the open time of attractions (World of Energy, Carousel of Progress) or the dumbing down of attractions (Living Seas).

The number of attractions that have been added certainly don't equal what has been lost especially if you don't count animal kingdom (especially what it could have been). The only thing that has been gained its resorts and hotels which really don't add to the magic for most visitors.

I'm not trying to be hard on Disney, I'm just trying to point out where the magic Walt envisioned has been lost.

Condorman

08-19-2008, 12:51 AM

I'm going to end up saying this everytime someone makes the argument about WDW going downhill in quality...

WDW employs nearly 60,000 people. The typical visiting adult pays an average - average, mind you - of $30 a day to visit four land parks, two water parks, and enjoy one of the most comprehensive transportation systems to get them between all those areas (including to and from the airport) at no additional cost.

The bottom line is you are not paying enough on average for Disney to keep your childhood memories alive. You are not paying enough to keep Pleasure Island afloat, to keep open Wonders of Life, to continue fireworks cruises, living statues, crab legs and filet at every TS location, etc. I'm sure many of you will argue with me on these points, but the rules of business are simple: If a venture costs little and earns significant profit, you do not shut it down; you expand and multiply. Clearly, all of the aforementioned items and many things these boards discuss were not receiving the level of revenue to keep them alive. They were on life-support and Disney pulled the plug. And why?

Because you were only paying $30 a day.

And they have 60,000 employees.

And its the 3rd largest transit system in Florida.

And we have a weak economy and dollar.

Everyone thinks Disney has become some cold-hearted merciless machine. Disney is not UNESCO. It is not a charity. It is out to make a dollar. Shy of charging you $50 a day to enjoy WDW (which they have chosen not to do) the alternative was to cut back on services. We're not talking about school here, folks. It's an amusement park. You don't have to go. You choose to.

KYMickey

08-19-2008, 07:10 AM

Where in the world did you get the $30.00 figure? Just the average daily ticket price is higher than that and when you add in food, lodging and shopping I'm sure it's considerably higher than that. Considering the 60,000 employees you mentioned work in all those areas you have to add in spending at all those places. I would think the daily spending is at least $100 per person when everything is taking into account.

And you're right we don't have to go if we don't want to and we are taking less Disney vacation than we used to. It's not because of the cost, it's because of Disney.

Condorman

08-19-2008, 10:13 AM

$30 refers to the average ticket price, not your daily expenses. Once again you choose to eat on-site, or do MVMCP, or go miniature golfing, etc. Nobody is forcing you to spend a dollar more than the $30.

Most people visit Disney for 6-8 days. Price it online yourself and you will see it's around $220-$250 for park tickets. OK, maybe a little more than $30, but close enough. And if you have an Annual Pass - whoa - you've hit the jackpot because that only amounts to dollars a day.

For every one thing that existed in the 70s, 80s and 90s that is no longer there, it was replaced with something new. When I first went in 1980 it was only the MK, you could only order hot dogs and hamburgers, there were two resorts, etc. WDW has come a long way. And if you're the kind of person who only sees the glass half empty, enjoy it.

DVC-Landbaron

08-19-2008, 10:14 AM

Condorman Wrote:

but some of us are caught between the reality that is and the fantasy in our minds of what it could be, as if to say Disney had billions to splurge on theme parks for the sake of our imaginations.

Not true. Some of us here don’t have to rely on the “fantasy in our minds”. Some here are actually old enough to remember the way Disney used to do business. The Disney philosophy that won them their huge success in the first place. The current company does not share that philosophy. In fact it is diametrically opposed to it. That is what I lament. All those other things mentioned in this thread are merely the symptoms of a badly misguided philosophical way of doing business.

Would you agree that most everything from our youths holds a magical spell over our memories?
Yes. I would tend to agree. However, it is not the sparkle or the shine that I’m talking about. It isn’t a particular ride or even moment in childhood time. I’m talking about their thought process. I’m talking about their customer values. I’m talking about old time “Disney” philosophy.

When we were kids were weren't paying, reserving, driving - that was all done for us. It seems I’m a bit older than you. I was just beginning to pay my own way back then. And I found Disney to be EXPENSIVE!!! But at the same time an INCREDIBLE VALUE!!! Today I just find it EXPENSIVE!!

It's not the entree you need, it's the dessert you want. Don't complain about the sweet things in life.
I’m afraid that I disagree with this as well. If they were giving it away I’d simple throw away the sour fruit pie or moldy cheese cake. But when I’m paying top dollar for it you bet I complain!! From the roof tops!!!

DC7800

08-19-2008, 11:02 AM

Baron,

Welcome back to the Rumors Board discussions, and well said.

DVC-Landbaron

08-19-2008, 11:11 AM

Thank you. It's good to be back. But it seems while I've been gone a fair amount of pixie dust has spread to this board!! Maybe we can sweep a little of it up and replace it with some reality!!

DVC-Landbaron

08-19-2008, 11:34 AM

deej696 wrote:
I love the Disney of today just as much as I did the Disney of 1990, and its not possible fore me to imagine something that would change that.
FINALLY! Something we can agree on. I can see hardly any difference between 1990 and the present either. And I too feel the same about Disney today as I did in 1990 (well, to be perfectly honest let’s say 1993 or so). Unfortunately, there is a vast, almost insurmountable difference between the Disney of the 1990’s (including the present) and the Disney that Walt built!

And therein lays the rub!!

KYMickey

08-19-2008, 12:21 PM

Thank you. It's good to be back. But it seems while I've been gone a fair amount of pixie dust has spread to this board!! Maybe we can sweep a little of it up and replace it with some reality!!

It seems like some of the contributors to this thread have been OD'd on pixie dust and may never recover! Reality is something they just can't accept. I would gladly take back the early WDW in trade for the one we have today. As mentioned earlier it was still expensive but you got something for your money, today it's expensive and the return is terrible. I think the magic ended about the time Hollywood Studios was built. I really hope it will return but I highly doubt it will.

Condorman

08-19-2008, 01:01 PM

I'm not quite understanding everyone else's claim to accepting "reality". I appear to be the only one able to acknowledge that Disney has changed with the times. Apparently all of you are caught in some ethereal dreamscape, expecting ticket prices, meal costs, attractions, the number of clouds in the sky and the value of dollar to be frozen in some 1984 cryogenic happyland.

You have the right to your opinion and the right to complain about what no longer exists at WDW. All I'm saying is that if you have the time to do so, the rest of your life must be perfection. It's just a vacation, guys. Just a park.

Chill out, move on.

ThurlFan

08-19-2008, 01:14 PM

$30 refers to the average ticket price, not your daily expenses. Once again you choose to eat on-site, or do MVMCP, or go miniature golfing, etc. Nobody is forcing you to spend a dollar more than the $30.

Well, then you can't throw around the assertion that WDW needs to support 60,000 employees on this money, because a great many of them are paid out of the money we spend on hotels, food and souvenirs - a fact you conveniently forgot to mention. Please don't insult our intelligence further.

As to the topic at hand, what I miss is the philosophy that it's OK to forego a portion of the potential profits in order to maintain the highest standards of guest experience. It's a crying shame that an area as big as the Wonders of Life pavillion sits decaying. With the attractions Body Wars, Cranium Command, The Making of Me, and a slew of interactive kiosks (not to mention a snack counter) how much enjoyment could it be providing to people waiting for their FP time on Soarin' or Test Track? And how much would it cost to provide that enjoyment. It wouldn't even have required building anything, just the usual upkeep. But some sharp pencil figured out they could save a few dollars on maintenance and personnel without impacting revenue. And this sort of chipping away at the guest experience is really what really ticks me off. So what if Mr Toad is gone? I understand that tons of people ride and enjoy the Pooh attraction. Just don't give us less while charging us more - and then fall all over yourself telling us what a great deal we're getting.

DVC-Landbaron

08-19-2008, 01:34 PM

I'm not quite understanding everyone else's claim to accepting "reality".
Only too happy to explain.

I appear to be the only one able to acknowledge that Disney has changed with the times. Ah! No! Not at all! We ALL acknowledge that Disney has changed. “With the times…” Well, it’s such a trite phrase, isn’t it? And one that clouds the issue. For if you accept it for face value then the logical next step is arguing about some space/time continuum or being caught in some distant past mode of thinking. In fact you very adeptly bring it up in your very next thought.
Apparently all of you are caught in some ethereal dreamscape, expecting ticket prices, meal costs, attractions, the number of clouds in the sky and the value of dollar to be frozen in some 1984 cryogenic happyland
And this totally misses the point!!

I don’t think anyone here is arguing that we go back to $8.00 admissions and $1.00 e-tickets!! (YES! That’s how far back I go!) We’re not arguing price, economics, fine dinning, or the inevitable Florida afternoon thunderstorm (in reference to your “clouds in the sky” point).

NO! We’re talking about Disney philosophy. What Walt brought to the Amusement Park Business way back in 1955 (1984 doesn’t even come close!!!) I contend that it worked then and could work now if only the boneheads who are in charge could pull their heads out of their short term ledgers and use a little vision!

“Back in the day…” Disney was VERY, VERY expensive! I don’t know if you caught that in my previous post. That sort of vacation to a very newly wed couple nearly broke the bank! It was a whole bunch of money!!! But the value of the “DISNEY EXPERIENCE” was far, far greater than the price tag they put to it!!

No! No one wants a time warp. I just want a Disney value. A Disney Experience. A Disney Philosophy.

Read my tag lines. They are quotes from the man who started it all. Of course Ei$ner and his protégée refer to him as the “dead guy”. And they don’t mean in body only. In spirit and philosophy he is dead as well. Ei$ner saw to that personally!

Hey ThurlFan
But some sharp pencil figured out they could save a few dollars on maintenance and personnel without impacting revenue
Funny you should use the term “Sharp Pencil Guy”. That is the term Walt himself used for the bean counters of his day. And he HATED them!!!!
.

deej696

08-19-2008, 02:05 PM

frozen in some 1984 cryogenic happyland.

Sorry I am simply adding that I found this to be hilarious:rotfl:

Everyone makes some great points. I tend to lean on the side of "The past is gone forever" but then again, I have no idea what it was like in 1971. To me the Disney of 1990 is "the old days" and I am perfectly happy with what we have:thumbsup2

minnie61650

08-19-2008, 02:19 PM

....Unfortunately, there is a vast, almost insurmountable difference between the Disney of the 1990’s (including the present) and the Disney that Walt built!

And therein lays the rub!!

I agree.

The Disney theme park that Walt built is in California.

Unfortately he passed away before the land was cleared for WDW and his brother Roy along with other team members tried to carry out some of Walt's Plans.

Also, I just want to add while I am lamenting.... If Walt ever built a Future World or a World showcase it would not have been called Epcot.

The EPCOT Walt designed was to be an experimental prototype community (and community was a carefully chosen word) of tomorrow. In other words it was going to be a futuristic community where families would live, children would go to school, and parents would work. Walt wanted to use futuristic transportation and the very latest in technology in this community. It was to be everchanging. Always the newest and best technology had to offer.
The Epcot we enjoy today was not at all in Walt's plans. Walt once refereed to EPCOT as "being a Showcase to the world.'" They used that phrase and thus made World Showcase. As much as I enjoy Epcot it sometimes saddens me to think that Epcot is not at all how Walt envisioned it.

Just my 2 cents.

DVC-Landbaron

08-19-2008, 02:47 PM

I agree.

The Disney theme park that Walt built is in California.
So far so good! Next…

Unfortately he passed away before the land was cleared for WDW and his brother Roy along with other team members tried to carry out some of Walt's Plans.
Once again, we agree.

Also, I just want to add while I am lamenting.... If Walt ever built a Future World or a World showcase it would not have been called Epcot.
Well of course not. EPCOT was used for his city. He would have called it something else. But as Shakespeare pointed out, a rose by any other name… Anyway, you get the point.

The EPCOT Walt designed was to be an experimental prototype community (and community was a carefully chosen word) of tomorrow. In other words it was going to be a futuristic community where families would live, children would go to school, and parents would work. Walt wanted to use futuristic transportation and the very latest in technology in this community. It was to be everchanging. Always the newest and best technology had to offer.
Very nicely put. It’s too bad that they didn’t have the bal… GUTS to carry it out.

The Epcot we enjoy today was not at all in Walt's plans.
You’re right. Not in his plans at all. BUT!!! Firmly entrenched in his philosophy!! And that is the difference I’m talking about.

Now, just so there is absolutely no confusion, I’m talking about E.P.C.O.T. from 1981, NOT the Epcot we have today. It was built and maintained for the first couple of years with Walt’s philosophy. And that was MAGIC!!!!

As much as I enjoy Epcot it sometimes saddens me to think that Epcot is not at all how Walt envisioned it.
Me too. But that doesn’t or shouldn’t tarnish the vision that they had for what has become Epcot. Call it Walt’s Second Kingdom instead of EPCOT if it makes you feel better. Call it anything you like. By any name the place literally dripped with the old Walt Philosophy. The last park to do so.

zulemara

08-19-2008, 05:34 PM

Only too happy to explain.

Ah! No! Not at all! We ALL acknowledge that Disney has changed. “With the times…” Well, it’s such a trite phrase, isn’t it? And one that clouds the issue. For if you accept it for face value then the logical next step is arguing about some space/time continuum or being caught in some distant past mode of thinking. In fact you very adeptly bring it up in your very next thought.

And this totally misses the point!!

I don’t think anyone here is arguing that we go back to $8.00 admissions and $1.00 e-tickets!! (YES! That’s how far back I go!) We’re not arguing price, economics, fine dinning, or the inevitable Florida afternoon thunderstorm (in reference to your “clouds in the sky” point).

NO! We’re talking about Disney philosophy. What Walt brought to the Amusement Park Business way back in 1955 (1984 doesn’t even come close!!!) I contend that it worked then and could work now if only the boneheads who are in charge could pull their heads out of their short term ledgers and use a little vision!

“Back in the day…” Disney was VERY, VERY expensive! I don’t know if you caught that in my previous post. That sort of vacation to a very newly wed couple nearly broke the bank! It was a whole bunch of money!!! But the value of the “DISNEY EXPERIENCE” was far, far greater than the price tag they put to it!!

No! No one wants a time warp. I just want a Disney value. A Disney Experience. A Disney Philosophy.

Read my tag lines. They are quotes from the man who started it all. Of course Ei$ner and his protégée refer to him as the “dead guy”. And they don’t mean in body only. In spirit and philosophy he is dead as well. Ei$ner saw to that personally!

Hey ThurlFan

Funny you should use the term “Sharp Pencil Guy”. That is the term Walt himself used for the bean counters of his day. And he HATED them!!!!
.

omg where have you been my whole life?? I couldn't agree more

DVC-Landbaron

08-19-2008, 06:05 PM

zulemara,

I was here BIG TIME from 2000 until a couple years ago. A guy named YoHo, Peter Pirate and I (with a mere handful of others) nearly started this board. There would be weeks between posts back then.

Then I needed a break!!! It turned out to be a two year break! And this is the first thread I entered in quite a while. Glad I touched a nerve! Keep on fighting the good fight!

Peter Pirate 2

08-19-2008, 06:20 PM

LANDBARON...OMG, LANDBARON...Stealing the posters hearts again are we...Aarrghhh.:thumbsup2

pirate:

DVC-Landbaron

08-20-2008, 09:38 AM

PETER!!

Yes I thought I'd try my hand again. Seems like old times, doesn't it?

BTW, how do you like the last line of my signature. Even though we disagree on everything Disney (or at least we used to) I really don't want to see you dead! So!!! I put it in there, big and bold, for all to see!!

cristen

08-20-2008, 01:29 PM

Just a park.
Chill out, move on.

It wasn't 'just a park' to Walt. It was all his dreams, ones that he was giddy with joy to share with the world.

It wasn't 'just a park' to the original imagineers. It was their art. It was their life's work.

This wasn't just some job they went to everyday to see how they could better make a profit. It wasn't a way to impress Wall Street with double digit returns.

And because of this, the difference between before 1980 and after 1980 slaps us in the face. That is what Baron is talking about. They approach 'Disney' from vastly different view points, the philosophy.

If you can't accept that, then you will never understand that it isn't price differences that we speak of in our posts.

c4a

08-20-2008, 04:02 PM

AMEN!:thumbsup2
Different philosophy/marketing plan-call it what you want-it still doesn't change the base fact. Like it or lump it-the Disney of our youth is gone. Now, I have slowly been coming to this realization since the early 90's...so, I thought that the Disney gurus could not shock me. WRONG! The day I found out about the LTT going characterless...I cried. There I said it-I bawled like a baby. :sad:
The LTT characters celebrated OUR heritage. OUR freedom. OUR history.
Then I found out about FANTASMIC! It got ugly at our house for a couple of days. One of the most creative celebrations imaginable displaced by...it makes me want to gag just saying it...American Idol. =Sigh= :sad2:

Question on Walt's proposed city-so, then Celebration actually be closer to his vision than EPCOT?:confused3

mitros

08-20-2008, 04:12 PM

It wasn't 'just a park' to Walt. It was all his dreams, ones that he was giddy with joy to share with the world.

It wasn't 'just a park' to the original imagineers. It was their art. It was their life's work.

This wasn't just some job they went to everyday to see how they could better make a profit. It wasn't a way to impress Wall Street with double digit returns.

And because of this, the difference between before 1980 and after 1980 slaps us in the face. That is what Baron is talking about. They approach 'Disney' from vastly different view points, the philosophy.

If you can't accept that, then you will never understand that it isn't price differences that we speak of in our posts.

You said it cristen! :thumbsup2

Peter Pirate 2

08-20-2008, 04:42 PM

AMEN!:thumbsup2

Question on Walt's proposed city-so, then Celebration actually be closer to his vision than EPCOT?:confused3

As a pt Celebration resident I don't think anyone would construe this development as EPCOT like in any way.

It's a beautiful development with many Disney type features (basic design, use of landscaping, archetectural theme) but it only pushed the envelope in the area of residential development. It is not a city unto itself, only a HOA controlled neighborhood and grand as it was in scope it did not encompass things Walt would have embraced (technology, self containment, autonomy, etc.).

Condorman

08-20-2008, 05:29 PM

LMAO!!!

I must have really hit a nerve to bring some "landbaron" out of hibernation for two years and keep the rest of you bickering over Walt's long-lost philosophy. I know I speak for Walt when I say you are the last kinds of guests, patrons or fans he ever would have wanted championing his side. Everyone knows his quote about the parks never being finished and always evolving. Funny how you claim to long for his standards and goals and know absolutely nothing about the man or his means. But that's why I'm here... to educate you.

So go ahead and wallow in the past. I'll be at WDW enjoying the evolution and everything it has to offer. Thank you for showing your true colors. Your sour attitudes at the parks will not be missed.

Still LMAO!

BTW, I'm done with this thread so any responses are irrelevant.

mitros

08-20-2008, 05:31 PM

deej696

08-20-2008, 05:51 PM

Now come on Condor, you cant just take your toys and go home. You and I share a similar opinion, although I would have expressed it differently.

See what you started Rutgers;) I have only been around the boards a year or so, but I learned early on the only topic more polarizing than Michael Eisner is refillable mugs:lmao:

So lets agree to disagree. The Disney of 1971 is gone forever, and has been for quite some time. The Disney of post 1984 is what we have, and I love it all the same. My kids wont experience the Disney of today, just as I never experienced the Disney of 1971. In my opinion, the "magic" is conveyed more by parents than Disney anyway. Michael Eisner didnt teach me that Disney was magical, my parents did. And I will do the same with my child. As adults we embrace the things from our childhood that were special. For many kids, its Yankee Stadium, the beach, or fishing in a local river. For me it was Disney, and I know I'm not alone. Regardless of what direction the parks go in, that can never be taken away from me, and therefore will always be magical.....

mitros

08-20-2008, 07:07 PM

As a pt Celebration resident I don't think anyone would construe this development as EPCOT like in any way.

It's a beautiful development with many Disney type features (basic design, use of landscaping, archetectural theme) but it only pushed the envelope in the area of residential development. It is not a city unto itself, only a HOA controlled neighborhood and grand as it was in scope it did not encompass things Walt would have embraced (technology, self containment, autonomy, etc.).

You said you are a part time resident of Celebration. When did you actually buy there? Were you involved in that "lottery" system to buy into the area waaay back in the beginning? We were close to getting in on that, but could not sell our property back in N.J. at the time.

Peter Pirate 2

08-20-2008, 07:51 PM

You said you are a part time resident of Celebration. When did you actually buy there? Were you involved in that "lottery" system to buy into the area waaay back in the beginning? We were close to getting in on that, but could not sell our property back in N.J. at the time.

mitros, been there going on 3 years...We got it primarily because my daughter is a competitive Jr. tennis player and Orlando is centrally located for that endeavor...P{lus it's a great hurricane sanctuary.

Things are bad there now because of the investment folks feeling the pain, there are some GREAT bargains that will be gone in a year or two and dare I say never to return.

As for this Condor person, you must be easily amused.:rotfl: Do you like Dinorama?:lmao: Oh look, I'm easily amused too.

DVC-Landbaron

08-20-2008, 08:27 PM

BTW, I'm done with this thread so any responses are irrelevant.
DARN!! No time right now, but i have to say that you can bet - BIG MONEY - whenever anyone says that - he's still reading. The only things he's not doing is posting. Because he has nothing to say.

Peter!!!!
Do you like Dinorama?
LOL!!!! Beautifully put!!

Condor!! I know you can't answer without looking like a bigger idiot, but I also KNOW you're still reading. SO!! Keep checking back in. I'll try to answer tonight.

~Kik-Kik~

08-20-2008, 09:07 PM

If the rumors of the Fantasyland expansion come ture I personally will be extremely impressed with Iger. I will even overlook the mistakes he did with the crazy Pixaring of the parks.

minnie61650

08-20-2008, 09:33 PM

.......Question on Walt's proposed city-so, then Celebration actually be closer to his vision than EPCOT?:confused3

For reasons of lenght I edited a small part of the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_Prototype_Community_of_Tomorrow_(conc ept)

The Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow (EPCOT) was a concept developed by Walt Disney near the end of his lifetime. It was his intended purpose for the property purchased near Orlando, Florida that eventually became the Walt Disney World Resort, including Epcot (formerly known as EPCOT Center), to be a "community of the future" designed to stimulate American corporations to come up with new ideas for urban living. Of EPCOT, Walt Disney is quoted as saying, "EPCOT will take its cue from the new ideas and new technologies that are emerging from the forefront of American industry. It will be a community of tomorrow that will never be completed. It will always be showcasing and testing and demonstrating new materials and new systems."...............................

The Magic Kingdom

Walt never wanted to make a "sequel" to Disneyland, always stating that there will always be one Disneyland. When Walt presented his ideas to the Board of Directors, they were skeptical. They wanted assurance that people would come to visit this "Disney World". What they wanted was a surefire hit: a Disneyland-style park.

Walt initially objected, but eventually relented, and he used the park to his advantage. He put the theme park in the northmost corner of the Florida property. Disney wanted everyone to experience the rest of Disney World before getting to the theme park area.

The city

The EPCOT city itself, according to the concepts presented in the EPCOT film, was based on a very innovative but simple design: the radial concept. Based on a concept similar to the layout of Disneyland Park, the city radiates out like a wheel from a central core. The urban density of the area would dwindle as the city fanned out.

] Transportation

The city would be connected to the other points in Disney World with a main line of transportation -- the monorail. Walt Disney introduced the monorail at Disneyland in 1959. The monorail would cut through the center of the city, connecting EPCOT with the northern and southern points on the Disney World property.

Internal transportation would be provided by a whole new Disney transportation concept: the WEDway PeopleMover. The PeopleMover is a transportation system that never stops, relying on motors embedded in the track rather than in the vehicles. PeopleMover cars would transport residents from the metropolitan center to the outer residential areas. The PeopleMover concept was first demonstrated at Disneyland's Tomorrowland in 1967. The PeopleMover was also installed at the Magic Kingdom; it is now called Tomorrowland Transit Authority.

Because of these two modes of transportation, residents of EPCOT would not need a car. If they did, it would be used "only for weekend pleasure trips." The streets for cars would be kept separate from the main pedestrian areas. The main roads for both cars and supply trucks would travel underneath the city core, eliminating the risk of pedestrian accidents. This was also based on the concept that Walt Disney devised for Disneyland. He did not want his guests to see behind-the-scenes activity, such as supply trucks delivering goods to the city. Like the Magic Kingdom in Walt Disney World, all supplies are discreetly delivered via underground tunnels.

The two systems, monorail and PeopleMover, would come together at the EPCOT Transportation Lobby. The Transportation Lobby would be located at ground level, above the busy automobile/truck roads. From the Lobby, a passenger riding the monorail from the Magic Kingdom Park to their home would disembark the monorail and transfer to the appropriate PeopleMover station.

City center
EPCOT's downtown and commercial areas would have been located in the central core of the city, away from the residential areas. The entire area would have been completely enclosed, unaffected by the outside elements. "The pedestrian will be king" in this area, free from the danger of cars and other vehicles.

At the center of the area would be a 30-story Cosmopolitan Hotel and Convention Center. This building was to have been the tallest building in EPCOT and could have been seen for miles, like the Matterhorn Bobsleds at Disneyland. The parking lot for hotel guests would have been located underneath the city core, right off of the vehicle throughway.

On the "roof" of the enclosed area would be the recreational area for hotel guests. The pool, tennis courts, basketball courts, shuffleboard, and other activities would have been located here. According to Imagineer Bob Gurr, Walt Disney pointed to one of the benches on the scale model of the area and declared, "This is where Lilly [his wife] and I will sit when this thing is finished, taking everything in".

Surrounding the hotel, inside the enclosure, would have been "shops and restaurants that reflect the culture and flavor of locations 'round the world". According to the concept art, these areas would be themed to each country, having the look and feel of each of the exotic locales. This concept eventually evolved into the World Showcase area of the Epcot theme park. The PeopleMover track would travel above these downtown shops and streets in a similar fashion as the system did in Disneyland. Preliminary plan indicated that the people who would have worked in these shops would have also lived in the city.

High-density residential area
On the rim of the city core would have been high-density apartment housing. This is where most of EPCOT's 20,000 citizens would have lived. Not much is discussed about the apartments themselves, although Walt Disney stated that no one in EPCOT would own their land. There would be no difference between an apartment and a home.

All renting rates would be modest and competitive with the surrounding market. Also, the housing would be constructed in such a way to ensure ease of change, so that new ideas/products can be used. A person returning from a hard day's work could very well come home to a kitchen with brand-new appliances in it.

Green belt
Separating the city core from the low-density residential area would be an expanse of grass areas, known to the planners as the "green belt". This is where the city services would be located. Establishments such as parks with playgrounds, community centers, and churches would be located here.

Low-density residential areas
Beyond the Green Belt was the low-density, single-family house neighborhoods. These areas would have resembled the petals on a flower, with the houses located on the rim of each "petal". Inside the "petal" was a vast green area. The area would have had paths for electric carts, light recreation areas for adults and play areas for children.

The PeopleMover station for each area would have also been located in the green area. The resident could simply walk to the station from their home and on to work. As stated before, residents would not really need a car to get around.

Like the apartments, the houses would be built to be easily changed.

Living and employment
As stated above, no one living in EPCOT would own their own land or home, thereby having no municipal voting rights (bond issues, etc.). Walt Disney wanted to exercise this control only to be able to change technology in the homes easily.

According to the film, everyone living in EPCOT would be employed, thereby preventing the formation of slums and ghettos. There would be no retirees, everyone would have had a job. Residents would have been employed at either the Magic Kingdom theme park, the city central core shopping areas, the hotel/convention center, the airport, the Welcome Center, or the industrial park. And, as the film states, "everyone living in EPCOT will have the responsibility to maintain this living blueprint of the future".

========================================

Celebration
In the early 1990s, the Walt Disney Company built an actual community on the Florida property called Celebration. It is a planned community that employs some of the ideas that Walt Disney envisioned, but on a significantly smaller scale. Unlike EPCOT, which was based on modernism and futurism, there is no radial design for Celebration. Celebration is designed based on new urbanism, and resembles a small American town, but has all the modern conveniences, without the revolutionary transportation ideas contained in the plans for EPCOT.

deej696

08-20-2008, 09:48 PM

Thank you for that Linda, great read. Something I have never thought about until now... The model city that is in the People Mover, is that some sort of model for Epcot as described above?????

DVC-Landbaron

08-20-2008, 09:52 PM

Yes it is.

DVC-Landbaron

08-20-2008, 10:53 PM

Condorman Wrote:
I must have really hit a nerve to bring some "landbaron" out of hibernation for two years
Not at all. It is pure coincidence that I entered the conversation after a two year hiatus. You had nothing to do with it. I chose your post because it was the easiest to break down – conversationally. In case you haven’t noticed I like o do that. It is an old habit I picked up from Usenet RADP (Now that’s OLD!!!!!)

keep the rest of you bickering over Walt's long-lost philosophy.
Sad isn’t it? LONG-LOST. I’m afraid you’re right. You evidently don’t agree with it.

Tell me. What is it about that philosophical outlook that bothers you? What is it that you disagree with? I really want to know.

You see, the reason that I signed up on this board in the first place was to discuss this truly unique company. This ‘magical’, ‘pixie dusted’ place that I fell in love with. In my mind if it were not for this “LONG-LOST” philosophy, I wouldn’t be here. I certainly wouldn’t be swept away by some mundane or pedestrian amusement park! I certainly wouldn’t feel passionate enough to spend a half an hour talking to you about some run-of-the-mill company.

In my mind it was Walt’s business and guest relations philosophy that set his company head and shoulders above the rest. According to you I’m wrong. So… OK… Fair enough…

… What is it that you find exciting about this company? What compels you to spend even two minutes answering me?

I know I speak for Walt when I say you are the last kinds of guests, patrons or fans he ever would have wanted championing his side.
That’s pretty bold pal!! And you are, of course, WRONG!!

Everyone knows his quote about the parks never being finished and always evolving.
Hmmmmmmmm. Now I could be wrong, but I think he meant that to be in a positive way. I think he meant that it should GROW and IMPROVE. Not diminish, shrink and become <gasp> ordinary! Am I wrong again. Did he mean that ANY change was good? That Ei$ner’s business model was good, just as long as it was change (always evoling) and ongoing (never being finished)?

I’m sorry. I just don’t agree with that. I really think he meant that the change should be for the better. But again – I could be wrong.

Funny how you claim to long for his standards and goals and know absolutely nothing about the man or his means. WOW!! Again rather bold!! How could you possibly know what I know about the man? What arrogance!! What egotism!! What hubris!!

But that's why I'm here... to educate you.
So do it!! Educate me. Teach me oh wise one!!!!

BTW, I'm done with this thread so any responses are irrelevant Oh nuts!! How disappointing!! How on earth am I to be “EDUCATED”!?!?!? Who will teach me!!
BTW, I'm done with this thread so any responses are irrelevant
Yeah I know, but this quote was so good that I just had to use it twice!!

Irrelevant!!! To who? You? Ah, come on! You’re still reading, just not responding! And what about all the other posters in this thread and lurkers who just enjoy reading. Is it irrelevant to them too? Because you say it is!

deej696:
Now come on Condor, you cant just take your toys and go home. Yes he can. Little kids are like that. When things don’t go their way or they are at a loss, they take their toys and go home. But don’t worry. He’s still reading.

BTW. I agree with everything you said. I just thought that maybe, since we were talking about the CEO, you’d like to know how his thinking differs from the founder’s. I never mean to spoil anyone’s good time!

So enjoy! I just did. I spent two WONDERFUL weeks in WDW just a couple weeks ago. At Old Key West! And I am planning on a trip for the Food & Wine Festival. I always have a good time. Fortunately, Walt left us with some mighty powerful magic that hasn’t completely disappeared yet. Unfortunately there is a “YET” in that sentence. The currently thinking will eventually kill it and that wonderful Disney company that I truly fell in love with will become – Ordinary!

How sad!!

minnie61650:
Thanks for the EPCOT (Epcot) lesson. Contrary to popular belief (read condorman’s contention that I don’t know Walt), I already knew it, but many other may not have, So thank you.

But that was my point. Call the current park something else. Is it E.P.C.O.T.? NO! Do you wish it was? YES!! (Me too)

But let’s call it LindaLand instead! Now it has no connection to Walt’s city. Is it still a failure? Does it still make you sad?

I don’t know if that makes sense but that’s the way I think of it.

WOW - Only back a a couple of days and I'm getting wordy already!!!!

ChrisFL

08-20-2008, 11:27 PM

So, some of us fans are looking for the Disney parks that are always meticulously maintaned, have the latest technology and have some of the most creative attractions ever seen, with immersive environments.

Sadly, I haven't seen this happen in the U.S. parks, or in fact any Disney owned parks recently...the only parks I've heard are like this are Disney parks NOT owned by Disney!

They're Tokyo Disneyland and DisneySea. I plan to visit soon and see what all of the fuss is about in person, but for now it appears as if they've come the closest to keeping the same feelings of the original Walt vision.

c4a

08-21-2008, 10:33 AM

Thank you. Linda.:tilt:
WDW came to be because Walt was frustrated that Disneyland had became so commercial. It was surrounded by resorts, and shopping districts. It had strayed from it's purpose-to be a safe,fun, family friendly escape.
Walt was looking to take us back (Main Street, USA is an example)...to remind us what a family vacation is supposed to be about...family. He wanted us to be entertained while being educated. To stretch our minds and imaginations to new limits and possibilities.
Somewhere, somehow that is being lost. THAT is what I lament...not the rising prices, long lines, multiple phone calls to get an ADR. With rising popularity-prices,lines, and competitive ADR grabbing is to be expected. Disney IS a corporation...they are in it to make money. I understand the mass marketing (I don't like it & thinks it cheapens the sentimentallity of Disney souvaniers. When people are buying souvaniers geared around a destination BEFORE they even leave home because the item is cheaper and easier to find...:confused: ).
Uhm, Condor-something to consider-perhaps, some of us didn't "miss your point":rolleyes: in your earlier posts...we just chose to ignore the comments. :angel: :)

zulemara

08-21-2008, 01:44 PM

c4a

08-21-2008, 02:28 PM

zulemara

08-22-2008, 12:42 AM

Fantasmic starting in September 2008 will go to Monday and Thursday nights. Disney says they MAY consider additional shows during peak seasons; however, at this time...they are not forseeing another schedule change.:sad2:

Also, Disney is telling us to "suggest the "New! American Idol" show as an alternative to those wishing to see Fantasmic!" in our marketing material.
Perhaps-the still gagging reflex-I should have used the words " as an alternative". Sorry.
I don't watch that show at home-after driving 18 hours, I sure as all-get-out don't want to watch it at Disney!

be that as it may, I can't imagine that during peak times they won't increase showings. There will be ssoo many pissed off people if they can't get in. It's bad enough you have to line up an hour before the theater opens. ugh! Stupid american idol!

btw I bought the "Disney wars" book today. I can't wait to read how Eisner screwed up the company!

BRERALEX

08-22-2008, 11:58 AM

And what about all the other posters in this thread and lurkers who just enjoy reading.

Lurking

Enjoying

rutgers1

08-22-2008, 06:09 PM

I bought "Disney War" today, too. I also bought "Walt Disney: The Triumph of the American Imagination." Since I am still having trouble seeing the conspiracy, I figured that I would read Disney War so I too can hate Eisner, lol.

Speaking of Eisner, I took my first tour over to Jim Hill's site today and saw that Disney is naming him a legend. Apparently the same debate is going there as is here: click here for comments (http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/jhmcomments/16257.aspx)

I think that there are three major points in this thread, and I am not sure that I agree with all:

1) The first is that many think that Walt wasn't about marketing or selling out in any way. While I would agree that Roy was more concerned with the bottom line, it is my understanding that it was Walt's idea to use the Disney TV show as a free opportunity to advertise Disney movies and parks. He was less concerned about entertaining than promoting with the tv show. Likewise, wasn't he one of the first to full explore merchandising, essentially using Mickey in any way possible to generate a profit for his company? Before Disney, that type of merchandising was relatively uncommon.

2) The second is that most of Eisner's changes were bad. I don't think they are "complete" by any means, but I see a lot of potential in Animal Kingdom and Hollywood Studies. There are parts that I don't like, but then again, there are parts that I wouldn't have liked in the original Disneyland. Those that criticize would have you think that Walt would not have been happy with any of the changes taking place during the Eisner regime. I think he would have loved many of the animated films, the safari at AK, Buzz Lightyear, many of the hotels (perhaps not all, but many), and more.

3) The last is that Eisner is a mean dude. Perhaps he is. I have to learn more about him to comment further...hence my purchase of Disney War. However, the biography of Walt that I read made him out to be a pretty mean dude, too. He was known to rip apart anyone and everyone who worked with him, and he wouldn't give his animators and imagineers credit for anything. The only one who got billing was Walt. I don't know for certain, but I would be that is why the imagineers gave credit to themselves all over Disney World (ie, signs on storefronts along Main Street USA). I think that was a bit of a swipe at Walt, who from what I gather, would never have allowed that to happen. Perhaps I am wrong.

YoHo

08-22-2008, 07:16 PM

Disney War along with Storming the Magic Kingdom are some of the best books you can read about Eisner.

I have to really laugh at anyone who would attempt to claim that that certain element needs to be educated on Walt. I mean, I should keep my mouth shut, but come on.

Also

I'd like to harkin back to a comment made a few pages back and that was that the Disney parks are Art.

This is fundimentally true and it is at the core of understanding the problem.
Walt Disney's theme parks were a work of art to him and to the artists he used to create them.

It's a small world is art.
Pirates of the Caribbean is art. Oh how it's art.

Dumbo isn't so much art, but the setting and the thought in the design of fantasyland is art.

Theme parks are a creative artistic endeavor. And at best, if you want to be as generous as humanly possible, you might possibly be able to say that Disney has moved from the Monet,Van Gogh and Picasso that was Walt and his immediate successors. To Thomas Kincaid painter of snowglobes in the 1990s to Starving artists this Sunday at the Motel 6 by the freeway.

Every once in a while something of value pokes through, but it's no Picasso.

cristen

08-22-2008, 08:22 PM

The first is that many think that Walt wasn't about marketing or selling out in any way.

Wrong. We all know the story behind DL the TV show and why Walt put it on the air, it was major advertising for him. It was a great way to get the whole nation to learn about his new project and to build the anticipation among the public. And don't forget the story about Walt wanting to give out the booklets for free so that when people put it on their coffee table at home, their guests would notice them and learn more about the park. But Walt was smart about it. Watching DL on TV, you got to watch the process of building his dream, you were on an adventure to see the next greatest thing WALT DISNEY was doing. You were excited about it, instead of feeling like you are being hounded for a time share while you are in the parks.

Ask Baron what that DL show did for his love and excitement for Disney and DL as a yound boy that continued into adulthood.

And you are right about the Mickey plush, it was the first of it's kind. The difference is, I believe, it wasn't so in your face, and it was more tasteful. Now that last part is my opinion, and it could be wrong, but I never felt like I was in the middle of an ad campaign when I went to DL. I was at DL which was a dream, the most magical place on Earth. Now it feels like it's just there to push another Pixar movie or whatever else they are trying to shove down my throat. Disneyland was the star, everything else was the supporting role, not so much anymore.

He was less concerned about entertaining than promoting with the tv show.

This could not be further from the truth. Everything Walt did was with the intent to entertain. He may have been promoting the park, but he did it in an entertaining way through the tv show. He may have been promoting space exploration, but he did it with cartoons so as to teach through entertaining. You aren't honored with being the first, and I believe, the only, person in the history of the Earth to have the award "Showman of the World", without being concerned about entertainment.

http://ftp.afilm.com/blog/ShowmanP1.jpg
http://ftp.afilm.com/blog/ShowmanP2.jpg

However, the biography of Walt that I read made him out to be a pretty mean dude, too. He was known to rip apart anyone and everyone who worked with him,

Yes, that is known as well. But he wanted the best out of his people because he knew he would put his name on it. If you watch any interviews or read any interviews of the people who have worked with him and the look on their faces when they speak of him or how they still after all these years, cry when asked about the time he died. It seems to me that he was well liked, that even though he had a temper, people respected and loved him.

Have you ever heard or seen that with people who have worked with Eisner?

he wouldn't give his animators and imagineers credit for anything. The only one who got billing was Walt.

I believe back in those days, this was common practice. I could be wrong.

deej696

08-22-2008, 08:33 PM

I think that there are three major points in this thread, and I am not sure that I agree with all:

1) The first is that many think that Walt wasn't about marketing or selling out in any way. While I would agree that Roy was more concerned with the bottom line, it is my understanding that it was Walt's idea to use the Disney TV show as a free opportunity to advertise Disney movies and parks. He was less concerned about entertaining than promoting with the tv show. Likewise, wasn't he one of the first to full explore merchandising, essentially using Mickey in any way possible to generate a profit for his company? Before Disney, that type of merchandising was relatively uncommon.

I would never profess to be a Walt expert by any means, considering I was born well after he died. But I think many make him out to be purely creative, without a drop of business sense. Wasnt it Walt who trademarked his own name, and forced the company to pay him royalties for its use? Some would call this unethical, but I call it a shrewd and genius business move. Granted, this served as a huge divide between he and Roy, but it just proves he was far more into the dollars and cents than history makes him out to be sometimes....

There's 2 more cents, to use Linda's words;)

c4a

08-22-2008, 09:02 PM

Rutgers-some good and valid pts. I am also glad that you used the words "some of you" and "many of you". Thank you.
I'd like to personally answer to the 3 pts that you made.
1.)Walt wasn't about Marketing& selling? Walt was a business man. Disney is/has always been about making money. HOWEVER, Disneyland was meant to be the "first escape"-Walt's BABY (as you will)-withen 15 yrs. it was surrounded by hotels, strip malls, and restaurants. It was not what Walt had in mind. Back to the drawing board-the new vision "WDW" was purpously planned. The land was purchased through many small "Dummy corporations" owned by one corporation...Disney. Now that is an astute business man!! He had the forethought to realize that just going in and "gobbling" up land wouldn't go unnoticed-which it pretty much did, except for that one farmer. Walt didn't want WDW to become another "shopper's delight" like Disneyland. He wanted guests to have a feeling of entering a whole new world. But what is it slowly becoming? And I don't just mean with DTD and the new PI proposed shopping district. Queen Capitalism is rearing her head & that is fine as long as we are honest about the fact. It is change, though.
2.)Eisner's changes bad? Change is change. As I get older, any change is an inconvience for me. There I said it. Perhaps it is the whole "middle-aged thing"= memories of going in March and not having to stand in line to ride anything. Dole whips that were twice the size of the ones, now-and I swear I think they were even sweeter and creamier. Honestly, I DO think some of the changes have been for the better. The Eisner Era and Post-Eisner have brought us more restrooms, resorts, child care facilities, activities, budget flexibility, two new parks (Animal Kingdom being my favorite, followed closely by EPCOT). Just please, keep in mind that some of us "old foggies" are aching (yes, aching inside) for something that has turned into a bittersweet memory.
3.)Eisner is a mean dude? I don't know. I, personally have never sat down and had dinner with the guy. We aren't on each other's Christmas card list.;) I can only judge him by how he has been REPORTED to have treated Disney employees. (Reports that I take with a grain of salt-every story has 3 sides...) Your right in saying Walt had his "flaws". He was a human. That said-I grew up with the Mickey Mouse Club in black and white, and Uncle Walt coming into my living room every week-thanking me and thousands of other boys and girls for inviting him into our homes. I have NEVER had Mr. Eisner do this. Have you? That is another aspect missing/changed-Walt was personnable- we were GUESTS & he considered himself to be a GUEST in our homes.
I love Disney-the Walt era, Eisner era, and post-Eisner. Nothing will ever change that. However, part of that love is I don't view Disney through "rose colored" glasses. I accept it as it is. I acknowledge that there are flaws. However, those flaws aren't going to make me turn my back on Disney and go running to where-ever.
Loving doesn't always mean liking.

DVC-Landbaron

08-22-2008, 09:53 PM

I bought "Disney War" today, too
Great!! You will truly get an education. Some other people on this board might want to do the same. Come on! You know who you are!!
I figured that I would read Disney War so I too can hate Eisner, lol.
After you’re done with it, it will come naturally. But you have to do it with humor!! We’ll start with the spelling of his name. It is NOT Eisner. It is Ei$ner! And the “$” does not represent money for the company but money for Ei$ner. You will learn he was quite inept at running Disney, but very, very good at lining his own pockets!!
The first is that many think that Walt wasn't about marketing Some may think that, but not anyone who knows anything about the man. He LOVED making money. But the philosophical difference was what the money was used for. For Ei$ner it is increasing his personal wealth. For Walt it was a means to explore other venues, try new things and in short – CREATE!!
The second is that most of Eisner's changes were bad. I cannot think of a thing he initiated that wasn’t BAD! Some worse than others, but nearly all of them bad!

Now if we try hard enough we might come up with something that he did that was right, but I can’t think of any off hand.

Also, that doesn’t mean that good things didn’t happen under his regime. But he had very little (if anything) to do with it.
I don't think they are "complete" by any means, but I see a lot of potential in Animal Kingdom and Hollywood Studies. Case in point. Do you really think that within the “Walt Philosophy” they would have put up ½ day parks?
The last is that Eisner is a mean dude
Well, not so much “mean” as arrogant, self absorbed and utterly egotistical.
However, the biography of Walt that I read made him out to be a pretty mean dude, too Yep! He also liked to dip his donuts in bourbon. Yet he didn’t allow drinking in his park! Go figure. A complicated guy. But he certainly knew how to make magic, didn’t he? And he made it at an extreme VALUE for his guests! Another point that many just don’t get!

deej696

08-22-2008, 10:19 PM

Baron would your last name happen to be Katzenberg:lmao: :rotfl:

And whats the matter? You dont think EuroDisney and ABC Family turned out well?:rotfl:

Ok jokes aside, Disney War is a great book, but I would not call it an education. Text books are education and are typically filled with undisputed fact. Disney War is a version of events, and is the Yang to Eisner's Ying... "A Work In Progress." Assuming that Disney War is the final word on what really happened, is like treating the Da Vinci Code as non-fiction. Its another view on the story, and the truth probably lies somewhere in between....

And as far as Eisner's personal wealth. Lets remember that the vast majority came as a result of stock options, not salary. Eisner only made money if every other shareholder in the company also did the same, which is the duty of every CEO in the world. I would love to find an interview where Diane Disney Miller complains about the 30 fold increase in her family's stock....

zulemara

08-22-2008, 10:52 PM

I would never profess to be a Walt expert by any means, considering I was born well after he died. But I think many make him out to be purely creative, without a drop of business sense. Wasnt it Walt who trademarked his own name, and forced the company to pay him royalties for its use? Some would call this unethical, but I call it a shrewd and genius business move. Granted, this served as a huge divide between he and Roy, but it just proves he was far more into the dollars and cents than history makes him out to be sometimes....

There's 2 more cents, to use Linda's words;)

he did! and I learned that today reading my book :cool1: :cool1:

I will of course take everything with a grain of salt. I am seen as the Disney guru by pretty much everyone I know(but am humbled on these boards at those who know more) and that's why I decided if I'm going to complain non stop about the company, I need to know how it got where it is. how did it lose focus? I was under the impression that the company was and should be about the parks, but from the first 50 pages, everything revolves around their movie division. I suppose that makes sense since it was animation that started the company, but I just envisioned they would focus on the theme parks a little more. All I've seen thus far is a side mention of EPCOT costing 2 billion dollars and hurting their stock.

Who is up for partnering with Roy to bring another hostile take over??

YoHo

08-22-2008, 11:39 PM

Ok jokes aside, Disney War is a great book, but I would not call it an education. Text books are education and are typically filled with undisputed fact. Disney War is a version of events, and is the Yang to Eisner's Ying... "A Work In Progress." Assuming that Disney War is the final word on what really happened, is like treating the Da Vinci Code as non-fiction. Its another view on the story, and the truth probably lies somewhere in between....

Perhaps, but there are too many people "in the know" that concur with that version of events.

DVC-Landbaron

08-23-2008, 09:32 AM

Baron would your last name happen to be KatzenbergUnfortunately (financially) I am not!!

Ok jokes aside, Disney War is a great book, but I would not call it an education. Text books are education and are typically filled with undisputed fact.
I didn’t call it a text book. I called it an ‘education’. As in: learning something you never knew before.

I also used that term for our friend Condorman (whom I contend is still reading this long-winded conversation). He claimed that:
Funny how you claim to long for his standards and goals and know absolutely nothing about the man or his means. But that's why I'm here... to educate you.
And I was merely prodding him (and everyone else on this board) to educate himself! And since I don’t know any definitive “text book” on Disney I thought Disney Wars might be a good place to start.

Now, please understand that I do not, even for a moment, take every word in it as gospel. No! Of course not! That would be silly! I only believe 99.9% of it!!!!!

Disney War is a version of events, and is the Yang to Eisner's Ying... "A Work In Progress."
Again a huge difference! Ei$ner’s book is… well… I guess you’d have to call it… Ei$ner’s Book!! It is the epitome of self-aggrandizement. It shouldn’t surprise anyone who knows anything about the man that he would put out this questionable tale in which HE (caps deliberate) is the hero!!

Conversely, on the Disney Wars front we have a Harvard Graduate, acclaimed author and what is more important, a neutral third party just telling the story as he sees it. Is it subjective? Sure it is! What in life isn’t? But do you think it might be closer to the truth than someone trying to vindicate the questionable moves he’s made in his life? I don’t think there’s anything “ying and yang” about it. And that can also be said for “Storming the Magic Kingdom”.

And as far as Eisner's personal wealth. Lets remember that the vast majority came as a result of stock options, not salary.
Oh where is AV when you need him!!!!???

A long while ago we had this very discussion. And some rather interesting facts were brought up about the bonus structure, timing of the stock options, etc. All I did (when I was educated in these things) was shake my head and started typing his name with the “$” in the middle! Yes! I brought that cute spelling to this board. And it was in direct relations to those talks here.

I’ll try to find them so you can have a link to it, but… Maybe YoHo remembers it. Or there’s always hope that AV will answer.

BTW. YoHo is right. There are WAY too many people leaning in the same direction (some very well connected). Ei$ner’s “Work in Progress” is the ONLY one leaning the other way. Just something to think about.

PS: is like treating the Da Vinci Code as non-fiction.
You mean it’s not!!!!! ;)

deej696

08-23-2008, 01:57 PM

I would love to see the thread, but I doubt it will change my opinion;) When I first purchased Disney stock in 1996 I read Eisner's contract from front to back in the annual report. Granted I was 16 at the time, so I dont really remember the specifics:rotfl:

I'm sure Eisner made many decisions with the timing of his stock options in mind. But the way I see it, regardless of timing, if the stock went higher as a result of news etc, then it went higher for everyone, not just Eisner. Which again I say is the job of every CEO in the nation. Perhaps your info will enlighten me:thumbsup2

Taking Disney War to even be 99% true, is no different than taking "Work in Progress" to be the same. Both were written by authors trying to make money, and lets face it, controversy and heroism both sell. The 100% truth usually does not....

But at least we both agree that Da Vinci Code could be true:rotfl:

Condorman, please come out of hiding. Apparently I'm the only one on this side of the fence, and if Baron teams up with AV I'll be screwed:rotfl: :lmao:

DVC-Landbaron

08-23-2008, 06:16 PM

I would love to see the thread, but I doubt it will change my opinion
There we go!! That’s what I call open minded!!!!

But seriously, I think it might. However, I’m not good at that archive, looking up stuff! It takes WORK!! And I don’t like work. I like to pontificate. And I’m not bad at it. And surprisingly I’m usually not wrong either, though I don’t cite my own words. Others are good at that. YoHo isn’t bad and Hope is WONDERFUL!! (You listening Hope?) And AV… well… He’s AV isn’t he?!!! Anyway, they usually back me up.

When I first purchased Disney stock in 1996 I read Eisner's contract from front to back in the annual report Granted I was 16 at the time You may want to re-read it then. The fine print that has to due with deadlines and such. I’m led to believe it was quite creative!!

But the way I see it, regardless of timing, if the stock went higher as a result of news etc, then it went higher for everyone, not just Eisner.
AH! But that’s when that timing thing rears its ugly head again. Overall it was just so-so (and at times downright BAD – I’m a stockholder too!!), yet he made (and I’m guessing I remember it correctly) over a QUARTER OF A BILLION!!!! Not bad, eh?

Taking Disney War to even be 99% true, is no different than taking "Work in Progress" to be the same.
I guess you missed my point about one being self absorbed and an regular Ego Trip!! And the other being by a relatively un-invested third party. In fact, if I’m not mistaken, he went into the project with a wholly different slant and midway though it discovered that Ei$ner was a megalomaniac. He quickly changed direction and PRESTO Disney Wars was born!!

Condorman, please come out of hiding.
He’s not reading this – remember? ;)

Apparently I'm the only one on this side of the fence, and if Baron teams up with AV I'll be screwed
We used to team up all the time. And there wasn’t one single casualty. Just a few conversions to the true Disney Philosophy!! And you look like a prime candidate!! Ask raidermatt or DisneyKidds. It's a compelling business philosophy!!

deej696

08-23-2008, 06:42 PM

Baron I must say I am really enjoying this, and I would love for others to jump in. I'm not impossible to be converted, but as I said earlier, Michael Eisner was my hero as a kid, so it may be an uphill battle. Yea I know most kids want to be like a different Michael, but he was mine :thumbsup2

So setting aside Eisners faults with the Katzenberg drama, what makes his QUARTER OF A BILLION different than Eisners? Surely if you want to fault Eisner's pay, then every other executive who benefited from these contracts should be under the same standard. How much did Litvak, Iger, Katzenberg and Wells all make during the same period. Shame on the board for not being more proactive in all of these contracts, and obviously they cost shareholders dearly. But I dont see any "Katzenberg robbed the company blind" threads.....

I like to pontificate. And I’m not bad at it. And surprisingly I’m usually not wrong either, though I don’t cite my own words.

Maybe some day I'll learn to pontificate, it just sounds cool:lmao: :rotfl: But surely someone who knows how to pontificate knows that there is no right or wrong in debates:thumbsup2

So I'm curious, when did you become a shareholder and why?

KYMickey

08-23-2008, 10:33 PM

Baron I must say I am really enjoying this, and I would love for others to jump in. I'm not impossible to be converted, but as I said earlier, Michael Eisner was my hero as a kid, so it may be an uphill battle. Yea I know most kids want to be like a different Michael, but he was mine :thumbsup2
That's because you're too young to realize how Walt thought and envisioned Disney properties. Of course they have to make money to survive but how they make money is certainly completely different.

In Walt's philosophy you gave the Customers what they wanted and they in turn would spend their money and you'd make money. It became a win-win situation.

In Eisner's philosophy you cut corners where ever you can to make money and hope your customers keep coming. If fewer customers come you just cut more to keep making money. It's definitely not a win-win proposition.

Peter Pirate 2

08-23-2008, 10:44 PM

In Walt's philosophy you gave the Customers what they wanted and they in turn would spend their money and you'd make money. It became a win-win situation.

A slight correction but my personal benchmark on 'all things Disney' is that Walt believed you should EXCEED guests expectations...

This philosophy alone made Disney different than everyone else.
pirate:

KYMickey

08-23-2008, 10:55 PM

Pirate: Thanks for correcting me! You are indeed correct Walt strived to exceed customer expectations in every way. Eisner on the other hand only wants to exceed stockholder expectations and really doesn't take that customers into account.

deej696

08-23-2008, 11:05 PM

That's because you're too young to realize how Walt thought and envisioned Disney properties. Of course they have to make money to survive but how they make money is certainly completely different.

In Walt's philosophy you gave the Customers what they wanted and they in turn would spend their money and you'd make money. It became a win-win situation.

In Eisner's philosophy you cut corners where ever you can to make money and hope your customers keep coming. If fewer customers come you just cut more to keep making money. It's definitely not a win-win proposition.

I understand that 100%. Did I live during Walt's time, no. But the foundations of the company are not lost on me. If the philosopy changed to "cutting corners and hope your customers keep coming" how do you explain the growth in attendance figures year after year. Even Eisner's flops DCA and DLP have registered increases in attendance nearly all of the last 5 years. Sure Eisner could have simply raised prices, cut corners and drove some people away, and yet still made more money because the people who did come paid more. But we all know Disney's record with price increases, and yet attendance figures still keep going up...

Long story short, if things have deteriorated as much as we say, then why dont the attendance figures reflect it. Disney's business lives and dies with repeat customers, so clearly they are having no problem convincing people to come back, including the thousands on these boards.....

KYMickey

08-23-2008, 11:27 PM

I didn't say that the park attendance hasn't grown, I said that things were not done in accordance with Walt's philosophy. Attendance has Grown because there are more places for them to go to and stay at (again something not part of Walt's philosophy). Obviously Disney, especially WDW needed more places to put people to make more money! These new places however were built cutting corners and as cheaply as possible. If they had been built with the same philosopy that the original Disneyland and Magic Kingdom (into a lesser degree Epcot) were the attendance figures would be considerably higher than they are now. The only newer attractions that would truly meet Walt's expectations are probably Test Track and portions of Soaring, Mission Space and Everest.

deej696

08-23-2008, 11:40 PM

Yes there are more parks and resorts, but my point was that each of those parks has seen a year over year increase in attendance practically every year, not just that combined attendance has gone up. Many will say DHS and AK were half done projects, and I can see where they get that. But why do these parks continue to see a year over year increase. The only way these increases are possible is if Disney is able to capture significant repeat customers. So if the quality is not what it should be, then why do they..correction, why do WE keep going back.....

YoHo

08-24-2008, 12:00 AM

How can you say park attendence has grown year over year when Disney does not officially release their numbers?
All those numbers in the press? They are guesses. They aren't real.

Anyway, you know how you keep attendence up?
You offer your dining plan for free. etc etc etc.

If the studios and AK are so great, then why did Disney invent park hopping a little bit after MGM opened? PRior to MGM, people were content to spend all day in one park. It made more money for Disney that way. Suddenly everyone wanted park hopping. Maybe, because MGM wasn't worth staying in all day. Maybe, if they had been built right, attendance would be even better.
Also, you have to realize that in the 90s, WDW completely changed vacation expectations. In the 70s and 80s, a WDW vacation was at best a once every 5 years deal for most families. Starting in the mid 90s, they brought in DVC and more mid and value resorts. They raised the prices on the Deluxes and made the place a haven for regular, every year, or multiple times a year visits.
That completely and totally changed their model and it affected their attendence. Unique visitors hasn't risen, number of visits has.
Eisner was no one to look up to. He was arogant, vindictive, paranoid, bad at his job and anyone who disagreed with him was an antisemite. And I looked up to him too. I remember seeing him introduce the Wonderful world of Disney. It's nice to be a kid and not have to know the truth.

As for his stock options. What I've heard from those in the know is this:
Remember that whole stock option fiasco that Steve Jobs had a year or two ago? Well he ain't got nuthin on Michael Eisner. A lot of paperwork got shredded when Jobs was busted.

And finally, Treating Disney War and A work in progress as equal is just a lot of balderdash. A Work in Progress was written by an egotistical dunce who was trying to fix his image after the Katzenburg and Ovitz debacles. (that darned Midget) The other was written by a well regarded author with no direct ties to the company and a reputation for journalistic excellence that he would have wanted to maintain.
To suggest that the sources are equal is ludicrous.

PS.
I don't do good with Archiving either. There's been a lot of discussion since you were last active, maybe Hope will find it.
I must agree though, nearly 10 years of discussion, there are a couple years of us discussing the same thing over and over again.

minnie61650

08-24-2008, 12:36 AM

DVC-Landbaron

08-24-2008, 02:48 AM

First of all a question. Is that you pictured in the avatar? If so, which one? The strapping young man or the rather fetching woman? Or do you take turns? Just curious.

Baron I must say I am really enjoying thisMe too!!

I'm not impossible to be converted, but as I said earlier, Michael Eisner was my hero as a kid It’s OK. We all make mistakes. Especially when we are young. Heck! I believed in some strange and blatantly wrong stuff when I was younger!! But once I reached about the age of eighteen or so I had to reassess the whole Santa thing!!!! I mean that guy could not possibly fit down my chimney!!!!
Yea I know most kids want to be like a different Michael, but he was mine I’m sure you mean Bolton?
So setting aside Eisners faults with the Katzenberg drama, what makes his QUARTER OF A BILLION different than Eisners? Several things. First of all you can’t “set aside” Ei$ner’s faults with the deal. It was because of him that Katzenberg wanted revenge!! And I really can’t blame him. And since dueling was out of style and he wasn’t connected to the Chicago Outfit, he chose to hurt Ei$ner where he would really feel it. Monetarily!! You did read Disney Wars, didn’t you?

And BTW: I’m sooooooooooo sorry!! I misspoke!! It was NOT a quarter of a billion that Ei$ner got away with. How silly of me!! I guess I was typing too fast. I even had to go back and look at what I wrote and sure enough – it was WRONG!! So let me correct it!! He made over THREE QUARTERS OF A BILLION!! My bad! Sorry!!
Shame on the board for not being more proactive in all of these contracts, and obviously they cost shareholders dearly. OH COME ON!!! Who do you think controlled the board!!!??? His DENTIST was on the board!! They were proactive!! Very proactive. They had their marching orders and they knew on which side their bread was buttered!! And you are right!! It did cost the shareholders dearly! VERY DEARLY!!!
But I don't see any "Katzenberg robbed the company blind" threads..... You should have been when the place was lousy with Ei$ner lovers!! Poor Mikey!! How dare that CREEP not just going away like LORD MICHAEL wanted him to!!
Maybe some day I'll learn to pontificate, it just sounds coolYeah! It does, doesn’t it? And it’s easy! Just find something you’re passionate about and start typing. Oh! And be sure you never knowingly lie! You can make a mistake, but never mislead purposely.

If you follow those rules you’re half way there. The other half is next…
But surely someone who knows how to pontificate knows that there is no right or wrong in debatesAh! Contraire!! I am ALWAYS right!!! That’s the other half of pontificating!! You HAVE to be right!!
So I'm curious, when did you become a shareholder and why?Back in the seventies. Because it was still a GREAT company!! With a GREAT philosophy!! And I thought EPCOT (while not Walt’s dream city) sounded good to me! A sure moneymaker!! And when I saw it firsthand I bought more.

Peter Pirate Wrote
A slight correction but my personal benchmark on 'all things Disney' is that Walt believed you should EXCEED guests expectations... This philosophy alone made Disney different than everyone else. YES!! YES!!! YES!!! You finally get it Peter!!! But the lunkheads in charge of Disney do no not!! They haven’t exceeded expectations in quite some time!!! Say 1981 or so…

Hmmmmmmmm I wonder if Ei$ner had anything to do with that change in philosophy!!!!!??

deej696

08-24-2008, 08:30 AM

:surfweb:

First off a clarification. I was not saying that Work in Progress was equal to Disney War. Trust me, I know self promotion when I see it. I was simply trying to say that for Baron to believe "99.9%" of what was said in Disney War, would be like someone doing the same with Work in Progress. My point earlier on the two books remains, they were both written by authors to make money. Heroism and controversy sells, and the truth probably lies in between, and yes more toward the Disney War side of things. But 99.9%...come on:thumbsup2

I guess I dont follow what is wrong with WDW being a once a year destination, instead of a once every 5 years. If the goal is to increase attendance, wouldnt it make sense to get people to come more often? If we dont know the "true" attendance figures, then how can we know that unique visitors have not risen? And even if they haven't, again I say if the quality has gone to pot, then why do these guests who have been many times before continue to come back, invest thousands in DVC, etc.

And as far as the board, yes Eisner controlled them, thats very clear. But he didnt control them in 1984 when his first contract was approved, and its there that the groudwork was laid for the rubber stamping that occurred on his renewals later. Even Disney War pointed out that no one on the board was involved in Katzenbergs set up either. Surely someone should have thought "You know, 2 percent of all his movies could be enormous. Maybe we better put some sort of cap on that."

Baron the reason I asked when you became a shareholder is its puzzling how one can slam Eisner for focusing all about profit, when you yourself profited as well. Did you go to the shareholder meetings and complain about the 30 fold return you saw? I doubt it, although that would be a funny sight:rotfl:

Oh and yes thats me in the avatar, I'm the not so strapping young fellow.:thumbsup2 Taken right before brunch at Club 33....

YoHo

08-24-2008, 01:30 PM

I guess I dont follow what is wrong with WDW being a once a year destination, instead of a once every 5 years. If the goal is to increase attendance, wouldnt it make sense to get people to come more often? If we dont know the "true" attendance figures, then how can we know that unique visitors have not risen? And even if they haven't, again I say if the quality has gone to pot, then why do these guests who have been many times before continue to come back, invest thousands in DVC, etc.

The problem is that repeat visits are riskier. Do you know how most of the those DVC memberships are financed? with Adjustable rate home equity loans based on property that is no longer maintaining value. What do you think a DVC holder will default on first?
By making Disney a lifestyle brand and catering to regulars, Disney has tied themselves far more directly to the state of the economy then they were previously. They are in for a world of hurt but soon.

And on the flip side, regular visitors don't care as much about big fancy new attractions, because they're going to go a bunch of times in the year, so they're already content to see the same thing over and over again. They are more likely to be satisfied with small changes and special pins and stuff like that. They don't mind having park hours cut as much, because they come so often, they'll just go to the shopping mall, I mean DTD. They are content to have the experience cheapened.

Now you may say "That's great" Disney can spend less to maintain those visitors. The problem is, that when the economy tightens, those people are going to stop coming. The people that treat Florida and Disney as a bigger deal. Well, they're a different breed. They aren't mindless drones sucked into the Pretty fairy princess happy magic highschool musical Montana Sparrow Lifestyle branding. People plan for years for those kinds of vacations. Money gets saved. Plans thought through. They are looking to have a great vacation and they will judge Walt Disney World based on the value they get for the money, because money is tight. And those people will look at what new attractions have been added. They'll note that Epcot used to mean something in the 80s and now it's just a punchline from the Simpsons. They'll even notice that the Tokyo Disney properties cost about the same to visit and STILL maintain the level of Disney excellence that Walt established and they will make their choices. And WDW will lose out more and more.

I myself am a good example. I haven't been to WDW in a number of years, because my personal economy has tightened and the company has managed to destroy any desire I had. I may go as a part of a trip to Universal to see the Harry Potter stuff, but my plan is to put my money into a trip to DL Tokyo. To see real magic.

And as far as the board, yes Eisner controlled them, thats very clear. But he didnt control them in 1984 when his first contract was approved, and its there that the groudwork was laid for the rubber stamping that occurred on his renewals later.
Didn't he though? He and Wells were hand picked by Roy and his backers. They named terms.

Baron the reason I asked when you became a shareholder is its puzzling how one can slam Eisner for focusing all about profit, when you yourself profited as well. Did you go to the shareholder meetings and complain about the 30 fold return you saw? I doubt it, although that would be a funny sight:rotfl:

Because he was buying into Walt's dream. You really can't understand unless you were there. I barely understand myself. The Disney Studios wasn't just a company you bought stock in. Walt Disney wasn't just an entertainer or a CEO.

Disney was so much more than that. Yes, they needed to make money. They needed to make money so they could keep being Disney.

minnie61650

08-24-2008, 01:32 PM

......Maybe, because MGM wasn't worth staying in all day. Maybe, if they had been built right, attendance would be even better.
......

When DISNEY- MGM Studios first opened I thought it was built right. (Well, at least more right than it is now. At least it really had a lot of the parts of a real working studio.... Much of which is sorely lacking now). There was a lot more to see IMHO. At that time we felt it was a full day park. They started cutting a big part of the tours even before LMA was added and the backstage residential street with the home from "Earnest save's Christmas" and the facade of the "Golden Girls" home were demolished to make room for the LMA show.

The backstage tour use to have many more parts and back then the studios truly were "working" studios and guests could experience much more of the making of movies and TV shows.

The following info was condensed by me but taken from my 1990 Birmbaum's WDW guide book.

When the Sudios first opened the BackStage tour began with a with a presentation of the history of the Walt Disney Studios on overhead TV monitors in the Queue area.
The line weaved through a gallery of milestones and memories from the early days of Disney Studios.
That part took about 25 minutes to complete.

At that point guests loaded onto the trams.
The trams went by a bunalows housing project where actual work was being done on several TV shows.( Win, Lose or Draw, The New Mickey Mouse Club, etc) Then we through the "greens" dept. where trees, plants, & shubs were kept until they were needed for a set. Then the tram traveled through a tunnel and we saw the Wardrobe dept. The tram then passed through the Camera, props, and lighting dept. Then we got to take a look into the sceanic shop where we could see carpenters working on sets.

The tram then turned onto the Backlot residential street. (where LMA is now ).
After that on to Catastrophe Canyon.
From Catastrophe Canyon the Tram headed for the "streets of NY City'.
On the way to PART 2 of the tour the Tram passed the the trolly and "Dipmobiel " used in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit"

Part 2 of the tour was on foot.
First we followed Roger Rabbit's Big Purple Footprints to the Loony Bin shop and a chance to play with some of the props used in the movie. Our kids loved playing with the boxes that made animal sounds, street sounds, or laughter when opened.

Following the footprints once again we were lead to another queue area where a Goldie Hawn/Rick Moranis video was played to help pass the average 20 minute wait for PART 2.
The first part of the tour is the one wherea guest who was chosen from the audience puts on the yellow raincoat and is filmed sitting at the helm of a "ship" which is in a storm and the guest gets more than 400 gallons of water dumped on him/her.

Then it is on to the prop room where we got to see familiar creatures including members of the cast of
" Captain EO".

Then onto the room with a Giant Bee that was used from " Honey I Shunk The Kids".
3 children were chosen to participate. DS Bob age 9 at the time, DD Cathy ( age 6 at the time ) & DN Steph (age 6 at the time ) were chosen. Bob opted out ( he was shy) so they chose another child
from the audience.

Cathy "rode" on top of the Bee, Steph rode on the Bee's wing and the other child sat in the Director's chair.
The guests are shown how film is shot against a blue screen and then superimposed onto any backround chosen. The kids were filmed and the footage is cut with real scenes from the movie.

Then we continued on to the sound stages with the soundproof catwalks.The guests walk through 3 sound stages where
filming for movies or TV shows may be taking place.
When we went in 1990 they were filming "Wheel Of Fortune".

From that area we were led onto a walkway where a Bette Midler short film was presented on overhead TV monitors. That film was shot entirely at the Disney-MGM studios so we and the other guests could recognize the sets from the NY city part of the backstage tram tour we had just experienced.
In the short movie Midler discovers she has a winning lottery ticket but somehow the ticket falls out of her window onto the apartment building ledge a few stories above the street and she tries to retrive it. ( If I remember correctly she goes on to the window ledge and whenshe trying to get the ticket she somehow falls off the ledge into a shopping a cart.
It was really a cute film.
After the film we were led into a wherehouse where some of the sets and props that were used for the MiMidler film were stored. A hostess then explained some of the special effects that were used to create some of the highlights of that film.

Next in the area known as the the Post Group, We watched a film where George Lucas, C3PO, R2D2 narrated about editing techniques , and Mel Gibson and Pee Wee Herman explained the sound effects

Last stop on the tour was the Walt Disney Theater where clips from recent and soon to be released Disney and Touchstone films were shown.
-----------------------------------------------
In 1990 we saw other attractions that have since closed.
Superstar television...Where roles in famous TV shows were up for grabs.
Members of the aduience were chosen to take part.
The stage had several sets, The camera operatorswould shoot the actors in action. The auience would watch on giant screens but the action would vary because they would blue sreens to merge the live action with historic clips from classic shows.

One was a guestin the seat on the "Today Show" on July 17,1955, the day that Disneyland first opened.

Another one was a guest who played Ethel Mertz with a scene played from "I LOVE LUCY"where the guests tries to wrap candy from a factory on the canveyor belt and the belt starts going too fast and she can't keep up.
(It was so funny to watch).

There was a scean from "General Hospital".

Several children were chosen to star in the opening song of "Gilligan's Island. etc.

Monster Sound Show......
It was not about monster's but rather how "Foley" sound effets are added to movies and how theyhave to be timed just right.

and of course the Annimation building use to have a 71 member annimation team worked in shifts so we could see them working on current projects.
We saw the 15 oscars that were won by the Disney Animation team.We saw a collection of drawings from Snow White, Fantasia, and other cartoon classics on display.Then we moved into the Disney Animation Theater where we saw an * minute funny flim about the basics of animation.

After that we got we got to walk through a working annimation studio!

First stop story room where annimators delveloped the story lines. ( Remember.. We actually saw men and women working on the storyline not just an empty room with a few artifacts.) We got to see artists working at their desks sketching different characters and bring them to life!

We also got to see the clean-up room, the special effects area and the special camera which was used to bring the cels to life!

FYI:
to produce a 24 minute film the team had to complete 34,650 drawings, add scenes from at least 300 backround paintings before finishing the work with musicale scores and special effects.

The last stop was a presentation of magical moments from the world's best loved animated films which was shown in the Disney Classic theater.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

My conclusion.........

The Studios has added many new rides and attractions but it truly has lost the working studio theme it once had.

Very sad indeed. :(

YoHo

08-24-2008, 01:48 PM

I used to enjoy the studios a lot more as well, but lets be honest here. It was never a well laid out park and it was an attempt to beat Universal to the punch. AND it had a low attraction count.

Many Imagineers at the time were offended by the place.

YoHo

08-24-2008, 01:51 PM

Also, I can't remember for sure, but I beleive the world passports had different restrictions from what we now call park hopping.

deej696

08-24-2008, 02:08 PM

Yoho I see your point 100% on the elasticity of demand from repeat guests. I tend to take a different point of view as far as the impact a slowing economy will have however. Usually luxury items are the first to go during tough times, and a WDW vacation without a doubt fits that description. But I think we underestimate how many people view their Disney vacation as a "must do" and will choose to cut elsewhere before cutting Disney. Perhaps they will stay in a moderate instead of deluxe. Maybe it will be 5 nights instead of 7, but in my opinion, people will find a way to get their vacation, because to many its a requirement not a choice. I agree that they will experience a slow down during tough times, but I think we just differ to what degree....

And I agree 100% as well with the thoughts on the Studios. The loss of the true Studio feel was a big one, and I agree that its never been the same since. As a kid, I was selected to do the bumble bee, and I will always carry that memory with me. But I still think its a great park, and there are plenty of places for memories to be made. Do I like American Idol, no. But millions do, and for the AI fan that is selected to perform, that memory will be no less magical than the bumble bee was for me. And when AI becomes a thing of the past, Disney will evolve and find something else to fill the void....

minnie61650

08-24-2008, 02:10 PM

Also, I can't remember for sure, but I beleive the world passports had different restrictions from what we now call park hopping.

No restictions that I know of . We had unlimited use of both the MK and Epcot. We could hop on the monorail and go back and forth as much as we wanted each day. The Passports did not include the water parks but niether did the park hoppers. The water parks were only included with a plus option in the Park Hoppers.

minnie61650

08-24-2008, 02:38 PM

....

And I agree 100% as well with the thoughts on the Studios. The loss of the true Studio feel was a big one, and I agree that its never been the same since. As a kid, I was selected to do the bumble bee, and I will always carry that memory with me. But I still think its a great park, and there are plenty of places for memories to be made. Do I like American Idol, no. But millions do, and for the AI fan that is selected to perform, that memory will be no less magical than the bumble bee was for me. And when AI becomes a thing of the past, Disney will evolve and find something else to fill the void....

Over the years I also have learned that there will always be change.
Things either evolve or become exitict.

The Stuido's are evolving into more of a theme park and less of a " studio" and while some like the changes others do not. Even so like them or not I must say that I think some of the changes that are taking place at WDW does take it's cues from our younger generation.

There are a lot rumors about new attractions coming to the parks( Little Mermaid ride, Snow White/7 Dwarf coaster, Pixie Hallow, Monsters, Inc. Coaster, Star Tours 2, a Jules Verne type land, with the wet/dry 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea as well as Journey into the Center of the Earth , etc. Some will come others might not but they sound very encouraging and I for one am looking forward to new additions to the parks.

Just my 2 cents.

c4a

08-24-2008, 06:53 PM

]As for increased crowd turn-out-we have to keep in mind the fall of the U.S. dollar. Our dollar value has brought international visitors to our shores in droves!
We cannot overlook the importance of these guests (and their county's stronger dollar). Even flying OVERSEAS-Disney has became an extremely affordable vacation...some coming several times a year.[/COLOR]

oooooh-Rutgers-see what you started. ;)

KYMickey

08-24-2008, 10:59 PM

There are a lot rumors about new attractions coming to the parks( Little Mermaid ride, Snow White/7 Dwarf coaster, Pixie Hallow, Monsters, Inc. Coaster, Star Tours 2, a Jules Verne type land, with the wet/dry 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea as well as Journey into the Center of the Earth , etc. Some will come others might not but they sound very encouraging and I for one am looking forward to new additions to the parks.
Just my 2 cents.
Unfortunately all we've had recently is rumors, the only significant new attraction at WDW has been Expedition Everest. That's one attraction out of probably hundreds. Looking down the rumors board there have been probably 25 rumors for new attractions and how many of those have actually been announced? NONE! It seems like Disney expects to keep people excited was rumors and not new attractions. Sooner or later everyone will catch on and people's enthusiasm will wane.

YoHo

08-24-2008, 11:14 PM

As a matter of fact, that is exactly what they are doing. Flood the internet with rumors to keep the masses in line.

AV used to say Eisner the Emperor had no clothes, now it applies to the whole company.

Cheaper to get some pixie duster on the internet to toe the company line than to actually build anything.

ChrisFL

08-24-2008, 11:43 PM

I agree, although I think with WDW's 40th anniversary quickly approaching, people may catch on if nothing really good is done, attraction-wise

c4a

08-25-2008, 02:19 PM

I disagree that it is Disney that is starting the rumors.
A quick scroll down the "rumors" board and I can find over 20 rumors that are started by "wish listers" that simply got out of hand. Then there are the threads that are started by someone who instead of posting what Disney actually released has the poster's personal "spin" on it. Add to that, the posts by someone who took the release out of context and posted what they thought the release meant.
I work with Disney on a daily basis-10 hrs a day, 5 days a week. I know first hand how hard it is to get them to admit/deny any rumors until THEY are ready. This is a company that dots it's "i"s, crosses it's "t"s, has to have everything promotional wise 5x copies and 10 days to review before they will clear it. Plus, has a legal department that looks for any reason that Disney could be held liable...including false advertising.
Paranoid to a fine point.Definately. However, in our "sue happy" society...they have to be.
Do I believe that Disney purpously "fans the fires" of the rumors by not clarifying what their plans are...ABSOLUTLY! It is free press for them. The rumors build our expectations and drive us to a new level of excitement for their product.
That said, I have to say when the rumors start getting out of hand-Disney DOES step in. An example of this is the "Fantasmic" fiasco. According to the rumor mill-"Fantasmic" was being completely cancelled. Not so-it is under tighter scheduling constraints due to budget cutbacks with a replacement show (American Idol) available. There is a big difference between the two facts. Another rumor was that the new counter service plan was replacing the base dining plan...also NOT true. It is in addition. Then there is the always popular "Disney to buy Sea World". No sooner had Sea World went on the market, and Disney fans had committed the company to a multi-million dollar contract...complete with what rides/attractions are staying/going/coming. :wizard:
When it comes to the rumor mill surrounding Disney-we, the consumers, are usually the ones turning the crank:stir:

YoHo

08-25-2008, 06:04 PM

All I can say is that I've heard from credible sorces that Disney pays people to churn the rumor mill. In fact, the errors are part of what makes it work. It generates more discussion.

Peter Pirate 2

08-25-2008, 07:45 PM

All I can say is that I've heard from credible sorces that Disney pays people to churn the rumor mill. In fact, the errors are part of what makes it work. It generates more discussion.

I know this (from a credible source) to be true as well.
pirate:

minnie61650

08-25-2008, 08:05 PM

I started the original Eisner thread (very interesting, thanks for the feedback!). Now I am wondering who has been running the show since he left and if the die-hards here are happy with that leadership.

So, here are the questions:
1) Who is leading?
2) Are you happy?
3) What is the direction that you see the parks going, and how does that differ from where they have been in the past? Better? Worse? Predictions?!?!?!

Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is what I posted on Nov.11/2007

From this thread:

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?p=21723050

While Bob Iger may not be as Pro Disney parks as some Park enthusiasts would wish he would be, I feel he has taken some baby steps in the right direction.
----------------------------------------------------------
In January 2006 Disney teamed up with Pixar.

House of Mouse is teamed up with Pixar in a $7.4 billion deal. As part of the deal, Jobs became a board member of Disney And John Lasseter, the highly respected creative director at Pixar who had previously worked for Disney, rejoined the House of Mouse as chief creative officer for the company's combined animated studios and is helping to oversee the design for new attractions at Disney theme parks
For story see this January 2006 link:
http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/24/news/companies/disney_Pixar_deal/

----------------------------------------------------------
Bob Iger also made a trade so Disney could get the rights back to Oswald the Lucky Rabbit.

Press Release from Disney.com - February 9, 2006
WALT DISNEY'S 1927 ANIMATED STAR - OSWALD THE LUCKY RABBIT - RETURNS TO DISNEY

Mickey Mouse's Predecessor Rejoins Disney's Family of Animated Characters through Agreement with NBC/Universal

Burbank, CA (February 9, 2006) – Disney President and Chief Executive Officer Robert A. Iger announced today the return of Oswald the Lucky Rabbit to The Walt Disney Company by agreement with NBC/Universal, the company that had previously owned the rights to Oswald since his theatrical debut in 1927.

"As the forerunner to Mickey Mouse and an important part of Walt Disney's creative legacy, the fun and mischievous Oswald is back where he belongs, at the home of his creator and among the stable of beloved characters created by Walt himself," said Iger.
"When Bob was named CEO, he told me he wanted to bring Oswald back to Disney, and I appreciate that he is a man of his word," said Walt Disney's daughter Diane Disney Miller. "Having Oswald around again is going to be a lot of fun."

When Walt Disney opened his animation studio in 1923, he spent four years producing The Alice Comedies, a popular series of shorts featuring a live girl in a cartoon world. After four years, Walt created a new character – Oswald the Lucky Rabbit. Walt produced 26 Oswald cartoons, which were distributed by Universal and well-received by audiences. However, on a trip to New York to renew his contract for Oswald, Walt discovered a clause in his contract that gave Universal ownership of his popular new character. On the train ride back to Hollywood, Walt was devastated but realized he needed to create a new character – one that he would own entirely – and during that long trip across the country, Mickey Mouse was born.

This transfer of ownership is part of an agreement permitting sportscaster Al Michaels to contract with NBC. In the transaction ESPN also acquired significant programming and promotional rights, including telecast rights to the live Friday coverage of four Ryder Cup golf championships through 2014, expanded video highlights for the Olympics through 2012, video promotion for ESPN's Monday Night Football during NBC's Sunday night football through 2011, and expanded highlight rights for other NBC Sports properties through 2011.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In October 2007:

Trowbridge, who was vice president of Universal's Creative Studios, went to Walt Disney Imagineering -- Disney's worldwide attractions-design company -- as vice president for creative research and development.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lassiter played a big role in the massive 5-year, $1.1 billion expansion and makeover of DCA park announced in Oct. 2007.

-------------------------------------------------------------

My point is even though Bob Iger may not really understand or love the Theme Parks division of Disney he has hired some very talented people who do care. A good team is important in a large comany that has many divisions.The team needs to be made of people who represent and have top knowlege of each division. If Bob Iger continues to hire talented people who do want to improve the parks and if he and the board will follow through and put money back into the parks for improvements and upgrades then the Disney theme parks may once again make the Walt Disney Company proud.

Just my 2 cents.

Peter Pirate 2

08-25-2008, 08:52 PM

Bob Iger was also the man who personally greenlit "Caveman"...'Nuff said?
pirate:

KYMickey

08-25-2008, 09:03 PM

minnie61650

08-25-2008, 09:15 PM

Bob Iger was also the man who personally greenlit "Caveman"...'Nuff said?
pirate:

That was also brought up in the thread I posted a link to in my PP.

This was my reply:

I agree that the Disney company has had a few flops in the last couple of years but they have had several successes as well. The Disney Channel and ESPN are enjoying top ratings. It was reported November 8,2007 that Euro Disney revenues increased 12%this year. That was growth in the Theme parks attendance and the hotel occupancy. The Domestic Parks have also reported near record attendance. During the 4th quarter WDW resort occupancy rate was reported be 90% which is up from 83%.
I think a 90% occupancy rate is a very good showing especially when one considers that WDW has over 20,000 rooms.

I agree Caveman was a really bad idea. I can't even believe that show made it onto the drawing boards let alone into production. On the other hand two of ABC's new network shows Pushing Daisies and Dirty Sexy Money are doing very well in latest fall ratings.

Underdog the movie was a cute movie nothing to write home about but cute. Disney should be able recoup more of it's investment when it is released to DVD.
Game Plan has had very good box office ratings so far.
And even though Ratatouille did not have as high a box office turnout in the US as expected it has been very popular internationally. In fact Ratatouille is now Pixar's second-highest grossing film right behind Finding Nemo.

Just my 2 cents.

deej696

08-25-2008, 09:17 PM

Thank you Linda for getting us back to the original topic, and bailing me out of my outnumbered Eisner debate;)

Bob Iger was also the man who personally greenlit "Caveman"...'Nuff said?
pirate:

And Eisner forced the sale of the rights to "The Sixth Sense," but even his harshest critics dont sum up a career on based on this one decision....

minnie61650

08-25-2008, 09:27 PM

Since Disney went out of their way to obtain the rights for Oswald the Lucky Rabbit what have they done or what do they intend to do with him? So far it certainly hasn't been any great use of the character nor any announced plans. Getting the rights is one thing using them to Disney's advantage is something completely different.

I was so happy when the Disney Company got the rights to Oswald the Lucky Rabbit back.
It was like he was finally home again.
That is truly the important part.
The marketing and taking advantage is not as important IMHO.

I did get the 2 disk DVD set with Oswold and a piece of artwork with Oswald for my guest bedroom.

Here is a photo of the Oswald DVD set:

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a175/minnie61650/OswaldtheLuckyRabbit.jpg

Peter Pirate 2

08-25-2008, 09:34 PM

Thank you Linda for getting us back to the original topic, and bailing me out of my outnumbered Eisner debate;)

And Eisner forced the sale of the rights to "The Sixth Sense," but even his harshest critics dont sum up a career on based on this one decision....

That (one example) was just the epitome of Bob Iger's genius. We could also talk about his PIXAR 'steal' or maybe the 'selling' of WDW (see the 4 Seasons thread) or maybe the 'branding' of everything Disney...Any way you slice it Iger's a dog without a flea collar, IMO.
pirate:

YoHo

08-26-2008, 01:14 AM

Bob Iger has had not one thing to do with the success of ESPN and the Disney Channel. Most of what has made them a success occured outside his perview. ESPN in particular.

So what has Iger done? Well, he decidedLlost was a terrible idea. He decided Desperate Housewives was a bad idea. He pushed millionaire to air multiple days a week. Yeah, he's a frickin Genious.

c4a

08-26-2008, 04:38 PM

I believe we have witnessed a miracle. Other than a few pts. of contention (Oswald should/should not be used, actual ESPN involvement), we all are in agreement. HALLALUAH and pass the Mickey Bars and Dole Whips! :cool1:

How much of the recent changes/announcements really belong to Iger? Granted, as the "big cheese"-the buck stops at the top. However, are the Presidents just holding "toe-dee titles" or are they helping to pull the puppet's strings?

I'm noticing a HUGE difference in the two parks Presidential styles and recent histories.

Meg Crofton came to be President of WDW in Aug. 2006. Under her leadership, we have seen a rise in ticket prices, a decrease in activities and services, and non-theme park related developments proposed (Eagle Pines & Osprey Ridge golf course being turned into a 4 Seasons Golf Community, & the western edge of WDW being proposed as 3rd party owned hotels/housing and shopping district.), renovation of resort rooms with an increase in the per night stay price, a new dining plan addition that costs more than POP, the demise of PI, and LTT going Characterless. If anyone can name 1 good thing (and please do not say more places to shop) that Ms. Crofton has accomplished-please...I beg you...fill me in.
http://corporate.disney.go.com/corporate/moreinfo/four_seasons030207.html

On the other side of the country (& accomplishment list, I must add),
Ed Grier, is the recently named President of Disneyland. Under Grier, 253 rooms are being added to the Grand Californian, the new Tinker Bell attraction is slated to open in Ocober, "Little Mermaid" ride (opening in conjunction with the release of "Ariel's Beginning"), a 1920's Plaza, a "Toy Story Mania" ride, and a new lagoon show "World of Color" are ALL being added.
Now Disneyland is also saying "BYE. BYE" to a few things as well...the Golden Gate Bridge, the giant letters "CALIFORNIA", and the Golden Dreams theatre. Personally, I'm not going to wax poetic on any of these items leaving. Nor do I feel that their loss takes from the park experience in any single way.
Grier has admitted to some possibilities coming to Disneyland: 2 GardenWalk hotels, a third theme park on the "left over" 88 acres of land, a hotel/shopping/dining district (similar to DTD) between Katella Ave. and Disney Way (another additional 866 hotel rooms).
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/disney-grier-disneyland-2025017-hotel-plans?orderby=TimeStampAscending&oncommentsPage=1&showRecommendedOnly=1

My point is both of these Presidents answer to the same boss. Both Presidents/Parks are going in vastly different directions. It just leaves me questioning how many of the decisions are made by the individual Presidents and not by the Walt Disney Company President/CEO. :confused3

deej696

08-26-2008, 06:07 PM

You know what would be a fun thread?...

"Its 1984. You've just been made CEO of Disney. What would you do?"

I'm a little scared to start that one though:lmao: :rotfl:

rutgers1

08-26-2008, 06:31 PM

I am reading Meatball Sundae by Seth Godin. It is an awesome book that looks at what we buy and how companies get us to buy things in this new Internet world. Actually, there is a bit more to it than that, but you get the point. Seth is the guru of marketing. I really value his insight.

Anyway, I am just about at the end of the book when, all of a sudden, he devotes like 5 pages to Disney. Basically, he outlines everything he thinks that Disney should do to get with the times and make the most of this totally changed landscape. A very interesting read! If you are near a library or book store, pick up the book and flip to the back!

zulemara

08-27-2008, 10:50 AM

You know what would be a fun thread?...

"Its 1984. You've just been made CEO of Disney. What would you do?"

I'm a little scared to start that one though:lmao: :rotfl:

It's funny because when my bf asked me what I would do if I were CEO, I found it hard to answer. that's why I bought Disney War. I'm on page 100! It gets more interesting every day!

That would be a fun thread though.

zulemara

09-01-2008, 12:06 AM

so I'm now above page 250, halfway through the book. While I'm enjoying it, it doesn't talk much about the theme parks and the issues there. I understand movies put Disney on the map, but DL is what really propelled Walt into stardom I think. Can anyone recommend a book the talks about the theme park developments with Eisner and/or Iger?

That said I'm enjoying the book although I think it gets into my head a little too much. Last night I had a dream I met Eisner and Iger and asked them both why PI was closing.

rutgers1

09-04-2008, 06:39 PM

I am 62 pages into Disney War. So far, a great read. Here is my question. Was Disney grinding towards a slow death at the time that Eisner came in? If we are to believe the portrayal of Eisner later in the book (I haven't gotten to that part, but I get a sense of it from what I read here), then I guess we should believe the author's portrayal of Disney pre Eisner, which was not so great. From what I gather, it was run by an "old boys club" who thought they were following through with Walt's vision but were mainly playing golf and sticking to the status quo while riding the coattails of the past by bring back old Disney cartoons every 7 years. I can't possibly see how Walt would have been happy with the way Disney was run from the time of his death to the hiring of Eisner.

deej696

09-04-2008, 07:09 PM

Peter Pirate 2

09-04-2008, 09:44 PM

I may be wrong here but I think nearly everybody will give Eisner some credit for 'turning things around' though mostly it was via his relationship with the Bass Brothers and because of them Frank Wells and it very well may be semantical.

Eisner did do things to save Disney if by "save" you mean keeping it independent. He did very little though to adhere to the sanctity of the original business though and to be fair the crew ahead of him did precious little as well. Eisner's idea to save Disney was through huge growth and branding. It worked and Disney is still independent today but many will argue and legitimately so that the act of maintaining their independence overwhelmed and eventually eliminated the very tenants of Walt's ideals which was all that was, in actuality, worth saving.

Disney is now an independent conglomerate that was no longer capable of producing good animated movies (so they bought the 'new' Disney, PIXAR), they don't care about guest experience except in relation to how that affects the bottom line and have admitted they aren't capable of running a 5 star hotel and the theme parks are still being milked thanks to the creative mass marketing to the wal mart masses.

IMO, Eisner did do some things that I think were good, the Water Parks, the themed hotels, good dining (while it lasted) but the overall picture certainly is not favorable, IMO.
pirate:

KYMickey

09-04-2008, 11:21 PM

In my opinion, thats pretty much dead on. It was a company stuck in the past, and nearly ceased to exist as a result. Eisner's critics say that he really isnt responsible for turning the company around, because any idiot would have done the same things he did. Obviously I disagree...
In my opinion the only thing that is dead is the Disney that was created by Walt and that people loved. Today all we have is a conglomeration of businesses that use the Disney name in one way or another. It's certainly not the same experience it used to be. Fortunately I was able to experience the original Disney prior to its demise. The only thing that actually improved was the quality of the restaurants and that too has also declined recently. Hopefully Disney management will recognize the problems and make corrective actions before Disney dies.

zulemara

09-05-2008, 11:35 AM

In my opinion the only thing that is dead is the Disney that was created by Walt and that people loved. Today all we have is a conglomeration of businesses that use the Disney name in one way or another. It's certainly not the same experience it used to be. Fortunately I was able to experience the original Disney prior to its demise. The only thing that actually improved was the quality of the restaurants and that too has also declined recently. Hopefully Disney management will recognize the problems and make corrective actions before Disney dies.
agreed, although I never got to experience the Disney of old. It seems to me that of all the branches of the Disney name, the theme parks seem to fall low on the priority scale when it comes to keeping the vision that Walt had.

rutgers1

09-05-2008, 05:42 PM

Isn't it kind difficult to attribute too many things to "Walt would have wanted this...Walt wouldn't have wanted that" when he was only there to see the creation of one park, and his biggest idea (Epcot) never made it beyond the early prototype stages? From what I understand, Miller and the others running the show during the 70's and early 80's were guys brought into the company by Walt and entrusted to run things his way....yet very little changed or grew under their watch, and certainly very little was done that would make many of the people on this board think that it was done "Walt's way." And with hotels, how can we criticize them for not being able to run 5-star hotels if Walt wasn't a hotel guy himself, and "his" guys were some of the biggest sticks in the mud when it came to change? The GF is 5-star to me, but obviously not to others, but I still think the entire growth of the Disney hotels dwarfs and surpasses what was there before Eisner (Contemporary and Polynesian).

To me, the big difference is that Disney was Walt's baby. When you essentially "own" something - from the idea to the actual land it is built on - it takes on a different tone. For Walt, it was less of a business than a quest. That is why he would put up his own money to get things built. But 25 or 30 years later, with the company having grown so large and still no one else (including Roy) ever taking it on their back, is it really right to get mad at "new management" for taking a more corporate approach?

Well, I guess I have to get back to reading Disney War. The first 100 pages haven't convinced me to hate Eisner yet - but there is still more reading to be done!

Peter Pirate 2

09-05-2008, 07:13 PM

I'm not playing the "what would Walt do" game but I am saying that the Company Walt built was built on certain credos that are not being followed today. I know that Walt would not have continued his energies in the Parks (been there done that) but he wouldn't have just milked it for the sole sake of the milk either.

That Walt was not a hotel guy does not mean that hotels built by Disney in 'modern times' should not be done Walt's way...Give the guest more than he expects...Give them quality and you will succeed. Todays Disney just 'can't' do it that way...:confused:

I'm not one who thinks Eisner was the devil but he was an egomanic and a privialaged egomaniac at that. He did many good things but rather than be motivated by what was good for Disney ("Disney") he governed more by how would it reflect on him (his legacy and wallet) and he had no regard for the common 'park people' because he was born to privalage. That's why fine hotels and dining were among his biggest contributions.

pirate:

DVC-Landbaron

09-06-2008, 01:25 PM

Hello again. I was kind of busy the last week or so. My daughter’s wedding took over all of our lives!! HOWEVER, the wedding is over, she is now on her honeymoon and I just lost a tournament of on line poker to a very bad beat (Nut flush beat on the river by a full house!! The moron shouldn’t have even been in the hand with pocket fours!!) Anyway…

rutgers1 writes

Isn't it kind difficult to attribute too many things to "Walt would have wanted this...Walt wouldn't have wanted that" when he was only there to see the creation of one park, and his biggest idea (Epcot) never made it beyond the early prototype stages?
The short answer – NO.

The long answer – PHILOSOPHY!!

It really boils down to knowing the man’s philosophy of doing things. Let me see if I can explain…

Would Walt have ever created EPCOT as it debuted in 1981? Probably not. In fact, with virtual certainty I think we can all agree he would definitely not!

BUT… If he did get it into his head to do something like that, what kind of ideals, standards and values would he employ to build and operate such a thing? In other words – what philosophical principles dictate construction materials, layout, basic concepts, cost, price points, etc, etc, etc.

Those principles can easily be gleaned by looking at how he did things in the past. Not WHAT he did, but HOW he did it!

yet very little changed or grew under their watch, and certainly very little was done that would make many of the people on this board think that it was done "Walt's way."
OK. Two statements in one sentence. One I agree with, the other is utter nonsense! First…

“yet very little changed or grew under their watch,”

Yes! I agree. Sadly they were like deer caught in the headlights. They were terrified to make a move. It could be because they didn’t know how. Walt had been in charge for so many years they simply didn’t know how to “start” without him. I don’t know the reason, but things did seem to stagnate, I’ll grant you that. But then they did seem to get off the dime a bit when they made plans for Splash, Little Mermaid and EPCOT. ALL of them in the works BEFORE Mr. Wonderful was brought on board. And ALL of them were created in the “WALT PHILOSOPHY”. Which is where the second part of your sentence comes into play.

“certainly very little was done that would make many of the people on this board think that it was done "Walt's way."”

EVERYTHING they did was done “Walt’s way”!! It was one of the factors that led to the stagnation. They were afraid to make any moves because of the “Walt’s Way” of thinking! But the day to day operation was certainly “Walt’s Way”. And when they finally did decide to make some moves forward it was done completely “WALT’S WAY”.
And with hotels, how can we criticize them for not being able to run 5-star hotels if Walt wasn't a hotel guy himself, and "his" guys were some of the biggest sticks in the mud when it came to change?
GOOD LORD!! 5 star!! I don’t think Walt gave a flying f… I mean, Walt didn't care anything about some snobbish hotel rating!! He was out to give you a “DISNEY EXPERIENCE” Something that those stupid stars couldn’t even begin to comprehend!!

The GF is 5-star to me
And that is the problem with the hotel. It is… well… let me see… how can I say it… I KNOW!!

It is very nice! Very elegant! May even be five star!! I suppose you could lump it into that category along with the hundreds of other five star hotels in the world! Certainly you can list it among the 4 star hotels!! Isn’t that nice! Isn’t that good! Isn’t that NON-Disney!!

In other words it is – Pedestrian. Plain and simple – Pedestrian. If you can get the same experience almost anywhere else in the world, then I guess it is NOT a special, magical, pixie dusted – DISNEY experience. And that’s what I find sad about the GF. It is VERY, VERY nice! Rich! Elegant! Stylish! Chic! Just like every other hotel that could share those adjectives. But just as those other hotels are NOT Disney – so is the GF. The only thing that makes it Disney is the zip code.

is it really right to get mad at "new management" for taking a more corporate approach?
Yes! It is! Simply because that “corporate approach” replaced Walt’s Philosophy. And in doing so turned it into a mundane company.
Well, I guess I have to get back to reading Disney War. The first 100 pages haven't convinced me to hate Eisner yet - but there is still more reading to be done!
Wait!! By the time you’re done, and a few more posts by me, you’ll be driving car #3 and looking for someone to ride shotgun with you!!

PETER!!!

My goodness, Peter!! You sound like I did three or four years ago!! If you keep this up I may see a little tag in your signature like DisneyKidds has in his!

We just have to get rid of one sentence and the post would be perfect:
He did many good things
Name one! Name one he initiated and just didn’t green-light for corporate or political motives! Go on!! NAME ONE!!

rantnnravin

09-06-2008, 02:00 PM

Would Walt have ever created EPCOT as it debuted in 1981? Probably not. In fact, with virtual certainty I think we can all agree he would definitely not!

could you imagine Walt's director's eye taking in the Epcot landscape with the Swolphin looming in the distance????:scared1:

DVC-Landbaron

09-06-2008, 02:20 PM

EXACTLY my point!! And a great example.

Thank you Ei$ner!!! You really are Mr. Wonderful!! That's was doing things Walt's style!!

Now do you get it?

Peter Pirate 2

09-06-2008, 02:29 PM

Landbaron, we've 'been there done that' with this game...I won.;)

As I said the water parks were totally on his watch and totally a good thing.

Otherwise, while I'm not quite as black and white as you with most things Disney, it has dawned on me that realities are different for people during different stages of their lives. I had my complete Disney love moments (as do most of us) when my kids were very young, meaning Disney at that time facilitated my needs very well. Now, no longer seeing Disney through my childrens eyes, I need and expect more, knowing the ins and outs of what had preceeded the present makes it easier to figure that imagination, dream and wonder no longer rule the roost.
pirate:

DVC-Landbaron

09-06-2008, 03:10 PM

I couldn't have said it better myself. The kids just puts pixie dust in your eyes. Mine did it to me too. And then one day they cut summer hours by two hours!! And I looked at Disney without my rose colored glasses. I clearly remember when it happened. 1990. Walking out of the MK on August 1st at 10:00 with hoards of others, and vacuum cleaners blaring in my ear!! And I saw, for the first time, that Walt's philosophy (something I hadn't defined for myself at the time) was long gone!! It was more of a feeling rather than a cogent thought. And I remember it was very sad indeed!!

Landbaron, we've 'been there done that' with this game...I won.
Yes you did win! The truth set you free! Knowledge is power!! And any other trite phrase you care to use!! The point is you won by removing the pixie dust and seeing the CORPORATE DISNEY for what it is. And I'm glad I could help!!

rantnnravin

09-06-2008, 04:48 PM

And I looked at Disney without my rose colored glasses. I clearly remember when it happened. 1990. Walking out of the MK on August 1st at 10:00 with hoards of others, and vacuum cleaners blaring in my ear!! And I saw, for the first time, that Walt's philosophy (something I hadn't defined for myself at the time) was long gone!! It was more of a feeling rather than a cogent thought. And I remember it was very sad indeed!!

Although my DD is still young, 8, what did it for me was being herded through backstage pathways past dumpsters to get to/from Fantasmic.:confused:

YoHo

09-06-2008, 07:43 PM

In the interest of answering the question posed at the top of the page.

The answer is that Pre-Eisner Disney had...problems.

And that problem was Card Walker.

When Walt Disney was alive, Card Walker moved up the rungs of the company. When Walt Died, he became VP under Roy and President when roy died. In 1980 he became CEO.

Now here's the tricky thing. Card wasn't an imagineer, he wasn't a creative guy, but he knew how Walt wanted things to run. So during the 70s Disney operated in sort of a malaise where they simply wouldn't change anything from the Way the company was run during Walt and Roy's last days.

Into this came Ron Miller. Ron was Walt's son in law and Walt wanted Ron to take over.
We don't know everything there is to know about what Ron would have done, but he was more in tune to change than Card. Ron had a number of plans to improve the company. Card stopped them, because they were new and different from what Walt knew.

And then of course, Card and Ron were on the outs with Roy E.
And that made Roy angry.
By 1983, Card finally let Ron take over, but Roy E. hooked up with the Bass bros. and took control.

Now here is what is really important.
Ron wanted to found touchstone, he greenlit splash.
Ron wanted to release the catalog on Video, but Card wouldn't let him
Ron was the one that had work on The Little Mermaid started.
Ron was the one that saw inefficency in costs and ways to improve stock performance.

And Ron asked Eisner to join and take over the Film division knowing that his contacts would help the studio even if he was a fraud creativly.

In other words, The Disney Studios were on the upswing when Roy E decided to throw a tantrum.

When Eisner and Wells walked in, they had all of Ron's plans right in front of them. They didn't have to do anything, the work had been done for them.

Now don't get me wrong, Frank Wells was a smart guy and he did good things for the Walt Disney company, but all indications are that if Roy hadn't brought them in, Ron Miller would have charted much the same course to stabalize and protect the company.

So in the end, the fiction of the Disney company being broken up is just that, a fiction.

minnie61650

09-06-2008, 11:13 PM

......GOOD LORD!! 5 star!! I don’t think Walt gave a flying f… I mean, Walt didn't care anything about some snobbish hotel rating!! He was out to give you a “DISNEY EXPERIENCE” Something that those stupid stars couldn’t even begin to comprehend!!

And that is the problem with the hotel. It is… well… let me see… how can I say it… I KNOW!!

It is very nice! Very elegant! May even be five star!! I suppose you could lump it into that category along with the hundreds of other five star hotels in the world! Certainly you can list it among the 4 star hotels!! Isn’t that nice! Isn’t that good! Isn’t that NON-Disney!!

In other words it is – Pedestrian. Plain and simple – Pedestrian. If you can get the same experience almost anywhere else in the world, then I guess it is NOT a special, magical, pixie dusted – DISNEY experience. And that’s what I find sad about the GF. It is VERY, VERY nice! Rich! Elegant! Stylish! Chic! Just like every other hotel that could share those adjectives. But just as those other hotels are NOT Disney – so is the GF. The only thing that makes it Disney is the zip code.

I agree!! I also think the GF has nothing to do with “DISNEY EXPERIENCE” !

They just copied another hotel...........

(here are 3 examples that have the same theming as the GF)

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a175/minnie61650/2.jpg

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a175/minnie61650/Merriotwentworthbythesea.jpg

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a175/minnie61650/GrandHotel.jpg

...and dropped the GF in the spot that was reseved for the 'Future Asian Hotel"

The Asian hotel could have been a “DISNEY EXPERIENCE” theme instead of victorian theme that many hotels in the US emulate.

I think that why I dislike the GF so much. It leaves a sour taste in my mouth because I know what should have...could have been built where the GF now stands!

--------------------------------------

Before the MK was even built plans were in place for 4 hotels to be on the monorail line.The Grand Floridian hotel is on the land that was set aside and dedicated to be the "Future" Asian Resort Hotel (A). The "Future"
Venetian (B) Resort was going to located between the Poly (5) and the Contemporary (8). A fifth hotel was going to build on a monorail spur which ended at the "Future" Persian Resort (C). That resort would be located just to east of the Mk and North of the Contemorary and would built with much of the hotel being on /over the water of Bay Lake. So even though the GF was not built until 18 years later a hotel was planned for that area at the same time the monorail was planned.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a175/minnie61650/YGP32D4disneyfuture.jpg

YoHo

09-08-2008, 01:09 PM

It is Ironic that the new owners of the Hotel Del Coronado have opted to gut the interior and replace it with a more modern, shopping mall like interior. It's a bit of a case of man bites dog.

The Lounge from some like it hot is now but a distant memory.

Galahad

09-08-2008, 04:34 PM

Probably a disjointed contribution - haven't been over here in a while.

One Eisner contribution that I (and about 5 others) really liked was the Disney Institute. Didn't fly. I don't really know whether it was execution or vision but it didn't work. My family loved it though, and during that period we did as many Disney Institute classes as we could fit in. It really was different and was a great opportunity to let the creative folks at WDW run with something. I guess that was the problem. They were never allowed to do any more that repeat the same old rock climbing and cooking classes.

I'm pretty much with Peter still - though I don't buy the "privilege" angle on Eisner so much.

DW and I just celebrated an empty next. We decided to a long week at WDW - OKW to be exact. We bought in at OKW I think the second year they were offered. Over the recent years the deterioration of the Disney experience and the loss of the magic has been disheartening but we always loved OKW. We stayed away from WDW and even Florida for 2 1/2 years. In part to see of we could recapture some of the magic that repeat visits might shadow.

Honestly, for the most part it didn't work.

We haven't enjoyed going to the parks in years so we do less and less of that with each trip. This time, EPCOT was our only park visit. It was a profound disappointment. It has turned into nothing more than a bland but glorified food court. Low crowds or not, there was almost no evidence of a CM anywhere that cared a whit about the experience they were supposed to be creating. Mexico was no more remarkable than Italy was no more Remarkable than Inoventions. Soaring was quite good and we liked the new Living seas, but they were hardly worth the price of admission.

And Disney Dining - the final nail in the "magic" coffin as far as I'm concerned. Brought the whole of the quality of the Disney dining experience way down including the quality of the food and the service. But it also takes away the very possibility of spontaneity. Disney magic is now strictly regimented - give a smile won't you? We had four wonderful meals - 3 of which were in restaurants that did not accept Disney Dining and one that did but it seemed made it very "expensive" to use Disney dining there so they were not crowded with people with their checklists.

We had two Disney experiences that were very much like the old Disney magic for us. We took the Segway tour at Fort Wilderness and we had a lovely meal at Citricos. The CM's in both cases were what we remember in a Disney CM. Almost everywhere else it wasn't even average let alone a cut about the "outside world". There is really nothing remarkable about WDW any longer.

So, I'm not all that happy with Iger either. He simply solidified the things Eisner got rolling and now it's a well oiled machine. How sad. Closing the Pixar deal was necessary for there to be any hope for the future short of a complete dismembering so for that I think Iger deserves kudos of sorts.

DisneyKidds

09-08-2008, 04:54 PM

Just wanted to throw out a couple of thoughts on why Baron's discussion of philosophical changes is sooooo important to this discussion. It's a point that can easily be overlooked by the crowd of people, many of whom had never experienced first hand or researched in depth how Walt's driving philosophies shaped the company from the earliest days, who find it hard to get past the growth explosion that took place under Eisner and his Disney Decade. And keep in mind this, few people really fall in love with a company the way they became enamoured with Disney just because they turn the tidiest quarterly profit or year over year stock growth, or attain top conglomerate status. To attain the kind of following Disney achived you have to touch on something in a special way, and then build upon it. That is something that has been sorely lacking in Disney for some time now. Quality and Show haven't ruled the roost in a long time. There are soooooo many places where that becomes evident that one would hardly know where to start. Since it pretty much all started with animation, the decimation of Disney Feature Animation would be a good place, but what a long discussion that would be.....one that many people might no be interested in becasue the latest direct to video abomination about Ariel and her beginnings cost nothing to make and therefore is an add to the bottom line with each DVD sold. For those reading Disney War, you will soon be illuminated to some of the incredible opportunities that the company passed up under Eisner's direction so that we could have.........Go.com? or Buy Fox Family? Now some might point to those debacles and say that they were just flawed implementation of a sound business strategy, but a more cogent argument could be made that such decisions were made more to satisfy Eisner's need to be a media mogul, rather than doing what was in the best interests of the company long term. Where is the next Pirates of the Caribbean (not the movie)? Why did Disney have to acquire Pixar at some hugely inflated price so that the parks could have characters to draw from in the future? So many questions. Alas, the answer comes back to Disney having been stripped clean of any soul, of any creativity, of any ability to create something new, innovative and lasting.......and that can all be traced to the philosophical changes that driven the company over the past 20+ years. Sacrifice quality, compromise the guest experience, only give the people the minimum you need to to keep an acceptable portion coming back, all while turning a tidy profit and padding your stock options. That sounds an awful lot like a lot of other companies in corporate America today.....and that is something Disney never was and never should have become.

DVC-Landbaron

09-08-2008, 05:24 PM

Mr. Galahad, I agree with your take on OKW, but disagree about the Institute. I never got it. Now don't get me wrong, it may have been well done, it may have been fun, but to me - it was NOT Disney!!

WELL SAID MR. KIDDS!!!!

It took a while but you have indeed become... ME!!!

Now!! Let's take a really good look at those 1972 Poly prices, so you can correct that misleading tag line!!!

zulemara

09-13-2008, 11:03 PM

it's getting very difficult to read Disney War based on Eisner's big head and inability to judge a good idea. sixth sense...Lord of the Rings...the list keeps growing! you frickin moron!

DVC-Landbaron

09-14-2008, 02:42 AM

I hate to say it... And it is with tongue-in-cheek... But...

I TOLD YOU SO!

rutgers1

09-14-2008, 11:48 PM

Don't you think that a book on any CEO of a major entertainment company would be filled with projects that they passed on that went on to make millions?

I am only about 1/3 of the way finished, but my take so far is that the author really doesn't paint anyone in too positive of a light. From reading this board, I thought that Katzenberg was going to come out smelling like roses, but not so...at least thus far. Eisner definitely looks a bit loony, but then again, so does everyone else in this tale.

rantnnravin

09-15-2008, 05:59 AM

It's important to remember that the author began the project as an homage of sorts to Eisner. After conducting research, however, the focus of the book changed. Eisner was NOT happy when the manuscript was submitted.

YoHo

09-16-2008, 01:41 AM

That's true, the initial intention, or rather, the expectation was to document a CEO and company that were good.

I don't know why anyone would have suggested that Katzenberg made out like an angel. He's a jerk too. He just got played by a bigger jerk.

DancingBear

09-16-2008, 06:02 AM

The stupid thing Eisner did with Katzenberg wasn't not making him President as Katz wanted, it was trying to cheat him out of his severance pay.

SandraVB79

09-16-2008, 10:06 AM

Sorry I am simply adding that I found this to be hilarious:rotfl:

Everyone makes some great points. I tend to lean on the side of "The past is gone forever" but then again, I have no idea what it was like in 1971. To me the Disney of 1990 is "the old days" and I am perfectly happy with what we have:thumbsup2

I have only read up to page 6.
The Disney I can relate starts in 1998, that's when I first set foot in a Disney park (DL) and fell in love with it. It wasn't until 2001 that I visited DLp and 2006 that I visited WDW.
I am way too young to remember Walt, I have no clue how it was in the old days, but am I therefor a dumber visitor?
I enjoy these parks for what they are, and I don't care what they used to be. Nothing will ever be like it used to be, because everything is evolving. Could things be better? Sure, but I'm sure there were things that could be better in the old days too :)

Also, when you go very often to the same place, it just looses its magic, because it's becoming a habbit. I have that now with DLP. Yes, the place is very beautiful and all, but it's not as magical to me as it once was. It used to be an expensive trip I made every 2 years, and now I'm there about every month :)

Peter Pirate 2

09-16-2008, 11:40 AM

I have only read up to page 6.
The Disney I can relate starts in 1998, that's when I first set foot in a Disney park (DL) and fell in love with it. It wasn't until 2001 that I visited DLp and 2006 that I visited WDW.
I am way too young to remember Walt, I have no clue how it was in the old days, but am I therefor a dumber visitor?
I enjoy these parks for what they are, and I don't care what they used to be. Nothing will ever be like it used to be, because everything is evolving. Could things be better? Sure, but I'm sure there were things that could be better in the old days too :)

Also, when you go very often to the same place, it just looses its magic, because it's becoming a habbit. I have that now with DLP. Yes, the place is very beautiful and all, but it's not as magical to me as it once was. It used to be an expensive trip I made every 2 years, and now I'm there about every month :)
You may not be a dumber visitor but for some reason your expectations are lower. I was just a kid when WDSW opened and honestly didn't go often as my parents didn't like it and we kids didn't love it.

I started to appreciate Disney in the early 90's. It gave me an escape that I was looking for with my young children and all was hunkey dorey. But as the kids grew and my knowledge of Disney grew I could see the shifting of attitude away from the covenents that Disney was famous for. They no longer strived to be the best they could be, they no longer strived to exceed the guests expectations, they were no longer superior to other companies as they had always been and that didn't (doesn't) bother them.

The tribute to what Walt created is that after all this time, through all these changes and despite a total reversal of company philosophy many, many people are still able to find some of the magic that Walt intended. Not just brand loyalty, not just phoney celebrations, not just expensive commemorative pins but the fact that some of the CM's still feel like they're working for a special company, that the greatness of rides 30 years old and characters even older have endured the test of time. That despite the overall feeling that all Disney really wants to do is rob your wallet there is still something magical about the premise on which it was all built. I think it's more in evidence at DL than WDW but it's there nonetheless.

So no, you're not 'dumber' for the way you look at WDW but you are shortchanging what Walt gave us. What Walt proved could be done. The fact that he believed and succeeded by giving us quality at any cost, by telling us the story we didn't even know we wanted to hear, by always trying to exceed our expectations proves that even today it doesn't have to be bottom line thinking only. PIXAR is living proof of a modern company who took Walt's philosophy and excelled.

Enjoy Disney for what it is but IMO it's just sad to write off the greatness of what once was just because it is now what it once was...
pirate:

zulemara

09-16-2008, 12:14 PM

The tribute to what Walt created is that after all this time, through all these changes and despite a total reversal of company philosophy many, many people are still able to find some of the magic that Walt intended. Not just brand loyalty, not just phoney celebrations, not just expensive commemorative pins but the fact that some of the CM's still feel like they're working for a special company, that the greatness of rides 30 years old and characters even older have endured the test of time. That despite the overall feeling that all Disney really wants to do is rob your wallet there is still something magical about the premise on which it was all built. I think it's more in evidence at DL than WDW but it's there nonetheless.

and I intend to be that CM each and everyday starting on day 1 when I get back in January and continuing all the way up the chain.

I really latched onto Disney as a theme park in 2003 and then when I went as a CP in aug 2004 I really became a lifer. There were several events in my life that made me latch onto the company and the experience and that's what drives me to go back. For some people, the Disney of the 90s is the old Disney. For me, it only goes back to 2004, but things like the closing of PI, reduction of fantasmic is the same as other people's views of things that have changed or closed in the past.

And yet...no matter how mad I get at the book(and I expected to get angry, so I told ya so doesn't really apply:thumbsup2 ) I am drawn to go back. Why? Why can I stand at an info table and tell people why they should work for Disney while at the same time I do nothing but b*** about the company. It's because at the very root, there ARE still people who want to give guests the magical experience. A CM on the front lines can't control PI closing or a ride closing or a show being reduced, but that CM can make someone's day just by saying hello and smiling. On top of that, LGBT issues are extremely important to me and quite frankly, Disney is a leader in the corporate world and has been within its upper ranks going back to the late 80s.

I feel like WDW is my only safe haven where I don't have to worry and the fact that so many CMS do so much to make your day keeps me coming back.

So while I'll complain about plenty of things they do, I hope I never turn my back on the company. As long as the theme parks are around, I'll be there trying to work my way up the ranks.

k5thbeatle

09-16-2008, 12:55 PM

... People will be far more willing to pay first class prices for first class experience.

My nomination for THE BEST comment on these boards ever!!!:thumbsup2

Why has this basic concept been forgotten (and not just by Disney)? People will still pay top dollar if the value is there...

raidermatt

09-16-2008, 01:19 PM

The reasons you still want to work there are much the same reasons that many of us continue to post and talk about Disney. We know what's going on up top, and unfortunately much of it has filtered down through the organization. That's unavoidable.

But there are still people who WANT to do things right, even if they don't know exactly what that means anymore. The situation will not improve without true change at the top, but the hope is that the change will eventually come and there will be enough of Walt's vision left for them to build on.

There's really no logical reason to think that will really happen, but I guess that's the hope.

Sandra, I think Mr. Pirate said it well. You are not a "dumber" guest, you just have lower expectations because you don't have a frame of reference that includes how the company was run at one time. You can't differentiate between what came from the original vision and what came from the "new" Disney.

The good (or bad) news is that if you want to learn, the info is out there. Most who take the time to do so come to similar conclusions, that things have most certainly not changed for the better. It does unfortunately tend to sour you on the current company, but it also will give you a greater appreciation for what REALLY created the true Disney, the Disney that still manages to shine through today, despite all that has happened around it.

raidermatt

09-16-2008, 01:22 PM

My nomination for THE BEST comment on these boards ever!!!:thumbsup2

Why has this basic concept been forgotten (and not just by Disney)? People will still pay top dollar if the value is there...

The majority in the business world have always looked more toward figuring out how little they can provide to acheive a certain profit. Those that focused on providing a "fair" value have always been the minority. Disney has just moved from one group to the other.

k5thbeatle

09-16-2008, 01:31 PM

... Maybe it's because people expect less these days since the same type of thing have become generally accepted everywhere...

BINGO!:rolleyes:

YoHo

09-16-2008, 08:22 PM

It's not as simple as lowered expectations.

It's not like one day everyone who went to WDW decided they'd accept a crappier experience.

Disney just started degrading the experience and expectations followed. Always with an excuse.

When Disney was riding high, it was easy to just assume they knew what they were doing. People who just want to enjoy their vacation and aren't into the history wouldn't know or care about the difference.

It's only now when things have gotten so noticable that many more people care.

Having said all that, nobody's dumb for liking current WDW. Although, I would say that a website like this would never exist if Disney hadn't been better than it is now. It wouldn't have had the popularity.

raidermatt

09-17-2008, 03:55 AM

I don't get that either. From the start, Disney set out not to give people what they were willing to accept, but to give them more than they would have ever thought to ask for.

Nobody was clamoring for a full length animated feature, nobody was asking for a theme park designed like a movie set, etc.

That's one of the things that made Disney what it became... they sought to exceed expectations, not just meet them. That was a significant way in which they differed from the rest.

Today, more often than not, they choose to meet instead of exceed. That's their choice, not the public's.

We all know the quote from Walt that says "Give the people everything you can give them". Now, I know you can't manage by soundbytes, but it's signficant that he didn't say "Give the people everything they ask for".

It's a huge distinction.

k5thbeatle

09-17-2008, 10:39 AM

This is an interesting thread to be sure.

As someone pointed out somewhere in this thread (I believe), despite the changes and the valid negative points exemplifying the decrease in quality the company is making money. And I suppose you cannot argue that. However, one can't help but wonder if this will continue or, as I believe, eventually come back to bite them. I guess only time will tell? I know we have decided to skip a trip this year as we no longer value the experience as we once did. Certainly there can be many reasons for this but amongst our reasons is a noted decline in quality. Just my 2 cents.:confused3 :wizard:

DVC-Landbaron

09-17-2008, 11:08 AM

I don't get that either. From the start, Disney set out not to give people what they were willing to accept, but to give them more than they would have ever thought to ask for.

Just to expound a bit on the subject that Matt (and others) have touched on. It comes down to expectations (which has been mentioned) combined with (and this is most important) experience, and VALUE.

Since 1968 I have always maintained that Disney was expensive. People who had never been there would ask about the cost of such a vacation. And I would honestly tell them. Their reaction (after they finally shut their gaping mouths) was universally, “WOW!”

But I would quickly follow it up with, “But it is worth every penny!!!!”

Let me give you an example.

Back in 1964 every across the country there were amusement parks. Inevitably each of these parks had a ride similar to the “tunnel of love”. A simple boat ride with cardboard cut outs plastered onto the walls. Let’s say for the sake of argument that this ride (yes rides were individually priced) was sixty cents. (The money amounts are NOT necessarily accurate, I did no research whatsoever and I am going just on feel. They are used only as illustration.)

Now here comes this guy named Walt, and builds an amusement park. And he puts in a ride similar to the tunnel of love; boat ride that goes past scenes. But instead of cardboard cutouts, he takes it a step further. Several steps further. He tells a story with is ride. AND he makes it move! AND he themes it. AND it isn’t dark, but instead is wonderfully bright!! AND he adds music!! A catchy little tune that you can’t forget (no matter how hard you try!!!) AND he creates an outside facade that simply dazzles the eyes!!! AND for all this he does charge more that the going rate of 60 cents. He charges 75 cents! He could have charged three times that!!!

Within a couple of years, insisting that the company remain cutting-edge he adds lifelike figures that dazzle the imagination and a story that is deep in sub-text, style and movement. And he still charges just minimally over the standard rate for the corner-store, dime-a-dozen, dilapidated variety of rides that were offered in every stupid carnival and amusement park across the country! Yes!! Pirates was the most expensive “boat ride” in the amusement park world. But, MAN-O-MAN!!! Was it worth it!!

And when you come right down to it, it didn’t break the bank at all!! In fact, when you consider how high Disney raised the bar, when you thought about what you actually got for your hard earned dollars compared to similar entertainment, it was downright CHEAP!! And that’s what put the VALUE into the experience!!

Anyone can make a wonderful experience for people. You see the very rich have those experiences all the time. If you pay enough money and the company throws enough money at a project, anything is possible. But is the experience worth the price? Is the experience what I expect it to be?

In other words does it have value? Does it exceed my expectations for the money I’m paying? Sadly today, I’m not so sure.

k5thbeatle

09-17-2008, 11:26 AM

...In other words does it have value? Does it exceed my expectations for the money I’m paying? Sadly today, I’m not so sure.

That's exactly how we feel.

rutgers1

09-17-2008, 04:11 PM

DVC Landbaron.........I guess this is where I disagree with you. I had season passes to Hershey Park, and although I love Hershey, Disney exceeds it in so many ways that I have lost count. Forget about comparing it to carnivals and seaside boardwalk areas (like Wildwood NJ). I have also been to the local Six Flags here in New Jersey, and once again, it can't compare. For example, although the Six Flags has a safari ride that you drive through, I would gladly pay more money for the safari at Animal Kingdom. No comparison. Six Flags used to have a freefall ride where you were dropped vertically from several stories up, but it can't begin to compare with the theming of Tower of Terror.

Now, back to the striking difference between the original Magic Kingdom and other theme parks. I will agree that the difference is not as striking as it once was if you are comparing individual rides at some parks, or perhaps comparing it to Universal - a theme park that has been doing everything it can to copy and in some cases differentiate from the original. But for that, isn't it possible that others have raised their games as much as Disney might have let us down? Once Walt showed what could be done at a theme park, it was pretty easy for others with deep pockets - perhaps DEEPER pockets - to say, "Oh, so THAT is what the people want! Let's do it!" And despite having nearly 50 years to do so, no company has come close. Some might say that Universal is getting there, but then again, how long did it take them to get started, and how far do they still have to go? I am going to Universal next summer, but only for 2 days out of a 2-week Disney trip. Considering most people just make it a stopover, it is clear that Universal still has a lot of work to do.

Now, with that said, there are things that could happen that would make me side with you:
1) After what I believe were the post-Walt glory years in animation (Lion King, Little Mermaid, etc.), I have been disappointed with recent theatrical releases. If that continues or continues to slide, I would be unhappy.
2) If Disney fails to respond to Harry Potter Land with something equally exciting, I will be really, really disappointed. At this point, Disney themes rides and places them into already loosely themed areas of the park. However, with Harry Potter becoming an entire area of the park that falls into a single theme, completely enveloping the guest in a new world, the clear innovator in theming at this point is Universal. Disney has to respond....I realize that they created an entire PARK out of a theme, Animal Kingdom, but I still think that the Harry Potter Land is going to offer something that Disney has yet to offer.
3) While I am actually very happy with the CM's and the overall service at Disney, if it were to take a turn for the worse, I would be concerned. I realize that my frame of reference has only been the past 30 years, but in that time, my family and myself have not noticed any changes. In fact, with teh addition of new hotels, new parks, and new restaurants, we are overall very happy with the direction of the company.

Last but not least, here are my two big hopes. As we know, they are apparently announcing something huge tomorrow. Let's hope it is either a super cool replacement for Pleasure Island or a super cool competitor to Harry Potter Land. In my book, anything else will be a disappointment.

deej696

09-17-2008, 09:55 PM

I have enjoyed the commentary of this thread the last couple pages. I agree with much of what has been said here, and I disagree with others. The heart of my opinion basically remains the same. Disney is not the same today as it was in 1955, and it never will be. Either we can evolve with what is offered, or we can take our money elsewhere. Thats the beautiful thing about living in America and our free market system. When people stop turning the turnstiles, then Disney is forced to make changes to get them coming back. I never have understood those who complain about the downturn in quality at Disney, and yet list 2 vacations a year since 1985 in their profile. So long as the millions keep flocking to the parks, and the thousands keep discussing every minute detail of the company here on these boards and others, then Disney is in no way forced to make any changes. When it comes to the changes we've all seen in the company, we can blame Eisner, we can blame Iger, we can blame Suzie next door, but the fact is we all still give our money to Disney, and until we make changes to our behavior, the company wont change their's. Its like someone complaining about $4 gas while they fill up their Ford Excursion.

There's 2 more cents for the fountain...:thumbsup2

Another Voice

09-18-2008, 01:38 AM

So long as the millions keep flocking to the parks,
You mean like the millions that used to flock to the theater every summer to see Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King, only to have Disney create failures like Treasure Planet and Home on the Range that played to such empty theaters that Disney closed their feature animation staff and shut down the division? And then created such instantly forgettable movies like Chicken Little and Meet the Robinsons. And were forced by Wall Street to pay SEVEN BILLION DOLLARS for the one company that contiuned to fall Disney methods?

Yes, success is forever.

Or do you mean the millions that used to flock to The Disney Stores to buy all the wonderful merchandise themed around Disney characters? Only to watch the quality of the merchandise erode over time, to see the stores chase after trends and high turnover trinkets at the expense of quality. And then to watch as Disney literally gave the stores away without receiving even a single penny for a business they spent decades building?

Once again Disney is successful without effort.

How about GO.com - Disney's brilliant and expensive attempt to become a major player on the Internet? How many people flocked to The Disney Institute? How many people today flock to Disney Quest Chicago?

People want to delude themselves into thinking that Walt Disney World will always be there.

You're dead wrong.

DVC-Landbaron

09-18-2008, 11:57 AM

I had season passes to Hershey Park, and although I love Hershey, Disney exceeds it in so many ways that I have lost count.Do you think for a moment that Ei$ner or Igor had (has) anything to do with that at all? Or could it be the legacy that Walt left. The same legacy that that the bobsy-twins seem hell bent on destroying.
I will agree that the difference is not as striking as it once was Thank you – so far so good!
But for that, isn't it possible that others have raised their games as much as Disney might have let us down?
The point is in your phrase “as much as”. Re-read your sentence again. Yes! Certainly the others have elevated their game. And if Disney was still run with Walt’s philosophy no matter how hard the others tried they would have never let “the difference is not as striking as it once was” come to pass. And I wouldn’t be here telling you that things are going to get worse. Because it would be evident that the helm of Disney “GOT IT”. That they understood the basic principles of the Disney Philosophy.
Once Walt showed what could be done at a theme park, it was pretty easy for others with deep pockets - perhaps DEEPER pockets - …Who did you have in mind that has deeper pockets than Disney?
1) After what I believe were the post-Walt glory years in animation (Lion King, Little Mermaid, etc.), I have been disappointed with recent theatrical releases. If that continues or continues to slide, I would be unhappy.
That would be you’re breaking point. That would be the thing that moves you to the third car? Well, let me dust off the shotgun seat in car #3 because we’re already there!!!!
2) If Disney fails to respond to Harry Potter Land with something equally exciting, I will be really, really disappointed. At this point, Disney themes rides and places them into already loosely themed areas of the park. However, with Harry Potter becoming an entire area of the park that falls into a single theme, completely enveloping the guest in a new world, the clear innovator in theming at this point is Universal. Disney has to respond...Isn’t it sad that Disney has to respond. Isn’t it sad that the "clear innovator of themeing is Universal" and NOT Disney. Isn’t it sad that you are making my point much better than I have been able to do, yet you still refuse to see it!?

Disney shouldn’t ever “HAVE TO RESPOND!” Disney should be leading the way. And they are CLEARLY not. And I contend that it is the current corporate philosophy that prevents them from doing so.
I realize that they created an entire PARK out of a theme, Animal KingdomYes! Another disaster!! But a topic for another thread I guess!!
3) While I am actually very happy with the CM's and the overall service at Disney, if it were to take a turn for the worse, I would be concerned. Well, it has. But I will grant you that the change in attitude is minimal. But you have to realize that the basic CM training came directly from Walt!! It is one of those carry-over pieces of the philosophy that hasn’t completely died. YET! As you may know CMs go through a training call “Traditions”. Under Walt it was an intensive 3 day course teaching the Disney philosophy. They still teach it, but the Ei$ner/Igor tag team have cut it down to one day! And from what I hear it is now a blow-off course. One in which the instructors are told to pass everyone!! No matter how much they absorbed.

It’s also kind of telling that no management members are given even the one day version. No wonder why they haven’t got the foggiest notion just what Walt’s philosophy is about!
In fact, with the addition of new hotels, new parks, and new restaurants, we are overall very happy with the direction of the company.WOW!! You’re happy with the restaurants in EPCOT!? You’re happy that every gift shop sells the same things? You’re happy that every new ride empties into a gift shop? You’re happy that every new hotel (with only one exception) on the property is themed in a North American style (as opposed to the original concept of exotic locales, i.e. Asia, Persia, etc.)!! You’re happy with Pop Century!! You’re happy with that stupid Hat in the Studios!? You’re happy with AK a ½ day park at best!? You’re happy with the carnival rides and games at AK!? You’re happy that they are hawking cheap trinkets before the parades and fireworks (something that Walt vehemently opposed!!) You’re happy that they are letting EPCOT go to seed!? Etc., etc., etc.!!!

I’m not.
Last but not least, here are my two big hopes. As we know, they are apparently announcing something huge tomorrow. Let's hope it is either a super cool replacement for Pleasure Island or a super cool competitor to Harry Potter Land. In my book, anything else will be a disappointment.
Get out your book then!!! I think you are in for a HUGE disappointment!!

FireDancer

09-18-2008, 12:09 PM

I just stumbled upon this thread and I find it very interesting. I am a big fan not only of the “magical” side of Disney but also the business side. Something I have noticed in the general fan community is that sometime it gets lost that the Disney of 2008 is vastly different than the Disney of 1966. The fiscal responsibility of the CEO of a publicly traded fortune 100 company with 1.8+ Billion shares outstanding is much more complex than those Walt faced.

I will try my best to put my 2 cents in on some of the issues raised on the previous 11 pages.

Disney seems to go in cycles between creative leadership and business-based leadership. Eisner was the former, Iger the latter; when he is gone I suspect another creative-type person will lead Disney. I put much of Eisner’s success to those around him. Being a creative Type A person I think he needed someone around him to reign him in. Frank Wells did a very good job and his death was a turning point. He wasn’t there to mediate between Eisner and Katzenberg and I think Eisner saw Katzenberg as a threat which is why there was no chance he would be named president. Eisner didn’t even want Wells because he didn’t want to compete with his own COO for power. Roy pushed Frank as a necessity to get Eisner appointed by the board. By the time Frank died Eisner had too much control of the board for them to be able to force a powerful number 2 on Eisner. Michael also had that great big carrot of President to hold over anyone’s head who might not just go along with his ideas. Sandy Litvak and Stephen Bollenbach could have stepped up but they would have needed to board, and Michael pretty much controlled the board.

Take that managerial stress and add to it the creative loss of Ashman and Katzenberg and you have a big problem in creative management.

Ok, now on to the magic of the parks. Maybe I am a bit younger than some of you but my first trip to WDW was in 1991 and I have to say I find it just as magical now as then. I am more aware of course of the reality as opposed to the fantasy but I will continue to go. There are things done I don’t like (a big empty Wonders of Life pavilion) and there are things done I do like (more interactive dark rides) but such is life.

Galahad

09-18-2008, 12:45 PM

Disney seems to go in cycles between creative leadership and business-based leadership. Eisner was the former,

You really think so?

FireDancer

09-18-2008, 12:56 PM

You really think so?

I think if you draw a line and mark one end managerial leadership and the other creative leadership Eisner would skew very far towards creative. He would be much more comforable with a script than a cash flow analysis.

BRERALEX

09-18-2008, 02:49 PM

He sure was personally, financially creative

Peter Pirate 2

09-18-2008, 02:57 PM

Welcome to the thread Fire Dancer but I'm pretty sure you've just caused DVC Landbaron's head to explode.
pirate:

DVC-Landbaron

09-18-2008, 03:06 PM

Sorry I'm so long in answering. I had to pick up the pieces of my exploding head!!!!

Just for kicks Mr. Dancer, can you name one thing - any little thing - that can back up your claim that Ei$ner was in the least bit "CREATIVE"? Go on. Try. Have fun with it.

See you in a couple days, when you finally have to admit defeat!!

zulemara

09-18-2008, 03:30 PM

I would say more so that in his early days he was good at picking out a creative script and approving it. As his days moved on, he passed on LOTR, Lost, 6th sense, etc. All of which was because he was concerned about financials

DVC-Landbaron

09-18-2008, 04:11 PM

I would say more so that in his early days he was good at picking out a creative script and approving it

Name one.

DancingBear

09-18-2008, 04:46 PM

Down and Out in Beverly Hills is one. But still I don't agree with zulemara. He didn't pass on good movies because they cost too much--after all, he was still making Armegeddon and Pearl Harbor.

DancingBear

09-18-2008, 04:50 PM

As A-V has pointed out before, "Magic" doesn't just happen, it was created by creative individuals. Eisner killed Imagineering and Disney Feature Animation.

zulemara

09-18-2008, 05:20 PM

Name one.

I'll be honest, my mind is so full of info from Disney War that I'm gonna have to re-read and take notes...not just for this thread but also so I can present facts to anyone I meet who is interested. Didn't he greenlight Lion King? I believe he had a couple good hits when he was with NBC like mork and mindy and...don't remember the other one.

FireDancer

09-18-2008, 05:28 PM

Let me clarify what I mean by creative. In the entertainment industry the background of a CEO can be one of two things, creative or managerial. Eisner was president of Paramount’s movie studio and programming director for ABC, thus making him creative. To contrast, lets say Jack Welch becomes CEO of Disney, he would have a very strong managerial background, but has never held a creative role in the entertainment industry.

If I recall correctly there is a paragraph in Disney War about Eisner’s first meeting with the then CFO of Disney. I remember it was on a plane and there is a remark about Michael asking elementary financial questions about the Disney balance sheets. It goes as far as saying the CFO (who’s name eludes me at the moment) though he was a moron. I never said Eisner was all that innovative but if you classify a CEO as either managerial or creative, which is how I would in the entertainment industry, I would put Eisner in the creativity bucket.

An example of creativity on Eisner’s behalf would be breaching the Tishman contract and deciding to build the resorts themselves. Being that he was CEO during the “Disney Decade” even the projects lead by Katzenberg or Schumacher had to ultimately be green lit by him. Deciding to purchase and renovate a theater in Times Square would also be a creative move seeing that most analysts said it wouldn’t work.

A good rule of thumb would be to put Eisner in a totally different industry as CEO and see if he could do the job. A good CEO can run any company, period. Eisner would probably fall flat on his face if he tried to run anything not in the entertainment industry. And to pre-empt what I am sure will be said, yes he fell on his face in the end but he ran Disney for over 20 years and not all of them were bad.

DVC-Landbaron

09-18-2008, 06:16 PM

An example of creativity on Eisner’s behalf would be breaching the Tishman contract and deciding to build the resorts themselves.
Excuse me!! I'm going to have to take a few minutes here. It seems my head exploded again!! I have to pick up the pieces!!

YoHo

09-18-2008, 06:25 PM

A good rule of thumb would be to put Eisner in a totally different industry as CEO and see if he could do the job. A good CEO can run any company, period. Eisner would probably fall flat on his face if he tried to run anything not in the entertainment industry. And to pre-empt what I am sure will be said, yes he fell on his face in the end but he ran Disney for over 20 years and not all of them were bad.

That's standard MBA Boilerplate. It's also utter bull.

As for whether or not Eisner was a creative person. Well, he certainly thought of himself as one.
He wasn't in any real sense though.

FireDancer

09-18-2008, 09:17 PM

That's standard MBA Boilerplate. It's also utter bull.

I think we will have to just agree to disagree on this one. I would put someone like Warren Buffett at the head of any company in the world and feel comfortable regardless of their underlying product.

Excuse me!! I'm going to have to take a few minutes here. It seems my head exploded again!! I have to pick up the pieces!!

You asked for an example so I gave you one. The uncreative thing to do would have been to let Tishman build the standard box of a hotel they had planned on. The creative decision would be to build hotels that were themselves destinations.

The Euro Disney project was also very creative. It was a financial and political disaster and should have never been built where it was but the architecture of the castle and entrance way with the hotel are spectacularly creative.

Eisner’s creativity was just one small point in what I said so I am not going to continue an endless debate. I don’t even think Eisner was all that good of a CEO to be honest. I merely stated that if you had to choose a bucket to put his managerial style in and one was labeled creative and one labeled managerial, I would chose creative.

I personally don’t think the CEO should be the creative head of Disney. A CEO has one job, that is to increase the wealth of share holders. I think the daily running of divisions (such as them parks or feature animation) should be done by other people. Going back to my example of Jack Welch, how many pilots do you think he green lit for NBC? Do you think Jeff Immelt sits in on pitch meetings for NBC or Universal or chooses which rides Universal Studios will build?

deej696

09-18-2008, 10:05 PM

Firedancer, your example of Buffet as the CEO who can lead any company regardless of what business they are in is spot on. Afterall, he somehow has managed to be successful in ice cream, insurance, flooring, and a host of other companies. Yes I learned in Finance 101 that a good CEO can lead any company, one needs to look no further than the 2nd richest man in the world to find the truth in that statement.

Was Eisner the creative genius of a generation, no. But if it wasnt his creativity that the company sought when they hired him, then what was it? They could have hired anyone to lead a business, why Eisner? If not Eisner, then who? In today's terms, if not Iger then who? You know, if things are this bad, maybe I should look into buying the savedisney domain name from Shamrock:goodvibes

FireDancer

09-18-2008, 10:17 PM

In today's terms, if not Iger then who? You know, if things are this bad, maybe I should look into buying the savedisney domain name from Shamrock:goodvibes

That is the Million Dollar Question! I don’t know what the final outcome of the Iger era will be. I guess it is a lot easier to look back and second guess than to look forward and project.

Having the title of Chief Creative Officer is a good start and I think John Lasseter is the perfect person to hold it. I think that Iger or whom ever is CEO should handle the management of the company and let other people handle the creativity. I guess in my ideal world there would be a Frank Wells as CEO, a Walt Disney as CCO, and an independent Board of Directors to keep the drama to a minimum.

As far as the domain name goes, it all depends on whether Iger’s ego will let him walk away when he should instead of cling to the position for 10 years too long as his predecessor did.

He somehow has managed to be successful in ice cream, insurance, flooring, and a host of other companies.

To steal a line from Walt…we must always remember that it all started with a failing textile company.

k5thbeatle

09-18-2008, 10:23 PM

I glued my head back together so I'll respond;

I'll agree that Ei$ner was in the creative bucket based on your definition but I will say he was terrible at it and not very creative and someone should have "kicked the bucket" long ago!

I don't have a problem agreeing with those that say that Disney must evolve and we are in a different era and tastes and likes do change. Afterall, Walt is dead ( a shocker I know;) ) and a creative genius like him doesn't come around too often. Nobody with 100% certainty can ever know what he would do if around today and that's ok, they don't have to. I don't think people here are saying that Disney should remain 100% stuck in the 50's or 60's like when Walt was around. That would be unrealistic too and not what is being argued. What I have a problem with is the apparent change in direction away from a basic philosophy that Walt instituted...a philosophy that he lived and breathed and put into everything he did. Certainly Disney is a different financial animal today then it was in Walt's era and I think most know that. But when money is THE deciding factor and how can things be done cheaper to maximize profit...that's where the rub is.

Disney is still making money as pointed out. I may be completely wrong but I think ultimately this change in base philosophy will eventually come back to bite them! I guess only time will tell?:confused3

DVC-Landbaron

09-19-2008, 01:00 AM

OK! That was a bad one! My poor head went into a million little pieces. Anyway…

I would put someone like Warren Buffett at the head of any company in the world and feel comfortable regardless of their underlying product.I’m not sure I would, but I get your point. So for argument’s sake let’s say – I would too.

Conversely, I wouldn’t put Ei$ner in charge of a bake sale for the PTA!! He’d screw it up! Why? Because he is INEPT!!!! He thinks he is creative, but he hasn’t got a clue!!

The uncreative thing to do would have been to let Tishman build the standard box of a hotel they had planned on. The creative decision would be to build hotels that were themselves destinations.The DISNEY creative thing to do would have been to NOT put those monstrosities within the sightlines of EPCOT! The creative thing to do would have been letting DISNEY imagineers THEME the those horrible structures in Dinsey-style instead of thinking he was God’s gift to the architecture world. It was a moronic, ego driven move from a VERY UN-creative guy. And the very antithesis of Walt’s Philosophy. Yet you used it as an example of his creativity. I don’t get it.

The Euro Disney project was also very creative. Yes. As a concept (something he had NOTHING to do with) it was very creative.
It was a financial and political disaster and should have never been built where it was…And who caused that “financial and political disaster”? Yes folks!! You guessed!! Your creative COE and mine… The one, the only – Mr. Inept himself!!! Ei$ner!!!!!

It was his ‘creative input’ that set the stage for the financial disaster that would follow. And while we’re piling on, who picked the location!? Yep! Right again!! The same “Creative” moron!!

I merely stated that if you had to choose a bucket to put his managerial style in and one was labeled creative and one labeled managerial, I would chose creative.
OH! I see what happened here. You are assuming that since he was a COE, he must be competent. It’s a given that he can run a company. The only question remaining then is what “bucket” to put him in. That’s why you omitted the third bucket. And the only one where Ei$ner belongs. The GARBAGE bucket. Because it really doesn’t matter if he you label him creative or managerial. His true label is simple INEPT. He was ROTTEN at running Disney and he was ROTTEN at running Paramount before that.
I don’t even think Eisner was all that good of a CEO to be honest. At last we agree!!

Another Voice

09-19-2008, 01:24 AM

But if it wasnt his creativity that the company sought when they hired him, then what was it?
It was simple.

Ron Miller and most people inside Disney pre-1984 knew that Disney had to re-establish itself as a serious player in Hollywood. That's why Ron Miller started Touchstone Pictures, why he restructured Animation after The Black Caldron fiasco and why he hired an unknown director (Ron Howard) to put an unknown television actor (Tom Hanks) into a little unknown soon to be mega blockbuster movie called Splash.

This plan was so obvious that even Roy Disney could follow it. So when Roy and the Bass Brothers made their take over attempt on Disney, they went shopping for someone with strong Hollywood 'street cred'.

They found Frank Wells.

He had been running the business side of Warner Brothers and had successfully turned that company around. Frank had always had a soft spot in his heart for Disney and leapt at the chance. But Frank knew that he was strictly on the business and creative side of Hollywood. Disney was going to need the 'let's do lunch', 'have your people call my people', 'get Lindsay another hooker, a pound of blow and get her on the set'! kind of Hollywood type. These people are the connection to the real "creative" forces around town, the ones that could convince/con/swindle/intimidate actors, directors, producers and lessor types to work on a studios project. Think Ari from 'Entourage'.

As luck would have it, Michael Eisner was available because he had just been fired from Paramount. (Note: I'm writing this from memory, I'll have to go back and check some sources so I'll correct any mistakes in the chronology that I find).

Michael Eisner had achieved some early success in low rent television shows like 'Laverne and Shirley'. He parlayed that into claiming credit for 'Flash Dance'. Always a smooth operator, he maneuvered up to a post at Paramount Studios working for Barry Diller.

At that job, Eisner was a disaster. He was put in charge of creating Paramount Television, a then new "fourth network". It was to be anchored by Star Trek - The New Voyages. But Eisner was unable to assemble people to make shows for the new network. He was unable to secure stations or buy airtime. Star Trek ran up millions in expenses without a single second of tape. Diller and Paramount owners Gulf+Western pulled the plug on the network. A few days later Eisner held a press conference to announce the launch of the new network and Star Trek to the press.

Oopps.

To salvage something from the mess, others at Paramount turned the 'Star Trek' television series into Stat Trek: The Motion Picture. It soon became on of the most expensive movies ever made in Hollywood up unto that time. Things were so bad that there is a Hollywood story of an unknown assistant (named Jeffery Katzenberg) that everyone called Michael's dog (I think the real nickname was 'Labrador', but I'll have to check). Things were running so badly on the production that Katzenberg was unspooling reels of freshly developed film on the floor of a soundstage, so it could dry into time to make the first public showing at the Chinese Theater on Hollywood Blvd. the very next morning.

Eisner continued on at Paramount, but he had lost the confidence of Barry Diller. Then he lost the confidence of Gulf+Western. Sensing that something was up, Eisner went job hunting. Roy Disney too was running out of time. He had secured millions from the Bass Brothers, but need more money to close the deal. Wall Street was demanding to see a plan before they handed over anymore cash.

So Disney settled for Eisner. In what should have been a signal of what was to come, Eisner immediately made ego-driven demands. He wanted to report to the board, not Frank Wells (the comprise was that both Eisner and Wells reported only to the board). Eisner didn't want to be co-president. Frank, not one for titles, agreed because he fully expected to be running the day-to-day operations anyway.

Roy Disney was happy because he could present a "seasoned" management team to Wall Street. The Master of the Universe MBA suits back east know nothing of Hollywood and even less of Eisner's history. They bought the story faster than they bought up junk mortgages.

The rest is history.

Welcome to the boards Mr. Dancer. You still have a lot of learning to do about Hollywood.

DVC-Landbaron

09-19-2008, 02:01 AM

Thanks AV. I was going to tell the story myself, but I couldn't remember all the details. And you do it soooooooo much better anyway!!

zulemara

09-19-2008, 11:05 AM

you guys really continue to fascinate me with the history. Even reading a book, I don't take that much away and the book only covers certain things. People I know come to me to be the "walking book" about everything Disney. It's amazing how much I'm learning.

Question for you guys: Are there any publications on the history of operations at WDW. Disney War has talked primarily about films and such up to this point with only a few references to EPCOT or DLP. I'm interesting in reading the history of decision making regarding the WDW resort.

DVC-Landbaron

09-19-2008, 11:18 AM

As it says in my signature:

For the best "Disney Education" on the web go to:

http://www.july171955.com/

Read the back threads. We've even started a Wiki (which is currently sketchy at best, but we're working on it).

Or just ask a question. Some member of the element will answer. But be careful. We limit the amount of pixie dust we allow in our eyes so the answers will not always be what you want to hear. But it is the truth as we see it!!

And as always - HAVE FUN!!!!!!!!!

FireDancer

09-19-2008, 11:36 AM

OK! That was a bad one! My poor head went into a million little pieces. Anyway…

You head sure come apart a lot, are you a Kennedy by chance?

The DISNEY creative thing to do would have been to NOT put those monstrosities within the sightlines of EPCOT! The creative thing to do would have been letting DISNEY imagineers THEME the those horrible structures in Dinsey-style instead of thinking he was God’s gift to the architecture world. It was a moronic, ego driven move from a VERY UN-creative guy. And the very antithesis of Walt’s Philosophy. Yet you used it as an example of his creativity. I don’t get it.

I was not saying the Swan and Dolphin were creative. They were the price
that had to be paid to break the contract. But without breaking the contract, the Yacht Club, Beach Club, Animal Kingdom Lodge, Coronado Springs...would have never been built.

Yes. As a concept (something he had NOTHING to do with) it was very creative.
And who caused that “financial and political disaster”? Yes folks!! You guessed!! Your creative COE and mine… The one, the only – Mr. Inept himself!!! Ei$ner!!!!!

Well, I would say he did have creative input but since I wasn't in those meetings, who knows. I agree that the root problem of the project was doing it in France instead of outside Barcelona like just about everyone else wanted and that was down to Eisner and all the people who just went along with it.

OH! I see what happened here. You are assuming that since he was a COE, he must be competent. It’s a given that he can run a company. The only question remaining then is what “bucket” to put him in. That’s why you omitted the third bucket. And the only one where Ei$ner belongs. The GARBAGE bucket. Because it really doesn’t matter if he you label him creative or managerial. His true label is simple INEPT. He was ROTTEN at running Disney and he was ROTTEN at running Paramount before that.
Well yes, I am assuming that the CEO is not an example of the peter priciple. Eisner was too egotistical to be CEO without any kind of controls over him. He knew how to approve a script and set a production philosophy in the film and television divisions. He was not capable of setting a strategic path for the company. I believe that for the most part that role was filled by Frank Wells. When Wells died and Eisner started “controlling” that function everything fell apart. The Wells/Eisner era wasn't perfect (that is when Euro Disney happened of course) but Eisner was kept in check at least a little bit. This goes back to my contention that the CEO should be the strategic, managerial type that a Welch or Buffett or even Gates was instead of the "Hollywood" guy that Eisner was.

I think Eisner was a terrible CEO for the most part and should have been there from 1984 to 1994 and then left. There was not one under him with any kind of power and the board, which is supposed to be independent of management, was beholden to him for one thing or another with the only real exceptions being Gold and Roy O.

Somehow you have me defending a guy who I have no real respect for. I just don’t see everything he did as this big disaster though.

FireDancer

09-19-2008, 11:47 AM

Question for you guys: Are there any publications on the history of operations at WDW. Disney War has talked primarily about films and such up to this point with only a few references to EPCOT or DLP. I'm interesting in reading the history of decision making regarding the WDW resort.

I am going to check out "RealityLand" and have also heard a book called "Spinning The Mouse" or something like that written by an old PR guy is pretty good. If anyone knows of a WDW book that talks about reality instead of fantasy please let me know.

Another Voice

09-19-2008, 12:09 PM

Are there any publications on the history of operations at WDW.
Sadly, not really.

Books about Disney fall into either three categories. You get the typical academic type that’s all a shred about how capitalism is evil, how America is evil and most of all how Disney is evil. I guess the most famous of these would be “Vinyl Leaves”. These books contain very little actual information about Disney – but their ignorance and Keith Obermann like frothing at the mouth make than funny to read.

The internally produced books – like the series on Imagineering and the old Abrams books are nice, but don’t cover the real history. They have plenty of pictures and drawings but not much the discusses the real decision making that goes into running the company or creating something like WDW.

The other series of books are the glowing puff pieces written during the height of The Finance Bubble (I guess we can now talk that era which ran from the early 1980s until last Sunday). These were the whole series of ‘Michael Eisner – Mega Master Media Mogul!!!” Let’s just say that history has not been kind to those books. Even ‘Disney Wars[/i] started out as one of them, but the author actually dug into what was happening.

The one book I can recommend is ‘Storming the Magic Kingdom’. It details the Bass Brothers takeover of Disney. It provides a lot of essential information about Disney prior to Eisner and the internal conflict (Walt’s side vs. Roy’s side) that really lead the company to implode. Contrary to popular myth, Disney was not “all most bankrupt” and Eisner did not “save” the company.

I haven’t yet read ‘Realityland’, but I read the author’s other books. They provide the kind of information you would here if you worked at Disney (like the author did), but it lacks the corporate office insight where all the really big stuff gets made. It will tell you what it’s like to run the monorails, but it won’t tell you about the tortured history of WDW’s monorail expansion plans.

He knew how to approve a script and set a production philosophy in the film and television divisions.
There is an awful lot of debate about that. At Paramount, Eisner was guided from on top by Barry Diller – the man who eventually went on to create the Fox media empire (and made billions when he sold it to Rupert).

At Disney, it was Jeffrey Katzenberg who was really running the studio. Early Eisner was pretty much like to play big shot in Hollywood, the appear on television whenever he could, to dance about with famous architects and review carpet samples. Eisner spent most of his time zooming on the fun details of the job (yes, like picking out the paint schemes for WDW’s busses). But that didn’t leave any time for really running the business. The actual job of reading scripts and deciding which one to do was left to others.

And you can see that at work. Look at the massive shift in Disney films and fortunes after Katzenberg left. Early Eisner Disney was known for tight, profitable pictures like Three Men and a Baby. After Katzenberg, Eisner was forced to picked projects himself and we got giant, high profile failures like Pearl Harbor and The Alamo. For a while Eisner tried to outsource the studio to Jerry Bruckheimer – and that definitely produced mixed results.

FireDancer

09-19-2008, 12:14 PM

At Disney, it was Jeffrey Katzenberg who was really running the studio.

I think that Jeffrey was great and I think should have stayed and been named President. The three things that ended the “Disney Decade” in my opinion were the Deaths of Ashman and Wells and Jeffrey leaving.

YoHo

09-19-2008, 06:50 PM

The Disney Decade was doomed from the Start. Though I think Well's death had the biggest impact. He actually was competent.
I second Storming the Magic Kingdom. It's pretty much the best book out there on what happened. Obviously, it can only deal with what the participants were willing to tell the author, but if generally gives you a good idea what to expect.

Also, people were clamoring for a EuroDisney, both France and Spain, before Eisner and Wells took over. He had very little to do with any of the important design.

I always find the intense need of people to justify why Eisner wasn't a complete dingus rather comical. Yeah, back then I thought his posterior produced magic too. Then I actually learned about what happened and wised up.

DVC-Landbaron

09-19-2008, 08:36 PM

Your head sure come apart a lot, are you a Kennedy by chance?
No! Not at all! My head only comes apart when I read OUTRAGOUS statements about Ei$ner on this site. Come to think of it, it does explode a lot! That’s why I feel a duty to make sure everyone is Ei$ner educated!! That way they will know the truth and my head can stay together!!
I was not saying the Swan and Dolphin were creative. They were the price
that had to be paid to break the contract.So let me get this straight. He was corporately creative. We’re not talking about the placement, the design, the feel, or even the carpeting they used. Right? We’re talking about reviewing the contract with lawyers (probably their idea) and conferring with the finance Department to ask for their options (something tells me he didn’t dream this up himself, but I will grant that he did it). But it’s still financial! Tell me how that’s different than what a managerial CEO would do. Tell how that’s different from what Mr. Buffett would do?

And then when he had the chance to be really creative what did he do. Built hideous monstrosities and placed them within the sightlines of EPCOT! Yeah man!! That’s creative genius!!

But without breaking the contract, the Yacht Club, Beach Club, Animal Kingdom Lodge, Coronado Springs...would have never been built.
And the downside is?

Well, I would say he did have creative input but since I wasn't in those meetings…No! You got me wrong! I KNOW he had input!! He was the one that insisted that they overbuild the hotels and he was the one who picked the location!! And both of those “CREATIVE” moves cost the company MILLIONS!!

Well yes, I am assuming that the CEO is not an example of the peter principle. Unfortunately you picked the CEO that is the poster child for that particular syndrome.

I think Eisner was a terrible CEO for the most part and should have been there from 1984 to 1994 and then leftAnd I think the minute he walked through the door the Walt Philosophy I love got kicked to the street!! In my humble opinion he should never have been involved with Disney at all except as an owner of a park hopper!! (OH! WAIT!! That’s right. He never did that before he became COE of the company!)

Lastly:
The three things that ended the “Disney Decade” in my opinion were the Deaths of Ashman and Wells and Jeffrey leaving.See!! My friend, there was no “Disney Decade”. It was nothing more than what Ron Miller was doing in the first place! And I’ll lay 10 to 1 he wouldn’t have screwed up Euro-Disney, or started GO.COM or build the Swan or Dolphin how and where they are or dream up the Institute (God! What an insult!! The personification of NON-Disney!!) And all those other things that happened during that Decade that so many here revere!!

AV answered the rest of your post. I just want to say that I don’t mean to pick on you. It’s just that you seem believe all Disney spin about his tenure. And it just isn’t so!

deej696

09-19-2008, 08:36 PM

Sooo....yyeaaahhhh....I decided I would poke around the site Landbaron and Yoho have in your sig. I'm not so closed minded in my opinions that I avoid info that may be to the contrary;) Long story short, its possible, that maybe, I may or may not be coming around to the idea that ole Mikey wasnt that great for Disney. It actually was AV's thread ranking the parks that made me say "you know, that was spot on. There might be something to this" So while I am not prepared to say I have been fully converted, I will concede that the Disney Decade probably wasnt all that great for the company in the long run.

Wow I cant believe I just said that...... Maybe I'm not feeling well:sick:

DVC-Landbaron

09-19-2008, 08:48 PM

Welcome to the dark-side, my Padawan!!

HOWEVER...

No matter how much you search you're feelings... I am NOT your Father!!!!

DVC-Landbaron

09-19-2008, 09:32 PM

HEY!!! I just noticed!!! You didn't sign up there!!

GO ON!! SIGN UP AND POST!!

HAVE FUN!!!!!!!!!!

k5thbeatle

09-19-2008, 11:01 PM

...Conversely, I wouldn’t put Ei$ner in charge of a bake sale for the PTA!! He’d screw it up! Why? Because he is INEPT!!!! He thinks he is creative, but he hasn’t got a clue!!...

It is the "self proclaimed" that usually are the problem!:wizard:

FireDancer

09-19-2008, 11:46 PM

Well, we can go back and forth all day on Eisner. I don’t think he was the best CEO but when he came in someone had to. Maybe he wasn’t the best choice but without a management change Disney would have most likely been taken over and split up.

Being a big fan of Milton Friedman I believe the sole purpose of any for-profit public company on Earth is to increase the wealth of its share holders. All the rest is a means to that end.

Breaking it down to that core let’s do a simple financial analysis of Disney from September 24th 1984 to October 1st 2005. If I purchased 100,000 shares of Disney stock the day before Ei$ner took over it would have cost me $133,000. If I put those shares in a vault and did not touch them (meaning when the stock split you took the shares and not cash if it was offered) until the day after Michael quit I could have sold them for $115,824,000. If you adjust the 1984 dollars for inflation (making it $250,000 in 2005 money) you realized a profit of $115,574,000. Maybe someone else would have done even better, but maybe not.

Regardless of how Michael is classified or how he is judged to have performed, I would gladly take my $115 Million Dollars and bid him good day.

Another Voice

09-20-2008, 12:28 AM

Try that same exercise starting in 1994 and see what happens. You also have to compare your investment against others - just cause you made a lot of money in Disney doesn't mean it wouldn't have done better elsewhere.

Say a small company like Google?

There was tremendous built up potential in Disney pre-1984. If you look at all the big things that brought huge amounts of money to Disney: new animation, live action features, the Disney Channel, expansion at WDW, Tokyo Disneyland - all of them were started before Michael Eisner came onboard. It's impossible to say that Disney wouldn't have done just as well without Eisner as with.

Actually, you can. Given GO.com, Fox Family, ABC, airplane leases, Disney Mobile on and on and on...think of where Disney would be today if they had invested in thier core businesses instead of verging into magazines and shows like Am I Hot or Not.

DVC-Landbaron

09-20-2008, 09:21 AM

Well, we can go back and forth all day on Eisner.
I agree. Let’s call it quits.
Being a big fan of Milton Friedman I believe the sole purpose of any for-profit public company on Earth is to increase the wealth of its share holders. All the rest is a means to that end.AH! I see the problem now. We are talking apples and oranges.

Tell me. Why are you here? Why are you on a Disney fan site, taking up your valuable time talking to some knucklehead (me) who keeps ranting about something called “Walt’s Philosophy”?

I’m here because at a very young age and then well into adulthood this company BLEW ME AWAY!!!! I didn’t know if it made any money, I didn’t care!!! The “STUFF” they put out, in an amusement park simply WOWed me. It was the ‘creative’ things that I fell in love with. And I actually sought out a place on the web to talk about it.

Now, I know a lot of other companies. And some, as AV said, are making money hand over fist, outshining Disney at every quarterly report. And some of those companies I have invested in. But I have never signed up on a discussion board to talk about these companies. That’s because Disney was/is different. There was something in the atmosphere of this company that set it apart from all other companies in the world. And it is that “SOMETHING” that is disappearing. It is that “SOMETHING” that I want to talk about.

I call that “SOMETHING” the Walt Philosophy. That’s what we have lost in the management tag team of Ei$ner/Igor. I don’t want to talk about making money. Sure the company has to be solvent. And it’s very nice if it turns a nifty profit. But if that is what Disney has been reduced to, then I’m outta here. And it is that criteria by which I judge the CEO of Disney.

If it’s all about the bottom line, quarterly statements and market shares, I can sure as heck find a better company than Disney to talk about.

So if that’s your perspective, I guess we’ll never agree.

SheilaHeartsDisney

09-20-2008, 11:26 AM

I don't know about you but I really can't stand the title of this thread and seeing all the time. I don't know why. I just can't stand it. K Bye! GO Disney!!

FireDancer

09-20-2008, 11:46 AM

There was tremendous built up potential in Disney pre-1984.

You bet there was, and people like Murdoch and Hilton saw it. There is a pretty good chance that one of them could have initiated a hostel take over of the company in 1984 or 1985 because the stock was so low. And in the market environment at the time it probably would have succeeded once started.

Maybe another CEO would have done better, actually it is almost certain, but at the time he fit the bill. A CEO with less of an ego could also have let the company be merged with AOL or Comcast and then there would be real problems.

So if that’s your perspective, I guess we’ll never agree.

There is nothing wrong with that. Everyone has their own opinions and I guess ours is just different. I am not claiming to be the end all, I’m just putting out my opinions.

I am a big fan of parts of the Disney Company. I watch the animated movies and go to the theme parks but I understand that at the root it is a publicly traded company. I haven't over dosed on pixie dust.

In that respect, Disney is no different from Exxon or GM or Coca-Cola. When Walt was alive he wasn't responsible to the holders of 1.8 Billion shares of what used to be his company. Walt ran the company like it was his own, because it was. It now belongs to the stock holders. When they aren't happy they change management (like when they withheld their confidence in Eisner). When the public is unhappy with their product they will stop consuming it and the company will respond.

Maybe it was better back then. Creatively it almost certainly was. I never want anyone to mistake what I say about Eisner (whom I don’t like all that much but don’t hate either) with a comparison to Walt because there is none. But in the end The Walt Disney Company bears very little structural resemblance to the company that existed in December of 1966. If you know of leadership that can take the Walt philosophy and adapt it to the fiduciary rules in place for the modern Disney you would have 100% of my support. I just don’t know who that person is.

Maybe it isn't as magical as it used to be but it is what it is...and what it is is a Fortune 100 company and no longer just a man and a mouse. But whatever the case I call a truce.

rantnnravin

09-20-2008, 01:01 PM

If you know of leadership that can take the Walt philosophy and adapt it to the fiduciary rules in place for the modern Disney you would have 100% of my support. I just don’t know who that person is.

Steve Jobs

unfortunately, he has less than zero interest in running another company. (Even if it is one in which he is the largest single shareholder.)

YoHo

09-20-2008, 03:35 PM

Welcome to the dark-side, my Padawan!!

HOWEVER...

No matter how much you search you're feelings... I am NOT your Father!!!!

But are you his father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate?

YoHo

09-20-2008, 06:40 PM

FireDancer, have you ever read Storming the Magic Kingdom? You seem to be talking generalities of the situation rather than specifics.

More to the point, Suggesting that Walt wasn't beholden to anybody is just dumb. You think Bank of America just gave the company money out of it's own good will? They gave money, because they expected a return. Further, Walt Disney Productions went public in 1957 So yes, Walt did in fact have to deal with frackin shareholders. So your premise is flawed there.

And yes, of course, it is the point of any corporation to make money for its shareholders. That's why it's a for profit business and not a charity. What relevance does that have? It was for profit when Walt and Roy were the only owners too.
The key addendum to Friedman's oft misused phrase is that a company of any type is founded to provide some form of goods or services. Disney exists to create entertainment. Not to own 757s. Companies succeed when they make the best goods and services for the lowest cost.

Far to many companies have increased shareholder profits short term by lowering costs below the point needed to maintain quality. That will profit the shareholders, but it will destroy the company.

Therefore, there are really only two ways this can work.
Disney exists and continues to create compelling product or
Disney is torn apart, because there's no value in creating product.

Walt Disney ran the company the way he did, because running it that way made money.

Card Walker didn't run the company the right way and they didn't make the money they should have and so Wall Street gave them what for. The stockholders don't give a flying fig what you do as long as you succeed more than you fail.

So explain to me again why the stockholders are relevant to creativity?

You bet there was, and people like Murdoch and Hilton saw it. There is a pretty good chance that one of them could have initiated a hostel take over of the company in 1984 or 1985 because the stock was so low. And in the market environment at the time it probably would have succeeded once started.

Maybe another CEO would have done better, actually it is almost certain, but at the time he fit the bill. A CEO with less of an ego could also have let the company be merged with AOL or Comcast and then there would be real problems.

There is nothing wrong with that. Everyone has their own opinions and I guess ours is just different. I am not claiming to be the end all, I’m just putting out my opinions.

I am a big fan of parts of the Disney Company. I watch the animated movies and go to the theme parks but I understand that at the root it is a publicly traded company. I haven't over dosed on pixie dust.

In that respect, Disney is no different from Exxon or GM or Coca-Cola. When Walt was alive he wasn't responsible to the holders of 1.8 Billion shares of what used to be his company. Walt ran the company like it was his own, because it was. It now belongs to the stock holders. When they aren't happy they change management (like when they withheld their confidence in Eisner). When the public is unhappy with their product they will stop consuming it and the company will respond.

Maybe it was better back then. Creatively it almost certainly was. I never want anyone to mistake what I say about Eisner (whom I don’t like all that much but don’t hate either) with a comparison to Walt because there is none. But in the end The Walt Disney Company bears very little structural resemblance to the company that existed in December of 1966. If you know of leadership that can take the Walt philosophy and adapt it to the fiduciary rules in place for the modern Disney you would have 100% of my support. I just don’t know who that person is.

Maybe it isn't as magical as it used to be but it is what it is...and what it is is a Fortune 100 company and no longer just a man and a mouse. But whatever the case I call a truce.

WDWFan4Life

09-20-2008, 11:56 PM

I have read every single post in this thread so far, but have yet to reply. I find the debate to be very interesting and love hearing about all the information so many people have on Disney. I will say that many years ago I was in the group of people that thought Ei$sner was the greatest thing since sliced bread. I like to blame this on the fact that my first impression of Disney was going to WDW back in '93 when I was 6 years old.

This having been my first experience with Disney I was overwhelmed with how amazing everything seemed to me and all the cool rides that were there. Then when I got a little older, I found out this guy named Ei$ner ran Disney, so being younger I thought he actually created the company. Not really learning about Walt Disney the man yet in my life. So I began to worship the ground Ei$ner walked on.

Then as I continued to get older I became more interested in the Walt Disney Company and tried to find out more about it. My dad told me about Walt Disney and how he was the one that actually started the company. So I set out on my journey to learn as much about Walt as I possibly could.

I probably have 4 or 5 biographies on Walt and have read them a couple times. I also bought Walt: The Man Behind the Myth, which every time I hear Walt begin to talk and talk about his company it gets me choked up and brings a tear to my eye. After looking over all this information Walt's philosophy became clearer to me and I realized the love he had for this company that he created and how much he wanted to give everyone that came to the park the most incredible experience he could.

After I had found out what I considered to be enough information about Walt, I set my sights on learning as much as I could about the company itself. I learned about the early days and how it was run and how it began to be run under Ei$ner.

To me it seems like his biggest objective was to rip out the soul of the company and just turn it into our average company that creates a product and sells it to consumers to earn a profit. I bought DisneyWar and love that book and need to buy some of the other ones that have been mentioned on this thread to continue to get more information. But it bothers me to see something that Walt loved and cared about so much being described as just another company that needs to earn a profit and have a good bottom line.

I only own 2 shares of Disney right now, but am hoping to buy more in the future, but that is not because I am expecting to sell all my shares in the future and make a huge profit. I buy the shares because I love the Walt Disney Company and want to feel as if i own a part of that magic that I fell in love with as a child. I do wish however that Disney was a private company and didn't have to answer to Wall Street. The only thing they care about is how much money any company is making and could care less if it turns out **** or gold as long as earnings increase year after year.

I don't consider myself overdosed on pixie dust or living in Fantasyland. I am a realist, but also believe that if the Disney Company stuck with Walt's philosophy of giving the guests the best experience possible they would be making just as much money. They wouldn't need these suit-conceived celebrations to attract people to the park, word of mouth would work just fine with some sensible advertising about all the magic to be found inside the gates of WDW of Disneyland.

I am not the most eloquent typer so I hope everyone is able to understand my post and see what my opinion is, if there is any confusion let me know and I will try to explain it clearer. There are many more things I would like to say, but I am not the best at finding the words to express what I want to say. So if I find those words I will continue to respond in more posts.

DVC-Landbaron

09-21-2008, 02:17 AM

WOW!! WDWFan4Life!! Just WOW!!!

I see that you have only 38 posts. And that you signed up in 2006. And that you were 6 years old in ’93. A mere baby!! (Lets see… In ’93 I was… I was… I was… Well… Let’s just say I was considerably older than 6!!!) And lastly, it says in your tagline that you are earning your ears.

Well! Let me tell you! You have earned your ears!!

Your post was perfect. Even the way you spelled The Evil One’s name. (Its fun isn’t it? I mean typing it that way. And it looks good in print too. You should have been here when Pressler was his right hand at Disneyland!! It was a ball! I would search for reasons to type his name. I would say something like:

“OK gang!! Ei$ner and Pre$$ler did it again!!”

Cool, isn’t it? Anyway, as I was saying…)

Your post was quite clear and very, very perceptive!!
To me it seems like his biggest objective was to rip out the soul of the company and just turn it into our average company that creates a product and sells it to consumers to earn a profit
The LandBaron rises and wildly cheers!!! BRAVO!!! BRAVO!!! BRAVO!!! Wonderfully said!!

So now follow the link in my signature and sign up!! And then change your tag line from “earning my ears” to:

A Proud Member of the Element!

And let me bid you WELCOME!!!!!!! It is evident from your most eloquent words that you “GET IT”!!!

DVC-Landbaron

09-21-2008, 02:46 AM

A couple of loose ends!!

I don't know about you but I really can't stand the title of this thread and seeing all the time. I don't know why. I just can't stand it. K Bye! GO Disney!!
Yes!! I understand! But have you read any of it!!!???

But are you his father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate?Hmmmmmm. Yes. It could be! But doesn’t that only get us a seat on the Springer Show?

DancingBear

09-21-2008, 08:33 AM

There's a false dichotomy between business and creative here. Nobody expected Eisner to have Menken and Ashman visiting his office and play the piano on Friday afternoons, as the Walt sometimes did with the Sherman brothers. What we're really talking about are bad business decisions for a company whose product relies on creativity.

We're talking about shutting down the Secret Lab instead of continuing to develop something that could rival Pixar. We're talking about the related decision to continue funding, but not owning Pixar, which over the short term was profitable but which ultimately cost a ton. We're talking about initially beefing up DFA but ultimately tearing it apart because not every movie had Lion King results.

We're talking about initially smartly taking advantage of the catalog, but ultimately over-exploiting it with too much plush and straight-to-video outsourced animation. We're talking about initially pursuing reasonably-budgeted movies with (at the time) B-list actors, but losing sight of that in favor of Armegeddon and Pearl Harbor.

We're talking about dismantling and outsourcing Imagineering. We're talking about going beyond outsourcing backoffice accounting to outsourcing folks who have some of the initial guest contact at WDW. We're talking about gutting Traditions because you see it as something quaint and nostalgic rather than part of the business plan, a way to distinguish yourselves from the competition for guests and for labor.

We're talking about moving from expanding development on-property at WDW, which could be defended as part of unlocking the value of the asset, to building lower-quality products like the value resorts and the Western Development, to even selling off property that is a boat ride away from the Magic Kingdom.

k5thbeatle

09-21-2008, 09:05 AM

YoHo

09-21-2008, 01:14 PM

They're already coming back to bite them.

WDWFan4Life

09-21-2008, 05:39 PM

Your post was quite clear and very, very perceptive!!

Thank you!! I was hoping that I was being clear in what I wanted to say. I believe there is still much more that I need to learn, but have a pretty good understanding of the basics. I even used to spend all my money buying any movies that DTV sequels that Disney made, until I realized that it was just an attempt by Disney to squeeze as much money as they could out of these characters. I remember being excited when I heard about them making a Dumbo II many years ago and now I am glad it never happened and wish that the other sequels to Walt's classics never happened.

I love the Walt Disney Company so much that once I graduate from college I want to make a career working there in my major. I hope this doesn't turn people against me, but my major is Accounting, so I am hoping that I get a job at Disney in one of their Accounting departments. The thing I want to separate me from other accountants that work there however is my passion for the company and the desire to see it create remarkable attractions and movies for guests to enjoy for years to come.

I feel that as an accountant at the Walt Disney Company my job should be to tell the creative people how much something is going to cost and help them find ways to fund their projects. I also feel it is good to set a budget so there isn't overspending, but it shouldn't be allowable for the accountant to demand that certain things be cut from an attraction because they want to be able to run to the CEO and say they saved the company money.

zulemara

09-21-2008, 06:26 PM

Thank you!! I was hoping that I was being clear in what I wanted to say. I believe there is still much more that I need to learn, but have a pretty good understanding of the basics. I even used to spend all my money buying any movies that DTV sequels that Disney made, until I realized that it was just an attempt by Disney to squeeze as much money as they could out of these characters. I remember being excited when I heard about them making a Dumbo II many years ago and now I am glad it never happened and wish that the other sequels to Walt's classics never happened.

I love the Walt Disney Company so much that once I graduate from college I want to make a career working there in my major. I hope this doesn't turn people against me, but my major is Accounting, so I am hoping that I get a job at Disney in one of their Accounting departments. The thing I want to separate me from other accountants that work there however is my passion for the company and the desire to see it create remarkable attractions and movies for guests to enjoy for years to come.

I feel that as an accountant at the Walt Disney Company my job should be to tell the creative people how much something is going to cost and help them find ways to fund their projects. I also feel it is good to set a budget so there isn't overspending, but it shouldn't be allowable for the accountant to demand that certain things be cut from an attraction because they want to be able to run to the CEO and say they saved the company money.

It seems you and I have the same goals. I am not an accounting major, but if this company is going to be changed, it needs to be changed from the bottom up. I say that because it's the frontline CMs that make the best of what they have to work with. If there were a bunch of Igers on the frontlines, NO ONE would come back. Thankfully there are those of us who care about the legacy and philosophy of the company. I'm an IT major which doesn't do me any good at Disney, but I hope to work my way into management of some kind somewhere within the company. The only way any magic is every going to be preserved is if it starts changing on the bottom and works up.

WDWFan4Life

09-21-2008, 08:04 PM

It seems you and I have the same goals. I am not an accounting major, but if this company is going to be changed, it needs to be changed from the bottom up. I say that because it's the frontline CMs that make the best of what they have to work with. If there were a bunch of Igers on the frontlines, NO ONE would come back. Thankfully there are those of us who care about the legacy and philosophy of the company. I'm an IT major which doesn't do me any good at Disney, but I hope to work my way into management of some kind somewhere within the company. The only way any magic is every going to be preserved is if it starts changing on the bottom and works up.

There is so much that needs to be changed in the company. Many of the managers that work in the park need to be replaced with people that understand what it is like to work with the guests everyday. They know what the company policy is and how they are suppose to tell the frontline CMs to act, but I would be willing to bet that most of them don't understand the meaning behind these policies.

I know its a dream that won't happen, but I would love to either be CEO or President of the Walt Disney Company. I would not classify myself as a creative and claim that I would transform the company overnight, but I would gather up the most creative people from each division of the company and discuss with them what direction they would like to take their respective areas in creatively. I would also make sure that everyone in a high level position had extensive training on Walt's philosophy. Maybe I could even convince some of our very knowledgeable posters here into taking a job to help return the company to its glory days.

We need to get rid of the strip mall on Main Street in the Magic Kingdom and remove all the bland merchandise from being in every store across property. The World of Disney store should be the only store to have a mix of products since it isn't in a park in a certain themed area. I hate getting off of Space Mountain and walking into the gift shop and seeing High School Musical and Nightmare Before Christmas merchandise there. This goes for all the other stores too.

There also needs to be an increased attention to the general upkeep of the attractions and areas around the park. They are better than many other theme park when it comes to keeping the park clean and looking pretty, but when it comes to the old Disney standards they don't measure up at least not in my opinion. I remember in August walking through the queue for Buzz and seeing all this chipped paint and wondering how they let it get like this. I would also love to station custodial cast members in a certain area and make it their job just to clean the queues, because there are some nasty guests that leave a lot of garbage behind. Once again though I feel like I am rambling and not sure if I am getting my point across, so I will stop here for now.

minnie61650

09-21-2008, 08:36 PM

There is so much that needs to be changed in the company. Many of the managers that work in the park need to be replaced with people that understand what it is like to work with the guests everyday. They know what the company policy is and how they are suppose to tell the frontline CMs to act, but I would be willing to bet that most of them don't understand the meaning behind these policies.

I know its a dream that won't happen, but I would love to either be CEO or President of the Walt Disney Company. I would not classify myself as a creative and claim that I would transform the company overnight, but I would gather up the most creative people from each division of the company and discuss with them what direction they would like to take their respective areas in creatively. I would also make sure that everyone in a high level position had extensive training on Walt's philosophy. Maybe I could even convince some of our very knowledgeable posters here into taking a job to help return the company to its glory days.

We need to get rid of the strip mall on Main Street in the Magic Kingdom and remove all the bland merchandise from being in every store across property. The World of Disney store should be the only store to have a mix of products since it isn't in a park in a certain themed area. I hate getting off of Space Mountain and walking into the gift shop and seeing High School Musical and Nightmare Before Christmas merchandise there. This goes for all the other stores too.

There also needs to be an increased attention to the general upkeep of the attractions and areas around the park. They are better than many other theme park when it comes to keeping the park clean and looking pretty, but when it comes to the old Disney standards they don't measure up at least not in my opinion. I remember in August walking through the queue for Buzz and seeing all this chipped paint and wondering how they let it get like this. I would also love to station custodial cast members in a certain area and make it their job just to clean the queues, because there are some nasty guests that leave a lot of garbage behind. Once again though I feel like I am rambling and not sure if I am getting my point across, so I will stop here for now.

Very nice goals.
I would also like to see a lot of the old Disney standards brought back.

As for the chipped paint in the queue at Buzz... I think I can explain some of it.
Unfortuatly some of the turns in the queues are not really wide enough to handle the EVC's that are requried to be mainstreamed in many of the queues includding Buzz. Also some of the EVC drivers are inexpeienced and they crash into walls...thus chipping the paint.
The rental EVC's do not have bumppers on them and they can take quite a toll on the walls so even if the wall was painted 2 days before it could be chipped when you go through the queue.

A solution may be to put corregated aluminimum on the walls and bumppers along the baseboard.

WDW already has bumppers on their EVC's but they cannot require that rentals and privately owened scooters have them.

That is why when I see chipped paint on a wall in a queue or other public area at WDW I do not equate it with poor management of the parks.

Just my 2 cents.

DancingBear

09-22-2008, 08:30 AM

That is why when I see chipped paint on a wall in a queue or other public area at WDW I do not equate it with poor management of the parks.But certainly someone is responsible for the poor queue design and choice of materials, no?

minnie61650

09-22-2008, 11:04 AM

But certainly someone is responsible for the poor queue design and choice of materials, no?

Well, to be perfectly honest most of the queues do have extra wide turn areas to handle EVC's. The real problem is with the other guests who are waiting in line ahead of the EVC. They often use those extra wide spaces to stand side by side getting in the way of the EVC driver who needs the extra area to make the turns.

Just a little FYI that most people do not know:

It takes at least a 5 foot square area to turn a wheelchair or ECV. So, any lines that are wheelchair accessible have to be that wide thru the line and especially thru the turns. People who are not experienced take more room.

Just my 2 cents.

zulemara

09-22-2008, 02:39 PM