Is it Eisner's Fault?

[JeffJewell]

"overwhelming evidence suggests that DinoRama actually represents the SOP of Eisner's Disney"

Why?

DinoRama is an example of cost ratios being more important to a Disney project than the story and show. DinoRama is an example of doing the least they think they can get away with and still have people spend money.

This is Disney's SOP. Animal Kingdom, Disney's California Adventure, the Magic Carpets, Journey Into Your Imagination, Pop Century--all examples of doing the least they could possibly get away with under the circumstances.

Based on ME's last eighteen years at Disney the facts overwhelmingly point in the entirely opposite directionI respectfully request that you produce any of these alledged "facts" that point to Disney routinely going the extra mile to ensure a high quality story and show; any shred of evidence that DinoRama is unique in its bargain-basement approach to creation.

...there's no point in listing all the parks, attractions, resorts, ride redos, etc that have occurred on his watch. Go ahead, list them: I dare you. In particular, I dare you to list those that have occured since Frank Wells died. Tower of Terror is the final clear example of Disney valuing the quality of the show over the projections in a spreadsheet.

Jeff

[Peter Pirate]

Go ahead list them
Well, I'm not big on lists, but Jeff, we just had dinner at a restaurant together that is in a location that was built well above and beyond the necessary (the least they can get away with). Of course I'm referring to The Animal Kingdom Lodge. Disney certainly didn't need to surround their newest deluxe with a zoo, nor build and furnish it to the quality and with the accuracy that they did. They could have just as easily given us 'Pop Africa', but they didn't...
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[JeffJewell]

because he respectfully requested...I figured I'd at least help with the specifics: Help me out a little more, Chad. Which of the projects on your shopping list "point to Disney routinely going the extra mile to ensure a high quality story and show," or serve as "evidence that DinoRama is unique in its bargain-basement approach to creation?"

Overall, it's still clear that the Captain's Magical AKL is far more anomalous in its approach to quality than is DinoRama.

Jeff

PS: Captain:They could have just as easily given us 'Pop Africa', but they didn't Ah, but I did say "under the circumstances." "Pop Africa" would be far less than the least possible needed to charge Deluxe money, which was the primary circumstance under which AKL was built.

[Bstanley]

Sorry Mr Jewell dude, ME was in charge before Frank Wells left us. ME signed the checks for everything from '84 on, and that's a bunch 'o goodness IMHO.

I certainly can't dispute though that FW + ME were better for Disney lovers than ME + [who's the COO this year...].

I choose AK and AKL as my proof. I personally think AK is an excellent park and well suited to WDW - it complements the other parks perfectly and is marvelously detailed and themed. AKL is simply fantastic. And other 'hits' with my family are The Rockin' Roller Coaster and Test Track and - oh never mind just look at the list that Scoop URLed.

DCA and Pop Century are blights on the land, no question. And if DinoRama was passed down the food chain by ME I guess I'll have to eat my words, but I believe there are more obvious 'suspects' for it.

[JeffJewell]

I choose AK and AKL as my proof. ...your proof of "Disney routinely going the extra mile to ensure a high quality story and show" includes Animal Kingdom. Asia and Beastly Kingdom were cut from the opening plans to make it cheaper. DinoRama was erected as an emergency stop-gap because of customer complaints that there wasn't enough to do in the park. The E-rides include a rehash of Indy that is "themed" mostly with total darkness and a water ride ordered from a catalog.

The results of all that "going the extra mile?" The park's attendance numbers have declined each year it has been open.

Animal Kingdom is a monument to doing the least possible. The fact that you and I happen to like it means absolutely nothing in this context.

Sorry Mr Jewell dude, ME was in charge before Frank Wells left us I never said he wasn't.I certainly can't dispute though that FW + ME were better for Disney lovers than ME + [who's the COO this year...] Now that's more like what I said. If I discard your responses to comments I never made, it looks like you actually kinda agree with me, Mr Bruce dude.

Jeff

[mrtoadslastride]

In the past five years the only "who cares what it costs, we want it to be right" additions that I can think of are the cruise ships, WL, and AKL (I would also include the DVC properties, but I am not sure if Eisner has any direct managment of them). I am holding out hope that Space will fall in this category, but with the rumors of slashed budget and the fact that Compaq/HP picked up a large portion of this I am not sure if it would count anyway.

It seems that all Disney now cares about is squeezing the most money it can out of past investments with no concern what this might be doing to future visits (this includes movies and especially animation). For years Disney built a name with families that said if the Disney name is on it is going to be a magical experience. The leadership seems to be content now to milk that reputation as it assumes that people will continue to pony up the cash if it says Disney no matter how poor it is. No consideration is given to the damage they are doing to the Disney brand.

I wonder some times when I look 20,000, and Timekeeper if Eisner and the Board actually sit around the table and joke "Let's see how many things we can take out before those fools quit spending money in our parks." Alternatively, when I look at Dinorama, Pop Century, Alladin, and all the II direct to video movies I wonder if they say "I wonder how bad we have to make products before consumers quit purchasing them." How else can you explain their decisions?

[Peter Pirate]

I agree with Scoop on Aladdin, it is nicely themed in an area that heretofore needed traffic. TS isn't nearly as well done (in keeping with the DR theme).

Also, as I stated who's to say that GAH can't be great? Voice, are you saying that it wouldn't be possible to sneak under the radar with this one? It seems to me to be the best scenerio for an "upset"...

:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[mrtoadslastride]

I have a few problems with it beyond the fact that it is a spinner. First, Alladin was a great movie and very deserving to be included in the parks. However, I think using it as a spinner is very short sited. Why couldn't they have built a new dark ride using the technology from Disnyland Tokyo's Winnie the Pooh Ride (I haven't seen it, but the reviews are great). Even better, why not use the technology from Spiderman at Universal! Either one could have produced an Eride that could have fully told the Alladin story.

I also have a problem with the placement of Alladin and retheming of Adventureland. Adventureland definately needed to be updated, but I think the new theme does not fit with PoTC and JC or the rest of Adventureland for that matter.

To me Alladin is a sympton with what is wrong with Disney today. Instead of going the extra mile to produce a great attraction they rolled out an off the shelf ride, themed it up, and shoe horned it into a place it didn't fit.

[d-r]

Man, if they would have just spent the money to build some actual <strong> flying carpets </strong> then not only would it have been a pretty cool ride, they could have flown them over the river from the jungle cruise, and killed two birds in one stone since they wouldn't have to worry about guests getting splashed by the poison water in the boats.

And while they're at it, how about replacing those little cars in tomorrowland with some flying hover cars - they could use the same technology as the flying carpets and save some $ in r&d.

:)

DR

[eeyore0062]

No, it is not Eisner's fault. When Eisner first came to Disney, it was suffering... he turned things around and made it profitable again... so now that the economy has turned, and Disney isn't as profitable, of course, that is Eisner's fault? No, he is listening to all of those crying for new attractions, but is the overhead is not there to put in a new land, a new, really innovative ride, or a new park, then what else is there to do? They just opened a new park 4 years ago, and they are working on expanding, however, it takes money... so to appease those who are crying for new attractions, they put in something that is new, however, not as innovative or expensive as other choices they may have made, had the economy not taken a nosedive, and 9/11 hadn't happened. Sit back, relax, let the economy recover, let people get more comfortable taking vacations, and then see what Disney and Eisner has to offer.

[mrtoadslastride]

They had 5.3 billion to spend on the Fox Family Channel...

[JeffJewell]

the overhead is not there to put in a new land, a new, really innovative ride, or a new park At the same time there was "no overhead" to build Beastly Kingdom, Disney had $5 billion laying around with which to buy the Power Rangers and a network to show them on.

That's pretty much the whole point: there is plenty of money to do it right. It was Eisner's _choice_ to do it cheap, it is Eisner's business plan to do it cheap.he turned things around and made it profitable again... so now that the economy has turned, and Disney isn't as profitable, of course, that is Eisner's fault? So if numbers go _up_ Eisner is responsible, if they go _down_, the economy is responsible. I think Eisner actually used that line in his self-assessment...let people get more comfortable taking vacations, and then see what Disney and Eisner has to offer We've seen it: it's called Disney's California Adventure, it was planned and built _before_ planes starting wedging themselves into buildings, and it was built (wait for it) cheap.

Jeff

[mrtoadslastride]

Is the distinction important? The end result is the same, no money for innovative attractions at the Parks (or movies for that matter). In fact I would prefer to have a CEO that was cheap versus one that stupidly squandered company resources (maybe the distinction is important after all!). At least Disney would have reserve funds to build/expand/create once he is replaced.

[airlarry!]

Let's see if I can beat M. AV to the punch...

Eisner spent $5 billion on Fox Family instead of building California's Disney Seas because he sees himself as the Head of a Media Empire, not some small family-started Studio that had 'synergy' with its Amusement Park division with a selling niche--as a higher-priced, higher value, higher themed and higher imagineered family park.

He sees himself as Rupert Murdoch not John Lassiter. He fancies himself as Ted Turner not Walter O'Malley. When he looks in the mirror, he sees as a Al Checchi or Gary Wilson not a Herb Kelleher.

[mrtoadslastride]

Originally posted by thedscoop

Eisner's problem is not spending money. It's where he spends it. A much better problem to have because, at its very base, it means there is money to spend.

Did Disney have the money on hand to purchase Fox Family. I thought I read that Disney borrowed to pay for it. At any rate Disney <b>had</b> the money to spend, but it has now been squandered. It is my understanding that Disney's debt load is pretty high, so unless Eisner returns the company to profitablility he no longer has the money to spend...

[space42]

Originally posted by mrtoadslastride


Did Disney have the money on hand to purchase Fox Family. I thought I read that Disney borrowed to pay for it. At any rate Disney <b>had</b> the money to spend, but it has now been squandered. It is my understanding that Disney's debt load is pretty high, so unless Eisner returns the company to profitablility he no longer has the money to spend...

See thats the problem. The parks are profitable! Always have been always will be. Its the rest of the company that is having major cash problems. And the parks are suffering while they cover the not so profitable parts of the company.

I don't know what the solution would be other than sell off all of the non-profitable parts of the company.

[mrtoadslastride]

Unfortunately, it is all the unprofitable parts of the company that keeps Disney from being a takeover target. Besides ESPN, are any other divisions profitable? I assume the Studios are, but don't have any numbers to back it up. The real question is can the unprofitable parts of the company ever be revenue producers? Are they bad businesses, or are they just being mis-managed?

[Peter Pirate]

Very well put & very accurate. I sure would like some answers...
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[Bob O]

Jeff Jewell is of course right on, but the disney/eisner apologists will still worship them.
Disney puts in another spinner so we are supposed to praise tme, while Universal give us Spiderman/MIB. Einser only want to siphon money away from the parks to waste money on his dumb ideas, so he gives us the go.com debacle, fox family,firing of katzenberg,hiring of ovitz among his ideas that have cost the company billions while the parks get a cheaply made wild mousde coaster that can be found ANYWHERE.
Disney hasnt created anything innovative at the parks since TOT! And it seems like they are trying to reduce mission space into insignifance!!

[Another Voice]

If memory serves me…

Disney borrowed $6 Billion on the open market. To purchase Fox Family, they coughed up $2 Billion in cash and then took over some $3 Billion in debt that Saban, Fox and that Christian broadcaster had incurred. Some of the debt was probably paid off with Disney money, some was refinanced and some probably went right onto Disney’s book. The rest of the cash went to buy all that stock from the Bass Brothers and other disgruntled shareholders.

So you could say that Disney spent all its cash for the ability to host the ‘S Club 7’ marathons and to save Eisner’s rear from a stockholder revolt. Neither of those two activities will earn The Mouse a nickel in profits within our lifetimes.

The problems with the “other” businesses isn’t that they are bad companies per se, but that the demands placed on them to fund the huge holes in the corporation are killing the businesses. Hollywood Records might make a good, small independent label but not when it has to compensate for all the write-offs the Disney Stores has to take. And the cruise line is never going to make up for the losses on the Internet.

Even the big segments are feeling the pinch. Out of every dollar spent at a Disney theme park, roughly twenty-five cents is given to corporate as profit. That is a staggering profit margin for any business. Think about what the parks would be like if that money could be re-invested instead of circling the drain called ABC?

Big problem in a simple statement – the parts of Disney are worth more broken up than they are worth together.

And I’m not the only one to have noticed.

[mrtoadslastride]

Thanks for the info Voice! The obvious question then is would the core parts of Disney (the studios, and the parks) be any worse off if they were owned by another company? I have seen this debated on the boards before with no clear answer. Who would be big enough to swallow Disney, Microsoft, AOL-TW? I am not necessarily against Disney being purchased, I don't think Universal has been hurt (although the new attractions they just announced may prove me wrong). I would be against a merger, those deals never seem to work out as you usually just multiply each companies problems - see Compaq/HP. It usually takes the new company a couple of years to eliminate redundant systems as well.

[PKS44]

The problem is attitude- innovation was the force behind Disney success-
a desire to do something new and impossible that HAD captured the market and its imagination...now we get cost cutting and copies. Retreads and see the results.

I like Aladdin the ride, but it is not innovative. Is it helping the parks?
I enjoyed AKL, but it felt like a weak, uninspired ripoff of WL, not something truly new. How much are they getting to stay there? Under $200 a night? For a deluxe????
I enjoyed Test Track, but it felt underdeveloped. Epcot attendence is falling.
Sequels...nuff said.
WWTBAM-4 nights a week-why bother coming up with 3 hours of new programming? Oops now you've got less than nothing!)
AK-underdeveloped by design-under attended as a result...
DCA-ditto

The focus has become create profits-instead of create wonder. As a result, you will see neither.
The bogus argument that this is a result of a downturned economy is hard to justify if you look to Japan...in the midst of an economy that for the last 10 years makes our economy look booming-OLC builds an incredibly expensive park and are raking in the dough! Innovation first- profits will follow.
Somehow investing money in successful parks instead of failed internet ventures and bad cable networks seems to me to be better management -maybe it is just a Japanese thing...JMO...
Paul

[Peter Pirate]

But while I'm sure I'm on that list, I too take offense. I have my distinct worries about Disney as evidenced many times by posts, I just happen to have a different, more positive approach to what I see (good or bad). If I saw things under the same light as many of my Car three friends, I would lose all desire to go to Disney, talk about Disney or think about Disney...Thant's just the way I am. So my positive outlook keeps me happy versus a negative outlook which would have me out of the Disney camp altogether. Not to mention that without a few of us vocal car 1 & 2 'ers there'd be very little actual disscussion going on here...

By the way, if I am on that list I'm hiring Scoop...;)
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[barreloflaughs]

Once upon a time I worked for a big garbage company.

They were the best damn garbage company in the world. Our customers loved us. Wall Street loved us. Everyone was very happy.

One day the executives of the company decided they didn't want to be just a garbage hauler anymore. They decided they wanted "To be the world's leading environmental services company". They spent a great deal of time and money expanding their garbage company into every imaginable aspect of the environmental business....consulting, site remediation, water treatment, asbestos removal, design and construction....you name it, they bought it. They didn't know how to run these companies but it didn't matter....we had our vision..."To be the world's leading environmental services company".

To make a (very) long story short.....they failed.... miserably....their stock plummeted and all hell broke loose. No one was happy anymore....the executives whose egos led us down the path fell by the wayside and the company was sold to one of their smaller competitors who converted us back into......

a big, sucessful garbage company.

There are a lot of things about this little story which make me think of the Walt Disney Co. under the reign of Eisner. I think his ego has corrupted the vison of the company....he has led the company into business ventures where they have 'no business' being and the 'core business' (imagination/theme resorts/feature animation/customer service) has suffered as a result. I think it will get worse before it gets better...and I only hope that the end result is a Walt Disney Co. which again focuses on their former strengths.

barrel of laughs

[Peter Pirate]

Now that post wasn't funny at all!:D

But you do bring interesting points forward, the problem being the growth Disney desired was the only choice to keep themselves independent. Now the argument as to whether Disney is truly independet now or would a takeover really change things is a different topic...But to current management (and shareholders) obviously being independent is very important.
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[mrtoadslastride]

Great post Barrel!!!

Peter, I agree that Disney had no choice if they wanted to stay independent, but for the parts of the company we all love (parks and studio) would there situation be any worse if they had been gobbled up by a larger corporation. I would argue that by growing to the point Disney has, the parks have in essence been gobbled up by a larger company (just one of their own making).

Could Disney made it as just the parks and studios if they followed the model of Apple Computer? While there market share is not near what it used to be they still pump out great products that have a magic of their own. Apple has also managed to remain media darling, unlike Disney, even while there market share is shrinking.

[DisDuck]

Rose-Colored Glasses firmly in place so as to reduce sun glare while driving Car#1. If you I see makes me happy. If what I experience makes me smile. If my nephew and nieces (coming along for my June trip) think its 'cool' and magically. Then who cares about Eisner & Company. What I have found over the years of my travels to WDW and DL/DCA and my presence on DIS is that most of what we observe is subjective not objective.


Let you know the magic after I get back.

[Peter Pirate]

Welcome back DisDuck...I'm very happy all is well.

As for you opinions, I'm always happy to fall in line with them and once again, I think I will!
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[mrtoadslastride]

When I go to the parks I go with my rose colored glasses firmly in place and I enjoy every minute. However, the reason I jumped into car 3 is because I fear for a time when the magic is completely gone. When enough Dinorama's have been added, and the price gouging becomes unbearable. At that point my 40 year investment in DVC will be flushed down the toilet, and I will not return to WDW.

PS. Glad your surgery went well!!!:bounce:

[Bstanley]

Oh man, I wish I'd been paying attention yesterday! I missed this whole sub-thread spin-off thing! :-)

Speaking as a schizophrenic Eisner apologist I should've been in on this thread all day long!

I Imagine I would be considered an apologist for the big ME because I really do believe that he 'rescued' Disney from the jaws of almost certain destruction and turned it into a financial powerhouse that made movies I loved to watch with my kids, parks we loved to visit, resorts we loved to stay at, attractions we loved to go on, blah blah blah. I'm not naive enough to think he did it all by himself - his partner for the first 10 years was a true gem for example (and there were other superb people involved), but I still give the big ME much credit for all that happened from 1984 to 1997.

And that's where I go schizo...

From 1998 till now I figure he's been in a slump, batting maybe .250 instead of .500, I mean there are still things being done that I liked - movies, parks, attractions, resorts, etc... But there have been some REAL stinkers, especially lately.

I tend to agree with "barreloflaughs". There was a time when I think ME was sufficiently intrigued by the 'Disney' side of the business to focus on it, pick the best people to run it, etc... But now he seems more interested in being a Media Mogul.

I am still glad he came to Disney when he did - I still think he did great things for many years - I am just not sure about the future.

[DisOrBust]

Correct me if I am wrong...But is not TDS mostly "owned and operated" by another company? As well as DLP? So why would it be a horrible event IF Disney was bought and "broken up"? Just maybe the "core Business" as mentioned would benefit and imagineering could begin again. It would be away for the "core business" to get the monkey off its back (ie ABC), just a thought......

I know you all think another "spinner" is a cheap excuse for a "new" attraction at WDW and it very well maybe. However, I as a mom of a short 4yo appreciate an attraction SHE can go on. For her it is "splash mountain". Without these "cheap spinners" my 4yo would not be getting much for HER price of admission. Sometimes I think you executive types forget the "little people" in the world and WHO the parks were intended for in the first place! Try to think like a 4yo..would you rather ride on a majic carpet in Agrabah with your favorite princess or on a coaster getting barb-b-qued by a dragon!

[DVC-Landbaron]

Speaking as a schizophrenic Eisner apologist I should've been in on this thread all day long! Welcome to the club!!! You will find there is no sanity when it comes to Disney!!!

I Imagine I would be considered an apologist for the big ME because I really do believe that he 'rescued' Disney from the jaws of almost certain destruction and turned it into a financial powerhouse … As did I when I first came to these boards. And then that little voice kept chirping in my ear. And I found that my worst Disney fears were true!! Ei$ner is inept! Pure and simple. And he always has been. From 1998 till now I figure he's been in a slump, batting maybe .250 instead of .500 If you listen to that little voice (that some call another) you will see that the people truly responsible for the good things have been leaving. And at the same rate that they leave, Ei$ner has more and more control. And that just happens to coincide with the really rotten Ei$ner stuff. There’s no one there to hold him in check any longer. Or tell him no. The emperor really doesn’t have any clothes and there’s no one to tell him he’s naked.

No. Ei$ner hasn’t changed at all. He’s still the same old anti-Walt kind of guy he’s always been. It's just that we're seeing more and more of his... his... (I guess you'd call it)... Vision!


SCOOP!!! I heard you the first time!!!!

[mrtoadslastride]

Originally posted by thedscoop
...as long as OKW exists, your money was well spent...just remember, my friend, all is well at the Gurgling Suitcase!


We really enjoy the Boardwalk, but we haven't tried OKW yet. We are going to try out VWL this fall. Whichever part of Disney DVC falls under is certainly doing a great job managing it!!!The whole "Welcome Home" thing seems a little corney until you experience it yourself. I guess if the I get disenchanted (and admittedly it would take alot for this to occur) with the parks to the point of not wanting to visit them I can always use my WDW trips to hit the Links!!!

[Another Voice]

Cruise lines, broadcast networks, publishing companies, music labels, cable channels, sports teams and Broadway musical have nothing to do with keeping the company independent. None of those businesses were started or purchased for that purpose – not even close. The expansion of Disney is fueled solely by someone trying to play Major Media Mogul - Master of The Universe.

Keeping Disney independent was accomplished by locking up oodles of stock with the Bass Brothers, Shamrock, Saudi oil sheiks and large institution (non-voting) mutual funds. That was a lesson Roy Disney learned in the pre-Eisner days when Disney try to fend off takeovers by buying Gibson Greetings and Arvida. It didn’t work then and everyone knew it. And being big didn’t save TimeWarner from being eaten by AOL when the time came.

Long before Eisner, Disney was the only studio to remain independent. That was in the days when it was just a cartoon studio and an amusement park in Anaheim All the others, big or small, have changed hands many times. It didn’t matter what other businesses they owned or the size of their balance sheet – those things don’t matter. Size has nothing to do with “saving the company”. It’s a matter of people believing that the current management can do a better job than someone else.

[Bstanley]

Mr. Landbaron, Sir.

That's it then, I guess it boils down to:

1) The big ME 'understood' Disney and:
a) had excellent help from 1984 until 1997 and mostly good things were done.
b) had lousy help from 1998 til now and mostly bad things were done.

OR

2) The big ME NEVER 'understood' Disney and:
a) had excellent help from 1984 until 1997 and mostly good things were done IN SPITE of him.
b) had excellent help from 1998 til now and mostly bad things were done BECAUSE of him.


Hmmm, I'm just not ready to believe #2. Although I do enjoy listening to other 'voices'. :-)

[DVC-Landbaron]

2) The big ME NEVER 'understood' Disney and:
a) had excellent help from 1984 until 1997 and mostly good things were done IN SPITE of him.
b) had excellent help from 1998 til now and mostly bad things were done BECAUSE of him.
Not quite. The first two sentences are PERFECT!!! The last however should read:

b) Fired (or made them quit) most of his competent staff and started calling ALL the shots and mostly bad things were done BECAUSE of him.

[DVC-Landbaron]

That "buck stops here" thing becomes kinda sticky once applied across the board.No. Not really. But sometimes it takes some time for someone to show his true colors. Now that he's torn away his support system and the true believers in the "Walt" philosophy, we're left with what Ei$ner stands for. Disney®. And that says it all!!

[Bob O]

Im glad disdick is doing well!!!
No need to "out" the eisner apologists/worshippers" as they did a good job of outing themselves!!!
Disney has proven by their actions that bigger isnt better!! They are alot bigger but is that adding anything to the bottom line!!! being creative and producing products that people want to see/buy is most important and thats where they are failing. Be it with the movies they have released(pixar excluxed because some want to believe a myth that they are created by disney) or tv shows/products for their stores they are failing. The parks are doing well because of what they have but little has been added to increase their quality(unless of course you live for spinners and other rides that can be found in the most basic of theme parks)(also exclude TDS). And due to eisners lousy dealing disney has alot of debt and has shown no willingness to spruce up the parks unless paid for by a sponsor. The parks will do good based on the legacy left by Walt but if eisner has his way even that may well diminish in time as he bleeds them as the cash cow for his failed endeavors!!

[DVC-Landbaron]

Scoop!!! How can I quote you if you don't say anything? Or are you conceding the point? In that case there is room in the car, but I’m still driving!!! ;)

[mrtoadslastride]

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
No. Not really. But sometimes it takes some time for someone to show his true colors. Now that he's torn away his support system and the true believers in the "Walt" philosophy, we're left with what Ei$ner stands for. Disney®. And that says it all!!

How do we know if he is showing his true colors, or if he has allowed "his" success go to his head? In other words did he at one time believe in what Walt stood for and just over time lose it as he came to believe that he had the Midas touch and as he tried to become the Mogul. Perhaps it doesn't really matter as the outcome either is the same, I am just curious.

I guess if one believes that originally he understood the "Magic" then one may hold out hope that it is still possible for him to get it again. On the other hand if you believe he never got it then the only solution is for him to go.

[yesdisneyfool]

Isn't it just mesmerizing how one standing on Main Street looking at the Castle and thinking of the Magic to come and Wonderful World of Disney. :D

[JeffJewell]

sometimes it takes some time for someone to show his true colors I don't think it even took that long to see the true colors. It's just that a bit of one color can be a good thing, whereas a picture utilizing only one color is monotonous and uninspiring.

Eisner's strongest tools seem to be in areas like cost control, marketing, repurposing... the kind of tools you use to squeeze that last little bit of margin out of your product.

Walt left the company with a range of product that, while uneven from an individual enjoyment perspective, represented an unprecedented overall level of quality.

Miller and Walker failed to squeeze much out of the products they inherited, and failed to create new products that, overall, matched the level of quality of the dead guy's stuff. The company floundered.

Eisner and Wells came in, with Eisner succeeding in squeezing profit out of old products, while Wells made a damn good show of matching the dead guy in terms of the quality of new products. The company succeeded wildly.

With Wells gone, Disney became a one-trick pony. The new products were engineered with cost as the guiding principle, and quality went down; even though Eisner stills squeezes an appreciable amount out of the generations of product laying around.

So at this point, Disney has begun to build up a critical mass of newer products that fail to meet dead guy quality levels. Eisner is using the same tools that worked so well for him when he had quality dumped in his lap, but without anyone to ensure that quality is continuing to be created, the tools are applied to inferior raw materials. It's no wonder that the tools aren't producing the results they used to.

This gets to the heart of the reason I can't let go of the "bad ol' Imagineers" stuff. We've got years worth of Eisner's philosophy building up to the point that people are starting to notice it overshadowing the now decades-old quality products; we've got one data point where the Imagineers failed to make chicken salad out of chicken Shinola; and we've got the 'Scoop rushing in there to make sure the Imagineers take their fair share of grief for Disney's problems.

I suppose that all those moron worker-bees at Enron deserve their empty retirement accounts for their abyssmal performance, and poor Ken Lay deserves his billion dollar parachute for guiding the company as far as he did. Same principle.

Jeff

[DVC-Landbaron]

How do we know if he is showing his true colors, or if he has allowed "his" success go to his head?Well, a valid point. But look at the things that happened early on in his career at Disney. I mean the things he insisted were done his way. Euro-Disney comes to mind. He didn’t understand the concept at all. And wasn’t there a movie that he was sure would be a hit and another that he was sure would crash and burn. The Rescuers Down Under and The Little Mermaid come to mind. And then there is the Floridian. A very, very, very nice hotel. But is it Disney? And don’t forget about the Institute!!

I’m sure AV can fill in even more. No. I think the Ei$ner we see now is the Ei$ner that’s always been there. He just doesn’t have any protection anymore.On the other hand if you believe he never got it then the only solution is for him to go.Yes!!! He’s got to go!!!

Scoop. I was never quite sure what :rolleyes: was supposed to mean. Care to explain. Try English. I've heard that even lawyers understand that language!! ;) :rolleyes: :)

[hopemax]

I not only worry about Eisner "getting" Disney but just "getting" the products his company was trying to sell. I was at the shareholder's meeting in Seattle during the year go.com was the new thing. During the Q&A session he made a couple of derogatory comments about the Internet and its users. And a question about the internet from a 7 year old left him fumbling for answers. Not the best stance for a CEO to take to inspire confidence about entering the internet world.

[DVC-Landbaron]

But, the Imagineers involved in THIS project. Not ALL projects. Just THIS project. Did a horrible design job even on this bad theme. No consistency, no story about how PW fits into Chester's story. Heck, at least give us cardboard cutouts which at least try to tell a consistent story. Not just a bunch of lightbulbs hanging from strings. Hmmmm. It seems to me they just gave Ei$ner what he was willing to pay for.

[mrtoadslastride]

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron

I’m sure AV can fill in even more. No. I think the Ei$ner we see now is the Ei$ner that’s always been there. He just doesn’t have any protection anymore.Yes!!! He’s got to go!!!


Fair enough (as long as he takes Pressler et al with him). Who does Disney hire in his place? Is there any one left at Disney that can fill this roll, or do they need to go outside? Does Disney remain the company it is today, or should they jetison ABC ect?

I don't think the fix will be as simple as giving Eisner the heave ho. Most of the board probably needs to go along with the lion's share of upper management.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Fair enough (as long as he takes Pressler et al with him). Of Course!! That goes without saying. But you’ve hit upon another key aspect as to why he has to go. Pre$$ler didn’t form out of a vacuum. He didn’t just materialize. NO!!!! Someone picked him to be in the position that he’s in! And Ei$ner gave tacit if not overt approval. So while those car #1 people deride Pre$$ler, they ignore that he’s simply the henchman carrying out his orders!

As to who? Almost anyone!!! My resume is ready!! I don't think the fix will be as simple as giving Eisner the heave ho. Most of the board probably needs to go along with the lion's share of upper management.Again it goes without saying!!

[Peter Pirate]

Was poor DisDuck besmearched?:o

:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[DVC-Landbaron]

Simply saying that if Eisner screws up (like he did) and approves a lousy budget, then Imagineering is off the hook for whatever the result is short-sighted.Chad, I understand. But I don’t think you’re looking at the big picture. One of “what will the boss like that will keep us employed until at least next payday?” Something under budget. Bright. Cartoonish almost. Decorated, not necessarily themed. Large icons.

In other words – Ei$nerized!! And that’s what he got!! Something that the remaining few in Imagineering knew he’d like!! And I’ll bet he does. Cause he just doesn’t ‘Get It’!!!! Something that you and I, even at opposite ends of the poles, take for granted, he can’t even come close to understanding.Yes, Eisner hired him. That was his mistake. But Plushler is accountable for his own actions. What kind of a company do you work for!?!?! Accountable for his actions!?!?!? Absolutely not!!! He is accountable to Ei$ner!!! He could fire the guy any time he chooses. But he doesn’t. Why? Because he likes what he’s doing!!!!!But, please, it's comical to give Plushler a pass because Eisner hired him. Ugh!I’m not giving him a pass!! He’s horrible!! He’s awful!! Everyone should hate what he’s doing to Disney. But it’s Ei$ner’s fault!! If he doesn’t agree with his policies –THEN FIRE HIM!!!!Geez, Jeff, your hatred of Eisner has created tunnel vision which in turn is missing the fact that other adults within Disney are also making bad decisions while some are making good ones. And your love for him clouds your reason! Now get this – IF THE CEO DOESN’T LIKE WHAT HIS PEOPLE ARE DOING HE GETS RID OF THEM!!!! It’s really that simple! Those other adults making bad decisions should have been fired long ago. Unless, of course, the top cheese likes what they are doing.

[hopemax]

I've actually be thinking about Scoop's story problem with Primeval Whirl, and I've seen a couple of seminars given to the NFFC where the Imagineers in charge explainin how they got the idea for their project, and I've heard about a few more via my Dad, so may I present the following...

The question posed by the court is "What the heck does a wacky time machine have to do with a roadside carnival?"

So let's look at the land...we have Dinoland which is supposed to be an "actual" Dinosaur dig site. The centerpiece attraction is a "visit to the Dino Institute where, thanks to modern technology they can transport you via a TIME MACHINE back to the age of the Dinosaurs."

Then there is the Chester & Hester stuff which fits because: wherever you find a major attraction, tacky tourist stuff pops up around it." Well, what kind of tacky, tourist stuff pops up? Souvenir stands and what?

How about cheap knock-off's of the main draw? So what's the main draw of this area... Dino Institute and its TIME MACHINE!!!!

The Imagineers rest their case, and I hope to Walt I have not convinced the Scoop why PW is an excellently themed attraction.

[hopemax]

Every pleading I file is not reviewed by the top lawyer here. So, if I screw it up, then I take the blame. Oh sure, in some kind of esoterical way the top partner is at fault for allowing an associate to file a bad pleading.

But, that bad pleading was done by me. I'm accountable for my actions. It's primarily my fault.



Good lawyer analogies, I've been sitting here trying to come up with one that I thought Scoop would understand and he's provided me one.

I would say your last sentence is not entirely true.

If a high-stakes case is assigned to the newest lawyer just out of law school and he screws up I would say that is primarily the head of the firms fault for assigning a task to a person he is not experienced to handle.

If a high-profile murder case is being handled, but the firm will only approve a evidence discovery budget equivalent to fighting a traffic accident, I don't blame the lawyer for not proving his case.

[JeffJewell]

Not to argue, but to futher explore the Fortress of Solitude, as it were...It has nothing to do with Hester or Chester. It's not cohesive with the DinoRama story. And it could have been made cohesive. ...I think this is a classic case of personal opinion. PW is what Chester and Hester thought kids would like to ride... that _is_ the story of DinoRama: Chester and Hester put up some crap for the kids. They made their crap nominally better than their fictional competitors' crap by stapling up brightly colored plywood scientists.

I understand you don't like it. I'm with you, brother.

It's just I really don't understand the "not cohesive" complaint.

Simply saying that if Eisner screws up (like he did) and approves a lousy budget, then Imagineering is off the hook for whatever the result is short-sighted. No one's off the hook, but I really think it's focusing on the execution of a specific project that's short-sighted; particularly when there appear to long-term business strategies profoundly out of whack.

Jeff

[DVC-Landbaron]

Scoop:No one's off the hook, but I really think it's focusing on the execution of a specific project that's short-sighted; particularly when there appear to long-term business strategies profoundly out of whack. That's all I've been trying to say!

[DVC-Landbaron]

At the risk of beating a perfectly dead horse… Thanks for the inspiration Hope. I can finally rest easy now that Uncle Mike has been vindicated.This got me to thinking. (A dangerous thing!) I think there’s an awful lot of truth said in jest sometimes. And this is a fine example.

Now Scoop, my man. You’ve said a lot of derogatory things in this thread about Disney. Very out of character for, you will admit. But I can appreciate that in the name of honesty, you had to call it as you saw it.

Now, I realize that it is only due to your disappointment with Dino-rama, and that you are still the car #1 navigator if not the driver!! But I can’t remember at any other time, you getting so down on Disney. Actually and publicly saying that the concept, from start to finish kinda… well… sucks! (I’m paraphrasing so please allow a little literary license). Do I have this straight so far? Have you ever said anything like this before? If you did, I don’t remember. Sorry.

But if I’m right, doesn’t it seem a little strange to you, that the very first time the Scoop has a major problem with Disney’s philosophy, to this magnitude, he tries to deflect a bit of the blame off his hero (as I perceive it) and place it at the feet of his underlings (and the only people in Disney that car #3 people have any respect for).

Doesn’t anyone else think it a bit strange? Or am I looking at this wrong? :rolleyes:

[mrtoadslastride]

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron

But if I’m right, doesn’t it seem a little strange to you, that the very first time the Scoop has a major problem with Disney’s philosophy, to this magnitude, he tries to deflect a bit of the blame off his hero (as I perceive it) and place it at the feet of his underlings (and the only people in Disney that car #3 people have any respect for).


Be careful, if you get him to move to car 3 who will be left in car 1 to debate with???:D

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron


Doesn’t anyone else think it a bit strange? Or am I looking at this wrong? :rolleyes:

I don't know if it is strange or not, but depending on how you look at it in this instance Scoop may actually have been harder on Disney (and closer to car 4) than the rest of us. Instead of just pointing out the problems with Eisner's leadership, he is calling into question work by some of the underlings. Maybe Scoop jumped all the way from car 1 to car 4!

[Another Voice]

“If you are forced to create a "road side carnival" then create the most cohesive story possible. Design the most elaborate story possible. One ride of PW reveals, IMHO, that Primeval Whirl's story has nothing to do with Triceratops Spin story or the games story or even the large Dinosaur icon story.”

But Mr. Scoop – aren’t tacky roadside carnivals primarily identified has having unelaborated, uncohesive elements without a story. Could it be the fact that you found area so utter lacking in texture and subtext is proof that Dino-Rama ACHIEVED its design goals? From the pictures I’ve seen, both the parking lot location and the tacky carnival elements are masterfully achieved. There are even parking stripes in the ground. That’s detail! ‘Whirl’ is obviously a tacky, cheap and carny take on a Disney style ride – EXACTLY what you find in tacky road-side tourist traps. Of course it doesn’t have a story and it doesn’t have details, it’s not supposed to.

Wouldn’t a richly detailed, immersive “Disney” experience be exactly the opposite of the road-side carnival theme? If you’re trying to build a replica of International Drive, you don’t make it look like Rodeo Drive and put a Ritz Carlton in the middle of the street. So if you’re trying to build a tacky roadside carnival – you don’t build a Disney-class attraction in the middle of stunning landscaping.

Perhaps, my friend, the designers did an absolutely amazingly wonderful job with the theme they were given. Maybe that’s the real problem here.

[PKS44]

hopemax, AV, and Landbaron-kudos on explaining precisely why the whole "Blame the Imagineers" storyline lacks a cohesive structure....AV's explanation is perfect---the law firm examples are perfect...given a decent budget the associates may have had a great case- but the court never got to see it- the court record has no evidence of it because the bosses never let them present the case the way they wanted....but the law firm idea is not really close enough because top lawyers probably don't approve and green light individual things- I don't know about how law firms work, but that is what we are told---At Disney there is no comparison to the the hierarchy---I am certain that no Imagineer has ever snuck an inferior project past management...the bosses accepted and green lighted what chad calls inferior work...it is the boss's responsibility to demand better...that is what managers do... if any of you were the manager overseeing this project what would you have done? A)Greenlighted it the way it is or
B)insisted on change either better story or ask for more money from on high? No matter which choice is made- YOU- not the Imagineers- are responsible for what is there.

Paul

[Lesley]

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEKKKKKKKKKKKK!

I think I've wandered onto the bizzaro Rumors Board....where scoop slams Disney and Landbaron and AV are defending........

:jester:

And yes, I do understand that this is just one instance...but, whoa, sure is weird to read! Now I know why I find you all so entertaining.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Be careful, if you get him to move to car 3 who will be left in car 1 to debate with???Yeah! You’re right! Car #1 sure seems to be getting smaller and smaller. Are they driving a gremlin now? With so many joining Car #3, we're thinking about going with ‘Magic on Demand’ buses. Now there’s a concept!!!

Maybe Scoop jumped all the way from car 1 to car 4!Scoop!!!??? Is there room in car four? Maybe I can join you!! ;)

[mrtoadslastride]

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
Are they driving a gremlin now?


Now that's a mental picture! When I think of Scoop and Duck I will have a picture of Wayne and Garth in a Gremlin jammin to Bohemian Rhapsody!!! If they have the built in Twizzler dispenser like Garth's, maybe I will have to join them!:bounce::bounce: :bounce:

Surely ME could kick in to upgrade them to a gently used '89 Chevette!

Well, I am off to the airport for my trip. I'll see if I can bother some off duty CM's on their way to clock out, and we'll give Alladin another shot for Scoop.

[TiggerFreak]

I don't think I've seen you guys so worked up in months!

Here's my two cents.

Lest we forget, Walt's original concept for DL was a place for families. This concept, credo, corporate culture, zeitgeist,... call it what you want, became so ingrained in the company, that being part of Disney meant being part of a family. Being part of this family you emulated the father figure.

I can only hope that the memory of Walt is enough to sustain the "Disney Family," because no one in the current organization has his vision or sense of "family."

The celebration of the 100th anniversary of Walt's birth shows that his memory is still alive in the organization. Albeit, used to help turn a (Bad Word) PROFIT. Walt was a business man, wasn't he?

I may have to turn up the rose-o-meter on my glasses if I keep reading this thread

;)

[Conure]

Ei$ner is in charge, right? EVERYTHING is his fault.



I never let schooling interfere with my education.
-Mark Twain

[PKS44]

Originally posted by TiggerFreak
-snip-The celebration of the 100th anniversary of Walt's birth shows that his memory is still alive in the organization. Albeit, used to help turn a (Bad Word) PROFIT. Walt was a business man, wasn't he?

I may have to turn up the rose-o-meter on my glasses if I keep reading this thread;)

No matter what color glasses one wears, it is important to use those glasses to focus on something...PROFIT is not a bad word- but it is a bad thing to focus on- profit is like smoke, try to grab it and it dissipates and disappears...Profit is a side effect- a very good side effect of a business with a successful focus...but that smoke is a byproduct of the fire created by the appropriately focused passion to create/supply/serve a marketable need...Lately, Disney seems to be trying to make smoke, instead of working to make a fire. Whether it is Walt, or Bill Gates or any successful businessman- they don't set out to make profit--they want to light the world on fire with their idea.

Paul

[TiggerFreak]

Paul,

I guess was a little to Tongue-In-Cheek.
Profit is not a bad word or goal, unless it is the only impetus.

Walt had a idea, "A place where families could go ..." and I think he did set the world on fire with it. Within the organization there are still embers of Walt's fire smoldering away, waiting to catch fire again. I am just afraid that with the current focus of the company, these embers may be extinguished by a flood of floundering decisions.

PS: My glasses are powered by the same stuff as Rudolph's nose!

[DisDuck]

Boy, I miss a few days and now it is deja-vu time. DVC you should also be experiencing a little float back in time. Does not this thread remind you of late 2000/early 2001, when there was just you, JeffH, Pirate/Captain, JJ and I.

I still maintain the subjective versus objective argument. I am in Car #1 until such time as the subjective loses to the objective. My next dose of subjective is last week of June. Since this will be the first time in a long time with the under 12 set I will get to view WDW as a child does. I still believe that the mainstream WDW visitor could careless about Eisner/Pressler and the fight over Walt's vision or not. If the MAGIC still hits them squarely in the heart then that is what matters.

I know that when I step onto Main Street or See the Tree of Life or the Ball at EpCot, my heart skips a beat (not the healthiest of responses right now). If that happens again this June then all is well in Mickey Land.

Comments made about C&H and what it represents or does not and who is to blame if not, I find somewhat tedious because of my subjective viewpoint. You see I look at what was the theme trying to be accomplished and if it matches that theme then great. DCA/Paradise Pier is the closest example to C&H. The nay sayers talk about the tacky/garish carny atmosphere and how it does not belong at DL. I look at what was the idea.. TO CREATE A SEASIDE CARNIVAL.. like in the 'old' days. I grew up in the 50's going to Steeplechase Park & Luna Park in Coney Island. These were great summers for me. That is what Paradise Pier represented to me. My youth. Now if C&H is set to look like a TOURIST TRAP as one might expect to pop-up along side a great attraction like a dinosaur dig and it meets that touchy/feely idea then it works and meets/exceeds my expectations. Subjective as they are.


Above from your #1 Duck:D Still firmly buckled into Car #1.

[DVC-Landbaron]

DVC you should also be experiencing a little float back in time. Does not this thread remind you of late 2000/early 2001, when there was just you, JeffH, Pirate/Captain, JJ and I. Ahhh! The good old days! But life is more exciting now, even if it seems a bit of a rehash to us old-timers.I still believe that the mainstream WDW visitor could careless about Eisner/Pressler and the fight over Walt's vision or not.And I agree. But that’s not the point, is it? Whether or not Mr. Average Joe can tell a difference doesn’t matter at all. It’s whether it’s true or not. That is the question. For if the Vision of Walt is no longer held to the high standard it once was, then where is the company heading? Better or worse than what we came to fall in love with? We can’t crawl inside the brain of Ei$ner. All we can judge him on is what he puts before us. As a doctor checks off symptoms and forms an opinion. Sometimes good. Sometimes bad. But the symptoms tell the story. What kind of story is Ei$ner telling us with his actions and deeds?I know that when I step onto Main Street or See the Tree of Life or the Ball at EpCot, my heart skips a beat (not the healthiest of responses right now). If that happens again this June then all is well in Mickey Land.Be careful, my good Duck! We don’t want it to skip too many beats!!! ;)Above from your #1 Duck Still firmly buckled into Car #1.And that’s why we love ya!!! :bounce:

[DisDuck]

Tell you what DVC, I only promise to skip 1 beat. Unfortunately, I cannot raise a beer or two (until some medication finished) but will raise a diet-drink or two for our comrades on this board.

Is anyone going to be at WDW from 6/22 to 6/30? It would be nice to meet some face to face.

[Bob O]

The eisner regime cares nothing at all about Walt's vision!!!! They want to make money off that vision but dont want to spend the money to add to a disney vision for the future and will leave the next leader with a empty cupboard of materials to work with as everything by then will have sequels/prequels!!( except of course Son of the South which isnt pc).
And as long as they excused for every gaffe they make their will be no incentive for them to improve.

[wdwfreak]

I've been reluctant to add my opinion (two cents) to this thread because most of what I think has been stated at some point or another. And, of course, I dare not tangle with the the big boys. However, in reading the entire thread and in finding my own thoughts on the matter at large echoed throughout the various posts, I feel that there is one point that has not necessarily been thouroughly explored/discussed until this statement by Bob O:


Originally posted by Bob O
The eisner regime cares nothing at all about Walt's vision!!!! They want to make money off that vision but dont want to spend the money to add to a disney vision for the future and will leav4e the next lead with a empty cupboard of materials to work with as everything by then will have sequels/prequels!!

My strongest gut feeling tells me that Ei$ner, et al. know that the end is near for whatever reason (retirement, ouster by shareholders, etc.) and they are trying to drain every last dollar from the well with ABSOLUTELY NO thoughts about what harm this could do to the future of the company. Construct some cheap crap, pillage the vault, squeeze a few extra $$$ out of all the arms of the empire. Who cares what we leave for next crew?

Myself, I'll always find my magic at the parks, from the movies, and everything else Disney that I've come to hold dear, no matter what terribly misguided decisions the so-called "Eisner regime" makes. One can only hope that the eventual successor(s) wil be able to get the company back to the mid-80's/early-90's creative Golden Age of Katzenberg, Wells, and, yes, even Eisner.

My two cents ...

[airlarry!]

M. Wdwfreak shared the following: My strongest gut feeling tells me that Ei$ner, et al. know that the end is near for whatever reason (retirement, ouster by shareholders, etc.) and they are trying to drain every last dollar from the well with ABSOLUTELY NO thoughts about what harm this could do to the future of the company.

I personally don't mind the repeats and reposts and rethreads. Yes some of us have been here since when Pete first started this whole thing, but every new person that joins our little fraternity ends up contributing to the thought process at some point or another.

Which brings me to your post...

The original Car#1s scoffed, if I recall correctly, when M. Voice posted the very same thing a year or two ago. I wish we could still search those old posts so I could find it. It was a thread or so about Ei$ner's legacy...one side argued he can't screw this up because he wants desperately to leave a Waltian legacy. The other side (and I've personally slowly succumbed to the dark side through frequent brainwashings from Friend Baron and Friend Voice) believed that Ei$ner's dream of a legacy was one of $$$$ for his children.

M. Wdwfreak, I'm glad you pointed this out. I truly believe that whichever side you choose tends (only tends, I'm saying) to color your view of every rumor we hear about.

[PKS44]

Originally posted by DisDuck
-snip- Since this will be the first time in a long time with the under 12 set I will get to view WDW as a child does.

In a nutshell- Disney's problem is that the under 12 market is no longer growing as it did under Eisner's successful regime- it is shrinking...and the teens are growing and going over to IOA--> they'll be back in about 20 years with their kids. I just hope Eisner has not either changed it so much or destroyed it that the echo of the Echo Boom doesn't have as magical a place as we have enjoyed.

Paul

[DisDuck]

I disagree about the over 12 set going over to IOA. I had only mentioned the under 12 bit because my youngest is now 17 so I have not had young children for awhile. If my family is a guide, of my 4 children I would say even split between IOA type rides and WDW type rides (age range 17 to 26).

I will try to do an informal head-count by age when there in June. I wonder, does anyone have reliable numbers that breakdown individual park attendence by age group?

[Bstanley]

General Question: Is it Eisners fault?

Sub-concept #1. Because he is the Captain of the Ship, responsible for the overall tone of Disney Corporate Culture and because he personally selects, instructs, and monitors his staff.

Comment: It was stated that the big ME is directly responsible for poorly executed, penny-pinching ideas by his subordinates because they must be doing exactly what he told them to do since if they weren't doing what he told them to do he can always fire them. A nice clean view of a hierarchical management system. Unfortunately the real world is never so straightforward.

First, when you're 'the man' at a conglomerate like Disney you do NOT have the time to devote significant energy to one particular area of the business. You provide the individual organizations with their budget and goals (often they do it themselves and it just gets approved) and they are on their own from then on. Only if a serious screw-up occurs will 'the man' poke his nose into your business - and this is NOT a good thing when it occurs either...

Second, unless somebody like PP is REALLY stupid there are literally a thousand ways to shift blame onto virtually any of his underlings, or suppliers, or market researchers, etc. As long as 'his' business segment overall has continued to meet the basic numbers that it's been given by the corporation. And frankly whether or not we like what PP has been doing he's been feeding cash into the corporate coffers as required. So it is quite reasonable to believe that the big ME had no reason to believe that he wasn't doing a good job - until DCA maybe...

Third, Heavens above I hope I never work for a company where you make a mistake and they can you! Basically the only difference between a good manager and a bad manager is the percentage of good decisions they make versus the bad. Having had access to a couple of major corporations senior management - including the fastest growing company in history - I would personally say that a good manager is right 65% of the time and a bad one is only right 45% of the time. All of them make mistakes - it's that 20% that makes the difference. Again - it's quite reasonable to believe that the big ME hasn't put 2 and 2 together yet to figure out that some of his staff are just NOT running at the 65% level...

Sub-concept #2. The big ME is (has always been) devoted purely to the pursuit of the bottom line, ie NET PROFIT, without regard to the Disney legacy. He has actively created a corporate culture and created a management team to support that goal - he has driven away capable people who have tried to keep the older/richer Disney culture alive and he is personally aware of and encourages providing sub-par product (movies, attractions, etc) because it adds to the bottom line.

Comment: It was stated that without FW and JK and the Disney staff that was in place when he took over way back when that the big ME would have shown his true colors immediately. That because they 'deflected' his NET PROFIT goal somehow they were able to produce the parks, movies, resorts etc that today literally make up the Lion's share of what we now know as "Disney".

Does this make sense? It doesn't to me. If it's true why didn't he pick the staff in 1984 with the same goals as in 1996 - other than FW he picked everybody. No matter whether you like the big ME or not it is not reasonable to assume that from 1984 until 1996 that he was not actively involved in day to day operations, and there I think is the more logical argument...

SubConcept #3. My personal opinion is that if the big ME is to be held responsible it should be because he has invested too many of the company's resources and too much of his personal time in the Television/Media side of the business.

Comment: From 1984 until 1996 (maybe even 1995, depending on when he started the company off looking for a network to buy) I give the big ME (and his team) very high marks for the parks, rides, movies, etc. that were done. And curiously this is also the time when he could actually pay some attention to parks and movies - prior to 'MediaLand' being added... The end of this period also corresponds to when FW tragically left the scene and JK/others 'left to pursue other interests' - and a new 'supporting cast' took the stage - just as the 'dark period' (IMHO) began - 1997 to now.

So I am still not convinced who the 'villain' is here.

I feel I must bow to other 'Voices' who appear to have knowledge that I do not have, but frankly in this as in all things I tend to hope for the best and would prefer to believe as soon as the big ME pays some serious attention to the parks - perhaps now that DCA has exploded (imploded?) on the scene he will find the time to really compare DCA to TDL, put 2 and 2 together, educate his 'young apprentice' and there will be a "New Hope"!

[YoHo]

Jeez, Its been a while since I participated in one of these.
Rest assured I've only read the first couple posts and Bstanley's latest.

As personal opinion, I've come to agree with what AV has said for some time, that Roy E. Wanted Wells and took Eisner for his hollywood credentials. It makes perfect sense in a hollywood sort of way. (what Can I say I moved to the west coast and gained different understanding)

If you study Eisner's career, you see that he has no expireance in the CEO position, no credentails that suggest he'd be good at it. at best he made some good choices about which soap operas and Movies to make. (Something that hasn't been working in today's Disney)

So, to my mind, Eisner is the problem, not because he meddles with every little thing, but because he simply doesn't know what to do.

[larworth]

A quick acknowledgement to an earlier discussion point. Scoop thought he saw a design flaw and tried to separate it from the intent flaw that so obviously exists with Dino-Rama!. Not always easy when there are positions and rhetoric to defend. Hopemax showed how the time-machine parody of PW is a reasonable story line and Scoop stood corrected. However, I thought it was a good use of process.

***

From those earlier debates it does seem like there has been some shift in car membership. I think the poor performance of the other divisions has caused some of this. Questions about the balance between creativity and profitability that once centered on the parks is now a valid topic for debate is so many other areas that it can no longer be discounted.

Earlier arguments suffered from blurrier lines between taste and intent. If there were criticisms voiced about the level of ambition behind Kali, RnR, Buzz, and other resort policies they could be easily discounted as subjective and not structural in nature. Since that time we’ve seen much clearer examples of the deterioration in ambition. I don’t know how anyone can look at parts of DCA, Dina-Rama!, PC, and other recent efforts and not see that something fundamental has changed.

While we’re probably all still divided over when it occurred (post 1995 for me), why it may have occurred, and the longterm implications, do we all now at least acknowledge there has been a significant change in their approach to running the parks no matter which car we ride in?

[DVC-Landbaron]

Closure??!! I think not, my dear Scoop… p.s. for closure's sake, Baron, I think Disney also screwed up with the Garden Wings, Birthdayland and its progeny, ... … instead you are opening up a whole new can of worms!!

Why is it that you feel compelled to cite early failures when addressing current ones? You do it rather frequently, you know. Even if we avoid a debate as to the accuracy of your list and accept it as fact, it has absolutely nothing to with the conversation at hand!!

Look closely at Mr. Larworth’s post. Very insightful!! Especially the second paragraph… Earlier arguments suffered from blurrier lines between taste and intent. If there were criticisms voiced about the level of ambition behind Kali, RnR, Buzz, and other resort policies they could be easily discounted as subjective and not structural in nature. Since that time we’ve seen much clearer examples of the deterioration in ambition. I don’t know how anyone can look at parts of DCA, Dina-Rama!, PC, and other recent efforts and not see that something fundamental has changed. The whole paragraph is simply wonderful, but it is the end that is particularly poignant. I don’t know how anyone can look at parts of DCA, Dina-Rama!, PC, and other recent efforts and not see that something fundamental has changed. something fundamental has changed. That’s the key!! Please get over the garden wings and start focusing on the subject at hand!! It’s the fundamental change that we’re all talking about!! Not a random (and not very common) mistake or accidental failure, but a fundamental change in philosophy!!

[DVC-Landbaron]

...Jeff, I simply was attempting to show that I'm an equal opportunity critic. I gave three pre-Eisner and three post-Eisner after one of your earlier posts inaccurately suggested that DinoRama has been my only criticism of Eisner. I know you try to be an equal opportunity critic. I just don’t think you succeed!! ;)

And my ‘selective’ quotes were just that. Selective!! I don’t see how it furthered the conversation to quote the entire paragraph when I was specifically talking about the garden wings, et al. You make it seem as though the readers read my responses only and not your entire post!! I think most can glean from the collective what we are each trying to say and what specifics we want to talk about. I wanted to talk about your reference to ‘garden wings’ (again and again and again and…). I did not want to talk about Richard Petty Driving Atrocity! My post… Not yours!! Which leads us to….

Please note for the record though that it's quite ironic that you're attempting to bold-type font me into getting back to "the subject at hand" when this thread is based on my "musings".

Go get your own musings!Fair enough!!! (he looks a little sheepish and continues) Point well taken!!! :o :) :o


Anyways, except for any poster whose agenda is so engrained that it's beyond malleability I state again:

Eisner has screwed up many different times during his tenure, including DinoRama.
Imagineering also screwed up with DinoRama. That is my point. You make it sound like isolated incidences. They are not. They are indicative of a (dare I use bold again……… Oh, what the heck!) FUNDEMENTAL PHILOSOPHICAL CHANGE!!!!



Gosh, I hope I never end up in Car #3... You’re already there. It’s just that you won’t admit it!! ;)



ps: Heavy pet Ei$ner!!!!!!!! UHG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bstanley]

Sorry Mr. Scoop, but I've got one more post on the 'Eisner' blame game before I go back and re-read your musing for comment. :-)

While we’re probably all still divided over when it occurred (post 1995 for me), why it may have occurred, and the longterm implications, do we all now at least acknowledge there has been a significant change in their approach to running the parks no matter which car we ride in?

So the question seems to be do I acknowledge that the parks are being short-changed for the sake of profitability as the result of a change of corporate policy (culture?) that dates from approximately 1995 - in this case whether or not the big ME is the reason is not a part of the question.

OK let's do it the old fashioned way - follow the money...

Parks/Resorts $ in and out from the Annual Reports

1992, $3.3B income, $2.7B expenses, $0.6B capital improvements, 19% Gross
1993, $3.4B income, $2.7B expenses, $0.6B capital improvements, 18% Gross
1994, $3.5B income, $2.8B expenses, $0.8B capital improvements, 20% Gross
1995, $4.0B income, $3.2B expenses, $0.6B capital improvements, 20% Gross
1996, $4.5B income, $3.5B expenses, $1.2B capital improvements, 23% Gross
1997, $5.0B income, $3.9B expenses, $1.1B capital improvements, 22% Gross
1998, $5.5B income, $4.2B expenses, $1.3B capital improvements, 23% Gross
1999, $6.1B income, $4.6B expenses, $1.7B capital improvements, 24% Gross
2000, $6.8B income, $5.2B expenses, $1.5B capital improvements, 23% Gross
2001, $7.0B income, $5.4B expenses, $1.3B capital improvements, 23% Gross

Hmm, the bad news is that it looks like starting in '96 the Gross profit target for the segment was indeed raised by 3% - which is certainly an interesting sum ($200 million in 2000 for example), but the good news is that the money is not leaving the Parks/Resorts segment.

So basically for the last 10 years the Parks/Resorts segment have been allowed to keep whatever money they made within the segment to use to expand the segment (AK, AKL, The Cruise Line, DCA) . They haven't received any help from corporate, they haven't been asked to pay a lot for anybody else's toys.

So again - I just don't see the NET PROFIT 'smoking gun' here. These guys don't get bonuses on the GROSS, they get bonuses on the NET. They have indeed been taking in more money, but they have been putting it back into the segment.

I'll admit I don't really like the way they've spent the money in many cases, but they are continuing to spend the money - it is not rolling down to the bottom line as NET profit.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Hmmm. I almost forgot about Mr. Bstanley, the Scoop took my mind off the thoughtful response I was formulating…. Anyway: First, when you're 'the man' at a conglomerate like Disney you do NOT have the time to devote significant energy to one particular area of the business. You provide the individual organizations with their budget and goals (often they do it themselves and it just gets approved) and they are on their own from then on. Only if a serious screw-up occurs will 'the man' poke his nose into your business - and this is NOT a good thing when it occurs either...I especially like the bit about this NOT being a good thing when it occurs. By ‘poke his nose into your business’ I assume you mean the very micro management style that Ei$ner has honed to a fine art. The type of business management style that he is very, very, well known for. What makes you think he doesn’t do that regularly, as he is reputed to? Second, unless somebody like PP is REALLY stupid there are literally a thousand ways to shift blame onto virtually any of his underlings, or suppliers, or market researchers, etc. As long as 'his' business segment overall has continued to meet the basic numbers that it's been given by the corporation. And frankly whether or not we like what PP has been doing he's been feeding cash into the corporate coffers as required. So it is quite reasonable to believe that the big ME had no reason to believe that he wasn't doing a good job - until DCA maybe...WOW what a paragraph!! Assigning blame, CYA stuff, meeting numbers, feeding cash into the corporate coffers!! It sounds like I’m at work!! You left out only one point. Corporate culture.

How is it that Walt was able to surround himself with creative, like-minded, talented people and Ei$ner surrounds himself with the likes of Pre$$ler? Can we ascertain from this that they are also like-minded? Can we tell, by the way he’s handled other personnel matters, chief among them the dismissal of Katzenberg, that he values number crunchers over creative types? Remember, we’re asking if the whole enchilada is Ei$ner’s fault. Not just Dino-rama!! In other words, is the a (there he goes with the bold again) fundamental philosophical change that has occurred since he took over? Third, Heavens above I hope I never work for a company where you make a mistake and they can you!We’re not talking about one or two mistakes!!! We’re talking about the very foundation upon which the philosophy of Disney was built!! We’re talking about ‘vision’! The head cheese creates the vision. And his subordinates try to make that vision come true. I happen to think that Pre$$ler is a very good manager. Right up there around (and probably beyond) the 65% rate you were talking about. I think he is very good at what he does. And don’t think that Ei$ner doesn’t appreciate him carrying out his marching orders as well as he does. It’s those ‘marching orders’ that I have a problem with!! The big ME is (has always been) devoted purely to the pursuit of the bottom line, ie NET PROFIT, without regard to the Disney legacy. He has actively created a corporate culture and created a management team to support that goal - he has driven away capable people who have tried to keep the older/richer Disney culture alive and he is personally aware of and encourages providing sub-par product (movies, attractions, etc) because it adds to the bottom line. Very well put!!!! I have nothing to add to it! It’s perfect!!!!!

No, wait. After re-reading your comments I find I do have an addition. You give him too much credit for brains. He’s not that smart. So let me re-write the above to state what I really think (Bold are changes I made):

The big ME is (has always been) inept. He has actively created a corporate culture and created a management team that sends mixed messages at best and lately has been very bottom line oriented - he has driven away capable people who have tried to keep the older/richer Disney culture alive, because of his massive ego and he is personally aware of and encourages providing sub-par product (movies, attractions, etc) because it adds to the bottom line and he doesn’t know what else to do because he is… inept!

Yeah! That about does it!! So, yeah. It’s his fault, plain and simple. And it has been since day #1!!

[DVC-Landbaron]

Scoop, my man!!!!
Baron
...I love your passion for all things Disney and thoroughly enjoy your writing style...but how you get
You make it sound like isolated incidences.
...from...
Eisner has screwed up many different times during his tenure,
shall simply be the crop circle mystery of this thread...

Can I assume that because you questioned this, you really do agree that while Ei$ner has screwed up many different times, they are not isolated incidences, but instead are indicative of a fundamental change in philosophy?

They are either pieces of a bigger whole or merely isolated mistakes (though they may be many). You can’t have it both ways!!!

So, which is it?

[JeffJewell]

good analysis Most "analyses" worthy of the title (much less the praise) dig a bit beyond the data that the "analyzed" company spoon-fed investors in their Annual Report. Oddly enough, businesses don't air their laundry in that particular publication.

Hell, Enron's Annuals looked great right up until that whole biggest bankruptcy in US history thingy...

Jeff

[Bstanley]

1. By ‘poke his nose into your business’ I assume you mean the very micro management style that Ei$ner has honed to a fine art.

2. The big ME is (has always been) inept.

3. It’s his fault, plain and simple. And it has been since day #1!!

If the big ME has ALWAYS been a micro-manager and has ALWAYS been inept and has ALWAYS been this way since day #1 (1984) then how is it possible that he selected and surrounded himself with so many excellent people for so many years? and he produced so many marvelous things (movies, parks, etc) for so many years?

Given your logic I guess we will just have to believe that the REAL big ME actually DIED on the quadruple bypass operating table and an EVIL big ME took his place, micro-managing for the worst this past 8 years instead of for the best like the first 13 years.

Herr Baron, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree...Because I cannot reconcile these positions.

[larworth]

Bstanley reintroduces a topic I have brought up several times with little traction and that is divisional cash flow. While the parks have always been very profitable, they have never been good cash generators. Free cash flow is their new mantra, so it is important in understanding their thinking, and does have some economic merit.

When Eisner made his comment about reaping the benefits of their recent investment I understood where he was coming from. Disney did double it’s capital investment rate (pre 1996) and as these new parks are finished capital should trend down and earning’s should begin to flow in. A natural by-product of an investment spurt.

I will agree that the division appears to be self-funded. That means extra profit had to be taken from legacy parks to pay for the funding of the new parks. Much of the “robbing Peter to pay Paul” sentiment is really an earning’s issue as earning’s still drives the market, but we could also say that the underperformance of the other units did not make extra cash available to help support this big growth spurt. They opted to lower standards in what they built rather than dip a little divisional cash flow negative to do it right. Under normal cirumstances this would be the typical approach.

As new park capital declines, this would allow them to now reinvest more in their legacy parks. However, their free cash flow target sounds as if we should expect the same tight leash and lower standards.

[YoHo]

BStanley Name one Person Eisner Chose.
Wells, and Katzenberg were chosen for him.

[JeffJewell]

Anyways, let's find a new topic. For me at least, this one is really tired. I think the topic is tired, too, but I keep getting pulled back in because my position is just so reasonable and data-backed that, when faced with disagreement, my assumption is that I simply didn't state my case clearly enough. I'm supremely confident that, one by one, every reader on these boards is eventually going to stumble across something or other I post and realize "Oh, _that's_ what Jewell was on about! Well, of course that's correct, we can move forward, now."

It's with that confidence that I attempt the following re-statement.I probably fall into the area where JeffJewell appears to be, that is (and always JJ, correct where needed), Eisner lost his way post-Wells. Just to clarify, I wouldn't say he "lost his way," I'd say he "lost his balance."

It's my feeling that Eisner, at heart, has always been a "sharp-pencil" guy: I think he would have been an excellent executive for a business like Wal-Mart; where the name of the game is push as much out the door as you can manage, and you play hardball with your suppliers because we can buy our five tons of toilet paper from anywhere. I think Eisner might excel in that type of commodity industry, where the products are generic.

I don't think Eisner ever "got it" that Disney products, for much of the company's life span, were the exact opposite of commodities; further, I think Wells "got it," something fierce.

My position is that Eisner has always used pretty much the same set of marketing and sales tools, but that Walt then Frank provided him with the high-quality product upon which to use those tools.

With Frank gone and the whole Katz/Ovitz series of shoving matches behind him, Eisner lost the force that balanced, or perhaps even fueled, his own. Without the high-quality raw material, Eisner can't use his tools to the same effect as he had in the early 80's.

Without the dream, the creative vision, the care in the products, Eisner's Disney is hollow and soulless. At this point, I do not believe Eisner is interested in sharing his power, and I do not believe he is inclined to learn a different set of tools in his corporate dotage.

Whether Eisner lasts past 2004 or not may be questionable, but Disney has to have a leader with a creative vision as well as a financial one. I believe that Michael Eisner is currently a brick wall on the road to acheiving that goal; a wall that is best destroyed as quickly as possible.

Jeff

[Bstanley]

Mr. Yoho,

Gee, I can't think of a single name - I guess everything good from 1984 until 1995 must have come from the big ME! Kewl, I knew I was right. :-)

[Bstanley]

Well now that this topic has crystallized, how about shifting to another topic with more debate possiblities? :-)

Given that the big ME has run his course for whatever reasons, is it possible for anyone to run the company today and be able to meet the divergent requirements of all the segments?

In other words can Disney, as it is today, continue under a single corporate head? Or is it so huge that it's sheer size makes it literally impossible to 'hire' someone to be the CEO who wouldn't end up screwing it up.

Sort of an 'absolute power corrupts absolutely' question.

If you hire a guy who knows one segment well, what happens to the other segments?

If you hire a gal who's good at selecting capable underlings, will she be willing to accept their judgement or succumb to 'the power' and interfere?

In other words, is it possible to find someone willing to be responsible for 5 seperate multi-billion dollar business', but who is also willing to be 'in charge' of NONE of them?

[Another Voice]

Shutting down so soon?

1. Michael Eisner was hired as the creative executive. Frank Wells was the person really running the company along with the heads of the individual business units. Yes, Eisner did bring in Katzenberg, but he quickly developed his own power base and can’t really be considered a “Michael” person even in the best of times. Notably Attractions remained managed by “Walt and Ron” people all throughout the “golden Eisner years”.

2. These people were able to run their divisions as they wanted with the occasional interruption from Eisner. They were able to stop most of his really dumb ideas early – closing Animation, selling EPCOT Center, opening up a chain of fast food joints, etc.

3. Eisner’s primary purpose in the early years was to lend his Hollywood credibility and let Jeffrey borrow the rolodex to stars at the Betty Ford clinic. Yes, he did jump start the studio, but that was a process that had already started. Many people had been waiting for Disney to reawaken and jumped at the chance to help. And the single event that most sparked the company, ‘The Little Mermaid’ was a project that pre-dated Eisner (and one he wanted killed).

4. Eisner micromanages in the things that interest him, and utterly ignores those that do not. While he’s more than willing to spend an entire day picking out the fabric for the lobby chairs, the man couldn’t tell you what “rack rate” means to the hotel business. Many times he would get involved in the most mundane of decisions – and override the management that made the calls in the first place – while ignoring the serious issues around him. This caused tremendous problems between him and the company’s upper management. It’s very hard to look seriously at a man for strategic guidance when his only interest seems to be how quickly you can manufacture the new monorail costumes his wife just designed.

5. He has no ability to “tough out” a problem when they appear. It’s an ability that’s become legendary about town. He flung himself into the design decisions about Euro Disney and California Adventure and then completely abandoned both projects when troubles arose. Also witness his approach to Animation – he hated it at the beginning (because it was perceived as a failure), then “fell in love” when it made gobs of cash, but now since there hasn’t been another ‘The Lion King’ again he’s shutting down the division. There has been no attempt to fix the division or to find out what went wrong. It’s just been dropped like a worn out toy.

6. Eisner’s tinkering, ego, and lack of true business skills forced out all of the company’s top management and a created turnover rate remarkable even for Hollywood. In the last five years alone, how many studio heads have rolled through the lot? Through the death of Frank Wells and the loss of anyone with the intestines to say “NO!”, what you’re seeing today is pretty much the Eisner that’s been there all along.

7. Well, maybe not all along. It’s worse now after a decade of self-promotion and being surrounded by yes-droids. He honestly thinks he’s the business genius that he’s been pretending to be and that makes him dangerous as well. People were laughing at him for the Fox Family deal, both inside and outside of the company. On the ones on the outside didn’t both the wait until his back was turned.

No, Eisner is not to blame for all the bad things that have happened or are happening, but he should likewise receive the appropriate amount of praise for what went right. Eisner was good as the Hollywood smoozer to whisper sweet nothings into the ears of stars and to parade himself about at the premier parties. But he’s not a businessman. He never has been nor ever will be.

Too bad we can't call in for a stunt double whenever a real decision has to be made.

[YoHo]

Yes, Yes to Obi-Voice you Listen. :)

As to who or what could replace him. I suspect Any CEO or managment team is going to have to sell of some of this company. Its going to return to parks and Production and leave distribution to others.

OR, if the company does remain as is, it will be gobbled up by a bigger entity (can you say like Vivendi) which would then break up the managment of the different divisions in better ways.

[airlarry!]

The future CEO or Wellian figure is hard to predict, but the past is not.

Would Walt have trusted the keys to his kingdom to Paul Plushler or Michael Ovitz? Would a guy like Walt ever run off the likes of Sotto or Lassiter or any of the droves of guys working at Fox Animation or DW Animation etc?

Hello? Michael Ovitz? Heir to the throne? Replacement for Wells? What has Ovitz ever created? What has Plushler ever drawn, written, banged out in tune, designed, or even dreamed?

This company has a simple formula for success. Hire a money man (Roy) and a creative man (Walt) and let the sparks fly. Just make sure one is in charge, preferably the creative guy.

I've said it before, but a guy like Lassiter/Sotto combined with a money man is what is needed. It ain't impossible. But it is with The Brain That Ate Glendale in charge.

[JeffJewell]

I know this name will sound evil to some, but I'm all for Steve Jobs being a part of it.

Lasseter works for me as far as animation goes, and to a certain extent, the theme parks, I guess. But Disney is now much more than that.

Jobs at his worst can look Eisnerish, but it seems to me that Jobs always had an eye for good stuff; I suspect he could think of good people to head the divisions.

Get Oz and Jim's boy over... have them bring those marionette/puppet things with them.

Perhaps George could give focus to the film side.

Fantasies aside, it seems to me that Jobs has the skills one looks for when supporting "that side" of the business, and has a history of generally letting the talent be talented.

That sounds like a decent compromise, in this day and age.

Jeff

[PKS44]

Originally posted by thedscoop
Anyways, except for any poster whose agenda is so engrained that it's beyond malleability I state again:

-SNIP-
Imagineering also screwed up with DinoRama.

Talk about agendas beyond malleability- seems thedscoop would both have learned by now that without knowing the details of the process we can't know who did what with DinoRama...or maybe better yet-

I would suggest that, from our vantage point, that's really a tough call to make without the proof before us. Maybe it was bad intentions, maybe not. But, without the advantage of hearing all the proof (not just what the media finds interesting enough to report), this would be the most extreme form of speculation. Oops I think I should have put the quote thingee on for that last statement...does it sound familiar, scoop? Here it is again-

Originally posted by thedscoop I would suggest that, from our vantage point, that's really a tough call to make without the proof before us. Maybe it was bad intentions, maybe not. But, without the advantage of hearing all the proof (not just what the media finds interesting enough to report), this would be the most extreme form of speculation. Those are your own words about what happened with the infamous shredded documents...and yet they are so applicable here as well...unless your agenda is beyond malleability--oops I mean:
]Originally posted by thedscoop
except for any poster whose agenda is so engrained that it's beyond malleability

Paul

[Bstanley]

Thank you Voice. A thoughtful picture of a human with problems rather than a demonic vision. I will accept the possiblity the Dark Side may have clouded my outsider vision.

So, either because the big ME is totally without redeeming features, or simply because he hasn't been functioning at the required 'CEO' level (ie a 65% good to bad decision ratio) for long enough, it would appear that it is time for him to pursue other interests.

My personal opinion is that a single human is incapable of running a corporation larger than $1B or so. In fact I am not even positive what the minimum number of people required is - although I have a theory that a binary system is the only stable choice since three is the only other viable number. More than three is a committee - with which it is literally impossible to achieve rational thought or decision.

So we need two people. Agreed?

[Another Voice]

It was said for a long time in the company that “one person can’t run a ten billion dollar company; what you need is ten people running one billion dollar companies”. The pre-Eisner Disney was criticized for being too centralized and for Burbank’s stifling control over everything that happened. In the early nineties a lot management changes happened which freed the local management – the start of the entire Home Video group is an example of one executive (Bill Mechanic) running things the way he wanted.

In the “Eisner golden era” the company was composed of several little fiefdoms. Each business was trying to run itself the best it could. It worked well for the most part with the occasional glitch every once and a while. Still, the top spots were held by people who knew their business and we’re interested in running it. Now however, the units are being run by people whose interest are focused only on pleasing The Guy At The Top at the expense of their own businesses. Paul Pressler is not running Attractions because he has either a background or an interest in the area – it was just one more rung on the corporate ladder. Like anyone else stuck in a job they don’t like, these people tend not to do a good job.

It’s not that Eisner is a bad person; he’s just more of a Hollywood executive than a real business executive. The lunches, the television appearances, the creative meetings talking about nothing – that’s what it takes to run a studio. But running a business requires more thought, more imagination and a greater degree of self control. Through circumstance and an ego befitting a Major Media Mogul, he’s worked his way into a position that he just doesn’t belong. And now he’s causing long term damage to the company – more damage than was ever done by Ron Miller and Card Walker.

In the end, it doesn’t take one person, two people or twenty people. It just takes good people.

[Bstanley]

Well that is certainly the key to any business' success - finding 'good' people - people that really 'get off' on what they are doing PLUS have the required management (personnel, finance, etc) skills to handle the 'logistics'. And when a company gets to the point where it subdivides each of the new segments needs the same sort of leadership.

When the company divides you are still going to need strong leadership at the top to handle those times when the subs need to be forced to 'play nice' - and there's the rub - finding someone who can 'be the boss of bosses' without being heavy-handed and overbearing. That's why I think it'll take 2 people. Like a large ship a large company needs a lot of energy and direction - and it's almost impossible for one person to handle both.

It would appear that during the FW days the big ME respected him enough to allow him to provide guidance, but since then he hasn't been able to 'accept' anyone to fill those shoes...so he figures he has to do both on his own...

Did Ron Miller really have enough time to do any damage? Other than taking away Roy Jr's parking space (if you believe the story) did he deserve his dismissal?

[PKS44]

Originally posted by thedscoop
Opinions. It's primarily about opinions. With a few facts tossed in.

SNIP
But, alas, ole' Paul, in his eagerness to attack any negative opinion about Imagineering, missed this.


Als -poor scoop continues to do what I have seen him do over and over- confuse opinion statements with facts...he spreads so much flat out incorrect speculation around like it is factual that he himself has lost the ability to distinguish one from the other...
"DINORAMA SUCKS"=opinion
"DINORAMA SUCKS BECAUSE IMAGINEERING WAS LAZY OR SCREWED UP=that is not an opinion, that is a statement pretending to know some facts, when the facts (reported by you or the media or anyone else) are not available.

since I am on his Ignore list he will never see this, but that is just a formality, he has obviously not really seen anything about what I am saying by the nature of his lame argument...Saying that IMAGINEERING was lazy or that they screwed up is not only speculation but may very well be completely the opposite of what actually (actually, that means as in a real fact, not some Eisner defending, Tennesee lawyer's guess) happened...that someone does not like DR or anything else is welcome opinion- trying to lay blame without details is careless speculation...just as scoop said it was wrong to assume bad intentions in the Pooh document shredding- it is wrong to assume bad behavior on Imagineering's behalf. His rules are applied inconsistently- not surprising- his posts are full of inconsistencies)
As has already been pointed out to scoop (but seems to be beyond his understanding)-Imagineering may have drafted the most wonderful attraction in history, even done it cheaply and underbudget, but the management has the ability and lately have shown their propensity to undercut their efforts, nevertheless...example already given-they design a dark ride, management says, great but we will build it without the building...or Imagineering designs a great ride with cardboard cutouts and Management says great but we will do it all without so many cutouts or whatever...the client has the final say and the final responsibilty and unless some Howard Roark-like Imagineer refuses to let them alter his/her creation and blows it up, no one will ever know that the final creation was ruined by someone other than the Imagineer... for the record I don't know any Imagineers and never have...I could not care less if they are to blame or not, or if anyone can actually expose their failures....I just know that I have seen enough of thedscoop's BS that I can't sit idly by as he dishes out opinion like it is fact and then whines about it when he's called out...(Other examples- his statement that AK was built to compete with Cypress Gardens- just wrong, his ludicrous assertion that EE was designed to sell more breakfasts in the parks-not just wrong, but Disney must have missed that memo since very few places even served breakfast in the EE parks)

Sorry if this sounds harsh but apparently some people actually think this scoop fellow has some inside factual information and they are being sorely misguided by his BS...these boards are about opinions- and everyone -even scoop can have one-but beware the difference between opinion and fact.

Paul

[DVC-Landbaron]

Bstanley says:Thank you Voice. A thoughtful picture of a human with problems rather than a demonic vision.Hmmm. Did I give you that impression? I didn’t mean it, if I did. I will agree that AV has a writing style to which many aspire, but few attain. But I didn’t think I was that far off the mark!! ‘Inept’ is a far cry from ‘demonic’. And if you boil down AV’s post, isn’t that the one word summary?My personal opinion is that a single human is incapable of running a corporation larger than $1B or so.Mine too!! So the one job he has, in order to adequately “run” this vast mega-corporation, is pick the right person to head the various ‘sub-corporations’!!

So!!! How does he measure up to the one and only job he really needs to do correctly? 65%? 100%? How about 0.00%. That’s the way I’d score it!! At least with the parks.So we need two people. Agreed?Agreed. With the ‘stronger’ personality residing in the artistic type!!! these boards are about opinions- and everyone -even scoop can have one-but beware the difference between opinion and fact.Just wanted everyone to see this little gem. Even though I come off as though mine is the ONLY opinion, I really enjoy everyone’s take on different issues. And I feel about these issues exactly as JJ said: I think the topic is tired, too, but I keep getting pulled back in because my position is just so reasonable and data-backed that, when faced with disagreement, my assumption is that I simply didn't state my case clearly enough. I'm supremely confident that, one by one, every reader on these boards is eventually going to stumble across something or other I post and realize "Oh, _that's_ what Jewell was on about! Well, of course that's correct, we can move forward, now."But then again I’m sure everyone else feels that way too!!

Happy writing!!! :bounce:

[Another Voice]

If I may, I’d like to second Mr. Scoop’s opinion. While I have had the good fortune not to have seen Dino-Rama in person yet, it is still possible to judge a show from media representations. The area’s appeal is primarily visual so pictures I’ve seen are good enough to form an opinion; the humidity of the Florida summer, the screeching of the rides and the cries of children are not enough to influence a judgment one way or the other.

Dino-Rama is simply a really bad idea designed without enthusiasm or care. It is a joint effort by the managements of Attractions and of WDI. For every penny pincher at the corporate offices these days, there is a willing partner-in-crime in a big office in Glendale. There is far too much acceptance of the “good enough” philosophy today and a willingness to simply accept budget cuts rather than fight for what it proper. A division that once thought of itself as the last bastion of Walt’s Vision is now run by people with frightenly poor vision. It is not enough for WDI simply to whine about the budgets. If you can’t present a good show, pull the plug.

But I have worked too long in films not to recognize that good people can do very good work on really bad projects. That’s my sense here – the project was doomed from the start. All the nice touches, all the good work is simply overwhelmed by the mediocre concepts and poor design work in the area. Worse, many truly good people have already left – and the few that remain are too easily ignored.

Dino-Rama is a parody of everything that a Disney park is supposed to represent, and creating a parody requires a measure of cruelty that I don’t think the rank-and-file WDI people feel for the parks. The senior management of Disney may continue to look down their noses at the parks, but that attitude has yet to reach many of the people who created Dino-Rama. Yes, Dino-Rama is poorly designed. If that was because people couldn’t trash what they love, then I won’t complain too much.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Give the man a cigar!!!!

I can only speculate but, by his boldness (okay, sorry reeeaallly bad joke), it appears Baron has pulled this one from the ignore function hinderlands for my information.Scoop! My man!! Very good! Very good indeed!! As I was writing I thought that perhaps I was being too subtle, but you came through with flying colors!!! Well played!!

From AV: In the end, it doesn’t take one person, two people or twenty people. It just takes good people.WOW!!! Can the guy turn a phrase or what?!?!?

[DisDuck]

Scoop just a note to say I understood what you were saying and that it was opinion. Just like I will see DR on 6/24 and give everyone here my opinion. Of course my opinion may have a rose-color to it as I liked Paradise Pier (reminded me of my youth at Coney Island).

Tell you what DVC, since Disney needs 2 people to run it. I will be the money guy, you can be the creative guy. OK?

[eeyorefanatic]

Dis Duck,

I don't often post here but read it voraciously.I too grew up spending summers on Coney Island, and thought (via photos and video)that CA was beautiful, escpecially at night.

DR however is an abomination (imho). Tacky, Tacky, Tacky. It had no charm and evoked nothing other than disbelief that his was in a disney park.

I really had high hopes because I love carnivals and would have loved to see Disney try arder in this area.

Again, just my opinion.

Also why can't it be a creative gal?

[eeyorefanatic]

Dis Duck,

I don't often post here but read it voraciously.I too grew up spending summers on Coney Island, and thought (via photos and video)that CA was beautiful, escpecially at night.

DR however is an abomination (imho). Tacky, Tacky, Tacky. It had no charm and evoked nothing other than disbelief that his was in a disney park.

I really had high hopes because I love carnivals and would have loved to see Disney try arder in this area.

Again, just my opinion.

Also why can't it be a creative or business
gal?

[Bstanley]

Hey Mr DisDuck, you may have identified a solution!

We the people of the DIS boards need to form a more perfect company by gaining control of it!

Anybody have a spare $25B? Or does anyone have a Christmas card list of 25M people that each have $1000? :-)

[DVC-Landbaron]

Tell you what DVC, since Disney needs 2 people to run it. I will be the money guy, you can be the creative guy. OK?DEAL!!! :bounce:

[Captain Crook]

Dino-Rama is still in the eye of the beholder and like it or not, the jury of the court of public opinion is still out. I happened to like DR very much. Why? Because I wasn't expecting too much from it in the first place, the room they had available wouldn't have lent itself to much more and although Scoop planted that darned PW-inside notion in my head, it still is a great deal of fun to ride. TS is less magical than Aladdin, but the kids do love a good spinner & the games, ah the games...Such a minor thing that only a bunch of Disney-introspects would take so seriously. They're fun, they're not obtrusive and if the public...the guests do not like them they can disappear as easily as they appeared. The inclusion of the games was a no-brainer in the Chester & Hester Tacky whacky whatever.

While I understand Jeff Jewells assertion that DR is just another step down the slippery slope of mediocrity for current management I personally can take DR and Agrabah and still see hope. You see in this downturn perhaps these 'quick fixes' are all we're going to get from Disney until the next biggie is demanded and faced with nothing or Dino-Rama & Agrabah, I'll take something over nothing and continue to hope that the good times are once again just around the corner.

The diference between this car #1 rider and the threepers are optimism & postive outlook vs. pessimisim & Eisner is the devil...

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

[JonetteA]

Just a note on the Eisner thing....

Was I the *only* one hoping that was hoping he would eat the poison apple when they did the real life Snow White on the Wonderful World of Disney?

[Another Voice]

“The difference between this car #1 rider and the threepers are optimism & postive outlook vs. pessimism & Eisner is the devil...”

Nah, the difference is a belief of standards and quality over a willingness to settle for “something over nothing” and a delusion that the “good times” simply materialize out of thin air.

[Captain Crook]

Voice, back to misrepresentions again?:D Why is my settling for 'something over nothing' a bad thing? I'm with everyone of you when you say "every ride should be created with the most care and innovation and imagination possible in order to give the guest the ultimate of experiences yadda, yadda, yadda" ... But in lieu of this are you telling me that we are better off cutting off our nose to spite our face? Seriously? I'll take something over nothing even if the nothing is an 'A', 'B' or 'C' ticket item, for a nothing is...Well, no ticket at all...

PS I hope our beloved Moderator didn't see that "d" word reference!:D
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[JeffJewell]

Oh Captain, my Captain...I wasn't expecting too much from it in the first place they're not obtrusive they can disappear as easily as they appeared I'll take something over nothing Another difference between you and Car #3 riders is that we would not be able to write the above and still claim "The Magic is as strong as ever."

Car #1 seems to require amazingly contortionistic rationalizations.

Jeff

PS: One more difference...Eisner is the devil ...is that the Car #3 denizens understand the difference between calling people names and questionning business decisions.

[Captain Crook]

I'm not allowed my opinion...

You know I don't expect too much from Disney when they open a popcorn stand either & yet they never let me down...You guys must have a hard time buying your popcorn from a run of the mill, off the shelf pop corn cart...Geez, no magic there, couldn't they have budgeted a little more imagination into those things...That would actually be true Disney magic.

As for 'name calling', my Eisner is the devil rap that I have been laying on you guys for two years now is a joke...It's humor. Your calling me a contortionistc rationalizer sounds far more mean spirited...
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[Another Voice]

“You guys must have a hard time buying your popcorn from a run of the mill, off the shelf pop corn cart”

Actually – yes.

In fact Disney used to custom make all their popcorn wagons. They worked better and themed in better to the parks. It’s exactly that kind of attention to detail that separated Disneyland from Coney Island. And why shouldn’t a Disney popcorn wagon be different? Why should I drop five grand for a WDW vacation when I can get the same off-the-shelf, something-instead-of-nothing experience from a local Six Flags park?

This whole “something/nothing” argument seems really backwards to me. It almost feels that we – the paying public – are the ones that should have the burden of graciously accepting what Disney presents. That somehow we need to understand the special hardships at Disney and that we have to make a special accommodation to our desires so that things aren’t too rough for the boys in Burbank.

Sorry, but Disney ain’t no charity case. A business has to meet its customer’s expectation or it goes under. Disney has failed at California Adventure; it’s failing at Dino-Rama. We’re not arguing that Dino is bad just because it’s an artistic failure.

We’re arguing against it because it’s also part of a business failure.


P.S. – Eisner is not the devil. Michael would never accept the cut in pay.

[KNWVIKING]

First time on this board. I have never seen a 10 page thread and it doesn't appear to be winding down. There are some serious Mouse fans here. I haven't read all the threads so maybe this has already been posted but here goes anyhow.

I've been on Aladins Carpet ride. It wasn't great,but if it's THAT bad,then how bad is DUMBO. Dumbo has the slowest line and gives riders four spins. But the kids love it. I also observed that kids loved the Aladin ride, and isn't that the point ? If every new ride was a Tower of Terror type, then they'd have to build a holding pen for the kids.

I think Dis veterans sometimes forget how many first timers visit WDW each year and the things that are ho-hum for us are great to them. We tend to be a little- maybe a lot- more critical about new additions.

As for AK, I think it's a great work in progress. Of course its attendance has gone down each year-its not brand new anymore, the first wave of "must see it" guests have seen it. The early year numbers were inflated only because of it's newness. I work at a GMC dealership, showroom floor traffic is always heaviest when a new product is released. AK is also a different kind of park,part zoo,part educational,part thrill ride. The biggest improvement I could suggest is the food. As for the new carny style games: Universal has had them for years. They are fun but you can spend a lot real quick. And like another poster stated- if they don't work out,they can be gone overnite. Ak has great shows,average raft ride,Bugs life is top notch as is Count down to Ext and the safari is on my altime favorite list. Not too bad for a baby park.

[YoHo]

Stick around here or Debate and you won't know what to do with threads that are less then Ten pages.

[hopemax]

Isn't that the truth YoHo!

The first 10 pages is just the warm up, the real break-throughs in discussion happen about page 15 I think.

Welcome to the Rumors boards, KNWVIKING.

[Bob O]

This thread just is furthur proof that some people wil hold disney to no standards in the least and will eat whatever disney feeds them and tell them it is great, even if it is horrible!!! Im just glad that the Car #3 people are still striving to keep disney up to their old standards and not let them slide to Six Flags level. The same people who would insult Six Flags would praise disney for offering the same product just because it has a disney trademark. And the sad thing is eisner knows alot of people will buy this so he gives us the like of DRand as long as the masses buy this BS we are unlikely to see any improvement but only a downgrading of the "magic"

[Captain Crook]

Standards???
OK Bob, everytime you make one of those "some people will accept comments" I'm generally the only one in sight...But standards??? Aren't you the guy that keeps preaching for the fast-puke coasters? Yeah DD may be great at IOA but how in the heck would Disney hide those ugly metal loops visable from downtown Orlando? This attraction would make PW look like a sunny day on the ugly-o-meter...Or do you suggest they "theme" it with a famous Disney Mountain or something? Oh yeah I'd be all for it if it could be done...Of course it'd cost about a trillion dollars to hide something as monumental as DD...Yeah boy, thems standards alright...:D

Now Voice...Are you serious about the popcorn carts...For if you are I will certainly apologize and look for another equally colorful and (more) absurd example...:D :D

Lastly, let me reiterate that I approve something in lieu of nothing because in the long run that's what has the potential of improving my park experience. Certainly AK deserves another E ticket...But it also needed a bunch of A&B ticket attractions to help 'finish' that which had only been started (alievate people grid-lock). I'll take the 'minor atttractions' in place of nothing but not in place of the hope that still exists inside me that the bigger & better will soon come. I know this seems absolutely foolish to many of you and I'm sorry about that, but I still love WDW & my experiences just aren't depreciating...

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

[hopemax]

Now Voice...Are you serious about the popcorn carts...For if you are I will certainly apologize and look for another equally colorful and (more) absurd example

Hmm...now this has got me thinking, I can't remember. Do WDW popcorn carts have the different little guys rotating popcorn wheels? Disneyland has these or did last time I was there. Little country bear in Critter Country, Abominable snowman outside the Matterhorn, etc.

[KNWVIKING]

Little help here... Car#1, Car#3 ????

[Captain Crook]

Hopemax, I've never been to DL so I don't know if you're pulling the ole Captain's leg or not (which no longer has a hard cast on it btw, for anyone still wondering). A picture of these 'specialty' popcorn carts sure would be convincing!!!:D

King...A quick trip to the topics page and item two about the carpools (gcurling) should explain it all!
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[hopemax]

Oh, my you really don't know about the popcorn carts!

digging through pictures now....

still looking for the popcorn cart, but I found pic of the Circus Wagon lemonade cart that in 2000 was around the corner from Casey Jr & Dumbo...do you want to see that too?

[KNWVIKING]

AHHHH, thanks Crook.... I'll learn nuances of this board in a few days.

[Another Voice]

Popcorn carts – yup.

I can only speak from experience about the ones at Disneyland, but they used to cost between fifteen and thirty grand each. Initially Walt wanted them to theme into the lands better. It was also quickly discovered that commercially available machinery didn’t work well in a Disney environment. Heavy volume and 300+ days of operation a year are murder on machines. There aren’t a lot of movie theaters or traveling carnivals that serve 12 million people a year. That’s the main market for “off-the-shelf” equipment and it simply doesn’t stand up in a Disney park.

Virtually every attempt to use store-bought equipment in Disney parks has been a disaster. One day I’ll write about the flaming churro carts that used provide a little extra show at Disneyland. Already in just a little over a year at California Adventure, the catalog-purchased ‘California Screaming’ and ‘Mulhuland Madness’ coasters are experiencing major structural and maintenance problems.

Present management has not only thrown out fifty years of design philosophy, but they’ve also dumped fifty years of practical operational experience. I keep saying there’s a tremendous amount of hard work that goes into designing and running the parks. Very little of it is obvious to the guests.

[DVC-Landbaron]

From Sir Voice! We’re arguing against it because it’s also part of a business failure. YES!!!!!!!!

KNWVIKING, WELCOME!!

Now, I don’t mean to pick on you, and once you get used to my style you’ll find that I use quotes not against you, but rather as a starting point for a conversation. And I found your post… ah… well, let’s say exciting, because it asks the same questions (and brings out the same points) that we hash and re-hash here all the time, but in a refreshing way. So the next couple of quotes are for dialogue purposes only.First time on this board. I have never seen a 10 page thread and it doesn't appear to be winding down. As others have alluded: You ain’t seen nothin’ yet!!!!There are some serious Mouse fans here.The most serious, and the most cordial I’ve ever seen!!I've been on Aladins Carpet ride. It wasn't great, but if it's THAT bad, then how bad is DUMBO. I think you hit the nail on the head. “It wasn’t great.” I agree. But it was an extra (I mean they didn’t tear down an E-Ticket ride and this was the replacement), and as such I think it was OK. Barely. But you compare it with Dumbo. And here is where I get a little confused myself. On the one hand I always say that every ride doesn’t have to be an E-Ticket. We need some B-Tickets to fill things out. So in total isolation Aladdin is a huge positive. Right?

WRONG!!!! I feel we really need to step back and look at the big picture to judge it properly. And that question, in that context, is a 19-page thread in itself. Let’s just say that my personal opinion, in the “Big Picture’ context it is a failure. Not a huge failure, mind you, but a failure nonetheless.

Dumbo has the slowest line and gives riders four spins. But the kids love it. I also observed that kids loved the Aladin ride, and isn't that the point ?NO!!!!!! That isn’t the point at all. Or we would be satisfied with a kiddy land park and not a Disneyland. Which was EXACTLY what Walt was trying to avoid way back in 1955!!If every new ride was a Tower of Terror type, then they'd have to build a holding pen for the kids.Again I agree!!!!! You need a couple of these, and a couple of Dumbos. But what we’re really looking for is that middle of the road ride. Not middle in terms of mediocrity. NO!! The ride has to absolutely captivating, thrilling (not necessarily with speed or drops) wonderful, sparks the imagination… In other words that all encompassing and ever elusive DISNEY ride (er, sorry) attraction!!!!I think Dis veterans sometimes forget how many first timers visit WDW each year and the things that are ho-hum for us are great to them. We tend to be a little- maybe a lot- more critical about new additions. I understand your point. And you’re right to a certain extent about our over/under critical out look because of our proximity to the question. But it doesn’t matter!! Just as a ride should not be judged on whether a kid likes it, it should not be judged on whether or not a veteran or novice likes it. It should be judged on the Disney Standards (that we all know, but sometimes bend to suit our particular argument :)). And they (the powers that be) should hold those standards sacrosanct!!!
As for the new carny style games: Universal has had them for years. They are fun but you can spend a lot real quick.WOAH!!! Am I to understand that just because Universal has carny games, that makes it OK for Disney?!!?!? Just where in your Disney philosophy do carnival games fit in? They don’t in mine at all. And if I read the bios and history right, they didn’t fit in with Walt’s either.
(Hmmm. I just re-read that paragraph and it doesn’t sound as tongue in cheek as I would like. In fact it could read as downright nasty!!! So I think I needs some :bounce: :bounce: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy::bounce: :bounce: :bounce: There!! That’s better!!! Isn’t it!!)

Anyway, thanks for playing KNWVIKING. And post often!!! We need every opinion we can get!!
The shredding of documents. We've had scoop slamming Disney. And Baron slamming scoop for misslamming Disney.Scoop! You bust me up!! I really did LaughOutLoud when I read this. Thanks!!!

CAPTAIN BRING BACK PETER!!! He's just as dense, but he's more fun!!! This is taking up too much already, so I'll have to stop and answers yours at a different time. I only want to say that on of the things that set Disneyland apart, in my little eighth grade brain, way back in 1968, were the garbage cans!!! Yep!! Garbage cans. There wasn't one that was even shaped as a garbage can. I was a little disappointed when WDW in 1971 and the cans were painted in theme, but were really metal and shaped in garbage can form. It's part of the philosophy. It's part of the standard!!

And lastly from Sir Voice again. Beautifully put!!P.S. – Eisner is not the devil. Michael would never accept the cut in pay.

[Captain Crook]

Well, well, well...Voice it appears you may be owed an apology and perhaps some retractions as well. Don't misconstrue these few words as the apology, oh no...I can eat crow when I am wrong (it just doesn't happen very often - Unlike Baron who is the Rumors Board version of 'wrong way Willie')...

Landbaron...You like Peter better than me?:smooth: Well, Peter hit 1,000 mark now it's time for the Captain to make his mark. :rolleyes:

KNWVIKING, I see I shortened your handle too much in the late night posting, my apologies. Don't be influenced or awed by the 'quotemeister' ... He loves a Disney that never really existed and is lost in the dark - Or at least the Eighth Grade!!! (plus he's a Cub fan)...

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

[Bstanley]

I cannot escape this thread...

OK I was going to just enjoy the show, but the COTS discussion is one I just can't ignore...

COTS = Commercial Off The Shelf

AV - the argument that COTS equipment "simply doesn't stand up" is the same one that resulted in $800 hammers and $1000 toilet seats being bought by the Air Force because the specifications that they were designed to were, to put it mildly, -excessive-. Just because the engines of a C-130 need to be as close to perfection as possible doesn't mean that the toilet seats need to be.

Quality does NOT equal perfection (lasts forever, etc) - Quality means that it meets customer requirements. If a COTS Popcorn cart makes tasty popcorn, that's all that's needed, period. If you want to 'dress it up' to better fit in it's environment (ie - Theme it), that's kewl.

But if a Disney designed and built popcorn cart costs 10 times as much as a COTS popcorn cart but only lasts 5 times as long - it's a waste of money to buy the Disney cart instead of just replacing the COTS cart more often - Money that would be better spent on keeping more maintenance people on staff for example to replace light bulbs.

Already in just a little over a year at California Adventure, the catalog-purchased ‘California Screaming’ and ‘Mulhuland Madness’ coasters are experiencing major structural and maintenance problems.

Really?! Who 'provided' them - and are they still in business? DCA hasn't had that many people through it yet. If I were a prospective customer for a thrill ride and the guys who sold Disney those rides gave me a pitch - I'd laugh them out of the room...

P.S. – Eisner is not the devil. Michael would never accept the cut in pay.

Oh yeah, we're not trying to demonize anybody, we're just discussing their ability to make business decisions...sheesh

[All Aboard]

Look, an 11 page thread without a post from me. I guess I'm teetering on the edge of losing my "regular" status. Things have been quite heavy at the office, plus I (againts better judgement) took a three day weekend to WDW right in the middle of the madness. So, as a result, most of this thread happened in my absence.

Is it Eisner's fault? Yes and no. (Is that fair? I mean, Voice got to say that Lilo would do between $85 and $250, didn't he?)

Yes, under the buck stops here philosophy. One to which I adhere quite tightly. He's managed the bottom line at the expense of some Magic, no doubt. He's made some questionable and then some downright boneheaded aquisition and start-up decisions. Those have not only put pressure on the overall performance of the Company, but especially hit hard the things we love the most.

But, I also said no. I do believe that there has been enormous pressure to cost cut on Wall Street these past two years. That's what folks really seem to want to hear about right now. Slashing expenses and taking it to the bottom line. Unfortuneately, that takes a major toll on this type of business. Eisner doesn't have the clackers to say, screw the wisdom of the day - I'm moving forward. In turn, suffering some short term hurt and prevailing in the long term.

It's that type of vision and daring that Disney lacks right now. Eisner's never really had it and never will. I've said it many times, he's not the right guy to lead this company.

But then who is? We know that Disney can never be run with the same level of passion that it was when it was run by the guy who started it. First, we've not seen the likes of Walt since. And, second, without having built it from the ground up, nobody else can ever be as close to it as he was. But, I truly believe that there is the right combination of folks out there that could make it happen. Just who, I don't know. I want to see it happen soon, though. I'm more concerned now than ever.

[DisDuck]

Not to resusciate the dead but what about the Emu(I mean Turkey) carts. Are they themed properly or off-the-shelf?

Having been a long time going (since 1974), WDW has aged well and is better today than in its 'golden' years. Why I remember that in the evening unless MK was opened late there was nothing to do but stare at your hotel TV. I applauded the new Downtown.

Also, some people actual go to WDW because of their kids so liking Dumbo and/or Aladdin is important. Therefore, putting in (not replacing with) some A, B type rides is a positive step.

Captain, should we trade in for a newer Car#1 maybe with more room to hold our new poster?

[hopemax]

But, I wasn't there like Another Voice, Baron, Hopemax, BobO and others the day Disneyland first opened its gates. Heck, I wasn't even born when WDW first opened.

Where the heck did you get this... I'm the same age as YoHo. If its from popcorn carts, I'm talking about stuff that was in the park in the last 10 years.

So I couldn't find my pictures of the popcorn carts, but I know people, so here is a link to pictures of the Abominable Snowman, Dapper Dan, Haunted Mansion Ghost, and the Rocketeer.

link (http://www.startedbyamouse.com/graphics/Popcorn/) provided by one of the readers on Laughing Place.

[Another Voice]

Pop corn – Disneyland is a show. The rules are different. Yes, off-the-shelf is cheaper, but churning out tasty snacks is not their only purpose. The equipment is “on stage” in a very theatrical sense, not behind the counter where it only has to be utilitarian. Mechanical breakdowns aren't permissiable. That’s the real difference at Disney – it’s a show. You can’t judge it using the same criteria that you judge the concession stand at the multiplex. And believe me, the profit margin on Disneyland popcorn more than make up for the difference in cost. That’s part of showbiz too – people will pay for the show if you provide it.

And there is no apology needed Captain sir. There is no reason why a sane person has to know all this trivia. My only point is that to run a park – or any business – to the old Disney standards requires an attention to details in the most unlikely places. There is nothing that’s cut-and-dried, and there is certainly nothing that’s trivial.

Disney that never was – Yes, nostalgia can be fun. It lets you skip over all the unfortunate bits and concentrate on the good stuff. And yes, Walt’s Disney had some problems. Look back to the “Disney that never was”. A small park very literally out in the middle of no where; they had to rush to finish the freeway to it. Its founder spent his own personal money to complete the place. Goals were compromised, things didn’t work. Everything they did was made up as they went. There were fits and stops with the occasional bungle – from its very start people we predicting abject failure.

Now fast forward forty-six years to Mr. Scoop’s era. Another park is built in Anaheim but under very different circumstances. Instead of being in the middle of no where, this place is smack in the middle of the second largest urban area of the country – and right beside the single most well known tourist spot on the entire planet. Instead of selling vacation homes and borrowing money from a television network to finance the place, its builder OWNS that network and the stock is part of the Dow. It’s an age of instant communication; marketing prowess and easy travel that was science fiction in 1955. The new parks owners had the advantage of fifty years of theme park experience and the most recognized brand name on Earth. It was guaranteed to be a hit.

Yet Disneyland in 1955 drew roughly as many people as California Adventure did in 2001.

It makes you wonder if the guys back then knew something more than the guys do today.

[hopemax]

My only point is that to run a park – or any business – to the old Disney standards requires an attention to details in the most unlikely places. There is nothing that’s cut-and-dried, and there is certainly nothing that’s trivial

What comes to mind, is the Saturn commercials they were running last year, talking about dent resistant doors and other "trivial" things there cars have that others don't talk about. The tag line was something like "So what does it mean that our engineers worry about this stuff? It means we already took care of all the important stuff."

[Bob O]

Im not that old!!! My first time at wdw was 1982.
And Captain you may puke on modern thrill coasters but i certainly dont and wouldnt defame them in the manner that you did!!! And disney could build a great thrill coaster in doors if they want or have it outside and it would be equally as great. When i see a coaster the last thing i think of is "ugly metal loops" but enjoy the site and sound of a greath thrill coaster and hear the people screaming as they enjoy themslves on a great ride!!! outdoor coaster can be certainly well themed if the will is their and done so for a lot less than a TT with out the delays and constant break downs!!
And i would perfer they dont build somehting than build something cheap and half a**ed!!! If you arent going to build a ride/attraction to high stanards then dont do it, unless of course you are aspiring to Six flags level. But of course some people will eat hamburger and believe it is steak if a disney logo is affixed to it.

[Bstanley]

Aahh and there's the rub - attending to 'which' details and in 'what' unlikely places. Running a successful business is a continuous series of answers to decisions that have no clear indicators as to what the right answer is...perhaps more today than ever before.

An example : A small but statistically significant part of the reason that I like going to WDW is because of the trash cans - the 'theming' of the trash cans at WDW is literally worth money to me - the mere fact that WDW spends time and money on matching trash cans paint and appearance to their location is, in some small part, why I will travel distances and hand over gobs of money to Disney. I think I understand the concept of 'show'.

All 'standards' are created at a particular point in space and time. They reflect that point. As time moves on that point is often no longer relevant. And that's how we ended up with $800 hammers...

My personal take on DCA continues to be that it didn't fail because the people in charge chose to ignore fifty years of Disney park history, or because they hadn't been working in the field for fifty years, or because they hadn't done enough focus groups.

IMHO DCA has failed simply because the people who thought it up and made the decisions about it would rather go to a wine and cheese tasting than to the MK. No one was passionate about it, poured themselves into it and as a result it gives little back to those that visit. Who's responsible? The big ME? PP? The Imagineers? Yes.

[hopemax]

The big ME? PP? The Imagineers? Yes.

Actually, in DCA's case it's the Disney Design Development. The people who normally design Disney's hotels. Very few people from Imagineering were allowed to work on Disney's California Adventure. Many were forbidden to work on it at all.

[Bstanley]

Now that's something I didn't know.

Wow, does that explain a lot.

My apologies to the Imagineers...

[DVC-Landbaron]

An example : A small but statistically significant part of the reason that I like going to WDW is because of the trash cans - the 'theming' of the trash cans at WDW is literally worth money to me - the mere fact that WDW spends time and money on matching trash cans paint and appearance to their location is, in some small part, why I will travel distances and hand over gobs of money to Disney. I think I understand the concept of 'show'. WOW!!! A man after my own heart. Did you read my post to the Captain (or was it Peter ;)) about the trash cans that Disneyland had back in 1968 (it’s a couple pages back). They were so themed you could hardly find them!! In fact, I was a little disappointed that they were merely painted in WDW. If you’ve ever been to Fort Wilderness you can see what I’m talking about. They use the camouflaged ones there. I’m not sure if they’re all over, but I do recall seeing them. They look like tree trunks and the little doors where you put the trash in looks like the part they chopped down. These were the cans that I noticed in Disneyland (frontierland). Now THAT was a show!!! Very few people from Imagineering were allowed to work on Disney's California Adventure. Many were forbidden to work on it at all.Hmmm. Now I wonder who’s brainstorm that was?!?!?! Who's responsible? The big ME? PP? The Imagineers? Yes.I guess that leaves big ME and PP!!! Kinda what I've been saying all along!!!

(I don’t like the ME thing!! I can’t squeeze my patented “$” into it!!!)

[Another Voice]

Hmmm…..

If I recall correctly, the $800 hammer wasn’t caused by meeting exacting specifications, a desire to produce the best damn hammer around, or a sudden leap in hammer technology. It was caused simply out of corporate greed by a bunch of suits who found a way to bilk the public out of even more money.

Yet another useful metaphor for California Adventure. Thank you Mr. Bstanley.

I will admit that I am lost in the logic that somehow “[DCA] didn't fail because the people in charge chose to ignore fifty years of Disney park history, or because they hadn't been working in the field for fifty years” is different than faulting them for not using WDI (who had been designing theme parks for fifty years) and choosing wine & cheese tasting over what the rest of the very successful business had been doing for fifty years. Funny how such a great management team would mess up something that had been figured out in the middle of the last century.

The real reason that the $750 million toilet seat in Disneyland’s parking is failing is because people can see that it’s nothing but a naked swindle. Just another attempt to put out as little effort as possible while demanding as much from the public as possible – and trying to con the guests by spewing out enough DISNEY’S&reg; until the word processor clogs.

Technology standards may evolve, but the standards for entertainment were pretty much laid down by the Greeks and haven’t much changed for thirty-five hundred years. And they certainly don’t change because some over-their-heads executives try to scam a couple extra bucks. Disney’s re-learning that lesson the hard way.

[airlarry!]

This latest post by M. AV is why I am a Car #3 rider.

Because the Company can produce greatness. Because the Company should produce greatness.

But the leadership of this Company is producing $750 million toilet seats, and TO TOP IT ALL OFF laughing at the Japanese when they construct Tokyo Disney Seas.

That is the point that the Car # 1 group (and God Bless 'Em, I love 'em too) completely ignores. To you new people to the board, did you know that there were meetings and memos where the Brains That Ate Glendale actually predicted doom and gloom and were snickering behind the Japanese's back as DisneySeas was being erected.

Don't believe me? Check out the internet groups. Or read that last news memo where the Suits called DCA the way amusement parks should and will be built.

Sheer arrogance.

But M. AV's posts also points out that there are people that are being let go, or not utilized, that love this company and what it stands for. I believe that they are patiently waiting (or hoping)............

[Bstanley]

Actually excessive military standards WERE the reason that $800 hammers were made/sold - these were lowest bidder contracts in most cases.

It may be possible that DCA is the result of pure corporate greed - the decision to exclude WDI certainly sounds strange to me - but what I was trying to explain (poorly apparently) is that DCA's failure to draw in the crowds might also be explained by the fact that people who obviously have NO passion for Theme parks designed and executed it. It may be more entertaining to create a grand conspiracy theory, but more often than not simple stupidity explains most things.

Does WDI report to PP? If not it would appear he wanted to expand his empire by using 'his' resort people...

[DVC-Landbaron]

It may be more entertaining to create a grand conspiracy theory, but more often than not simple stupidity explains most things.I personally never even considered a “conspiracy theory”. I go along with you. It’s a case of ‘simple stupidity’. Hey!! Ain’t I the one that keeps call him ‘inept’!!! Does WDI report to PP? If not it would appear he wanted to expand his empire by using 'his' resort people...Ahhhhhhhhh!! That’s even more depressing!!! What could be worse than ineptness mixed with gargantuan egos!!!

[Another Voice]

Actually I think “lacking passion” and “we’re only in it for the money” are simply two aspects of a single attitude towards things. It’s hardly a grand conspiracy theory. In fact it’s pretty close to standard operating procedure in Hollywood. I would describe it more as cynicism than stupidity.

WDI now reports to Paul Pressler as part of the Attractions group. A significant change from how things were done. The politics inside the corporation would make Aaron Spelling’s head twirl, but there used to be an interesting and productive dynamic between the parks and WDI. But suffice it to say that the relationship has been changed from a creator/presenter arrangement to something more like a shopping mall developer looking for leaseholders. And if the current plans for Hong Kong Disneyland proceed, that metaphor is going to become literal reality.

As for $800 hammers, gee – aren’t cost-plus contracts fun? It’s like playtime for accountants.

[manning]

Now for the million dollar question??


How do you fire Eisner??

[DVC-Landbaron]

How do you fire Eisner??QUICKLY!!!;)

[Bstanley]

Hey Mr DisDuck, you may have identified a solution!

We the people of the DIS boards need to form a more perfect company by gaining control of it!

Anybody have a spare $25B? Or does anyone have a Christmas card list of 25M people that each have $1000? :-)


There's only one way to replace a CEO who has a 'friendly' board. Control half of the stock and vote him out.

[manning]

Friday May 31, 12:48 am Eastern Time
Disney Board Calls on Chief Eisner to Reverse Company's Slide

Walt Disney Co . Chairman and Chief Executive Michael Eisner is facing increasing calls from several members of the company's board to improve Disney's faltering performance and better plan for the future, people familiar with the matter told The Wall Street Journal.

ADVERTISEMENT


The Disney board has long been derided for cutting Mr. Eisner too much slack, both in good times and bad. But these days, a string of corporate scandals has put directors themselves under pressure to be more diligent about their oversight role. In that environment, according to people familiar with the board, a small number of important Disney directors has during recent months gotten more assertive with Mr. Eisner in hopes of reversing the entertainment company's slide.

It is a similar scenario to what is being played out at underperforming or downright troubled companies across the U.S. After the collapse of Enron Corp. and the subsequent severe problems faced by companies ranging from Global Crossing Ltd. to Adelphia Communications (NasdaqNM: ADLAC - News) Corp., board members have been widely blamed for being asleep at the wheel.

Greater director activism has spread quickly to the entertainment business. As companies such as Vivendi Universal SA and AOL Time Warner Inc. (TWX - News) have difficulty meeting their stated performance goals, directors at those firms have become more demanding of executives to make sure they don't over-promise and under- deliver.

At Disney, the board members aren't looking to replace Mr. Eisner, 60 years old, whose current contract runs out in September 2006 , these people suggest. Rather, the directors are trying to prod Mr. Eisner by working in consultation with him, a process he has welcomed. Specifically, they want him to intensify efforts to turn the ABC television network around, to build up the company's executive ranks, depleted during recent years by defections, and to come up with a more systematic succession process, something Mr. Eisner has long resisted.

Wall Street Journal Staff Reporter Bruce Orwall contributed to this report.

[Bob O]

thedscoop- i will admit that i rarely proof read or spell check my posts like I should do and type too fast while still putting together my thoughts.
But i would say my posts are as logical/articulate/rational as your posts are!!!!!!!!!!(FOR YOUR BENEFIT) At work i have to make sure all the T's are crossed and I's are doted on my numerous reports so i do slack here.
It will be hard to fire Eisner when he has the board under his control. Only a massive downturn in the stock price would cause his departure.

[hopemax]

I wanted to back up for a second, cause this got lost while I was looking for popcorn pictures



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Already in just a little over a year at California Adventure, the catalog-purchased ‘California Screaming’ and ‘Mulhuland Madness’ coasters are experiencing major structural and maintenance problems.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really?! Who 'provided' them - and are they still in business? DCA hasn't had that many people through it yet. If I were a prospective customer for a thrill ride and the guys who sold Disney those rides gave me a pitch - I'd laugh them out of the room...



From what I've heard elsewhere, and hoping Another Voice can either confirm or deny, is that the manufacturer has a variety of parts rated for different stress levels/life cycles, etc. Disney ran the calculations and figured out what minimum part would work, but recommendations from the engineers and manufacturer was for a more heavy duty part. Of course those more heavy duty parts are more costly and the increase in budget required approval, which was denied because the less heavy-duty part work theoretically work. Manufacturer did what they were paid to do and installed what they were told to do. However as engineers well know, theory & practice are too different things...

So the stresses turned out to be higher in some places, so the parts wore out faster, which meant they were running throught the budgeted replacements faster than normal, which mean they needed more replacements but budget couldn't get approved because of unanticipated maintence work needed on other attractions. So Screamin' has had to wait, which only exasperated the situation there, and now they have a big mess on their hands.

Hopefully between the structural damage fiasco called Rocket Rods, and the messes in DCA someone will learn something, but who knows.

And both of these cases highlight a problem that I really think is affecting Imagineering. In all of the stuff I've ready about the early days of DL the "engineers" or the Roger Broggie's and Bob Gurr's of the company had a strong voice as well as the artist types like Marc Davis & Claude Coats. But these days, it's really only the "artists" that I hear about. And I wonder how many true "engineers" are left and what kind of voice they still have.

[PKS44]

Originally posted by Bob O
thedscoop- i will admit that i rarely proof read or spell check my posts like I should do and type too fast while still putting together my thoughts.
But i would say my posts are as logical/articulate/rational as your posts are!!!!!!!!!!(FOR YOUR BENEFIT)

BobO, don't sell yourself so short...yours are far more logical, etc....I think I figured out why thedscoop has that name---that is the sound you hear at the parks when horses--t is expelled..."Thud---scoop." :p :p :D :D :) :) :p

[All Aboard]

PKS44, we all have differing opinions on this board and tend to disagree quite often. But, one thing we all agree on is treating one another with respect.

[manning]

Ah yes BobO, could it be the beginning of the end? Like the tiny snowball at the top of the hill starting its' journey down.

[HB2K]

Originally posted by gcurling
PKS44, we all have differing opinions on this board and tend to disagree quite often. But, one thing we all agree on is treating one another with respect.

Agreed Greg...

[Another Voice]

Anyway……

Yes, the coasters at California Adventure were valued-engineered in their design phase. It’s even rumored that the Mad Mouse coaster is actually the traveling version of the ride, built lighter and less resilient than the “permanent” version offered by the same company. All to save money upfront, the cause of an expense six month long rehab and fix to the ride later.

Disney basically said that its superior maintenance would make the cheaper versions work in year-round operational environment in Anaheim. Naturally, maintenance was the first thing cut at California Adventure – and now the rides are in horrendous shape. ‘Screaming’ is running at less than half capacity even on the busiest summer days to reduce wear on the tracks and to avoid maintenance on the trains. For a while stress fractures in the track were reparied nightly and rumors indicate entire sections may need to be replaced. All of the seven trains have already been cycled through overhauls in Switzerland (yes, the country way, way over there). Much like airplanes, maintenance is based on the number of hours in service. So to reduce maintenance, Disney is running each individual train as few hours as possible. A ride the can handle six trains at once is usually running only two (and generating 60+ minute waits even when less than 10,000 people are in the park).

These are similar maintenance issues to ‘Rocket Rods’. The solution there was simply to remove the ride rather than to spend money on a permanent fix. And that solution was also suggested for ‘Screaming’ and ‘Madness’. There are rumors of some very heated exchanges between Disney and the attraction’s makers – arguments where Disney had to back down because it was shown the rides themselves were working as expected given to conditions that actually existed – as opposed to the conditions that Disney created to make the budget work. So now Disney’s in for a very long and very expense rehab session if they want to keep the rides working.

[PKS44]

Originally posted by gcurling
PKS44, we all have differing opinions on this board and tend to disagree quite often. But, one thing we all agree on is treating one another with respect.


Well since no one objected when thedscoop posted this disrepectful bit about BobO's posts, I don't see where my comments should draw any more of an objection...

Originally posted by thedscoopBob, as a whole, your posts are the most illogical, inarticulate, and irrational posts since the dearly departed Johare...but, at the same time, they are really hilarious to read in their own odd way. I'll admit it.[/B]

[Bstanley]

Well the good news is that at least the coaster situation illustrates that management can't really be driven by profits...there is no possible way to make a profit by buying major chunks of hardware that aren't even capable of handling less than half of the predicted capacity :-)

I understood the Rocket Rods situation was caused by trying to retrofit a high-speed vehicle into a low-speed track. I really enjoyed the Rocket Rods, but I did wonder how the stresses caused by the constant accel/decel cycles would be dealt with.

So who will replace PP when copies of the contracts for the coasters with his signature are leaked? I mean if I was the pm for a project that was so obviously going to go down in flames I would have made bloody well sure that I had copies of all the paperwork in my safety deposit box. ;-)

[All Aboard]

There's a very important part of that post you didn't capture in your quote:

my friendChad's just funnin' Bob. (and Bob knows it)

I realize that you are new to the Rumors and News board. Despite our differences in opinion, most of us are pretty tight around here. Heck, many of us have gone out of our way to meet each other in person on a few occasions.

I understand that by reading Chad's "shot" at BobO one could surmise that it was an attack, without realizing that they actually like each other.

So, when you read LandBaron telling Peter Pirate that he's misguided and doesn't know what he's talking about, know that the two have shared a few beers and laughed together in the past.

Not sure why you are so upset with Chad, but I wish you wouldn't be so inflamatory in your posts. Things sometimes get a little heated around here, but we're not RADP. (Thank Heavens).

We're all a bunch of buddies around here. And we really enjoy welcoming others all the time.

[Bob O]

If what AV is saying is correct(and i dont doubt him) that is a major indictment against the disney company to build attractions in such a careless manner where it will cost more on all the upkeep costs rather than doing it right the first time. And could you imagine the critiscm we would be giving to Universal if they had build Hulk/DD to the same cheap standards. But of course some will chime in that i would perfer a attraction that breaks down because it was built cheap rather than have no attraction at all.
And i would agree that we are friends here and even though we disagree alot, sometimes heatedly, we do get along well and try to do it in a good hearted nature, even if we arent always successful.
And i assumed that thedscoop was to be funny with his post, but i wouldnt have posted in a similiar manner.

[Another Voice]

Rocket Rods used a new track for the ride, but it was built on the existing support columns. The initial call had been for a replacement of most of the PeopleMover infrastructure. That was cut to a new track and some modification to the some sections of the support (the infamous banked turns) – but that was further cut down to a flat track fastened to the existing supports without any modification. So instead of a Test Track high-speed tour through Tomorrowland, Rocket Rods became something more like a 15-year old’s first lesson driving a stick shift. Everyone involved with the project knew it wasn’t going to work – but there were deadlines, budgets, and a career-ending penalty for saying “negative” things about projects.

As for Paul, a series of people involved with California Adventure are already “spending more time with their families” and PP himself isn’t exactly the shinning star about the lot these days. In fact, while he was all over the place for the opening of DCA, he’s been oddly absent from any of the DisneySea and Walt 100 celebrations.

The big but in all of this is Michael Eisner (oh, the puns….). He’s already developed a reputation for driving away top management and now the board’s gone public with their displeasure as well. This is not a time to dump the head of Disney’s only working division. It’s also the same pressure keeping that shoe guy ruining Consumer Products into the ground. In an interesting turn around, Eisner has dumped so many good managers he’s in a position where he can’t remove the bad ones either.

And besides, given ABC, the failed revamp of the stores, the Pooh lawsuit, lack of franchise picture and all the other problems – the fate of a roller coaster ain’t even a footnote.

[Bstanley]

Thank you Mr. Scoop - I'm extremely pleased to be here. Especially happy that I can learn all matter of things from gentlebeings like Mr. Voice. For a Disney fanatic like myself it's almost as good as being an Imagineer!

The discussion about Rocket Rods (and the new DCA Coasters) is frankly amazing me. Typically I've found the senior management (not at Disney) that I've come in contact with over the years to wear a serious pair of 'rose colored glasses' when it comes to any new project, but rarely have they been antagonistic to basic physics problems...and they always hated being surprised more than anything else.

It seems that PP needs to get back to what he's good at - especially now that the stores and consumer products arenas need some help. Which would of course get him out of an area where he hasn't shown any particular capability. Who's on deck to take over Parks/Resorts?

My 'rose colored glasses' may be turned up a notch too strong but Television Networks seem to rise and fall with such regularity that I figure ABC will take care of itself, and at worst Pooh shouldn't cost any more at the bottom line than the JK settlement. So that just leaves finding a couple of good scripts for AV to pick from to finish the turn around :-)

[Bob O]

Thedscoop im not offended in the least. And because of the great group we have here this is always the first site i come too. We may agree or disagree but its always fun bantering with each other!!!! I would love to try the flying coaster at SFOG, escpecially because its a B & M .
I wish i could be as hopeful as bstanley, but little lately has done much to inspire confidence from the disney braintrust.

[Another Voice]

Glad to see things are returning to a calmer tone around these parts (and my own welcome to Mr. Bstanley – I think you’ll find this is by far the most interesting spot for Disney-fanatics on the ‘net).

I don’t think the Attractions management issues are really so much about rose-colored glasses and physics as it’s the other corporate – trying to make an impression. The entire Attractions group has always been rather independent of Burbank and Paul Pressler is the first true corporate type to run the division. The corporate and other business units always considered the parks & resorts to be old fashioned, stubborn and prone to do things way over the top.

So in walks PP, all determined to make his mark. Out go the “old ways” and in comes “the new”. Well, not really the new as such (since that’s reinventing the wheel), so you find a bunch of consultants from business that are like the parks – retail, live entertainment, Six Flags – that kind of thing. I think there are macros in Power Point that automatically type out buzz words like “best practices”, “industry standards”, and “fresh look at our business”.

For California Adventure, the idea became to simply contract out everything but some elements of show design. Disney has always used contractors and outside manufacturers, but always under strict supervision under a large internal staff. That costs money and the engineering staffs at both WDI and the parks have been cut many times over the last several years. By the time DCA rolled around, the goal was to literally buy completed rides and then decorate them to “Disney standards”.

The end result is that Disney doesn’t have the internal knowledge to deeply understand the engineering aspects of an attraction, internal pressure to show that the new crew can do it cheaper and faster than the old crew, and a bunch of outside vendors that don’t understand the unique environments of the Disney parks. No other amusement park in the world has the attendance levels and the uptime requirements of a Disney park. So at DCA is they now have a coaster that would be perfectly happy at Magic Funland, but is expected to perform up to the standards of the custom designed ‘Space Mountain’.

As our science advisor would say – “like well….DUH!!!!!”


The problem with the Pooh lawsuit isn’t the damages; it’s the loss of the license itself. The California law was written by the entertainment industry and they assumed that they would always be the ones selling the licenses. They wanted an easy way to pull back the rights if someone got out of line. Certainly Disney never expected to be on the other end.

[Bstanley]

Thank you Mr. Voice. I agree - this little piece o' the net is 'The Boss'! (as my Salutatorian son would say - yeah I'm proud! :-)

Your description of the 'Attractions' management situation sounds all too typical frankly, except that after the first 'backfire' (say - Rocket Rods) I would have expected PP to have started paying more attention to what he was being told by the people that had pointed out the potential for problems. Bringing in consultants is one of the first classes taught at a modern business school :-) But most people seem to learn whose judgement should really be trusted after the first time they get burned. Perhaps SUNY-Oneonta didn't offer the second class in the 'consultant' series - the one where you learn how to measure their success/failure?

There is certainly an impression being made. But I don't think it's the kind that gets one promoted...

AV - I know I'm the one that posted the quote from the 'Pooh' Judge (sounds vaguely scatalogical) about the possibility of The Schlesingers pulling the Pooh license, but I can't believe that they would do it - not because Disney may not deserve it - simply because Disney has the best chance to make the most money on the franchise. I mean it's all business, right? Or has it gone beyond that?

P.S. There's nothing wrong with consultants - as long as they 'work' for Disney. Like I do. I work all year so that I can go to WDW for a couple of weeks. :-)

[larworth]

Too bad the BOD in addition to calling for a faster turnaround of ABC, didn’t call for some sort of moratorium on the milking of the parks division. It’s bad enough when depth, richness, and ambition are reduced to save a buck, but you know they’re pulling way too hard on the tit when people start ignoring basic design practices in order to deliver a budget. If the division was failing to earn it’s cost of capital you almost might understand, but these stories really are depressing.

given ABC, the failed revamp of the stores, the Pooh lawsuit, lack of franchise picture and all the other problems – the fate of a roller coaster ain’t even a footnoteOhh, the joys of being a cog in a big wheel. With reduced management attention learning can be a slow process along with the urgency to correct a faulty strategy. Unfortunately, we don’t have anything that tells us they have learned anything about their new approach. Going to get less and less agenda time.


I've read several different opinions on whether there is any real danger of the Pooh license being revoked. Disney is clearly best positioned to continue to grow the Pooh franchise and should be the estates’ best partner. However, there is probably plenty of margin here for someone else to significantly up the estates' royalty rate even if they might have a smaller overall total take. Hey, you and I would be willing to net 3-5% and give the rest back (the opposite of today). It would all be gravy to a new party.

Having to pay a lot more for something you have been getting cheap sometimes clouds the thinking and effects the emotions. Relations already sound pretty stained. Let’s hope the license is never voided!! Can’t afford another revenue hit, or plastic trash cans from Wal-mart might be the next park standard.

[Another Voice]

Ninety-five percent of what happens at Disney is exactly the same thing that happens at every other large corporation. When a project fails, there is an earnest attempt to punish those people who are already on the outs due to other politics. For ‘Rocket Rods’, it was all blamed on WDI since they were already in trouble for ‘Test Track’. It was used as even more justification to keep the Imagineers out of California Adventure and to further dismantle the organization. No one really cared about the true causes of the failures; everyone had already moved on to the next battle. The battles being fought over Paradise Pier are between Disney and the manufacturer; the “solution” on the inside is that Disney’s process wasn’t flawed, they will just have to pick a better vendor next time. CYA.

The issue with the Schlesingers has gotten very personal now. Money isn’t the object – the line of media companies willing to sign deals for the reissued Pooh rights starts in Hollywood and ends somewhere in Idaho. They feel they were stuck by Disney and now want to stick it right back. It’s hard not to blame them. Ask Robin Williams about his on-off-on-off relationship with the Mouse and how they’ve treated the issue of rights.

[DisDuck]

Boy am I glad I leave for WDW in 18 days. I can see for myself where things are going. Of course, my rose-colored glasses may get in the way:cool: But I will take them from time to time.

[larworth]

Whether from a clear perception of reality or from CYA explanations an organization develops an outlook based on a series of events. I sit here wondering what learning's are being institutionalized today based on recent events.

Here is the picture I have heard:

Some parts of the organization had grown distrustful of WDI. Weren’t sure they even knew how to spell value engineering. A reputation for clinging to old design practices that often added unneeded complexity (delays in opening) and scope (overruns in budget) to projects. Been portrayed as a ME perception, but not sure how broadly this vision was shared across the organization. What were the perceptions of the resort managers who most clearly felt the impact of WDI’s work? Of course, if the top had little interest in supporting a dialogue it probably wouldn’t matter that much what they thought.

WDI had some very respected and vocal personalities (a bunch of people who worked for Walt and knew how things should be done). Instead of trying to correct these perceived deficiencies head-on, it was much easier to go-around them and neuter them through down-sizing and organizational hierarchies.

The new power brokers played off this perception to reinforce their new positions. They found outsiders who bolstered their story. Industry experts(?) who probably told them they were giving money away by providing more than the customer really needed or was willing to pay for. Some combination of the power of the brand and customer ambivalence to over the top design practices.

Management had also become intoxicated with high growth. Annual growth targets were being set in the 15-20% range (pretty tough to maintain), while the natural life cycle of some thrusts (think the stores) was running it’s course and could no longer justify these ambitions. They convinced themselves that getting by offering less was not only prudent, but now necessary. Damn the future consequences we have a market valuation (even if it is overvalued) to maintain as long as we can.

It seems clear to me that the pendulum has swung too far in one direction. I can only hope new learning’s are now occurring that will shape the next approach.

However, with the way the organization is structured can this occur without ME either being a player or a catalyst. With his attention and interests now clearly elsewhere, is there a scenario where this can happen in his absence (mentally not physically) as I’m resigned to 2005, before we hear about a successor?

[Another Voice]

Mr. Larworth – you got it exactly right.

[Bstanley]

It seems clear to me that the pendulum has swung too far in one direction. I can only hope new learning’s are now occurring that will shape the next approach.

Indeed. Mistakes are much more educational than successes. Let us hope that lessons have been learned and are being learned.

It's a pleasant distraction to refer back to how 'Walt' or the people 'who worked for Walt' would do something, but those folks are not in charge now. The lessons, techniques and mantras they passed down should have their superior efficiency and efficacy demonstrated to a new generation of management (this one - or the next) so the new folks can be 'converted'.

I believe that the simple math required in comparing spending $1M on a coaster upfront and $2M on it every year after that in maintenance versus spending $2M on it upfront and $1M on it every year after that in maintenance is something even PP and the big ME can do (even if you include the Present Value of Money calculation). Based on the discussions here the data would appear to be available in large piles - what is needed is an evangelist! Convert the heathen to the true path! If you build it the old way - they will come. And they will bring their checkbooks!

[Another Voice]

A preacher requires a choir to preach to. Lessons from the past and from the present could (and should) be learned, but the senior management of the company just really isn’t interested. The parks are not being operated as long term businesses right now – they are simply cash machines for Burbank to take money. Arguments about spending $2 million now vs. spending only $1 million but more later don’t hold much power.

The bright spot in this situation is many other people still do remember the lessons from the past. And these people are taking every opportunity they can find to minimize the damage. Michael Eisner has a wonderful habit of never letting failure soil his hands. He doesn’t do this by striving for success, but by simply dropping anything that has problems and running, screaming as fast as the limo driver can carry him away.

His sudden departure from the scene leaves a nice vacuum for a while and smart people can use it. This is how ‘Lilo and Stitch’ came into being. And it’s been put to use now to a degree at California Adventure. Every single design and business model bullet point for the entire project has been scrapped. The Eisner/Pressler/Braverman ski-trip plan for the Disneyland Resort is completely gone. Nothing much has been put in its place yet, but even taking two steps forward and 1.99995 steps back is still progress.

I am still optimistic that things will work out. A century’s worth of good work can’t be wiped over even by people as “talented” as ME and his cronies. Still, the sooner The Company stops hurting itself the sooner it can go about fixing the damage and growing again.

[Bstanley]

AMEN Brother!

[YoHo]

What's this?
AV is making me Feel good about the future of Disney in some infantismally small way?

Are you sure that the UV rays of the Warm California sun that pierce the smog haven't muddled your thinking?
Maybe you need a trip to the Seattle Rain Festival (Held annually from August 1 to July 31 to clear your addled thinking.
Rain always does wonders for a doom and Gloom attitude. :D