PDA

View Full Version : OK, here is the park hour comparison June 2001 v June 2000


All Aboard
05-03-2001, 11:03 AM
Beginning with Friday June 1, 2001 and comparing to the analogous days of the week last year the results are:

MK closes an hour earlier on the first and second Saturday, then one half hour earlier the first week each night Sunday through Thursday for a total of 4.5 hours less than the previous year.

Epcot hours are the same.

Studios closes 1.5 hours earlier on first Friday, then one half hour earlier each day from Sunday the 4th till the end of the month. That's a total of 15 hours less than last year.

AK hours are the same.

Grand total of 19.5 hours reduction from 1,463.5 hours of operating time. A reduction of just 1.33%.

Infer what you want from those numbers, but hardly a major reduction.

I'll take a look at July if there is any interest.

DVC-Landbaron
05-03-2001, 12:16 PM
Beginning with Friday June 1, 2001 and comparing to the analogous days of the week last year the results are:
gcurling, with all due respect, a one year comparison is rather pointless since management has been CONSISTENTLY chipping away the hours for the past 4 years (it may even be five years but 1997 was one of the few years I missed my yearly trek to WDW).

Compare prior to 1997. If you want a real eye opener compare 1979 or 1980 closing times during the summer. The MK stayed opened until 1:00 am. Main Street until 2:00.

All Aboard
05-03-2001, 12:26 PM
Seemed to be THE point of most of the discussions. "WDW cutting summer hours *way* back this year." Guess I am reading the wrong threads.

Chipping away, perhaps. To me, keeping a theme park (a theme park targeted at families with children) open until 1 am on a consistent basis throughout the summer is an unwise management decision. Pixie dust for whom? Certainly not my family. The park opens at 9am, who can stay in a theme park for 16 hours?

I even think you once mentioned that on those nights, there were relatively few people in the park at that late hour. If that were the case, not fiscally responsible in my opinion.

DVC-Landbaron
05-03-2001, 01:19 PM
Seemed to be THE point of most of the discussions. "WDW cutting summer hours *way* back this year." Guess I am reading the wrong threads.
No. I don't think so. I believe we are reading the same threads. However, we are taking away different meanings.
I offer the following quote from JeffJewel's recent post, which to me not only sums up nicely what we're talking about generally, but also points to a broader picture that I feel we should examine.
The list of rides closed or operating reduced hours grows. Parks hours are being cut as we move into the most highly attended time of year. Increasing hotel capacities far outstrip any increase in park capacity. Thirty foot tall icons pop up beside strip motels and shelf-bought rides and are called "theming."

We've had this conversation already, I know. Eisner's response is the same as it's always been: a shrug of the shoulders and a curt "Don't like it? Go somewhere else." This sentiment appears to be echoed by a lot of Eisner defenders on these boards; as long as they personally still enjoy Disney better than Six Flags, all is right with the world.
To me it is totally irrelevant whether or not there is a one point something reduction over whatever percentage last year. It's doublespeak. If that makes you feel comfortable that's fine, but it is not the main issue to many of us who have been talking about this subject. What I feel is very relevant is that management has, yet again, taken away something which was there. I will grant you that not everyone used it, but it was there nonetheless. And to make matters worse they expect us to buy that time back at $12.00 a copy for a much reduced experience.
Chipping away, perhaps.
There is no perhaps about it!!
To me, keeping a theme park (a theme park targeted at families with children) open until 1 am on a consistent basis throughout the summer is an unwise management decision. Pixie dust for whom? Certainly not my family. The park opens at 9am, who can stay in a theme park for 16 hours?
My family for one (even the 7 year old!). And for everyone that buys e-tickets, I guess. With one MAJOR difference. THE WHOLE PLACE STAYED OPENED FOR FREE!!!!! EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK!!! Not just a handful of rides. Not just two days a week. What time do you think e-ticket nights end now? 1:00 am. Seems to me that's endorsement enough.
I even think you once mentioned that on those nights, there were relatively few people in the park at that late hour. If that were the case, not fiscally responsible in my opinion.
The key word here is RELATIVELY. Were you ever in the MK when they close the gates because they had reached capacity? I have. It's not "day in the park" (pun intended!) let me tell you!! So, there was a reduction, some nights more than others, but there were still a lot of people there. Probably more than current e-ticket nights, as the entire MK was opened to absorb the teaming throngs and there was still a ten minute wait for Spce Mountain most times. But your point is not missed. Not fiscally responsible? Hmmm. Kinda what made it PIXIE DUST in the first place, wouldn't you say?

HorizonsFan
05-03-2001, 01:21 PM
Were those the posted hours from last year or the actual hours from last year? I have seen park hours extended at very short notice during the last week in May and the first week of June.
I guess it depends on how full the resorts/parks are...

All Aboard
05-03-2001, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
THE WHOLE PLACE STAYED OPENED FOR FREE!!!!! EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK!!! Not just a handful of rides. Not just two days a week.... Hmmm. Kinda what made it PIXIE DUST in the first place, wouldn't you say?


Here is my position. I truly love WDW, and have for many years. It is our favorite place to be, that's why we spend 40+ days per year there. I want it to be sustained, I want it there and strong for another 30+ years. But, decisions like keeping the parks open until 1 am during economic times that do not command such a decision risks the viability of the company. Back at a time when "giving it away for free" was taking place, the company was being run into the ground.

I am sure everyone out there who is in the position to be making decisions right now is taking a good hard look at expenses right now. We have had the luxury of an extremely vibrant economy the last few years. That's not the case right now. In my industry, companies are being hit very hard. If responsible steps are not taken to control costs, and take a very close look at the way we do business, we'll be in tough shape when we come out of this slump.

WDW can't afford to turn a blind eye to this. It would be a huge mistake. Wall Street is expecting every company to respond right now.

WDW is also not immune to the impacts that its decisions make. If the market (consumer market, that is) responds negatively, then WDW has made a mistake.

WDW continues to be different and continues to do things better than everyone else. I don't see that slipping. I think they are being responsible and reacting to the economy in a way that helps insure future viability. It's a challenge we are all facing right now, one I should be working on instead of continuing to type in this thread.

I understand you passion, to a degree I share it. I'm not happy about attractions closing. But I don't mind tightening the hours somewhat.

Plus, for a guy that travels to WDW as much as I do and MUST stay on-site, the All Stars are super welcomed. And the thirty-foot icons - my daughter certainly enjoys them MUCH more than anything the Grand Floridian offers up in terms of visuals.

DVC-Landbaron
05-03-2001, 03:24 PM
WOW!! So much ground to cover I hardly know where to start!! I guess the first place is to agree on something. And I agree that we both LOVE the place. We both want it to be sustained. We both don't like the rides closing. And finally, we both NEED to stay on the grounds. Hmmm. Not bad agreeing going on here.

But (with me there's always a but… lol) BUT, we do disagree on some very important points.
Back at a time when "giving it away for free" was taking place, the company was being run into the ground.
Not at all!! It was ripe for take-over, NOT being run into the ground. That's quite a difference. And it was especially true of the parks!! They were turning quite a tidy profit at the time. (I have a history of the time, specifically Ron Miller, which I will post if you like, but be careful what you ask for. It is quite lengthy.)
We have had the luxury of an extremely vibrant economy the last few years.
Then why have prices steadily risen, while services (in this case hours of operation) steadily declined? I could understand it if this were the first year this type on nonsense was being implemented. Fine, I'll buy it. Expected doom from rising gas prices and slow economy. Let's cut hours this year. OK. I don't like it, but I understand it.

But that isn't what happened, is it? They gave me that same line in 1998 when they first cut the hours to 11:00 pm that summer instead of midnight. They said that there were fires in Florida that they were afraid would keep the tourists away. So they responded in a fiscally responsible manner. They cut hours. But then they felt "guilty" (lol) about taking away all that magic so you know what those heirs of Walt did? They invented E_Ticket Nights! That's right, they were willing to sell you some pixie dust back for ten bucks a copy. Boy did that make me feel special (sarcasm intended). And what happened the next year, when there were no fires? Why they reinstated the midnight closings of course. HAH! Wake up!! Sorry I must have nodded off and started to dream…

… They did nothing, of course. 11:00 became the standard. Know what they told me when I asked about the MK closings in 2000? They looked at me dumbfounded. "Why we always close a t 11:00 sir." I begged to differ, of course, and pointed out that three or four years ago they closed at midnight. Their response? "Well, I wouldn't know about the whole history of WDW, sir. As far as I know these are the standard hours."
Wall Street is expecting every company to respond right now.
I know it was probably a mistake, but you should really be more careful. For a hot second there you slipped into Ei$ner thinking. (lol)
Plus, for a guy that travels to WDW as much as I do and MUST stay on-site, the All Stars are super welcomed. And the thirty-foot icons - my daughter certainly enjoys them MUCH more than anything the Grand Floridian offers up in terms of visuals.
OK. I promise not to spend too much time on this as we've gone over it time and again. First a question. Could you afford, even on a stretch, one of the moderates? If your answer is no, then skip to the end and I'm sorry for wasting your time. If, however, your answer yes, then I would like you to imagine a different kind of experience. A true "DINSEY" experience. A different kind of world. A place where it doesn't matter what a Holiday Inn does for it's customers or what perks the upscale New York Hotels gives their customers. You are not a customer, you are a guest. A "DISNEY" guest. In other words, you are SPECIAL!! It doesn't matter what your point of reference is. You are fully immersed in a "DISNEY" experience. A "DISNEY" resort. Complete with "DISNEY" standards which didn't vary from place to place or resort to resort. They were all as elegant as the Floridian, all as themed as the Poly. So that other than theme, they would be interchangeable, with amenities, room size, transportation, pools and COST. What'd think? Like that idea? That's the way it was before Ei$ner implemented his caste system throughout the (WD)World! The All-Stars is just the bottom of that system. But there is very little of the old DISNEY standard left to them. I agree with JeffJewel. A large Icon does not a Disney Resort make. I find that SO SAD!!!!!!:(

YoHo
05-03-2001, 04:22 PM
DVC-Landbaron, Not that I wouldn't enjoy an extended history of the 70's era Disney company, but We've looked at the Disney World numbers from the time in a number of different ways and all we've been able to conclude is that the Disney resorts did not at the time fulfill there function of supporting the rest of the company. In this case, ripe for takeover equals investor dissatisfaction equals into the toilet. Adjustments needed to be made.

We've also gone over the fact, that the way Disney should be run, if something is being done that hurts the company more then it helps the company, then it should be stopped.

Why am I bringing this up? not because I feel that all the hour cutting is appropriate, but because the knee-jerk reaction to the hour cutting is wrong. Everything I've read and seen seems to indicate to me, that the summer month's may not be what they used to be in terms of park attendence as compared to Easter weekend, Thanksgiving, Christmas. It may be, that the relative magic is not being lost. Remember, the reason being open so late was magical, was because the crowds were so heavy. Well, now with 4 parks, a late night entertainment complex and ton's of resurants and resort activities, it may be that no magic is lost any more.

Of course that's all subjective. It is possible that the bean counters don't look at it that way and just look at it from a money perspective, but the fact remains, that each year, the changes in the property affect the entire magic equation and leaving the park open later simply, because they always have is not E$SNER smart or Walt Smart.

Then again, I could be 100% wrong, but hey, I'm a silver lining kind of guy :cool:

DVC-Landbaron
05-03-2001, 05:07 PM
We've looked at the Disney World numbers from the time in a number of different ways and all we've been able to conclude is that the Disney resorts did not at the time fulfill there function of supporting the rest of the company.
I completely disagree!!! I do agree, we've gone over this ground, but your conclusions and mine don't match at all! And I really thought that we had reached some common ground. I thought it was pretty much agreed that the film divisions were losing their shirts (as some other divisions) but the theme parks (resorts included) were still a gold mine, in spite of EPCOT's rather slow start. Can we really still be that far apart? (take this as a veiled threat of posting the aforementioned history. (lol)).
We've also gone over the fact, that the way Disney should be run, if something is being done that hurts the company more then it helps the company, then it should be stopped.
I couldn't agree more. I contend that guest dissatisfaction should be stopped, immediately!!! (if not sooner! lol) And it's much more far reaching that shorter hours. If that were the only down side that Ei$ner had proposed I would gladly keep my mouth shut. But it's just another straw he has put on our backs. And my back broke long ago (1998). And while yours may not be broken yet, I'll bet the load is getting heavy!! Mention what you will, and everyone has a different take, but I'd venture to say that virtually everyone here can give an example of an Ei$nerism that has recently hit them square in the head. Carnival games, DCA, AK (the half park), Horizons, Imagination, Timekeeper, Figment, the EPCOT graveyard, that horrible sign above that wonderful geo-sphere, rising prices for food, rising prices for accommodations, rising prices for merchandise, the Disney Store, GO.COM, ABC, that hat in MGM, spinning rides, 20K, proliferation of character meals to the exclusion of random meetings throughout the parks, the Ei$ner caste system, Paul Pressler, maintenance issues, horrid transportation, Magic on Demand… (Do you need more?)

Some of these things we may argue about. Some you may even consider good moves. That's not the point. For many, ALL the things one the list (perhaps not collectively but individually, even to you), represent poor management and a complete departure from Walt's philosophy.
Why am I bringing this up? not because I feel that all the hour cutting is appropriate, but because the knee-jerk reaction to the hour cutting is wrong.
I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I was doing anything less than a well thought out argument. I didn't mean to give you the sense that it was "knee-jerk". Far from it. I've thought very long about this very subject for nearly four years now. Nothing could be further from "knee-jerk", for me at least.
It is possible that the bean counters don't look at it that way and just look at it from a money perspective,
There's no "possible" about it. It's a sure thing!!!! Walt used to refer to them a "sharp-pencil-guys". I like that term. It's perfect for them. He hated them, and so do I.
Then again, I could be 100% wrong, but hey, I'm a silver lining kind of guy
That's why I like you so much!!!:bounce: :smooth: ;)

All Aboard
05-03-2001, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron

I contend that guest dissatisfaction should be stopped, immediately

LandBaron, I think you are transferring your own disastisfaction on the general population. While you have many folks who side with your opinion here, I suspect that the vast majority, the huge bulk of the WDW-going population isn't disastified with Walt Disney World.

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron

There's no "possible" about it. It's a sure thing!!!! Walt used to refer to them a "sharp-pencil-guys". I like that term. It's perfect for them. He hated them, and so do I.

Ouch! I felt that one.

JeffJewell
05-03-2001, 07:58 PM
...two points I wanted to make.

Personally, I wasn't comparing this year's June hours to last year's, I was comparing the hours Disney officially announced for this June to the hours that they later went back and changed them to. To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't have noticed that the hours were different from last year (historically, I avoid the summer months at WDW. This is a special trip). I only noticed because I planned and paid for my vacation based on what Disney told us their hours would be, but Disney does not feel they need to live by their word.

This does appear to be a very last minute, no-concern-for-the-guest decision: my Mickey Monitor arrived today and shows the longer hours for Disney Studios and Animal Kingdom, and the second nightly showing of Fantasmic!

Secondly, the attendance numbers of Animal Kingdom and Disney's California Adventure, the two parks sporting the highest concentration of Eisner fingerprints, suggest that Landbaron's dissatisfaction might be less isolated than you imply.

Jeff

Peter Pirate
05-03-2001, 08:39 PM
JJ why are DCA & AK two parks with more "Eisner fingerprints" than say MGM or basically WDW as a whole? Heck, he's been in charge for 17 years and the place is still causing Magic...Even for LandBaron who admitted it very recently in his "State of the Parks address" and JJ, you're still an AP holder...Why? The Magic must still be there and I think giving the credit to a guy who's been dead and frozen for so long is niave. Eisner is and has been the "keeper of the cheese" and while you can always find chinks in the armour you have to admit that on the whole WDW is more of a going concern today than ever before.

Obviously, one man's magic is another man's distress, but it is terminal to think that Eisner's accomplishments have to be constantly diminished by folks looking at the small picture...:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

As for AK, the highly acclaimed AKL ought to signal the start of BK (wait & see) and the announcement of the third gate at DL means only that Disney is not overly worried about DCA's showing thus far and "fixes" are certainly on the horizon, for as bad as you think Eisner is you surely don't think he'd put good money after bad without a typical Disney happy ending in sight, do you?
:cool: :cool: :jester: :cool: :cool:

DVC-Landbaron
05-03-2001, 09:05 PM
How many times have I got to....

Wait a minute!!!

Could it be.....

Is it possible....

Can it really be....

PETER PIRATE!!!!:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

Thank God!!! Did the Captain (who is now an Ei$ner basher) find you?

Not that it matters, I welcome you!!! With open arms!!!

I can finally get rid of that stupid Long live the Pirate bit!!!

HURRAY!!!:bounce: :p :) :D ;) :cool: :jester: :crazy: :wave: :earseek: :sunny: :earsboy: :bounce:

JeffJewell
05-03-2001, 09:48 PM
...welcome back, haven't seen your name in a while.

why are DCA & AK two parks with more "Eisner fingerprints" than say MGM or basically WDW as a whole

My knowledge of the Disney years 1986-1996 is not as first hand as my knowledge of the years before and after that. It's my understanding that the Imagineering for Disney Studios was well underway pre-Eisner, and the general consensus is that the Wells/Eisner team made slightly less odious financial choices than Eisner has tended to make on his own. I am educable on those points if I've been misinformed. My personal addition to this batch of information is that I feel Tower of Terror was the last time Disney made a serious effort in Imagineering and building a ride. Lowballing Imagineering budgets and buying off-the-shelf rides or re-using ride systems in the absence of other innovation are the "fingerprints" I'm referring to.

JJ, you're still an AP holder...Why?

More tellingly, I'm staying off-site during my June trip, and the trip will include non-WDW attractions, for the first time since I've been paying for it myself.

Just because I still find WDW more entertaining than, say, Six Flags, doesn't mean that I'm required to ignore obvious and disturbing trends.

Obviously, one man's magic is another man's distress, but it is terminal to think that Eisner's accomplishments have to be constantly diminished by folks looking at the small picture...

You'll have to be more specific about what you define as Eisner's "accomplishments." He has instilled a corporate attitude that cheaper is better, and has lowered the Imagineering standards of new rides. And he has made barrels of bonus money while he cuts corners, guest perqs, park hours, and jobs.

How you can suggest _I'm_ looking at the small picture baffles me.

announcement of the third gate at DL means only that Disney is not overly worried about DCA's showing thus far and "fixes" are certainly on the horizon, for as bad as you think Eisner is you surely don't think he'd put good money after bad without a typical Disney happy ending in sight, do you?

Last I heard, the "third gate" was likely to become a parking lot. Beyond that, yes, I definitely think Eisner would throw money at a doomed project, in spite of advice to the contrary, just because he wanted to. From the stories I've heard, that is precisely what happened with DCA in the first place. I also believe that Eisner does not understand the concept of the "typical Disney happy ending." I don't think he could possibly have mortgaged Disney's future the way he has if he did.

The Dino-Rama "fix" for Animal Kingdom appears to be cheaply themed shelf-bought rides; in other words, more of the same low-ball thinking that caused the original problem. It leaves me no warm feeling to think that the same man might "fix" DCA.

Jeff

Peter Pirate
05-04-2001, 09:16 AM
The server change restored my password and the Captain's come down with the scurvy! Thanks for the homage LandBaron...Don't remove it on my account...I'm a legend in my own mind!

Jeff, the general consensus is that Eisner - Wells made less odious financial decisions but that is just more speculation (IMO). Certainly Wells & Eisner were best friends and respected each other, but Eisner was in charge, he's always been in charge and Wells deferred to Eisner's final decisions. Now, perhaps because of their close personal relationship Eisner listened to Wells more than those who came later, I just don't know.

But the key here is the internet (IMO), the DIS, Screamscape, Laughingplace, et al. Disney is now under a microscope that didn't exist just a couple years ago, true they have always been under the press's microscope but they don't dwell on the minutia as we fanatics do. We argue real rumors, false rumors, speculation and it all gets jumbled. We must remember that Disney seldom shares their ideas with us and our passions regarding favorites, failures, hopes, dreams & attitudes are laced with those passions. Eisner isn't making decisions based on whats in his heart (much to LandBarons shagrin) but rather whats in is head as any competent CEO would.

I understand where you're coming from with the "fingerprint" commnet now, but what about Test Track? And SPACE? How about Kilimangaro Safari? Or Soarin' Over California? These are all recent attractions doing things that heretofore haven't been done before. Further Disney has definately leaned toward Show innovation lately and is that a bad thing? Beauty & The Beast, Hunchback, Lion King, Tarzan, Fantasmic...They add a NEW demension that before Eisner, wasn't a part of the MAGIC. I agree that the Shows are a different venue altogether, but to infer that innovation & imagination have decreased just doesn't seem right to me.

The reason I say you & DVC are looking at the small picture is because you're looking at one phase of a huge company and examining it under a microscope. Yes, Theme Parks have been the most profitable venue, but in today's world , like it or not, we all have to accept the size and breadth that Disney must maintain in order to reamin independent. We often criticize Eisner for micro-managing but I think he receives criticizim from detractors who only care about a portion of what he's responsible for, making a fair look at what he's trying to accomplish nearly impossible...

Sarangels report on the DisBiz suggests the permitting process for DL is, in fact, the start of gate three, so that's where I'm coming from on that...

As for Dino-Rama, appearances can be deceiving. Our friend Safari Steve repeatedly cautions us to wait & see, judge with our own eyes and I'm willing to do that with DinoLand. Perhaps you and DVC will be right and it'll be just a cheap, quick fix...But I see the glass as half-full. The rollercoasters will have big lines and the Carney games will harken us back to a time in Americana forgotton...Disney style. Remember, Walt never said he didn't like the carnival atmosphere, quite the contrary IMO, he didn't like the sleazy & dirtiness he found in what was being offered at the time. Rest asured Disney won't resemble those traits.

OK, I've given you guys enough fodder, I think and you should keep in mind that while I don't disagree with your views on appearances in a lot of cases, the hard-line anti-Eisner stance sometimes taken makes it tough for us to find a common ground. I like WDW BETTER than ever before and so do gcurling, DisDuck and others. Perhaps it's because it's our time, gcurling, JeffH & I all have young children, but for whatever reason it still 'takes me away' every single time, to a place like nowhere else! :cool: :cool: :cool: :smooth:

HorizonsFan
05-04-2001, 10:32 AM
. I like WDW BETTER than ever before and so do gcurling, DisDuck and others. Perhaps it's because it's our time, gcurling, JeffH & I all have young children, but for whatever reason it still 'takes me away' every single time, to a place like nowhere else!

I'm with you Cap.. uh, Peter.
And I don't even have kids...

YoHo
05-04-2001, 11:55 AM
I definatly like Walt Disney World Better then ever before. My feeling on Eisner-Wells is that Wells was Eisner's Roy. Nobody here believes me, or they ignore the facts, but previous to Frank Wells death, Micheal Eisner had never held the purse strings in any appreciable fashion in any previous job. Sure, he greenlighted movies and decided what movies would get what budgets, but that's a far cry from managing corporate finances. Micheal Eisner fails, because he isn't Frank Well, Isn't Roy Disney. He has the ability to see Magic. Read the Jim Hill article on Alein encounter for an example. Eisner recognized the potential of the initial idea, but when it came time to fund things, he became lost and the ride (supposedly, hard to tell when you only have the end product) suffered.

Similarly, look at the proposed Fire Mountain, Villian mountain, these rides are imagineering genious and Micheal greenlighted continued work on them only to let it sit in funding hell.


In short, I am of the distinct opinion that Eisner's failures have little to do with Magic and everything to do with finance, and NOBODY has been able to disuade me from this.

I have in the past an will now state that it is as bad as what would have happened had Roy died instead of Walt. Walt would have either driven the company into the ground while ignoring finance and fighting with ROy's replacment, or he would have tarnished his own goals in order to fulfill Roy's job, which he was vastly unqualified for.




I still stand by the idea that your not losing magic with fewer park hours, you have many more MAgic options now.

As for JeffJ, I sympithize and it does suck, but on the other hand, they specifically state that hours are subject to change without notice, They must have that line there for a reason, meaning they've probably had, or chosen to change hours in the past. The only time when you'll know the true official hours is when you check the park map for that week. and even that is subject to weather and other things.

DVC-Landbaron
05-04-2001, 12:01 PM
but for whatever reason it still 'takes me away' every single time, to a place like nowhere else!
Can we form another car pool? And I'd like to drive. Also, I'm not sure, but I suspect that JeffJewel, HBK and Another Voice would come along for the ride. Because if the above quote was all there was to these debates, we'd all be on the same page. We'll all meet under the Castle and do a grand tour of our favorite place in the world. We'll share "crowd avoidance" tips and ride our favorite attractions. We'll pester CMs for the latest rumors and find some lunch, say at the Poly.

But somewhere along the way someone will point out the closing of Timekeeper or how rotten the maintenance is in CoP or just how many cheap trinkets stands there are or how soon we have to leave the MK because they cut the hours once again or how stagnant World Showcase is or how really cheap and demeaning the EPCOT graveyard is or how they used to build PAVILIONS in Future world, but today they build RIDES or how great monorails would be instead of Magic on Demand or how really expensive everything is or the proliferation of gift shops or…

Anyway, the talk amongst our car pool will turn to what there is to enjoy and what distractions to the magic we see. And I would argue (quite successfully I might add) that all the things we see, all the magic we experience, all the smiles on our faces is a direct result of what Walt did. The foundation and philosophy he invented. And ALL the distractions (admittedly, some very minor) are all a direct result of Ei$ner's management philosophies and corporate, bottom line (sharp pencil guy) thinking. And then I would ask you, face to face, in front of the rest of the car pool, just what Ei$ner has ever done to further (not just maintain, he's very good at that) but further Walt's ideals?

After the very long silence….. We'd go to Rose & Crown and I'd buy you an ale.

So, it is in perspective that we have to examine the rest of your statement (actually the first part of it).
I like WDW BETTER than ever before and so do gcurling, DisDuck and others. Perhaps it's because it's our time, gcurling, JeffH & I all have young children,
Well, first off I can show you some sites where I am considered a consevative moderate as far as Ei$ner is concerned. Because you can point to four or five or twenty people who agree with you really does not mean much. And I have little kids too. Many of them. We all agree. We LOVE Disney.

It is the word "better" that has me a little hesitant. In many ways I agree. Ei$ner has carried over Walt's special brand of magic into several wonderful places. AK, while not quite there yet, is absolutely beautiful. The water parks are beyond compare!!! There are even some bright spots in the studios, though by and large it is an Ei$ner abomination (Oh the hate mail I'll get for that one!!).

So yes. In many, many ways I do agree I like WDW better today. Yet, in many, many other ways (and the scales are tipped ever so slightly in this direction) I really hate what I see and fear greatly for the future.

Care to car pool sometime with me and discover the pros and cons?:bounce:

YoHo
05-04-2001, 12:10 PM
MAybe to misuse some Walt quotes, I think Eisner is a fountain pen being shoved in an electric pencil sharpener. he is absolutly, positivly not a Sharp Pencil guy, but he is forcing himself to try and be one, and failing. (of course, if Mike's a Fountain pen, then Walts a feather quill and Ink bottle, but now I'm just beating things into the ground. :))

DVC-Landbaron
05-04-2001, 12:24 PM
YoHo!!

You posted while I was composing. And you have finally made your point with me. HOLY COW, I FINALLY UNDERSTAND!! And much more than that I can help support your argument!! How do you like that??!!

Ok, you suppose that Frank was the money man and Ei$ner was the creative guy. On the surface this supposition is ludicrous!! Everyone knows that Ei$ner is so tight he still has his confirmation money!! How could that possibly be!? Isn't he responsible for under funding EVERY SINGLE PROJECT he's ever been associated with?

Ahhhh, not quite all. Let's look at Euro-Disney! An Ei$ner idea. An Ei$ner park. And the very last park (and resort) to open the way a Disney park should open. A full park. Not a half park. Think maybe Ei$ner is a little gun shy?

So you convinced me. I see it. I totally understand. But, so what? I mean it doesn't change the fact that he still can't do the job he's got. At least not alone. And his massive ego won't allow for a partner. So he fails!!! Anyway you slice it, he's gotta go!

And I also think you're right about the Roy and Walt thing. If Roy had died first (and it would have to be much earlier) Walt would have run the company into the ground. I absolutely believe that. And his ego probably wouldn't have allowed for a partner that wasn't blood either. (Boy, I'm going to hate having this come back to haunt me!)

Peter Pirate
05-04-2001, 12:46 PM
Yoho, I think you should remember that my good friend & confidant Captain Crook ALWAYS agreed and espoused the same theory on Eisner as you. Eisner does have a creativity...I will differ on his business skills as I think he's a very astute businessman. Were he running a 'regular' company (as LandBaron always points out) he'd be great at maximizing profits, improving effieciency and so forth, I believe running Disney alone is his achilles heel. It is very tough, neigh impossible to blend the spirtuality and creativity with the esoteric economic and Wall St. related issues he must deal with. Further Yoho, I agree wholeheartedly that Walt's genius would have floundered pehaps to inperceptability & non-exixtence were it not for Roy. Walt had no use for the pencil-pushers and on more than one occasion was VERY lucky his "hunch" paid off...And we were all very lucky, as well.

LandBaron, I'm glad you finally admit that Eisner has (at least) done a good job of maintaining the Magic, for that's a step. But again, many of our disagreements may just be personal taste as you made some derrogatory remarks about The Studios and to a member, MGM is my family's favorite Park!

And DVC, I know those sites where you're a moderate but I think just because you can prove that there are people out there who can look right at a forest and not see trees really isn't very convincing. There are a lot of Disney haters out there, those of you espousing negative views on Eisner & management and such here on the DIS are not even close to being in that catagory. It is obvious to all of us that you do love Disney as much as we do, just from a different perspective...Which is what I find great! But there are a lot of people who just don't like the Mouse!

Landbaron, you ask (in our car pool) "what has Ei$ner ever done to promote Walt's ideals"...Well, you may not like the answer and the reason Eisner did it certainly wasn't out of the goodness of his heart, but, while maintaining the high price structure and finding new & innovative ways to pick the guests pockets, Mr. Eisner also found a way to allow folks of average means to stay on-site and feel the Magic of a WDW vacation without forking out an arm and a leg for traditional Disney Deluxe Hotels. Now I know your feelings on the Value Resorts, but I wholeheartedly disagree with them. Eisner did what Walt would have done, he kept a WDW vacation relatively affodable to average family while maintaining Disney Magic...I call that maintaining Walts ideals (pfinding a way to better entertain the whole family).

Since I began Landbaron too has seen some light! But you still want Eisner out... to be replaced by who? (we've had this discussion, right?). We've pretty much agreed that it probably would take two (Walt & Roy like) individuals to run the Company 'Our way' but since that isn't about to happen Mike still has to be a better choice than a stnager from the outside!

YoHo
05-04-2001, 01:14 PM
I will not be dragged into the resort argument, that's what led to the hiatus of discussion in the first place. I WILL however say, that Peter, I just can't disagree with you more on your take of Eisner's buisness sense, further, I would point out that there is no proof that Eisner has any buisness sense, Disney was his first and when given the purse stirngs, the company has floundered. There is however plenty of proof that Eisner gets magic, just as there's plenty of proof that he doesn't handle the money well. Combined you get an almost there situation.

Landbaron, the reason I think its relevent, is that when you change what eisner's flaws are, you change from a hatred to a sympathy (at least I do) Also, I have a suspicion that we may see the board pull a Micheal McCaskey(Former president, son of owner of the Chicago Bears for those of you not in Chitown) on us and Eisner will get bumped up to COB while someone else takes over CEO. What kind of person would you feel more comfortable with? Further, it allows you to see how people like presslar can take so much heat. Yes, the buck stops at Eisner, but with his total inexpireance, people like presslar can eat in to the Magic and have Eisner thinking its good buisness sense.


I don't know, its just always helped me to think this way.

Peter Pirate
05-04-2001, 01:36 PM
He saved Disney from corporate raiders on two occasions by beefing up the stock price the first time & by positioning Disney in a strong liquid position another. He has grown the Disney name to legendary proportions through his deals, acquisitions and growth of the core holdings. The Disney name was just a floundering player in the Entertainment field until Eisner took them to the top...Now reduced to second or third again by AOL/TWX look for Eisner to be in "acquire" mode again...To protect his (Disney's turf).

He continues to shine today as recently as quarters end where Disney SHOCKED the street by beating their estimates by .06. How did he do this? The cost cutting intitiative he mandated 2 years ago, the layoff of middle mangers, the continual looking for ways to operate 'lean & mean', now this isn't necessarily the Disney we all know and love, but his business sense shines through.

He has faced the realities of an ever changeing World business environment head on and come out on top every time. To be sure he has stumbled and made some bad moves, but 'nothing ventured, nothing gained', Eisner has always 'ventured'.

As to the Resort discussion, that was proffered for LandBaron as an apt example of Eisner furthering a Walt ideal...i.e. Looking out for the families.

JeffJewell
05-04-2001, 01:41 PM
...you didn't say very much that I actually disagree with. That said, I will now proceed to write a novel.

I'm still learning about how the Eisner and Wells team functioned, and have no data that suggests your humble opinion is in any way inaccurate. The key data point for me is still Tower of Terror, which I understand was about the last attraction planned and built under Eisner/Wells management. It's a Disney designed ride system that takes a standard "freefall" ride concept and added to it so that it could do more things (multiple lifts and drops). The ToT theming is extraordinarily well done, and from the guest's perspective anyway, it appeared that no expense was spared.

I have yet to see that kind of ride design or immersive theming in an attraction built under the Eisner-only management. That's the kind of thing I meant with the "less odious spending" comment.

I understand where you're coming from with the "fingerprint" commnet now, but what about Test Track? And SPACE? How about Kilimangaro Safari? Or Soarin' Over California? These are all recent attractions doing things that heretofore haven't been done before.

Test Track I won't argue about, mostly because it works for me. I have heard some complaints that the queue line exhibits aren't that futuristic, interesting, entertaining, or educational, but I kind of thought they were (well, back when they were working they were kinda cool. Last time I was there, all three of the once moving exhibits were motionless. Not that it mattered much, the only people who could see the exhibits at all were FastPass holders as they whizzed by at full speed). The only thing I want to point out on this is that Epcot attractions are often funded fully by the sponsor (I admit to not knowing the specifics of the GM Test Track deal). So even in this case, it's hard for me to assume that Eisner's concept of management by budget cutting contributed much to the Magic.

SPACE is fully funded by Compaq, not by Eisner, and there have already been rumors that the lion's share of the budget is going to ETC for the ride system, and that there will be little left for peripheral theming or exhibits. Obviously, we'll have to wait and see on this one. I'd love for the rumors to be wrong (JeffH described his "dream" SPACE pavilion on one of these threads a while ago, and it was a place I'd love to visit), I just think the rumors sound pretty likely given Disney's recent track record.

The Kilimanjaro Safari ride is a departure for Disney, but it's not exactly the first time anyone ever did that sort of thing. And you have to admit, tossing in a tent, an old jeep, and an animatronic baby elephant trunk was a pretty low budget way of adding some kind of story to the tried and true safari ride idea.

Soarin' appears to be the biggest success at DCA. Was this a Disney-developed ride system, or did they buy it from someone and just make their own ride movie?

Not that I mean to bash any specific ride simply because Disney didn't develop it internally. I just think it's a disturbing trend for Disney to be buying such a large majority of their new rides from the same places that Six Flags buys theirs. The new ride systems at Disney are becoming more generic, more like ride systems at every other amusement park. And low Imagineering budgets mean that these generic rides get reasonably light theming--again, more like every other park in the world.

I'll give you your point about the proliferation of shows. I personally can't stand most of the shows (I was nigh-on to having a brain aneurysm during Beauty and the Beast at Disney Studios), but that's a personal preference thing and I do my best to avoid basing these discussions on personal preferences. To steer this back to my point, the show I really enjoy and that seems to be about the most popular (Festival of the Lion King) was built on the remains of a Lion King parade in order to save money. Again, saving money: not a bad thing in and of itself, but when the whole _point_ seems to be saving money, instead of the guest experience, something is out of whack.

to infer that innovation & imagination have decreased just doesn't seem right to me

Just to clarify: I think the high percentage of recent new attractions using old and/or shelf-bought ride systems does in fact indicate a corporate direction towards less innovation (there's a parallel on the animation side of the business, too. Arguably the best, most successful recent Disney animated films were the Toy Story movies, both of which Disney bought from Pixar). Eisner will never kill imagination, but he can make it more difficult for the Imagineers to build what they imagine by cutting their budgets. I'm not saying imagination has decreased, just that the money available for making those imaginings real has decreased. Animal Kingdom is a fine example of this, I think the Imagineers did a bang-up job with what little they were allowed to spend.

I agree that wait-and-see is the best attitude with Dino-Rama. But I do have concerns, based on what hard data we've got (a Zamperla spinner and a Reverchon crazy mouse themed to look like a carnival), that the main concern during the project was that it be done cheaply.

To sum up this rambling, I don't have much of a problem with any single ride or decision, I even really like Rock 'n' Roller Coaster, despite it's shelf-bought beginnings and bargain basement (literally basement, in this case) theming. My problem manifests when I look at all the new rides and decisions in toto. I try to use examples without getting bogged down in the specifics of them, if you know what I mean. I don't have a vendetta against spinners, or bracing a company for hard economic times, or partnering with other companies to create better attractions.

It's the trend to do everything as cheaply as possible, and the related trend to farm out as much work as possible, that bothers me. Any theme park could have bought the exact rides Disney did, any animation distributor could have bought Pixar's services. Without the old-time Disney over-the-top theming, the difference between Disney and the other theme parks is evaporating. Eisner's Disney has produced very little that is qualitatively different from that which everyone else is producing.

Disney used to mean "more and special." Eisner's Disney has largely meant "less and generic." This is another one that we'll have to wait and see, but to me the "big picture" is Disney's ability to grab the imagination, to become a part of people. To create lifetime fans of a Magic you can't get anywhere else.

Eisner's Magic can be gotten elsewhere. In most cases, it _was_ gotten elsewhere. It's no longer a special, "more and better" Magic, the way it used to be. I just don't see the current management culture engendering the brand loyalty that some older ones did. I think the short-term profits focus is undermining the building of long-term guest loyalty, to the ultimate detriment of the company. And since Eisner's wearing the hat with the propeller, he's the one I'm going to shoot at.

Thanks to anyone who actually bothered to read all of this...

Jeff

DVC-Landbaron
05-04-2001, 01:57 PM
Thanks to anyone who actually bothered to read all of this...
I did.

WOW!! Half way through my offering I checked to see what was new. I saw your post and deleted mine. You said it all, my man!!

DITTO!!!!:bounce:

Thanks, JeffJewel. Don't ever go away again. Your perspective, insights and logic actually calms my passion to oust the bum. You mirror my own thoughts, almost perfectly, but you say it a little clearer. And I do have a habit of getting distracted rather easily by off hand comments and minutia (side arguments are killers!!).

JeffJewell
05-04-2001, 02:30 PM
...YoHo, I can accept your your opinion that Eisner's failings have to do with financial savvy and not an ignorance of all things Magic. I hope you can appreciate my counter-point that the effect of these failings on the _guest_ is a less Magical experience. Hence my whining about the Anti-Magical Michael, rather than the fiduciarially-challenged Michael.

In some ways, I don't think it matters _why_ these things happened, but I understand that it _is_ an important distinction for you when I go off Eisner-bashing. I've tried to substitute "current management" for Eisner when it's not too unweildy, but taMAYto, taMAHto, you know?

Also, thanks for the sympathy about the park hours. It probably seems as though I over-reacted (if not here, then in that other thread. I don't remember where I really went nuts) to it, but it was just the straw that broke the camel's back. It still smells like a last-minute decision that might give the bottom line a short term boost, but cannot do anything for guests except disappoint them. I find myself saying that about a lot of what Disney does, recently.

...Peter...

He saved Disney from corporate raiders on two occasions...

...now this isn't necessarily the Disney we all know and love, but his business sense shines through

We can obviously never discover what might have happened, but I still don't understand why we have to assume that the "raiders" Eisner "saved" Disney from would have been any worse than he is. When you say "corporate raiders," I get a mental picture of someone cutting back what goes in the parks while using the parks' profits to fund unrelated projects or even their own retirements. Which is exactly what Eisner has done.

I can agree completely with the second part of your quote, but not with how comfortable you appear to be with its implications. This is _not_ the Disney we all know and love (see? On some level, you actually agree with me ;) ). It was that other Disney that got under our skins, that has us all in the Carpool to the Castle, even still. It was that other Disney that built the Magic. Eisner's just building more theme parks.

Jeff

PS - Landbaron, thanks for the gushing. And you really dig green bouncy, don't you? :bounce: He does look a happy little so-and-so...

Peter Pirate
05-04-2001, 02:31 PM
And I understand your thinking, as well. It seems that in reality we aren't as far apart (as DVC's 'side arguments' sometimes lead us to believe!):p Maybe a couple turns here, a little grease there and some crazy glue on the broken knobs and we'd be in agreement....LandBaron, you may be buying the Margaritas yet!

:confused:

But Jeff, in response to who's footing the bill for SPACE or any other project. Is it really relevent? I mean, if Eisner can get someone else to foot the bill, isn't that a good thing?:cool:

YoHo
05-04-2001, 03:06 PM
He saved Disney from corporate raiders on two occasions by beefing up the stock price the first time & by positioning Disney in a strong liquid position another.

But Pete, Eisner or Wells, Einser or Wells. I contend that all Eisner did was foster good creative decisions that bolstered the stock through good old fashioned creative and entertaining product. Further, as I recall, the CFO basically begged and pleaded with Eisner with regards to liquid assets and purchasing ABC.


How did he do this? The cost cutting intitiative he mandated 2 years ago, the layoff of middle mangers, the continual looking for ways to operate 'lean & mean'

Operating "Lean& Mean" is alway a good thing and needn't be associated layoff's or downsizing. Layoffs are an indication of either short term thinking, or previous mismanagment. SInce Eisner was CEO for 17 years, he can't point the finger of mismanagment at anyone else.

In short, Mike was good at creative planning and Managing creative people and created company growth via that effort. Frank Well's was good at managing money to generate profits. Without Frank Wells, Eisner has mismanaged both the FInances that's he's bad at, and the entertainment that he's good at. The response has been to slash and burn, because the upper managment didn't utilze there resources correctly during the economic growth period. (I don't recall mass layoff at the Mouse during the last rescession when Wells ran the money ship.) So, in reality, there is nothing Financially that Eisner has done well, since most examples have Frank Well's muddy fingerprints all over them.

Peter Pirate
05-04-2001, 03:21 PM
It's the growth, the unrivaled name recognition & the corporate earnings that prove he is a savvy CEO...Wells probably had a lot to do with the dcisions during their time together, but Eisner was boss, Eisner gets credit.

Layoffs of mid-management may be a sign that this situation was in evidence for too long, or it may simply have been evidence of a rapidaly expanding Company in a rapidly expanding economy. Sometimes when the rock starts rolling doen the hill there is no stopping it. I think they were 'rolling' while it was expediaent and now, when the economy & growth are slowing, they are simply taking care of the housekkeping that was negleted during construction.

Disney is a well maintained mega Company. It seems incredulous to me that you think a man without great business sense could be at the helm for 17 years and actually grow the Company by accident!

YoHo
05-04-2001, 03:23 PM
The relevence of Mission Space and the like is ,
1: it illustrates that Eisner will let the Imagineers run wild to build a ride (yes, its been toned down for cost, I'll get to that) And the only way it sees the light of day is if someone elses purse strings open up. On the surface that seems like a good idea, but WDW may need, be better, be more magical with more rides of that scope then outside companies are willing to fund. Eisner is currently more willing to shrink his way to success then grow to success. (mediocre parks not withstanding, growth isn't just about park acreage, but also inovational growth)
2: it shows that He is willing to comprimise MAgic to keep the purse strings closed. If Mission Space were to be a magical pavilion Like I feel it should, then I would open the DIsney cofers to make it so.
If he were not in charge of the purse strings, he would be able to see the forest for the trees and lobby for a better ride.

YoHo
05-04-2001, 03:31 PM
The only thing he was savvy about financially was saying yes when ROy told him Well's had to be there. If growth is done right layoffs aren't needed, therefore, layoffs indicate bad managment. Yes, Eisner was In charge, AND in case you didn't read his autobiography, he worshipped Wells buisness savvy, Yes, he's in charge and gets the credit, that DOESN'T MEAN HE DESERVES IT. I'm not some money hungry fool on Wall street, I'm just an engineer worried about getting layed off my self, and I know that it takes teamwork and blending of talents to succeed. Eisner Wells had that. Further, if Eisner gets the credit for Well's genious, then he also gets the credit for Presslar's bufoonary.




I really have to go back to this.
There are two parts to disney's growth, creative and Financial. Mike was creative, Well's financial, to credit Eisner with Well's savvy is rude. Similarly, I would never suggest that Well's knew diddly about movies. Walt get's all the credit for Disney's phenominal early years, yet we all know and accept that Roy kept the ship afloat, how long were they in charge? How is it so hard to beleive the same for Mike and frank? FOr that matter, how is it so hard to see the decline when it matches almost exactly to well's death?

JeffJewell
05-04-2001, 03:37 PM
Jeff, in response to who's footing the bill for SPACE or any other project. Is it really relevent? I mean, if Eisner can get someone else to foot the bill, isn't that a good thing?

I think it's relevant from a standpoint of evaluating trends and being able to make predictions.

For instance, despite the rumors I've heard, I'm not going to bash SPACE unless I see it and it's all stinky. It's possible, right up until opening day, that Compaq may pony up some more bucks to bolster the rumoredly skimpy budget for non-ride-system items. I still see this as possible, because I don't have a list of examples at hand where Compaq cut budgets to what I feel is the bleeding point.

On the other hand, I have somewhat less hope that Animal Kingdom will see extra cash any time soon to upgrade Dinoland with the originally planned Excavator coaster, much less to start on Beastly Kingdom. I know who holds those particular reins, and I've seen his recent work.

I certainly don't mind Disney partnering with outside companies to bring us more and better attractions. This was done very effectively I think with Spaceship Earth and the two dead FutureWorld attractions. Test Track is a fun ride and rather popular, but I used to spend hours in the original Imagination pavilion playing with the cool non-ride stuff. There's just no way to spend that amount of time in the Test Track pavilion. So, from a certain point of view, Test Track is a much less effective pavilion than was JII. The SPACE rumors suggest the same sort of thing might happen... a lot of bucks on the thrill ride, not so much on the supporting pavilion and surrounding theming. Very counter to the original intent and overall theme of FutureWorld.

I agree that we're really not that far apart, and we're working out some finer shades of meaning at this point. I don't necessarily dislike any particular ride because of its budget or source, it's the overall direction that sticks in my craw. My greatest concern is not for today's Disney, but for tomorrow's. I believe we're following this guy down a dangerous path, even if we can still enjoy the scenery while we're walking.

Jeff

PS - By the way, we're walking because we got tired of waiting for our Bus on Demand...

DisDuck
05-04-2001, 03:41 PM
Nice to see you back Peter. Good to have some support. Now onto the show. Can't spend much time as got to get home but.

JJ..Splash Mountain is off-the-shelf but themeing makes it the best log flume ride I have ever been on and totally done by Eisner. So was Big Thunder Mountain. Therefore, possible to buy off-the-shelf (save some money which makes wall street happy) and still give a top notch ride. Has he missed on occasion, yes. Why, he is not perfect. No one is.

As to Park hours. It can cut both ways. Last April I showed up expecting EpCot to close at 9pm. It closed at 10pm on Saturday with MK opened late also. In fact the hours 1 day were so favorable with MGM having an 11pm Fantasmic that I was able to hop AK to Mk to MGM all on the same day. So who knows while hours posted are shorter, if crowds warrent it they may change while you are there.

Got to go.. daughter has early vocal lesson today. Needs to exercise her pipes for singing tour of Europe.

Catch you guys later.

All Aboard
05-04-2001, 03:46 PM
This thread (for the most part) has left the realm of my knowledge, but I disagree with the overall "cheapening" of attractions. Particularly at Epcot.

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
or how they used to build PAVILIONS in Future world, but today they build RIDES

Of the original 6 FW pavilions, only Land, Seas and Imagination could be described as being more than just a ride. Energy, Horizons and Motion (save for the GM exhibits) were jsut rides. Since then, Wonders has opened as a pavilion and TT has replaced a ride with a ride. Now Space will be replacing a ride with a ride (and may be more of a pavilion than its predecessor, we don't know yet.)

DVC-Landbaron
05-04-2001, 04:11 PM
... And misses out on a great conversation!!!

WOW!! Things happen fast here once in while!!

WELCOME DisDuck!! I was getting worried. I almost sent out an e-mail just to see if you were all right. I'm glad to see you post.

Even I can't possibly answer all the great thoughts that have been laid out here this afternoon. But a couple things came to mind as I read them all.

In answer to Peter Pirate's thoughts about "sharp pencil guys"
Walt had no use for the pencil-pushers and on more than one occasion was VERY lucky his "hunch" paid off
I really don't understand this. I think I know where you want to go with it, but I don't think you got there. LUCK had very little to do with it. His "hunches" paid off because THEY WERE RIGHT!!! He looked past the short term goals, the instant profit, the maximizing of business efficiency, and instead looked to the big picture, the long term and the firm belief that people would appreciate the way he did things. And he was right!! Even thirty five years after his death, there are countless web sites dedicated to the parks and resorts HE laid the foundation for.

Now to your point about sharp pencil guys. He had no use for them whatsoever. He NEVER listened to them. They ALL said (his nephew among the most vocal) that Disneyland was a terrible idea. If he HAD listened to them, there would be no Disneyland. Instead he had a brother who believed in him. And the brother made sure that finances were in place. Which kind of points to what YoHo said several posts later. On the surface that seems like a good idea, but WDW may need, be better, be more magical with more rides of that scope then outside companies are willing to fund.
I think you hit the nail on the head. And that is the difference between the original head of Disney and the current manager. The original KNEW his concept would sell and that people would flock to experience it. He further KNEW that if he scrimped in any way, the people would see it and he would find himself perceived as ordinary (something he never wanted!). I distinctly get the impression, as JeffJewel and YoHo stated, that Ei$ner is far too willing to settle, for the same type of experiences that many other companies employ. In other words he is competitive. Competitive with the "current market". Doing as little as possible, for as much return as possible. DCA seems to be a perfect example.

I firmly believe that he is very willing to "value engineer" an experience to maximize profits. Just like he's doing with YoHo's example of Space. From a business sense this is certainly a smart move. But it is just this type of thinking that was so alien to Walt. So, in essence, while this move is pro-profit (business smart) it is anti-magic (stupid "Disney" business). And in the long run they run the very real risk of becoming "ordinary". A fate for us Disney fans worse than bankruptcy!!!
Further, if Eisner gets the credit for Well's genius, then he also gets the credit for Presslar's buffoonery
Pre$$lar buffoonery!!! I love it!! LOL LOL LOL Can I use it?

Gcurling, I understand your point, and maybe I wasn't specific enough or just a little too subtle. I meant that the areas in Future World were all unique experiences. They were called PAVILIONS because they were meant to be more that just attractions (the name I chose NOT to use). Instead they are replacing pavilions and/or super long ATTRACTIONS with rides (the word I chose to describe what is currently in place). I know it's a subtle distinction, but to me it's VERY important. And I find it sad that my once favorite place in all of WDW is quickly becoming a place "ordinary" rides.

YoHo
05-04-2001, 04:19 PM
Gcurling, the big difference to me is that your replacing all access rides with limited (strong somach 48" or taller people) access rides and providing nothing to edutain the rest of us.

As much as the E-Ticket is a redo of Star Tours, I think Wonders of life exemplifies the kind of Pavilion I like.

YoHo
05-04-2001, 04:21 PM
PS, I realse the phrase Presslar Buffoonery and all it derivatives to the public domain :bounce: :bounce:http://www.disboards.com/forums/images/smilies/boldpurple.gif :bounce: :bounce:

DVC-Landbaron
05-04-2001, 04:30 PM
I think Wonders of life exemplifies the kind of PavilionI like.

BRAVO!! WELL SAID!!:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:



PS: Thanks for the release!!:pinkbounc

Peter Pirate
05-04-2001, 04:39 PM
Far as I know, Yoho, Eisner does get the credit for "Pressler's bufoonery"...Isn't that right LandBaron?

I do see where you're coming from Yoho, I just don't buy it. I'll say again, how could a guy so inept grow a Company into the monolith that is Disney & keep it on top for 17 years? Walt's legacy, partly. Wells help? Partly. But they are both gone, yet the Company's earnings still whallops the Street last quarter!

Now maybe we're arguing apples & oranges here and if we are I'll cease and decist, but my rationale is based on an argument LandBaron, DisDuck & I had long ao and it had to do with the Disney Company & not just our perceived plusses and minuses of the Theme Parks. I'm speaking of his ability to run a multi-national conglomerate and keep it on track...In fact, growing the Company. To this end, I think he excells...

In fact, I'd say Eisner's job isn't very "Disney" in total at all, but he does set the tone, weighing all of the factors and I understand that many of you find that this IS exactly the problem. That the tone is not Disney enough, I can live with that, but that in and of itself doesn't make Eisner a poor CEO, either.

Thanks for the Welcome DisDuck...

JeffJewell
05-04-2001, 04:45 PM
...how's it going?

I agree that just because a ride is shelf-bought and has a low budget for Imagineering does not guarantee that it will be an unenjoyable ride. My own favorite example is R'n'RC, which I really like despite those two facts about its origin.

I just don't think that's a good enough reason to make _all_ of the new rides off-the-shelfers.

As far as the park hours "cutting both ways," I must disagree. In this case, it's an issue of Disney's showing (or not) respect towards its guests.

You would not have heard a peep out of me if Disney's official hours always said 10-6 during June for Disney Studios. If I go at that time, I plan for those officially posted hours.

What got me peeping was officially posted hours that said 9-10:30 suddenly reverting to 9-9, and hours that said 8-7 shrinking to 8-6.

I don't mind if Disney changes Park Hours seasonally to reflect attendance; it only makes sense, and they've been doing it for years. This is just the first time I've ever seen them lie to guests in order to accomplish it.

Then again, I don't usually go in the summer, when longer daylight hours would make this kind of change more likely. Are you all trying to tell me that officially posting one set of hours then posting the real, shorter hours is standard practice for Disney, and I'm just not getting it?

Jeff

DVC-Landbaron
05-04-2001, 04:47 PM
That the tone is not Disney enough, I can live with that, but that in and of itself doesn't make Eisner a poor CEO, either.

YES IT DOES!!!!!! For Disney at least. Let him go head up GE or Coke. Disney needs a bit more... ah... well.... magic!!. It's their number one commodity.

All Aboard
05-04-2001, 04:58 PM
Jeff, I am confused. Are June Studios hours posted as 9-9 somewhere? Other than the first weekend (which is May carryover), I've got 9-10:30 on about 3 different sources.

YoHo
05-04-2001, 05:05 PM
But when Well's was there, the tone was far more Disney.

Lets see, Disney Stores are unprofitable, ABC is in the Toilet, DCA sucks. Unprofitable growth is not a good thing, and Last I checked, the phenominal growth of Eisner Weels has been missing for some time. during the late 80's early 90's less then double digit returns was considered a failure, now they're proud of a percentage point or two. Please spare me about how great the company is doing right now. If we were to look at the company as a whole instead of just theme parks, AND forget the former glories, I too would have nothing good to say about eisner.

Eisner creates growth through creativity, and letting people who know more then him do what needs to be done, Well's dies and Eisner decides he's omnipotent and now the company feels like its thrown a rod and is limiping into the nearst station. I just haven't seen much positive from Disney since well's died. Remember, AK was well into design before Well's died, only cutbacks were made afterwards.


I always approved of things like buying ABC, because I felt that a permanent outlet for Disney Entertainment was a briliant thing, yet ABC sucks. I'd rather watch the Disney channel or listen to Radio Disney where family programing reigns supreme. ABC is a perfect example of something that could have been so right, yet is so wrong. Drew Carey and Regis Philbin do not a network make.

JeffJewell
05-04-2001, 05:05 PM
That the tone is not Disney enough, I can live with that, but that in and of itself doesn't make Eisner a poor CEO, either.

...but surely we can agree that it makes him a poor CEO _for_ _Disney_, can't we?

Although with the bonus checks he gets, it's probably inaccurate to describe Eisner as a "poor" anything.

I throw Eisner's name around in vain as much as anyone, but I wish him no personal ills. I don't even begrudge him his money, it just rankles me what he did to Disney (and Disney's future) to get it. You say "tone is not Disney enough," I say "Anti-Magic." Same beans.

Jeff

YoHo
05-04-2001, 05:09 PM
Hey, I like GE, Why would I want a financially confused guy like Eisner running it?

:p :bounce:
http://www.disboards.com/forums/images/smilies/boldpurple.gif

JeffJewell
05-04-2001, 05:22 PM
...check the official Disney site (www.waltdisneyworld.com works for me), click the down arrow where it says Site Shortcuts, and select Park hours.

Disney's official hours for Disney Studios for most of June are 9-9, for AK, 8-6.

From when the June hours first appeared (I first noticed them around the beginning of March) up until at least April 18th, the official site said 9-10:30 (with a second nightly showing of Fantasmic!) and 8-7 for AK for most night in June. Shortly after that, I saw those same hours appear on the DIS and on Deb's site (well, Deb's site sends you back to the official site for the actual hours, but she does show the two Fantasmic!s scheduled for those days).

When I checked back on April 20th, the shorter hours were posted on the official site, and the second Fantasmic! cancelled, in general (Wednesdays are late nights at DS).

The Mickey Monitor, apparently pasted up before the ax fell, recently arrived showing the longer hours.

According to Disney's official Park Hours as of this moment, DS is 9-9 and AK is 8-6 for the bulk of June.

Jeff

Peter Pirate
05-04-2001, 06:40 PM
I just reminded you that Disney not only WAS profitable, but beat expectations by posting 6 cents a share higher than expected. Is that not profit?

Michael Eisner's relatively low base salary of 750,000 per year is tied directly to his profit performance and unless my memory fails me he has only not made huge bonus numbers on one occasion. The numbers he makes are too high in my estimation, but the Board that cut the deal must have thought it was a tough job or they wouldn't have agreed to such terms...He has obviously righted the wrongs they were so fearful of.

You can disect the areas you feel are a failure and call it whole if you choose, but the numbers speak for themselves.

One last thing about seemingly non-profitable growth. You may feel it's poor management to grow for growths sake, but the fact is that Disney must grow (in any way possible) in order to remain independent. JJ & DVC don't see that as a legitimate factor (not fearing the devil they don't know), but I do so I'll take Mike.

:bounce:

DVC-Landbaron
05-04-2001, 07:02 PM
Peter,

How about moving over and letting the Captain speak for a while. He was just starting to come around to the right way of thinking (lol).

Now I'm no finance guy (sharp pencil guy) but I do clearly remember talking about how Ei$ner cut a deal with "HIS" hand picked board releasing his bonus from preformance. Also, if I remember correctly, there is also some serious question as to the reality of that so called "profit" this quarter. But all the details have gotten muddled in my MAGIC seeking brain.

So, it seems I need some help (because I'm basically lazy and really don't want to look it up). Perhaps VOICE can clear it up. He usually has a pretty good handle on the business end of things. Or anyone else, please feel free to clear this up. We can't let my good friend the Pirate spread this nonsense any longer!!

Thanks:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

Another Voice
05-04-2001, 07:06 PM
I go away to see a cut of some small, intimate summer war/romance movie set in Hawaii - and the car pool leaves without me! I will try to make this short.

It’s been said that “entertainment” is the forsaken child of “art” and “commerce”. Frank Wells understood that, Michael Eisner never will.

Frank Wells knew that to run a successful studio, the management’s job was to provide the artists with the resources that they required to create, but with a discipline so that personal indulgence would not harm the business that generated those resources. Michael Eisner believes that “entertainment” is a consumer product, to be manufactured and marketed using the same techniques used to produces tires or jet engines or disposable diapers. Frank Wells knew that “art” was like a vapor – impossible to define, constantly changing and destroyed with the swipe of a hand. Michael Eisner believes anything can be fixed with only a good enough advertising campaign. Frank Wells was demanding and exacting in business because he knew people’s lives – both stockholders and employees – were affected by what happened. Michael Eisner sees the business as an extension of himself, as only a tool that can be used to carry out his wishes. Frank Wells had the power to tell Michael “No”, now no one can tell Michael Eisner anything.

Eisner had the board change his employment contract so that he could “earn” an $11 million bonus last year. Based on his previous contract, he would have only earned his base salary for three years – no bonus, no stock options, nothing but “basic” pay. Is it any wonder then that he’ll shave a few hours off people’s vacations?

DVC-Landbaron
05-04-2001, 07:13 PM
Thanks Voice!! How well put!!:smooth:

Does anyone remember anything about the "profit" thing this quarter?

:pinkbounc

That pink one better start working!!!

Hey VOICE!!! Just a second!! A little summer film. Come on!! Give with the review!!

JeffJewell
05-04-2001, 08:28 PM
Is that not profit?

...Disney made a profit, actually increased profits over last year, I believe. The problem is that revenues were down. Meaning they made more while selling less.

This isn't really "growth" in any meaningful way. It basically means that Eisner has cut budgets faster than people have stopped buying his products.

While that might make a bottom line look good long enough to cash a bonus check, I don't think it enhances the Disney Company one iota. Indeed, I think the substantial cuts in Imagineering and the farming out of more and more work (both for the parks and for the screens) are actually the destruction of what was meaningful about Disney in the first place.

That Disney created Magic. This Disney creates a favorable earnings per share ratio.

I guess we each have to decide for ourselves which of those creations we value more, and which we'd rather associate with the name Disney.

Jeff

PS - I noticed Another Voice posted while I was writing this. Blindingly well spake.

What, no details on the screening? Surprise ending, right?

Eyesnur
05-04-2001, 10:34 PM
I seriously do not like the tone or demeanor of this discussion.

I belive you all should heed those oft forgotton words once uttered by Walt..."Trust the CEO,whomever he may be"...

Enough said, I think...Oh, by the way, go see Atlantis... It's great!:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

DVC-Landbaron
05-05-2001, 12:51 AM
HA!!! It is now near midnight Central Daylight Time. I read the above post a couple hours ago and really didn't know what to make of it.

Then it hit me!!! HA!! LOL!! LOL!! LOL!!

Someone out there has a marvolous sense of humor!!!

Hope to hear more from you.

Thanks for the laugh. (I really did laugh out loud!!)

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

Peter Pirate
05-05-2001, 10:10 AM
I was hoping for help from DisDuck or Horizons Fan and I get the Big Cheese! Ain't Magic grand?:p

Ok, I've taken a blow to the head, numerous body shots and sadly, a couple of low blows...But I'm back up off the floor...Heading for my corner, but still standing!

JJ writes "While that might make a bottom line look good long enough to cash a bonus check, I don't think it enhances the Disney Company one iota."

Well, I disagree. Profitable is as profitable does (thanks Forrest). This may be how he made the numbers this quarter but it wasn't always that way and it won't be in the future. Surely, tightening the belt occasionally and maximizing profit potential especially before the next big push makes sense to me. The question now is will there be a next big push (as I believe) or will it be as AV contends, that this is Eisners big push to retirement. I believe one thing , you guys believe another...Only time will tell.

And AV, if you can point me to something that proves these changes to Eisner's contract were indeed made, I would (genuinely) like to read it. As I recall this was rumored to be true and wrote about ad nauseum, but never confirmed. I'm not saying you're wrong but I'd love to be pointed to the documentation, if possible...Could play a key role in my future thinking...


:smooth: :jester: :smooth: :bounce: :cool: :jester:

Another Voice
05-05-2001, 02:40 PM
Here’ the information direct from the highest sources. These are quotes taken from Disney’s Proxy Statements found at http://www.disney.com:

From the FY2000 Statement:
“Mr. Eisner's bonuses for fiscal 1997 and 1998 were determined under the Annual Bonus Performance Plan described above, and beginning in fiscal 1999 bonuses were to be determined pursuant to a bonus formula based on a compounded earnings growth rate of the Company above a specified level. (See "Employment Agreement with Michael D. Eisner" below.) However, in November 1998 the Company requested a renegotiation of the bonus formula pursuant to a provision of Mr. Eisner's employment agreement that permits such a renegotiation under certain circumstances. The Company and Mr. Eisner subsequently entered into an amendment of his employment agreement to provide that Mr. Eisner's bonus for fiscal year 1999 would be determined under the Company's Annual Bonus Performance Plan, rather than pursuant to the bonus formula, and that a new bonus plan would be negotiated for future years.”

From the FY2001 Statement:
“As Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Eisner is compensated pursuant to an employment agreement entered into in January 1997. The agreement, which was further amended in June 2000, extends through September 30, 2006, subject to earlier termination under certain circumstances. The agreement, as amended, provides for an increase in the annual base salary from $750,000 to $1,000,000, the first increase Mr. Eisner has received since 1984. In addition, the agreement provides that Mr. Eisner’s bonuses will be determined pursuant to the Company’s Annual Bonus Performance Plan (or any successor plans thereto) for the remaining fiscal years during the term of his agreement. Mr. Eisner’s bonus for fiscal 2000 was determined under the Annual Bonus Performance Plan by the Executive Performance Subcommittee as described above.”

In normal language, his bonus was tied to predetermined formula based on the growth of the company, but the contract was renegotiated so that it was “awarded” by the board (most of whom he appointed) at the end of the year. To get this change, Eisner agreed to forgo his 1999 bonus but that was quickly made up in 2000. Somewhere online is a great article by the consultant who put together Eisner’s original contract but who now feels the changes are a betrayal. I’ll pass along the link when I find it.

iamleia2
05-06-2001, 10:41 AM
Ok, I didn't take time to read any of the other posts except for the first few. But one person did say something about "Who can be in a theme park for 16 hours?" Well, granted, some people can't do that. But some of us aren't rich and can't stay at DW for two weeks and take our sweet little time with it. We will be there for THREE DAYS in June. AHHH!!! There are FOUR parks and we have THREE days! I was stressing before they cut back the stupid hours. Now I don't know what we're going to do! I think it's ridiculus! People keep saying "Oh, it's probably just their off time." No, it is not. We were there last year at the same time and it was plenty crowded straight through until closing time so I think it's just ridiculus. And AK does have different hours. They were open until 7:00 last year and now they're only open until 6:00. It's not just hours either. Because MGM closes so early that means only one showing of Fantasmic.... which means you have to get in line at least an hour early, whereas you could always just walk in to the second showing. That cuts WAY back on park time. Why is it that we're always paying more and getting less? This isn't fair!:(

iamleia2
05-06-2001, 03:54 PM
Oh give me a break. I'm not going to stop going to DW just because they changed the hours. The point is that there is still plenty of magic at DW and that's why I'd like to spend the most time possible in the parks. They make that rather difficult when they chop the hours off, now don't they. And I don't know how to "inform Disney" of my displeasure. And not that it would make any difference anyway. But I think I can be upset that I planned my entire itinerary and then 2 days later they change the hours without getting beat down for heaven's sake! I never said I hated DW or that I didn't want to go. Just that I wish I could stay there longer! :p So there!

DVC-Landbaron
05-06-2001, 10:57 PM
iamleia2 posts two in a row and seems to be arguing (or at least talking) with no one in particular.

At around 2:30 this afternoon I checked the baords, just to see what's going on and see a post from Peter Pirate. A rather harsh post. But, being in the middle of my daughter's comfirmation party I had no time to post. When the party ended I came back on line and POOF! no more Pirate post and two iamleia2 posts in a row.

What gives??:confused: :confused: :confused:

YoHo
05-06-2001, 11:15 PM
TO get back to the point,

Another Voice, I appreaciate the insite, I wonder if you could comment about Mike's creative abilities. It seems to me that when Well's and his Wisdom were around, Mike was far more magical.


As to Disney profit, that 6 cents is all smoke and mirrors since they're taking a huge hit on go.com. And Peter, your missing the point, 5-10 years ago, 6% was considered insufficent, Eisner would have been tearing around the corporate buildings looking for a scape goat, Now I'm supposed to be impressed by it? I'm sorry, but Eisner-Well's trained me a little different, they trained me to believe that good enough wasn't. Strangely Walt like even if it had a bit more of a pencil sharpener focus.




Just for those confused, I still like Mikey a little bit, and I'm still a silver lining kind of guy, but I can't sit by and agree that the Disney Corp is doing Well financially right now when they so clearly aren't. SHow me a ten year history, and maybe you'll sober up about this supposed profit and growth.

Peter Pirate
05-07-2001, 04:23 PM
This argument is about at an end, I'm afraid. I will not "sober up" to your viewpoint Yoho, because it is wrong. The Disney Corp just beat the street estimates on earnings by 6 cents. If you think that it's all mirrors and hat tricks, I can't convince you otherwise. Further, the fact that the Company is sitting on a ton cash and looking to acquire is a trait of a fiscally sound Company!
(see larwoths post on the DisBiz for Thomas Staggs comments).

JeffJewell
05-07-2001, 05:08 PM
Profitable is as profitable does

The crux of our disagreement is that Disney used to be synonymous with high quality productions, particularly animation and theme parks.

To many of us, this "high quality" is more than merely important, it is the critical factor that built the name and the company of Disney.

Eisner's Disney, to a very great extent, doesn't actually "produce" anything anymore, they rent or buy it from someone else, and with an eye towards low cost of acquisition rather than high standards. The consistent, high-quality productions are not occuring, despite Eisner's ability to show a profit.

To many of you, this "turning a profit" is the sum total of your measurement of Disney.

"Many of you" think "many of us" are wacky idealists, lost in the clouds and the past. Conversely, "many of us" think "many of you" are a sad reflection of a culture that reveres money rather than quality.

Peter, you're definitely right about one thing... this is the point of the discussion where we're either going to agree to disagree or we're going to get banished to the Debate Board.

Jeff

Peter Pirate
05-07-2001, 05:23 PM
Jeff,
We've gone from arguing apples and oranges to apples, oranges and lemons!

I understand your & DVC's position on goals and expectations from Disney (as opposed to other companies). I even subscribe to a lot of it. Yoho stated his opinion that Eisner was not a good businessman and that The Disney Corporation was not in 'great shape'. I beleive Eisner to be an astute businessman and that the Company is in very good shape, which is to what I have been arguing...Not necessarily the Magic that you, DVC & I have discussed occasionally! :D

But still, as you perceived, this argument is at an impasse...
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

YoHo
05-07-2001, 05:27 PM
Its mirrors and hat tricks, because its earnings are before the go.com hit is taken. they actually have negative numbers after go.com is factored in. This is typical Wall Street Chicanery and has nothing to do with Disney specifically, I also must maintain my stance that the late 80's and early 90's have trained me to expect significantly better then this.


I can't argue the issue of Capital spending, but what I can say is that they have had significant failures in both their core buisnessess (film is starting to get back on track with SPy Kids and that other film. And Theme Parks, (DCA disaster and less then satisfactory AK numbers.)

Granted they are taking steps to improve things at the themeparks, but one has to wonder how they got into this position with their two most profitable usually firing on all cylinders industries. Not to mention the poor showings outside of these core groups. Its a pretty forest, but the trees are all deseased.


MY main point was and is that Eisner was not the driving force behind the Fiscals, he was not the sharp pencil guy, he was the creative guy. HE did many great things that brought in revenue and promoted growth, but he did it by leading Imagineering and Disney animation and listening to people like Frank Wells who unlike him, understood fiscals. Eisner has no credentials, he has never previous to Frank Well's death had sole fiscal control and as such, he has not been able to run things as well.

I see Disney as coasting, they may be on an upslope, but its not a particularly steep one. Atlantis and Pearl Harbor will give then some wiggle room if successful, nice and good, but If frank Wells were still alive, they wouldn't have needed wiggle room, they'd be soaring.


:earsboy:

YoHo
05-07-2001, 05:46 PM
Okay, I'll come down a little, I can't really argue that Disney isn't profitable, only that they aren't as profitable as they should be, as profitable as I expect them to be. The reason that they aren't as profitable as they should be is because Micheal Eisner is not the fiscal Talent that Frank Well's was, so I suppose my biggest problem is the word astute.

Micheal Eisner is NOT an astute buisnessman, Frank Wells, WAS an astute buisnessman. Or if you insist on calling Eisner Astute, then I will claim that Frank Wells was a phenominal Buisnessman, a prince amoung buisnessmen, god of buisness, because its quite obvious to me that Eisner,....is no Frank Wells.


ITs all about expectations and in 2001 Disney is not meeting the expectations set by Eisner/Wells, Eisner/Wells met those expectations, exceeded those expectations blew the lid off those expectations, all while suffering from that late 80s early 90s recession that makes the current economic climate look like a cake walk. So no, I can't refute Disney's numbers, but what I can say is that they aren't good enough.

I have expectations about Disney's financial performance, much as Landbaron and JeffJewel have them about the parks and Eisner is not meeting them, EIsner/Wells did. What other conclusion is there to draw?

Another Voice
05-07-2001, 08:44 PM
I promised myself I wasn’t going to write anything more, but…

But I just want to remind both sides that this is Hollywood, the place where the old saying goes “the glitter goes up on the screen, the real creativity goes into the books”. There’s no way of really knowing – one way or the other – without getting a detailed look at the financials (and that ain’t going to happen). The key is to see what the company thinks, and for that just watch their activity. If you see a MAJOR acquisition in the next two quarters and some serious capital investments to shore up the parks, things are going well. If they continue to accumulate cash and if cutbacks continue in parks and film, then the company is hankering down for a storm.

Only time, and the box office for ‘Pearl Harbor’, will tell.


Now, let’s see. Who do I know that worked on ‘The Mummy Returns’, I think SHE can pick up the lunch check this time…

DisDuck
05-08-2001, 03:37 PM
Sorry guys/gals actually had to do some work. Back to the fray.

JJ.. What I posted about on the times concerned the reverse of what you see. Yes, the listed times for April 2000 did not match real park times (for MK & Epcot & DS). They exceeded the posted times. So all I was saying that the reverse can happen. In your case it went from more to less; in may case from less to more.

Maybe when you get down there enough guests will be present to change times upward. The passes do say 'Times subject to change without notice'.

As to all the other stuff about Eisner/Wells versus Eisner stand-only. Profitable; Not profitable. Magic versus less Magic, etc. etc. etc. (to quote a certain King).

May take is Disney is undergoing a retrenchment like many companies right now. It pains us since we have such a love of the place (& entire company, for me). But would any of you rather they just threw money around and a recession does hit. Then what, make dramatic/traumatic cuts then. A little pain now with some sugar makes the medicine go down better. Based on my experience every year since 1995 (plus the every other year between 1975 and 1989), I am willing to cut Eisner a little slack. From my viewpoint, if I see the Magic lesson over the next year then I might have to join that carpool. But until then my motto is next year at WDW (this year is DL).

DVC-Landbaron
05-08-2001, 04:01 PM
Well Dis, I'm glad you're back. And I do understand your point of view. However:
From my viewpoint, if I see the Magic lesson over the next year then I might have to join that carpool.
I think my problem with the "wait till next year" bit is that I'm from Chicago. That has been our Chicago Cubs motto since 1907 (I think). I'm running out of next years!!

Last year you and Peter Pirate kept telling me that after the GO.COM thing took off and the minor cost cutting that went along with it, we'd see TREMENDOUS things happening very soon.

Ah! But now! Wait! Gas prices! Economic slowdown! Well… That's OK!! Just wait till next year!!

DisDuck
05-09-2001, 11:03 AM
Sorry no sympathy for the Cubs, I am a Dodger fan (stayed loyal after the move).

I think something will happen next year (or sooner) because after the 100 year celebration is finished there will be a need for a new draw.

DVC-Landbaron
05-09-2001, 11:25 AM
I really hope you're right, DisDuck. I am ever hopeful. Despite my rather dour tone most of the time, I'm usually pretty optimistic. And I really think it may not be to late to turn things around (otherwise I wouldn't be here). But time is getting short and they really need to do something more than a band aid fix.

YoHo
05-09-2001, 12:19 PM
DArnit, Where is that stupid mule, I'll unjinx DIsney. :)

ANyway, I have to agree, I'm out of wait til next years. As I've said earlier, in the past, we didn't have to wait til next year even when the economy was in the crapper (I'm talking during Eisner's reign) Disney simply didn't have these kinds of problems.
Another interesting cubs analogy, much like the cubs, Disney can suck and people will still flock to it. And therefore, managment will not upgrade the parks, because they don't have to.

All Aboard
05-09-2001, 05:22 PM
Hey, call me crazy and perhaps I am looking at the Emporer's New Clothes, but I thought that some pretty good enhancement were made to the Florida parks in 1998-1999. Of course, they sat on them and milked the Millennium Celebration last year. But, I liked what was done in the previous two years.

Peter Pirate
05-09-2001, 06:32 PM
gcurling, I agree with your opinion. I wonder if the improvements we appreciate are because of our frequent visitor status? If for some reason we appreciate the subtle changes more because we know they're not going to add a new E ticket every time we visit.

Hope you had a good visit the other week. Ours was great!:D
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

DVC-Landbaron
05-09-2001, 07:05 PM
I thought that some pretty good enhancement were made to the Florida parks in 1998-1999.

And

gcurling, I agree with your opinion.

OK, I'm sorry to rain on your little love-fest parade, but could either of you two be a little more specific? What improvements could you possibly be refering to?

Come on. I usually hate lists, but this time I really want a long one;)

Thanks.