PDA

View Full Version : DEBATE: When does the "Disney Experience" cease to exist?


Pages : [1] 2

DVC-Landbaron
10-01-2002, 05:53 PM
OK!! I think it may be time to regroup. Something I've been trying to do for a while now with Mr. Kidds in particular. So, no quotes, no conversation and no 'snappy' comebacks. Just a simple position essay, which I really don't want to debate as almost all of it is very subjective, and one single solitary question (asked many different ways, of course. I'm regrouping, I'm not changing personalities!! ;))!! A question that I hope is answered in the spirit in which it was given.

Quality and Experience of a Disney Resort

It is my subjective belief that the "guest experience" of either the Poly or the Contemporary defines what Walt & company was after when they first had a notion to build and operate resorts. And it is also my firm belief that this 'concept' or 'standard' (if you prefer) was not an accident or random occurrence, but was given deliberate consideration and very careful planning in each and every aspect of the design, operation and implementation.

I don't know how they did it. I was not there for the process. But I can imagine. I can imagine studies being performed, disseminated and analyzed. I can imagine task groups charged with certain questions gathering information. I can imagine reports being typed, spreadsheets being used and data collected from any source available. I can also imagine smoke filled rooms where "resort" discussions took place. Groups of people sitting around an office and comparing traveling notes. What they liked about certain hotels, what they didn't like, what they thought was superfluous and what they thought they'd include in their own resort. And I further imagine that this conversation would cover a wide range of concepts, ideas, feelings and personal preferences. Things as small as the type of matches left in the ashtrays (yes ALL rooms were smoking back then), pillow size, desk lamps, bed size, newspaper delivery, cost to the guest, you name it, it was brought up. And lastly I imagine Walt passively at times and very actively at other times giving his final word on the subject!

I guess if you disagree with the above paragraph then we really don't have much to talk about. Skip the rest because it will make little sense to you, cause gales of laughter and you will find yourself talking to no one in particular, asking aloud if this guy has got a brain. And I really don't need that kind of abuse!!

However, if we believe that the design of the theme, structure, operation, amenities and implementation were not random or capricious acts, then it seems to me that we MUST concede that deliberate thought and careful examination took place. We MUST believe that they talked about these things and for one reason or another they decided that what they included was officially approved and stamped - "Disney". I subjectively accept this as a given. And I would think that anyone who agreed with what has been written so far would also agree.

So, where does this leave us? Does this mean that we can NEVER change anything? Does this mean that these are the Standards we are stuck with FOREVER? No! Again, it is my subjective opinion that we do not have to maintain the status quo. If fact, again subjectively the way I interpret Walt's philosophy, we MUST strive to improve the SHOW (experience) at all times! Disney, the way I read it, is COMPELLED to change those standards in an effort to enhance the guest experience.

And here's where it gets sticky. I firmly believe, subjectively, that every time a change is considered, no matter how minute or inconsequential that change may appear, it MUST be for the improvement of the SHOW and for no other reason. It CANNOT be price driven, profit motivated or a in consideration of efficiency!!

If they decide to change the brand of pillowcases, they really have to consider HOW this affects the experience. Their motivation might be to cut costs, but that doesn't matter. Does this change live up to OR EXCEED the standard that was set? If it does not, THEN DON'T DO IT!! If it does, then by all means, have a ball!! Change what you like!! This goes for ANYTHING, any change, any modification, including (and maybe the most important) price!

Now, since price has reared it's ugly head, let's tackle what most people believe is my most convoluted premise. I believe subjectively that value plays an vital role in the experience. I point to the original concept for Disneyland. Here was a place that was sooooo far ahead of the competition that a comparison is really pointless. EVERYTHING was theme, even the ashtrays and trash cans!! Grounds immaculately manicured. Street and sidewalks so clean you probably could have eaten off them. Restrooms sparkled!! Innovation everywhere you looked and ride experiences that were never even considered before. All this for only slightly more that the local, dingy, dirty, rat infested amusement park was charging. That was the magic. That was the experience! Disneyland was at least 100 times better than the local offering. If they charged 100 times the going rate would it have been as magical? And at what point, monetarily, does it completely cease being magic and is nothing more that a rip-off?

Therefore, it is my strong subjective belief, based on that thought process, that if prices are raised, beyond inflation, the 'experience' is diminished. Again, I hearken back to the original resort concept. The finalized list of "things Disney" is presented for the group and they all agree, even Walt, that THIS is the definitive "Disney experience"!! So now they must put a price tag to it. The ledger is a blank page. They could write in it anything they want. They decide, after much (or no) debate, that the price would be comparable to a Holiday Inn. Now THAT'S magic!!! If they had decided to charge more, the magic of that 'value' declines. If they decided to double the amount I believe that hardly anyone in the world would have considered it a Magical experience! Now, I understand that technically the "experience" hasn't diminished one little iota. The same table and chairs still are in use. The soap is the same and the palm trees haven't been relocated. But the OVERALL experience, the one which includes price, has been substantially lowered!!

Now, it is an objective fact that things changed when Ei$ner took over. Two things happened. The first, which doesn't get much press around here, but is undeniable nonetheless, is that prices were raised EXCEEDING what the normal rate of inflation would have been. The second was that he had resorts built with standards that varied from the originals. Those are facts! OBJECTIVE facts. I don't think anyone can refute them. The Floridian and the Caribbean were both built within this time frame and they both carry DIFFERENT standards, from each other and the two originals.

Ok! So, it is my considered subjective opinion that this very concept SUCKED!! First off they took the "value" away from the original Disney experience. By raising the prices so outrageously they damaged the experience. And second, they muddied the waters soooo badly that even after 15 pages, ardent Disney fans cannot agree on what those standards were, much less are, or even more important, what they should be!! He reduced the entire experience to theme and theme alone. Ambiance, comfort, amenities, little Disney" touches", quality, feel, price, value and even decorations (All-Stars) have become so mixed up that the true Disney experience has become lost.

And of course a third thing happened when these two concepts were employed. And it is my subjective opinion that this is the very moment when the Disney Magical Experience went from being an all-inclusive concept to a commodity. The more you pay, the more "magic" you get. Yep! Magic, for the first time, went ala carte!!

Now, one could argue that this isn't a bad thing. That by raising prices, profits rise. As a stockholder this pleases me. And that by lowering the standards more people could afford it. And as a people kind of guy this pleases me as well. All very well and good. And it's awfully hard to refute. But I can't help thinking that this is NOT what Disney is all about. This is NOT what was envisioned when Walt paced off the property in Anaheim. Quality was the watchword. Value was the key. And those two concepts, in my humble and very subjective opinion have become lost in the shuffle of corporate greed!

The end!! :cool:



Now for the ONE question!!
(restated many times - LandBaron style!!)

Ladies and Gentlemen of the DIS:

At what point does a Disney Resort stop being Disney? How far from the Standards (not only the original or my standards but any standards) do we have to go before it is no longer a "Disney Experience"? Is there a cut off? Is there a point that a far worse CEO could go when the "experience" ceases to be Disney? Or does having the same zip code suffice? And how would you objectively or even subjectively draw that line?

Thanks,

Your friendly neighborhood LandBaron!!

Testtrack321
10-01-2002, 08:42 PM
When the guest can get a better experence at another hotel or park NOT because of thrills, but the lack of imagination (come on, we hate Pop, but it has Imagination) and Diseyified things (things well thought out before hand and hand sculpted to match and perfect other things from previous resorts and parks).

A Holiday Inn with parrots is a Holiday Inn with parrots, but the Polynesian uses music, water, plants, scluptures, AND service that Disney can only offer.

BRERALEX
10-01-2002, 09:38 PM
shortly i think a disney resort stops being disney when i have to come to a newsgroup to see if im not the only one that feels the resort is crap and it's not just me.

"If it sounds like some of this research was simply recalling what day-to-day America was like for the decades in question, the designers hope that the effect on guests isnt much different"
"youll be amazed at how many times you'll walk through, look at something, and say, 'oh i forgot about that!"

thats from an article in the latest disney magazine. When disney has to write an article about one of their new resorts because they know the "theme" of it sucks and they are insecure about there chosen "theme" then to me thats not disney.

And what happens when i finally do pass by an icon that i know it's there will i smile and have a great disney experience to recall when i get home?

"While it was easy for the Imagineers to pick some of the giant icons for this Walt Disney World resort{duh} (for instance, the 1960's area gets a touch of Flower Power in it's swimming pool). it took more thought-and two years' worth of research-to decide upon others."

did everyone just read that. TWO YEARS. lord help us all.

I dont mind the disney magazine promoting a new hotel i mean thats what its for to market everything disney to us but this article was more of them trying to sell the resort to us. Trying to tell us "hey we didnt jkust throw up some b.s. icons we researched-------for two years!!!!!!!!!!!!

When i read a simple article like that one and read between the lines that they are so insecure and dont want us to see right threw this idiotic "themed" resort it stops being disney for me.

And it really stops being disney for me when i have to keep referring to great things disney in past tense like i did this year.

"i remember when they were open till 12am for free no enight."

Planogirl
10-01-2002, 10:22 PM
At what point does a Disney Resort stop being Disney? How far from the Standards (not only the original or my standards but any standards) do we have to go before it is no longer a "Disney Experience"? Is there a cut off? Is there a point that a far worse CEO could go when the "experience" ceases to be Disney? Or does having the same zip code suffice? And how would you objectively or even subjectively draw that line?

One thing that always struck me was how truly simple the original Disney resorts were. They were comfortable and attractive and unpretentious. They had a reasonable amount of theming, many nice little Disney touches and a quiet atmosphere. A person could go to the parks and go wild for the day and then relax back at their resort.

I guess that a Disney resort stops being Disney to me when it starts to choke on its own theming. Something like Pop Century seems to be so determined to be heavily themed that it's lost all semblance of style and taste. It's simply too much! It makes me want to run screaming to the nearest quiet Doubletree (a personal favorite).

I can think of a few other resorts like that but I won't get into critiquing other people's favorites. Let's just say that Las Vegas is supposed to THEME while Disney is supposed to provide an overall and more subtle experience. A kindler, gentler themed resort if you will with the superlative Disney service and the little touches that Disney once handled so easily.

This is, of course, VERY subjective.

Walt's Frozen Head
10-01-2002, 10:29 PM
I had to riff on a couple specific passages, first, but I'll eventually get around to answering your question... kinda... probably.
I firmly believe, subjectively, that every time a change is considered, no matter how minute or inconsequential that change may appear, it MUST be for the improvement of the SHOW and for no other reason. It CANNOT be price driven, profit motivated or a in consideration of efficiency!! One of my favorite "old sayings," and the one probably most misleadingly semi-quoted in the history of language, is "the love of money is the root of all evil."

I believe your statement is correct for any kind of business... if you're not there to improve your product, it would be better for all of us if you just quit.

Disney's wane and Enron's implosion have exactly the same root cause: executives who were more interested in making substantial spreadsheet entries than offering substantial products or services. The differences are only of scale, not the intent, methods, nor motivations of the executives.

I understand what you're saying in context, but on a larger scale, I don't believe the criteria should be reserved only for Disney.Now, since price has reared it's ugly head, let's tackle what most people believe is my most convoluted premise. I believe subjectively that value plays an vital role in the experience. I hate that word. Value plays no part in my Magic.

Value is what you get for 99 cents at Wendy's. Value is what you buy by the bale at Sam's Wholesale Club.

I have many problems with Pop Century and the All Stars, problems aesthetic and philosophical, but their classification as "value" resorts I find dead-on.

Don't get me wrong; I again understand what you mean. I think there's no doubt that early WDW pricing represented a genuine bargain on a superior product. I'm resigned to price increases, even larger than inflation, as inevitable in the pursuit of high quality. I won't grouse much about price unless it's growing while the product is deteriorating.

If someone created, today, a park that captured the essence of 1971 WDW, executed with today's superior media and technologies, I for one would save whatever it took to get there (once our WDW APs expire in November, our next Disney trip will require passports).

What if I proposed that focusing on "value" is just the first step down the slippery slope?

Aside: I really have no idea how "family affordable" WDW was in the early days... I was six in the summer of '72 and didn't have to concern myself with such things. I just know what that kind of quality would be worth to me, now.At what point does a Disney Resort stop being Disney? And how would you objectively or even subjectively draw that line? It goes back to the "improve your product" thing. Each of us has our subjective opinion of what, really, that objective "product" was... the essence of WDW's Magic.

This won't be the first time I've lamented the loss of WDW as a vacation world, self-contained and isolated from this ordinary world. A truly hardline interpretation of that position might suggest "no monorail" means it's not in Disney World, but I am forgiving to the extent of the Boardwalk area hotels (you can actually get to two parks via alternative transportation... and if you're willing to walk through EPCOT, technically, you can get to MK without encountering the outside world) and the Wilderness Lodge (I'm a sucker for the launch. It's likely time inefficient, but we regularly got to EPCOT from WL via launch to the Contemporary then the monorail. When you're not standing on a bus, the trip can be a delightful part of the vacation).

So that's where I objectively draw a line... the Seven Seas Lagoon/Bay Lake resorts and the Crescent Lake resorts are Disney resorts (well, except for the two that aren't Disney resorts, in any sense).

Subjectively, I think the extent to which a resort contributes to the "isolated vacation world" theme should be the measure. All of the above objectively qualified resorts also meet my own subjective Disney Standard on that measure.

-WFH

DVC-Landbaron
10-01-2002, 11:25 PM
Well!! Just some observations so far.... And in order of appearance.

Scoop!
Disney stops being Disney when we decide that it is no longer unique, special, something extra that it isn't the first place we think of when we think of a family resort.I don’t mean to pick, but that’s rather obvious and about as vague as vague can be. In fact it really is just a re-statement of the question in declarative form. I’m asking what specifically through explanation or example would it take to reach those depths? Where do you draw the line? What’s acceptable and what’s not? Of course we’ll all stop going when it’s no longer special to us. But what would it take to get you to that point?

BRERALEX
And it really stops being disney for me when i have to keep referring to great things disney in past tense like i did this year.Ah! How well I know that feeling!!!! :(

Planogirl
One thing that always struck me was how truly simple the original Disney resorts were. They were comfortable and attractive and unpretentious. They had a reasonable amount of theming, many nice little Disney touches and a quiet atmosphere. A person could go to the parks and go wild for the day and then relax back at their resort.PERFECT!!! How nicely put! I really wish I would have said that. It wraps up the “experience” so well!! Thanks! :bounce:

Mr. Head!! Always a pleasure to talk to you!! And not surprisingly I agree with nearly everything you say! Nearly everything! ;) Value is what you get for 99 cents at Wendy's. Value is what you buy by the bale at Sam's Wholesale Club.Yes! I see what you're saying, but I’m a little hard pressed to find an alternative! But may I suggest that you DO value these things. I VALUE family time. I VALUE my kids. I VALUE my good health. Things I hold dear I value. Things that are important to me I value. And things that exceed my expectations I value.

I value (or at least my wife does) buying toilet paper for less than she would normally expect. And when that happens she enjoys the VALUE of it. I would think you would feel the same way. That nearly everyone would. And I contend, that when the product is ‘magic’ or ‘experience’ instead of a commodity there’s really no difference. I think you’re hung up on the following concept: I have many problems with Pop Century and the All Stars, problems aesthetic and philosophical, but their classification as "value" resorts I find dead-on.NO!! I don’t agree at all. I find NOTHING of value there. Nothing I would hold dear. Nothing that exceeds my expectations. That is a word Disney coined to trick the masses! There is no value there and they are not ‘VALUE’ resorts. They are CHEAP resorts! Period!! Does that help solve your problem with the word ‘value’?.

I'm resigned to price increases, even larger than inflation, as inevitable in the pursuit of high quality.I suppose I could agree if (no wait that if ain’t nearly big enough) IF (there. That’s better) there was even a hint of that high quality pursuit you mentioned. But there isn’t!! They were pursuing bigger paychecks only. and that really pis.... ah... well.... bothers me!!!

If someone created, today, a park that captured the essence of 1971 WDW, executed with today's superior media and technologies, I for one would save whatever it took to get there Ditto!

Aside: I really have no idea how "family affordable" WDW was in the early days... I was six in the summer of '72 and didn't have to concern myself with such things. I just know what that kind of quality would be worth to me, now.Answering the aside: A room in the Poly cost 32 or 33 bucks a night! Not bad. YoHo did the math and found that the cost today would be right around the Mods (a little less if I recall right, but I'm sure Mr. Kidds will correct me if I'm wrong)! (Hmmm, kind of like the ole LandBaron’s been a- sayin’ for nigh on to two years now, I reckon!!)


Come on! Keep them cards and letters coming, gang!! Where do YOU draw the line!!!???

DisneyKidds
10-02-2002, 01:26 AM
DVC LandBaron, it is nice to meet you :). My name is Mr. Kidds ;). You may not know me but I have recently seem a number of your posts. It appears that we both, along with so many others who frequent this wonderful board, share quite a love for Disney. While I can't profess to agree with all of your positions, it appears that you have spent a great deal of time exploring your feelings for something that is important to us all. Sometimes tough love is the best kind of all, and the only kind that will work. I can respect that. You appear to possess a great deal of knowledge regarding not only WDW, but Walt and many other things Disney. I hope we can take the opportunity to learn from one another's perspectives.

How's that for a fresh start? Honestly, I mean it.

I find your position essay quite fair, honest, and thought provoking. A very good job of conveying your beliefs and feelings, and relating them to the resorts of the World that we all love. I actually agree with an awful lot of it. Your question is a tough one, one that requires quite a bit of thought. I like those kinds of questions :cool:. I can't say we won't go more than a few pages on some of what we are bound to discuss, but I will endeavor to make it, for the most part, new.

Now, there are a few things we could jump into from the get go, like the commoditizing of Disney, the present day value of Disney resorts, and.....well, we'll get there later, but first and foremost your question must be answered.

There is just one thing to clear up before I do that, and you know on what - you even knew I would correct you. Adequate, relevant math has not been performed on the present day price of Disney resorts relative to 1971 prices. Rough math, yes. However, it did not use indicies which are applicable to the subject at hand. Granted, rack rate today is beyond what an appropriately inflated 1971 price would be. However, the actual prices that I have been quoted for various times of the year for Disney resorts are not that far out of line with an appropriately inflated 1971 price. My research has shown that the rate of lodging inflation has outpaced the CPI. We can debate the specifics, and you can state that it is a self fulfilling prophecy, but is is very likely that an appropriately inflated 1971 Poly rate would be two bills, give or take - pretty much what I have been quoted for the Poly over the past two years. However, this is nothing I haven't said before, so in repeating this I have already said too much. If we could possibly identify the prices for rooms at the Poly for every year since 1971 I think it could make a fascinating case study. I anyone has any leads let me know. With that out of the way I hope to move into new territory.
At what point does a Disney Resort stop being Disney? How far from the Standards (not only the original or my standards but any standards) do we have to go before it is no longer a "Disney Experience"? Is there a cut off? Is there a point that a far worse CEO could go when the "experience" ceases to be Disney? Or does having the same zip code suffice? And how would you objectively or even subjectively draw that line?
In my completely subjective opinion, Disney Resorts stop being Disney when they no longer provide the WDW going public with more than what they want. An important qualification - if you want a deluxe resort, you should get more than what you want in a deluxe resort. If you want a moderate resort you should get more than what you want in a moderate resort, if you want a value resort.......However, if you want a deluxe resort, you can't evaluate a moderate resort against what it is you want in a deluxe resort. Now, none of this provides justification for dumbing-down the experience, as you like to say (boy, I hate that expression), just because someone might want one of those tube type accomodations that you can find in Japan (hey, that would be an exotic theme - but I digress) or like to stay in a roach motel (hmmm...audioanimatronic roaches anyone?). While providing people with more than what they want, there still has to be the Magical ability to put the guest in a place removed from the everyday cares of the real world. While providing people with more than what they want, Disney must also provide an expeience that is unique and, with successive resorts, is unlike anything that can be found in another theme park based destination resort. While providing people with more than what they want, Disney must provide an experience that is capable of inspiring awe in the eyes of the guest. The range of human emotion, of human opinion, of human preference, is simply too large to draw a line in the sand and say that only something at this level or that level can be Disney if it does not provide the public the diversity they crave. Sure you can say that Walt gave people something they didn't even know they wanted. However, that can only be taken so far. In some things, like resorts, even those things that people didn't even know they wanted have to be attainable. Sure, you can say that if a certain standard was established when the Disney folks first contemplated a Disney resort that that particular standard should be unflinching. However, Disney theme parks were created for people to enjoy. I realize that all the people will never be able to enjoy them. I am not naive. However, is it unreasonable to think that the Disney theme park and resort experience can be made available to more of the people? If that can be done while still 'wow'ing the guest, providing the guest with a unique experience that gives them more than what they anticipated it would be, and exceeding expectaions it most certainly can be Disney. So maybe people want less if it makes it affordable. So they might have lesser expectaions for room size and amenities. Does this 'dumb-down' the experience? No - people aren't stupid. Anyone who stays at a moderate resort knows that it isn't going to be the same as a deluxe resort - but that is ok so long as those things that I mentioned above are realized. So how 'low' can you go? How much 'less' can a resort be than the 1971 Poly. Well, I really don't know. With the AS we are at Motel 6 level accomodations. What I do know is that, so long as the things I mentioned above are accomplished, anything is possible. I, in my subjective opinion, think that the AS does some, but not all, of what I mention above. As such, in my subjective opinion, they fall a bit short. However, they didn't have to. Change a few things and, smaller, boxy rooms and all, it could be Disney in my eyes. But therein lies the pitfall of subjective definition of Disney resorts - something you, Baron, have been lamenting during our lengthy discussions, but something that is truely unavaoidable.

So, what are the biggest challenges to my view of what a Disney resort can be? Well, it is the fact that everyone views things differently. While I have stayed at just about every Disney resort, I still walk around POR or CSR in awe. Sure, I may be in awe of different things than I would be walking around the Poly, but that is OK. Someone else might walk around CSR and do nothing but yawn. Someone else might walk around the AS in awe while I don't. Expectaions are another problem. As with anything in life, improperly set expectations will ruin anything. If you go to any moderate resort expecting to have a great time that expectaion will be exceeded. If you go expecting to get great service that expectaion will be exceeded. If you go expecting CSR to be the equivalent of the Poly you are sure to be disappointed. Circumstances can create big problems as well. For someone who seeks to go to a moderate resort for reasons of spending a little less, if they go and have no preconcieved notions, if they go willing and able to accept and be immersed in the experience, they are going to be 'wow'ed. On the other hand, if someone is forced to go to a moderate because they can no longer afford what they truely want, a deluxe, there are bound to be problems. Unfortunately, not everything in the world/World can be all things to all people. However, an attempt to make it more things to more people is certainly fair game. With that, the guest experience should not take a back seat to margin. Some feel that is all that happened when resorts strayed from the Poly formula, but I don't know that I agree with that.

Well, I think I have rambled enough for now. As difficult as the question is, I'm sure I'll refine my thoughts, out of personal desire as well as out of necessity, as the discussion progresses.

ps - LB, check you PM.

Walt's Frozen Head
10-02-2002, 08:38 AM
There is no value there and they are not ‘VALUE’ resorts. They are CHEAP resorts! Period!! ;)

I know, big fella... equating the modern consumer connotation of "value" with "cheap" was precisely what I intended to do... I largely agree with what you said, that riff was just a semantic tangent concerning a term that is so regularly used to mean only "cheap" that I find it impotent to describe its original denotation.

Occasionally my fascination with the fancy tricks our language can play (or my disgust with the vulgar things it can twisted into) obfuscates my intended message. Just ask any of the old school Car #1 folks...

That's my gift... agreeing with people so verbosely I appear contrary.

-WFH

DisneyKidds
10-02-2002, 10:10 AM
there is a barely noticeable, yet very important, transition from the Florida Department of Highways to Walt Disney World. The grass gets a little greener, the road a little smoother and the view much more controlled.

Scoop - I toyed with throwing this out there as well. I thought about it primarily when reading WFH's subjective line on the beach and how the Seven Seas/Bay Lake and Crescent Lake resorts make his Disney list due to the "isolated vacation world" aspect they present for him.

For us, a resort doesn't have to be a walk, monorail or boat ride away to be part of what we view as the "isolated vacation world". That is a direct result of what I would say is the not very subtle, and very noticible, transition you make once you set wheel on Disney property. Nothing says we have arrived at WDW more than that Magical change that happens once you hit property, and that starts on the roads - the very first thing that hits you squarely on the jaw. So, the fact that you might have to drive to a resort has never bothered us. We rather enjoy being out and about on property. It actually adds to our experience. For those who are the type to compare and contrast, the transition you speak of only reienforces that you have entered another world, an "isolated vacation world" that is very different from the real world. That doesn't necessarily have direct relation to the resort question, but it can explain how one could view "lesser" transportation options as not being a deal breaker.

montessori
10-02-2002, 02:41 PM
I find this thread very informative and entertaining!
I have some strong opinions about "all things Disney", although they may not be quite as defined as the ones expressed so far. I won't attempt to put my 2 cents worth in though, I feel like I'd be writing an essay for final exams in college...and I'd probably get a "D"! http://www.smilies-world.de/Smilies/Smilies_klein_1/awink.gif

I appreciate the time and effort you all put into writing your posts.

Thanks!

Another Voice
10-02-2002, 04:17 PM
I stand in the plaza between the two parks in Anaheim.

On one side I can see the ghost of Walt running out to me. “You got see this, this is really amazing! We thought of this idea and we’re all really excited about it. You like pirate movies? Me too! Well we made one, kinda, but this time you’re in it! It’s something I always wanted to do, you know, like be in the middle of a pirate battle! Com’on, there isn’t an adult around here that didn’t want to be a pirate as a kid! And come back next year kid – you want to see what a haunted house looks like inside?!! We’re wasting time; this is going to be fun! Come ON!”

On the other side I see the flickering video image of Eisner. “You want to see the place kid, that’s fifty bucks. Hey, we got a roller coaster. Our marketing department said people like roller coasters, so we bought ourselves a roller coaster. Man, let me tell you, those were some tough negotiations to get the price down. It’s lunch time, you can eat at our Wolfgang Pucks. But think it’s like the one down at the mall – this is an upscale Pucks. Hey, quality costs. Com’on kid, hand over the money. There might be other people behind you wanting to get in. Move it, I ain’t got all day.”


Disney stopped being Disney when its soul switched from creation to commerce.

Bstanley
10-02-2002, 04:49 PM
Great word pictures AV.

Reminds me of the 'Old' Las Vegas compared to the 'New' Las Vegas. I've been going to conventions in Las Vegas for more years than I'm willing to admit and have seen the remaking year by year.

The Old Las Vegas was strictly for 'Guys and Dolls'. It was tacky, rude, raw, and direct. It was basically a mugging - you walked into a linoleum floored, garishly lit area and they took your money away without so much as a bye your leave...wham, bam, thank you - get out.

The New Las Vegas is now like an expert pick-pocketing. You've got extraordinarily themed areas to hold your attention and quiet entertainments with ever so pleasant people that assist you - and all the while they are gently separating you from your money with such skill that when they're done you actually look forward to the next time! LOL!

Disney WITHOUT the show will not be able to make the money needed to maintain themselves.

The irony is that Disney WITH the show can make great piles of money - much more than they do now...

scooby-the-doo
10-02-2002, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by Another Voice
Disney stopped being Disney when its soul switched from creation to commerce.

But it was always about commerce. MK was only built to finance Progress City.

DVC-Landbaron
10-02-2002, 07:20 PM
scooby-the-doo,

But it was always about commerce. MK was only built to finance Progress City.Was this tongue in cheek or can you really not see what AV was talking about?

BRERALEX
10-02-2002, 07:42 PM
back to that disney magazine article lolol

to me if the resort was done right done disney, they wouldnt have to try to sell it to us and justify what was put into it. i just read and see the insecurity in that article, whereas if it was truly disney and done in a walt type standard they wouldnt have to sell it to me.

Id be sold on it.

id know it was done right id know it was disney. disney of old. not disney of 'how much did we save on this resort' instead of the disney i knew which was 'no doubt everything possible has been done to make this experience unforgettable. no where else in America can you come and get an experience close to this' Not an experience "like" this but an experience here that nowhere else on the planet can come close to.

It's stops being disney to me everytime i go lately!!!!!!

hopemax
10-02-2002, 09:30 PM
The New Las Vegas is now like an expert pick-pocketing. You've got extraordinarily themed areas to hold your attention and quiet entertainments with ever so pleasant people that assist you - and all the while they are gently separating you from your money with such skill that when they're done you actually look forward to the next time! LOL!



I've compared the old Disney too a gigelo. He may not be interested in anything more than your wallet, but he understands the best way to get the money is to wine you, dine you and whisper sweet nothings in your ear.

I compare the new Disney to a junkie. The need for the next fix is growing stronger by the day. And they're being more and more brazen in their attempts to get the score.

HorizonsFan
10-02-2002, 10:58 PM
OK, here goes...
What makes Disney resort for me is not berms, pillowcases, butter, ashtrays, palm trees, beds, color TV's or (insert amenity/feature/perk here). All those things make the resort a fine hotel, but don't make it Disney.
What makes a Disney resort for me is being in the middle of WDW, in a place that is commited to a theme and excellent service. I know when I step out of my door(whether that be into an interior corridor or an outside walkway) I'll be:
1.) very close to a WDW park
2.) surrounded by a theme (whether that theme is appropriate or not is another debate!)
3.) surrounded by Cast Members who are commited to making my stay special
4.) safe, and
5.) very well entertained.
These things combine to make my experience "magical".
That "magical" experience is not available anywhere else. It is a commodity found only at a Disney resort. This commodity, like any other has a price. The more rare a commodity, the higher the price. The price of rare commodities does not follow the cost of living index. The price of rare commodities is based on what someone is willing to pay. I'm willing to pay...
When outside forces, be they cost-cutting measures, shoddy upkeep or rude CM's begin to intrude on the things that make Disney resorts a rare commodity for me, I will feel that the "Disney" is slipping away. The resort will have slipped back into the realm of the ordinary and will lose it's rarity. At that point I won't be willing to pay.
I know some of you have reached that point already; I haven't.
I hope I never do...

Planogirl
10-03-2002, 12:33 AM
A lot of folks here feel like Disney being Disney involves being immersed in the magic and not having to deal with the day to day hassles of the real world. Well, Disneyland is smack dab in the middle of the real world. Everything is right there just outside the gate and there's no real feeling of immersion. And yet the Disney magic is strong there. Maybe it's not as strong as it once was, I didn't see it before but it feels good to be there. It feels "right".

So, if that is the case and I'm not delusional, how does Disneyland still manage to be Disney?

DisneyKidds
10-03-2002, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by Planogirl
A lot of folks here feel like Disney being Disney involves being immersed in the magic and not having to deal with the day to day hassles of the real world. Well, Disneyland is smack dab in the middle of the real world. Everything is right there just outside the gate and there's no real feeling of immersion. And yet the Disney magic is strong there. Maybe it's not as strong as it once was, I didn't see it before but it feels good to be there. It feels "right".

So, if that is the case and I'm not delusional, how does Disneyland still manage to be Disney?
Good question. I believe that it represents an entirely different discussion from this one.

First off, this discussion was started out in relation to Disney Resorts. While there are now Disneyland Resorts, it didn't start out that way. Resorts were not a part of the original DL plan. Therefore, it becomes very difficult to determine what respresents Disney by way of resorts at DL. Can the DL resorts even be compared to the WDW resorts?

Secondly, WDW is much more of a complex interaction of theme parks, resorts, water parks, and other entertainment (granted, the water parks and other entertainment weren't in the Master Plan) than is DL. The intent of DL was to create a theme park, better than anything that existed in the day, that families could enjoy together. Dare I say it? Perhaps Walt was short sighted in that goal. He didn't envision the extent to which the surrounding environment would effect DL. DL didn't start off as a place that would provide escape and buffer from the 'real world'. Enter the Florida Project. A chance to correct the mistakes and shortcomings of DL, particularly with respect to the surrounding environment. Walt purchased enough land so that he could create his Magic, at first with a theme park that was very much the same as DL (Walt's only true, willing sequel?), and keep it safe and protected from encroachment by the outside world. WDW was designed to be more of an escape, as a place to be 'protected' from the outside world, a place where outside influences could not effect the Magic, whereas DL wasn't.

In comparing the Magic of DL, I would say you have to go to more of a micro level at WDW. The Magic of DL would be better compared to the Magic of the MK. What makes DL Magic, and what makes MK Magic is the better question. Both of these parks involve fantasy, but it is similar fantasy within the theme park. Yes, when you are in either theme park you have an escape from the real world. However, at DL that escape ends when the park closes. At WDW that escape lasts as long as you are on property, be it at a theme park, a resort, you name it. You could put DL or the MK anywhere on the planet, and the Magic would not change. Once you go thru the turnstiles you are isolated in the Magic of a theme park. WDW is a much more complex beast whose Magic depends on quite a few factors outside of the theme park, and the WDW escape many talk about was intended to be one of those factors, a factor which is not nearly as important for DL.

Does that make any sense? :crazy:

Walt's Frozen Head
10-03-2002, 10:04 AM
So, if that is the case and I'm not delusional, how does Disneyland still manage to be Disney? I suggest that Disney World had a different purpose than Disneyland, that they were inherently different products, and therefore, the determination of "how Disney" they are must be determined along different scales.

To my mind, the "immersive, isolated vacation world" concept was the one and only reason they bought all that land in Florida, in the first place.

They already knew they could build a successful "theme park in a population center," and Disneyland exhibited all the detail and story focus that we have come to associate with Disney to that particular product.

Disney World was to be something else, entirely.

I believe the "immersive, isolated vacation world" concept was the heart and soul and skeleton of what Disney World was intended to be, and that the attention to detail and storytelling and show were simply the tools Disney used to approach any project.

I feel that during Eisner's leadership, Disney forgot what Disney World was supposed to be. I also feel that during the same period, Disney eschewed more and more the tools of detail and storytelling and show, across all of their products.

When it came time to respond to Landbaron's question, I considered those two main aspects of Disney World's decline, and felt that the "immersive, isolated vacation world" criteria was the one that could be measured most objectively, simply by noting transportation options. The more subjective part would be our judgements of how well the company used the "detail and storytelling and show" as tools.

-WFH

PS: It was only very recently, with DCA, that Disney appeared to forget what Disneyland was supposed to be. But I'm not confident that the use of detail and storytelling and show have been maintained any better in DL than in WDW.

DisneyKidds
10-03-2002, 10:52 AM
Mr. Head, sir...............
I believe the "immersive, isolated vacation world" concept was the heart and soul and skeleton of what Disney World was intended to be
Very much agreed :)!!!
I feel that during Eisner's leadership, Disney forgot what Disney World was supposed to be
Just so I am clear on your thought process (which I am not attacking or disagr.........ok, maybe I would disagree with it in some respects ;)), can you clarify this for me.

It seems as though you are saying (with respect to resorts? WDW in general?) that the fact that transportation to/from the 'mods' and 'cheaps' (or anywhere else not on a monorail?) involves vehicles, that the "isolated vacation world" has been invaded by the 'real world', and the outside world has encroached?

If so, would all parks have to be connected to any and all resorts by monorail or some other 'Disneyfied' transportation? I would assume buses don't cut the mustard, which I would agree with. Your line stands at the Seven Seas/Bay Lake and Crescent Lake resorts. However, these resorts are not connected to all theme parks and/or entertainment venues via monorail. Is that a problem in your eyes? Should they be? Should there be less entertainment venues?

Just a few friendly questions :).

Planogirl
10-03-2002, 02:31 PM
First off, this discussion was started out in relation to Disney Resorts. While there are now Disneyland Resorts, it didn't start out that way. Resorts were not a part of the original DL plan. Therefore, it becomes very difficult to determine what respresents Disney by way of resorts at DL. Can the DL resorts even be compared to the WDW resorts?

This comment interests me a lot. I realize that the Disney resort was the focus of this thread and I guess that I should have done a better job of clarifying what I meant.

When I say Disneyland I am referring to the overall package in existence in Anaheim. I am referring to the original Disneyland park, the three resort hotels, Downtown Disney and yes, even that stepchild DCA. DCA is the biggest problem. It's clearly a Disney park with many pleasing aspects but the lack of attention to detail and more importantly, the lack of attractions has made this one a problem. Also, many people don't believe that Downtown Disney at WDW is representative of Disney much less the more cluttered version at Disneyland.

So setting those aside that still leaves the original theme park and the three resort hotels. We did not stay in the Disney hotels but we explored two of the three just as we would at WDW. The Disneyland Hotel was nice but it didn't give me a modern, "ooh, this is Disney" feeling. It's very hard to explain. :rolleyes: However, I would match up the Grand Californian to ANY WDW resort. This is truly an outstanding resort done up as only Disney can. Of course this is all subjective. :p

I believe the "immersive, isolated vacation world" concept was the heart and soul and skeleton of what Disney World was intended to be, and that the attention to detail and storytelling and show were simply the tools Disney used to approach any project.

That may be so. But (there's always one of those "buts") what of other isolated resorts? What comes to mind are the vacation spas that seem so prevalent in the west or the lovely self-contained tropical resorts in the south seas. Or even the resort that Stephen King based his novel The Shining in. You can't get much more isolated and self-contained than that! :eek:

With these in mind, would you say then that the WDW resort experience would be a combination of the immersion in the Disney "world" and the theming which only Disney does so well?

grinningghost
10-03-2002, 03:12 PM
Disney stops being Disney when everything that involved Walt Disney and Roy Disney, Sr. is forgotten. Sometimes I worry about that.

Walt's Frozen Head
10-03-2002, 07:41 PM
With these in mind, would you say then that the WDW resort experience would be a combination of the immersion in the Disney "world" and the theming which only Disney does so well? I might say that, depending on precisely what question I was responding to.

Aside: I gave up the "don't end a sentence with a preposition" rule the minute I first read Churchill's quote about "the sort of foolishness up with which I will not put."

One reason I might _not_ say that springs to mind from your use of present tense, two possible meanings of the singular "resort," and this passage:But (there's always one of those "buts") what of other isolated resorts? From what I've seen, there's no "but" about it, there are resorts that beat Disney resorts at their own game, hands down. They just don't have park proximity.

I don't think there ever was such a thing as "theming which only Disney does so well." The special part was that Walt was the only one who took the trouble to actually do it that way.

Walt's been dead a long time, and his company hasn't taken the trouble to do it that way for an unfortunately long chunk of that time.

And Disney doesn't have a patent on "taking the trouble to actually do it that way." That's just a tool, for use on any possible project, by those willing to hone their skills at its use.It seems as though you are saying (with respect to resorts? WDW in general?) that the fact that transportation to/from the 'mods' and 'cheaps' (or anywhere else not on a monorail?) involves vehicles, that the "isolated vacation world" has been invaded by the 'real world', and the outside world has encroached? It's mostly just those damnable busses.

Standing by the road waiting for a bus means school or work to me... drudgery and the normal everyday routine. Standing on the dock waiting for launch at Wilderness Lodge is none of those things.

I love the launches, the bigger Friendships are fine, light rail would be fine... assuming it was in character for where it was used. A Conservation Station type train from AKL to AK, for instance.

I just don't want to see the same trains as MARTA and BART and the Metro, with mouse ears added to the platform warning lights. That's ordinary, common. Not Magic.

I always expected there would be a larger scale version of the WEDway zipping folks all over property. That's another aspect of classic Disney a lot of people underestimate, and that current management has forgotten: technical innovation. If you need mass transit that the masses don't already use every non-Magical day of their lives, you might have to come up with it yourself.

-WFH

DVC-Landbaron
10-04-2002, 01:02 AM
... WDW is much more of a complex interaction of theme parks, resorts, water parks, and other entertainment (granted, the water parks and other entertainment weren't in the Master Plan)... Well.... Not quite! I know you’re surprised, but the plan did indeed call for some very specific things. Things I’ve mentioned (harped on?) before and we don’t need to go there. But I really believe, especially given the direction they were trying to go when they built the Golf Resort and the Marketplace, that a VERY wide variety of entertainment venues would have been, not only conceptualized, but DEMANDED by the old “Walt” philosophy, if not the master plan itself!!

I feel that during Eisner's leadership, Disney forgot what Disney World was supposed to be. I also feel that during the same period, Disney eschewed more and more the tools of detail and storytelling and show, across all of their products. WOW!! The Head man strikes again!! I think this very thought is always in the back of my mind when I look at the ‘newer’ offerings from Disney. And it may very well be that I am jaded and nothing more than an old guy living in the past. But it often occurs to me that if they were designing the Poly today, all the subtlety would be gone and in it’s place would be gigantic fiberglass palm trees (in semi primary colors) so that no one could ever miss the fact that it was a south seas theme!

I can really think of only one good analogy for this very subjective feeling I have for this subject. I think of a Walt produced ride, theme park, resort, etc. as a well made, thought out, finely crafted motion picture. One that deals with nuance. One that handles characters with delicate subtlety. The story flows, the pacing is natural and the story leads the plot. On the other hand, I think of a Disney ® “something” as a made for TV movie. Where pandering to the lowest common denominator is the rule. Where subtlety is ignored and replaced with a giant hammer with which the viewer gets hit over the head, driving the message of the movie home. And one that has the story and characters twist and turn in ridiculous ways in order to serve the convoluted or tear-jerking plot. It’s hard to cite examples. They both use film. They are both professional. But the differences, although vast, are very hard to describe and/or defend, yet almost impossible not to notice. Very subjective. Yes. Yes it is. Yet, very objective (to anyone with a discerning eye) at the same time.

Aside: I gave up the "don't end a sentence with a preposition" rule the minute I first read Churchill's quote about "the sort of foolishness up with which I will not put."I agree!! It’s way to hard to keep up with. Who would want to? :crazy:

Captain Crook
10-04-2002, 08:19 AM
And it may very well be that I am jaded and nothing more than an old guy living in the past.
Not so old, but the rest...
But it often occurs to me that the subtlety would be gone and in its place would be gigantic fiberglass palm trees (in semi-primary colors) so that no one could ever miss the fact that it was a south seas theme!
Wow...You've conveniently forgotton about the Animal Kingdom Lodge...Again...How is it that they (the current Disney) so painstakingly recreated a lodge on an African Savannah, complete with authentic art & furnishings to a perfect African Landscape yet you have no faith that a simple faux Polynesian theme today would somehow be 'mucked-up'? Perhaps you're seeing through those 'Walt Disney' rose colored glasses again??? I thought Scoop warned you about those?
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

Sarangel
10-04-2002, 10:07 AM
It was Planogirl's question that made me realize that I wanted to speak to this point:Well, Disneyland is smack dab in the middle of the real world. Everything is right there just outside the gate and there's no real feeling of immersion. And yet the Disney magic is strong there. Maybe it's not as strong as it once was, I didn't see it before but it feels good to be there. It feels "right".

So, if that is the case and I'm not delusional, how does Disneyland still manage to be Disney?Being one of those who frequent both coasts in the quest of the perfect Disney experience, I will submit that the Disney experience is not just the rides, the buildings, or even (hang on to your hat Landbaron) the show. These are important factors, but, for me, it is something about how people interact with each other while at a Disney property. I believe that these actions are inspired by the cast members, but it comes down to the fact that people are more likely to be nice to each other for no reason while on a Disney property. We've had total strangers befriend us & buy us lunch, and then turned around and done the same for someone else; Children are given things just because it would make them happy; Guests more familiar with the park/resort/parking structure will happily stop and offer to give directions to someone who looks lost. These are things that, unfortunately, don't often happen in the 'real' world.

I know that I will be rebutted with a thousand stories of the mom screaming at her kids, or the rude teenagers in line, or whatever. I will submit in return that these examples stand out more than they would elsewhere *because* people tend to go out of their way to be nice while at Disneyland, Disney World, or on the Cruise line.

To answer Planogirl's question, Disneyland just has a more obvious transition from the 'real' world to the Disney 'world' - it's more abrupt. And, yes, I have issues about how Eisner & co. have handled the additions, but it is my hope that, given time, these additions will grow to be a true part of the Disney experience.

Sarangel

Captain Crook
10-04-2002, 12:17 PM
I don't agree with you all that often Sara, but I am in 100% agreement with this post and having stayed at the GC this summer we felt totally ensconced in the Disney atmosphere DESPITE the fact that the greater LA area was lurking just beyond a berm or through the trees or whatever...
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

montessori
10-04-2002, 02:52 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sarangel
I will submit that the Disney experience is not just the rides, the buildings, or even (hang on to your hat Landbaron) the show. These are important factors, but, for me, it is something about how people interact with each other while at a Disney property.

I agree! There is something very special about the sense of comraderie and togetherness guests at Disney World share. It's like, "we're all here for the same reason...we share the same experiences and emotions...we aren't really THAT different...it's a small world after all!" http://216.40.241.68/contrib/blackeye/blabla.gif



We have stayed at Disney resorts 4 times since July. In June, we stayed at the Gaylord Palms. It is a gorgeous hotel, very luxurious with all the ammenities you could want. It was during that vacation that we decided that we would rather stay on Disney property, no matter how nice the off-site hotel is or how good the off-site deal is!
I guess it is the sense of being totally immersed in the Disney environment...being completely in vacation mode! When we were at Gaylord Palms. I felt that we had to "get going". I didn't feel like I was at Disney World until I was AT Disney World.
We've been to DW over 40 times in the past 20 years. We have seen alot of changes, some are disappointing, some are inevitable, and some are for the best!
I get a little worried about the future of the whole Disney corporate machine, especially while reading threads like this one. I can't tell who likes Disney and who hates Disney! Maybe you all like Disney but are skeptical of what is happening with it. That's all fine, everyone is entitled to their own opinions and you have obviously done your homework.
Disney World is not really magical. It's not perfect. It exists in the middle of the real world. It is owned and operated by human beings. Real people make the decisions that set it's course and ultimately define it's future. Regular people work there. It's not a fantasy world, but it comes mighty close!http://216.40.241.68/contrib/blackeye/blabla.gif


Each and every Disney vacation we take is more wonderful than the one before! My husband and I KNOW, without a doubt, that we will have a fantastic time at DW next week! We know we'll have a wonderful time there for the Food and Wine Festival too! We're positive we'll have a Happy Thanksgiving there and we are sure to have a very Merry Christmas there too!
I can't put into words WHY the Disney experience continues to exist for us, I am just content knowing that is does. I'll spend time in my happy little Disney bubble on the other forums, discussing really important things like where to find a good cup of coffee or how many drops should they have in Tower of Terror. I say ONE! :p

Oh! I have seen Pop Century and shudder at the memory! It is atrocious!:eek:
But I think I could be very happy living at The Boardwalk.;)

Well that's my 2 cents worth, thanks for listening!

DisneyKidds
10-04-2002, 03:31 PM
I'll spend time in my happy little Disney bubble on the other forums

Thanks for sharing montessori. Believe it or not, this is a happier little bubble than some of the grumps over here would have you believe ;) :crazy:.

DVC-Landbaron
10-05-2002, 01:00 AM
Wow...You've conveniently forgotten about the Animal Kingdom Lodge...Again
Peter, Peter, Peter! See, this is why I try to stay away from the subjective! So, not only do I have couch my posts with the obligatory subjective - objective, now I have to also add the common qualifiers such as “generally” and “it seems that virtually” and even the occasional “almost always”!!

Of course I didn’t forget AK! Nor did I ignore some of the other splendid things they occasionally do. But it does seem to me that they have gotten a bit gaudy lately (that HAT and wand are just two examples). I really do think that they would not be satisfied with the Contemporary. And instead of that beautiful mosaic they’d have a fifty foot replica of Flash Gordon’s rocketship circling above your head (complete with barber shears sound effects), just to be sure everyone knew this was supposed to be a futuristic joint!!
Perhaps you're seeing through those 'Walt Disney' rose colored glasses again???Yes! Something I thought I’d have to watch. Something I thought I’d have to keep in check on these boards. But it turns out there’s really no need for much soul searching or self examination. Not while you, Scoop and Mr. Kidds are on the loose!! You call me on it even when it isn’t there!!! ;)
Being one of those who frequent both coasts in the quest of the perfect Disney experience, I will submit that the Disney experience is not just the rides, the buildings, or even (hang on to your hat Landbaron) the show. These are important factors, but, for me, it is something about how people interact with each other while at a Disney property. I believe that these actions are inspired by the cast membersNo need to hang on to my hat even if I owned one, which I don’t (not a hat kind of guy). I too believe that it is inspired by the cast members. And that, in my opinion, is the biggest element of the SHOW and of the “Walt” philosophy. I don’t talk about it much because everyone seems to agree on this little bit (or big bit) of Disney magic!

montessori,

You seem to be new here. Let me welcome you and invite you back to join in on our little dialogues. You have such wonderful thoughts in such a short post. I hope you don’t mind if I take the time to address a few of your comments. And please don’t be put off by my ‘quotes’. I use the function as a vehicle to emulate a conversational tone. I mean no offense.
I get a little worried about the future of the whole Disney corporate machine, especially while reading threads like this one.So do I. I think threads like this tend to wash a bit of that blinding pixie dust from our eyes. And we wind up see things as they really are. And with this regime in place, that ain’t always pretty!!
I can't tell who likes Disney and who hates Disney!I’ve been here for over two years now, and I can tell you, unequivocally, that there is no one here that hates Disney. In fact, I can pretty much promise you that we here are among its biggest fans!
Maybe you all like Disney but are skeptical of what is happening with it.Ahhhh! You hit upon the central theme of these discussions. Many of us are VERY skeptical!! VERY skeptical indeed!! Ten years ago I watched in wonder as my father walked his ten year old granddaughter around the Magic Kingdom, late at night, pixie dust filling the air. They were both the same age in my eyes. Young and old at the same time. Communicating through nonverbal family fun! The bonds they formed that night would literally last a lifetime. I am VERY afraid I will not get the chance to do the same with my grandchildren!
That's all fine, everyone is entitled to their own opinions and you have obviously done your homework.Yes, this is one of the most “Disney” educated sites I’ve ever seen. And, as far as I can tell, the most cordial as well! It is truly a rare thread that gets locked. In fact, I really can’t remember the last time that happened.
Disney World is not really magical. It's not perfect. It exists in the middle of the real world. It is owned and operated by human beings.Whose job it is to create that elusive “magic”. Unfortunately, these real world human beings are very, very inept. They have squandered the gift that Walt left them and totally ignored his founding principles and philosophy. And I find that very infuriating and rather sad at the same time. :(

Don’t you?

Well that's my 2 cents worth, thanks for listening!You’re welcome!! And thanks for listening back!! :bounce:

montessori
10-05-2002, 08:02 AM
quote:
Whose job it is to create that elusive “magic”. Unfortunately, these real world human beings are very, very inept. They have squandered the gift that Walt left them and totally ignored his founding principles and philosophy. And I find that very infuriating and rather sad at the same time.

Don’t you?



Yes. http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/otn/sad/mecry.gif

Thanks for welcoming me, Disneykidds and Landbaron. I wasn't sure I wanted to get involved in this thread, I am not as verbose as some of you, and I thought maybe I would be getting in over my head. Maybe I am, but what's the worse that could happen?? People might disagree with me and I might learn a thing or two about Disney that I wish I didn't know. http://216.40.241.68/cwm/cwm/oh.gif
I don't think "Pop Century" was the sole inspiration for this thread but, I must say, that hotel represents the downslide of Disney to me. When I see it, and I see it alot, I get depressed! This is the first Disney hotel tourists see if they enter DW by way of the Osceola. I've seen other threads where people have argued that it is cool looking, some people actually like it! http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/contrib/duckman/stitch.gif
I find it hard to believe someone got paid to come up with the concept of this hotel. It looks like the projects in some inner city area, but painted bright colors with huge words and gadgets stuck all over it! "Wassup?" "Duh?" "Where's the beef?" These are questions that don't need to be asked on the side of a hotel for the whole world to see!!! I get upset just thinking about the architecture and design of this hotel, never mind that it sits unfinished, a glaring example of mismanagement and bad decision making.
I have never seen the other "value" resorts. Maybe they are just as garish but they seem to serve their purpose to many Disney tourists and we don't have to look at them if we don't want to. I'm not sure if the existing more affordable resorts are indeed "value" resorts or just plain "cheap" resorts. Lots of people love staying there, the price can be very reasonable and they are "on property". Guests at the value resorts are able to take advantage of Disney's transportation system! http://216.40.241.68/contrib/fk/mad.gif
There is no denying that something needs to be done about the bus system. We stopped taking buses around the property years ago. I think it was right after it took us an hour and a half to get from the Boardwalk to Downtown Disney.
I have only occasionally personally seen the decline in service from the CM's. I don't think the training is as extensive as it was and they don't know as much about "the world" as they did back in the day. I've only encountered ONE who was actually unpleasant to me though. Nonetheless, I do agree that the CM's are a vital and valuable aspect of the Disney experience and this issue should be addressed and corrected.
I don't know how to put quotes in the middle of my posts. http://216.40.249.192/mysmilies/cwm/cwm/erm.gif
I do worry that my daughter will not share the same wonderful experiences with her family (when she has one) that we have shared at DW over the years. As I said in my original post, we are still enjoying wonderful Disney vacations. We are basically really happy people though, we are there to have fun and that's what we do! http://216.40.241.68/contrib/sally/lol.gif
What I mean is, maybe a lot of it is what we carry in with us. I can intellectualize about the whole Disney thing all I want, and it depresses me! http://smilies.uniquehardware.co.uk/otn/sad/smily77.gif
BUT, when we arrive at The Boardwalk next week, we will feel happy and content. We will immerse ourselves in the Disney magic, for it does still exist and we're going to find it and enjoy it every chance we get! http://www.mansun-nl.com/smilies/dazzler.gif

Captain Crook
10-05-2002, 08:52 AM
From the side of right & common sense, I welcome you too, montessori. You seem to be tilting a little toward the 'evil side' but we don't hold that against anyone. Fun is fun and hardly anyone around here intentinally tries to hurt others.

Landbaron, how could anyone NOT CONCLUDE that you didn't think AKL was a gem when you specifically said that you doubted if current management would have the ability to build the Poly today? My point is that your assumption, whether generalized or specific, is still wrong. They just DID all of the things you were worried about (2 years ago) with the AKL...Perhaps their (management's) batting average isn't great, heck it may be in the .210 range but they still CAN get it right when necessary (glass half full).

montessori, I think you'll find that hardly anbody on this board will disagree with you about Pop Century...Except for me (even Mr. Kidds & Scoop bail on me regarding Pop). I think it's bright & basic and probably full of things that children & young famlies will find pretty cool. Do I find it that way? Well, no actually & I'm sure we'll never stay there but this board has a very high pomposity level and because of the vast amounts of Disney knowledge floating around it very often appears that this board is not only pompous but also can be arrogant, condescending, hoity-toity, rigid and mostly old school - Old school Disney, that is. Which means NO ONE will admit that something as cheesy as Pop Century might actually be good for some group that they don't recognize as valid (always because it just isn't "Disney")...And of course anyone who dares to support Pop, Dino-Rama or DCA will not be found posting here (although these people do exist in the real world).

Now, you mention the busses. This is a big issue around here although you seemed to have been put off by the biggest trasportation downful...getting to and from DD. We use WDW transportaion exclusively when we visit and it is just fine for us (I refuse to drive on a vacation - even if it's just a three day weekend). They do need to streamline & I'd hope for another monorail someday, but at current this seems to be one of the more minimal problems...

Lastly, my good friend Landbaron and I never disagree on the importance or quality of the CM's at Disney. For me they have always been and will continue to be an integral part of the SHOW. If their efficiency levels were to ever fall to Sea-World or Universal levels my support of Disney would be severly damaged. It should be noted also that LB now has a familial CM connection. A very fine CM & very nice person...

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

montessori
10-05-2002, 09:04 AM
From the side of right & common sense, I welcome you too, montessori. You seem to be tilting a little toward the 'evil side' but we don't hold that against anyone. Fun is fun and hardly anyone around here intentinally tries to hurt others.


I'm tilting towards the evil side?? I've never had this said about me before! Hmmmm http://216.40.249.192/mysmilies/contrib/dvv/sconf.gif

Thanks for the welcome.

http://www.fadzter.com/smilies/devil2.gif
(heehee!)

ohanafamily
10-05-2002, 10:04 AM
OK, I too will risk getting involved with this thread.

Please pardon the lack of quotes because I am not sure how to do it right, And I will not be offended if you correct my lack of knowledge; most of what I know in this topic is hearsay.

1) I was dismayed to find out about the subliminal messages in the parade. I find that very offensive and "Un-Disney". At least they weren’t trying to sell stuff.

2) I haven't been to DL since 1980, and I remember it quite fondly. It tears my heart apart to hear how they are letting it run down

3) It does sound like the Pop resort is not a place I would find Homelike or Comfortable for surroundings, but there is at least one demographic (probably one that would not have a representation on this board) that would find that hotel a "Happy Place"

4) I cannot believe all of the angst about Michael Eisner (ME). I understand that he came from an Animators Background, which is his passion, and explains why there have been so many animated films produced in the last several years. I also understand that he has been under a lot of pressure (by a Mr. Gold, and Roy Disney-The Nephew) to turn a profit. I also understand that he is one of highest paid, if not the highest paid, CEO’s in the country. I can see him telling his department heads to find ways to save money. I would hope he would not have the arrogance to say that “The Guests won’t care if we put off maintenance”. Also, there are a lot of things that are being discontinued and changed in ways that I don’t think are consistent with the visions of Walt. I will say a couple, but not go into too much detail because these things all have their own threads… but since I have a good rant going… The Disney Stores is a place for all things Disney, not just a glorified Kay-Bee Toys. Removing the Gallery Items from the High-End malls was a mistake (Please Quote me on it). Getting rid of the Magic Kingdom/Disney Club card was sheer arrogance, and risks destroying the magic for some of the most dedicated “Guests”.

5) One good story was that I got engaged at WDW- The Under The Sea Engagement. My wife will always treasure that memory, and I don’t think I will EVER be able to top it; Disney Magic at it’s best. Unfortunately, that department is now closed. This is a loss of magic for me.

6) My wife and I go to WDW a couple of times a year (DVC) and the place will always be magical to us; they will have to go far to destroy My pixie-dusted-rose-colored-Mickey Mouse-glasses.

7) I like Chester&Hester Dyno-rama

8) Back in April, I had the opportunity to go to the off-site Dr. (I bruised a couple of ribs at US-IOA) On the ride back the driver told me that “A While Back” a piece of the Monorail fell on a guest. WDW would not pay the Dr. Office visit fee. My answer was “Are they trying to get sued?” He answered me back that they have to have that as a general policy, otherwise they would wind up paying or scrapes, falls, and tummy aches as well. I personally think that with what they charge, they should take that responsibility.

9) While on the subject of the Monorail, a CM told that each section of track costs over 2 Million Dollars. It will be cost prohibitive to ever build another leg, let alone a new line.

10) I have had problems with the bus service too, but generally, it is workable (except going from resort to resort…)

This is enough for now, again, please feel free to correct me at will…..

montessori
10-05-2002, 11:21 AM
quote: Well, no actually & I'm sure we'll never stay there but this board has a very high pomposity level and because of the vast amounts of Disney knowledge floating around it very often appears that this board is not only pompous but also can be arrogant, condescending, hoity-toity, rigid and mostly old school - Old school Disney, that is.

Are you saying that the people who post on this thread DO possess the above negative attributes?
I don't think that having the opinion that a certain structure is unattractive makes one pompous and arrogant. Pop Century, in my opinion, is ugly and it is "in your face" ugly. It screams at you as you ride by it! To me, there is nothing aesthetically pleasing about the structure and there's nothing hoity-toity about that opinion.
I don't profess to have vast amounts of Disney knowledge, I just know what I like! Maybe I have come to expect a certain quality from Disney... an understated elegance...a sense of class and style, be it on a grand scale or on a budget.


quote: Which means NO ONE will admit that something as cheesy as Pop Century might actually be good for some group that they don't recognize as valid (always because it just isn't "Disney")

Excuse me? I don't understand that statement.

quote: And of course anyone who dares to support Pop, Dino-Rama or DCA will not be found posting here (although these people do exist in the real world).

I'm just a newbie here but I welcome anyone's opinion about Pop Century. Dino-rama is a ride, right? I didn't know it was controversial and I don't know what DCA is! If someone has seen Pop Century in person and would like to try to explain the appeal of it...well, to each his own. No one can convince me to like it and I can't convince anyone to dislike it. Hey, some people like the take-out pizza on the Boardwalk! It just goes to show ya, it takes all kinds. http://216.40.241.68/contrib/Bizkit/laugh.gif

quote:you seemed to have been put off by the biggest trasportation downful...getting to and from DD.

Actually, I think the very LAST time we took a bus it was from the Caribbean Beach Resort to Animal Kingdom and that took ONE HOUR. We don't mind driving around DW and we walk to Epcot and MGM from the Epcot resort area so the transportation issue is a moot one for me personally. I don't think many would disagree that there are some problems with the bus system.

quote:Lastly, my good friend Landbaron and I never disagree on the importance or quality of the CM's at Disney. For me they have always been and will continue to be an integral part of the SHOW.
Do you find that the quality of the Cm's is lessening? I have only encountered one less than professional CM that I can remember, although they don't have the extensive training and knowledge they had years ago. I feel they are undoubtedly an integral part of the whole Disney atmosphere and experience. I appreciate them and I'm generous in expressing my gratitude to them.



Disney has set it's own high standards over the years. Disney has multitudes of devoted fans but they can't just sit back and rest on their laurels. There is dissention among their biggest fans and it is not unreasonable. I continue to go to DW as often as I possible can, and I continue to hope and pray that the future of Disney will be as unique and magical as the past.

DVC-Landbaron
10-05-2002, 11:55 AM
Well!!! My oh my! So much to answer!! So little time! Let’s dive in!

First a little lesson for our new found friends montessori and ohanafamily.

A quote is very easy to produce. You need to copy the section that you want to quote and then surround as in this example:

{quote}LandBaron is right in everything he says, and Peter Pirate is ALWAYS wrong!! {/quote}

Now the above isn’t quite right otherwise it would have appeared as a regular quote and it wouldn’t have been much of a lesson! So you need to replace the upper case { with a lower case [ (just a normal bracket)! It’s that easy!! Have fun!! I do!! :bounce:

OK!! I’ll be back!

Captain Crook
10-05-2002, 12:12 PM
What I'm saying is that this board is (quite) a bit elitist (myself certainly included). The posters here are concerned with the past, Walt's legend, and keeping the status quo. I (along with Mr. Kidds & Scoop and a few others) occasionally stray from the rhetoric to point out that the real world (and the real world perception of) Disney is not the reality one would believe if living on this board.

You see Pop like all the others here do and myself to a point. I just happen to believe that it isn't seen that way by all people. There is a segment of the WDW population who will be thrilled by this Resort and its price and find their stay at WDW magical. I say this is not wrong, even though I personally don't want to stay under a 'Wassup' sign...You see it as a slip in quality, I'm not thrilled about it BUT if it fulfills a specific need for a particular group of WDW patrons, I'm not against it.

No one here on the Rumors Board will ever admit that something so outwardly cheesy as Pop could ever be good. It's kind of a paradox really, but even though Pop may not be something Walt or the old Disney would have built, it could be successful...My collegues here on this board could care less if it's successful because it's an affront to 'good taste'. My point is who appointed who the 'good taste' police? And if it succeeds how can Disney be criticized for building it...It's that simple.

You had a horrible transportaton experienice! If that happened to me more than once my opinion woul probably shift. But we visit WDW 8-10 times per year and this has never happened to us, therefre my feelings on the busses are that they fulfill the need...But I wish there was something better (I wish it a lot).

Regarding the CM's I don't think their quality has slipped in the least. We love trading pins with them and they are universally smiling & friendly and I wouldn't let one of the maybe 10% of sourpusses or folks having a bad day influnce my day...

Disney has set high standards over the years and hopefully these can be maintained, but they are subjective and everyone looks at each circumstance through a differnt light...
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

DVC-Landbaron
10-05-2002, 12:55 PM
I wasn't sure I wanted to get involved in this thread, I am not as verbose as some of you, and I thought maybe I would be getting in over my head.Ah! A feeling that all of us share. But we all bring something to the table!! Even if it’s only comic relief (I didn’t name names Peter)!! I feel over my head sometimes myself (but don’t tell Peter or Mr. Kidds, this is just between you and I)!! :crazy:
I've seen other threads where people have argued that it is cool looking, some people actually like it! Well, it’s all subjective. A matter of personal taste. And it takes all kinds to make up a world. So, with this thought in mind, we do take pains on this board (for the most part) to leave those subjective feelings alone. Sure we can state them, and often do, but it is very rare that a 10 page thread would be made up of nothing but personal opinions. Most of the time logic, philosophy and business enter the conversation and before you know it, we’ve got an interesting discussion going. Much more that a “Yes it is!!” - “No it isn’t!!” type thing! I enjoy it quite a bit!!
I have never seen the other "value" resorts. (to be read with as much surprise as possible) WHAT!!?? You’ve never seen the All-Stars!!! You need to take a drive there sometime. It’s a real eye opener!!

What I mean is, maybe a lot of it is what we carry in with us. I can intellectualize about the whole Disney thing all I want, and it depresses me!Ah! Welcome to my nightmare!! When I’m there I have a BALL!! However, in the light of the cold hard day, several weeks after the trip, I cannot help thinking about Disney in purely intellectual terms. And you’re right! It is very depressing. (As an aside, you’d be surprised how many people here can’t quite grasp that concept (hidden message to all if the shoe fits!! ;)))

Pet.... Ah! So it’s the Captain now (I just noticed!!)! OK!! On guard, my Captain!!
Landbaron, how could anyone NOT CONCLUDE that you didn't think AKL was a gem when you specifically said that you doubted if current management would have the ability to build the Poly todayCaptain! Why is it that when I want and expect you to read between the lines you don’t!? And when there is NOTHING between the lines but your own imagination, you see something nefarious there? I never said they COULDN’T do it! I was inferring that they generally WOULDN’T do it! Now, I realize it’s all a matter of taste, but honestly, I feel subjectively that Disney generally takes the colorful, iconish, garish, over-the-top, hit-you-over-the-head, easy type theme. They used to be, subjectively and generally, tastefully understated and subtle. They can still do it. But they choose not to (time for a qualifier) most of the time!! I can’t get any more plain than that! And it seems to me agree! Look at the next quote!!
Perhaps their (management's) batting average isn't great, heck it may be in the .210 range but they still CAN get it right when necessary (glass half full).Ah! Poor logic, poor math. I’m not surprised!! ;) A .210 batting average would not be half full!! The glass is less that a quarter full! Or, the way I see it, OVER 3 quarters empty!!
Lastly, my good friend Landbaron and I never disagree on the importance or quality of the CM's at Disney. For me they have always been and will continue to be an integral part of the SHOW.My Captain!! A great thought!! And I heartily agree!! (Hmmm. Now let’s see. 4 concepts from the Captain. 3 wrong. 1 right! HEY!!!! Your glass is only a quarter full too!!! No wonder you love the current Disney!! :jester: )
It should be noted also that LB now has a familial CM connection. A very fine CM & very nice person...
Thank you, my friend!!! :)



Ohanafamily welcome!!

Your post is going take a while. But I will get back to you. However, right now, the house is a disaster, the kids are running wild and my wife will be home in less than an hour!!! YIKES!!! I’ll be back later!!

ohanafamily
10-05-2002, 12:56 PM
Sorry, the subliminal image deal was in a different thread; here is the link if you are curious...

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=271632

montessori
10-05-2002, 01:29 PM
I still can't do the quote thing right!

quote: You seem to be tilting a little toward the 'evil side' but we don't hold that against anyone.
I'm still wondering about that.

I have to say that even Pop Century advocates would be hardpressed to say that the resort is done in "good taste." Subjective as it may be. People might say it's wild and whimsical, big and bold, fun and fanciful...but they can't say that it's done in good taste. There are certain connotations to the term "good taste", by anyone's standards, and there's no way Pop Century can be defined as such. Semantics maybe...but true.

Basically, we agree on most points. We don't think Pop Century is attractive, the Cm's are still wonderful, and the bus system needs improvement.

Landbaron...I have seen Pop Century, do I really have to see the All-Star resorts? http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/contrib/sarge/Yikes_anim.gif:p

Another Voice
10-05-2002, 02:11 PM
“…arrogant, condescending, hoity-toity, rigid and mostly old school…”

I hear someone calling me to join this discussion….

Let’s start with “And of course anyone who dares to support Pop, Dino-Rama or DCA will not be found posting here (although these people do exist in the real world).”

But isn’t it true that the public itself – that supposed unarrogant, uncondescending, non-hoity, unrigid and new school clamoring, low-pomposity majority - already spoken. Pop Century was so unpopular in pre-opening bookings that the project was shelved long before the current difficulties (rumors have it people would wait-list for the All Stars instead of taking a confirmed room at PC). Dino-Rama has done nothing to solve Animal Kingdom’s attendance and length of stay issues (and according to rumors, is now losing money on its carnival games). And California Adventure – let’s just say it’s very nice to have sixty unpopulated, wide-open acres smack in the heart of Orange County for the first time since Walt opened up that other park (the one that actually managed to attract a crowd).

Perhaps, Captain sir, the vast admission-paying public isn’t as enthralled with all the “open-minded” wonders as others are. Perhaps it’s time we reassess who is the “populist” who has the public’s interest in mind.

There’s a reason some of old fuddle-duddies cling to the “old school” evilness of the past: because those standards worked. People liked those projects. People paid money to see them. For all the excuses of new market segments, living in the real world, and getting with modern times – there has been a stunning lack of success. If the public was mobbing Animal Kingdom and proclaiming its new wonders as a triumph over the old and stale Magic Kingdom then I could see your point about us ancient windbags with our outdated ideals. But as it currently stands – by what criteria do you call us as being the unrealistic ones?

It’s not that we “could care less if it's successful because it's an affront to 'good taste'” – we believe the things we do because ‘good taste’ is the best way to achieve success.


P.S. – as a minion of the evil side, let me add my welcome to Montessori and ohanafamily.

ohanafamily
10-05-2002, 02:18 PM
WOW, we are a passionate group...

Thank you, and I really apreciate the warm (if not yet heated) welcome.

Further, Evil is a word I reserve for Scar; arguably the most evil of the Disney Villians..Killing your brother and telling Simba that Simba did it.

I would never apply it to anyone as passionate about All Things Disney as the posters on this forum.

I might also apply the word Evil to the persons, whoever they are, who seem to be making a concerted effort to destroy The Land That Walt Built. These are also the people who might put a mouse trap in front on MK!

BTW, I must correct myself, I loved the game Mousetrap as a kid, and I liked the ride at C&H Dynorama that emmulates it. That is all I remember of the DynoRama, and I guess it too is in poor taste considdering that a mouse runs the place...

montessori
10-05-2002, 02:24 PM
I didn't know that area was called Dino-rama. But I liked that ride too!

ohanafamily
10-05-2002, 02:28 PM
It is actually Chester & Hester's Dynorama (or something close to that) and I will have to look up the name of the ride.

ohanafamily
10-05-2002, 02:32 PM
montessori

My previous post went out before I finished it; you might find it interesting back on page 3.

(Aside
Also, is this Gold Sponsor thing worth it?)

RRBB
10-05-2002, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by ohanafamily
It is actually Chester & Hester's Dynorama (or something close to that) and I will have to look up the name of the ride. I think the ride you're refering to is Primeval Whirl. I just have to say, as much as it seems out of place and non-Disney to me, I still really like that ride. :smooth:

DVC-Landbaron
10-05-2002, 04:03 PM
OK, I too will risk getting involved with this thread.Good!! The more the merrier!!

I don’t know how much you really know about the current head mouse (head “rat” may be a better term though), but a lot of your item #4 is... well... ah... I don’t know how to put it nicely... Well, it’s WRONG!!!
I understand that he came from an Animators Background, which is his passion, and explains why there have been so many animated films produced in the last several years.Not even close!! Perhaps others can fill in the picture better than I, but he was certainly no animation buff!! There was a person named Jeffrey Katzenburg who was in charge of animation when Ei$ner took over. It was he that turned the animation division around. Later Ei$ner got rid of him unceremoniously (and it turned out to be a very expensive blunder from both the courts and from the loss of his guidance and talent. He later went on to be the driving force behind the movie Shrek!).
I also understand that he has been under a lot of pressure (by a Mr. Gold, and Roy Disney-The Nephew) to turn a profit.Well, everyone wants Disney to turn a profit. The question is how they go about it. Do they put out a product for which most people would willing pay big bucks? Or do they put out a cheap product, pandering to the lowest common denominator, ignoring what brought them to the dance in the first place? That is what these discussions are all about!!
I can see him telling his department heads to find ways to save money. I would hope he would not have the arrogance to say that “The Guests won’t care if we put off maintenance”.Yes!! One would hope. But, one would be wrong!!! :(

Hmmm. The rest of your item #4 seems to be pretty much in line with the way I think about those subjects!! In other words... VERY WELL WRITTEN!!! BRAVO!!!
6) My wife and I go to WDW a couple of times a year (DVC) and the place will always be magical to us; they will have to go far to destroy My pixie-dusted-rose-colored-Mickey Mouse-glasses.Same as me!! But I think they are farther down that road than many think. Again, while I’m there - I LOVE IT!!! But when I really get to studying the question, I can’t help but reach the conclusion that Disney is sinking!! Slowly, but very, very surely!!
7) I like Chester&Hester Dyno-ramaOn a subjective, gut-level feeling, I understand. As I always say, we all have our guilty pleasures. But looking at it from a philosophical point of view, trying to excise as much subjectivity out of the equation as possible, do you really think Dino-Rama is “Disney”? Does it fit in with the “Walt” concept of theme parks? Does it fit in with what the company’s philosophy is? I don’t think so at all. In fact, I think that it is the PERFECT example of what I would consider to be “Anti-Walt”. Or 180 degrees opposite of the Disney philosophy. And if, looking at from this point of view, you still feel it’s “Disney”, then we may be in for a ten pager!! And a very interesting conversation, to say the least! I can hardly wait!!!!! :bounce:

9) While on the subject of the Monorail, a CM told that each section of track costs over 2 Million Dollars. It will be cost prohibitive to ever build another leg, let alone a new line.I really have problems with that figure. We’ve discussed this before, but I can’t remember what the actual cost was. However, I’d like to point out the recent acquisition of FOX. What did that cost again? And how much monorail track could that have bought instead? The point is the parks are being used to finance a very poorly run company. Much to the detriment of the parks. Now, the entire company is poorly run. But Walt breathed so much life into his parks (via his philosophy) that it has taken this long for Ei$ner to decimate them. But that can’t keep up forever. More cuts, less capital expenditure and more deferred maintenance is a recipe for disaster. And that’s the road we’re on (don’t you just love a good mixed metaphor! :crazy: )

OnWithTheShow
10-05-2002, 04:28 PM
On the Dino-rama topic...

After much thought and meditation, including several hours sitting and observing people in Dino-rama I have decided that I actually like this "mini-land". The rides are both fun and the games are few and very non intrusive. The theming of the area is super (there are parking spaces painted on the ground). However there are a few things that I think could have been done better. The land does nothing to address the shade problem of AK, in fact Dino-rama is one of the most open areas of the park. I can't stand the fact that you can see primevel whirl from the entrance to Dinoland, Asia, and the parking lot. This in my opinion is unacceptable. The theming could be better on Primevel Whirl, however if you take the time to notice the subtle mockery of the scientific community and their field trips over at the dino institute it increases the humor of the ride. (Try to think about Dr. Seeker saying the same stuff he does on Dinosaur but on Primevel Whirl and see what I mean it fits perfectly! "Definitely not our dino!").

ohanafamily
10-05-2002, 07:18 PM
There was a person named Jeffrey Katzenburg
See what I get for not paying close enough attention to the PBS documentaries?

Or do they put out a cheap product, pandering to the lowest common denominator, ignoring what brought them to the dance in the first place? That is what these discussions are all about!!
I still can hope that somebody still cares, maybe a few CMs still do…

Hmmm. The rest of your item #4 seems to be pretty much in line with the way I think about those subjects!! In other words... VERY WELL WRITTEN!!! BRAVO!!!
I appreciate it, Thanks!

I can’t help but reach the conclusion that Disney is sinking!! Slowly, but very, very surely!!
It seems you are right, but the matter is beyond my control, so I choose to hope you are premature and it will turn around.

do you really think Dino-Rama is “Disney”?..... then we may be in for a ten pager!! And a very interesting conversation, to say the least! I can hardly wait!!!!!
OK, it is kind of not edutainment (remember that word?) but there are some Disney points to it. I also agree that it is a little too visible. (and I welcome 10 pagers)

The point is the parks are being used to finance a very poorly run company. Much to the detriment of the parks. Now, the entire company is poorly run. But Walt breathed so much life into his parks (via his philosophy) that it has taken this long for Ei$ner to decimate them. But that can’t keep up forever. More cuts, less capital expenditure and more deferred maintenance is a recipe for disaster. And that’s the road we’re on
Is it really that bad? :earseek:

BTW, I have a few addresses for your list, should I PM them to you

montessori
10-05-2002, 07:49 PM
I have to say that I liked the "twirl" ride, I only went on it once and I laughed the whole time, it seemed to catch me by surprise! But, I do not like the look of that whole Dino-Rama area. It really isn't Disney-esque, especially in the middle of Animal Kingdom. It just doesn't fit.
It's like that Aladdin ride in the middle of Adventureland. It simply doesn't belong.

ohanafamily
10-06-2002, 12:21 AM
I agree, it is fun, but a little "out-of-place" and "overly visible"

DisneyKidds
10-06-2002, 01:54 AM
Whew! Miss a night and look what happens :eek:. Welcome aboard ohanafamily :wave:. For you and montessori - a little explanation about this happy, somewhat insane crew - and the theme of good vs. evil ;). Don't be alarmed by reference of 'turning to the evil side' - nothing sinister there.

You see, some time ago people started carpooling over here. Look to the top of this particular board and you will see 'Carpools Defined'. A fun and interesting idea that helped to loosely group people by how they felt about the current condition of Disney. As time went on, these definitions seemed to polarize people. You have certain folk who feel that Disney is still Disney, the bright shiny silver spoon it always was. Then you have those who feel that Disney, despite a few mistakes and a little misguidance, is still Disney, although that bright shiny spoon has some spots of tarnish. Another group of folks believes that Disney is no longer Disney, with an ever so faint glimmer of hope for return, and the spoon is now an ugly black utensile - but one worthy of eating off of. Lastly there are those that feel Disney is gone and beyond repair and the spoon exists no longer. (As you hang around here you will see we like to use analogies ;) :crazy: ).

Somewhare in this whole mess a Star Wars thing happened. A Luke vs. Darth Vader thing. Those believing that Disney is still Disney hanging with Luke, and those who feel that Disney is no longer Disney hanging on the 'dark side' with the 'evil' Vader. It won't take long for you to figure out what color spoon most around here are eating with. If you find yourself agreeing with some who are using an ugly, black, completely tarnished spoon, others may feel you have strayed toward the 'evil' 'dark side'. You see - this 'evil' is all rather innocent.

Baron, oh Baron...........

Why must you always get carried away :confused:. Regarding Disney's ability to fashion a nicely themed, non-garish resort, you are completely wrong. You state that generally Disney has taken to producing garish resorts. That is a load of bull :p. The good Captain reminds you of AKL and you say you can recognize that one as good, but generally they are garish. How about the Wilderness Lodge - nothing garish there. How about Coronado Springs - nothing garish there. You see, the only resorst that can fit your garish descriptions would be Pop and the All Stars. So from that you deduct that, in general, all Ei$ner resort additions are garish? OK, so Pop and some of the AS are the more recent additions to the resort portfolio - but to make the blanket statement you make is just rediculous :crazy:. Apparently your brain is as tarnished as that spoon you are gobbling up Disney Magic with ;).

DVC-Landbaron
10-06-2002, 02:54 AM
Ah! Mr. Kidds, you did it again!! You’re getting as bad as the Pirate!! You inferred: Regarding Disney's ability to fashion a nicely themed, non-garish resort, you are completely wrong. You state that generally Disney has taken to producing garish resorts. Now, I’d like to now where you got such an outlandish idea!!?? It is true that I used the Poly and the Contemporary as examples, but I used others as well. Remember:Of course I didn’t forget AK! Nor did I ignore some of the other splendid things they occasionally do. But it does seem to me that they have gotten a bit gaudy lately (that HAT and wand are just two examples). The whole thing started off with a thought from Planogirl, way back on page one, when she said: One thing that always struck me was how truly simple the original Disney resorts were. They were comfortable and attractive and unpretentious. They had a reasonable amount of theming, many nice little Disney touches and a quiet atmosphere. A person could go to the parks and go wild for the day and then relax back at their resort. It got me to thinking about Disney themes in general. Specifically Aladdin and the whole Tomorrowland theme. And that led to the BAH and the Wand. Which in turn led to a feeling I have in Port Orleans that it’s somehow a little too... I don’t know the right word... Plastic perhaps? Maybe a little too bright and jolly? I don’t know, just a little... ah... too much, I suppose. All subjective and only one thought about the resorts. But I kept the concept to myself until the eminent and esteemed Mr. Head said: I feel that during Eisner's leadership, Disney forgot what Disney World was supposed to be. I also feel that during the same period, Disney eschewed more and more the tools of detail and storytelling and show, across all of their products. I replied with I think this very thought is always in the back of my mind when I look at the ‘newer’ offerings from Disney. I did NOT single out resorts and I thought I was being rather all inclusive. It’s been a major complaint of mine for quite some time. Primary colors and huge ICONS!! But at times it more subtle. But just as annoying!! And certainly NOT just the resorts!! In fact, the resorts are pretty nice, with the obvious exceptions, of course!! ;)

ohanafamily
10-06-2002, 10:41 AM
DisneyKidds

Question, who's the Wookie?

DisneyKidds
10-08-2002, 10:00 AM
Ohana, the wookie is..................... nah, wouldn't want to offend anyone ;)

Baron - fair enough, that your gaudy nature of recent offerings opinion is based on Disney as a whole, and not just resorts - not that I agree (surprise, surprise!!)

First off, I do agree with you on things like the wand, and I particularly dislike the MGM hat. I don't have big problems with the redone Tomorrowland (which was never a favorite land of ours) where what they achieved was not by accident. You may not like it, but the result was intended, not the product of being cheap and gaudy. Likewise with Aladdin (I assume you mean the ride in the MK). You may not like the placement, but the attraction itself doesn't say cheap and gaudy to me. Alas, that is all very subjective.

As for your comment on POR, and the Head's comment about eschewing detail, storytelling, and show - I have an example that kind of goes counter to both. Not that it isn't true to an extent in some things, but let's look at POR.

The POR atmosphere was created by design. I'm sure they wanted to play up the brighter aspects of the Mardi Gras experience, and not the back alleys of N'Orleans during the celebration - which I think we would all agree would not be very 'Disney'. The layout and design is a bit more conceptual than some of the other Disney resorts. You have to look at what the walks and buildings are intended to represent, rather than trying to see them as a recreation. For this reason, POR (French Qtr) is one of my least favorite 'moderate' resorts.

I ask you to consider this (likely little known fact). The framed photographs in the guest rooms at POR are real life photographs provided by the CM's that work there (or at least they used to be - not sure if it changed). Talk about a unique Disney 'touch'. An incredible way to make these resorts homey and comfortable. So simple, yet such an incredible detail - and very unpretentious. So, this is just one example (while some may not get the conceptual aspect of POR-FQ), that helps to show that POR very much keeps the traditions of the original resorts that Planogirl longs for. It also shows that POR may not be as plastic as you believe it is. It also shows that Disney did not eschew storytelling and detail in this resort.

I submit that more example like this exist in WDW than any of us will ever really know. Especially if all we do is sample the resorts, and see them through eyes that are closed to these wonderful details ;). Examples like this very simple one are what make Disney 'Disney' - and they are there, even in recent offerings.

Walt's Frozen Head
10-08-2002, 11:01 AM
It also shows that POR may not be as plastic as you believe it is. It also shows that Disney did not eschew storytelling and detail in this resort. Eh, I don't know.

I think we're hitting a discussion problem that just comes with the medium. In order to make points, there's a lot of reductionism going on. And while the reduced result might accurately represent one's answer to a particular question, that result is highly suspicious when applied elsewhere.

I think that POR is "less Disney" than, say, the Polynesian. That doesn't equate to "completely bereft of story-telling and detail," just that I don't believe POR scores as highly on all the varied aspects of the story-telling and detail measures as does the Polynesian.

Although POR does make some points on those scales (and I agree with the one you mention), the overall "theming" seems aimed somewhat lower than in the past (and of course, no sane reviewer could deem POR "plastic" had they driven past Pop Century on the way in).

Finally, I'm fairly certain the phrase "more and more" was reasonably confluent with "eschew." I'd intended to portray a trend towards less, not an abrupt cessation.

-WFH

PS: I realize that some will read this post and be tempted to explain the price difference between POR and the Polynesian or Pop Century. Personally, I see the very creation of the Moderates and the Values as milestones along Disney's trail o' eschewment. The moderate and value resorts are _examples_ of putting less Disney into the product, not reasons to forgive putting less Disney into the product.

DisneyKidds
10-08-2002, 01:24 PM
Finally, I'm fairly certain the phrase "more and more" was reasonably confluent with "eschew." I'd intended to portray a trend towards less, not an abrupt cessation.

Point well taken ;). I have even agreed with LB that a resort such as POR is "less" than the Poly. We don't need to rehash whether that is good, bad, or indifferent.

I guess I still feel that the attention to detail and quality still exists. At POR it may exist in an environment that is designed to be "less' in some ways. However, I don't feel (subjectively) that that "less" involves the attention to detail or experience, which is perhaps the biggest part about what Disney World was supposed to be.

Maybe it is like a trip to New York City. You could stay on Park Avenue in the 30's, or you could stay on Park Avenue in the 130's. Both are New York through and through, but they are very different experiences. Each of those experiences is rich in detail, but they are very different details. Many would view one as "less", but it all depends on how you look at it ;).

colleen costello
10-08-2002, 05:46 PM
I have read your posts with great interest. Also interesting are your comments regarding price -- that, with appropriate adjustments, things are not really any more expensive than they were back in 1971.

So why does it seem like they are?

One of the biggest problems I have with the resort today -- parks, hotels, etc -- is that everything is so darned expensive. EVERYTHING -- from poolside drinks to snacks for the kids, sunscreen, souvenirs -- OUCH! I love the place, but I am constantly thinking "Gosh, I am being ripped off so badly..." and that really BUGS me. On vacation we expect things to be somewhat expensive... but did that tiny bottle of Solarcaine I bought at the Poly when Erin got sunburned cheeks REALLY need to cost $6?

When I was a kid, back in the 70's, we'd spend two weeks at Ft.Wilderness every summer and it was a pretty inexpensive vacation. We swam in the lake (not allowed now... darned bacteria) every afternoon and hunted every night, with flashlights, for armadilloes. We ate at Trail's End and did the campfire marshmallow gala. In short, we had a ball. And my parents SWEAR it wasn't so expensive. Heck, I think the marshmallows might have been FREE back then.

I am just trying to say that your discussions about reasonable costs seem to have merit. There is a point where families just cave in and say "We can't go -- it's just too expensive when you add it all up." And isn't that sad! I have never been wealthy enough to NOT consider the cost of things -- and it seems that the cost of the "magic" has gotten mighty high.

DVC-Landbaron
10-08-2002, 06:14 PM
colleen costello,

I’m not really sure who you were referring to when you said the following:I have read your posts with great interest. Also interesting are your comments regarding price -- that, with appropriate adjustments, things are not really any more expensive than they were back in 1971.I would seem it was NOT me, as nothing could be further from the truth!! ;)

Prices for the resorts at least (the original two) started life in 1971 around $32.00 a night. I don’t remember the exact figure but in 2002 prices that equals roughly the Moderates. Now, some would argue that specials and deals and other hokus pokus would account for the difference. And you turn up with a bunch of anecdotal evidence that this guy could swear that last year his friend’s brother-in-law knew this other guy who’s sister just got back from Disney and she got a deal that was LESS than the All-Stars in the middle of July!! But what we are comparing is rack rate to rack rate. Back in the old days there was no need for “specials”, “incentives” or code number “deals” of any sort. The rate was the rate and that was it!!!

So, how do you figure that the cost, adjusted, is the same?

colleen costello
10-08-2002, 07:14 PM
Sorry, Baron.. did not mean to argue that YOU had said this. By "your" I should have said "Y'all" including all the folks who responded to you. I have just read this in different places, at different times, on the boards in general... comments that "considering inflation, Disney is no more expensive than it was..." and what I was saying was simply "but it SEEMS like it is!"

Perhaps the bill seemed smaller because I was a kid and wasn't paying it? Perhaps it was also because my Dad always had the attitude "Hey -- it's vacation -- don't worry about what it costs!"
I love being in "the World" -- but there is a lot there we simply don't do because prices are so high. We ate off grounds a lot during our last visit (Pizzeria Uno and Perkins) and shopped for snacks to eat in our room. I pack a lot of stuff because I know I will pay dearly for anything we forget. Part of bringing our own vehicle is so we can get off-property to shop! I even packed pool toys because tubes at Stormalong Bay were renting for $10 apiece! I just feel like no matter where I turn, I am going to need a lot more money than I have.

DVC-Landbaron
10-08-2002, 08:17 PM
OK!! Clean up time!! I finally have a few moments to see if I missed anything and it turns out, I DID!!!

First to ohanafamily BTW, I have a few addresses for your list, should I PM them to youYES!!! YES!!! YES!!! :bounce:

I’ll update them as soon as possible. I want to keep the list current!!!


Next to montessoriIt's like that Aladdin ride in the middle of Adventureland. It simply doesn't belong. EXACTLY!!! But is this subjective or objective? To me most of the world (including Disney is NOT black and white, but varying shades of gray. So, I feel that this particular item is subjective, but shaded so dark that it is very hard to argue that it isn’t objective!! It’s like looking at a Christmas tree, all decorated and pretty, almost professional, and then some lunkhead puts a GIANT, NEON ornament on the second to top branch! Yep! It sure is a Christmas decoration!! There is no way to deny it! No arguement at all!! BUT!!! NO, NO, NO!!!! It does NOT belong!!!



Mr. Kidds:
Maybe it is like a trip to New York City. You could stay on Park Avenue in the 30's, or you could stay on Park Avenue in the 130's. Both are New York through and through, but they are very different experiences. Each of those experiences is rich in detail, but they are very different details. Many would view one as "less", but it all depends on how you look at it I could not disagree more!!! What you’re saying is it all comes down to theme. If the theme is good then nothing else matters!!! I DISAGREE!!!! Quality still matters!! And Park Avenue in the 30’s represents QUALITY!! Perhaps even Disney quality. Park Avenue in the 130’s DOES NOT!!!! (gee I hope I got that right from the two times in New York!!)

Mr. Head! Always a pleasure to speak to a fellow sesquipedalian!! Although to be honest, the ease in which you employ a polysyllabic vocabulary really blows me away!! Never pedantic. Always elucidating! (Howz 'bout dat fer learnin' me some!! :crazy: )

Finally, I'm fairly certain the phrase "more and more" was reasonably confluent with "eschew." I'd intended to portray a trend towards less, not an abrupt cessation.Ditto!!!
I see the very creation of the Moderates and the Values as milestones along Disney's trail o' eschewment. The moderate and value resorts are _examples_ of putting less Disney into the product, not reasons to forgive putting less Disney into the product.Ditto!!


colleen costello
I have just read this in different places, at different times, on the boards in general... comments that "considering inflation, Disney is no more expensive than it was..." and what I was saying was simply "but it SEEMS like it is!"It SEEMS like it is, well... Cause it is!!! Period!! Plain and simple!!

Those “other” comments you have heard are wrong!! Period!! Plain and simple!!

DisneyKidds
10-08-2002, 11:12 PM
Just one thing to add........

Since 1991 we have stayed in just about every Disney resort - 'deluxe', 'moderate', and 'value', and we have NEVER, I repeat NEVER paid more than $200 a night - GF included. Call it discounts that were 'never' available, call it whatever you want, but that is a pretty telling statement. As much as Mr. Baron would like to say that an appropriately inflated 1971 rate equals $159 it just isn't true. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, you know - those guys who develop the CPI which Baron's number is based on, along with a plethora of other data, say that the rate of lodging inflation is HIGHER than the CPI. That's the fact, Jack.

Then again, if someone says it is wrong, it must be - the facts be damned :crazy:.

Captain Crook
10-09-2002, 08:40 AM
Well there you go again Baron Von Wordiness, you take something like the addition of Aladdin in Adventureland and ADMIT that it's subjective but then ridicule, rationalize and capitalize until anyone with a differing POV looks like an imbecile. Well, once again I'm that imbicile :jester: . The Agrabah section and the Aladdin ride are a perfect fit right smack dab in an area where Disney heretofore needed to create traffic. The ride itself is well themed, pretty & fun for the kiddies (Before Aladdin it was a great big pedestrian circle...OOOOAhhhhhh...

Your Christmas tree analogy makes absolutely no sense. WDW is not nearly as 'like' as a Christmas tree whereby one atyipical ornament would be out of place. Rather, Disney is itself full of atypical ornaments that make up the entire Chritmas season perhaps... It seems that any tinkering with anything that Walt created meets with boo's & hisses unless it were an E ticket and even they aren't met with all around acceptance. I offer TT & RnR as proof. Two rides that if Walt had created or "visioned" would be revered and worshipped but alas they were brought to Disney by the wrong fellow.

On to Mr. Kidds, why is it that his NY CIty anlogy makes perfect sense to me? It seems the sides are still arguing from different viewpoints...Mr. Kidds is far and away the best debator on this board & my hat is off to you sir!!!

As to the prolific pontificators...The key to this wonderful language is the ability to properly verbalize your thought so that the majority of the audience will understand what you're saying...Unless the argument that you are putting forth is mostly nonsense and needs to be hidden behind voluble diction. ...;) :jester: :p
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

Patch'sD
10-09-2002, 01:55 PM
With all the cuts to the perks, that is when the magic left my being. I felt as if Disney was robbing me by having me pay top dollar for a room that was basically just slept in. I found that the place down the road was doing more for the guest and opted to stay there and just become a day visitor.

I have to disagree with comparing present rack rates to rack rates of 1971. In 1971 with three hotels they did not need discounts the Hotels were booked for two years in advance. I firmly believe that Disney Resorts today the Norm is the Off Peak Value Season rate, and if a room is booked at the rack rate that just a couple bucks extra in ME's pocket. It's sort of like going to Sears, Some people will pay the ticket price, others will look at the last weeks sale tag and demand that price. The smart consumer wins these days.

As for the themeing of the Hotels. I have not been to the World since 2000, so I can not offer an opinion on Pop Century. But during my 1999 trip, ( In 2000 I was a very satisfied guest of the theme park down the road) We stayed on site for 10 days and I never saw the All Star Hotels. I wasn't staying there, never saw it, didn't bother me. The immersion was complete. I saw the Swan and Dolphin Hotels every day, which I think are very tacky, but to me it is part of Disney, did it bother me, no. I saw hundreds of busses all over the place, but that didn't bother me. My focus was on the theme parks and having a ball with my family, which we did.

I feel that by adding these Hotels, Disney has made the magic available to a few more folks at a competitive . If All Stars and Pop Century where not built how many more Day's Inns and Super 8's would be built down the road.


My main complaint is Disney cut back on the little things that made staying at the resort like you were something special. I believe they used to call this the Disney “Insider” The Surprise mornings or Extended Entry ( No Charge), Preferred Seating at the Restaurants, The free shipping back to your room, free timely transportation, and of course nicely landscaped themed resort hotels. Now you have the first and the last, transportation is free but no longer timely.

So I have made a decision to stay at the resort down the block that provides all that Disney used to provide and then some. When and if Disney starts giving some things back will I return. But if people still want to pay top dollar for not as much as they used to get, it may be a long time for me.

colleen costello
10-09-2002, 02:02 PM
Just out of curiosity, has anyone here stayed at Portofino Bay Hotel over at Universal? I have heard it is lovely. Is the experience there on par with the Polynesian or Contemporary? And what is the deal with staying there and getting "front of the line" tickets? Is is a deal like fastpass? We have not done Universal yet -- I have small kids and we are not thrill-ride fans -- but I am curious. I also imagine it is quite expensive there per night.

raidermatt
10-09-2002, 02:36 PM
With regard to the Carpets...

I tend to agree with Baron that the colors are harsh when compared to the surrounding area, and I would feel better about it if it were toned a bit with more "realistic" colors.

However, I do see this one as being subjective. I can see how it does fit in spirit with the area.

My issues with it are more when its taken in combination with the new JIYI, PW and TS, and most of what's at DCA. Is this the best they can do? No, not EVERY new attraction has to be a knock your socks off E ticket. Sometimes a well-themed, pleasant C or D is fine, like Aladdin. But adding Aladdin and TS within a year of each other just shows a complete lack of effort.


As far as comparing resort rates, I suppose if we want to really settle this, we need the actual average rates paid in 1972 and now.

DK, its great that you NEVER paid more than $200 for any WDW resort, but how does that compare to what the AVERAGE guest pays today? That's really the issue. I know we don't have those numbers, but I think you'd have to agree that $159 is probably below the average rate actually paid for a deluxe, particularly in heavier seasons. (I just returned from a resort in Kauai that has rack rates over $500 per night, so I completely understand that there is a difference between rack rates and what people actually pay, since we paid a total of $325 for 8 nights...)

And Baron admits that the $32 is an estimate. Was that a peak summer rate? (Did they even have seasonal rates at WDW back then?). Was it possible to get a discount for maybe $28 a night? Maybe $28 was the actual average?

What IS the rate of lodging inflation? If its 5% a year since 1971, then Baron's adjusted rate is lower than even DK's discounted $159. IF its 10%, $32 comes out to over $600 in 2002.

I know I'm straddleing the fence on this one, but in all honesty, I can't see where either of you have really proven whether or not rate increases have been higher than the rest of the industry.

I definitely agree that intentionally pricing resorts lower than what the market would bear is in-line with Disney past philosophy, and that doesn't jive with the company's current overall policy. But, admittedly, that alone doesn't prove the point either way.

raidermatt
10-09-2002, 02:44 PM
In 1971 with three hotels they did not need discounts the Hotels were booked for two years in advance

Ahhh, I do think this is key, however.

If the resorts truly were booked two years in advance, then clearly Disney was charging less than they could have. Law of supply and demand. They could have charged more, and maybe only booked up the resorts 6 months in advance.

With its current capacity, we will probably never see WDW completely booked 2 years in advance again, but that does bring up an interesting question... What if demand does surge? Let's say the economy improves, the terrorism threat subsides, and people really are excited about what WDW has to offer. Do we really believe that room discounts will be as easy to come by as they are today? Maybe rack rates would not jump by huge leaps, but is anyone really willing to bet that the average rate actually paid would not jump by huge leaps and bounds? Would the current Disney allow wait lists to reach two years (or even 6 months) without significantly raising rates through decreased discounts?

That's the beauty of inflating rack rates and then offering discounts when you need to. When demand picks up, you simply take away some of the discounts, but point to your rack rates as proof you did not increase your rates faster than inflation...

DisneyKidds
10-09-2002, 02:48 PM
Hey Matt - maybe we can get Professor FDF to drop by this thread and she can have her students research the relationship between the pricing and success of Disney resorts from 1971 to the present ;).

WEDWAY100
10-09-2002, 03:42 PM
Hello everyone!

I’ll start by apologizing that this isn’t going to flow at all. I just don’t have the time to organize it better.

I am a frequent lurker and a sometimes poster. This topic has really made me think and clarify my current thoughts on Disney. After careful consideration, I find myself seated in the passenger side in car 3, but close to getting out, slamming the door and going grudgingly to car 4, which is when I will quit lurking.

In order to clarify my thoughts, I had to decide what I like about Disney. I think each of us on these boards is a WDW fan, but for different reasons. Sometimes these differences are slight, but sometimes much larger. My love of DL and WDW came from my first trip to DL in 1969. I was 8 years old and my experience with rides and parks at that time consisted of fairs and carnivals. Imagine what I thought on my first day at DL, I rode a monorail, a submarine, a rollercoaster inside a mountain and a pirate ride, complete with skeletons and animatronic pirates. I was amazed, inspired…there just aren’t enough words (remember this was 1969). There was simply no comparison with DL’s competition. Walt had set the gold standard for dimensional entertainment. After WDW opened, my family took vacations there instead of DL, because it was much closer to home.

I guess the primary reason I like WDW and DL is because they were innovative, using cutting edge technology combined with a wonderful sense of storytelling, fantasy, incredible detail, and above all, new ideas. A secondary reason I enjoy the resorts is that they exceeded my expectations wherever I turned, and that quality was the main focus of their product.

So, given all that, why am I in car 3? Here goes (focusing on the primary reason only)…

The best single thing that I have found that describes the difference in Disney and reality for me is an old picture that I first saw in a copy of The Nickel Tour. It was taken on Harbor Blvd circa 1959, looking north from the DL entrance. There is a car on the road that is a great big ugly hunk of metal 1959 car. Above the car is the monorail, looking incredibly futuristic when compared with the car. That was the difference. And what a huge difference. So just as the great big ugly hunk of metal 1959 car is to the monorail, a 2002 car is to x (what)? That is the question imagineers should be asking themselves, and developing x transportation system and implementing it. The future of Disney should not be more monorails, but rather x transit system. New dark rides should not primarily feature more animatronics (even if they are improved), because we’ve been there and done that. Disney should be looking for the next great entertainment opportunity and using its parks and resorts as proving grounds. Sounds expensive, huh? But that’s exactly what they were doing in 1959. I didn’t set that lofty standard, Walt did. And at 8 years old, he proved to me that it could be done.

Along that same vein, I am concerned that they seem to be basing so much of what the company does on guest surveys. Not that the surveys are useless, but if Walt had taken guest surveys in 1957, how many of them would have come back and said, we want a monorail, or a submarine, or a rollercoaster inside a mountain. None of them would have said that because it had never been done. Walt and his team were leaders, not followers.

So for me Disney stopped being Disney when they stopped truly innovating. It also stopped being Disney when the competition caught up. Maybe some of you could argue that it hasn’t caught up yet, but just the fact that we can even debate that issue tells me that the gap has narrowed considerably. I believe that Disney parks are a good bit above what six flags offers, but IOA is darn close if not better in some ways.

If someone likes WDW because it is a large complex that is one stop shopping for vacation needs, with something for everyone in the family, then they will most likely be in car 1, and won’t be disappointed. I have no problem with that. It’s just that I experienced Disney and had my expectations set in 1969. So should I lower my expectations, or should I hold Disney to what once was? If I continue to hold them to what once was, I might as well pack up and go to car 4 now, because realistically, I don’t expect them to ever return to that. But then the optimist comes out in me and I say there is always hope…and they build Dinorama, but there is still hope…

DisneyKidds
10-09-2002, 03:55 PM
WEDWAY100 - welcome aboard!! Boy, are you and the Baron gonna get along ;). I wonder who he is going to have to eject from the shotgun seat to place you there :eek:.

There have been quite a few changes over the years. I do believe that innovation to the Walt'th degree would be quite a bit more challenging today than it was back when the theme park didn't even exist. As for the competitioin catching up - I also think that it was inevitable that they would get close, thereby making discussion of that topic reasonable. The key is finding a way to stay ahead. Some feel Disney has, some don't.

WEDWAY100
10-09-2002, 04:40 PM
DisneyKidds, Thanks!! I wish I had more time to debate with you guys.

As for it being more difficult to innovate today than it was then, I respectfully disagree. That minimizes what Walt accomplished. I really think that the creativity that he (and his team) displayed was a true gift. It may have been easier for Walt to innovate, because of who he was, but I don't think it was any easier in general.

As for getting along with the good Baron, I'm not so sure. I've read your post's and his (and just about everyone else's), and there are many people who have good points. Many of your posts have persuaded me to look at things differently, so thanks for that! I think my disagreement with the Baron will be over pricing and value, so we will have to see. I would gladly pay higher prices than today's admission if the 1969 level of creativity would return to the parks.

DVC-Landbaron
10-09-2002, 05:47 PM
Hmmmm. Seems a little dated. But I thought I’d through it in while I catch up. Calling all Captains!!! Well there you go again Baron Von Wordiness, you take something like the addition of Aladdin in Adventureland and ADMIT that it's subjective but then ridicule, rationalize and capitalize until anyone with a differing POV looks like an imbecile.
Well, I never called anyone an imbecile, but now that you mention it... :)

But seriously, folks! I said it was subjective and I meant it. It is MY personal and very subjective feelings and thoughts on the subject. That's all. Nothing more. You may like it. I think it's tacky at best. To each his own. It tells me you have no... (no wait, that's not quite right. Let's say...) "different" taste than me. To you I'm a loquacious snob! So be it!! (but I'm also right!!!!) ;) And let's face it, my dear Captain, you even agree: Well, once again I'm that imbecile. In the words of the distinguished "best debater on this board" - 'Nuff said!!

Your Christmas tree analogy makes absolutely no sense. WDW is not nearly as 'like' as a Christmas tree whereby one atypical ornament would be out of place.Why is it you see WDW as a whole when I'm speaking of a mere section and you concentrate on a miniscule aspect when I speak in generalities? Are you trying to be contrary?

I likened the general area of Adventureland to a well decorated, subtle, understated yet brilliantly detailed Christmas tree because it was the PERFECT analogy. I specifically didn't use the entire WDW complex because there are many, many places that I think Aladdin WOULD fit. Just as there are neon Christmas decorations that would fit on a different type of tree. If you stick it in Fantasyland I have no problem with the concept (with the exception of Dumbo being there already). And there may even be a place for it in the Studios. But I subjectively consider it's current location in conjunction with its current theme to be gaudy, tacky and in very poor taste. And for me, again subjectively, it ruins what once was a peaceful and perfectly themed area. In other words, I DON'T LIKE IT - THERE!!! Subjectively, of course!

The ride itself is well themed, pretty & fun for the kiddiesWell there you go again Captain the Pirate, you take something like the addition of Aladdin in Adventureland and ADMIT that it's subjective but then justify, rationalize and apologize until anyone with a differing POV looks like an imbecile. When we ALL know that the theme doesn't fit!! :cool:

On to Mr. Kidds, why is it that his NY City analogy makes perfect sense to me? It seems the sides are still arguing from different viewpoints...Mr. Kidds is far and away the best debater on this board & my hat is off to you sir!!! Well, you seem to be the only one. Even Mr. Kidds left that one alone!! And you start off by saying you're going to tell us why the analogy works, but then you don't mention the subject again except to say we have different viewpoints!!!! That's one heck of an argument!!
As to the prolific pontificators...The key to this wonderful language is the ability to properly verbalize your thought so that the majority of the audience will understand what you're saying...Unless the argument that you are putting forth is mostly nonsense and needs to be hidden behind voluble diction. ... Can I ascertain from this that you don't understand the big words? If you'd like it paraphrased in another grade level, I'll gladly send you a PM!! Something along the lines of:

Look! Look at that! See? See the big ride? It goes around and around. It is fun. It is a lot of fun. Look at Jane. Look at Sally. They are riding. "Ride Jane, ride." "Ride Sally, ride." Sally and Jane are having fun!

But Father is sad. "See, Dick!" he says. "There is something wrong. It does not fit. It does not fit anywhere in this land. See the big camel? It is bright. It has many colors. It looks plastic. It looks like a cartoon.

"See the rest of the land? It does not have bright colors. It looks like a real place. Someplace different, but real. There is no plastic. It does not look like a cartoon."

That is why Father is sad. He sees that it is wrong. Now Dick sees that it is wrong, too. Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

Let me know and I'll drop you a line! ;)

Captain Crook
10-09-2002, 06:27 PM
Your Christmas tree analogy doesn't work because Agrabah fits the Adventureland tapestry to a "T". They may be guilty of mixing & matching but that's all of Disney (including Adventureland where 'JC' sits next to 'POC'...It just doesn't matter)... Adventurland needed the bright colors of the market place but it can hardly be equated as neon lighting next to an exibition of Rembrandt...You're just ticked because it's a spinner that actually conveys the feeling it set out to (like Dumbo, not like Tricertops).

And of course I'll add my subjectivity with an exclamation point...It's the only way you'd notice it.

The NY analogy works...IT WORKS! I don't need to expound on what was perfectly stated...Sorry.

Lastly, I understand the words it's just sad that so often there is no thought process involved in their utterance...
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

BRERALEX
10-09-2002, 07:06 PM
hey i just NEEDED to say that this quote here

Can I ascertain from this that you don't understand the big words? If you'd like it paraphrased in another grade level, I'll gladly send you a PM!! Something along the lines of:



is the first time a post has actually made me laugh out loud H.S. that was funny.

Dont wanna post the whole thing but man that was great.

Maybe it is like a trip to New York City. You could stay on Park Avenue in the 30's, or you could stay on Park Avenue in the 130's. Both are New York through and through, but they are very different experiences. Each of those experiences is rich in detail, but they are very different details. Many would view one as "less", but it all depends on how you look at it .

If people dont see that they are getting less now from the current disney then they were from disney of early or mid to late nintees thats just crazy.

your getting less hours.
your getting less creativity with these crappy sequals(cept toys story 2)
your getting less well thought out rides

fine they gave us a new park. half a park at best. a park i can just about stand till noon once in a ten day trip.

i like the ny quote up till the last sentence. no matter how you look at it your getting less.

And maybe the problem is the people debating.
If debator #1 has been to disneyworld since it opened more or less and been there 30 times. and debator #2 has been there like 10 times and only recently im sure debator #2 will complain about debator #1 if #1 says things round these parts aint peachy lately. #2 is gonna argue "but hey this place is great look at everything you got everyting there giving us." but #2 will never see eye to eye.

the experiences are too varying.

I respect all of the posts but dont "value" all of them cause of my experiences and learning.

ok back to lurking

anyone see a Gcurling? always enjoyed his posts

DisneyKidds
10-10-2002, 12:51 AM
OK - My turn to catch up.....

WEDWAY.........
As for it being more difficult to innovate today than it was then, I respectfully disagree. That minimizes what Walt accomplished. I really think that the creativity that he (and his team) displayed was a true gift.
What I say certainly is not to slight the genius of Walt. You are correct - he had a gift. However, if he had survived longer it is a good bet he would have applied that gift to something other than theme parks once WDW was up and running. Sure, instead of giving us Mission: Space, Disney could give us a theme park IN space - or on the moon. That sure would be innovative. I agree that there is room for innovation in the world. However, I don't see that much room for Walt like innovation WITHIN existing theme parks.

Baron.......
Well, you seem to be the only one. Even Mr. Kidds left that one alone!!
Well, apparently not. If I thought there would be any 'value' to clarifying that last line for BRERALEX I would, and he'd buy the analogy lock, stock, and barrel. Alas, since I was only 3 when I visited in 1971 my opinion doesn't seem to mean much to him. Oh, and just so you know, I started typing my response to your failure to see the analogy, but I realized (yes, it only took umpteen thousand pages) that trying to convince you of even a simple truth once you have made up your mind is a waste of breath, I mean key strokes. Not that I won't do it often, but I'll pick my spots. The analogy stands on it's own, and it is applicable.

BRERALEX.......
If people dont see that they are getting less now from the current disney then they were from disney of early or mid to late nintees thats just crazy.
What does your 'experience and learning' tell you about what we were getting from Disney in the early 90's? You see, there is not much disagreement that things have gone down hill from the early 90's to today. Even in lurk mode one should have been able to discern that from the discussions. However, there are those that believe that Disney of the early 90's was crap, or at least roughage, on the way thru the slippery intestines, that was destined to become crap - MHB, midnight hours, and all. So, no one is acting crazy, saying that today is as good as 1990, or 1996, or 1998. However, if that is your perspective you have missed much of what has been said by a great many people. You know - compromised standards, slippery slopes, etc., etc. - and that dates back into the 80's for some. Heck, for some it has only been downhill since 1972. That is what is crazy :crazy:.

Patch'sD
10-10-2002, 05:48 AM
In answer to the question. Portofino compares well to any of the Disney Resorts, front of the Line is an excellent perk for on-site guests. To me that was magic.

ohanafamily
10-10-2002, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by Patch'sD
In answer to the question. Portofino compares well to any of the Disney Resorts, front of the Line is an excellent perk for on-site guests. To me that was magic.

This is a little off of the subject, I stayed at the Hard-Rock.
I liked the line pass, found the room to be OK, well themed. But I also found it expensive. We ate in the hotel restauraunt, shared a salad, I had a dinner portion of Macaroni and Cheese (the waitress recommended it), and my wife had a salmon dish. It was over $50.00. Also, I think it was the least expensive real meal we had there. This is $$$$$$$$ even by Ei$ner's standards for restaraunts...

DW just reminded me that we BOTH had Mac & Cheese at the restaurant in HRH. :eek: $50+ for 2 M&C and 1 salad. What's up with that? We spent less on the Boardwalk for "adult" food.

FantasticDisFamily
10-10-2002, 09:29 AM
Ok folks, jumping in on this one and right up front I am admitting I have carefully read some posts, skimmed others, and basically skipped some. ;)

That being said my response comes in answer to the original post - when does the Disney Experience stop being a Disney experience?

Short Answer: When I stop feeling the magic.

Slightly more explanation:

1. A Disney trip is more expensive than other trips but since we don't go all that often - once a year if we're REALLY lucky - usually every couple - and like the convenience of booking everything as a package we don't feel nickle and dimed. Yes there are additional costs but we plan those in. If the cost was comparable to running up to Mackinac Island or over to Chicago for the week-end part of the "special" would begin to disappear as it would feel maybe a little too accessible. I'm not saying I want higher prices for the sake of higher prices, just that for me it hasn't reached the it is out of reach point. And a comment that is going to sound a little snobbish: quite frankly the Disney experience ceases to exist more quickly when there a lot of folks around who are treating the parks/ship etc as any other "amusement park". Those who have spent much time on the cruise boards have read the "dress code" discussions and how those who don't participate in the recommendations start to detract from the "magic".

2. The Disney experience still exists because my teens are eager to go, don't fight with each other or their parental units from the time we leave for the airport until we arrive home again. Let me reiterate: non-bickering children makes the experience still Disney. LOL!

3. There is still enough attention to detail and enough CMs that provide that service level that says Disney to me to be magic. As long as a CM goes out of her way to track a missing package - and does it with a smile, or pays attention to my daughter's interest in French so she is speaking some of the language by the time we disembark, and the examples go on.

4. The experience does CHANGE over time - the intensity of the experience may alter depending on which park, ship's itinerary, etc but it hasn't disappeared.

Is all of the above subjective? Sure

Am I concerned with recent trends that cost cutting, diminishing attention to detail has serious potential of eliminating the Disneyness of the experience? Yes

My 2 cents...:D

The Professor

ohanafamily
10-10-2002, 09:54 AM
Welcome FantasticDisFamily (AKA The Professor)

While I don't have any kids, I understand the value of the non-bickering teens. I still view the parks with wild-eyed amazement. There are a few (you know who you are wearing those evil shoes that fit all too well) grumps and fuddy-duddies who would have you believe that the end of the (Disney) world is imminent. I agree with much of what you said, and thus refuse to have MY DISNEY EXPERIENCE tainted by the facts as presented in this thread. Having said that, these cut-backs are affecting me. Maybe we should start a write in campaign. Maybe we could put a dollar bill in the envelope to let them know we understand their financial troubles ;) …

Seriously, I will enjoy the magic as long as I am able

DisneyKidds
10-10-2002, 09:55 AM
Hey, I just realized another Disney standard. For something to be Disney, it must be pleasing to the eye of the good lord Baron :p. We'll call it the Baron von Taste Police test ;):rolleyes:.
That is why Father is sad. He sees that it is wrong. Now Dick sees that it is wrong, too. Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!
Sorry pal, you can exaggerate all you want, but you are not right. You see Aladdin as an ersatz addition to an indefectible land. Others see it as a whimsical addition to a land that was subfusc and demode.

OK - enough of your word games ;). Adventureland, in my subjective opinion, was drab, outdated, and needed some sprucing up. Not that it needed a lot, mind you. As such, Aladdin is a good addition. Give me one good reason why Adventureland should be devoid of any ride that would be pleasing to children, especially young children. Sure, kids could go on most of the rides, but there wasn't much to get them excited. After all, in his own words, Walt wanted to create a place that families could enjoy together - and he didn't intend for his parks to be compartmentalized either with adults here, kids there. Each land should have something for everybody to get excited about. Adventureland for us was a land not often visited prior to Aladdin. Sure, it had classic rides, but we are at a point where we need more, something for the young ones to enjoy. Adventureland just didn't have it - now it does.

Now, would that ride be as popular without the color and the camel? No, it wouldn't. You may not like it, but I'd be willing to bet that you are in the minority if you look at the entire WDW going public. You may not be in the minority on this board, but this board is not a typical cross section of WDW visitors.

I could have easily let this go - one subjective opinion vs. another subjective opinion. However, you throw out some mumbo-jumbo about how you can't see how anyone could conclude that your opinion isn't objective :confused:. Please!!

Aladdin is but a mere example. I'm sure people could identify things they feel are 'not appropriate' in the same sense that you feel Aladdin is not appropriate. But, I guess if you have been elected commissioner of the taste police we have to live by your standard :crazy:.

DisneyKidds
10-10-2002, 10:09 AM
Professor - let me give you a primer for what you will hear from a fuddy-duddy or two (and perhaps steal some of their thunder)..........
There is still enough attention to detail and enough CMs that provide that service level that says Disney to me to be magic.
They will say (and it can be a fair question) 'Why should we have to settle for "enough"? Fact of the matter is that it is LESS than it was. LESS is LESS, and LESS is not what Disney was supposed to be about!!!!'.

Now, I don't necessarily agree with this logic that some apply to everything, but in areas it may be a good point. Think about that and you can formulate your answer before they pose the question themselves ;).

Your response, along with ohana's, simply reinforces that the answer to the initial question is, and always will be, completely subjective. Some try to dissect the parts and look at them "objectively", but the whole always seems to be greater than the sum of the parts when it comes to Disney.

FantasticDisFamily
10-10-2002, 10:19 AM
Hi DisneyKidds - see you hooked me on this area of the boards so now you're all stuck with me!;)

Anyway - when I said there is enough I meant there is enough. Personally I have not had a problem and as I search my brain can not recall a personal instance of poor service. And having spent many years in retail and now spending my days (and nights) in the classroom teaching the next generation about what SHOULD be I have VERY high standards of what constitutes quality service.

Yes, I have read reports of instances of poor service. If for some members of the discussion their perception is that the service level has decreased then for THEM it has. Just saying that for ME it hasn't.

You're right this is subjective - I was simply throwing in my 2 cents of subjective interpretation. As are others.

Great debate folks. Anyone have a teleporter out there so I can transport all of you into my classrooms so students see that it is possible to explore questions from many sides? That there doesn't have to be a SINGLE, RIGHT answer?:)

The Professor

DisneyKidds
10-10-2002, 10:56 AM
I was simply throwing in my 2 cents of subjective interpretation. As are others.
I'm with you Professor ;). I also happen to agree with you. Have you visited the 'Carpools Defined' at the top of the board?

Even when subjective opinions are presented, this group demands more. You will be challenged (in a good way). Folks will try to make sure you consider all alternative points of view. That is what makes this board so much fun :), and sometimes frustrating :mad:, and always :crazy:. My opinions have evolved since I have been frequenting this board - there are some very educated and persuasive folks. However, I am a long way from falling in with the grumpy ole fuddy-duddies :jester:.
there doesn't have to be a SINGLE, RIGHT answer?
I bet this will raise a few hairs :eek: - and once someone gets those hairs on the back of their neck raised they will do everything they can to make you see why ;).

BRERALEX
10-10-2002, 11:58 AM
I'm changing the "pass the mickey butter" under my tag name to: I have a headache too.

FantasticDisFamily
10-10-2002, 12:06 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
there doesn't have to be a SINGLE, RIGHT answer?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


As you said it will raise a few hairs :p as I would expect. It generally does in class too! Students seem to think there must be only one right answer. What model have we created in our K-12 system?;) Oh wait, that would be for the debate board!

Bring on the challenge - I love them!:jester:

The Professor

DisneyKidds
10-10-2002, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by BRERALEX
I'm changing the "pass the mickey butter" under my tag name to: I have a headache too.
Ahhh.......those headaches pass pretty quickly ;).

DVC-Landbaron
10-10-2002, 07:22 PM
OK!! I stopped at the top of this page. I will catch up with the others later!!

Captain!! Your attention please!! :)
Your Christmas tree analogy doesn't work because Agrabah fits the Adventureland tapestry to a "T".Is this more objective fact? Or could it possibly be your subjective and somewhat rose-colored perspective? Just checking.

They may be guilty of mixing & matching but that's all of Disney (including Adventureland where 'JC' sits next to 'POC'...It just doesn't matter)... Re-read Dick and Jane go to Disney. I’m not talking about similar concepts situated next to each other, both themed in real textures and colors. I’m talking about plastic, cartoon-like icons (decorations if you will) in a land that has none of that. Remember? That is why father is sad. It is wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong!

Adventurland needed the bright colors of the market place but it can hardly be equated as neon lighting next to an exhibition of Rembrandt...Is this more objective fact? But thank you!! That analogy is PERFECT!! That is exactly what I subjectively think it is!! That’s much better than my Christmas tree!!!

You're just ticked because it's a spinner that actually conveys the feeling it set out to (like Dumbo, not like Tricertops).Go back though the old posts, my friend! I’m probably the ONLY member of car three that had no problem with an ADDITIONAL spinner put anywhere! I didn’t care! It was an EXTRA!! I loved the idea! With the proviso that it be themed in accordance with the surrounding area. And sadly, it is my considered and very subjective opinion that it is not!! Now, we can keep talking about this, but I really don’t think we’ll get much further. I can’t stand the bright, primary colored, cartoon-like, carnival theme in a land that has subtle, delicate, understated, rich textures and muted themes. And you love it for some reason or another. Sorry Cap! You know I loves ya, but I just don’t see it!!

The NY analogy works...IT WORKS! I don't need to expound on what was perfectly stated...Sorry. Then tell me how the heart of Manhattan, which I agreed would represent Disney, is analogous with the edge of Harlem? Yes they are both New York. One offers a quality New York stay. The other you need an uzi to protect yourself at night. So how does that equate?

Lastly, I understand the words it's just sad that so often there is no thought process involved in their utterance...Come on Captain!! You can’t be serious!! Tell me you didn’t smile a little when you read it! It was my best effort at humor in a long time. I’m sorry it was at your expense, but I did expect a little chuckle from you!! :crazy:

Mr. Kidds,
You know - compromised standards, slippery slopes, etc., etc. - and that dates back into the 80's for some. Heck, for some it has only been downhill since 1972. That is what is crazyWho says 1972? You certainly can’t mean me!! I have stated often that the downfall started the day Ei$ner took over. Do you really think it’s just been since 1998? That all his ineptitude happened in five short years? That he could really destroy all of Walt’s magic in such a short period of time? Or that he suddenly “changed” and became inept?

No!! The guy has always been inept! In the beginning he had good people to keep him grounded or protect him. And then, let’s face it, you can’t get your arms around a company like Disney instantaneously. A new CEO cannot turn a dismal company into a powerhouse overnight. It takes time to pick a company up, fiddle with certain things and turn it around. Everyone knows that. Guess what? The same is true in reverse. A great company cannot come to ruin overnight either, no matter how inept the CEO is. It takes time for his micro-management to COMPLETELY interfere with the product. It takes time for the complete saturation of the brand to effect the bottom line. It takes time to even understand what WDI does, before he systematically decimates it. It takes time before the exorbitant prices start to be felt on your long term, loyal customer base. In his case about thirteen years. And then we started to see the crop he was reaping from the seeds that he sowed when he first took over. And it ain’t a pretty picture!!

Heck, for some it has only been downhill since 1972. That is what is crazy Yes that would indeed be crazy!! Just as crazy as someone really believing that one day in the middle of 1997, Ei$ner woke up one morning and went brain dead. In fact I think this is even crazier!! :crazy:

WEDWAY100:
After careful consideration, I find myself seated in the passenger side in car 3, but close to getting out, slamming the door and going grudgingly to car 4, which is when I will quit lurking.Nah! We don’t want that to happen!! I feel we have to give Ei$ner’s replacement a short honeymoon period at least (before we hang him ;) ). Maybe we’ll be surprised! I doubt it, but who knows!! (how’s that for a glass half full Captain!!??)

I guess the primary reason I like WDW and DL is because they were innovative, using cutting edge technology combined with a wonderful sense of storytelling, fantasy, incredible detail, and above all, new ideas. A secondary reason I enjoy the resorts is that they exceeded my expectations wherever I turned, and that quality was the main focus of their product.WOW!!! Can this guy turn a phrase or what!!?? Please go on…

I hate to quote entire paragraphs, but sometimes they are just so well written and sooooo to the heart of the matter that it is worth repeating: The best single thing that I have found that describes the difference in Disney and reality for me is an old picture that I first saw in a copy of The Nickel Tour. It was taken on Harbor Blvd circa 1959, looking north from the DL entrance. There is a car on the road that is a great big ugly hunk of metal 1959 car. Above the car is the monorail, looking incredibly futuristic when compared with the car. That was the difference. And what a huge difference. So just as the great big ugly hunk of metal 1959 car is to the monorail, a 2002 car is to x (what)? That is the question imagineers should be asking themselves, and developing x transportation system and implementing it. The future of Disney should not be more monorails, but rather x transit system. New dark rides should not primarily feature more animatronics (even if they are improved), because we’ve been there and done that. Disney should be looking for the next great entertainment opportunity and using its parks and resorts as proving grounds. Sounds expensive, huh? But that’s exactly what they were doing in 1959. I didn’t set that lofty standard, Walt did. And at 8 years old, he proved to me that it could be done.BRAVO!!! BRAVO!!! Very well said!! So well said that I find I have NOTHING to add!! You have accomplished what Mr. Kidds, Scoop and my favorite Pirate have attempted to do for over two years now. You have rendered the LandBaron speechless!!

Thank you!!!!

DVC-Landbaron
10-11-2002, 12:19 AM
...we came in.

Hey, I just realized another Disney standard. For something to be Disney, it must be pleasing to the eye of the good lord Baron . We'll call it the Baron von Taste Police test

Let’s stop right here and examine just what the hell is going on! It would seem from this little snippet that I had posted a purely subjective opinion of “taste” and tried to pass it off as an objective measure of either the standard or of the philosophy. Which we both know didn’t happen! For one of the first times in months, in a rather whimsical state, I posted a purely subjective opinion. I diligently labeled it subjective and even took the time to BOLD the word every time it appeared. My subjective opinion has nothing whatsoever to do with my position on what is or isn’t Disney. And I think you know that too.

So it will come as no surprise that I do not appreciate the inference that I would allow, under any circumstances, my personal taste to interfere or taint my objective stance on philosophical issues regarding the standard which Disney used, no matter how many smilies are scattered throughout the paragraph.

Now we can discuss the subjective opinion all you like. The Captain and I were doing so. But I will kindly ask you to either keep the conversations separate or withdraw from either one or the other. My ‘take’ on Aladdin has absolutely nothing to do with the Disney Standard!

(Oh! Mr. Head!! I feel your pain!!!!)

OK - enough of your word games . Adventureland, in my subjective opinion, was drab, outdated, and needed some sprucing up. OK!! So you want to speak subjectively!! Fair enough!!

And in my subjective opinion, you are dead wrong!!! :)

Give me one good reason why Adventureland should be devoid of any ride that would be pleasing to children, especially young children.Nothing. In fact I welcomed it! I wish subjectively that it would have been in a more subtle, less intrusive theme. One that fitted Adventureland. Is that really so hard to understand? Is that really so much to ask for? After all, in his own words, Walt wanted to create a place that families could enjoy together PLEASE!!! Don’t use this argument!! It is beneath you. Are you seriously telling me that the offerings in Adventureland were kid UN-friendly enough to DEMAND a “kids only” ride? Cause that’s what it is! It isn’t “family”!! It’s for kids!! Adventureland for us was a land not often visited prior to Aladdin. Then you sure missed a lot!! Sure, it had classic rides, but we are at a point where we need more, something for the young ones to enjoy. Adventureland just didn't have it - now it does. You mean to tell me that they didn’t enjoy the Jungle Cruise? Or Tiki? Or Pirates? Or the climbing through the Tree House? You’re saying that the adults are the only ones that enjoyed those attractions? And so we needed a ‘kids’ ride? Are you serious? Now, would that ride be as popular without the color and the camel? No, it wouldn't. Says you!! I totally disagree!! You may not like it, but I'd be willing to bet that you are in the minority if you look at the entire WDW going public. You may not be in the minority on this board, but this board is not a typical cross section of WDW visitors.Think you covered all the contingencies here? All the bases covered? You should be in City work. We call it CYA. And this little bit was CYA perfection!! I could have easily let this go - one subjective opinion vs. another subjective opinion. However, you throw out some mumbo-jumbo about how you can't see how anyone could conclude that your opinion isn't objective Mr. Kidds. You did it again! I don’t understand this section at all!! Please explain! Aladdin is but a mere example. I'm sure people could identify things they feel are 'not appropriate' in the same sense that you feel Aladdin is not appropriate. But, I guess if you have been elected commissioner of the taste police we have to live by your standard Isn’t this where...

ohanafamily
10-11-2002, 12:20 AM
IMHO
Fine print: the expressions in this post are the subjective opinions of me, OhanaFamily. I do not wish to be blasted like I am stating fact, when in fact it is implied that these are my opinions.

My turn to catch up,

Colleen, When you stay on property at Universal your room key becomes the equivalent of a walk on “FastPass” for most rides. The lines also converge closer than they do at WDW. PM me if you want more of a discussion, if we keep this up, I might get shot by Barron as a deserter.

My Darling Bride and I had a lengthy discussion about the Aladdin Ride. I, initially, took the Baron stance. It just seems out of place. After a several hour discussion, I feel it could have a place in adventureland, but there are elements that make it seem out of place. The story of Aladdin is an adventure based on folklore, just as POC is based on pirate folklore (1 example). What the main problems are with the ride are: Placement, The Line Queue, and Over Garishness for the area of the park.

The placement problem is that they stuck it in the middle of a walkway, and created a pedestrian traffic jam forcing you into the bazaar. If they would have set it back a ways they could have made the bazaar more like a real bazaar and built up the ride so that it was less obtrusive with an entrance that has a more consistent theme with the rest of the area.

By line queuing, I mean that they should not have used the same type of entrance to the ride like you find at Six Flags or a carnival. There should be a little thought to it, and again, not just plopped in the middle of a pedestrian thoroughfare. The Line Queue and the front entrance should be darker, more in line with the cave of treasure he finds the lamp in. There should be more of a theme. Again, Aladdin can fit in adventureland, but the way that they did it makes it seem out of place.

Thirdly, the over garishness. Adventureland is a human place. The rides represent human adventurers. What they have done with the bright motif is to bring an animated project into this human area. I think this is the main problem we all seem to be having with the ride; it doesn’t seem to fit.

Next, about the NY example…are we talking addresses or hotel pricing?
:bounce:
Seriously, I will argue the point that whether you stay in Manhattan or the Bronx, both are uniquely NY experiences. Both are well themed experiences, and neither is an easily forgettable experience. I would not want to stay in the Bronx (or the Pop Century for that matter), but that doesn’t mean that this isn’t something that somebody else would enjoy, or feel like home in. I also think that many of the posters on this forum would not be caught dead in the Bronx. Walt did dream of bringing all people together, and so at a not so far stretch of the imagination, having comfortable surroundings for the seriocomic group that would feel at home at the Pop Century is within reason. Besides, if they start booking rooms up 2 years in advance again, we will have to have some place to stay…
:bounce:
(OK,OKW for DVC members)

DVC-Landbaron
10-11-2002, 01:00 AM
Professor!

It seems as though you may have misinterpreted our conversations or at least an aspect of them. Or perhaps I have misunderstood your point totally (that is entirely possible. Just ask Mr. Kidds ;) )!!

Personally I have not had a problem and as I search my brain can not recall a personal instance of poor service.I am in total agreement!! Their service, to me, is their saving grace!! If it were not for the wonderful CMs, I would have been last seen tooling toward the setting sun in car #4!

So, the question is, what do you consider ‘service’? Is it just the interaction of Disney with the Guest? If that’s the case, move over and let me drive a while. On this issue at least, we’re in the same car. However, if you also include within the definition of ‘service’ the quality of the attractions, the detail of theme, the richness of the story and all other aspects of the SHOW right down to to the light bulbs or toilet paper, well then we are certainly in for one heck of a discussion!

One other little, fairly insignificant thing that I should probably ignore, but... Great debate folks. Anyone have a teleporter out there so I can transport all of you into my classrooms so students see that it is possible to explore questions from many sides? That there doesn't have to be a SINGLE, RIGHT answer?In most cases I’d agree with you. But not when it comes to Disney. I definitely think that there does HAVE to be one definitive, conclusive and ultimate answer. The interpretation may vary slightly, but only because we are human. But as much as is humanly possible the ‘right’ answer, the ‘only’ answer, the SINGLE answer, is what Walt set down in his philosophy. If we deviate from this, we may still be one heck of an amusement park, but we are no longer Disney!



PS: BTW, the little hairs Mr. Kidds referred to are mine. I use the term often (evidently too often :crazy: ) and the none too subtle Mr. Kidds wanted to single me out! (I think he likes me!! :bounce: )

montessori
10-11-2002, 06:51 AM
I agree with Ohanafamily about the Aladdin ride. It does seem that the placement of the ride is the main (but not only) problem with it. We always enjoyed Adventureland, the subtleness and tranquility. It was a favorite spot for a little rest and some people watching. We enjoyed the old Tiki Hut and all the other attractions there too.
I do not agree with Captain Kidds (?) that Adventureland needs a ride like Aladdin, that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it!
This is off topic a little but...we were so disappointed with Pleasure Island last time we were there. It had been quite a while since we were last there. It's like a totallly different place. It seemed sad and dreary.
I haven't been to CityWalk yet but I'm sure it's much more exciting, and more bang for your buck, than Pleasure Island.

I get depressed thinking about the good ol' days at Disney. Maybe I'll start a thread about it! "Remember when....?"
Remember when Pleasure Island was a bustling, happening scene, alive with lights and music and people dancing everywhere? There were carnival games,food booths, and an outside tiki hut bar down by the water. You could play with the remote control boats or just sit back and watch the crowds bopping by. It seems like everyone danced in the streets! The DJ knew how to get the crowd going, sometimes there would be a hundred people doing the "Electric Slide" in the middle of the street! The New Year's celebration at midnight was a big deal, the countdown, the fireworks, the confetti...everyone hugging and kissing. It really WAS like New Year's Eve every night.
You could have a beer or two at the bar in The Fireworks Factory, or go in and sit down for some delicioius BBQ ribs or a nice big salad! There were numerous shops to browse through, remember the Tabasco Store?
We had some fun at Pleasure Island last month. The band in the Rock 'n Roll Beach Club was really good and we saw a funny skit at the Adventurer's Club. We didn't laugh much at the Comedy Club, maybe it was just an off night.
But, the main impression I have of Pleasure Island is that it is dirty, dark, and desolate. The club at the end of the street, Motions?, seems like an old warehouse in the inner city somewhere. It lacks any theme or decor at all! There is nothing going on down by the water and the couple of carnival games they have left probably won't be there much longer, no one was playing. I think the New Year's celebration must have lasted about 30 seconds! We ran out to see it but it was over. You couldn't even tell it had occured, so I don't know what it was like really.

Maybe we were at Pleasure Island on a particularly dead night, I don't know. I think we'll give it another chance but I don't have high hopes that it'll be much better. Our friends are meeting us at Disney this weekend, they are all going to City Walk.
Well, I didn't expect to rant for THAT long! Maybe I should have started a new thread with this topic.

Any opinions?
(Now, THAT'S funny!) :p

Sandy Fisher
10-11-2002, 07:20 AM
Have mostly just been reading, digesting, and trying to keep up with the threads and give them the consideration they deserve. Most of what I believe about this subject -- from the original post in the thread -- I've already stated and really couldn't find another way to rearrange my opinions and feelings to make them "new again".
However, when the subject of Aladdin came up, it hit a nerve!
The first time we saw it I was amazed that it was there at all. Second, almost instantaneous reaction was "carny ride". Grew up going to parking lot and street carnivals in a small town where they were a big deal because it was the only game in town.
It is out of place. My kids had great times in Adventureland before it arrived there. The color, the placement, the entry. All of it feels WRONG, as though it were dropped into place with little or no thought.
Okay, no need for me to get so riled up about one ride, but it wasn't necessary, and especially not there. :rolleyes:

ohanafamily
10-11-2002, 08:35 AM
Hi Montessori, I am sad to hear about PI, I don't know if we will make it to PI when we go in 1 week and a day!, but it sounds depressing.

I waited a little to post this next argument because I wanted my previous argument to have a chance to show its merits.

OK Baron, here is an OBJECTIVE “Slam Dunk” about why Aladdin does not belong where they placed it.

Most of the rides that based on the animated movies are in Fantasyland. Snow White, Peter Pan, Winnie The Pooh… Etc.

Aladdin is definitely from an animated movie.

There is only one ride I can think of which is based on an animated movie not in Fantasyland, and that is Buzz Light Year. Subjectively that can be argued into fitting into Tomorrowland

It might be argued that Splash Mountain is based on animated characters, but if you will recall, Song of the South was a movie with animated sequences.

I await the further discussion, and Baron, this may wind up being a 10 pager…..
:bounce:

ohanafamily
10-11-2002, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by Sandy Fisher
The first time we saw it I was amazed that it was there at all. Second, almost instantaneous reaction was "carny ride".

I think you are preaching to the choir, but in a way, SUBJECTIVELY, I think that they were trying to carry the Aggribar (however you spell it) Bazaar theme into the walkway. I think what they succeded at was making a bad pedestrian traffic problem. I also think that they were hoping for the tie-in with the new management of the Tiki Room. I could see Iago wanting a draw like the magic carpet ride in front of HIS TIKI ROOM (even though it is more behind it).

No, I think it was a concept as well thought out as the Pop Century (in other words, I agree with Baron on this point) It could have been made to fit, but since they just plopped it down in the middle of a street (without the original Disney thought and imagination as to the apropriate theming) it does not fit. It might have been OK in FantasyLand the way it is, but not where it is at.
:bounce:

FantasticDisFamily
10-11-2002, 08:53 AM
Ok, this is going to be short and sweet (I hope) - have an accelerated class to finish and other commitmens over the week-end so I'll be back next week.

Landbaron -

The single, right answer comment was a general one, intended to address the observation (I hesitate to ever use the word fact with this gruop!:p ) that while FOR THE MOST PART there is agreement among the posters in this forum that there is a point where the experience begins to falter, there is not agreement - perhaps what you refer to as interpretation, as to where the SHOW suffers.

For me - while I have been able to sense a decreased lack of attention to detail - richness of detail in particular - in the parks under Mr. Pre$$ler (note I paid attention to the proper spelling :p ), it has not reached the point where the experience has ceased. To me (and my family) it is still magical. BUT - also speaking for me and mine only - the outstanding service is the KEY ingredient. Hubby and I spend most of our days interacting with people, when we go on vacation the magic is being spoiled in a setting that while not eliminating the rest of the world, interacts with it in a unique way.

I do strongly agree that if this trend continues Disney is going to be just a great amusement park, but not Disney. In my opinion I do not think we have reached that point.

Now - before my students begin knocking on my virtual door that the service they expect in the form of prompt grading is lacking :p , I must go read papers analyzing a variety of retailers.

The Professor

WEDWAY100
10-11-2002, 01:16 PM
Wow the Baron copied a whole paragraph from me! That means I have to keep posting on this…

Since this thread has focused somewhat on Aladdin, I’d like to add some thoughts. First, I think that for me, a successful Disney park includes a good mix of all levels of attractions, A – E tickets. I don’t have any general dislike for spinner rides. In fact, I think they make a good B – C level addition, and they add a certain kinetic energy to an area (I must confess that the 1967 version of DL’s TL was my favorite, because of all the motion). I think that Aladdin added that energy to a very static area of the park. However, I feel that its’ theming is misplaced. I might go for a spinner there, if it were themed more on the exotic jungle of Adventureland (how about a Tarzan theme with muted colors?). The “parents and children doing things together” argument doesn’t hold for me, because most if not all of the other attractions in the area are ones that both groups can enjoy together. In fact, Aladdin may be the only attraction in that area that separates parents from children, as parents may not want to ride.

My second, and more distressing thought is that in general, the idea of what the MK is supposed to be is de-evolving. Within the last few years, it is my understanding that internally, Disney has assigned a descriptive catch word that describes each park. This is so that marketing, Imagineering, merchandising, etc can view the park through a consistent perspective. The word that has been tagged to the MK is – “Fantasy”. (Epcot’s is “Discovery” and the Studio’s is “Action” and I forget DAK’s). My problem with this is that Fantasy doesn’t necessarily describe all of the original intent of the park. It does describe Fantasyland. But I think that the park’s original focus was to give guests the feeling of being in the wild west, or in Africa, or in the future – a somewhat reality based future. But if you apply “Fantasy” to each of these areas, you get Buzz in TL and Aladdin in Adventureland. I just hope that we don’t see a Cowboy and Indians Carousel anytime soon…

raidermatt
10-11-2002, 03:02 PM
Professor- I think you'll find that your comments are pretty much in agreement with everyone here. If we look at the car definitions, we'll find that your statements could be uttered by someone in cars 1, 2 or 3. Only 4 is really eliminated, but just about any 4 would likely have ditched this site long ago...

So, the questions center around things like direction and philosophy.

There are some who see nothing wrong with the current direction or philosophy. Many who subscribe to this belief use the "I still have a Magical time" argument. Unfortunately, that's missing the big picture.

At other times, the discussion will center around a particular aspect, and whether it is an example of poor philosophy/direction. Examples include Aladdin and the moderate resorts. These discussions can be at one of two levels. In the case of Aladdin, its whether the its even a negative in any way. In the case of the moderates, its acknowledged that they are lacking in some areas, but the arguement centers around whether the lacking areas are really relevant to the Disney experience.

The important thing to remember in all of this is to separate what we like as individuals from what is the overall philosophy and impact. This is not to say you are not separating the two, only to help emphasize the point, since some of us have been slower to catch on than others. (Myself included...;) )

DisneyKidds
10-11-2002, 04:25 PM
and the none too subtle Mr. Kidds wanted to single me out!
Who, moi? ;)
To me most of the world (including Disney) is NOT black and white, but varying shades of gray. So, I feel that this particular item is subjective, but shaded so dark that it is very hard to argue that it isn’t objective!!
Monsieur Baon, perhaps if one didn't talk oneself in circles we could communicate better ;) :crazy: :) (enough smilies so that you don't use the H E Double Hockeysticks word again? Are you losing your sense of humor? :(). Looks like you are thinly veiling what you want to say is objective behind the word subjective. It doesn't matter how many times you bold it or say the word subjective, you obvioulsy feel otherwise.
Then tell me how the heart of Manhattan, which I agreed would represent Disney, is analogous with the edge of Harlem? Yes they are both New York. One offers a quality New York stay. The other you need an uzi to protect yourself at night. So how does that equate?
Wow, just think how many people Mr. Baron could have offended with this one. You are obviously prejudiced against (the revitalized) Harlem, among other things (ie. any Disney resort that is not the Poly or CR :p.) Let's try this. Replace Park Ave in the 130's with the intersection of Fordham Rd. and Arthur Ave. Does that work better for you? Probably not, because you seem to feel only the ritzy Park Ave, with the shiny big buildings and fancy boutiques can represent the true NYC. Guess what, just like with Disney resorts, you couldn't be more wrong.
Who says 1972? You certainly can’t mean me!!
I didn't mean you, per se. Perhaps I exaggerated a bit (you aren't the only one who can be guilty of that ;)). However, tell me, honestly, what you approve of as 'Disney' (in general) since 1982. Apparently no hotels, no parks - not much. Sure, maybe you will accept one or two rides, but the World seems to have been downhill for you since the last great addition in your eyes - Epcot. So change that 1972 to 1982 ;). Would it surprise you to know that I .................. disagree, and think that is a bit :crazy: ;). Now I don't think Ei$ner got out of bed one morning and snapped. Somewhere along the line he lost focus - you have me agreeing on that much, but that doesn't impeach everything he did before he stepped over the line. Walt knew when to push the boundry, when to compromise to move things forward, make a buck, whatever you want to call it, but he knew when to stop. Ei$ner, sadly, didn't - but that doesn't mean he has been all bad, IMHO.
My ‘take’ on Aladdin has absolutely nothing to do with the Disney Standard!
Anyone want to reconsider this statement? I really believe that your 'take' on Aladdin typifies your stance on the Standards. Think about that long and hard, because if you disagree I lose all respect for many of your well made arguments (yes, you do make some good arguments - not that I should be admitting that ;))
Correct me if I am wrong, but to you Aladdin represents a departure from attention to proper detail, lack of imagination, lowering of quality, depreciation of Show - I could go on. You subjectively dislike this 'practically objective' gray area for reasons that are intricately tied to the Standards you have been so passionate about. How can you possibly say that your 'take' isn't based on the Standards? Wouldn't saying that be the equivalent of admitting that Aladdin meets the standards, but you just don't like the colors? I don't think that is what you believe at all.
PLEASE!!! Don’t use this argument!! It is beneath you. Are you seriously telling me that the offerings in Adventureland were kid UN-friendly enough to DEMAND a “kids only” ride? Cause that’s what it is! It isn’t “family”!! It’s for kids!!
Absolutely. Sure, Aladdin is for kids. Guess what, families often include KIDS!!!. I can very much say that POC, JC, the treehouse, are not very enjoyable for a 2 year old. Some three year olds might enjoy them, but not too many. As my kids get older I'll keep you informed about how they like these rides, but I'll guarantee it will be a few more years before they get more excited for those than they do for Aladdin. So yes, Adventureland very much could use a 'kids' ride. Do you not think a 2 year old should have a good time - or should they just not do it in Adventureland. To further reinforce the design of Aladdin - kids respond to bright, vibrant colors and spitting camels. The ride was intended for kids - the ride hits the target. As for fitting, I'm sure more thought went into selecting the color schemes than you think. So, it may not work for you, but that doesn't make it wrong, commish ;).

raidermatt
10-11-2002, 05:25 PM
DK, you seem to acknowledge that Aladdin is a departure from the previous direction of Adventureland (bright colors, appeals mainly to kids but not adults), but argue that is a good thing.

Rest assured that little kids do enjoy the Jungle Cruise (a boat ride) and Tiki Room. And they don't have to be much older to enjoy Pirates (another boat ride, though slightly more intense).

If you believe Adventureland needed to move in a different direction, so be it. I can only disagree and say that an addition that was more in line with the prior direction would have been more appropriate.

Remember, there is a difference between a family attraction and an attraction that appeals only to kids (for the most part). That difference is one of the main catalysts for Disneyland in the first place.


Few other quick points...

Any place in NY would, by defintion offer an authentic NY experience. NY is what it is, and if you're in Harlem, by definition you are experiencing the real NY. That doesn't make it the same type or quality of experience, however.



The reason I no longer buy the "Eisner lost focus" theory is the rifts that developed rather quickly between him and the other management talent within Disney. Yes, I will give him some credit for things like The Little Mermaid and Lion King, but only because the guy in charge ALWAYS has some responsibility for the end results.

Its pretty clear now that he fought against many of the things that turned out to be Disney successes. Its just that he had not yet consolidated his power to the point where he could win all of those battles.

Gradually, he got rid of everyone who would dare challenge him, and that resulted in his influence showing through more and more over time.

Yes, he did make better use of Disney's assets, like the film vault and land in WDW. I'll give him credit for that, as I see it as a necessary step for the company. But that's only a piece of the big picture, and eventually those assets lose their value. So new creations must emerge, and continue to emerge. The impact of the lack of these new creations is becoming more and more apparent.

DVC-Landbaron
10-11-2002, 07:05 PM
First a couple of bits of business. Mr. Matt! I owe you a PM! I am terrible at responding (I still owe JJ one and he isn’t even here anymore!! ;))! Sorry. I will soon.

Next montessori,I get depressed thinking about the good ol' days at Disney. Maybe I'll start a thread about it! "Remember when....?" I’ll gladly attend!! I got some really good ones!! :bounce:

OK! Now down to it!

ohanafamilyOK Baron, here is an OBJECTIVE “Slam Dunk” about why Aladdin does not belong where they placed it. HA!! You haven’t been around here much! No matter what I say the ‘opposition’ will not even give it a passing glance. without charges of subjectivity and bias!! But! What the heck! I’m game. We’ll give it a go.

Most of the rides that based on the animated movies are in Fantasyland. Snow White, Peter Pan, Winnie The Pooh… Etc. Mr. Kidds!!! HEY!!! How about it? you know the rest of the post. And I present it as written. No added comment. No sarcasm. Just my wholehearted support!

Well, is it a ‘slam dunk’?

I await the further discussion, and Baron, this may wind up being a 10 pagerYep!! It’s money in the bank!! Heck! We’re half way there already!!! :bounce:

Professor:
For me - while I have been able to sense a decreased lack of attention to detail - richness of detail in particular - in the parks under Mr. Pre$$ler (note I paid attention to the proper spelling) it has not reached the point where the experience has ceasedI feel the exact same way! To a tee! I even agree on your take regarding the service aspect. (BTW. Thank you for spelling the evil one’s name right!!)
I do strongly agree that if this trend continues Disney is going to be just a great amusement park, but not Disney. In my opinion I do not think we have reached that point.Again an agreement!! However, I think we are getting closer and closer all the time! And I find that sad. :(

WEDWAY100:
Wow the Baron copied a whole paragraph from me! That means I have to keep posting on this…I copied it because it was perfect! And I find that once again I agreed with every word of your most recent post!!

Don’t be a stranger!! (MATT!! Is there room in the shotgun seat for another?) :cool:

And speaking of the marvelous Mr. Matt: There are some who see nothing wrong with the current direction or philosophy. Many who subscribe to this belief use the "I still have a Magical time" argument. Unfortunately, that's missing the big picture.How nicely put!! Mr. Kidds!! Peter!! You listening?

OK! That’s all for now. I decided to save Mr. Kidds for a bit. I don’t want to think right now. It’s a Friday and I want to go brain dead for a while!! :crazy: (OK, hold the comments!!)

raidermatt
10-11-2002, 08:42 PM
I owe you a PM! Sorry. I will soon.

Not a problem. At your convenience...
:)

montessori
10-11-2002, 08:51 PM
We're packing for Disney! We'll leave at about 6:00 a.m. so we'll get there about 9:00 a.m. Maybe we'll try Kona Cafe for breakfast!

Have a great weekend, I know we will! :p

montessori
10-11-2002, 08:58 PM
We're packing for Disney! We'll leave at about 6:00 a.m. so we'll get there about 9:00 a.m. Maybe we'll try Kona Cafe for breakfast!

Have a great weekend, I know we will! :p

DVC-Landbaron
10-11-2002, 09:11 PM
Maybe we'll try Kona Cafe for breakfast! YES!!!! And if you've never tried it before, order the Tonga Toast!! Very, very sweet (you may want to split it with someone)!! But very, very good!! It's the only place in WDW that serves it!!

HAVE FUN!!!!

space42
10-12-2002, 09:51 AM
Absolutely. Sure, Aladdin is for kids. Guess what, families often include KIDS!!!. I can very much say that POC, JC, the treehouse, are not very enjoyable for a 2 year old. Some three year olds might enjoy them, but not too many.



As a kid, Adventureland was my favorite part of the MK.
Going on a boat adventure through the jungle.. Being brought right into the middle of a pirate battle. Watching birds sing, then the entire room erupting with song. Exploring a giant treehouse. The Tiki Drums!! Thankfully, kids today can still have most of these experiences.

I think this is another misconception with the current Disney. They think that kids need kiddie rides (see Flicks Fun Fair at DCA, Aladdin at MK and PW at DAK). I think its just an excuse to build with the bare minimum imagination and budget. Most kids are easily entertained.

ohanafamily
10-12-2002, 02:28 PM
I have been thinking... Since we are beating the poor Aladdin ride to death, how would I have designed an Aladdin ride for adventureland. This goes into the new "Lack of Imagineering" going into the new rides (that people keep on about in this thread)
;)
OK, how does this sound. the line entrance is an open mouth to the Cave of wonders. you wind through a line of massive gold accents and wonders as only Disney can come up with. You enter the ride, the magic carpet, and glide past a lamp and fly over Aggriba. A 3-d action ride, similar to Spider-man at IOA, with Jaffar chasing you. Explosions Bounces, a feeling like the carpet is falling out from under you. A super E Ticket thrill ride. Too scary for young children, but something that would challenge the adults to wait for 3 hours in line. A 3-5 minute ride that has a continuous streem of cars going through it. The ride could actually be placed over the Aggriba Bazaar, giving an outdour bazzar rain shelter.

What do you think?
:bounce:

DVC-Landbaron
10-12-2002, 03:22 PM
ohanafamily

That’s a doozie of an attraction. BUT... it really wasn’t needed. We’ve got plenty of “E”-tickets in MK! And I really don’t think that was the purpose. For you and I the “purpose” of a new attraction is... well... THE ATTRACTION!! Of course it is!! And for Walt that was the driving force behind many of the attractions he worked on. I’m sure there were a couple, here and there, that were fillers, but by and large the concept was driven by the innovation of either the technology or the experience. And my guess is many times it was both!! To a certain extent this was also the driving force behind much of EPCOT.

But no so today. Hmmm. There’s a real Jewell of a post by the wonderful Mr. Head. He has the amazing knack to articulate my feelings, when I just know them as feelings (think he’s got a brain reading machine?). Let me see if I can find it! ....................

.....................

.............

......

...

.


Ah! Here it is!! It was hiding on page 4 of the “DEBATE: The Commerce and Business of WDW, and Walt Himself.” thread. Pretty interesting stuff. If you haven’t read it, please do so. I think it sheds some interesting light on these related subjects. The difference between money being the goal and money being a tool you use in service of real goal is the difference between Aladdin and Pirates. The Aladdin ride is a cheap and common ride designed to provide a focus for the merchandise. The Pirates ride is a unique, creative tour-de-force, designed to entertain and delight... and it happens to be expensive to do that, so we're selling some overpriced crap to help us pay for it.

Pirates focused on the ride... the merchandising was intended to help supply Disney the money to do the ride right. Aladdin focuses on the merchandising... the cheap catalog-purchased ride was intended to help supply Disney the maximum profit margin on the merchandise.

Now, with this thought in mind, let’s take a look at where we stand. The Apologists and Justifiers would have you believe that Aladdin was built because the benevolent and compassionate Ei$ner (or his minions) saw a need to add a kid friendly ride in Adventureland. So they withdrew to their drawing boards and think tanks and came up with this wonderful concept!! They didn’t need an “E” ticket! They simply wanted to ‘give’ the poor deprived public something more. So a spinner would do! And they themed it bright and colorful because, well darn it anyway, it’s for the kids!!! (Kind of puts a lump in your throat, doesn’t it?)

Now I ask you. Logically, rationally and with all the candor you can muster, which reason do you think is the real one? Mr. Head’s? Or the Justifier’s?

In other words ohanafamily, an “E” ticket ride never stood a chance!!

ohanafamily
10-12-2002, 04:24 PM
Sniff Sniff, I guess you are right. But without innovation are we not doomed to a very evil car#4 overflowing with people who's pixie dust has worn off;)? I hope not, but Aladdin is a little dated to be building a huge E-ticket ride now. I was just saying the way I would have planned it in as innocent a manner as possible. IOA is all about Coasters, and I hope M:S at Epcot will be at least on par with the Spiderman ride at Universal. I would like to see a couple of new, over-the-top rides to combat all the money US is spending on their themes.
:bounce:

DisneyKidds
10-12-2002, 06:10 PM
Now I ask you. Logically, rationally and with all the candor you can muster, which reason do you think is the real one? Mr. Head’s? Or the Justifier’s?
A little of both. As someone around here pointed out, the world is a very gray place.

Captain Crook
10-12-2002, 06:28 PM
Tsk, tsk, tsk Landbaron...You trying to agitate me???
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

DVC-Landbaron
10-12-2002, 06:45 PM
Mr. Kidds. True. Most of the world is gray. But Ei$ner’s motivations aren’t!!

Captain. YES!! ;)

mmouse52
10-12-2002, 07:50 PM
The experience stops as soon as I go to the market place, animal kingdom and Mgm. This is why when I return each and every year I stay at the Polynesian, and visit the Magic Kingdom and enjoy that simplicity. As a visitor since 1972 (literally on my 20th birthday) I do feel funny telling people that I"m returning to the Poly. Walt, I don"t feel would have wanted all the hotels and parks to go up. His idea was Anytown USA.. Eisner and Company have made it a grubby money making machine that actually is not making all the money it wants. I have to think each year if I really want to go back. I have loved it most of my life but do feel very upset when I see what has happened to the little "Village" that we once knew.

Captain Crook
10-12-2002, 08:37 PM
mmouse53, you'd really be much happier at Disneyland, I think.

Landbaron, you should be ashamed of yourself...
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

ohanafamily
10-12-2002, 10:14 PM
I'm So Confused!!!
:bounce:

I just finished watching a Travel Channel show about Disney behind the scenes. They make MI out to be the hero that took control and gave direction when the plans that Walt made were finished. They said that he created MGM before Universal came in, and raced to beat it. They also indicated that he was the driving force behind Test Track, and all of the great rides at WDW. I want to believe, but I see so much (evil car #4 type) doom and gloom, I feel like my head is going to explode

Please Help!
At Least I am getting the hang of the editor
:bounce:

colleen costello
10-12-2002, 11:45 PM
We just watched this too, but more surprising to me than Mike Eisner was Walt himself -- he sounded like Ronald Reagan! Not content but his VOICE -- I felt like he was channeling Ronnie somehow...

So what are we to believe? I said to my husband, "Hey, the people on the DISboards think M.E. is EVIL..." I guess all the folks praising him need to keep their jobs, huh? In any case, the show was cool. I loved how they bought up the Orlando property in secret (FBI stuff!) and the old films of construction of the castle and Contemporary. I first visited in 1972... guess I am getting old. :)

DVC-Landbaron
10-13-2002, 01:42 AM
Originally posted by colleen costello

So what are we to believe? I said to my husband, "Hey, the people on the DISboards think M.E. is EVIL..." Not evil. Just inept. Very, very inept!!

Planogirl
10-13-2002, 01:43 AM
I don't think that Michael Eisner is evil, I believe that he needs to have the right staff working with him to get virtually anything worthwhile done. I see ME starting to fail when Frank Wells and Jeffrey Katzenburg went away. I have high hopes for Mission Space but I'm leery to say the least.

DisneyKidds, I love the analogy to Star Wars. I don't consider myself aligned with the dark side but if anyone could point me in the direction of Han Solo, I could go with this. ;)

We visited Six Flags over Texas today and spent plenty of time around spinners. The best thing about the Six Flags spinners is that they're not right in the middle of the walkways! Do I dare say that Six Flags, with all of its MANY warts and wrinkles, at least had sense enough not to do that? They're off to the side in paddocks of sorts, out of sight out of mind if a person wishes. One doesn't have to struggle through the crowds to get around them. Yes, I do agree with the placement complaint.

As for two year olds not enjoying Adventureland, I remember a certain two year old playing with a tambourine in one of the shops. The Tiki Birds were a hit and I got a little sick of the Jungle Cruise. :crazy: I fail to see why a spinner, THIS spinner was really needed. What's next, a Davy Crockett canoe spinner in Frontierland?

By the way, this is a wonderful discussion. :)

DisneyKidds
10-13-2002, 10:16 AM
DisneyKidds, I love the analogy to Star Wars. I don't consider myself aligned with the dark side but if anyone could point me in the direction of Han Solo, I could go with this.

"Luke............I am your father..........(add heavy Vader breathing for effect)" ;).

You see, even the leader of the dark side has so much in common with the pure one. Some of us hanging out with Luke like to think Vader just lost his way........... :cool:. Now Hans - he could just as likely be in car 4 as car 1. He likes to work with the good guys, but he is a loose cannon who could easily get sick of things and go off on his own.

Now for ME. Let's stipulate that 'Evil' = Bad for Disney - that might help the discussion as most don't think he is literally the spawn of satan ;). Now that we have that frame of reference, I will use my new favorite phrase................

Shades of gray, my friends. Shades of gray :).

He has done many good things. He has forgotten where the focus should be. Some say he has done no good and never knew the focus. I don't really agree. I'll take the good and hope we can work throught the bad.

SnackyStacky
10-13-2002, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by DisneyKidds
He has done many good things. He has forgotten where the focus should be. Some say he has done no good and never knew the focus. I don't really agree. I'll take the good and hope we can work throught the bad.

He has done good things. But the bad things he has done far outweigh the good. And even when he does do something good, it is with the wrong mindset which leads to problems.

I hate to get back into resorts, but you think the mods were okay to be built. Suppose, strictly for argument's sake, that I did agree with you (I don't, but....well....you get the idea). NOW, that good becomes bad because he can't FILL all of those rooms in those well-themed resorts. What good is a resort if there's nobody to stay there? Empty hotel rooms = cost increase for all involved. The management has to raise the rates so that those that DO stay there can cover the costs of running the hotel including the unused rooms.

All of those little wasteful rides like Aladdin add up. They keep putting up rides like this while jacking up admission rates. If we're going to pay more, shouldn't we essentially get more?

Here's an analogy for you. Michael Eisner being at the helm is like someone trying to get out of a cave without a map. He may hit a right path, but he'll take a wrong turn at that crossroads and continually get deeper and deeper and into the cave.

Planogirl
10-13-2002, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by SnackyStacky
I hate to get back into resorts, but you think the mods were okay to be built. Suppose, strictly for argument's sake, that I did agree with you (I don't, but....well....you get the idea). NOW, that good becomes bad because he can't FILL all of those rooms in those well-themed resorts. What good is a resort if there's nobody to stay there? Empty hotel rooms = cost increase for all involved.
Speaking of the resorts, I personally do appreciate the moderates. I think that they're less "Disney" but I still feel like they fit in even if just barely. But notice the progression. This goes from deluxes to moderates to the Allstars to Pop Century. I wonder sometimes what's next? I suppose that some of the deluxes and the Allstars are probably filling up the most rooms. But when did quality become secondary to the almighty dollar? When did Disney forget what originally made them Disney? Of course these questions are very subjective. ;)

All of those little wasteful rides like Aladdin add up.
Snackystacky, this is so true! As DisneyKidds so wisely pointed out, shades of gray. Perhaps fading to black? :confused:

DisneyKidds
10-14-2002, 12:10 AM
Good to see you again Mr. Snacky :).
But the bad things he has done far outweigh the good.
On the whole, considering where we are now - I would have to agree. Would you have said the same thing 5 years ago?

Aaagghhhh.....not the moderates again :(. I swore I wouldn't..........but........I.......can't........ .....help...............aaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!!!!

I think the concept of the moderates is a good one. However, it was in one of these threads that I spoke about Walt knowing when to draw the line and Eisner not knowing. I agree that there are too many moderates. I personally don't agree with the 'values' (my personal, subjective 'line in the sand' ;)). However, if someone were to defend the 'values' I bet they would agree that Pop was pushing too far. Heck, they probably should have stopped at Music (or whatever the second AS was).

Aladdin, wasteful? Perhaps in your (subjective) eyes. Just because some don't like it doesn't make it bleak, er.....I mean black ;).

FantasticDisFamily
10-14-2002, 08:38 AM
Hi folks,

Just returned to the world of the living, crawled out of that grading cave I've been in for a couple days.

Speaking of moderates - you have hit on my biggest beef with Eisner & Co.. These resorts FAIL at their prime intent, at least as marketed. They are intended to provided a themed (albeit limited) resort experience, on property for the family that is looking for a more budget oriented hotel room. However, NONE of these resorts has rooms that will hold more than 4 people. They don't have the day bed option that most of the "deluxe" resorts have. So even a family of 4 that has a boy & girl child either split up mom and dad to sleep with same gender child OR stays at a different resort. A family of 5 (where statistics say 2 of those 3 children will be same gender :p ) can not get accomodations.

This is failure to understand thy target market's needs and characteristics. Had my marketing principles students made such a basic error in demographic analysis they would have seen it severely reflected in their grade. Then of course as many have pointed out those rooms are not filling...

The Professor

DisneyKidds
10-14-2002, 09:52 AM
Speaking of moderates - you have hit on my biggest beef with Eisner & Co.
Ah, Professor - if moderates are something you have strong opinions about you may want to check out a few threads in your spare time (if only such a thing existed). We have discussed the moderate resorts at great length recently. These threads are long, but interesting................

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=253064

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=263332

FantasticDisFamily
10-14-2002, 10:16 AM
Well, "beef" may have been a bit strong. But this was such a fundamental failure of baseline strategic marketing principles that it seriously irks me. I'm not in disagreement with the concept per se - it conceivably has a place if it had been executed properly.

Ok, back to the work they pay me for...or do you think I can pass my addiction to these boards as scholarly research?:p

The Professor

SnackyStacky
10-14-2002, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by DisneyKidds
I think the concept of the moderates is a good one. However, it was in one of these threads that I spoke about Walt knowing when to draw the line and Eisner not knowing.

Look back at my post. I said that he has done good things. But his intentions were not good. And that's a dangerous mix. It leads companies down the path that Disney is now headed. When your motives are driven by profit and not quality, I don't care if you're Disney, Goodyear, or Enron - if your first priority is profit, well, look what's happening with the first, and look at what happenED with the last.

Eisner's motive is profit. And it's spelling disaster.

Aladdin, wasteful? Perhaps in your (subjective) eyes. Just because some don't like it doesn't make it bleak, er.....I mean black .

Whether or not you like Aladdin is beside the point. They have used that ride design one too many times. Not to mention the discussion of "Did Adventureland even really need it?" brings me back to someone else saying that it was strictly to push marketing for Aladdin goods in Adventureland.

So even if you DO like it, and it seems like there's a somewhat large group among those posting here that aren't really sure, the motives were off. And that maybe (BIG maybe) could have slid if it were one isolated incident. But when you set a precedent of ill-driven motives, it all adds up to the state of the Disney company right now.

How many more of those bad things intermingled with one or two good things is it going to take to finally drive Disney right into the ground?

WEDWAY100
10-14-2002, 01:59 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron who quoted WFHThe difference between money being the goal and money being a tool you use in service of real goal is the difference between Aladdin and Pirates. The Aladdin ride is a cheap and common ride designed to provide a focus for the merchandise. The Pirates ride is a unique, creative tour-de-force, designed to entertain and delight... and it happens to be expensive to do that, so we're selling some overpriced crap to help us pay for it.

Pirates focused on the ride... the merchandising was intended to help supply Disney the money to do the ride right. Aladdin focuses on the merchandising... the cheap catalog-purchased ride was intended to help supply Disney the maximum profit margin on the merchandise.[\QUOTE]

Uh oh. This could be my first disagreement with the good Baron on this thread! Or maybe my disagreement is with Mr. Frozen Head. Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you guys that Aladdin doesn’t fit were it is – and I’m still riding along in car 3. But I just can’t quite reconcile this argument.

While it sounds good on the surface, I submit that this argument could be just as well applied to Dumbo or the Teacups as it can to Aladdin. Let’s compare Dumbo with it’s a small world and the same conclusion could have been drawn. My point is that there should be room for all levels of attractions, A through E. Everything should not be an E ticket. I think it would actually be a problem if everything was an E ticket. A spinner could be a good B or possibly a C level attraction.

What concerns me about Aladdin is that (imo) the theme does not fit Adventureland on several levels (all of which have been stated in prior posts). But yet it got built. So either the imagineers didn’t see the inconsistencies, or they did and management shoved it down their throats. I can bet which one it was.

WEDWAY100
10-14-2002, 02:07 PM
Sorry about the quote thing. Didn't work like I thought...

raidermatt
10-14-2002, 03:02 PM
A little catching up to do...

Ohanafamily- Don't be confused. Just look at the results. Look at the recent additions to the parks and make your own judgement. Also, look at how the public at-large reacts (attendance).

As far as what Aladdin could have been, you've got the right idea, but it doesn't have to be a major E ticket thrill ride. If you've been to Universal, think ET. Or even Peter Pan in Fantasyland. With updated technology and effects, of course. I'm not saying copy one of those rides, just that those are examples of attractions that are good family attractions that aren't just copies of an already existing spinner. Surely Imagineers are still capable of creating new familty attractions...

Not that I don't like the Cave of Wonders thrill concept. If they're going to build a thrill attraction somewhere, a ride through the Cave of Wonders would be good for me...

WEDWAY100- I don't think the Head or Baron meant that Aladdin doesn't work because its not an E-ticket and Pirates is. It was more just the rationale used to create and implement the attractions. An A, B or C ticket attraction can still be a creation that is not just a way to sell some merchandise.

SnackyStacky
10-14-2002, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by WEDWAY100
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron who quoted WFHWhile it sounds good on the surface, I submit that this argument could be just as well applied to Dumbo or the Teacups as it can to Aladdin. Let’s compare Dumbo with it’s a small world and the same conclusion could have been drawn. My point is that there should be room for all levels of attractions, A through E. Everything should not be an E ticket. I think it would actually be a problem if everything was an E ticket. A spinner could be a good B or possibly a C level attraction.


I'd have to disagree there. Can a spinner really be a B or C attraction? Not in my estimation.

We can talk about Walt being an innovator, and I believe that he was, but there was absolutely NOTHING innovative about Dumbo as far as I am concerned. It was simply a spinner. But that was okay, because it was ONE spinner.

Mad Tea Party? Somewhat innovative. In all the times I've been on rides like it at Six Flags and carnivals, I've never been able to control my own spinning. Not to mention that you sit in a tea cup. A clever way to dress up a common carnival ride, and once again, there was (and in my estimation remains) only one of those types of rides on property.

Walt was very clever. The entire Magic Kingdom was one big push for his movies. But while he was advertising, and marketing, he gave you something special. What are you getting from Aladdin? Nothing that you can't get at Dumbo or Triceratop Spin.

Walt's Frozen Head
10-14-2002, 11:15 PM
Can a spinner really be a B or C attraction? Not in my estimation. The oldest ticket books I can actually see at the moment (1976) have Dumbo at a B. I notice that the decades old ride, the carousel, was only an A ticket.

Contrast with Aladdin, which I've seen referred to as a C ticket, a ride with only nominal upgrades over its now decades old B ticket cousin.

Sometimes I think some people overestimate what then management thought of Dumbo... I think they knew it was a cheap piece of crap that they dressed up as best they could. Same way Walt had them put little Latin signs on the weeds where they couldn't landscape in time for opening.

Doing it then was trying the last possible thing. Doing it now, with the resources available, is not trying at all.

Tangentially, I think that ticket definition has lost its usefulness somewhat by locking a ticket in at a thirty year old standard of quality. A lot of people seem to think of Rock 'n' Roller Coaster as an E ticket... when it's basically some nominal improvements over the decades old Space Mountain, with a shorter ride time. At best RnRC is a D ticket in today's marketplace, and a C rating is not altogether indefensible. Buzz Lightyear is at best a C ticket because it's a basic dark ride (like Peter Pan, Mr Toad/Pooh, and Snow White), and should arguably be less than that since time has cheapened and improved ride technologies. But I see it referred to as an E simply because it generates lines.

WEDWAY100, Matt had it right... the point I wanted to make had more to do with choosing themes for their entertainment value versus their impulse buying potential than differences in the scope of that theme's execution. I'm a huge Snow White's Scary Adventures fan... I appreciate the Magic of the well executed B or C ride.

-WFH

hopemax
10-15-2002, 12:11 AM
The oldest ticket books I can actually see at the moment (1976) have Dumbo at a B. I notice that the decades old ride, the carousel, was only an A ticket.

This is for Disneyland:

1967: Dumbo - C, Rocket Jets - C, Mad Tea Party - B, Carousel - A
1969: Dumbo - C, Rocket Jets - D, Mad Tea Party - C, Carousel - A
1970: Dumbo - C, Rocket Jets - D, Mad Tea Party - C, Carousel - A
1975: Dumbo - C, Rocket Jets - D, Mad Tea Party - C, Carousel - A

DisneyKidds
10-15-2002, 12:48 AM
Dumbo... I think they knew it was a cheap piece of crap that they dressed up as best they could.
Fine, let's call it a cheap piece of crap. That just goes to show that a cheap piece of crap could become one of the most endearing rides in the MK. So how do we explain that? Have people been settling for crap since 1972 the way we say people settle for crap now if they think that Aladdin is a worthy addition?

I think that a simple ride with a strong tie in to a popular animated feature can be very 'Disney', and Dumbo proves that. People seem to think bigger is better, that E-ticket rides are the be all and end all - but that isn't so. Sure, Disney should put in more E-tickets, but additions like Aladdin in the interim are good.

So one Dumbo spinner is OK, but two are wrong? Who is decrying Pooh/Snow Whites Scary Adventure/Peter Pan - all similar ride mechanisms/concepts? One could argue that Space and Thunder Mountains are not much different ride mechanism wise, and nobody finds fault there. Seems to me that having rides based on similar platforms that are differently themed is fine, always has been, and I see no reason why that should be different for the toddler set.

ohanafamily
10-15-2002, 05:52 AM
I know that this is showing my ignorance, but what are the definitions of "A-E Ticket Rides".

The merry Go-Round is an A-Ticket,
I like Buzz Light Year, only a C Ticket.. what makes up the difference; shouldn't the shooting option innovation bring up the ticketness?

Please Explain, without the "CR@P" words... this is a family place... I hear enough of that language without having to read it in a "Civilized Place"
:bounce:

Walt's Frozen Head
10-15-2002, 10:58 AM
So one Dumbo spinner is OK, but two are wrong? One spinner as a last ditch effort with limited funds in the relative technological backwater of 1970 to give the guest more to do is OK (note use of "OK," not "100% Disney Magic"). Two spinners that at one time represented 67% of new WDW ride installations while the company is spending billions in the technological wonderland of the New Millenium to give Disney something to hang their plush carts and carnival games off of is much worse (note use of relative term "worse," not absolute term "wrong").

You know, I saw your post about others acknowledging shades of gray, so it's particularly disappointing when you turn around and reduce what I say to black-and-white.

I understand that there are shades of gray and we all judge those shades differently. I am not advocating some precise shade of gray as Magical, I'm just saying if Magic is black and ordinary is white, we should expect from Disney grays that are consistently and significantly blacker than what we're getting.

My points nearly exclusively deal with the underlying creative infrastructure of Disney's products, not the enjoyment anyone gets out of the products. Less-than-good intentions and processes can produce good results, it just happens that way sometimes... and good intentions and processes can produce less-than-good results, in the same way. I agree with you in that, nothing's black and white.

But I believe good intentions and good processes will produce results judged as "good" by more people, more consistently, than will the less than good intentions and processes. Therefore, the "gooder" the intentions and processes, the better the expected results.

I don't believe one can go in and produce "results" out of whole cloth... one uses tools (processes) to make ones goals (intentions) real enough to send into the world... then the world tells you what the "results" are. So I don't think saying "make a popular ride" is a meaningful business directive. I believe that saying "improve our tools and raise the bar on our goals" _is_ a meaningful business directive, and is the best way to improve one's chances for successful results, and, now that I think about it, is about as good a defintion of "Disney Magic" as I've ever accidentally stumbled across while writing my posts.

My complaints about the intentions and processes used in creating Aladdin are not intended to precipitate that ride's removal and destruction... what's done is done and if people like it, great.

I just think that if Disney continues to commercialize their intentions and budget cut and outsource their processes to death, they will continue to struggle as they turn out products that people, on the whole, fail to judge as "good."

What I'm suggesting is positive action on the end where it might make a difference. You may feel free to disagree with that plan. But taking my point, removing its heart and reducing it to "one spinner = Magic, two spinners = evil" only makes me wonder whether you didn't understand my point or if you just ignored it.That just goes to show that a cheap piece of crap could become one of the most endearing rides in the MK. So how do we explain that? What's to explain? It's human nature. Sometimes crap sells and is enjoyed. I have an entirely unhealthy love for the cheap crap known as the McDonald's cheeseburger... I just don't harbor any illusions about the quality of the ingredients or the care in the preparation, and I don't feel the need to be defensive about liking something that's obviously crap: it's cheap fast food, and you get what you pay for.

I think Aladdin is the Disney ride version of Fast Food. Disney built its reputation with rides like Pirates, the Disney ride version of a multi-course meal. Particularly now that Disney is struggling, I think it's a good idea to go "back to basics," which means, in this analogy, making the full course meals upon which the brand was built.

I have nothing against fast food per se, my only personal problem is that the full course meals I grew up on and crave are now only available as leftovers, and my only business-related problem is that the customers don't seem to be buying the fast food (which I attribute at least partially to the sacrifice of Disney's brand association with the full course meals), putting the company in a bad position.

Dumbo is fine, Dumbo is fun. Dumbo just isn't the compelling reason that people on the whole go to Disney World. I think Disney needs more compelling reasons for people on the whole to go to Disney World.

I don't know whether you consider "compelling reasons... to go to Disney World" white or black, but I'm saying it's better if our shade of gray moves in that direction, and the more it moves that direction, the better off Disney is likely to be.

-WFH

PS: Hopemax, interesting about Dumbo being a C at DL and a B at WDW. Does anyone have any WDW tickets earlier than '76 lying around? Did Dumbo WDW begin life as a C and get lowered, or was it always B?

It's surprising to me that some DL rides gained a ticket by growing a couple years older. Although I suppose if you're running a ticket book system for ride passage, then you _do_ have to swap ticket around based on the rides' relative popularity, if only for controlling lines. I wonder if that's where the "ticket rating = line length" equation originated. Of course, that would mean today's A tickets are the walk-on Pirates and Spaceship Earth and the E tickets are the half-opened counter service restaurants...

colleen costello
10-15-2002, 10:58 AM
Keep in mind through all this that some of the best-loved rides weren't "E" tickets. One of my all time favorites was "If You Had Wings" which was, I believe, located where Buzz Lightyear is today. The song was catchy (I can still hear it in my head) and the images and motion made it a really fun ride. We must have rode it a hundred times during the 1970's and early 80's. Similarly, my Mom's favorite was always the Tiki Birds and we endured that one repeatedly. Dad loved the Hall of Presidents. That show is themed beautifully and quite a marvel of animatronics and research and costuming -- but to this day I fall alseep in it. Just because an attraction is top-notch doesn't mean it will be a favorite -- and vice-versa.

Patch'sD
10-15-2002, 11:50 AM
Is the MK a complete park that will keep people coming back. With rides Like Splash, Thunder, Pirates, Space Mountain, JC and Haunted Mansion in place aren't these the mainstays that bring in the people in. Aren't rides like Pooh, Buzlightyear and Aladdin sort of like updating to sort of tweak the expierence. Peter pan and Snow White are still very identifiable, where Toad was not. I think that is going to be more of the norm. Dumbo has always had a line for it, why not give more to the kids. Alladin is just that, something more for the kids. Isn't that the demographic that Disney markets MK to.

At this time Disney does not have to add a new E-Ticket ride to keep them coming at MK. The other parks need those rides, Gee Whiz is going to be developed for the older teen and above market. Future updates for the MK concentrate on the Disney marketable characters and animation. Next up will be a 20K makeover that involves the little mermaid is my guess. Give what they want, not what you think they may want.

SnackyStacky
10-15-2002, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by Patch'sD
Alladin is just that, something more for the kids. Isn't that the demographic that Disney markets MK to.

But see, therein lies the problem.

Disneyland was created as a place to take the entire family, where EVERYBODY could enjoy the rides. There will be rides that some people don't like, and that same ride will be adored by others. (ie Dumbo....and I happen to be one who doesn't like it)

Walt NEVER seperated anything into "kiddie" rides, because that's EXACTLY what he was trying to get away from! He hated taking his kids to the carnival because he was bored!!! He wanted to do stuff too. Enter Disneyland! A place where parents and kids can enjoy the rides together.

But it doesn't just stop there. Disneyland was for EVERYBODY to enjoy, whether children are involved or not.

What do you get when you add all that together? A demographic that includes people that are just a few days old to those who, if people lived that long, are 200 years old. It didn't matter if someone who was 23 years old came by themselves, or if a newlywed couple came with a newborn. EVERYBODY could enjoy it.

When I said that one spinner was okay, I never meant that more than one was "evil". Walt's Frozen Head elaborated on exactly what I had meant when I said what I did.


Ohana, I've never researched it, but from what I can gleam from these discussion boards (all of them, not just news and rumors):
A - E tickets were how things were priced intitially. I don't know if there was a gate entrance, but you paid per ride. The higher the ticket letter, the more expensive it was, but the higher the calibre of the ride. So an E ticket ride was more expensive than an A ticket, but it was also supposed to be a cream -of-the-crop type of ride. (Hence the E-Ride Nights....nights when the E-ticket rides are open...)

DisneyKidds
10-15-2002, 01:04 PM
My esteemed Head...................

That was quite a post, and very well written. I agree with a lot of it, and did not choose to ignore your main point. Rather, over on the 'Commerce' thread a certain Raiders fan embraced your concept (now known as the Pre$$ler Principle?) that Aladdin was nothing more than a plush sales vehicle. I don't agree that that was the case, but I do agree that if that were to be the underlying motivation for action taken at WDW that it is very bad, a fatal flaw :(. I had no intention to take the gray out of your palette. My humble apologies if you go that impression. Actually, you were not the one that said that one spinner was ok and two was bad. That part of my post was directed at the Snacky one ;).

Now for the specifics............and we agree on a lot more than one might think (you know - back to those fine lines and shades of gray).
One spinner as a last ditch effort with limited funds in the relative technological backwater of 1970 to give the guest more to do is OK.
Whatever it was, it worked, as you acknowledge. Fact of the matter is that, for the target audience (the toddler set), it still works today. Sometimes the simplest things are the most fun for the little ones.
Two spinners that at one time represented 67% of new WDW ride installations
Now it is you who ignore my point. I agree wholeheartedly that Disney should be adding more E-ticket rides. The MK is probably least in need of them, but more major rides should be added. I don't think that rides like Aladdin should represent the majority of WDW ride installations. However, in the interim a ride like Aladdin is OK. A lot of things beside Disney mistakes have conspired to keep them from making the large capital investments that E-ticket rides require, the economy and 9-11 being the major ones. But look at what we have coming up - M:S and a Spain pavillion in Epcot, rumors about Forbidden Mountain in AK that are getting stronger, more entertainment offerings, all on the heals of things like RnR, which wasn't added all that long ago, relatively speaking. I can understan people losing patience, but in time things will balance. A couple of years from now major E-tickets will represent 67% of installations. A couple of years after that maybe the C's are back to 67% - ebb and flow, ebb and flow...................
while the company is spending billions in the technological wonderland of the New Millenium to give Disney something to hang their plush carts and carnival games off of is much worse.
:confused: Ok, I'm with you on DinoRama, and I know your position on Aladdin, but billions?
But I believe good intentions and good processes will produce results judged as "good" by more people, more consistently, than will the less than good intentions and processes. Therefore, the "gooder" the intentions and processes, the better the expected results.
Agreed.
Disney built its reputation with rides like Pirates, the Disney ride version of a multi-course meal.
Eh....I think the reputation is a result of the sum of all the parts. Something for everyone. I can bring my 3 year old to the nicest 5 course meal, but she's still probably only going to eat one simple course. I bet we could get a 10 pager out of this reputation question alone ;).

WEDWAY100
10-15-2002, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by Walt's Frozen Head

I have nothing against fast food per se, my only personal problem is that the full course meals I grew up on and crave are now only available as leftovers, and my only business-related problem is that the customers don't seem to be buying the fast food (which I attribute at least partially to the sacrifice of Disney's brand association with the full course meals), putting the company in a bad position.



Mr. Frozen Head,

My, you have very well thought out positions for a guy with a frozen head. And, after clarification, your analogies seem to be right on target. I presume you are in car 3 as well?

As for the quote above, I have one thought that keeps nagging at me so maybe we all could address it here. I’m not so sure that there has been a complete lack of E-ticket attractions implemented recently. There may be a lower ratio of E-tickets to A-D tickets, but there have definitely been attempts. In particular, I am thinking about Test Track. There was a good deal of money spent on this attraction. It was sponsorship money, but it was still quite a large budget attraction. However, Test Track falls short for me. It’s not a GREAT thrill ride, and it’s not a GREAT show. It’s all somewhat bland. I feel the same way about that attraction as I do about the movie Pearl Harbor. $100M+ to make the thing, but it got off course somewhere, and the end product is not the Wow that I hoped for.

I am now thinking that an E-ticket attraction might not always be the great hit they hope for. Just as movie studios make bad movies on blockbuster budgets, Disney can make bad attractions with E-ticket budgets. I’m sure that the execs that have to green light these things probably lose sleep from time to time.

So back to your analogy: with Test Track, they gave us a new five course meal, it just didn’t taste very good to me.

For those of you asking about the A-E tickets, originally, at both DL and WDW, you bought a ticket book. The book had a general admission ticket, and an assortment of A through E tickets. When you ran out of tickets, you could buy more inside the park. Examples of A ticket attractions are the carousel and the horse drawn carriage on Main Street. Examples of E tickets were Pirates, the Haunted Mansion and the Matterhorn. At the time I went, an A ticket was about 10 cents and an E ticket was about $1.00. It should also be noted that there were some free attractions throughout the park. If You Had Wings at the MK was free as well as Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln at DL.

After going to the all inclusive admission tickets, these A-E tickets were no longer used. The benefits of the new ticketing system is obvious, but there are some aspects of the A-E tickets that I think have been lost. The primary loss is the automatic rating system that it created. Since you knew what each ticket cost, your expectations were set before you experienced an attraction. You did not pull out an “A” ticket and expect to get a ride like Pirates. Since the implementation of the all inclusive ticket, it seems that all people want is a park full of E ticket state of the art blockbusters. For me, the Disney experience includes all levels of attractions, as long as they are well done.

raidermatt
10-15-2002, 03:53 PM
I agree wholeheartedly that Disney should be adding more E-ticket rides.
E-ticket, A ticket, that's not the point. I'm sure the Head will let us know if he feels differently, but its not the "ticket level" of the attraction that is in question. I know I'm not calling for E-ticket only additions.

(That's not to say that whether there should be more e-tickets is not a valid question, only that its not the point in this discussion)

The point is that Aladdin is an example of a half-way decent result coming from a severly flawed process.

I don't think that rides like Aladdin should represent the majority of WDW ride installations.
It doesn't. Its probably on the high-end.

But look at what we have coming up - M:S and a Spain pavillion in Epcot,
I have high hopes for M:S, but just being an E-ticket doesn't make it good.

Remember, adding new attractions is only part of what we expect from Disney. We also expect certain things from those attractions, like quality, story-telling, SHOW, and an overall fit with the parks philosophy of family entertainment.

Making a judgement about M:S in any direction woudl be premature. My only real criticism at this point is that it will be another attraction with a height requirement. It seems that all new MAJOR attractions at Disney are coming with height requirements these days (unless its a 3D movie...)

Spain is still a rumor, unless I missed something (certainly possible).

...rumors about Forbidden Mountain in AK that are getting stronger,
There's been ebb and flow on this one for quite some time. Maybe its going to happen, but again there much more to it than just building a ride.
...more entertainment offerings,
Seriously, where? Beauty and the Beast added two days, and Hunchback lost five days. I know the tests are going on at MK, but as of yesterday, no hours have been extended, or shows added beyond either this or next week. There are more characters, which is nice, but part of that comes from CC going away...
...all on the heals of things like RnR, which wasn't added all that long ago, relatively speaking.
Considering there are four parks on property, I'd say this is quite a long time in theme park years...

I can understand people losing patience, but in time things will balance. A couple of years from now major E-tickets will represent 67% of installations. A couple of years after that maybe the C's are back to 67% - ebb and flow, ebb and flow...................
How on Earth can you possibly accept this as a foregone conclusion? Generally speaking, trend analysis works well with entire economies, and even industries. But individual companies buck that trend in both directions all the time. If you think Disney is a well-managed company who has the appropriate philosophy regarding their parks, then sure, you probably think we will automatically see an upturn soon. But is that really what you think?

Walt's Frozen Head
10-15-2002, 08:12 PM
I presume you are in car 3 as well? I like to think of myself as the hood ornament on Car 3*. Although the 'Baron occasionally puts me on the roof and makes me yell "I'm a si-reen! I'm a si-reen!"

So back to your analogy: with Test Track, they gave us a new five course meal, it just didn’t taste very good to me. I could take the easy way out and just agree with you, but I'd rather redefine the terms, which means I must now disagree with you, but on the front end of the sentence (well, on both ends, really, but the fact that I enjoy riding Test Track shouldn't make a difference in this conversation).

I've taken it upon myself to decide that the definitions of ride tickets should not be anchored at levels acheived thirty years ago.

If they put up Space Mountain today, it would not rate an E ticket, it would get a C or D at best. Cough *Rock 'n' Roller Coaster* cough.

I say the reason you didn't think Test Track tasted right is because it isn't right. I don't think Test Track scores highly enough on several scales to be considered an E ticket, an example of the very best Disney can do. It might arguably be just as good as the best they could do decades ago, but that's not good enough, now.

-WFH

* - technically, after November 4th, I'll be on Car 4. For the first time since I've been paying for my own vacations, I don't have a next WDW trip planned.

airlarry!
10-15-2002, 10:22 PM
M. Head:

Been reading your posts a long time, and I've really gotten to enjoy the new and improved head. Still biting, but much funnier, and definitely more of a debater.

These two lines, good sir, are classics:

I think Aladdin is the Disney ride version of Fast Food. Disney built its reputation with rides like Pirates, the Disney ride version of a multi-course meal. Particularly now that Disney is struggling, I think it's a good idea to go "back to basics," which means, in this analogy, making the full course meals upon which the brand was built.

Right. Nothing wrong with fast food. We love the Pirate & the Parrot. But the question is, and one M. Scoop answers in the negative it seems from his colloquy with M. Matt, is could they have done better? Is Dumbo Spitting Sideways the best they could have gotten? I don't think so.

Remember that Baron & I came out publicly when it opened and said *any* addition is welcomed. I still mean that. Not replacements (they are graded harded), but *any* addition is welcome, but that doesn't mean it is applauded.

Hey, one last thing. Stick around in Car # 3. The upcoming sights over the next year just watching what will happen in Cali might end up as a D or E* ticket ride in and of itself. Call it the "Haunted TDA," with 999 inhabitants who would scare the beegeezus out of any self-respecting Disney nut.

DVC-Landbaron
10-16-2002, 12:11 AM
Although the 'Baron occasionally puts me on the roof and makes me yell "I'm a si-reen! I'm a si-reen!"I thought you volunteered!! :crazy:

But only when the Pirate, Scoop and Mr. Kidds are double teaming!! (Yes, it takes all three to make a double!!)

DisneyKidds
10-16-2002, 12:17 AM
Mr. Matt - let me clarify a few things. No big disagreements (ok, maybe one or two ;)), but a few clarificatiosn nonetheless.
E-ticket, A ticket, that's not the point.
Once again, I agree. Take away the x-ticket definition. I agree that Disney needs to add rides at every level. Blockbusters down to kiddie rides - not just the multi-course gourmet meals like Pirates (we won't call it an E-ticket if you don't want to) like the chilly one has suggested.
The point is that Aladdin is an example of a half-way decent result coming from a severly flawed process.
Objection, your honor. Badgering the witness, calls for speculation. You see, just because you keep saying it is half-way anything doesn't change the fact that it hits the target for the intended audience, an audience just as deserving of a new addition than anyone else. Furthermore, we have no evidence regardingintent in the planning and design.
It doesn't. Its probably on the high-end. (Regarding % of new installations)
Hey, someone else threw out the 67%, which I do believe would represent a majority.
I have high hopes for M:S, but just being an E-ticket doesn't make it good.
Once again, agreed. I was not making any determinations about quality. I was just pointing out that the multi-course meals, blockbusters, big ticket rides, E-tickets, whatever you want to call them, are being cooked up by the chef as we speak. That will alter that 67% figure in due time.
If you think Disney is a well-managed company who has the appropriate philosophy regarding their parks, then sure, you probably think we will automatically see an upturn soon. But is that really what you think?
Even a poorly managed company realizes at some point that they are poorly managed. Changes will come about in time, but you are correct in that I have no proof. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
(Yes, it takes all three to make a double!!)
Ouch :rolleyes: - and I was starting to enjoy the silence of the Baron ;). I guess this is the best one can do when they have no comeback on content :p.

DVC-Landbaron
10-16-2002, 02:30 AM
Objection, your honor. Badgering the witness, calls for speculation. You see, just because you keep saying it is half-way anything doesn't change the fact that it hits the target for the intended audience, an audience just as deserving of a new addition than anyone else. Objection, your honor! Call for a conclusion!! We have a problem with the witness’s expertise, credibility and bias. How do we know that that this does indeed ‘hit’ the target as well as anything else could have, and how do we know that the audience was just as deserving? There have been many, with the same level of expertise, that have testified that this was a useless addition. Still others contended that it was indeed welcome, but falls very, very short of the ‘target’. I move the entire section be struck and the jury ordered to disregard!

Even a poorly managed company realizes at some point that they are poorly managed. Changes will come about in timeMr. Kidds. I really like talking to you, although sometimes the tongue in cheek gets in the way! This is why I gave you all that above stuff to have fun with. But I’d really like to get serious for a moment.

Please!! Give me a clue!! I’m damn near begging!! Cause I really want to know!! What in the world leads you to believe that this company will even realize they are poorly managed? And even more important, what gives you that ‘warm and fuzzy’ that it will ever turn around?

That’ll do for a start. But there is a final question for you to ponder. If Walt were a 10 and Ei$ner a zero (hey! I believe in type casting ;)) and this turn around does happen, what number will come up on the ‘providing magic’ chart?

Thanks!


PS: My computer crashed over the week-end!! I couldn’t even view what was going on! So forgive me if the typing is a little shaky. I was going through DIS withdrawals!!

raidermatt
10-16-2002, 04:40 AM
I was just pointing out that the multi-course meals, blockbusters, big ticket rides, E-tickets, whatever you want to call them, are being cooked up by the chef as we speak.
We're still missing on this one. We don't yet KNOW if these things being cooked up are really the multi-course meals. We know Space will be a different ride, and its got a pretty big amount of money thrown at it, but that doesn't mean its going to be what we expect from Disney. DR cost more than Aladdin, has more rides, etc, but it doesn't really come any closer to hitting the mark.

Somebody else pointed out that really, any ADDITION is welcome to at least a certain extent. In my book, even DR is better than nothing. But just making additions, even expensive ones, is not enough. I see TT and RnRC, and I see that they are decent efforts in my book. But they aren't of the same quality as ToT and Splash. Question is, is that a trend? Will M:S continue downward? I hope not, but the only reason I can really see to believe it will be of ToT and Splash quality is that it is sponsored, and paid for by someone else. It seems that the sponsors are more concerned than Disney is about an attraction's affect on the audience. (example: JIYI is redone at the behest of Kodak, while Superstar Limo is just shut down).

Even a poorly managed company realizes at some point that they are poorly managed.
Again, not a foregone conclusion. If it were, every management team would turn things around before getting the axe, before asset sell-offs are required, before the company is stripped of its creative talent, and before complete break-ups and sell-offs continue.

ohanafamily
10-16-2002, 09:13 AM
example: JIYI is redone at the behest of Kodak
OK, you got me started on the Figment ride... I will keep it short and sweet. SUBJECTIVELY It should never have been changed in the first place. SUBJECTIVELY I think that they realized it was a big mistake. OBJECTIVELY Kodak paid for it. SUBJECTIVELY I will wait till next week to judge for myself if it was a downgrade from the original ride. Again, SUBJECTIVELY I don't think that they should have messed with it, and they knew how many complaints that they have already received. SUBJECTIVELY They knew that they had to spend (Kodak’s) money.

Even a poorly managed company realizes at some point that they are poorly managed.
I hear a name...the name is ENRON...They might have realized that they were mismanaged too, at some level. I don't mean to compare the two companies, but where the point of realization is and what is will be done about it. Finally, the depressing point; what can we do about it when it hits.

PS: My computer crashed over the week-end!! I couldn’t even view what was going on! So forgive me if the typing is a little shaky. I was going through DIS withdrawals!!
Poor Baron, I hope you had a good backup of your data!!!


Objection, your honor! Call for a conclusion!!
Isn't it supposed to be a Directed Verdict? I am not up on my Legalese. ;)

P.S. I feel a little like Jiminy Cricket with my shiny new Gold Badge...

DisneyKidds
10-16-2002, 11:57 AM
Good to have you back..............
How do we know that that this does indeed ‘hit’ the target as well as anything else could have
Who said anything about 'as well as anything else'? Sure, Disney could have done other things that might have even been *gasp* better. But that is beside the point. How do we know it hit the target? I can only base my conclusions on my direct observations. First hand knowledge of the fact that young kids really enjoy the ride. They get excited about it. Go and watch. I bet there are car 3ers out there with young kids that enjoy this ride very much, unless they tell little Johnny "you can't like this ride, it doesn't fit, it is platic, it is loud, it is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!".
Mr. Kidds. I really like talking to you, although sometimes the tongue in cheek gets in the way!
Not sure where you feel tongue was inserted in cheek, but it wasn't this............
Even a poorly managed company realizes at some point that they are poorly managed. Changes will come about in time
What leads me to believe that? Well, nothing in writing, except maybe some handwriting on the wall. Listen, when your stock is in the toilet as it is now, things will eventually change. I can't say how long it will take, but come on - Disney is not a company on the verge of bankruptcy. They have been mismanaged, and the world is slowly starting to realize that. That will effect change. Small things are happening, but sometimes you need to take baby steps. Enron does not apply. Let's not forget that they were cooking the books for who knows how long. They were perpetrating illegal activities. That is not what Disney is doing. If you dig out the financials, the true fianancials and not the cooked ones, Disney is a much stronger company than Enron was. Disney will survive their long term mismanagement and recent economic challenges because they simply have too many strong assets that need to be recapitalized on. Ei$ner did it in the 80's, and someone will do it in the 00's. Proof - I have none. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Again, not a foregone conclusion. If it were, every management team would turn things around before getting the axe, before asset sell-offs are required, before the company is stripped of its creative talent, and before complete break-ups and sell-offs continue.
Sometimes these things have to happen before people get their heads out of their..............:eek:.
But there is a final question for you to ponder. If Walt were a 10 and Ei$ner a zero (hey! I believe in type casting ) and this turn around does happen, what number will come up on the ‘providing magic’ chart?
I'm not sure I understand the question. Walt was a 10 at providing magic. The Eisner team, at varying points during ME's tenure has ranged from an 8 (mid to late 80's) to a .5 (today). When things turn we will slowly climb out of the .5 basement, but there is no reason to believe that the company can't return to a 9 (and only 9 because no one will ever be as good as Walt).

You can call me a fool if you like, but months ago some of us said 'bide your time, EE will return, hours will come back, etc.' You all asked the same question - 'how can you possibly believe that?'. Well, guess what, EE is back, MK hours are up a little, there are fireworks every night in Nov/Dec. It is a start. Who looks foolish now?

ohanafamily
10-16-2002, 01:18 PM
My Dear Mr. Kidds,
I only used the Enron example because it illustrates the Management doesn't have to recognize the problems.

DisneyKidds
10-16-2002, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by ohanafamily
My Dear Mr. Kidds,
I only used the Enron example because it illustrates the Management doesn't have to recognize the problems.
Fair enough. However, it seems to me one of two things eventually has to happen, especially in companies as large and well structured as Disney and Enron. One would be to recognize the problem and take corrective action. Another would be to recognize the problem and take illegal action to hide it. Enron management recognized the problem, but management was corrupt. Do you believe the same can be said of Disney?

ohanafamily
10-16-2002, 01:58 PM
In all seriousness,I feel that they hide a lot from us.

as an example, in my recent crusade about the Disney Store in Dallas loosing their Gallery Items. I tried to find sales figures for this type of item in the annual reports and from many people (CMs). The information is "Restricted Access". I could not even get the current number of Disney Stores in the US, let alone international. The Annual reports are pretty, and they have a lot of fluff that looks like information, but there isn't that much meat in it.

SUBJECTIVELY I think that there is a lot that they are hiding from us stock-holders.
:bounce:

montessori
10-16-2002, 02:12 PM
I'm surprised that there could be so much debate about the Aladdin ride. I'm not going to go on and on about it, but I have to put in my two cents. I just saw again it on Sunday.

I've been trying to think of the most adequate word to describe this ride.

In a word, it is a MONSTROSITY!

The fact that little children like it, is not argument enough for it's existence at the Magic Kingdom.
Little children LOVE empty cardboard boxes too! :p

WEDWAY100
10-16-2002, 02:31 PM
I like to think of myself as the hood ornament on Car 3*. Although the 'Baron occasionally puts me on the roof and makes me yell "I'm a si-reen! I'm a si-reen!"

Mr. Frozen Head,

As long as you guys let me ride along in car 3, you can be the hood ornament. Kind of like the Deathmobile in Animal House, but colder.

I've taken it upon myself to decide that the definitions of ride tickets should not be anchored at levels acheived thirty years ago.

Hmmmm… A sliding A – E scale for attractions over time. I guess I’ll have to go along with that. It seems to me that over time, some attractions were actually downgraded while the old ticket system was still in use. I can’t remember any specific examples right now, but I’m pretty sure that some attractions changed ratings. Since Disney was willing to slide that scale themselves, I agree that it must be accepted. You are changing my Disney perceptions by the day!

One more point that I have been thinking about regarding new E tickets: Since imagineering just got done with TDS, and the OLC just paid for a ton of R&D on new attractions, wouldn’t it make sense to wait a year or 2, see what works, and then implement those designs in the domestic parks? That’s a great way to minimize costs and still deliver a good product. In fact, I think that the OLC got the best that Imagineering had to offer over the last several years, and the domestic parks got the rest.

Are you really ready for car 4? I made a joke about that in an earlier post, but I really think that car 4 people won’t be posting or even lurking on these boards. What’s the point? They will be playing golf and riding their bikes and fishing. And of course complaining that the golf course isn’t maintained as well as in the past…

RAMMING SPEED!!!!!!

raidermatt
10-16-2002, 03:30 PM
ohanafamily- I never rode the original Imagination ride, but have to believe it was great based on all of the comments. I did ride the first re-do, and the latest re-do.

I have no idea why it was changed the first time, but was more referring to the second change. (Yes, its better than the "non-Figment" version).

Listen, when your stock is in the toilet as it is now, things will eventually change.
But it doesn't always change. Disney's current problems are significant, but they aren't significant enough to mandate change, at least with the current board makeup. Eisner is so firmly entrenched, that it appears its going to take very significant negative events to bring about any changes.

And even at that point, who knows what direction things will move in...

I'm not saying doom and gloom is the only possibility, only that it is a very real possibility.

I do definitely agree that Enron is not really a good comparison. I'm sure Disney does its share of corporate monkey business, but we have no proof that there is criminal levels of deception going on. That's not to say its not a possibility, but its no more a possibility with Disney than with hundreds of other companies.

Well, guess what, EE is back, MK hours are up a little, there are fireworks every night in Nov/Dec. It is a start. Who looks foolish now?
I know EE is back, but are you sure about the rest? For MK, based on what is currently posted at Disney.com, and historical hours from laughingplace.com, total Nov '00 hours were 328, '01 was 308, and '02 is 296.

Also, according to Disney.com, until Thanksgiving week, Fantasy in the Sky is only on Saturdays and Tuesdays. Spectro is Saturdays only. I believe Laughingplace shows Fantasy being peformed every night last November.

Nothing has been extended beyond this week's tests at MK.

Or did I miss something (certainly a possibility), and Disney.com hasn't been updated?

DisneyKidds
10-16-2002, 04:04 PM
I know EE is back, but are you sure about the rest? For MK, based on what is currently posted at Disney.com, and historical hours from laughingplace.com, total Nov '00 hours were 328, '01 was 308, and '02 is 296.
It is a bit of a moving target. As for hours, we may only get a few more here or there, and they are less than years past. However, remember those baby steps. I think things will improve, but I am not about to give a time frame. As for fireworks, Disney.com shows FITS every night in December - that is certainly different from last year.
I'm not saying doom and gloom is the only possibility, only that it is a very real possibility.
Maybe it is a real possibility, but I speculate that it would be more so in the short term. (what is short term? I really don't know. 6 months, 12 month, a year, till Eisner leaves - I don't know). However, longer term I think that gloom and doom would be replaced with good. Maybe it would start slow, but we'll get there. Again, only the crystal ball on my desk says so.

Answer me this. Forget slippery slopes and abandoned philosophies. How long would you say that Disney has been in a true gloom and doom state? You know, decreased attendance, reduced hours, shuttered hotels, etc. I'd say maybe two years. Much of that is the result of outside influences. Granted, Disney mistakes have compounded the effects of those outside influences. Lets say the economy rebounds in a year, two years, whenever. The stock market is up and steadily rising. People are travelling again. Things are a more stable. You see, all of that will happen. History tells us that. So, when all of that happens, and Disney attendance is setting new records and hotels are full, do you think we will still have the Disney gloom and doom that we do now? It is so easy to focus on the past several years. It is very easy to become jaded, pessimistic, and negative. However, if you take a reasonable big picture look, it is hard to conclude that things will never change. I could be wrong, but I don't think so. Now, we will never get MHB back, but that is hardly the gloom and doom you speak of, is it?

raidermatt
10-16-2002, 05:11 PM
November has 14 fewer showings of FitS scheduled in '02 than '01. December has 7 more.

November hours:

'00 - 328
'01 - 308 (-6.1%)
'02 - 296 (-3.9%)

December hours:

'00 - 359
'01 - 343 (-4.5%)
'02 - 328 (-4.4%)

In both months, except for the holiday weeks, closing times are 6pm every day except Saturday, which is 8pm. How much earlier can they close?

Hours continue to shrink.

Entertainment is being putzed around with, but no real increase.

Admittedly, schedules could be changed, but until they are, we have to go with what they are telling us.

The economy may not be going full bore right now, but its in better shape than it was a year ago. Same with tourism. Yet Disney's offerings are a wash at best when compared to a year ago.



With regard to your question, of course, when the economy improves, attendance and bookings will be positively impacted. That's a given. Its the same reason why so many dot.com companies were able to stay in business during the boom of the late 90's. When times are good, you almost have to try to screw up in order to fail.

But, when times are lean, we get "shake-outs". Weaknesses are exposed. The weak disappear, the mediocre survive, and the strong thrive (within the given economic limits), and position themselves to take full advantage of the rebound.

Disney claims to be in the strong group. But about the only thing that are legitimately doing that qualifies as a strong move is cutting fat. The problem is, they are cutting some of the core benefits of their guest experience as well. The theme parks have an extremely strong foundation, but the poor management is leaving them in a less than optimal position when the rebound occurs.

So if nothing changes, will Disney benefit from an improved economy? Sure. But they won't benefit as much as they could have, and it won't change the fact that they do not understand the root of their long term appeal.

Strong economic times will make these factors less obvious, but they are still there.

Of course, the longer it takes for us to find the rebound, the more exposed Disney becomes. Remember, most experts said we should be in full recovery mode by Summer of this year. But its been sluggish, and there are still some significant unknowns, like terrorism, Iraq, and the West Coast port labor issue staring us in the face. If any of those rears an ugly head before we get the economy on auto-pilot, things could get hairy again...

DisneyKidds
10-17-2002, 12:03 AM
Ok- you at least confirmed the 2 years gloom and doom. Beyond that you lost me.
So if nothing changes
I take this to mean that you assume that, even when better economic times bring increased attendance and occupancy, we will always have the doom and gloom of the last 2 years, that nothing will change and we will never get the hours and entertainment of the 90's back. Is that what you are saying? I happen to think things will change, that when the economy turns and attendance goes up Disney will make changes and we will see the hours and entertainment increase.

DVC-Landbaron
10-17-2002, 12:48 AM
Sure, Disney could have done other things that might have even been *gasp* better.Then why didn’t they!?
. First hand knowledge of the fact that young kids really enjoy the ride. They get excited about it. Go and watch.I forgot who said it, but someone mentioned a box. Come on over to my parent’s house at Christmas some year. You’ll witness that very phenomenon. Thousands of dollars worth of presents and most of the kids are playing in the boxes!! Making tunnels, forts, house, etc. It is really amazing. So, maybe, given your Disney proving ground and measuring stick for what hits the ‘Disney’ mark, we should put a couple of cardboard boxes in the middle of the walkway and call it an attraction. Is that it?

You can call me a fool if you likeOK!! ;)


Wedway100, As long as you guys let me ride along in car 3, you can be the hood ornament. Kind of like the Deathmobile in Animal House, but colder.WELCOME!! Of course you can ride in car #3!! The more the merrier! Check your rose-colored-glasses at the door and only use them when you visit WDW!! (That’s what I do!! ;))
Since Disney was willing to slide that scale themselves, I agree that it must be accepted. You are changing my Disney perceptions by the day!Yeah! Mine too! Pretty neat place, isn’t it?

How long would you say that Disney has been in a true gloom and doom state? You know, decreased attendance, reduced hours, shuttered hotels, etc. I'd say maybe two years. Much of that is the result of outside influences.You can’t be serious! I’m floored! These things you mentioned are merely the outward symptoms of a disease that’s been cooking for quite some time now!

Imagine you have a car. It is a good car. Brand new. And you drive it out of the showroom and do NOTHING to it (except fill it up when it’s empty) for the next ten years. Then one day your car overheats. So you have that problem fixed. A week later you look out the rear view mirror and finally admit to yourself that the blue smoke screen you’re laying down really shouldn’t be there. A month later you find that those squeaking breaks don’t work at all now, but it really doesn’t matter because just before the big accident the transmission drops to the street and you’re not going anywhere anyway!! When you get home you say to your wife, “Boy! Ran real good up till a month ago!!”
Much of that is the result of outside influences.It only made the end come a little quicker. But it would have come anyway!!
So if nothing changes, will Disney benefit from an improved economy? Sure. But they won't benefit as much as they could have, and it won't change the fact that they do not understand the root of their long term appeal.That, my friend Matt, is the root of the problem. They have forgotten what brought them to the dance in the first place. They have forgotten what their product really is!
I happen to think things will change, that when the economy turns and attendance goes up Disney will make changes and we will see the hours and entertainment increase.Mr. Kidds! Those things you talk about are outward symptoms only. Nothing! NOTHING will change the mindset of those in control! They have been on this path since the beginning. And they will do NOTHING more than what is minimally required to keep them economically viable. NOTHING!! And that's no different from any other company in the world. May as well become a Universal fan!

That's NOT what endeared me to this unique company years ago. Sadly, they are no longer 'unique'. :(

ohanafamily
10-17-2002, 05:47 AM
Baron,

We hit 11 pages... Oh My.

I have a question for you, have you ever met Ei$$ner? you seem to ha...disrespect him so much! Is there a personal vendetta. Can you admit he has done something right? Are you preparing the weaponry on car 3 for a vicious assault on the world (Like the Deathmobile in Animal House)

Just curious.

I'll be at WDW in a couple of days for a week... No Doom or Gloom!
I'll be in the front seat of car 1 and not looking behind me!!!!!!!!!!!!
1:bounce: 2:Pinkbounc 3:jester: 4:earseek:

FantasticDisFamily
10-17-2002, 08:21 AM
Ok gang. I'm echoing Ohanafamily's statement here. Despite the negatives, and there certainly are some, Eisner is not all bad.

On the plus side - if he had not been willing to take on the job of CEO in 1984 THERE WOULD BE NO DISNEY TODAY! There has been plenty written on this from many perspectives. At that time Disney was in serious danger of disappearing in all forms that are even remotely familiar. He did launch initiatives - that have been debated at length as to their "true" Disney quality - but which kept the company moving. Some of those have been more successful than others.

On the negative side - he has allowed/caused some very creative people to leave the company. The "evidence" suggests that efficiency has been put ahead of at least show, if not safety & courtesy, far too often. His appointment of Pre$$ler as head of parks was just plain wrong. That has been corrected - it has only been 2 weeks, let's give the new guy (I should know his name but it escapes me at the moment - coffee hasn't fired up all of the detail portions of my brain yet maybe?) a chance to work.

Time for more coffee -

The Professor

ohanafamily
10-17-2002, 10:34 AM
His Name is James Rasulo, and I hope he is going to do well... there is a thread about him in this section, but it is all conjecture...
:bounce:

DisneyKidds
10-17-2002, 10:36 AM
You know Baron, tongue in cheek begets tongue in cheek ;).
Then why didn’t they!?
Because they are tight wads lately. Not that that is right, but it just is. But just because they could have done something different that might have been better it doesn't mean they did a bad job with the thing they decided to do.

As for kids and boxes - sure, kids like boxes. However, there is more than that going on here and you know it. This is not tongue in cheek and I say it most seriously. It amazes me how belittleing you (and others) can apparently be to children. They are much more complex individuals than you seem to want to give them credit for. I suppose we should boil down your childhood memories, those things that helped shape the person that you are, to nothing more than a box :(. (I say that generally so don't make it personal about me, as WDW does not represent my childhood memories.) Let me ask you this. After your kids get done playing with that box at Christmas do they talk about it for a year? Do they ask you constantly when they can play with that box again? Actually, your comments toward children belittle your idyllic DL and beloved MK of 1971. Everything that existed was there for a reason. One of Walts great strenghts was elliciting emotional response and attachment in his guests, all of his guests. You have successfully reduced Walt to a peddler of boxes, and this from a man who believes he is an authority on the man and his philosophy. It is a sad day my friend :(.

[Back to lighthearted mode, and a little fun tongue in cheek]
WELCOME!! Of course you can ride in car #3!! The more the merrier!
Wouldn't that be 'the more, the grumpier' ;).
You can’t be serious! I’m floored! These things you mentioned are merely the outward symptoms of a disease that’s been cooking for quite some time now!
Baron, I am going to guess that you and many of your car 3 bretheren are different than the much of the WDW going public - and that is ok. Seems to be that for you WDW has been doom and gloom since September of 1984. I know, I know - everyone who doesn't believe so is ignorant. Well, I don't happen to believe so - you called me a fool, now you can call me ignorant. That doesn't change the fact that you are wrong. I am well aware of the concerns you have on underlying philosophies. Some I agree with, some I don't. You (and others) have been instrumental in making me see some things in a new way, and I thank you for that. I am well aware that the things I mentioned are outward manifestations of economic issues, tourism issue, and yes, philosophical issues. I know that if we currently had longer hours, E-nights, EE (wait, we do have that back), high resorts occupancy, if many of those 'outward symptoms' went away it wouldn't change your philosophical concerns. However, few would be inclined to describe Disney as doom and gloom. I honestly believe we will see all of those things again, but only time will tell. Even when we do, we will still have a company with issues to address, but the WDW experience will be back to what it was (for most people), or very close. Most every company has issues. Issues with management philosophy, corporate direction, etc., etc. But all those companies aren't doom and gloom. I think we can seperate the gloom and doom from the other issues. First we fix one, then we try an deal with the others. A slow process I agree, but that is the reality of the situation. Did Diseny forget what there product is? No, they are just using different production methods. Is that a good thing? Sadly, no.

Sadly, Baron, Disney is not as unique as they once were. Again, that is the reality of the situation, and some day you are going to have to deal with that reality. You will have to find a way to see the Magic through the reality, because the Magic is still there. Yes, I agree that these are sad statements compared to the Disney of old, but it doesn't change the fact that WDW is still a wonderful place. You know, the way you talk you really should dump that lemon of a car you think you have, yet you don't :confused:. I guess it is really fish or cut bait time. If you keep fishing you won't catch the same fish you did 20 years ago, and only you can decide if the fishing is still worth the effort. When does the 'Disney experience' cease to exist? The answer to that question is different for everybody. If I didn't know better, from reading most of what you write I'd say it has ceased to exist for you.

Wow - I guess I never got out of serious mode :eek:.

montessori
10-17-2002, 11:31 AM
Disneykidds said:
"It amazes me how belittleing you (and others) can to be to children. They are much more complex individuals than you seem to want to give them credit for."
I understand the complexities of children. I've been a pre-school and kindergarten teacher for over 20 years. I did not belittle children in any way by bringing up the fact that they love playing in boxes. We will never agree about the Aladdin ride, I think it's a huge and hideous obstruction plopped down in the middle of Adventureland. I can't be convinced that it belongs there or that it makes a day at Disney World any more special for a young child than if it were not there.
So, that's one ride in a whole world of adventures and magic!
I agree that some people who post on this board seem to be in car #3 or 4 already. It seems the magic has ceased to exist for some, how can it exist in the midst of such negativity?
I've been wondering for a while now, if some of these people (I can't think of who's who!) can say even one positive thing about Disney and Disney World.
We were at DW again last weekend. Besides the Aladdin ride (and it's really not THAT important to me), I can't think of a single negative thing to say about our vacation! It was magical and wonderful! We spent a ton of money but that's our choice, we know from these boards that many people manage to have Disney vacations on a budget.
I am not as informed about the corporate and business aspects of Disney as you all seem to be. I do go to DW a lot and I am observant of the changes over the years.
I'm not thrilled with some things...shorter hours, less entertainment etc... BUT, every time we go there, we have more fun than the time before! We've been there many many times, so we're talking lots and lots of fun! :p
I guess I'm trying to say that the Disney experience has to come from inside each individual person. It's there for me and my husband and it's there for thousands of other people. I choose to hang on to the magic and hope for an even brighter, more magical Disney in the future!
I'm hurrying through this and it may seem contrite and simplistic but it's my 2 cents worth! And just my humble opinion, of course. ;)

FantasticDisFamily
10-17-2002, 11:50 AM
Thanks OhanaFamily! I knew that as soon as I saw it, have even been following that thread. Just one of those moments when not all of the synapsis were firing!:rolleyes:

The Professor

DisneyKidds
10-17-2002, 12:45 PM
Montessori (of the schools?)...
I understand the complexities of children. I've been a pre-school and kindergarten teacher for over 20 years. I did not belittle children in any way by bringing up the fact that they love playing in boxes. We will never agree about the Aladdin ride, I think it's a huge and hideous obstruction plopped down in the middle of Adventureland. I can't be convinced that it belongs there or that it makes a day at Disney World any more special for a young child than if it were not there.
I don't recall your specific comment, but I seem to remember it as offhanded, implying that kids are easily entertained. That is true. However, to imply (not that you did, or did you?) that a child could just as easily be entertained by a box in the middle of Adventureland as they would be by Aladdin, to imply that a box could possibly have the same effect on a child as Aladdin - that is extremely insulting. I disagree with your assessment of the difference that Aladdin makes to a child's enjoyment of WDW. Sure, there is so much for them to enjoy without Aladdin, but that doesn't mean that the addition of Aladdin wasn't significant to them. By that logic, why would Disney add any rides of any sort? I mean, there is so much to make WDW special for adults, why add Mission:Space? it is just one ride in a whole world of adventures and magic. When Aladdin wasn't there it didn't make their day any less special, but with Aladdin is is more special than it was for many young children. Everyone who goes to WDW, adults and kids, has a list of favorite rides they want to go on when they get to WDW. For the toddler set, Aladdin makes that list - plain and simple. At once they can fly, they can be part of a favorite movie, they can be brave, they can laugh, they can smile, they can share a moment with their family, they can live out a small adventure. But what do they know - they are just kids. To discount their opinion because one thinks that kids are easily entertained is belittleing. You understand kids. If the experience of riding Aladdin gives them an indellible memory, a lasting experience, if it adds to their schema, why would you deprive a child of that? Trust me, a box might bring temporary enjoyment, but it doesn't leave a lasting impact. Aladdin does. Sure, there are plenty of other things at WDW that accomplish that objective, but why not one more? Just because it infringes upon some adults personal enjoyment of Adventureland?Why should some adults enjoyment of Adventureland be more important than a child's?

Not trying to give you a hard time, but some people just can't see WDW through the eyes of a child. I'd submit that that is how the MK was intended to be viewed. Disney is for the young, and the young at heart. Being at Disney allows adults to act like a kid again. I guess we don't want to actually give the kids more that they can be kids on. Maybe we can arrange a limo to Neverland for those who have lost the ability to see the World through the eyes of a child..............better make it a stretch...........hmmmm.........better make it a super stretch. (Nah - we shouldn't have had that ride either, after all, WDW was already special without it ;)).

BTW.............
I guess I'm trying to say that the Disney experience has to come from inside each individual person. It's there for me and my husband and it's there for thousands of other people. I choose to hang on to the magic and hope for an even brighter, more magical Disney in the future!
Well said!! Thanks for the opinion :).

BRERALEX
10-17-2002, 12:58 PM
the way i look at it is, I may not like Aladdin but my son has ridden it one time when he was 3. I plan on takin him again in jan. or feb. when he is 5. by the time he is ten i hope he would have gone to disney say 8 or 9 times. To him when he is 20 Aladdin will be to him a great part of the Magic Kingdom.

And if they decide to take away Aladdin in say 20 30 years he'll be on some virtual Disboard debating that it is terrible that Aladdin is being taken away since ti brings such great joys to children.

I'm trying to see the benefits it is to a child. I still don't like it's "onboarding" process but for a child with the spitting camel it must be great. and those suckers grow up to be us grumpy old suckers.

but ill tell you one thing kids or no kids i think chesters and hesters sucks!!!!!!! lolololololol

DisneyKidds
10-17-2002, 01:24 PM
but ill tell you one thing kids or no kids i think chesters and hesters sucks!!!!!!! lolololololol

Funny thing - while my 3 yo enjoys Triceratops, it isn't on her list. We actually didn't get on it last trip and she didn't get upset. I'll tell you though, there was no way we could have missed Dumbo and Aladdin. She talks about going on Aladdin, but not Triceratops. Lest you say she just isn't as familiar with AK as MK, we get advertisements for the bone yard ALL THE TIME!!! Hmmmm.....could it be that a 3 yo is capable of having a discriminating opinion? (rhetorical question).

BRERALEX
10-17-2002, 01:38 PM
my son rememebers the camel spitting on us.

if you would have forgotten dumbo fuggetabout it.


that must mean something and very baaaaaaadddd.

but I havent taken my little guy to chesters and hesters yet and the scary thing is he might actually like it. i dont know yet.

whatever puts that smile on his face.

montessori
10-17-2002, 02:30 PM
Disneykidds,
Well, you are certainly a staunch Aladdin supporter! I can see that there is no changing your mind about the ride, just as there's no changing mine.
I know someone else mentioned that it could have been done better and you poo-pooed that as unimportant. I think that is VERY important. Why couldn't they add a ride for toddlers that would not be so OBJECTIONABLE to any person with a sense of aesthetics and design? ;)
I think there's a good chance that I know children better than you do, and I certainly understand them and hold them in the highest regard. My students are ages 2 1/2 thru 6. I have my own Montessori pre-school. I spend 40 - 50 hours per week with young chldren. I've been working with children since I was 17 years old. We started going to DW 3 or 4 times a year when our daughter was 3, she's 21 now. I have taken other people's children to DW with me, more than a few times.
Of course a child can LOVE the Aladdin ride. A child can love the Aladdin ride tucked away somewhere, not plopped down right in the middle of Adventureland. Or a child can love some other new ride, one that isn't such a monstrosity.

I do not appreciate the implication that I wish to deprive children of fun at DW. Or that I disrespect children. Or, that I can't see DW through a child's eyes. I've been seeing DW that way for over 20 years.
I take nothing away from children by saying that the Aladdin ride is ugly and doesn't belong where it is.

Children didn't put it there.

That's all I'm going to say about the Aladdin ride. It's giving me a headache! http://smilies.uniquehardware.co.uk/ups/chaos/smile2.gif;)

WEDWAY100
10-17-2002, 02:33 PM
WELCOME!! Of course you can ride in car #3!! The more the merrier! Check your rose-colored-glasses at the door and only use them when you visit WDW!! (That’s what I do!! )

Baron,

Thanks for the welcome! Since I live close to WDW and can go just about any day, I don’t even carry the rose colored glasses when I go there anymore.

NOTHING will change the mindset of those in control! They have been on this path since the beginning. And they will do NOTHING more than what is minimally required to keep them economically viable. NOTHING!! And that's no different from any other company in the world. May as well become a Universal fan!

This has been an issue of mine for a while now. It seems as if they have been experimenting with exactly how much (or how little) they can give the guests and still get a generally positive reaction from them. Not at all what the philosophy used to be. I do think things will improve, because I think (or rather hope) that management realizes they went too far with DCA and possibly Dinorama. But that improvement will be just enough to get that generally positive reaction, and then it will stop. As for liking Universal, at this point, I have to say that I like them only marginally less than Disney, and that’s only because of the fond memories I have about Disney of the past.

Mr. Kidds,

I know you weren’t specifically writing to me, but I’d like to address some of you earlier post. For me, it’s not so much doom and gloom. I do have a good time when I go to WDW, but not for the same reasons anymore. I enjoy a box of popcorn and watching people enjoy themselves – and of course the occasional ride on one of the classic E tickets. Some of the changes in my attitude come from familiarity, but some come from the company creating less. I often wonder why they don’t create E ticket dark rides for the entire family anymore. Most are now a thrill ride of some sort that have been plussed up to some degree.

I think I have seen you ask when the decline started – could it have been as early as 1972? For me and my personal definition of Disney magic, the answer to that question is yes, it probably was that early. Budget cuts have been an obstacle since Walt started planning DL back in the early 50’s. The difference between then and now is that he had a keen sense of what to cut and what needed to be left in place. There is an example that I read about recently regarding Pirates, and one of the budget cuts he proposed. The effect on the show was minimal, but the cost savings was relatively large. His judgment was very good regarding these types of decisions, and I think that since his death, these types of decisions have not been evaluated as well. On opening day, I think the MK would have been different under Walt, even if the budget were exactly the same. From opening day forward, budget cuts have impacted WDW. As an example, WDW got Big Thunder Mountain instead of Western River Expedition, an obvious enormous budget decision, but one that diminished what the MK could have been. If the internet were available then, people like us would have been posting, putting $ signs in Card Walker and Ron Miller’$ names.

I am glad that you have a good time at WDW – I do too. It’s just that now I lower my expectations before I try something new (I think that’s where the Baron puts on his rose colored glasses).

DisneyKidds
10-17-2002, 03:11 PM
Montessori - no need to get defensive ;).

This really isn't about Aladdin, per se. I have seen two arguments from the opposition. One would be that Aladdin is bad because it doesn't fit in Adventureland. I can respect that argument, but it is fraught with personal opinion. The second argument is that Aladdin is a bad ride period. That it is based on archane technology, is unoriginal, and therefore it should never have been built, and that Disney would have been better to use the money elsewhere. This is the position I take objection to. The same argumants could be applied to other rides that some people think are 'bad'.

I didn't question your knowledge of children (and you aren't the only one who has experience with them). But certainly, with your knowledge of children, you must be able to conclude that a ride like Aladdin will effect them more than a box.
I know someone else mentioned that it could have been done better and you poo-pooed that as unimportant.
No, I didn't. I would agree that Disney is capable of making different rides that others would consider better, even rides I would think are better. I would love to see Forbidden Mountain as opposed to Aladdin. But that has nothing to do with Aladdin. That is what I poo-pood. I think they did a fine job with Aladdin.
Why couldn't they add a ride for toddlers that would not be so OBJECTIONABLE to any person with a sense of aesthetics and design?
There go those personal opinions again - and that is fine, no arguments from me so long as we see them for what they are.
I do not appreciate the implication that I wish to deprive children of fun at DW.
I highly doubt you want to deprive kids of fun at WDW. Lets look at what you did say............
I can't be convinced that it belongs there or that it makes a day at Disney World any more special for a young child than if it were not there. So, that's one ride in a whole world of adventures and magic!
It does appear you would deprive them of the fun of riding Aladdin. However..........
I can see that there is no changing your mind about the ride, just as there's no changing mine.
........I already changed your mind ;).
A child can love the Aladdin ride tucked away somewhere, not plopped down right in the middle of Adventureland.
As it appears that you do agree that Aladdin does add something to WDW for children.
I take nothing away from children by saying that the Aladdin ride is ugly and doesn't belong where it is.
No, you absolutely do not. However, to say that a child would enjoy it no more than a box, that it would have the same impression on a child as a box, that it doesn't add anything to the WDW experience for a child - that does take something away.

If you feel it is ugly doesn't belong where it is, fine. If you feel that it provides kids the stimulating equivalent of a box and it should not have been built for kids to enjoy at all - well, we could argue about that forever.

ohanafamily
10-17-2002, 03:11 PM
I forgot who said it, but someone mentioned a box. Come on over to my parent’s house at Christmas some year. You’ll witness that very phenomenon. Thousands of dollars worth of presents and most of the kids are playing in the boxes!! Making tunnels, forts, house, etc. It is really amazing. So, maybe, given your Disney proving ground and measuring stick for what hits the ‘Disney’ mark, we should put a couple of cardboard boxes in the middle of the walkway and call it an attraction. Is that it?

Dearest DisneyKidds and Montessori:

Baron was the one who had the snippy remark about the cardboard boxes.
I think you both care very much for kids, and while Mr. Kidds seems to love Aladdin, Montessori you seem to think it would be OK if not Plopped down in the middle of things.

I agree with both of you, and if Baron wants to play with a box in the middle of Adventureland......;)

Seriously, it sounds like you are both very caring ang passionate. Please don't loose those glasses and hop into car #3.

Please also don't give Baron the smug grin he would get from insighting a riot!!!!!!!!!
:bounce:

montessori
10-17-2002, 03:34 PM
Quote from me:
That's all I'm going to say about the Aladdin ride. It's giving me a headache! :p

There's more important things in the World than...that ride.

Ohanafamily, you are going to Disney World in 2 days! I hope you have a fantastic time, I'm sure you will. Be sure to have dinner at Flying Fish, the steaks are to die for and the pasta is pretty darn good too. We sat at the bar with Anderson as our bartender and server. I recommend it to anyone.

Have a magical Disney experience!!! ;)

raidermatt
10-17-2002, 05:29 PM
I take this to mean that you assume that, even when better economic times bring increased attendance and occupancy, we will always have the doom and gloom of the last 2 years, that nothing will change and we will never get the hours and entertainment of the 90's back.

Nope, lets try it again.

Things like shorter hours and falling attendance are just effects of the basic problems.

Certainly outside economic forces have an impact on Disney's attendance. So when I said "if nothing changes", I meant all else being equal, then yes, attendance will rise when the economy improves. As a result, hours may increase over the levels today. (Actually, I'm giving more credit here than is deserved. Outside factors are not strong now, but they are stronger than a year ago, yet hours are less than a year ago...)

So, if we set the baseline as today, then of course things are likely to get better if the economy improves relatively soon.

I concede that, but maintain it is missing the real point. The real point being that management's philosophy toward the parks is detrimental to their performance in any economic condition.

You're using the past year as a starting point to say that if it gets better than it is now, that's ok.

But its not ok.

If Disney were managing the park/resort business with the right philosophy, they would be performing better at this time then they are. And, when the economy improves, they would be performing better than they will if they don't change their philosophy.

The only questions being how far below their potential they go, and for how long.

I happen to think things will change, that when the economy turns and attendance goes up Disney will make changes and we will see the hours and entertainment increase.
Hours and entertainment probably would increase. But the philosophy of providing as little as they can get away with would still be the driving force.


All that said...

...we will never get the hours and entertainment of the 90's back. Is that what you are saying?
Actually, I do agree with this sentence, assuming you mean pre-1998. Current management has proven this will not happen, because they decreased hours in 1999 and 2000, even though attendance was rising. What in the world makes us think they would bring hours back to those levels? SHOW me the indications that the philosophy has changed. EE? Nice, but hours still shrink... EE coming back has all the earmarks of a move made only because they realize they cut more than they could get away with.

raidermatt
10-17-2002, 06:03 PM
There's a few ground rules that we seem to continually have problems with around here...

"Doom and Gloom", "Bad" Eisner, "Evil" Eisner, etc - WDW is still a wonderful place! Yes, I said it! That's why I go. That's why Baron goes. That's why just about everone on this board still goes. Yes, a few say they are going a bit less, but for the most part, we all still love WDW as it exists today.

So when terms like "bad", and "doom and gloom" come into the equation, its in RELATIVE terms. Its not that WDW is a bad place. Its WDW could be a better place that it is.

The same thing applies on a micro level with Aladdin. It's not "bad". Its not that kids won't love it. The problem is that it could have been done better, and in the past, Disney DID do things better. Does anyone really think this is the BEST Disney could do, or even very close? To answer that, you have to get beyond what a 3 year old says today. Of course that's important. But the only reason somebody says that a three year old is amused by a box, is that somebody else says that since a three year old likes it, it hits the mark.

Of course it has to hit the mark with the little ones. But just accomplishing that was never good enough for Disney. Their mission was to accomplish more than this, and they did, provided resources allowed.

So when we talk about "bad" attractions, or "bad" decisions, the baseline is not your everyday good and evil scenario. Its a comparison to a standard. There is nothing inherently WRONG with lower or different standards. Lower standards are not EVIL. They are just not in tune with the philosophy that made Disney what it is. That philosophy is what drew us to Disney (even if we didn't realize that was why). And now we see that philosophy fading, and we don't like it personally, and its not serving the company well financially.

Saying that Aladdin was not the right move is not an indictment of children. Its an indictment of the philosophy of providing something that just barely satisfies a basic goal.

It doesn't mean I don't take my son on it and have a blast...

montessori
10-17-2002, 06:55 PM
Raidermatt,
I enjoy reading your posts. They are sensible and well written.
(You helped explain my point of view a little better too!) :p

Thanks!

DisneyKidds
10-18-2002, 01:30 AM
Matt - that is a nice post. It is sensible and well written. I completely understand what you are saying. However, you are missing something, and that something is that there are many different targets that Disney aims to please. As such, I have to take exception to a couple of your statements.
providing something that just barely satisfies a basic goal.
You may see Aladdin as barely satisfying a basic goal for you, for an adult. However, this attraction, just like Dumbo, fully satifies a huge goal for those guests that it was designed to entertain the most.
Of course it has to hit the mark with the little ones. But just accomplishing that was never good enough for Disney.
Really? Not every attraction in DL and WDW was designed to hit the mark with every guest, and that is fine. There are many rides that hit the mark with adults, but not kids. There are many rides that hit the mark for everybody. There are many rides that hit the mark with kids, but not adults. This was all by design. It very much was good enough for Disney to hit the mark with specific segments of guests.
The problem is that it could have been done better, and in the past, Disney DID do things better.
Again, no. OK, maybe some people would prefer the colors on Aladdin to be muted, and for the ride to be placed further out of the way. Other than that Disney could not have done better with what they intended to do. Furthermore, they didn't do better in the past with what they intended to do. Dumbo is no better, and Dumbo was a ride that Walt approved of in DL and would have approved of in WDW.
Does anyone really think this is the BEST Disney could do, or even very close?
Yes. If Disney wanted to do a well themed spinner that brings an animated feature to life and appeals to very young children they could not have done better. So what that the technology is old - it works. You seem to have a problem with the fact that they wanted to do a spinner aimed at kids at all, and that is rediculous.
But the only reason somebody says that a three year old is amused by a box, is that somebody else says that since a three year old likes it, it hits the mark.
I still don't see how the 'box' fits in here, other than to say that kids wouldn't recognize a good attraction if it bit them on the............ I have a question for you. Are you saying that Aladdin doesn't hit the mark with the intended audience? Forget that you would have preferred another attraction all together. Forget the idea that the ride was just put in to sell plastic swords and jewels. Who do you think the ride was intended to appeal to? Did they accomplish the goal of making an attraction that is appealing and endearing to that group?

Somehow I have been sucked into being the Aladdin advocate, just like I was the 'moderate resort' advocate. How the heck do I get myself into this stuff.........and, more importantly, how do I get out :crazy:.

DVC-Landbaron
10-18-2002, 01:33 AM
Originally posted by DisneyKidds
Somehow I have been sucked into being the Aladdin advocate, just like I was the 'moderate resort' advocate. How the heck do I get myself into this stuff.........and, more importantly, how do I get out :crazy:. By joining the dark side!!! You KNOW it to be true!! Check your feeling!!

DisneyKidds
10-18-2002, 01:35 AM
Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
By joining the dark side!!! You KNOW it to be true!! Check your feeling!!

Boy, that was quick :wave:.

................and you know the answer to your solution. No!!! Never!!!!! :p.

DVC-Landbaron
10-18-2002, 01:41 AM
OK!! I’m running out of time!! So, I’m going to put these out one at a time. This first one happens to be the one right after I posted last. Professor! This is for you!Ok gang. I'm echoing Ohanafamily's statement here. Despite the negatives, and there certainly are some, Eisner is not all bad.
Ah! Professor! I had such high hopes for you!! Let’s see if we can enlighten you a bit!
On the plus side - if he had not been willing to take on the job of CEO in 1984 THERE WOULD BE NO DISNEY TODAY!This is a very common misconception. It is simply NOT TRUE!!! Disney was not, contrary to popular belief, on the verge of bankruptcy. Indeed! The opposite was in fact the case! They had sooooo much untapped value that they were very, VERY, VERY ripe for a take over!

Disney had a film library that was not being used in the new video market. That was riches beyond belief! And a strange thing happened to their real estate holdings. It seemed that they had huge parcels of undeveloped land right next to what had become the hottest vacation destination in the world!! A conglomerate could have broken that little company up and sold off the just the film library and the Florida holdings and made a mint!!

OR! Yes, or they could have swallowed Disney, exploited the film library on video and developed the real estate holdings. HEY!! Guess what Ei$ner did!! Just that! And suddenly they were no longer very attractive to the sharks!

Saved the company!?! NO!! He took it over!! From within!

At that time Disney was in serious danger of disappearing in all forms that are even remotely familiar.Do you mean that someone would have sold off the castle as condos? Ripped up Main Street and put in a mini mall? No! I think you are right, however. It did disappear from all forms we were familiar with. He substantially changed the philosophy while retaining the outward façade. He kept up the lip service about quality and guest experience while experimenting with how much he could get away with. Just how much under the minimum he could go. Heck! We don’t even do cartoons anymore!!
He did launch initiatives - that have been debated at length as to their "true" Disney quality - but which kept the company moving.Hmmmm. Kept the company moving. Something to ponder. You mean moving like Pop Century? Moving like Dino-rama? Moving like DCA? Moving like the Rescuers Down Under? Moving like the Disney Stores? Moving like… I really don’t think I care for that kind of movement.

The "evidence" suggests that efficiency has been put ahead of at least show, if not safety & courtesy, far too often.Ya see, in my mind, that alone is enough to hang him. His philosophy is diametrically opposed to Walt’s. And it was Walt’s philosophy, his way of doing business, which caught my attention in the first place. It was his innovations across the board. Technologically, economically, emotionally and especially his innovation of putting SHOW above efficiency in the pecking order. My Goodness!! That alone would have made the place unique!! Forget about the dancing ghosts and rowdy pirate robots!! Just that one singular concept would have been enough for me. Heck!! It sustained me through the stagnant Walker/Miller years!

And Ei$ner totally, without regret or remorse, blatantly disregards it!!
His appointment of Pre$$ler as head of parks was just plain wrong. That has been correctedWhat makes you think it’s been corrected? I’m all for giving the guy a fair trail before we hang him (;)), but as far as I see so far NOTHING has been corrected!!

Does any of this make sense Professor?

DVC-Landbaron
10-18-2002, 02:26 AM
WEDWAY100. You made two very good points in your post a few pages back.
I do think things will improve, because I think (or rather hope) that management realizes they went too far with DCA and possibly Dinorama. But that improvement will be just enough to get that generally positive reaction, and then it will stop. I agree! I really don’t see how anyone could disagree. They will indeed STOP(!) when they reach that minimum level. And I find that sad. :(
If the internet were available then, people like us would have been posting, putting $ signs in Card Walker and Ron Miller’$ names.You may very well be right. I find myself, not unlike Mr. Kidds, defending the indefensible sometimes. In the middle of some post, in some Ei$ner related thread, I find myself defending the Walker Miller era! And I happen to think they were boneheads too! Just as inept at running Disney as Ei$ner is. But with one VERY important difference. They tried to the best of their ability to hold to the Walt philosophy!! And I really think that this ‘saving grace’ makes all the difference in the world.

Their tenure was marked by big announcements and almost no movement whatsoever!! Their movies SUCKED!! And they didn’t realize they were sitting on a video gold mine. I often say they were like deer caught in the lights. But in their defense, they maintained that ever elusive philosophy I’m always ranting about.

They didn’t have vision, that’s for sure. They couldn’t even come close to building “EPCOT - the city”, but they did build EPCOT Center. And they built it with every ounce of Walt philosophy they could muster. I remember reading shortly before they were ousted that Card Walker was questioned once about the cheap price for an EPCOT passport. It was something like twelve dollars or so. The interviewer said they could get double that!! Easy!! Card replied, in all seriousness that, “We don’t want the public to think we’re crooks!” And he really believed it!! That’s how ingrained the philosophy was in him.

Now I’m not saying that I wouldn’t have a problem with Ei$ner if he had the philosophy within him. He’s still mighty inept after all!!! But I certainly wouldn’t be calling for his head on a silver platter!! If he maintained the fundamental concepts I would have little to complain about! A mistake here or there. Perhaps a little stagnation once in a while. But by and large, the philosophy covers a multitude of sins.

So yeah! We’d probably be on them for not building the city, scrapping the 5 year plan and doing NOTHING for very long periods of time! But it would be nothing compared to what is happening now!! Today we have a guy who’s very inept AND has a totally opposite philosophy. In all seriousness, I really believe it can’t get any worse!!

FantasticDisFamily
10-18-2002, 10:22 AM
My dear Landbaron,

Your comment that, "They had sooooo much untapped value that they were very, VERY, VERY ripe for a take over! " was PRECISELY what I was referring to - perhaps I should have more clearly referenced other postings.

Bankruptcy has always been a fallacy - the untapped potential is precisely why it would no longer be a single entity, with a recognizable name, image, etc. Ok, so within this forum of Disneyphiles we might debate what that image is, how shiny or tarnished it is, and so forth until we give each other headaches
:p . But I sincerely doubt given the usual nature of hostile takeovers that Disney would still be intact. Someone would have purchased the movie archives. Someone else Disneyland and maybe or maybe not WDW. Torn down for strip malls or condos - no. But names changed? Appearance altered? You bet! We (that generation that grew up on Disney before that time) would still remember what Disneyland and WDW were. But the masses born after that point in time? No.

The general public doesn't see these changes. They don't perceive the subtle shifts. To the 33% of the target market that is making their first trip to WDW for instance it is still Disney with all that stands for. To a significant portion of the 67% of visitors to WDW that are tagged as return visitors many (I can not say all because of some in this forum ;) ) still are willing to take the experience as pure enjoyment while they are there. Then come back here inbetween visits and debate the plusses and minuses of the changes.

As for Eisner taking over the company from within - as I would say to my students...DUH! What CEO wouldn't/doesn't/shouldn't? If the vision of that CEO isn't understood - whatever that vision might be, and no matter how it is interpreted by others - understood by the rest of the organization he/she has no ability to do anything.

I could go on responding point by point. I don't however, think everything he has done is all bad - on that point we will never agree. Room for improvement - definitely. And, I certainly think we need to give Mr. R. at the parks more than 2 weeks to determine and implement change, much less have said change visible to the masses!

The Professor

DisneyKidds
10-18-2002, 01:18 PM
Two fundemental truths................

1) Change is a constant.

2) As confirmed by Baron...........
In all seriousness, I really believe it can’t get any worse!!

............lead to all the proof I need that things will eventually get better. Things will change, and there is only one way to go ;).

BRERALEX
10-18-2002, 01:55 PM
but thats still assuming its hit rock bottom.

has it?

ohanafamily
10-18-2002, 02:15 PM
So let me get this starght, Disney was ripe for a takeover, and Ei$ner did a good job of making it not so good of a target. Too Good?

Wow, Baron and The Professer agreeing...this is apocolypse material here...;)

raidermatt
10-18-2002, 03:12 PM
Last things first...

Things will change, and there is only one way to go
Even if it really has hit rock bottom, saying "it can only go up, so I'm optimistic" doesn't really say much, does it?

If this were a football team, rock bottom would be 0-16. Can't get any worse. And, as many inept franchises have proven, its very difficult to screw things up enough to go 0-16, and darn near impossible to do it repeatedly.

So, if you go 0-16, chances are, it won't happen next year. Espeicially if the NFL is cyclical, like the economy.

But so what? I'll admit that 2-14, and even 6-10 is better than 0-16. 6-10 or 8-8 even makes you better than plenty of other companies. But you'll never make the playoffs relying on the cyclical nature of the NFL.

Likewise, you'll never be a stand-out company relying on the cyclical nature of the economy.

Besides, what happens when it cycles down again?

0-16.




When Baron says it can't get any worse, I think he means the direction can't get any worse. Its heading South. That doesn't mean the end results have hit rock bottom.

CrayzeeDiz
10-18-2002, 03:29 PM
Lighten up guys !!!!!!!

Disney is still the number one vacation destination in the world despite its faults. There is plenty of Disney cash to go around and hey GO ANGELS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

raidermatt
10-18-2002, 03:31 PM
But I sincerely doubt given the usual nature of hostile takeovers that Disney would still be intact.
Given who was pursuing the company, this is probably very true. (though its a very real possibility that the parks would have remained intact. They were too valuable, and the Disney name was, and still is, a big part of that value.)

But Eisner was merely the "creative" guy brought in towards the end of the play. And even then, the deal could only be made by including Wells.

Yes, Eisner and Wells quickly put to use many of Disney's under-utilized assets. This was a necessary step to avoid further takeover attempts.

I'll give credit for that, but that was going to happen whether it was Eisner or whether Gold and Roy E. recruited somebody else.

Disney had a huge pipeline of products to sell to the public. Land to be put to use, movies to release on video, etc. Eisner and Wells unleashed that pipeline. But Eisner fought against movies like The Little Mermaid. It was only because he hadn't yet consolidated his power, and there were still strong forces within the company, that he couldn't win all of these types of battles.

Slowly, he got rid of most of the people responsible for these creations, the creations that continued to feed the pipeline.

Yes, he did some necessary good for the company, but the same could have been done by plenty of other execs.

So if we look at only his answers to the test, his early years result in A's, followed by a steady decline.

However, if we check his work behind the answers, we find that that the early results were the work of a collaborative effort. As Eisner's power and influence grew, the grades fell.

That tells me that even the early results could have been achieved just as well (or maybe even better) with somebody else at the helm.

raidermatt
10-18-2002, 03:34 PM
Just a quickie here...

There is plenty of Disney cash to go around

Then why is there $13+ billion worth of debt, and why was Disney's credit rating lowered again?

BRERALEX
10-18-2002, 03:36 PM
true but actions speak louder then words and im hoping it doesnt get worse. im hoping this IS rock bottom and can only get better but not 1-15 better thats not much better and even 8-8 isnt better when we used to go to the superbowl every year.

i just hope it goes north and am actually surprised Baron doesnt think it can go any far south. i'm not usually the pessimist but lately it seems you never know.

i personally say "it can always get worse" NOT that I'm bieng pessimistic but it CAN always get worse.

It's hard to keep that happy go lucky disney smile on when it keeps getting slapped off.

CrayzeeDiz

true it still is the #1 vacation place......in my heart but it also used to be #2 and #3 now other things are creeping up. :D
:bounce: :bounce:

Time will tell i hope we go north like a snowball goin south it keeps picking up speed and gathering momentum to something huge hopefully MI will start all that

BRERALEX
10-18-2002, 04:02 PM
13 billion in debt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

6 tons of fertalizer WHOAH THESE NUMBERS ARE SCARY

raidermatt
10-18-2002, 04:08 PM
However, you are missing something, and that something is that there are many different targets that Disney aims to please.

I'm not missing it at all. Its just that focusing on those individual targets causes a loss of focus on the big picture and what the over-riding philosophy is.

I've got three basic issues with Aladdin:

1- Doesn't mesh well with Advnentureland, and it could have without spending anymore money. I know, we disagree.

2- Part of the philosophy is that when you build something, don't build the same thing you built 45 years ago.

I think Aladdin short-changes everyone, including the little kiddies. I think children can be entertained in a variety of ways, and when given the choice between another spinner to entertain them, or SOMETHING DIFFERENT, they would like to have something different to enjoy along with the old spinner.

3- It is a ride with mostly "kiddie-only" appeal. This isn't automatically a problem if you look at Aladdin as an individual attraction. You're right, it is ok to have SOME of these types of attractions. Disney has always balanced these with attractions with "whole family" appeal, and attractions with some thrill appeal. (I think we've already agreed to this...).

Disney has been different in that their primary focus was on those "whole family" attractions, rather than the other ends of the spectrum. Yet they found ways to "thrill" us with these attractions without making us lose our lunch, and with our 3-year olds at our side, just as thrilled as we are.

So, adding a kiddie appeal only attraction isn't automatically wrong. It only becomes a problem when you are not maintining your balance with new attractions. And Disney is not. They have skewed to the thrill side, and then throw out a kiddie bone with some spinners. Look at DR, two attractions, one with kiddie only appeal, and one with a 48" height requirement.


So to sum up, its fine to build a kiddie-appeal only attraction here and there, as long as the focus is on "whole-family" attractions. Within that philosophy, Aladdin falls short.

And when you do build a kiddie-appeal only attraction, put the same effort into it as everything else. (note- effort does not have to equal cash, but does include creativity).

DVC-Landbaron
10-18-2002, 06:17 PM
Just got in and skimmed a bit. Two thoughts right off the bat. First BRERALEX: i just hope it goes north and am actually surprised Baron doesnt think it can go any far south.I think Sir Raider answered that for me.
When Baron says it can't get any worse, I think he means the direction can't get any worse. Its heading South. That doesn't mean the end results have hit rock bottom.You can read my mind, my brother!! You can speak for me anytime you like!! :bounce:

Hmmmm. How do you like that! It turns out it was two quotes but only one idea!! Well, I have the weekend now to work out my DIS style and really bug the HECK out of everyone!!! To bad the Pirate is in WDW!!! ;)

DVC-Landbaron
10-18-2002, 07:01 PM
OK! I’ve a little time now. I can properly address the ever optimistic (and oft times erroneous) Mr. Kidds!!! {Scoop alert! Double quote!!}

Then why didn’t they!?
Because they are tight wads lately. Not that that is right, but it just is. But just because they could have done something different that might have been better it doesn't mean they did a bad job with the thing they decided to do. OK. Here is the crux of the problem. We BOTH agree on each and every word of the above. We even agree to the meaning of each word. And for the most part we even agree as to the grouping of the words and the meaning these shared words take on in groups! But you stop there. You want to stay on the surface. You see the words and take them in, at the shallowest level possible.

I see those very same words and feel IRATE!!! I instinctively want to dig deeper. I want to know WHY!!! And I can’t understand why you don’t! Why do you just accept the words and seem not to care one whit about underlying reasons, concepts and philosophies!!??

Let’s look a little closer. “Because they are tight wads lately.” Is that true? Are they just being ‘tight wads’? Or does it go deeper? Perhaps it really touches upon a philosophical concept that is unintentional in nature but is a by-product of the current minimalism that seems to permeate the company. And of course there is a second question within that short sentence. Is it really just ‘lately’? Or could it be a concept that has been slowly growing since day one? Or perhaps it could be that their philosophy on this subject isn’t recent at all, but is only more apparent given the type of spinner ride to which it was employed? Aren’t you the least bit curious about their motivation and the true meaning behind your own words? I am.

Or what about your next sentence, “ Not that that is right, but it just is.” I ask, “why?” You seem not to care.

And the next sentence, to me, just raises more questions. ” But just because they could have done something different that might have been better it doesn't mean they did a bad job with the thing they decided to do.” I really can’t understand why your normally probing mind doesn’t want to scratch the surface and really dig into what is behind all this apparent apathy and recent(?) cheapness from the company we both admire.

There. I’ll let this go for a while. That was just your first three sentences. And you have at least 50 in your post!! Besides, I need a little time to mount my defense regarding (unfounded) charges of “kid-perspective” abuse!! We go to trial tonight!! I must prepare a brief!! Or, given my reputation for eloquent(?) prose, a ‘long’!! ;)

DVC-Landbaron
10-18-2002, 08:38 PM
EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it!! Father of five accused of belittling kids!!

This is not tongue in cheek and I say it most seriously. It amazes me how belittleing you (and others) can apparently be to children. They are much more complex individuals than you seem to want to give them credit for. Well! I’ve been accused of many things in my time. And some of them were even true!! ;) But I have NEVER been accused of not understanding or belittling a child!! (BTW – If you didn’t read this with righteous indignation, go back and use the proper inflections!)

OK! Let’s see how all this started, shall we? Now, let me see…. Who said what first… Was it Ohanafamily who said: Baron was the one who had the snippy remark about the cardboard boxes. No, no. That wasn’t it. And I don’t recall anything ‘snippy’ either! (Hmmm. Another groundless charge that I need to defend!!)

Where did it all start? AH! I remember!! It was the linking of two thoughts! The first was Montessori saying: The fact that little children like it, is not argument enough for it's existence at the Magic Kingdom.
Little children LOVE empty cardboard boxes too! :p I read this and being the father of five, and uncle to 11 in a very close extended family, I smiled, nodded my head and remembered, from personal experience, several Christmas days watching my own children and their cousins play with boxes, wrapping paper, wrapping paper tubes and stocking stuffers (i.e. silly putty, etc.) INSTEAD of the hundreds of dollars of high quality toys, games and other such presents!!

And the most important point for the defense!! I watched them smile and laugh as they played! They really enjoyed it!!

Next I turned my attention to a post from Mr. Kidds. It was the usual drivel, but one point struck me as salient. He used the smiles and enjoyment of kids as a measuring stick to make the point that something should be included in Disney!! I found that almost comical!! Remember when he said: How do we know it hit the target? I can only base my conclusions on my direct observations. First hand knowledge of the fact that young kids really enjoy the ride. They get excited about it. Go and watch.So I said in response (and I take the liberty to quote the entire paragraph): I forgot who said it, but someone mentioned a box. Come on over to my parent’s house at Christmas some year. You’ll witness that very phenomenon. Thousands of dollars worth of presents and most of the kids are playing in the boxes!! Making tunnels, forts, house, etc. It is really amazing. So, maybe, given your Disney proving ground and measuring stick for what hits the ‘Disney’ mark, we should put a couple of cardboard boxes in the middle of the walkway and call it an attraction. Is that it?Now I ask you, how the HELL does that belittle kids!!!!???? How does this elicit a response like this: I suppose we should boil down your childhood memories, those things that helped shape the person that you are, to nothing more than a box :( Or… Actually, your comments toward children belittle your idyllic DL and beloved MK of 1971.Or…
You have successfully reduced Walt to a peddler of boxes, and this from a man who believes he is an authority on the man and his philosophy. It is a sad day my friend :( I ask again! How does my equating a child’s smile at Allidin to an empty cardboard box ‘belittle’ kids and reduce Walt to a ‘peddler of boxes’?

In case you need it really spelled out Mr. Kidds I was insulting your measuring a kid’s smile as a reliable gauge of something ‘Disney’. I was NOT insulting the Disney. I was NOT insulting the kids. Hell! I wasn’t evening insulting Aladdin!! I was insulting your concept of how we can tell if something "hits the target"!!

AM I CLEAR NOW!!??

The defense rests!

ohanafamily
10-18-2002, 09:58 PM
Dear Baron...I was just showing that you were insighting the other posters. You said that the ride could be replaced by cardboard boxes (whether intended in alegory or not). When Montessory was attacking the Professor...You were the one who drew the comparisson...I just was pointing it out. ..I stand behind what I have said even though I have been misquoted...
:bounce:

DVC-Landbaron
10-19-2002, 01:45 AM
But I sincerely doubt given the usual nature of hostile takeovers that Disney would still be intact.So what?

………..

……..

….

..

.

I don’t mean to be flip, but again I ask, ‘so what?’ You see, I’m a rather selfish type. (Older posters please skip to the next paragraph. You’ve heard it all before!!) I never cared much for Disney cartoons, much preferring Bugs Bunny and the other Warner Bothers fare. I was a bit young for the Mickey Mouse club, but when I did see it I found it a bit silly (and didn’t even care all that much for Annette, much preferring Karen as she was more my age). I also didn’t particularly like Walt’s Show on Sunday. I found it boring and it reminded me of school the next day (I HATED Sunday shows!!) and I wasn’t interested in Disneyland. I had never been there; didn’t know what it really was! But that all changed the summer between eighth grade and freshman year of high school. I visited Disneyland!! WOW!!!!!!!!!!!

On a peripheral sense, I guess, I do want Disney to be good at all it does, but I really only care about the parks! And specifically WDW (with a nod to Disneyland for being the first). So with that thought in mind I ask again, so what? In fact I’ll go even farther. I would be comfortable that if a break up would have occurred the Disney name would have been kept and WDW and Disneyland would have been a package deal. And just think how cooooooooool that would have been. A company that owned and controlled and profited from the parks alone!! A company that had no other responcibilities other than to provide magic for the guests!! No ABC!!!!! No dot.COM sucking millions from the parks. No NOTHING!!! Just the parks!! Making ALL that money!! Heck, even if the new CEO was as greedy as Ei$ner he’d still be forced (or by accident alone) to put MILLIONS back into the parks every year!!! It’s a cash cow and it would then have nothing sucking it dry!! Ahhhhhhhhhh!! To dream!! :bounce:

So again I ask, “So What?”

As for Eisner taking over the company from within - as I would say to my students...DUH! What CEO wouldn't/doesn't/shouldn't?Well, I suppose you’re right, but my point was HIS taking over was no different whatsoever from THEM taking over, if they had decided to keep Disney together. You had alluded (no outright stated, I believe) that he “saved” the Disney company. I contend that he ‘saved’ nothing and merely made the take over a little smoother. Let’s take a closer look.

A Giant firm, say a media conglomerate complete with a network television division, takes over Disney. They exploit the film library, build relentlessly (and at times what seems like randomly) on the vast Florida property and prostitute the brand until everyone in the country is fairly tired of hearing about it! And, of course, they give special attention to the “money making machine”, the parks. But the attention they give them is NOT concrete attractions and ideological backing, but lip service about ‘remembering the magic’, all the while pillaging the profits to prop up the company’s failing enterprises. And when that is not even enough, the cutbacks begin!

So tell me again Professor, how is this different than what Ei$ner has done?
I could go on responding point by point. I don't however, think everything he has done is all bad - on that point we will never agree.Well we may never agree, but I do want to understand your point. And as I sit here writing this, I am really trying my best to come up with one (JUST ONE) thing he did that could at least make me understand that you point of view might have some validity. And I can’t think of any!! Can you?

And, I certainly think we need to give Mr. R. at the parks more than 2 weeks to determine and implement change, much less have said change visible to the masses!You’re right, Professor! You’re right! Two weeks is hardly long enough. But…. Well... Ah... I don’t suppose you’d like to place a small wager on it, would you? Say, give him a year and check back. We’ll let an impartial like Gcurling or Sara be the judge? Eh? Whadda ya say? Is it a bet?!?! ;)

montessori
10-19-2002, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by ohanafamily
Dear Baron...I was just showing that you were insighting the other posters. You said that the ride could be replaced by cardboard boxes (whether intended in alegory or not). When Montessory was attacking the Professor...
:bounce:

http://smilies.networkessence.net/contrib/sarge/Yikes_anim.gif I didn't attack the Professor. I don't THINK I attacked anyone.
I admit, I was the one who brought up the "children playing with boxes" and it was a valid statement in reply to the post that said the Aladdin ride has been proven a success because children like it.
http://www.fadzter.com/smilies/rollbaby.gif

DisneyKidds
10-19-2002, 10:48 AM
NEWS FLASH!!!!!!!!!

Bold, CAPs, exclamation marks !!!!!!!!!!!, Large Font , and COLOR!!!!! don't make a rediculous argument any less rediculous.

DVC-Landbaron........we could discuss they myriad of ways you are WRONG!!!!! on this one, but I'd rather offer a plea bargain. Just plead guilty to letting tongue in cheek getting in the way (something I have been guilty of in the past) and all charges will be dropped. No allocution required, your record on this one will be expunged, and we can move on. The offer is one the table. Your counsel has rested before the trial had even started. I don't think you want to go to trial ;).
just think how cooooooooool that would have been. A company that owned and controlled and profited from the parks alone!! A company that had no other responcibilities other than to provide magic for the guests!!
It is quite an assumption that that is what you'd have today if the company was ravaged and split apart 18 years ago. I won't be stupid and ask for proof of your speculations ;), just pointing out that that is all they are.

DVC-Landbaron
10-19-2002, 11:19 AM
Just plain talk.Bold, CAPs, exclamation marks !!!!!!!!!!!, Large Font , and COLOR!!!!! don't make a rediculous argument any less rediculous.And calling an argument ridiculous doesn’t automatically make it so. So how is it ridiculous? I don’t believe you said. You are very good at casting reckless aspersions. You’re not quite so good at backing them up.
DVC-Landbaron........we could discuss they myriad of ways you are WRONG!!!!! on this one, but I'd rather offer a plea bargain.Nope! I want to hear the “myriad of ways”. Bring it on!!
Just plead guilty to letting tongue in cheek getting in the wayI am guilty of nothing. Again, bring it on. State your case or go away.
I don't think you want to go to trialOh, but I do! I really do!
It is quite an assumption that that is what you'd have today if the company was ravaged and split apart 18 years ago.I’ll be glad to discuss anything you’d like after we clear up this other matter.

ohanafamily
10-19-2002, 11:23 AM
Dear montessori, by "attacked" I did not mean a physical or vicious one; you both seem to care a lot about kids. You both seem to know a lot about kids. I really was trying to remind you of the statement in which it was noted that the ride could have been replaced by cardboard boxes...So, I guess I owe you all, even baron a big public
APOLOGY

I should have said that Baron made a somewhat sarcastic retort and drew a conclusion from what you had been writing. From your posts (some of which are 3 pages later) it seemed like you or the Professer took barons supposition as what the other had said. It sounded like things were heating up, so my intention was to clear up a misunderstanding. They say that no good deed goes unpunished, so please consider me apropriately chastised. once again...
I APOLOGIZE

Thank You!!!

BTW, I will be gone for a while...leaving for Orlando in a few hours. We are staying at US until Monday, and they charge by the minute for local calls/internet connections. While it is only $0.75 for the first minute, and $0.10 for each minute thereafter (if I remember correctly) at the rate this thread keeps groing, it could take me all night to catch up!!!!!

When we get to WDW there is only a $0.75 per call fee, so I will try to check back then...
:bounce:

montessori
10-19-2002, 11:35 AM
It's okay Ohanafamily. I just wanted to make it clear that I didn't attack anyone. http://smilies.uniquehardware.co.uk/cwm/cwm/spin2.gif

Have a fun, safe, and productive Disney vacation! http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/contrib/corky/corkysm4.gif

ohanafamily
10-19-2002, 11:56 AM
In answer to your question, yes we are taking him with us. His name is Nephosaurus. We are also taking his sister Neiceosaurus.

They are looking forward to AK, where their favorite restaraunt is the Breakfastosaurus (by the dinosaur ride);)

I hope that answered your question

DisneyKidds
10-19-2002, 11:58 AM
Soooooooooooo.................

You have decided to throw caution into the wind. So be it!! Let the trial begin!!!

Prosecution calls it's first witness............DVC-Landbaron.

Mr. Landbaron, if it would please the court, would you kindly tell us what the target audience was/is for the Aladdin's Magic Carpets ride in the Magic Kingdom located in Walt Disney World in Orlando, Florida? You are familiar with the place, are you not? And please, we are asking you to identify the target audience, so to answer with an inanimate object, such as a wallet, will force me to request that the judge allow me to treat you as a hostile witness ;).

BTW ohanafamily - have a great trip :wave: :).

DVC-Landbaron
10-19-2002, 12:41 PM
Let the trial begin!!!Finally!
Mr. Landbaron, if it would please the court, would you kindly tell us what the target audience was/is for the Aladdin's Magic Carpets ride in the Magic Kingdom located in Walt Disney World in Orlando, Florida?Families, of course. WDW is a family place. Or has the philosophy changed so significantly that they are now ‘targeting’ market segments and demographics? How sad. :(
You are familiar with the place, are you not?Yes.
And please, we are asking you to identify the target audience, so to answer with an inanimate object, such as a walletHow easily confused you are. The ‘wallet’ is the goal of the project. ’Families’ would be the target audience.
will force me to request that the judge allow me to treat you as a hostile witnessYou think I’m hostile now, just wait until tonight!*











* Obscure movie reference

FantasticDisFamily
10-19-2002, 04:25 PM
Have fun Ohana family - BTW,

I ONLY agreed with Sir Baron that Disney was ripe for takeover, and that is a pretty well analyzed "fact". But we disagree heartily on the reason Mr. E kept it from being taken over. From my perspective he was a positive reason. He provided a strong leader figure that was approved of by the appropriate people. He had the recognition in the business world as someone who was innovative (hindsight might debate his degree of innovation but at the time he was described that way).:p

Rest easy and enjoy - we aren't approaching the apocaplypse yet.

The Professor

P.S. I didn't see Montessori's comments as an attack - did I miss something? (No need to answer and stir up issues already closed!)

DisneyKidds
10-19-2002, 06:47 PM
Leave it to LB to tke the better part of a page for the simplest of answers - and it is still incomplete!!!!!

Yes, WDW is a family place. Walt created DL so that families would have a place that they could enjoy together. WDW was intended to meet the same goal. So stipulated.
Or has the philosophy changed so significantly that they are now ‘targeting’ market segments and demographics?
Must everything come down to perceived neagative motivations of a current management regime :rolleyes:? You are so tied up in philosophy, and proving the negative philosophy of the current regime, that you can't see the proverbial nose on your face. But on with the trial.

So, Mr. Landbaron, is it your position that every Disney ride must appeal to every member of every family? You have admitted your knowledge of WDW, so tell me about Space Mountain. This is a ride that was put in place by a management regime you find more palatable than the current. This is a ride that just about anyone would approve of as Disney. If you don't like Space Mountain, tell me about the Matterhorn in DL. What was the target audience for these rides? How about you tell me about Dumbo and the target audience for that ride, both in DL and WDW? Is it possible that having rides like Space Mountain and Dumbo, which clearly are targeted to different members within families, provide the balance that makes parks appeal to families in general? So I ask you again, what was the target audience for Aladdin? Which particular members of the family was the ride intended to excite the most? You can call it targeting market segments and demographics if you like, but don't attribute it to changed philosophy, as the same rides existed from the beginning of Disney theme parks.

PS. If it takes you this long to answer every question this is going to be a loooooooooong trial ;).

DVC-Landbaron
10-19-2002, 07:46 PM
Must everything come down to perceived neagative motivations of a current management regime :rolleyes:? You are so tied up in philosophy, and proving the negative philosophy of the current regime, that you can't see the proverbial nose on your face. OBJECTION, your Honor!!! Really!! Is this the opening statement, the summation or is he questioning a witness!!?? If there’s a question in there I certainly can’t see it! It’s prejudicial!! I ask that we strike all personal remarks and opinions and ask the jury to disregard!! Thank you!

So, Mr. Landbaron, is it your position that every Disney ride must appeal to every member of every family?No.
You have admitted your knowledge of WDW, so tell me about Space Mountain.What would you like to know?
This is a ride that was put in place by a management regime you find more palatable than the current. This is a ride that just about anyone would approve of as Disney. Your Honor Really!!!! More opinion from counsel!! Please tell him to stop and get on with the questions!!
If you don't like Space Mountain, tell me about the Matterhorn in DL.Again, what would you like to know?
What was the target audience for these rides?Ah! Finally a question!! Families!!
How about you tell me about Dumbo and the target audience for that ride, both in DL and WDW? Famlies!!
Is it possible that having rides like Space Mountain and Dumbo, which clearly are targeted to different members within families, provide the balance that makes parks appeal to families in general?Sure! So what?
So I ask you again, what was the target audience for Aladdin?Objection!! Asked and answered!!
Which particular members of the family was the ride intended to excite the most?Ah!! A totally different question!! And one you should have asked in the first place! It would have a saved an awful lot of time!!
You can call it targeting market segments and demographics if you like, but don't attribute it to changed philosophy, as the same rides existed from the beginning of Disney theme parks.Again he prattles on without a question in sight!! Your honor!! PLEASE make him STOP!!!
PS. If it takes you this long to answer every question this is going to be a loooooooooong trialStart asking the right questions!!

BRERALEX
10-19-2002, 09:21 PM
THIS IS BETTER THEN SURVIVOR, BIG BROTHER, REAL WORLD, DAYS OF OUR LIVES, 90210, even better then LIFE w/ BONNIE

KEEP IT UP this is great.

DisneyKidds
10-20-2002, 01:36 AM
More opinion from counsel!! Please tell him to stop and get on with the questions!!
Goes to motive, your honor. Redirect. Mr. LB, do you consider Space Mountain, the Matterhorn, and Dumbo rides that were put in place by a management regime you find more capable than current, who I believe you refer to as inept? Are these not rides that just about anyone would approve of as Disney?
Ah!! A totally different question!! And one you should have asked in the first place! It would have a saved an awful lot of time!!
If it is ok with your honor, I will decide which questions I ask, and in what order I ask them. While we were at it, rather than the defendant pointing out which questions are appropriate, how about he answers the question before the court. Again I ask, which particular members of the family was the Aladdin ride intended to excite the most?
Again he prattles on without a question in sight!! Your honor!! PLEASE make him STOP!!!
Establishes a bias and goes to motive your honor. Again, redirect. Mr. LB isn't it true that targeting market segments and demographics, as you call it, happened under Walt's philosophy and is not only attribute to changed philosophy, as is evidenced by the fact that rides targeted toward specific members within families have existed from the beginning of Disney theme parks?
Or has the philosophy changed so significantly that they are now ‘targeting’ market segments and demographics? How sad.
Your honor, I realize that in our virtual court room there is no way to prevent the defendant from using the stand as his personal pulpit. It appears that he will cry objection if ever the prosecution attempts to counter these personal preachings. In the future I ask your honor to direct the defendand to restrict his answers only to the questions asked.

Let's continue. There are many ways in which we can judge Disney attractions. We can look at their content, their quality, their popularity, the emotional response they ellicit, all things that contribute their overall success. There are many different ways we can evaluate how an attraction does on each of these counts. Would you agree?

So let's look at people's enjoyment of an attraction, which may or may not be a result of content, quality, emotional response, etc. Sure, one could try to analyze people's pshychological, emotional, and physiological responses to any attraction, but there is hardly time to do a full psychological and physical workup on each and every guest after each and every ride. Would you agree that would be inefficient as the sole means for assessing people's enjoyment of an attraction?

So if, for instance, we wanted to judge how much guests enjoyed Space Mountain, Test Track, Tower of Terror, RocknRoller Coaster, the Great Movie Ride, The Backstage Studio Tour (including Catastrophy Canyon), would we not get a good barometer by looking at how excited the people are before and after they experience the ride, how much they laugh, smile - even cry or barf? Are these not all indicators of how people are affected by these rides? Would you not consider people's reaction to these attractions to be one good, and readily available, means of judging if the attractions accomplished their goals of moving their audience and making the people who ride them have a good time?

Let's talk about fun, can we? Would you consider it a goal of Disney to provide fun for their theme park guests? Would you consider that the primary, or a secondary goal? If fun is not the primary goal, than what is the primary goal?

That is all for now, but I am not through with this witness..............;).

DVC-Landbaron
10-20-2002, 03:51 AM
Mr. LB, do you consider Space Mountain, the Matterhorn, and Dumbo rides that were put in place by a management regime you find more capable than current, who I believe you refer to as inept? Yes.

Are these not rides that just about anyone would approve of as Disney? I can’t answer for ‘just about anyone’. (I was very tempted to leave it like that and make you ask the question the right way, but in the interest of time I’ll answer it.) I consider them Disney.
While we were at it, rather than the defendant pointing out which questions are appropriate, how about he answers the question before the court. (aside: Tee-hee!! Ha-ha!! And LOL!!! I knew it was rotten when I did it, but couldn’t help myself!! The very heart of your argument (or what you think is your argument) and I merely point out that it is finally the right question!! Come on, Kidds!! That’s good stuff!! But, sorry anyway!! ;))
Again I ask, which particular members of the family was the Aladdin ride intended to excite the most?Children. Kids. OK? Happy now!?
Mr. LB isn't it true that targeting market segments and demographics, as you call it, happened under Walt's philosophy and is not only attribute to changed philosophy, as is evidenced by the fact that rides targeted toward specific members within families have existed from the beginning of Disney theme parks?No. Seriously, I totally disagree! Sorry! (If you want to know why you have to ask another question!! Even Scoop would advise to answer ONLY what is asked!! Wouldn’t you Scoop!!??)
Your honor, I realize that in our virtual court room there is no way to prevent the defendant from using the stand as his personal pulpit. It appears that he will cry objection if ever the prosecution attempts to counter these personal preachingsYour Honor, may we approach the bench?

It is clear the prosecution does not understand the roles we have taken on. I am on the stand! I will answer all of his questions. I will go through the post line by line and answer only the questions asked! I will not get on a soapbox and I will not make speeches!

He is the prosecutor!! He is not allowed to talk directly to the jury. He is NOT allowed to pontificate, preach or slip in his message or hidden agenda! If he tries to do that I have the right to OBJECT!! Which is all I did in the previous post! (go back and re-read it, Mr. Kidds. That’s all I did!!) I gave no viewpoint. I did not try to further my cause! I just objected when he talked without asking a question!! Or , in some cases did ask a question with a biased preamble! That is objectionable!!!
In the future I ask your honor to direct the defendand to restrict his answers only to the questions asked.Agreed! Or should I say, “so stipulated”!!
Let's continue. There are many ways in which we can judge Disney attractions. We can look at their content, their quality, their popularity, the emotional response they ellicit, all things that contribute their overall success. There are many different ways we can evaluate how an attraction does on each of these counts. Would you agree? Your speech before the actual question lists some measures. I agree, but also stipulate that there are many, many more, some better than others. If you so stipulate I will give you a – Yes!
So let's look at people's enjoyment of an attraction, which may or may not be a result of content, quality, emotional response, etc. Sure, one could try to analyze people's pshychological, emotional, and physiological responses to any attraction, but there is hardly time to do a full psychological and physical workup on each and every guest after each and every ride. Would you agree that would be inefficient as the sole means for assessing people's enjoyment of an attraction?Yes. (Man!! These questions are convoluted and just plain long!! How the heck am I going to answer as succinctly as possible if I agree to the basic premise, but disagree strongly with a single word or phrase!!?? You almost got a NO out of this one, just because of the wording!! Let’s try to be more concise!!)
So if, for instance, we wanted to judge how much guests enjoyed Space Mountain, Test Track, Tower of Terror, RocknRoller Coaster, the Great Movie Ride, The Backstage Studio Tour (including Catastrophy Canyon), would we not get a good barometer by looking at how excited the people are before and after they experience the ride, how much they laugh, smile - even cry or barf?No!
Are these not all indicators of how people are affected by these rides? Yes.
Would you not consider people's reaction to these attractions to be one good, and readily available, means of judging if the attractions accomplished their goals of moving their audience and making the people who ride them have a good time?I don’t understand the question. Are you stating that the goal of a Disney ride is “moving their audience” (A term I’m comfortable answering without a little more definition) “and making the people who ride them have a good time”? Then no. Or are you saying that if you want to judge if people are having a good time you can watch their reactions? Then yes!
Let's talk about fun, can we? Sure!
Would you consider it a goal of Disney to provide fun for their theme park guests? Yes.
Would you consider that the primary, or a secondary goal?Good God!! I have never consider that question before!! And it’s a good one! Hmmmm. (If I were really on the stand I would have to answer ‘I don’t know”. As it is I’ll take a twenty minute break and think about it for a spell …………………… ………………. …………………. ……………… OK! I’m back!!)Answer: No!
If fun is not the primary goal, than what is the primary goal?To provide a “Disney” experience!!

Next question please!!

raidermatt
10-20-2002, 06:19 AM
This is getting out of hand...

YYYYYEEEEEESSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!! When people get off of Aladdin, they are smiling. They had FUN!

But is that the only barometer for a Disney attraction? If so, then DK, you've got a lot more studying to do... your Disney education is not as far along as I thought.

When I go to the local Six Flags and Paramount parks (yes, I occasionally do), everyone is smiling! They are having fun!

Great. We've hit on one of the lowest common denominators for Six Flags, Paramount, and Disney.

You, DK, are using "fun" as proof that Aladdin is up to DISNEY snuff. But if that's enough, then the merry-go-round at the local carnival is also up to DISNEY snuff, because everyone who gets off of it has a great big smile on their face.

Can we move on to something that proves Aladdin is up to DISNEY standards? Unless of course you don't think their is a difference?

Luv2Roam
10-20-2002, 10:34 AM
The primary goal of any company is make $. But that also goes hand in hand with customer satisfaction. (Part of the circle of business life. :jester: )
Aladdin up to Disney standards -- no way. (We rode it once and don't consider it worth standing in any line.)
I noticed now when I walk by I don't even look at it. It's just something to walk around to get elsewhere. And it's not like I see it a lot! I'm from Omaha!
Now if some local mall wanted to put the Aladdin ride in the middle, that would not surprise me.

DisneyKidds
10-20-2002, 11:19 AM
(Sidebar with member of opposing counsels defense team ;).)

RM - we actually skipped opening statements. Had we done them I would have pointed out the many ways I would prove the defendant WRONG!!!!. I never said, or implied, that a smile was the barometer for an attraction being Disney. Baron took a statement, and in an attempt to make a point, inferred that. Had he taken the time to really think about the statement, and read a little closer, I sure hope he wouldn't have made the same remarks, but since he did he will be held accountable ;). Let's look at what I did say.......
How do we know it hit the target? I can only base my conclusions on my direct observations. First hand knowledge of the fact that young kids really enjoy the ride. They get excited about it. Go and watch.
Nowhere did I say a smile makes it Disney. Aladdin, and Disney, is about much more. A smile is only a symptom (as Baron likes to say) of a larger effect. Maybe I am writing too much because some seemed to have missed this.............
At once they can fly, they can be part of a favorite movie, they can be brave, they can laugh, they can smile, they can share a moment with their family, they can live out a small adventure.
Yes, fun and a smile are one aspect of that, and something you can get at Six Flags. However, all those other things are what make Disney 'Disney' for a child. I'm sure you can come up with even more. So, as you admit, as the Baron reluctantly is admitting, Aladdin (and I don't care about Aladdin - we can have the same discussion about Dumbo) was aimed at kids, and it does provide fun for kids, but it does more. It does all of those things I mention above, it sparks the imagination, it lets them be spit on by a camel, it lets them search for the jewels of Agrabah. As such, it simply hits the mark. Now that mark may be too simple for some 'sophisticated' adults, it may infringe on someone's fantasy of Adventureland, some people may not like it, but that doesn't change the fact that it hits the mark. And guess what, it doesn't matter if Disney sells some plush, or if the ride technology is old. That still doesn't change the fact that it hits the mark. One can focus on the smile only, but in doing so one discounts all of the other things these rides accomplish, especially when they say.....
So, maybe, given your Disney proving ground and measuring stick for what hits the ‘Disney’ mark, we should put a couple of cardboard boxes in the middle of the walkway and call it an attraction. Is that it?
And think about it, kids stop playing with boxes for the rudimentary pleasure of the cardboard shaped into a cube around the age of 2. As kids grow older they will still play with larger boxes, but if one doesn't realize the complexity of that play, that it is about so much more than the box, I don't care how many kids they had - they need to have more because they missed something. Older kids may do an 'Out of the Box' thing. They may use boxes in imaginitive play, to recreate childhood memories, or use the imagination those memories fostered to create new and magical imaginitive worlds. They may even recreate *gasp* their own little Disney World out of those boxes, with Dumbo, Pooh, Peter Pan, and yes - even Aladdin. Still want to imply that is analogous to the chaotic destruction of wrapping paper as these kids feverishly try and get to the box to simply arrange them on the ground? Really, if Disney wasn't all the things I mentioned above and more, would we really care so much about the place? I would not spend the time I do on these boards for something I can see for no more than a box.
DK, you've got a lot more studying to do... your Disney education is not as far along as I thought.
While I readily admit I can learn more, I am learning more every day - heck, I am even learning from you guys (as scary as that is ;)) - and that is saying a lot for someone with 15 years of Disney experience, my Disney education is going just fine and it may be some others around here that have a thing or two to learn. Perhaps if you are a father of X many kids, with XX nieces and nephews, it is just a matter of remembering something you learned a long time ago and seemed to have forgotten.

DisneyKidds
10-20-2002, 04:07 PM
Let me try to be succinct. Let's summarize the testimony so far.

Aladdin, a ride very similar to Dumbo, and admitted 'Disney' attraction, is a ride that was targeted toward children. It ellicits a reaction in the children who ride it. Mostly is it smiles, which indicate that they are having a good time, but according to the defendant doesn't indicate enjoyment. Not sure what that means, but that is what we have so far.

So, Mr. LB, would you agree, yes or no - and only to the specific question, that Disney succeded in creating a ride, which is very similar to Dumbo, which accomplishes the goal of creating some kind of response in the children that ride it? If your answer is no, please elaborate.

Next I would submit that merely elliciting a response in a child, making the child have a good time, is not enough for Disney. Would you agree? Would you agree that a Disney attraction should create a deeper emotional response in the guest? It is what referred to earlier as moving the audience. Perhaps the ride should make the guest recall a previous enjoyable experience, make the guest recall a favorite animated feature, expose the guest to a different environment, have the guest experience all that with their family, thereby creating a new family memory of the experience. Would this be more important to the Disney experience than simply creating a ride that a guest has a good time on? Do you think that the Aladdin ride accomplishes this for it's intended audience - children? Is it possible that the smiles one observes on the faces of the children who experience this ride might be indicative of such an emotional response in some of the guests?

You indicated that providing a 'Disney' experience, not fun, is the primary Disney goal. Can you elaborate on what makes a 'Disney' experience? I ask you this, if all that you indicate makes a 'Disney' experience is present, but it isn't fun, will people return. Is it possible that fun must first be provided, closely followed by something that makes the experience uniquely Disney?

FantasticDisFamily
10-20-2002, 04:31 PM
Ok, this has deteriorated into a courtroom setting - so NOT being an attorney, I am running away from this discussion as fast as possible.

The Professor:jester:

DisneyKidds
10-20-2002, 05:00 PM
Awe, come on Prof, we're just having a little fun ;).

Really, forget about the courtroom setting, forget whether Aladdin intrudes on Adventureland, forget whether the ride technology is old, does the Aladdin help to conjure up visions of the film for a kid, does it allow them to pretend they are flying like Aladdin and Jasmine, does it create a memory, a Disney memory, for the children who ride it. That would hit the intended mark, no? Some may disagree with the mark altogether, and that is ok. Sure, people may criticize Aladdin (and could similarly criticize Dumbo), not without some merit perhaps, but Disney still acoomplished what it wanted to, what it had to - which is to create a uniquely Disney attraction that creates a memorable experience for children, regardless of what some adults think. Would you agree or disagree?

montessori
10-20-2002, 05:22 PM
"Would you agree or disagree?"

I would agree to disagree! :p

I think the Aladdin ride has been discussed to death. http://www.fadzter.com/smilies/sleep.gif

There MUST be something else to argue about. http://www.fadzter.com/smilies/tongue.gif


http://www.smilies-world.de/Smilies/Smilies_klein_1/ani_smiles.gif

DVC-Landbaron
10-20-2002, 05:50 PM
OK! This is getting silly. Let me try one last time since the right questions are NOT being asked!

Most of my car #3 brethren do not like Aladdin for a multitude of reasons. I think that you may have confused my motives with some of them. So in order to fully understand my position and to expunge the silly notion that I could possibly ‘belittle’ children (the only thing that I was defending myself against) I present the following:

The LandBaron “Official” Stance on Aladdin – the ride!

When the ride was announced, I was one of the few that agreed it was for the good. My reasoning was simple. It was an addition where no ride had been before. It could be a wonderful addition for the children in a land where kid enjoyment wasn’t exactly lacking, but where it was at a minimum.

I heard the argument that an “E” ticket should have been implemented instead. I thought that was rather silly! Not every ride or attraction needs to be an “E”. In fact I have always stated that we needed a couple more of the “A” through “D” types just to keep things new, fresh and lively. If they had demolished an “E” and given us Aladdin, I would NOT have been happy!! But they didn’t! It was an extra! A Plus!! And these days, those plusses are far and few between,

I heard the argument about selling plush and I wholeheartedly agreed with it. BUT, that didn’t necessarily mean the ride couldn’t be a benefit. Their motivations certainly could be used as an argument that Ei$ner was a knucklehead, but like the old adage, “it is an ill wind that blows nobody good”!! So their motivations be damned (even I can don the rosy eyewear once in a while)!! WE GOT AN EXTRA!! HURRAY!!! :bounce:

But in the end, they blew it!! It is highly subjective I know, but in their desire to add this ‘fun’ thing, for whatever the reason, they didn’t take the time to carefully consider the impact that it would have on the surrounding area, traffic or theme concept! They took a Fantasyland theme concept and plopped it down in the middle of a land that used muted, real and exotic themes. It doesn’t appear as though they thought the traffic patterns through very carefully either.

Now you can call that wrong and you can disagree all you like. You can tell me it is the best theme anyone has EVER seen. And it’s still nothing more than your subjective opinion!! I would have preferred that the theme take on a more real tone, to match the existing surroundings. Make the camels look real, AA figure style, instead of caricatures of the animals (and they could still spit!). I would have preferred that muted colors be employed instead of the usual (at least lately) primary, cartoon color scheme that is currently there. I would have liked it to one side or the other to accommodate the flow of traffic. There are a whole bunch of things I subjectively feel they totally screwed up!! And lastly, I find that many, many others share my view! So my bottom line is that it is NOT a hit! At best it is so-so. If they thought that my theme would not convey the “Aladdin” movie theme well enough, well… THEN DON’T DO IT!! Remember: Do it right or don’t do it at all!! In my mind they took what could have been a wonderful plus, and cut so many corners or simply didn’t think it through enough, to make it a failure instead of the ‘hit’ it could have been. AND they marred the surrounding landscape very badly making it a jumble of themes, confusing, halting and erratic. My SUBJECTIVE opinion as to why Aladdin fails!!

Again, I understand that you do not agree. And that’s fine. But to tell me that it is a hit because it makes kids smile, or elicits an emotional reaction from them totally misses my (and everyone else who disagrees with you) point! And brings to mind the ‘box’ analogy. Kids like many things. Kids can become emotionally linked to many things. But very few of them can become “Disney” simply because of a kid’s attachment. And I stated that a kid can smile and enjoy and even get an emotional response from a box. And I asked if Disney should try that, since you seem to measure success from that fact. The simple truth is that it doesn’t matter at all if the ride accomplishes all it was supposed to do. There are too many other things wrong to call it a success! IN MY OPINION!! Can’t you grasp that!?!?!

In response you flogged both Montessori and me in a diatribe (specifically labeled “serious”) which was most uncalled for, stating that I specifically ‘belittled’ kids and tarnished the memory of Walt!! How insane is that?!?!?

DisneyKidds
10-21-2002, 09:38 AM
(Note: the following post is me prattling on, answering DVC-Landbaron’s question about how I could possibly feel his comments on boxes pertain to kids and kiddie rides at WDW. Read or ignore as you see fit ;) :crazy: :jester:.)

Silly, indeed :crazy:. A few final thoughts from me and I’m punching out. :wave:

What we have is a problem of two entirely different discussions, not unlike Scoop’s Poly vs. AKL thread. That darn medium getting in the way again :(. What I have been discussing has nothing to do with Aladdin. It may have seemed to as I needed to make a basic point before I got to the main point regarding your comments on kids, Walt, and boxes. You don’t seem to grasp that. It has nothing to do with my like or dislike for Aladdin. I could really care less about the ride. I’ll go on it with my family and have a magical Disney experience, others don’t have to – no big deal. Your point has everything to do with Aladdin. So quit asking me if I can grasp that :p.

I grasp that you feel that Disney blew it with Aladdin. I get that you feel they used the wrong colors, they used cheap plastic, they used a cartoon camel in the middle of a non-cartoon land, they plopped it in the middle of a walkway, it is an eyesore, it detracts from your pleasure of enjoying Adventureland, it is based on 30 year old technology. I get all of that. I can see why you say that. Let’s just say I agree with all of that. There, end of that discussion. I agree – it doesn’t fit. Happy? But that isn’t what I have been prattling on about.

Since you still seem to wonder, and have asked several times, how I can possibly say that your comments belittle kids, Walt, and the parks, I’ll explain. I’ll preface this with the notion that I could be misreading your posts (not like that hasn’t happened before :crazy: ). Had this been a case of your not taking the time to really read what I had been saying throughout the thread, or a case of you making a tongue in cheek jab at a ridiculous notion (a smile = Disney) that you knew I wasn’t putting forth, I would have let it go. However, you went to great lengths to point out that neither was the case, and point out exactly what you were insulting. So, since you asked…………

It appears you might possibly agree that a ride like Aladdin (again, this is not about Aladdin - insert Dumbo if you like, insert any kiddie ride) might be capable of eliciting an emotional response from a child. In their young minds they can ride the movie, live the adventure, etc., etc. Granted, as we agreed above, in our eyes Disney blew it with Aladdin and it is all wrong. However, kids don’t see it that way. They love the colors. They love the camel. They love the 30 year old technology. They love the jewels in the pavement. It is unique as it represents a movie they love and identify solely with Disney. They love everything about it, and it is a uniquely Disney experience for them. Who cares that it might even be simple stuff, a lousy spinner, as sometimes the simple pleasures are the best one’s for little kids. They share this experience with their family, and it becomes a lasting memory. Pretty strong stuff for a kid. Pretty strong stuff for anyone really. All this has nothing to do with whether you or I like the ride. Can you grasp that?

Of the young kids I personally know that have ridden I can tell you this is how they feel. Their outward symptoms of all of those feelings are excitement, happiness, a smile. Of all the young kids I don’t personally know that have ridden, all I can see is the excitement, the happiness, and the smile. Rest assured, that for most of them, all of those other feelings are there. So like it or not, when judging something like Aladdin and how it affects kids, ecitement and a smile, while not the only one, is a darn good indicator. Add in a unique Disney element and it not only affects the kids, but makes it a Disney experience for them.

Then you come along and say, ‘eh….kids can become emotionally attached to a lot of things, they could be just as entertained by a box’ and ‘no, no, no – that is most definitely NOT DISNEY!!!!’ Is that not the equivalent of saying that these simple little people just don’t get it, that they can’t discern between a real Disney experience, and a cheap imitation for a real Disney experience? Go tell that to a kid and see if it doesn’t devalue their experience. Just because Disney blew it with the ride in our eyes means that their emotional reaction and attachment, their feelings about the ride, don’t count, that they are any less valid than ours in gauging what is or is not Disney? That is insane. No, Disney hit the mark in eliciting the reaction they do in kids with this ride. Maybe you don’t like the ride, but Disney hit the mark – and the simplest way to gauge that is by seeing how much the kids are affected by the ride. That was my point. So you say you are just insulting my ridiculous notion that if it makes someone smile (I actually said excite – which implies more than simple smile) it must be ‘Disney’. You know darn well that there was more to my comment than that. If you don’t I have been wasting my time talking to you.

So, how do Walt and the parks fit into this? Well, you say that you weren’t making a comment regarding kids, or any particular ride – just my ridiculous notion about excitement and enjoyment. Well, if you bothered to take the time to understand what was behind the excitement and enjoyment you would agree that Dumbo and Aladdin accomplish an awful lot for kids – the intended audience. Yet, to you, the emotional response these rides bring about in kids doesn’t mean much as ‘kid’s can become emotionally attached to a lot of things’ and you obviously believe they are unable to see Aladdin for the failure that it is. Well, I doubt Walt ever felt that way, even when Dumbo was placed in Disneyland. So, if Aladdin can be equated to a cardboard box, then so can Dumbo – heck, so can most of the kiddie rides in either of the parks, all those kiddie rides that Walt approved of. If Aladdin is a cardboard box, then both parks are full of them.

Sorry for the rant. From this point on you will no longer hear a comment from me regarding Aladdin or the moderate resorts. I mean it this time, really :crazy:.

montessori
10-21-2002, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by DisneyKidds


Sorry for the rant. From this point on you will no longer hear a comment from me regarding Aladdin or the moderate resorts. I mean it this time, really :crazy:.

http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/cwm/cwm/winkanim.gif

Easier said than done, I know that!

I'm trying to think of something else that could make a good debate, but I'm drawing a blank. http://smilies.uniquehardware.co.uk/contrib/sarge/Whatever_anim.gif

DisneyKidds
10-21-2002, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by montessori
http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/cwm/cwm/winkanim.gif

Easier said than done, I know that!

I'm trying to think of something else that could make a good debate, but I'm drawing a blank. http://smilies.uniquehardware.co.uk/contrib/sarge/Whatever_anim.gif

But I've said it soooo many times. It may be the hardest thing - but my lips are zipped, I can not be sucked in or called out again (unless it happens to be a completely unrelated angle to anything we have already discussed ;)). [dont'cha just luv them qualifiers :p]

I have an idea for a thread......................but it is sure to cause some troub.... I mean heated debate. Look for it on a Rumors and News board near you soon :).

WEDWAY100
10-21-2002, 01:05 PM
OK, so everyone including me has beaten the Aladdin thing to death. The topic is still “When does the Disney experience cease to exist?”

As a new ride along member of car 3, I’d like to point out some other things that make me question the Disney experience. I had some free time Sunday, so I went to the MK for a few hours. This was the first time I was there in several months – I usually go much more frequently. There were two things that jumped out at me.

1. Closed attractions. I have never seen so many closed attractions in my life as a Disney obsessor. I’m not talking about closed for re-hab. Just plain closed. In TL, the temporary theater close to the old skyway station had a sign that said, “No performances today”. The TL theater next to Buzz was also dark. CoP was closed, Timekeeper was closed, and of course the skyway was closed. For me, it was just sad. It looked to me like the carnival had been there and just left town.

The experience reminded me of a story I read about Walt when he was at DL one day and noticed that there was only one monorail running. He asked a park manager why and was told that there weren’t enough people in the park that day to support more than one. Walt was quoted as saying something to the effect that the guests paid full price to get in and they were going to get the full show. He ordered the other monorails into service. Under current management practices, that type of experience for guests has ceased to exist. I guess if you pay full price now, and not enough other people do, too bad - you don’t get the full show.

2. Does there have to be a gift shop at the exit of every attraction? I took a ride on Pirates, and as I was riding up the speed ramp to the exit, I heard a son ask his father for a souvenir. The father said (with some negative tones) that there would probably be gift shop we would have to walk through at the exit. When we got to the top of the ramp, he said, “See, I told you so”. This was a man who may have never ridden Pirates before. At least he didn’t know about the gift shop, but he was so conditioned to Disney trying to get money out of his pocket that he made a negative (and an accurate) assumption. For this man, part of his memories of WDW will be having to wade through yet another gift shop at the end of every ride.

This also made me take a harder look at the Pirates entrance and exit area. They closed the gift shop that was a real shop, and put everything in the exit area so that you have to dodge all of the crap as you exit. The space is so full of stuff that it’s not enjoyable to me, and I just want to get out of that area whenever I am there. I know that the theme is an open air Caribbean market, but there is just too much stuff in there. Also, the fountains are still dry – originally turned off for the drought, I guess they’ve just decided that it’s not worth running the two fountains.

For me, all this adds up to a bad (OK – a not as good) show, and my definition of the Disney Experience is ceasing to exist.

montessori
10-21-2002, 01:28 PM
I don't know what car I'm in but I am trying to stay away from car #3! I do get discouraged by some things at DW, but I always have SO MUCH FUN there! http://www.smilies-world.de/Smilies/Smilies_klein_1/jump31.gif

I'm feeling down right now because I think (actually I KNOW) that I should cancel our next Disney weekend. Financially, it's just not a good move at this time but I want to go to the Food and Wine Festival. http://www.smilies-world.de/Smilies/Smilies_klein_1/Smilies_klein_1_1/shakemitkopf.gif

I was thinking about something that bugs me at The Yacht and Beach Clubs, kind of goes along with what WedWay was saying. The restaurant (Ariel's?) has been closed for so long, and aren't there 2 lounges closed? I know there is one, and it seems like they've been closed since pre 9/11.
It just doesn't feel right.
I miss a lot of things about the old Disney World...yet I want to go to the new Disney World for the Food and Wine Festival... and I feel like crying! http://smilies.networkessence.net/contrib/lynx/pinkcry.gif

raidermatt
10-21-2002, 03:08 PM
DK, repeating the same thing using more and more words doesn't change the fact that you are completely missing the big picture.

I'm not going to draw it again for you, so I will bow out of the Aladdin portion of this discussion. (I know, dry those tears... ;) )

DisneyKidds
10-21-2002, 03:18 PM
Matt - I have one of those Picture-in-Picture DIS Board televisions. Perhaps the window for the second picture is too small for you to see, but it is there ;).

DVC-Landbaron
10-21-2002, 06:37 PM
Matt - I have one of those Picture-in-Picture DIS Board televisions. Perhaps the window for the second picture is too small for you to see, but it is there With all these people on this board, and all the participants on this thread, why is it that you are the only one that can see it? Hmmm.......

Hey Mr. Kidds! Ever see the movie, "A Beautiful Mind"? :crazy:

And with that I say adieu to the Aladdin thread!! I’m sure the topic will come up again, as most people point to it as an example of a good idea gone terribly wrong!!

Captain Crook
10-22-2002, 09:04 AM
Well, I certainly see that window Mr. Kidds & now that two of the 'evil bunch' have left this thread I'll jump back in.

I just got back from WDW and visited with a bunch of nieces and nephews (from 8-13) & their parents who had never been to WDW before (17 of us).

Well the kids had heard all about Aladdin and didn't give a hoot about Dumbo. We rode Aladdin and the excitement was heightend when Aladdin himself decided to take a couple of trips around! The kids had eyes as wide a saucers and smiles that would delight a dentist...{It was very, very sad that I had to tell them that Aladdin wasn't a good ride and couldn't be used to build magical Disney memories. They asked me why with disappointment in their voices and I said "well, it's because Disney already has a ride like this one...'Dumbo'...(blank stares) and because they built the ride in the middle of what used to be a pedestrian walkway (blank stares)"}...Well, they didn't really listen to me and went on their way thinking...Believing...Knowing that the Magic Carpets of Aladdin was one of the highlights of their trip.

To carry this a little further, we then rode JC and had a good Skipper and this ride was enjoyed by all. Then we rode POC. This was a runaway hit with the adults but a snoozefest for the younguns! Thy said "it's OK" or "kinda cool" and things like that. None of them asked to ride it again. The older kids thought the animatronics were lame. My point? Too often we wish to interprut what is best and acceptable for other people...Especially little ones. Aladdin hits the mark with them in a way that Dumbo no longer does...Why the huge lines at Dumbo, you ask? (A) it's in Fantasyland and (2) It's an adult classic...If more parents asked their kids which ride THEY'D prefer to do Dumbo or Aladdin, I think Aladdin wins hands down...

Also note that Tricertops Spin definately DID NOT hit the mark with our group (and they rode it before Aladdin). This points out that kids do have honest opinions and preferences, even if they can't articulate them which IMO debunks the 'give them a cardboard box' theory...
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

DisneyKidds
10-22-2002, 09:48 AM
Glad to see you back Captain. The seas were a bit rough while you were away ;).

Why does your post sound so darn familiar? I say great minds ('those guys' will say crazy minds) think alike :).

Oh, and guess what - 20 years from now that A ride (I can't say the word - I promised I wouldn't ;)) will have that long line of adults, specifically because of those wonderful Disney moments that were experienced by the younguns :).

SnackyStacky
10-22-2002, 10:52 AM
The kids snoozed on pirates because they have a higher standard of what they like. Because technology has advanced and Pirates is out of date. It sticks around because it's has nostalgia factor. BUT, have you seen any other rides like Pirates? No, because the technology has since moved on and an E ticket today is different from an E ticket of X years ago.

They definitely could have made Aladdin better. It still could have been an A-ticket with other. It's built and it's done, and that's fine, and of course there will be people who love it.

That doesn't necessarily mean that it's up to any kind of Disney standard.

raidermatt
10-22-2002, 04:07 PM
...now that two of the 'evil bunch' have left this thread I'll jump back in.

Ah, the old "wait 'till the fight is over, then jump in throwing punches" strategy...

And from a CAPTAIN, too....

;)

(By the way, my son loves PoC. Its why he wants to be a pirate for Halloween this year. However, I purposely don't use that as "proof", because of course, it "proves" nothing, other than HE loves PoC. Snacky does make a good point though... the fact that we are even drawing comparisons between a ride built 45 years ago and one built last year says volumes...)

Captain Crook
10-22-2002, 04:18 PM
Hey! I thought you quit?;)

Listen, I agree with Snacky's point too, it is very on the mark (IMO)... but still, while 6 newbie kids (in my group) were no scientific study they know what they know. As I said it's all subjective but I went with group of six new kids and everyone of them like Aladdin better than POC & it's direct competition Dumbo & Tricertops Spin. That must account for some trendish rationalization, doesn't it?
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

montessori
10-22-2002, 05:13 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by WEDWAY100
[B]OK, so everyone including me has beaten the Aladdin thing to death. The topic is still “When does the Disney experience cease to exist?”



Well, it was a good try! :p

Captain Crook
10-22-2002, 05:19 PM
When you've been around here long enough you'll realize threads will die when they die & not a moment before!;)

Also, this isn't the debate board and not many of us really care about staying 'on topic'...That's the fun of it.

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

raidermatt
10-22-2002, 07:22 PM
Hey! I thought you quit?
I quit discussing that NEW ride. I didn't say anything about Pirates...;)

As I said it's all subjective but I went with group of six new kids and everyone of them like Aladdin better than POC & it's direct competition Dumbo & Tricertops Spin. That must account for some trendish rationalization, doesn't it?
Sure it does. My point all along has just been that there's more to it than that. Ahhhh, but if you care about that, you have plenty of my material at your disposal in the first 200 pages of this thread...
:p

When you've been around here long enough you'll realize threads will die when they die & not a moment before!

Also, this isn't the debate board and not many of us really care about staying 'on topic'...That's the fun of it.

Well said.


“When does the Disney experience cease to exist?”
Ok, a few comments, for whatever they're worth...

On a macro level, I don't feel the Disney experience has ceased to exist. Meaning that when I go to WDW or DL the experience is still a Disney one.

On a micro level, I feel that there are things that are detrimental to the experience. Wedway, you hit on one that seems to be a slowly increasing one, and that's the closure of attractions without a replacement being in the works.

It's just a bad show, and that used to be enough to keep it from happening. 20,000 Leagues, Skyway, Timekeeper, CoP, Keel Boats, and now Hunchback. Ugh.

Reduced hours and entertainment is also a big one with me.

Its really a problem with direction. For me, the Disney experience is such a wonderful thing that the negatives that have been popping up are still over-whelmed by the Magic.

But when I take a step back and look at the big picture, I realize that a continued negative philosophy will eventually take the Magic out of Disney even for me.

And for those who aren't quite the Disney fanatics that we are, and were already closer to the breaking point, the Magic will be gone for them much sooner. Maybe it already is gone for a large number of people, and maybe that number is large enough to be showing up in Disney's financial performance today...

BRERALEX
10-22-2002, 07:28 PM
But when I take a step back and look at the big picture, I realize that a continued negative philosophy will eventually take the Magic out of Disney even for me.

to quote Metallica SAD BUT TRUE


And for those who aren't quite the Disney fanatics that we are, and were already closer to the breaking point, the Magic will be gone for them much sooner. Maybe it already is gone for a large number of people, and maybe that number is large enough to be showing up in Disney's financial performance today...

I keep tellin a friend who's only been there twice, to stay away from these boards. his opinions are still pure.

DVC-Landbaron
10-22-2002, 09:28 PM
I’ve stayed away, but I like your logic, Sir Raider!! As long as nobody mentions the “A” word…And for those who aren't quite the Disney fanatics that we are, and were already closer to the breaking point, the Magic will be gone for them much sooner.I really look at it a little differently, Matt. What you say is true and I don’t want to minimize it. It is VERY important. But, we’ve already (even the fringe fans) become lifers. We may disappear for a bit or take a leave out of disgust for recent changes and boneheaded decisions by management, but just one GREAT “E” ticket or a perceptible change in management’s philosophy in some newspaper article and we’ll all come flocking back into the fold in a New York second!!

But what about those that will NEVER get the bug because of the ‘experience’ they are receiving today!?? Announce a big ticket ride, complete with money back guarantees and they’ll have no vested interest at all!! Fire Ei$ner and thaw out Walt and they skim the story thinking it was about cryogenics!! At best they’ll ignore it, and at worst (and what I think more likely) is they’ll think it’s over hyped, over priced and underwhelming, typical theme park stuff! A little better than Six Flags and on a par with Universal. Why? Because of the things going on today!! Because of Ei$ner’s business model!!

Sure we see the magic! We’re hardcore!! But did the Captain’s recent guests? (God! I love to mix up threads!!) What if the prices were not so ridiculously high? What if the WOW of certain additions would have been just a little bit more? What if the place stayed opened just an hour longer? What if they had just a bit more SHOW? Could that have made, what has become an ordinary theme park experience, a pure pixie-dust filled MAGICAL experience? Maybe!! It sure used to!! That’s the heart of the philosophy!!!

BRERALEX
10-22-2002, 09:37 PM
AMEN

What if they were strollin around the magic kingdom at 1am tired to death but listening to the music comming out of the speakers in frontierland or adventureland and they could hear the wolf from HM howling. while they ate a dole whip or a turkey leg!!!!!!!!!
knowing they could do this all again tom. and see the fireworks again if they wanted to cause thats how it is here at MK EVERY NIGHT
nah at 10pm they were ushered out by the street cleaners!!!!

raidermatt
10-23-2002, 08:13 PM
Yep, Lord Baron, you're right, I just hit on a piece of it. Just those who already go and are hooked (to some extent).

The Captain's newbies aren't hooked, and maybe if what you described had happened, some would be. I certainly considered this to be more significant than how they compared the individual attractions.

Breralex- You know, not only are those street cleaners annoying in person, they are quite irritating when the sound eminates from the tapes you recorded on your camcorder as well! Grrrrrr.....

DVC-Landbaron
10-23-2002, 08:49 PM
The Captain's newbies aren't hooked, and maybe if what you described had happened, some would be. I certainly considered this to be more significant than how they compared the individual attractions.I agree! It is certainly more significant. It is also IMPOSSIBLE to measure. Just as it is impossible for Disney to realize that their ridiculously high prices have kept my sister-in-law away for seven years (possibly 8) instead of the usual four of five years. But it’s a fact!!

ohanafamily
10-24-2002, 12:22 AM
Hey, we are at the Poly, and went to MGM Yesterday. you could see the insides of the buildings on NY street. This is "Anti-Magic" Walt had a strfict rule about never showing any maintenance. We also say lots of scaffolding around the world (showcase at Epcot) today. We didn't really notice ride closings, but we weren't trying to hit every attraction. I also got annoyed in Norway because we had to wait for the movie to end in order to pass through the theater and leave the ride.

I am also still disappointed in some of the pavillions removed from the "after-Ride" in space ship earth. I really enjoyed the scateboard trip through the communications line. Journey into Imagination is much better than it was. Had I not been so fond of the original, I would have said it was fantastic.

I also found out that after 9/11 there were a good many lay-offs that went straght to US. This may explain why their themeing is improving while WDW appears to not be.

Comparison: AK River Ride and IOA Popey River ride (I am on a small laptop and don't have all of my resources or spell checkers online, so please pardon the not exact names) Popey ride was at least twice aslong, had a very appropriate theme, and really cooled you down. The ride at AK is just too short. The line used to be really long for the ride, but some poeple said they had ridden the AK ride on Monday and they rode it 3 times straight.

MK tomorrow, Will look for closed rides.
:bounce:

FantasticDisFamily
10-24-2002, 08:09 AM
Hey Ohanafamily -

Glad you're having fun. AArrgh! Brother & sister-in-law are US people (employees - married on site in CA) and I really hate hearing that US theming is improving. Oh well - one more topic of conversation during the Christmas visit!

But to more delightful things - can you share any specific changes on Journey into the Imagination? Is Figment REALLY back with a greater presence than before? Last time I was at WDW (June '01) I was a little disappointed but heard the "new" version was going to be great!

The Professor

space42
10-24-2002, 10:13 AM
But to more delightful things - can you share any specific changes on Journey into the Imagination? Is Figment REALLY back with a greater presence than before? Last time I was at WDW (June '01) I was a little disappointed but heard the "new" version was going to be great!

I saw the new JII back in September. As far as how good it is depends on your frame of reference. Compared to version #2 it is wonderful! However, compared to version #1 it is under whelming.

montessori
10-24-2002, 10:52 AM
We didn't like the new Journey into Imagination.
I can hardly remember it, it was so unimpressive. When we walked out, we just looked at each other and kind of shrugged.
But, that's just us, many people love it!

Glad you are having some fun, Ohanafamily. Will you be going to Epcot for the Food and Wine Festival?

Planogirl
10-24-2002, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by Captain Crook
Well, I certainly see that window Mr. Kidds & now that two of the 'evil bunch' have left this thread I'll jump back in.

I just got back from WDW and visited with a bunch of nieces and nephews (from 8-13) & their parents who had never been to WDW before (17 of us).

Well the kids had heard all about Aladdin and didn't give a hoot about Dumbo. We rode Aladdin and the excitement was heightend when Aladdin himself decided to take a couple of trips around! The kids had eyes as wide a saucers and smiles that would delight a dentist...{It was very, very sad that I had to tell them that Aladdin wasn't a good ride and couldn't be used to build magical Disney memories. They asked me why with disappointment in their voices and I said "well, it's because Disney already has a ride like this one...'Dumbo'...(blank stares) and because they built the ride in the middle of what used to be a pedestrian walkway (blank stares)"}...Well, they didn't really listen to me and went on their way thinking...Believing...Knowing that the Magic Carpets of Aladdin was one of the highlights of their trip.

To carry this a little further, we then rode JC and had a good Skipper and this ride was enjoyed by all. Then we rode POC. This was a runaway hit with the adults but a snoozefest for the younguns! Thy said "it's OK" or "kinda cool" and things like that. None of them asked to ride it again. The older kids thought the animatronics were lame. My point? Too often we wish to interprut what is best and acceptable for other people...Especially little ones. Aladdin hits the mark with them in a way that Dumbo no longer does...Why the huge lines at Dumbo, you ask? (A) it's in Fantasyland and (2) It's an adult classic...If more parents asked their kids which ride THEY'D prefer to do Dumbo or Aladdin, I think Aladdin wins hands down...

Also note that Tricertops Spin definately DID NOT hit the mark with our group (and they rode it before Aladdin). This points out that kids do have honest opinions and preferences, even if they can't articulate them which IMO debunks the 'give them a cardboard box' theory...
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

I'm commenting on this late but these are interesting observations. I see that the kids' excitement while riding Aladdin was heightened by Aladdin himself joining in. I wonder if the kids would have enjoyed POC more if a "true" pirate had ridden with your group?

I can personally only take a sample of one 8 year old but we rode Pirates over and over again by his request and bypassed Aladdin also by his request. But that aside, wasn't the original point of Disneyland to be a place where kids OF ALL AGES can enjoy things together? How does Aladdin fit into that philosophy?

I see nothing wrong with some spinners but they don't need to be in the middle of the walkway and they can be themed nicely. Just my subjective opinion. ;)

ohanafamily
10-25-2002, 12:18 AM
My initial thoughts about "JIII" were that it is a vast improvement over JII. I also liked JI better. Once I realized that I had to judge JIII on it's own merits I felt much better about it. I realized that EI probably had a huge contract with Disney, and was required to have the corresponding presence. HE LOOKS MUCH OLDER IN JIII than in JII. Basically, they trashed the dreamfinder concept, and kept the Institute concept. They left the track as it was for JII, and a few elements. The entire set was redone so that Figment is still the main character of the ride. He actually takes over the "Tour" and irritates the irritating Prof. All in all, I like the new ride a lot, add that in with the realization of the contractal obligations that probably exist PURE SUPPOSITION, I think the ride is done very well. Mind you, I am still here so that I am actually running in front of car 1.

As far as Aladdin goes, There is a lot of greenery around it that wasn't there last April when we were here. I no longer find it an eye sore. As far as it being just like Dumbo with carpets in stead of elephants... So what we rode it, and the point that it can be a fun ride for me and kids are true. The forrestry does a lot to conceal it's obnoxious color scheme. I actually think I like it now... I was mostly offendedby the eysoredness of it.
Mind you, I am still here so that I am actually running in front of car 1.

As far as closed attractions, the Crystal palace is being renovated...in daylight. Lion King is being replaced by a Mickey Philharmonic something-or-other. Carossel of progress is not open...it is now seasonal. A lot of carts were closed, but it is low season.

The room at the Poly is much nicer than that in RP, but RP is Value and Poly is ****.

Also, New person in charge of MK came from AK, and likes characters in the park. they are everywhere...I think this is good, and closer to the ads.

Complaints The Monorail still smells funny. I found out that is is carpet glue from when they redid the carpets a few years ago. they used a bad glue and it does not seem a priority to fix.

Resort delivery does not go to the rooms any more. I could understand this at a DVC resort, but not at a **** resort.

One last thing, Wrong thread, but of interest nonetheless...I found out that the only park being worked on is Hong Kong. There are plans that are top secret, but will not get started until HK is done (in about 8 months)

hope this report helps.....
:bounce:

grinningghost
10-25-2002, 11:27 AM
I think planogirl hit the nail on the head. Walt Disney's original concept was based on the idea that families should be able to enjoy an amusement park together. If all Disney has up it's sleeve anymore are multi-colored carnival rides, then yes, the Disney experience is ceasing to exist. Something like POC or HM are so unique, and they were designed years and years ago. Is it possible that all the truly creative, imaginative imagineers have gone to the great beyond???

DisneyKidds
10-25-2002, 11:49 AM
If all Disney has up it's sleeve anymore are multi-colored carnival rides, then yes, the Disney experience is ceasing to exist.

A couple of things. First, where is the proof that this is the case? Some people are way too 'what have you done for me lately'. Mickey's Phiharmagic and Mission:Space are under construction. There are rumors of Spain pavillions and other things. So what that the last few rides were 'carny' rides. I know - philosophy blah, blah, blah.............:rolleyes:. (not getting on you ghost, but I know what I'll hear from others ;))

Secondly, regarding families enjoying things together, tell me how Test Track (just picking the last major ride added - but I could say ToT, RnR, etc. - even M:S) accomplishes this goal any better than Aladdin or the Dino-Rama stuff. Themeing issues aside, it is called balance.

raidermatt
10-25-2002, 02:02 PM
Secondly, regarding families enjoying things together, tell me how Test Track (just picking the last major ride added - but I could say ToT, RnR, etc. - even M:S) accomplishes this goal any better than Aladdin or the Dino-Rama stuff.

They don't.

I suppose you could say that the rides you named only elminate the youngest guests, while rides that appeal to only kiddies leave out more people, say anyone over 10.

But the short answer is still, "They don't".

Disney balance isn't supposed to be about adding things at opposite ends, so that one appeals to the little ones, and the other appeals to the thrill seekers. Sure, there are some examples of this in the past, but the emphasis was always on "entire family" attractions, with a few at opposite ends thrown in.

Now, the middle is being all but ignored, while the extremes are being loaded up.