DisneySea Sells Out

[Another Voice]

Tickets for DisneySea in Tokyo are available for purchase thirty days in advance of the day you wish to use them. Unlike tickets to the American parks, you must make a “reservation” to attend the park on a specific date. Guests at the official hotels are guaranteed entry if they buy tickets through a package with the room. You must also specify which park you will visit on each day, “park hopping” is all but forbidden.

Tickets for DisneySea are selling out for each day the very day that the tickets go on sale, i.e. unless you buy your ticket the first morning of “thirty-day window” you can’t even get in the park (think rock concert). Indications are that over one million tickets will be sold BEFORE the park opens to the public. With the number of requests coming in per day, there appears to be no let up in sight for many, many months. And a flourishing black market appears to have begun (I guess it’s time to start checking eBay).

Can anyone guess the number of months it took DCA to sell the same number of tickets DisneySea sold before it even opened? I’ll bet some analyst in Burbank is going to have that answer on Mr. Eisner’s desk first thing Monday morning…

[philjerden]

Thanks, Another Voice, for the info. I'm not surprised by the response to this park. The pix I've seen are phenomenal. I simply can't believe DisneySea is *simply* a theme park! An incredible sense of place filters through even the photographs. (The ones I've seen are on Mouseplanet.)

Phil.

[toefungus]

I bet disney execs would kill to sell out DCA like DisneySea is selling out... :(

[wdwguide]

I would hate to be without park hopping, but in TDS's case that really doesn't seem to be all that necessary until sometime down the road, by which time I am sure they'll also change that rule, just like they seem to be doing at DCA (where it seems to be essential).

[hopemax]

From what I've picked up from Marc's columns and posts on LaughingPlace.

If you go for one or two days there is no park hopping. But if you buy a 3 or 4 day ticket. The first two days are either for TDL or TDS(designated at time of purchase), but you can park hop on days 3 and 4.

[Jakey]

I wonder if Disney management will see the handwriting on the wall in this. True, one has to say that 3 Billion sounds like an insane amount of money to drop on a park, but if that park and its hotels etc. sell out for months and months, how long would it take for it to pay for itself? Plus, can you imagine the years and years of great attendance to follow.

Maybe they should consider doing the same insane act here in the U.S. What if Epcot or Animal Kingdom or DCA for that matter had been built like DS? Disney could pull in more cash than any company in history!

It's what Walt would have done, or at least, he would have tried!

[Another Voice]

The secret of DisneySea’s success goes back to something P.T. Barnum discovered – give people something they WANT to see, and they will beat down your door to give you money.

Disney has been conducting a “campaign” of sorts for a while now to show why California Adventure is an “economically superior” park. There have been a lot of public statements about how “crazy” the Oriental Land Company was to spend this much money on a theme park and an awfully lot of corporate spinners out here on the ‘net trying to make the company line the “buzz”. Rather than investing money in the DCA, they've tried to use marketing & promotion to make the public "want" to visit California Adnveture. OLC spent the marketing money on the park itself, figuring that the end product would speak for itself and make the public "want" to see it.

Fortunately, facts have clear shown which approach is correct. All indications are that DisneySea is going to be a roaring success. The day tickets are selling as fast as they available and “rumors” say that advance booking through the hotels are very strong. And this is all happening in the tenth year of a recession in Japan (although most people would call it a depression). Give people what they want…

As for park hopping, that all started with the Disney/MGM Studios. There was very little hopping between The Magic Kingdom and EPCOT Center because both parks were pretty much full day visits. Park Hopping as we know it only started with the Studios and was a way for people to fill out the rest of the day when they had finished seeing what there was to see at the Studios. Given the sizes of both Tokyo Disneyland and DisneySea, I don’t think there’s going to be much a demand for it. In Anaheim there is a strong demand for park hopping solely because of the weakness of California Adventure

Personally, it’s just a pleasure to see Walt’s business model (exceed people’s expectations) triumph over Eisner’s (people will pay for The Brand).

[JeffJewell]

one has to say that 3 Billion sounds like an insane amount of money to drop on a park ... but it sounds even more insane to spend $5 billion for a cable channel. Aren't ad revenues down across the industry, and haven't they been that way since before the deal went through? No one has yet been able to show me why it was a good idea.but if that park and its hotels etc. sell out for months and months, how long would it take for it to pay for itself? Plus, can you imagine the years and years of great attendance to follow Wouldn't it have made more sense to get a billion dollars' worth of new monorail, then drop $2 billion on each US park complex? Put half the investment in park renovations and improvements, half in a DVC/hotel property that contains/has perferred access to an otherwise pay-for-play mini-land, or multi-part, in-depth attraction(s).

I know we're in a big economic slump, and that's a pretty legitimate reason bookings are down at the Values and Moderates: some folks who otherwise would have stayed there just couldn't afford a vacation. But the typical market for the Deluxes and Home Away From Homes is more immune to slumps: quite a few will make their trips, just the same (even if some try out a Moderate, this year).

The highest end of the market is the most recession-proof. I honestly don't think people would bark much about the pay-for-play additions, as long as they were innovative, entertaining, and extraordinarily well themed. The DVC-plus resort would sell out quickly (with an instant surge of cash from some kind of "upgrade" offer to current DVCer's).

Plus, aren't you supposed to feed your horse in the slow times? So you can ride him for everything he's worth when things start getting good again? The parks have long been used like an ATM to cover losses in other ventures (the phrase "Robbing Peter to pay Paul" springs to mind, for reasons unknown). It's time for that pricey, but important in the long run, XX-millionth visitor servicing.

Sorry for the tangential editorialization, but I'm really disappointed with the current state of the investment strategy in the American park complexes. When I read "TDS sells out," I can't help but think they're being rewarded for putting in so much more than they had to; and I contrast that to reading "WDW and DL resort bookings down X% percent" and thinking they're suffering for putting in so little more than they have to.

But they'll drop the big nickel on a cable channel... I just don't understand.

Jeff

[AKemel]

Theme parks in US are a mature business with very little growth possible, IMHO. Will any of you spend more vacation time in the theme parks? Will an average family add days to their vacation to visit yet another theme park? Can more foreign tourists come to Florida? Possible. But would you rather take a Disney cruise? See a Broadway play? Numbers say Yes. Japan, a Disney obsessed country has only one Disney theme park with highest attendance of any. That sounds like a place for another one.
Cable TV, Cruises, Music industry, Broadway, DisneyQuest are growth possibilities. Many will fail, some will succeed. You got to take a chance if you want to win.

[Captain Crook]

...I tried to say that but it got wordy and I quit (hey, I'm not Landbaron)...I agree with your evaluation. How many more people realistically will travel to Orlando or can Orlando handle?
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[Another Voice]

Euro Disney, Animal Kingdom, Disney/MGM Studio, DisneySea, even most of America were not his vision. Most of the concepts pre-dated his arrival or were presented to him in a substantially different format then the “end” result. The only completed park he had input from the beginning was California Adventure – which should serve as a warning to all mankind. In fact, the vast majority of design problems with Euro Disney are a direct result of his “input” into the process. Beyond that, his primary function has been to reduce plans rather than to promote them. The chief reason for DisneySea’s success is that EISNER WAS OUT OF THE WAY. One of the stories making its way through the corporate e-mail is about a sign someone posted in an office somewhere that said “Eisner-free and proud of it” (a parody of an anti-drug poster found in many schools). Boy, after I heard the Baron agreed with the “vision” thing I’m really sorry for missing the meeting.

DisneySea was never intended to be a Florida park and there was never a serious proposal to build it in Florida. In fact, it was never intended to be a “pure” theme park and the Long Beach plans were probably closer to Animal Kingdom in its mixture of natural and man-made attractions (although the park itself was about four times AK’s size). And I do agree that traditional theme parks – the plant a roller coaster in the ground and surround it with snack stands kind – is an over done concept. That, more than anything, else is the core problem with California Adventure. But done right, there is every expectation that a DisneySea park would be as big of a hit in the U.S. as it would be Japan. Again – build something people WANT to see and they will beat a path to your door.

As for Fox Family (once again) – the head of NBC gave an address out here saying that the only things “keeping the lights on at the networks” are reality programs. It seems that the public is tired of reruns, so much so that they will watch people vote for each other to eat sheep eyeballs rather than watch repeats of ‘Friends’ or ‘E.R.’.

So now Michael goes out and spends $5+ Billion on a channel to show reruns of ‘The Power Rangers’. Yea, THAT’S vision.

[DisneyFanGuy]

I absolutely, and truly believe that people will come if they have faith in the quality of the experience. Even in a recession, and even in the US. I am a big fan of Theme Parks in general, and Disney specifically, and I am in CA every year several times on business and I have NO DESIRE to visit DCA. But had it been AMAZING I would have been the first at the door.

Eisner is no fool, folks. We all are irritated at the current Disney strategies for their theme parks and films, but there is nothing that stirs his soul like a successful competitor or a huge missed business opportunity. At the end of the day, attendance and revenue at DCA sucks, and DS is going to blow the dust off of this so-called mature industry in a way that we haven't seen in many years. So once he gets over his pouting and temper tantrums he will see the "light" or he will be shown the door. I have been hoping for a DS hit of this magnitude because I really think we are at a crossroads.

Even though DS is not a competitor, it has to get his blood a pumping!

And it couldn't have been timed any better.

[Jakey]

Right on, DisneyFanGuy!

A park with the quality of DS in the U.S. would secure Disney at the top of the industry and return profits for years to come. People will pay for the amazing. I think the early success of Discovery Cove shows this to be true.

Even in the darkest days of Disney in the 70's when their filmed entertainment division was in a slump, the parks were the savior of the company because of the quality of the experience. And they didn't even advertise them! An Amazing Park is recession-proof!

[AKemel]

So let me understand it. NBC is saying that network TV is dead. Fox Family is not a good purchase because cable TV does not do well. So what are people watching on TV? I do like PBS.

[Another Voice]

The concept for an animal-based has a very long history in Disney. In many ways it goes all the way back to when Walt Disney himself wanted to put live animals in ‘The Jungle Cruise’ at Disneyland and to ‘Nature’s Wonderland’ train ride. I heard a long time ago that Walt may have even talked to the San Diego Zoo in the early sixties, but I’ve never heard any details. Early concept art from the late 1960’s for WDW included boat tours and habits in the conservation area of the property*. Concepts for an animal park were also drawn up post-EPCOT Center. And even the old Discovery Island could be considered as an early prototype of the concept, along with some sections of Port Disney/DisneySea Long Beach. So no, Animal Kingdom wasn’t any more of Michael Eisner’s “vision” than it was Busch Garden’s “vision”.

The Swan and Dolphin Resorts were the “vision” of a fleet of lawyers after Disney lost the lawsuit. Eisner’s contributions were to sign the check over to Michael Graves and to ignore the screams from WDI about ruining the sightlines from World Showcase. I had completely forgotten about The Disney Institute, but I think Mr. Eisner wants all of us to do that anyway so the less said the better.

DisneySea proves that Disney still has the right stuff when it wants. The real question is if Burbank really has the guts to build on that kind of scale. There are several plans that will truly amaze everyone, but I don’t think Disney has the confidence in itself anymore to attempt any of them. And if they can do something here that makes my jaw drop as much as DisneySea has, I will gladly have a double helping of crow.


*In a little known irony, most of the conversation area was destroyed to build Animal Kingdom. I even think the company was fined by the EPA over the construction of the park and its support facilities. An interesting example of mixed messages.

[DVC-Landbaron]

But, remember, as Baron, Sara, and I discussed at the mini meet, Eisner is a vision person. Now, whoa, before you start typing, Baron was not endorsing Eisner at all. Instead, I believe that we all agreed that Eisner is not at heart a pure "numbers" guy.
What I really said or at least meant to say if I didn't state it clearly is that:

Ei$ner thinks he is a visionary. Unfortunately a giant hat, guitar or wand over Epcot is not my idea of a visionary. He thinks that's all it takes. Another example of how he just plain - doesn't get it!

And to further the argument that he 'doesn't get it' is the Institute. A colossal mistake. A concept that was inherently WRONG for Disney and a mistake anyway you slice it. But typical of the Ei$ner way of thinking. DCA is another example. And if you look closely at the what EuroDisney was supposed to be and what changes Ei$ner made to the original plan, you'll see again that those changes, more than anything else, caused the failure. Once more, a guy that just doesn't get it! Primary colors, huge icons and exclusive -upscale (read expensive) vacation retreats or ALL the stores throughout the property selling the EXACT same plush toys is NOT Disney. Or at least the Disney that I knew. Sadly, it is very much the current Disney though. Ei$ner's Disney. How's that for vision!

Another Voice. For the first time I have to take issue with you:
Personally, it's just a pleasure to see Walt's business model (exceed people's expectations) triumph over Eisner's (people will pay for The Brand). Do you really mean to tell me that the huge Hat (pin stand) in the Studios doesn't exceed your expectations. It does mine. I never expected it in a million years!

Oh! - I get it!! We're supposed to like it too!!! - Sorry! ;)

Boy, after I heard the Baron agreed with the "vision" thing I'm really sorry for missing the meeting.That'll teach you to miss meetings. We also asked for volunteers to set up coffee and rolls for the next meeting. Hearing no objections after the nominations, we unanimously voted for you!!!!! It'll be the second week in July 2002. Thanks!!

[DisDuck]

Back that meet up to last week in June/2002 and I will bring bagels and coffee (or juice).

[tiggerstheman1]

I think A.V. meant that DisneySea a la OLC was living up to Walt's business model while Disney itself was still trying to operate under Eisner's.

From the pictures of TDS, I would agree with A.V.

[DVC-Landbaron]

tiggerstheman1,

I know. It was a feeble attempt at humor. I NEVER disagree with AV!!! Please forgive me. But, I've been on vacation in case you haven't heard!!!! ;)


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

[tiggerstheman1]

Perhaps I shouldn't be bouncing on my head so much....

[Another Voice]

Okay Baron, you’re right. Mr. Eisner has often exceeded my expectations and he continues to lower the bar on an almost daily basis now. Somehow, I don’t think that’s the direction Walt intended things to go but I’m just happy there’s some kind of movement these days.

There are plans, but there are always plans. The real issue is if Eisner has the willingness to do anything about them. I mean, ‘Mission: Space’ had a really good plan for a while and they could easily put that one back if they really wanted to. The only glimmer of hope is that The Company is acting very erratically these days. Mr. Eisner knows he must do something big to counter a lot of negative events so far this year – California Adventure, ‘Pearl Harbor’, GO.com, the meltdown in Animation, and the expected poor reception for Disney Studios Paris. At WDW there’s internal debate (as always) between expanding the existing parks and building new ones (which tend to generate more cash). You may see a new gate (which is not the same as a park) before you’ll see a major addition to an existing park.

Personally, I think Mr. Eisner is much, much more interested in playing Media Mogul than he is in the theme parks. If anything is mentioned about the parks, it will either be before a quarterly earnings announcement or before the stockholder’s meeting. Until then Mr. Eisner is much more interested in dressing up as a Power Ranger and pretending he has a real stake in AT&T.

P.S. A new rumor is saying that Disney is now going to actively hype DisneySea. They figure that most on Wall Street don’t understand the arrangement between Disney and Oriental Land Co., so all of the analysts are going to assume that DisneySea’s success is a good thing for The Mouse and take away some the sting of California’s failure. Cynical, but it will probably work.

[Captain Crook]

Disney Seas success IS a good thing for the Mouse...Percentages are percentages...
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[larworth]

thedscoop

Speaking of details, any more about the environmental impact permits. Do they specifically mention certain parcels of land. It might be interesting to see how these match up with some of the rumors/master plans.

In my industry we would usually not try to get permits unless we had some very concrete thoughts about building something. No sense involving the authorities unless you have to.

Anyone every follow their permit application patterns (I assume these get filed somewhere with public access) to see if they are a reasonable indicator of future plans and how far in the future they typically do this type of thing? Also, are there permit differences if they plan to build another hotel versus some type of attraction venue?

AV

Help me out a little here, I'm a little slow today. Can you give me an example of what you mean by another gate that is not a park.


I guess I don't see any downside yet of TDS not being a smashing success. While they will continue to remind themselves about the differences between the two markets, at some level it has to create some doubt about what is possible here. It's success will never be enough to get us a domestic TDS, but if it makes them put another 10% into their next effort than we are all the better for it. I guess the only downside is that at 7% it may take a couple of years before they will have saved up enough to buy more media properties. Darn!

I think I heard that Disney is raising about 7.5B in new debt? I assume much of this is related to the Fox acquisition? I know there were interested in refinancing the existing $2B in debt Fox had on the books. No chance this is kitty money for an ATT partnership is there?

We all know that understanding customer likes is a trickly art. However, I'm continually surprised to hear about some of the miscalculations. Disney made huge mistakes in understanding what Europeans would want in a park, it seems OLC had some of the same problems with TDL, and of course we have the DCA situation. Does Disney not ask the right questions on all of these market surveys, or what?

[DisDuck]

scoop, your plans for May 2002 might actually overlap with some tentative plans of mine. I am trying to convince my daughters chorus teacher to take a WDW trip instead of competing in Boston next May. So (with fingers) crossed we may be there next May for an extended weekend and again in June on family vacation.

[Another Voice]

So big permits have been issued – permits like the one’s you’d need to build a big new Vacation Club resort or even a skateboarder day care center?

“Gates” is a term used to described any area that the guest must pay to enter. Pleasure Island, Typhoon Lagoon, Wide World of Sports are all considered “gates”. The Magic Kingdom and Epcot are technically both “gates” too, but the term “park” is used to indicate their larger size. No one’s come up with a good term yet for the “freebie” areas like the Boardwalk and Disney West Side (because Disney really wants to make them “gates” but the tenants would scream too loudly). Another difference between a gate and a freebie zone is that a gate attraction is mostly Disney-owned where a freebie area is mostly leased-out space. And there have been some suggestions about building “additional ticket” areas within a park – a gate within a gate.

As for future plans, everything depends on California Adventure. All of you way out on the other coast may complain that it’s not your problem, but it really is. Mr. Pressler’s bonus is based on the performance of Attractions & Resorts as a whole and many see no reason not to share the pain throughout the entire division. The summer for DCA turned out far worse than anyone’s nightmare version and the debate is on about how to fix it. One side wants just to do minor tweaking and hopes things work themselves out in the end (like Pleasure Island), the other side wants major investments to fix the place (like Euro Disney). Add to that the corporate embarrassment of DisneySea – which is really being felt in Burbank and Anaheim – and the whole situation becomes unpredictable. It’s become your basic corporate fight about how much money there is and who gets most of it.

For WDW you might hear some sort of announcement at the start of the Walt 100 marketing campaign just to tie into the whole “… will never be completed as long as there’s imagination left in the world” tag line. Whether you’ll be astounded or disappointed has yet to be determined, just don’t expect to sail on the ‘S.S. Columbia’.

[larworth]

AV

You must of worked on one too many suspense screenplays. You've got the schtick down pat.

[YoHo]

Sorry I'm late. I'm still readjusting from my Week and a half of Wisconsin fun wherein I didn't even think about Disney once. (didn't even bring my WDW MSEP T-shirt)


I have a couple of observations.
First, My initial reaction when reading AV's post was disgust at the 30 day pre-buy period and limited Park Hopping. Park Hopping may have really taken off with The studios, but As americans always do, we take it as a right to do so. As others have pointed out, Japan has the highest attendence Disney park already and none of the non-disney attractions that Florida has. Even with the new Universal park which is at least a good hour away as I understand it.
I would be willing to bet also that most of those tickets, the vast majority of them in fact are being sold to Japanese and other Pacific Rim/ Asian Tourists. I'm quite sure very few Europeans and Americans are making Japanese travel plans soley to check out the new park (granted that the statisical sample on sites like the DIS is skewed)

All that combined means that to me, the phenomenal numbers mean little in terms of American parks.

Further, AV, while I wholheartedly agree that Exceed there expectations is the only way to build Parks, I don't think TDS has proven that yet. My impression is that in the land of the Rising Sun, Eisners Slap the brand on the spinner Could have nearly the same amount of pre-opening buildup. Its the longevity that suffers and we won't know that until after the place has been open a while.



I also agree that another Theme Park in orlando is a mistake right now. In fact, I suspect that we'll see very little going on in Florida no matter what direction the company moves. The only thing I expect is for SOMETHING to happen with DCA.

think about this, Bookings are at record lows across orlando. Disney isn't alone here. Walt's Hundreth is maybe bringing up bookings (I just got a postcard in the mail giving me a rate of like $183 a night at Animal Kingdom Lodge during November and December. So I doubt bookings are all that good.) Next, you announce your building a new gate or beastly Kingdom. How many bookings will they lose as people shift there Vacations back another year or two?

Further, I think that its safe to say that Orlando has reached a platue in terms of Length of Vacation. Even if AK in MGM were the greatest parks in the world, I have a hard time believing that people would add more days to there vacation. After all, I have noticd any companies spontaneously uping the number of vacation days employees get. Nor Schools reducing the amount of homework given when students take a vacation during the school year.


All of this leads me to believe that the only thing that may change as a result of DisneySea's success is DCA and that's a big maybe.

[Another Voice]

Why the “disgust” over Tokyo’s ticket policy? The thirty-day window is a way of guaranteeing admission to ticket holders (there were some really bad sell-out days when TDL first opened), and the limited park hopping is exactly what Disney tried to do with Disneyland and California Adventure. Yes, most of the tickets sold to DisneySea are for local residents, just like most of the tickets sold to Disneyland are to Southern Californians.

As for the “it’s because the Japanese are Disney-crazed fools” spin – are they more so than us Californians? Most of us have grown-up with Disneyland and an annual visit is all but written into the state’s constitution. When ‘Indiana Jones’ opened, the wait time was FIVE HOURS. The opening of ‘Splash Mountain’ had a line the stretched all the way to Main Street. Randomly stop ten people on the street and nine of them will be able to finish the line “When hinges creak in doorless…”. There is no difference between the audience for DisneySea and California Adventure. The difference is in the product.

The first task of any entertainment is to make people want to see the show. DisneySea has already proven that it’s capable of doing that by its ticket sales. And DCA has shown that it’s lacking by its own ticket sale figures. There was more advertising and marketing out here for DCA than for any other product that people can remember. It all fell flat be people saw the finished product and they are not interested – branded or not.

[AKemel]

I was reading the latest issue of Disney magazine on TDS. 23 new attractions including

Aquasphere- sounds like Spaceship earth
Sinbads Seven Voyages- "Pirates meet It's a Small World"
Flounder's Flying Fish coaster- "modeled after Barnstormer"
S.S. Columbia- "enjoy a meal"
Storm rider- "like Star Tours... 3 times larger"
Indiana Jones Adventure- "different from Disneyland, electromagnetic and not hydraulic power"
Magic Lamp Theater- "first came Muppets... now Aladdin"
Mysterious Island- "20,000 Leagues under the Sea"
Fortress Exploration- "play area crammed... with games, exhibits"
Caravan Carousel- "marry-go-round...two story carousel"

I do not know what other attractions are like, but the ones that are mentioned do sound like Walt himself could have designed them. Or may be he did...

[Another Voice]

Most of the attractions in DisneySea have been bouncing around in Imagineering for a while, so there’s a very definite “Disney” feel to them. There are several other sites that are listing lengthy and detailed descriptions of each attraction and those come off much better than just a single picture on MousePlanet. Everyone’s also forgotten about ‘Journey to the Center to the Earth’ – another major E-ticket ride. The inside of the Little Mermaids Kingdom is tremendous. Yes, they use purchased ride systems but the effect is that like Fantasyland rather than Paradise Pier. As for the attraction count – I will gladly take DisneySea’s 23 over California Adventure’s 23 (for which they count the tortilla making exhibit, the bread making exhibit, a commercial for squashed grapes, and a fiberglass tractor that kids can climb on) or whatever number they’re fabricating at NATAZU this week. Sometimes it really is quality, not quantity that counts.

On the Swan and Dolphin – how does hiring Michael Graves show Eisner’s “vision”? Graves was already a renowned architect with several important buildings, just like all the other architect’s Eisner was hiring to build The Monuments to Mike (old company joke – there’s a reason why the Dolphin is a pyramid shape). Does wearing an Armani suit, Ralph Lauren shirts and Calvin Kline underwear make me a fashion genius?

[Captain Crook]

AKernal, thanks for the post. It seems that it IS ok for Disney to buy off the shelf and use the same old ideas, as long as they spend lots and lots of money...Which leads me to believe that DCA probably can be saved with some serious imagineer money, although if Eisner does it I wonder how it will be judged around here?

Again, Scoop, I agree. TDS looks great and no expense was spared in the theming, but it is full of the tried and true...Just what the Japanese audience wants.

As for Eisner / Graves...No, AV, wearing Armani suits & Kline underwear don't make you a fashion genius, but they show good taste. Should Eisner not get the credit for hiring the people who fulfill a vision (whoever's vision that might be)? The S/D are truly unique pieces of archetechture as is WL & AKL...Who other than Mikey should get the credit?

Lastly, IMO, TDS IS Disney. It was Disney designed, it's content is Disney & Disney controlled and it bears the Disney name. Despite the fact that OLC holds the major stake they also have the major risk. Eisner made a great deal by geting someone else to foot the bill his company wasn't willing to foot and in return got to (1) Put imagineering to the test (2 ) Build a complete Park in direct contrast to DCA & AK & evaluate the positives & negatives (3) Earn 7-10% forever for very little risk (4) analyze the good and the bad decisions in a full Park venture that Disney didn't have to pay for. When I see the sign Toyko Disney Sea...I still think Disney, not OLC. The Disney Company can and will learn a lot from TDS. I'm sure The Disney Company wouldn't mind having three or four other opportunities to build full scale Parks, risk free for a guaranteed 7-10% return.

Lastly, AV, more of the AK slamming? AK IS quality, maybe not enough quantity!
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[DVC-Landbaron]

Ya just gotta love this guy!! And believe me, he's even better in person!!! Just take this for example. My good friend the Captain says: Which leads me to believe that DCA probably can be saved with some serious imagineer money, although if Eisner does it I wonder how it will be judged around here?Man-Oh-Man!! In one sentence he not only has Ei$ner saving DCA, but it's such a sure thing, in his mind, that he no longer is musing about the great things Ei$ner will do (it is a given), but instead how he will be judged here on the DIS when he does them! You just don't see that kind of optimism every day!!

Captain!! What makes you think, given their recent track record, that they will do it right!!?? PLEASE, give me an example! Just one little thing that I can hang my hat on and I'll cross the lanes of dangerous traffic and find myself a seat in car #1!!

The S/D are truly unique pieces of architecture as is WL & AKL...Who other than Mikey should get the credit?WHOA!!!!! Hold the phone my good Captain! You aren't seriously suggesting that the Swan and Dolphin can be compared to WL or AKL!!!?? Are you? WL and AKL are perfect examples of what a Disney resort is supposed to be (other than price). The Swan and the Dolphin is the perfect example of what a Disney resort is NOT! You can find interesting architecture in every big city in the world! Disney isn't that! You can find creative designs everywhere! Perhaps not exactly like these two… ah… well… let's say buildings, but some even more innovative. The point is they are not Disney!!

Where is the theme!! Where is the detail that is supposed to transport you to some exotic location? Where is the imagination and richness in style that makes you believe that you are no longer part of the real world? I can bring you to at least a dozen hotels in Chicago that equal (or maybe even best) the feel of the Swan or Dolphin. What's exotic, foreign, fascinating, alien, romantic, unusual, strange, mysterious, wondrous, different or even bizarre and eccentric about them? Nothing!! Pretty ordinary if you ask me!!

Add to all the above that they absolutely destroy the sight line in EPCOT and they go from being mundane and pedestrian to hideous eye-sores that should be demolished at the first opportunity!! And besides that (in case I wasn't clear) - I don't like them! ;)

Scoop says: They may be misplaced in their current setting (I've never said Eisner was necessarily effective in his vision) but they were risky, cutting edge, original--something which many of you all beg and plead for only to rip apart when presented with. Hmmm. Risky and cutting edge? I really don't think so, but let's say, for argument's sake, that you are correct. They are indeed 'risky and cutting edge'. But there's one more crucial element that is necessary for success. IT HAS TO WORK!! And just as you say, because of placement, they don't work! Plain and simple. I wouldn't call that vision. I'd label it FAILED VISION. I'm afraid two (risky and cutting edge) out of three just doesn't make it in this case.

What's worse, of course, is that they introduced 'non-Disney' structures to the property. And that made it much easier and more acceptable to construct a Motel 6 with a 40 foot guitar and call it Disney theme!! Kind of sad, don't you think?

[Another Voice]

Does anyone know why it took so long for the Tokyo Disneyland Resort to open up a second gate? Michael Eisner’s “vision”.

For most of the last 15 years, Eisner refused to allow Oriental Land Company the permission to build another park. For the last 15 years, Eisner was demanding that he be granted an equity ownership in the new park (he’s called TDL the worst decision ever made by the previous management). Eisner HATES the idea that he only gets 5% for all that the Disney brand does (and it comes in devalued Yen as well). For the last ten years (and still to this day), the only park he considered worthwhile was a two-thirds clone of the Disney/MGM Studios. Yes, that was Eisner’s grand “vision” – three attractions, four stage shows and a restaurant. It was going to be his park, his “vision” and his profits. And the Japanese said told him to go jump in a lake.

For the last year, high level Disney executives have been calling the Japanese “stupid”, “crazy”, “insane” and “misguided” over their decision to spend as much as they did on DisneySea. Check out the PR piece on Paul Pressler from that other website or even check Marty Sklar’s comments within the last month. In the next breadth they praise their own decision to create the parking lot kiddie funland as “the blueprint for the future”. Where is there any indication that Eisner somehow is shrewdly using the Japanese’s money to refine his “master plan”? Has anyone heard any plans to take the best of DisneySea attractions and show and bring them to the U.S.? Perhaps the “shrewd business strategy” line makes nice corporate spin and it may even make people feel better, but it’s not true.

If anything, the Oriental Land Company is the shrewd ones – they lock up the best people in the business, force someone else to spend all the money to keep the brand alive, pick and choose concepts that have been worked on for years, get a huge fan base for free, and then they get to keep 95% of the money!!!!! OLC doesn’t have to worry about the blowing more money on films, fixing the Stores, shareholder lawsuits over dot com disasters, riots in Paris, paying off the latest golden parachute – but they get all the benefits of the Disney name! Eisner gets stuck with the entire overhead; OLC gets to skim off the money.

For all the talk about grand vision and quality, no one seems to be jumping at the chance to see Eisner’s latest masterpiece – California Adventure. Here, just a few hours away, is a brand new theme park – filled with all the Disney magic, all the cutting edge excitement, brimming with all that Eisner “vision” that everyone claims to love so passionately. With all the credit being given out for hotels, stage plays, cruise ships and off-property resorts, no one seems to want to experience that “vision” in its purest form. Where are all those Animal Kingdom fans? Who doesn’t see the “Disney” in the place and why haven’t they hopped a plane out here? Come on folks – come see the “vision” in the warm California sun. You can even have my half of the tortilla after the tour.

[larworth]

Hey, what gives. Here I am trying to have this nice dream about some beautiful park in some exotic location when all of these images of dolphins and swans keep getting in the way? Just kidding.

Yes, the pictures are amazing, but I'm very interested in reading some ride reviews. I'm surprised these haven't been included as part of the mix.

thedscoop

I started having similar thoughts. Boy I hope they didn't blow all their budget on theming and short shift the ride side of the equation.

The rides we have been exposed to in the pictures do seem a little pedestrian (mermaidland flat rides, the aquatopia boats, the kiddie coaster). Ahh, but we haven't seen much of the big E tickets. Is there one ride that is supposed to break any new ground, as Spiderman did?

On the ride selection process for the park. Were most of the rides we see part of the early DS plans or did OLC get a chance to poke through whatever WDI had in inventory at that time and pick their favorites. People keep talking about all these great ride condepts sitting in WDI. Is what we are seeing in the TDS E ticket rides reflective of this war chest?

[hopemax]

>Yes, the pictures are amazing, but I'm very interested in reading some ride reviews. I'm surprised these haven't been included as part of the mix.

The people who have posted about DisneySea on Laughing Place haven't been willing to share many ride reviews because they don't want to ruin the sense of discovery for anyone. Remember your first visit to a Disney park, when you didn't know what was inside the building or around the corner, and how mouth-dropping and mind-blowing it was? That's what they are trying to protect. They are also hesitant to share disappointments since they saw the park in preview form, and are allowing for effects that aren't working yet to be added in the next couple of months.

There is a thread on MousePlanet http://mousepad.mouseplanet.com/showthread.php?threadid=1443 that does include some ride spoilers.

[Captain Crook]

Scoop! Stop taking words out of my mouth (lol).

I too, wouldn't defend Eisner as rigidly as I seem if the Eisner haters would give credit where due, but when it has to do with Eisner the standard for many people just rises to an unbelievable level. If DCA were successful & making some money, many of your attitudes still wouldn't change, and that's what bothers me.

As for TDS, I have a hard believing the Disney Money Boys are sad about the TDS deal, they must have got what they wanted or why did they acquiesce? The ball was theirs to take home. No Mickey Mouse no Disney Seas. Come on, The Disney Company stands to make some nice cash from this venture (year after year after year) that cost them very little.

Now, Scoop did get right to the heart of what makes the S/D different. Like it or don't like it, that's fine, but give it its due, too. It is truly unique, again whimsical and while not technically Disney, I no longer find it out of place at all. The fountains, waterfalls and landscaping are spectacular and just look at the outline against the night sky! The lamp lit dolphins & swans, the huge backlit water falls...It IS magnificent (if you appreciate that sort of thing - I do).

Lastly, Landbaron wonders why I'm still so confident that DCA will be corrected. Well, simple math, I guess. Disney needs a money maker not a tax write-off and as scoop mentioned I too, firmly believe Mickey wants to go out a hero not a zero. Therefore, it stands to reason that he must reinvent himself and resurrect the Company at least one more time.
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[YoHo]

Just to agree with Landbaron, Eisner admits himself in his Autobiography that he hated the TDL deal. So, I doubt that he's thrilled with TDS. I'm sure he'd rather get a percentage then nothing, but based on his own words, I doubt he's thrilled with it.

And thedsScoop, I'm hurt, I don't consider Eisner a visionary any more then you do, BUT, I am one of the few who remember some of the Paramount movies that were made when he was there. The man didn't just come into being in 1983.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Now you said just "one little thing" and, while I could define DCL or Broadway LK or DVC as one little thing, I'll let you answer your own question.... Well, it's my own fault. And I'll gladly take a trip in car #1 for a day for a stupid mistake. (It's kind of easy when you just return from WDW. And the Captain is right, I figure it'll last anoither week or so.) Anyway, the little caveat that was in my pea sized brain, but what I didn't type was: 'In the Parks'!! Yes!! The man knows how to make money (and sometimes satisfy guests, purely as a side effect) when it comes to resorts! (IMO the DCL is a floating resort.) And DVC is a little old for this context AND it's also a resort type thing. And his Broadway production is supposed to be wonderful! I agree. But my question was specific to DCA and park related experiences (read: attractions). And again I'd like to ask it. What recent decisions leads you to believe that any approach, other than the absolute minimum (Band-Aid to profits) will be done? I'd really like to see what you guys see. Do I need special glasses? (BTW, this is the type of conversation you're going to get if I cross to your car. You sure you still want me?) ;)

Now, as for the twin abominations (Swan and Dolphin) I think you missed the point. In Chicago, roughly thirty years ago, Hyatt put up a hotel near the airport. It was stunning!!! All steel and glass, very retro today, but back then, quite a masterpiece. The lobby shot up 20 stories or so and in the middle a bank of 'futuristic' glass elevators (looking a little like Flash Gordon's rocketships) jetted people to the different floors. Everything was elegant and stylish. 25 years later many other hotels have sprung up in the surrounding area, each stylistic, each distinctive and each impressive in their own right. And it's absolutely amazing how similar they all feel. How they are all so very different and yet so 'identical' with each other at the same time. The Swan and Dolphin would be a perfect fit in this area. They have that same 'feel'. When I was sitting there having drinks in the elegant bar with Gcurling and The Captain, I could have been in ANYWHERE, USA. An airport hotel in Rosemont Illinois. A Manhattan hotel. Or even the American Club in Kohler Wisconsin!! HOWEVER, when I met with you I was filled with Disney!! Had we met at any of the other Disney resorts, I would have felt the same way. The Poly, Beach Club, Boardwalk and even Old Key West. They transport you away with theme and style. Where do the Swan and Dolphin transport you? Downtown Chicago??!! No thanks! That is exactly what I'm trying to get away from!!

Now I don't mean to quibble. I understand that they are unique structures and that they do indeed have a singular look about them. I am not dismissing your argument. But, and I certainly don't want to quote out of context, you make my very points for me, but they are hidden in you paragraphs. Let's pull them out and cast a little more light on them. Now, while I agree with you on Swan/Dolphin being misplaced If they are misplaced there is really nothing left to discuss. Put them with the other Hotels in Lake Buena Vista and I suddenly like them!! Plus, even if you don't like modern and even if it messes with good sight lines....How can you forgive that??!! You say that the walkway from MGM is haunting. It may be. But what about the walkway around Showcase Lagoon? What does that backdrop do for the Eiffel Tower, that so much thought was given when first constructed, honing the forced perspective concept to a fine art? It now looks like what it is. A cheap miniature on a slightly rising landscape which is dwarfed by a big, upside-down caricature of a fish!! you walk into a Gotham/Gothic type scene, which again may not fit the "show" but is nevertheless visually stimulating.Stop right there!! Nothing. Let me say that again a little louder - NOTHING should ever not fit with the SHOW!!! Period!! There is no excuse!!


Finally a thought about vision:In the right context, I agree. But that goes back to my point. Is it better to have failed vision or just a bunch of boxes. DCA seems to be boxes.Why do you give us only two choices? A box or a failed vision. Now that's a tough choice. And either way we lose!! Why not give us a third choice. You know, a little hope for a winner. Something like - Successful vision! Something almost everyone on this board, friends and enemies alike, have shown they have, time and time again. But Ei$ner has consistently shown it is something in which he is sadly lacking. If the only vision he has is a failed one, then I think it's time to give someone else a try. What'd ya think?

Captain, my Captain!! If DCA were successful & making some money, many of your attitudes still wouldn't change, and that's what bothers me.How can you say that??!! IF DCA were a success, I'd say, "WONDERFUL"!!! Now let's try it here in WDW!! You've finally 'got it'! So keep it coming." Unfortunately, he NEVER gives me the opportunity to say it!!

[YoHo]

Just a note, my previous reference should have been to AV, Not Landbaron.


At Any rate, DVC, I was going to say something about Swan and Dolphin, but you stole my thunder. Again I wonder if were not just spoiled living amongst the best Skyline in the United States, but Swan and Dolphin just Scream Chicago Architecture. For that matter, they scream Typical, not unique. (I liked the American Club Comment. By the way. If Eisner had built it would it have been a 50 foot Urinal Complete with Cake?)

[DVC-Landbaron]

S/D at DD hotel area? Great! Exactly! It would blow them all away, create a demand for the area, remove Sheraton from hallowed ground, and would likely "fit" the DD sight lines. So, there, take that! I agree!So you and I agree!! The Swan and Dolphin are wonderful hotels that belong somewhere else!! But let's carry that a little further. If they don't belong where they do, then the guy that picked the location (or the design for this location) SHOULD BE SHOT!!! Still agreeing? ;)

[DVC-Landbaron]

Let me try it again.

Walt’s vision of EPCOT has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand. It may deserve its own thread and could spark some rousing debate. But not here. And the completed EPCOT (WS in particular) also has nothing to do with what we’re talking about either. In many cases the mere concept of vastly different themes, close together, causes a bit of a ‘panoramic’ clash. But you’ve got to admit that they did a marvelous job at minimizing the conflicts and for the most part made it as seamless as possible. But again this is inherent in a theme park, and ergo NOT what we are discussing!!

What we are discussing is choice and vision!! Ei$ner had a choice of design (I don’t think he had a choice of location, but if he did that just compounds his stupidity!!) And out of all the designs in the world, what CHOICE did he make? It was his call you know. So with utter disregard and almost blatant contempt the effect these two, rather tall structures (for WDW anyway) have on MY EPCOT he chose something TOTALLY un-Disney. Why? He had the world to choose from! Why these two particular buildings. Why those two particular designs? Out of all the questions I have for this guy (when he finally accepts my backyard barbeque offer) that one is very high on my list. Until I hear a justifiable reason, I’m stuck making a judgment about his ‘vision’ from what I know about the choices he makes. And I find he hasn’t got any vision. Or at the very least his vision is blurred and totally alien to my way of seeing things. Or maybe he’s just plain-old inept. I highly suspect the latter.

Any agreement in this?

ps:Very nice try though! I hear Northwestern and University of Chakahgo have nice law schools. Maybe a second career? Thanks!! If I hadn’t fallen into the career I’m in, law was my second choice!! ;)

[glo]

Yikes! What passion about two of my favorite hotel. I have to agree with both sides here. I love the Swan and Dolphin and continue going to them over most Disney resorts. M.Graves did have a wonderful vision making these. I took a tour just two weeks ago. It was incredible. The Dolphin was made to resemble an island with a mountain. *** You enter the Dolphin you look up at the ceiling and see the night sky and shooting starts. The sides on the room are rock and have water coming down them. The waterfall outside is suposed to be a waterfall from the top of the mountain. This was meant to resemble a cave in the mountain. That is also why the halls are decorated with beach scenes. The swan across the way is the water. If you look closely there are waves on the building. Both hotels are immacualately maintained. People who work there have to particiapte in some of the same programs the people at the Disney resorts have to take. The hotels are advertised everywhere as the Walt Disney Swanand Dolphin. Thet do not advertise them as the Starwood Swan and Dolphin. Remember that the Swan and Dolphin were there way before the Boardwalk, YC or BC. Disney could have done something to somehow incoporate or block them, but they didn't. They are making the money of the lease of the land and other things. I know I will not sway anyone, but I did want to give my opinion since I was asked.

[AKemel]

I do not understand. The Swan and Dolphin hotels are magnificent.
And since Disney does not own them, but only getting a percentage, it is OK to like them.

Also, according to official TDS site, they do allow hopping for 3 or more day admission, like California originally did. 1 day/1 park adult ticket is about $46 and 3 day/hopper is about $120.

[All Aboard]

First, Landbaron welcome back.

I agree with you that S/D don't give me the Disney warm and fuzzies. But not for lack of "transporting" me somewhere. To me, they just don't have the charm of other Disney resorts. Lest I remind you of your, mine & Natalie's futile trecking through seemingly endless hallways trying to find a way out of the place.

But, let me ask you this. Just where does the monolith we call the Contemporary transport you? I agree with the scoop, the "garden" wings provide nothing that says "Disney" to me. But, I think we discussed that a few weeks ago. Other than the monorail running through it and the view from the top, there's nothing I can glean from this whole thread that would apply to it.

So, WDW opened with two resorts - one that "transported" you to Polynesia and one that "transported" you nowhere. So, why then, require being transported somewhere special to be a requisite of a resort earning the "Disney" label?

[DVC-Landbaron]

... Must be a Disney resort!!! ;)

Glo!! Nice to meet you! And thanks for your input. Quite honestly I could never understand why anyone stayed there. You have truly opened my eyes a bit and next year I will be checking them out much more than ever before. Thanks.

But again, my problem is not the design, per se. What really bothers me is the location. They do indeed, as Scoop says, rise out of nowhere like some sort of gothic (Tim Burton) dream sequence!! If this happened on a tiny corner of the property, I’d have no problem with it. Unfortunately, the only time I really notice them is from inside EPCOT. And then they just aggravate the hell out me!! Disney could have done something to somehow incorporate or block them, but they didn't.And that bothers me as well. If they made a mistake in the first place, then why not make the best of it and at least try to do something thematic with the rest of the surrounding property and landscape.

No, this should be an entirely separate thread and certainly not just a Baron/Scoop discussion....so bring over the resort experts and let's start a thread on resort placement......because, maybe, if HE won't agree with ME, HE might with youScoop, my main man!! I thought we were already in agreement as to placement, remember Now, while I agree with you on Swan/Dolphin being misplaced Our only disagreement is putting the blame where it belongs. On Ei$ner’s head!!!



Gcurling!!
First, Landbaron welcome back. Thank you!!! And right back at you!! Where have you been? But, let me ask you this. Just where does the monolith we call the Contemporary transport you?Well, to a 17 year old kid in 1972, it did indeed transport me into the future. Now the future is an awfully hard thing to keep in sight. Just look at how quickly Tomorrowland and even Future World grow stale and at times even laughable. So I think the concept of the Contemporary design was chosen wisely. It really is monolithic and fairly nondescript. It could be anytime, anywhere. Perhaps a bit too much concrete, but hey, you can’t replace the entire concept every five years, can you? As far as the rooms go, well, even Disney stopped the game at some point. The Poly rooms had some palm tree type wallpaper and the Contemporary had some abstract design, but basically the room was a hotel room. So what sets the Poly apart? The lush vegetation. The lobby!!! The beach!! What sets the Contemporary apart? The monorail of course!! From all the common areas within the hotel; lounges, restaurants and shops, the monorail can be seen and heard. And the Top of the World!! Well, enough said!! To me it still works. And to that the barren, concrete walkways, straight lines, angular cut landscaping and a pool that played contemporary music under the water and to me that says, “Nothing else like it in downtown Chicago”. So yes, it still transports me. Not as much, perhaps, but much, much, much, much, much more so that the Swan or Dolphin ever could!!!!So, why then, require being transported somewhere special to be a requisite of a resort earning the "Disney" label?OK. I’ll bite. Transporting is my concept. What’s your criteria? Just what makes a Disney Resort a Disney Resort?

YoHo!!(I liked the American Club Comment. By the way. If Eisner had built it would it have been a 50 foot Urinal Complete with Cake?)I haven't laughed so hard in a long time!!!! ;) :crazy: :crazy: ;)

[airlarry]

Maybe I am misinterpreting the Baron's comments but isn't it kind of simple?

1. The Swalphin does not fit the 'vision' of WDW, as the Poly or Fort Wilderness or the Beach Club do. (Well, Baron, this seems a matter of personal taste, I am afraid.)

2. The *placement* of the Swalphin does not fit the 'vision' of WDW.

Here, the Baron has you beat. How can anyone argue that the 'placement', and it alone, fits into the overall theme of the World Showcase...as you can clearly see the hotel(s) from inside the park. Contrast this with the MK, where the hotels (like the Contemp) are alleged to have been vaguely placed in line with the 'lands' ... i.e. the Contemp with Tomorrowland, and the Poly with Adventureland. I like the part on the monorail as you approach the MK where you see the Contemp, and then over its shoulder, you see Space Mountain. Cool effect.

And please contrast this with the Disney Seas, where every conceivable angle seems to have been carefully planned by our beloved Imagineers. I mean, everything is in its place, and there are no garish hotels hanging out over the wrong themed places.

And finally, contrast this with the pictures we see at Disney's CaliMisAdventure, where apparently, sightlines were compromised.



In sum, you might be able to debate effectively with the Baron about the taste of the Swalphin, but you sure can't argue that it should not have been built where it was. I rest my case, your honors.

[YoHo]

Just an Aside on the Contemporary. I agree it still is wonderous if remarkably 70's/80's austere future styled.


Tell me, Landbaron and others, Assuming it was done with all the flair, panache and quality it deserved, how would you feel if they redesigned it along the lines of the current Tomorrowland theme? My immediate thought is that it could work since everything that is still great about the place would stay(monorail/ Grand Canyon Concourse) while the outdated themeing would be changed. Of course there is something to be said for leaving it as is.

I think one of its precieved problems is its Topiary. New high class expensive resort hotels have more greenery, not less. Of course, that's easily added as well.

[disneycub]

First impression upon seeing the interior and exterior decor of the Swolphin:

Christopher Lloyd on acid and in a very foul mood.

[JeffJewell]

Assuming it was done with all the flair, panache and quality it deserved, how would you feel if they redesigned it along the lines of the current Tomorrowland theme? I think that would be great. I still love the Contemporary, but then again, the Contemporary I love is really the one from 1972 (In 1972, the Contemporary was _way_ cool, even more so if you were six at the time). As long as it has the flair and panache and quality in big buckets, I can have my memories and the future, too.I think one of its precieved problems is its Topiary. Does that mean inside or outside or both?

If you mean inside, I could see an argument for or against more, depending on the subtleties of the re-theme.

If you mean outside, I think that the lack of lush surroundings is one of the Contemporary's greatest faults. I wish they'd never added the wings or the convention center; not only do they strike me as being rather ordinary sitting next to the tower, they mean a lot less green and a lot more concrete. I think that was a bad trade-off for the extra money.

Jeff