A question regarding the growth of WDW

[YoHo]

I have not foraged into the Deluxe / Value portion of this thread until now but I would like to know what makes the design of a lodging (1) theme or (2) decoration? Oh, I know what the veteran group will say and in fact I generally agree. But where is the dictum, the rules, the playbook? If there is none who then gets to be the decider of right or wrong? Based on what?

My thought is that the theme of the Polynesian or Akl is palpable and quite real whereas the Values are generally iconic. Is this it? There are holes in that logic as well.

I'm not sure that Iconic "themeing" is invalid. Afterall, the Worldshowcase uses Icons to establish place to great effect.

Themeing, as Disney uses it is a storytelling tool. It generally establishes an emotional connection to place and time using various cues both overt and subtle.

The Poly uses South Seas colors, materials and architecture (modified of course), names, music etc to establish an emotional connection with the guest. A connection for someone who may have never been to Polynesia.

Is Poly a perfect replica of a resort in the South Seas? no, but it doesn't need to be.

AKL in my opinion is adequate, but doesn't put in the effort to trigger those western emotional cues of what is african. Certainly it doesn't hit those cues the way the proposed African Village would have.

The Grand Californian has a similar problem. The art and Architecture of that hotel is incredible. I love it. The leaded glass lamps, the woodwork. It's neat, but...Arts&Crafts/Mission style is for bungalows, not 4 story atriums. the emotional cues are being attached to an inappropriate building.

For the Values, They really aren't trying to put you in any place emotionally. They aren't trying at storytelling. They're just decorating. There aren't any emotional cues. To use a Literary criticism, they tell you you're in a themed resort rather than showing you.

Lastly, I know there are people, families who visit WDW on a regular basis and stay at the Values rather than the deluxes NOT because that is what they can afford but because it is what they and their family prefer. It is what they find to be "Disney". These folks are certainly in a minority but what makes them "wrong" and in need of education on the subject? Further, let's assume the standard percentage of those folks are also well read on the life of Walt Disney's life, so they understand his beliefs to a defined degree. Are they just wrong because?

Well, the snarky part of me would say, they aren't wrong. The Values are what Disney has become. What Eisner turned them into. If you want to experience Eisner's Disney. Stay at Pop Century. That is what Disney has become.

As to your actual point. Of course they are not wrong. This is entertainment and people are free to enjoy what they enjoy. And I certainly don't agree with their preference, but so what. And "need" an education? They don't NEED an education. I have no interest in ruining people's enjoyment.

HOWEVER, if you want to come post on a discussion board about how you think Michael Eisner saved Disney.
Well, that's a horse of a different color. You're entering into a larger world when you have that kind of discussion.
Once you start down that path, well, now we're discussing a far larger topic than what you personally enjoy. We're talking about what made Walt Disney and his company the global icon that he was and it became. There is a reason that Disney became what it became and the Values do not match with that Even if you think they are the greatest things ever, they do not fit in the Walt Disney mold.

 

[pilferk]

So now his focus was SHOW, not Quality. Got it.

In fact, it always was. Here's my direct quote from the original post:

I think his larger impetus was delivering a quality product (which meant focusing on story, which, to his mind, enhanced quality more than most/any other facet of the show).

I re-iterated the emphasis in the subsequent post because you seemed to have missed it. Disney's product is "the show".

But what is SHOW?

That largely depends on which specific thing we're discussing (movies, merchandise, attractions, etc). In specificity, it changes.

Walt considered them all the same thing, generally. All their own "shows".

NOT their own stories, mind you. And those are Walts words, not mine.

You are actually misunderstanding what Storytelling is.
What Walt's SHOW was is just Storytelling. Walt's version of it. so we are still arguing at cross purposes here.
I'm talking about the grand human tradition of Storytelling. Cave Paintings, Music, Art, dance and you're discussing a word Walt used that is encompassed by Storytelling.

See, again, I disagree. The actual storytelling (the music, the art, the dance, a story, itself) + the presentation + the presenters + the method of presentation + the environment of the presentation + all the other factors involved that are fairly numerous...that's what makes the show. The sum total of all of it. The razzle and the dazzle, so to speak. The sizzle with the steak.

And Walts focus was to put on a quality show.

When I say Walt was a Storyteller, perhaps the premier story teller of the 20th century. That encompasses so much more than movies or Theme parks or SHOW or Quality. Those are all a part of what made him the greatest Storyteller of the century.

Hopefully now we're not talking at cross purposes any more.

I don't think we were, or are.

You mention Lasseter and he's a good example of my point.

A GREAT storyteller.

A good, but not great, showman.

Now...I think it's time to agree to disagree.

 

[pilferk]

I said event not routine. (which would encompass both apparatus and floor exercise)

So you did not get the analogy correct. To use your slightly more restrictive wording. They are performing different routines on the same Apparatus. HM's is a harder technical routine.

Of course we the judges are a subjective lot. And I know many that prefer Splash Mountain, but Technically, the routine is not as difficult. It's using an existing story and straightforward Story-boarding and plotting. It is just not as complex a routine.

Fair enough.

In that case, I just don't agree that the analogy is particularly apt or fair, all things considered.

Because you've created an environment where, essentially, nobody can compete on a level playing field.

But then, given the gymnastics analogy...maybe it's more apt than I initially thought.

 

[YoHo]

I guess we have to. At this point we are simply refusing to agree on definitions.

To me Storytelling is the root from which showmanship come from. You can't be a showman if you don't have a story to tell.
Disney was the premier storyteller, because of his Showmanship in large part. But showmanship is subservient to Storytelling.

Again, a cave painting is storytelling. A tribal dance is storytelling. One can be a bad showman and still be a storyteller. One cannot be a good showman without also being a good storyteller.

 

[pilferk]

The obvious solution, would be that they'd *gasp* have to upgrade their Deluxes to be worthy of their designation. Instead, they went the other way.

My turn to "Exactly".

That's my tangent in the discussion. If Disney would make their Deluxe hotels ACTUAL Deluxe hotels (in terms of service and amenities)...they could stratify differently.

 

[YoHo]

Fair enough.

In that case, I just don't agree that the analogy is particularly apt or fair, all things considered.

Because you've created an environment where, essentially, nobody can compete on a level playing field.

But then, given the gymnastics analogy...maybe it's more apt than I initially thought.

Why can't they compete on a level playing field?

Is it somehow impossible for Disney to build a Themepark attraction which utilizes current technology with themeing cues and proper storyboarding that utilizes a wholly original story and have it be executed perfectly?

I mean, it isn't possible in the literal sense, because Iger has explicitly dictated that all attractions must be synergistic, but that's an imposed limitation. Iger is afraid of the more technically challenging routine.

 

[pilferk]

Lastly, I know there are people, families who visit WDW on a regular basis and stay at the Values rather than the deluxes NOT because that is what they can afford but because it is what they and their family prefer. It is what they find to be "Disney". These folks are certainly in a minority but what makes them "wrong" and in need of education on the subject? Further, let's assume the standard percentage of those folks are also well read on the life of Walt Disney's life, so they understand his beliefs to a defined degree. Are they just wrong because?
!

At least in my post, I tried to be very clear there are a subset who prefer the values.

And doing so doesn't make you wrong, or crass, or unworthy of being a Disney fan.

Different strokes for different folks.

You can certainly like decorations and you should not be "besmirched" for doing so.

BUT, again, that's not the point. It's a "would you rather" kind of debate.

I like chocolate cake. A lot.

I like chocolate cake with double fudge frosting, dusted with coconut, with black cherries in the middle MORE.

If you point to a chocolate cake and TELL ME it's got double fudge frosting, dusted with coconut, and black cherries in the middle...but I see no actual evidence that it does...it doesn't mean I don't like the chocolate cake you pointed to. It just makes me wonder why you're not being completely honest with me...and WHY you didn't add the double fudge frosting, dusted with coconut and black cherries in the middle. You clearly could have. You could have simply made the cake a bit smaller, with a little less coconut and fewer cherries, if your costs were an issue.

But I'll gladly eat your plain chocolate cake while I tell other people how I think it could be better.

 

[pilferk]

I guess we have to. At this point we are simply refusing to agree on definitions.

To me Storytelling is the root from which showmanship come from. You can't be a showman if you don't have a story to tell.
Disney was the premier storyteller, because of his Showmanship in large part. But showmanship is subservient to Storytelling.

Again, a cave painting is storytelling. A tribal dance is storytelling. One can be a bad showman and still be a storyteller. One cannot be a good showman without also being a good storyteller.

I don't think we disagree on definitions.

I think we're having an endless "chicken/egg" type of discussion. This last post makes me pretty sure. And we'll just chase our tails til we drive everyone away if we continue. I'd hate to see that (seriously).

Easier to leave what we've written and let readers come to their own conclusion. I think we've both made cases we can stand behind...

 

[pilferk]

Why can't they compete on a level playing field?

Because you rigged the game.

Is it somehow impossible for Disney to build a Themepark attraction which utilizes current technology with themeing cues and proper storyboarding that utilizes a wholly original story and have it be executed perfectly?

And there it is.

WHY does it have to be all those things?

Because that's your subjective opinion of perfection. You're the East German judge.

And thus...rigged.

Again, using your gymnastics analogy:

The technical portion should be exactly the same for each subject...what they do, now what they use or specifically how they do it. The artistic portion would be how they do it (the movie tie ins, etc).

You're essentially combining gymnastics with HORSE. Not only do you have to do the triple off the high bar and stick the landing...you now have to do it with one arm tied behind your back while singing "Knockin' on Heavens door", showing perfect pitch.

Jordan vs Bird, for the french fries.

I mean, it isn't possible in the literal sense, because Iger has explicitly dictated that all attractions must be synergistic, but that's an imposed limitation. Iger is afraid of the more technically challenging routine.

See, there we agree.

 

[YoHo]

WHY does it have to be all those things?

Because that is the objective Standard that Walt Disney set for the Pinnacle (E-Ticket) experiences and whether we say show or Storytelling, it is true.

Synergistic attractions are lower ticket values, a premier E-ticket attraction is not Synergistic.

The subjective part is I guess that Pirates and Haunted Mansion are the best, but if it's subjective, then it's backed up by the statistics. There is a high percentage of Disney Theme park guests that would consider Pirates and Haunted Mansion the best "Disney" attractions.

I mean, Pirates was so popular that Roy and Card changed Florida plans and dropped the Western River attraction and rushed in a version of Pirates, because people were asking about it.




But even given all that, yes, I prefaced the whole thing by stating that we're taking as a given that Pirates and Haunted Mansion are perfect...or as perfect an attraction as exists.

 

[YoHo]

I'm not so much the East German Judge as I am the Olympic committee defining the technical parameters of the Gymnastics competition. You may disagree with my parameters, but I set them and you joined in the competition. It's only rigged if I hide those parameters.

 

[YoHo]

See, again, I disagree. The actual storytelling (the music, the art, the dance, a story, itself) + the presentation + the presenters + the method of presentation + the environment of the presentation + all the other factors involved that are fairly numerous...that's what makes the show. The sum total of all of it. The razzle and the dazzle, so to speak. The sizzle with the steak.

Before I go back to agreeing to disagree. This here is an example of the mechanics. Storytelling isn't about mechanics. It's not about how it is about a fundamental part of human civilization.

You cannot be a good storyteller without being a good showman, but you can be a bad storyteller if you're a bad showman.

By the same token, you could not be a showman at all if you weren't being a storyteller, because if you have no story to tell, than you have nothing to present, to Show.

Show is the mechanics, the how. Storytelling is the mental, the what, the why.

Also, I think, because you used the word Story in your description, it becomes very confusing. I studiously have been avoiding the word story, because Story often gets conflated with narrative and plot and those are very much tools of the showman. And as I've said in other posts, some of those tools have been misused or abused.

So I see the chicken and Egg thing in the sense that you mean. I'm refusing to define it that way.

Let me put it a different way, I'm stating my definition of storytelling and explaining why SHOW is subserviant to it. You've stated what SHOW is, but not really addressed my definition of storytelling.

But either way it's all about language and definitions. I could have said show. I chose to be even more abstract in defining what makes Walt tick.

why? Because when you focus on SHOW, you focus on the mechanics. Well, Pirates uses this specific theatrical technique to achieve it's SHOW and so if I apply that to this other attraction it must be just as good.

This is the Disney failing.

And perhaps this is where the HM/SM comparison breaks down, because I am digging into the mechanics. And that's fine, I admit, I can get down into the dirt on this stuff.

I'm discussing this on two levels. The Mechanics of the SHOW and the philosophical/metaphysical nature of Storytelling.

I'm mapping from SHOW to Storytelling by suggesting that an original concept is more compelling than a synergistic one.

It's the classic original Screenplay versus adapted screenplay question.

 

[bcrook]

And you would be missing the opportunity of a lifetime! NO ONE appreciates Disney like I do! I could show you things that you never knew existed. I could guide you through so that you’d never wait more than ten minutes in a line even in the most crowded times (Except Christmas!! Even I can’t get around the place being that crowded!!) And I could tell you stories about why things were done as they were done, and how they did what they did, and so on, etc. I can take you to little nooks and crannies with tales of why and wherefores, and the stories behind them. I could show you the PERFECT spot to see the fireworks or the parade or even Illuminations!

And the guided tour would be done with pixie dusted eyes and smiles on everybody’s faces!! And why is that? Because NO ONE enjoys Disney like I do!!

Hmmmmm. I suppose that sounds arrogant too!! But, it’s true!! I know an awful lot about the place and I ALWAYS have a wonderful time when I’m there. There is still enough of Walt’s “Magic” about the place!! And the current administration does do some ‘nice’ things every so often. Enough, at least, to keep me going back!

Do you find that hard to understand? That I could come on this Board and RANT & RAVE about the downfall of Disney yet have a wonderful 3-week vacation at OKW and LOVE every minute of it. You shouldn’t be. It is BECAUSE I have a love for Disney that I rant! It is BECAUSE I have a special appreciation for the way Walt did things that I rave! But that doesn’t spoil my good time when I’m there! (Unless I see the vacuums come out or painting going on during the day!! Then my blood pressure does go up a tad!!).

Pure passion! That also sounded pretty darn good as I read that aloud to my son!

 

[manning]

Exciting:
- Splash Mountain (to me this is one of the great Disney rides - amazing theme, fun ride, and classic connection to music and story) But this had to have been developed before the Disney Decade (I guess that is ok).

You can thank Frank Wells for this ride. It was first shown to Eisner and he said "we can't afford to build this."

It was then shown to Frank Wells and he said "we can't afford not to build this"

so the story goes.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

akadada

I respect the "team of" Eisner, Wells etc because my reality (truth and reality aren't the same as you know, that's why I respect your commitment to truth) was that Eisner assembled (or was the face of) a great team and Wells to me seemed to run the place (The Tangible), while Eisner was a good face for capital markets management which seemed needed (Intangible) at the time whether we liked him or not. Please tell me #1 how I'm wrong and #2 what the solution should have been at that time, not what we know today.

I don’t object to any of the nouns in your paragraph. It’s the adjective with which I have a problem! (You also haven’t spelled his name right even once!!! It’s E-i-$-n-e-r. You should try it! IT’S FUN!!!!!) Anyway…

You say, “Ei$ner assembled a (GREAT) team.” He assembled a team. Great? I don’t know. Katzenberg was there. And he knew some good properties when he saw them and had enough sense to let Ron Miller finish Mermaid. But I don’t think Ei$ner could pick his nose let alone pick a team!! Maybe Wells had more to do with it. And what bugs me about it, is that if it was true and he did pick this GREAT team, well… They weren’t all in that fateful helicopter! What happened to this GREAT team the next day! All of a sudden they turned into brown-nosing yes-men? Every one except Katzenburg, who got the axe!!! Nah! It doesn’t happen that way. They were, for the most part, toadies and yes-men to begin with. NOT a great team!! Katzenberg and Wells made a great team. Not a Disney team perhaps, but a better team than one with Ei$ner in it!

I reviewed your thoughts on how Disney would not have allowed the Eisner evolution (which I want to also believe), but respectfully, that's AdHoc. He's dead unfortunately and so we have no idea where he would have gone. We "believe", but we don't know.

You are right. We have no idea what he would have done, EXACTLY. No one does. But we have his legacy, writings, quotes, film clips and other first hand knowledge. And most important we have his examples! His films, his technique and Disneyland!! We have his philosophy in “Traditions” (that used to be a 3 day course for every new Cast Member, until that great team you mentioned cut it down to a half a day orientation!!!!)

So you are right. We don’t know specifically what he would do. But we know the “HOW” he would do something very well. And that doesn’t take belief; it just takes research in how he did similar things. And all of that is very well documented.

Would he have been the same running a public company; what pressures would have been put on him? And, he eventually would have died, what succession plan would have been in place?

Again, none of that matters. We have the answers and examples of HOW he’d do something. And that is really all that matters. Some creative guy, and they are all over the place, says, “Boy oh boy!! I want a ride that…. (Fill in the blank)…” and then you apply Walt’s principles to it, or what I call his PHILOSOPHY!! It’s easy!!

The worst thing could have been simply Disney going public,

Ah! Wait a minute! You do know that Disney was a publically held company when Walt was alive, don’t you? And he had a harder time with investors than the faceless “wall street” that Ei$ner faced. Another Voice had a post somewhere comparing publically owned companies from the ’50s and ‘60s and those of the 2000s. It was pretty interesting. I’ll see if I can find it. in the mean time:

From "Building a Company: Roy O. Disney and the Creation of an Entertainment Empire" by Bob Thomas:

"Walt had long opposed a public stock offering, fearing that his total autonomy over creative matters might be challenged by investors. At Roy's insistence, Walt agreed to issuance of preferred and common stock in April, 1940."​

The history we know is the one of Team Eisner "reality" a better place than pre-Eisner for someone my age. Perhaps not your age and reality. Eisner was the face, but I infer it was because Wells was the better man at the job.

Now, here we have a problem. How can you say that? I can understand your praise of them for DEFENDING THE MAGIC KINGDOM from those big bad corporate raiders!! But your personal experience? Really? I don’t know how old you are, but even for the oldest (or youngest) amongst us, I find this unfathomable. Let’s take a walk down memory lane, because I’m confused again!

OK, let’s see. Pre-Ei$ner we had Disneyland open in 1955. It grew steadily, but not greatly until 1964 when the World’s Fair hit and Disney had the big three in it: Small World, Carousel of Progress and Great Moments With Mr. Lincoln. (The birth of human AA figures, Tiki was first.) Then we got Pirates and Haunted Mansion soon after. That brings us to the close of the 60s.

In 1971 we had WDW open!!! WOW!! The Poly, The Contemporary, The Golf Resort, The Market Place and TA-DA!! The Magic kingdom!!! All opened on the same day!! Not bad! Soon after Space Mountain was added. A couple years later Thunder Mountain. Then in 1981 E.P.C.O.T. opened!! The single biggest private construction project EVER!! (There may be another since, but at the time, that was it!!) And three short years, more like two and a half, later Ei$ner entered.

I do not understand how you could say that Disney was a better place after Ei$ner! What happened next? Euro-Disney!! MGM!! AK!! DCA!!! YUCK!!!!!

Post Wells, I felt within a few years the spiraling, (symbolic). The parks lost their "magic" whatever reality we each want to call it. Eisner scrambled it seemed, typical Venture Capital flipper mentality.

You know, I had a boss once that was a retired Navy guy. In his history in the navy he was once the Captain of an aircraft carrier. We were working on a project and we were having a hard time having people buy into it. They weren’t overtly resistant, but on some primal level they did not want this change! He told me that this was going to be like turning his ship. Those things are so big, he said, and carried so much momentum that it took a half a day for a 90 degree course correction. And it’s fighting you all the way!! He said that this project, like any corporation would take the same time and effort. We had been rolling ahead in our “mindset” for so long, that this change in course, this change in attitude, would not happen quickly.

So how long after Wells died did you notice the change? I noticed it right away! (Heck! I noticed it before when they priced me out of the Poly by DOUBLING the cost!!) My point, of course, is that it takes time to change the culture of a corporation. And I think it happened too quickly after Well’s death to have started then. What do you think? Make sense?

The insult on Disney legacy drove me nuts. I used to think Disney (corporate) mission was to try to create a perfect place in an imperfect world. I felt and lived that when I visited. Reality, maybe not truth.

On this we agree. Wholeheartedly!!! The only bone of contention that I can see is when it started!!!

The reality is I had a darn good time in the early to mid 90's in Disney and at that time, I wasn't smart enough to perceive another way that could be better. Post Wells, not grateful. Pissed. Since then, still pissed.

Almost the same here. I always have a good time there. Well, almost always. It’s hard not to notice the UN-Walt things, but for the most part I ignore them until I get back here and VENT!!!!

I hope the edits above come out clear (as well as my thoughts). We'll see where this goes.

The edits were HORRIBLE!!! But it came out clear anyway. I think we agree more than disagree.

 

[MassJester]

So you are right. We don’t know specifically what he would do. But we know the “HOW” he would do something very well. And that doesn’t take belief; it just takes research in how he did similar things. And all of that is very well documented.


Again, none of that matters. We have the answers and examples of HOW he’d do something. And that is really all that matters. Some creative guy, and they are all over the place, says, “Boy oh boy!! I want a ride that…. (Fill in the blank)…” and then you apply Walt’s principles to it, or what I call his PHILOSOPHY!! It’s easy!!

I'm not sure it's all that easy.

Walt was a creature of his time and place. His actions, beliefs and principles were in context. To assume that he would have responded to everything the same way in perpetuity with no evolution of approach and belief doesn't seem reasonable.

We talk a lot about how "modern" hotels don't bring forward theme and story, but there is little evidence that Walt would have done it differently, and some that he wasn't interested in the hotel business at all.

My point is that we do a fair amount of idealized projection that is simply that.

 

[pilferk]

I'm not so much the East German Judge as I am the Olympic committee defining the technical parameters of the Gymnastics competition. You may disagree with my parameters, but I set them and you joined in the competition. It's only rigged if I hide those parameters.

And so, as it was your right to set your criteria in defining what you base your opinion on (again, as the East German Judge, IMHO)....so it is mine to disagree with them.

Which is why I disagree with the analogy.

So, there you go.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

We talk a lot about how "modern" hotels don't bring forward theme and story, but there is little evidence that Walt would have done it differently, and some that he wasn't interested in the hotel business at all.

No he wasn’t interested in the “Hotel Business” as a business. He was interested in telling a story, creating a theme, evoking an emotion and WOWing his guests!!! And YES!! There is evidence that he would have done it differently. In 1965 the Florida Project was announced. The planning, by Walt himself and his team, was started years before. And what was planned, with Walt’s stamp of approval, if not direct input? Do some exploring on this page and see if that hideous white copy of a California hotel can even hold a candle these WALT created resorts!!

http://www.disneydrawingboard.com/WDW/MKArea/MKArea.html

My point is that we do a fair amount of idealized projection that is simply that.

No. No idealized projection here. Just some good old fashioned research!!

 

[MassJester]

No. No idealized projection here. Just some good old fashioned research!!

You missed, or avoided, the points about context and evolution of approach.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

You missed, or avoided, the points about context and evolution of approach.

I didn't miss it or avoid it. I ignored it. Because I don't see what has changed in context or evolution. People still like theme parks (emphasis on the THEME). And they still need a place to stay when visiting those theme parks. Not much evolution going on here, is there? And the context is EXACTLY the same.

So I ignored it. Do you have another point or am I missing something?