A question regarding the growth of WDW

[akadada]

LBaron,

Hmmm. . .I'm emotionally torn. I wasn't going to stop respecting your thinking, but I was just not going to talk with you. Your reply was both a tad cool and certainly unexpected. I would have probably just said about my reply. "F-this guy" and move on if I were you. . . although I get 5 hours of sleep each night and have realized I have little patience and have to attend to a life outside of this world.

But. . . I really like this topic; and I think you're probably the class president on this and I want to learn more about it. And deep down, I know it's good to not let my pride get ahead of community and growth. And, don't tell anyone this, but I kind of want to be friends with you even though I don't want anyone to know it so instead it is simply easier to start off by duke-ing it out and then maybe become friends.

So, anyway, are you up for hugging it out _____...? (Reference Ari Gold, Entourage youtube it for a laugh even if you have no idea what the series is about)

Okay, assuming we "DON'T ______ EVER MENTION THIS REVIEW AGAIN." (Reference Ari again), see thoughts below because I am between kids screaming/sleeping/waking/sleeping and have more than a moment to write a chapter. (and forgive the misuse of "quoting" I'm not sure the format to replying will work. . . here we go. . .

akadada

I am always relaxed. Thank you.

"Always"? Jury is out. We can talk more about this later.

[/QUOTE]Which points? Because in your first post I couldn’t see if you read anything! You came in with a simple statement that was pretty unrelated to anything that was on the table at the time. I believe you said something to the effect of… OH! NUTS!! I don’t want to get it wrong so I will have to go look it up!!! Be right back![/QUOTE]

No, just exhausted. I read about 40 reports a week and have to recap, write, or analyze half my day, so I simply have nothing left to write by the end of the day. I prefer bullets.
…

…

…

[/QUOTE]OK! Here it is!

Some great discussions were taking place at the time you wrote this. And most of the were bashing the heck out of Ei$ner & company! Yet you didn’t respond, even generally, to any of that. Instead you laid out that you thought they were an “Awesome team” and you were “Forever grateful”. I was very confused to say the least. To me, and I was really hoping I was wrong, you sounded like some “Pixie Duster” from the community board, blinders firmly in place, praising the great Saint Michael, and not even bothering to read anything that hinted that he may have been… well… ah… BAD!! [/QUOTE]


Overall Opinion: I don't think Ei$ner is $atan like you might. I don't like him individually, and post Wells Helicopter, I found him useless and destructive. My favorite Eisner is the one on Family Guy.

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 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.

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?

The worst thing could have been simply Disney going public, Eisner, Wells, Disney RIP or not. I occasionally imaging a world where capital could be raised, primarily by DisBoarders , to buy out Disney, take it public, spin off ABC. . . oh, for another time.

We have to play the hand dealt to us, not the one we want. So. . .

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.

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.

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.

Post Wells, I now am always assuming something sinister behind every Disney (corporate) move. I no longer even care if we stay on site. We maybe go every other year, and I don't get very excited. I'm angry about that.

There are four people (all dead) that I either worship or come pretty close to it. . .in order: Jesus, the risen (worship); Jesus the human (worship); St Francis; distance but important fourth: Walt Disney.

Disney Magic to me came from the heart of the man: Perfection, no small detail left behind, commitment to a passion that meant a better place for others; service-orientation over goal orientation. He played his game like no other and inspired me and millions of others to do the same and his legacy is/was a series of parks and resorts where we could once walk around and feel his presence, although today, I feel each year he's slipping away. No one can replace him, but I expect the best of all who take his place.


[/QUOTE]To further my confusion you used a quote that was wrong!! And you said you agreed with it!! It claimed that Wells was the creative guy. Anyone who knows anything about the recent Disney past knows that Wells was really the ‘sharp pencil guy’. But his saving grace was that he understood Disney’s business model. One of QUALITY!! So he took a hands-off approach and let, for the most part, the Disney worker bees do their magic! VERY SMART!! And something Ei$ner could never quite grasp![/QUOTE]

See above. Tangible/Intangible

[/QUOTE]One more bit for my confusion. You also said:

And I still don’t quite understand what that means, especially since you say you agreed that Wells was the creative one![/QUOTE]

Define Creative. See above.

[/QUOTE]Now. I could have just ignored your post. But I was really curious as to the motivations behind it. It seemed as though there were three possibilities.

First: You were some troll, casting your line in the water hoping either Mr. Head or I would bite. [/QUOTE]

That's funny. . .I didn't know what troll was until now. I think that was to goal of my last reply.

[/QUOTE]Second: You were some Pixie Dusted poster that just had to defend Ei$ner & crew and really didn’t know how.[/QUOTE]

No. See above.

[/QUOTE]Third: You really did read everything and still thought like did, (i.e. They were awesome, Forever grateful). If that were the case, I really wanted to talk to you!![/QUOTE]

I am forever grateful. I read what all was posted. I don't disagree, but most of what was written was Monday Morning Quarterbacking. 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.

But teach me because I don't know: what other plan did Disney Corp have in lieu of Eisner at that time?

[/QUOTE]So I laid it out the way I did. Surely to catch a troll if #1 was true. Being ignored, or called an “ANTI-DISNEY” name if #2 were true. And finally, hoping that I wouldn’t offend you and maybe get you talking if #3 were true.

Sadly I failed!! I do apologize. I NEVER want to stop the conversation! Please, join in. Now that I know where you’re coming from, I will never be dismissive.

But I still have to answer some other scathing words that were written…

You see. That is simply WRONG!! I NEVER get upset about anything that is written here. I get a frustrated at times, but never, NEVER upset. In your case I was just plain old CURIOUS![/QUOTE]

okay. I see that now.

[/QUOTE]That’s true. That’s why I posted the way I did.

I don’t mean to be rude, and I am clearly NOT upset, but the knife cuts both ways.

Thanks. Then why not engage in some sort of conversation instead of an assertion of a fairly unpopular (at least in this thread) view. I mean, you could have “opened the conversation” just a tad bit better, don’t you think? If you don't have time to write a War and Peace epic, bullet points are just fine. Phrases. Anything more than a simple declarative statement, that runs pretty contrary to the arguments presented in this thread. What do think? Want to start over?[/QUOTE]

Touche.

[/QUOTE]You know nothing about me. (Hmmmm. Where did I hear those words before?)[/QUOTE]

Touche.

[/QUOTE]OUCH!! WOW!! OUCH AGAIN!! (smiley face so you know I'm not upset!!)

I really do apologize. I didn’t mean to “set you straight”. I meant to get you talking! I failed.

Me too!! (As I said, you know nothing about me!!)

Hope to talk to you soon!![/QUOTE]

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

 

[mrsR123]

Alright, here's my thing with the 35 foot Buzz Lightyear?

What's its purpose? Take the newest value Art of Animation. Now I have some issues with that resort, but I do like the Cars area. Guido & Luigi are my favorite. And I like the traffic cone cabanas and I like the cars. It's built to a scale to put you in the middle of their world.

I could maybe get behind some sort of attempt to replicate Andy's House and Room. Put you in the middle of the Toy Story world where you are one of the other toys. But you don't accomplish that with a giant Buzz Lightyear. Unless you are building something to scale for one of Buster's fleas. Based on the scale of most of the pieces, I think we're supposed to be feeling more Honey, I Shrunk the Kids than Toy Story. But maybe we are supposed to be the flea.

Rusty? Looks pretty sharp to me. Spot on, ma'am.

 

[disneyworld1977]

I didn't see that coming! Nice! I am enjoying the posts! Sadly, I have very little to offer, I am too embroiled in the horrors of MyMagic+, but that is a different thread (a long and wild one at that).

But, I do have this story about my short tour of Pop Century last summer. My daughter and I wandered around the Art of Animation resort and didn't find it much to our liking. It still felt to much like a motel, and even though the pool was cool to look at, the shadeless sea of concrete drained me of any joy I might have found. We walked across the lovely bridge to Pop. I circled the buildings a little confused. What we didn't like were the "stockades" at the front to wait for the buses. Once again, endless concrete, winding keys, and those chains to keep everyone in place.

It was such a shock from walking out of the Polynesian lush gardens onto the monorail! Or, sitting casually in the wooden huts at Kidani. We were sad by the visit, and vowed to never return.

I can see your point on this to an extent, because you are use to the Deluxe like the Polynesian I guess. Unfortunately, I can't afford the Deluxe, but yes I would rather stay there than a Value Resort. Have stayed at a couple of Moderates and have enjoyed those very much.

I do enjoy the value resorts. Yes, it does remind one of a outside WDW hotel as far as structure, however, I try to look at it and compare. Am I going to find Disney theme, usually with the pools, the larger than life objects, whatever that may be. We walked around AoA, and I enjoyed the atmosphere. I usually don't go to a Motel 6 that I am not staying at to look around at it's theme.

Now, I do agree the lines for the buses are much to be desired compared to waiting for a Monorail at the Poly. That's why it's Deluxe though.

I have been in some very average and run down hotels, so the Value Resorts at WDW I don't have a problem with since I view them to be a step above the regular ECONOMY hotels.

One day I will stay at the Contemporary, Magic Kingdom View!!!!!

 

[bcrook]

I can see your point on this to an extent, because you are use to the Deluxe like the Polynesian I guess. Unfortunately, I can't afford the Deluxe, but yes I would rather stay there than a Value Resort. Have stayed at a couple of Moderates and have enjoyed those very much.

I do enjoy the value resorts. Yes, it does remind one of a outside WDW hotel as far as structure, however, I try to look at it and compare. Am I going to find Disney theme, usually with the pools, the larger than life objects, whatever that may be. We walked around AoA, and I enjoyed the atmosphere. I usually don't go to a Motel 6 that I am not staying at to look around at it's theme.

Now, I do agree the lines for the buses are much to be desired compared to waiting for a Monorail at the Poly. That's why it's Deluxe though.

I have been in some very average and run down hotels, so the Value Resorts at WDW I don't have a problem with since I view them to be a step above the regular ECONOMY hotels.

One day I will stay at the Contemporary, Magic Kingdom View!!!!!

I didn't tell my story to be condescending of guests who stay there. I was referring to the lack of the Disney magic. I have never stayed at the Polynesian, but I like to spend time there - It says Disney to me. I did purchase DVC, so I hang out at Kidani - I love it, but it is a huge financial commitment. Pop Century just made me sad.

 

[meowmarie]

OK! Back to real time. Whatd ya think?

What do I think? I think it's clear that nothing is ever going to live up to the visions/expectations of the way you think things should be, you're never going to get that magic back, and there are plenty of other places to vacation where maybe you might feel that magic again and not have so much pent-up resentment. (or on the flip side you could take over and run the place.)

 

[lockedoutlogic]

What do I think? I think it's clear that nothing is ever going to live up to the visions/expectations of the way you think things should be, you're never going to get that magic back, and there are plenty of other places to vacation where maybe you might get that magic again. (or of course take over and run the place.)

or perhaps be free of the burden of the shackles that Disney themselves have created with their "magic" marketing ploys (and they are cold calculated ploys...to be sure) and their arsenal of approved "buzz words"?

lets admit it: the vacation that exceeds your expectation are always the ones you think back on...

disney...wittingly or otherwise...have made that almost impossible to the majority of visitors - even the most knowledgable or experiences ones...

and it is so because of market research regarding merchandise, word of mouth recommendations, and future travel patterns...

it would be fitting - in many ways - if the magic house of cards does cave in on them in a big, bottom-line way somewhere in the future. because the culprits can be found in the mirrors of the boardroom (in between the Sneezy and Doc statues). bet big...win big....luck run out, lose big.

But i'm sure that day isn't today.

 

[meowmarie]

or perhaps be free of the burden of the shackles that Disney themselves have created with their "magic" marketing ploys (and they are cold calculated ploys...to be sure) and their arsenal of approved "buzz words"?

lets admit it: the vacation that exceeds your expectation are always the ones you think back on...

disney...wittingly or otherwise...have made that almost impossible to the majority of visitors - even the most knowledgable or experiences ones...

and it is so because of market research regarding merchandise, word of mouth recommendations, and future travel patterns...

it would be fitting - in many ways - if the magic house of cards does cave in on them in a big, bottom-line way somewhere in the future. because the culprits can be found in the mirrors of the boardroom (in between the Sneezy and Doc statues). bet big...win big....luck run out, lose big.

But i'm sure that day isn't today.

I'm not disagreeing. There are and have been failures in many areas. I just can't believe we have 2 whole threads filled with posts using so many bolded letters and exclamation points over a vacation that we keep paying for year after year. I am glad that people are passionate, but it also seems like some people are so unhappy that I don't know how they are enjoying themselves enough to keep going back? I know if I were that unhappy with a place I would go somewhere else. We can't bring Walt back, it sucks that his vision wasn't lived out to its fullest extent. Unless one of us is going to take over Disney and set it right, there isn't much we can do except stop giving them our dollars. There is no reason that we should be so disappointed with a vacation that we keep taking, they aren't cheap. I want to go on a vacation every year that makes me happy, and I feel that it does in spite of it's short comings or what could have been. And I can look at my daughter and KNOW she feels the magic and that makes it all worth it. But if someone has stopped feeling the magic there isn't much more you can do.

ETA: I also wanted to add that as idyllic as my Disney memories are (starting in 1979), talking to my parents about our trips helps me bring things in perspective. They had a lot of similar complaints back then that I was completely unaware of as a child. Things were too expensive, Walt would be disappointed, they said they also used to complain about the limit on "adventures" before the passport came out, etc. It was always magic to me and there are so many things that always bring me back, I just try to focus on those. If I'm lucky my daughter's memories will be as idyllic as mine.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I hear you...


And the simple reason is this: it's still better than the alternatives.

 

[DRDISNEYMD]

An honest question to you:

Do you think, at times, the company suffers from the Story? Does every ride and attraction have to fit a well-scripted back-story (that few of us are let to see and understand?).

I have read about the fantastic story and detail provided by Splash Mountain! I think it is fun to watch the story as it evolves, but, even I do not understand it completely. Does the average 15 year old appreciate it - they like the plunge!

At times - I say Oh YEAH - that is what makes the place special! But, is it the Yeti which sets them apart or holds them back?

I have ridden Everest 40 times. 30 times with the Yeti, 10 without. I liked it all 40 times! But, if they don't build the Yeti - are we disappointed in the delivery and call it a half-baked Disney ride? They still built a very cool looking mountain! Is it the Yeti which sets them apart or holds them back? That damn Snowman set them back a pretty penny which could be used somewhere else!

I don't know the answer - I am asking you - and anyone / everyone who reads this!

~If Disney has no intentions of ever fixing the yeti, they should no longer market or place emphasis on it -- just highlight Expedition Everest, the coaster! I cannot understand why the Yeti can not be repaired. There is no excuse, they just don't care enough to fix it. With that said, Expedition Everest is the most beautiful breathtaking coaster ever! So, yes the coaster was worth it, the Yeti was not.

~Yes, I expect Disney attractions to be themed, it doesn't *always* have to be over the top but a nice theme should exist. And no, I don't think about the story when I'm on ToT or Splash Mountain, but it's nice to know that there is a story behind it, if that makes sense.

Just a small correction:

Oriental LAND company (and now called OLC).

NOT Oriental Trading Company (the company that sells cheap party/crafting supplies).

BIG difference.

~Thanks for the clarification! I agree that is a HUGE difference and a powerful name for a party supply store!

Not to speak for The Baron, but:

Apple.

~My question wasn't for the baron, but I appreciate your attempt to answer.

In addition, I actually think you've hit the nail on the head, here. Maybe not quite in the way you thought/intended, though.

~LOL. No surprise there, I over analyze to a fault, at times. I prefer macro over micro -- the broad perspective. It's not everyone's cup of tea.

Many people object to Eisner's concentration on BRAND over SUBSTANCE, as it were.

~"Many people" have their own idea of what constitutes "substance." Is it qualitative, quantitative or a little of both? This statement is somewhat vague -- substance in relevance to what - specifically? This discussion is as multifaceted as the Disney brand. Disney is structured into four divisible entities -- parks & resorts - studios - television & by-products. Do you object to the entire Disney brand, or just specific aspects within the brand. I can't speak for "many people" only for myself, and with that, it's always subject to change.

In other words, rather than building the brand by virtue of quality product, Disney (and Eisner) set out to build the Disney brand based on PAST quality of product and overall reputation.

~What "past quality?" Prior to Eisner's arrival, the majority of Disney's revenue derived from the parks. Eisner took over Disney, at it's weakest most vulnerable point, and had he continued to depend solely upon theme park revenues, Disney would not be the powerhouse that it is today. Eisner brought Disney to the masses, eliminating the "need" to actively seek out Disney, but also fueling the "desire" to visit the theme parks. Eisner expanded the Disney brand with three new gates, water parks, hotel/motel expansion, The Disney Renaissance, the acquisition of ABC, the Pixar collaboration (the best Pixar Films were under Eisner), Disney Cruise Line, DVC and much more.

~That's not to say, that some things couldn't have been executed better. I'm sure quality, creativity and innovation succumbed at some point during the Eisner era. I just empathize with Disney's frail position when Eisner took over.

The argument has been (and, to be clear, I'm not trying to support either side of it) that Disney is essentially creating a house of cards (one blow from cavin' in). They're more interested in expanding their brand, and their profit margins, than they are in actually maintaining the levels of quality that the reputation is based on.

Iger - yes, I totally agree! Eisner, no I kinda disagree! Eisner expanded the Disney brand out of necessity. It was a necessary evil & Disney dominates today because of it. I just can't ignore the fact that just prior to Eisner's arrival -- instead of creating magical memories and telling stories, Disney was fending off corporate barbarians! Eisner was brought in to fight, and fight, he did. Now, Iger is a little bit different, Disney is not under the threat of a corporate takeover, so now, is the time to focus on creativity and innovation! I like Iger, overall I think he is great for Disney, I just wish he would have placed more emphasis on plussing and maintaining the WDW resort.

Your description, IMHO, actually illuminates exactly that. And I agree with you...there was a business advantage to doing just that.

~Yay!!! We agree, but for Iger it's an advantage -- for, Eisner it was for survival!

The point of discussion, though, is was it the best business practice or just the easiest/path of least resistance?

~I'm not prepared to say Eisner's path was easy. He could have just sat there and continue to depend on park revenue and re-releasing the Disney classics, that's easy -- Disney would have surely failed. Eisner took huge risks, that took Disney from the brink of bankruptcy to billions in revenue! Yes, I agree Eisner may have missed the opportunity to expand creatively. Sure, I will agree that the WDW resort could have looked just like the Vegas strip, lol.

You mention that there are a ton of American brands that have failed...and almost every single one took that path of least resistance and corparatization of it's culture. They were, usually, most successful, when being headed by a single visionary/luminary OR a CEO who "got it".

Look at Kodak, for example. Their failing? Refusing to adapt to the digital platform. Why? Because they realized that doing so would require a radical redevelopment of their business model, including massive capital expenditures which would have "robbed" shareholders of a relatively small % of their annual return over 2 to 3 years. The CEO/CFO and Board were took spooked to pull the trigger, because they couldn't manage to firmly convince their institutional investors of the need for investment. And they lacked any sort of vision (one of their CEO's referred to digital, at a conference I was at, as a "fad"..no lie) to pitch it to the shareholders, too. Instead, they decided to build their brand (and slap it on everything they could...even when not controlling the quality of the product being made) and hope it would allow them to continue to exist. This even AFTER the writing was on the wall.

And, once enough crud had flooded the market, once they'd ticked off consumers with their APS format (which was never going to compete with digital), allowed Fuji to come in and steal their market share for photo printers and photo paper (because their products were of better quality AND cost less) and once they had no more film processing to bolster their bottom lines...they folded.

~I was very sad to see what happened to Kodak! Wow, I didn't know the back story, I guessed it was digital, but I see it was much more than that. Honestly, I have thought about the day when "point & shoot" cameras become obsolete. Your an Apple fan, so I know you've seen the camera on the iPhone 5, I was simply amazed with the quality!

Now, is Disney to that point? No, definitely not. Things are not nearly so dire. But they've been set on a similar path, in terms of corporate management style. That path may or may not lead to a similar destination. But that's the risk of that type of corporate culture shift.

There are tons of American Brands that have gone the same route. Scared to adapt or change because of the investment required and how it would spook institutional investors....so try to simply "brand". Some have been successful, IMHO far more have failed.

It's risky, for sure.

~Great comment! pilferk, I couldn't agree more! It's super risky!!!

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

More catching up to do!

First rantnnravin:

and that's where the speculation must come in. What COULD they have done to provide consistency of experience with differing levels? What factors would make a "C-ticket" or "B-ticket" resort different from an "E-ticket"?

I thought the answer to your question was apparent in my response. You spend the night. It is the same if you spend the night anywhere on the property. And a “Disney Experience” while spending the night, cannot be parceled out like commodities! You can’t scale it down (or up) to meet someone’s pocketbook. It is what it is. And a Giant Icon doesn’t cut it, no matter how many primary colors they use!

I really meant my example of adding one more level. Say 30 dollars less, for the folks who really cannot afford the “Values” today. Stark, white buildings. A square pool, surrounded by tons of white concrete. Rooms very tiny, again painted an off white. Little TVs. No cable. No eateries at all, maybe vending machines with Disney decals on them. And when you check in you get a Disney pin and a Mickey Balloon, given to you by a CM wearing Mouse Ears, standing next to a very nice statue of Mickey. And a really nice magic touch - if your balloon pops in the middle of your stay, they’ll GIVE you another one!! What about it!!?? If a statue of Mickey and a balloon with ears doesn’t scream Disney, I don’t know what does!!!

I am by no means an Imagineer. I do not design “stuff”. But I have read enough about Disney and Walt to know (or at least make an educated guess) at what standards have to be maintained in order to produce a Disney “SHOW”. So to say, out of hand, that it cannot possibly be done is impossible for me to say! It very well could be done.

Another Voice, a long, long time ago made some suggestions about AKL that simply blew me away!! I wish I could remember all the details, but I cannot. In it he had several levels of price point without sacrificing SHOW at all. So I don’t think it’s impossible. But I can say, it hasn’t been done yet. The “Values” are a pale version of Disney!! NO! Strike that! They are not Disney at all!!

 

[cristen]

I just can't believe we have 2 whole threads filled with posts using so many bolded letters and exclamation points over a vacation that we keep paying for year after year. I am glad that people are passionate, but it also seems like some people are so unhappy that I don't know how they are enjoying themselves enough to keep going back? I know if I were that unhappy with a place I would go somewhere else.

What do I think? I think it's clear that nothing is ever going to live up to the visions/expectations of the way you think things should be, you're never going to get that magic back, and there are plenty of other places to vacation where maybe you might feel that magic again and not have so much pent-up resentment.

Wow. That's his writing style, everyone has one. Yours is well.....not nice.

How do you know he is resentful? Or that he doesn't have fun when he goes on his trips?

I can promise you that every single one of the old guard that you may think is bitter or angry still go to the parks and they still enjoy them. Some may even cry because they enjoy it so much. It doesn't mean we can't separate that and discuss the philosophy and business practices of the company.

To come on here, which is a pastime (you know, things that are FUN to do), and have discussions/debates about how things could be better, how you may be disappointed in the direction of the company, does not mean you are angry, resentful or unhappy. It's just a forum. It's just fun. And that's all we are here for.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

DITTO!

Thanks Cristen!! I couldn't have said it better!!

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

dwaters

Yet Buzz is tiny in comparison to some of the egos on display in this thread.

Anyone in particular or are you painting with a broad brush today?

Not sure if you realize how condescending you come off.

Yes I realize some might make that mistake. Evidently you did. Is it because I don’t agree with that warm fuzzy feeling you get when you see a GIANT Buzz? Do you think everyone who disagrees with you and has some cogent thought to go along with that disagreement is always condescending?

So! Do you have any reasons to back up any of your assertions or to refute mine? It’s kind of what we do here. Converse! Exchange ideas! And yes, sometimes that takes a little contemplation and sometimes it takes a little work. Of course, it’s far easier to call names than to come up with persuasive, well thought out arguments. I see you like to take the easy course! Ok then…

… It’s my turn to ask a question. Do you realize how childish you come off?

So, is the Cinderella Castle a decoration as well?

Come on!! You really can’t come up with anything better than that!? Are you really saying you don’t know the difference between theme and decorations? Between ornaments and SHOW? A Disney SHOW? You need some basic Disney education then. Come back with something better please.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

I want everyone to meet akadada!! Some may know the name already, but with only 135 posts it’s doubtful. Anyway! We got off to a shaky start but as Bogart said to Claude Rains in Casablanca:

Louie (akadada) I think this is the start of a beautiful friendship!!

All akadada has to do is learn how to use the quote function and things will be perfect!! Already buying into the Dark Side and almost as wordy as me!! Who could ask for more!!!

It’s late now, and I want to answer some of your points. But it will have to wait until tomorrow. There’s simply too much there to do it justice right now. I just wanted to get this out in a timely fashion!!!

 

[disneyworld1977]

I didn't tell my story to be condescending of guests who stay there. I was referring to the lack of the Disney magic. I have never stayed at the Polynesian, but I like to spend time there - It says Disney to me. I did purchase DVC, so I hang out at Kidani - I love it, but it is a huge financial commitment. Pop Century just made me sad.

Yea, I probably said that wrong..

I just mean if someone were use to a DELUXE resort, they might feel like the VALUES don't to live up to expectation. I can appreciate your view.

But we always stay on property at WDW, I will not stay offsite. I at least feel some Disney type connection at some of the Value Resorts. I have stayed at POP twice, and I can say it doesn't make me sad. I enjoy it. I am there to sleep, enjoy the food court, see some of the theme building (decorations, as some want to call it), etc. I don't get that at an ECONOMY hotel off property usually.

 

[meowmarie]

Wow. That's his writing style, everyone has one. Yours is well.....not nice.

How do you know he is resentful? Or that he doesn't have fun when he goes on his trips?

I can promise you that every single one of the old guard that you may think is bitter or angry still go to the parks and they still enjoy them. Some may even cry because they enjoy it so much. It doesn't mean we can't separate that and discuss the philosophy and business practices of the company.

To come on here, which is a pastime (you know, things that are FUN to do), and have discussions/debates about how things could be better, how you may be disappointed in the direction of the company, does not mean you are angry, resentful or unhappy. It's just a forum. It's just fun. And that's all we are here for.

You're right, I can't read anyone's mind. To me a lot of the posts in here give off really negative vibe and energy. Guess we just have different ideas of fun. Back to the to the strategies board for me, y'all enjoy yourselves.

 

[disneyworld1977]

dwaters

Anyone in particular or are you painting with a broad brush today?


Yes I realize some might make that mistake. Evidently you did. Is it because I dont agree with that warm fuzzy feeling you get when you see a GIANT Buzz? Do you think everyone who disagrees with you and has some cogent thought to go along with that disagreement is always condescending?

So! Do you have any reasons to back up any of your assertions or to refute mine? Its kind of what we do here. Converse! Exchange ideas! And yes, sometimes that takes a little contemplation and sometimes it takes a little work. Of course, its far easier to call names than to come up with persuasive, well thought out arguments. I see you like to take the easy course! Ok then&

& Its my turn to ask a question. Do you realize how childish you come off?


Come on!! You really cant come up with anything better than that!? Are you really saying you dont know the difference between theme and decorations? Between ornaments and SHOW? A Disney SHOW? You need some basic Disney education then. Come back with something better please.

As far as the last comment in bold, you do come off as condescending with that statement. You have made some good arguments and insight to alot of things, but with that comment, don't think anyone will be hanging out with you at MK anytime soon.

On the first comment in bold, I agree with you that the giant BUZZ doesn't give me a warm fuzzing feeling necessarily. And I don't have kids, but from what I have seen from family's with kids, when they see bigger than life Disney Icons, the kids are excited. I have seen kid's run towards some of these objects like the giant Woody and say "Mom, look there's Woody" and they stare in amazement up at him. Don't you think some of the parents of these kids would get a warm fuzzy feeling seeing their kids have so much fun around these things that the kids already might be in love with? Just an observation.

I just try to put myself in someone else's shoes when it comes to why someone would like or even dislike something. Some don't understand the hype with Soarin or TSMM. I love the rides, but I am not going to say they don't know what they are talking about. And vice versa.

Don't get me wrong, WDW does need some love in different areas and hopefully Disney will keep trying to improve, that's what its about.

 

[disneyworld1977]

You're right, I can't read anyone's mind. To me a lot of the posts in here give off really negative vibe and energy. Guess we just have different ideas of fun. Back to the to the strategies board for me, y'all enjoy yourselves.

Yea, seems to be getting that way. Like someone else said, I don't see how they have fun at the parks. They must belittle every detail when they are there.

 

[pilferk]

HOWEVER, the notion that his primary motivation was Quality is in a word ridiculous.

To be more clear: IMHO, his motivation was a high quality SHOW. But quality in almost everything was certainly a pretty defining principle in his life.

I disagree. I do think it's a bit of a "chicken vs egg" discussion, but it's an interesting one, for sure.

Look, I'm a QA engineer, so I am all about Quality. But Quality isn't my focus. Creating products that people want to buy is my focus and ensuring quality is how I personally contribute to that goal. If Walt's ultimate focus was quality then why in the heck did he open an animation stuido? One might have thought his goal was to make Animated movies?

Because his talents (and one of his interests), as a younger man, were in animation and drawing. And his focus seemed to be on 2 things (and you can see this, most obviously, in the original Alice shorts and Oswald material):

1) To provide a higher quality entertainment experience/SHOW so that he could command a higher price for his work (or to convince others to commission MORE work)...essentially to differentiate himself from the rest of those doing the same. I'm not trying to make him sound mercenary, either. But, for much of his studio days...his focus (EDIT: OK, focus is too strong a word...his immediate concern, maybe, is better) was on paying the bills. His perfectionist nature helped him do that...but it also ran up the "bar tab", too.

2) To use interesting new techniques and innovative tech (or uses of technology) to do so.

PART of it story. PART of it was presentation. But he needed all of it to be of high quality. It was the quality of the SHOW, not any single part of that show.

Those motivations seemed to carry forward throughout his career, actually. It's one of the reasons he sent animators around the world to study subjects, why he convinced his animators to study architecture in period pieces, and why he developed, or had developed, multiple patents on different animation and filming techniques/technologies.

If he JUST wanted to tell a story....why not be an author? Why not focus more on original material rather than ape fairy tales/literary works? Because, for Walt, it was about presenting that material in a certain way, with a certain level of quality (perfection, in his mind). His goal was the perfect show, in whatever media or format he could deliver it.

Walt was a perfectionist. I don't think anyone can argue that. It's what drove him. Doesn't that, in itself, pretty much answer your first question in the first line quoted, above?

And why did he open a theme park? One might have thought he intended to create attractions?

To provide a quality show that would appeal to families, where parents and children could do things together.

Walts own words:

What this country really needs is an amusement park that families can take their children to. They've gotten so honky tonk with a lot of questionable characters running around, and they're not to safe. They're not well kept. I want to have a place that's as clean as anything could ever be, and all the people in it [his park] are first-class citizens, and treated like guests."

We all know the "sitting on the bench watching his daughters on a carousel" story, so I'll not belabor it.

But notice the words he's using. What's he talking about?

Disneyland is a show. That's another Walt quote.

Only part of a show is the story....an important part, but only part.

And what does animation, movies and theme parks have in common? They are all entertainment and what is the root of all Human entertainment? Storytelling. We tell stories. We always have since our days painting on cave walls.

And I would never imply that storytelling isn't part of what Walt did well. A big part. I just don't think it was the entirety of what drove him or motivated him. I think story was, is, and should be part of a quality show. Maybe it's the most important part. But it's not the ONLY part.

Walt was the ultimate Storyteller and that is the foundation of EVERY SINGLE THING HE EVER DID IN HIS CAREER!

No, he was the ultimate SHOWMAN. Better than even P.T. Barnum, IMHO, because he put on shows of higher quality.

He demanded quality so that he could tell the best stories. He didn't tell stories so he could get the best quality.

And that's the fundamental disagreement we're going to have. I think he told the best stories by demanding a show of the highest quality. It was his attention to details, his insistence on virtual perfection...not just from him but from the people that worked for him. Nothing, NOTHING was ever good enough until it HAD to be good enough (because Roy told him they were going to have to shut down if they didn't ship/open/sell "it). Knowing that, knowing everything we know about Walt...from those who worked with him to those that knew and loved him...I'm not sure what other conclusion you're going to come to, here. I don't mean the romanticized "Uncle Walt" version we saw open "Wonderful World of Disney" on TV screens every week.

I mean for heaven's sake. Walt's focus was quality. What a dumb thing. I won't dignify it with a nicer turn of phrase and I don't mean that as a personal insult, but come on. Walt used Quality. His focus was storytelling.

See, I disagree. Walt's focus was on a quality show. He used storytelling, and many other factors, to put it on.

 

[pilferk]

~If Disney has no intentions of ever fixing the yeti, they should no longer market or place emphasis on it -- just highlight Expedition Everest, the coaster! I cannot understand why the Yeti can not be repaired. There is no excuse, they just don't care enough to fix it. With that said, Expedition Everest is the most beautiful breathtaking coaster ever! So, yes the coaster was worth it, the Yeti was not.

The Yeti is definitely a travesty...mostly of engineering.

I'm not sure I would say "care enough"...although I guess it sort of fits.

My understanding is this:

Everest (the coaster/mountain) and the Yeti are two different, completely unrelated (as in, they don't touch each other) structures.

The engineers looked at what the Yeti was going to have to do, in terms of motion, it's weight, etc and figured out exactly what type of footer that structure was going to need in order to anchor it. That's in terms of type of footer, depth, and material to be used.

One of two things happened: The engineers goofed OR substandard materials/techniques were used (I've heard both explanations..that the engineers goofed and/or the construction crew did not use the correct mix of concrete AND did not cure it properly). Within a few months, the footer started to crack. That's bad, as you have a multi ton structure sitting on a cracked footer....and more cracks would destabilize the big guy, threatening the stability of the OTHER structure (the coaster) surrounding it. So they turned him off. By the looks of things, it's safe as is.

They've tried multiple scenarios to "quick fix" the problem...but reportedly none of them have worked. There is a sure fire way to fix it..but it involves de-skinning Everest (the other structture), removing Senor Yeti, drilling out the old footer, installing a new footer, rebuilding the Yeti, and reskinning Everest. That would require big bucks, and equally big down time, in a park that is already low on attractions (see my earlier rambling about AK and "the masses").

So that gives you and idea of just how much they have to "care" to fix it the only way that, for sure, would work.

I suspect they'll keep "thinking" and see if they can come up with an alternate solution. I suspect they won't...and until some larger park expansion (Avatarland?) goes live, we'll get the Yeti in disco mode.


I'll respond to your comments on my post in another reply.