Animal Kingdom's declinig attendence article....
- Thread starter ncligs
- Start date
Another Voice
Charter Member of The Element
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2000
The key to running an entertainment company is to constantly create new products that excite the audience so much they are willing to pay for them; it doesnt matter how todays corporate world works. Bad creative decisions are still bad no matter how carefully analyzed, how painfully rationalized and no matter how smart the investment.
Case in point: California Adventure. The park is held in low regard mainly because it is filled with clones of existing attractions and lacks the scale & scope of those parks. But Disneys big investment is to build a smaller clone of another attraction. Sure, the accountants are tap dancing for joy but is yet one more ride that fails to attract crowds really a smart investment? At the same time the guests are flocking to Soaring Over California, the only original and creative attraction in the entire park. The smart investment would have been to take the $70 million from Tower of Mild Nuisances and create a new & original attraction.
The problem with Disneys parks right now isnt Wall Street or finances or things were different in Walts time or any of that money stuff. The problem is that the company lacks the willingness to be creative. Coming up with a great new ride is much more difficult than figuring out depreciation schedules. Building something new is also riskier because you run the chance that people might not like it.
Not only is creativity harder, it requires more guts as well.
Case in point: California Adventure. The park is held in low regard mainly because it is filled with clones of existing attractions and lacks the scale & scope of those parks. But Disneys big investment is to build a smaller clone of another attraction. Sure, the accountants are tap dancing for joy but is yet one more ride that fails to attract crowds really a smart investment? At the same time the guests are flocking to Soaring Over California, the only original and creative attraction in the entire park. The smart investment would have been to take the $70 million from Tower of Mild Nuisances and create a new & original attraction.
The problem with Disneys parks right now isnt Wall Street or finances or things were different in Walts time or any of that money stuff. The problem is that the company lacks the willingness to be creative. Coming up with a great new ride is much more difficult than figuring out depreciation schedules. Building something new is also riskier because you run the chance that people might not like it.
Not only is creativity harder, it requires more guts as well.
"The problem is that the company lacks the willingness to be creative. Coming up with a great new ride is much more difficult than figuring out depreciation schedules. Building something new is also riskier because you run the chance that people might not like it. "
I don't think they lack the willingness to be creative, I think they lack the capital to complete a creative project. I also assume that at some time in history Tea Cups wow'ed amusement park guests. Look at where we are now with rides. I think Spiderman is probably the best ride out there right now. It's going to be hard to beat it. If Mission:Space is anything like I imagine it to be, whats next,actually shooting someone into space ? "Topping" your last effort is not only difficult, but is also expensive. 200 mil for MS !!! You can build entire hospitals for less. Where does it stop?
I don't think they lack the willingness to be creative, I think they lack the capital to complete a creative project. I also assume that at some time in history Tea Cups wow'ed amusement park guests. Look at where we are now with rides. I think Spiderman is probably the best ride out there right now. It's going to be hard to beat it. If Mission:Space is anything like I imagine it to be, whats next,actually shooting someone into space ? "Topping" your last effort is not only difficult, but is also expensive. 200 mil for MS !!! You can build entire hospitals for less. Where does it stop?
EUROPA
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2000
Did Walt do everything in his power to keep attractions from having breakdowns? Microsoft is inventive and they are out there developing the next generation of products. That was my point. Those companies I listed are putting Quality and money back into thier products
Douglas Dubh
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 13, 1999
Well, Everest seems to be a step in the right direction.
EUROPA
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2000
MIB, Jaws, Terminator, Posidens Furry, Beetle Juice Grave yard Review and so on... those are all great creative attractions that were built on existing attractions/shows. None of them cost no-where near what Spiderman cost. When you compare that to Primevil Hurl you will see what everyone is upset about.
Look at what the old rides at US cost, then step up to MIB, then Spiderman. Where do you draw the line on cost. When will the cost of "WOW" be too much ?
Obviously PW is not Spiderman. But I challenge anyone to say it's not fun. Let me ask you this: How many pictures do you have of your children riding SM ? When I was there in Dec, the fence was lined with laughing parents snapping pics of their kids with wide open eyes and ear-to-ear smiles on their faces. Not every ride needs to cost 100 mil.
Obviously PW is not Spiderman. But I challenge anyone to say it's not fun. Let me ask you this: How many pictures do you have of your children riding SM ? When I was there in Dec, the fence was lined with laughing parents snapping pics of their kids with wide open eyes and ear-to-ear smiles on their faces. Not every ride needs to cost 100 mil.
Another Voice
Charter Member of The Element
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2000
"I think they lack the capital to complete a creative project."
Really?
A company that spent $5.5 billion to buy a failed cable channel?
A company that spent more to film 'Pirates of the Caribbean' the movie more than it spent on 'Mission: Space' the attraction?
A company that gave its CEO a bonus that was more than it spent of 'Flick's Fun Faire'?
A company that has spent more in interest and depreciation on a mouthballed new resort than it's planning to spend on 'Everest'?
Lack of captial????? No.
Lack of brains....probably.
P.S. There were at least four Disney movies last year that cost more to make than 'Expedition: Everest' and probably at least four this year. The problem ain't money, the problem is judgement. Anyone who thought 'Bad Company' and 'Reign of Fire' was a better investment for Disney...well they probably ended up getting a unearned $5 million bonus.
Really?
A company that spent $5.5 billion to buy a failed cable channel?
A company that spent more to film 'Pirates of the Caribbean' the movie more than it spent on 'Mission: Space' the attraction?
A company that gave its CEO a bonus that was more than it spent of 'Flick's Fun Faire'?
A company that has spent more in interest and depreciation on a mouthballed new resort than it's planning to spend on 'Everest'?
Lack of captial????? No.
Lack of brains....probably.
P.S. There were at least four Disney movies last year that cost more to make than 'Expedition: Everest' and probably at least four this year. The problem ain't money, the problem is judgement. Anyone who thought 'Bad Company' and 'Reign of Fire' was a better investment for Disney...well they probably ended up getting a unearned $5 million bonus.
"A company that spent $5.5 billion to buy a failed cable channel?
A company that spent more to film 'Pirates of the Caribbean' the movie more than it spent on 'Mission: Space' the attraction?
A company that gave its CEO a bonus that was more than it spent of 'Flick's Fun Faire'?
A company that has spent more in interest and depreciation on a mouthballed new resort than it's planning to spend on 'Everest'? "
I only said they lacked it,not why ? I know where they wasted the money, but we can't do anything about that now. Disney is cash poor,plain and simple. WDI can probably create an amazing ride, but I don't think Disney has the cash to build it.
As for your movie references, after reading several of your previous threads concerning movies,studios,costs,etc.... I don't know what to believe,who to trust, or even understand why anybody would even attempt to make a movie.
A company that spent more to film 'Pirates of the Caribbean' the movie more than it spent on 'Mission: Space' the attraction?
A company that gave its CEO a bonus that was more than it spent of 'Flick's Fun Faire'?
A company that has spent more in interest and depreciation on a mouthballed new resort than it's planning to spend on 'Everest'? "
I only said they lacked it,not why ? I know where they wasted the money, but we can't do anything about that now. Disney is cash poor,plain and simple. WDI can probably create an amazing ride, but I don't think Disney has the cash to build it.
As for your movie references, after reading several of your previous threads concerning movies,studios,costs,etc.... I don't know what to believe,who to trust, or even understand why anybody would even attempt to make a movie.
Bstanley
DisNoid
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2001
AV - while I agree that the fundamental problem isn't with the list of things you mention - I don't know - maybe it's just a semantics thing, but it seems to me that the people that are putting the new stuff into the parks today still BELIEVE they are being creative, and the 'suits' BELIEVE thay are funding creative attractions - even though the underlying mechanisms may be purchased in many cases. I think the company BELIEVES it is being creative - ie it is willing to be creative. But they just don't get 'IT'...
I keep returning to a thought that you shot down
during a DCA discussion awhile back. The people that are designing the new stuff for the parks just aren't people that really enjoy being in the parks...ie they just don't get 'IT'.Imagineers have to have technical and movie magic skills for example - but really - more importantly IMHO - they have to get all wound up and googly about actually being in the park, and about what they are doing. Maybe all those folks have been run-off because present management never saw their value, I don't know, but the people that are left just seem to be lacking in the 'child-like' wonder department.
raidermatt
Be water, my friend.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2000
AV said it well...lack of capital is the biggest joke of an excuse to be made for Disney in quite awhile.
Douglas, of course spending the least amount necessary to solve a problem is the most fiscally responsible thing to do. However, on the most basic level, if you don't actually solve the problem, you have wasted the shareholders' money, and still have the same problem.
Further, if you don't accurately assess the problem in the first place, or more importantly, the true objective, you're going to waste more money.
Example: Surveys say not enough for my kids to do.
What is the real problem?
Well, it could be that you just don't have enough kiddie attractions. Adding one or two would certainly seem to be a reasonable attempt at solving the problem.
But maybe the real problem is you lack family inclusive attractions, or that he kiddie things you do have just stink.
If you stick with your goal of providing exciting, innovative family entertainment, you will do a much better job with the shareholders' money.
Douglas, of course spending the least amount necessary to solve a problem is the most fiscally responsible thing to do. However, on the most basic level, if you don't actually solve the problem, you have wasted the shareholders' money, and still have the same problem.
Further, if you don't accurately assess the problem in the first place, or more importantly, the true objective, you're going to waste more money.
Example: Surveys say not enough for my kids to do.
What is the real problem?
Well, it could be that you just don't have enough kiddie attractions. Adding one or two would certainly seem to be a reasonable attempt at solving the problem.
But maybe the real problem is you lack family inclusive attractions, or that he kiddie things you do have just stink.
If you stick with your goal of providing exciting, innovative family entertainment, you will do a much better job with the shareholders' money.
Its a little early, but this has to be a big MAYBE.
I totally agree with you on this - when DCA first opened alot of complaints were about the "carny" feel and especially the pay-2-play games before AK got there's and I said that to me it is no different than the Starcade Video games at MK - it's something above the admission price and plenty of people enjoy them - yes, they don't seem to fit with Disney and they're not my cup of tea either but I just choose to walk right by them.
The talent will be drawn to the company where their creative efforts are being utilized. That takes budgetary funding and a willingness to not only design but also build. If Disney has sufferred in this department it is probably because they have allowed the competition to lure away thier most gifted by failing to finance an appreciable level of work.
This can quickly turn around once the projects begin to gain credibility again.
Douglas Dubh
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 13, 1999
No argument there. And the difference between sucessful executives and unsuccessful executives is that more often than not, they make the right choice. Disney execs, and blame goes straight to the top, have lately tried to bunt when they should have gone for a double, and too often swung for the fences and ended up popping out. However, I still think they're capable of line drives, home runs, and batting runs in. A couple of the right people in the right positions, and they're the favorite of the pennant race.
Amen.
Hey, sue me for being an optimist.
EUROPA
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2000
While many have gone...(Universal) there are still alot of great people working there. It's not lack of vision on the Imagineers part..but lack of investment on that vision from the top. Dinoland today is nothing like what the Imagineers had on the drawing boards.
Planogirl
I feel the nerd in me stirring
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2000
Does anyone understand the "why" of some of these decisions? For example, WHY did Disney buy the Family Channel instead of building Beastly Kingdom? What did the financial wizards at Disney see in the Family Channel that we're so obviously missing?
I understand that Ei$ner was paid the bonus based on reaching certain required goals. Normally, these bonuses are paid to retain top executives if I'm not mistaken. Does anyone know what goals Ei$ner reached?
I understand that Ei$ner was paid the bonus based on reaching certain required goals. Normally, these bonuses are paid to retain top executives if I'm not mistaken. Does anyone know what goals Ei$ner reached?
///gets blood Boiling.
Disney Purchased the Fox family Channel, because Micheal Eisner doesn't like the theme parks and thinks that people that do like theme parks are stupid and useless except for there wallets. He LOVES television. He think's he's the hottest thing to hit Television executives since ever and doesn't really much care about anything else. He also wants to be seen as the hottest....thing on the block and you can only do that by expanding expanding expanding.
Now then, on to crusader
Except that you're dealing with creative people, not MBAs. Once they're one, they won't come back, because they've already been screwed over once. That might change if their's a major management shakeup, but money alone won't be enough.
And while there is sure to be new Young talent to fill those roles, they're going to here from the old guys about how they got the shaft and they are going to look at recent experiences and they are going to go where they think they will make the most contribution. It will be an up hill struggle to regain the reputation it had with engineers before the dark times.
Disney Purchased the Fox family Channel, because Micheal Eisner doesn't like the theme parks and thinks that people that do like theme parks are stupid and useless except for there wallets. He LOVES television. He think's he's the hottest thing to hit Television executives since ever and doesn't really much care about anything else. He also wants to be seen as the hottest....thing on the block and you can only do that by expanding expanding expanding.
Now then, on to crusader
Except that you're dealing with creative people, not MBAs. Once they're one, they won't come back, because they've already been screwed over once. That might change if their's a major management shakeup, but money alone won't be enough.
And while there is sure to be new Young talent to fill those roles, they're going to here from the old guys about how they got the shaft and they are going to look at recent experiences and they are going to go where they think they will make the most contribution. It will be an up hill struggle to regain the reputation it had with engineers before the dark times.
raidermatt
Be water, my friend.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2000
See you in court!
On the carny games, I can see comparing them to the jungle boats, or shooting arcade. But to me, the games in Dinorama and DCA seem to be taking a bigger role, relative to those older examples. Also, those games weren't needed as justifcation for a couple of sub-par attractions. Walt didn't say, ok, you can have the Jungle Cruise, but only if you cut costs and put in some coin-operated boats to pay for it.
A fine line perhaps, so I really don't expect anyone who doesn't see any negative trends within Disney to see this one.
As for Fox Family... the stated business model, as I remember, was that it would serve as an outlet for "re-purposed" programming, mainly from ABC. So Disney could get more mileage out of its original programming that originally aired on ABC, and mix in some other family-oriented programming, which I guess turned out to be 100 showings of Willy Wonka.
Three problems:
1- Disney grossly overpaid.
2- Its an unproven business model.
3- Even if the model were sound, you need programming that viewers will want to see "re-purposed". Without this, the soundness of the model becomes irrelevant.
Not that money alone would solve all of the parks problems, but the Fox Family purchase was enough to increase DCA's and AK's spending to Disney Seas levels, and still have not even spent 1/2 the money.
Regardles of whether you believe the "Eisner hates the parks" statements, investment decisions like Fox Family should at least give you an idea of how current management feels about investing in the parks.
What's sad is that in theory, the purchase of ABC and Fox Fam channel could have been/could still be a major success. The concept is great. The failure was the programing. Put the programs people want to see on ABC and ABC will make money. "Re-purpose" them on Family and make more money. After the fact it's easy for us experts to say ME was/is an inept idiot, but you also have to wonder "what if". The reality of the problem is that the money to purchase the networks is spent-we can't change that. Now Disney basically has two choices: Unload them at a mega loss and deal with the problems doing so causes, or do whatever it takes to turn the networks around and reap the rewards. Wether or not this can be done with ME at the helm is proving to be pretty obvious.
Share this page
-
First Glance at Disney Eats Ice Cream Collection for May
-
The Pros & Cons of Disney's Character Dining + How To Choose
-
Enzo's Hideaway at Disney Springs to Host Bootlegger's Dinner
-
Take a Flamenco Master Class at Jaleo Disney Springs
-
Disney's Coronado Springs Resort King Room Tour in 3D / VR at Walt Disney World
GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE
Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.
Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!
Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.
Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!
