A question regarding the growth of WDW

[bom_noite]

OK! To continue with bom_noite most eloquent post…

But in the mean time (the time I had to take to write my response), bom_noite made several other statements. All of which lead me to believe that he is much more on my page than I earlier thought!!

Great minds! Great minds my friend! I apologize as I come off as arrogant at times. Trust me: I only come across as arrogant as I am an arrogant Pain In the A$$! Love a good debate - but I do know my short comings and always walk away learning more then what I came in with!

As you said, Walt Disney World is not Walmart. There is an emotional attachment with the place! In fact, while Universal does a great job, there is not that same bond? I could be wrong.

I think you are also a DVC Owner? That gives us both the God Given Right, or so we think, to play Arm-Chair QB. We have not only the emotional link - we backed it up with an investment!

But, DVC or not, any Disney Geek that makes the yearly or bi-yearly Pilgrimage to the world has a right to express his/her opinions regarding their thoughts on the place and document their "World of the World" address. Their very Green Money earned them that right! Thanks to many sites we have that ability! Sadly, not sure our friends in LBV seem "above" our rantings and have never done a good job of listening all the time!

I have, at times, made enemies here. I don't mean to - is just my nature to lack certain civil caveats at times! I think the group here, and, on other sites serve a huge service! We may not all agree - but - we all care deeply! Simply put: I am a fan of the Disboards, many other sites, and anybody who has that Magical Bond like we all do! We care in a way that I am not sure WDW Employee's will ever understand nor grasp.

As great a job the folks at Universal have done - they have not, and may never, create that Unique Customer / Business Bond!

Are they wonderful? Are they really ‘wonderful’? I know it’s pretty subjective, but I kind of take issue with the ‘wonderful’ bit.

You are 100% accurate - very, very subjective thing! I think they are wonderful - they make me happy! I find serenity, security and a deep-down happiness when I visit many of them (not all - but many!). Too me so many of the resorts are a place to unwind, relax and meditate. Luckily, my family feels the same way.

Am 50 now - the kids are 22 and 19. We go down there once / maybe twice a year and I find myself backing out of the Park visits and wandering around Resorts.

In '87 I proposed to my wife in the Bar at the Poly. When we bought in to DVC in '97 we could not afford weekly / yearly passes - we would take the kids on a Resort / Pool Hopping adventure. We let the kids call the shots and determine the day. The only rule: Only one hour per pool (which we always overlooked if they were having a great time!).

Some of my favorite places in the World (the entire World):

• The Pool area at the Poly. Looking out over the lake.
• The Pool area of the Wilderness
• OKW - our Proud 2nd Home. I can sit on the deck for hours! Or, wander around Conch Flats and play shuffle-board or basketball for hours on end. I might spend the day playing golf or renting a boat and sailing away. One day, my wife found me teaching 5 year old's the proper Sand Sculpture building techniques - I got their parents involved - my kids came over. Finally - a half-dozen guests joined in: It was classic and simple fun!
• Wandering around the Contemporary looking at Monorail Drive through.
• Driving to the Campgrounds and just walking around the place.

Many co-workers question my silly infatuation and ask: "Don't you ever get bored?"

I have traveled 4 Million miles over the last 25 years to 100 different countries. I don't need to go to Europe to be Happy! I am in Europe 5 times a year!

At WDW, if I get tired of the view, I simply change the atmosphere!

While I am not often to defend Eisner - I think he created this wonderful assortment of places. I am not 100% sure it was done before he did what he did at WDW! I give him a passing grade in that respect. If the D & S were Refrigerators, I would be with you with in wanting to exile them! How cool would be the never built Asian/Persian site on those grounds? Eatern Hospitality and Conventions go together seamlessly! Tishman would be a Quadrillionaire! Instead, they sell those rooms under market value Eisner certainly got the last laugh!

I think the Universal folks would love to have had the land Disney had and create these resorts. I really believe the resorts create the Bond and are a centerpiece of the Magic.

You are a smart guy - and I will always listen to your opinions! Still Friends?

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Well, I really don’t know what to make of your last post, other than that we are kindred spirits of a sort. You really didn’t answer any of my points, so I am left with two choices. You either consider my ramblings utter nonsense and not worth response, or you are in complete agreement! Somehow both answers don’t seem to fit what you’ve written before. Maybe it’s all wrapped up in this:

You are 100% accurate - very, very subjective thing! I think they are wonderful - they make me happy! I find serenity, security and a deep-down happiness when I visit many of them (not all - but many!). To me so many of the resorts are a place to unwind, relax and mediate. Luckily, my family feels the same way.

Yes I agree. They are certainly a place to “unwind, relax and mediate”.

BUT ARE THEY “DISNEY”!!??

That is my point. Don’t get me wrong. I LOVE OKW. I wouldn’t trade it in for anything. BUT… Wait!! Maybe I would…

Does it have to be a western hemisphere/northern hemisphere theme? Wouldn’t an extension of an EPCOT theme been a little better? Say a Japanese, Moroccan, Chinese or German villas? Perhaps that Venice canal thing I mentioned before, snaking through the already existing golf course!!

Or keep it OKW and lay out Saratoga differently. Or keep both of them and re-imagine The Beach Club as an alpine mountain retreat, complete with chalets and ski lifts!! Something other than USA!! Something other than what I can get for real within a two and a half hour plane ride. How about a Lunar Outpost! Or an old west boom town. Or maybe ancient Rome, Greece or Egypt!! Just think of the immersive theme it would take to pull that off!! All lost potential because Ei$ner filled up (or sold off) every square inch of land with rather mundane hotels, when viewed in the grand scheme of things.

Am 50 now - the kids are 22 and 19.

We are 7 years apart, me being older.

In '87 I proposed to my wife in the Bar at the Poly. When we bought in to DVC in '97 we could not afford weekly / yearly passes - we would take the kids on a Resort / Pool Hopping adventure.

We often stay at OKW and not step one foot in the parks. We call it Hotel Hopping. We started calling it that before the term Pool-Hopping was ever thought of. And as for pool hopping!!! Don’t get me started!! I was LIED to by Disney (DVC) salesmen!! While they are technically right, the spirit of the rule has been broken to pieces!!!

You are a smart guy - and I will always listen to your opinions! Still Friends?

Always friends!! And thank you. You seem pretty smart yourself! OK!! Enough love fest!! RESPOND!

 

[bom_noite]

BUT ARE THEY “DISNEY”!!??

To answer the question: Yes, AKL and WL, in my opinion ARE DISNEY! Though someone yelled out: "Hey somebody go get me the WL BluePrints": when building the AKL. "OK! We basically build the same thing - make it darker - build a few buffet's and get me a few Giraffe's and Deer out back! A few hidden Micky's - we call it a day!".

Regardless, I am 100% all over your very creative thoughts: Alp's, Germany, Venice, Greece! How about the Outback? Forget Morocco and China - been there a few dozen times - bad memories!

In fact, why did All Stars have to be All Stars and not be an expansive but Quaint Austrian Villiage and then tied in to a slightly different theme at Blizzard Beach?

Why could POP not have been a Venetian Villiage with a Venetian styled Water park?

Why / who picked the Saratoga Theme? Regardless, if you ask me kindly I will tell you a cheap way to tie it in and make it 100% better!

Nope, am starting to drink the Coolaid!

 

[golf4miami]

To answer the question: Yes, AKL and WL, in my opinion ARE DISNEY! Though someone yelled out: "Hey somebody go get me the WL BluePrints": when building the AKL. "OK! We basically build the same thing - make it darker - build a few buffet's and get me a few Giraffe's and Deer out back! A few hidden Micky's - we call it a day!".

Regardless, I am 100% all over your very creative thoughts: Alp's, Germany, Venice, Greece! How about the Outback? Forget Morocco and China - been there a few dozen times - bad memories!

In fact, why did All Stars have to be All Stars and not be an expansive but Quaint Austrian Villiage and then tied in to a slightly different theme at Blizzard Beach?

Why could POP not have been a Venetian Villiage with a Venetian styled Water park?

Why / who picked the Saratoga Theme? Regardless, if you ask me kindly I will tell you a cheap way to tie it in and make it 100% better!

Nope, am starting to drink the Coolaid!

This! 100X this! LandBaron has done an amazing job of laying out the alternatives and his reasoning behind why he thinks the WDW property could have been better utilized.

This is where I am at on it all, as a young Disney fanatic. To be completely honest I am happy with how the Value resorts have turned out. Sure they could be better and the execution and theme leaves a little to be desired. But considering it's where I have to stay when I visit since I'm on a budget I think I get my money's worth and I enjoy them when I stay there.

Overall though, I think there is a lot of repetition in the theme of the Value resorts which follows right along with what LandBaron said about the repetition of the Deluxe and Moderate resorts. I never really sat down and thought about the whole repetition of the style of resorts because to me each of them has their own character and so I see them all differently even though they may all come from the same area of the Eastern USA.

I've definitely had an education through this thread.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Hi golf4miami. Welcome.

You said two things that caught my eye right away.

I've definitely had an education through this thread.

Glad I could help. I love talking about Disney philosophy. If someone feels ‘educated’ along the way, so much the better!!

This is where I am at on it all, as a young Disney fanatic. To be completely honest I am happy with how the Value resorts have turned out.

OK. You’re young and yet you followed all this ancient Disney philosophical nonsense. That bodes well!!! And you are a self-admitted “fanatic”. Good!! So am I! (I hear there’s a 12 step program, you know, “Hi, My name is LandBaron and I’m a Disneyholic!” And the crowd replies – “Hi LandBaron!!)

But wait!! Hold the Phone!! Stop the Presses!! (and any other trite cliché you can think of.) That’s only half of the paragraph!! You also say…

To be completely honest I am happy with how the Value resorts have turned out.

Ah! Evidently – (read like Yoda) – Complete your education is not, my young Padawan!

The values!! Those sad – UNDISNEY – buildings scattered around the WDW property. Don’t get me started on “The Values”!!

OOOOOOPS!!!! To Late!! The sequence already started!! Sit back!! I have a tale to tell!! Here we go!!!!!

Once upon a time… In a Central Florida location near you… a man walked on some recently acquired property. He envisioned a city. A brilliant, vivacious community of tomorrow…

STOP!! That’s the syllabus for E.P.C.O.T. Start again…

Once upon a time there were only two resorts in all of WDW. (Not quite true, but we’ll leave Hotel Plaza for later in this talk. It plays an important part in the story.)

Anyway, only two resorts. And these two resorts were unlike any resort in the country. They were NOT five star resorts. They were NOT cheap motels. They were not even on a par with ‘industry standards’. It wasn’t that they were less in quality (although in some respects they were) and it wasn’t as though they were extravagant like the most ritzy hotel out there (although at times they were). What they were was unique! One of a kind. And what made them that way? In a word: THEME. In two words: DISNEY THEME!

For the first time in hospitality history a resort was themed. And it wasn’t just a random theme. NO!! It was an extension of the theme that Walt took so much time perfecting in DL. Now, for the first time ever (it would take Vegas many years to catch up) a guest visiting a theme park could take that experience back to the room with him and enjoy it 24/7 – for the entire length of his stay!! WHAT A CONCEPT!!!

And hold on to your hat, but here comes the really magical part (as if that isn’t enough), it was priced within what the industry standard considered a moderate!! Say a Marriott or Hyatt. It was certainly NOT priced the same as some downtown New York hotel!! No!! It was way the heck cheaper!! Really only five or ten bucks more than your average Howard Johnson or Holiday Inn!!

Now some say that price doesn’t matter in the creation of “magic”. But as a young married person, with a growing family, I can tell you – IT WAS MAGIC!!! And you know what else that made it? Yep! You guessed it!! A VALUE!!

So where does that leave us in this discussion. Well, all I can think is that Walt, and the “What Would Walt Do” crowd, thought that this experience (the Poly and the Contemporary) should be priced to hold the most amount of “value” as possible. Evidently Ei$ner disagreed. Within two years (it could have been three, my memory fails me at times, suffice to say a relatively short time period) the cost of the Poly DOUBLED!! Several years after that (again, hazy memory) it tripled!!! For me that didn’t diminish the magic at all! It absolutely KILLED it!

But wait!! Just in the nick of time what do you think happened? Yep! The Caribbean Beach opened and slipped right into the same price point that the Poly used to own. How convenient!! How nice of Disney not to let me stay ‘outside’ the Magic!

But wait!! While the Caribbean is nice, is it like the two originals? No. Not quite. Hmmmmm. How disappointing. But I guess by paying less than people staying in those two, I deserve, less magic. A lesser Disney experience. It’s only fair. Pay more. Get more “Magic”. Pay less. Get less “Magic”. I guess the Disney experience is more like a commodity than a true experience. I used to think that a Disney experience had only one definition. I didn’t realize that it could be portioned out depending on how much you are willing to pay.

And a few years later, what do you think happened. That’s right; prices kept going up WAY faster than inflation for both levels of accommodations. Ah! But benevolent Disney comes to the rescue!! What do they do for those poor unfortunate people that they just priced out of their rooms? They gave them the “Value” resorts!! Thanks the Disney gods that wonderful Mr. Ei$ner was looking out for them!!

But wait!! There’s even less magic here! Very much less! That Disney experience doesn’t even exist here!! OH! No!! I’m wrong. It does exist!! There are GIANT, Primary Colored Icons to remind me!! Wonderful decorations!! No theme at all, but HUGE decorations!! But what do you expect? You’re only paying a third of what people pay for at the Floridian! You’re lucky you have a place to stay at all! If it were not for the kindness of Disney© you’d be out on International Drive, looking in!!

Never mind that accounting for inflation the price point of the Values are roughly the same as The Poly was in 1972 (or ’75 – memory fails). The Poly for the price of the Values (heck even the Moderates!) is indeed a VALUE!!! Pop Century at any price (even for free!!!!) is still not a Disney experience!!

Make sense?

 

[MassJester]

I'm not convinced we aren't seeing the past through rose colored glasses.


I used to stay in the Contemporary in the o,d days, and I just don't see how that was a better example of Disney story or vision than it's more recent cousins. It was a disjointed collection of themed spaces including musical theatre, Disney characters, sterile design, and a strange partial veneer of native America. I liked it well enough, but the magical story was hard to discern.

 

[DRDISNEYMD]

I would STRONGLY encourage anyone who has read / contributed to this Thread to look for two books:

Storming the Magic Kingdom: Wall Street, the raiders, and the battle for Disney.
John Taylor. 1987. : This book looks at the Post Walt Company and focuses on the company up through the hiring of Eisner / Wells.

Disney War
James Stewart. 2006.: This book takes up where "Storming" left off. It looks at the Eisner era from the beginning to right before his final departure.

Both books are wonderful reads, and, a must for all of us Disney geeks. Neither focus on the Parks, but, all things Disney business. I would consider them "Business Books". But, with that said - we all know Disney's Business, the Players and the Industries they play in (or we would not be posting here)! Both are extremely well written, easy reads and "Page Turners".

I would read them both in the order presented. If you are only interested in Eisner, then Disney War is more geared for you. Reading the OMG moment Eisner / Iger went through on 9-11 was an amazing insight in to running a large company! We all criticize those up top - I would not have traded my job for theirs on that day!

Storming gives a great insight in to the Post-Walt company. How dreadful the decisions were and how un-creative the bunch that followed Walt/Roy actually were! You learn how close we all were to lose a business which has become a National Icon! You learn Eisner/Wells were a savior!

While written by different Authors, with different angles and writing styles, you almost believe they are two books in one series. When you read both you really can visualize the People, the Problems, the Ego's, the Success and the Failures.

I just looked, both are available on Amazon used for $.01! I would not sell my copies at any price!

~Thanks for the reading suggestions! I can't wait to read your other posts, along with everyone else's. I'll have to get caught up, later.

"So basically, you despise Eisner, but you're not on team Iger, either."

In some ways, it would be difficult for me to ever be on "Team Iger," because Iger was Eisner's hand-picked toady... Smithers to Eisner's Burns. While Iger was learning everything he knows from Eisner, Eisner was pocketing about a billion of Disney's dollars. In America, that cumulative paycheck makes Eisner a success no matter how he came about it, and it's hard for me to imagine Iger _not_ being affected by watching it happen, and affected in a way I would consider to be adversely.

And let me be clear about this as well: I don't despise Michael Eisner, I've never met the man personally. I don't even begrudge him his billion dollars. What I despise is what he did to the Disney organization; what bothers me is to compare his compensation for what he did to Walt's compensation for what he did. Eisner was in it for personal gain, so it's predictable what he turned Disney into: a money-printing machine. The old Disney was a story-telling machine, probably the best one ever devised, and the money just naturally followed because we human beings really need such a machine in our lives.

I would never have written word one about Michael Eisner if he'd worked for Wal-Mart or Monsanto... businesses that had long ago sold whatever whatever greasy goo passed for their souls in the pursuit of the almighty billions of dollars. But Disney was different... up until Eisner was wholly in charge.

"When you refuse to acknowledge Eisner for ToT and Splash (among several other things) by giving all the credit to someone else under his leadership -- it's like removing my queen, bishops, rooks, knights and just leaving me with the pawns to fight with -- while Iger keeps his entire arsenal of chessman."

My apologies if it came across that that was the "side" I was taking in an argument. I have a habit of fixating on a portion of a thread or a post and making that a jumping-off point for the latest version of what is essentially the same thing I've been typing since about the turn of the millenium. I think Disney was Special, capital "S," and yes, Magical, capital "M." Michael Eisner changed that, and made Disney merely Profitable, capital "$." I don't know that Iger could or would change that back... his history makes me skeptical, and the opinions of people I respect suggest it just ain't happenin'.

My purpose is to point out how and why Disney changed, and how and why that damaged every one of us. I am not arguing with you, I am telling you, as they say.

Walt built an amazing machine: The Disney Company itself. I used the shorthand "Wells' policies" when splitting the ToT/Splash hair, but it was really Walt's policies and systems that Wells had enough sense and brassies to protect from Eisner. Once Wells was gone, Eisner got to do what most of us believed he always wanted to do: gut Disney's creativity in the name of cost savings and run off copies of (and change laws to extend the copyrights on) what was already in the tank.

Eisner also built a formidable machine, but the machine Eisner built was meant for a different purpose than the one Walt built. I know my children and I are the poorer for that difference, and I deeply believe that you are, too.

~Wow... another fabulous post! No apology needed, I'm already a fan! This really isn't an "argument" is it? This is more like a reflection on the evolution of Disney. And, I'm beginning to wonder, if there is anything that could have been done differently?

~Thanks for providing further insight into the Eisner/Iger relationship. Honestly, they both seem like they're cut from the same cloth. Iger may be a little more personable and perhaps better for Disney as a whole, but allowing the theme parks to go neglected for so long, is just wrong. Eisner seemed to have a strong vision for Walt Disney World and that's what I appreciate most.

~I totally agree with you, that Eisner should not compare himself to Walt. And, I couldn't agree more that the old Disney was a "story telling maching" (love that!) but from my understanding, "the money did *not* follow." So, in a desperate act, Eisner was brought in to make Disney profitable again, in hopes of avoiding a hostile takeover.

~Eisner did exactly what was expected of him, along with redefining the Disney brand & theme park experience. Is it really fair to say Eisner was in this solely for "personal gain" -- I'm not sure I follow. Eisner was just doing his job, his contributions are a huge part of why Disney is "too big to fail." What more could he have done? Or, should he should have done less?

~I'm have mixed feelings. How could you overlook the fact that Disney was in serious jeopardy of being seized and sold off for parts by corporate vultures? My feeling is that Eisner did what was necessary to save Disney, maybe he became complacent after success, but I believe his intentions were noble. I think we agree for the most part, but the efforts to transform Disney into a profitable machine was indeed -- a necessary evil, to survive and weather the hostile corporate climate.

~I do agree that we are all poorer for it, but I can't blame this entirely on Eisner. I'm beginning to form the opinion, that Disney was forced to adapt to our ugly, greedy corporate culture or die. They brought in a guy that not only adapted Disney to that harsh reality but conquered it. The down side is -- I think Disney has out priced most working families -- a single day at MK will cost a family of four almost $400 dollars. But, do you really think Walt would disapprove of how profitable his company is today? Mixed blessing, I suppose. But, I would rather have big corporate Disney, than no Disney at all.

 

[golf4miami]

Make sense?

Thank you for the welcome.

First let me agree with MassJester on the rose colored glasses sentiment and also add that, to me at least, Disney 'magic' is somewhat what you make of it. I have found that I can have just as much 'magic' at a value resort as I could at a moderate or deluxe resort. I think this issue is beside the point though so I will return to the current discussion.

For me the problem of comparing the prices of the resorts from early WDW to current WDW is kind of hard to do. Of course the prices were going to be fairly low in the beginning years! They needed to build attendance and customer loyalty for the 'great experiment' that Walt himself wasn't even sure if it was going to work. Furthermore demand over the years has shot through the roof right along with those prices. It's easy to look at the prices and compare them to inflation and consider what they used to be and say 'well it's just too high!' and you know what? In some cases it is. But when you look at a supply and demand model and realize that the demand is there, then I can kind of see why it makes sense. There is a reason why these deluxe resorts, especially the ones on the monorail are in such high demand.

Returning to my 'make your own magic' point from above I think it really has to do with deciding what you're willing to pay and then making your vacation the best it can be no matter what property you're staying at. Some people choose to stay in a value simply because theme isn't all that important to them and they are willing to pay a little extra per night for the little perks of transportation, and EMH. I know you're going to say that they shouldn't have to sacrifice theme in order to get that and I somewhat agree with you. I just don't think the economy of it would work out correctly. In order to build theme, that costs $$$$$$ which has to be made back somehow.

I'm hoping you can see where I'm coming from and I'm sure you'll point out where I'm wrong I am enjoying this back and forth and look forward to your next installment

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

MassJester wrote:

I'm not convinced we aren't seeing the past through rose colored glasses.

That’s pretty funny. I used to use that line all the time accusing others (Ei$ner defenders mainly) of visiting WDW with “rose-colored-glasses” and not being able to see through all the pixie dust!

I used to stay in the Contemporary in the o,d days, and I just don't see how that was a better example of Disney story or vision than it's more recent cousins.

Well. You don’t say what the “old days” were. Exactly how old is old when talking about the past. Because it’s kind of important. Your tag says:

A lot of visits to different reorts since 1983

I assume you meant to say “resorts”. And if that date is true you started going just as Ei$ner started de-magic-ing things.

Now I will say that the Contemporary isn’t everyone’s cup of tea. (It isn’t mine, but I can see the story and concept behind it.) It also hasn’t held up terrible well. That is inherent in the basic concept, I’m afraid. The supposed future or even contemporary-ness is very elusive and can be dated rather quickly. In fact, I’d say that when it first opened, The Contemporary was – WAY COOL!!!! Nothing else like it!! Sleek lines, concrete, steel and glass!! AND A MONORAIL, FOR PETE’S SAKE!!! WOW!!

Several years later it was already getting stale and 12 years later… When you started… Well, I can see what you’re saying. It badly needed an update, which NEVER came!! I’m still waiting!!

The Poly on the other hand or Fort Wilderness is the more perfect example of how rose colored glasses have nothing to do with how we remember our Disney past. I think you’ll agree with that.

But even as stale as the Contemporary became, there is no doubt that it’s theme was an extension of the theme park. In fact, it is really the only resort you can see from the Magic Kingdom. And from where? You got it!! Tomorrowland!! There was a time where all the resorts were to be tied to a theme park and not only the park, but to a specific land!! NOW THAT’S DETAIL!!

Instead we have Ei$ner’s version of theme. A fair copy of a California hotel (named after Florida?!?!?) and east coast memories of his childhood. No ties at all to any theme park under the sun! Yea! Ei$ner magic!! No rose colored glasses needed here!

 

[meowmarie]

Thanks for the very thoughtful and respectful reply. That's interesting you guys were just talking about this. As far as a Pixar formula, I think a lot of Pixar stories can be modeled around the central (or major) character(s) being a talking (or in some way being animated/alive with human comprehension/expressions) animal(s)/machine(s)/toy(s)/monster(s)/virtual characters(s) that gets taken out of its comfortable, normal environment by choice or force and has to grow through the challenges and adversity of being this "fish-out-of-water cause I don't exactly fit in or I accidentally got lost along the way." IMHO, I think this applies to Toy Story, Bug's Life, Toy Story 2, Monster's Inc., Finding Nemo, Cars, Ratatouille, WALL-E, Up (main character was at least human but then they were able to squeeze those talking dogs in there), and Toy Story 3. Incredibles was a Brad Bird invention.

Here's a good way to sum it up, when I saw Toy Story 18 years ago I was like 'wow, toys that are alive and how funny, small things to us are big to them and uh-oh they are out of their environment, have to get Buzz and get home. Wow, along the way his priorities and goals changed.' And then I saw Wreck it Ralph last year and I was like 'wow, video games that are alive and how funny, small things to us are big to them and uh-oh they are out of their environment, have to get the medal and get home. Wow, along the way his priorities and goals changed.'
.........
Thanks again for the good discussion. And I just want to say that DISBOARD is the best place to go and talk to others respectfully about their views on Disney!

Yeah I see what you mean about the personified things/creatures being the main characters. I think they were just experimenting with CG and different kinds of materials. Until recently it had been fairly difficult to really do a good human in full CG, and that wasn't really their thing. You can see that in their short films in particular going back to the late 80's. They played around with lamps, toys, snow globes, birds, etc. I remember being amazed by the luminosity of the ants in Bug's Life, and the fur on Sully in Monster's Inc. They take their time and they do it right. I feel bad that Brave was such a departure for them and it wasn't as well received. For the record, Ralph isn't Pixar. You'd think Brave and Ralph would be from opposite studios right? On the other note, I think the basic formula for almost any good story is a main character or set of characters, a central problem that needs to be solved, and the character(s) growing and learning something in the end. I dunno, I still love my Pixar. They have helped change and shape the direction of all animated movies and I'm glad Disney got 'em back. And I agree about DIS, I love this place 99% of the time! Take care

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

"How could you overlook the fact that Disney was in serious jeopardy of being seized and sold off for parts by corporate vultures? My feeling is that Eisner did what was necessary to save Disney, maybe he became complacent after success, but I believe his intentions were noble. I think we agree for the most part, but the efforts to transform Disney into a profitable machine was indeed -- a necessary evil, to survive and weather the hostile corporate climate."

I shall now fail to address anything you said specifically. I hope it comes together, anyway.

I simply disagree with the notion the Eisner "saved Disney." He saved the name, sure, but I believe the product was diluted and corrupted. He destroyed the story-telling machine and built the trans-continental ATM, and just used the same name for it.

Are you old enough to remember the Commodore/Atari holy wars in the early eighties? The Commodore 64 was the most successful computer of its day, but there were a number of people (yes, of course I was one of them, why wouldn't I be?) who thought the Atari computers were better designed and built, easier to program for, more capable. There was a point where Atari collapsed financially, and a man named Jack Tramiel bought the company. Some would say Tramiel "saved" Atari, because he kept them in the black for a few-to-several more years, but the ST line of computers he introduced were not designed and built with the same care and sophistication as the earlier machines, they were designed and built to be sold cheaply. The man who developed much of the custom internals of the Atari 800 went on to design another computer, a computer that was much more of a real "big brother" to the early Ataris than the STs ever were.

Now, there's so much irony in this story you'll think I made it all up, because Jack Tramiel had previously been the founder of Commodore, and the computer Jay Miner developed after his Atari days was the Commodore Amiga. Both Atari and Commodore survived (at least for a while), but in a very real way, to people who cared more about the product itself than the name stamped on the side, Atari had turned into Commodore and Commodore had turned into Atari.

In the same way, I suggest that Eisner did not save the Disney that made those wonderful things that brought them early success, indeed, he destroyed that Disney so he could put the name on other products, products designed to be created cheaply, marketed heavily, and sold profitably.

Would Disney have been broken up and sold piecemeal, if not for Eisner? I don't know. Maybe. But what if someone like Pixar had been the ones to get hold of the animation division? What if someone like Oriental Land Company ended up with the parks?

(What if Frank Wells had lived, is a fascinating, if unanswerable question, viewed in the light of this discussion. Would the marriage of creativity and commerce have worked on a wider scale as it had in ToT? Would I be agreeing that the Disney Decade was a time filled with Magic?)

History is written by the winners, and the imagined terrors are always worse than those of reality. The way things played out, Eisner and his supporters get to say "he saved Disney," and I fully realize how Quixotic I look trying to tell a different story. But the Disney Eisner "saved" is not the Disney I grew up with, and I'm not as willing as some to say that this Disney, simply by still existing as a single business entity, is clearly better than that which "could have been."

I would be a bad American if I said Eisner was wrong for creating a profit center, so I hope that's not what this appears to boil down to. But I still think the creation he destroyed in the process was much rarer and more valuable to, literally, the culture of the entire world, than even his bloated bottom line was to a relative handful of executives and shareholders.

 

[meowmarie]

So where does that leave us in this discussion. Well, all I can think is that Walt, and the What Would Walt Do crowd, thought that this experience (the Poly and the Contemporary) should be priced to hold the most amount of value as possible. Evidently Ei$ner disagreed. Within two years (it could have been three, my memory fails me at times, suffice to say a relatively short time period) the cost of the Poly DOUBLED!! Several years after that (again, hazy memory) it tripled!!! For me that didnt diminish the magic at all! It absolutely KILLED it!

But wait!! Just in the nick of time what do you think happened? Yep! The Caribbean Beach opened and slipped right into the same price point that the Poly used to own. How convenient!! How nice of Disney not to let me stay outside the Magic!

But wait!! While the Caribbean is nice, is it like the two originals? No. Not quite. Hmmmmm. How disappointing. But I guess by paying less than people staying in those two, I deserve, less magic. A lesser Disney experience. Its only fair. Pay more. Get more Magic. Pay less. Get less Magic. I guess the Disney experience is more like a commodity than a true experience. I used to think that a Disney experience had only one definition. I didnt realize that it could be portioned out depending on how much you are willing to pay.

And a few years later, what do you think happened. Thats right; prices kept going up WAY faster than inflation for both levels of accommodations. Ah! But benevolent Disney comes to the rescue!! What do they do for those poor unfortunate people that they just priced out of their rooms? They gave them the Value resorts!! Thanks the Disney gods that wonderful Mr. Ei$ner was looking out for them!!

Oh gosh joining in, this is gonna get rambly my apologies in advance. This is all 100% true, but it's also just simple economics. Why did they charge double and then triple? Because they could. Because people pay it. Because no matter how many threads we post on the topic, they don't care because they are selling the rooms. Are CEO's of companies sometimes greedy *******s? Yep. They had a plan and they implemented it. They needed rooms, hotel dollars were going off property, just like happened in Disneyland, and Walt would not have wanted that either. That's why he bought all that land in the first place. Yes they should have built more resorts much, much sooner. The annual number of visitors was about 3 million in the early 70's. By the early 90's it was up to 35 million, and I think it's hovering near 50 million now. But there can't be 20 high end pure Disney themed hotels within a boat/monorail ride of the park. They knew there would only be a handful of hotels that could be that close to the park and they knew they would fetch the most money, and they were right.

I don't know how much the Poly was in the 70's and 80's, but I know when I was a kid we went every other year starting in 1979 and always stayed off property, at a Hyatt and a Ho Jo's I believe? Hard to remember. I remember my parents lamenting because they really wanted to stay at the Contemporary or Poly and couldn't afford it. I remember them complaining about how expensive the Disney hotels were compared to the off property ones even back then. We were there target audience, family of 4 middle class with baby boomer parents. My mom loved Disney and got my dad to love it too. Her family went to Disneyland the first year it was open. I know we would have stayed there if it had been a value, we even had to pay to rent a car since we weren't on property. We did end up pulling our RV there in 1989 and camped at FW. My mom was so excited that we actually got to stay on property.

But at any rate, setting up the tiered class hotel system made good business sense, and raising the prices gave them the cash flow to expand. And people paid it, pure supply and demand. If there were 20 "Poly's" circling the park that you could book for $150 a night, the reservations would fill up so fast you probably couldn't get in unless you booked a year or 2 in advance. And I honestly think if it had been financially feasible for them to build more resorts like that they would have, but this plan was set in motion "pre-little mermaid." The movies and the parks were still "finding themselves" if you will, they went conservative. They were at risk. And when you set up a price tiered system there has to be differences. Distance from the park, amenities, service, etc. Most big hotel chains have tiered brands as well, they were smart to follow. We could go round and round debating decor and themes, can we at least agree that they are all unique? At least they tried to make family friendly resorts that were different from the norm, whether they are your taste or not. And they are different from each other in theming too. They could have knocked out 20 all-star type resorts and called it good, it would have been cheaper and quicker. But they tried, they could have done better, but they are also appealing to a mass audience of all different cultures and I'm sure they made compromises.

If people were mad or upset by the moves they should have showed it with their pocket books and stayed off site. But if they keep making money hand over fist there is no reason for them to change. "Disney I really hate what you are doing here, here take my money again!" From a business stand point they did a lot of the right things. What would Walt have done? Who knows. The man behind the magic is gone, he was the magic. It's like Apple without Jobs. Maybe Walt would have been ok with everything not being perfect if it meant more people could stay on property. Maybe he would have had to compromise his dreams when faced with the realities his successors were faced with. Or maybe we would have packed it up and said screw it if he couldn't get it just the way he wanted, he had done that before. Everything evolves over time. Everything changes. Things still would have changed and we'd be left complaining about a different set of misteps, or reminiscing about the company that is no more.

Would I rather stay at Poly than Pop? You bet. Do I like Pop? I do! It's fun, I love the big icons. We feel like we are a toy or something. It's not a destination theme like Poly or most of the moderates, but pop culture icons from different decades is definitely a theme. Nostalgia is a theme. It's fun explain the building themes to my daughter, we went with my parents last time and got to explain how this movie came out when Nana was a kid, stuff like that. And hey it's a lot more "Disney" than the Holiday Inn. But I can understand it's not everyone's thing, and I have little to compare it to. We can debate these things till we're blue in the face and it won't. change. anything. So I try to focus on the positive. I can take my child to Disney on a semi-regular basis and stay on property, there are 4 parks now, a lot more rides, a lot more current attractions based on movies my child loves, there is still magic, it's still fresh every time I go, and I would still rather be at Disney than anywhere else.

 

[pilferk]

Well, sure in isolation it's perfectly reasonable to call them noteworthy or worthy of praise, but how do they compare when you remove them from isolation? And how do they compare when you think about what we should accept from Disney?

I mean, Disney has not met the standard set by Haunted and Pirates in at least 28(ish) years. (Assuming we consider Horizons to have met that standard. I do.)
Maybe we put Indy in there, but if you do, that's still around 17 years ago and not in Florida.

Sorry...been sick so away from the keyboard for a bit.

But there is a difference between "in isolation" and "in context".

I don't think that just because something isn't "the best" means it isn't good. Again, I go back to the meal analogy.

I'm perfectly OK with saying something is good even if it doesn't match or exceed the pinnacle of it's given category. And, while it might be worth mentioning that it's not the best...it's not worth basing my entire "review" or feeling on that one particular point. I don't get stuck on it.

28 years and they couldn't once reach the peak they previously set. Sure we can muddle around down in the weeds and talk about how nice Soarin is(Only at DCA, at Epcot its crap, because no new movie), but why frackin bother? I mean heck, even Pirates itself has been undermined.

No, and, again, that's a valid point.

But allowing that to "poison" every experience they HAVE created since then, IMHO, isn't.

As for Spiderman, I've never ridden it, so I can't say from experience, but I don't think an attraction about a popular comicbook character can meet the standard set by pirates and Haunted. The use of a "property" as the back story undermines it.
I think the "Story" and we can get into what that means needs to be original.

You should ride it. It's lost a bit of it's wow factor as it's aged...not through any fault of it's own but because the beat of technology has moved on...but it really is Spectacular (no pun, for the spiderman fans, intended).

It won't measure up, for you, in terms of originality...but then, much of Disney is based on their own IP's after the fact, too. And I'm perfectly OK with that (and, actually, would expect it all things considered).

 

[pilferk]

I didn’t want this thread to turn into an Ei$ner bashing moment, although I have to say – It’s a lot of FUN!!!

What I wanted was a critical look at how they utilized the massive land holdings they had in Central Florida. Were the resorts/hotels/motels/cheap rip off motels, the best they could do? Was MGM/Studios/Whatever it is now, really a great theme for a third gate or would it have been the ultimate Disney experience within a massive E.P.C.O.T. pavilion (the original plan)? Was AK really needed or could they have done better with a different concept altogether, instead of “keeping up with the Joneses” (i.e. Tampa)? Those are the questions that need answering. The overall plan. The BIG PICTURE!! Not weather Soarin’ has a new film or not!

To that question:

I'm torn on the MGM/Studios/DHS gate. I think, had Disney come to the idea, itself, and not been looking to squash Uni's thunder, and had it been implemented well and not rushed...it could have been spectacular. But...as we all know..that's not what happened (and it's tough not to bash Eisner when we're talking about this...people lauding the Disney Decade should remember that DHS was/is not exactly a home run).

All that being said: I think what we have right now would take relatively little (with the "relative" part firmly keeping the DCA fix in mind) to "fix" DHS. Especially if we keep in mind that studios deal in NOT just movies (but film production of all kinds). I think they COULD very easily remake the park. So, keeping that in mind, I'm generally OK with the direction they went.

AK is hard for me to objectively gauge. It, like DHS, is/was largely unfinished. And I do really like what Disney did there...but I don't think it appeals much to the masses. I've said this before but I don't think the masses really appreciate AK for what it is (but what Disney tries hard NOT to portray it as: an animal habitat/zoo). And, unfortunately, I have a sneaking suspicion Disney is not so slowly changing the park to match it's message (Nah ta zu) and the masses preferences.

AK is at it's best when you're willing to actually explore it, and spend some time wandering...and not going commando style from attraction to attraction. But Disney has so conditioned it's patrons to "experience" their parks in a specific way....most of AK's patrons see a half day park (for good reason) that's short on stuff to do.

But ask those same folks about the trails along the tree of life, or the more "hidden" animal exhibits (outside them sprinting through the trails to see tigers and gorillas), and you'll get blank stares.

And Disney has never been able to effectively figure out how to get around those two things.

Personally, I like it. I liked Cyprus Gardens, too...where the attraction was the wandering. Where you were essentially creating your own "adventure". To me, that's VERY much akin to Walt's sentiment in relation to his own live action nature series (with, probably, just as much scene staging).

But, to the same point, I understand the objections and complaints that surround the park, too. Disney has tried to have it both ways, and has obliterated both of them. It either has to be attraction heavy (and likely much more exploration light) or they have to completely recondition their guests and hope that it appeals (something I question, given what we've seen of our cultural attention span). I suspect they've made that decision and there will be a time in the very near future where it becomes obvious where they're going (and it ain't reconditioning their guest).

If pushed, I think I'd say Disney DIDN'T effectively use the land. That, while I really like what they did, they effectively created a niche experience that only a limited number of their guests are going to want or will take the time to understand. And that's NOT the guests fault, really. It's just that, by their very nature, they act in a very homogenized, predictable way....which is completely counter to the way AK was built. They've certainly tried, in recent years (with more coming, I think) to end around that fact....but with AK, I'm not sure you can "fix" it without just completely changing what it was originally built to be. In other words: It's almost a DCA sized fix. Maybe not in terms of complete theme rethink (which means you're not having to rebuild entrances and "streets"), but certainly in terms of complete park rethink.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

pilferk!! Well met!! And...

DITTO!!

You have summed it up nicely! And you use a lot of words!! I like that too!

I guess it boils down to this. In 1955 (and for me personally 1968) they WOWed the heck out of me. In 1971 (and July of 1972 for me) they WOWed me again! And in 1981 (Summer of '82 for me) they WOWed me yet again!!!

And they haven't WOWed me since. Oh sure! Some things are very nice. Some are even wonderful. But have they exceeded my expectations like they did in '68, '72 and '82? NO!! THEY HAVE NOT!

pilferk, your take on the parks is wonderful (if a little overly optimistic!! I don't think they're going to fix it! Or at least fix it to WOW-ability levels.) But what about the resorts/hotels/motels/cheap horrid giant icons, etc. etc. etc.? Any thoughts on that?

 

[pilferk]

pilferk!! Well met!! And...

DITTO!!

You have summed it up nicely! And you use a lot of words!! I like that too!

I guess it boils down to this. In 1955 (and for me personally 1968) they WOWed the heck out of me. In 1971 (and July of 1972 for me) they WOWed me again! And in 1981 (Summer of '82 for me) they WOWed me yet again!!!

And they haven't WOWed me since. Oh sure! Some things are very nice. Some are even wonderful. But have they exceeded my expectations like they did in '68, '72 and '82? NO!! THEY HAVE NOT!

pilferk, your take on the parks is wonderful (if a little overly optimistic!! I don't think they're going to fix it! Or at least fix it to WOW-ability levels.) But what about the resorts/hotels/motels/cheap horrid giant icons, etc. etc. etc.? Any thoughts on that?

I think your view of my optimism is about to radically change.

I should be clearer on "fix it". By "fix it", I mean 2 different things for the different parks.

For DHS, I mean they'll likely make it "bigger", with more attractions....and with the Star Wars purchase, I think that means a larger incorporation of that IP...and probably a larger infusion of Pixar (though I'm not 100% convinced we're going to get a paver for paver recreation of Carsland...we'll see). It will likely be addition by some subtraction (Backlot tour, the Sounds Dangerous area, car stunt show and, likely, the Indy stunt show). I do agree: Not to "WOW" levels of the original MK or EPCOT levels. But certainly closer to complete and compelling than what we have now....which is a disjointed, somewhat "broken" concept park.

For AK, their "fix" is very different. I think they'll jettison the stuff that I really find compelling and make it a much more "theme-parkish" entity. I think we've seen some of that over the past couple years, but I think Avatarland (and some other potential expansions) cements that. It'll create something the Disney suits are far more comfortable selling to the masses...and completely eradicate the bit of "WWWD" that I feel in that park (specifically related to the Nature series). I don't think that "fix" makes it better. It might make it more profitable, because it will fit more in line with what the average guest has been conditioned to expect. I'd be shocked if they managed a level of "Wow".

Neither of those "fixes" are likely to actually fix them in terms of making the parks more what you or I would think of as Disney quality or "Wow" factor. Thus, the reason for the quotes around the words. I mean "fix", in terms of better meeting the guests perceived needs/expectations, not necessarily what the guests SHOULD expect (were this Disney circa 1960-ish). But that's probably another tangent discussion: How Disney has actually changed guest expectation levels (lowered them, actually) over the years.

And, to be clear, I don't think those "fixes" happen overnight. Just that I think they're coming, eventually. DHS probably sooner rather than later.

I will also say that FLE gives me some slight hope that the worm might be turning in Florida. But it's very, very slight.

With the resorts, I largely agree with your take posted in other places, above. I think there have been some home runs...like AKL (I can look past it's WL similarities because there is NOTHING like it, anywhere, outside of Africa, in terms of overall experience/theme) and The Boardwalk Inn (as it was opened..the complex needs a bit of a refresh) but far more strike outs like Saratoga Springs, Art of Animation, Yacht and Beach (other than it's waterpark), etc. I'm NOT impressed with BLT, either....but I'll give that one an intentional walk for now.

To continue the baseball analogy, I think we've got a .200 hitter with potential for power to right field, right now. I'd prefer a .330 hitter, hitting 50 HR's a year. I'm just not sure the company is built to be that guy, right now (or, potentially, anymore).

Keep in mind, in the above, I'm strictly talking about theme...NOT value or service. What Disney gets away with, in terms of service levels vs pricing/value at ALL their WDW hotels (but especially deluxe) is quite nuts. Even their flagship (the Grand) hardly offers what I would consider deluxe level service. And what's "interesting" is that Disney apparently realizes this, and realizes it's a turn off to the high end, big spender clientele...because they basically gave away a tract of primer real estate to 4 seasons in hopes that Disney could lure SOME of those clients closer to property.

As an aside: I think the single most interesting "resort" concept in recent memory (though it wasn't unique), actually, was the Disney Institute. I think the Treehouse Villas and the whole art colony/communal living thing COULD have been done really well...had it been managed and done correctly. I think you could have run that very similar to the way they run Food and Wine/Flower and Garden (with seasonal changes to the programs) and Disney could have not only have a truly unique offering, but they'd have made a mint. As it was, the programs were pretty lousy and overpriced....and the whole unit was pretty badly mismanaged.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

meowmarie:

Oh gosh joining in, this is gonna get rambly my apologies in advance.

No need to apologize for rambling! People tell me I have a habit of rambling too!

Why did they charge double and then triple? Because they could. Because people pay it.

Which is the heart of the matter. Back in the day Disney was expensive. It was always expensive. But they always seemed to give you much more than you’d expect for the dollars you spent. I’d always tell people who were going to Disney for the first time, “Disney ain’t cheap by any means. BUT!! It is worth every penny you spend!!” Today I tell them, “Disney ain’t cheap by any means. PERIOD!”

Because no matter how many threads we post on the topic, they don't care because they are selling the rooms.

I’m not trying to change anyone at Disney. They simply don’t care and most (if not all) just don’t “GET IT”. What I AM trying to do is give people a different business philosophy. Everyone knows that when you maximize profits, you make more money. And if you are making/selling widgets that’s wonderful!! Make that cash as quickly as you can!! Have at it!! Reduce costs wherever possible and charge people just to the breaking point!! Nice business plan.

But Disney isn’t selling widgets. They are selling an “experience”. And that takes a different business strategy that Walt understood inherently, but the current regime does not! It is totally alien to their way of thinking. It doesn’t fit in the business model that they learned in their Ivy League schools. And they simply can’t wrap their heads around it. BUT!! It is just as profitable, if not more, as the ‘widget’ philosophy. It was an extremely profitable business model for 30 some years!! Until Ei$ner & crew changed it.

Your post tends to agree with that business philosophy. But I want you to try to understand is Walt’s philosophy. The philosophy that grew the company (and especially the theme parks) into an American institution!! A philosophy that WOWed the crowd at every turn! A philosophy that INSISTED that they not meet expectations but exceed them every time!!

And part (not all by any means) but part of that philosophy is price point. It is something that the “sharp pencil guys” will never understand. I will admit it is unique. VERY UNIQUE!! It is so unique that I cannot think of another company (save Pixar or maybe Apple) that uses this philosophy. And to be honest, most companies shouldn’t! They are selling commodities, widgets of every shape and size. Disney is not. They are selling an experience. And that calls for a different outlook.

OK. Next – two things tied together:

But there can't be 20 high-end pure Disney themed hotels within a boat/monorail ride of the park.

And…

But at any rate, setting up the tiered class hotel system made good business sense, and raising the prices gave them the cash flow to expand.

First you have to decide what you’re selling. Are you selling a hotel room? Or are you selling a Disney experience?

If it is a hotel room then we are so far apart on this issue that I really don’t know if we could ever reach common ground. BUT!! If it is a Disney experience we’re selling then we have to buy into Walt’s business philosophy. And simply put that philosophy says that it is unique. It is different. It is something that you CANNOT get anywhere else in the world!

The next question you have to answer is can this ‘experience’ be weighed. By that I mean can it be less if you charge less and more if you pay more? Or is a “Disney Experience” simply that. One definition. One standard. And to make it less, even though you charge less, diminishes the experience and it becomes something other than “Disney”?

Here’s an example. Way back in 1972 theme parks charged ‘by the ride’. It was the standard model. You paid a pittance to get into the park and then every ride was a la carte. So you have Pirates charging .90 cents for a ride. Well, could you conceive of a lesser version, way in the back of the park, without AA figures, maybe cardboard cutouts instead, and maybe two less rooms? But it would be OK because you’d only charge .40 cents for that version of Disney Magic. Crazy, isn’t it?

By using Walt’s “Disney” philosophy the current resorts fall into that same craziness! You simply CANNOT have a tiered system of resorts!! The lower end will cease to be “Disney”. And there’s a good chance that the upper end also ceases to be “Disney”! Remember, the resorts were to be an extension of the theme park. A unique experience. THAT is the Disney Experience! Anything less than that is NOT Disney! It is simply a decorated hotel room.

One last thing.

And I honestly think if it had been financially feasible for them to build more resorts like that they would have, but this plan was set in motion "pre-little mermaid." The movies and the parks were still "finding themselves" if you will, they went conservative.

I need a little further explanation regarding this. I don’t know what you mean. WDW was more than a decade old when Ei$ner came in and a couple more years older when he started fiddling with a tiered system of resorts. And their theme park experience (knowing what worked and what price to set) was begun in 1955!! That’s 30 years of home runs before Ei$ner got his hands on it!! So if you could explain this bit, I’d appreciate it.

Thanks.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

pilferk!! MY NEW BEST FRIEND!!!

 

[disneyworld1977]

I haven't been able to read every post on here, just the few recent ones.

MEOWMARIE, PILFERK, and DVC-Landbaron.

I have enjoy you three and your points. I agree with some of theme, how WDW was, is, and could be. How maybe what we call "mistakes" have happened, whether at the parks or resorts. There are some things throughout the years that I didn't necessarily like what they have done. And maybe I am just dum here, and being too picky. Like the resorts, I never have understood the SWAN and DOLPHIN. What's the deal with Bonnet Creek? Again, I probably need to do more research on how those came about it, then I may understand. Is that really what I would call a "Disney" resort? I want to be immersed in "theme" and away from reality when I get to WDW. I still don't understand a McD's on property. Or is that just me?

With that, I still enjoy myself at WDW, I am still overall satisfied with my adventure there. People complain about the prices sometimes, whether the deluxe resorts or the tickets. Well, people keep coming, and until that slows down considerable, they are going to keep with it. (Like MEOWMARIE said I think)

When I go, sometimes I try not to wrap myself up in "Why did they do that?" or "Why hasn't this been changed?" I try to appreciate what they have done, knowing usually that someone was behind that attraction and did their best to provide an "experience".

Well, that's all I have time for right now.....

and that's one Disney fan's 2 cents.

 

[pilferk]

pilferk!! MY NEW BEST FRIEND!!!

Just keep in mind there is something of a bipolar nature to my ramblings at times.

Because I am a firm believer in Magic, and the way Disney "should" be (as in, the way I would like it to be run, and not just in a WWWD kinda way)

AND

I'm something of a sharp pencil/data guy in real life.

So when we have these types of discussions, you and I are largely going to agree.

And then we're going to get on the "but there's reasons why, in this corporate culture, that a publicly held entity won't do things that way anymore and that's a reflection of the corporitization and homoginization of our entire socio-economic paradigm" where we're probably going to part company. And while I agree that there ARE other ways to do business that could, possibly, be just as effective as the "sharp pencil" method (look at Apple), I also know what an incredibly tough buy in that is when you're catering to a large pool of institutional investors (which, lets face it, is who Disney is trying to please).

Basically, the best thing that could happen to Disney (in terms of maintaining the Magic) is for some private investor to buy them and run it with the care and stewardship it deserves. And...entirely because of Disney's massive size, success, and branding value...that will never, ever, ever happen.

I guess Apple could buy them...which isn't a private investor, but maybe the next best thing. But they'd be the only realistic (though very unlikely) alternative.