Originally posted by bretsyboo You have both critisized old management quite a bit here, so a little questionairre...
What do you think of Michael Eisner? CLEARLY FLAWED, BUT DID A LOT OF GOOD FOR THE COMPANY. HIS WORST MISTAKES ARE OUTSIDE WDW.
What did you think of the 45% no vote? DESERVED
What did you think when he didn't step down (or rather only lost one position)? THAT HIS EGO WON'T ALLOW HIM TO GIVE UP THE POST, PARTICULARLY NOT BE FORCED OUT ON ROY'S TERMS
What do you think of Walt Disney? A GREAT, GREAT MAN
What do you think of Walt Disney in comparision to Michael Eisner? NO COMPARISON
What do you think of the Walt Disney World Resort before Michael Eisner? GREAT
What do you think of the Walt Disney World Resort the day it opened? GREAT
And, let's play the what if game here. It's apparent Eisner is gone in 2006, let's say somehow we get a major medical achievement, and all of those WED Imagineers from so many years ago are givin age medecine and Roy is back from the dead, and all of those people that initially built the WDW Resort come back in power, on a scale of 1-10 how successful would the Walt Disney Company be if they were to come back and implement philosophies from the yesteryears? If Roy's old team regained youth and took power would that mean the rise of Disney? The fall? What? And please explain your rating. I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT THE OLD TEAM WOULD DO IMMENSELY BETTER--THEIR PLANS WERE FAR FROM PERFECT, AND REALITY BRINGS CHALLENGES
I've been asked for the evidence of a lot of things, but this one baffles me. Tell you what DB, look at a map or read something about it. It's documented over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. There are probably 25 books discussing the building of WDW and EPCOT Center and showing just what strategies they used and how they tied the property together. To go into something so easy to look up here would be crazy. Enough books have been written on it that there is no way I'm going to requote a book here. Everything that has been said previously is true, and if that's not evidence, well, what can I tell you. We've found the body, the gun, and a confession on tape, and when the jury asks for the evidence after that, well...not sure what else Is supposed to be shown.
How about you save the condescension and actually address the points I've made. Believe me, I've looked at the maps and read plenty about the development of WDW, and I've been there over the years.
You are nuts. We aren't talking about the ignored Epcot of 1995, w are talking about E.P.C.O.T. Center which opened up and remained incredibly successfully until it became apparent that the experimental prototype community of tomorrow would be left to rot.
I've talked about the inherent design problems of the original E.P.C.O.T., and you've done nothing to counter them. These are not just my criticisms, they are out there in the literature from architects and engineers. They are also reflected in the proposals to soften the Future World landscape which have been discussed here on the DIS and elsewhere.
No doubt there was a period of malaise at Epcot which was the fault of the current regime. But, again, I was pointing out that the "golden age" of Disney design pre-1984 is a myth.
...And your fireworks problem is nonsensical. no matter where you end your night you are going to have to walk to the front of the park.
But, the prime location for watching fireworks at MK is on Main Street, close to the exits, while the prime locations for Illuminations are all around the lagoon, including near the American Adventure. You might choose to watch the MK fireworks from Toontown, but it wouldn't be because that is one of the primary views.
...And if that is such a problem then DARN the current regime for not attempting to fix it in 20 years!
When you're stuck with that much hardscape it's a bit hard to just "fix it", but, again, I think the Boardwalk resorts area and the International Gateway are nicely realized and address some of these issues.
First of all, let's teach you a little bit about wenies. Spaceship EArth is indeed a weinie it is a giant symbol of Epcot and it's ride is imperative to understanding what EPCOT is, understanding the past and using it to make our future...
Again, save the condescension. Walt used "weenie" to describe the Magic Kingdom as follows:
"We've got to study the land.. . . . .We've got to put
Disneyland, which everybody will know, at the very upper end of the property because that will be the weenie."
and to describe Sleeping Beauty's Castle as follows:
"What you need is a weenie, which says to people 'come this way.' People won't go down a long corridor unless there's something promising at the end. You have to have something the beckons them to 'walk this way.'"
Just how does Spaceship Earth serve this purpose? It just clogs up the entryway, and keeps folks from dispersing throughout the park.
American Adventure may be a "weenie", but you have to walk past practically everything else in the park to get to it---not in keeping with Disneyland and MK at all.
...Epcot doesn't have a narrow entry way with a line of shops that could potentially clog things up at the beginning of the park, hence, no need for a wenie to get people past anything.. But you know, that's just common sense.
The castle isn't at the head of Main Street to draw folks past the shops--it gets folks to the hub where they can then disperse throughout the entire park. But that's just common sense.
At Epcot, the huge icon attraction sits right at the entryway, slowing down the first-entering crowds rather than dispersing them. Then the design of Future World vs. World Showcase means folks were tied up in Future World and World Showcase was lightly attended in the mornings. Those things weren't Eisner's doing.
OK, OK, OK we've got something here, we've got the admission that at the very least the original WDW resort was well planned, etc.
Nope, only that the immediate Seven Seas Lagoon area--the CR, Poly and MK, was coordinated.
But againwe have to teach you a few historical things.
1. We aren't talking about Epcot, we are talking about E.P.C.O.T. Center everything was to be built around Epcot. There weren't Magic Kingdom resoprts, and MGM resorts, and such, there were just resorts and plans for resorts.
Educate yourself...
http://waltdatedworld.bravepages.com/id210.htm
Here we see plans for further resorts, here we see plans for the future monorail lines, here we see plans for a community that was all one.
Why was it never built? Money, like it says. Whose issue do you think that was?
Money would be an issue for all ages. Roy I had to worry about that for Walt. There were lots of dreamy visionary plans over the years preceding Eisner that didn't get built, or had to be significantly modified to be more realistic.
BTW, on that same site you can reminisce about the Fort Wilderness railroad, which that site says was discontinued in part because the track foundation was slipping into the swamp, and the engines were undersized for their intended use. Some brilliant pre-Eisner master planning there, eh?
...Well hopefully you've seen the link that shows that yeah, there were plans to put in that magical transportation, but I don't expect much out of you since heck in my quote I said almost everything and you went on to prove that it wasn't everything!
Again, when the property consisted only of the MK, Contemporary, Poly, FW, the Golf Resort, E.P.C.O.T. Center and the Marketplace, and your statement was not true as to FW, the Golf Resort, and the Marketplace, I think my criticism is valid.
As far as expansion goes, you expand until you are full, and all the while before and after you improve what you've got. The Magic Kingdom is not a full park, but...
It has 6 lands that connect seemlessly. To the left of Main Street id aventureland, which iss right next to frontierland so on and so forth until you get back to main street. If you want a new land connected to the hub then you have to take away from an old land, which is fine, but it should be noted they CHOSE not to do it with toontown.
My point is that true visionary master planning of the original MK could have accomodated orderly future significant expansion. Did this happen? Similarly, true visionary master planning of the original E.P.C.O.T. would have accomodated future integrated resort development.
Anyone who knows anything about the golf resort would assume that I am.
Again, educate yourself.
http://www.solarius.com/dvp/wdw/shadesofgreen.htm
Thanks. Of course, I've stayed there twice, so I'm quite familiar with the place (pre-renovation). Unthemed, with a small unremarkable restaurant and unremarkable pools. And you have to walk to the Poly to catch the monorail.
I only post this quote to point out to everyone else DB's urtter contempt for Walt and his people. brilliant db scoffs? these people weren't brilliant.
I have no contempt for Walt, of course, and the original creation of WDW was an amazing and wonderful undertaking. But the fact is that Disney was a newcomer at being a major hotelier and at designing large-scale real estate development. And when they designed Epcot they seem to have misinterpreted or ignored the experience in pedestrian management that they had learned at DL and MK.
The original, late, lamented master plan was far from perfect. The fact that there were problems with that plan does not mean that those planners were idiots, any more than problems with development during the Eisner era means that there is no master plan, and the Eisner-era designers are idiots.
