Concept Art for New Rides (and a New Park!)

[raidermatt]

Thats oversimplying things

And this wasn't?

Management hands are tied by the shareholder mentality that revenues have to grow by 6-10% per year (or more), even if the parks/resorts are at 100% capacity!

Isn't that the whole point? Making money is why the place exists.

 

[YoHo]

Obtuse? Wow that's not nice, calling me names. I believe I was just responding to your statement that WDW wasn't built until Eisner came along. Perhaps you need to be more specific in your criticisms. I was simply pointing out, and I believe the facts support this, that the project originally conceptualized by Walt was NEVER built. The product put forth by the "Eisner's" of the time was centered on profit centers.

Actually, as others who have read far more about this and simply know more about this have pointed out. The Florida project as of Epcot was in many ways exactly what Walt wanted. His fingerprints are all over it. E.P.C.O.T. was never supposed to be a fully functioning city such as Chicago or Houston etc. It was always going to be a resort. The Engineering and research aspects were always going to be like working at a University or such. It was an exercise in Civic planning and WDW is very much an exercise in that. Or at least was until Eisner ruined it.

It's simply popular misunderstanding and myth that it is completely unlike what Walt wanted.

I'm sure that E.P.C.O.T itself would have been designed differently and not so themeparkish, but the fundimentals are unchanged.

 

[EUROPACL]

I believe I was just responding to your statement that WDW wasn't built until Eisner came along. .

I never said such a thing...that WDW the one you described was built by Eisner.

Perhaps you need to be more specific in your criticisms. I was simply pointing out, and I believe the facts support this, that the project originally conceptualized by Walt was NEVER built.

Not true Roy did a great job of building much of what Walt had laid out. No not all of it...nobody but Walt could have done that. Others tried....Eisner never even gave the effort.

The product put forth by the "Eisner's" of the time was centered on profit centers.

Yes this we agree on and the orginal reason why you were called obtuse. I have the feeling that you're doing it on purpose as well. So I really don't think its "name calling" as much as pointing to a plane and calling it a plane. You seem to think that Disney was built by Eisner. My point is that it was a thriving biz long before that clown.

 

[MJMcBride]

And this wasn't?

You can't attribute someone else's quote to me. I never said that poster wasn't oversimplfying things. When we get inot these discussions people tend use absolutes when the truth tends to be a little blurrier don't you think.

 

[MJMcBride]

Actually, as others who have read far more about this and simply know more about this have pointed out. .

Wow. I'm shocked Yoho is jumping to conclusions you couldn't possible know.

 

[raidermatt]

You can't attribute someone else's quote to me. I never said that poster wasn't oversimplfying things. When we get inot these discussions people tend use absolutes when the truth tends to be a little blurrier don't you think.

I didn't intend to attribute them to you. I was pointing out that you directed your oversimplification comment at a response to those quotes, when the original quotes themselves were gross oversimplifications.

Attack them both as hyperbole if you wish.

 

[raidermatt]

Wow. I'm shocked Yoho is jumping to conclusions you couldn't possible know.

Its not jumping to conclusions when you read accounts of how and why things were done back then.

But its also not clear exactly what is being argued.

To suggest that the WDW that stood in 1983 was nothing like what Walt envisioned for E.P.C.O.T. would be incorrect. A lot of what he wanted to incorporate was worked in.

Certainly it was a more scaled back, and perhaps more conventional version, but at the same time, it was not conceived or managed in an "Eisner-like" fashion.

Are we just arguing degrees, or is somebody actually suggesting that the place was completely "Eisner-ized" before Eisner ever took over?

 

[Mickmse2002]

I never said such a thing...that


Yes this we agree on and the orginal reason why you were called obtuse. I have the feeling that you're doing it on purpose as well. So I really don't think its "name calling" as much as pointing to a plane and calling it a plane. You seem to think that Disney was built by Eisner. My point is that it was a thriving biz long before that clown.

Nope. Never suggested anything even close to this about Eisner. My original point was, and continues to be, that an enterprise such as WDW is intended to make money. Always has been and always will be. It is myopic to assume that a corporation would invest the kind of money that WDW required without the expectation of return. Investors, bankers and the business world just do not operate that way. Does anyone really think that any management group at Disney, either now or in the historical sense, sat around a boardroom table and consciously said "hey let's put out an inferior product that the stupid people of the world will consume to make us millions of dollars"?

 

[Mickmse2002]

Actually, as others who have read far more about this and simply know more about this have pointed out. The Florida project as of Epcot was in many ways exactly what Walt wanted. His fingerprints are all over it. E.P.C.O.T. was never supposed to be a fully functioning city such as Chicago or Houston etc. It was always going to be a resort. The Engineering and research aspects were always going to be like working at a University or such. It was an exercise in Civic planning and WDW is very much an exercise in that. Or at least was until Eisner ruined it.

It's simply popular misunderstanding and myth that it is completely unlike what Walt wanted.

I'm sure that E.P.C.O.T itself would have been designed differently and not so themeparkish, but the fundimentals are unchanged.

It's rather presumptious to assume you have read far more than anyone else. You are espousing your opinion, as are all of us, unless of course you were participating in the planning of Project X along side Walt. If that is the case then I offer my sincere apologies.

 

[CanadianGuy]

For what its worth, the info I hear is that it would replace INDY and not Fantasmic

THIS is the version that I heard as well.

Certainly given that this show has become rather long in the tooth and there is .. perhaps in 2-4 years.. a new Indy film coming, closing the 'show', replacing it with something else and putting a version of the Indy Ride from DL somewhere in the Florida parks would make some sense.

J

 

[raidermatt]

My original point was, and continues to be, that an enterprise such as WDW is intended to make money. Always has been and always will be. It is myopic to assume that a corporation would invest the kind of money that WDW required without the expectation of return. Investors, bankers and the business world just do not operate that way.

Yes, and the sky is blue.

We are all happy to operate within those real world parameters.

The best ways to go about making that money are what's up for discussion.

THIS is the version that I heard as well.

Yeah, we probably all heard it on, or as a result of, the same podcast.

While it's true that the story had it going in where Indy is now, it didn't really address what would happen with Fantasmic. Certainly that would be a legitimate question, and they might not want such a popular free nighttime spectacular in the same park as a not so free broadway style show. Just speculation of course.

 

[Mickmse2002]

Yes, and the sky is blue.

We are all happy to operate within those real world parameters.

The best ways to go about making that money are what's up for discussion.

I agree 100% with this. I was being berated earlier for suggesting that the point of WDW was to make money. In fact the response of one poster was an emphatic "No".

.....and for the record, the sky is grey here right now. Just kidding.

 

[raidermatt]

I agree 100% with this. I was being berated earlier for suggesting that the point of WDW was to make money. In fact the response of one poster was an emphatic "No".

.....and for the record, the sky is grey here right now. Just kidding.

Its actually grey here too.

But what I'm saying is there's a fundamental disconnect. The "No" wasn't literal, meaning that the company didn't need to make money. We all know it does.

The "No" is directed at the overriding philosophy. Not to oversimplify again, but it boils down to which of these we think is best for Disney:

1. Wake up in the morning and ask "How can I make money today?"

2. Wake up in the morning and ask "How can I entertain people today?"

Or maybe you look at it as a question of what comes first. Do I come up with new ways to entertain and then decide if they will make money, or do I come up with ways to make money and then see if they will entertain?

When points that are critical of Disney are countered with "it needs to make money", it sounds like the person is supporting the former in both of those examples.

That's what the "No" was directed at. Not the idea that a company has to make money, but what is the best way to make money from artistic endeavors. You mentioned that it has to get a return from its investments, but nobody is saying otherwise. Its just a question of what it invests in, and how it does it.

We kind of have to assume that we all know that in the end, money has to be made.

 

[Mickmse2002]

Its actually grey here too.

But what I'm saying is there's a fundamental disconnect. The "No" wasn't literal, meaning that the company didn't need to make money. We all know it does.

The "No" is directed at the overriding philosophy. Not to oversimplify again, but it boils down to which of these we think is best for Disney:

1. Wake up in the morning and ask "How can I make money today?"

2. Wake up in the morning and ask "How can I entertain people today?"

Perhaps there is a third choice:

3. Wake up in the morning and ask "How can I entertain people today without going bankrupt?



When points that are critical of Disney are countered with "it needs to make money", it sounds like the person is supporting the former in both of those examples.

That's what the "No" was directed at. Not the idea that a company has to make money, but what is the best way to make money from artistic endeavors. You mentioned that it has to get a return from its investments, but nobody is saying otherwise. Its just a question of what it invests in, and how it does it.

We kind of have to assume that we all know that in the end, money has to be made.

I think most people do understand your last point, although I have seen numerous posts that would contradict it. I am not a Disney management apologist by any stretch of the imagination and at the same time I am not one who thinks Walt Disney did no wrong. Not only was he an amazing story teller with a creative mind but he was also reportedly egotistical, tyrannical and purportedly a racist anti-semite.

I wonder what the Disboards would have said, if it had existed, when Disney put out Pinocchio?

 

[YoHo]

Most people are flawed. I'm not sure what the listed flaws, assuming they are true have to do with anything relevent.


So now we're blaming the Internet? Last I checked, people voted with their Wallets, not their internet connection. Pinocchio certainly wasn't Walt's greatest success. Does that prove something? Anything? relevent to the topic?


Amusment Business's attendence guesses for WDW show it being off it's pre-9/11 numbers even after other big tourist destinations have rebounded.

Disney has been offering more discount promotions in the last 10 years then in the previous entirety of WDW's existence. Doesn't this suggest something is wrong?

 

[Mickmse2002]

Most people are flawed. I'm not sure what the listed flaws, assuming they are true have to do with anything relevent.

I'm aware all people are flawed. They're relevant within the context of how many people who post here are hyper critical of someone like Eisner while making references to the theme "what would Walt do" as has been done in this thread.

So now we're blaming the Internet? Last I checked, people voted with their Wallets, not their internet connection. Pinocchio certainly wasn't Walt's greatest success. Does that prove something? Anything? relevent to the topic?

Where do you get that I'm blaming the internet for anything. Where do you get that I'm assigning any blame to anyone or anything?

Amusment Business's attendence guesses for WDW show it being off it's pre-9/11 numbers even after other big tourist destinations have rebounded.

Disney has been offering more discount promotions in the last 10 years then in the previous entirety of WDW's existence. Doesn't this suggest something is wrong?

I don't know that anything is "wrong", I guess that depends upon the yardstick you're using to measure it.

 

[YoHo]

The yardstick in this case being their previous success.
And the success of their primary competition.

 

[raidermatt]

I'm aware all people are flawed. They're relevant within the context of how many people who post here are hyper critical of someone like Eisner while making references to the theme "what would Walt do" as has been done in this thread.

Most people here are hyper-critical of Eisner for his business/creative decisions, and the way he ran the company. Conversely, the praise of Walt is for the same reasons.

Sometimes the criticism leaks over into personal-sounding comments, but the bottom line is that if he hadn't tried to systematically destroy the soul of the company, he wouldn't get the criticisms.

The "flaws" you mentioned with regard to Walt are debateable. Some make those claims, others vehemently deny them. But for the puposes of discussing the direction of the company, they are largely irrelevant.

I wonder what the Disboards would have said, if it had existed, when Disney put out Pinocchio?

Since there is apparently some confusion over what you meant by this, perhaps you can explain?

If its just an honest question, I think the response would generally be very positive.

If you suspect that the response would NOT have been positive, why do you think that?

 

[Mickmse2002]

Since there is apparently some confusion over what you meant by this, perhaps you can explain?

If its just an honest question, I think the response would generally be very positive.

If you suspect that the response would NOT have been positive, why do you think that?

It is an honest question.

I do suspect that the response would not have been positive given the context of today's criticism's. Would many of today's ardent critics of the company sacrificing quality make the same criticism? We have the hindsight of time and nostalgia to hold dear decisions that were made in the 30's, 40's and 50's that many in America were critical of.

 

[YoHo]

Most of us would have either been on a battlefield, or rationing every consumable we used. Probably we would have been forgiving to a company that was forced to do the same.