DEBATE:Contemporary Observation Deck (All in all it’s just another brick in the wall)

...One thoughtful, caring man...
Who was this person? Card Walker? Because few accounts recall Walt as thoughtful & caring...Opinionated & crass, maybe...Inflexible and gruff, quite possible...My way or the highway, quite definately...But thoughtful and caring...I don't think so...
 
Yes, and no doubt you want to believe he drowned sacks of kittens in the studio water tower on his lunch hour.

Sorry to disappoint, but that's not the case. And never mistake a temperment for excellence to mean he was a bad person. Sure he was sometimes difficult to work for - but only because he expected the very best work out of people.

People who don't try produce shows that reflect that attitude. To wit: compare 'Jungle Book' and 'Jungle Book 2'. Or 'Davy Crockett' to 'Am I Hot?'.


P.S. - Why is it that so many of the people that worked with Walt are still associated with the company and speak highly of him, yet so many people couldn't tolerate more than a few years of working with Eisner? At least Walt never had to pay a quarter billion dollars to a former employee. One wonders who the real monster is.
 
Well, I'll explain why I think the way I do about Walt Disney then. Even though I didn't know him, I believe that yes, he was opinionated, yes he might have seemed crass and gruff sometimes, and however else you want to characterize it, but I believe it was because that inside, he knew how things had to be, in order to make the experience one that the guests would never forget. And I believe that he didn't want that vision interrupted or altered by anything or anyone else- stockholders, budgets, other people's opinions, anything. And I think that was because he cared so much about making a theme park or movie or anything else that he did. He knew that if his project truly touched people's hearts, and even surpassed what they were expecting, that the money would naturally come.

I'm not saying that today's theme parks and movies don't ever touch people's hearts or surpass their expectations. My point is that the way today's corporations are set up and the way they work, don't always lend themselves to dealing with creative ways to solve guest situations the way I think Walt Disney would have dealt with them.

Your screen name seems to imply that you're Michael Eisner, and if you are, I'm not trying to compare you personally to Walt Disney, because I think Walt Disney's job and Michael Eisner's job are very different, and it would not be comparing apples to apples. Walt Disney was basically the owner of the company in his time, and didn't have a lot of the restrictions of being part of a corporation, like having to answer to stockholders, maintain profit goals, etc. He could have (and I think did, if I remember right) mortgaged the entire company to build a theme park, based solely on his idea for something great and new. A corporation of today would probably never be allowed to take a risk that large.
Also, heck, if the Walt Disney Co. was as large back in Walt Disney's time as it is today, there would have been no way that he could have micro-managed things the way he did, so again it's not comparing apples to apples.

Because of this, I understand why some things work the way they do today, and why Disney probably cannot ever go back to doing some things the way they were done when the company was so completely controlled by just one person.
 
M. Voice, who said anything about Eisner? He's a schmuck from the get go.

But you shouldn't confuse genius with personality. Walt had a tremendous amount of genius and the ability to be personable...When it was convenient. Heck, he didn't even like his nephew! Walt was great at getting what he wanted and determined to always get what HE wanted...If you can somehow equate this with being thoughtful & caring, well...

And no, I'm sure he never drowned sacks of kittens, but at lunch hour he did fire employees he no longer had use for... Heck, his oldest friend (and one time partner) Ub wasn't even exempt. Walt used him & abused him. Economics and Walt's realizing the err of his way was the only thing that brought the other genius (Ub) back into the fold...Yeah, he was a real sweetheart...
 

freediverdude, my post was in response to Mr. Voice's.

Your explanation of your view is very good indeed & does not warrant any negativism or sarcasam from me...
 
I suppose either of our veiws about Walt's personality don't really make a difference to anything. Walt was neither all saint nor all villian. So he didn't like his nephew - that favor was returned many times over. And Walt didn't get along with his brother. So what. My brothers and I all still have scars from various fights we've had with each other.

Yea, so Walt Disney was human. That doesn't justify what's happening today with the company he created.

There is a strong strain of "well Walt did it to" that floats around to justify a lot of very stupid actions. Each "example" always carefully twists or ignores the facts to "prove" their point. Or there even the "revisionist" trend that goes Walt was an evil fool - we modern types are good people instead.

History, real history, doesn't bend for modern convinence. Standards are standards no matter the circumstances, although the techniques used to acheive those standards may be different.

It doesn't matter if Walt bought more girl scout cookies or if Eisner washes is limo with environmental sound soap. What matters is which man built something and which man is reducing it to rubble.

But if you really need to trash a dead man so you can feel good as you watch 'I'm A Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here!' - I guess one does what one must.

P.S. Ub was hired away by another company (which came as a shock to Walt who naturally felt betrayed). And Walt wasn't the owner or even the largest stockholder in his company. And after WWII, Walt wasn't even an employee. His status in modern terms would have been a consultant. Walt worked because he loved what he was doing. I wish I could say the same thing the current guy.
 
Not bad, not bad at all.:p

The reason you feel necessary to prop up the image around here (although I'll admit others are more hardcore) is the reason I choose to extoll his negative side. Just because Walt had genius and the ability to succeed is no reason to hold him up to sainthood. Nor is it at all logical to hold Michael Eisner to these storied beliefs of Walt. Eisner doesn't need fairy tales of Walt to make what he's doing look bad. His actions and misteps seem to be standing pretty well on his own.

I don't mean to trash the dead guy, but really, I doubt that he cares. But you know I kinda enjoyed "I'm A Celebrity, Get me Outta Here"...It was better than the other reality crap being shown on the rival networks!;)

As for Ub, yes he was hired away...But why did he go? ... I know you know.
 
Actually, it was a rather sick pleasure watching 'Celebrity'. There is nothing more delightful in my job than those moments when I can cause pain to the Hollywood strain of poser, attention-monger, get-rich-quick, status-seeking untalented dimwits. Having a gaggle of them locked in the jungle and being tortured for my amusement was rather gratifying. Besides, the sheer volume of dreadful plastic surgery on display was more terrifying than the last seven horror movies I had to sit through.

I don't hold Walt up for any kind of personal sainthood. I never met him (although my mother swears we got his autograph at Disneyland when I was in a stroller). I have no opinion on whether he was kind to puppies, said "please" when asked for the salt to be passed to him, or if stiffed waitresses on their tips.

But what I do appreciate, and what I find so rare that it must be remembered, was that he passionately loved what he was doing and passionately tired to do the best work he possible could. It is an attitude on the polar opposite end of those media-wh*res in the jungle and the executives that decided to broadcast it.

Making good movies – making good anything – is very difficult work. So much of Hollywood is run by those only out to make a buck. They like to enrobe themselves with such noble words as "art" and "truth", but in reality they are in it for themselves. It doesn't matter what they are doing just as long as people give them money for it.

What set the Disney company apart was that it was staffed by a group of people who actually cared about the work. You put up with the low pay, the non-glamorous working conditions and the snickers from the rest of Hollywood because…because you lived for the moment when you first saw the ballroom scene from 'Beauty and the Beast' on a flickering monitor late one night or because you saw the eyes of a child as she stood in front of the castle.

No swarm of personal assistants, no multi-bathroom Hollywood Hills estate, no fawning interview on the red carpet could ever come close to the ability to point up to a screen and say – "I helped make that and it's good enough that people will still be marveled by it long after I'm gone".

Walt is not a genius because of his business skills or his personal traits, but because my son laughed and cried at the same movies that I laughed and cried at when I was a child, and they were the same films my father laughed and cried at in his youth.

Those films were made with ink, paint, and people in a dusty suburban warehouse. Today the company commands resources that can buy small nations. The lust for those resources overshadows all else these days. Money is no longer a tool to help create, it is the sole purporse of the entire enterprise.

It is not a fairly tale to remember that what really matters is to create for others, and that it is only accomplished through talent, hard work and willpower.

It is a tale that needs to be told often and loudly - because right now no one is leaving anything for our grandchildren to laugh and cry over.


P.S. Ub felt unappreciated. I get the same exact feelings on many of the projects I work on too. But, just like Ub, I suck it up and work on those projects that have quality. He too knew that personal wealth is little comfort for tossing aside one's legacy.
 
Thanks for the good post M. Voice.

You know I don't disagree on any of the traits you have attributed to Walt here and luckily none of them included sainthood, infallability or customer service. ;)

Eisner's shortcomings are not in direct relation to Walt except to say that Walt was particularily innovative, Eisner is not. This is not Walt's Company and these life and times make it virtually impossible for someone to follow in Walt's shoes and yes make impossible to even follow Walt's blueprints because the conviction needed to be great has to come from within it cannot come from a formula and Eisner and probably any other CEO trying to "maintain" will fall to the same fate (more or less)...
 
1928 – 1955 – 1971 – 1984 – 1995 – 2003

Yes, the years come and go, circumstances change and the world moves onb. But...

But there are some constants. No matter the stock market, no matter the corporate trends there are always standards.

Doing the very best you can. Working to eleveate an audience's expectations. Striving to create new and better. Caring about what you do. Understanding the implications of one's actions.

These hold true not only across time, but also across companies. They apply to everyone from the CEO to the night janitor.

You're right Mr. Eyesnur – these traits do come from within. We can not expect just any CEO to have them. It's about time us stockholders and us customers to get a boss that does have them.
 
Baron, for someone who values the quality of "show" so highly I dont understand your view on this matter. Have you tried to eat at the California Grill after 8pm. It is not a pleasant experience. You end up with 100-200 people walking past your table talking even shouting at loud volumes to each other and packing the viewing areas to capacity and preventing guests of the restaurant from seeing the show. I was hoping for a long time that this would happen. It creates a much better and unique experience for the guests of California Grill and preserves the quality of "show" for these guests. (It is quite obnoxious having drunk people stumble off the elevator and past your dinner table talking about their sex life.) They have started offering fireworks viewing WITH synchronized audio on a lower observation level (cant remember which).

My first question to you, and to all who appose the observation deck, is what came first? The California grill, or the observation deck? For the last 32 years, there was no issue over ANYONE going out onto the observation deck. It was open to everyone. Now, an awful, overpriced bully moves into the neighborhood, and what happens next? No observation deck.

I'd be happy to do away with the resturant and have the deck back.

Another prime example of a tight-fisted, money grubbing Disney move.
 
It used to be a lounge, NOT a resturant and that makes all the difference.


Now then, pardon me, I once again skipped about 4 pages, but I have some pertanent questions.

How many guests can the resturant accomidate (by which I mean chairs at tables, plus waiting room) How much was added in the expansion? and what is the total room capacity listed for the space as mandated by law?


Something tells me that between 200 some eating guests (I would assume) and 200 some fireworks viewers they are probably way past the legal limits of how many people can actually be up there and therefore something MUST give.

Now I've never been to the California Grill. Last time I was up there it was still a lounge with very little food and lots of drinks, so I don't know how nice a resturant it is, but it seems to me that despite the fact that it kills magic, the reasturant and its capacity must come first. Therefore, if they are breaking the law as I suspect, then it is perfectly acceptable that they shut down the observation deck. Heck, if it is as popular as some say, they may have had to do it even if they had never put that resturant in and it remain a lounge.

The 4th floor is certainly not as magical, but its much cheaper to move the observation point then the resturant. especially since one of the selling points of the resturant AND the lounge was that it was on top.



So its a bad situation. most likely they had no choice and the choice of expanding the resturant made little difference as its a capacity issue (I THINK)

Certainly the way they handled things isn't very magical. But at the same time, the actual act of closing the deck seems a requirment.

Unless somebody can show me numbers that say they WEREN't breaking fire codes and whatnot.
 
How many guests can the resturant accomidate (by which I mean chairs at tables, plus waiting room) How much was added in the expansion? and what is the total room capacity listed for the space as mandated by law?
And what is the average velocity of an unladen swallow?*

Sorry - don't know the answers to your questions.* However, you are getting at what the main point should be. Action had to be taken. There most likely were no "magical" solutions. Capacity is capacity and, barring major renovation, can't be changed. In the end it comes down to one or the other. Either provide more people the opportunity to dine at CG while changing access to the deck, or don't change anything at all. I am truely sorry for those that enjoyed this little unadvertised bit 'o Disney heaven, but all the talk of Disney taking the easy way out and not finding a "magical" solution seems a bit.............well.............let's just say I think they have stronger arguments to make in other areas.

* but I did want to interject a movie reference ;).
 
African or European?

Timeout: DH and I watched the bonus disk and commentaries for Holy Grail over this last week. I highly recommend them!
 
There most likely were no "magical" solutions.
There's ALWAYS a Magical solution, it just depends on how much somebody wants to make it happen.

...let's just say I think they have stronger arguments to make in other areas.
I'll agree with that. But again, the very title of the post shows the intent to be that this is not one of the Top Ten Signs that the Disney Apocolypse is Upon Us...

Just another brick...ah, never mind.
 
Originally posted by YoHo
It used to be a lounge, NOT a resturant and that makes all the difference.


That's not something that everyone agrees on. There used to be a lounge area in the restaurant and there still is. The entire top floor is California Grill. It isn't very surprising to me that over time a restaurant may vary the amount of space devoted to lounge vs. dining seating based upon need -

DR
 
p.s. The restaurant has been around as long as the deck albeit with a different name.

Thanks for the insight "theDscoop." Next time, tell me something I don't know.

P.S.... Top of the World was never disallowed people from using the deck. CG does.

Close it.
 
When you say "close it" do you mean close this thread?

I hope so. It really should wind down, because it is pointless, imho.

If you are trying to say that they should close the California Grill - one of the best restaurants in WDW and for that matter central Florida - so that a few tourists can go stand on the roof for free to watch fireworks a couple of times a week...well, I don't think the Dis allows me to write the kind of language that I would use to describe what I would think about that - but surely, that could not possibly be what you are trying to say. That would mean you would like to trade very high quality, pleasurable and good experiences for many people (who are more than willing to pay for it) for a brief experience for a few people (that they aren't willing to pay for and can still experience in many locations). Of course no one could rationally consider such a thing?

DR
 
Let’s dive right in, no prologue, no preface!! (Double quote warning)

Originally posted by YoHo
It used to be a lounge, NOT a resturant and that makes all the difference.

That's not something that everyone agrees on.
It is for everyone that knows Disney history! It’s a fact! I suppose you can dismiss it if you like, but it doesn’t change the reality of it!!

There used to be a lounge area in the restaurant and there still is.
No. There used to be a lounge. And there used to be a restaurant. Two quite different things as YoHo alluded.
The entire top floor is California Grill.
It is now. But that is a rather recent development. This was NOT the configuration that was instituted at the inception of the Contemporary. And it certainly hasn’t been the configuration that was conceived when the California Grill was established. Those ‘extra’ tables near the door, the ones which cause the congestion and confusion are rather recent developments, even in the short history of the current restaurant.

It isn't very surprising to me that over time a restaurant may vary the amount of space devoted to lounge vs. dining seating based upon need –
Based upon “need” or “greed”? Again – there is a difference!!
When you say "close it" do you mean close this thread?

I hope so. It really should wind down, because it is pointless, imho.
Not at all!! It is just such a topic that makes this board so – LIVELY!! Please! Let’s continue!

If you are trying to say that they should close the California Grill - one of the best restaurants in WDW and for that matter central Florida
WOW!!! A whole new thread!! Because I couldn’t disagree more!! But I suppose it’s all a matter of taste!
That would mean you would like to trade very high quality, pleasurable and good experiences for many people (who are more than willing to pay for it) for a brief experience for a few people
Ah! The little gem I was looking for! But hang on. Just one more to go and then we'll see "how few"!
Of course no one could rationally consider such a thing?
Well, let’s see if rationality has a chance or not!!

I don’t know how many tables they ‘stuffed’ by the door (with no clear barrier to the lounge) but I think it’s only four. But it might be more. Let’s say for the sake of argument that they crammed 6 tables of four into that little area. That is 24 people (assuming every table is full) that will enjoy the fireworks. And you are right. They are paying customers!! We will further assume that it is jammed packed every single night of the year. That’s 8,760 happy, diners.

Now somewhere on this thread (I’ll leave others to destroy my numbers and actually look it up) there were allegations of 200 guests crowding into elevators and rudely walking past our 24 diners a night. So 200 is a little high you say? OK make it 150. Tell you what, I’ll split the difference and make it an even 100!! That about right? And the same assumptions will be made as in the previous paragraph (good for the goose… and all that kind of stuff!)!!

And the totals? Well, simple math gives us – 36,500. (leap year not included!)

So to squeeze in an extra 24 people a night they are willing to ‘royally’ piss off 36,500. Or more than four times as many.

I’m certainly not the smartest guy around here, but I got to tell you, I think I would really ‘rationally consider’ this move.

Now, you’re right. I’ve said from the beginning that this is certainly no deal breaker. I (or any one else) won’t be canceling reservations because of it.

“All in all it’s just another brick in the wall”.

But why would Disney want to hand 36,500 people an extra brick for their walls? The answer, of course, is that they simply don’t care! Those 24 plates a night are mighty important to some middle manager. And that’s all there is to it!!
 











Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE







New Posts





DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter DIS Bluesky

Back
Top