DEBATE: "Removing Blinders" or "How I stopped worrying & came to disrespect Ei$ne

[Peter Pirate]

But look at the big picture Baron. It's a COMPANY. Pure and simple. Its here to make money. Walt did it. ...

Is it this quote that has your panties in a wad Baron? If so, my parents who are in their upper 70's always felt this way about Disney. They loved the show, they liked the movies (for us kids). We occasionally visited Disney World (we kids loved it, Mom & Dad did it for us) but they never thought much of Walt and they have always looked at Disney as a money making machine...Even way back then.

So this 'new' attitude is really nothing new. It's just different from yours.

 

[ohanafamily]

OK, Mr. Baron, I know you can defend yourself, but I would like to know that I undertsnd some of where you are coming from...

No Streets signs, Follow the (pardon the non-disney reference) yellow brick road...

I can see where this would be part of the magic, but becoming untenable with the influx of new parks and resorts. I still have trouble telling the colors of the monorails.

Speaking of the monorails, If I remember 12 Million per train, a Million per track segment (I don't have my notes with me) Maybe they could build more, but it isn't likely in the near future.

Walt Disney out for money? from I always thought (admittedly from the propoganda) that a park for the family was primary, and the money came... ME is reversing the equation. (submitted for your correction/approval)

As far as parking lot views from the All-Star, is that true? that seems un-disney. They tend to hide ugly things like that (Case in point the "A" ride..much better once hidden (oops, I shouldn't have)


.......
BTW, BRERALEX

Valium and Percocet...

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Walt Disney out for money? from I always thought (admittedly from the propoganda) that a park for the family was primary, and the money came... ME is reversing the equation. (submitted for your correction/approval)

BINGO!!!!!

You have been a student for such a short time, yet it seems you understand much more than many others seem to be able to grasp. You now fully understand the basic and fundamental difference between “Walt’s” Disney and Disney®. Congratulations!!!

Now can you perhaps explain it to Mr. Kidds and that hardheaded pirate!!! I don’t seem to speak their language!!

 

[DisneyKidds]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I bet that there were only green road signs everywhere before the inititive was set to create new ones.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You’d lose that bet.

Baron, you are right, he would lose that bet. According to the first, and only concise, authorized history of "The Vacation Kingdom of the World" the original signs at WDW used plain white type on a brown background. So there may not have been as many of them pre-Eisner as the World was a lot smaller back then, but they were there. Is that real enough for you? That gate you talk about, where they told you what line to follow, exists deep into Disney property. Perhaps many had no reason to spend time in the Disney hinterlands, but for those who did there were signs.

Let's linger in your lala land for a bit and assume that those plain white type on brown background signs were put in place by Eisner because there weren't any before (I know, I know - that isn't true, but I want to try and get Baron to see my point). Why then would he bring in Sussman/Prezja (that firm that did the 1984 LA Olympics signs) to redo the signs to be so meticulously detailed and coordinated (just the way Walt liked to do things)? Again, was it to increase his profits? Or maybe someone else forced him to do it . Now hear this. It isn't about signs. The signs are only a sign that Eisner had some understanding of what Disney was supposed to be about. He SPENT money to create and improve something that would add to the guest experience. I guess your solution, Herr Baron, would have been for the World to remain so small that signs weren't necessary. After all, when you followed those lines there were only a couple of resorts and one park. I hate to think what your beloved Disney would be like now if that had been the attitude.

I relate things the way I see it.

I know that, but maybe you didn't see everything, or things weren't quite as you recall.

In the end you may decide that every word I write is nonsense.

I'm with that so far .

Money again. Nothing but money. Profit. Don’t you get it?

Sure, I get it. I guess we'll assume that the lack of quality and attention to detail that you and others point out in all those discussion we have is just a byproduct of the bottom line mentality. Somehow I really don't think you believe that. But I'll take your word for it .

His philosophy (if you really want to call it that) is to make money. Increase profits. That’s it!! And that is diametrically opposed to Walt’s philosophy.

So that would mean Walt's philosophy was to...................................lose money?

Why can’t we just agree to this and call it quits?

Please, and thank you.

TestTrack...........

And DisneyKidd, I think he does too.

........I suppose I'd replace think with hope, assuming he stays around for a while. But if he soon departs I'll be almost as happy as anyone else.

Good night all .

 

[airlarry!]

I always wondered how Ei$ner convinced the group that monorails were unnecessary and that busses would do just fine for the average Jeaux Visitor at WDW. Who in their right mind would not want monorail expansion? Who in their right mind would equate a parking lot at the TTC (with a ferry boat or a monorail ride over to the MK) with the parking lots at AK or MGM or the All-stars?

Now I know. There are actually people, Disney fans even, who would say in those insipid focus group sessions, that monorails are unnecessary hinderances to the 'bottom line' and that busses, parking lots, roads, and signs are "only a sign that Eisner (sic) had some understanding of what Disney was supposed to be about."

Man. I didn't realize it was impossible to create two or three different priced resorts with unique transportation to and from parks and nighttime activities without bringing the entire economic system of the World to the ground.

After reading these comments, I'm now surprised that WDW has made any money in the first place with all those expensive boats and monorails and...and...and...water transportation to and from Fort Wilderness to the MK!!

 

[ohanafamily]

airlarry!,

Don't loose heart! Please remember that with all the problems of transportation, we all still go back and have a great time. One can get a little cynical reading these boards...

 

[DisneyKidds]

Who in their right mind would equate a parking lot at the TTC (with a ferry boat or a monorail ride over to the MK) with the parking lots at AK or MGM or the All-stars?

Hmmmm.............last time I checked a parking lot was a big, open space with lots of lines where people left their cars. Yep, TTC parking was/is no different. So they removed it from the MK by placing is across a lagoon and making you take a boat or monorail. Did they do that because it made for nicer parking? Noooooooooo. They did it so that the park would be shielded, unlike DL. Guess what, it was still a parking lot. For some the boat or monorail ride added magic. For others it added headaches as you had to spend extra time after a long day waiting on line and cramming on to a boat or monorail. Some might say that the other parks, without TTC type remote parking are not shielded as the MK was, but I don't buy that. Once you are in any of the parks you can't see the parking lots. It doesn't matter how far away they are, you can't see them. This next statement is big time subjective opinion, but I much prefere parking at MGM or the AK. If you park at the TTC for the MK, you get a space in a vast lot, take a tram to the TTC, and you still have to spend time getting to the MK via boat or monorail. At MGM or the AK you park in a lot that is no different than the TTC lot, except that it is smaller. You hop a tram, same as TTC parking, and voila - you are there. No extra time or hassle on a boat or monorail. Heck, with small kids in strollers we can actually walk to the gate from our car, which would be no different than walking from our car to the TTC (where we would only be half way to the park). The idea behind designing the MK parking the way it was had a time and place, but it was simply unecessary at Epcot (which I notice you left out), AK, and MGM. Would you care to elaborate if you believe there are other 'benefits' to TTC parking?

After reading these comments, I'm now surprised that WDW has made any money in the first place with all those expensive boats and monorails and...and...and...water transportation to and from Fort Wilderness to the MK!!

Well, last time I checked there were boats in more places than the MK resort area. As for noats, some locations lend themselves to them as there were existing, or easily expanded, waterways to accomodate them. A completely land locked just doesn't allow for a boat. Oh, sure, they could have created mini versions of the panama canal throughout the Disney property, but then you wouldn't have the resorts because all the money would have had to be spent on the waterways. I'll take the resorts. As for monorails, just think about how short the MK run is compared to what it would take to connect all of the resorts. Epcot is a bit longer and was very expensive, but it was still a relatively staright and easy shot. At $12 mil per train and $1 mil per track segment (if that is what the numbers were/are) you would probably have had to take the entire budget to build MGM just to connect all the resorts to the system. I'll take the theme park. With the rapid expansion of WDW can you not see how it just might not have been feasible to connect everything by monorail, no matter how much anyone (Eisner included) would have liked it? And where is the and....and....and. Is there some magical transportation other than boats and monorails I am missing?

It is so easy to say that Eisner didn't do things because he was cheap. It is also easy to forget the fact that Walt also had to forgo things he would have liked to do because they were simply too expensive.

 

[DisneyKidds]

that busses, parking lots, roads, and signs are "only a sign that Eisner (sic) had some understanding of what Disney was supposed to be about."

Well.........the only thing that from this list that didn't exist prior to the expansion of the World was the (insidious) bus. Roads, they were there, just not that utilized pre-Eisner as there weren't many places to go. Signs, I think we covered that one. Parking lots, ditto. So why don't we look at what is really being attacked in this statement - Eisner's understanding of what Disney was supposed to be about. First off, Disney had always been about providing new ways of enetertaining the public. Eisner's expansion plans allowed Disney to do that. We don't need to get into the muck and mire of moderate resorts and incomplete parks (been there, done that), but what was added provided new, exciting, Disney entertainment and experience. No, it wasn't always done the way Walt would have, but it was still stuff to be proud of, stuff that most people (sans most of those who frequent this board) find very Disney. Secondly, those signs we talked about help to show that Eisner understood on some level (as he implemented his expansion plans) the need for show, the need for even something as simple as a sign to be magical. That has been my point. You can choose to ignore it as long as you like.

 

[raidermatt]

Secondly, those signs we talked about help to show that Eisner understood on some level (as he implemented his expansion plans) the need for show, the need for even something as simple as a sign to be magical.

Oh dear God, now putting up a road sign and foregoing the expansion/development of less intrusive forms of transportation qualifies as MAGICAL?

Forget whether it should or shouldn't have been done, but now it proves Eisner understands the SHOW and MAGIC?

Somebody, anybody (besides Baron and Larry)... PLEASE tell me I don't need to post an actual counterpoint to this arguement! PLEASE tell me that regardless of what you think of Eisner and his actions in the past, that you DO understand those roadsigns (and the accompanying lack of alternative transportation development) are NOT examples that Eisner understands THE SHOW and MAGIC? Maybe it shows that he understands the need to reduce complaints. But please tell me you understand that SHOW and MAGIC and WOW mean more than just putting up signs?

 

[SnackyStacky]

Eisner's understanding of what Disney was supposed to be about.

I think Eisner knows full well what Disney is about. There is proof. Because:

No, it wasn't always done the way Walt would have, but it was still stuff to be proud of, stuff that most people (sans most of those who frequent this board) find very Disney.

That's ves that's very true! Lots of Disney stuff to be found everywhere. But it's all spread out and intermingled with things that AREN'T Disney.

I guess your solution, Herr Baron, would have been for the World to remain so small that signs weren't necessary. After all, when you followed those lines there were only a couple of resorts and one park. I hate to think what your beloved Disney would be like now if that had been the attitude.

So.... because Walt Disney World is big, they can't have magical, affordable means of transportation outside of cars? Check out New York sometime. Mahattan and Disney World are of equal size, and Manhattan has a nifty little subway system. It also has roads, but then again, New York wasn't going for the magic factor. Point is that size doesn't mean you can't have some larger system of transportation. One that is just as magical, but maybe somewhat more affordable than a monorail system.

Walt was obviously out to make a profit. But the way he did it was such a far cry from the way Eisner is doing it.

Walt knew that if you charged a reasonable rate for what you were giving, people would come, they would pay, and profit would be made. It was more expensive than anything else, but not excessively so. And you were given what you paid for. It's the difference between buying something generic and buying name brand. For a little bit more money you'll get something a little better.

It doesn't take a genius to know that if you build more hotels, you HAVE to charge more. But you don't charge more and give less, which is what Eisner has done.

 

[DisneyKidds]

SnackyMatt...........you guys are a pill. I know how Scoop feels now, dealing with all theory and talk and not a workable idea in the bunch. Complete monorail networks, a WDW subway system.............whatever.

As for monorails, where is any sort of reasonable analysis that shows they could have possibly worked on the scale required to cover the entire property? They wouldn't.

As for subways, I happen to work in New York for the very company that built the original subway system under New York. That will never be feasable in WDW.

Are there alternatives? Sure. Light Rail systems are starting to come into their own and that might work. It would actually be pretty cool. However, 15 years ago that wasn't the case, not even 10 years ago.

It is a shame that you are all so offended by cars. Get over it. Granted, there are too many buses navigating the property now and something should be done about it. What, I don't know.

All of that doesn't change the fact that roads, and vehicles using them, have been one of the best options. There are a lot of people who like driving. You can cry that that isn't magic all you want but, while you may be the vocal majority on this board, I bet your contempt for wheeled transportation and how it offends the memory of Walt is a rather minority opinion. So, if you are going to have those roads (it is a fact of life) you have a choice. You can have roads signs that make a difference, or you can have road signs that don't. Eisner was willing to spend money, reduce the bottom line, to have road signs that made a difference. While that doesn't show he knew how to do things like Walt, it did show that he wasn't a cheap SOB that didn't realize that little things make a difference to the guest experience. Sure, it would be better if we had individual jet packs, or maybe a transporter, but we don't. My only point has been that if Ei$ner is everything you say he is he never would have invested in signs that people notice and remember. There are plenty of people who know they have arrived when they see those signs. You have crossed a threshhold and it is noticeable. That helps add an element of magic. Just a small detail, when combined with all the other small details, that contibutes to the magic. Show and Magic and Wow are a combination of many, many, many, many different things.

 

[Testtrack321]

Oh dear God, now putting up a road sign and foregoing the expansion/development of less intrusive forms of transportation qualifies as MAGICAL?

But if he didn't do it, then you guys would be complaing about how he wasn't pay attention to the fine details.

Somebody, anybody (besides Baron and Larry)... PLEASE tell me I don't need to post an actual counterpoint to this arguement! PLEASE tell me that regardless of what you think of Eisner and his actions in the past, that you DO understand those roadsigns (and the accompanying lack of alternative transportation development) are NOT examples that Eisner understands THE SHOW and MAGIC? Maybe it shows that he understands the need to reduce complaints. But please tell me you understand that SHOW and MAGIC and WOW mean more than just putting up signs?

Uh, you don't. Why? Because the signs improve on the guest experence, not improve the 'show'. There's a differnce. Their related and go hand in hand, but guest experence and show are differnet.

This is what the younger generation thinks Disney is all about!!

I know the good ole days and still do. But the fact remains that Disney is out to make money. Esiner and Walt did it differently, but they both had their fallouts and sucesses.

Let's linger in your lala land for a bit and assume that those plain white type on brown background signs were put in place by Eisner because there weren't any before (I know, I know - that isn't true, but I want to try and get Baron to see my point). Why then would he bring in Sussman/Prezja (that firm that did the 1984 LA Olympics signs) to redo the signs to be so meticulously detailed and coordinated (just the way Walt liked to do things)? Again, was it to increase his profits? Or maybe someone else forced him to do it . Now hear this. It isn't about signs. The signs are only a sign that Eisner had some understanding of what Disney was supposed to be about. He SPENT money to create and improve something that would add to the guest experience. I guess your solution, Herr Baron, would have been for the World to remain so small that signs weren't necessary. After all, when you followed those lines there were only a couple of resorts and one park. I hate to think what your beloved Disney would be like now if that had been the attitude.

Ah ha! DisneyKidds, I love how you think.

Now I know. There are actually people, Disney fans even, who would say in those insipid focus group sessions, that monorails are unnecessary hinderances to the 'bottom line' and that busses, parking lots, roads, and signs are "only a sign that Eisner (sic) had some understanding of what Disney was supposed to be about."

But wait! Every park has a parking lot. What's the problem with that? And was my asumption that mabey, just mabey, Disney might be in a worse postition if they made a monorial go to every men's bathroom in the whole property. And here's one, how would someone who dosn't want to join the DVC, fly, or just wants to hang with their friends at WDW get around without 'busses, parking lots, roads, and signs'?

It is so easy to say that Eisner didn't do things because he was cheap. It is also easy to forget the fact that Walt also had to forgo things he would have liked to do because they were simply too expensive.

Then the queston arises: Has Esiner done anything that was expensive, and did Walt do anything that was cheep? Yes to both.

 

[raidermatt]

SnackyMatt...........you guys are a pill. I know how Scoop feels now, dealing with all theory and talk and not a workable idea in the bunch. Complete monorail networks, a WDW subway system.............whatever.

And you, DK, are very similar to Scoop in that you state things cannot be done, sighting only the fact that nobody else does it as proof.

Of course, if the fact that nobody else does it were proof, DL and WDW would not exist in the first place.

If the monorail is practical for two parks, and 3 or 4 resorts, why does it all of a sudden become impossible for 4 parks and over a dozen resorts? Yes, its more space to cover, but there's also more revenue flowing in to support it.

But who says it has to be monorails? Boat service could also be expanded, but even that is thinking too small. If we were discussing this in 1954, would any of us have said, "Disney should build a monorail."? Likewise, I don't pretend to know what is possible when it comes to modern transportation. I just know that more is possible in 2002 than in 1955. You on the other hand, have convinced yourself that LESS is possible.

You expect people with time to kill on the internet to be able to give you a detailed transportation plan and prove it is finanically beneficial to Disney? And if we can't produce that, it means its not workable? Your thinking is becoming narrower everyday...

I couldn't have proven to you that the monorail was workable in 1970 and I can't prove it today. I can only point to it as an example of something that your line of thinking would have called "unworkable" then, just as it does now. And that is more proof than you have, unless you have some specific info on the long-term financial benefits of an exanded monorail, or other "impractical" modes of transportation?

I'm surprised that you would write something off as impractical when all you have to base your decision on is the cost side of the equation, and even that is unverified.


Disney was built on things that most others said were not practical.

If we want Disney to be just like most other companies, and only do what is easily proven on a spreadsheet as practical for the upcoming quarter, then fine, add more busses, build more parking lots, and put up more freeway signs.

After all, its what most others would do...

 

[raidermatt]

But if he didn't do it, then you guys would be complaing about how he wasn't pay attention to the fine details.

No, the fact that he is ignoring alternate forms of transportation are proof that he doesn't pay attention to the basic concepts behind Walt Disney WORLD, never mind the fine details.

Uh, you don't. Why? Because the signs improve on the guest experence, not improve the 'show'. There's a differnce. Their related and go hand in hand, but guest experence and show are differnet.

The statement was made that these show that Eisner understands the show on some level, and can provide something Magical, which is not true (and I think you are agreeing?). It said nothing about enhancing the guest experience.

But now that you mention it, sure, given the lack of alternative transportation in many parts of WDW, yes, road signs enhance the guest experience for those driving cars around.

However, a lack of alternative transportation is not a given, its just the decision of Eisner and gang. The signs are a cheap way to get the number of complaints down rather than addressing the real problem, which is that the lack of alternative transportation makes WDW less of the WORLD it was intended to be.

 

[SnackyStacky]

SnackyMatt...........you guys are a pill. I know how Scoop feels now, dealing with all theory and talk and not a workable idea in the bunch. Complete monorail networks, a WDW subway system.............whatever

Perhaps you missed this:

Point is that size doesn't mean you can't have some larger system of transportation.

The POINT (you seem to have missed it) is that because Walt Disney World is big doesn't mean that it can't have some mass transit system serving it. I was citing New York as an example that if it can be done in the real world, there's no reason that it can't be done in Walt Disney World.

It is a shame that you are all so offended by cars. Get over it.

I bet your contempt for wheeled transportation and how it offends the memory of Walt is a rather minority opinion.

Point me to where I ever said I was offended by cars, or that it offended the memory of Walt. I personally never said anything of the sort. You always seem to think I have some hidden agenda, but, really! I've never said that or thought it. Honest!

I AM offended by the busses, but not by their mere existance, but by the fact that it can take up to 30 minutes to get a bus. That's too long. WHATEVER kind of transportation system you're going to use, be it busses, monorail, train, boats, WHATEVER....you need to make sure that it is an EFFICIENT system. And the bussing system has not proven itself to be efficient.

I don't know how the bussing system was once upon a time, but with the way Eisner has run things, it seems VERY simple to take something that was, in fact, working, and louse it up when the bottom line is priority number one.

Both MGM and Animal Kingdom could have been, and SHOULD have been amazing places to visit. But because Eisner's driving force was the profit, both opened as half-day parks.

You're not supposed to see maintenance workers painting during the day, but because Eisner's motive is profit, the cheaper labor is available during the day.

The Magic Kingdom should NEVER EVER under ANY circumstances close before sunset. But because Eisner's driving force is the profit, it closes by 6pm.

EVERYONE should be able to see fireworks at the Magic Kingdom at least once during their stay, but because the driving force is profit, at least under Eisner, they only happen once a week during the off season.

It's easiest for me to get to Disney World in the off-season, and usually I can't stay over a weekend. I'm a church music director, so I have to be available for Saturday and Sunday masses. So, combine these two, and what do I get? I pay the same admission price as people who go in peak season, but I get SUBSTANTIALLY less. Shorter hours, seasonal attractions closed, no fireworks, and no spectro magic parade..... THAT'S when my blinders came off. And I'm SO sick of hearing "If you want more, go when those things are available!" Well, if I could, I would, but I can't. I shouldn't be excluded from SO much because I can't get there when those things are offered.

IF (big if...I can't even get a hypothetical in my head with this one....) Eisner lowered admission prices in the off-season, then I wouldn't have a beef with it. (Well, as much as a beef...I'd still miss those things, but I wouldn't feel cheated on top of it) I'm not saying that he has a personal vendetta against me, or that he plans on how to alienate those in similar circumstances, BUT, when the driving force is profit, people DO end up in the same situation that I find myself. Feeling cheated because they pay the same as someone who goes in July, but get less.

And those things I mentioned, I feel that they are an integral part of the Magic Kingdom experience. It's just not the same without those things. So for me, it's like being charged $30 for a long sleeve shirt in October. But come June, they rip the sleeves off, leaving frayed edges that are unfinished, and the shirt is now less. You don't really NEED the sleeves in the summer months... the shirt is no less wearable, but DEFINITELY less, and I'm still being charged full price for a demi-product.

And you can list signs as being magical all you'd like to, but I don't give a damn about signs. I'm talking about real, tangible things that added up leave me feeling HORRIBLY cheated. And I know full well that wasn't the intent of Eisner and crew, but that's the result, as Baron would say, of INEPTITUDE!

 

[DisneyKidds]

You on the other hand, have convinced yourself that LESS is possible.

Matt, I know full well what is possible in the way of modes of transportation. That doesn't mean they are feasable for an operation like WDW. I work for one of the oldest and largest infrastructure companies in the world. We work on some of the largest transportation and infrastructure projects in the world. Rail, subway, highway, light rail - any mode of moving people, we do it. At some point someone has to throw a dose of reality into the mix around here. When the original monorail was put up, even when the monorail to Epcot was put up, it most likely represented a fraction of the total construction cost for either park. To expand that mode of transportation to all points within an area the size of Manhatten - you would be talking hundreds of millions. Same with subways - hundreds of millions. Why can a city like New York have subways? It is called federal money, state money, tax revenue - a heck of a lot more money than a business like Disney can throw at a transportation system. Sorry to burst your bubble, but monorails and subways just won't work - and I don't say that just because no one has done it. Light rail would be more affordable. Perhaps that would be the way to go, but I think I recall hearing whispers that that was looked at and shot down. Would it be simply too expensive or was it a matter of Disney being cheap? I really don't know. Beyond these things, there are not a lot of other mass transportation options besides buses.

The statement was made that these show that Eisner understands the show on some level, and can provide something Magical, which is not true (and I think you are agreeing?). It said nothing about enhancing the guest experience.

Gee, seems to me that anything a guest can see becomes part of the show. But that is niether here nor there. You can pick apart the words all you want, but the context of what I have been saying is that Eisner has had some understanding of what Disney was supposed to be about. That is providing guests with a unique Disney experience. Signs can add to that experience, and become a teensy part of the overall show. Eisner spent the money to make that happen, at the expense of the bottom line. That is a fact and it is contrary to what many people contend about Ei$ner. End of point - it was only a minor one to begin with. Move on to something else please.

Snacky................I agree with a lot of what you are saying. However...............

And you can list signs as being magical all you'd like to, but I don't give a damn about signs. I'm talking about real, tangible things that added up leave me feeling HORRIBLY cheated.

.........you are way to focused and obsessed on the signs. No where in this discussion was I talking about being cheated, or disagreeing with the concept that we are being cheated. The sign discussion has absolutely nothing to do with any of that. In case I need to point it out again, this is what the sign discussion is all about. Baron said Eisner never did anything that wasn't driven by the bottom line, that he had no clue about what Disney was. I pointed out that Eisner, at some point, did realize that Disney was about the guest experience. Eisner spent money on signs that improved the guest experience. He did this at the expense of the bottom line. End of story, end of point.

BTW - I got your POINT about mass transit systems on a large scale. I think my comments above address that POINT. And the 'you' with respect to cars was a collective you - as some do seem to be taken back by the vehicles clogging the World.

 

[ohanafamily]

I agree, let's get over the signs before someone like me sarcasticly makes a comment about using flying carpets and starts another series on that...

 

[Peter Pirate]

Not to be a buttinski, but well over a year ago Baron challenged (the much more focused) Pirate...(Or was it the Captain?) on this same very issue.

I pointed out to him that under the Eisner watch Disney installed water play areas in Epcot (two, I believe) that were totally negative to the bottom line. They give the company nothing other than a better experience for the little kids who love to get soaking wet.

To say that Eisner doesn't get it or never got it is nothing but an arbitrary arrow. Certainly many good things aimed primarily at the guest experience have been given by Eisner's regime over the tenure. This doesn't change the mistakes, this doesn't mean he shouldn't go now but the current company status doesn't change what was accomplished previously...

 

[FantasticDisFamily]

Can you hear the virtual applause Peter Pirate?

The Professor

 

[Peter Pirate]

Thank you Professor!!! It's been awhile since I've posted anything north of obtuse I believe but I'm sure I'll be wandering out back with the little animals again real soon...