DEBATE: What makes a Disney attraction 'successful'?

[DisneyKidds]

Mr. Snacky, let's strike up the band one more time ( I think were getting close)

There really are two things that I am monitoring, one of which you really have nothing to do with and happens to be what I am more focused on - and that's is fine. I am gauging whether success for a Disney ride can be seperated from it being 'Disney'. Maybe it can't. You aren't playing along with that because you have stated that 'Disney' and success go hand in hand and they can't be seperated. Your answer, a good one that I greatly appreciate, doesn't make me completely abandon the other ideas I am keeping my eye on as the group provides input. Can we leave it at that? Deal?

As for putting words in your mouth.....................Let's see if you are willing to formally take ownership.

What constitutes a success in any other theme park would not be a success in a Disney park. Disney has to be better in order to justify the incremental cost.

Would you agree of disagree with these statements? We can play the quote thing all night if you like - I can go dig out the relevant quotes if you insist. You know, things like Six Flags successes not working in a Disney park, people expecting more of Disney because Disney expects more of their guests (in the form of spending money on airfare, rooms, $50+ tickets), Walt raising the standard, Eisner raising the prices, etc. The last thing I want to do is put words in anyone's mouth. (pssst, Snacky - come a little closer - if I extract something from your post, guess what - you said it .) If you want to show how I have taken these concepts out of context that is another story, go ahead - however, they seem pretty straight forward.

 

[Cricket2]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What constitutes a success in any other theme park would not be a success in a Disney park. Disney has to be better in order to justify the incremental cost.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'm not sure where this quote came from, sorry, but I can't agree with it.

I don't think something has to be better at Disney to make it a success.

E.g. Cinderella's Golden Carousel

I'd have to say it's a success but not any better than many of the other carousels I've been on. Once again, it comes back to the Disney experience as a whole and not necessarily the specific attraction experience that can make or break its success.


JC

 

[raidermatt]

Mr. Cricket, the question is about what makes a Disney attraction successful. I did not mean to imply that Disney is or isn't as good at doing this as it once was. We have several other threads currently going that address that subject in various ways.

The question is how do we judge, not necessarily what are the results of those judgements. That's the only point I originally addressed.

You're right that Disney clearly has some flaws in its survey methodology, but what does that have to do with judging how good an attraction is, regardless of when it was built?


Now, DK-

How far can this thinking be taken? Does that mark have to be something that has the ability to appeal to all guests? Is it ok to go after a specific subset of guests? Has Disney always done this?

We have to start with the understanding that no attraction will ever appeal to all guests.
That said, is it ok to go after a specific subset of guests, and has Disney always done this?
To me, here is where your term of "shades of gray" becomes very pertinent. Or perhaps "to what degree" is more accurate.

The short answer is yes, because if the other concepts are met (show, story, etc), the attraction will generally have a wide appeal, even if the main target is a specific group, such as children or thrill-seekers.

The problem with making "going after" specific groups a core goal is that its very easy to forget those other critical elements. For example, if you target "thrill seekers", its easy to only provide things that satisfy that particular part of your target. An extreme example of this would be if Disney just plopped down a roller coaster in the middle of, say, AK. (Not the Forbidden Mountain concept, just a state of the art, exposed coaster).

It would satisfy that target, but not necessarily be a successful DISNEY attraction.

So, I will say that yes, to a certain extent, Disney has had specific groups in mind with some attractions all along. However, recently, they have been slipping in keeping their core concepts of family entertainment and "the show" in mind. They do seem to be focusing more and more on going after target markets, and providing things that they feel will satisfy more narrow goals.

 

[Cricket2]

Originally posted by raidermatt
The question is how do we judge, not necessarily what are the results of those judgements. That's the only point I originally addressed.

But you can't seperate the two. I'm saying that if you have a criteria, you need to test that criteria (that's what I've been trying to do, because I don't think there can be a set criteria of "success"). Since you can't get everyone to agree on what a "success" is, ANY criteria is moot.

If we could answer the first question posed below, we would all be geniuses. (is that the plural for genius?)

Title of thread:

What makes a Disney attraction 'successful'?

First post of thread "question":

How do you define 'success' as it relates to Disney attractions?

These are 2 different things, I'm trying to address both of them.

Mr. Cricket, the question is about what makes a Disney attraction successful. I did not mean to imply that Disney is or isn't as good at doing this as it once was. We have several other threads currently going that address that subject in various ways.

Did I say that? Where? Was it the "Walt's dead" thing?

You're right that Disney clearly has some flaws in its survey methodology, but what does that have to do with judging how good an attraction is, regardless of when it was built?

It's not so much to do with the "judging" question as the "defining" question. But you are right, it's sort of a tangent, which this thread doesn't need another of.

JC

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
I am gauging whether success for a Disney ride can be seperated from it being 'Disney'.

Define success.

 

[Cricket2]

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
Define success.

THAT'S THE STUFF BABY!

Sorry about the "baby" thing

JC

 

[raidermatt]

But you can't seperate the two. I'm saying that if you have a criteria, you need to test that criteria (that's what I've been trying to do, because I don't think there can be a set criteria of "success"). Since you can't get everyone to agree on what a "success" is, ANY criteria is moot.

If you view the criteria through the eyes of anything that resembles a Disney fan (as opposed to someone who could possibly argue that a parking lot fits the criteria), you can at least get a starting point. It won't cover everything for all people, but it certainly is not moot.

You may not want to think about tangible criteria for Disney attractions, but it is most certainly though of by the designers.

As for this exchange:
I said:

Mr. Cricket, the question is about what makes a Disney attraction successful. I did not mean to imply that Disney is or isn't as good at doing this as it once was. We have several other threads currently going that address that subject in various ways.

You replied:

Did I say that? Where? Was it the "Walt's dead" thing?

No, it was this comment you made:

You are correct. It's a shame they don't do it though.

I had said that there were people who tried to figure out what people wanted (in reference to Disney attractions). You said they don't do it and its a shame. I assumed you felt that at least they did at one time. Because if you mean its a shame the don't do it, AND they never did, it would mean you must not be too big a fan of any Disney attractions, which would make your presence here a little confusing....(especially with a name like J. Cricket )

 

[raidermatt]

I am gauging whether success for a Disney ride can be seperated from it being 'Disney'

Define success.

Ahhhhh..... I want to make some comments on this, but will wait for the addressee to get the first crack... (must stop typing....be strong....)

 

[SnackyStacky]

(pssst, Snacky - come a little closer - if I extract something from your post, guess what - you said it .)

Ah, but you see, I've cited at least two examples where I in fact HAVEN'T said what you said I did. I brought up quotes to substantiate that. That's simply not playing fair.

We can play the quote thing all night if you like

Please do. Just make sure that a quote is responded to in context, and that what you're responding to IS in fact in the quote.

I am gauging whether success for a Disney ride can be seperated from it being 'Disney'. Maybe it can't.

Look carefully at that statement. The title of this thread. The sentence that you've said over and over and over again.

I am gauging whether success for a Disney ride can be seperated from it being 'Disney'. Maybe it can't.

Try it. Seperate it. Take out the Disney and what's left? You're trying to gauge the success for a ride. It works both on a metophorical and literal level.

What constitutes a success in any other theme park would not be a success in a Disney park. Disney has to be better in order to justify the incremental cost.

Would you agree of disagree with these statements?

That depends. If it lives up to those 5 criteria I suggested, then yes, it would be a success. With the exception of Universal's Rides, for the most part I would agree that a ride would fail at Disney World. DON'T take that to mean that we have to enter that into the equation as to what makes a Disney ride successful. I'm just saying that now that the competition is growing fiercer, there are rides that I think live up to the Disney standard.

Cricket:

E.g. Cinderella's Golden Carousel

in my opinion is a failure.

1) People like it, i.e. it is popular. - I don't personally, but we'll say they do
2) The show is carried out from beginning to end. - I suppose it is. I don't see too much of a show though. Just a plain carousel.
3) It has a cohesive, identifiable storyline. - Does it? Seems like a carousel to me, and I think to try and put one on it is forced.
4) It fits into the area where it was built (includes land and park) - it does indeed fit into the scheme of Fantasyland and the Magic Kingdom.
5) It is innovative in some way. - not in the very least

But at least those 5 points give us a starting place to determine where one thinks it succeeds and the other thinks it fails. I'm not saying the list is final, or fact, but it's a starting place.

Originally posted by raidermatt
The question is how do we judge, not necessarily what are the results of those judgements. That's the only point I originally addressed.

But you can't seperate the two. I'm saying that if you have a criteria, you need to test that criteria (that's what I've been trying to do, because I don't think there can be a set criteria of "success"). Since you can't get everyone to agree on what a "success" is, ANY criteria is moot.

You HAVE to seperate the two. As I said above, because everyone can't agree on success, you have to narrow "success" down to find out where one person thinks that something is a success and where one person thinks that same something is a failure.

 

[DisneyKidds]

To provide a unique Disney element or attention to detail; to make guests laugh/cry/feel exhilarated/feel nostalgic/feel patriotic/feel proud often & much; to win the respect of intelligent people or the affection of children; to earn the appreciation of honest critics for those Magical elements it offers and endure the harsh criticisms for ways in which it could be better; to bring out the best in guests; to leave the World a bit better, whether by an excited child, a carefree adult, a closer family, a unique experience, a better understanding of our world, a renewed spirit or a redeemed social condition; to know even one life has had an element of Disney Magic added to their vacation because it has existed. This is to have succeeded.

Thanks to Mr. Ralph Waldo Emerson for the elegant passage this was based on, and to Mr. J. Cricket for reminding me it was in my wallet.

So, you won’t let me coach from the sidelines any longer and you are going to make me get into the game. I was rather enjoying my mediation role, but the time has come for me to take the field. Time to stop asking and start answering. Well, there you have it – my poetic definition of a successful Disney attraction. It is quite a list, but at the same time it is so very simple. For those who prefer a more traditional ‘list’, let me break it down;

1. To provide a unique Disney element or attention to detail. This is rather self explanatory. An attraction should have something that makes it unique to Disney. This can be a lot of things for a lot of people. (In no particular order of importance) A movie or character tie in; use of unique Disney storytelling techniques; over the top immersive themeing, easily overlooked attention to little detail. We could list a hundred things, because there are probably that many that can provide a unique Disney element.

2. To make guests laugh/cry/feel exhilarated/feel nostalgic/feel patriotic/feel proud often & much. In essence, an attraction should evoke some kind of emotional response in the guest. Not every ride for every guest, but for the intended audience. Face it, a 4 year old will cry for all the wrong reasons if they went on Extraterrorestial (I’m thinking of American Adventure tear in your eye type crying as the right kind), and many adults are bored to death by Dumbo.

3. To win the respect of intelligent people or the affection of children. Again, pretty self explanatory. Why both? Well, it is important that adults appreciate what is there. However, sometimes kids can see things in a unique way, and see things that an adult just can’t.

4. To earn the appreciation of honest critics for those Magical elements it offers and endure the harsh criticisms for ways in which it could be better. Ok, someone will probably say that this is fraught with CYA. Look a little closer though, as no attraction will be perfect in the eyes of all people. You see, many attractions accomplish many different things, and few accomplish all things. As the saying goes – you can keep all of the people happy some of the time, and you can keep some of the people happy all of the time, but you can’t keep all of the people happy all of the time. This isn’t just lip service – it is true. And no, it isn’t just about happiness. In this regard happiness = pure Disney joy. So, while there might be aspects of a ride that don’t make some people happy (ie bring them pure Disney joy), if they are an honest critic they will be able to look past that and see the things that keep other people happy (ie – bring them pure Disney joy). As for enduring the criticism – most rides will have some, but if they can withstand the test of time, still bring forth the Magic for those who see it as time passes despite those areas where it can be criticized, they will endure.

5. To bring out the best in guests. There is nothing better than pure joy. In and of itself, pure joy might not make a Disney success, but combined with the other elements…..that is Magic.

6. To leave the World a bit better, whether by an excited child, a carefree adult, a closer family, a unique experience, a better understanding of our world, a renewed spirit or a redeemed social condition. Ok, this one is a mouthful, but it is also rather simple. Perhaps the very things Walt fought so hard to provide. Disney attractions should excite, bring us together, educate, make us think, make us understand another peoples, give us something we can’t get elsewhere, help us to escape the workaday world, refresh us (at the same time as it exhausts us ), and make us all just a little bit happier, a little bit better – and have that stay with us (focus on this my friends, as a visit to Six Flags just doesn’t do it).

7. To know even one life has had an element of Disney Magic added to their vacation because it has existed. Yes, it is just as much about the person standing next to us as it is about you or me. That person may be elderly or young. That person may be from another country. That person may be from a different background. That person will have a different view on good or bad, successful or unsuccessful. And they have to do more than smile – Disney is about so much more than that. But if even just one person takes away a true Disney experience, a real Disney moment, a lasting Disney memory, then that ride is a success. Try this formula on for size. Ride for you is a failure (in relation to all those things I mention) + ride for the person next to you is a success (in relation to all those things I mention) = Disney Success.

Disney is many things to many people. If we fail to recognize that, if we try to say that Disney is only the things we say it is for us, we have stepped over the line and taken an element of imagination and delight, pure, bona fide, Disney delight, out of the hands of the person standing next to us. Would Walt approve of that? I really don’t believe so. I cringe at even putting my thoughts to writing as I could even be guilty of overstepping the line – but I truly endeavor to keep an open mind.

In conclusion, I admit that there are probably few true Disney failures. For you or I there may be many. But in general, on the whole, there are probably not many. I will also admit that in my framework, success and ‘Disney’ seem to go hand in hand for a Disney attraction. Does that mean that an attraction that doesn’t do all of the things I mention above is destined to be a failure? No. Here is where I will throw a bone for the Stacky guy to snack-y on. If it doesn’t do all the things I mentioned it can still be successful (read: popular - and notice that popularity was nowhere in my list), but it would be just as successful if it were in Disney, or if it were in the park that belongs to the guy down the street. You could take most, make that all, attractions in Disney and put them in a competitor’s park and they would be successful. You could take very few rides from a competitor’s park and put them in Disney and have them be a Disney success, even though they may succeed in generating a line.

Pick away, my friendly vultures, but you can’t change the truth.

 

[SnackyStacky]

Kidds,

You have confused me more than ANYTHING.

To provide a unique Disney element or attention to detail.

I said this and you said that we were talking about two different things. Remember?

First things first on this one. I never said you are wrong about anything, especially given that we have been talking about two different things.

Two different things meaning what makes a ride Disney and what makes a Disney ride successful. I contended those two things were inextricably linked, and you disagreed! But you actually did agree?!?! HUH!?! I really am legitimately confused.

But anyway, onto my opinions of your list. Since I covered, and agreed with MANY times over #1, I'll move on.

2. To make guests laugh/cry/feel exhilarated/feel nostalgic/feel patriotic/feel proud often & much. In essence, an attraction should evoke some kind of emotional response in the guest. Not every ride for every guest, but for the intended audience. Face it, a 4 year old will cry for all the wrong reasons if they went on Extraterrorestial (I’m thinking of American Adventure tear in your eye type crying as the right kind), and many adults are bored to death by Dumbo.

I think this goes with #1 on my list. It's basically the same thing. Whether or not people like it. I think the end goal of any ride is to elicit some sort of response in people, and how WELL people give that response will determine how popular it is. So, more or less, I agree, I would just word it different.

3. To win the respect of intelligent people or the affection of children. Again, pretty self explanatory. Why both? Well, it is important that adults appreciate what is there. However, sometimes kids can see things in a unique way, and see things that an adult just can’t.

TOTALLY disagree here. With the entire premise. I agree that kids can see things in a way that adults can't, but there's too much qualification there. I don't think that any ride needs to "win" anybody's respect. That's a little too lofty, and a little too philosophical for my tastes. Even though it is a Disney ride, it is after all, just a ride.

4. To earn the appreciation of honest critics for those Magical elements it offers and endure the harsh criticisms for ways in which it could be better. Ok, someone will probably say that this is fraught with CYA. Look a little closer though, as no attraction will be perfect in the eyes of all people. You see, many attractions accomplish many different things, and few accomplish all things. As the saying goes – you can keep all of the people happy some of the time, and you can keep some of the people happy all of the time, but you can’t keep all of the people happy all of the time. This isn’t just lip service – it is true. And no, it isn’t just about happiness. In this regard happiness = pure Disney joy. So, while there might be aspects of a ride that don’t make some people happy (ie bring them pure Disney joy), if they are an honest critic they will be able to look past that and see the things that keep other people happy (ie – bring them pure Disney joy). As for enduring the criticism – most rides will have some, but if they can withstand the test of time, still bring forth the Magic for those who see it as time passes despite those areas where it can be criticized, they will endure.

Based on your explanation, it sounds to me just like a re-statement of number 1 in a different way. "bring them pure Disney joy" - what brings that Disney joy? That Disney element. So okay, I agree with it.

5. To bring out the best in guests. There is nothing better than pure joy. In and of itself, pure joy might not make a Disney success, but combined with the other elements…..that is Magic

Pure joy? As in the same joy that you were talking about in number 4? Again I agree, but I agreed when you said it in number 1, and number 4!

6. To leave the World a bit better, whether by an excited child, a carefree adult, a closer family, a unique experience, a better understanding of our world, a renewed spirit or a redeemed social condition. Ok, this one is a mouthful, but it is also rather simple. Perhaps the very things Walt fought so hard to provide. Disney attractions should excite, bring us together, educate, make us think, make us understand another peoples, give us something we can’t get elsewhere, help us to escape the workaday world, refresh us (at the same time as it exhausts us ), and make us all just a little bit happier, a little bit better – and have that stay with us (focus on this my friends, as a visit to Six Flags just doesn’t do it).

Six Flags certainly does do it. It leaves a child happier, and adult a little bit more carefree....don't believe me? Talk to coaster enthusiats that get that exileration, that liberation on a coaster. SO, since you said Six Flags doesn't do it, I'm assuming you're re-referencing the Disney Magic. I agreed about 4 times now!!!!!!!!

7. To know even one life has had an element of Disney Magic added to their vacation because it has existed. Yes, it is just as much about the person standing next to us as it is about you or me. That person may be elderly or young. That person may be from another country. That person may be from a different background. That person will have a different view on good or bad, successful or unsuccessful. And they have to do more than smile – Disney is about so much more than that. But if even just one person takes away a true Disney experience, a real Disney moment, a lasting Disney memory, then that ride is a success. Try this formula on for size. Ride for you is a failure (in relation to all those things I mention) + ride for the person next to you is a success (in relation to all those things I mention) = Disney Success.

YOU SAID THAT ALREADY!

I agree with the premise of your list, as the basis for it seems to be Disney Magic. But now you're left with where we were at the beginning of this thread. Define Disney Magic. Which I think is what I was trying to do since we apparently we now agree that Disney Magic most definitely has a link to the success of a Disney attraction.

Pick away, my friendly vultures, but you can’t change the truth.

"But what is truth? Not easy to define! We both have truths. Are yours the same as mine?"
- Pontius Pilate, fr. Jesus Christ Superstar

The next part of the quote is "CRUCIFY HIM! CRUCIFY HIM!" but we won't go that far since this is only a friendly debate.

 

[BRERALEX]

i think at this point you guys are just debating to argue. to see who can better up the other.

 

[BRERALEX]

KUMBA YA MY LORD KUMBA YA. KUMBA YA MY LORD KUMBA YA. LORD KUMBA YA

 

[DisneyKidds]

SS...........

I contended those two things were inextricably linked, and you disagreed!

Well, well - who's putting words in mouths now . Go back and read. I never disagreed with anything.

Now, on the surface, some may consider those two question above to be one and the same, that ‘success’ and ‘Disney’ are inextricably linked when it comes to Disney attractions. That is a great point for discussion. Let me pose a few questions in that regard.

See what I said? In the end, I listened to opinions on both questions. I focused more on one, tried to guide you toward one, because I already knew how I felt about the other. I probed. I asked more questions. All this as I was formulating my response. That is far from disagreeing .

I don't think that any ride needs to "win" anybody's respect. That's a little too lofty, and a little too philosophical for my tastes. Even though it is a Disney ride, it is after all, just a ride.

Now, now Mr. S - I was just trying to stick with the Emerson passage a little bit . Respect may be a strong word but it keeps with the theme of the passage. I realize we aren't talking about world peace . Notice in my explanation I use the word 'appreciate' as it relates to adults. Fact of the matter is, many adults might not appreciate the rides that the kids get the most Magic from. So to say a ride is not successful because an adult doesn't like it, or appreciate it, or respect it, is totally wrong. That was my point.

there's too much qualification

What 'qualification' are you talking about? My only 'qualification' is that kids and/or adults find Disney Magic in it. Please explain where the over-abundance of qualification exists.

and have that stay with us

Boy, I bolded it and told you that is where the focus should be and you still missed the point. Sure, Six Flags does some of those things. However, how many people talk or think about the Six Flags experience X months later? How any people plan a Six Flags vacation a year and a half in advance. How many people are banking their head against a wall on a Six Flags internet bulletin board? We go to places like Hershey and Six Flags. Yeah, it is fun while we are there. Yeah, it is a break and we feel carefree while we are there. However, once we leave the parking lot the experience is pretty much gone. Sure, some people may also feel that way about Disney, but would you say it is the majority? I don't think so, otherwise Disney would never have become what it was/is. At Six Flags there is not much there to teach you about anything, to make you think, to make you understand something new (other than the color of barf after eating blue cotton candy ). Just my opinion, of course.

I agreed when you said it in number 1, and number 4!

You can interpret my items and agree with whatever you like, but I didn't 'say it' in 1 and 4. Sure, in number 4's explanation I threw in 'joy' just to make the point that simple happiness wasn't the barometer (so people didn't jump all over me ), but that wasn't the gist of number 4.

As to number 7 - the Magic itself is not the point. The point is who gets the Magic. The power of one, if you will.

"But what is truth? Not easy to define! We both have truths. Are yours the same as mine?"

Who's getting philosophical now . I think there are some simple truths that even Pilate and Je.......I mean you and I could agree upon. Tell me what you think:

1. All people are different.
2. Different people can find different Disney Magic in different things.
3. Not everyone will be able to necessarily see the same Disney Magic that someone else does, or see it in the same way.
4. Everyone is deserving of Disney Magic.
5. No one ride can be all things to all people.
6. Disney is the best theme park destination in the world.

PS - if you read my post to the end you would see that I flipped you the break and agree with much of what you said. But if you want to continue to quibble.......................I'll see you in a few hours .

PSS - a few relevant quotes...........Sorry Alex, SS wants to play this game .

SS in response to the 'Disney ride thing' (that would be SS defining what makes a 'Disney' ride).......

Let's start with the lowest of the low, a church lawn fete. A few rides, and some carnival games. People get off of those rides, and there would be more that enjoyed those rides than didn't. But I think we can agree that if they plopped one of those rides in the middle of a Disney park, it wouldn't get the warmest reception.

Why? I assume it must be because that Disney should be better than that. Is that what you were getting at Mr. SS?
SS on the same subject.............

Moving up a step, look at Six Flags. Lots of rides there that I "enjoy". But I would never ever spend any kind of money to pay for a hotel, airfare to get there, and I CERTAINLY wouldn't pay $52 to get in! So those success, again, wouldn't work in a Disney park.

Mr. SS continues.........

Then we look at Disney. People expect MORE from Disney, because Disney expects more from its guests. It expects them to pay premium prices for admission. It expects them to pay for their pricey hotels. It expects them to pay for transportation to get there (Because let's face it, the locals can't support the World). So if you take either of those first two examples and plop it down in the middle of the Magic Kingdom, I don't think it can nearly be considered a success. Because the fact that they ARE Disney raises the standard. Because Walt raised the standard. (And because Eisner raised the prices)

So, Six Flags rides wouldn't be a Disney success because people expect MORE. What does MORE mean? I assumed it meant Disney had to be better. Was I wrong in that assumption?

Then I said.............

It appears that one of the items on your (unwritten) list for a successful Disney attraction is that it be better than anything the competition has put out there.

.......and you vehemently disagreed with that, or with the notion that you said it.

Fine, you didn't say it. Can we drop this one now ?

 

[WEDWAY100]

I am really tired of reading this thread. Snacky, DK, Baron von DVC, you guys (and/or gals) have it all wrong. You are wrong, wrong, wrong!

Here are the true criteria that make a Disney attraction successful:

1. It is cheap.
2. Guests will want to buy a lot of cheap crap at very high prices after they ride it.
3. It is cheap.
4. It can be opened later than the rest of the park with ease.
5. It can be closed earlier than the rest of the park with ease.
6. It stands out in its’ environment so that guests can see it.
7. If people don’t like it, characters and landscaping can be placed around it to hide the fact that it is cheap.
8. It was designed by an outside vendor so Disney can get rid of that pesky Imagineering division.
9. It has cross promotion with low rated ABC television show.
10. It has yellow caution tape and big warning signs all over it so no one can sue.
11. It can be used to market DVC.
12. It has a place where you can donate money to the Disney executive of choice.

I personally think that Disney is doing an admirable job of sticking to this philosophy. This "standard" if you will.

Why don’t you guys just lay off this stuff. You obviously don’t get it.

 

[DisneyKidds]

I am really tired of reading this thread.

Sorry WED. Let me just run over to where you are and make myself stop twisting your arm to read this thread. Oh, wait, I'm not there .

 

[WEDWAY100]

DK,

It's just self-inflicted torture.

 

[raidermatt]

Hey DK, are you in HR (Human Resources)?

That list has "tochy feely" all over it! (No, not THAT kind of touchy feely...)

 

[DisneyKidds]

Originally posted by WEDWAY100
DK,

It's just self-inflicted torture.

You mean you didn't know we are all masochists? .

 

[DisneyKidds]

Originally posted by raidermatt
Hey DK, are you in HR (Human Resources)?

That list has "tochy feely" all over it! (No, not THAT kind of touchy feely...)

No Matt, I just didn't feel like sleeping on the train this morning and had a lot of time on my hands. Guess what, writing this stuff sure make that hour and fifteen go by pretty quick . I am a people person though, or at least that is what the guys in the assylum seem to think................