DEBATE: When does the "Disney Experience" cease to exist?

[FantasticDisFamily]

Ok gang. I'm echoing Ohanafamily's statement here. Despite the negatives, and there certainly are some, Eisner is not all bad.

On the plus side - if he had not been willing to take on the job of CEO in 1984 THERE WOULD BE NO DISNEY TODAY! There has been plenty written on this from many perspectives. At that time Disney was in serious danger of disappearing in all forms that are even remotely familiar. He did launch initiatives - that have been debated at length as to their "true" Disney quality - but which kept the company moving. Some of those have been more successful than others.

On the negative side - he has allowed/caused some very creative people to leave the company. The "evidence" suggests that efficiency has been put ahead of at least show, if not safety & courtesy, far too often. His appointment of Pre$$ler as head of parks was just plain wrong. That has been corrected - it has only been 2 weeks, let's give the new guy (I should know his name but it escapes me at the moment - coffee hasn't fired up all of the detail portions of my brain yet maybe?) a chance to work.

Time for more coffee -

The Professor

 

[ohanafamily]

His Name is James Rasulo, and I hope he is going to do well... there is a thread about him in this section, but it is all conjecture...

 

[DisneyKidds]

You know Baron, tongue in cheek begets tongue in cheek .

Then why didn’t they!?

Because they are tight wads lately. Not that that is right, but it just is. But just because they could have done something different that might have been better it doesn't mean they did a bad job with the thing they decided to do.

As for kids and boxes - sure, kids like boxes. However, there is more than that going on here and you know it. This is not tongue in cheek and I say it most seriously. It amazes me how belittleing you (and others) can apparently be to children. They are much more complex individuals than you seem to want to give them credit for. I suppose we should boil down your childhood memories, those things that helped shape the person that you are, to nothing more than a box . (I say that generally so don't make it personal about me, as WDW does not represent my childhood memories.) Let me ask you this. After your kids get done playing with that box at Christmas do they talk about it for a year? Do they ask you constantly when they can play with that box again? Actually, your comments toward children belittle your idyllic DL and beloved MK of 1971. Everything that existed was there for a reason. One of Walts great strenghts was elliciting emotional response and attachment in his guests, all of his guests. You have successfully reduced Walt to a peddler of boxes, and this from a man who believes he is an authority on the man and his philosophy. It is a sad day my friend .

[Back to lighthearted mode, and a little fun tongue in cheek]

WELCOME!! Of course you can ride in car #3!! The more the merrier!

Wouldn't that be 'the more, the grumpier' .

You can’t be serious! I’m floored! These things you mentioned are merely the outward symptoms of a disease that’s been cooking for quite some time now!

Baron, I am going to guess that you and many of your car 3 bretheren are different than the much of the WDW going public - and that is ok. Seems to be that for you WDW has been doom and gloom since September of 1984. I know, I know - everyone who doesn't believe so is ignorant. Well, I don't happen to believe so - you called me a fool, now you can call me ignorant. That doesn't change the fact that you are wrong. I am well aware of the concerns you have on underlying philosophies. Some I agree with, some I don't. You (and others) have been instrumental in making me see some things in a new way, and I thank you for that. I am well aware that the things I mentioned are outward manifestations of economic issues, tourism issue, and yes, philosophical issues. I know that if we currently had longer hours, E-nights, EE (wait, we do have that back), high resorts occupancy, if many of those 'outward symptoms' went away it wouldn't change your philosophical concerns. However, few would be inclined to describe Disney as doom and gloom. I honestly believe we will see all of those things again, but only time will tell. Even when we do, we will still have a company with issues to address, but the WDW experience will be back to what it was (for most people), or very close. Most every company has issues. Issues with management philosophy, corporate direction, etc., etc. But all those companies aren't doom and gloom. I think we can seperate the gloom and doom from the other issues. First we fix one, then we try an deal with the others. A slow process I agree, but that is the reality of the situation. Did Diseny forget what there product is? No, they are just using different production methods. Is that a good thing? Sadly, no.

Sadly, Baron, Disney is not as unique as they once were. Again, that is the reality of the situation, and some day you are going to have to deal with that reality. You will have to find a way to see the Magic through the reality, because the Magic is still there. Yes, I agree that these are sad statements compared to the Disney of old, but it doesn't change the fact that WDW is still a wonderful place. You know, the way you talk you really should dump that lemon of a car you think you have, yet you don't . I guess it is really fish or cut bait time. If you keep fishing you won't catch the same fish you did 20 years ago, and only you can decide if the fishing is still worth the effort. When does the 'Disney experience' cease to exist? The answer to that question is different for everybody. If I didn't know better, from reading most of what you write I'd say it has ceased to exist for you.

Wow - I guess I never got out of serious mode .

 

[montessori]

Disneykidds said:
"It amazes me how belittleing you (and others) can to be to children. They are much more complex individuals than you seem to want to give them credit for."
I understand the complexities of children. I've been a pre-school and kindergarten teacher for over 20 years. I did not belittle children in any way by bringing up the fact that they love playing in boxes. We will never agree about the Aladdin ride, I think it's a huge and hideous obstruction plopped down in the middle of Adventureland. I can't be convinced that it belongs there or that it makes a day at Disney World any more special for a young child than if it were not there.
So, that's one ride in a whole world of adventures and magic!
I agree that some people who post on this board seem to be in car #3 or 4 already. It seems the magic has ceased to exist for some, how can it exist in the midst of such negativity?
I've been wondering for a while now, if some of these people (I can't think of who's who!) can say even one positive thing about Disney and Disney World.
We were at DW again last weekend. Besides the Aladdin ride (and it's really not THAT important to me), I can't think of a single negative thing to say about our vacation! It was magical and wonderful! We spent a ton of money but that's our choice, we know from these boards that many people manage to have Disney vacations on a budget.
I am not as informed about the corporate and business aspects of Disney as you all seem to be. I do go to DW a lot and I am observant of the changes over the years.
I'm not thrilled with some things...shorter hours, less entertainment etc... BUT, every time we go there, we have more fun than the time before! We've been there many many times, so we're talking lots and lots of fun!
I guess I'm trying to say that the Disney experience has to come from inside each individual person. It's there for me and my husband and it's there for thousands of other people. I choose to hang on to the magic and hope for an even brighter, more magical Disney in the future!
I'm hurrying through this and it may seem contrite and simplistic but it's my 2 cents worth! And just my humble opinion, of course.

 

[FantasticDisFamily]

Thanks OhanaFamily! I knew that as soon as I saw it, have even been following that thread. Just one of those moments when not all of the synapsis were firing!

The Professor

 

[DisneyKidds]

Montessori (of the schools?)...

I understand the complexities of children. I've been a pre-school and kindergarten teacher for over 20 years. I did not belittle children in any way by bringing up the fact that they love playing in boxes. We will never agree about the Aladdin ride, I think it's a huge and hideous obstruction plopped down in the middle of Adventureland. I can't be convinced that it belongs there or that it makes a day at Disney World any more special for a young child than if it were not there.

I don't recall your specific comment, but I seem to remember it as offhanded, implying that kids are easily entertained. That is true. However, to imply (not that you did, or did you?) that a child could just as easily be entertained by a box in the middle of Adventureland as they would be by Aladdin, to imply that a box could possibly have the same effect on a child as Aladdin - that is extremely insulting. I disagree with your assessment of the difference that Aladdin makes to a child's enjoyment of WDW. Sure, there is so much for them to enjoy without Aladdin, but that doesn't mean that the addition of Aladdin wasn't significant to them. By that logic, why would Disney add any rides of any sort? I mean, there is so much to make WDW special for adults, why add Mission:Space? it is just one ride in a whole world of adventures and magic. When Aladdin wasn't there it didn't make their day any less special, but with Aladdin is is more special than it was for many young children. Everyone who goes to WDW, adults and kids, has a list of favorite rides they want to go on when they get to WDW. For the toddler set, Aladdin makes that list - plain and simple. At once they can fly, they can be part of a favorite movie, they can be brave, they can laugh, they can smile, they can share a moment with their family, they can live out a small adventure. But what do they know - they are just kids. To discount their opinion because one thinks that kids are easily entertained is belittleing. You understand kids. If the experience of riding Aladdin gives them an indellible memory, a lasting experience, if it adds to their schema, why would you deprive a child of that? Trust me, a box might bring temporary enjoyment, but it doesn't leave a lasting impact. Aladdin does. Sure, there are plenty of other things at WDW that accomplish that objective, but why not one more? Just because it infringes upon some adults personal enjoyment of Adventureland?Why should some adults enjoyment of Adventureland be more important than a child's?

Not trying to give you a hard time, but some people just can't see WDW through the eyes of a child. I'd submit that that is how the MK was intended to be viewed. Disney is for the young, and the young at heart. Being at Disney allows adults to act like a kid again. I guess we don't want to actually give the kids more that they can be kids on. Maybe we can arrange a limo to Neverland for those who have lost the ability to see the World through the eyes of a child..............better make it a stretch...........hmmmm.........better make it a super stretch. (Nah - we shouldn't have had that ride either, after all, WDW was already special without it ).

BTW.............

I guess I'm trying to say that the Disney experience has to come from inside each individual person. It's there for me and my husband and it's there for thousands of other people. I choose to hang on to the magic and hope for an even brighter, more magical Disney in the future!

Well said!! Thanks for the opinion .

 

[BRERALEX]

the way i look at it is, I may not like Aladdin but my son has ridden it one time when he was 3. I plan on takin him again in jan. or feb. when he is 5. by the time he is ten i hope he would have gone to disney say 8 or 9 times. To him when he is 20 Aladdin will be to him a great part of the Magic Kingdom.

And if they decide to take away Aladdin in say 20 30 years he'll be on some virtual Disboard debating that it is terrible that Aladdin is being taken away since ti brings such great joys to children.

I'm trying to see the benefits it is to a child. I still don't like it's "onboarding" process but for a child with the spitting camel it must be great. and those suckers grow up to be us grumpy old suckers.

but ill tell you one thing kids or no kids i think chesters and hesters sucks!!!!!!! lolololololol

 

[DisneyKidds]

but ill tell you one thing kids or no kids i think chesters and hesters sucks!!!!!!! lolololololol

Funny thing - while my 3 yo enjoys Triceratops, it isn't on her list. We actually didn't get on it last trip and she didn't get upset. I'll tell you though, there was no way we could have missed Dumbo and Aladdin. She talks about going on Aladdin, but not Triceratops. Lest you say she just isn't as familiar with AK as MK, we get advertisements for the bone yard ALL THE TIME!!! Hmmmm.....could it be that a 3 yo is capable of having a discriminating opinion? (rhetorical question).

 

[BRERALEX]

my son rememebers the camel spitting on us.

if you would have forgotten dumbo fuggetabout it.


that must mean something and very baaaaaaadddd.

but I havent taken my little guy to chesters and hesters yet and the scary thing is he might actually like it. i dont know yet.

whatever puts that smile on his face.

 

[montessori]

Disneykidds,
Well, you are certainly a staunch Aladdin supporter! I can see that there is no changing your mind about the ride, just as there's no changing mine.
I know someone else mentioned that it could have been done better and you poo-pooed that as unimportant. I think that is VERY important. Why couldn't they add a ride for toddlers that would not be so OBJECTIONABLE to any person with a sense of aesthetics and design?
I think there's a good chance that I know children better than you do, and I certainly understand them and hold them in the highest regard. My students are ages 2 1/2 thru 6. I have my own Montessori pre-school. I spend 40 - 50 hours per week with young chldren. I've been working with children since I was 17 years old. We started going to DW 3 or 4 times a year when our daughter was 3, she's 21 now. I have taken other people's children to DW with me, more than a few times.
Of course a child can LOVE the Aladdin ride. A child can love the Aladdin ride tucked away somewhere, not plopped down right in the middle of Adventureland. Or a child can love some other new ride, one that isn't such a monstrosity.

I do not appreciate the implication that I wish to deprive children of fun at DW. Or that I disrespect children. Or, that I can't see DW through a child's eyes. I've been seeing DW that way for over 20 years.
I take nothing away from children by saying that the Aladdin ride is ugly and doesn't belong where it is.

Children didn't put it there.

That's all I'm going to say about the Aladdin ride. It's giving me a headache!

 

[WEDWAY100]

WELCOME!! Of course you can ride in car #3!! The more the merrier! Check your rose-colored-glasses at the door and only use them when you visit WDW!! (That’s what I do!! )

Baron,

Thanks for the welcome! Since I live close to WDW and can go just about any day, I don’t even carry the rose colored glasses when I go there anymore.

NOTHING will change the mindset of those in control! They have been on this path since the beginning. And they will do NOTHING more than what is minimally required to keep them economically viable. NOTHING!! And that's no different from any other company in the world. May as well become a Universal fan!

This has been an issue of mine for a while now. It seems as if they have been experimenting with exactly how much (or how little) they can give the guests and still get a generally positive reaction from them. Not at all what the philosophy used to be. I do think things will improve, because I think (or rather hope) that management realizes they went too far with DCA and possibly Dinorama. But that improvement will be just enough to get that generally positive reaction, and then it will stop. As for liking Universal, at this point, I have to say that I like them only marginally less than Disney, and that’s only because of the fond memories I have about Disney of the past.

Mr. Kidds,

I know you weren’t specifically writing to me, but I’d like to address some of you earlier post. For me, it’s not so much doom and gloom. I do have a good time when I go to WDW, but not for the same reasons anymore. I enjoy a box of popcorn and watching people enjoy themselves – and of course the occasional ride on one of the classic E tickets. Some of the changes in my attitude come from familiarity, but some come from the company creating less. I often wonder why they don’t create E ticket dark rides for the entire family anymore. Most are now a thrill ride of some sort that have been plussed up to some degree.

I think I have seen you ask when the decline started – could it have been as early as 1972? For me and my personal definition of Disney magic, the answer to that question is yes, it probably was that early. Budget cuts have been an obstacle since Walt started planning DL back in the early 50’s. The difference between then and now is that he had a keen sense of what to cut and what needed to be left in place. There is an example that I read about recently regarding Pirates, and one of the budget cuts he proposed. The effect on the show was minimal, but the cost savings was relatively large. His judgment was very good regarding these types of decisions, and I think that since his death, these types of decisions have not been evaluated as well. On opening day, I think the MK would have been different under Walt, even if the budget were exactly the same. From opening day forward, budget cuts have impacted WDW. As an example, WDW got Big Thunder Mountain instead of Western River Expedition, an obvious enormous budget decision, but one that diminished what the MK could have been. If the internet were available then, people like us would have been posting, putting $ signs in Card Walker and Ron Miller’$ names.

I am glad that you have a good time at WDW – I do too. It’s just that now I lower my expectations before I try something new (I think that’s where the Baron puts on his rose colored glasses).

 

[DisneyKidds]

Montessori - no need to get defensive .

This really isn't about Aladdin, per se. I have seen two arguments from the opposition. One would be that Aladdin is bad because it doesn't fit in Adventureland. I can respect that argument, but it is fraught with personal opinion. The second argument is that Aladdin is a bad ride period. That it is based on archane technology, is unoriginal, and therefore it should never have been built, and that Disney would have been better to use the money elsewhere. This is the position I take objection to. The same argumants could be applied to other rides that some people think are 'bad'.

I didn't question your knowledge of children (and you aren't the only one who has experience with them). But certainly, with your knowledge of children, you must be able to conclude that a ride like Aladdin will effect them more than a box.

I know someone else mentioned that it could have been done better and you poo-pooed that as unimportant.

No, I didn't. I would agree that Disney is capable of making different rides that others would consider better, even rides I would think are better. I would love to see Forbidden Mountain as opposed to Aladdin. But that has nothing to do with Aladdin. That is what I poo-pood. I think they did a fine job with Aladdin.

Why couldn't they add a ride for toddlers that would not be so OBJECTIONABLE to any person with a sense of aesthetics and design?

There go those personal opinions again - and that is fine, no arguments from me so long as we see them for what they are.

I do not appreciate the implication that I wish to deprive children of fun at DW.

I highly doubt you want to deprive kids of fun at WDW. Lets look at what you did say............

I can't be convinced that it belongs there or that it makes a day at Disney World any more special for a young child than if it were not there. So, that's one ride in a whole world of adventures and magic!

It does appear you would deprive them of the fun of riding Aladdin. However..........

I can see that there is no changing your mind about the ride, just as there's no changing mine.

........I already changed your mind .

A child can love the Aladdin ride tucked away somewhere, not plopped down right in the middle of Adventureland.

As it appears that you do agree that Aladdin does add something to WDW for children.

I take nothing away from children by saying that the Aladdin ride is ugly and doesn't belong where it is.

No, you absolutely do not. However, to say that a child would enjoy it no more than a box, that it would have the same impression on a child as a box, that it doesn't add anything to the WDW experience for a child - that does take something away.

If you feel it is ugly doesn't belong where it is, fine. If you feel that it provides kids the stimulating equivalent of a box and it should not have been built for kids to enjoy at all - well, we could argue about that forever.

 

[ohanafamily]

I forgot who said it, but someone mentioned a box. Come on over to my parent’s house at Christmas some year. You’ll witness that very phenomenon. Thousands of dollars worth of presents and most of the kids are playing in the boxes!! Making tunnels, forts, house, etc. It is really amazing. So, maybe, given your Disney proving ground and measuring stick for what hits the ‘Disney’ mark, we should put a couple of cardboard boxes in the middle of the walkway and call it an attraction. Is that it?

Dearest DisneyKidds and Montessori:

Baron was the one who had the snippy remark about the cardboard boxes.
I think you both care very much for kids, and while Mr. Kidds seems to love Aladdin, Montessori you seem to think it would be OK if not Plopped down in the middle of things.

I agree with both of you, and if Baron wants to play with a box in the middle of Adventureland......

Seriously, it sounds like you are both very caring ang passionate. Please don't loose those glasses and hop into car #3.

Please also don't give Baron the smug grin he would get from insighting a riot!!!!!!!!!

 

[montessori]

Quote from me:
That's all I'm going to say about the Aladdin ride. It's giving me a headache!

There's more important things in the World than...that ride.

Ohanafamily, you are going to Disney World in 2 days! I hope you have a fantastic time, I'm sure you will. Be sure to have dinner at Flying Fish, the steaks are to die for and the pasta is pretty darn good too. We sat at the bar with Anderson as our bartender and server. I recommend it to anyone.

Have a magical Disney experience!!!

 

[raidermatt]

I take this to mean that you assume that, even when better economic times bring increased attendance and occupancy, we will always have the doom and gloom of the last 2 years, that nothing will change and we will never get the hours and entertainment of the 90's back.

Nope, lets try it again.

Things like shorter hours and falling attendance are just effects of the basic problems.

Certainly outside economic forces have an impact on Disney's attendance. So when I said "if nothing changes", I meant all else being equal, then yes, attendance will rise when the economy improves. As a result, hours may increase over the levels today. (Actually, I'm giving more credit here than is deserved. Outside factors are not strong now, but they are stronger than a year ago, yet hours are less than a year ago...)

So, if we set the baseline as today, then of course things are likely to get better if the economy improves relatively soon.

I concede that, but maintain it is missing the real point. The real point being that management's philosophy toward the parks is detrimental to their performance in any economic condition.

You're using the past year as a starting point to say that if it gets better than it is now, that's ok.

But its not ok.

If Disney were managing the park/resort business with the right philosophy, they would be performing better at this time then they are. And, when the economy improves, they would be performing better than they will if they don't change their philosophy.

The only questions being how far below their potential they go, and for how long.

I happen to think things will change, that when the economy turns and attendance goes up Disney will make changes and we will see the hours and entertainment increase.

Hours and entertainment probably would increase. But the philosophy of providing as little as they can get away with would still be the driving force.


All that said...

...we will never get the hours and entertainment of the 90's back. Is that what you are saying?

Actually, I do agree with this sentence, assuming you mean pre-1998. Current management has proven this will not happen, because they decreased hours in 1999 and 2000, even though attendance was rising. What in the world makes us think they would bring hours back to those levels? SHOW me the indications that the philosophy has changed. EE? Nice, but hours still shrink... EE coming back has all the earmarks of a move made only because they realize they cut more than they could get away with.

 

[raidermatt]

There's a few ground rules that we seem to continually have problems with around here...

"Doom and Gloom", "Bad" Eisner, "Evil" Eisner, etc - WDW is still a wonderful place! Yes, I said it! That's why I go. That's why Baron goes. That's why just about everone on this board still goes. Yes, a few say they are going a bit less, but for the most part, we all still love WDW as it exists today.

So when terms like "bad", and "doom and gloom" come into the equation, its in RELATIVE terms. Its not that WDW is a bad place. Its WDW could be a better place that it is.

The same thing applies on a micro level with Aladdin. It's not "bad". Its not that kids won't love it. The problem is that it could have been done better, and in the past, Disney DID do things better. Does anyone really think this is the BEST Disney could do, or even very close? To answer that, you have to get beyond what a 3 year old says today. Of course that's important. But the only reason somebody says that a three year old is amused by a box, is that somebody else says that since a three year old likes it, it hits the mark.

Of course it has to hit the mark with the little ones. But just accomplishing that was never good enough for Disney. Their mission was to accomplish more than this, and they did, provided resources allowed.

So when we talk about "bad" attractions, or "bad" decisions, the baseline is not your everyday good and evil scenario. Its a comparison to a standard. There is nothing inherently WRONG with lower or different standards. Lower standards are not EVIL. They are just not in tune with the philosophy that made Disney what it is. That philosophy is what drew us to Disney (even if we didn't realize that was why). And now we see that philosophy fading, and we don't like it personally, and its not serving the company well financially.

Saying that Aladdin was not the right move is not an indictment of children. Its an indictment of the philosophy of providing something that just barely satisfies a basic goal.

It doesn't mean I don't take my son on it and have a blast...

 

[montessori]

Raidermatt,
I enjoy reading your posts. They are sensible and well written.
(You helped explain my point of view a little better too!)

Thanks!

 

[DisneyKidds]

Matt - that is a nice post. It is sensible and well written. I completely understand what you are saying. However, you are missing something, and that something is that there are many different targets that Disney aims to please. As such, I have to take exception to a couple of your statements.

providing something that just barely satisfies a basic goal.

You may see Aladdin as barely satisfying a basic goal for you, for an adult. However, this attraction, just like Dumbo, fully satifies a huge goal for those guests that it was designed to entertain the most.

Of course it has to hit the mark with the little ones. But just accomplishing that was never good enough for Disney.

Really? Not every attraction in DL and WDW was designed to hit the mark with every guest, and that is fine. There are many rides that hit the mark with adults, but not kids. There are many rides that hit the mark for everybody. There are many rides that hit the mark with kids, but not adults. This was all by design. It very much was good enough for Disney to hit the mark with specific segments of guests.

The problem is that it could have been done better, and in the past, Disney DID do things better.

Again, no. OK, maybe some people would prefer the colors on Aladdin to be muted, and for the ride to be placed further out of the way. Other than that Disney could not have done better with what they intended to do. Furthermore, they didn't do better in the past with what they intended to do. Dumbo is no better, and Dumbo was a ride that Walt approved of in DL and would have approved of in WDW.

Does anyone really think this is the BEST Disney could do, or even very close?

Yes. If Disney wanted to do a well themed spinner that brings an animated feature to life and appeals to very young children they could not have done better. So what that the technology is old - it works. You seem to have a problem with the fact that they wanted to do a spinner aimed at kids at all, and that is rediculous.

But the only reason somebody says that a three year old is amused by a box, is that somebody else says that since a three year old likes it, it hits the mark.

I still don't see how the 'box' fits in here, other than to say that kids wouldn't recognize a good attraction if it bit them on the............ I have a question for you. Are you saying that Aladdin doesn't hit the mark with the intended audience? Forget that you would have preferred another attraction all together. Forget the idea that the ride was just put in to sell plastic swords and jewels. Who do you think the ride was intended to appeal to? Did they accomplish the goal of making an attraction that is appealing and endearing to that group?

Somehow I have been sucked into being the Aladdin advocate, just like I was the 'moderate resort' advocate. How the heck do I get myself into this stuff.........and, more importantly, how do I get out .

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
Somehow I have been sucked into being the Aladdin advocate, just like I was the 'moderate resort' advocate. How the heck do I get myself into this stuff.........and, more importantly, how do I get out .

By joining the dark side!!! You KNOW it to be true!! Check your feeling!!

 

[DisneyKidds]

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
By joining the dark side!!! You KNOW it to be true!! Check your feeling!!

Boy, that was quick .

................and you know the answer to your solution. No!!! Never!!!!! .