Disney Theme Parks: Today vs. Yesterday

[DVC-Landbaron]

True. But does that really demand restoring food portions and park hours in order to be achieved? I believe creativity mainly lies within the attractions and the design and flow of the parks.

Yes!! Because part of that creativity was the art of doing business! Of providing value!! Anyone can build a ride. IOA has plenty of them!! And any company can make a film. Take a look at Shrek. BUT!! That creativity HAS to be ingrained into everything they do. INCLUDING portion size and hours!! It is what set them apart. And it is what will insure that they are as consistent as possible in providing QUALITY in everything they do!!!

It's like asking if they really need to have polite CMs all the time?!? How crazy is that!?!?

 

[crusader]

Are you saying that the things that the old philosophy built didn’t appeal to the consumer? Or are you saying that what was built did indeed appeal, but doesn’t anymore? I’ll wait for an answer.

A bit of both actually. The enchanted tiki birds didn't appeal to me at all. Try selling a bunch of teens on the pure quality of entertainment while we are subjected to sitting in a room with a bunch of chirping and talking animatronic birds for 20 min. I'm sorry, was I supposed to feel it was worth my time? Neither was Tom Sawyer island or the Mike Fink Keel Boats. And honestly if it weren't for the CM hyping it up that Jungle Cruise with fake animals was extremely lame back in the "day". One more thing - what the heck was whatever the exhibit prior to and including Mission to Mars supposed to be? Pass.

Hey maybe my parents got the true artistic message behind what I just mentioned, but I doubt it because they gave us most if not all of the decent tickets. I experienced several things which felt more like installed fillers and never regained any appeal. Obviously judging from the extinction count I wasn't alone.

But then, YES!!!! I was blown away by the rest of the place! Peter Pan's Flight rocked and so did Pirates and the Haunted Mansion. Unfortunately 20,000 leagues had a fake looking undersea plastic foliage show but the ride vehicles were awesome. Should I go on?? Nah - you get the idea.

As far as what doesn't appeal anymore, I'd say only a select few need to be removed and replaced in the Magic Kingdom right now. In fact, all of the parks need to remove certain venues as well. I am not in disagreement with you regarding the need for more and the need to revitalize the whole darn place. Judging from your past disappointments, I may simply be more tolerant and cautiously optimistic regarding the recent changes.

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

No doubt there is a tremedous need for new, innovative creations but to not consider something such as Mission Space to fall within this category because it doesn't incorporate enough show is to denounce anything Walt built along this caliber as well.

I simply disagree with that approach.

Mission:Space does not fail on the new, innovation creation scale because "it doesn't incorporate enough show," it fails because the words "new," "innovation" and "creation" have definitions.

Most germaine to my point, I believe Mission:Space is not really a "Disney creation" at all, at least while talking about building a creative business. As far as I can ascertain, the lion's share of the expense for M:S went to contractors and ETC; Disney's own creative muscles did not get much of a work-out on the project. I think exercising their own ability to create is important to a creative company's success... that the Disney had that kind of investment in its own creativity had success, and the Disney that does not do that kind of investment has had failure.

I don't see that it would be of any use to explain why I don't feel Mission:Space can be called "new" or an "innovation," other than in its sheer capacity (are warehouse clubs' 288-roll toilet paper pallets really a "new innovation" of a product? I think not) for a variety of reasons... most importantly, I don't think there's any value in beating up M:S specifically, the only value in detailing M:S shortcomings is as evidence that Disney's management continues the trends that I believe have contributed to their financial and creative failure in recent years.

I agree that their is no value in bickering details of our individual experiences at WDW... and I've worked hard to avoid precisely that: it is you who has broached the topics of attraction specifics in this interaction. I have been talking about the fact that Disney's demonstrated business philosophy of creating less has coincided with the worst financial and public relations performance in their history, and suggesting that going back to an earlier Disney's demonstrated philosophy of creating more, which coincided with the best financial and public relations performance in their history.

You may "simply disagree" with the approach you descibe as much as you like... but it would make more sense if you found someone who actually takes that approach, first. You only confuse things by quoting solely from my post then taking issue with someone else's tactics.

 

[Another Voice]

Give people something they really want to see and they will throw money at you until you are crushed by its weight.

But you can cost manage and MBA a flop all you want and you will never recover a dime.

Wasteful dorky EPCOT Center convinced millions upon millions of people to fly to Orlando; thrill-a-minute California Adventure can not convince a fraction of that amount to drive twenty minutes. When it comes to figuring out how to make a popular, profitable theme park I guess I'd have to stick with those dorks that made the "day".

The "for what it is" drumbeat of lowered expectations and whines about economics means nothing to the public. The attendance figures prove that.

The goal is to appeal to as many people as possible – whether it's sometimes a thrill ride or sometimes with enchanted tiki birds. To each there own.

But instead we get rant after rant about how "fake animals was extremely lame" with the implied implication that it is a statement of fact and not opinion. And demands to gut a place instead of fix it, all for the sake of the moment's latest novelty instead of true creativity.

A "true artistic message" breathes life into something (sometimes even lame stuff) and gives it power. You probably don't see it because it's not supposed to be obvious, but talented people know how to put it in. And you can sure tell when it's lacking even if you keep your head point rigidly forward. Simple physical sensations do not have the same hold on people.

The fact is – Mr. Crusader – far more people will watch those "lame fake animals" than will ever sit in the washing machine to Mars. We'll see if that ride lasts even ten years before someone gets on this board and calls it "lame and cheap and anyone who likes it is seriously lame".

That to is in the nature of entertainment.

So before you go rushing to torch all those things that you don't like – just remember that there's an even younger kid with a match right behind you.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Crusader,

A wonderfully SUBJECTIVE post. And I’m sure there will be one or two members on the DIS that will agree with you, even down to you comma placements!! And there may be some others that will disagree with every word you say, even the comma placements. But the vast majority will agree with some, and disagree with some.

SO WHAT!?!?

So the world according to Crusader would be….

Don’t you see that this type of discussion doesn’t matter? It isn’t about personal likes and dislikes. It isn’t about subjectivity of form, art or puke-factor. What matters is what Mr. Head has been trying real hard to zero in on.

Listen to him:

I have been talking about the fact that Disney's demonstrated business philosophy of creating less has coincided with the worst financial and public relations performance in their history, and suggesting that going back to an earlier Disney's demonstrated philosophy of creating more, which coincided with the best financial and public relations performance in their history.

Doesn’t that make sense?

I wish I had the ability to stay on track like that. I get carried away instead defending the analogies and then wondering why you missed the point!! Sorry! My fault!!

 

[DancingBear]

Baron, I'd be careful about pointing to financial and public relations performance as the measure. I seem to recall lots of good publicity and great stock performance in those first 5 years of Eisner.

 

[crusader]

A wonderfully SUBJECTIVE post.

To an equally subjective topic.

Don’t you see that this type of discussion doesn’t matter?

Only in the sense that it fails to support your position in the way you need it to be acknowledged. It really does matter though on many different levels which I have clearly tried to describe in my "subjective" inference post a page or two back. Not surprising we are now moved to the big picture debate which removes all feeling and takes a straight corporate approach.

In order to do this though, you have to take the themeparks for what they represent - which is only a fraction of the company.

You cannot base your arguments on how the art worked with the consumer without being subjective. You cannot base your arguments on how the artistry is lacking at the executive level and therefore we have a lack of creativity without looking at every component within the organizational structure and considering both the business element and the creative element.

AV reminds us how much painstaking effort was involved in the initial stages of this company and how we the public are being shortchanged today because that is no longer the way things are run. I do understand this very well. I get a bit weary in the solution being the taj mahal approach.

The magic kingdom flows from the moment you arrive. It was one project built to withstand the test of time. EPCOT flows as well because it incorporates water and tranquility which is very relaxing during a vacation. The studios flowed in that when you arrived, you walked up the street and entered a replica Mann's Chinese Theatre which has an absolutely fantastic nostalgic presentation paying tribute to the motion picture industry. Animal Kingdom has yet to find it's center. The tree isn't working.

Beyond that we have this company which needs to produce and remain self-reliant. There are many many different layers and divisions within divisions which incorporate this massive publicly held entity. It isn't just a creative mind we need. We need a business mind in order to make sure we don't fall vicitim to the fate of the starving artist.

I want the best but I don't want to sink the company. I do want to see risks taken - Pirates is one - hopefully E:E will be another - putting a thrill ride in EPCOT is also a risky endeavor with no proven track record. It's success remains to be seen.

You want creative risk without the security blanket and you want the shareholders to agree with this. All I can say to you is: good luck! There is a financial world which governs that which the public owns and art can fail even when it's considered the best by the industry experts because we don't view it with the same regard. We view it personally.

It really is no different than you not seeing how much effort it took someone to serve you or how much the rest of society contributes to this world everyday without any bells or whistles to show for it.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Baron, I'd be careful about pointing to financial and public relations performance as the measure. I seem to recall lots of good publicity and great stock performance in those first 5 years of Eisner.

Oh! I absolutely agree!! But remember two things in these discussions. First, this is the Rumors and News Board of the DIS, which is primarily concerned with WDW, theme parks in general, animation, movies in general and some passing glance at merchandising. The rest of the company comes after that, and then it mainly centers on how it affects WDW.

And I really want you to consider what was happening at the time. Remember? Everyone was very, very concerned that some HUGE corporation would come in and the parks (the main concern for most of us) would be nothing more than a forgotten division of some mega-conglomerate. OH!!! A fate worse than death!!!

Now consider what the problems were. Many think that Disney was a losing proposition or that they were nearing bankruptcy. NOT A CHANCE. They were very, very solvent. In fact they were so solvent, with so many untapped assets (actually two biggies), that they were extremely ripe for a take-over. What were the two? Well video had taken the country by storm and Disney was not playing the game. They were sitting on a gold mine of Snow Whites, Dumbos and Jungle Books. BILLIONS could be made!!! And as luck would have it, a vast but very inexpensive real estate holding that Disney had acquired was going right through the roof!!! This was due to the proximity of a very successful venture that increased the area’s real estate value at least a hundred times. And Disney was doing NOTHING with it. (Hey, Card and Ron were NOT risk takers!! Much to their detriment!!)

I’m sure you’ve guessed that the real estate holding is in fact the rest of WDW. Which was lying fallow. There were some that were literally salivating at the chance of exploiting (if not downright raping this bonanza!)!!!

OK. Enter “The Savior”!! What did he do?

Hmmmmmmm…

Yes!! That’s right! He exploited the film library (an excellent move) and totally raped the parks, including WDW which was built up at so fast a rate that today we see shuttered resorts, one extra theme park (that no one really knows what to to with), a transportation NIGHTMARE, shoddy maintenance, etc. etc. etc.!!! Oh yeah!! And he acquired ABC, making Disney a true mega-conglomerate!! WOW!! Disney was certainly flying high!!

In other words he made Disney a HUGE corporation, while making the parks (and WDW) a forgotten Division within. Well, maybe not ‘forgotten’. More of a cash cow he absolutely needed to cover his ineptitude and make at least some quarters look a little brighter than they actually were.

Now, what was it that people were afraid would happen to Disney in 1983 when the corporate sharks were circling?

OK. So what’s your take?

 

[EUROPA]

...don't forget Big E taking almost a billion dollars so far for himself.

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
And I really want you to consider what was happening at the time. Remember? Everyone was very, very concerned that some HUGE corporation would come in and the parks (the main concern for most of us) would be nothing more than a forgotten division of some mega-conglomerate. OH!!! A fate worse than death!!!
...
OK. So what’s your take?

Actually, I thought the concerns were (1) Disney might be taken over by a non-media company (a la Seagrams/Vivendi), and/or (2) Disney might be taken over by someone and broken up (a common MO for takeover artists during that period).

I think it's really interesting to look back on that time period. Eisner was viewed as the creative one (the Walt-type), and Wells as the guy to keep Eisner under financial control (the Roy-type). There is the story of Stanley Gold telling the Board not to be afraid of Eisner because it's creative crazies like Walt and Eisner that make a company like Disney work.

And in addition to the real estate ventures and unlocking the vaults, Eisner re-energized the movie making side, both live action (by developing the Down and Out in Beverly Hills acting troupe and such) and animation (part of Roy's payback).

Now, Wells is dead, Eisner can't work with anyone else, and he's doesn't appear to be a creative force at all. What happened here?

 

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by DancingBear
Actually, I thought the concerns were (1) Disney might be taken over by a non-media company (a la Seagrams/Vivendi), and/or (2) Disney might be taken over by someone and broken up (a common MO for takeover artists during that period).


Now, Wells is dead, Eisner can't work with anyone else, and he's doesn't appear to be a creative force at all. What happened here?

Well according to AV who usually has great inside knowledge of Disney Big E spent quite a bit of time shopping Disney around for just such situation. I think the front runner was AOL or Time/Warner before they merged. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong on the companies. So lets not really look at Big E as the great savior he likes to paint himself as.

What happened is that reality sat in. Eisner is losing his Cash Cows and has done nothing lately that will help the company in the future. There are few great attractions being built. There are few great movies outside of Pixar's work. He has spent billions buying up stuff to impress people. The company is billions in debt. The attendance at the theme parks is falling for 4 straight years now. He's fired a good portion of the creative people in the company. Animators, Imaginers, Management and as a reward he is taken almost a billion dollars for himself.

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

Now, Wells is dead, Eisner can't work with anyone else, and he's doesn't appear to be a creative force at all. What happened here?

In my opinion, history is clear: the more control and influence Michael Eisner's greed has had over all aspects of Disney, the less the company has invested in the creation of content. The more the fingerprints of Michael Eisner's greed have been directly visible on Disney's work, the lower the public's perception and financial acceptance of that work. The more Michael Eisner has his way with Disney, the more visits upon Disney that which he was supposed to have saved it from.

Michael Eisner killed Disney and stole a billion dollars from its corpse, is what happened here.

 

[DancingBear]

But my question is when and why did Eisner stop being a creative force?

 

[hopemax]

As AV tells it, Eisner never really was a creative force, although he thought he was and no one would tell him that he wasn't. But as the "support staff" (the truely creative forces) left the Disney company for whatever reason, the company became more and more dependant on Eisner's "talents," and over the last 10 years we can see where that has led.

I also think it's a matter of interest. When Eisner first took over Disney, his youngest son was still of an age where Disney could be on his radar, and I think many of the theme park additions were so that that the parks would be someplace where his son would want to go: Star Tours, Captain EO, the rumor is it was his son's interest in the Splash Mountain model that got it built.

I don't think Eisner had any interest in amusement parks on his own, so when his son outgrew Disney, they fell off Eisner's radar, except as how they allowed him to finance the projects he did have a personal interest in (ABC, sports and the studio).

 

[Another Voice]

Everyone said, loud enough for the others to hear: "Look at the Emperor's new clothes. They're beautiful!" "What a marvelous train!" "And the colors! The colors of that beautiful fabric! I have never seen anything like it in my life!"

They all tried to conceal their disappointment at not being able to see the clothes, and since nobody was willing to admit his own stupidity and incompetence, they all behaved as the two scoundrels had predicted.

A child, however, who had no important job and could only see things as his eyes showed them to him, went up to the carriage.

"The Emperor is naked," he said.

"Fool!" his father reprimanded, running after him. "Don't talk nonsense!" He grabbed his child and took him away. But the boy's remark, which had been heard by the bystanders, was repeated over and over again until everyone cried:

"The boy is right! The Emperor is naked! It's true!"

The Emperor realized that the people were right but could not admit to that. He thought it better to continue the procession under the illusion that anyone who couldn't see his clothes was either stupid or incompetent.

And the chamberlains walked behind him with still greater dignity, as if they carried the train which did not exist.



Stories endure the centuries because they tell the truth about life.

 

[Testtrack321]

Amen AV, amen. Great reference too.

Frankly, it will take a lot to remove 'Eisner's figerprints of greed' from Disney, but I think it can be done.

When will that little boy come along?

 

[crusader]

Stories endure the centuries because they tell the truth about life.

And history continues to repeat itself.

Thanks for that by the way. It is one of the finest parables to practice in life.

 

[Planogirl]

Originally posted by Testtrack321
Amen AV, amen. Great reference too.

Frankly, it will take a lot to remove 'Eisner's figerprints of greed' from Disney, but I think it can be done.

When will that little boy come along?

I just hope that it's a little boy and not a company of little boys that end up taking over.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Actually, I thought the concerns were (1) Disney might be taken over by a non-media company (a la Seagrams/Vivendi), and/or (2) Disney might be taken over by someone and broken up (a common MO for takeover artists during that period).

Well, yes. But I have to ask, what’s the difference between a “NON-media” company and a “media” company? I know what you think you mean, but have you really thought about?

I mean, how much does Disney (the old Disney) have in common with ABC? And be careful, we’ve gone over this topic a couple times as well and it ain’t as easy as it seems. On the one hand you have a company that made its mark CREATING. INNOVATING. INVENTING. PRODUCING and BUILDING. Steeped in quality.

The other company, the one many thought (and may still think) would be a natural fit for Disney, is known for what? Does a television network even remotely do any of the things that Disney does (I mean did)? Take your time. Think about it. I’ll wait.

………………………….

……………..

……..

…

.


OK time’s up!! Yep! That’s right!! NO!!

NOTHING!!!! ZILTCH!! NADA!! ZERO!!

The only remote connection is that it distributes the product that Disney creates. Other than that, it is a total misfit.

So, what’s the difference between a gin maker taking over or a distributor of other people’s art? Any way you slice it, WDW is just a Division within a HUGE corporation.

What’s the difference if the corporation distributes programming or distilled spirits, if the CEO still wants a 20% reduction in cost AND a 20% increase in revenue from the ‘PARKS DIVISION”, regardless of the way such a program would detrimentally effect the guests?

What difference would it make if an inept CEO of a broadcasting company or an inept CEO of a booze company made the call to almost randomly build (and in fact overbuild) the property with no plan, rhyme or reason, with no thought whatsoever about transportation and certainly no thought of quality? That’s right!! No difference at all!! The mere fact that he ordered the hodge-podge construction is enough to know he’s inept!!

What’s the difference if it’s ABC or Wiley Coyote Tricks Inc. who orders the ‘creation’ of Cinderella part VI (Jason’s return) as the next theatrical release? No. It makes no difference at all. And who knows!! It could be that the current CEO of “Acme-Conglomerate” started off his career as the skipper of the Jungle Cruise or the host of the Haunted Mansion and lo and behold(!) he actually “GETS IT”!!!! In either case, we’d certainly be no worse off whatsoever!!

OK!! WOW!! It’s been so long since the quote that I’ve forgotten the second half! What was number 2 again?

(2) Disney might be taken over by someone and broken up (a common MO for takeover artists during that period)

Oh yeah!! Now, I know hindsight is 20/20, but upon reflection and retrospectively speaking, would this have really been so bad!?!?!!? OK, I’ll grant you that it would have been disappointing if the Film Division (especially animation) and the Parks Division would have been separated.

But do you really think that whoever did get control of that tiny company of Disneyland and WDW would have sold off the property for condos!?!? No. I didn’t think so. And think about all that revenue that could have been sunk back into the parks if there were no ABC, Cable ventures, Go.COM, etc. And come on!! We’d have at least 3 quarter of a billion dollars that Ei$ner took from the company to line his own pockets!!! HEY!! What was the cost of M:S? Do you think that 3/4 of a billion would have bought a bit more?

Eisner was viewed as the creative one (the Walt-type), and Wells as the guy to keep Eisner under financial control (the Roy-type).

Yeah! That was the view at the time!! It turns out we were all wrong!!

And in addition to the real estate ventures and unlocking the vaults, Eisner re-energized the movie making side, both live action (by developing the Down and Out in Beverly Hills acting troupe and such) and animation (part of Roy's payback).

I think katezenberg might have a different opinion. And heck!! Walker and Miller might have a different opinion as well!! They already had Little mermaid well in the works! Katzenberg recognized it as a potentially GREAT film and pushed it through. Did you know what that great “creative force”, Ei$ner thought of it? He didn’t like it a bit!! He wanted HIS movie to succeed as well as Mermaid did. Do you know what his ‘pet project’ was in animation? Yeah! That GREAT Disney classic, The Great Mouse Detective!! (HA!!! And some around here think he hasn’t been inept since day one!! HA!!)

But my question is when and why did Eisner stop being a creative force?

He never was a “Creative Driving Force”. For further details: See above.

When will that little boy come along?

Can I be the little boy!!! PLEEEEEAAAAASSSSEEEEE!!!!! Can I, Can I, Can I, Can I, Can I - huh?

 

[DancingBear]

Lots of good points there, Baron. Just a few comments:

--Yes, I think the real estate might have been broken up under new ownership. What if all of the new hotels weren't built by Eisner, but by a mix of chains, without any Disney theming? Could have happened.

--If the parks had been spun off separately, it probably would have been saddled with license agreements and such which siphoned off a good bit of the park revenue stream anyway. And who's to say that a separate park company would have any better management than the current regime?

--Oh, so Katzenberg's the creative genius.

--The idea that the hotels and other development were built with no "plan" is preposterous. Disney has plans upon plans upon plans for the property. Sure, there are a few more transportation issues than there were when there was just the Contemporary, Poly, Fort Wilderness and the Golf Resort, but so what? (And I'm not sure that the Golf Resort/SoG and Fort Wilderness were ever well incorporated into the transportation system anyway). Somewhat overbuilt or not, isn't it clear that Demon Mike has been successful in the plan to keep folks on the property for extended visits?

--I agree with the distinction between the old Disney (creative company with in-house artists) and ABC (producer and distributor of creative product of others); however, as I've stated above, Hollywood has evolved so that studios don't generally have a bunch of captive in-house talent. Studios don't want the cost and risk, and talent doesn't want the creative restrictions.

--I think y'all need to direct some of that anger toward the institutional stockholders. Obviously they are incredible idiots for not having already tossed Eisner out on his ear, and for handing him incredible piles of dough for nothing.