Disney Theme Parks: Today vs. Yesterday

[d-r]

OK. It is tough for me because I am a sucker for Disney stuff, love most of it, have fond nostalgia, etc. Someone who was more critical than me could probably do better. But I'll try. This isn't my opinion though. I'm going by Maltin's "The Disney Films."

Fantasia. The general release of Fantasia with a standard sound track is a demostration of Walt Disney bending to financial constraints and not being able to carry through with the quality he envisioned. The movie bombed at the box office. (I love it)
The Reluctnant Dragon. The film that followed Fantasia, as an inexpensive feature to generate some capital. The critics panned it, it was also not a box office success. (I like it)
Victory Through Airpower. Followed Bambi and Dumbo and saludos amigos as the seventh film. Critics mixed, box office low, propaganda effective. (I've never seen it)
Three Cabeleros - critics mixed, box office success (I like it)
Make Mine Music - critics hated it. So did the public. Leonard Maltin wrote "they did not give up on him, however, and hoped that soon he would make another feature film to rate alongside his prewar achievements. For some, that film nevar came; others learned that Disney was simply changing and moving on to new areas where he hoped he could succeed as completely as he had with the animated feature."
In 1955, the studio released some of the features from Melody Time and some of the features from Make Mine Music as a "new" feature called "Music Land." I think you all know how much stuff Walt recycled.
So Dear To My Heart was a flop at the box office. (I like it OK)
Treasure Island was a box office disappointment.
Alice in Wonderland - the critics hated it, the public stayed home.
The True Life Adventures caused controversy with critcs because they proposed factual honesty, but sometimes presented staged things (animals moving to music).
The Sword and the Rose, critical and box office failure.
Rob Roy, ditto.
The Littlest Outlaw, ditto.
Westward Ho the Wagons - yuck.
Johny Tremain was a TV show released to the theaters, like Davy Crocket.
The Light in the Forest, critics mixed, mediocre box office
I talked about Sleeping Beauty before.
Darby O'Gill and the Little People. I love it. The critics hated it. The public stayed home. This was a movie that Walt put a lot into, too.
Third Man on the Mt. Box office failure.
Kidnapped, box office disapointment
Pollyanna made 3.75million at the BO, the goal was 6 million.
Ten Who Dared. Variety said it was "an easy, appealing way to learn some 5th grade american history, but dramatically second grade."
Sign of Zorro - TV episodes released to theatre, did a lot better on TV.
Babes in Toyland - "The film was just a case of Disney trying to outdo himself, and channeling his energy in the wrong direction" - Maltin

Moon Pilot -both
Bon Voyage -both
Big Red -both
Almost Angels - positive critics, low box office
In Search of the Castaways -both
Miracle of the White Stallions -both
Sword in the Stone. Hard one for me, I like it. BO and critics didn't.
A Tiger Walks - low bo
Moon Spinners - both
Emil and the Detectives
Those Calloways- both
"I love the Monkey's Uncle and I wish I were the Monkey's Aunt"
Lt. Robin Crusoe, USN. critics hated it, box office was good. If you like campy disney stuff you might like it, most people would hate it.
The Fighting Prince of Donegal. mediocre.
Follow me Boys - critics hated it, box office middle
Monkeys Go Home - it is what it is
The Adventures of Bullwhip Griffin - both
Gnome Mobile, critics mixed, both office middle
The Happiest Millionaire. Again, I sort of like it, but I don't think anybody else ever has.
Savage Sam - sequal to ole yellar was box office disappointment

I think that is about 1/2 the films released in his life. Again, there are a lot of them on there I like, I'm just using Maltin as a reference for the box office and critic reception. I am not fabricating anything. Obviously some were more successful than others. Some that were not successful were high quality, some that were succesfful were not, etc. And that doesn't mean that 20K leagues, Mary Poppins, Swiss Family, Peter Pan, Snow White, Bambi, Dumbo weren't freaking awesome.

As for Disneyland? I can only read the list of attractions, watch the old videos, those sorts of things. I honestly don't know how the wagon ride would go over today. It only lasted until 1959. Maybe people would love it, I don't know. The Phantom Boats were not a success. I never saw the Aluminum Hall of Fame, so I don't know how good that was.I also never saw the Dutch Boy Paint Color Gallery. The Canal Boats and Casey Jr. didn't have story book land for a view until 1956. They aren't that great today with it! I'm really not sure what space station x-1 was, but in closed in 1960.

That doesn't take anything away from haunted mansion, pirates, tikki birds, small world, peter pan, matterhorn, monorail.

I didn't go into the shorts. I like most of them, fwiw. And don't forget innoventions like sound, color, and multi-plane camera.

Again, I am not saying that Walt Disney was not hard working, attention to detail, pushing for quality, a genius, etc. I'm just saying he was human, and that he was a capitalist.

 

[d-r]

The Canal Boats and Casey Jr. didn't have story book land for a view until 1956. They aren't that great today with it!

OK, I'll admit that I actually like story book land. I'm a sap.

That's what is tough for me. There are things I really like, but I realize to "normal" people they aren't that compelling.

That's also true with the films - there were some I love, and that did well in the box office, but most people think are lame (The Ugly Dachshund).

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Compliment to me means works well together. In your example the parks balanced out the peaks and valleys of the studio business.

Perfect take on it. He was tired of living a lower lifestyle and borrowing from banks to finance his next big movie. He didn't like scrabbling, just before a film's release, to meet payroll. But it must be clearly remembered that he ALWAYS did make payroll. That he was not ever even close to destitute. The films and other projects never CONSTANTLY and over YEARS AND YEARS siphoned off BILLIONS that had to subsidized.

No!! He was tired of the worry that came just before release time, when every cent he had was in the next picture, and no other income was in sight. ANd then after it's release, "MULTI-MILLIONS" again. He needed something to "BALANCE" his life so that he could concentrate on creating and forget where the next buck might have to come from!!

 

[d-r]

What I need to know is: Did the parks provide any equitable resource which Walt then used to help finance the studios? Whether he distributed money to himself first and then took those same funds and put them into the studio projects is irrelevant if the source of the money remains the same.

I can't answer that. I know that Disneyland was proposed for 9 million, and cost 17 million (thus the insurance). I know that he turned the money it made in the first year into new attractions - look how they grew in the first years, then another big spurt in 59 with subs, monorail, matterhorn, then a big spurt after the world's fair, then new orleans square. He was constantly improving the park until he died. Then the money for the Florida project. I doubt if a lot was coming out of the park. After Sleeping Beauty, the biggest cost movies were probably swiss family robinson and mary poppins and maybe babes in toyland? - I'm thinking that the studios probably made enough to support themselves, but that is just a guess. That is only how it looks to me, I don't really know. They may have just mixed all the money in one pot, I don't know.

 

[EUROPA]

Many of these movies were before my time. So excuse my ignorance on them. I do know several of them..and the ones that I know all seem to be of the very low budget variety. Is this a correct assumption at the others. ( Obviously a few may have been larger budget movies)

 

[d-r]

Europa, it varies. 20Kluts, swiss family, mary poppins, were all big budget. Some of the others were fairly large. Some are pretty low. Maltin makes the case that after years and lots of money spent and then sleeping beauty lost money, and 1 million dollars invested and Shaggy Dog makes 6 million, that Walt decided to go with more smaller budget live action films, and scaled back. Alice in Wonderland wasn't low budget. Babes in Toyland was higher budget, I think. I think Happiest Millionnaire was, too. I'm not so positive about these so don't quote me.

 

[EUROPA]

I guess the point is that looking at that list I don't see any Go.com, ABC, Obvit, TDS, DCA, AK, Mighty Ducks,Angles, ABC FAmily, Bad Company,... list your favorite blunders in there.

 

[raidermatt]

A little old business from a few pages back...

It is hard to see where you would agree with a management decision which may be more in line with the evolutionary times of today vs agreeing with a management decision which applies old theories designed for an audience who would never have been exposed to the media and entertainment options experienced today.

Then you are not paying attention. The "be like the average company" strategy has nothing to do with evolution. Its been around since business began, and I suspect it will never disappear.

The "theoy" of differentiating a theme park through creativity, quality, etc, is designed for audiences of any time. It does not require doing everything as it was done 50 years ago. It merely requires a continuing differentiation based on those factors. I'm really not sure how you can believe a strategy of differentiation is some kind of "old theory."

Yes, it is "safer" to be average, and given the capabilities of current management, they are probably better off taking the average route.

I thought of another example of how Walt was complex, not either/ or, artist or businessman sort of thing. In my earlier post I talked about the Davy Crocket tv shows being edited together for theatrical release to cash in. The flip side is, it demonstrates the dedication to quality and not doing things half way if the TV shows were good enough to put into the theater. Walt Disney was dedicated to high quality, and would risk $ to make sure things were quality, but he also knew to give the people what they want, and not to throw good money after bad.

When it gets down to it, this is really what we are asking of the Disney of today, and many of us feel it is not happening.

You had another quote about everything not being black and white, and I completely agree. Perhaps rather than refer to Walt's business philosophy as "good" and current management's as "bad", a better way would be to call them better and worse, respectively.

This doesn't mean everything Walt did was a masterpiece, and everything done today is a piece of garbage. It just means that there is a CLEAR difference in philosophy/strategy, and its that difference that led to better results under Walt, and poorer results under the current leadership.

 

[d-r]

Perhaps rather than refer to Walt's business philosophy as "good" and current management's as "bad", a better way would be to call them better and worse, respectively.

Yes, I agree entirely with this. And even more I wish we still had a Walt.

And Europa I understand your point, too. I still don't really get things like ABC Family. I mean I kind of do, but I remember at the time telling you all that I would put 5 billion dollars into pixar stock rather than Fox Family, etc.

 

[crusader]

Thanks Baron -

I'm beginning to get the picture. Can't promise you won't have to redirect again though.

d-r: I believe you probably answered my question correctly without any corroboration by using simple demonstration. I can see things playing out very much the way you have described them. Walt opened DL very similar to the way the Disneyworld expansion parks were built. The difference was he kept working on it using the money that flowed in. As we've argued before, the Studios and particularly Animal Kingdom failed to adequately apply this same technique. (although I do feel ToT and RnRC deserve more credit than they are given.)

He also probably did pool all of his financial resources to do this. Question is: how much of an influx of capital flowed from the markets once the word hit that Disneyland was a success. Also, how favorably did the investment banking community respond following that wave of great publicity bolstering the niche market Disney now found itself to be the sole player in.

Money comes from everywhere and if the studios weren't solvent they needed capital as well. I just don't know how much he had to play with once the gates were open.

 

[MelissathePooh]

"This doesn't mean everything Walt did was a masterpiece, and everything done today is a piece of garbage. It just means that there is a CLEAR difference in philosophy/strategy, and its that difference that led to better results under Walt, and poorer results under the current leadership."

I'll agree with that.

 

[Another Voice]

I never claimed Walt was perfect or that that the company was perfect. But the point of the entire thread seems is "it sucked more back then than it does now, so shut up". That attitude is driven by a lot of wrong "information" and outright falsehoods.

Let's look at just one…

"For anyone who thinks he never sacrificed quality for the sake of making a dime - just look at the movies he made. For every one 20K leagues, there were 2-3 crappy ones. Or movies that were strung together series (Davey Crockett)."

Way back in the easily impressed and naïve days of 1954, a little less than two-thirds of American households even. Walt Disney was making a program for then small, struggling third place network ABC. The meant his program would reach less than half the country and completely miss major sections of the Midwest, South and West that lacked ABC or any television signal at all.

Now today's superior economic mind would tell you to sacrifice quality to make the most cost effective program for your limited audience.

So what did Walt do?

He spent extra money to film the show in color (even though all televisions were black and white for almost the next decade and so this was a complete waste of money). He shot extra scenes that would make the shows too long to show on television. He went outdoors and shot big, wide open country shots that would be all but impossible to see on the 12" screens of the day.

Stupid, foolish, moronic, naïve and insane I hear you call.

Walt released the edited television into movie theaters so the other half of the country could see his work, and so that people who liked the television show could see a large screen color (think of it as an early "Special Edition"). 'Crockett' made much more money as a movie than it did as a television show. In fact, you can't even find the TV version today, only the theatrical cuts remain (and they still sell on DVD). How many TV shows from the mid-fifties can claim that?

So – gaze into your snow globe and decide. Was this the work a capitalist sacrificing quality just to make a dime? Or was it the work of a gifted filmmaker who knew how to overcome the limitations of one media and benefit another. What was cut, debased and maligned in Walt's rush to sacrifice quality to make a dime?

P.S. This doesn't even take into account the major overseas market the films had or the fact that the shows could be rerun once color television was introduced or all the other "quality cuts" that Walt made for this "crappy movie". The world is a much more interesting place if you learn the truth.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

I have the feeling that I come off, at my worst, as an unbelievably arrogant know-it-all that can't possibly see the other side of things because I'm too wrapped up in myself!! I think at my best I come off as an arrogant know-it-all who may just happen to be right. I can't understand where this perception comes from!!

Anyway, with this thought in mind...

AV,

You know I hold you in the highest esteem. I defer to you in almost all matters like I defer to no one else. But as I read your most recent post I was struck with this thought:

Was this the work a capitalist sacrificing quality just to make a dime? Or was it the work of a gifted filmmaker who knew how to overcome the limitations of one media and benefit another.

I would add

"Was this the work a capitalist sacrificing quality just to make a dime? Or was it the work of a gifted filmmaker who knew how to overcome the limitations of one media and benefit another, and in the process made a buck.

I think the other side of the issue just wants some acknowledgement that he was at least nominally interested in making a little cash.

It is therefore imperative to stress the importance and the order of things. Or if you like look at part of his philosophy!!

1- The need to create first!!

2- The concept.

3- The making or building of the thing!!

4- Money!! But only so he could reuse it for the next big challenge!!



In what order do you suppose Ei$ner has things arranged?

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Well, this is what happens when you play catch up with a hot topic. You tend to post a couple in a row. This time it’s Crusader again and (surprise, surprise!!) my own shot gunner, Matt!!!

First Matt.

You had another quote about everything not being black and white, and I completely agree. Perhaps rather than refer to Walt's business philosophy as "good" and current management's as "bad", a better way would be to call them better and worse, respectively.

How do you like that. For the very first time since you moved into car #3 I disagree!!! I would call them, “better and nonexistent"!! Let’s face it Matt, the current bunch have NO philosophy whatsoever!!! Except,of course, to line their own pockets!!!

Crusader:

Walt opened DL very similar to the way the Disneyworld expansion parks were built.

Whoa!!!! And I mean WHOA!!!!

I know you didn’t mean it. And I know you didn’t even know you did it. But I have to take issue with all the half truths, outright lies and gigantic propaganda that you are spreading with this little sentence.

THERE WAS NOTHING SIMILAR WHATSOEVER!!!!

I sit here now really trying to recall where I saw the story. Some stupid movie or TV show. Anyway… A little kid (seven or so) wanted something from an adult. I can’t recall what it was specifically. But it was something that was unbelievably expensive in the ‘adult’ world. I think he wanted lessons or something like that. Or maybe it was tangible, I don’t remember and what’s more that’s not the point.

Anyway, the little kid told the man that he had only (I don’t know, say…) $4.29. The adult told him it would cost many, many, many times that. And the kid said it was all the money he had in the world. And the man stared at the kid for a minute and said, “Wow. I’ve been offered a lot for this. I’ve been begged by some really important people. And they’ve offered me millions. But never in all my life have I ever been offered ‘everything’.” Of course, as only a corny TV show would have it, he agreed to do it (sell it, whatever!!)!!

The point of the story of course, is not how little it was, how ‘half-day’ it was, how few rides it had or how it would grow later. The real point is how much went into it. Do you think Ei$ner would bet his life insurance on MGM? Do you think he’d go into personal debt for AK? Did he give us, with either AK or MGM, EVERYTHING? As the little kid offered or Walt really did? Or did he bet that with a minimum (good enough) he could create a maximum (profit).

And gain that same Walt “PHILOSOPHY” (Damn!! There’s that word again) was applied to EPCOT!! Over a Billion dollars in 1980!!!! CRAZY!!!!

So, I suggest that your little sentence looks at it from the wrong point of view. And it does a whole bunch of damage to the perceptions of new comers to this board (and some hard heads) as it perpetuates the myth that MGM and AK opened no different than Disneyland. That this ‘half-day and grow it later’ philosophy was the norm. And my friend. That’s just plain WRONG!!!!!!

 

[Bob O]

Ditto's to DVC/Av with some great posts!!!
And why do some call Walt a capitalist like it is a four letter word!!!!!
Did Walt want to make money, of course as it is the american way. But he also tried, usually successfully to create moives/theme parks/attractions that would be loved and used his own money to do, even risking his livelihood to do so.
Now if eisner would invest 100 million of his own money into a theme park attraction or movie because he truely believed in it anf felt it should be done i might be impressed. But instead he NEVER spends his own money but has no problem wasting the companies money on his foolish pursuits. And his actions since well's death have greatly hurt the company and resulted in go.com/ovitiz debacle/ak/dca. Does anyone truely believe walt would have been invovled in these debacles. I think this is the difference between a creative mind like walt and a money centered mind like me.

 

[DancingBear]

Is it realistic to think that a creative Walt-type could be running Disney at this time? In Walt's heyday, Disney was almost a nominally public company, and Walt was allowed (with Roy's oversight) to pursue all sorts of creative ideas with the Company's money. I don't think that's realistic today. Can you imagine the questions if Eisner formed a separate company with his own money which then worked on Disney projects?

Also, how does this square with the idea that Eisner's decline is tied to Frank Wells' death? Wells wasn't the creative genius. Is it that Eisner has lost touch with his creative side?

 

[wtg2000]

Also, how does this square with the idea that Eisner's decline is tied to Frank Wells' death? Wells wasn't the creative genius. Is it that Eisner has lost touch with his creative side?

I'm not sure Eisner was a creative genius. He didn't come up with the ideas. Others did and he approved them. Plans to build more hotels, including the Grand Floridian, were already in the works before he took over. The animation department had to beg to keep the animated films going as Eisner didn't see the value in them. Touchstone had already been started. Videos were just coming into exsistence. The Disney Channel was already running. ABC came out of Jeffrey Katzenberg's desire to have a network (I believe CBS was the first one they looked at). Ideas for a resort in Europe had long been in the works. The concept of company stores (Disney, Nike, etc) was just coming in. Tokyo Disneyland and EPCOT had already been built. I think most of the things this administration did were already in plans. What Eisner did was actually carry them out and market the living heck out of them. And, he knew the value of theming (some of the hotels and water parks were just going to be generic).

Once all these plans got used up, the well went a bit dry, or at least Eisner lost the people around him (Nunis, Wells, Katz, etc) to be his second ear.

 

[crusader]

Well, I'd like to believe that most of us serve a purpose in life. Of course there are many here who cannot fathom what the heck ME's purpose is except to single-handedly destroy Walt's legacy.

Baron, your purpose is complex indeed!! You have that uncompromising ability to extract true meaning from an otherwise harmless little sentence. And I want to personally thank you for the many times you've felt compelled to enlighten me. It has been a real benefit to learn from that brilliant philosophical mind of yours!

Now - I want to say something in my defense: (oh no!)

So, I suggest that your little sentence looks at it from the wrong point of view. And it does a whole bunch of damage to the perceptions of new comers to this board (and some hard heads) as it perpetuates the myth that MGM and AK opened no different than Disneyland.

Oh comeon!!! Those new comers aren't going to be swayed one iota due to my influence. Now that sublime you and AV tap into is quite a different story. Thankfully d-r and melissa are here as well to aid in retelling the untold.

I'll give you that DL was not built the same. My point was that perceptually the parks were all "unfinished" when they opened. The difference is very obvious and distinct as you have pointed out: Walt intended on continuing to invest in perfecting his park and made it an absolute priority beyond even his own personal financial benefit. His approach was resolute and he personally worked to insure it came to fruition.

The post-Walt Disney management of today built one park in particular and left it unattended for years. Meanwhile, an exorbitant amount of money was spent on other ventures and bonus incentive plans. Yes, a very different approach indeed!

 

[MelissathePooh]

I readily admit my choice of words ("crappy") were not the best, but Walt Disney absolutely - by his own words (see one of DR's posts a page or two back) made low budget, movies to keep the studio a float. Does that equate to sacrificing quality, not in all circumstances, but certainly in some. Bare in mind though that much like DR some of these bombs are some of my favorites.

I am also certain that whenever possible Walt Disney absolutely put his best efforts into projects with the full expectation that they would bring in bigger revenues. If you really want to believe that he strung the Davey Crockett series together into a movie just so the "other half" of the country could see it - go right ahead. I'm not sure how any of that has to do with the low budget, flop movies he made to keep the studio afloat, but again - whatever.

For the record - I don't believe being a capitalist is a four letter word - I believe its truly american and we all know Disney was a great patriot. I have no problem with it - I have a problem when people talk about him or act as though he was above making money or just doing what he did for the sheer sake of "art".

Baron - I stand by Matt's statement about DL and the DW expansions. DL was pretty bare when it opened. The difference being that it began/continued to grow and change right off the bat. Now to your point, I also understand about how much Walt put into DL - but do you really expect ANYONE to put that much into a new park today? Would you expect the CEO - Eisner or some mythical CEO, to put every last cent of the Disney company into a new park - would that be acceptable? And if that was indeed Walts own "philosophy" I'm not sure how it applies at all to Epcot? Epcot as we know it is nothing like Walt's original plan. I'll have to do some research, but I'm thinking that the 1 Billion dollars they put into Epcot wasn't all by choice. I may be wrong though - I'll have to check and I'm not saying your wrong by any means, just that I'm not seeing it.

I don't see how it would be possible for there to ever be another Walt Disney, and I'm not sure how people would react if there was - as many times as he almost bankrupted the entire company - well stock prices fall today and its pretty upsetting. I really don't want any of this to come off as if I don't love Walt Disney because I do - I am fascinated by the man and his legacy. I see him as a genius and innovator. I also see him as a realistic human where "uncle Walt" was only one of his many characters.

Now, back to you AV, you said "P.S. This doesn't even take into account the major overseas market the films had or the fact that the shows could be rerun once color television was introduced or all the other "quality cuts" that Walt made for this "crappy movie". The world is a much more interesting place if you learn the truth."

I never said the Davey Crockett films were "crappy" although I don't find them as well done as you make them out, but thats personal opinion - rather that they were strung together tv series - which they are. As I stated before I will retract my use of "crappy" and subsitute "low quality" in referring to many of the live action films made by Disney himself in order to sustain the studios - see DR's list for actual films. If you have proof or information to the contrary, please let me know and I'll forward it on to Leonard Maltin so he can correct his data.

I'm not sure how re-running shows is high quality either - rather recycling what you already have to make more profit. But maybe I don't understand the concept of re-runs. Is it brilliant - absolutely, making a new buck with little to no additional investment - absolutely.

Look - this is turned into opinion vs. Walts own words and factual data. Everyone can judge for themselves what the truth is.

Melissa

 

[Another Voice]

"If you really want to believe that he strung the Davey Crockett series together into a movie just so the "other half" of the country could see it - go right ahead. I'm not sure how any of that has to do with the low budget, flop movies he made to keep the studio afloat, but again - whatever."

It might help things if people actually learned about the history of the studio instead of willfully ignoring the truth to their maintain a current delusion. The entire "things are so hard now" attitude is wonderful for making "dedicated" fans feel better, but does nothing to put people in theater seats, guests through the turnstiles, or shoppers in the (soon to be closing) Disney Stores.

So other than an excercise in ignorance, the "Walt intentionaly left Disneyland unfinished - so you have to like Califorina Adventure" and similar lines of agrument serve no prupose except as a way to bash people who actual want a good product instead of a sticker.

If you want to beleive Mike Mine Music justifies The Hot Chick...go right ahead.

The world is waiting for quality and imgination. If some wish to settle for a snow globe - it's their loss.