Disney Theme Parks: Today vs. Yesterday

[d-r]

....I've tried and tried to say that Walt was a hard-working driven man dedicated to quality, a showman who wanted to deliver the best POSSIBLE, with possible being the key word there. Walt pushed himself and those around him for the best. But Walt Disney did not show those edited versions of Davy Crockett for free in poor neighborhoods because he wanted the whole nation to share in the glory of Davy Crockett. He also didn't plan on releasing them as theatrical releases when he made them. He was taken by surprise by how incredibly popular they were, and edited them into the films in hindsight. This wasn't a planful thing. It is not as if the TV shows were filmed as part 1 and part 2 that could be seemlessly put together as a theatrical release. On the contrary, the first three episodes from the first year of Disneyland were edited extensively to fit as one feature. Heck, for that matter Davy Crockett died at the Alamo in the third show! But after the success that first year, two additional episodes were filmed for the next year. This was not a planned sequence. There were many episodes of Disneyland that were filmed in color and shown in black and white on ABC - the Wonderful World of Color didn't come along until the show moved to NBC - and it is clear - at least to me - that there was never the slightest intention of showing those shows in theatrical release; for example, the promotional show about 20K Leagues; The "Tricks of the Trade" type promo shows. They weren't going to show those at the theater. They weren't stupid, naive or foolish in making the disneyland tv shows like Davey Crockett in higher quality that other shows at the time, but they also weren't forecasting the future - they were using the equipment and techniques they had and knew. Yes, technology like sound in Steamboat Mickey, color in animation, technicolor, streophonic sound, multiplane cameras, cinemascope, color television played a large role in Walt Disney's success. He was always looking forward and moving forward, and it really delivered for him. He turned down putting the shorts on TV in the ealry 50's, and agreed to do the ABC disneyland show only to raise capital for building disneyland and promote it. The MMC didn't come on until after DL had opened. Yes, there was absolute genious in Walt's ability to promote and to recycle footage, and he made some nice coin from it, too. Actually, the foresight in making quality footage that could stand up to being reused demonstrates to me that he was perhaps a more savvy businessman than some of us want to give him credit.

Not a big deal, but actually, AV, technically you are wrong about something objective -

In fact, you can't even find the TV version today, only the theatrical cuts remain (and they still sell on DVD).

This just isn't correct. Davy Crockett, King of the Wild Frontier, and Davy Crockett and the River Pirates are the two theatrical releases. Both were released individually on to video tape several years ago. Neither of those videotapes remain in production, though I am sure that they could still be found somewhere in the retail channel if one looked hard enough. The DVD release of Davy Crockett absolutely was the five original TV shows, as they were orginallly broadcast, complete with the introductions from Walt, the Disneyland TV show opening, etc. This was a limited release that has been sold out for some time, though again, I'm sure that someone could find them if they looked hard enough, though I suspect that the DVD release of the shows would be almost impossible to find retail. I think I might watch a couple of episodes today. The edited theatrical releases were never released on dvd (let me qualify that to say, "in the US" - to my knowledge they were never released somewhere else, but I'm not certain, and as much as BVHE perplexes me I don't want to say that for absolute).

But, anyway back to the derision of the snow globe. I've remembered that we actually do have one, a small pooh one that is actually a christmas tree ornament packed away with the christmas stuff. It is just a little thing. I'd like to have the finding nemo aquarium one though, that looks cool. But anyway, no one said that Walt was a capitalist who sacrificed quality to make a dime, what we said was that he was a capitalist who strove for high quality, and that he realized this could make him a dime (although sometimes he certainly had to make do with the best he could do). I continue to maintain, as strongly as I can, that Walt Disney was not a hippy communist starving artist who just wanted the world to see his creations. Now don't for a minute doubt the care and attention and quality that went in to those animated features. It is mind numbing. Europa, I don't think that even Pixar would completely animate 100's of scenes from a feature 6 or 7 different times to look at variations in color, light and shadow, and I am not sure that Lassiter would through out five complete months of work because he didn't like how it looked. Dedicated to quality? Absolutely.

DVCLB, yes, I would agree that Disneyland was one man's dream, and he put everything he could get into it and was dedicated to making it all it could be. DAK was not one man's dream. Someone could argue that the company was in very different places in 1954 and 1997, and well, really they were. But I agree that there wasn't a single minded passionate genius staying in an apartment in the tree of life and out there surveying stuff himself and watching the construction from a tower and emersing himself completely in work that he loved. No, I don't think anyone will ever make another disneyland.

This is probably why I'm cooler on Disneysea than a lot of people, because it has the hype of being on that same sort of level, and I do not think it is. Even the very name suggests it is on that sort of level.

But that doesn't mean that there wasn't as much for people to do at DAK when it opened as there was in Disneyland when it opened - and wasn't that the complaint, that it was a 1/2 day park because there wasn't enough to do, and that the Company had never opened such a park until the studios? Now, see, that is something different, that is an objective sort of statement, and that I can't agree with it - the objective facts just do not support it. Did the company today have the passion that Walt had in building Disneyland? Of course not. And they certainly have not reinvested in the park in the way that Walt did after disneyland opened, and have not even been consistent with the original proposed schedule.

 

[MelissathePooh]

DR pointed out to me a poor choice of words - Walt certainly did not intend for anything to "flop" - he didn't intentionally make flops, he DID however intentionally make "low budget" films to sustain the studios. Some flopped and some didn't.

AV you can continue to put words in people's mouthsand make bizarre comparisons that no one brought up or call them (me) names, but you still haven't given anything other than your opinion for evidence of your stance. In such there is no point to continuing the discussion. Unless something gets really good, I'm out.

P.S. Actually, DR, I think I did say that Disney wasn't above sacrificing quality to make a dime. While I believe firmly that this was much more an exception to the rule, I do believe it happened on occasion in his later years of live action. I have never seen any any example of the sort in animation. And mostly I believe that while "sacrificing quality" may not be the best terminology, "not being as concerned" about quality can better fit some of the live action films.

 

[wtg2000]

low budget movies to keep the studio a float. Does that equate to sacrificing quality, not in all circumstances, but certainly in some.

IMHO, most quality films are low budget, either independent or foreign films. Big budgets today have to do with stars, CGI, and giantic set pieces. Good stories don't always cost a lot of money.

 

[d-r]

I have never seen any any example of the sort in animation.

The Sword in the Stone would be the closest thing to an example that I can think of - they went to lower budget animation after Sleeping Beauty. I wouldn't count the omnibus features like that.

 

[crusader]

IMHO, most quality films are low budget, either independent or foreign films. Big budgets today have to do with stars, CGI, and giantic set pieces. Good stories don't always cost a lot of money.

Big budgets don't tell us the real story. Beyond paying the true production costs, I'll bet there are a whole slew of discretionary expenses which have nothing to do with the picture. Very similar to the way our gov't passes an appropriations bill.

 

[d-r]

Originally posted by wtg2000
IMHO, most quality films are low budget, either independent or foreign films. Big budgets today have to do with stars, CGI, and giantic set pieces. Good stories don't always cost a lot of money.

Aye, but there's a lot of low budget films that suck, too. That Justin and Kelly thing didn't cost much. And, this is my opinion, but I really believe it, if Walt Disney was dedicated to a film, he would try everything to put the money in it necessary to tell the story the way it should be told. Re-filming that squid scene and coming close to bankruptcy tells me this. I don't think, however, that Walt was truly dedicated, or at least not immersed, in films like the Monkey's Uncle, but rather had turned his main interest to the park.

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

For the record, for anyone who didn't follow the earlier discussion, some people tried to make an argument sort of like this, but I believe I spent my time defending the Love Bug. I think actually they compared the Hot Chick to the Love Bug. I have never made any sort of argument to justify the Hot Chick - I've never even seen it! On the contrary, I've said on here and elsewhere many times, in several ways, that as far as I'm concerned I would personally be happier if "Disney" was only Disney. I have no need for Miramax, Touchstone, Scream, ABC family, M. Night Shamalan, etc.

But now that I've got to thinking, I am going to propose a justification sort of example, mostly to play Devil's advocate with the low budget movie idea, based upon the Three Little Pigs. What, use a short to defend things like the 140 million dollar budget of Pirates of the Caribbean? Wouldn't 20,000 leageus be a better example? Naw, pigs will do.

The Three Little Pigs cost the studios $60,000 to produce. This was a lot more money that a lot of companies would put in to producing a short. It was a big success - the song "who's afraid of the big bad wolf" entered the public psyche, critics favored it, it struck a cord with the public who, at the time, was dealing with the onset of the great depression. When all was said and done, this very successful and popular short made the studios $64,000. That's right, they only made $4,000 off the short. A 6% profit. But you know what, they made a lot more than that, too. As I said, the song became very popular, and when people sang a line of it, they thought of the short, and Walt Disney. The pig characters were licensed for merchandising, and when people saw them, they thought of Walt Disney. Even though you can't top pigs with pigs, Walt made sequals and it was a franchise. Later when Disneyland opened, you could go there and see in real life the Three Little Pigs. It made all those sort of positive connections in people's minds. Even more, though, now they had this completed short that was bought and paid for. It could be reissued in 15 years, and then everything was gravy. And they still own it - they could still put in the Disney Channel (if they would), they still sell it on the Treasures DVD.

This is why I would defend POTC. That movie is putting good thoughts in people's mind about Walt Disney Co., making them want to go to the parks and see the attraction, taking what seemed like an old, dated attraction to many people in the general public and making it seem cool. Even more, the company will have it forever to release on DVD, etc. It will all be gravy.

Think about things like the location filming of Swiss Family and 20Kluts, the cost of under water photography, throwing out material that didn't look right, etc. etc. Do you think Walt would have asked them to cut corners and make this film for only 40 million, rather than "bloating" the budget and making a film that the public has embraced?

 

[raidermatt]

Let’s face it Matt, the current bunch have NO philosophy whatsoever!!! Except,of course, to line their own pockets!!!

Very true.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

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.

Hmmmmm. I’d like to know how my version differs from D.R.’s? And what is ‘sublime’ about my take on things? (although I do like the word!!!)

My point was that perceptually the parks were all "unfinished" when they opened.

And the way you wrote it and indeed, the way you’ve even structured the sentence, it seems to defend this practice. We say, “AK opened as a half day park!!! That’s not DISNEY!!!!” And Peter (et. al.) says, “What’s the big deal!! Even Walt opened Disneyland as a half day park!!! AK or MGM is no different!!! (Praise Uncle Mike!!)”.

Can you see the level of frustration rising. It’s hard to maintain “sublime” when your argument is so summarily dismissed by totally WRONG perceptions!!!!

The difference is very obvious and distinct as you have pointed out:

NO!!! I don’t think the difference is ‘very obvious’ or you and countless other would not be constantly equating the two as the means of justifying the later additions’ philosophies.

Walt intended on continuing to invest in perfecting his park and made it an absolute priority beyond even his own personal financial benefit.

Yes Walt intended to keep investing and perfecting his park. BUT THAT’S NOT THE POINT!!!!

The point was the initial investment!! He gave EVERYTHING!!! Every dime he had, every dime the company had, every dime his brother had and millions of dimes from ABC that he had to contract with (that must have really galled him!!)!!!

So when Disneyland is compared ON A PAR with AK, I get a little CRAZY!!!!!! Surely you can see that, can’t you?

The post-Walt Disney management of today built one park in particular and left it unattended for years.

To which park are you referring?

Meanwhile, an exorbitant amount of money was spent on other ventures and bonus incentive plans. Yes, a very different approach indeed!

Thank you. That’s really all I’m saying.



Melissa,

but do you really expect ANYONE to put that much into a new park today?

Yes!! I do!! For as much of a bad rap that Walker/Miller get on these boards, they did it right!! They did with EPCOT what Walt could not do with Disneyland and what Ei$ner wouldn’t do with MGM, AK or DCA. He could have done it, but chose not to. Very sad!!

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.

It doesn’t have to be!!! The powers that be at the time didn’t have the guts to build the city. Heck!!! I don’t blame them!! Instead they chose to build a park. And they did it right!!! OH MAN!!! Did they DO IT RIGHT!!! No matter what else you may say about them, as far as park building, they “got it”!! Maybe not as much as Walt, but light-years ahead of the current screw-ups!!

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

Please do the research, because I don’t have a clue what you’re talking about!!

 

[crusader]

Hmmmmm. I’d like to know how my version differs from D.R.’s?

Only in delivery. d-r will provide the whole story to demonstrate the good, the bad and the ugly. You have a much different style which tends to emphasize two key elements in debate: Show and Quality.

If I so much as sneeze away from the main focus of Walt and look in the direction of present management I will immediately be reminded that show and quality are all that matters to Disney's core philosophy and until such time as they become prevalent nothing and I mean nothing else is worthy of acknowledgement.

A style and direction which I do admire and appreciate, by the way.

And what is ‘sublime’ about my take on things?

It is the philosophy which infiltrates the mind in a very subtle way designed to manipulate one's thinking.

And the way you wrote it and indeed, the way you’ve even structured the sentence, it seems to defend this practice.

I am not in defense of this practice. I didn't say Disneyland was a half day park I said it was Unfinished which it was. I know the widely instituted practice today is "get the gates open before the paint dries and make it look like there's enough to do because we don't want to spend more than the bare minimum". Walt's park was nothing like that. But he needed to open it before it was ready to start generating revenue.

NO!!! I don’t think the difference is ‘very obvious’ or you and countless other would not be constantly equating the two as the means of justifying the later additions’ philosophies.

Here's where we ultimately find ourselves at an impasse. To you it seems that if we don't continually condemn the blatant deviations from Walt's vision and instituted management we "don't get it". Problem is the company has dramatically changed and evolved in the process. It's not that excuses are being made it is that certain practices which benefit the company are being acknowledged.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

It's not that excuses are being made it is that certain practices which benefit the company are being acknowledged.

Such as?

I'm not trying to be contrary or debate for debate's sake. And I sure as heck ain't playing Devil's advocate. I really want to know. Because I can't see one single, solitary move that the current administration has done (especially recently) that benefits the company. Particularly the long term benefit.

Again, truthfully, the only practice that would benefit the company is the return to the basic, core philosophy. Any other practice simply puts us further away from that ever elusive goal!!

And it is elusive, even when you are single-minded in your approach. Reread some of D.R.'s posts. Even Walt had a hard time every so often. So that leads me to believe that if you NEVER consider it, you ain't EVER gonna get there!! And THAT is where they need to be!!!!

Make sense?

So, tell me. What 'practices' have been instituted that really benefit the company



PS: You’re wrong about the ‘excusers”. You may not count yourself as one, but let me assure you they exist. They justify, excuse and thank-the-Disney-gods for whatever the companies gives them and for whatever the company does!! It’s sickening!!!

 

[raidermatt]

Problem is the company has dramatically changed and evolved in the process. It's not that excuses are being made it is that certain practices which benefit the company are being acknowledged.

Of course it has evolved and changed... that's the whole point, that much of that changing has not been for the best.

I've admitted before that PERHAPS the MGM strategy of opening the park "more unfinished" than predecessors has some merit. Taken as a standalone practice, its not inherently evil, if the intent is to guage your success before deciding how to procede, AND if the limited initial value is acknowledged somehow through pricing. Yes, it would be best to make the right choices up front and go "all the way" from the beginning, but there are precious few talented people capable of pulling this off repeatedly on a grand scale as Walt did.

The problem, however, is that Disney is not using the practice for that intent. They are backing off of the additions, and appear to be merely seeing how little they can open with and add to achieve a stated marketing goal.

The emphasis is no longer on consistency of product and value.

Further, without th emphasis on quality and show, small parks are just as likely to suffer as large parks.

The marketing and implementation strategies are always secondary to product strategies. If the product does not get the job done, the product cannot succeed in the long term.

THAT'S why it all comes back to quality and Show. If those things existed without question in the new parks, perhaps the "new" implementation strategies would be a prudent move. But without the necessary emphasis on quality and Show, its difficult to determine if the implementation even mattered.

Further, the opinion of some is that the new implementation strategies and lack of quality and Show are spawned by the same overall philosophy failure.

 

[MelissathePooh]

Baron -

This is what I've found in print so far. It seems to me there is something I've seen on film somewhere else, but can't remember now for the life of me. I'll keep trying to figure it out though.

But back to what I found -

"During construction, a group of endangered birds called the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker was discovered nesting in a wooded area destined for development. The entire construction site had to be moved 300 feet in order to preserve that area’s natural state. A back service road was named after the birds as a reminder of the company’s conservation efforts. " from NetDisney.com

I believe this added quite a bit of expense to the original plans - although I commend them for the response to the situation.

Also -

"Behind the scenes, however, a few cracks began to appear in the facade. In its first decade, growth was stagnant. There were no new hotels and the Magic Kingdom remained the flagship of the resort. Epcot, Walt's dream for a utopian city, was being built, however, it was no longer Walt's vision but an international conglomeration of gift shops, Circlevision films, and quasi-futuristic displays.

By the time Epcot opened in 1982, construction cost overruns and low attendance created a 19 percent drop in profits. Meanwhile, the Disney Channel and Disney's film division were also plodding along sluggishly. Eventually, in 1984, Michael Eisner came aboard as CEO and company chairman, along with Frank Wells as president and chief financial officer. Their arrival got Disney out of the doldrums. " from Fodors.com

I haven't been able to find confirmation yet as to what the initial budget was for construction, but I know it exceeded it.

I think to say that Epcot was done "right" is pretty subjective - to the point of little to back it up. Don't get me wrong I love Epcot and can't imagine Disney without it, but as attendance figures bear out - Epcot has a lot of problems. It has never stood up to the test of time. That is always the problem with trying to bring the future to the present. There are certainly a lot of amazing things about Epcot, but there were some short sighted things as well. I don't think they designed Epcot to be equipped properly to keep up with technology. Referring mostly to FW of course. Sort of the same problems Tomorrowland suffers on both coasts. If you love it for what it is - its great, but if you aren't one to really appreciate the hokeyness that can be Disney - which A LOT of people aren't - its - well its hokey.

In 1982 Epcot was pretty amazing, but the amazement didn't last that long and struggles to survive today. Which I think is directly related to the design and inflexibility of the pavilions to change. If you want to build something around the idea of change and advancement - you should probably create it and design it to facilitate that idea.

Like I said I can't say for sure what the original budget for Epcot was - I haven't found it yet and I'm not sure what relation that had to the amount of available funding the company had at that time, so I can't say if the Imagineers put "everything" into it or not. I do believe that it was something that they believed in - albeit quite astray from Walts original plan.

I'll keep looking for info on it though.

 

[crusader]

So, tell me. What 'practices' have been instituted that really benefit the company

Two very big examples:

Success in the film industry which has ranked them the leader in market share.

Success in the parks in terms of attendance and recent attractions such as M:S and E:E.

One major undisputable end result:

http://www.forbes.com/newswire/2003/07/28/rtr1039688.html

 

[Peter Pirate]

P.S. You're wrong about the "excusors". You may not count yourself as one of them, but let me assure you they exist. They justify, excuse and thank the-Disney-gods for whatever the companies gives them and for whatever the company does!! It's sickening!!

Can you see the frustrations rising. It's hard to maintain "sublime" when your argument is so totally dismissed by totally WRONG perceptions!!!!

As one of the "excusors" don't you see why this problem exists? It's exactly the 'run around' you (and others) and I have had in the past. We're blamed for dismissing your POV when you completely ignore our arguments and on top of that label us as shown above. Heck you complain about not being taken seriously and then dismiss us in the same sentence!

The topic at hand (as ridiculous as you all said it was) still begs the "then and now" issue.

Certainly DL was built incomplete for different reasons than AK...But the end result was the same. They WERE both built incomplete and, at this point, it was/is incumbant on management to finish/upgrade as necessary. The fact that Walt had the foresight and DID finish DL only solidifies his genius. The fact that Mike drags his feet and needs to be proded by the worst of circumsatances to make improvements only goes to show his lack of understanding in these areas. But the fact is that both Walt & Mike DID BUILD Parks that were INCOMPLETE at opening. Further, Mikes reluctance to follow through certainly does deserve careful introspection as to the state of the company, the world and business prospects of the current environmnet (as we've done with Walt). This isn't defending his bad decisions by any means but these factors need to be considered right or wrong...It's just too easy to say "look at his salary & stock options...That's all he cares about." Again, maybe this is true, but just stating this observation out of hand with no proof or supporting criteria is no argument at all.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

I haven't been able to find confirmation yet as to what the initial budget was for construction, but I know it exceeded it.

Exactly my point!!

Melissa, we seem to be on the same topic, yet arguing apples and oranges. Let me see if we’re on the same level at all…

"During construction, a group of endangered birds called the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker was discovered nesting in a wooded area destined for development. The entire construction site had to be moved 300 feet in order to preserve that area’s natural state. A back service road was named after the birds as a reminder of the company’s conservation efforts. " from NetDisney.com

I wasn’t talking about cost overruns. I was talking about spending 1 billion on a park BEFORE opening day! Whether this added to the cost or not is of no consequence. The important question to ask is did Card cut anything because of this or did he suck it up and spend the extra!!?? I think we all know what Walt would have done (at least a good guess). And I also think we all know what Ei$ner would have done?* Now that’s the difference I’m talking about. Are we talking about the same thing? Seems to me this strengthens my argument about the park being built ‘right’!!

"Behind the scenes, however, a few cracks began to appear in the facade. In its first decade, growth was stagnant. There were no new hotels and the Magic Kingdom remained the flagship of the resort. Epcot, Walt's dream for a utopian city, was being built, however, it was no longer Walt's vision but an international conglomeration of gift shops, Circlevision films, and quasi-futuristic displays.

I can’t understand why you would cite this. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand. I already said they were deathly afraid to take on the E.P.C.O.T. project. I don’t blame them!! So they made an executive decision. Build EPCOT (the park). It is after that decision was made and before the first guest walked through the gate that I’m talking about. Are we talking about the same thing?

By the time Epcot opened in 1982, construction cost overruns and low attendance created a 19 percent drop in profits. Meanwhile, the Disney Channel and Disney's film division were also plodding along sluggishly. Eventually, in 1984, Michael Eisner came aboard as CEO and company chairman, along with Frank Wells as president and chief financial officer. Their arrival got Disney out of the doldrums. " from Fodors.com

WELL!!!! Three cheers for Saint Michael!!! My God!! If it weren’t for him…. Was his horse really pure white?

Again, Melissa, I don’t think we’re on the same plane. Remember what I said. THE PARK WAS DONE RIGHT!!! Not if it appealed to everyone. And not if it lived up to Walt’s city. But the PARK was done RIGHT!! In the context of spending a whole bunch of money on an untried concept. As in “Giving the people everything you can give them”. As in NOT being considered a half day park – BY ANYONE!!! As in being complete in and of itself.

Sure there was room for expansion, but it didn’t NEED to happen as in DCA, AK, MGM. Are we still talking the same things?

I think to say that Epcot was done "right" is pretty subjective - to the point of little to back it up.

Excuse me? Pardon me? I don’t think I heard that right. Maybe I should read on and see if we’re really talking about the same thing.

- Epcot has a lot of problems. It has never stood up to the test of time.

OK!!! Whew!!! What a break!!! We were NOT talking about the same thing!!! You want to talk about its reception by the public and I want to talk about the philosophy behind its concept, creation and construction!!!**

In 1982 Epcot was pretty amazing, but the amazement didn't last that long and struggles to survive today.

MELISSA!!!! You do agree!!! Amazing is quite right!! When it opened it opened with AMAZEMENT!!! Perfect!!

I guess that means it wasn’t a half day, it wasn’t opened ‘small’ and it wasn’t like DCA, AK or MGM. I guess it means it was done the way Walt really wanted to do Disneyland (and succeeded with WDW). I guess you could say it was… well… ah… how about if we say it was… DONE RIGHT!!!










* Oh!!! Wait!!! He would never have committed to EPCOT in the first place!! It would have been a paired down version Future World ONLY!! If that!! How silly of me!!

**How about that for alliteration!!!!

 

[MelissathePooh]

This is where we differ Baron.

I don't necessarily believe that Epcot was "done right" just because it was complete at opening. I don't see how it has been able to maintain successfully its original premise and purpose. To me that would be the criteria for being "done right". Completeness and fulfillment/facilitation of purpose. In the later part of those criteria Epcot has failed.

If being "complete" on opening day is the only criteria for being "done right" than one could argue that Epcot is really the ONLY American Disney park that was "done right". MK in Florida being pretty close, but also having an established model to go by.

I'm really having to think about something here and try to word it where it makes sense, and I'm not sure it will. I do believe that many things in the world have been "done right' without success and that is great and fine and there is a moral highground to those things, but in a situation where such huge investment was made, in relation to a for profit business, I don't think you can separate success and "rightness". If it really was "done right" why wouldn't it succeed? Why - because the implementation of the premise was flawed and that is a pretty big problem for Epcot.

But yeah - if your only criteria for being "done right" is being complete and investing as much as possible regardless of the fruits of that investment, than I suppose your statement is correct. See I can agree with you

Now while you and I were amazed by Epcot - of course I was only 9 when I went for the first time, there were many people like DR who and I quote "would rather have slit our wrists" than have to go to Epcot when given the opportunity to go to Disney. (He went to high school in Florida). That is where the subjective part comes in.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

But yeah - if your only criteria for being "done right" is being complete and investing as much as possible regardless of the fruits of that investment, than I suppose your statement is correct.

Yes!! That's all I'm saying. Thank you. It'd be nice to hit a home run every time you step up to the plate. But whether you strike out, hit a homer or even walk, when you're in the batter's box, you gotta give it all you got!!! You've got to "do-it-right". Philosophically!!

See I can agree with you

Thank you!!!!

 

[MelissathePooh]

Yeah well - like I said - "if those are you only criteria". Don't let it go to your head - in your heart of hearts you know how I feel about it

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Yes! That is it. It's easy.

As for the way you really feel about... Well, at the risk of turning an eight pager into a 20 pager...

Whose fault is that, anyway? The creators, who DID have a coherent plan to update and add, or the inept one that holds the company hostage today?

Ah!! When I think what could have been..............

 

[Bob O]

While i hope EE and Mission space are successful, it is way too early to call them a success when neither has opened up and one is years away from having its first rider.
I think we should wait till rides are operating on a daily basis in a cosistent manner before we call them a success!!!! It would be like saying TT was a success before it opened, even though it was way behind schedule and took along time once opened till it ran consisently without breaking down.
I was at epcxot its first year it was open and i feel it was a big success. The park offered many experiences that could be found nowhere else and offered more than a days worth of acitivites for you money. As for the park becoming stagnant that can be laid at the feet of eisner who failed to properly update the park and has let into pavilions wither greatly. ALso they decide to ruin one pavilion that was operating properly-Imagination- where they waste money by making a good ride lousy then spending more money try to fix up their screwup!!!! Figment/dreamfinder were new characters for the park that in their wisdom tryed to get rid of at their own peril!!!(long live figment!!)