Disney Theme Parks: Today vs. Yesterday

[crusader]

I think we should wait till rides are operating on a daily basis in a cosistent manner before we call them a success!!!!

OK I can see where my sentence was a run on and the two points got merged together.

Let me properly edit to put it in the correct literary context so you get what I was really saying.
Hate to quote myself but this is what I said:

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

and this is what I really meant: in answer to providing two examples to Baron of recent benefits to the company

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

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

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

We've covered a lot of ground in this thread, and I just wanted to pile on the agreement bandwagon where I'm able.

Not everything can possibly be done 100% to Walt's ideal... it never could be done to that ideal. But there there was always something at the highest level of the business constantly asking the same questions, over and over.

There just doesn't appear to be that type of leadership, particularly creative leadership, at Disney, anymore... and there's a paltry amount of actual creative talent, at Disney, anymore.

I thought both PotC and Pearl Harbor were multi-million dollar roulette rolls on products purchased whole. Am I happy PH largely "failed?" No, but I thought it was a bad investment in Disney's future. Am I happy PotC looks like it will largely "succeed?" Sure, but I don't think that will have any affect on Disney's ability to pick future lottery tickets, if you know what I mean.

I'm sorry to everyone whom I regularly annoy, but I just feel Disney has largely given up on actually creating things... and that that fundamental shift in philosophy led to a downward spiral in quality of product and customer loyalty to Disney.

Almost everything I see concerning Disney, these days, makes me want to repeat that in some form or other.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

WARNING: I’m going to ramble a bit. And toss out some seemingly random ideas. This is the way my brain works. I can’t help it. I’m also a bit cynical, so in the back of my head I’m always looking for motivations. The announcement of a new E-Ticket thrills the hell out of me. But at the same time my jaded side automatically looks for the underlying reason – WHY?

Success in the parks in terms of attendance.

Well, even with that clarification I still don’t see it. I mean, what does slick marketing have to do with “LONG TERM” benefits to the company? Yeah, he made his quarter and the stock even inched (like a snail) up a bit (Hey! Anyone remember the stock, like when I bought it, in the high 40s?).

Anyway, all the festivities associated with the gala events that they throw year after year is designed to artificially inflate the SHORT TERM. They are concentrating all their efforts on the next quarter. And while you may not agree, I firmly believe it does irreparable harm to the long term. Especially in the context of keeping (not to mention creating new) devoted, awestruck, loving, endearing and LOYAL fans. Like us!!

I guess what I keep coming back to is – What differentiates Disney® from the competition in the eyes of new visitors, especially teens and early twenties?

Also, where is the gain if those that visit have less than stellar trips? It’s one thing to hook these people in with a one time “MUST SEE” ad campaign. It’s quite another to make these people so enthused that the minute they get home they mark the next Disney trip on the calendar, whether it’s next year or five years out. The point is they MUST be WOWed!!!! Not just feel that it was a teeny, tiny hair above Universal or 6 Flags!!!

So throw around all high attendance figures you like. It does the company no good in the long run.

And, the recent decisions regarding attractions such as M:S and E:E.

Again, as I said in the little preface to this post, what was the motivation. What was the – WHY?

I really have to throw in with Bob. It’s a little too early to call either a success, isn’t it?

And finally, as this thread is called: Disney Theme Parks: Today vs. Yesterday, I think it is only fitting to take those examples you give (i.e. M:S and E:E) and try to evaluate them in terms of “yesterday’s theme parks”. Is E:E and M:S really the type of attraction that would have been offered under the old philosophy? Or is the Frozen One correct when he says:

I'm sorry to everyone whom I regularly annoy, but I just feel Disney has largely given up on actually creating things... and that that fundamental shift in philosophy led to a downward spiral in quality of product and customer loyalty to Disney.

Sorry folks. He’s right. 100%!! And that little cynical voice keeps my brain awake asking – WHY and WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN!!

OK. Ramble over, I think there’s more than enough quotes to keep this thing going for at least four more pages. I’ll see you all tomorrow afternoon!! Have fun!!

 

[Planogirl]

I see the inconsistency of current management as the biggest problem. They seem to notice very clearly where the problem areas (i.e. money losing areas) are once they're already problems. Then they seem use an approach similar to throwing paint against a wall to see what sticks best. There's no attempt to stay ahead of the game, to make sure that no portion of the parks suffer.

The economy certainly hasn't helped with that but I don't believe that Disney has tried lately even when they could afford to. I remember the original Epcot too. It seemed so big and so different and yes, so complete. It was crowded and we had our little Unofficial Guide touring plans because that's what it took in those days. Everything seemed so perfect because it was fun and amazing and there was a current of enthusiasm in the air that I really liked. I remember also having to stop at the kiosks at the base of Spaceship Earth to make PS with a real live attendant. There was always a mad rush to get the best restaurants. Then there were the true learning experiences to be had in Communicore. They weren't everyone's idea of fun but it was hard to deny their value. Then there was the music! RIP Future Corps.

So what happened? Technology passed Epcot by but why didn't Disney refurbish to stay up with it? Why did they allow Horizons to become so pathetic and Imagination to be redone so badly and why does the Living Seas just languish? Was it just a lack of money? Or truthfully a lack of vision?

I think that I understand now why losing Horizons made me feel so sad. I always believed that this ride was representative of Walt's vision and all that Epcot could have been. It symbolized the idea that Epcot was to be ever-evolving and the ride itself should have been pushed into the future or to new horizons if you will. OK, Epcot didn't come out exactly as Walt planned but the idea of future was still intact at least. And it's not that Horizons couldn't have been changed, it NEEDED to be redone but the idea was tied to what I thought Epcot was all about. Now this ride symbolizing the future been replaced by a trip to the moon. OK.

 

[cristen]

Melissa-

"Construction began in October 1979. The gargantuan scale of the project made it the largest private construction project in the world. The budget was set at a staggering $600 million, but by the end of the project it was estimated that Disney had spent anywhere between $800 million and $1.2 billion."

This is from "Since the World Began - Walt Disney World The First 25 Years"

 

[crusader]

Anyway, all the festivities associated with the gala events that they throw year after year is designed to artificially inflate the SHORT TERM.

It really has to do with the recent box office success of Nemo, (which I know everyone here likes to give Pixar all the credit - I personally give everyone involved credit which includes employees from both companies, including the executives) so it plays right into that lack of creativity argument. It also has to do with some changes at the parks and with ABC's advertising revenue.

They are not out of the water. I am not joining any "Hail to the Chief" tickertape parade. Here's an article which speaks to all of us but I must warn you: it is put forth by a competitor.......

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article.asp?Feed=RTR&Date=20030727&ID=2741147&Symbol=US:DIS

I guess what I keep coming back to is – What differentiates Disney® from the competition in the eyes of new visitors, especially teens and early twenties?

Good question. Extremely prolific. Highly subjective as well.

First - The sheer magnitude of the place gives it a stronghold far above the competition in terms of vacationing. It's much bigger and certainly offers far more than the other guys. I think even with Universal's expansion, they can't really surpass this place as long as Disney remains focused on keeping the place fresh and inviting.

Not everyone attends every year. I'd estimate on average the typical visitor is still that every 3-4 year guest. As long as Disney keeps giving them a reason to go back - They will! It is hard to tire of a theme park if it continues to offer you new and exciting venues to compliment old favorites.

But the twenty year old demographic is a bit harder to attract as AV has pointed out due to the DINK vacation habits.

Second - Is the Mickey Mouse effect. Nobody can top the extensive animation association. People feel good about the characters Disney has created and owns the rights to (ie Pixar). They go to Disneyworld to feel like a "kid" again and relive many childhood memories.

Third - Is actually all of us. We have the ability to share our feelings with our children. We have the ability to give them that vacation of a lifetime. Children don't see the cutbacks and they only relate to what their parents are commenting on. If we were truly able to relax and enjoy ourselves down there, our children would only know one thing - that they had an absolutely wonderful time in Disney. That memory will be filed away and cherished and they will fondly reflect on Disneyword as very positive and favorable indeed.

I'll leave others to comment further. I've got to get to my real job as welll. Talk to you later.

 

[crusader]

I thought both PotC and Pearl Harbor were multi-million dollar roulette rolls on products purchased whole. Am I happy PH largely "failed?" No, but I thought it was a bad investment in Disney's future.

Point taken. My problem with this argument is that it takes the safe conservative approach to the motion picture industry. If a movie company doesn't take risks they become lackluster.

We always remember the greats. We flock to the blockbusters.
There is no reason Disney shouldn't push this envelope as far as they possibly can. There will be victories and defeats but overall they have proven long term stability.

Here's a list of the internatinal box office charts. http://www.imdb.com/Charts/worldtopmovies

Surprisingly, look at #37

Pearl Harbor actually wound up grossing $450,400,000 worldwide. We seem to be condemning this picture but Disney made over $210 mil on it. It really cannot be construed as a failure.

 

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by crusader
Pearl Harbor actually wound up grossing $450,400,000 worldwide. We seem to be condemning this picture but Disney made over $210 mil on it. It really cannot be construed as a failure.

Didn't all of the major parties take a backend deal on Pearl Harbor? Or am I thinking about another movie?


Were they really pushing the edge with Pearl harbor? Didn't Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers just come out around the same time?

 

[MelissathePooh]

"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?"

I have to go with the creators - I'm not sure a coherent plan that would include updating and additions was really possible when building permanent, static attractions.



Different question regarding Imagination & Figment - What led to its being closed and redone? I really can't remember - right around the time it was all going on, I was pretty much over Epcot and mostly avoided the park outside of Illuminations. (early 20's - Epcot hit the way boring phase at that point)



Cristen - thank you for that info.


Also, while I know many here don't agree. I really do understand Crusaders point - while we can't call MS or EE a success yet I do believe that they are steps in the right direction. Many more steps are needed, but I'm willing to keep an open mind and hopeful attitude about these additions. I think they at least deserve a fair shot at success without beating them up before they open.

Lastly, I do think its really hard to compare yesterday to today for many reasons. There are certainly many things that could be done better in today's themeparks, but I believe that I prefer the parks now to what was offered in 1955. I do believe that today's guests are MUCH different than those in 1955 or 1971 for that matter. To say that there aren't would be saying there have been no cultural or social changes since 1955. To say which is better - all I can say is I'm glad to have what we have now.

 

[raidermatt]

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?"

I have to go with the creators - I'm not sure a coherent plan that would include updating and additions was really possible when building permanent, static attractions.

So the inept one desparately wanted to update the park, for 20 years, but was hamstrung by "permanent, static attractions"?

That's why WS hasn't been getting new countries?

Were they really pushing the edge with Pearl harbor? Didn't Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers just come out around the same time?

No, Pearl Harbor was not pushing the edge...the sfx were great, but that was all that could even be considered edgey. Private Ryan came out several years before, and the only it and PH share in common is they were set in the same decade. PH was much more of a "Titanic" wannabe than anything else...

Didn't all of the major parties take a backend deal on Pearl Harbor? Or am I thinking about another movie?

Yes, there were definitely some backend deals on PH, though I don't remember the specifics. I seriously question the $240 million cost, once all of the costs (backend deals, international marketing and distributing, etc) are factored in.

There is no doubt, however, that when compared to Disney's expectations, the film failed.

If we were truly able to relax and enjoy ourselves down there, our children would only know one thing - that they had an absolutely wonderful time in Disney. That memory will be filed away and cherished and they will fondly reflect on Disneyword as very positive and favorable indeed.

Whether or not any of us relax while down there has nothing to do with the issue at hand... That said, one thing I've learned as a parent is that kids can have wonderful times almost anywhere. The location is far less important than the feelings generated by being with a loving family.

So really, you are right, kids will have a wonderful time and develop fond memories at WDW if parents take the attitude you suggest. However, the same is true if they take their kids to many other possible destinations. That's why the value equation becomes so important, and that's why Disney cannot rely on fond memories created in the past to sustain it into the future.


Regarding Disney's overall box office position, they seem to be having trouble actually generating profits, despite the significant market share they possess. Perhaps overall box office market share does not tell the whole story.

 

[crusader]

Regarding Disney's overall box office position, they seem to be having trouble actually generating profits, despite the significant market share they possess. Perhaps overall box office market share does not tell the whole story.

They've just posted the qtr. which doesn't include Pirates, a large portion of the fairytale pkg. and the latter monies from Nemo. From what I quickly read they wrote something off but I couldn't determine what.

I seriously question the $240 million cost, once all of the costs (backend deals, international marketing and distributing, etc) are factored in.

I have the same questions myself but since the source data encompasses all films we'd have to apply that theory equally across the board. That said, I guess we can go with the comparable charting as is.

That's why the value equation becomes so important, and that's why Disney cannot rely on fond memories created in the past to sustain it into the future.

Agreed. I was merely pointing out how an individual may influence their family with respect to choosing a vacation. True, Disney can't place too heavy a reliance on this but their target audience begins with a preschooler who has nothing but innocence to develop. Through the years the family dynamic does play a key role in affecting the vacation experience. There is very little Disney can do to circumvent this.

 

[raidermatt]

True, Disney can't place too heavy a reliance on this but their target audience begins with a preschooler who has nothing but innocence to develop. Through the years the family dynamic does play a key role in affecting the vacation experience. There is very little Disney can do to circumvent this.

Really, Disney cannot place ANY reliance on this. Its a byproduct of the type of entertainment Disney offers, or at least used to consistently offer. Its like relying on synergy instead of focusing on the product and then using synergy to take advantage of the product.

As with most products, especially those directed at families, the family dynamic plays a big part in an individual family's purchase decsision. And you're right in that Disney can't circumvent this. However, the value equation also plays a big part in purchase decisions made by families, and this is the part of the decision process Disney CAN heavily influence.

 

[MelissathePooh]

"So the inept one desparately wanted to update the park, for 20 years, but was hamstrung by "permanent, static attractions"?"

Mostly I was referring to the problems of FW being designed very imflexibly. That doesn't mean that things couldn't have been done in WS obviously - that would fall on the part of administration. There just isn't much that can be done in FW w/out massive construction efforts and tons of money.

IMHO, the creators/imagineers/designers of FW were pretty short sighted. The problem with portraying a realistic future is that is comes to pass at some point and the realism part is either WAY off or old news. Look at Carousel of Progess, DL's Tomorrowland - one couldn't keep up enough to be interesting to most people and the other is just plain dying. I think Disneyworld's Tomorrowland approached it in the right manner by changing the theme to a fantasy future. That's the only way it works really at least that I've seen. It was kind of a flawed concept to be a permanent one.

 

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by MelissathePooh

Mostly I was referring to the problems of FW being designed very imflexibly. That doesn't mean that things couldn't have been done in WS obviously - that would fall on the part of administration. There just isn't much that can be done in FW w/out massive construction efforts and tons of money.

Isn't that a bit like saying that it was shortsighted to not build Tower of Terror so that it can be easily changed into a Coaster?

 

[Another Voice]

IMHO, the creators/imagineers/designers/management of today are so much better.

Look at how easily they convert once vibrant and popular attractions into empty buildings without any massive effort or tons of money at all.

 

[crusader]

Look at how easily they convert once vibrant and popular attractions into empty buildings without any massive effort or tons of money at all.

What, you hollywood types don't understand the phrase "working within one's contraints"?

Never underestimate the power of choice.

 

[MelissathePooh]

Europa - as I stated very clearly in my post the flaw and problem is when dealting with a theme or the future. ToT and most other Disney attractions don't fall into this category. Doesn't mean some aren't better than others, but outside of Tomorrowland's the theme of the future isn't present.

I don't believe and haven't seen anything to indicate that a theme of a "realistic" future can be very successful for very long. Again WDW's Tomorrowland has taken a different approach when the redid the theme to be a tomorrow that never would be - its totally made up. That type of future theming doesn't suffer as badly.

AV - you're absolutely correct it doesn't take much money to let an attraction sit empty (although I don't know to what degree they are empty - have the been gutted?), but it does take a boatload of money to gut out whats there, possible take down the entire structure, and redo the whole thing.

 

[EUROPA]

Melissa it seems rather silly to blame the concept and not the person that let the attraction go stagnant for so many years don't you think? Using your logic we could apply that to any attraction that is built and need to be updated. It is just impossible to predict what will stand the test of time. Of course an attraction that is about the future will need to be updated. I'm sure everybody in the world that worked on the attraction knew this. The only person it came a shook to would be Eisner. Yes if your going to say they were shortsighted to not make it more flexible and easy to change then you must say that for just about all of the attractions. How easy would it be to change HM, POTC, JC to different attractions?

 

[d-r]

Melissa here - not DR

Europa, I don't think there is anything wrong with HM, POTC, of JC that would require updating. AGAIN, my statement applies to attractions that have a realistic future THEME. If you are saying that theming doesn't matter in design, then yeah everything should be built that flexible, but I'm not saying that. I'm saying the theme of a realistic future is flawed and part of the premise of Epcot FW was about the changes and technological advancements of the future - the attractions in FW were not built to accomodate that.

Certainly in some cases some attractions with other themes have also needed changes - those changes have come at high expense, but the number of other themed attractions compared to an entire half of a themepark that was destined to need updating is pretty extreme. Most other themes can stand the test of time.

 

[EUROPA]

Nahh...new technology is expensive in general. Eisner just chose not to update the attractions when they needed it. I think the theme is perfectly fine if it were updated in a more timely manner. As AV has said in the past Eisner chose not to because he hates the park. Sure its not easy and cheap to change an attraction. I doubt you could say that of any of that attractions built. Unless you want a park full of movies.