I Was Totally Wrong

[YoHo]

It is also frustrating that you and AV continuously turn to insult. I understand the point just fine. We disagree, but I would never insult you or AV. no matter how ridiculous blind I may find your statements. But hey, it's all in good fun, right?

We don't disagree, we can't disagree. Disagreement presupposes you understand what the other is saying.

AV/Yoho: Disney Management no longer even understands the hows and whys of the Walt Disney company. Disney management does not seek to create or entertain as their sole focus, rather, their focus is to make money.


The peanut gallery: Nuh uh, they still make nice things sometimes and Walt wanted a paycheck too! purple monkey dishwasher.



Here's the fracken point one more time.

There was the Disney way, and the Disney way was predicated on the notion that the company is one of artists.
You see, there are these people, that derive actual satisfaction from their jobs. It's not just a paycheck to them. There are millions of these people, some, like Walt and the people he hired have the opportunity to turn avocation and talent into a buttload of cash money.

Walt Disney, today is run, not by people seeking to create art, but by people seeking to create wealth. How that's created is irrelevent.


Of course every now and then these people manage to come up with something good, but it is inevitably an accident, not a function of management brilliance or support of artistic merit.
The best companies across the globe foster creativity in their fields to go rise above others. DIsney doesn't do that anymore, Disney shovels bantha poodoo at it's core of mindless brandslaves. Eventually, much like what happened to PAramount w/ Star Trek, the gravy train will run out. And then poof, the company will be nothing but a memory and some dilapidated DVC buildings.


But YoHo, they spent $7 Billion on Pixar, they really want to make it work.

Yeah, sure, they spent that money, because Iger likes his job and the board wouldn't let him keep it otherwise. He sure didn't fire the middle managers at DFA, which by the way managed to weasel their way into control where Lasseter was suppose to have it.

Yes yes, bold statements about DCA, too bad they all seem to get squashed out of monetary fears.


I'm sorry, I've listened, but no matter how many times you tell me how rich and ornate the clothes are, I see nothing but a naked man here, and at that, all the overcompensation is understood now.


Disney's a hollow shell of what used to be the pinnacle of American cultural and corporate achievment.

Anyone that would make the claim that they still are, or that the current managment is even capable of achieving it is so divorced from reality, that they really are speaking African Clicking language.


In short all that matters is intent and Disney's intentions are horrid and don't even relate to those that made the company great. Everything else is irrelevent and a waste of words.

 

[dbm20th]

We don't disagree, we can't disagree. Disagreement presupposes you understand what the other is saying.

You are completely correct. It does. And the problem is that you do not understand anything anyone says except yourself, and even that seems fuzzy at best. Go ahead and fire away. We're all used to hearing that axe grind away.

To make my point to those who do seem able to understand the language, I am not trying to say that Walt's midway attractions were bad at all. In fact, they are probably the best and most enduring ever built. But they were midway attractions. Now that may frustrate you into insulting people, but there is nothing I can do about that.

The rest of this nonsense about corporate yada, yada, yada...well, that's fine and good, and we all get it. WDW is out to make money. Wow, what a bunch of evil jerks!! How can they even think of such a thing?!?! It's not the motivation that I am talking about, it is the end product. You don't like it as much as I. That's fine, but what's the point of insulting people about frickin rides??

 

[YoHo]

The question is, what difference does it Frackin make that they were midway attractions?

It makes zero difference. The fact that Walt put in a standard Carny spinner is 100% irrelevent to the point I and my good friend AV and the rest of "us" have been trying to make. It's a tree, yet it stands in a forest.

Your point appears to be that I'm a hypocrite, because I don't think Aladdin's spit and spin was a good addition EVEN THOUGH Walt himself put in Dumbo.

It's a terrible point, because Aladdin's fun time with Camel mucus isn't bad because it's a carny ride, it's bad because it's a terrible concept.


More to the point, not including WDW's construction (they were just copies of DL) how many Simple Carny rides did Walt install after the 4 he started with?

One wonders why it took the DIsney Company the better part of 45 years to dip back into that well of magic.

 

[YoHo]

The rest of this nonsense about corporate yada, yada, yada...well, that's fine and good, and we all get it. WDW is out to make money. Wow, what a bunch of evil jerks!! How can they even think of such a thing?!?! It's not the motivation that I am talking about, it is the end product. You don't like it as much as I. That's fine, but what's the point of insulting people about frickin rides??

I see, you're pointless blathering is important and relevent, mine is not.


WDW is out to make money, and yes, they are evil jerks, because WDW, just like Cinderellla, Beauty and the Beast, Mehnken music etc is a WORK OF ART. WDW and DL are creative works designed and crafted in the tradition of Theater and moving pictures, Walt's intention and the intention of the first generation to follow him was to inspire people the way only art can inspire, but NO, they're just out to make money and so was Walt, he never had creative aspirations beyond turning a profit. Sure, he's the same as Eisner and Iger and all the rest.

Don't you get it at all?

Walt Disney created the Art of the themepark, that's why there are dozens of books on Imagineering and the Disney way. It's an artistry and Eisner stomped that artistry into the ground. What Iger is left with is so far removed from Art that, even if I were to accept that he isn't a twit, he wouldn't be capable of understanding that it is art.

Tell me, were Picasso and Rembrant and Hitchcock and WC Fields and Mozart and the Stones only in it for the money?

 

[Another Voice]

It's not the motivation that I am talking about, it is the end product.

This is where your understanding fails and the reason why Mr. Pirate started this thread in the first place. Disney has changed, and the change has not been for the best.

Motivation has always been at the center of how and why Disney did things. That motivation has changed and so has the company.

Disney used to strive to always improve, to always attempt to better itself. They believed if you delivered an honest show to the audience, you would be rewarded buy those people. They thought of themselves as artists practicing a craft. As stupid as this sounds to you, there are people who still believe there is a right way and a wrong to deal with the public. Disney used to try to be the example of the “right way” of doing things.

That made a lot of people “fans”. They fell in love with the work. They enjoyed the respect of being a guest at a Disney park. They admired the craftsmanship in Disney films. They became hooked on the notion that tomorrow would bring unexpected surprises and delights.

Now we get twenty princess diners, shuttered attractions and every con job a tourist attraction can pull. You blast ‘Dumbo’ as a midway ride – we see Triceratops Spin as an insult to very notion of “trying to do better”. Half a century on and all Disney can accomplish is to recycle the past. ‘Stitch’ gets tossed into a ride, not because the show is good, but because he’ll sell DVDs and plush.*

And why, – it’s that today Disney’s ONLY is to make a buck. The artists are long gone, replaced with self-proclaimed business people. People with a very different motivation than the people that drew Snow White or designed ‘The Haunted Mansion’. Right, wrong – good, bad…it doesn’t make a difference anymore to the company. It’s whatever gets your buck the fastest.

If I understand Mr. Pirate correctly, he had hoped that Disney’s traditional sense of excellence would work its way into the new company’s endeavors. It did not. Worse still, the regressive business practices has now worked their way back into what used to be Disney’s core – the heart of the company is now rotting.

But hey – you don’t see that. Fine. Enjoy what you have for as long as it lasts. Tell yourself this is the best it ever was and the best it ever could be. Tell yourself it’s magic because the poster said so, tell yourself that liking “Disney” is all that matters. Tell yourself that “home” is a condo timeshare. Tell yourself that the more you spend the happier you’ll be. Just keep telling yourself…

Just don’t expect us to follow.



* Yes, Disneyland opened with a couple of film based rides. But this was 1955 – no DVDs or tape…hell, there wasn’t even cable way back then. Outside of the seven year re-release cycle this was the only way people could experience the story. There was nothing that Walt could sell; the rides kept his stories alive and vibrant for generations.

 

[cristen]

how many Simple Carny rides did Walt install after the 4 he started with?

Motivation has always been at the center of how and why Disney did things. That motivation has changed and so has the company.

Which is exactly what I was thinking when I posted. Thank you guys for saying it better than I could..........again.

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

Mr. Voice, you got my sentiments to a "t" ...Thanks.

Until Disney can program ESPN with the best intention for sport rather than simply being the best sports network for the masses, until ABC and Family are programmed for the best entertainment they can possibly give rather than strictly for the Nielson's, until Disney makes movies without first consulting (or being hamstrung) by the suits regarding 'tie ins' and 'synergy' then Disney is broke and needs fixing, IMO...

It isn't that the theme parks are lousy (they certainly are not), it's that they are not improving in the Disney way. Look at E:E (and I love this ride). It's got great theming and a really fun Disney coaster but for as great and fun as it is it is still just a rehash. Mountains, coasters, some inside, some outside...The only new technology added was the backward shift, which without would have totally neutered the ride and I think anyone other than Paul Pressler probably could've seen that.

My personal metamophisis centers around exactly what Mr. Voice attributed to me, not the theme parks specifically, but the philosophy:

"If I understand Mr. Pirate correctly, he had hoped that Disney’s traditional sense of excellence would work its way into the new company’s endeavors. It did not. Worse still, the regressive business practices has now worked their way back into what used to be Disney’s core – the heart of the company is now rotting."

 

[dbm20th]

I see, you're pointless blathering is important and relevent, mine is not.


WDW is out to make money, and yes, they are evil jerks, because WDW, just like Cinderellla, Beauty and the Beast, Mehnken music etc is a WORK OF ART. WDW and DL are creative works designed and crafted in the tradition of Theater and moving pictures, Walt's intention and the intention of the first generation to follow him was to inspire people the way only art can inspire, but NO, they're just out to make money and so was Walt, he never had creative aspirations beyond turning a profit. Sure, he's the same as Eisner and Iger and all the rest.

Don't you get it at all?

Walt Disney created the Art of the themepark, that's why there are dozens of books on Imagineering and the Disney way. It's an artistry and Eisner stomped that artistry into the ground. What Iger is left with is so far removed from Art that, even if I were to accept that he isn't a twit, he wouldn't be capable of understanding that it is art.

Tell me, were Picasso and Rembrant and Hitchcock and WC Fields and Mozart and the Stones only in it for the money?

To be honest, your holyer-than-thou attitude is really amusing. Thanks for that

And thanks for the lecture on how great Walt was, and what the point of the post was, but none of that has anything to do with this, so go ahead and hammer away on your soapbox and put down everyone who doesn't agree with your position as "pointless blathering".

The difference here is that you have a position that "art" is no longer produced by WDI, and I have a position that it is. WE DISAGREE!!! DO YOU COMPREHEND THAT??? I respect your opinion, as hard as your attitude may make that, and I don't throw around 5th grade insults when you express it. But, honestly, I wouldn't want you to stop. It's funny...

 

[dbm20th]

This is where your understanding fails and the reason why Mr. Pirate started this thread in the first place. Disney has changed, and the change has not been for the best.

There is no argument on that, and there never has been. But unlike you, I am not grinding an axe here, I am just pointing out some things to MJ about spinner rides and carousels. You can ascribe whatever you want to them

Motivation has always been at the center of how and why Disney did things. That motivation has changed and so has the company.

But I can only say this so many times, "THAT WAS NOT WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT". You want to turn it into that so you can keep grinding this axe, go ahead. But please stop twisting the points here.

But hey – you don’t see that. Fine. Enjoy what you have for as long as it lasts. Tell yourself this is the best it ever was and the best it ever could be. Tell yourself it’s magic because the poster said so, tell yourself that liking “Disney” is all that matters. Tell yourself that “home” is a condo timeshare. Tell yourself that the more you spend the happier you’ll be. Just keep telling yourself…

Is this what I said? Do you have any comprehension at all as to what I like and don't like? What I spend and don't spend my money on? Or are you just looking to use my comments to grind your axe?

Just don’t expect us to follow.

Believe me AV, I could care less if you do or don't. That's not why I talk about these things. I go to WDW because I love it. I love old things like PotC and HM, and I love newer things like Soarin and ToT. If I am "ignorant" or whatever because I don't appreciate the motivation behind it...well whatever. First of all, I don't consider someone on a message board to be the "source" of the companies motivation. And second, I just don't care what the motivation is. I care if I enjoy the product. (And I also don't own a single snowglobe, so you can go insult snowglobe owners all you want.)

* Yes, Disneyland opened with a couple of film based rides. But this was 1955 – no DVDs or tape…hell, there wasn’t even cable way back then. Outside of the seven year re-release cycle this was the only way people could experience the story. There was nothing that Walt could sell; the rides kept his stories alive and vibrant for generations

And you are making an assumption that the Disney brothers would have conducted themselves in the exact same manner if they had all the media options we have now. That's an assumption, and you are welcome to it. I happen to agree with you.

 

[DancingBear]

dbm, surely you must agree that a company that has creativity as its core value will produce more good creative product than a company that has marketing as its core value? And clearly Disney used to be the former, but is now the latter.

Apple didn't just stumble upon the I-pod. Pixar didn't just happen to produce a string of great movies. For all his quirks, Jobs has a knack for encouraging creative product development.

I shop at both Wal-Mart and Nordstroms. Do we want Disney to be a Wal-Mart experience or Nordstrom's?

Disney marketing has been trading heavily on the sentimental attachment to lots of old products. Iger said he bought Pixar largely because he realized Disney hadn't created a memorable character in 20 years. I think Disney is headed down a similar path as Major League Baseball--you can make a lot of money trading on the memories of middle-aged folks, but if every World Series game ends at midnight, you won't be creating a lot of new young fans.

 

[dbm20th]

dbm, surely you must agree that a company that has creativity as its core value will produce more good creative product than a company that has marketing as its core value? And clearly Disney used to be the former, but is now the latter.

OK, that's fine. But the last sentence turns us, as it always does, into subjectivity. First of all, there are MILLIONS of examples when marketing doesn't make a bad product good. As much as the purists want to assume that those of us who like the newer additions are knuckle dragging sheep who only like what the marketing tells us to like, the fact is we like it because we do. WDW is very successful, no matter what AV wants us to believe, at getting people there to spend money. Are we really trying to conclude that marketing is the only reason that is the case? Please, it is popular because the product works. Just because it doesn't work on the "purist" is not the question here.

I can put up a list of the great things WDI has produced over the last 15 years if you like. I can mention 2 incredbile cruise ships, unbelievable resorts (i.e., AKL, BW, WL, etc.,). We can discuss the list of great rides like Soarin, ToT, KS, Splash, Star Tours, E:E, RnR, and so on. I can talk about Broadway hits, and on and on. But if the purists don't like these things, then we are at a brick wall.

I shop at both Wal-Mart and Nordstroms. Do we want Disney to be a Wal-Mart experience or Nordstrom's?

I do NOT believe that Disney is the Wal-mart of the industry. I'm sorry, but that's my opinion.

I think Disney is headed down a similar path as Major League Baseball--you can make a lot of money trading on the memories of middle-aged folks, but if every World Series game ends at midnight, you won't be creating a lot of new young fans

Though I agree with you, MLB is at such a high point in attendance and revenue to the point where the players union and owners can't even find something to argue about. Again, it may not work for us, but it works for many other people. Yes, the World Series is on too late, but most of the 162 regular season games are not. This has been the case for many years and a complaint of mine forever, but attendance keeps increasing. Is that because of marketing? Maybe, but more likely it is because the problem is mine and not the public's at large.

 

[MJMcBride]

Thank god we have AV and Yoho here. Where else we can find our daily fill of self righteous indignation.

Yoho: to say that anytime Disney comes up with something good now is a pure accident is ridicluous and frankly dumb. The people who work at imagineering now work just as hard as they did before and it pays off sometimes. Sometimes it doesn't. The point about Dumbo was this ( I guess you missed it). Not everything Walt did was innovative or even good. Thats all.

Peter Pirate: You say Expedition Everest is just a rehash. Fine. Then so is Big Thunder Mountain. They all stem from the Matterhorn correct? And Disney has come up with innovative things since Disney dies. The first motion simulator ride I believe was Star Tours. Turtle Talk and Soarin are innovative.

 

[YoHo]

Actually, Dumbo was innovative in it's way, Certainly the decorations on it are far more advanced then anything that came before it.

Of course, that's a single attraction focus which is as incorrect as anything else in this thread. Fantasyland is about the sum of it's parts. THAT's innovative.

Yoho: to say that anytime Disney comes up with something good now is a pure accident is ridicluous and frankly dumb. The people who work at imagineering now work just as hard as they did before and it pays off sometimes. Sometimes it doesn't. The point about Dumbo was this ( I guess you missed it). Not everything Walt did was innovative or even good. Thats all.

If you knew ANYTHING about the people in Walt Disney Imagineering right now, you'd know that NO, they don't work as hard, in fact, most of them are mindless paper pushers. To equate the current crop with the likes of Hench, Broggie, etc etc is not just insulting because of talent, but also an insult to their work ethic. Please stop insulting people. Oh, I'm sure there are one or 2, but they're drowned out by the idiots.

And, for the record, I've talked to former Disney employees about how they viewed the product under Eisner, it's pretty much universally hated. Have you?

But I can only say this so many times, "THAT WAS NOT WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT". You want to turn it into that so you can keep grinding this axe, go ahead. But please stop twisting the points here.

If that's not what you're talking about, then you aren't really keeping on the topic that Peter Pirate laid out, and therefore, it's you who has an axe to grind.

 

[raidermatt]

I'm going to make this as simple as possible.

We know you are simply comparing the end product. Walt had successes, Walt had failures. Today's Disney has successes, today's Disney has failures.

Find. Understood. Point conceded.

The fundamental question is, do you believe that different, but viable, methods will have different rates and levels of success? Again, to keep it simple, one way of operating is "good". Another way is "better". While both will generate sucesses and failures, will there not be a difference in the rate and scale of the results?

Can we agree that the answer to all of that is yes?

I'm going to assume that the answer is yes, though I realize I'm taking a pretty big leap.

But assuming yes, then the point we are making is very simple. The way YoHo, AV and others are describing is better. The way Disney does it today is fine. Its more or less the way everybody else does things. But its nothing compared to the philosophy and vision that once drove Disney.

If you just want a concession that Disney does fine today, that they produce some things we like, no problem. But the question becomes if that is all that Disney means to us, why the hell are we here on these boards? Every viable company in America produces some products people like. Do you not realize that Disney was once something so much more than that? That their methods of doing business allowed them to accomplish things everyone though impossible, and they did it over and over again? That these methods, this vision, allowed them to not just become another movie studio, but an institution, an icon, heck, a way of life for some people?

The point is there's a difference in methods, and one produces greater results than the other. Not that one method is evil, or worthy of Satan himself. Just that one produced the Walt Disney Company that drew us all in, and the other seeks to do what everybody else does, only with the advantage of having Walt's vision as shoulders to stand on.

 

[dbm20th]

I'm going to make this as simple as possible.

We know you are simply comparing the end product. Walt had successes, Walt had failures. Today's Disney has successes, today's Disney has failures.

Find. Understood. Point conceded.

The fundamental question is, do you believe that different, but viable, methods will have different rates and levels of success? Again, to keep it simple, one way of operating is "good". Another way is "better". While both will generate sucesses and failures, will there not be a difference in the rate and scale of the results?

Well, that does pre-suppose that we are in agreement that things produced before a certain time period are in fact better than those produced after that time period. Without that, we can not qualify one as producing "better" results than the other. Now, I can't speak to things because I have only been at WDW since the late 70's, but in that time frame there are things produced now that many people like a lot more...

For example, and I am going to get murdered for this but oh well, I think TT is a much better experience than World of Motion. I think Soarin in a great addition to a boring area. I loved Alien Encounter and it was much better than the Mars attraction before it. Buzz was better than it replaced. I can go on and on. My point it, you can NOT pre-suppose these things becaue everyone has a different view of what is "good", "fun" or "boring".

Having said all that...I agree. When there were 2 brothers controlling a film studio and one theme park, that was probably better. I just don't know how you get back to that without someone grinding an axe at management. There is always someone in a corporation with better ideas and a limitless budget. My point is, I can only judge these things on how I like the end product, nothing else. The motivation is meaningless to me. And to me and my family, the end product is still terrific. (I guess this is where I get some nuanced "snowglobe" comment or the less nuanced "pointless blathering" description.)

The way Disney does it today is fine. Its more or less the way everybody else does things.

I know there is much more to what you said than this, but let's just look at this one part. I don't think this is true. I've been to hotels, theme parks, and cruise ships all over the country. Disney does it better. This Disney...today's Disney does it better. From service to themes, they are the best vacation company in the country...in my humble opinion.

The company at large is not what it was, to me. To some, the "golden age" of animation was the Katzenberg era. The best films were those, and not Walt's. To others, the Eisner era that produced Splash Mountain, the Tower of Terror, Soarin, and other great thrill rides is the golden age of the attractions, and not the dark rides from 64' fair. I am not saying I agree or disagree with that notion, but it is what it is. People have different views, and those who think that what has been produced at the parks over the past 15 years is great are certainly not the minority as far as I can tell.

 

[YoHo]

Well, that does pre-suppose that we are in agreement that things produced before a certain time period are in fact better than those produced after that time period. Without that, we can not qualify one as producing "better" results than the other. Now, I can't speak to things because I have only been at WDW since the late 70's, but in that time frame there are things produced now that many people like a lot more...

For example, and I am going to get murdered for this but oh well, I think TT is a much better experience than World of Motion. I think Soarin in a great addition to a boring area. I loved Alien Encounter and it was much better than the Mars attraction before it. Buzz was better than it replaced. I can go on and on. My point it, you can NOT pre-suppose these things becaue everyone has a different view of what is "good", "fun" or "boring".

First of all, you're crazy on World of Motion, but that's just a personal opinion. More importantly, there is a difference between simply being better, because it's newer, fancier, what have you and being better because it's innovative, different, transcendent.
We try not to argue about what people like, we try to argue about the method. Alien encounter is fun for some, others hated it. The attraction they originally designed was far more exciting and innovative, but it would have cost licensing money and been scarier.
Animal Kingdom Lodge is nice, some people really like it, but the African Village hotel complex was beyond the pale different and more innovative then any resort or hotel on the planet. It's not just the same, but with better service. It was innovative.
Disney isn't about doing it better, that's the problem here. "Disney does it better then the others" is a mark of failure.
Disney used to be in the business of doing things that never occurred to anyone else.

Having said all that...I agree. When there were 2 brothers controlling a film studio and one theme park, that was probably better. I just don't know how you get back to that without someone grinding an axe at management. There is always someone in a corporation with better ideas and a limitless budget. My point is, I can only judge these things on how I like the end product, nothing else. The motivation is meaningless to me. And to me and my family, the end product is still terrific. (I guess this is where I get some nuanced "snowglobe" comment or the less nuanced "pointless blathering" description.)

Yes, those Bank of America people were all Lollipops and Ponies in the 50s

I know there is much more to what you said than this, but let's just look at this one part. I don't think this is true. I've been to hotels, theme parks, and cruise ships all over the country. Disney does it better. This Disney...today's Disney does it better. From service to themes, they are the best vacation company in the country...in my humble opinion.

Again, being better then others in the same field is fundamentally different then striking new innovative ground.

The company at large is not what it was, to me. To some, the "golden age" of animation was the Katzenberg era. The best films were those, and not Walt's. To others, the Eisner era that produced Splash Mountain, the Tower of Terror, Soarin, and other great thrill rides is the golden age of the attractions, and not the dark rides from 64' fair. I am not saying I agree or disagree with that notion, but it is what it is. People have different views, and those who think that what has been produced at the parks over the past 15 years is great are certainly not the minority as far as I can tell.

Over the Past 15 years? Among people who actually think about this stuff? Yeah, you might be in the minority. There is no doubt that the Walt Disney Company has been on a death spiral since at least 1996. Prior to that, I could see some people thinking it was the golden age. We didn't see what was going on yet.

 

[dbm20th]

Among people who actually think about this stuff?

And here we go again. So I guess unless they agree with you, they don't "think"? Honestly YoHo, when you say things like that, I lose complete interest in whatever else you write. But just because I find your insults mildly amusing...

(I edited a paragraph out here, because I have had enough of being insulted, no matter how fun it may be.)

 

[YoHo]

No, I meant as opposed to the average person who doesn't really think about how multinational corporations do things, not even Disney specifically.

The vast majority of guests don't distinguish what was built when beyond comments about what they rode when they were little. They evaluate Disney discreetly each time they visit.

This board is filled with people who do think about that. This board is filled with people who put Disney in it's historical context. Neither is right or wrong, it's a distinction on what people are interested in.

Most people don't think about it, but they still notice it when it's missing.


But, way to take a statement that was not in any way an insult and assume it was one.


Among people who actually sit down and contemplate what's been added over the past 10 years versus the previous 10 and the 15 before that, most would disagree with your contention that what's been produced over the past 15 years has been great when compared to what was previously there.

 

[Another Voice]

The motivation is meaningless to me.

Which is why we're all talking past each other.

To us - the motivation is everything. We believe the motivation is why we used to get 'Pirates of the Caribbean' and these days we get 'Mission: Space'. The motivation is why we used to be able to ask divers in 'The Living Seas' questions about science, and why now all we can do there is shop. And the motivation is what enticed millions of people to visit EPCOT Center, and today's motivation why they can't get anyone to visit California Adventure when they give admission away for free.

But if you enjoy it - more power to you.

 

[raidermatt]

Now, I can't speak to things because I have only been at WDW since the late 70's, but in that time frame there are things produced now that many people like a lot more...

Well, in trying to stay focused on the basic point, I used words like "good" and "better". But if we are clear on the rest of it, we can move on.

Yes, as YoHo said, its not about a ride created in 2000 being more popular than a ride created in 1955. Really, that should be a given. There are precious few companies that can go 50 years without upgrading their product offerings and still remain a giant in their respective industries.

But in this case, its all about context. When you look back at what was in Disneyland in 1955 its easy to say "eh, it was a nice start, but no big deal". But for the time period, it was a HUGE deal. Just as Snow White was nearly 20 years before. Fantasia. The way TV was utilized. The idea of a "Disney World". An entire CITY of tomorrow!

In their time period, these were monster ideas which sprung from a completely different vision and strategy. There is absolutely NOTHING that Disney does today that comes close to what the company used to do when you look at things in their historical context.

THAT'S what we lament. And from a business perspective, its a tremendous opportunity missed for the company.

If you don't care about all of that, and just like visiting WDW on your vacation, or popping The Lion King or Cinderella into the DVD player, that's fine. As others have said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

But if we are going to engage in the discussion of what has changed, then the motivation, the methods, and the strategic vision cannot be ignored. Without looking at those things, you can only see what's in front of you. You can't see what a continuation of those ideals WOULD HAVE put in front of you. Or could again if somehow, someway, the WDC could recapture those ideals.

That doesn't mean we can't have a blast at WDW. We do! (or at least most of us do). Its about seeing something that might be fine, good, or even great, and acknowledging that it had, and maybe still has, the very real potential to be so much more.

Its not about wanting to step into a time machine and go back to Disneyland in 1955 (although that would be really cool!). Its about seeing something you love and cherish not be anything close to what it could be due to the decisons made by its leaders.