I Was Totally Wrong

[dbm20th]

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.

Tell me where I said that?? You like to cast insults at people for not following your "logic". Tell me where this is written. What I said was that there are accomplishments in the past 15 years. Fun and terrific stuff. Never once, did I say it was better than the Walt years. Never once.

 

[YoHo]

Greatness is relative to expectation.

 

[MJMcBride]

If you just want a concession that Disney does fine today, that they produce some things we like, no problem.

Not just like, but are great and worthy of the name "Disney". I think many things produced since Eisner came on board are worthy of it. I won't list them again.

If you want a concession that Disney Imagineering is not what it used to be and Disney too often goes for the easy buck. "No problem."

And never once did I say the parks are better now than they were. I don't know what the heck Yoho is talking about. Yoho, reading, try it, its a wonderful thing. Really, it is.

 

[MJMcBride]

Greatness is relative to expectation.

Let me aski you this. In the last 15 years, what has Disney produced that has been great?

 

[mt2]

Let me aski you this. In the last 15 years, what has Disney produced that has been great?

Illuminations: Reflections of Earth.

 

[raidermatt]

Not just like, but are great and worthy of the name "Disney". I think many things produced since Eisner came on board are worthy of it. I won't list them again.

There's no need to. They've been listed and debated umpteen times by dozens of posters over the years. It always leads nowhere.

As it relates to this discussion, it doesn't matter whether we call the cruise line, or anything else, worthy of the name Disney.

When you look at the criteria, the standard, I was talking about in my post, NOTHING being done by Disney today matches the grander ideas that Disney executed in the past.

That doesn't mean the cruise line doesn't deserve to have Disney's name on it. It doesn't mean its not a well run cruise line, or even the best cruise line out there. It doesn't even mean its not something yesterday's Disney would have done.

What it means is that if Disney had not wavered from its vision, when we said what is Disney's "Disneyland", "Snow White", or "Disney World" of today, we wouldn't point to the cruise line. I don't pretend to be smart enough, or imaginative enough, to guess what we would point to. But what I do know is that it wouldn't be the cruise line.

To try to draw a parallel, the cruise line might be the equivalent of what the MK was to the DisneyWorld project. Something Disney decided to do better than had been done before, yes, and most definitely worthy of the Disney name. But not the thing that naysayers would point to and say "Impossible!".

 

[MJMcBride]

When you look at the criteria, the standard, I was talking about in my post, NOTHING being done by Disney today matches the grander ideas that Disney executed in the past.

And I don't believe that. Some of the things built over the last 10 years are some of the best things ever built at a Disney Park. Obviously, thats subjective.

 

[MJMcBride]

Illuminations: Reflections of Earth.

And thats It? Please

 

[YoHo]

And I don't believe that. Some of the things built over the last 10 years are some of the best things ever built at a Disney Park. Obviously, thats subjective.

None of it matches the grandness of scope.

That's not subjective, it's measurable fact.

 

[raidermatt]

And I don't believe that. Some of the things built over the last 10 years are some of the best things ever built at a Disney Park. Obviously, thats subjective.

Look again at the things I'm talking about. Snow White. First full-length animated feature. Disneyland. A park built and promoted like nothing before it. DisneyWorld/Epcot the City. Wow! These were things that simply had not been done before. Things that people said could not be done, certainly not for a profit.

Yes, they would probably be building new theme parks, like today, each trying to top what they did before, unlike today. But they would also either be building/creating or planning something else. Something that would shock and amaze people the way plans for Snow White did, the way Disneyland did, and the way DisneyWorld did.

The strategy and vision behind those things is what has been lost.

 

[MJMcBride]

That's not subjective, it's measurable fact.

Maybe in your head "grandness of scope" is a definable, measurable "fact." But only in your head.

 

[YoHo]

You're cookoo for coco puffs my friend.

The scope of a project is easily measured, Heck, I do that on a weekly basis. The level of ambition, risk and potential reward of any project is easily definable. So, yes, Grandness of scope is a measurable objective. And it's my contention that the Grandness of Disney's scope is terrible. I'd like to see some examples otherwise.

 

[MJMcBride]

Grandness of scope is a measurable objective.

How does one measure grandness of scope? It seems to me its a subjective idea.

 

[YoHo]

Grandness of scope is very simply an evaluation of risk v. reward.

For example, Timeshares have been a well understood concept for decades now. Therefore the risk of DVC is pretty darn low.

On the other hand, Creating the first full length animated movie when you have little to no money and are barely able to meet payrole.

Building a resort city based on new untried technology top to bottom, embracing the new medium of televsion completely.

Buying a spinner off the shell, not very risky.

 

[cristen]

Snow White. First full-length animated feature. Disneyland. A park built and promoted like nothing before it. DisneyWorld/Epcot the City. Wow! These were things that simply had not been done before.

First steel tube roller coaster, invented the multiplane camera, Skyway, first system of it's kind in the US, DL monorail, first monorail operated in the western hemisphere, the innovative magnetic mechanism for the Peoplemover, invented the film technique circle-vision 360........


If any of you are interested in reading exactly how much Walt influenced the times and the culture, I can provide a link. It's a fascinating read.




eh.

 

[DancingBear]

I agree with A-V's post that we're talking past one another. For the record, I thoroughly enjoyed our Disney cruise in 9/05, and our WDW visits in 9/05, 12/05 and 5/06. For subjective opinions (most of which A-V would disagree with me about), the current Illuminations show is the best ever, AK is very underrated, Soarin' is an awesome ride (although it could use a "story," and the airport queue is awful), Disney deserves credit for making The Lion King on Broadway an amazing show, the Swan and Dolphin are really cool (and I don't care that I could see them from World Showcase--in fact, I've never noticed them when I'm in Epcot) and the Alladin ride really doesn't annoy me at all.

My concern is exactly the one that Iger expressed as a big reason that he bought Pixar. He said he realized Disney had not created a memorable character in 20 years (and Pixar had created many). Witness how much a show like "Wishes" depends upon the sentimental attachment to past Disney creations.

dbm, I appreciate your thoughtful discussion style, but as a Disney fan I don't see how you can NOT care about Disney's internal workings. It is simply indisputable that during the second half of the Eisner era (and particularly in the last 5 years or so of that era), that the emphasis within the Company was shifted away from Imagineers and animators and other creators, and toward marketing, merchandising and accounting. This just can't be a good thing for those who want to see more and better creations from Disney.

That's not to say that merchandising is evil per se, or that Walt and Roy didn't do it. And it's not saying that change is always bad (I was never crazy about World of Motion either). It's just saying that it's a bad thing when choices are made like closing up side streets on Main Street to enlarge all of the shops.

 

[dbm20th]

Folks, we all know Walt took risks and was a pioneer in theme parks and film making. We all know that, and we all understand that Disney does not do that now. They stand on the back of their creator and build on his ideas. Honestly, that is exactly what I would want the focus to be.

I am talking, not so much about the OP, as I am about the other thigs mentioned between the patrionizing garbage that came out of folks grinding their axes. For example...

From the ever polite and enjoyable YoHo...

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.

This is interesting on the surface, but nothing but sour grapes in the end. What we don't like becomes non-artistic or an accident. Was KS and accident? Or E:E? What about the DCL? Or Lucky? Are these accidents that knuckle-dragging morons happen to be lucky in coming up with? That very idea is such non-sense that it is hard to even debate. Are they produced and imagined in the same style as Wlat? Of course not, but the differences that exists everywhere in the company, world, etc, between now and 1955 make it nearly impossible to expect something else?

We just left a down time in Disney, but it seems that Lasseter and the more creative people may turn this around. Will they turn it back to dark rides, educational exhibits and such, probably not, so I don't expect the purists to jump for joy. But there is reason to hope, and reason to appreciate what has been done.

From the all-knowing AV...

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.*

First of all, besides twisting the word "blast" whoch never occured here, what this is doing is taking a few examples, like TS and Stitch and forgetting the rest, like E:E, Soarin, and others. This is precisly why we point out some of the terrible thins that were done in past years. Not because we think that is the story of those eras, but because we don't think that TS is the story of this era.

And my favorite...

None of it matches the grandness of scope.

That's not subjective, it's measurable fact.

That last one is really amusing. YoHo's Grandess of Scope meter will soon be on sale at E-Bay, so stay tuned. I would be willing to bet that there are many, many people who find an enourmous "grandness of scope" in things like ToT, KS, E:E, Lucky, and Soarin, but it doesn't read well on the meter so we must be incorrect.

 

[YoHo]

Folks, we all know Walt took risks and was a pioneer in theme parks and film making. We all know that, and we all understand that Disney does not do that now. They stand on the back of their creator and build on his ideas. Honestly, that is exactly what I would want the focus to be.

I am talking, not so much about the OP, as I am about the other thigs mentioned between the patrionizing garbage that came out of folks grinding their axes. For example...

From the ever polite and enjoyable YoHo...


This is interesting on the surface, but nothing but sour grapes in the end. What we don't like becomes non-artistic or an accident. Was KS and accident? Or E:E? What about the DCL? Or Lucky? Are these accidents that knuckle-dragging morons happen to be lucky in coming up with? That very idea is such non-sense that it is hard to even debate. Are they produced and imagined in the same style as Wlat? Of course not, but the differences that exists everywhere in the company, world, etc, between now and 1955 make it nearly impossible to expect something else?

We just left a down time in Disney, but it seems that Lasseter and the more creative people may turn this around. Will they turn it back to dark rides, educational exhibits and such, probably not, so I don't expect the purists to jump for joy. But there is reason to hope, and reason to appreciate what has been done.

From the all-knowing AV...


First of all, besides twisting the word "blast" whoch never occured here, what this is doing is taking a few examples, like TS and Stitch and forgetting the rest, like E:E, Soarin, and others. This is precisly why we point out some of the terrible thins that were done in past years. Not because we think that is the story of those eras, but because we don't think that TS is the story of this era.

And my favorite...


That last one is really amusing. YoHo's Grandess of Scope meter will soon be on sale at E-Bay, so stay tuned. I would be willing to bet that there are many, many people who find an enourmous "grandness of scope" in things like ToT, KS, E:E, Lucky, and Soarin, but it doesn't read well on the meter so we must be incorrect.

There are many people who've never read word one on Disney history. There are many people that think coming up with the iPod must be simple because they don't understand it.

But of course, reject the point and attack the poster. It's your thoughtful style.

Comparing ToT, KS, E:E, Lucky and Soarin to the inventions and accomplishments of the past is a joke. Not a very funny one at that.

The company isn't building on ANYTHING anymore. They're in autopilot.

 

[DancingBear]

Folks, we all know Walt took risks and was a pioneer in theme parks and film making. We all know that, and we all understand that Disney does not do that now.

And that doesn't bother you?

They stand on the back of their creator and build on his ideas. Honestly, that is exactly what I would want the focus to be.

Really?

 

[DisneyKidds]

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".

Then please clarify what you were talking about when you made the statement. The motivation is at the core of what Disney was and what it has become. The motivation is at the core of our disagreements.

For Walt, the animation and theme parks were a labour of love that was brought about by a desire to create things that had never before been created, be it a multiplane camera for animation, or a new take on a tired and limited theme park concept. That labour of love would have Walt risk everything he owned and his family's future so that those endeavours could be pursued and carried out with the highest degree of quality, in ways seen and unseen, such that Disney delived more than the guest even knew they wanted, much less exceeding their expectations. Yes, in the process Walt employed a repackaged and themed carny spinner. Yes, he also made a pretty penny (after some very lean times) along the way. However, it was the process, the dedication, that made Disney what it was.

That is how the "old guard" and those who have delved deep into the history and progress of what has become today's Disney view the past, and look at how things have changed in arriving at the present. It was always the process, the ideals, the standards, the Traditions. What have we of those today?

In today's Disney, the closest that we have is whatever of the Pixar mentality has survived in the acquisition. For the most part, it seems today's management performs their labours not out of love, but out of desire to have the best possible quarterly financial report. Today's management risks very little of their own and creates not out of love for the creation, but for the bottom line impact the profits whatever creations that are made will have. The pretty penny that was the byproduct of Walt's goals and processes has displace those goals and processes and become the goal in and of itself.

Not that there is anything inherently wrong with that being the case. In today's day and age most of the corporate world operates this way, and there is nothing evil about the individuals in pursuit of those goals.

But the motivation is different. And the difference in motivation has a tremendous impact on what is delivered to the guest and how/why it is delivered.

We can argue over what has or has not been created. We can argue over the merits of one ride over another. We can argue over a lot of things while still agreeing that the Disney parks and resorts are still incredible places to behold. But if we get caught up in arguing the details, we lose sight of the big picture. Today's Disney is not motivated by the same thing yesterday's Disney was.......and we can still enjoy that which exists today while lamenting what could have been.