I Was Totally Wrong

[dbm20th]

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.

You really aren't criticizing someone for attacking a post are you?

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.

Show me where I did that.

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

Present Axe!

 

[dbm20th]

And that doesn't bother you?

Of course it does, but not to the point where I can't see the good that's been done there.

Really?

Yes, I think standing on the back of a man like Walt Disney and building to make his ideas relevant in this century is exactly what WDW should do. Some here think that is not done because of corporate whatever. My point is that there are things, amny things, that are examples of that.

 

[dbm20th]

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.

In the particular discussion, I was talking about liking the end product and not caring to much what the motivation was behind it. Ballplayers are accused of "playing for the paycheck" but that only seems to happen when they don't play well. If they do, no one cares that they are after a great paycheck. I believe that WDI has done well, and I don't care what the corporate suits have in mind, just like I don't care if Derek Jeter is making 20mil. The end product is what is meaningful to me...in that particular discussion.

 

[Another Voice]

and I don't care what the corporate suits have in mind,

Which is basically saying you don't care about Disney per se - only what you can get out of it.

That's a valid point of view.

But a lot of people are here because they're interested in the "behind the scenes" of the company - the real news and rumors. We're interested in the process that makes good or bad shows; we don't view "Disney" as a buffet where we only pick out the tasty bits.

There's a vast difference between seeing something as "I like this, I don't like that" and "this is a good show, that is a bad show". There are plenty of "good" movies that I don't like - but I can still admire and respect the craftmanship behind them. Just as there are a lot of popular shows that lack to elements required to appeal to large numbers of people over the long haul.

That's where the whole issue of "motivation" comes in. It's required to judge a show on its commerical & artist level rather than just on the basis of personal preference.

 

[dbm20th]

That's where the whole issue of "motivation" comes in. It's required to judge a show on its commerical & artist level rather than just on the basis of personal preference.

And I am not arguing the validity of the motivation argument. I was only making a specific point in this discussion and the "element" seems incapable or unwilling to seperate one point from another.

So then answer me this. If I think that there are many, many things that I find terrific produced over the last 15 years, do I then have to except the motivation was artistry and innovation?

 

[Another Voice]

If I think that there are many, many things that I find terrific produced over the last 15 years, do I then have to except the motivation was artistry and innovation?

No - they are separate issues.

In the first case you are judging what interests you - what at WDW makes you buy the DVC membership and visit the place multiple times in a year. If something doesn't matter to you, then it doesn't matter in your opinion. It doesn't matter how it's produced, you are only judging the outcome

Now that's a great way to look at the world if you're trying to figure out how you're going to spend your $5,000 in vacation money. But it also limits your view.

WDW gets about 14 million visitors a year. Each one has a different set of likes and dislikes. But the success of the business means that you have to generally please all those 14 million people - not just you.

But to those of us interested in the survival and growth of Disney - we worry about those 13,999,999 other people. It's an issue that goes beyond my personal likes and dislikes as a consumer. I hate seafood, that doesn't mean I want to banish all fish dishes from all the restaurants; I like roller coasters, but I understand that WDW is not the place for a mega coaster with a 400 foot vertical drop.

It's impossible for a group of people to know how to please a lot of others. The best we can do is learn from the past. Disney was successful over the long run becasue it developed a set of rules and traditions that resulted in a large number of shows that pleased a large number of people. It doesn't matter that I like each and every one of them - only that they pleased a large chunk of Disney's guests.

What we in 'The Element' see today is that those rules and traditions have been abandoned. The guidelines that helped Disney achieve success in the past have been replaced by ideas to make a quick buck or in a shortsighted attempts to save costs. There is a reason that the "midway ride" Dumbo has a longer line than ubermegaextreme 'Mission: Space'. That reason is found in Disney's motivations which in turn impacted how those rides were constructed.

Just as "motivation" doesn't matter to your interest, a success here and there doesn't much impact our concern for the bigger trends we're seeing. Getting 14 million people to do anything is more difficult than you can image. Disney is making its job much more difficult than it needs to be - and that endangers everything.

 

[raidermatt]

If I think that there are many, many things that I find terrific produced over the last 15 years, do I then have to except the motivation was artistry and innovation?

No they are two separate points. Its in the quote you copied from AV. You're accusing him and others of not separating the two, but its right there in what you pasted in.

The fact that you like these things is a matter of personal preference.

If you want to know about artistry and innovation, then you have to study the things going on behind the scenes.

In short, you're looking at the ends, others are looking at means.

 

[dbm20th]

Just as "motivation" doesn't matter to your interest, a success here and there doesn't much impact our concern for the bigger trends we're seeing. Getting 14 million people to do anything is more difficult than you can image. Disney is making its job much more difficult than it needs to be - and that endangers everything.

Oh my god, AV. How many times do I have to say this? How many times?? This was a specific comment not related to the overall point that you simply can not get out of your head. Please, give it a rest!!! As far as the rest of that paragraph is concerned, "here and there" is the absolute root of our disagreement. I believe it is better than "here and there" and you don't. The rest of this how debate is secondary.

The rest of what you said makes perfect sense, but here's the thing. I think a lot more thought and care went into the finished Mission:Space product then Dumbo. Is that bad? If it appeals to me, then how can I possibly conclude that it was done for any reasons other than to appeal to me? Also, do we really want to name all the bad things previous regimes created that are now gone? I mean, that is the only fair way to compare the end products, don't you think?

 

[Another Voice]

Sigh...

It's a difference between judging something based on your personal interests and judging something based on whether or not it is in the best long term interest of Disney.

They are not always the same thing.

When you look at things from a company point of view - just because you don't like a movie doesn't make it a bad movie - and just because you love a ride doesn't make it a good ride.

The decision of "good" and "bad" is left up to the 14 million people that go to WDW and that millions that decide not to. Your personal preference only applies to you. Period.

It's great that you love what you see at WDW. A lot of us like a lot of it to - but we see something different when we switch from personal to corporate.

When you can make that leap, then we'll have something to talk about. I don't care about matching up "favs" list - I'll leave that for the preteens elsewhere on this board. If that's all you're interested in, then like I said, have fun munching on your churros.

 

[dbm20th]

The fact that you like these things is a matter of personal preference.

EXACTLY!!! And the same goes for the element. If we were only debating what was the means, that would be one thing, but we are not. Examples...

It’s only capable of regurgitating what it’s already created and strip mining its past.

It’s just too bad they torn down Walt’s legacy to hock them.

I don't even bother with DCA, DTD or WDW for that matter.

Some of us don’t settle for “just good enough to make a buck”.

That works fine with your “MANY people” who want to see Buzz Lightyear. I’ve worked too long in the business not to understand that there’s always a market for the lowest common dominator.

You guys just keep adding to your snowglobe collection. We'll be here when the light goes on.

Sit on 'Mission: Space' and tell yourself that you're thrilled beyond imgination.

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.

It's an artistry and Eisner stomped that artistry into the ground.

Matt, I haven't even scratched the surface here. When this was only about whether or not the corporate structure of Eisner slowed the creative process at Disney, I offered no debate. But when someone starts to tell me that terrific things are no longer produced, that's when I have a debate.

 

[dbm20th]

When you can make that leap, then we'll have something to talk about. I don't care about matching up "favs" list - I'll leave that for the preteens elsewhere on this board. If that's all you're interested in, then like I said, have fun munching on your churros.

AV, you are too smart and well spoken to reduce yours posts to nonsense little 4th grade jabs. Your points are all well taken. I agree that things have changed at the company for the worse, but don't sit here and try and tell me that you like what has been produced over the past 15 years. You have made your displeasure known over and over again, and that is where this debate comes from.

 

[MJMcBride]

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.

Huh? How on good's green earth is that objective data. Its subjective. And how is grandness of scope = risk v reward.

 

[Another Voice]

But when someone starts to tell me that terrific things are no longer produced, that's when I have a debate.

Who decides if 'Mission: Space' is terrific?

Do you judge "good" if you focus just on 'Soaring Over California' or if you look at California Adventure as a whole. What viewpoint do you have to take if you're running Disney?

You have made your displeasure known over and over again, and that is where this debate comes from.

In otherwords, you think I'm wrong to not like what you think is good?

What I'm saying is I don't care what you like and what you don't like. I care what the public like because THEY - not you - are going to determine the future of Disney.

Screach all you want about "terrific things being made" - almost no one buys a ticket to Califorina Adventure. Bully whoever you want on the Internet, Disney is giving away a lot of free food to get people to travel to WDW. No one lines up outside a theater anymore for the latest Disney animated flick.

Business is business. It doesn't care about you at all.

 

[MJMcBride]

Matt, I haven't even scratched the surface here. When this was only about whether or not the corporate structure of Eisner slowed the creative process at Disney, I offered no debate. But when someone starts to tell me that terrific things are no longer produced, that's when I have a debate.

One invariably turns into the other in this debate.

 

[raidermatt]

Matt, I haven't even scratched the surface here. When this was only about whether or not the corporate structure of Eisner slowed the creative process at Disney, I offered no debate. But when someone starts to tell me that terrific things are no longer produced, that's when I have a debate.

And do I need to dredge up all the quotes about killjoys, whiners, complainers, pessimists, glass half empty, etc, etc, etc?

If all we are going to do is sit here and debate hyperbolic points, are we ever going to get anywhere? What is this, Congress?

Nobody is faulting anyone for liking DCA or AK. If I say AK is crap, that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with you thinking AK is great.

That's personal preference, and that's fine.

When I say the process that spawned DCA, AK, DSP, the cruise line, etc, is flawed when compared to the process that was once in place, that's a completely different matter. You cannot counter that argument by saying DCA is great, or even that x number of other products are great.

I'm talking means and your talkng ends. I'm saying that no matter what you think of the ends you see, if the means were what they could be, you'd be seeing end products far better than what you see today. That's a point we can discuss, regardless of whether you think AK is glorious or you think its crap. But we can only get there if we ignore each other's personal preference on the place.

 

[simzac]

Sigh...

It's a difference between judging something based on your personal interests and judging something based on whether or not it is in the best long term interest of Disney.

They are not always the same thing.

When you look at things from a company point of view - just because you don't like a movie doesn't make it a bad movie - and just because you love a ride doesn't make it a good ride.

The decision of "good" and "bad" is left up to the 14 million people that go to WDW and that millions that decide not to. Your personal preference only applies to you. Period.

It's great that you love what you see at WDW. A lot of us like a lot of it to - but we see something different when we switch from personal to corporate.

When you can make that leap, then we'll have something to talk about. I don't care about matching up "favs" list - I'll leave that for the preteens elsewhere on this board. If that's all you're interested in, then like I said, have fun munching on your churros.

One question, how do you or any of the other so called experts in this thread know for a fact what is in the best long term interest of Disney?

 

[Keyser]

First, as a long-time member (mostly lurking), let me say it's nice to see a thread that brings in some of the "old-timers" I haven't seen in a while...

Since it has been brought up repeatedly, what about Mission:Space’s development makes it such a shining example of lack of effort/innovation/motivation/whatever? It looks to me like an innovative, immersive ride with a good story, one that uses cutting-edge technology to support the story, not just provide thrills. It’s thrilling, but not a “thrill-ride”. It looks to me like Disney took a risk, putting in a tremendous amount of money and effort to provide an experience that people could say “wow – I can’t believe they did that.” Maybe it didn’t work out perfectly – the technology turned out too intense for many people – but it doesn’t seem to be an issue of lack of trying to create a unique experience of the type that people dream about. It’s certainly not clear to me that this ride is the result of a messed up process. It seems like this is exactly the type of process some of you are saying that the current Disney won’t do anymore.

I see some (no, not all, and not as many as Walt himself might have created) of other recent Disney theme park additions (and even some other corporate decisions regarding media moves) and see similar things. I'm not (and I don’t think any others are) saying that the process is not flawed, but I don’t think it’s flawed to the extent that is being claimed.

 

[ChrisFL]

First, as a long-time member (mostly lurking), let me say it's nice to see a thread that brings in some of the "old-timers" I haven't seen in a while...

Since it has been brought up repeatedly, what about Mission:Space’s development makes it such a shining example of lack of effort/innovation/motivation/whatever? It looks to me like an innovative, immersive ride with a good story, one that uses cutting-edge technology to support the story, not just provide thrills. It’s thrilling, but not a “thrill-ride”. It looks to me like Disney took a risk, putting in a tremendous amount of money and effort to provide an experience that people could say “wow – I can’t believe they did that.” Maybe it didn’t work out perfectly – the technology turned out too intense for many people – but it doesn’t seem to be an issue of lack of trying to create a unique experience of the type that people dream about. It’s certainly not clear to me that this ride is the result of a messed up process. It seems like this is exactly the type of process some of you are saying that the current Disney won’t do anymore.

I see some (no, not all, and not as many as Walt himself might have created) of other recent Disney theme park additions (and even some other corporate decisions regarding media moves) and see similar things. I'm not (and I don’t think any others are) saying that the process is not flawed, but I don’t think it’s flawed to the extent that is being claimed.

Whats the story in Mission:Space? I think it's the worlds most expensive spin'n'puke, with a video game looking thing and buttons the crew dont even need to push.

 

[cristen]

One question, how do you or any of the other so called experts in this thread know for a fact what is in the best long term interest of Disney?

By studying the history of the company, recognizing the business model that worked and follow it. They are not doing that anymore.

One could say that what Walt accomplished, is still paying off today. That's pretty long term, no?

It's very simple.

Do you believe the business model they are following today is benefiting the company? Better than how it was ran in the past? Think about that for a moment. How exactly did buying Fox Family, sports teams, go.com, etc... help the company in the long term? Short term?

 

[simzac]

By studying the history of the company, recognizing the business model that worked and follow it. They are not doing that anymore.

One could say that what Walt accomplished, is still paying off today. That's pretty long term, no?

It's very simple.

Do you believe the business model they are following today is benefiting the company? Better than how it was ran in the past? Think about that for a moment. How exactly did buying Fox Family, sports teams, go.com, etc... help the company in the long term? Short term?

If a business is going to stay in business for the long term, they must continue to change how they do business. Disney is no different. Not all business decisions are sound, and Disney executives make mistakes just like everyone else. Bottom line is this. Disney is still operating, and until it folds or is bought out, your thoughts are just that, your thoughts. Only time will tell. And more than likely you and I will not be around to see what the results will be. One other thought. Disney will more than likely not be around forever, but when will it end, and why? Not even you can predict that. JMO