Imagineering - Ei$ner style

[phantom-menace]

great article, maybe disney believes the hotels are attractions in themselves,meanwhile the parks turn to crap like the newest carnival ride, aladdins magic carpet ride, the carousel of progress is broken,it actually moved during one of the shows when we were there two weeks ago, the haunted mansion is a bore,could be much better if they actually used some of todays special effects technology,its a small world is a mess and so on and so on, meanwhile the prices keep going up and up, all for this?????

 

[JimB.]

Brer Rabbit -

Well Said. I always like a dose of healthy optimism coupled with some realism.

I have been accused on this board of thinking things are "perfect" at WDW and overlooking the obvious flaws. Of which I do neither.

But I also don't sit around nit-picking the place to death.

I last went to WDW on Memorial Day Weekend for 3 days, and was so disappointed that I just made reservations for 5 days at the VWL in August.

In fact it took a lot of self-control to not suggest to my wife that we do a DVC "add-on". Gotta' pay for the new cars first.

BTW, there was a 45 minute line for the newest "crap" ride, Aladdins Magic Carpet Ride, CoP was up and running and as enjoyable as ever. The boring Haunted Mansion was fun as always (wanna' hear the "faithful scream??? Tell 'em you are going to make changes there!!), and there was no "mess" in SW. The only change there that I saw was that the "Mattel" sign was gone at the exit (which should make DVC-Landbaron ecstatic!)

Bottom line (as far as I am concerned)............ If you don't like the place, the physical condition, the price, the food, the shows, the parades, the percieved lack of transportation, etc, etc, etc,.................... then don't go.

If you think your entertainment dollars are better invested at IoA, or 6 Flags or the Beach or even the Dentist, then spend them elsewhere.

Don't spend your time tearing other things down. It takes too much of your energy, and too much of my time to filter through it.


Relax. Have fun. If you are spending your time counting burned out light bulbs and scratched paint, maybe you have the wrong frame of mind.

 

[phantom-menace]

JIM B, ok I will lighten up but here is what gets to me. When was the first time you people went to wdw?? My first time was 1973 when things as far as I am concerned were PERFECT!!! card walker ran the place and the park (mk) was immaculate,the crowds were light, no peeling paint, no rust on the buildings,the attractions worked, the haunted mansion was a hoot and the cast members were friendly. Maybe thats my problem, I expect things the way they were. Back then, there was only the mk,ft.wilderness,the contemporary, the polynesian and the disney inn(now shades of green). Now, its a huge conglomerate which in my opinion has gotten to be very difficult to manage especially with the cost cutting in maintenance. Another example: we stayed at the poly 2 weeks ago and they have a new pool. they built a stream leading down to the pool,anybody see it?? It looks like a sewer outlet, the water does'nt flow, its stagnant and its filthy dirty. My gosh, at least cement it,paint it blue and make the water flow. Maybe I expect perfection but I remember when wdw was perfect, thats my gripe. no, I dont nit pick every little flaw but a wdw vacation is not cheap and sometimes I do expect more bang for the buck.

 

[Brer-Rabbit]

My first trip was in 1972, shortly after WDW opened. In fact, some of the MK wasn't even open yet. We went at least once if not twice every year until I was 16, then I went about every other year until about five years ago when we started going twice a year (or more ) I remember all the magic parts of WDW. I think they have done a phenomenal job of maintaining the magic I remember, while continuing to grow their business and maintain profit.

 

[JimB.]

Phantom - menace

FYI - May, 1972

And AGAIN, I'll second whar Brer-Rabbit said.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Brer-Rabbit

For example, He states at the beginning of the article that Disney has focused on building 3 times the number of resort rooms it had in 1984, but Disney has created four times the number of parks it had since the 80's as well.

Now far be it from me to defend the admirable work of Mr. Hill, but since he hasn’t logged on to offer any counter, I feel someone should. I volunteer!! Brer-Rabbit, how does the first part of your sentence (specifically what Mr. Hill stated) have any bearing on the second half (more theme parks)? Has Disney focused on building 3 times the number of resort rooms that it had in 1984? Yes or no.

Well, I’m not sure if they’ve been “Focused” on 3 times the amount. Perhaps the truth is they were focused on 5 times the amount and fell short of the mark. Or maybe they started building as many as they could and simply fell into a number that is 3 times the amount. But a casual look around the property will tell you there is one heck of a lot of hotels built since 1984. Or maybe you’re saying that the number is wrong. Maybe it’s 2.9 times or 3.2 times. I don’t think that makes much difference.

And you are very much mistaken about the number of parks. MK (a very full park) and EPCOT (WOW! A VERY full park) PLUS (+) MGM (3/4) and AK (1/2) does not make four times!!! And even if you factor out the sarcastic fractions and have MGM and AK equal full parks, the BEST that could be is double!! So, what’s your point? And how did Mr. Hill mislead anyone.

Disney has done this. The demand for the wheel and spoke rides are there. The lines for dumbo are LOOOOOOOONNNGGGGGGGG, so they have built another. And, because it brings people to fantasyland they figure it will bring people to AK too.

OK. I really don’t want to get into anything to serious here, because I think I basically agree with the overall feeling of you statement. But there are a few subtle nuances that I really have to take issue with. Such as, “The lines for dumbo are LOOOOOOOONNNGGGGGGGG.” It couldn’t be that it is perhaps the slowest loading ride that Disney has, could it?

And, “And, because it brings people to fantasyland they figure it will bring people to AK too.” You can’t really be serious!!! Do you really think that this type of attraction is a draw in and of itself, say like ToT or Test Track? It’s going to bring people in??? I will grant you that it will enhance the experience of guests already there, but “bring people to AK?” I seriously doubt it!!!

Now don't get me wrong, while I believe they are focusing in the parts of WDW that work well, I do believe that they are doing a poor job of fixing the parts that are not. And, I know I am not telling you anything you don't already know. I guess sometimes as a lurker on this board I get frustrated with the sometimes pessimistic attitude that exits in some (and I stress some) of the posts on this board.

How is your attitude any different from my attitude? Except in a matter of degree. I don’t often heap accolades on Disney (though I sometimes do, especially when just returning ) but I often say that they are good at maintaining a certain amount magic. Just below (or above depending on how you look it) the critical level. And like you, I am VERY concerned that they are doing a POOR job in some areas. I think that’s Mr. Hill’s view as well.

CoP was up and running and as enjoyable as ever.

Ahhhh! JimB. You do my heart good!! I take it by your statement that it does not have shorter hours anymore. That’s GREAT!!! And am I further to understand that they finally cleaned and repaired the ripped scrims? WOW!!! It’s about time!!! Thanks for the update!!! Maybe there is hope!!

Bottom line (as far as I am concerned)............ If you don't like the place, the physical condition, the price, the food, the shows, the parades, the percieved lack of transportation, etc, etc, etc,.................... then don't go.

Well. That is certainly the way I would treat any other business. But MY Disney is different. I KNOW the way it could be, should be. How it once was when the emphasis was on the Guest Experience and not the bottom line. And I think it could be that way again. BUT NOT WITH EI$NER IN CHARGE!!!

Don't spend your time tearing other things down. It takes too much of your energy, and too much of my time to filter through it.

Bottom line (as far as I am concerned)............ If you don't like the post, (regarding) the physical condition, the price, the food, the shows, the parades, the perceived lack of transportation, etc, etc, etc,.................... then don't read it.

One last question for Brer-Rabbit

In fact, some of the MK wasn't even open yet.

I was 17 in the summer of 1972. I was there as well, and every year thereafter. What parts of MK weren’t opened? Some rides weren’t opened, or rather not built yet, but “Parts”? I don’t recall. And no sarcasm intended, but can you refresh my memory? Thanks.

 

[Brer-Rabbit]

Jim Hill Said:

I mean, think about it, folks: When Disney CEO Michael Eisner and his new management team came on board at Walt Disney Productions back in September 1984, there were fewer than 5500 hotel rooms on property for WDW guests to stay in. (And -- of those 5500 rooms -- fewer than 3900 were actually owned by the Mouse. The rest were operated by outside hotel chains at the outermost edge of Disney property -- the Hotel Plaza area near the Shopping Village at Lake Buena Vista.) In just 10 years, Disney managed to triple the number of hotel rooms the Mouse owned and operated in the Orlando area.

DVC said:

Now far be it from me to defend the admirable work of Mr. Hill, but since he hasn’t logged on to offer any counter, I feel someone should. I volunteer!! Brer-Rabbit, how does the first part of your sentence (specifically what Mr. Hill stated) have any bearing on the second half (more theme parks)? Has Disney focused on building 3 times the number of resort rooms that it had in 1984? Yes or no.

Maybe I am the only one to think this, but I think what JH is implying here is that Disney has focused more on building resorts to make money than building themeparks. My point, while not as clouded as yours, is quite clear: they built the resorts to bring people to the parks they were ALSO building. JH conveniently skips over that point in his article.

And you are very much mistaken about the number of parks. MK (a very full park) and EPCOT (WOW! A VERY full park) PLUS (+) MGM (3/4) and AK (1/2) does not make four times!!! And even if you factor out the sarcastic fractions and have MGM and AK equal full parks, the BEST that could be is double!! So, what’s your point? And how did Mr. Hill mislead anyone.

hmmmmm, let me see, MK is one (1) park right and if I take 1 and multiply it by the number of parks they have now (MK (1) + EPCOT (1) + MGM (1) + AK (1)) 4 , that equals 4 right? 1x4=4 yeah thats right its four. So now they have four times the number of parks than they did when they opened the MK. Seems simple to me. Now whose using "fuzzy math"?

there are a few subtle nuances that I really have to take issue with. Such as, “The lines for dumbo are LOOOOOOOONNNGGGGGGGG.” It couldn’t be that it is perhaps the slowest loading ride that Disney has, could it?

No, if you want to be exact, the train would be the slowest ride . I believe that the Dumbo ride just draws ALOT of children and people who want to ride a hub and spoke ride.

And, “And, because it brings people to fantasyland they figure it will bring people to AK too.” You can’t really be serious!!! Do you really think that this type of attraction is a draw in and of itself, say like ToT or Test Track? It’s going to bring people in??? I will grant you that it will enhance the experience of guests already there, but “bring people to AK?” I seriously doubt it!!!

Yeah, I do belive that. Think about it, If they can convince a 6 year to go that park for that ride, they have a good chance of bringing in three people instead of the just one (the child, and both or one parent). Thee rides have the same chance of increasing attendance as does the roller coaster they are building.

I was 17 in the summer of 1972. I was there as well, and every year thereafter. What parts of MK weren’t opened? Some rides weren’t opened, or rather not built yet, but “Parts”? I don’t recall. And no sarcasm intended, but can you refresh my memory? Thanks.

I visted WDW when it first opened, possibly 1971, Tomorrowland wasn't even opened yet. In fact there was hardly anything there compared to two years later.

As I said, I think Jim Hill just likes to blow off steam, no facts. If he wanted to say what you say he is saying, he should have simply stated it, cause he sure didn't back it up with facts.

You may have noticed that this board's posts are dominated by the same people, pehaps its because when others (like me) do post, they get attacked like its the debate board. Maybe they should call this place the "rumor debate board."

 

[JimB.]

DVC - testy, aren't we??

And if you can convince me the WDW was a better experience in 1982 than today, go for it.

If you do, I will stand out in the middle of the street in front of my house singing the "Micky Mouse Club" theme at the top of my lungs at midnight with a paper bag over my head.................. and post the picture here.

Somehow, I don't think that's gonna' happen.

P.S. I don't think I remember parts of the MK not open in '72, but I definitely remember parts of EPCOT incomplete when it opened. Horizons was planned to be complete at openeing, but was not finished until Jan/Feb time frame, some 4 months later.

P.P.S. - I will, with humble respect, disagree with your assertion that MGM is 3/4 of a park & AK is 1/2 a park. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.



Negative Waves man, always with the Negative Waves.........

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

My point, while not as clouded as yours, is quite clear: they built the resorts to bring people to the parks they were ALSO building. JH conveniently skips over that point in his article.

He ‘skips’ over it because it simply isn’t true. They were not building parks at nearly the same rate as they were building rooms. And now it’s time for a fuzzy math class. The first time I’d thought I’d gently correct you with a little tongue in cheek bit of math. But I can see I wasn’t clear enough.

Mr. Hill uses the 1984 date throughout his article. It’s his article; it’s his date. Now, tell me, how many parks were there in 1984? Hmmm. I think there were TWO parks. 1984 – 2 parks. Yes there were definitely TWO parks. So two parks times four equals EIGHT!!! My goodness!! When can we expect the other gates!!!!

No, if you want to be exact, the train would be the slowest ride

Don’t mean to quibble, and I know it was a joke, but I did say slowest “LOADING”.

Yeah, I do belive that. Think about it, If they can convince a 6 year to go that park for that ride, they have a good chance of bringing in three people instead of the just one (the child, and both or one parent). Thee rides have the same chance of increasing attendance as does the roller coaster they are building.

I think we will never see eye to eye on this one. I can’t for the life of me equate Dumbo (or the like) with ToT, R&RC or Test Track!!! But if you can, and you think that parents typically empower a six year old that way – more power to ya!!!!

I visted WDW when it first opened, possibly 1971, Tomorrowland wasn't even opened yet.

Now I didn’t visit until July 1972. But I clearly remember, and have 8mm movies to back me up, Tomorrowland fully opened. I will grant you it was a little sparse, but it was very much ‘opened’.

You may have noticed that this board's posts are dominated by the same people, pehaps its because when others (like me) do post, they get attacked like its the debate board.

OH my!! I don’t want to attack!!! Heck, I don’t want to stifle conversation at all!!! I want to further it. Develop it. I want you to answer back. Would you prefer to put out a post (or article if you will) and have people silently question it (as you do with Hill’s) and leave it at that? Or would you rather engage in some dialogue, explaining, defending, answering question and furthering your position, and at the same time having a bit’O fun!!! That’s what I’m all about. I’ve learned soooo much since I started posting. And it is through a friendly exchange of information that that learning process takes place. PLEASE KEEP POSTING!!!! We may not agree right away. We may never agree. But we’ll have some fun talking it over.

JimB.

And if you can convince me the WDW was a better experience in 1982 than today, go for it.

It’s subtle. And hard to grasp. But I’ll try. However, first you have to answer a question. Does size matter?

 

[Brer-Rabbit]

Your not engaging in dialog your nit-picking. I believe that my first post stands on its own. Apparently -- you just didn't get it. I thought that maybe I could explain it to you. I should have known better than to respond to your post about mine. I have seen you waste countless pages onthis board quoting other posters and berating them for what they said. So, you win. I'm going back to being a lurker. I'll just sit back and watch you bicker with every one else, because I certainly don't have the time you have, to invest in lengthy disertations trying to pick a fight with anyone that will give my posts the least bit of creadence by responding to them.

Oh yeah one last quote from your post:

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

Okay, there that was the fun part for me!

 

[JeffH]

When WDW first opened there were just 2 WDW hotels and soon after the Golf Hotel opened. These hotels were full and booked for upwards of a year in advanced. This horrible lack of rooms led to the tremendous growth of rooms on 192. It was stupid of Disney to have failed to build the additional rooms that were on their original plans (Persian, Asian, Venetian). Then came Epcot, and no new rooms. Then the non-Disneythemed Swan and Dolphin were finally built. Finally when MGM opened, Disney smartened up and started building the rooms that should have been built a long time ago. All the Disney hotels operate at near capacity, and are priced competitively compared to other 'fancy' hotels. If there were too many hotels (or plush stores), supply and demand would quickly close them, it just takes a little common sense to see this.
It will be interesting to see if PopCulture exceeds demand...if it does, though, that's when Disney will have to put extra money into park expansion to compensate, because it would be stupid to close the hotel.
All they've done is build rooms to catch up with demand, providing rooms for those who WANT them. AND they've doubled the number of theme parks in the last 11 years, added Downtown Disney and the water parks.
But it's never enough for some.
Disney spends large sums of money to make a great films (Dinosaur, Pearl Harbor), and they are criticized, by so called fans.
Disney spends large sums of money to on theme park development (AK, DCA), and they are criticized, by so called fans.
Disney spends large sums of money to build WONDERFUL hotels (all of them), and they are criticized, by so called fans.
Disney can do no right as far as some so called fans are concerned.
All I know (from experience) is that the 'world' has never been better. Last Saturday we had a wonderful character breakfast at the Beach Club where Goofy and Chip and Dale played ball (a small Tigger ball) with my Tasha for about 20 minutes, we then spent the day at Epcot where the bigger and better then ever Flower and Garden show was going on. I noticed that some of the individual WS character greets were back, in addition to the character bus (which translates into more characters than ever). We ended the day with a quick dip in the pool. This was day#20 at WDW for us this year, and we are looking at almost 50 days at WDW this year (more than ever before). Eisner has done a wonderful job developing the franchise. If anything, he's been guilty of over-doing it (like Walt did only to be financially corrected by Roy), at which point he had to cut back.
Ei$$$sner ($$$) is right, he probably spends more money directed solely at our entertainment than any other person on Earth.

 

[All Aboard]

LandBaron, to compare the number of resorts to the number of parks and strike a ratio first requires that the original ratio was optimal. I don't believe that it was. A HUGE proportion of guests were staying off-site because it was very difficult to book on-site.

The number and variety of on-site rooms makes it possible for so many different tastes and economic conditions to be accomodated on-site. And I think that's wonderful. If it weren't for the All Stars, I would have to do one of two things. 1) Travel to WDW less often or 2) stay in one of those US 192 motels. Neither of those is at all appealing to me. I am so thankful that there are as many options and affordable options at that.

LandBaron, as much as I know it gives you stomach aches, there are thousands of guests that really enjoy their stay at the All Stars. The atmosphere is great, kids love it, many adults love it.

 

[Another Voice]

So….WDW is a blessed realm given to us by a magnanimous benefactor whose only interest is to spread peace and love throughout the world. Does that mean my $50 admission ticket is tax-deductible as a charitable contribution?

The Walt Disney Company, Inc. is a vast commercial enterprise whose every move is filtered through layers of normal human beings, filled with compassion and greed and integrity and egos. The company produces products for us to buy, nothing more. Sometimes these products are made with care and artistry (‘Tarzan’), sometimes only in the naked quest for money (California Adventure), but most of the time these days, they simply don’t give a damn about the product because people will show up no matter what it’s like (‘Pearl Harbor’).

Eisner is not spending a dime of his money at WDW – he’s spending MY money. The money that I’m willing to spend to get ESPN, the money that I have to spend because my son wants to see ‘Atlantis’, the money that I have no choice but to spend because Disney is using tax dollars to expand the freeways leading into their business. I’m glad that some of my earnings can provide young girls with yet another pleasant day – just don’t believe for a second that it happened just because Michael Eisner has a good heart.

Are cheesy motels, half-sized theme parks and insipid movies “not enough” for “so called fans”. Yes, and they’ve every right to speak out. Uncritical acceptance gave us the Ford Pinto, Eastern Airlines and primetime television. Disney has a tradition – and a huge marketing machine telling us – that they are special. That they are better than everyone else. As a consumer, I hold them to that standard. And recently I find there are fewer and fewer of their products that I put in the “willing to spend money on” category. And judging from recent financial results, there are a lot more people who think there’s a whole lot less worthwhile from Disney as well.

If all of us just shut-up and go away – who’s going to pay Goofy to play ball?

 

[JimB.]

JeffH - Well Said.. Thanks

DVC - No. But that does not mean bigger is worse, either.


And BTW, just got back from seeing "Pearl Harbor". Nice Movie. If you have not seen it, don't let the naysayers fool you. It is a marvelous depiction of ordinary people having to rise up to do extraordinary things in terrible times.

It puts all of this bickering about what is & isn't great about Disney in it's proper place ............................. tremendously unimportant and trivial.

But still kinda' fun.

 

[All Aboard]

Another Voice, come clean, you're Jim Hill aren't you?

Just one thing, who will pay Goofy? The millions that disagree with you, including me.

 

[jgates]

Is it alright to just jump in and say that that Pop Culture looks like an outdated Purple Motel 6? Even new Motel 6's have a nicer styling that that thing.

And my opinion on MGM is that I'd give it 1 1/2 park status. It was the place we enjoyed the most. We had so looked forward to AK and it was HOT-seemed to just hold the heat in there-all blacktop it seemed and no cement. Except for the dinosaur ride I hated it. We wanted to give the Kali a chance but it was broken during our fast pass time with no estimated repair time.

 

[tiggerstheman1]

Got this off of ThemedAttration.com, where Eddie answers questions and talks about theme park design. There was an interview with him on LaughingPlace.com a while back. Someone on the ThemedAttraction board asked him about Hill's article, specifically the accuracy of it. Here is his reply:

Eddie [guest] from Imagination Portal
discounter culture Posted 6-3-2001 08:09

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just read the article and all the postings on the
message boards. Although I was not present in all the
situations cited, my feeling is that the article is
more or less accurate.

It wasn't fun to be on the inside during those periods,
especially when DDC took over WDI. It was a culture
shock, but I began to respect Peter Rummel, the new
head from DDC. He had some good ideas on how to create
balance in the organization.

The greater danger wasn't mentioned in the article,
which was when Attractions absorbed WDI. There used to
be a healthy tension between the creative forces of WDI
and the business and operational forces of the
Attractions group. Usually you hoped that both sides
fought it out and the result was a good compromise of
show and practicality. When they took over, things got
a bit easier as the confrontation evaporated, but the
business side was in charge as they never had been. The
culture had changed.

Others did not see this as an issue, and rather an
advantage as "we're all on the same side" so to speak.
This is just my opinion and I'm not saying things are
all bad, because they're not, just different.

Eddie..



hmmmmmm

Lather, rinse, repeat.
TTM1

 

[JeffJewell]

Like I've said, I appreciate Jeff, DVC, etc., but I come to find and hopefully share rumors (and now news) on this board.

This is a discussion board, which means that people are likely to discuss the rumors that get posted. If that's not what you want, perhaps Brer-Rabbit's re-lurking decision might be appropriate for you, too.

If you hate my opinion on the rumors so much, I encourage you to block all of my posts in your profile. That way, you shall never be bothered with my unwelcome thoughts and ideas.

Jeff

 

[YoHo]

Tiggerstheman1, that's very informative. its nice to see an opinion from somebody who was actually there and thus has the weight of first hand knowledge behind it (with apologies to Another Voice.).

At any rate, it sounds to me like the plan was to make life easier when it really seems to have made it harder. That sometimes happens with things like this, even with Disney. And it doesn't sound like there was obvious malice.

 

[larworth]

OK, guys lets get back to the topic at hand. I think the WDI issue really deserves some debate.

BTW, that was me that posed this questionn to Eddie. I was trying to get another insider perspective and his seemed like a reasonable take. While he no longer works for them, I have not heard him express any public anger towards them and therefore thought he might be objective??

My belief is that Mr. Hill does have real sources inside the company. He just doesn't quote them for fear they will dry up. What we don't know is if these people have some axe to grind, so he is only get one-side of the equation.

Given the couple of insiders that have replied it seems that he is not too far off base with this one. Doesn't this make you worry about the future of WDI!

tiggerstheman1

You saved me the trouble of deciding what to do with his reply. I wasn't sure what the etiquette is on sharing personal exhanges in other forums. I would have felt funny exporting it, but no issue for you.