IS Disney still broken?

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by KNWVIKING
Until these boards....actually until Baron's post about them closing the deck... I never knew about the deck. Does Birnum's (sp) write about it ? Who were the guests using the deck back in the day ? Guests of CR that passed the word onto their friends ? Were they locals who knew how to take advantage of all the free magic...at the expense of paying guests ?

I think it started as one of those "secrets" that people found out about from friends and then just passed it along. An "insider tip." Then they'd tell someone about it, and they'd tell someone about it, and so on. It was a fun little discovery. Like hidden Mickeys were before people started writing books about them and dedicating websites to them and getting competitive over who found how many. I first found out about the deck from a CM friend of mine who took me up there as a "hey, look what I can do because I work here" thing. I was under the impression it was a CM perk and that no one else could go up there. When I was eating at the Grille one evening, my server told me I could watch from outside, and I thought how cool that was. But I never tried it on my own unless I was dining at the Grille.

What I find interesting is that people used to CROWD onto the deck at the Contemporary, yet no one ever tried to squeeze into the restaurants at the Poly or Grand Floridian in order to use their outdoor areas, both of which have great views, if not quite as spectacular. I imagine that's because you have to get past the hostess desk, and if you don't have a reservation, they won't let you just haul your family through the restaurant just to watch the fireworks from the back dock. To me, it seems perfectly logical that the same policy would be enforced at the Contemporary.

Now, if watching from the Mezz sucked, that would be one thing. But it doesn't. At least, I don't think so. My parents loved it. They've never been on the deck, so they don't have anything to compare it to, but then, they wouldn't have gone up there anyway -- to high up for my Mom. So to me, it's a good guest experience and I'm delighted I have that option.

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
I don't think Disney today is winning converts at the same percentage. Therefore, it is indeed broken. However, it is not beyond repair and with the right changes is no more than a year or two (or less) away from being fixed.

But don't you think that at least a part of that argument has to include the fact that kids today have more choices, and that magic isn't as important to them? Granted, I don't see people coming back to Universal or Sea World because of the magic they find there -- they come for the rides or the whales. But kids today know the tricks. They know how it all works. Whereas I went to it's a small world and was delighted by the singing and moving dolls, my nieces think it's too simple. "Anybody can do that," they say. They enjoy it and think it's cute, but the fact that it was at the World's Fair? Who cares? Whereas I went to Hall of Presidents and thought it was amazing that Andrew Jackson tipped his head a bit to the side and whispered something to the president next to him, my nephew walks out and talks about how boring it was. No action. He never once, as I had done, thought they were actors up there instead of robots and then spent the rest of the day begging to use another ticket to go and see it again, just to be sure.

When I was a kid, Disney was a magical place because there was nothing else to compare it to. In the movies, Mary Poppins flew and Bert danced with animated penguins! Now, there's Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings and build-your-own-roller-coaster video games and phones that you can shoot movies with. People still love Disney, but they put it into context. They include it among all of the other things that they have to choose from. To many of the newer Disney guests, Disney isn't a better choice than something else ... it's a different choice. And they come for different reasons.

Really ... which is worse -- to be so stuck in the world of "how it used to be" that you can't enjoy it now, or to not care about the history or legacy, but to have a great time?

 

[SnackyStacky]

Ooh, I've been gone from this thread for far too long.

The Observation Deck is closed unless you have a reservation. The check in podium for CG is on the second floor of the Contemporary, so if you have no reservation - you ain't seein' fireworks from that level.

I think someone else said it (I've been trying to play catch-up on this thread) - it's not that the deck is gone. Baron has said as much on many occasions that closing it doesn't affect him because he never used it. It's the philosophy behind the change that's bothersome.

I really don't think that people see how damning their current track is. Comcast made a hostile takeover bid. Had that gone through, the chances are good that the parks would have been sold off. Granted that bid had NOTHING to do with their theme park division, but the SAME philosophy behind the cable networks (what Comcast was after) pervades the rest of the company.

Until there is management change, the pipe will continue to drip. That pipe is still providing magic that is being enjoyed by MANY people without the "but it was better when...." or "but Walt would have....". But how long can that exist until some other corporation comes in and makes a hostile take over bid that does NOT fall through?

 

[KNWVIKING]

***"The Observation Deck is closed unless you have a reservation. The check in podium for CG is on the second floor of the Contemporary, so if you have no reservation - you ain't seein' fireworks from that level."***

Since when ? I've always checked in at the desk just as you step off the elevator.

 

[KNWVIKING]

***" Comcast made a hostile takeover bid."***

Do you think they really tried a "hostile takeover".... or was that some ME contrived smokescreen. I mean, Comcast throws out a number, Disney stock shoots up $3.00, big meeting in Philly, Disney does nothing, Comcast does nothing....Comcasts walks away. Not much of a bid.

 

[KNWVIKING]

***"But kids today know the tricks. They know how it all works."***

My boys were raised on the rides at the Jersey Shore, Six Flags & Busch Gardens. When they went to WDW in '95 they were 15 & 12. They like the place, did all the rides, then kinda got bored. Went back two yrs later, nice but more boredom. Fast forward to Spring '03, oldest boy takes his now soon to be bride to WDW for spring break ( takes my DVC points ) , and now suddenly the place is magical. They've both graduated, have started their careers, are getting married in Sept and have it planned out to by into DVC in two years. Disney may not have the same magic you old timers remember, but its still got something.

 

[raidermatt]

Disney may not have the same magic you old timers remember, but its still got something.

Nobody's saying it doesn't have anything. Kidd's really did do a good job of breaking down how one would determine Disney's impact today vs. the past.

Of course, we don't really have the tools or info to answer those questions definitively, we just have our opinions. It appears that even those on the "less concerned" side acknowledge that its not doing what it once did. We could argue how easily fixable it is, how long it will take, and even whether it will actually happen. But as far as the original question goes, it seems most of us agree that if the Disney of old is the standard, it really is broken, its just a question of how much.

But kids today know the tricks. They know how it all works.

This is an age-old argument, but its just not a valid excuse, and never has been (not even in Walt's day ).

No, you can't wow kids (or anyone for that matter) with the same exact things you wow'd them with 30+ years ago. But by the same token, technology and innovation have progressed right along with our expectations.

Just like in films... What qualified as new and exciting 30 years ago doesn't cut it today, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

The tools are there to amaze and create wonderment, but it takes the same level of commitment to doing so. And not just on the part of some Imagineers or managers within the ranks. That's where today's Disney falls short... senior management doesn't have the same level of commitment to that cause as previous regimes did.

Without that, its simply impossible for the company as a whole to achieve that same level of "Magic".

Again, that doesn't mean nothing they do is worth a dime...

 

[TDC Nala]

***"The Observation Deck is closed unless you have a reservation. The check in podium for CG is on the second floor of the Contemporary, so if you have no reservation - you ain't seein' fireworks from that level."***

**Since when ? I've always checked in at the desk just as you step off the elevator.**

Since June 14, 2004, California Grill checkin on the 2nd floor is required. PS holders will be admitted. Non-PS holders will be admitted if capacity allows. If you just want to go to the lounge, the checkin CM will check with the restaurant to see if there is space for you, and you'll be escorted to a special elevator if there is. No one will be admitted to the California Grill absent the second floor check in procedure.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

TDC Nala

Thank you. It seems some have a tendency to hang onto ANYTHING that will further... Oh well!!

Anyway, Matt is right. It's really no big deal, in and of itself. It is merely indicative of the radical change in thinking that has occurred lately. I guess that some can see it and other WISH to ignore it and find 'reasons' and 'excuses'.

So, with that I'm off for a week's vacation in the Ozarks with another family. I will gladly discuss this and other indicators when I get back if anyone has a mind to. I feel it is VERY important!!

See ya!!

Play nice!!!

 

[JamesMorehead]

The Walt Disney Company is just BIG - so big now that it has aircraft carrier characteristics. Takes a lot of muscle to make it change course (but also can withstand heavy seas without capsizing). Requires an army to run it and your individual experience depends on where you are. Is steerable from a macro level but impossible to completely control at a micro level.

The comparisons made to Walt Disney's company and Eisner's company are not really relevant - the two organizations are of a completely different scale.

Remember that before Eisner Disney movies really sucked - and then they went through a period of brilliance... and now we are back in a lull. Live action was pretty on target last year wasn't it?

Disney's biggest strength is its ability to regenerate legions of fanatical followers - including me and many people on this board. If that fundamentally changes then Disney is at risk - but only then.

 

[crusader]

Matt, I'm not sure you understand what that line of thinking is.

If you did, you wouldn't have pulled out the old faithful refrains we've all come to admire - you know the drill:

That line of thinking is contrary to what Disney was supposed to be about.

If that is the way the entire company thinks, then the true Disney is indeed dead, with no hope of reviving it.

What's left? Disney with that trademark symbol I don't know how to get my PC to make.

Who's talking about the way the company thinks?

I simply pointed out to you this basic philosophical fact regarding progress:

Technology erodes quality.

Whenever a machine is used to replace a human hand, or a component is redesigned to reduce labor and improve longevity, the level of detail and care intrinsic to quality becomes compromised.

The real challenge for a "mature" company today is how to utilize technology without jeopardizing too much quality in the process.

I've seen Disney do this successfully and unsuccessfully within just about every division of their company.

I've seen them implement some pretty substantial changes - particularly in the themepark segment - when a major failure arises and strive to make an even greater investment in their products to mitigate these problems.

I've also seen them fall victim to corporate cost constraint and cheapen the quality of their retail merchandise by mass producing products overseas.

And finally, I've seen them risk the future of their leadership in animation by structuring a joint venture with a production company they don't own, without developing and mastering the capabilities inhouse.

I am purposely leaving out the television and film industry as a whole because it is so falsely measured by popularity that the product continues to be manipulated through an array of artificial enhancements designed to generate big returns. This makes it almost impossible to draw any substantive conclusion on.

Knowing all this is important in developing an answer to the question posed on this thread. Is the company still broken?

My answer was simple: The consumer of tomorrow won't necessarily feel the same impact of the erosion to quality as a result of progress as we do. They have not witnessed or experienced the changes which occured prior to their exposure to the products of today. They are the key consumer who will decide whether or not this company is broken and it won't be based on the same set of standards we have. It will be set by their own stimulants and bias and subjective interpretations of magic.

That doesn't mean the company as a whole doesn't need to strive to continue to produce a high quality product. But they do need to exceed the demands and expectations of tomorrow's audience who have a completely different philosophy toward patronizing that which is being produced today vs the way things used to be done yesterday.

As long as Disney succeeds in this capacity; as long as Disney touches the hearts and souls of future generations the same way it did us, the company will never be broken despite change.

 

[Bstanley]

Technology erodes quality

What?!?

Crusader - Technology is simply a toolbox used by the folks making the attractions.

Technology in the hands of playful, inventive, creative people is a MAJOR enhancement to quality.

Alas - Technology in the hands of people without those abilities all to easily slides into all flash with no substance.

It's all too easy for the people who sign the checks to look over the plans for a 'Mission Space' pavilion and cut big chunks out of the 'non-technology' part because they are blinded by the 'technology' of the ride mechanism - leaving something that, although uniquely exciting and appropriate, is curiously unsatisfying - a big handful of M&Ms versus a full course meal.


I don't like the analogy of Disney being broken or not broken. I see it more like a train. A train with a number of engines and people running those engines. With a whole bunch of cars being dragged along behind. Some of those cars and engines are un-needed. Some of those engines are just simply not working very well. And most obviously the conductor has lost his clue. The good news is that some of those engines (and their engineers) still run just fine - and if they can get a new conductor and get rid of the cars & engines that are simply excess baggage they can be in tiptop shape again quite quickly.

 

[crusader]

Bruce you're losing me.

Technology is simply a toolbox used by the folks making the attractions.

not always but definitely true.

Technology in the hands of playful, inventive, creative people is a MAJOR enhancement to quality.

OK you're talking about special effects. I'm talking about foundation; substance and tangibility.

Yes, technology can improve content but to say it provides better quality than that which is painstakingly built by hand doesn't fly.

and since we're on the subject, isn't animation a clear example of this point not holding true for many folks? How aren't you inadvertantly implying that CGI provides a major enhancement to quality in animation by your statement? I don't view the product as better quality in this respect, I view it as providing the ability to move in a different direction which the audience has never seen before.

 

[raidermatt]

Sorry, I'm with Bruce.

Technology erodes quality.

That's the most "creative" excuse I've seen in a long time.

Technology was advancing in the 50's, yet it didn't preclude Disney from raising the quality bar at that time. Nor does it preclude them (or anyone else) from maintaining it at this time.

In fact, technology does nothing but provide more tools for raising the quality bar when it comes to operations, manufacturing, etc.

And when it comes to creativity, it can only harm quality if one uses it as a crutch. When used properly, it breaks down limitations on creativity that may have existed in the past.

 

[WDSearcher]

Technology doesn't always raise the bar. It can erode quality, if it falls into the wrong hands.

"Hey ... we have this great big new amazing state-of-the-art computer thing, so we need fewer real people to interact with guests."

The more tech some folks have, the less human contact they think is necessary. Until, of course, the humans rebel and convince them that dealing with a human being is still the way to go if you're talking guest service.

 

[crusader]

The more tech some folks have, the less human contact they think is necessary.

Exactly.

Technology does erode quality whenever and wherever it impedes on craftsmanship.

 

[Bstanley]

Hmmm, maybe I should define my "Quality".

IMHO Quality is simply that something does what it is supposed to do.

To create a gross exaggeration of what I am trying to say about technology improving quality let's assume that the original animatronic elements in SE were mechanical in nature - they used motors, levers and cams etc. Well along the way a new technology comes along - hydraulics. So all the animatronics at SE get upgraded to use hydraulics and the result is that they now move more quietly, more smoothly, more naturally. And they will do so over a longer lifespan. So basically the new toolkit allowed the designers to make a more lifelike animatronic. This is improved Quality. I honestly can't think of a case where a new technology hasn't improved on the old way. Well - an old master can't be painted by an airbrush in the claws of a computer, but I would have loved to have seen what Da Vinci could have done with one...

On the other hand a more lifelike animatronic by itself doesn't make for a very interesting attraction. IMHO It's not that an attraction has to be built by hand - actually I think it has to be built by HEART...

As to the comparison of CG to Hand Drawn animation - first we have to seperate 2D and 3D.

2D Animation - where the artist (we'll skip the details of 'tweeners' and such for the time being) draws consecutive/individual images from start to finish of a movie is exactly the same whether they're using a Blue Pencil and Paint or a Macintosh - They are both Hand-Drawn as far as I'm concerned.

3D Animation - where the artist has created a virtual character that they 'manipulate' through a virtual world (also manipulated) does offer improved Quality in some ways compared to Hand-Drawn. The virtual character and the virtual world can be more detailed than Hand Drawn for example. But a movie based on that isn't going to sell very many tickets.

It's a threshold thing - kind of like computer performance. Today's PC is twice as fast as last year's, but we're talking about taking 0.4 seconds to do something that took 0.8 seconds to do last year - folks just don't care that much. Does Finding Nemo look more detailed than Lilo and Stitch? Yeah, but that isn't the reason it sold three times as many tickets.

 

[Bstanley]

Ahh, I think I get it.

It's the ATM versus Teller discussion.

I'll agree that technology is not a replacement for anything. You can't cut down on the number of CMs behind the Guest Services counter simply because you have added some nifty new networked touchscreen information kiosk and you can't replace Story with Technology.

But you don't need to paint stuff with a brush when an airbrush will do.

 

[raidermatt]

The more tech some folks have, the less human contact they think is necessary.

I don't disagree with this, but the key word is "some".

Any tool can be used inappropriately. Those who do use it poorly, however, have made an error, one which is not inevitable.

So...

Technology does erode quality whenever and wherever it impedes on craftsmanship.

Of course. Any tool will erode quality when it impedes craftsmanship. The point is if technology is doing this in a given situation, the blame rests with the person wielding the technology, not the technology itself. Consequently, the erosion is not inevitable, but instead is the result of poor decision-making.

 

[Parrothead1964]

I don't think it's broken. I think Disney's leadership simply hasn't devoted itself to maintaining the same high quality that WD aspired to. If ME really wanted to, you know he could fix all the issues by simply putting good people and financial resources toward it. But even though, it hasn't dropped to the level of a Six Flags park... God forbid!

Surely Walt took advantage of the technological advances as they became available. If technology could assist with the creative process and reduce the total time required, my guess is that it was (at least originally) welcomed by most people. Of course, they had no idea what it was going to evolve into.

As to replacing CM's with some kind of touch-screen technology, being a techie myself, I could relate to that. Instead of me trying to deal with a map, or trying to find a CM to help me, let me go to one of these newfangled touch screens to ask where the nearest bathroom is or the closest place to find a cold drink.

Now here's a kicker -- would Walt have wanted a touch screen in the parks? Would he consider this as what the people wanted? Why are ATM's so popular now? Because people want quick access to their money. Should this be different in the park? Maybe people want quick access to information, and a touch screen is merely a vehicle to provide that.

Would Walt have welcomed such technology?