New Four Seasons Timeshare on Disney Property and Value Oriented West Side

[MassJester]

You mean like how Eisner was forced out before his contract was up or how the Weinsteins leave to form a new company or how Disney had to spend over 7 billion dollars to hire back former employees.

Eisner was removed -- at that point I think the company was indeed scared. Since then, not so much.

 

[raidermatt]

Eisner was removed -- at that point I think the company was indeed scared. Since then, not so much.

The company was almost taken over by Comcast. Freddy Krueger comes in under that "fright level".

 

[MassJester]

The company was almost taken over by Comcast. Freddy Krueger comes in under that "fright level".

Apples and Oranges.

If another entity with enough money comes along and wants to buy them -- no amount of dedication to Walt's creative vision will stop the sale. However that wasn't what was being discussed.

 

[YoHo]

Perhaps the question should be turned on it's head.
What evidence do you have that they aren't scared?

 

[EUROPACL]

Eisner was removed -- at that point I think the company was indeed scared. Since then, not so much.

....right They just spent 7 billion on former employees bringing back John Lasseter and making Steve Jobs the largest single Disney shareholder because they just couldn't find the right project for Disney World.

 

[MassJester]

Perhaps the question should be turned on it's head.
What evidence do you have that they aren't scared?

Back to college logic with you - a negative can't be proven.

 

[MassJester]

....right They just spent 7 billion on former employees bringing back John Lasseter and making Steve Jobs the largest single Disney shareholder because they just couldn't find the right project for Disney World.

Correcting an earlier startegic error does not constitute fright -- it is no more and no less a change in strategy. The same as bringing in the Four Seasons is a change (albeit on a smaller scale).

Every decision, or failure to decide is not rationally attributable to some dark, fright-driven, underhanded attempt to mortgage the dream. Disney is not on the verge a falling off into the abyss, the current management team is not riddled with club-footed mutinous dogs, and there is no link between the current state of affairs and the Kennedy assasination.

Anyone who thinks they can project "what Walt would do" given today's circumstances and realities needs to step away from the kool-aid.

 

[raidermatt]

Back to college logic with you - a negative can't be proven.

Actually in this case, neither position can be proven using college logic. Scared is a subjective term, and there are no true "facts" that can be provided to prove or disprove the statement.

So the positive and negative are equally valid questions.


My purpose in mentioning Comcast was only to illustrate how scared the company was at that time, and that saying they are less so now doesn't say much.

 

[raidermatt]

Correcting an earlier startegic error does not constitute fright -- it is no more and no less a change in strategy. The same as bringing in the Four Seasons is a change (albeit on a smaller scale).

Every decision, or failure to decide is not rationally attributable to some dark, fright-driven, underhanded attempt to mortgage the dream. Disney is not on the verge a falling off into the abyss, the current management team is not riddled with club-footed mutinous dogs, and there is no link between the current state of affairs and the Kennedy assasination.

Anyone who thinks they can project "what Walt would do" given today's circumstances and realities needs to step away from the kool-aid.

After the first paragrach, there is absolutely no practical point in anything you just said.

As for that first paragraph, it's pretty safe to say that the alternative to not making that purchase would have been frightening to anyone concerned with Disney's long term well being.

If you believe there was no fright involved in that decision, you aren't grasping the consequences to the Disney company being a 2nd or 3rd tier animation studio while the top dog makes movies for somebody else (or themselves).

 

[MassJester]

The problem with that is that the discussion was regarding whether Disney was scared about the (presumed) alienation of its customer base having sold short the legacy of Walt.

The "fear" you describe is unrelated.

 

[MassJester]

After the first paragrach, there is absolutely no practical point in anything you just said.

I think we have achieved a mutual disregard for each other's hyperbole.

 

[EUROPACL]

Correcting an earlier startegic error does not constitute fright -- it is no more and no less a change in strategy. The same as bringing in the Four Seasons is a change (albeit on a smaller scale).

Every decision, or failure to decide is not rationally attributable to some dark, fright-driven, underhanded attempt to mortgage the dream. Disney is not on the verge a falling off into the abyss, the current management team is not riddled with club-footed mutinous dogs, and there is no link between the current state of affairs and the Kennedy assasination.

Anyone who thinks they can project "what Walt would do" given today's circumstances and realities needs to step away from the kool-aid.

But there is a link between the current management team and Eisner and the exact same defense was given to him for years, so we got go.com, Power Rangers, Bad Movies, Direct to Video, The Disney Store, ABC, Ovitz, Disneyland left to rot, EPCOT left to rot, dumbed down attractions, spinners, half built parks, DCA, Paris Studios, heck Eisner even tried to sell the parks off for Cash several times. So now you got 20 years of his management style and people running the company, including a guy that worked at ABC for years but still couldn't run that correctly.

The only hope that I hold out is that Steve Jobs and John Lasseter can turn the ship around. There is going to half to be a lot of house cleaning at the mouse house.

 

[raidermatt]

I think we have achieved a mutual disregard for each other's hyperbole.

Where exactly in this thread have I made statements that matched that level of hyperbole?

The problem with that is that the discussion was regarding whether Disney was scared about the (presumed) alienation of its customer base having sold short the legacy of Walt.

Actually Walt's name nor his legacy was ever mentioned in AV's post.

He said their lack of faith in their own ability to reach large audiences consistently is what they are afraid of.

You inserted the Walt and his legacy part.

 

[MassJester]

Where exactly in this thread have I made statements that matched that level of hyperbole?

Why do you get to set the bottom?

 

[Another Voice]

Anyone who thinks they can project "what Walt would do" given today's circumstances and realities needs to step away from the kool-aid.

It's not "Walt" we're after - we're after the idea that Disney ought to produce superior quaility, they what they make is more important than the marketing that sells it. We're looking for real imagination, real talent and real skill. We're looking for people with pride in their work.

The ones screming "Walt's dead" are ones that don't have the talent, don't have the skills and only have pride in the length of their...bank account. "Walt's Dead" is the battle cry of the lazy and the greedy.

No one cares what they make. California Adventure was made to the highest level of "Walt's Dead!". Fewer people walk on that land than when it was a parking lot. Chicken Little was made with all the talent the "Walt's Dead!" group could throw at it. The sky fell in on Disney Animation. "Walt's Dead!" echo's through the hallways of ABC. "Walt's Dead!" screams out from DVD packages lining the "childern" sections of WalMarts everywhere, whether the case has a "2", "3" or "4" after the title. Yet no one buys them.

So stand on the roof. Scream "Walt's Dead!" when a sixty year old animated movie outsells the latest marketing marvel sequel. Stand in the parks and scream "Walt's Dead!" as people line up for a forty year old ride and ignore the latest character tie-in. Stand in the roadway and flash "Walt's Dead" while the tourists stream to a quarter century old themed hotel instead of the uber-retreat for the monied set.

Scream "Walt's Dead" over and over and over again until you actually beleive it.

We'll all be enjoying the Real Disney in the meantime.

 

[MassJester]

There have been good creations and and bad creations. The good news is that they are still creating. Some of the creations don't meet your personal standards. That's unfortunate.

 

[EUROPACL]

There have been good creations and and bad creations. The good news is that they are still creating. Some of the creations don't meet your personal standards. That's unfortunate.

Are these the standards we are talking about?

 

[Another Voice]

Some of the creations don't meet your personal standards.

That's the best response you can give? That really is unfortunate.

Of course, it’s not my personal standards that are offended– it’s the general public who are Disney's problem. I didn’t stop all those millions of people from rushing to the theater to see Home on the Range. I haven’t caused ABC to plunge in the ratings all by myself when I turn the channel. I’m not at Disneyland enough to wave people around or hack-job version of ‘Winnie the Pooh’ (although I have been known to inflict ‘Hemlick’s Chew Chew Train” on the unsuspecting).

Whatever could have stopped all that business?

Let me take a wild guess – could it be “quality”?

Brand marketing is this year’s get-rich quick scam the talent-deprived business person. It’s the current mantra at Disney because, well, take a look around the Burbank lot.

The only way to real success is through hard work, genuine effort and a respect for the audience. Sure, it’s easier to hire ferns, but even they can’t people to buy Cinderella 2.

 

[hopemax]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Another Voice View Post
Psst - then why do they hire marketing firms to post nice things on Internet fan boards.


paranoia is a beautiful thing.

I guess you weren't watching the Orlando Channel 6 news tonight.

 

[hopemax]

And if you didn't

http://youtube.com/watch?v=UT4l8qZfu04

Now of course, it says "Disney officials say they don't post anything." I'm sure there are a number of people who believed Disney wasn't even actively looking at Disney discussion boards (let alone using them to make changes), because in the past Disney has said, "we're aware such sites exist, but they are of little interest to us." Who knows what Disney will admit to in another 5 years.