No Fifth Park at WDW?

seashoreCM said:
Disney-MGM Studios was built with a specific purpose, to capture guests from Universal Studios.

Animal Kingdom was built with a specific purpose, to capture guests from Busch Gardens. I disagree with the idea that AK is a half day park. It takes me all day when I go to see what the park is all about -- animals.

I suppose a fifth park could also be built with a specific purpose, to capture guests from Universal Studios ('s Islands of Adventure) but Disney already tried that in the form of its California Adventure park next to Disneyland and that idea flopped.

I also suppose that there could be another specific purpose, to occupy the land freed up when Disney replaces the MK parking lot with a parking garage.

What have guests been saying about what they would like to see in a fifth park?
They have enough free land to build three more parks in WDW (among other things) without having to occupy the site of the MK parking lot. Additionaly I highly doubt they have any plan to replace the lot with a garage anytime soon.
 
If Walt ran the parks in the 1990s and 2000s the way he ran the park in the 1950s and 1960s, the company would have been bankrupt very quickly.
You say that with such authority and conviction. Yet, so often I read posts from you telling us that we don't know much about running businesses. I'm guessing in your line of work, you are charged with making high level business decisions? Is that correct?
 
Yes. I was an international management consultant, providing consultancy on operations management to many Fortune 50 companies. I helped many of these companies navigate the very treacherous waters converting from the bogus "Quality is Free" perspective of the 1980s to the responsible management perspectives of the 1990s. Of course, Disney was already well on its way by the mid-1980s, since they were almost bankrupt by 1984 due to the negligent management of Roy Disney's successors, when Eisner was brought in to lead the company to responsible management.
 
So, your job was to show companies how their management philosophy was improper? Why then do you so often make statements that amount to "the management of the company knows what they are doing and will guide the company in the right direction"?
 

Because they have great professionals like me helping them! :)
 
Of course, Disney was already well on its way by the mid-1980s, since they were almost bankrupt by 1984 due to the negligent management of Roy Disney's successors, when Eisner was brought in to lead the company to responsible management.
Of course, as a business analyst one would hope you had the facts correct.

In fact, Walt Disney Productions was no where near bankruptcy. The company had been run since the time of Roy O's death by a small group of his (not Walt's) advisors. Card Walker and such were running the company as if it was still 1965, too timid and to business like to change anything. They were the exact sharp pencil, operational business people that Walt knew would never be able to run a creative enterprise.

The primary issue was that Disney was not performing up to the level that most people thought it could. While profitable, other studios had become rich from Disney-like films such as Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, E.T. and such. No one could understand why it wasn't Disney that was making these films.

This sparked an internal power struggle between the "Walt side" of the company (lead by Ron Miller) and the Roy side of the family (lead by Roy E. Disney). Corporate power struggles always attract the interest of bottomfeeders; several Wall Street "investment" types began buying large blocks of shares. The idea was that a) someone could run Disney better than a squabbling family and b) the company's stock price made the parts of the company worth more than the corporation as a whole.

Walt Disney Productions succeeded in buying the shares back from one of these investors (a practice called greenmail), but other, smaller sharks had been attracted. By this time the "Walt side" of the family had managed to push the old management out of the way and had begun to make some immediate changes.

It had been long, long known that the best way to turn around a movie studio was to make movies that made money. They created Touchstone Pictures, their first big hit being Splash. They had also just opened EPCOT Center at Walt Disney World and began an effort to expand on the success of that park. They also launched The Disney Channel to bring Disney productions back into the home and to expand into the brand new area of cable television. And of course, they partnered with the Oriental Land Company to build Tokyo Disneyland which continues to be Disney's most profitable and successful park.

Of course, many in business don't want to wait. But mostly they want to loose. While the "Walt side" was doing all of this, Roy E. was on the sidelines. Nor did he want to work with the management of the company. So, he threw his lot in with one of the "investors" that was trying to destroy Disney. Furthermore he brought in another set of "investors" who bought even more shares.

Disney wasn't saved - it was taken over by the Bass Brothers.

Since Roy E. detested the "Walt side" management, he fired them all. The Bass Brothers and others brought in a new management team to run their purchase. Frank Wells was brought in the run the company, Michael Eisner was hired just to give the studio an edge into the Hollywood power structure (Eisner had just been fired as head of Paramount Studios). Of course, no one at the time realized what Eisner was really like – he was just kept around because he had a good rolodex to the Betty Ford Clinic.

But that's another story.
 
I'm making some popcorn. This promises to be more entertaining than anything that's been in the theatres this year...





PS. Good to see you Voice...we'll talk about AKL another time :-)
 
bicker said:
when Eisner was brought in to lead the company to responsible management.


Obviously you don't understand the magic and vision behind Disney and Walt's dream if you think Eisner knew anything about responsible management. I think responsible management would include remembering and honoring the vision that a company was founded on, not just turning it into a money hungry machine.
 
I haven't really noticed that the resort as a whole is more crowded. MK is quite busy of course but only part of MGM was crowded the last few times we went and Epcot had tumbleweeds crossing it most of the day. I won't comment on crowds at AK since the pathways are so narrow so it's always felt crowded.

Maybe more people will stay onsite and not visit the parks as much? That's what we've been doing but I don't know if we're unusual.
 
The primary issue was that Disney was not performing up to the level that most people thought it could. While profitable, other studios had become rich from Disney-like films such as Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, E.T. and such. No one could understand why it wasn't Disney that was making these films.

I fail to see how Star Wars would ever have been considered "disney-like" in the 70's. I can see how the success of that film, would send a major wake up call in Hollywood, and Disney would find themselves the weakest link in terms of competing on that level.

And while we're at it, what director from the Disney camp in the 60's-70's remotely resembled the professional, technical and visual genius the likes of Lucas and Speilberg to warrant anyone within the Disney company to believe these types of films should have come from a source heavily invested and concentrated in animation and low-budget family films?

Where within the Disney vault lies the action/adventure library of films (and I heavily emphasize the plural on this) demonstrating record breaking results and highly coveted accolade to give anyone within Disney's employ a lack of understanding as to the why it wasn't Disney pioneering this?

Hollywood has often confused the fact that it takes more than the idea and the ability to succeed. There's a whole other side to the brain that needs to be involved here.
 
Another Voice said:
Of course, as a business analyst one would hope you had the facts correct.
Another Voice,

It's great to see a post from you again! Your summary of the situation with Disney in the mid-1980s is excellent.
 
Nice to see one from you too, Mr. Weiss!

Yes. I was an international management consultant...

Ah, consultants... Now THERE'S an interesting discussion!

And while we're at it, what director from the Disney camp in the 60's-70's remotely resembled the professional, technical and visual genius the likes of Lucas and Speilberg to warrant anyone within the Disney company to believe these types of films should have come from a source heavily invested and concentrated in animation and low-budget family films?

I'm no expert on the matter, but I'm guessing there wasn't one... but wasn't that part of the problem? That Disney not only wasn't moving in this direction, but wasn't even prepared to do so?
 


Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE








DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter DIS Bluesky

Back
Top Bottom