OK, here is the park hour comparison June 2001 v June 2000

[Peter Pirate]

Yoho, I think you should remember that my good friend & confidant Captain Crook ALWAYS agreed and espoused the same theory on Eisner as you. Eisner does have a creativity...I will differ on his business skills as I think he's a very astute businessman. Were he running a 'regular' company (as LandBaron always points out) he'd be great at maximizing profits, improving effieciency and so forth, I believe running Disney alone is his achilles heel. It is very tough, neigh impossible to blend the spirtuality and creativity with the esoteric economic and Wall St. related issues he must deal with. Further Yoho, I agree wholeheartedly that Walt's genius would have floundered pehaps to inperceptability & non-exixtence were it not for Roy. Walt had no use for the pencil-pushers and on more than one occasion was VERY lucky his "hunch" paid off...And we were all very lucky, as well.

LandBaron, I'm glad you finally admit that Eisner has (at least) done a good job of maintaining the Magic, for that's a step. But again, many of our disagreements may just be personal taste as you made some derrogatory remarks about The Studios and to a member, MGM is my family's favorite Park!

And DVC, I know those sites where you're a moderate but I think just because you can prove that there are people out there who can look right at a forest and not see trees really isn't very convincing. There are a lot of Disney haters out there, those of you espousing negative views on Eisner & management and such here on the DIS are not even close to being in that catagory. It is obvious to all of us that you do love Disney as much as we do, just from a different perspective...Which is what I find great! But there are a lot of people who just don't like the Mouse!

Landbaron, you ask (in our car pool) "what has Ei$ner ever done to promote Walt's ideals"...Well, you may not like the answer and the reason Eisner did it certainly wasn't out of the goodness of his heart, but, while maintaining the high price structure and finding new & innovative ways to pick the guests pockets, Mr. Eisner also found a way to allow folks of average means to stay on-site and feel the Magic of a WDW vacation without forking out an arm and a leg for traditional Disney Deluxe Hotels. Now I know your feelings on the Value Resorts, but I wholeheartedly disagree with them. Eisner did what Walt would have done, he kept a WDW vacation relatively affodable to average family while maintaining Disney Magic...I call that maintaining Walts ideals (pfinding a way to better entertain the whole family).

Since I began Landbaron too has seen some light! But you still want Eisner out... to be replaced by who? (we've had this discussion, right?). We've pretty much agreed that it probably would take two (Walt & Roy like) individuals to run the Company 'Our way' but since that isn't about to happen Mike still has to be a better choice than a stnager from the outside!

 

[YoHo]

I will not be dragged into the resort argument, that's what led to the hiatus of discussion in the first place. I WILL however say, that Peter, I just can't disagree with you more on your take of Eisner's buisness sense, further, I would point out that there is no proof that Eisner has any buisness sense, Disney was his first and when given the purse stirngs, the company has floundered. There is however plenty of proof that Eisner gets magic, just as there's plenty of proof that he doesn't handle the money well. Combined you get an almost there situation.

Landbaron, the reason I think its relevent, is that when you change what eisner's flaws are, you change from a hatred to a sympathy (at least I do) Also, I have a suspicion that we may see the board pull a Micheal McCaskey(Former president, son of owner of the Chicago Bears for those of you not in Chitown) on us and Eisner will get bumped up to COB while someone else takes over CEO. What kind of person would you feel more comfortable with? Further, it allows you to see how people like presslar can take so much heat. Yes, the buck stops at Eisner, but with his total inexpireance, people like presslar can eat in to the Magic and have Eisner thinking its good buisness sense.


I don't know, its just always helped me to think this way.

 

[Peter Pirate]

He saved Disney from corporate raiders on two occasions by beefing up the stock price the first time & by positioning Disney in a strong liquid position another. He has grown the Disney name to legendary proportions through his deals, acquisitions and growth of the core holdings. The Disney name was just a floundering player in the Entertainment field until Eisner took them to the top...Now reduced to second or third again by AOL/TWX look for Eisner to be in "acquire" mode again...To protect his (Disney's turf).

He continues to shine today as recently as quarters end where Disney SHOCKED the street by beating their estimates by .06. How did he do this? The cost cutting intitiative he mandated 2 years ago, the layoff of middle mangers, the continual looking for ways to operate 'lean & mean', now this isn't necessarily the Disney we all know and love, but his business sense shines through.

He has faced the realities of an ever changeing World business environment head on and come out on top every time. To be sure he has stumbled and made some bad moves, but 'nothing ventured, nothing gained', Eisner has always 'ventured'.

As to the Resort discussion, that was proffered for LandBaron as an apt example of Eisner furthering a Walt ideal...i.e. Looking out for the families.

 

[JeffJewell]

...you didn't say very much that I actually disagree with. That said, I will now proceed to write a novel.

I'm still learning about how the Eisner and Wells team functioned, and have no data that suggests your humble opinion is in any way inaccurate. The key data point for me is still Tower of Terror, which I understand was about the last attraction planned and built under Eisner/Wells management. It's a Disney designed ride system that takes a standard "freefall" ride concept and added to it so that it could do more things (multiple lifts and drops). The ToT theming is extraordinarily well done, and from the guest's perspective anyway, it appeared that no expense was spared.

I have yet to see that kind of ride design or immersive theming in an attraction built under the Eisner-only management. That's the kind of thing I meant with the "less odious spending" comment.

I understand where you're coming from with the "fingerprint" commnet now, but what about Test Track? And SPACE? How about Kilimangaro Safari? Or Soarin' Over California? These are all recent attractions doing things that heretofore haven't been done before.

Test Track I won't argue about, mostly because it works for me. I have heard some complaints that the queue line exhibits aren't that futuristic, interesting, entertaining, or educational, but I kind of thought they were (well, back when they were working they were kinda cool. Last time I was there, all three of the once moving exhibits were motionless. Not that it mattered much, the only people who could see the exhibits at all were FastPass holders as they whizzed by at full speed). The only thing I want to point out on this is that Epcot attractions are often funded fully by the sponsor (I admit to not knowing the specifics of the GM Test Track deal). So even in this case, it's hard for me to assume that Eisner's concept of management by budget cutting contributed much to the Magic.

SPACE is fully funded by Compaq, not by Eisner, and there have already been rumors that the lion's share of the budget is going to ETC for the ride system, and that there will be little left for peripheral theming or exhibits. Obviously, we'll have to wait and see on this one. I'd love for the rumors to be wrong (JeffH described his "dream" SPACE pavilion on one of these threads a while ago, and it was a place I'd love to visit), I just think the rumors sound pretty likely given Disney's recent track record.

The Kilimanjaro Safari ride is a departure for Disney, but it's not exactly the first time anyone ever did that sort of thing. And you have to admit, tossing in a tent, an old jeep, and an animatronic baby elephant trunk was a pretty low budget way of adding some kind of story to the tried and true safari ride idea.

Soarin' appears to be the biggest success at DCA. Was this a Disney-developed ride system, or did they buy it from someone and just make their own ride movie?

Not that I mean to bash any specific ride simply because Disney didn't develop it internally. I just think it's a disturbing trend for Disney to be buying such a large majority of their new rides from the same places that Six Flags buys theirs. The new ride systems at Disney are becoming more generic, more like ride systems at every other amusement park. And low Imagineering budgets mean that these generic rides get reasonably light theming--again, more like every other park in the world.

I'll give you your point about the proliferation of shows. I personally can't stand most of the shows (I was nigh-on to having a brain aneurysm during Beauty and the Beast at Disney Studios), but that's a personal preference thing and I do my best to avoid basing these discussions on personal preferences. To steer this back to my point, the show I really enjoy and that seems to be about the most popular (Festival of the Lion King) was built on the remains of a Lion King parade in order to save money. Again, saving money: not a bad thing in and of itself, but when the whole _point_ seems to be saving money, instead of the guest experience, something is out of whack.

to infer that innovation & imagination have decreased just doesn't seem right to me

Just to clarify: I think the high percentage of recent new attractions using old and/or shelf-bought ride systems does in fact indicate a corporate direction towards less innovation (there's a parallel on the animation side of the business, too. Arguably the best, most successful recent Disney animated films were the Toy Story movies, both of which Disney bought from Pixar). Eisner will never kill imagination, but he can make it more difficult for the Imagineers to build what they imagine by cutting their budgets. I'm not saying imagination has decreased, just that the money available for making those imaginings real has decreased. Animal Kingdom is a fine example of this, I think the Imagineers did a bang-up job with what little they were allowed to spend.

I agree that wait-and-see is the best attitude with Dino-Rama. But I do have concerns, based on what hard data we've got (a Zamperla spinner and a Reverchon crazy mouse themed to look like a carnival), that the main concern during the project was that it be done cheaply.

To sum up this rambling, I don't have much of a problem with any single ride or decision, I even really like Rock 'n' Roller Coaster, despite it's shelf-bought beginnings and bargain basement (literally basement, in this case) theming. My problem manifests when I look at all the new rides and decisions in toto. I try to use examples without getting bogged down in the specifics of them, if you know what I mean. I don't have a vendetta against spinners, or bracing a company for hard economic times, or partnering with other companies to create better attractions.

It's the trend to do everything as cheaply as possible, and the related trend to farm out as much work as possible, that bothers me. Any theme park could have bought the exact rides Disney did, any animation distributor could have bought Pixar's services. Without the old-time Disney over-the-top theming, the difference between Disney and the other theme parks is evaporating. Eisner's Disney has produced very little that is qualitatively different from that which everyone else is producing.

Disney used to mean "more and special." Eisner's Disney has largely meant "less and generic." This is another one that we'll have to wait and see, but to me the "big picture" is Disney's ability to grab the imagination, to become a part of people. To create lifetime fans of a Magic you can't get anywhere else.

Eisner's Magic can be gotten elsewhere. In most cases, it _was_ gotten elsewhere. It's no longer a special, "more and better" Magic, the way it used to be. I just don't see the current management culture engendering the brand loyalty that some older ones did. I think the short-term profits focus is undermining the building of long-term guest loyalty, to the ultimate detriment of the company. And since Eisner's wearing the hat with the propeller, he's the one I'm going to shoot at.

Thanks to anyone who actually bothered to read all of this...

Jeff

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Thanks to anyone who actually bothered to read all of this...

I did.

WOW!! Half way through my offering I checked to see what was new. I saw your post and deleted mine. You said it all, my man!!

DITTO!!!!

Thanks, JeffJewel. Don't ever go away again. Your perspective, insights and logic actually calms my passion to oust the bum. You mirror my own thoughts, almost perfectly, but you say it a little clearer. And I do have a habit of getting distracted rather easily by off hand comments and minutia (side arguments are killers!!).

 

[JeffJewell]

...YoHo, I can accept your your opinion that Eisner's failings have to do with financial savvy and not an ignorance of all things Magic. I hope you can appreciate my counter-point that the effect of these failings on the _guest_ is a less Magical experience. Hence my whining about the Anti-Magical Michael, rather than the fiduciarially-challenged Michael.

In some ways, I don't think it matters _why_ these things happened, but I understand that it _is_ an important distinction for you when I go off Eisner-bashing. I've tried to substitute "current management" for Eisner when it's not too unweildy, but taMAYto, taMAHto, you know?

Also, thanks for the sympathy about the park hours. It probably seems as though I over-reacted (if not here, then in that other thread. I don't remember where I really went nuts) to it, but it was just the straw that broke the camel's back. It still smells like a last-minute decision that might give the bottom line a short term boost, but cannot do anything for guests except disappoint them. I find myself saying that about a lot of what Disney does, recently.

...Peter...

He saved Disney from corporate raiders on two occasions...

...now this isn't necessarily the Disney we all know and love, but his business sense shines through

We can obviously never discover what might have happened, but I still don't understand why we have to assume that the "raiders" Eisner "saved" Disney from would have been any worse than he is. When you say "corporate raiders," I get a mental picture of someone cutting back what goes in the parks while using the parks' profits to fund unrelated projects or even their own retirements. Which is exactly what Eisner has done.

I can agree completely with the second part of your quote, but not with how comfortable you appear to be with its implications. This is _not_ the Disney we all know and love (see? On some level, you actually agree with me ). It was that other Disney that got under our skins, that has us all in the Carpool to the Castle, even still. It was that other Disney that built the Magic. Eisner's just building more theme parks.

Jeff

PS - Landbaron, thanks for the gushing. And you really dig green bouncy, don't you? He does look a happy little so-and-so...

 

[Peter Pirate]

And I understand your thinking, as well. It seems that in reality we aren't as far apart (as DVC's 'side arguments' sometimes lead us to believe!) Maybe a couple turns here, a little grease there and some crazy glue on the broken knobs and we'd be in agreement....LandBaron, you may be buying the Margaritas yet!



But Jeff, in response to who's footing the bill for SPACE or any other project. Is it really relevent? I mean, if Eisner can get someone else to foot the bill, isn't that a good thing?

 

[YoHo]

He saved Disney from corporate raiders on two occasions by beefing up the stock price the first time & by positioning Disney in a strong liquid position another.

But Pete, Eisner or Wells, Einser or Wells. I contend that all Eisner did was foster good creative decisions that bolstered the stock through good old fashioned creative and entertaining product. Further, as I recall, the CFO basically begged and pleaded with Eisner with regards to liquid assets and purchasing ABC.

How did he do this? The cost cutting intitiative he mandated 2 years ago, the layoff of middle mangers, the continual looking for ways to operate 'lean & mean'

Operating "Lean& Mean" is alway a good thing and needn't be associated layoff's or downsizing. Layoffs are an indication of either short term thinking, or previous mismanagment. SInce Eisner was CEO for 17 years, he can't point the finger of mismanagment at anyone else.

In short, Mike was good at creative planning and Managing creative people and created company growth via that effort. Frank Well's was good at managing money to generate profits. Without Frank Wells, Eisner has mismanaged both the FInances that's he's bad at, and the entertainment that he's good at. The response has been to slash and burn, because the upper managment didn't utilze there resources correctly during the economic growth period. (I don't recall mass layoff at the Mouse during the last rescession when Wells ran the money ship.) So, in reality, there is nothing Financially that Eisner has done well, since most examples have Frank Well's muddy fingerprints all over them.

 

[Peter Pirate]

It's the growth, the unrivaled name recognition & the corporate earnings that prove he is a savvy CEO...Wells probably had a lot to do with the dcisions during their time together, but Eisner was boss, Eisner gets credit.

Layoffs of mid-management may be a sign that this situation was in evidence for too long, or it may simply have been evidence of a rapidaly expanding Company in a rapidly expanding economy. Sometimes when the rock starts rolling doen the hill there is no stopping it. I think they were 'rolling' while it was expediaent and now, when the economy & growth are slowing, they are simply taking care of the housekkeping that was negleted during construction.

Disney is a well maintained mega Company. It seems incredulous to me that you think a man without great business sense could be at the helm for 17 years and actually grow the Company by accident!

 

[YoHo]

The relevence of Mission Space and the like is ,
1: it illustrates that Eisner will let the Imagineers run wild to build a ride (yes, its been toned down for cost, I'll get to that) And the only way it sees the light of day is if someone elses purse strings open up. On the surface that seems like a good idea, but WDW may need, be better, be more magical with more rides of that scope then outside companies are willing to fund. Eisner is currently more willing to shrink his way to success then grow to success. (mediocre parks not withstanding, growth isn't just about park acreage, but also inovational growth)
2: it shows that He is willing to comprimise MAgic to keep the purse strings closed. If Mission Space were to be a magical pavilion Like I feel it should, then I would open the DIsney cofers to make it so.
If he were not in charge of the purse strings, he would be able to see the forest for the trees and lobby for a better ride.

 

[YoHo]

The only thing he was savvy about financially was saying yes when ROy told him Well's had to be there. If growth is done right layoffs aren't needed, therefore, layoffs indicate bad managment. Yes, Eisner was In charge, AND in case you didn't read his autobiography, he worshipped Wells buisness savvy, Yes, he's in charge and gets the credit, that DOESN'T MEAN HE DESERVES IT. I'm not some money hungry fool on Wall street, I'm just an engineer worried about getting layed off my self, and I know that it takes teamwork and blending of talents to succeed. Eisner Wells had that. Further, if Eisner gets the credit for Well's genious, then he also gets the credit for Presslar's bufoonary.




I really have to go back to this.
There are two parts to disney's growth, creative and Financial. Mike was creative, Well's financial, to credit Eisner with Well's savvy is rude. Similarly, I would never suggest that Well's knew diddly about movies. Walt get's all the credit for Disney's phenominal early years, yet we all know and accept that Roy kept the ship afloat, how long were they in charge? How is it so hard to beleive the same for Mike and frank? FOr that matter, how is it so hard to see the decline when it matches almost exactly to well's death?

 

[JeffJewell]

Jeff, in response to who's footing the bill for SPACE or any other project. Is it really relevent? I mean, if Eisner can get someone else to foot the bill, isn't that a good thing?

I think it's relevant from a standpoint of evaluating trends and being able to make predictions.

For instance, despite the rumors I've heard, I'm not going to bash SPACE unless I see it and it's all stinky. It's possible, right up until opening day, that Compaq may pony up some more bucks to bolster the rumoredly skimpy budget for non-ride-system items. I still see this as possible, because I don't have a list of examples at hand where Compaq cut budgets to what I feel is the bleeding point.

On the other hand, I have somewhat less hope that Animal Kingdom will see extra cash any time soon to upgrade Dinoland with the originally planned Excavator coaster, much less to start on Beastly Kingdom. I know who holds those particular reins, and I've seen his recent work.

I certainly don't mind Disney partnering with outside companies to bring us more and better attractions. This was done very effectively I think with Spaceship Earth and the two dead FutureWorld attractions. Test Track is a fun ride and rather popular, but I used to spend hours in the original Imagination pavilion playing with the cool non-ride stuff. There's just no way to spend that amount of time in the Test Track pavilion. So, from a certain point of view, Test Track is a much less effective pavilion than was JII. The SPACE rumors suggest the same sort of thing might happen... a lot of bucks on the thrill ride, not so much on the supporting pavilion and surrounding theming. Very counter to the original intent and overall theme of FutureWorld.

I agree that we're really not that far apart, and we're working out some finer shades of meaning at this point. I don't necessarily dislike any particular ride because of its budget or source, it's the overall direction that sticks in my craw. My greatest concern is not for today's Disney, but for tomorrow's. I believe we're following this guy down a dangerous path, even if we can still enjoy the scenery while we're walking.

Jeff

PS - By the way, we're walking because we got tired of waiting for our Bus on Demand...

 

[DisDuck]

Nice to see you back Peter. Good to have some support. Now onto the show. Can't spend much time as got to get home but.

JJ..Splash Mountain is off-the-shelf but themeing makes it the best log flume ride I have ever been on and totally done by Eisner. So was Big Thunder Mountain. Therefore, possible to buy off-the-shelf (save some money which makes wall street happy) and still give a top notch ride. Has he missed on occasion, yes. Why, he is not perfect. No one is.

As to Park hours. It can cut both ways. Last April I showed up expecting EpCot to close at 9pm. It closed at 10pm on Saturday with MK opened late also. In fact the hours 1 day were so favorable with MGM having an 11pm Fantasmic that I was able to hop AK to Mk to MGM all on the same day. So who knows while hours posted are shorter, if crowds warrent it they may change while you are there.

Got to go.. daughter has early vocal lesson today. Needs to exercise her pipes for singing tour of Europe.

Catch you guys later.

 

[All Aboard]

This thread (for the most part) has left the realm of my knowledge, but I disagree with the overall "cheapening" of attractions. Particularly at Epcot.

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
or how they used to build PAVILIONS in Future world, but today they build RIDES

Of the original 6 FW pavilions, only Land, Seas and Imagination could be described as being more than just a ride. Energy, Horizons and Motion (save for the GM exhibits) were jsut rides. Since then, Wonders has opened as a pavilion and TT has replaced a ride with a ride. Now Space will be replacing a ride with a ride (and may be more of a pavilion than its predecessor, we don't know yet.)

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

... And misses out on a great conversation!!!

WOW!! Things happen fast here once in while!!

WELCOME DisDuck!! I was getting worried. I almost sent out an e-mail just to see if you were all right. I'm glad to see you post.

Even I can't possibly answer all the great thoughts that have been laid out here this afternoon. But a couple things came to mind as I read them all.

In answer to Peter Pirate's thoughts about "sharp pencil guys"

Walt had no use for the pencil-pushers and on more than one occasion was VERY lucky his "hunch" paid off

I really don't understand this. I think I know where you want to go with it, but I don't think you got there. LUCK had very little to do with it. His "hunches" paid off because THEY WERE RIGHT!!! He looked past the short term goals, the instant profit, the maximizing of business efficiency, and instead looked to the big picture, the long term and the firm belief that people would appreciate the way he did things. And he was right!! Even thirty five years after his death, there are countless web sites dedicated to the parks and resorts HE laid the foundation for.

Now to your point about sharp pencil guys. He had no use for them whatsoever. He NEVER listened to them. They ALL said (his nephew among the most vocal) that Disneyland was a terrible idea. If he HAD listened to them, there would be no Disneyland. Instead he had a brother who believed in him. And the brother made sure that finances were in place. Which kind of points to what YoHo said several posts later.

On the surface that seems like a good idea, but WDW may need, be better, be more magical with more rides of that scope then outside companies are willing to fund.

I think you hit the nail on the head. And that is the difference between the original head of Disney and the current manager. The original KNEW his concept would sell and that people would flock to experience it. He further KNEW that if he scrimped in any way, the people would see it and he would find himself perceived as ordinary (something he never wanted!). I distinctly get the impression, as JeffJewel and YoHo stated, that Ei$ner is far too willing to settle, for the same type of experiences that many other companies employ. In other words he is competitive. Competitive with the "current market". Doing as little as possible, for as much return as possible. DCA seems to be a perfect example.

I firmly believe that he is very willing to "value engineer" an experience to maximize profits. Just like he's doing with YoHo's example of Space. From a business sense this is certainly a smart move. But it is just this type of thinking that was so alien to Walt. So, in essence, while this move is pro-profit (business smart) it is anti-magic (stupid "Disney" business). And in the long run they run the very real risk of becoming "ordinary". A fate for us Disney fans worse than bankruptcy!!!

Further, if Eisner gets the credit for Well's genius, then he also gets the credit for Presslar's buffoonery

Pre$$lar buffoonery!!! I love it!! LOL LOL LOL Can I use it?

Gcurling, I understand your point, and maybe I wasn't specific enough or just a little too subtle. I meant that the areas in Future World were all unique experiences. They were called PAVILIONS because they were meant to be more that just attractions (the name I chose NOT to use). Instead they are replacing pavilions and/or super long ATTRACTIONS with rides (the word I chose to describe what is currently in place). I know it's a subtle distinction, but to me it's VERY important. And I find it sad that my once favorite place in all of WDW is quickly becoming a place "ordinary" rides.

 

[YoHo]

Gcurling, the big difference to me is that your replacing all access rides with limited (strong somach 48" or taller people) access rides and providing nothing to edutain the rest of us.

As much as the E-Ticket is a redo of Star Tours, I think Wonders of life exemplifies the kind of Pavilion I like.

 

[YoHo]

PS, I realse the phrase Presslar Buffoonery and all it derivatives to the public domain

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

I think Wonders of life exemplifies the kind of PavilionI like.

BRAVO!! WELL SAID!!



PS: Thanks for the release!!inkbounc

 

[Peter Pirate]

Far as I know, Yoho, Eisner does get the credit for "Pressler's bufoonery"...Isn't that right LandBaron?

I do see where you're coming from Yoho, I just don't buy it. I'll say again, how could a guy so inept grow a Company into the monolith that is Disney & keep it on top for 17 years? Walt's legacy, partly. Wells help? Partly. But they are both gone, yet the Company's earnings still whallops the Street last quarter!

Now maybe we're arguing apples & oranges here and if we are I'll cease and decist, but my rationale is based on an argument LandBaron, DisDuck & I had long ao and it had to do with the Disney Company & not just our perceived plusses and minuses of the Theme Parks. I'm speaking of his ability to run a multi-national conglomerate and keep it on track...In fact, growing the Company. To this end, I think he excells...

In fact, I'd say Eisner's job isn't very "Disney" in total at all, but he does set the tone, weighing all of the factors and I understand that many of you find that this IS exactly the problem. That the tone is not Disney enough, I can live with that, but that in and of itself doesn't make Eisner a poor CEO, either.

Thanks for the Welcome DisDuck...

 

[JeffJewell]

...how's it going?

I agree that just because a ride is shelf-bought and has a low budget for Imagineering does not guarantee that it will be an unenjoyable ride. My own favorite example is R'n'RC, which I really like despite those two facts about its origin.

I just don't think that's a good enough reason to make _all_ of the new rides off-the-shelfers.

As far as the park hours "cutting both ways," I must disagree. In this case, it's an issue of Disney's showing (or not) respect towards its guests.

You would not have heard a peep out of me if Disney's official hours always said 10-6 during June for Disney Studios. If I go at that time, I plan for those officially posted hours.

What got me peeping was officially posted hours that said 9-10:30 suddenly reverting to 9-9, and hours that said 8-7 shrinking to 8-6.

I don't mind if Disney changes Park Hours seasonally to reflect attendance; it only makes sense, and they've been doing it for years. This is just the first time I've ever seen them lie to guests in order to accomplish it.

Then again, I don't usually go in the summer, when longer daylight hours would make this kind of change more likely. Are you all trying to tell me that officially posting one set of hours then posting the real, shorter hours is standard practice for Disney, and I'm just not getting it?

Jeff