One more time I wish to ask a general question. If we had been given a choice for AK of (1) Expedition Everest within 3 years or (2) Dino Rama now & E:E a couple years later, which would be the better choice for the AK guest? Would one stand on principal Landbaron and boldly say "I'd take #1,because it is not in the Walt Philoophy to have DinoRama at AK under any circumstances???
I'd answer precisely the same as I did when the question was raised pre-DinoRama Grand Opening: I'd prefer that they do one thing in a truly bang-up fashion, rather than do several things in, at best, "definitely better than Six Flags" fashion.
I say that because I believe that it is building the bang-up attractions that will bring guests to parks in significant numbers, not in building the sort of thing that even Peter Pirate describes as "the mistake that was Dinoland."
I said it then because I want Disney to succeed in business, and that's how I believe they can do it: by creating attractions so much better than anyone else that there's no reasonable comparison. I honestly believe that Disney has invited comparisons between themselves and "the rest" by offering product the like of DinoRama: yes, I am completely convinced that building DinoRama was far worse to Disney's business than building nothing at all.
The importance of the "Walt Philosophy" vs "Eisner Philosophy" examples is not to set the field for bickering the minutiae of whether philosophical lines should be drawn two steps this way or one step that, but to exemplify how holding a practically unreachable creative goal important to you at all times energizes your every creation with something Magic; whereas holding a universal, common, even vulgar financial philosophy dearest to your heart, well, from that you get the Disney Company 2003.
It was a copy and you know how he felt about copies
It's very true that Walt wasn't thrilled with cloning so much of
Disneyland in Florida. It's also true that Walt had to make certain sacrifices to the gods of capitalism. Just because Walt couldn't _meet_ his own standard very often, doesn't mean we should underestimate the value of his striving for that standard.
Indeed, I believe the fact that the philosophy could never be followed perfectly, that there was always room for improvement in a project, right up until the moment a guest experienced it, was what made the Philosophy Magic, in the first place.
those sponsorship deals that Walt started right from the beginning sure were magical. I know they were necessary but that doesn't change the fact that it wasn't up to the standards you subscribe to
I'm not sure what your problem is with Walt's use of sponsorships. It seems to me that Walt generally found a way to use his sponsorships to further the creativity and creative capability of his team. That seems like good business, investing in your strength and your passion, to me.
Working with other people and organizations is not inherently non-creative nor destructive to your ability to create in the future... everything depends on how you work together and what you do with the money.
it is no way a piece of concrete, stamped in blood proof. Can't you guys even fathom the other POV?
Peter, it is absolutely true no one knows precisely what Walt would or would not do; you are right, it is possible Walt would do something, of his own free will, at a time when he had more resources than numerous sovereign nations, that he tried to avoid doing as "too common" decades earlier when he had fewer options and billions less in the "resources" pile.
I guess I'm just not sure what your point is in seeking acknowledgement of the fact that no one can prove Walt would never have built carnival games. It doesn't seem to have much to do with the central question.
The fact that it has nothing to do with this argument notwithstanding and for the third time I AGREE!
Hang on a second... if you think Eisner's philosophy has nothing to do with this argument, we're talking about two different things.
What is it we're arguing if not whether "a Waltian philosophy is a better business philosophy for Disney than an Eisnerian philosophy?" That certainly the main point I'm trying to make.
You'd rather have items taken out or never given because they don't meet your vision of Walt's standards.
Absolutely. There must be someone with the ability to make decisions involving real money in there fighting for truly innovative and spectacular creativity is Disney is ever to regain a fraction of their brand image. By installing rides that invite comparison with Universal, Six Flags, and even parking-lot carnivals, Disney commits the marketing version of lying down with dogs.
It was a mistake for Disney to install something that cheap. That was my point back then, that's my point now. Nothing's changed, from over here.
They don't meet my vision of WDW standards either, but they are there
This is where things get frustrating. Back in the day, people like myself or LandBaron were called the Dark Side and the Doom and Gloom crowd for suggesting that DinoRama was going to be less than Disney Standards, which we all agree it has been... and that it would not give Animal Kingdom the attendance shot in the arm it needed, which everyone can see it has not done.
It seems to me that your posts imply we were wrong to suggest the possibility, back in the day, and that we are wrong for pointing out the reality, now that it's happened.
It does not appear to me that you are reacting to the claims themselves, but instead reacting to how happy we are with Disney at the current moment in time. Please correct me if I misunderstand your direction, here.
The negativity of a non-positive outlook is karma-killing that I can't bear to think about it.
Well, I guess I just needed to read further to get clarification.
People have all kind of outlooks, and all should be welcome here.
Peter Pirate, I think that your posts continually and baselessly demean and marginalize the absolutely valid opinions and concerns of others. I believe your posts are often personal attacks on the outlook and motivation of others (popularly refered to as "some posters," to lend a claim of "impersonality") rather than the opinions and concerns raised in this forum.
It is my feeling that Peter Pirate is the one making karma-killing posts. I am curious to hear what the moderators think about this dispute in the nature of what makes up a "killing," or even "attacking," post.
It really isn't very fair, or respectful for you guys to comment behind ones back, as it were. I thought that perhaps when addessing me you could stick to the forum I post in. Thanks to my friend who for letting me know this was happening...Again.
There is nothing "behind your back" about it. It is a freely available board for anyone to read and post to. Beyond that, I don't recall seeing anyone "address you" there. I do recall some friends talking about other public boards and how frustrating it sometimes is to post on them because of the karma-killing posts often confronted there.
Yes, there is and you are fully aware of that.
If anyone has any problems creating a login id or posting to "that board" be sure to let myself or any of the moderators of "that board" know.
Beyond that, for my own peace of mind, I would appreciate a clarification: what it is the problem you are having accessing "that board?" I admit I can read too much into things, sometimes, but it sure looks as though you are impying something about me that is completely false. As written, it would be very easy for me to interpret that statement as a lie about me personally; clearly I have misunderstood your intended meaning; please help me understand the message you convey.
