See it can be done...I found Ei$ner's replacement

[Peter Pirate]

I hate to consider Austin Powers as the harbinger of anything and the fact that we talk about films like this as successes truly indicates the murky waters film makers have to tread.

Bretsyboo, so I guess I'm a nut but I submit that anyone who believes that a quality first, customer second, profit third strategic plan is EVER coming back is the one roaming out back with the little animals...

crusader, you're right about the ups and downs of all studios and Disney is no different in the long run...But, as I know you're well aware of, this is shaping up to be Disney's year all the way around at the movies and yet we still have a hard time getting many people to take notice or give credit. Yet, when a clunker comes along we'll talk about it for years...Heck, even during this great run by Disney more people like to talk about the fact that Disney didn't make LOTR or let Ron Howard get away. For the longest time it was all about the lost creativity...You know how making movies about attractions was so 'bottom of the barrell'? Of course, that was before the incredible success of Pirates...

HBK, so the makers of L&S are gone, yet with this and all of the supposed decimation at animation they still created Brother Bear and are creating Home On The Range, which while appearing rather lame in early trailers, marks the return of Alan Menken writing the musical score...So the jury remains out, IMO...


Very nice post jlambrig, I quite concur.

 

[bretsyboo]

Disney's success in mingling the good, the bad and the ugly is no better or worse than any other major production studio.

The difference is, like I said Disney promotes its animated features as "the next..." While Universal is not about to say anything like "from the makers of the hulk..." Other companies ignore their flops whole heartedly. Got a new Hanks comedy? Then he is the comedy genius that brought you forest gump, not You've got mail. Disney promotes their name...the movies become synonimous with the Disney name while other movies harp on big successes. movies aren't by dreamworks, they are by spielburg...creator of Jurrassic Park. This only turn off those who didn't like Jurassic Park...the Disney one turns off those who didn't like the last disney movie with the same promotion.

 

[crusader]

Originally posted by bretsyboo
Disney promotes their name...the movies become synonimous with the Disney name while other movies harp on big successes.

Very True. But you have to admit Shrek is considered a Dreamworks picture because animation is promoted in this manner. Juraissic Park and Pirates are very publicly associated with their production companies but the directors become the poster children for the press and politicize the notoriety. It's all fueled by image; ego and money.

Pirate - I agree this is Disney's year. I'm certain the competition is loathing this. I can't wait to observe how the lobbyists manipulate the accredition process come award time. I also wouldn't be surprised if there is an underground movement to undermine this trend. Nothing beats the wrath of a sore loser in show business!

 

[HB2K]

HBK, so the makers of L&S are gone, yet with this and all of the supposed decimation at animation they still created Brother Bear and are creating Home On The Range, which while appearing rather lame in early trailers, marks the return of Alan Menken writing the musical score...So the jury remains out, IMO...

But Pirate...where does it end? I haven't seen anything about HOTR, but how much more can the departed talent have left in the pipeline (Lilo & BB were already in the pipe BEFORE the bloodletting in FLA if I'm not mistaken). God I wish AV were still here to clarify this a little more...

 

[DisneyKidds]

Every preview has a line like "the next major animated feature from Walt Disney...."

But they don't. This is something we talked about a while ago when I got ripped for taking my kids to see JB2 . They didn't advertise that movie as "the next major animated feature from Walt Disney." It may have been subtle, but Disney didn't afford JB2 the same level of promo and importance that the Lilo and Stitch and other major features have received. You are right that Disney has attached the tag of "next major" to the LK, Beauty, Atlantis, Treasure Planet, Lilo..........and Brother Bear, but JB2 and Piglet's Big Movie didn't really have that same push.

As for the company, the overall philosophy is gone, and for those who don't think it can come back are crazy. Of course it can! It's a very simple philosophy that if you give the guest everything they want, have it reasonably priced, and don't think they are idiots, you will have success...that's not such a far fetched idea that no one would ever do it is it?

Make strides in that direction...................sure. But get back to THE Philosophy and run the place like Walt did? I don't see that happening. Not that it couldn't happen, I just don't think it ever will.

 

[raidermatt]

Disney's success in mingling the good, the bad and the ugly is no better or worse than any other major production studio. The general public understands this having been the star witnesses themselves.

As bretsyboo pointed out, no other studio has the kind of name recognition associated with its pictures in the way Disney does with its animated features. Nothing live action even comes close. I doubt half of the movie going public could tell you which studio made Jurassic park without first thinking about it. More importantly, they don't really care. Universal's offerings are so diverse (as with other major live action studios), that the films pretty much stand on their own, except for sequels of course.

Shrek 2's momentum comes more from the success of the original film than it does from the Dreamworks name. That's simply because Shrek is the only true smash hit that animation studio has put out.

You're right that animation is somewhat different, in that the studio's rep can carry some weight, but only Disney and Pixar have really had enough success to get that built in audience.

Its just so hard to get that rep, and its a shame Disney is willing to damage that rep by intentionally putting out films that damage that rep.

Bretsyboo, so I guess I'm a nut but I submit that anyone who believes that a quality first, customer second, profit third strategic plan is EVER coming back is the one roaming out back with the little animals...

Well, if anyone ever wrote it up that way, of course it would never come back for Disney. But that's not they way to phrase it, and I think you know that. Its about committing to a strategy that you believe will generate profits as a byproduct of what you are doing, as opposed to getting up in the morning and saying "How can I make money today?".

Think about it on a personal level. In the long run, which way do you think will make you more successful in your career... Finding something you love to do that others happen to be willing to pay you to do, or getting up everyday looking for a way to make money?

Regardless of your answer to that, the only reason Disney is there for us to enjoy and for some to defend so passionately, is that they went with the former rather than the latter. I merely think that was a good choice for them and they should stick with it, (or go back to it).

 

[Peter Pirate]

OK Matt, let me ask you this. If Disney starts running at 90% capacity in their theme parks and resorts and this trend keeps up for 2 or 3 years...I'm talking average occupancy of over 90%, meaning park gates are often closed, hotel rooms are hard to come by (never a discount), PS's are impossible, that kind of thing. Now, irregardless of how they got to this point, whether it was via your idealized business philosophy or the money grubbing philosophy of eisner - it doesn't matter. What would you say if they doubled all prices and still maintained a 75% occupancy rate? Would this be good philosophy or bad?

 

[DisneyKidds]

Originally posted by Peter Pirate
........If Disney starts running at 90% capacity in their theme parks and resorts..........trend keeps up.............park gates are often closed, hotel rooms are hard to come by (never a discount), PS's are impossible..........they got to this point..........via........the money grubbing philosophy of eisner. Would this be good philosophy or bad?

I'd think that those who have fundemental problems with the way Disney does business today, as compared to THE Philosophy, would have to agree that this would be working as a business philosophy, but isn't Walt's Philosophy and shouldn't be Disney Philosophy. Am I wrong guys?

The thing about THE Philosophy is it is absolute. Good or bad isn't dependant upon results. You don't do it for the result..........the result is a natural byproduct of how you do what you do. That is the simplicity of THE Philosophy.

Baron?

It's that absolute Philosophy that I don't think will ever come back. While different management may find different ways to achieve success, they will never achieve true Disney success ala Walt................and that is why I think there will always be room for criticism no matter what level of success non-Waltian philosophies bring The Walt Disney Company.

 

[bretsyboo]

Bretsyboo, so I guess I'm a nut but I submit that anyone who believes that a quality first, customer second, profit third strategic plan is EVER coming back is the one roaming out back with the little animals...

Why? It's how I would run any business...probably many people here, It's probably how a majority of Disney family members would choose to run it, from what I know about Wells he seems to be at least close to it...surely at some point the big guy at Disney will get there from a successful resume and pushing to be in the position because of his life long love of the place. Disney has to be one of the most difficult companies in the world to run, it has to take a pretty special or loony person to even want to run the place..

Baron of course, falls under loony.

There is knowledge inside of the company that the relatively short lived strategy of cut to achieve profit line is a failure. Pressler is gone, Harris followed him to the Gap, there is mounting pressure on Eisner to retire, and people are waiting to see if the last of the Pressler stronholds will "retire under their own terms."

Rasulo (whom my jury is still out on...after all every new guy wants to make his mark) has added energy back into WDI. DLR went out and got the guy whom while the world was trying theme parks other than Disney, for some reason decided to go ahead and try Disney Cruise Ships. What was his strategy? The traditional Disney one, every perk in the book. If Disney can afford it, and it adds to the magic and keeps you coming back, then by all means DO it.

The last decade or so has not been the end of the world...The madness of King Eisner's ragime is crumbling, and thankfully, the stock holders are looking for a better way to make money. That better way is the old way, maybe they'll choose it for their next set of puppets.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

The thing about THE Philosophy is it is absolute. Good or bad isn't dependant upon results. You don't do it for the result..........the result is a natural byproduct of how you do what you do. That is the simplicity of THE Philosophy.

Baron?

Give that man a cigar!! He wins the prize for understanding THE philosophy!! Very good, Mr. Kidds!!!!

Disney has to be one of the most difficult companies in the world to run, it has to take a pretty special or loony person to even want to run the place..

Baron of course, falls under loony.

Yep!! I'm just as loony as everyone in the business world thought Walt was way back in 1954!! (even his nephew!!)

 

[DisneyKidds]

Very good, Mr. Kidds!!!!

Thank you, oh long lost Baron. However, just understanding that Pholosophy, just trying to get others to understand it, just gaining consensus that THE Philosophy would be the way to go..........none of that is enough for our discussions any longer. Heck, most are probably there. What needs to be discussed is the rest of my post.........what needs to be discussed is not whether THE Philosophy could come back, but is it ever likely to? Is 75% of THE Philosophy enough? 90%? Would that be good enough for all good Disney loving critics? Or is THE Philosophy absolute, requiring 100% restoration..........and what does it mean, where do we go, if that 100% is never realized?

I'm glad boo thinks that THE Philosophy isn't dead..............but do you really think we will ever get back to the full Alpha Philosophy? Do you think we even need to? Where will it leave the critics.............and Disney..............if we don't.

 

[bretsyboo]

If you are asking if there will be another Walt Disney then no, the company no matter who its leader is will always be an appointed leader that was hired rather then the man that imagined and then created the magic.

But if you are asking if things could be done in the spirit of Walt Disney, then I think they could...and this would be 100% not because things would be done the way Walt would have done them; they most certainly wouldn't, but because what we want is the effort placed forth for the Disney company to act and represent what it used to.

You can't recreate the past, but you can honor it in the future.

 

[DisneyKidds]

But if you are asking if things could be done

I agree with you boo....................it certainly could be done. But will anyone ever actually do it?

 

[Peter Pirate]

Well..."Could" in what context? World peace CAN be achieved but do any of you think it WILL happen?

I totally understand 'The Philosophy' although Baron usually doubts it. I understand it and embrace it for what it was but as the close study of Walt's time proves, even it wasn't foolproof. In fact the gigantic ups and downs Walt experieinced is the main reason I think modern day corporate application of such a philosophy will never again see the light of day. Growth for monetary purposes is easier to project than the 'pie in the sky' (sad but true).

I do agree that a basic mission statement, a goal to strive for...Kind of like the Pirates code, "more of guideline than rule" could be maintained and perhaps useful but it would never be able to surplant the profit motive as the number one corporate goal...

 

[Another Voice]

So in reality the only "Disney standard" for you guys is "anything that makes money for The Walt Disney Company".

How shallow.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Mr. Kidds:

However, just understanding that Philosophy, just trying to get others to understand it, just gaining consensus that THE Philosophy would be the way to go..........none of that is enough for our discussions any longer.

How can it not be enough? It is EVERYTHING! You see, without 100% dedication to THE Philosophy, Disney is NOT Disney. It becomes just like any other company in the corporate world. It becomes a company bent on profit margins. It becomes a manipulative, market researched, power-pointed, greedy, sharp-pencil-practicing type of organization. Perhaps it still may be better than most, but it certainly is not good enough to warrant unending posts on this (and other) sites from me. I don’t get giddy and ridiculously enthusiastic about mundane, uninspired, run-of-the-mill companies. I have never visited a site dedicated to Coca-Cola or General Mills or even Universal. And a Disney without THE Philosophy is simply “every-day”. A “so-what” kind of thing. It is THE Philosophy that set it apart.

Mr. Boo:

You can't recreate the past, but you can honor it in the future.

Perfect!

I agree with you boo....................it certainly could be done. But will anyone ever actually do it?

Sure it could. You just have to dedicate the company in certain ways. Today it is dedicated to be (at best) a money making conglomerate, or (at worst, but much more realistically) a plaything for Ei$ner and his personal wealth.

If it were dedicated to excellence and innovation, service rather than commodities, creation rather than distribution, then THE Philosophy is naturally applied and all it takes is someone with a little focus and vision to bring it all together.

Just like Walt? NO!! Of course not! But still enough to set Disney apart once again.

I totally understand 'The Philosophy' although Baron usually doubts it.

Peter old friend!! I KNOW that Scoop and some others do not understand, in the least, THE Philosophy or they would never bring up another chicken finger!! Nor do they even try to understand. However, I do not doubt for a moment that you understand and fully embrace THE Philosophy!

With that said (and I really do mean it) you have an annoying habit of ignoring it or even sometimes totally disregarding it, if it’s convenient for you to do so. You seem to overlook the ramifications of doing things contrary to THE Philosophy if it stands in your way of cheerleading the most recent (fill in any you choose) boneheaded moves that the current administration makes.






BTW: I don’t want to bring up other ‘touchy’ subjects, but HATS-OFF to Hope!!! What a post!!! Very good!! Thanks!!

And just for the record, I want to be the first to welcome back our esteemed friend, the wonderfully insightful AV!!!

 

[Peter Pirate]

See, this it what ticks me off. While I too am happy to hear from Mr. Voice I am still sad that he hasn't learned how to read. I specifically said I find it sad that loftier goals to the simple profit leading motive could be used I am only pointing out why it will never happen again, but again this does not mean I don't wish for it. So I'm shallow, I guess.

And Baron, pretty much the same. I don't cheerlead for the administration but for the product they're giving us. I too would like a change at the top so that there would at least be a chance of a lean back toward the 'consumer is king' philosophy. While I mourn the loss of hours and moan at the later Adventurland opening and notice beaches once cleaned but no longer tended it doesn't take away from M:S, McPhil, Wishes, the Wine & Food Festival and so on. I can cheerlead the good and still see the bad...It is possible.

 

[crusader]

Today it is dedicated to be (at best) a money making conglomerate, or (at worst, but much more realistically) a plaything for Ei$ner and his personal wealth.

All businesses are dedicated to making money - past, present and future. We cloud our judgement in defense of position.

What I cannot accept here is the inability to commend the efforts and talent within this organization because it fails to support the platform of disdain for the management.

To selectively disregard the standard of excellence in progress and quality work I witnessed at WDW begs the question of tactic and motif.

And I am getting a bit frustrated with the "every ride needs to be personally tailored to suit every guest" cry. I have just as much of a right to Expedition Everest or Mission Space as anyone else here has to a Soarin or Mickey's Phiharmagic. That's called giving
all the people everything you can give them

And it is about time some balance was installed!

 

[Another Voice]

"To selectively disregard the standard of excellence in progress and quality work I witnessed at WDW begs the question of tactic and motif."

In other words, any one with a differing opinion is irrationally bashing for the sole purpose "to get someone" and are blinded by their insanity to all the glories?

Yup.

A "standard of excellence" is a mostly subjective standard. While you might quiver at the wonders to come – I see simply a continuing of the same old problems with slightly more money thrown at the situation. A higher budget doesn't necessarily make things "better" if imagination, talent and effort are still lacking.

Anyone who sat through this summer's movie blockbusters learned that lesson time after time after time.

Disney didn't make its reputation on simply "bigger", it didn't earn its status only on "better" – it got where it was by creating things beyond what people could imagine. Disney products – the real ones – succeed because they move beyond the being simple amusements and became something more. The parks have captured the public's imagination for half a century because they were able to rekindle the a sense of childlike awe and wonder in adults, and to show children that line between dreams and reality need not be a sharp as they are taught. The movies succeed because they move beyond a momentary diversion and became timeless lessons that resonate throughout people's lives.

That's my standard of excellence.

I fail to see where yet one more 3D movie that spits water in your face, a rollercoaster atop concrete, and soulless, cheap thrill in place of true awe and wonder really fit that bill no matter how much money some one. That has nothing to do with who's CEO, but whether something fits in my standard of excellence.

Of course, I already hear the frantic typing of people screaming at me that I'm wholly unrealistic. I don't think I am, because my standard of excellence is one that Disney used to achieve all the time.

Believe it or not, the profit motive was not invented in 1987, people were not dumber in 1955, The Great Depression was not a more friendly business environment than today and Wall Street is not harsher on a $20 billion mega corporation than a banker in 1928 was on some scrawny cartoonist with a sketch of a mouse in his pocket.

The excuse of "but we can't do that in these conditions" is just a hollow now as it was for the last hundred years. "Wall Street" is simply the suit-and-tie version of "the sun was in my eyes", "I have to visit my ailing grandmother" and "I called but your machine didn't pick up". The whole blame-the-stockholders is nothing but victimhood on a corporate level. And it's also nothing but cover for greed and cowardice.

Trying for something new, original and imaginative need not cost more. But it is slightly riskier even though the rewards are far greater. Far from being excited that an auto stunt is being copied, I wonder at all the great things that could have – should have – been accomplished with all the money.

There is nothing wrong with much for better and for raising standards. The world is too vast and life is too short to wallow in expensive mediocrity.

 

[Peter Pirate]

I'm not frantically typing, but I do have a few leisurely minutes...

"To selectively disregard the standard of excellence in progress and quality work I witnessed at WDW begs the question of tactic and motif."

In other words, any one with a differing opinion is irrationally bashing for the sole purpose "to get someone" and are blinded by their insanity to all the glories?"

I can't see how you jump to that conclusion. You purposly lump all of our statements together and ignore any parts that may indicate our agreement with your ideology. I think we're all willing to discuss...

Anyone who sat through this summer's movie blockbusters learned that lesson time after time after time.

I don't know...Disney's own "Pirates Of The Caribbean" was awesome entertainment!

I fail to see where yet one more 3D movie that spits water in your face, a rollercoaster atop concrete, and soulless, cheap thrill in place of true awe and wonder really fit that bill no matter how much money some one. That has nothing to do with who's CEO, but whether something fits in my standard of excellence.

The fact that you fail to see it doesn't preculde it from being true though. Disney is giving quality entertainment with their offerings. Mickey's Philharmagic, while admittedly another variation of an existing theme, is still quality unto itself, this time designed for the littlest members of our families in Fantasyland. Even at 10, my youngest daughter was very, very happy after seeing this twice in October and then requesting it be our first stop in a Novemeber trip to the MK. Unmagical? By whose definition? M:S is not ordinary no matter how you choose to paint the picture. Epcot is truly a hot bed at the moment with the Test Track & M:S area loaded with folks from open until close. Further, in watching the interaction of the groups exiting & milling in the area, people are talking excitedly to one another, there is much laughter, joy and excitement being visibly displayed . This is one attraction that is truly creating buzz...

Believe it or not, the profit motive was not invented in 1987, people were not dumber in 1955, The Great Depression was not a more friendly business environment than today and Wall Street is not harsher on a $20 billion mega corporation than a banker in 1928 was on some scrawny cartoonist with a sketch of a mouse in his pocket.

The excuse of "but we can't do that in these conditions" is just a hollow now as it was for the last hundred years. "Wall Street" is simply the suit-and-tie version of "the sun was in my eyes", "I have to visit my ailing grandmother" and "I called but your machine didn't pick up". The whole blame-the-stockholders is nothing but victimhood on a corporate level. And it's also nothing but cover for greed and cowardice.

I don't think anyone is saying the old philosophy can't be done...As I clearly stated much like world peace it certainly COULD be done. What I'm saying is that it will not be done. Not by Eisner, not by anyone in this environment ever again. The only realm where this could become reality again is the small privately held creative company (like Disney once was) like Pixar. But even then only time can tell whether the success of a product was due soley to hard work and commitment to quality or really just some lucky breaks with some great talent...

There is nothing wrong with much for better and for raising standards. The world is too vast and life is too short to wallow in expensive mediocrity.

I guess I can agree. But I do not see the new creations at WDW as mediocre. In my view of what WDW is for me and my existence these changes, especially M:S is just a huge step forward. If they aren't for you there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It is too bad Disney can no longer give you that wow, I hope someone else can.