Stop being silly over PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN

[MJMcBride]

But, having said that, we can (and often do) get into an endless debate about any number of individual attractions. But whether or not you find the results thus far acceptable or not, there were definitely changes occurring at Disney (particularly after EuroDisney opened) which did not bode well for the future of the parks, including:

--The neglect of maintenance particularly at DL
--The reduction in size, responsibilities and authority of WDI (and a corresponding increase in the size, responsibilities and authorities of middle management accounting powerpoint pencil pushers)
--The intentional strategic move to open new parks "small," including AK, Paris Studios, and Hong Kong
--Much stronger emphasis on merchandising at the expense of character and detail (see, e.g., the Main Street shops).
--DCA

I agree with all of this. The point I make when this debate comes up is that the new stuff is not all bad. We could debate Test Track or Kilimanjaroo til the cows come home. But I think even Yoho and you would have to say its "not all bad", right?

 

[YoHo]

Sure, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

And I love how 50 year old rides built by a company and man mortgaged up to his eyeballs and demending high levels of quality justify the same ride 50 years later built by a company that is huge and has large cash reserves. To compare the two is ludicrous.

Having said that, I wouldn't have much of a problem if it hadn't been for the implication that it would "fix" Ak and if they were willing to put in real attractions at the time. If they had avoided ruining sitelines and such. If they hadn't put in the carney games. MAYBE, I would be forgiving.

 

[MJMcBride]

And I love how 50 year old rides built by a company and man mortgaged up to his eyeballs and demending high levels of quality justify the same ride 50 years later built by a company that is huge and has large cash reserves. To compare the two is ludicrous.

But isn't that what you guys are constantly doing. Walt did this Walt did that. They don't do that anyone. etc. etc. I don't think Hester and Chester is anything to write home about and if they implied that it was fixing DAK, I agree thats wrong. I just view it as two little rides to complement DAK and add little "things to do." Which I think it does. I have no use for the carney games but whatever. I actually enjoy the Primevial Whirl as a fun little ride. Thats all it is.

Its not an E ticket, but it doesn't suck either.

 

[raidermatt]

But isn't that what you guys are constantly doing. Walt did this Walt did that.

No, not in the context you are using it. It takes awhile to understand the distinction, and then apply it to what has happened and is happening (some never get there). At least it took awhile for me, and for some of the others around here as well. Once the distinction is understood, that doesn't mean there is universal agreement on its application, but we no longer hear accusations that we are stuck in the past, or comparing Eisner the evil overlord to Walt the patron saint of Pixie Dust. Ok, Eisner was an evil overlord, but that's another discussion...

So, what is the distinction? The briefest way I think I can say it is that we aren't comparing the nuts and bolts of what Walt did to what has been done since. We are comparing the WAY Walt did things to the WAY things are done now. Not nuts and bolts specifics, but what the company's focus was.

When you look at Disneyland, the company put everything they possibly could into the park. If the number of attractions wasn't overwhelming by today's standards, it wasn't because that's what they thought was the best strategy. Its because that's all they could do. And the additions came fast and furious for years.

The teacups, FL, Dumbo... no, they weren't groundbreaking, but they were extremely well done for their time. And they sought to tell stories or scenes from stories that people wanted to be a part of. THAT was the focus. Walt's Disney might build a little ride, but there would still be a story and purpose behind it, and the committment to quality was as strong as it could be.

That's not what Primeval Whirl is about. Yes, its part of a story of sorts, one that pays homage to cheap carny rides, but like you said, in the end, its just a ride that was put in to increase the amount of stuff there was to do.

In 1955 Walt's Disney didn't settle for that type of goal, and a Disney run in that tradition today would never have built Primeval Whirl. "Little" rides, yes, of course, but there are different ways of doing "little".

That's why saying "Walt built a cheap spinner" so it must be ok today doesn't work. Likewise, saying "Walt built DL small and grew it" so its ok to build small today doesn't hold up either.

 

[MJMcBride]

The teacups, FL, Dumbo... no, they weren't groundbreaking, but they were extremely well done for their time. And they sought to tell stories or scenes from stories that people wanted to be a part of. THAT was the focus. Walt's Disney might build a little ride, but there would still be a story and purpose behind it, and the committment to quality was as strong as it could be.

That's not what Primeval Whirl is about. Yes, its part of a story of sorts, one that pays homage to cheap carny rides, but like you said, in the end, its just a ride that was put in to increase the amount of stuff there was to do.

In 1955 Walt's Disney didn't settle for that type of goal, and a Disney run in that tradition today would never have built Primeval Whirl. "Little" rides, yes, of course, but there are different ways of doing "little".

That's why saying "Walt built a cheap spinner" so it must be ok today doesn't work. Likewise, saying "Walt built DL small and grew it" so its ok to build small today doesn't hold up either.

I understand what you're saying but respectfully disagree with you on two points. First of all, there is absolutely no way you could run this company the way you did in the 50s and 60s. I think if Walt were alive today even he would have to answer to shareholders, corporate boards, and the bottom line to some extent in a different manner then he did.

Secondly, the teacups and dumbo don't really tell a story. They are carnival rides with a disney movie theme and the carousel isn't even that. I'm not critical of them. What little toddler doesn't wanna ride Dumbo. These rides serve a very important purpose. But I think you are making them more then they are. You might not like the "theme" of Primevial Whirl or the Triceratops Spin but to me, there's little difference between Triceratops Spin and Alladin's Carpet or Dumbo. In fact, my then two year old liked the Carpets the best followed by flying around in green dinosaurs. He loved that ride. He absolutely loved the Teacups too. To me, thats the purpose of those particular rides. Rides that little kids get a kick out of.

 

[YoHo]

Well, King Arthur's Carousel is themed to Sleeping beauty and plays music from the movies. I'd say it's themed to Fantasyland.

Teacups and Dumbo don't have a plot, but they sure do tell a story. It's a very very basic story. Flying with dumbo or expereincing Tea with the mad hatter, but there is a story there.

I'll let AV explain the difference between story and plot.

Again, it doesn't compare to the story of Pirates, but there is a story and more particularly, it speaks to a fantastic desire. To fly with Dumbo, do have Tea in Wonderland.

Even Walt's most basic rides have more to them then you'd think.


As for running the business. That's balderdash. There are companies across the world that use innovation, invention and delighting and exceeding the customer's expectations to retain and gain customer base and thus profits. Rather then concentrating on maximizing profits on minimum R&D effort and blaming Wall street and the stockholders for their miserly ways.

Heck, Walt ran Disney in the 50s more like Google is run today. So don't give me this "It can't be done." Line. Obviously, the sharp pencil side is not exactly the same, but the way Walt handled the business is.

 

[MJMcBride]

Well, King Arthur's Carousel is themed to Sleeping beauty and plays music from the movies. I'd say it's themed to Fantasyland.

Teacups and Dumbo don't have a plot, but they sure do tell a story. It's a very very basic story. Flying with dumbo or expereincing Tea with the mad hatter, but there is a story there.

I'll let AV explain the difference between story and plot.

Again, it doesn't compare to the story of Pirates, but there is a story and more particularly, it speaks to a fantastic desire. To fly with Dumbo, do have Tea in Wonderland.

Even Walt's most basic rides have more to them then you'd think.


As for running the business. That's balderdash. There are companies across the world that use innovation, invention and delighting and exceeding the customer's expectations to retain and gain customer base and thus profits. Rather then concentrating on maximizing profits on minimum R&D effort and blaming Wall street and the stockholders for their miserly ways.

Heck, Walt ran Disney in the 50s more like Google is run today. So don't give me this "It can't be done." Line. Obviously, the sharp pencil side is not exactly the same, but the way Walt handled the business is.

They have very, very basic storylines (which I use extremely loosely here). If thats tru, then so does Triceratops Spin and Primevial Whirl. They're carnival rides with a theme.

I didn't mean to imply that it can't be done. But its a different world today for a business like Disney. Do they do things wrong sometimes? sure. Would Walt run it better that Eisner did? of course. But I still say Walt would have a more difficult time doing what he did in today's landscape. I don't think you could argue that.

 

[YoHo]

But did anyone in WDI actually come up with stories about those rides? No, those rides are "themed" to the story of this roadside carnival.

Where's the fantasitc desire in that? I can go out to a roadside carnival any time I want, but where else can I go visit where Mickey et al live and fly with Dumbo.

In that sense, the magic carpet ride actually has that element, too bad it's ugly and placed stupidly.


Again, I don't think Walt would have a more difficult time doing what he did, because he had/would have the vision that drives creative companies.
Wall Street and Stock holders are only meddlesome when the company is floundering with no strategic vision and that's Disney.

If someone like Iger or even Lasseter comes in and has a strong vision and strong focus on reaching it, then Wall Street and the financiers tend to become a non-issue.

 

[Viki]

They have very, very basic storylines (which I use extremely loosely here). If thats tru, then so does Triceratops Spin and Primevial Whirl. They're carnival rides with a theme.
.

Yes, in fact, isn't the theme of the entire carnival area that it arose spontaneusly (and as such is suppose to achieve a cheap carny atmosphere, complete with games and a couple of cheap ticket thrill rides) around the event of the Dinosaur adventure (formerly known as "The Ride to Extinction") achieving the "capture" of a live dinosaur? If so, I think that's only too fun. But I do wish they would make the new animatronic dinosaur a permanent fixture.

 

[YoHo]

There's a difference between the theme of Flying with Dumbo. Something fantastical that I could never do
and Going to a roadside carnival off such as off route 66 which is merely impractical. I'm not sure that there's any link to countdown to extinction. I'm pretty sure not.

 

[Viki]

There's a difference between the theme of Flying with Dumbo. Something fantastical that I could never do
and Going to a roadside carnival off such as off route 66 which is merely impractical. I'm not sure that there's any link to countdown to extinction. I'm pretty sure not.

I'm pretty sure there is, YoHo, and if so I can think of few things more fantastical than standing outside in a roadside carny decorated with plastic dinosaures, but with high hopes of seeing the real thing come walking down the road. Whew, maybe I'm easy, but that just gave me chills (I should also mention that in my previous career I was a developmental geneticist, so I get the improbability of that expectation).

I should also mention that I felt much the same chill when standing in the roadside carny one day, feeling a tap on my shoulder, and turning around, only to come face-to-suck-face with Hester (or was it Chester). Whew, there's a thrill ride!

And if all of this is even remotely on target, how subtle is Disney becoming that not even us addicts can agree on the storyline?

 

[DancingBear]

I understand what you're saying but respectfully disagree with you on two points. First of all, there is absolutely no way you could run this company the way you did in the 50s and 60s. I think if Walt were alive today even he would have to answer to shareholders, corporate boards, and the bottom line to some extent in a different manner then he did.

This is definitely true, but you agreed with the list of problems I outlined above--certainly Eisner was not compelled by corporate necessities to gut and outsource feature animation, reduce the role and capacity of WDI, etc. Heck, it wasn't until the very end that the shareholder and corporate boards really held him to answer to much of anything.

 

[mattmommy]

Look at DL Toontown compared to WDW. So much better. Took leagues out of both. DL gets a cool Nemo ride and WDW gets stuck with yet another Pooh thing (play area). Our poor beloved Mickey is being pushed out and not even for a guest absorbing ride. What a waste of space.

 

[DancingBear]

Perhaps someone can confirm this, but wasn't MK's Toontown Fair area originally supposed to be a temporary addition added for one of the big celebrations?

 

[YoHo]

Both Toontowns were originally Mickey's Birthday land for his 60th birthday.

 

[DancingBear]

But were they both supposed to be permanent?

 

[YoHo]

I don't think so.

 

[Linzybrooke]

Is it the same as the old one form Imagination called Makin Memories? Cause I love that song and we'd be in a fight.

Nope, it isn't the same one. This is quite possibly the worst Disney preshow movie ever...it is simply horrible and so sugary sweet that I want to puke all over the cattle in front of me (thats how I always feel in those preshow things, like cattle). And, if I remember correctly the song itself is a popular song, but the accompanying movie is puke worthy. It all starts out with the little boy putting up posters about his lost dog and gets worse from there...it has nothing to do with the attraction at all, its just a plug for Kodak cameras, film and all other accessories, which to me is the biggest problem of all.

 

[MJMcBride]

But were they both supposed to be permanent?

They were not supposed to be permanent. You are correct.

 

[MJMcBride]

There's a difference between the theme of Flying with Dumbo. Something fantastical that I could never do
and Going to a roadside carnival off such as off route 66 which is merely impractical.

But for many little kids, especially today, they may prefer the dinosaur or Alladin theme over Dumbo. And thats really who those particular rides are for, are they not?