The Disney Difference? Very interesting article.

[Disco]

I am wondering if that would've flown with Walt. I know he would take things out of Disneyland if they could not be fixed, but did he ever choose to leave something in that was broken because many guests couldn't tell the difference? Just wonder if that sort of philosophy would have ever worked with him. Anybody in here a student of Walt, particularly his general philosophy toward quality and the guest experience?

LOL,
Don't play the hypothetical Walt card on me. Walt never would have let them build a giant animatronic monster that you see in brief passing.
If he had to fix it after the fact he would probably agree with me that it would be best to wait till the planned downage of the ride and put a real fix in (like you go between the darn things legs so you can't miss it)!

 

[Tekneek]

I didn't play a Walt card on anyone. I asked a question. Sorry. I had no idea it was going to upset you.

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

LOL,
Don't play the hypothetical Walt card on me. Walt never would have let them build a giant animatronic monster that you see in brief passing.
If he had to fix it after the fact he would probably agree with me that it would be best to wait till the planned downage of the ride and put a real fix in (like you go between the darn things legs so you can't miss it)!

Respectfully disagree. Walt was about quality and quality only. For proof look up the DL chandelier incident. Hypothetically, if Walt thought a million dollar floor tile sold 'the story' of whatever they were working on, there would soon be a million dollar floor tile.

 

[nytimez]

Truthfully, who knows what Walt would do/want. Odds are, Walt would have moved far beyond theme parks and into his true vision for EPCOT, or even something else beyond that. He was about moving ahead -- not staying still, and no matter what tweaks and changes they make to these rides make no mistake about it -- they're staying still.

 

[Tekneek]

Truthfully, who knows what Walt would do/want. Odds are, Walt would have moved far beyond theme parks and into his true vision for EPCOT, or even something else beyond that. He was about moving ahead -- not staying still, and no matter what tweaks and changes they make to these rides make no mistake about it -- they're staying still.

The question was intended specifically as to whether this philosophy would've been deemed acceptable to him during his time with Disneyland. I thought I had expressed as much with the way I formed my questions. There is very little chance that Walt would've lived this long, even without cancer.

 

[nytimez]

The question was intended specifically as to whether this philosophy would've been deemed acceptable to him during his time with Disneyland. I thought I had expressed as much with the way I formed my questions. There is very little chance that Walt would've lived this long, even without cancer.

I understand that. But everyone seems to throw around the "Walt card" as if anyone of us really know what he would have done.

We don't. We can voice our own opinions and guesses, and I think we should all stick to that and be comfortable with our arguments as we can make them. We can point to specific examples from the past if it helps... but it's pure folly to just throw out there that "Walt would've done this" or "Walt would've done that."

 

[Tekneek]

I understand that. But everyone seems to throw around the "Walt card" as if anyone of us really know what he would have done.

We don't. We can voice our own opinions and guesses, and I think we should all stick to that and be comfortable with our arguments as we can make them. We can point to specific examples from the past if it helps... but it's pure folly to just throw out there that "Walt would've done this" or "Walt would've done that."

The way he approached his business is pretty well known at this point and documented in many books. While you cannot predict with 100% certainty what he would do in any particular situation, you can get a pretty good idea. You can certainly have an educated guess at it.

 

[nytimez]

The way he approached his business is pretty well known at this point and documented in many books. While you cannot predict with 100% certainty what he would do in any particular situation, you can get a pretty good idea. You can certainly have an educated guess at it.

If knowing what he would have done is as simple as reading the books -- and I've read them too -- we could all be Walt Disneys now. I've seen time and again people on these boards say what Walt would've done, or never would've done. Most of these people have read the books, too, yet they have different ideas on what he would've done.

It's just not that simple.

I'm more interested in knowing what you think, Tekneek, and the others here, because you are all living people who can express your own views. We don't need to fall back on the hypothetical positions of long-dead people we've never met.

 

[Tekneek]

I'm more interested in knowing what you think, Tekneek, and the others here, because you are all living people who can express your own views. We don't need to fall back on the hypothetical positions of long-dead people we've never met.

Of course. However, I think it is relevant to judge whether a company has continued to be committed to the values and philosophies it was built upon (which can be good or bad, depending upon the companies involved). You don't have to agree, but that is what I think.

I tend to judge the Disney company in multiple ways, one of which is whether it is living by the values, ethics, and general philosophies that it was created and built with. Another one is going to be my own personal like/dislike/interest/disinterest for what they're up to. I will even judge the actions of the company through how the other members of my family perceive it. Beyond that, I will inevitably be influenced by the views of others out there on messageboards, blogs, and podcasts to some degree. All of that information goes into the pot.

I can understand if some people don't give a damn about whether a company is even attempting to live as the founders intended. I'm not saying everyone has to. In the case of Disney, I think those intangibles brought by Walt and Roy O. Disney were tremendously vital to the success of the company. I want to see that going forward and not just management types trying to figure out how to shake more money out while selling out the soul/culture that built the company they're now using as an ATM.

Also, reading all the books gives you some insight. It doesn't make you Walt Disney. Anybody who thinks the insight you gain from books makes you that person is missing the point.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I had a 4-day Traditions. It was short (with your in-location orientation day worked out to a full week), but really got you excited about working for Disney and drilled the standards into your head.

These days I think Publix has more stringent hiring standards than Disney.

I had a 1 dayer...two day computer training...and then was the highest support position at the busiest WDW resort location within 4 months....

now, each person is a specific case...but the fact that there was nobody else with more experience that could do that (or in this case...only a couple others)...says something about the overall staff at WDW....how could it not?

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Of course. However, I think it is relevant to judge whether a company has continued to be committed to the values and philosophies it was built upon (which can be good or bad, depending upon the companies involved). You don't have to agree, but that is what I think.

I tend to judge the Disney company in multiple ways, one of which is whether it is living by the values, ethics, and general philosophies that it was created and built with. Another one is going to be my own personal like/dislike/interest/disinterest for what they're up to. I will even judge the actions of the company through how the other members of my family perceive it. Beyond that, I will inevitably be influenced by the views of others out there on messageboards, blogs, and podcasts to some degree. All of that information goes into the pot.

I can understand if some people don't give a damn about whether a company is even attempting to live as the founders intended. I'm not saying everyone has to. In the case of Disney, I think those intangibles brought by Walt and Roy O. Disney were tremendously vital to the success of the company. I want to see that going forward and not just management types trying to figure out how to shake more money out while selling out the soul/culture that built the company they're now using as an ATM.

Also, reading all the books gives you some insight. It doesn't make you Walt Disney. Anybody who thinks the insight you gain from books makes you that person is missing the point.

I would tend to agree that there is so much that has happened since October 1971 ( i use that as the benchmark because it was the death of Roy O Disney and the real changing of the guard from Brothers business to corporation) that it is impossible to predict what might have been.

It walt disney had lived to be 90...until roughly 1990...his legend would have probably been destroyed....because our national and world economy and technologies developed at high speeds and there became much more potential for failures due to size and scope of what you're dealing with. I think he woulda been the "old man" left behind...and he probably would have insisted on family control...which was proven after his death to be dangerous.

I don't necessarily think anybody named Disney could have survived in a publically-traded mega-media company. Roy E Disney was a family steward...not really a business leader...Diane Disney never goes anywhere near the thing...her husband almost ran the company underground and was ousted at the request of his wife's cousin...

so the whole thing about "the disney way" and "quality" and "brand" is really a mental ploy at this point: there is NO way to quantify this.


But the benchmark i use was Mikey Eisner's unending drive to buy Capitol Cities....basically a kid that wanted to buy his first employer's business. When they did that...there burden and responsibilities increased 10 fold. So now you had to prop up both movie studios (which are hit or miss) and television outlets (which are hit or miss and the mistakes are glaring and magnified daily). It seems as if the braintrust was overrun. Instead of concentration on family entertainment only and travel experiences....they now had to fight with Boccho on NYPD Blue and support ESPN and negotiate TV contracts with sports leagues.

It just seemed to be too much. And the parks would never be the same. It became a numbers game with some creativity...as opposed to creativity that yielded numbers.

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

Look, there is no doubt WDW and the empire would be totally different had Walt lived a lot longer. First, he was never fond of reinventing anything but he would do it (WDW, for example) in order to finance his next dream, which was the original E.P.C.O.T. He died and it became Epcot, another theme park, something Walt probably would not have cared about. Had he live or had he been a younger man I truly believe Walt's EPCOT would have been built, meaning Disney's energies and monies would have been funneled from that point forward into urban planning, which was at the time of his death, Walt's fascination. Does anyone doubt Walt have succeeded at this? I do not and at that point the Disney Company would have become much, much different that what we have today.

Back on point, my allusion to the overpriced chandelier that Walt insisted be added to DL and subsequent hypothetical "million dollar tile" example shows what Walt's mindset was. Do it right or don't do it at all. The times Walt allowed Roy to duplicate creativity was only because money was needed to fund the Walt's imagination but Walt seldom put much energy into these cash cows.

The point is Walt's Disney would do anything, spend anything if it, in Walt's opinion, improved the story. It was always about the story.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Look, there is no doubt WDW and the empire would be totally different had Walt lived a lot longer. First, he was never fond of reinventing anything but he would do it (WDW, for example) in order to finance his next dream, which was the original E.P.C.O.T. He died and it became Epcot, another theme park, something Walt probably would not have cared about. Had he live or had he been a younger man I truly believe Walt's EPCOT would have been built, meaning Disney's energies and monies would have been funneled from that point forward into urban planning, which was at the time of his death, Walt's fascination. Does anyone doubt Walt have succeeded at this? I do not and at that point the Disney Company would have become much, much different that what we have today.

Back on point, my allusion to the overpriced chandelier that Walt insisted be added to DL and subsequent hypothetical "million dollar tile" example shows what Walt's mindset was. Do it right or don't do it at all. The times Walt allowed Roy to duplicate creativity was only because money was needed to fund the Walt's imagination but Walt seldom put much energy into these cash cows.

The point is Walt's Disney would do anything, spend anything if it, in Walt's opinion, improved the story. It was always about the story.

i think you hold somewhat of a romantic notion that probably would've ran into the brick wall of reality somewhere not too long after the 60's with the Disneys...
...remember they almost bankrupted the thing in the 80's...and the ridiculous (and still somewhat secretive) actual costs of EPCOT Center had alot to do with that. In most ways...that was the last time disney "footed the bill" for "doing it the right way or not at all". they had financial partners for what i would consider the 3 parks since EPCOT to open that were done the right way.

so really...from where i'm sitting...that idea died not too long into the future after disney.

the modern disney we see now...mostly in timeshares...is a different animal. All "development" is done from a cost accounting standpoint. It is never to innovate or entertain (at least...not to the point where that is a higher priority than revenue).

Now...we get some cool stuff...occasionally they bite the bullet - as with California Adventure - and open the purse to do things we can see the benefit of frontline. but these occasions are increasingly rare.

Look at it this way...Animal Kingdom and MGM offer nowhere near the overall guest opportunities that EPCOT and the Magic Kingdom do. No matter how much you may like those parks...the simple numbers can't beat this premise. Now, logically...Disney would have the re-investment and future expansion of those parks at or near the top of their capital investment and planning strategies.

But let's face it: they don't. I have no confidence that we will ever see the kind of investment and expansion that those two parks need to draw full day crowds. Never. some new toys...rehabs and new fads put into stores...but not real development as in the california adventure repair or even the magic kingdom fantasyland upgrade.

I have no doubts that this is intentional...they want people to funnel into EPCOT and MK at night because there are higher profits to be yielded from what they built and developed there 30 and 40 years ago. I have no illusions.

but i wouldn't think that somebody of the walt disney mindset would be ok with that....build it right or not at all. those two florida locations are not right - no matter how much you like the "detail" of animal kingdom (a popular excuse/ delusion of those that seem to want to defend the shortcutting of it)

But hey...what do i know?

remember also that the only "duplication" that Walt "allowed" Roy to do was the MK in Orlando....no others existed before they died. And i don't really know if you understand the dynamic quite right. all biographers seem to indicate that Walt was the little brother (though more charismatic) who kinda begged his older brother to get the money for his indulgences (the disneyland tv shows to fund Disney with ABC being a notable one)...i firmly believe that that was the case: Walt was an overgrown child with not nearly as much care for the money that he spent as he should have had...

much like my wife ...but being Disney fans - we all wouldn't have wanted it any other way.

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

i think you hold somewhat of a romantic notion that probably would've ran into the brick wall of reality somewhere not too long after the 60's with the Disneys...
...remember they almost bankrupted the thing in the 80's...and the ridiculous (and still somewhat secretive) actual costs of EPCOT Center had alot to do with that. In most ways...that was the last time disney "footed the bill" for "doing it the right way or not at all". they had financial partners for what i would consider the 3 parks since EPCOT to open that were done the right way.

so really...from where i'm sitting...that idea died not too long into the future after disney.

the modern disney we see now...mostly in timeshares...is a different animal. All "development" is done from a cost accounting standpoint. It is never to innovate or entertain (at least...not to the point where that is a higher priority than revenue).

Now...we get some cool stuff...occasionally they bite the bullet - as with California Adventure - and open the purse to do things we can see the benefit of frontline. but these occasions are increasingly rare.

Look at it this way...Animal Kingdom and MGM offer nowhere near the overall guest opportunities that EPCOT and the Magic Kingdom do. No matter how much you may like those parks...the simple numbers can't beat this premise. Now, logically...Disney would have the re-investment and future expansion of those parks at or near the top of their capital investment and planning strategies.

But let's face it: they don't. I have no confidence that we will ever see the kind of investment and expansion that those two parks need to draw full day crowds. Never. some new toys...rehabs and new fads put into stores...but not real development as in the california adventure repair or even the magic kingdom fantasyland upgrade.

I have no doubts that this is intentional...they want people to funnel into EPCOT and MK at night because there are higher profits to be yielded from what they built and developed there 30 and 40 years ago. I have no illusions.

but i wouldn't think that somebody of the walt disney mindset would be ok with that....build it right or not at all. those two florida locations are not right - no matter how much you like the "detail" of animal kingdom (a popular excuse/ delusion of those that seem to want to defend the shortcutting of it)

But hey...what do i know?

remember also that the only "duplication" that Walt "allowed" Roy to do was the MK in Orlando....no others existed before they died. And i don't really know if you understand the dynamic quite right. all biographers seem to indicate that Walt was the little brother (though more charismatic) who kinda begged his older brother to get the money for his indulgences (the disneyland tv shows to fund Disney with ABC being a notable one)...i firmly believe that that was the case: Walt was an overgrown child with not nearly as much care for the money that he spent as he should have had...

much like my wife ...but being Disney fans - we all wouldn't have wanted it any other way.

Well, I'm thinking you didn't really get the gist of my post or you're being very condescending. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

The Disney's repeated movie formulas on numerous occasions to refill the coffers in addition to the biggie that was MK. There are other examples, if you'd like.

I know that the status quo of Disney's beginnings could not and, in fact, did not translate out of the 70's, I was merely projecting what Walt, in my view, would have done given that status quo (and it isn't what WDW is today). Also, Disney did attempt to adhere to the basic 'Disney model' long after Walt died. It was chipped at bit by bit over time but still allowed the Disney "magic" to filter through. But after years of chipping we are now where we are creatively, which is relatively nowhere.

You've got the dynamics of the Disney brothers wrong, IMO, though this isn't the place for that discussion.

If it's my disney mindset you were questioning, then I agree that AK and MGM would never have flown under the 'do it right' philosophy, except as cash cows. I think Walt would have loved the AK concept though. These parks are perfect examples of doing things the MBA's way.

The fact is that in time Disney became a company that others dreamt of being. That classes were taught in colleges about "the Disney way". This all came at the end of Walt's life when things at Disney were spiraling out of his personal control but the model he set up, the ideals he believed in were still holding their own. Today, clowns like Eisner and even worse Iger haven't a clue of what the 'Disney way' is. This is the loss I lament and it has nothing to do with whether Walt would have approved of what Disney has become or not but it does have a lot to do with how Walt thought and dreamed.

 

[Tekneek]

I would tend to agree that there is so much that has happened since October 1971 ( i use that as the benchmark because it was the death of Roy O Disney and the real changing of the guard from Brothers business to corporation) that it is impossible to predict what might have been.

Sure. I certainly don't believe I suggested otherwise.

It walt disney had lived to be 90...until roughly 1990...his legend would have probably been destroyed....because our national and world economy and technologies developed at high speeds and there became much more potential for failures due to size and scope of what you're dealing with. I think he woulda been the "old man" left behind...and he probably would have insisted on family control...which was proven after his death to be dangerous.

I would hesitate to use the word "probably" in this context. By what do you base this on? Is it because the consistent success of the company makes it likely for massive failure to lurk around the next turn? That Walt and Roy were extraordinarily lucky to perish before their luck turned downward? Seems strange to assume they would've been done in by technological advancements when so much of what they accomplished was due to their embracing of new technology as well as the creation of their own technological innovations.

I don't know enough about the tenure of Ron Miller at the top of the company to speak on that front. I am currently looking for book titles that might assist with the knowledge gathering on that front. To that end, I hope you can recommend some good titles that might help educate me more on that time period. I know that I certainly enjoy the movie titles that came out during that period. I always enjoyed The Disney Channel near its launch, too. I know more about what happened around the ouster of Miller and the arrival of Eisner/Wells, but not much about the Miller-era, or the others between 1971 and 1984.

I don't necessarily think anybody named Disney could have survived in a publically-traded mega-media company. Roy E Disney was a family steward...not really a business leader...Diane Disney never goes anywhere near the thing...her husband almost ran the company underground and was ousted at the request of his wife's cousin...

Again, I would certainly like to learn more about Miller's tenure. He used to be attacked for Tron, but it is largely regarded as a classic these days, isn't it? The market of today has little tolerance for the kinds of risks that the Disneys engaged in, I agree on that much. In fact, that may be one of the main reasons why they have copied Disneyland so many times now when Walt never really wanted to make the clone for WDW. It's a safe bet.

so the whole thing about "the disney way" and "quality" and "brand" is really a mental ploy at this point: there is NO way to quantify this.

Of course. Quality, culture, and standards don't have entries on a spreadsheet. That's why they are the some of the first things to go.

But the benchmark i use was Mikey Eisner's unending drive to buy Capitol Cities....basically a kid that wanted to buy his first employer's business.

Didn't he try to buy NBC first? Either way, Eisner lost the plot once he made that jump. There were already concerns that quantity was winning out over quality before this, but this is probably when quality trumping all was put down for good.

It just seemed to be too much. And the parks would never be the same. It became a numbers game with some creativity...as opposed to creativity that yielded numbers.

Before, the concept was that quality would win out in the long run. Now it is all about quantity winning out in the short term and hoping you do good enough to not turn them off.

 

[gymnastgirlflips]

I'm sick of seeing the disco yeti as well. And I agree with the artical- it's very "Six Flag-ish". Six Flags is the only amusement park around where I live and I haven't been there in years just because of the quality of everything there. I would hate to see Disney get any closer to what Six Flags is.

 

[Tekneek]

I have just come across a quote from Roy O. Disney that is probably more relevant today than it was at the time he said it. At the time, he was referring to ABC and the fight he went through to buy them out of their share of Disneyland:

"They're just a dollar-minded bunch. They run the business for money first."

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I have just come across a quote from Roy O. Disney that is probably more relevant today than it was at the time he said it. At the time, he was referring to ABC and the fight he went through to buy them out of their share of Disneyland:

"They're just a dollar-minded bunch. They run the business for money first."

FANTASTIC!!!! that is perfect...i won't forget that one.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I would hesitate to use the word "probably" in this context. By what do you base this on? Is it because the consistent success of the company makes it likely for massive failure to lurk around the next turn? That Walt and Roy were extraordinarily lucky to perish before their luck turned downward? Seems strange to assume they would've been done in by technological advancements when so much of what they accomplished was due to their embracing of new technology as well as the creation of their own technological innovations.

I wasn't necessarily saying that they would have been overun by technology...all signs would point to the contrary. I think the business climate that evolved after their passing would have accelerated beyond what they could have handled. Neither were Wharton types...and they did alot of their governing based on the gut. Which is what made them what they were...but i don't know if they could have kept a handle on it as they progressed in age. I mentioned that they probably would have wanted family control - that turned out to be the wrong move. They also might have gone way too overboard with the WDW project...even more so than their successors did....and could have bankrupted the whole empire. (which nearly happened anyway) The city idea would have failed miserably....because all urban planning does to a ridiculously high extent...and the "showcase of american manufacturing" would have been an empty stripmall within years....because american manufacturing was all but shipped outta town within 20 years.

I don't know enough about the tenure of Ron Miller at the top of the company to speak on that front. I am currently looking for book titles that might assist with the knowledge gathering on that front. To that end, I hope you can recommend some good titles that might help educate me more on that time period. I know that I certainly enjoy the movie titles that came out during that period. I always enjoyed The Disney Channel near its launch, too. I know more about what happened around the ouster of Miller and the arrival of Eisner/Wells, but not much about the Miller-era, or the others between 1971 and 1984.

I too...would like a dedicated title on the subject...
But from what i've read (particularly in Disneywar, keys to the kingdom, and work in progress) he wasn't nearly good enough or competent enough to have anybody write a book about him.
Now...alot happened under Tatum, Walker, and Miller. There is no question. The Disney Channel...the launch of Disney's overseas ventures...adult oriented movies.
But the "hand-picked" disney successors fell behind and lost in the big money world of 80's economics. We all know what happened...disney was one stock transaction from being bought, stripped, and sold from scrap. then the white knights moved in. In the end...Roy E. Disney was more successful as a bit part executive than Miller was as the head honcho. but miller was a football player who married into the money...so that isn't all too shocking. And Roy O. had his feet on the ground through every deal...so again not shocking that his son orchestrated two huge moments in history: the installation and then removal of Eisner. Roy's (E in this case) contributions look more much meaningful even now than they did at the time of his death last year.
So i would argue that the dealings of the executives that did work under the disneys...in a bizarre way...prove that time would have caught up with the "magic". but it's just a theory

Again, I would certainly like to learn more about Miller's tenure. He used to be attacked for Tron, but it is largely regarded as a classic these days, isn't it? The market of today has little tolerance for the kinds of risks that the Disneys engaged in, I agree on that much. In fact, that may be one of the main reasons why they have copied Disneyland so many times now when Walt never really wanted to make the clone for WDW. It's a safe bet.

woah...Tron is a "cult classic"...which means techies like it but it still remains as a financial disappointment. throw it in with the Rocky horror picture show.
I would agree that they are far from open to new park ventures when there is real risk. sure they'll build tokyo sea when they have to beat people away from the gates of tokyo disneyland everyday. sure they'll build AK when you can see the gleam of spaceship earth on the drive in. sure they'll build california adventure on top of the revered disneyland. sure they can throw up a travesty of a studios in marne la vallee - right next to a disneyland...10 miles from the nearest crepe stand in civilization

and on and on and on....i almost half expect them to come out with a portable tower of terror that you can erect in your backyard...because not everybody can get to one of the 8 they have already built

Of course. Quality, culture, and standards don't have entries on a spreadsheet. That's why they are the some of the first things to go.

And why before too much time passes...those things might be lost altogether...a new museum of the smithsonian is gonna have to be built to house them

Didn't he try to buy NBC first? Either way, Eisner lost the plot once he made that jump. There were already concerns that quantity was winning out over quality before this, but this is probably when quality trumping all was put down for good.

he did...but he wanted nbc as an outlet....he pursued captiol cities like a rabid dog. we all know that mikey started at ABC and created schoolhouse rock, right? then on to paramont...which he would have eventually tried to buy too...if not for another big dog having it.

Before, the concept was that quality would win out in the long run. Now it is all about quantity winning out in the short term and hoping you do good enough to not turn them off.

and it is so...i would have more respect if they just made no bones about it. i can respect a "a large multimedia enterprise has to consider all factors, most notably longterm stability and service to the stockholders, before enacting any capital investment" statement that would be the truth.
but instead they rob the legacy - whatever is left of it - buy throwing around the buzz phrases as a way of screening some pretty pathetically veiled attempts at simple profit. see: FLAMINGO CROSSING AND GOLDEN OAKS


i think overall we are in agreement though

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Well, I'm thinking you didn't really get the gist of my post or you're being very condescending. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

The Disney's repeated movie formulas on numerous occasions to refill the coffers in addition to the biggie that was MK. There are other examples, if you'd like.

I know that the status quo of Disney's beginnings could not and, in fact, did not translate out of the 70's, I was merely projecting what Walt, in my view, would have done given that status quo (and it isn't what WDW is today). Also, Disney did attempt to adhere to the basic 'Disney model' long after Walt died. It was chipped at bit by bit over time but still allowed the Disney "magic" to filter through. But after years of chipping we are now where we are creatively, which is relatively nowhere.

You've got the dynamics of the Disney brothers wrong, IMO, though this isn't the place for that discussion.

If it's my disney mindset you were questioning, then I agree that AK and MGM would never have flown under the 'do it right' philosophy, except as cash cows. I think Walt would have loved the AK concept though. These parks are perfect examples of doing things the MBA's way.

The fact is that in time Disney became a company that others dreamt of being. That classes were taught in colleges about "the Disney way". This all came at the end of Walt's life when things at Disney were spiraling out of his personal control but the model he set up, the ideals he believed in were still holding their own. Today, clowns like Eisner and even worse Iger haven't a clue of what the 'Disney way' is. This is the loss I lament and it has nothing to do with whether Walt would have approved of what Disney has become or not but it does have a lot to do with how Walt thought and dreamed.

Well...we'll agree to disagree on many points....notably the dynamic between the disney brothers.

and also fundamentally on "the disney way"....america has changed and the "quality will win out" isn't compatible for the corporation that disney has become and for the world that the eisner years spanned...and through to Iger.

I would argue that Iger...though in many ways another bland hollywood suit...did acquire Pixar and placate Steve Jobs - which was the most "disney way" thing done anywhere since eisney became a two bit corner cutter and power monger in the mid 1990's. To buy the highest quality movie and story generating studio of our time is a committment to quality and excellence that Walt Disney would have been proud of...until they screw it up, of course.

but seriously - how would the Disney way work nowadays? fiarly compensated park workers working their tails off so that your every desire is addressed...and management appreciating that and not looking at it as "lost revenue"? new immersive lands and stories built to amaze kids of all ages...with no attention paid to construction cost, long-term operational cost, and revenue potential? not making sequels to movies that generate huge Wal-mart profits because it would cheapen the brand and that's "Not what walt would do?"


boy....talk about living in a fantasyland