why is every change considered a cutback?

[Eeyore'sthebest]

And those of us that work at very large companies know that cutbacks sometimes are inevitable whether it be in services offered or the level of staffing. While it might not be enjoyable for those remaining or for the customers, at times it may be the only alternative.

 

[peter11435]

Originally Posted by peter11435
Seriously guys this is not really a cost cutting move. It is really just a change in entertainment to keep it fresh.

How do you know that this is the reason rather than cost cutting? Are you speaking with definitive knowledge or making an asumption? Who or what is therefore replacing Andymation at MGM?

They have added a new group of 5 musicians that tour the park in a landscaping truck. This would obviously be a higher cost than Andymation who required only a single paycheck. The Lights, Motors, Action, Stunt Show is also part of the Studios Entertainment budget and was nearly entirely an addition, as it did not really replace anything. Thus you have a 5 person musical group plus a stunt show with dozens of performers and dozens of CM’s and the only expense was a single performer.

 

[CarolynU]

They have added a new group of 5 musicians that tour the park in a landscaping truck. This would obviously be a higher cost than Andymation who required only a single paycheck. The Lights, Motors, Action, Stunt Show is also part of the Studios Entertainment budget and was nearly entirely an addition, as it did not really replace anything. Thus you have a 5 person musical group plus a stunt show with dozens of performers and dozens of CM’s and the only expense was a single performer.

I believe that the stunt show replaced all the actors and actresses whose contracts were terminated from the Hunchback Show, although granted it is probably more expensive to stage. So do you know specifically that the reason Andymation has not had his contract renewed is because he is being replaced by something new?

 

[peter11435]

The stunt show did not replace hunchback. The hunchback theater is still there. Also hunchback closed before the Stunt Show even made its debut in Paris. Therefore the show closed before there were any plans of bringing LMA to WDW.

It doesn't matter whether or not Disney did it because they preferred something new. The fact is there is no less entertainment then there was before, just different entertainment. One could even go as far to say that there is now more entertainment. The question is not about whether they should or should not have gotten rid of Andymation, but rather if it was a cost cutting move. Obviously this was not a cost cutting move as the DS entertainment costs have went up dramatically. Something is only a cost cutting move if the value is not replaced. And in this case the value for the guests has not only been replaced but also increased.

 

[CarolynU]

I think that it was you who stated specifically that Disney made the decision they did because they wanted new acts, so I am simply making enquiries as to whether you knew this with authority or whether it was an assumption.

 

[peter11435]

I think that it was you who stated specifically that Disney made the decision they did because they wanted new acts, so I am simply making enquiries as to whether you knew this with authority or whether it was an assumption.

What I said was that it was not a cut back, because the loss of the performers was made up for in other entertainment. It's like how you can't say that closing the Legend of the Lion King was a cut back as Michey’s Philharmagic replaced it. Therefore there was no cutback just a change. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that if one act closes and another opens that the reason was to change things up a bit and not a cut back or some other conspiracy. The only two reasons to get rid of something like these shows is to either save money (cut back) or to allow for something new (what happened here). Since these things were more than made up for with other entertainment they will not be saving any money, thus the reason for their closing was simply to allow for something new.

 

[88Keys]

Thanks, Kasmir -- I just saw the reply and was going to comment that I was misquoted. I never said my vacation was sucky -- just that cutbacks suck.

I am no expert, but by almost all acounts, the Stitch change was a slap-on and not a fundamental back-to-the-drawing-board change.

The new stunt show may have not replaced anything (although it seems like the "Hunchback Theater" is vacant) but it is a much needed attraction in a park that many posters have felt is under-developed.

Wonders of Life has been relatively crowded when I've been there (not Mission Space crowded, but I waited for both Cranium and Body Wars), so I don't cede that point.

The Living Statues have been held up by many folks (including the UOG) as a symbol of what is unique about Epcot. All we're saying is that that is a shame and that their removal was PROBABLY due to finances in some way or another. Who knows, maybe something amazing will appear in its place.

 

[CarolynU]

I am simply making enquiries as to whether you knew this with authority or whether it was an assumption.

Ok it's an assumption then.

 

[WDSearcher]

Regarding the acts in the countries at Epcot .... just as an FYI .... remember that many of the acts within the countries at Epcot are contract acts -- they are hired for a year, usually, and then decide whether to re-up their contract for another year or more. Some groups can't stay longer than a year or two due to visa regulations (this is much more strict since 9/11), some groups do a year or two and decide to move on to other gigs, some groups are great on stage and full-out problem children backstage and are not asked to come back, and some groups decide to change their act and then it no longer fits into the pavilion any more. There are a lot of reasons why your favorite acts may no longer be at WDW. It's not always a case of Disney cutting back or wanting to replace them.

 

[CarolynU]

Regarding the acts in the countries at Epcot .... just as an FYI .... remember that many of the acts within the countries at Epcot are contract acts -- they are hired for a year, usually, and then decide whether to re-up their contract for another year or more. Some groups can't stay longer than a year or two due to visa regulations (this is much more strict since 9/11), some groups do a year or two and decide to move on to other gigs, some groups are great on stage and full-out problem children backstage and are not asked to come back, and some groups decide to change their act and then it no longer fits into the pavilion any more. There are a lot of reasons why your favorite acts may no longer be at WDW. It's not always a case of Disney cutting back or wanting to replace them.

Yes this answer seems very sensible. I can fully understand this.

 

[iwaseeyore]

I am no expert, but by almost all acounts, the Stitch change was a slap-on and not a fundamental back-to-the-drawing-board change.

Based on what we were told that is 100% correct. What was marketed and was developed are two different things. You are a victim of an expectation. IMHO, the opinion of DISers needs to be taken with VERY large grain of salt. Posts are very one sided. Very rarely do you get an even balance. It's usually a pigpile.

The new stunt show may have not replaced anything (although it seems like the "Hunchback Theater" is vacant) but it is a much needed attraction in a park that many posters have felt is under-developed..

I somewhat agree with this. I miss Hunchback.

Wonders of Life has been relatively crowded when I've been there (not Mission Space crowded, but I waited for both Cranium and Body Wars), so I don't cede that point..

You will always wait for shows or rides like the two you mention. There is no way to continuosly load them. The last few times we went to WoL it was dead empty. There were no lines, no crowds. You could get on the bikes to drive through Paris. You didn;t have to wait to hit the baseball. It was sad.

All we're saying is that that is a shame and that their removal was PROBABLY due to finances in some way or another. Who knows, maybe something amazing will appear in its place.

You are entitled to your opinion and that's all you have. You have no facts that it was probably due to finances. I have no facts to prove it wasn't. the problem is you are quick to blame Disney.

 

[88Keys]

Hmmmm...


Silly of me to make the leap (on an OPINION board (for that's what boards are -- not only a place to share tips but give OPINIONS) that a corporation makes changes in parks based on finances. I know, Disney is not a money -making corporation -- they are purely motivated by the common good and Michael Eisner is next up for sainthood. Disney is LITTERED with examples of dropped expectations and incomplete ideas in the parks and I feel that much has to do with finances. Stitch, the loss of the animators at MGM, scaled down backlot ride at MGM, Carousel of Progress and Timekeeper frequently closed, Wonders of Life ignored, the whole Disney California Adventure Park, the smallness of Animal Kingdom and MGM that make them each 1/2 day parks (at least for my family), Tapestry of Nations gone and replaced with nothing, the list continues..............


All that being said, I love WDW and can't wait to go back. I think AK is one of the most beautiful places I've been to and can't wait to show that to my wife. What bugs me is self-appointed judges that rule what can and can not be posted on boards -- that is "my problem".

 

[iwaseeyore]

All that being said, I love WDW and can't wait to go back. I think AK is one of the most beautiful places I've been to and can't wait to show that to my wife. What bugs me is self-appointed judges that rule what can and can not be posted on boards -- that is "my problem".

I thouhgt the premise of Discussion Boards was to discuss. Part of that is to question, imho. I again ask, why is every change considered a cutback?

This topic was discussed on the DVC board and the take was totally different. The overwhelming response was that Disney is not in a cost cutting mode and it wasn;t felt to be a cutback.

You can blame Disney for everything. That by itself does it make true or accurate.

 

[Bracho]

iwaseeyore... I can understand why a few folks around here are not going to keep adding comments on this thread because they feel like they are being attacked by YOU.. you take a line.. quote it and then attack it..

People see things the way they see things.. right or wrong it's how they feel.. going on these boards is a fun thing, to post and to talk about thing, not to have every word you say or type ripped apart by another member, it's not fair to them.

You see thing the way you do and you feel as if you are right, as does every other member.. but to be honest, no one on this board is a Disney Board Member so no one has all the facts.. NO ONE!!!! You see a set of facts and come to one "OPINION", I see the same set of facts and might come to a different "OPINION", so now who is right??

I for one wouldn't like to come here and post my "OPINION" on something and then have someone come behind me thinking his/her "OPINION" is better or more correct then mine, taking the post apart line by line and ripping it apart. That is not what these boards about.

Now.. I could be wrong... but that is my "OPINION"

 

[iwaseeyore]

bracho,

we are allowed to post and defend our position. i've been around the dis along time, don't be fooled by the post count.

i'm sorry if you don't like my style, many don't. I'm sure I won't lose sleep over it. If you go back and look at what I've said, I've agreed on a number of points to the point whether change is good or bad but not driven by finances or whether change is Disney's fault.

Lastly bracho, should I not stand up for what I believe to be correct or should I be censored since I don't agree with the majority of the DIS. I feel I've taken my shots for being a so called defender of Disney.