Wonders of Life Pavilion cutting back on hours???

[cristen]

WOW! You understood what the hell I wrote on that last post? That's what I get for trying to put down some thoughts down at 2AM!!


Yes Crusader, he is responsible for the goods along with the bads. I just think right now, the bads outweigh the goods. How can I say that? Because I don't care much about the other business venues he has. I don't want them to own ABC, so whether it does good or bad, I don't care. As a matter of fact, when it does bad, I shake my head. If it ever does really good, I will be mad. Why? Because they continue to ignore the parks. And that, to me, is what Disney is all about. I care more for the animation and the parks, and good family movies. Everything else, I think, is confusing the goals of the company. So if ABC does good, I can't be happy because when I go to DL, I see it fading. DL, I think, means Disney. ABC does not. He should be more concerned with the parks and animation, not ABC, or the internet.

I also believe, and this is just my opinion, that almost any business person could have walked into Disney when he did and turn it into a financial boom. Look what he had to work with. Everything Walt had done, all he had to do is promote it right. It is when he really had to start making NEW things, creative things, that he started to falter. Yes, he has had some successes, I liked Pirates, I love Fantasmic and Believe. But I think the bads far outweigh the goods.

JMHO
Cristen

 

[KNWVIKING]

I wish everybody would do the AK backstage Safari tour. It may change your opinion of the park- if your willing to have your opinion changed,of course.

 

[PKS44]

My comments about AK had little do with opinion whether it is the most beautiful satisfying experience in the world or not-they had to do with its factual performance based on the self proclaimed SOLE FOCUS of the Disney company- "delivering growth and shareholder value." It has done neither. The argument that it is a wonderful product and the audience just does not get AK just does not matter--Disney is in the entertainment business- and in that business the audience is never wrong. That so many inside and outside Disney keep insisting that the audience is the problem portends future problems not value for this company.

 

[Bob O]

As for things getting ugly, i dont think so!!!!! I think we are having a very good discussion on this issue like we usually do and i dont think anyone takes disagreements personally here, at least i know i dont!!! If we all agreed on this board things would be quite boring!!
While changing attractions is nice, it isnt a addition to the theme park experience. So while changing lets say the Lion King or Alein Encounter is nice its not adding a new attraction and adding to the totla offerings in the park. While taking downb 20k/skyway are a take away of offering that we can visit.
And im looking forward to the Stunt Show as a postive, it equates to the removal of Hunchback which hasnt been replaced as of yet and who thinks that once the stunt show is up and running that Indy will be gone.
And while EE is a excellant addition to AK, the bottom line is it should have been in the park from day one when the park was opened, as should have BK and its addition now is just a syptom of what Roy said about building new parks on the cheap which has happened at all of the new stateside parks since Epcot but didint happen in Toyko.
Toyko DisneySeas was built to be a full park but DCA/MGM/AK werent and are prime examples of what Roy stated when he left.

 

[airlarry!]

Ditto to Vike and Bo O, this has been civil discussion, and an interesting one.

M. Crusader, I know that I am getting labeled here as painting you in the corner of defending the indefensible, but I am really not doing so, and allegiance to Ei$ner's mythological epithet as "Savior of Disney" is the real culprit.

I am chafing not at the American system of "Let's make money" (which I happen to agree with) but at the Ei$nerian system of short-term greed sacrificing long-term shareholder value and customer satisfaction (the two go hand-in-hand according to Uncle Walt). Please, please do not misunderstand my disappointment.

You took particular grief in my assertion that this decision was not one of pure unadulterated greed. Many many people (not just AV) have told us that Ei$ner is attempting to cut where he can to prop up the stock price for a big windfall.

The gauntlet has been laid down. How can one justify this decision, knowing the backstory of 10%/10% and "our job is increasing shareholder value" and other clear signs of short-term greed?

How is this decision good for the consumer, good for the company in the long run, and good for the brand name?

Some have already suggested that empty pavilions are bad for business, but I think that others have made impressive arguments that short lines in a theme park in the offseason are either (a) the norm (b) a welcome sight (c) no reason to panic and (d) a red herring.

Is that the best excu$e Ei$ner can come up with? And really, do you believe for one milisecond that Ei$ner is closing WoL because sparsely populated parks are bad show?

He would have closed down Ei$ner's California Adventure a long time ago then.

Besides, how can somebody fear that this discussion is degenerating into a street fight or an attack session...when I've already let, with 'nary a peep, some horrible insults at my favorite attraction in Epcot (Cranium Command) slip by?

 

[bretsyboo]

If EPCOT has to operate within an X budget and keeping M:S open till 9:30 means closing WoL seasonally - for the time being - then I don't view this as a pure greed money grab.

and I wouldn't argue this if it were true, but while Epcot IS running with it's current budjet, there is certainly enough money that it doesn't HAVE to be. We all know that the very little money needed is there, but they are choosing not to spend it why? bottom line....or in other words a pure greed money grab.

Do I blame Epcot management? Not necissarily, it may well be that this is what they HAVE to do given the budjet they received, no I blame whomever gave them their budjet, meaning I'm looking Weiss on up (especially since WoL going seasonal had to be approved by Weiss). Al's a good personable guy, I like Al a lot, and I doubt that this is his fault as he is probably given the same constraints from the higher-ups. I don't however see him fighting tooth and nail for this, and for that I'm disappointed.

Back to the point, does anyone disagree that the money to keep it open isn't there? They kept it open in 2002 after september 11th...I doubt it was much less out of date then...things are improving. When I get more money I BIGGIE SIZE, I don't go for the dollar menu.

 

[Another Voice]

"keeping M:S open till 9:30 means closing WoL seasonally"

So in other words Eisner has just sunk $100 million into an attraction that can't even pay for its own operation?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Wow...all those extra tickets, all those extra visits, all the sales from the shop, all the extra Cokes – and 'Mission: Space' has to be subsidized by closing other pavilions? All that sponsor money doesn't cover the cost of a dozen college kids at minimum wage? What a horrible financial mess you just said this new ride has become already. Not even open six months and already people are stating it's losing money big time.

I don't remember 'Test Track' being such a financial bust that Disney was forced to go savaging for labor hours. And that one has been able to operate at night too! I guess the laws of economics changed somehow.

Well at least someone has answered my question about the justification for 'Wonders of Life'. If you really want to believe that than you really have to question your "Disney is all shiny" statements you made earlier.


P.S. Does this mean 'Spaceship Earth' get bulldozed when 'Soaring Over California' opens?

 

[Bob O]

Spaceship Earth may be too small, maybe when Soarin is open they will close a whole country to save money, i mean we are in America so maybe they could use that to justify clsoing that pavilion!!!

 

[crusader]

Great discussion.

So much to address.

I'll be back. (life is calling)

But I do want to quickly respond to AV -

Of course things aren't all spiffy. They never were. They never will be. You know that better than any of us.

You want to hear my thoughts on WoL from a business perspective? Fine.

It doesn't matter. There's been a venue shuttered at Future World for as far back as I can remember which may be since Living Seas was constructed.

This situation has historically proven to have never had any impact on anything - and it won't again this time.

So, back to the philosophy which is really what the main concern driving many posters here is.

Yes, this goes completely against Walt's philosophy because they aren't refurbishing it. They are manipulating park operations to avoid increasing costs. It is not a cutback - it is a shift.

So you're right. Walt's show is not running the way he would have it. Walt's show hasn't been running the way he would have it for a very long time.

But Walt's Disneyworld continues to reign supreme as a fantastic place to vacation and enjoy because of the way he would have it.

How do you reconcile that concept?

 

[KNWVIKING]

***"I don't remember 'Test Track' being such a financial bust that Disney was forced to go savaging for labor hours. "***

Wasn't Horizon's already closed when TT opened ?

***"So in other words Eisner has just sunk $100 million into an attraction that can't even pay for its own operation?!?!?!?!?!?!?!"***

Well, if money was totally the issue, why isn't M:E & TT closed at 7:00 pm like the rest of FW ? I see it more as spending money where your guests want you to spend money.

***"If you really want to believe that than you really have to question your "Disney is all shiny" statements you made earlier. "***

Funny, I don't recall saying "Disney is all shiny" but I will say that the recent additions make it Shiny'er then the recent cutbacks make it dull'er. I'll also say that the financial results of the last year and the prospects that next year bring will allow more Shiny things to be added. But I know you don't share my optimism.

 

[manning]

It is not a cutback - it is a shift.

Are you in politics?

What's that old saying? "It walks like a duck, It quacks like a duck, it looks like a duck. It must be a duck."

 

[Another Voice]

"Walt's Disneyworld continues to reign supreme…"

I hate to be the one to break this to you – but running a business is not the same as winning 'Iron Chef'.

Nothing in the past insures success in the future. The entire thought in the post ("we're on top and always will be") is just as dangerous as it is arrogant. But it's also one that's been picked up by Disney's management as a justification for their stripping the company of value and their inability to invest. Worse to me though is that many "fans" have latched onto it as well.

They slapped Disney stickers all over Disney's California Adventure fully confident that The Disney Brand would reign supreme once again. Instead they have a park that they can't even charge for. How's that for reigning supreme?

Which pavilion was closed when 'The Living Seas' opened? Which pavilion was closed all that time? What $200 million collection of attractions, retail and food service (which 'Wonders of Life' represents) was closed back then? Which country got booted when Norway opened? My memory fails on this point. If I remember the marketing in most of the 1990's was "more to see here than ever before" – not "there's the same amount but some of it is different"?

Besides, if one is reigning supremely than why does one have to pick-n-choose which attractions are open? Can't they make money? Have Eisner's investment decisions (he is the one that gives the final green light for any new attraction) been so poor that nothing can be done to expand the parks? Is the best we can expect out of a supreme reign simple to shuffle capital around?

And what situation has proven that closed and aged attractions have no impact? If no one cares, why does Disney itself post rehab notices on its websites? Why do people come to this very board and ask? Do you think that Disney's reign is so supreme that people just go to WDW and not really care what they're going to see there?

And you still have not answered the primary question – what is the justification for closing (seasonal or otherwise) 'The Wonders of Life' pavilion? Please spell it out.


To Mr. Viking - yes, Horizons was closed when it lost its sponsor. Eisner's greed is nothing new. But it wasn't the case that you state that a new ride was such a financial bust they had to close an existing attraction just to keep the new one open.

If spending money on the guests is Eisner's goal - why is the Magic Kingdom shut down at dusk. Why isn't more of Future World open? Why did 'Hunchback' shut down? And again - why not fix things up so the guests like them instead of shutting them down.

I keep hearing a lot of excuses, but I still not hearing a lot of reasons.

 

[KNWVIKING]

AV, why do you keep saying M:S is a bust ? Are the long lines from opening till closing a sign of a bust ? Is attendance up in EPCOT because of M:S ? If so, are these additional guests buying park media- adding to the bottom line - or are they mostly Fl res AP holders dropping in to try the new ride ? As of right now , I don't think any of us here know the answers to the real bottom line at EPCOT, ( if I'm wrong, will that someone please enlighten us). Earlier I asked about if the CM's at WoL got their pink slips. Bretsyboo was quick to state their hours would be cut.... but do we know that for sure ? ( No offense Bret, your answer may be absolutely correct, but are you in a position to know the answer). Do we know the actual number of guests that visit WoL ? Forget about the mistakes of the past. Forget that WoL SHOULD HAVE been improved before it got to this point. We can't do anything about the past. But right now, WoL is a ride that isn't very popular. WDW is on the upswing, but is it a cash cow again? Should they just throw fiscal caution to the wind at this point ? Just leave it open because they can afford to lose money ? With three major capital expenditures in the works now, should they say "what the hell, let's just throw a 100 mil refurb at WoL also" ?

 

[Another Voice]

But I never said that 'Mission: Space' was a failure.

Others have said that one of the justifications for closing 'Wonders of Life' was to be able to keep 'M:S' open until 7:30pm.

That struck me a curious. It was my understanding that the new attraction was a big hit and was bringing people (and their money). Considering that a closed attraction & shop generates no profit – it would make sense that 'M:S' should be able to pay for itself whenever it is open. It's supposed to bring in more people, the shop sells merchandise to all the happy riders, and more people generates more food sales. I mean, Disney is a business and businesses don't invest money unless there's a payback.

Correct?

But suddenly that turns out not to be the case. You're telling us that 'M:S' can't even afford to pay for enough staff for an extra 90 minutes of operation. The only way Disney can afford to keep a brand new $100+ million pavilion open is to shift staff from other areas. In fact, this new pavilion has become a burden on Epcot. The park was able to keep 'Wonders of Life' open when 'Test Track' showed up. Epcot was able to keep 'Wonders of Life' open when the attendance fell dramatically after the Millennium Celebration. Epcot was able to keep 'Wonders of Life' open in the post-9/11 travel slow down.

But Epcot opens one attraction and now they are forced to close another even as attendance picks up?

That is the essence of your agreement. That WDW is so stretched for resources that it is forced to close old facilities whenever new ones open. That WDW simply doesn't have the money to keep everything running. That WDW is so poor that it justifies closing things so it can make a profit. That none of the investments is meant for expanding the parks – just simply swapping out areas that have fallen into disrepair.

That's what's you're really saying – Eisner can't make enough money from WDW.

Now you've also said that WDW is not a cash cow. Well, I don't have the figures for WDW to make public but Disney does publish the financials for the Parks group. Naturally, these numbers are mixed and will reflect the heavy financial disasters caused by California Adventure and Disney Studios Paris, as well as the very good finances coming from DisneySea in Tokyo.

Let's see how much milk we get out of cow*.

Everyone already knows that this was a good year for the studio – Nemo and Pirates in theaters, Monsters and The Lion King on DVD. In fact for the first time in a long, long the Studio unit actually brought in more revenue than the theme parks did.

But guess which group had the highest profit?

Yup, the Parks. While the film brought in over a billion dollars more in revenue (Film $7.4 Billion vs. $6.4 for parks) – those struggling little parks dropped $975 million in Eisner bank account while that "through the roof" film division only turned in $620.

Gee, I wonder you make more profit with less revenue…

Let's look at Networks: ABC, ESPN, Cable, Internet and everything else the accountants can throw in. They turned over a lot of cash – revenues were $10.9 billion. And all that revenue did turn into profit, some $1.2 billion worth. A lot of money, but something seems odd. Networks made an awful lot more revenue than the parks did, but not that much more in profit. Why?

For every dollar in revenue that Networks gets, it's able to turn 11 cents of that into profit. However, for every dollar that the parks get, they turn 15.2 cents over in profit (and this was a really bad year for the parks). Or the other way of looking at it is that for every dollar Networks earn, they spend 89 cents. For every dollar that a park gets, they only spend less than 85 cents.

Or another way - Disney is willing to spend much more making shows like 'Extreme Makeover' to get your buck than its willing to spending on maintenance and staffing attractions.

There's no law that dictates what this margin has be. There is no Wall Street mandate that says a TV network must "x" and theme parks make "y".

It's a call the CEO makes. Eisner's call is "screw the parks".

For while the parks had the roughest year in a decade, they were required to keep their margins soaring – the Studio, that darling golden child – had a margin of only 8.4 cents on the dollar. All those millions brought in from Pirates and what not, all of it spent away with only pennies to the bottom line. Is that a smart way to run a business?

So in one sense the parks are strapped for resources. But it's not a case of "close 'Wonders of Life' or lose money". It's because of insane financial demands put on them by Disney management. Screw the WDW guest (reduce costs, improve margins) so that the other businesses can be lazy (by allowing them to have lower margins).

Do the math – if Parks were allowed to run with the same margin as Networks, that would mean an extra $700,000,000 they could have spend last year.

And that's more than enough to keep the doors of 'Wonders of Life' open during the weekdays.


P.S. "With three major capital expenditures in the works now, should they say "what the hell, let's just throw a 100 mil refurb at WoL also" ?"

They actually lost and wrote off $114 million in airplane leases for United Airlines last year. Eisner certainly seems about the say "what the hell" – just so long as it doesn't go to his customers.


* - all the numbers are from the Q4 financial statement at Disney.com.

 

[KNWVIKING]

From your previous posts I got the impression you were saying M:S was a bust. From your last post I'm going to assume I had misunderstood all the others and that in fact you agree M:S is a success. If I still have it wrong, please clarify, as I'm out of logical choices.

Revenue streams: Well, of course the parks are the most profitable percentage wise. The assets are for the most part paid for. The expense is mostly limited to operation & maintenance. But I wasn't stating the parks were or were not cash cows....I was asking if they are again- I simply don't know the numbers.

And not knowing the numbers or the facts is where my "defense" - for lack of a better word- comes from. Has the cash flow at EPCOT improved to the point of being able to afford a loser pavillion ? What affect did the loss of GE as sponsor of Illuminations have on the budget ? How much does the nitely display cost ? My guess is more then the labor savings from WoL. Did EPCOT really make a cut.... or did they refuse to hire additional staff ? What does seasonal mean ? Closed half the year ? 3/4 ? 1/4 ? Is it good show to leave open a pavillion that appears deserted ? Is it worse show to close it seasonally ? If the parks made 750 mil -and I'll assume from your post this 750 is the plus/minus net for ALL parks- how much should be going back into the parks- traditionally ? Just in this country you have ToT in DCA, Soarin', Stunt show & E:E, not to mention the monies just spent to completeMcPhil and M:S, (and I'm sure there are lesser items like L&S I'm leaving out). How about the new "Wishes" display. It is awesome. And I'd imagine much more costly then the previous show.

My point is that I'm seeing major investment back into the parks. None of us here KNOW why WoL is going seasonal. But for the pennies - in the grand scheme of things - it cost to operate WoL, I'm not convinced it is just greed. And if my not seeing a seasonal WoL as a devastating "chip" is interpreted by you or others as "defending the indefensible" , that's fine with me.

Just read this on another board:

By Tim Burt in New York
Published: December 11 2003 0:52 | Last Updated: December 11 2003 0:52


Walt Disney, the media and entertainment group, on Wednesday said it was seeking significant savings from its theme parks division after warning of continued difficult trading conditions in the business.


Tom Staggs, chief financial officer at Walt Disney, said the company was looking for cost savings from employee benefit and insurance costs, which have weighed heavily on the parks arm over the past two years......
He said that higher employee benefit costs and rising spending on sales and marketing had offset increases in visitor numbers.

 

[crusader]

Nothing in the past insures success in the future.

Does that include everything Walt did?

The entire thought in the post ("we're on top and always will be") is just as dangerous as it is arrogant. But it's also one that's been picked up by Disney's management as a justification for their stripping the company of value and their inability to invest. Worse to me though is that many "fans" have latched onto it as well.

Alright, back up. It inevitably comes down to this whenever we get involved in a discussion. That's not the thought at all.

WDW reigns supreme because it succeeds on two levels - quality and service.

For some reason, you only seem to reflect on the creativity within the organization and ignore the service aspect which is critical to customer loyalty and satisfaction.

I don't doubt management is banking on its' label and has stripped the company to a dangerous level. I think CA is a very tough example to ignore - and no, I don't agree with it.

I also don't agree that the company can ever be run the way it was 40 years ago. The industry demands have increased and adversely affected the variable components including cost constraints. Everybody is charging more but nobody wants the selling price to change.

Others have said that one of the justifications for closing 'Wonders of Life' was to be able to keep 'M:S' open until 7:30pm.

Stating what the company is doing doesn't justify anything or you'd be in deep.

Sure they can staff the operation and waste money. They can also look at how much it is costing to run an empty venue and make some serious changes.

Right now they have Soarin' under construction. Fixing WoL will take a heck of alot more than a quick theatre change for Body Wars. Simulators of this sort are extremely outdated and not the least bit appealing to the majority of thrill riders (particularly given the fact that M:S and Test Track are calling us right next door) - and Cranium Command will never attract enough attention.

So what if they close it off peak. It's a loser.

 

[bretsyboo]

Bretsyboo was quick to state their hours would be cut.... but do we know that for sure ? ( No offense Bret, your answer may be absolutely correct, but are you in a position to know the answer).

Just like with the adventureland incident I have talked with many of the managers involved in the decision if that's what you mean.

Cutting hours in Jan is no new thing, the park hours are greatly diminished and so obvioulsy work hours are going to be cut.

WoL itself employs the following CM's...(I am leaving out salaried like management since this effect their pay none...and maintenance because I'm not sure what their pay is...aboviously closing WoL takes away maintenance costs but I don't know if it specifically takes away the labor costs of it)

(And I'm in a position to know all of these )
custodial-they get sectctions of the park so they simply won't go to WoL anymore, or will need as many CM's at a time to cover the same grounds.
Quick Service Food and Beverage-WDW is set up so that if youwork on QS you work them all. It takes very little training to transfer work areas.
Merchandise-Same thing, once you know one you know them all, FT employees here will simply be transferred elsewhere.
OPS-The 3 attraction in WoL are basic, count people, memorize a spiel, say it at the right times. More importantly, all of the attractions in the area are basic as well and any CM's that are not already trained to run another attraction can be easily trained in less than a week at a near by one.

Any CM's in all cases that cannot be trained or work elsewhere say due to time, and that Disney needs to find hours for (because of union rules) will simply perm greet them somewhere...meaning they put on the costume and stand out front of something all day. This is very standard practise whenver a ride goes down for rehap, goes seasonal, or closes all together. FT, international program, and college program get cut to no less than 30, and Part time and casual temps will cease to exist until it picks up or they pick up a shift somewhere.

So what if they close it off peak. It's a loser.

This of course proves that you will never understand the bigger picture, but why not one more try.

1.it's a loser is a personal opinion, I've already stated that I love parts of it.
2.you get less value for your money
3.Closing it off impacts every other part of Epcot
4.If it is a "loser" it is only because THEY failed to update it, and because THEY failed to update it they are deciding they should punish guests.

I could go on, but I really think this is going nowhere

 

[crusader]

Originally posted by manning
What's that old saying? "It walks like a duck, It quacks like a duck, it looks like a duck. It must be a duck."

More like you say tomato, I say tomahto!

Now, to get back to airlarry (great read by the way!):

Is that the best excu$e Ei$ner can come up with? And really, do you believe for one milisecond that Ei$ner is closing WoL because sparsely populated parks are bad show?

I think Ei$ner handed down the gauntlet on park cost control a long time ago and this is somebody else's answer in applying that policy. (bretsyboo has alluded to Weiss).

As far as civility is concerned, I have made a painstaking effort not to trample on the sacred ground of Cranium Command this time around! I heard you.

 

[crusader]

Originally posted by bretsyboo
This of course proves that you will never understand the bigger picture, but why not one more try.

1.it's a loser is a personal opinion, I've already stated that I love parts of it.
2.you get less value for your money
3.Closing it off impacts every other part of Epcot
4.If it is a "loser" it is only because THEY failed to update it, and because THEY failed to update it they are deciding they should punish guests.

I could go on, but I really think this is going nowhere

Don't let a short statement on my part lead to an assumption. The "big picture" ain't all that complicated.

It's a loser when nobody shows up. That's not a personal opinion.

You may get more short-term "value" in a park ticket because a loser venue stays open to provide you with another option.

But hardly anybody is taking that option, which means the company is wasting money to do this and I don't see any long-term benefit unless those dollars are utilized in a much more effective manner.

Your absolutely right about point number 4 although "punishing" the guests is a bit embellished. I don't think anybody feels punished when they embark on such a fantastic vacation. Disappointed maybe.

 

[WDSearcher]

I'm wondering, AV, what it would take for you to think that Disney was doing well. That the magic was back. Nearly everyone here, with you leading the charge, is screaming "EISNER MUST LEAVE." OK ... say he does ... tomorrow. Then what? We all know, realistically, that someone else coming in is not going to instantly turn everything around and make it the place you want it to be -- the magical memory you have that nothing can ever live up to. No one coming into Eisner's shoes is going to open every pavilion that is closed, make only good and profitable films, put ABC in first place, and fix The Disney Stores in one fell swoop. And whoever takes his place COULD be worse. "Different" does not always mean "better."

But say we go with different ... who is that person going to be, do you think? Because for all of Roy and Stan's talk about getting Michael out, I've yet to see ANYONE present a scenario of who would take his place.

Additionally, how long would you and the others give the next guy before calling him or her a failure? Jay Rasulo hadn't even moved to California yet and there was a long thread on this board about all the negative things he was going to bring in and how he wasn't going to change anything. (And please don't give me three pages on what Jay has or hasn't done. My point is that the guy hadn't had one day on the job and he was being called ineffective.)

Having read message after message of how the "magic" is gone and how the money-grubbing and low quality are destroying "Walt's dream," it makes me wonder if any amount of new attractions, new shows, refurbishing or rebuilding would be enough to satisfy. Because, realistically, to do all that rebuilding and refurbishing, things would have to be closed. And, as we all know, if something is closed, then that's less value. Now ... you're going to say that if something is closed because it's being redone or made better, that's not the same thing as closing something seasonally. And you're right. But if the base argument (which many have made here) is that if ANYTHING is closed at the parks, I should get a discount on admission, then who cares whether Disney closes a pavilion to refurbish it or to save money? Either way, a batch of people believe they are owed a refund due to less value the day they were in the park. They don't care that something else will open there in 2005, the place is empty NOW and that's not fair.

Then, after a year, the new ride or attraction opens. And nobody likes it. Disney did what you wanted -- they put in something new. But it's not the perfect, magical thing YOU wanted it to be, regardless of whether other people like it, so they still don't win. I mean, it's not like Imagineering set out to make a lousy attraction when they re-did Imagination. They didn't sit around a table and say, "What's the worst possible thing we can do here?" But still -- a new attraction opens, no one likes it, and so there's no magic left in Disney. Can't win either way.

So, tell me ... what is it that Disney needs to do to satisfy your expectations? Because I'm thinking that someone could bring Walt back from the grave and it wouldn't be enough. People would start complaining about how he's out of touch with the youth of today and that he hasn't kept up with the competition.