A question regarding the growth of WDW

[DVC-Landbaron]

I grabbed this from another thread and thought I’d start a new one in order to get a feel for the opinions on this board after being gone for so long. Please let me know how you feel about things.

Thanks.

Oh Baron. I only expected affirmation on the Iger portion. Plus my description of Eisner was simplistic just to show that no matter how bad he may have been by the end (yes, it was real bad) the Disney decade DID at least grow WDW to what it became, on his watch, even if his motives weren't pure, or was pure greed. How's that?

So the question is, did that “Disney Decade” really exist? And no matter what you think about that, you have to admit that a whole heck of a lot of change took place then. Peter contends that:

at least grow WDW to what it became, on his watch

Are you pleased with what it has become? Do you think the resources of the company, personnel, land, capital, etc. was used the wisest way possible, or was it squandered in money grabbing, short-sighted, anti-Disney “things”? Probably a mixed bag for most. But I am curious about the current thinking of this board. So post away!!!

[mrsR123]

I'll bite: I vote glass half full.

Bottom line: I'm still chomping at the bit to go back.

[bcrook]

I visited the parks in the 70's and then in 1985, I returned to the parks in 2004. It was almost like I had planned to miss the entire Eisner period.

I had to do a little research and found this article from the NYtimes in 2005 about Eisner's "departure".

I found this quote interesting because it is in contrast to much of the discussion I read on those archived threads:

"Under Mr. Eisner's tenure, Disney grew from a small theme-park operator and movie studio into a sprawling media company." ... "Thomas O. Staggs, Disney's chief financial officer, noted that while Walt Disney created the original theme parks, they were now populated with characters from "The Lion King, "Beauty and the Beast" and "Mulan," which were developed during Mr. Eisner's tenure."

But does this legacy address the question posed> Are you pleased with what [WDW] has become?

I owned a small chain of video stores in the 1990's, and I can tell you that VHS releases and re-releases of Disney Classics during that decade dominated the entertainment world and was fueled by the meteoric expansion of Blockbuster. All of my customers wanted to own every Disney animated classic, they couldn't wait for the next re-release. Disney teased everyone by letting one video out at a time and then proclaiming to put it "in the vault" for another lifetime. Because of this new technology (vhs players) and this marketing campaign, all the Disney classic animated films were re-introduced to an entire generation of kids (my own children were heavily invested in this phenomena).

An aside that could be discussed on another day in a different thread:
I don't see much evidence today (I am a middle school teacher) of students watching the Disney classics. I know kids are watching the Disney Television programs, but I don't think they know about the classics or the mystique of Disney.

Looking back on the 90's based on that incredible strategy of hyping ALL the animated films in conjunction with the fantastic run of films (Little Mermaid etc) I would have thought that the Theme Parks would have been keeping up. When I finally made it back to the parks in 2004, I was thrilled to see that the old standbys from my youth were still there. My kids enjoyed Pirates and Jungle Cruise, the Tree House and the Raceway. Splash Mountain was incredible. No matter what we were going to have fun.

But I did notice that the Magic Kingdom park did not capitalize on that sudden demand and interest in the movies. For nostalgia the older rides still pack a wallop! So what happened in the 90's in MK?

Less than exciting:
- Mickey's Toon Town Fair
- More structured Meet and Greets
- Magic Carpets of Aladdin
- Refreshes to Carousel of Progress and Hall of Presidents
- ?? I don't know of anything else

Exciting:
- Splash Mountain (to me this is one of the great Disney rides - amazing theme, fun ride, and classic connection to music and story) But this had to have been developed before the Disney Decade (I guess that is ok).

Just using that example, I wouldn't call it a great Decade for the Magic Kingdom. And I wouldn't touch the new resort additions with a ten-foot pole after reading the Caste System proposed by the Baron in the archived threads and the discussion about the blandness of the resorts being built in the 1990s!

After watching the Documentary about Walt Disney and 1964 World's Fair I think Walt set a standard that only the strong and courageous could attain. Nobody has been able to step up yet.

[manning]

Originally Posted by bcrook

Exciting:
- Splash Mountain (to me this is one of the great Disney rides - amazing theme, fun ride, and classic connection to music and story) But this had to have been developed before the Disney Decade (I guess that is ok).

You can thank Frank Wells for this ride. It was first shown to Eisner and he said "we can't afford to build this."

It was then shown to Frank Wells and he said "we can't afford not to build this"

so the story goes.

[DVC-Landbaron]

akadada

I respect the "team of" Eisner, Wells etc because my reality (truth and reality aren't the same as you know, that's why I respect your commitment to truth) was that Eisner assembled (or was the face of) a great team and Wells to me seemed to run the place (The Tangible), while Eisner was a good face for capital markets management which seemed needed (Intangible) at the time whether we liked him or not. Please tell me #1 how I'm wrong and #2 what the solution should have been at that time, not what we know today.

I don’t object to any of the nouns in your paragraph. It’s the adjective with which I have a problem! (You also haven’t spelled his name right even once!!! It’s E-i-$-n-e-r. You should try it! IT’S FUN!!!!!) Anyway…

You say, “Ei$ner assembled a (GREAT) team.” He assembled a team. Great? I don’t know. Katzenberg was there. And he knew some good properties when he saw them and had enough sense to let Ron Miller finish Mermaid. But I don’t think Ei$ner could pick his nose let alone pick a team!! Maybe Wells had more to do with it. And what bugs me about it, is that if it was true and he did pick this GREAT team, well… They weren’t all in that fateful helicopter! What happened to this GREAT team the next day! All of a sudden they turned into brown-nosing yes-men? Every one except Katzenburg, who got the axe!!! Nah! It doesn’t happen that way. They were, for the most part, toadies and yes-men to begin with. NOT a great team!! Katzenberg and Wells made a great team. Not a Disney team perhaps, but a better team than one with Ei$ner in it!

I reviewed your thoughts on how Disney would not have allowed the Eisner evolution (which I want to also believe), but respectfully, that's AdHoc. He's dead unfortunately and so we have no idea where he would have gone. We "believe", but we don't know.

You are right. We have no idea what he would have done, EXACTLY. No one does. But we have his legacy, writings, quotes, film clips and other first hand knowledge. And most important we have his examples! His films, his technique and Disneyland!! We have his philosophy in “Traditions” (that used to be a 3 day course for every new Cast Member, until that great team you mentioned cut it down to a half a day orientation!!!!)

So you are right. We don’t know specifically what he would do. But we know the “HOW” he would do something very well. And that doesn’t take belief; it just takes research in how he did similar things. And all of that is very well documented.

Would he have been the same running a public company; what pressures would have been put on him? And, he eventually would have died, what succession plan would have been in place?

Again, none of that matters. We have the answers and examples of HOW he’d do something. And that is really all that matters. Some creative guy, and they are all over the place, says, “Boy oh boy!! I want a ride that…. (Fill in the blank)…” and then you apply Walt’s principles to it, or what I call his PHILOSOPHY!! It’s easy!!

The worst thing could have been simply Disney going public,

Ah! Wait a minute! You do know that Disney was a publically held company when Walt was alive, don’t you? And he had a harder time with investors than the faceless “wall street” that Ei$ner faced. Another Voice had a post somewhere comparing publically owned companies from the ’50s and ‘60s and those of the 2000s. It was pretty interesting. I’ll see if I can find it. in the mean time:

From "Building a Company: Roy O. Disney and the Creation of an Entertainment Empire" by Bob Thomas:

"Walt had long opposed a public stock offering, fearing that his total autonomy over creative matters might be challenged by investors. At Roy's insistence, Walt agreed to issuance of preferred and common stock in April, 1940."

The history we know is the one of Team Eisner "reality" a better place than pre-Eisner for someone my age. Perhaps not your age and reality. Eisner was the face, but I infer it was because Wells was the better man at the job.

Now, here we have a problem. How can you say that? I can understand your praise of them for DEFENDING THE MAGIC KINGDOM from those big bad corporate raiders!! But your personal experience? Really? I don’t know how old you are, but even for the oldest (or youngest) amongst us, I find this unfathomable. Let’s take a walk down memory lane, because I’m confused again!

OK, let’s see. Pre-Ei$ner we had Disneyland open in 1955. It grew steadily, but not greatly until 1964 when the World’s Fair hit and Disney had the big three in it: Small World, Carousel of Progress and Great Moments With Mr. Lincoln. (The birth of human AA figures, Tiki was first.) Then we got Pirates and Haunted Mansion soon after. That brings us to the close of the 60s.

In 1971 we had WDW open!!! WOW!! The Poly, The Contemporary, The Golf Resort, The Market Place and TA-DA!! The Magic kingdom!!! All opened on the same day!! Not bad! Soon after Space Mountain was added. A couple years later Thunder Mountain. Then in 1981 E.P.C.O.T. opened!! The single biggest private construction project EVER!! (There may be another since, but at the time, that was it!!) And three short years, more like two and a half, later Ei$ner entered.

I do not understand how you could say that Disney was a better place after Ei$ner! What happened next? Euro-Disney!! MGM!! AK!! DCA!!! YUCK!!!!!

Post Wells, I felt within a few years the spiraling, (symbolic). The parks lost their "magic" whatever reality we each want to call it. Eisner scrambled it seemed, typical Venture Capital flipper mentality.

You know, I had a boss once that was a retired Navy guy. In his history in the navy he was once the Captain of an aircraft carrier. We were working on a project and we were having a hard time having people buy into it. They weren’t overtly resistant, but on some primal level they did not want this change! He told me that this was going to be like turning his ship. Those things are so big, he said, and carried so much momentum that it took a half a day for a 90 degree course correction. And it’s fighting you all the way!! He said that this project, like any corporation would take the same time and effort. We had been rolling ahead in our “mindset” for so long, that this change in course, this change in attitude, would not happen quickly.

So how long after Wells died did you notice the change? I noticed it right away! (Heck! I noticed it before when they priced me out of the Poly by DOUBLING the cost!!) My point, of course, is that it takes time to change the culture of a corporation. And I think it happened too quickly after Well’s death to have started then. What do you think? Make sense?

The insult on Disney legacy drove me nuts. I used to think Disney (corporate) mission was to try to create a perfect place in an imperfect world. I felt and lived that when I visited. Reality, maybe not truth.

On this we agree. Wholeheartedly!!! The only bone of contention that I can see is when it started!!!

The reality is I had a darn good time in the early to mid 90's in Disney and at that time, I wasn't smart enough to perceive another way that could be better. Post Wells, not grateful. Pissed. Since then, still pissed.

Almost the same here. I always have a good time there. Well, almost always. It’s hard not to notice the UN-Walt things, but for the most part I ignore them until I get back here and VENT!!!!

I hope the edits above come out clear (as well as my thoughts). We'll see where this goes.

The edits were HORRIBLE!!! But it came out clear anyway. I think we agree more than disagree.

[MassJester]

Originally Posted by DVC-Landbaron

So you are right. We don’t know specifically what he would do. But we know the “HOW” he would do something very well. And that doesn’t take belief; it just takes research in how he did similar things. And all of that is very well documented.


Again, none of that matters. We have the answers and examples of HOW he’d do something. And that is really all that matters. Some creative guy, and they are all over the place, says, “Boy oh boy!! I want a ride that…. (Fill in the blank)…” and then you apply Walt’s principles to it, or what I call his PHILOSOPHY!! It’s easy!!

I'm not sure it's all that easy.

Walt was a creature of his time and place. His actions, beliefs and principles were in context. To assume that he would have responded to everything the same way in perpetuity with no evolution of approach and belief doesn't seem reasonable.

We talk a lot about how "modern" hotels don't bring forward theme and story, but there is little evidence that Walt would have done it differently, and some that he wasn't interested in the hotel business at all.

My point is that we do a fair amount of idealized projection that is simply that.

[akadada]

Argh! I'm angry with myself. . .getting drawn in while working. Fortunately I'm the boss. This discussion is so fluid and going too fast that I must contribute a bit because I don't want to fall behind and I hope to be offline for a couple days. (I hope I do this Quote thing right this time)

Originally Posted by DVC-Landbaron

akadada


I don’t object to any of the nouns in your paragraph. It’s the adjective with which I have a problem! (You also haven’t spelled his name right even once!!! It’s E-i-$-n-e-r. You should try it! IT’S FUN!!!!!) Anyway…

Ei$ner. . .okay, it's fun. But I kind of like money because it allows me to spend at Di$ney, so I'm torn. . .

How about E-i-S>:-(-N-E-R??

You say, “Ei$ner assembled a (GREAT) team.” He assembled a team. Great? I don’t know. Katzenberg was there. And he knew some good properties when he saw them and had enough sense to let Ron Miller finish Mermaid. But I don’t think Ei$ner could pick his nose let alone pick a team!!

He has a big nose; I think you're underestimating him.

Maybe Wells had more to do with it. And what bugs me about it, is that if it was true and he did pick this GREAT team, well… They weren’t all in that fateful helicopter! What happened to this GREAT team the next day! All of a sudden they turned into brown-nosing yes-men?

I can see why you disagree. I just learned from you that Mermaid was not his. . . but his teams'. . .

Here's what I liked about the era and why I think it was a great team (in absolutely no particular order, just in my head as it comes out and as I write I now realize "great" may have been misused):

1. Swan and Dolphin - Without S&D, there would be few if any quality restaurants on the property (I know Eisner himself didn't think of this) and no way an average family could afford fireworks view from a balcony. S&D gives folks this option.

2. Wilderness Lodge, Boardwalk and surrounding hotels added a lot more "environment" that I enjoy quite a bit and would suggest is shared opinion.

3. I like Animal Kingdom Lodge. Location sucks, but I think it was a good move to capitalize on the Lion King.

4. Animal Kingdom itself. . .hmm, if I'm honest, you're right. I never liked it and was so underwhelmed when it opened. Surprised I could go through the whole park in four hours. But my daughter, today, loves it and I see that through her engagement. Anyway, I get what you're saying.

5. I was a big fan of MGM. I loved the concept and loved the fact you could walk around that park in relative peace. I loved the backstage tours when they were actually filming things. The fireworks they used to display in front of the Theatre was top notch relatively speaking. Today, it's somewhat of an annoying and loud place. It fell apart when they put up that stupid hat. Now I don't even care to go.

6. Tower of Terror and Rockin Rollercoaster are fun. . .but to me not Disney. . .(you see here I'm circling back).

7. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't his team make the Pixar (Katz?) relationship happen?

As I write, I think through many things I didn't like. . .thus why I'm inclined to call the team with Wells and Katz different than the Eisner period. As previously written.

Every one except Katzenburg, who got the axe!!! Nah! It doesn’t happen that way. They were, for the most part, toadies and yes-men to begin with. NOT a great team!! Katzenberg and Wells made a great team. Not a Disney team perhaps, but a better team than one with Ei$ner in it!

Katzenburg as I recall was growing away from Disney and didn't like Eisner. Yes/No? So when Wells left/died, it seemed to me that he was going to leave anyway.

You are right. We have no idea what he would have done, EXACTLY. No one does. But we have his legacy, writings, quotes, film clips and other first hand knowledge. And most important we have his examples! His films, his technique and Disneyland!! We have his philosophy in “Traditions” (that used to be a 3 day course for every new Cast Member, until that great team you mentioned cut it down to a half a day orientation!!!!)

So you are right. We don’t know specifically what he would do. But we know the “HOW” he would do something very well. And that doesn’t take belief; it just takes research in how he did similar things. And all of that is very well documented.

Wow you know a lot!

Good points. .. would you be willing to start a sticky or a new post with the following recommendations/resource locations of (maybe it was already started) (or perhaps DisBoards makes a new Subsection)

• Legacy
  Writings
  Quotes
  Film Clips
  First Hand Knowledge
  Three Day Course Curriculum if available
  How's

I have to think about whether it takes "belief" v relying on the research. I recognize what you say above and believe you. . .truth v. reality is the hard part for me and maybe others. Most folks converse with someone like you relying on our reality/experience/biases, etc and not necessarily on the truth you clearly have a lot of, which is why folks intentionally or unintentionally default with either belief or agnosticism.

I believe, but it's clear here I need more truth awareness.

Again, none of that matters. We have the answers and examples of HOW he’d do something. And that is really all that matters. Some creative guy, and they are all over the place, says, “Boy oh boy!! I want a ride that…. (Fill in the blank)…” and then you apply Walt’s principles to it, or what I call his PHILOSOPHY!! It’s easy!!

No disagreement. I think like this with my own work. It's a good way to live.

Ah! Wait a minute! You do know that Disney was a publically held company when Walt was alive, don’t you? And he had a harder time with investors than the faceless “wall street” that Ei$ner faced. Another Voice had a post somewhere comparing publically owned companies from the ’50s and ‘60s and those of the 2000s. It was pretty interesting. I’ll see if I can find it. in the mean time:

From "Building a Company: Roy O. Disney and the Creation of an Entertainment Empire" by Bob Thomas:

"Walt had long opposed a public stock offering, fearing that his total autonomy over creative matters might be challenged by investors. At Roy's insistence, Walt agreed to issuance of preferred and common stock in April, 1940."

yes, aware of that. I was referring to Walt's feelings about going public, which is why I made the comment.

Now, here we have a problem. How can you say that? I can understand your praise of them for DEFENDING THE MAGIC KINGDOM from those big bad corporate raiders!! But your personal experience? Really? I don’t know how old you are, but even for the oldest (or youngest) amongst us, I find this unfathomable. Let’s take a walk down memory lane, because I’m confused again!

OK, let’s see. Pre-Ei$ner we had Disneyland open in 1955. It grew steadily, but not greatly until 1964 when the World’s Fair hit and Disney had the big three in it: Small World, Carousel of Progress and Great Moments With Mr. Lincoln. (The birth of human AA figures, Tiki was first.) Then we got Pirates and Haunted Mansion soon after. That brings us to the close of the 60s.

In 1971 we had WDW open!!! WOW!! The Poly, The Contemporary, The Golf Resort, The Market Place and TA-DA!! The Magic kingdom!!! All opened on the same day!! Not bad! Soon after Space Mountain was added. A couple years later Thunder Mountain. Then in 1981 E.P.C.O.T. opened!! The single biggest private construction project EVER!! (There may be another since, but at the time, that was it!!) And three short years, more like two and a half, later Ei$ner entered.

I do not understand how you could say that Disney was a better place after Ei$ner! What happened next? Euro-Disney!! MGM!! AK!! DCA!!! YUCK!!!!!

I'm not as old as you think. . .

MGM - see above.
AK - see above, I'm converted now.
Euro Disney - I have no experience with.
DCA - same.

I see what you mean.

So how long after Wells died did you notice the change? I noticed it right away! (Heck! I noticed it before when they priced me out of the Poly by DOUBLING the cost!!) My point, of course, is that it takes time to change the culture of a corporation. And I think it happened too quickly after Well’s death to have started then. What do you think? Make sense?

Exactly one year. I was at WDW (Poly) the day he died. We went back one year later and couldn't believe the "little things" in the park that were being ignored. Gum on the ground. Light bulbs out. Our hotel was broken into. . .

On this we agree. Wholeheartedly!!! The only bone of contention that I can see is when it started!!!

Agreed.

Almost the same here. I always have a good time there. Well, almost always. It’s hard not to notice the UN-Walt things, but for the most part I ignore them until I get back here and VENT!!!!

I'd like to be more like you. What's the secret?

For me, my great joy is seeing my daughter love it! She has no frame of reference.

My big fear is the Disney Princess phenomenon. It's a hell of a fight. I think the concept on the surface is fun, like GI Joe was fun, but Disney is making little girls into adults and many parents are allowing it. Make up? Nail polish? on 2-10 year olds. ***! It doesn't need to be that way. We don't allow that, even though we allow the fantasy of being a princess, meet and greets, etc. . .another topic I suppose, but that's today's battle with my daughter, a balance of the great classic movies v today's princess hip hop silliness.

The edits were HORRIBLE!!! But it came out clear anyway. I think we agree more than disagree.

How did I do this time?

[bcrook]

Originally Posted by mrsR123

I'll bite: I vote glass half full.

Bottom line: I'm still chomping at the bit to go back.

You gave me a false sense of security to jump in here, and then you bailed! What's going to happen? A Baron attack?

[mrsR123]

Originally Posted by bcrook

You gave me a false sense of security to jump in here, and then you bailed! What's going to happen? A Baron attack?

sorry! I had a lenthy post with bullets and paragraphs, and then i reaad the 2001 Eisner thread and AV smashed all my thinking-- along with the Baron. So I deleted the whole thing. I'll come back and re-do it; I promise.

We Disney-loving middle school teachers have to stick together.

[DVC-Landbaron]

I looked at all the value pix. I now get that they were trying for a mid-century modern streamlined look in the Pop rooms. I wish they'd used the classic toys of that era instead to bring fun into the rooms.

Just wondering. Is the following equation true?

“Classic toys” decorations = Disney experience

I think it should be written…

“Classic toys” decorations < Disney experience

But maybe you disagree.

[mrsR123]

So here's the thing. The "Disney Decade" was now 20 years ago-- at least the beginning of it. We have some hindsight, and I think it did revitalize the company overall. My recollection was backed up by the list of animated feature fims released that is in that 2001 thread. (I had never read that, btw, because I didn't start coming here until early 2002, I think.)

I'm a lowly school teacher, but my understanding of how business works is that the CEO gets to take a lot of credit for what happens under his watch. Eisner oversaw a lot of good stuff. Should more credit go to Wells, or Katzenburg? Maybe. But it was Mikey on TV...

We also have to, at this point, evaluate what we ACTUALLY GOT, not what we might have had, or should have had. Overall, there's not that much of the expansion that I think we would be better off without.

1) Pop is just ugly. The rooms are too small for what they charge and the decor contributes to the idea that theming=decoration. It makes me sad to read people say they don't get "that Disney feeling" as one poster put it some years ago when they stay at one of the themed resorts other than the values. If Pop were truly themed, it would look like a typical motel room of each time period would have looked, not have giant bowling pins outside or due respect to PP above, yo-yo's for drawer pulls...

2)Hester and Chester's area is probably a pretty faithful replica of a traveling carnival, right down to the pavement lines. Now whether that was a theme they had any business doing is another story...

3) I do think the DVC expansion has been a money grab. Don't get me wrong: I loved staying at BLT, but the finishes they used are not holding up and will have to be replaced earlier than the owners are going to want to pay for. It's ludicrous to me the prices they are asking for new points currently and it makes me very appreciative of my 2004 OKW resale.


The things that most disappoint me are actually from the mid to late 2000's. Do we blame Eisner for those? or his successors? The Living Seas with Nemo is not good enough. I miss the real Figment. Stop messing with SSE...

But in the last couple of years I'm seeing glimmers again. The attention to detail in FLE looks promising and the reviews have been pretty good. Carsland has been very well received-- may we please have some of it at WDW?

Surely I'm coming up on the space limits, so bottom line: I think we're better off than we were and I can't wait to go back.

[Q-man]

Originally Posted by DVC-Landbaron

Just wondering. Is the following equation true?

“Classic toys” decorations = Disney experience

I think it should be written…

“Classic toys” decorations < Disney experience

But maybe you disagree.

I'm looking for fun and immersive experience from Disney. Not a faint homage to mid century modern decor in a any motel, on steroids, setting. I found the interior and exterior theme coordination at the Pop lacking. I grew up in a mid century modern with Scan. design furniture and didn't get that theme when I was there. What do you think most value vacationers are getting out of the experience?

Of course nostalgia for the toys of the era I grew up in could be clouding what is left on my brain as I'm now envisioning a Toy Story, or maybe a Cars' Wheel Well Motel, motif being the answer.

[DRDISNEYMD]

Originally Posted by DVC-Landbaron

I grabbed this from another thread and thought Id start a new one in order to get a feel for the opinions on this board after being gone for so long. Please let me know how you feel about things.

Thanks.


So the question is, did that Disney Decade really exist? And no matter what you think about that, you have to admit that a whole heck of a lot of change took place then. Peter contends that:


Are you pleased with what it has become? Do you think the resources of the company, personnel, land, capital, etc. was used the wisest way possible, or was it squandered in money grabbing, short-sighted, anti-Disney things? Probably a mixed bag for most. But I am curious about the current thinking of this board. So post away!!!

~I'm going to have to read the other thread sometime later -- in order, to gain a broader perspective on this. But I will say -- just off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure I agree with the Pirate.

~Disney under Iger is reactive. Iger's leadership sort of emulates that lucky "in line" relative who finally chances upon the opportunity to manage a fortune built by those who preceded him. I sense a lack of discipline, as well as a lack of respect for what it took to build this vast Disney empire. So, the philosophy of "creating" & "innovating" & "plussing" is abandoned altogether -- and replaced with what seems to be "let's go shopping" -- "our competition did this, so we'll just go & buy that."

~With Eisner, Disney was more along the lines of -- "what competition?" I've seen a lot of "gimmicks" -- too many -- under Iger's leadership -- decisions I once thought were well "beneath" Disney, are now commonplace. I've lowered and adjusted my expectations from Disney, as a result -- just so I could stop complaining and continue to be excited about my Disney vacations.

~Disney under Eisner was proactive. Eisner set Disney up in every way to succeed. The parks just needed to be maintained & "plussed." Instead, they were just neglected -- enter Harry Potter -- and Disney has been playing "clean up" and "catch up" ever since -- it's embarrassing.

~I don't dislike Iger, there is something likable about him, but I think Eisner was better. I don't find it necessary for Iger to step down, I believe he finally "gets it," in regards to the theme parks & resorts division -- at least, it's a start -- albeit a very late one. With that said, Disney as a whole has done very well under Iger, he's modern thinking & quite stylish, too -- that's good for Disney's image (branding power).

[Q-man]

That old linked thread is interesting. I'll go OT on this thread instead of bumping that 10+ year old thread up. I stayed at the PC for a couple nights last fall and what really struck me was the lack of theme inside the room. Is using yo-yos for drawer pulls or towel hooks, mini hulahoops for shower curtain rings, or maybe wiring some frisbees together for a lampshade that expensive? Vaguely Scan-design mid century modern tribute hotel furniture, a Disney print, and Mickey pattern bedspread and shower curtain was it. Is Art of Animation the only value with the theme convincingly carried into the rooms?

Edit- I looked at all the value pix. I now get that they were trying for a mid-century modern streamlined look in the Pop rooms. I wish they'd used the classic toys of that era instead to bring fun into the rooms.

[mrsR123]

Do any of you read Kevin Yee? There's a blog entry he wrote chronicaling the decline by degrees at WDW. He pretty effectively shreds anything I have to say about the state of the parks.

Here's a link to a TPAS thread where someone cut and pasted the text:
http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=3048082

sigh