A question regarding the growth of WDW

[Peter Pirate 2]

Originally Posted by DVC-Landbaron

Just when I had things going in the general direction of the theme of this thread, in comes my friend the Pirate, out of left field somewhere, to muddy the waters!! Instead of talking about Walts philosophy of HOW to do something, he brings up what Walt would want to do!! VERY FRUSTRATING!!!

I already conceded the point that I have no idea what Walt would have wanted to do. I said that in my response. Yes. YES!! YES!!!!! He WANTED to build EPCOT. Not what we have but the whole bleeding city!! Yes! We understand that.

But that wasnt the question. The question was, if (and I dont care what the reason was. It could be Roy needing financing, it could be his daughter mentioned a place she stayed, or it could be he dreamed a dream that a place called Pop Century would blight his precious land (how about that for a futuristic nightmare!!) It doesnt matter). But IF he got it into his head to build a resort HOW would he do it? Some say we will never know. But I think we have a pretty good idea. Would it be like the Floridian or like the Asian? Like The Beach Club or like the Persian? Like a value (take your pick) or like the Venetian?

And the funny thing is you agreed with me (unless that was your intention). You said:


Yes! You see it too! It would have been built under Walts philosophy. And that would indeed have been SPECTACULAR!!! Certainly NOT what we have.

I was not tring to disagree with you, my friend. Just postulating on MassJesters post, wondering what you guys might think.

I may be obtuse but I'm not tying to be schizophrenic, I just am.

[YoHo]

Originally Posted by DVC-Landbaron

OK. I finally finished your post.


NO!!!!! That is exactly opposite of what YoHo said! He said:

To be fair, Media Networks did generate more revenue than Parks last year. 19 billion (If I read the 10K correctly)
versus 12.

Both of which lead the Entertainment division (Movies) by a substantial amount.

If that is our measure of success then the greatest thing Michael Eisner ever did was buy ABC/Cap Cities. (aka ESPN)

Of course, it took Iger to make ABC a good network. 10 years ago we did nothing but bemoan that purchase and how stupid it was. Turns out it was only stupid because Eisner was the one in charge. (from a sharp pencil point of view anyway.)

[YoHo]

Originally Posted by pilferk

And so, as it was your right to set your criteria in defining what you base your opinion on (again, as the East German Judge, IMHO)....so it is mine to disagree with them.

Which is why I disagree with the analogy.

So, there you go.

Actually, you have no right to disagree with the criteria on which I base my opinion unless that basis is factually wrong ie I claim a fact that isn't a fact. I did not do that. You have every right to present your own opinion with your own criteria. And then we can perhaps argue about the validity of our criteria.

But that's not what you have done.

This whole portion of this thread is based on a list of "notable" attractions. I sorted the list and when someone asked why SM is ragged on (it isn't, I'm probably one of the few that is going to pick this nit) I presented my logic.

You can disagree with my logic all you want, but I do not understand what you hope to accomplish by ridiculing my analogy. Yes, I have a bias. I set that as part of the ground rules for my opinion? Why do you feel necessary to undermine that? It's not very good debate tactics.


I assume, that you would suggest that in this case, story source is not relevant and therefore, there can be no significant distinction between the attractions in question.

I disagree, but it's a minor quibble in the grand scheme of the failings of Disney post Miller.

[YoHo]

Originally Posted by DRDISNEYMD

~You see DCA as fixed, I see it as enhanced." There would be no Carsland if there were no DCA. The would be no "Carsland" if there were no "Cars" (the release date was pushed back but the project began with Eisner). Iger built four rides - test track on steroids and three lackluster kiddie rides. Eisner built three theme parks and Disney cruise line. Not even close.

I'm not sure, maybe you've mentioned this before, but did you ever go to the original DCA? I have and let me tell you, it was more magical as a parking lot.

I'm not sure fixed is the right word and enhanced is a better one, not because I agree with you though. In fact the opposite, the place is so bad that the 1billion spent wasn't enough to fix it. it only enhances it.

Of course on the other hand, from a purely financial standpoint, it is most assuredly fixed. Prior to this year, DCA had NOBODY entering it except the occasional APer looking for a rest and short food line. Now its actually doing huge attendance. If that isn't fixed then I don't know what is.


~Disney wasnt all that prelevant for me, prior to The Disney Renaissance speared by Eisner.
~Fair enough. Im not suggest that Disney was never introduced to the masses prior to Eisner . I guess that came out wrong, so I apologize. Im not a "Boomer" so it could be a generational thing. I know Disney was a household name long before Eisner. Growing up, Disneys marketing was geared more toward my parents and grandparents. I remember the campaigns and they all had this message, that the new Disney was just not for kids anymore, then they would show grandparents dining and dancing all night.

~Disney didn't become relevant for me until The Little Mermaid was released, which was the start of the Disney Renaissance. Thats when I started to notice Disney in a big way. I couldn't wait for the next new Disney movie to be released and once the Lion King hit the cinema, I was hooked. Then, just when I thought Disney was done, they released Toy Story and I was hooked again!

~When Disney turned the castle into a cake, I thought it was so awesome! Today, I look back at the castle cake in horror, lol. I just had to get to Disney World -- I couldn't wait to see DHS, AK, Disney Cruise Line, Typhoon Lagoon, Blizzard Beach and the new resorts. Disney was everywhere, so I might be just a tad bit guilty of jumping on Eisners bandwagon.

Fair enough, I was born after Walt died. I didn't grow up watching the Mickey Mouse Club and wearing a coon skin cap either, we all have our biases.
I want DTD destrioyed and Pleasure Island returned to the glory it was when I went to WDW at 21.

My first strong attachment to Disney was "Wonderful World of Disney" on Sunday night. Specifically I remember Michael Eisner walking on the beach on Discovery Island discussing Swiss Family Robinson as the Contemporary resort came into view (I'd been to WDW before this and been to Disney movies, but I was just a toddler, this was the first attachment) So I GET having an attachment to Eisner's Disney.

BUT, the fact that that is what my memories are SHOULD NOT excuse me from knowing the history of this company and being able to step back and take the whole thing in from the beginning and do some critical thinking.

I like Eisner, because he was in charge when I learned about Disney is a perfectly valid thing to say, but it is NOT sufficient in a discussion about the history and operating philosophy of a man and a company that was a household name, famous world wide decades before you were born. There is and was so much going on here that should be addressed if we're going to discuss what was done right or wrong.

Eisner's walking on Discovery Island and piquing my interest doesn't excuse the many many many mistakes he made. It doesn't make up for Roy E.'s family squabbles. It doesn't make any of it all right.

[MassJester]

Originally Posted by Peter Pirate 2

Although Walt did give his stamp of approval to MK he was not too thrilled with the idea as much more than a cash cow, which isn't very "Disney" now was it? But much as folks want to ignore it, Walt was not adverse to using this tact.

Walt was stoked for his version of EPCOT, which as you know was going to be more Celebration than the Epcot we received, oh to be sure my use of Celebration is only to install the real world vision Walt was going to go for. Certainly EPCOT was going to be much, much more than a development.

My point is that Walt had already distanced himself from cartoons, feature films, tv and theme parks. His time was being consumed by urban planning (EPCOT). I will try to get my hands on the source for this theory.

This was precisely my point -- context is not irrelevant. Not only were Walt's visions and goals changing over time (and how could they not), but the realities of running a company have changed.

I like the WWWD threads. I found AVs threads interesting in the past. The most interesting aspect has been those parts of the discussion that compare what we have today and where it could go. Less interesting is the hand wringing about about past decisions. Somewhat fantastical are the assumptions that because Walt did X in 1960, we know that he would do X again in 2013.

[YoHo]

Most of AV's stories revolved around the Walt like ideas that imagineering had and how Eisner crushed them under his boot-heel.

See Buffalo Junction and the more ambitious AK version of it.


Also, interesting tidbit about MK. Walt intended for very very few of the Disneyland atttractions to be present in MK. Rides like Snow white and Peter Pan were supposed to be replaced with alternates from different films. Pirates was never supposed to be in MK. Western river was.

So the MK we have today isn't even Walt's vision. It's Roy and Card's fear.

[raidermatt]

Originally Posted by MassJester

This was precisely my point -- context is not irrelevant. Not only were Walt's visions and goals changing over time (and how could they not), but the realities of running a company have changed.

I like the WWWD threads. I found AVs threads interesting in the past. The most interesting aspect has been those parts of the discussion that compare what we have today and where it could go. Less interesting is the hand wringing about about past decisions. Somewhat fantastical are the assumptions that because Walt did X in 1960, we know that he would do X again in 2013.

Again, the point isn't WHAT he would do, it is HOW he would do it. The standards he would place on whatever he did. His business philosophy, his creative philosophy.

In that sense, context is absolutely irrelevant. There is no basis whatsoever for assuming he would change those parts of his philosophies.

The issue is getting caught up in "What Walt would do" vs. "How someone using this philosophy would do it". The first is folly, the second is a legitimate case study.

[pilferk]

Originally Posted by DRDISNEYMD

~Great post pilferk. You gave me a lot to think about!

~I see. So, if I build a brand new house with only two furnishings  a couch & bed, knowing I will eventually add more quality pieces as time progresses -- this by your account, is a "failure" citing lack of substance. By this logic, youre suggesting its best to wait until I collect all of the furnishings, decor and artwork before I begin construction  even if it will take years to fully acquire all of the pieces and plans to construct are put at a severe disadvantage, remaining vulnerable to life being any unforeseen event that can disrupt or delay construction  financing, weather (natural disaster), war, unemployment, labor disputes, litigation, civil unrest, shortages in raw material(s), etc. In contrast, there are no conditions that could prevent me acquiring furniture and art.

See, that's a bad analogy. A house is someplace YOU, personally, are going to dwell for years and years. The only person you're really inconveniencing is you, if you wait to furnish it. And, without furniture, it still is a fully functioning house (you have plumbing, windows, walls, electrical service, etc). It's just not as comfortable.

This is more akin to building an apartment building. You put up some walls. But you leave out doors, plumbing, electricity, fixtures, windows, carpet/flooring...basically, you've assembled something you can roughly call an apartment building.

And you start renting out units, with promises that you will, eventually, someday expand. And you know it will be an inconvenience to your tenants when you do...but them's the brakes. Oh, and you're charging the EXACT SAME rent that you charge in your luxury highrises a couple blocks away.

So, yeah....I don't think that's such a great move.

~There was a time when no one desired to travel. Disney cancelled construction right in the middle of completing Pop Centurys Legendary Years, abandoning the project altogether! It was quite odd; given the framework was already established! It must have been awful for Pop guests to look that unsightly blight everyday on vacation! It took twelve years for Disney to finally complete what is now Art of Animation.

I'm not sure I see your point in that. It's all true. But it doesn't change the lack of substance in both Pop and AoA. But this goes back to the "decorated" vs "themed" discussion.

~Disney Hollywood Studios, Typhoon Lagoon & Pleasure Island all opened in 1989. Later that year, DHS adds the Indiana Jones show & Star Tours! You see DHS as a "shell" of a park; I see DHS as huge accomplishment and a platform for growth, innovation and expansion.

Which opened with no substance. And needed to be "fixed". I think that's been adequately demonstrated, actually.
A "platform for growth, innovation and expansion" sounds like marketing speak for "unfinished", to me. And not in the "forever unfinished' Walt-ism, either.

~I went to Animal Kingdom the first year it opened and I can only remember seeing"Its A Bugs Life" and the safari. But, the park was so beautiful and so new; everyone was excited for the unique experiences! Likewise, with DHS; I rode ToT, The Great Movie Ride and Star Tours. There was no Rock n Roller Coaster, Toy Story Mania, or night show; but we had so much fun!

I, too, was at AK the first year. I, too, had fun. But then, we've covered how AK is, maybe, "my kind" of park..but it doesn't seem to pull the masses in, in huge numbers. You can check the annual attendance figures to see that. And listen to the conversations here, and in other "tour" type forums, that all peg AK as a half day park, at most.

Again, I think we need to talk about separation. You can go to an unfinished park and have fun. I'm sure there are people who enjoyed DCA even in it's initial "broken" state, for example.

That doesn't make it right when you open a park (DHS) with precisely 2 working attractions and charge full gate price for it. Just because you will find people who will pay that price doesn't mean it doesn't harm your brand, ultimately, to charge it.

Whether patrons could find a way to "have fun" isn't really relevant. I know it seems like it should be, but....not when we're just talking about substance vs brand.

~I see your point. If you were to judge the parks by their own individual merits then DHS & AK may appear to fall short, in contrast to MK, but collectively they exceed expectations. My vacation is at Disney World. I dont view my experiences at DHS, independent of Magic Kingdom. I view my experiences as an "addition to" or as an "extension of" MK. Honestly, Epcot is my least favorite park, but still a favorite.

But..that's not the way Disney is charging you. It IS exactly the way they want you to think of it. That's their marketing and "guest conditioning" kicking in (and I don't mean that as a dig..I'm right there with you dolling out my money to them).

The fact is: They are 4 different, separate, gates. You do not buy discounted tickets/add ons to enjoy AK or DHS. They are part of the "base ticket" experience. They should provide equivalent experiences, in terms of substance and quality.

I expect less of DisneyQuest and the Waterparks. Those ARE add ons.

~You see DCA as fixed, I see it as enhanced." There would be no Carsland if there were no DCA. The would be no "Carsland" if there were no "Cars" (the release date was pushed back but the project began with Eisner). Iger built four rides - test track on steroids and three lackluster kiddie rides. Eisner built three theme parks and Disney cruise line. Not even close.

3 theme parks that were broken and/or unfinished and DCL, yes.

And I'm not saying Iger is the savior, either. But I look at the SUBSTANCE of what he created (vs a large quantity of much less substance), and I'm a little more hopeful. Not a lot, but a little.

~Im not sure Eisner insisted on homogenized merchandise, maybe he was sold on it by an exec. I dont know if the Disney stores were profitable, but selling retail in a mall setting is super competitive. Retail is a very hard business, and if Disney went the way of Wal-mart, then I would imagine their core demographic being turned off. Ive never shopped at a Disney store, ever. I would walk right by them, so I see your point. If you say Eisner botched the Disney stores, Ill have to take your word for it. Have the stores fared any better with Iger? What was the alternate course.

They have fared better, actually.

Eisner, once they had completely botched the stores, sold them to another company: The Childrens Place. They almost bankrupted themselves by buying, and then trying to run, them.

Disney bought them back under Iger. They've undertaken a complete (and pretty interesting) re-do of the stores, both in terms of appearance AND in terms of the merch they carry. It's still not the boutique level experience that they started with, but it's coming closer. Last set of numbers I saw, in the most recent annual report, shows their numbers improving quite a bit. I don't think they're profitable, yet (they're still paying off the capital expense of the redos), but they're getting closer than they have been since the early years.

~Disney wasnt all that prelevant for me, prior to The Disney Renaissance speared by Eisner. The three new gates under Eisner are DHS, AK, and DCA (I didn't say Epcot). I think DHS & AK are a wonderful additions to Disney World. The parks need to be continually plussed, that was Walts philosophy.

I would suggest you were likely in the minority. Maybe it was your upbringing or region or age..I don't know. But I can promise you that Disney has been largely in the public consciousness since the 50's (at least). They DID fade a bit in the late 70's...largely after Walts death..but not THAT far.

~I stayed at Pop Century for one night & it was just awful. The room was tiny, run down and filthy(pre-refurb). We had a car waiting first thing in the morning to drive us straight to the Poly. With that said, Ive never had a properly clean room at Disney, I bring items to properly prep the room before settling in. I only stay Deluxe CL, the majority of my stays are at the Poly with lagoon/theme park views. Its not a big deal; its just meh, to me. The Poly pool is just okay, I love the volcano, but it gets overcrowded very quickly, too small for a resort of that size. The cabanas are a nice addition, though. But, I like AKLs pool way better. I will say, that I love the lit torches, tiki music and lush grounds. It annoys me to no end that the monorail is so unreliable, and there are chunks of concrete that fall from the beams. CR is so cold and sterile, with one of the worst pool layouts I have ever seen. The monorail going through the lobby is the magic at this resort for me. The Grand Floridian is beautiful but the rooms dont appeal to me. I just cant get worked up over the existence of the values. Theyre bright, colorful, & fun for many people. I spend very little time at the resorts. the deluxes are all that, they're just a little more tolerable, imo. The CMs are great, I have to give them credit. So, I guess the values serve their purpose. I dont know about the decorations vs themes comment. I havent thought of it in that way. Ill have to think about that comment.

See, and that's the misconception. I'm not worked up over the existence of the values. I'm not too keen on the execution of the values. They're a budget motel with enormous decorations on the grounds. Yes, they serve a purpose...they're just not all that much differentiation between those, and, say, the Nickelodeon hotel. Except, of course, proximity to WDW.

Again, part of this goes back to the other discussion: decorated vs themed, and other (more substantive) ways that Disney could stratify their hotel offerings. I don't want to rehash here.

What did consumers want  specifically? How does a brand become stronger and successful with no substance? I would like to know specifically, the kind of products you are referencing.

In terms of Disney, consumers wanted better access to the back catalog, and more substantive offerings in both California and Florida. Now...that wasn't ALL they wanted, but it was a big part of it. At least, that's what consumers were asking for in Disney's market research when they brought Eisner on. Roy talked about exactly that when installing Eisner as CEO.

There are a number of ways a brand can become stronger and successful without actually providing as much substance as previously. I don't think you could START a company and do it...you have to first build the brand to mean something.

Bose is a good example, though. They originally built their brand on quality sound equipment...really high end, hi-fi equipment. They originally continued that, while also "shrinking" the footprint.

Then, a new executive team came in, in 1979. They completely changed direction. Lower quality components, lower quality products, slapping their name on related items, licensing/buying existing tech (where before they did their own R&D), generally reducing the substance of their products.

And they ramped up the marketing machine, to an extreme level. And they raised prices to reflect the strength of their brand (pricing them at premium high end). The brand continued and has actually grown stronger.

The products? Not so much. They're overpriced, and you're paying for the name. They're not TERRIBLE...because that would actually cause harm to their brand. But they're not of the same relatively quality they were back in the 60's and 70's.

The business hasn't suffered.

It's a privately held company, which is a bit different than Disney. But it is an example of a brand able to live off their brand, strengthen it, and not actually improve or maintain the substance of their products.

~Fair enough. Im not suggest that Disney was never introduced to the masses prior to Eisner . I guess that came out wrong, so I apologize. Im not a "Boomer" so it could be a generational thing. I know Disney was a household name long before Eisner. Growing up, Disneys marketing was geared more toward my parents and grandparents. I remember the campaigns and they all had this message, that the new Disney was just not for kids anymore, then they would show grandparents dining and dancing all night.

It depends on what Disney was selling. You only remember the marketing aimed at your folks (like WDW marketing is aimed at families with young children). I have comic books from the 1970's littered with Disney marketing...and it's aimed squarely at kids of that generation. Wonderful World of Disney was, at times, a 30 minute commercial block aimed squarely at kids. The Mickey Mouse Club was a daily commercial for the Disney brand, it's merchandise, and it's movies. It was out there. Some of it was cleverly disguised...but it was there.

[pilferk]

Originally Posted by YoHo

To be fair, Media Networks did generate more revenue than Parks last year. 19 billion (If I read the 10K correctly)
versus 12.

Both of which lead the Entertainment division (Movies) by a substantial amount.

If that is our measure of success then the greatest thing Michael Eisner ever did was buy ABC/Cap Cities. (aka ESPN)

Of course, it took Iger to make ABC a good network. 10 years ago we did nothing but bemoan that purchase and how stupid it was. Turns out it was only stupid because Eisner was the one in charge. (from a sharp pencil point of view anyway.)

I have been told, earlier, that I should point out when I agree.

On this, we agree. In spades.

ABC (the network), throughout Eisners reign, was pretty much terrible.

[rantnnravin]

Originally Posted by DVC-Landbaron

More catching up to do!

First rantnnravin:

I thought the answer to your question was apparent in my response.

Sorry, Baron, it's really not "apparent in your response"



You spend the night. It is the same if you spend the night anywhere on the property. And a “Disney Experience” while spending the night, cannot be parceled out like commodities! You can’t scale it down (or up) to meet someone’s pocketbook. It is what it is.
I disagree here. I think, just as there are A-E-ticket attractions, we CAN have resort accommodations offered at different levels. Certainly Walt's original campgrounds weren't considered on par with staying at the Poly or Contemporary - just different So my question reallyis, how can that difference be achieved without sacrificing theme/show/quality (pick your label) ?

And a Giant Icon doesn’t cut it, no matter how many primary colors they use!
I don't think you realize that we actually agree here


I am by no means an Imagineer. I do not design “stuff”. But I have read enough about Disney and Walt to know (or at least make an educated guess) at what standards have to be maintained in order to produce a Disney “SHOW”. So to say, out of hand, that it cannot possibly be done is impossible for me to say! It very well could be done.

So I don’t think it’s impossible. But I can say, it hasn’t been done yet. The “Values” are a pale version of Disney!! NO! Strike that! They are not Disney at all!! YES YES..a thousand times, YES

So it really is a question of using Walt's "standard", could the resorts be brought up to par? what would it take? Could the values be themed as they should have been at the outset? should they attempt to "fix" them ala DCA? would they?

As far as the Eisner issue - here's my take: Eisner spearheaded the cannibalization of the Disney name. When I was growing up, when something had the Disney name, you knew it was high quality. You knew it would last. You knew it was good. There was a lot of customer goodwill built into that name. What Eisner did, was substitute "made in Taiwan" goods and services and use that reputation and goodwill to sell it with the implication that it was of the highest quality standard.

Now extrapolate that to the parks...
things such as buses bringing guests to the MK entrance, bypassing the "show" that Walt created. (Hell it bothers me that the transportation used on property is a fleet of MTA buses)
or that in order to shuffle people in and out of Fantasmic, they bring them through "backstage" areas -

and of course, consider the resorts...
just because you slap the Disney insignia on it and call it 4-star, or "flagship" does NOT make it so - and the Disney that i understand it to be, would NEVER have plagiarized a hotel (let alone not even get the service up to the same level)
the Disney resorts should ALL be a cut above anywhere else i could ever go - yet, i get better treatment at the Double Tree in Times Square
Maybe instead of themes vs decorations, we should really be looking at the lost culture of exceeding guest expectations? You know, the ideals behind the Disney moniker ????

[pilferk]

Originally Posted by YoHo

Actually, you have no right to disagree with the criteria on which I base my opinion unless that basis is factually wrong ie I claim a fact that isn't a fact. I did not do that. You have every right to present your own opinion with your own criteria. And then we can perhaps argue about the validity of our criteria.

I should have been a bit more verbose in my original post (something I'm rarely accused of).

What I meant was:

And so, as it was your right to set your criteria in defining what you base your opinion on (again, as the East German Judge, IMHO)....so it is mine to disagree with them WHEN FORMING MINE.

That being said, I'd also point out: You're participating in a discussion. If you're posting, I actually feel I do have a right to disagree with the criteria on which you form your opinion. That is the process of debate/commentary on these posts. It doesn't mean you are wrong. It doesn't mean you have to change your opinion. It means I think your criteria are bogus, largely because they rig the game.

But that's not what you have done.

Actually, it's exactly what I've done. In using your own analogy, I've pointed out what I feel are flaws in the logic and in the construction. I know you disagree that those flaws exist...but, as with most conversations of this type, it isn't your mind I thought I'd change. As before, I feel I've made a strong enough point to allow the readers to form their own conclusions.

This whole portion of this thread is based on a list of "notable" attractions. I sorted the list and when someone asked why SM is ragged on (it isn't, I'm probably one of the few that is going to pick this nit) I presented my logic.

You can disagree with my logic all you want, but I do not understand what you hope to accomplish by ridiculing my analogy. Yes, I have a bias. I set that as part of the ground rules for my opinion? Why do you feel necessary to undermine that? It's not very good debate tactics.

I'm not ridiculing your analogy. I am, in my own way, explaining why it doesn't exactly work FOR ME. I'm trying, hard, to stay within it to complete a cohesive point...because I actually think it works, just not quite in the way you're applying it. Actually, reading back, I think I've done just that.

And I point out exactly how (and you just affirmed in the above post...see bolded point, above.).

You just said it. You're the East German judge. Your criteria are very subjective...not objective.

And that's fine. But don't portray yourself as the Olympic committee (which is largely supposed to be free of bias when setting those technical criteria) in a previous breath.

I just don't find it fair. Your criteria, by their nature, create an uneven playing field. So, given that your criteria aren't what I consider fair...I choose not to take into account the results of what looks to be a rigged game.

I assume, that you would suggest that in this case, story source is not relevant and therefore, there can be no significant distinction between the attractions in question.

I would suggest that things like story source are part of execution and would belong on a more subjective level. The artistic portion, not to belabor the point. I think that's going to vary wildly, in terms of your feelings about the Disney parks and what your personal preferences are. If you come to WDW to see Disney characters and IP...tying to an outside story is likely going to make that attraction more appealing to you, not less. And Disney knows their market...so knows there are some of it's customers who want that. So...saying that providing that experience makes the show somehow "less" just doesn't ring true TO ME.

But I think, ultimately, each attraction is different.

The funny part is: I agree that HM and POTC are the best of the best. SM would be a very close 3rd, IMHO.

I disagree, but it's a minor quibble in the grand scheme of the failings of Disney post Miller.

Granted, but one I think generated and interesting tangent.

[raidermatt]

~You see DCA as fixed, I see it as enhanced." There would be no Carsland if there were no DCA. The would be no "Carsland" if there were no "Cars" (the release date was pushed back but the project began with Eisner). Iger built four rides - test track on steroids and three lackluster kiddie rides. Eisner built three theme parks and Disney cruise line. Not even close.

A few clarifications...

Cars was released in 2006, same year the Disney/Pixar merger took place. So it did not begin under Eisner, it was a Pixar production, distributed by Disney.

The major DCA expansion launched in 2007 (2 years after Iger took control) included Toy Story Midway Mania, World of Color, Ariel's Undersea Advneture, The Red Car Trolley, and Cars Land. Also, there were substantial theming and decorative changes to several areas of the park.

These changes all took place after the piecemeal additions/changes made by Eisner after DCA opened as a massive failure.

[MassJester]

Originally Posted by raidermatt

Again, the point isn't WHAT he would do, it is HOW he would do it. The standards he would place on whatever he did. His business philosophy, his creative philosophy.

In that sense, context is absolutely irrelevant. There is no basis whatsoever for assuming he would change those parts of his philosophies.

The issue is getting caught up in "What Walt would do" vs. "How someone using this philosophy would do it". The first is folly, the second is a legitimate case study.

In which case, as far as hotels go, we know that he would just as likely to contract that responsibility out as do it in house.

[raidermatt]

Originally Posted by MassJester

In which case, as far as hotels go, we know that he would just as likely to contract that responsibility out as do it in house.

I'd agree were it not for his complaints about what had happened around Disneyland.

The question would be what role the hotels were to play in whatever it was that he was doing.

[YoHo]

Originally Posted by pilferk

It means I think your criteria are bogus, largely because they rig the game.

what set of criteria would not rig the game?

We start with the supposition that you say you agree with, HM and Pirates are the best of the best. SM is a close 3rd.

I say, ok, given that, what are the criteria that explain this? I present a set of criteria.

You say the criteria rig the game.

but wait, the result has already been stated. HM and Pirates already win and SM is somehow in 3rd. So why does my set of criteria rig a game when we both agree on the winners?

The logical discussion here is for you to present an alternate set of criteria that explain the result and then we go from there.

If on the other hand your opinion was that SM was equal rather than a close 3rd, then you might say I've rigged the game, because I've created a scenario where it can't win.
But that's not the argument you and I are having. That is some argument with someone else who believes something different from you and I.

Actually, it's exactly what I've done. In using your own analogy, I've pointed out what I feel are flaws in the logic and in the construction. I know you disagree that those flaws exist...but, as with most conversations of this type, it isn't your mind I thought I'd change. As before, I feel I've made a strong enough point to allow the readers to form their own conclusions.



I'm not ridiculing your analogy. I am, in my own way, explaining why it doesn't exactly work FOR ME. I'm trying, hard, to stay within it to complete a cohesive point...because I actually think it works, just not quite in the way you're applying it. Actually, reading back, I think I've done just that.

And I point out exactly how (and you just affirmed in the above post...see bolded point, above.).


You just said it. You're the East German judge. Your criteria are very subjective...not objective.

The analogy however exists entirely within the context of the criteria I've set forth though.
My bias is that I have a specific view of what makes Disney's best attractions the best. With that as a baseline I made an analogy to explain Splash Mountain.
Splash Mountain objectively (technically) fails to meet the complexity requirements for the baseline I've established. So within the context of the baseline, I'm not the east german judge. The subjective performance of each attraction is in my opinion flawless. But the technical aspects are different and so SM is 3rd.

You've moved the point of bias. For me to be the "East German Judge" there would need to be some Ur-Criteria for what makes the best Disney attractions that we have all agreed to at which point you would say Ah-HA, you are using some criteria outside those established. You've rigged the game you crafty East German you!

But we have no such Ur-Criteria. The analogy exists entirely within my established parameters not yours or Landbaron's or anyone elses.

I just don't find it fair. Your criteria, by their nature, create an uneven playing field. So, given that your criteria aren't what I consider fair...I choose not to take into account the results of what looks to be a rigged game.

Life isn't fair. What is our goal here? We're talking about what makes the best Disney attractions. There must be a set of criteria and ipso facto there must be some attractions that don't measure up. To bad, so sad.

I would suggest that things like story source are part of execution and would belong on a more subjective level. The artistic portion, not to belabor the point. I think that's going to vary wildly, in terms of your feelings about the Disney parks and what your personal preferences are.

What then is part of the planning prior to execution (planning is the wrong word, but I'm brain farting)
is the phrase "We need an attraction for this part of the park" all that can compromise the pre-execution phase?
"I want an attraction about pirates" implies an original story does it not? Versus: "I want a Snow White attraction." It can't all be part of execution. Splash Mountain's choice of theme was made on a drawing board in Imagineering before anything was executed. Iger's dictate about synergistic attractions is not about execution.

If you come to WDW to see Disney characters and IP...tying to an outside story is likely going to make that attraction more appealing to you, not less. And Disney knows their market...so knows there are some of it's customers who want that. So...saying that providing that experience makes the show somehow "less" just doesn't ring true TO ME.

And that is why Walt Disney built Fantasyland.
But, and this is critical, Disneyland and Disney World exceeded all expectation in part, because Walt knew what the people wanted before they themselves did. Pirates of the Caribbean was so famous that people visiting WDW asked about it and then they built one there.

and perhaps this gets back to more the core point of this thread.

Disneyland and Disney World weren't built so people could come see Disney characters and IP. At least not exclusively and not primarily. They were built to showcase the stories (and the SHOW) that Walt wanted to present.
the Disney IP was a mere carrot to pull them in. That is a FACT. That is why Fantasyland is one small part of Disneyland.

But I think, ultimately, each attraction is different.

You're one of those people that thinks children shouldn't be graded in School aren't you.

If you want to say that we cannot form an objective criteria for what makes up the best Disney attraction. That literally it's all subjective and all opinions are equally valid, well then we don't have much to talk about, because that isn't the way the world works. It wasn't mere chance that Walt was as successful as he was, he made demands and set expectations and those demands and expectations, codified are what made Disney successful and what made the parks successful. My intention is to try and distill those demands and expectations into a set of characteristics. I may be wrong, but I'm not trying to set a subjective standard, but establish an objective one.

Granted, but one I think generated and interesting tangent.

That's what I'm here for.