A question regarding the growth of WDW

[DVC-Landbaron]

Ok. Matt pretty much took care of the silly "What Would Walt Want" question, by pretty much repeating what I said! But you refuse to let it go:

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.

That is still thinking in terms of his initiating projects or reacting to a given desire or whim within him at the time. Again!!! And even again!!!

I don't know what Walt would do if he were alive today!!

He'd probably have a nice corner office somewhere in his city of EPCOT and worrying about supplying his moon outpost he established in the mid-nineties!! Or maybe just off fishing somewhere. I don't know. And I don't care. And maybe he would contract out hotels. But what if he didn't. What if he got it into his head, like current management, to build and operate his own. Then HOW do you think he would do it!? It's really that simple!

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 would like to see some evidence that supports this statement, because everything I know about him points 180 degrees the other way!!

Can you document anything to support this?

Just because you use the term "we know" doesn't necessarily mean 'we know'. Or at least ALL of us know. I, for one, don't. So where do garner such absolute knowledge?

[pilferk]

Originally Posted by YoHo

what set of criteria would not rig the game?

A set that does not, quite frankly, appear designed to overwhelmingly favor an existing pair of attractions. And I'm not saying it should be done simply to their detriment, either. Just that maybe the criteria should be designed irrespective of either bias.

To me, at least, it looks like you watched Nadia, decided she was amazing, and then tailored the criteria to her performance. Setting up a set of criteria that included her age, her charisma, her personality, her relative (to her fellow competitors) lack of resources and training....and then called all that technical requirements.

Those things didn't make her routine harder...they just made what she did more impressive. Technical vs artistic.

The artistic is somewhat subjective. There are people (and, in this case, I LITERALLY am talking about East German Judges) who prefer the more established, better trained, more refined, more "gymnast mill", more robotic performances. And they give them higher scores.

They would not be wrong, either. That's what they liked. I just wouldn't agree with them. And I would say their focus on certain artistic (or geographic) elements was a little heavy handed.

TO ME, your criteria look like they ingrain your preference for story source...and somewhat needlessly (IMHO, evidenced by the fact we reach the same conclusion, through different journies).

And now you say "Well, I know I enjoy what I enjoy and I know WHY". And that's fine. Great.

But now you have a much better idea why people might disagree with your opinion. Or, if you prefer the verbage, have a differing one.

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'm with you.

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.

Yup, still with you.

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?

Because, as with many things, it's all about the journey. How we all get there.

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

I thought we'd done that, in context.

Remove the nitpick about story source and we'd probably be pretty close. Maybe not 100% there, but close. I don't know, exactly, because you didn't provide a FULL set of criteria...just that one piece.

So...the alternate set of criteria you seem to be pushing for, to mirror the "set of criteria" you provided, would be "not that".

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.

In a more macro point: You've created a scenario where it is almost impossible to topple the existing top 2. By any attraction...past, present, or future. And not based on anything more than source of original material (even if that source is original to the company, just not original to the attraction).

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.

No, it's the same discussion (I don't feel like I'm arguing). I'm just not quite as focused on the conclusion...more on the way we get there.

The analogy however exists entirely within the context of the criteria I've set forth though.

Which is why I've said I don't think it's apt within the context of the criteria you set forth.

But it could be apt, IMHO. It just needed to be turned on it's ear a little.

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.

As the East German judges had a particular view of what constituted (and WHO constituted) a good performance. And that view heavily weighted success to very particular gymnasts or styles of gymnasts.

In this case, it's not like having that bias is egregious, though...because we're discussing theme park ride rankings and not judging anything important, nor does the opinion (yours or mine) have any real effect on anything important.

But you're sort of making my point.

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.

No, within the confines of your analogy you would be the Olympic Committee and the East German Judge..at the same time.

Again, I just can't see story source (or lack of one) being a technical requirement, here. Again, you can base your opinion on whatever you want. I just don't think it's apt..because it's largely a matter of very personal preference. The logic, to me, doesn't hold up.

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.

Actually, that's rather the point.

We don't have Ur-Criteria. So, when "idigesting" (that's not the right word...my own brain fart) someone's opinion, I like to know what the basis is. How they got there. I now know. I know one of your criteria.

And I have a difference of opinion on the aptness of that piece of criteria. I don't find it a compelling factor when ranking attractions.

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.

Except...

It's not about there being some attractions that don't measure up. I have no issue with that.

It's about not creating a set of criteria that favors a particular (relatively minor, for many people) detail of the attraction.

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.

Why not? Why would you not consider it all part of the execution? It's all a part of the artistry of the ride/show/attraction, right?

It's the choreography of the attraction...all part of the process.

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.

No to the first (not the fact that SM choice was mad...just the point that THAT wasn't part of the execution). Planning is part of executing. It's part of the creation of the ride. You have to plan (or, rather, you should...I wonder in terms of some recent creations) before you can build. You have to build before the show can go on.

Yes to the second. It's about greed, and capitalizing (ie: riding the horse til it's dead) on IP's they've already spent money on.

And that is why Walt Disney built Fantasyland.

And there, sir, is I think where the issue arises. That one sentence might get to the heart of the matter better than the previous pages of text we've generated:

I think that statement is where the bias is getting in. Because maybe it's not the story source that's the issue for you, it's the fact that Disney isn't adhering to keeping it's cross-media attractions all in one place..the place Walt intended.

Walt is gone. And this isn't about WWWD. It's about what's actually been built. And what might be built in the future.

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.

See, I agree. And were we now still discussing Eisner/Iger's effect on the company, I'd be right there with you.

But we're not.

Or, at least, I'm not. I suspect that's rather the point. And I have since we started.

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.

No, but...we're dealing in reality. Not intent. Not WWWD.

And the fact is, today...there are people who go there (WDW/DLR) looking for that stuff. That muti-faceted, real world connection to the Disney material. You might not be one of them. I might not be either. But they're there.

That's reality.

Which is why I think the story source criteria is, in itself, an introduction of bias. It rigs the game to favor specific attractions and ignores that Disney needs to build those attractions to keep at least some subset of folks coming through the gates.

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

Believe it or not, I think they should be graded more, and probably more harshly than they are. Seriously. But that's another thread on another board.

BUT, having said that, I think they should be tested on a relatively even landscape, absent biases that favor white suburban males. But we can talk about standardized test bias in that other thread on that other board, too.

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.

I'm not looking for perfectly objective....because you can't objectively quantify things like "fun" and "enjoyment". And those have to be factors in all this. And so does the overall artistry of the attraction. Not just what it does, but HOW it does it. Certainly there's no mathematic formula that says "number of drops+number of animatronics+200 decorations/sq rt of pi to the power of hourly ride capacity = successfulness of attraction". I get that.

But I think there is a wide berth between perfectly objective and subjective to the point of extreme bias. Something a little more in the middle of those two points, IMHO, would serve the discussion better...because I think you'd find a more common jumping off point. Now, maybe you're not interested in a more common jumping off point. Fair enough.

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.

But that's rather the point: Story source seems to be a pretty subjective preference to include in a set of standards that would even begin to approach objective. I don't see anything that would indicate Walt felt they were inherently "better" (as in, a better experience/attraction/show). I see his insistence they build more of them..but I think the motivation behind why is a little deeper than because he thought they were inherently "better".

[pilferk]

Anyway...with that, I'm "out" til Tuesday.

Family time weekend!

Don't miss me too much while I'm gone!

[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?

[Robbi]

Eisner brought Disney World to the level we old timers remember- the 80's and 90's glory days. Iger has brought about the changes that probably 99.9% of the complaints are about here on the DIS. The DDP, the soon to be implemented FP+, the outsourcing of housekeeping that has led to the decline of the resort's upkeep. Not sure about whether or not the maintenance crews have been outsourced but if whether it has been or not, that department has become slipshod. Eisner brought 3 new theme parks to WDW while still maintaining the quality and service everyone expected of anything associated with Disney.
Iger has done nothing except buy Lucas film, Marvel rights, add on a couple of rides, and bring about the decline of everything we had come to expect on a Disney trip. He's a perfect example of The Peter Principle. For those unfamiliar, the premise is :
"Employees tend to rise to their level of incompetence."
That doesn't even touch the difference in movies produced under the Eisner regime vs Iger. I know it's a separate business however, like every other business, employees will only produce excellent product if that level of product is expected from the top.

[akadada]

Originally Posted by MassJester

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.

Interesting...see my thoughts and opine page 17 if you get a chance.

[akadada]

Originally Posted by DVC-Landbaron

No he wasn’t interested in the “Hotel Business” as a business. He was interested in telling a story, creating a theme, evoking an emotion and WOWing his guests!!! And YES!! There is evidence that he would have done it differently. In 1965 the Florida Project was announced. The planning, by Walt himself and his team, was started years before. And what was planned, with Walt’s stamp of approval, if not direct input? Do some exploring on this page and see if that hideous white copy of a California hotel can even hold a candle these WALT created resorts!!

http://www.disneydrawingboard.com/WD...ea/MKArea.html


No. No idealized projection here. Just some good old fashioned research!!

Ah, yes, agree! great points!

[akadada]

Originally Posted by pilferk

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

Still is.

For another topic/post, but interesting question: what on ABC represents anything Disney would have done or even a Disney apostle or even a Disney philosophy student? Forgive me LBaron for changing the topic. No need to respond. I just couldn't resist. ABC is Disney Pollution.

[akadada]

Originally Posted by DVC-Landbaron

I don't know what Walt would do if he were alive today!!

He'd probably have a nice corner office somewhere in his city of EPCOT and worrying about supplying his moon outpost he established in the mid-nineties!! Or maybe just off fishing somewhere. I don't know. And I don't care. And maybe he would contract out hotels. But what if he didn't. What if he got it into his head, like current management, to build and operate his own. Then HOW do you think he would do it!? It's really that simple!

Doh! Did I cause this?

[akadada]

Originally Posted by pilferk

Anyway...with that, I'm "out" til Tuesday.

Family time weekend!

Don't miss me too much while I'm gone!

Same here! Off for a couple days unless my plans don't come together.

Love this discussion, hope I don't miss too much.

I appreciate the welcoming and hazing now that I get it.

Cheers

[MassJester]

Originally Posted by DVC-Landbaron

Ok. Matt pretty much took care of the silly "What Would Walt Want" question, by pretty much repeating what I said! But you refuse to let it go:

That is still thinking in terms of his initiating projects or reacting to a given desire or whim within him at the time. Again!!! And even again!!!

I don't know what Walt would do if he were alive today!!

He'd probably have a nice corner office somewhere in his city of EPCOT and worrying about supplying his moon outpost he established in the mid-nineties!! Or maybe just off fishing somewhere. I don't know. And I don't care. And maybe he would contract out hotels. But what if he didn't. What if he got it into his head, like current management, to build and operate his own. Then HOW do you think he would do it!? It's really that simple!


I would like to see some evidence that supports this statement, because everything I know about him points 180 degrees the other way!!

Can you document anything to support this?

Just because you use the term "we know" doesn't necessarily mean 'we know'. Or at least ALL of us know. I, for one, don't. So where do garner such absolute knowledge?

Well, we know he contracted out the responsibility in California (even though he groused about the result, he never took any action to change it), and we know that he was quoted as not wanting to be in the hotel business (from the book Disney Wars), so those are two fair facts in support.

[DVC-Landbaron]

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

Ah… Well… NO! It became his “team’s” by default. But Little Mermaid was Ron Miller’s baby all the way! Same for Touchstone. If Ei$ner and his team had their way Little Mermaid would have been deep sixed and The Great Mouse Detective (wasn’t that the YoHo?) would have taken its place. Now that’s pretty sad, isn’t it?

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)

OH MY!! And why couldn’t Disney provide those quality restaurants? They used to!! And to top off your list with those two hideous eyesores!!! I know you said no particular order but, GOOD GRIEF!! Are you trying to push my buttons!!

and no way an average family could afford fireworks view from a balcony. S&D gives folks this option.

They could at the price points Walt’s team (and by extension, Walt himself) set way back in 1972!! But that calls for another thread as well. (Go on. Start it. I dare you!! I’ve been down that road before!!)

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

Yes! And I enjoy a walk through my local park or boating on a lake in northern Wisconsin, but that don’t make it Disney!! Take a look at this and tell me if this might have been a wee bit better:

http://www.disneydrawingboard.com/WD...ea/MKArea.html

Did you like the tour? I don’t see how you couldn’t!! And still what you’re really talking about is “like/dislike/ambivalent”.

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

It’s OK. But again, the cookie cutter comes to mind right away.

4. Animal Kingdom itself. . .hmm, if I'm honest, you're right.

Then let’s move on…

Today, it's somewhat of an annoying and loud place.

I found it went from a half-park to an annoying place, but we pretty much agree. And to save the quote function DITTO on R&RC. A little higher mark for ToT though, or maybe it’s just a like/dislike thing.

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

I don’t remember the history off hand (YoHo has a way better memory for that stuff than I do). But I’ll see if I can look it up.

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.

I can understand this. I just don’t agree with it!

[DVC-Landbaron]

Well, we know he contracted out the responsibility in California (even though he groused about the result, he never took any action to change it),

I believe he did, but could do nothing about it. I could be wrong, but again, I'll do a little research over the weekend.

and we know that he was quoted as not wanting to be in the hotel business (from the book Disney Wars), so those are two fair facts in support.

Yes! Already stipulated. He did not want to be in the hotel BUSINESS!

He did not want to open a chain of Disney resorts! He did not want to cover the nation with pixie dusted bedrooms!

What we can infer from what he did do is that he wanted to carry the THEME of the parks to guests staying the night!

This next bit is purely subjective but I think it is something right in his wheelhouse! Don't you agree?

[YoHo]

Originally Posted by pilferk

Anyway...with that, I'm "out" til Tuesday.

Family time weekend!

Don't miss me too much while I'm gone!

Alas that I will have to wait until Tuesday for a response. Hopefully your family appreciates your time.

Originally Posted by pilferk

A set that does not, quite frankly, appear designed to overwhelmingly favor an existing pair of attractions. And I'm not saying it should be done simply to their detriment, either. Just that maybe the criteria should be designed irrespective of either bias.

To be fair, I believe I stated that Horizons also met the criteria and that other previously existing attractions might have also met it. They appear designed to favor those attractions, because those are the attractions that we've established as the best. Something about those attractions is superior and I set out an item that I thought was it.

To me, at least, it looks like you watched Nadia, decided she was amazing, and then tailored the criteria to her performance.

This would be true if there wasn't agreement on what the best attractions are.

Let me put it another way. There were 3 attractions that The Walt Disney company thought were so well known and liked that they were worth making movies out of. Pirates, Country Bears and Haunted Mansion.
All 3 were E-tickets (in the Magic Kingdom, Tokyo put Country Bears as a D ticket which is where I'd place it). These 2 facts establish an objective baseline for popularity don't they? Among all the uniquely storied attractions At Disney Parks, these are the ones chosen for movies.

Of course, there's an alternate problem there. What other options were there? A couple roller coasters and some Future world attractions that would be documentaries.

So it's not perfect, but the fact that Haunted and Pirates still exist and they were considered so popular as to be the basis of movies says enough that I'll heap some conjecture on it and call them the best.

Setting up a set of criteria that included her age, her charisma, her personality, her relative (to her fellow competitors) lack of resources and training....and then called all that technical requirements.

Those things didn't make her routine harder...they just made what she did more impressive. Technical vs artistic.

The artistic is somewhat subjective. There are people (and, in this case, I LITERALLY am talking about East German Judges) who prefer the more established, better trained, more refined, more "gymnast mill", more robotic performances. And they give them higher scores.

They would not be wrong, either. That's what they liked. I just wouldn't agree with them. And I would say their focus on certain artistic (or geographic) elements was a little heavy handed.

TO ME, your criteria look like they ingrain your preference for story source...and somewhat needlessly (IMHO, evidenced by the fact we reach the same conclusion, through different journies).

And now you say "Well, I know I enjoy what I enjoy and I know WHY". And that's fine. Great.

But now you have a much better idea why people might disagree with your opinion. Or, if you prefer the verbiage, have a differing one.

Well, if we are proceeding from the assumption that the statement that Pirates and HM are the best is a purely subjective statement on my part, then this would make sense, but we're proceeding, at least I'm making the statement that there is an objective truth that Pirates and HM are the best. I didn't lay out my admittedly limited evidence until this post, but that's the baseline here. HM and Pirates are objectively the best. I presented some evidence, I suspect that if we had access to more statistics that it would be proven out. Certainly there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that reinforces the claim.
In either case, I was trying to quantify what I perceived to be a broad truth, not quantify my own personal opinion exclusively.

If you disagree with me that these attractions are objectively the best, then that is again a different discussion.

Remove the nitpick about story source and we'd probably be pretty close. Maybe not 100% there, but close. I don't know, exactly, because you didn't provide a FULL set of criteria...just that one piece.

So...the alternate set of criteria you seem to be pushing for, to mirror the "set of criteria" you provided, would be "not that".

First of all, I believe broadly I suggested that story source was the only distinction, but in general, if you read back over my post, I did suggest other criteria. I believe we (meaning participants in this thread) discussed Thrill versus not thrill. A distinction I rejected as a potential distinguisher. I mentioned a slew of concepts that could best be summed up as "proper stagecraft" I discussed use of technology. My list of criteria was not exhaustive, but it was not a single item either. We got bogged down in a discussion of Quality, Show and Storytelling. I conceded though not in these words that the Execution of the concepts in all 3 cases was above reproach and so there is no niggling detail to cause the discrepancy in my mind. And so the one item I zeroed in on was source material.

In a more macro point: You've created a scenario where it is almost impossible to topple the existing top 2. By any attraction...past, present, or future. And not based on anything more than source of original material (even if that source is original to the company, just not original to the attraction).

Why is this true?
Ignoring for a moment the fact that I also ticked off Horizons AND I suspect Adventures through Innerspace belongs there though I've never ridden it, so I'm not comfortable including it.
Are you saying it's somehow impossible for Disney to come up with an original story? I mean, we aren't talking about a 500 page novel here. Just not-pre-existing-IP.

And even if it is nigh impossible, why is that so wrong? Why can't we set these 2 attractions at the top and judge all those against it and be critical? Nobody said that DL and WDW are abject failures if they never again succeed so completely. In fact I've suggested that with few exceptions and none in the last 18 years Disney hasn't even come close. So the distinction we're talking about doesn't even really apply to the broader context, because Disney has failed far more spectacularly. This discussion is only about distinguishing between a 5.0 attraction and a 4.9 attraction. Since Indiana Jones and the Temple of the Forbidden Eye, Disney hasn't even been able to stay on the beam much less execute the routine.

Which is why I've said I don't think it's apt within the context of the criteria you set forth.

But it could be apt, IMHO. It just needed to be turned on it's ear a little.



As the East German judges had a particular view of what constituted (and WHO constituted) a good performance. And that view heavily weighted success to very particular gymnasts or styles of gymnasts.

In this case, it's not like having that bias is egregious, though...because we're discussing theme park ride rankings and not judging anything important, nor does the opinion (yours or mine) have any real effect on anything important.

Again, I'm proceeding from the assumption that it is an objective truth that these are the best. Perhaps I and the East Germans are wrong about the what, but the other judges have also given these the best scores in this scenario. So, if nothing else, our biases line up. We're trying to detect what those biases are I guess. I've shown you mine.


Pulling things a bit out of order

Again, I just can't see story source (or lack of one) being a technical requirement, here. Again, you can base your opinion on whatever you want. I just don't think it's apt..because it's largely a matter of very personal preference. The logic, to me, doesn't hold up.

But that's rather the point: Story source seems to be a pretty subjective preference to include in a set of standards that would even begin to approach objective. I don't see anything that would indicate Walt felt they were inherently "better" (as in, a better experience/attraction/show). I see his insistence they build more of them..but I think the motivation behind why is a little deeper than because he thought they were inherently "better".

Every single E-ticket attraction that was built or planned while Walt was alive was a completely unique story. He never built an E-ticket with existing IP.

That is something that would indicate that Walt felt they were inherently "better."

It's about not creating a set of criteria that favors a particular (relatively minor, for many people) detail of the attraction.

If that's the part of the attractions that is the biggest potentially applicable difference...

Why not? Why would you not consider it all part of the execution? It's all a part of the artistry of the ride/show/attraction, right?

It's the choreography of the attraction...all part of the process.

Because that's not the way I have ever used the concepts of planning and execution in my adult life? They are always 2 separate steps in work and home life and so why would I apply them that way when on a Disney internet message board?

I mean it's an interesting thought you put forth with a certain amount of validity, but I wouldn't consider it common usage, the English language is a notably untameable beast so if you want to use a term in an atypical fashion, best to establish that first.

And there, sir, is I think where the issue arises. That one sentence might get to the heart of the matter better than the previous pages of text we've generated:

I think that statement is where the bias is getting in. Because maybe it's not the story source that's the issue for you, it's the fact that Disney isn't adhering to keeping it's cross-media attractions all in one place..the place Walt intended.

Nope, Walt let the characters wander the park. Tom Sawyer, Davy Crocket, Zorro, the animated characters. I'm perfectly fine with it. In fact I'm more ok with it than many. We are however discussing premier attractions here, not the parks broadly.

Walt is gone. And this isn't about WWWD. It's about what's actually been built. And what might be built in the future.



No, but...we're dealing in reality. Not intent. Not WWWD.

And the fact is, today...there are people who go there (WDW/DLR) looking for that stuff. That muti-faceted, real world connection to the Disney material. You might not be one of them. I might not be either. But they're there.

That's reality.

Ummmm, Perhaps you haven't been reading Baron's posts, or missed the initial subject of this thread.

We are in fact not discussing strictly what has happened, we're discussing what has happened versus what could have been and Baron has repeatedly said and I will concur here.

We ARE NOT discussing What Would Walt Do. We cannot know that.

We are discussing HOW WOULD WALT DO IT.

And in that context we can take what Walt did do (such as never building an E-ticket that used existing IP) and combine it with Imagineering documentation, the available histories the available memoirs and distill some guiding principles.

THAT is what we're trying to do.
Walt never built an E-ticket that used existing IP. That is a fact. Perhaps the question I should ask is why you think that fact isn't significant enough to be a differentiation.


And again, I have no problems with E-tickets using existing IP. but they cannot be the best of the best, they don't get to go to #$%& Miramar (if you don't get that reference, for shame) if they do.

[YoHo]

Originally Posted by akadada

Still is.

For another topic/post, but interesting question: what on ABC represents anything Disney would have done or even a Disney apostle or even a Disney philosophy student? Forgive me LBaron for changing the topic. No need to respond. I just couldn't resist. ABC is Disney Pollution.

Probably nothing besides perhaps some kids shows, but at the same time, Walt wanted to be involved in adult entertainment. He felt constrained at times by his reputation for family entertainment. Which is not to say that anything on any Network TV would meet his standard, only that the criteria for what might meet his standard isn't so cut and dry.