Originally Posted By Doobie This topic is for discussion of the May 16th West Side of the Kingdom column. This article is at: <a href="News-ID105090.asp" target="_blank">http://LaughingPlace.com/News-ID105090.asp</a>.
Originally Posted By kencoates Rick, Thanks again for a well written article. I look forward to reading them when they come out. I think Mulholland Madness would have been a great ride if they had taken a Mad Mouse and actually built a fake steep road on a mountain like the real Mulholland Drive. Ken p.s. I really liked the Pirates Issue of your magazine.
Originally Posted By Schmitty Good Vibes Thanks Rick. I agree with just about everything. I hope you don't need to work with Marty ever again ;- ) You said in the article that Disney produces not product but emotion. At least I think I'm close. My take is that they don't realize that they produce art. Motion pictures are an art form. They really have a hard time realizing the same about the Parks. They are entertainment, but they are works of art, not machines. There are too many accountants in too high of places who look for the product to act like a machine, and the artists have little or no say in the final product. I have little hope for the Company now, because the short sighted people seem so well entrenched. Sure, you could replace Eisner, but who would replace him that would stand up to the pressure to generate high quarterly profits at the expence of selling Disney's soul? Someone who could persuade the stock holders to look at the long term, and then cut a lot of the immediate profits? Someone who would layoff the accountants and not the Imagineers? I don't see anyone who could take that position. Oh well, I got to see Camelot.
Originally Posted By MGuttag <<Sure, you could replace Eisner, but who would replace him that would stand up to the pressure to generate high quarterly profits at the expence of selling Disney's soul? Someone who could persuade the stock holders to look at the long term, and then cut a lot of the immediate profits? Someone who would layoff the accountants and not the Imagineers?>> On the other hand, the stock is languishing, profits outside of theme parks are not doing well, etc. and Eisner is still not being forced out, so its not clear to me that a CEO at Disney will necessarily lose his job due to a bad quarter. I think a bigger problem for a future CEO of Disney is that Eisner has begun to eroded some of Disney's competive advantage when it comes to theme parks. It used to be, that Disney could build attractions that no other company could afford to match. With Disney getting almost twice as many (or more) guests at its theme parks than other theme parks, not to mention more $$ per guest in spending, Disney can afford to build attractions that even Universal cannot afford to build. However, in Central Florida in 1999 and 2000, IMHO, the best two new attractions built were Spiderman at Islands of Adventure (1999) and Men In Black at Universal Studios Florida in (2000). In 2001, the best new attraction built in Central Florida may actually be Rhino Rally built at Busch Gardens Tampa!, with perhaps Who Wants to Be a Millionaire at Disney-MGM Studios be the only close competition. In any case, Rhino Rally if it is even half of what is advertised, will almost certainly be a more appealing attraction to me than anything installed at the Magic Kingdom, Epcot and Animal Kingdom in 2000 and 2001. When Busch Gardens Tampa (in 2001) or Universal Orlando (1999 and 2000) can go toe to toe with 4 different Disney theme parks (DL, MK, Epcot, and AK) in the in the new permanent attraction department, and, arguably, win the battle, I think something is seriously wrong with how Disney is being operated. Mark
Originally Posted By JeffG I thought it was interesting that the article talked a fair amount about a perception of the Disney company being arrogant, yet I found quite a bit of arrogance in the author's own words. In the article, he discussed at some length his distress about Marty Sklar's upbeat response to a question about what Walt would have thought about DCA. He then goes on and tries to attribute his own views to Walt. How is that any better? Why is it arrogant for Sklar to speculate about what Walt's reaction might be, but not for the author of this article to do the same thing? The attempts to speak for Walt seem to get thicker and thicker as the article goes on until he eventually accuses the Disney of today of actually "betraying the spirit of Walt Disney". In reality, we really have no way of knowing what Walt would think of the various projects that Disney is doing today. Walt died over three decades ago. An awful lot of technological and cultural changes have occurred in that time. It is pretty much impossible to judge how Walt would have adapted to the times. I see a lot more arrogance in a writer trying to assign his own views to Walt than I do in the head of Imagineering giving a company-line softball answer to a softball question during a promotional press conference. I also think the other major examples that were given in the article seemed to be heavily blown out of proportion. The author expressed surprise that the press didn't jump on Eisner's use of the word "Mexicans" in the press conference. For a change, I give the press some points for showing a little common sense at not making a mountain out of a molehill. Yes, it does sound like Eisner made an awkward mis-statement. I think it is rather unfair and even a bit incendiary to try and use that as evidence of some sort of a lack of racial sensitivity on the part of the company (the article doesn't come out and say that, but how else can it be interpreted?) Finally, I found his indignation over receiving a response from the legal department when he sent an unsolicited suggestion to be downright laughable. The truth is that the type of response he received is completely standard, and completely necessary, in the entertainment industry. Unsolicited suggestions make companies very vulnerable to lawsuits. They really can't do much of anything other than having the legal department send a letter stating that the suggestion was discarded unread. I realize my critique of this article may seem a bit harsh, but the writing really did bother me. I guess it represents a type of Disney fan reaction that I find very bothersome. Some people seem to have decided that their own views of what the company should do are somehow inspired by a divine knowledge of what Walt would want. This article seemed an example of that. -Jeff
Originally Posted By meowthew I saw no arrogance at all. This article was simply a heart-felt, poignant, and extremely well-written piece that thoroughly sums up the feelings of so many Disney fans right now. Bravo, Rick West!
Originally Posted By wdwgreggy Rick- Thank you for laying it on the line and letting us know how it is. I think that the answer for Disney is fairly obvious. SLOOOOOOOOW DOOOOOOOWN!!! I think that planning on developing a third Anaheim park when the second one currently is sucking the company dry is about the most ASININE thing Disney could do. Stop planning, put it on hold, and fix this California Adventure disaster. It is still salvageable, but not at the same ticket price as Disneyland for a park half the size with one-third the attractions. It makes no sense. And I'm sorry, but I honestly think this Electrical Parade thing is going to make it even worse. There is a simple bottom line to this park--THE GUESTS NEED MORE TO DO!!! I don't know that sitting on the sidewalk twiddling their thumbs for a couple more hours is going to bring in that much more profit. And who's to say that the people coming to see the parade aren't mostly on vacation with a park-hopper pass so they just pop over to see the parade then back to DL, or annual passholders or cast members that won't generate any additional profit? You don't improve one one crappy situation by making a ton more because you are scrambling. You improve it by taking it one at a time, something this company has not done in a LONG TIME. The same goes for feature animation. I had an opportunity to see a Shrek preview, and I must say I have never laughed so hard in any movie. And I LOVE Disney. But I'm afraid the Dreamworks boys are going to wipe their faces with Atlantis and throw it away. Again, this is an example of the machine cranking out stuff that's good enough to make a profit, but without the emotion and innovative spirit that has been (or should I say was) Disney's trademark. If he turns around his irresponsible leadership of this company, Eisner can save the company and even get it back on top. However, if he continues the "quantity over quality" barrage, the magic as we have known it is all but dead.
Originally Posted By Westsider DCA is a giant mess right now. You should hear what the CM's who used to work at Disneyland are saying! The Managers are all terrified, and everyone is in sort of a state of either panic or complete denial. There are a lot of DCA Managers that think it's "a fantastic and fabulous Park!" The fact that they are yelled at constantly by disgruntled Guests doesn't seem to faze them. Some of them honestly believe that these Guests are just too greedy, and have expectations that are "way too high". (I really heard an Operations Manger say that.) They have no idea what they are going to do in 2002. 2001 so far has been disastrous attendance wise. This past Saturday DCA had 14,200 Guests (including Park Hoppers who may have only spent 2 hours there). It was supposed to have 34,000 according to the attendance calendar! Scary!
Originally Posted By Westsider OH, and by the way. I liked the article. Wasn't Marty Sklar the guy who told the OC Register in 1998 that he would "Lay down on Harbor Blvd. before I let the Submarine Voyage close without a replacement." I remember that story very well, it caused quite a stir at the time. Too bad he lost that bet. And I assume someone stopped him from laying down on Harbor Blvd. For anyone who may forget, the Sub lagoon still sits there empty.
Originally Posted By JCSkipper I am a member of Orlando's TV media and frequently cover Disney issues. (In fact, just today my station was confronted with a "do we air this or not?" decision about a Disney story.) Like Rick, I am also a former DL cast member and a lifelong Disney fan. So it's been interesting to watch how Disney coverage decisions are made down here. First of all, unlike in California, WDW is Central Florida's largest employer. So just about everything they do-- from company layoffs to the new Aladdin spinner ride-- is considered "newsworthy" because it affects a large portion of our audience. Another reason for our coverage is that WDW has the unique position of being a PRIVATE company with overwelming POLITICAL influence. What other corporation can wave their magic wand and have governments cough up millions of dollars in tax money for their indirect use? (On the flip side, what other corporation can generate so much public tax money, such as Disney does with tourism and sales taxes?) Rick mentioned that some media view Disney as "arrogant". I think there's a difference between "arrogance" and "power". Disney has power here. Not unlike the local governments. And the media tend to hold Disney accountable for their actions just as we do the mayor and the sheriff. For better or worse, the OTHER reason we tend to cover Disney-- in particular the bad news-- is because of the mystique that "nothing bad happens in the Magic Kingdom." If the local Red Lobster had a kitchen fire and everyone was evacuated, we probably wouldn't mention it. If The Crystal Palace had a fire, news choppers would be flying overhead immediately.
Originally Posted By monorailblue Did you ever want to post in the six thousand thirty-seventh thread? Well, let me tell you by sad experience that its impossible---as soon as you post, the thread gets booted to #1! Unfair! By the way, I didn't read this article, but I assume it was wonderful.
