Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I think of it as the type of place that DCA's planners and creators would live in or judge as a perfectly fine house.<< Which illustrates better than anything I could possibly add just how far off Rancho Reality you've wandered due to your obsession. But you're right. I do keep trying in vain to point out that you are making the same point endlessly, which means I'm making the same point endlessly. You either don't get it, or don't want to. Have a nice life.
Originally Posted By Blacksheep Uncle wow..it is truly amazing how far out of touch with reality some people are...and frankly kind of frightening...
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <Yea, and I remember thinking the same thing back in 2001 when you became quite *indignant* towards a writer from a local newspaper who took his young son to a day at DCA and wasn't very impressed by the park.> I remember the story. What's your point? Wait. Does it have to do with office politics and where people's alliances are for different leaders?
Originally Posted By oc_dean >> <a href="http://www.losanjealous.com/im" target="_blank">http://www.losanjealous.com/im</a> g/christmas_davids5.jpg << :O) .. oh my god ... I pass by this thing all the time coming and going to work .. Along Beverly Blvd. .. not too far off from Highland Ave. EGADS!
Originally Posted By oc_dean Anyway ... since I first started with LP in May of 2000 .. Sometimes I felt not enough people make the point .. that Disneywatcher has been making for while now..... That so much does comes down to a VALUE SYSTEM. And when it comes to Disney ... DISNEY!! ... there has been ONE CONSISTENT value system in place between 1955 to 1995 regarding the theme parks (with OLC projects aside). The thing is .. you can't have designers who are going to say: "Sand Boxes are okay in a Disney park". It's just that simple. In my heart I beleive it comes down to those who give into complacency and those who don't. But the Disney legacy that has stood solidly from the 1920s up to around 1995 .. is NOT to let that value of 'complacency' to come into the conciousness of the organization. But it has come to that. I don't think enough people bring it up.
Originally Posted By idleHands <<In my heart I beleive it comes down to those who give into complacency and those who don't.>> Which is another way of saying... Being a Disney executive used to be a matter of pride. It was your life. You believed in the company, you believed in its legacy, and worked your butt off to nurture and maintain the legacy. Now... it's basically just a paycheck and perks. Legacy isn't important. It's all about advancing one's career at the the expense of long range goals. And for those executives who care enough about the legacy, who are willing to vocalize their concerns... well... they're now on an endangered species list. Some are protected, most are not. I want to believe that the changes coming down the pike are good ones. I want to believe that genuine concerns for the Disney Legacy will once again fill the executive offices of Burbank/Glendale/Anaheim. I want to believe. But the candle's going out, and the matches are almost gone.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Now... it's basically just a paycheck and perks. Legacy isn't important. It's all about advancing one's career at the the expense of long range goals.<< Oh, I don't know that it's gloomy as all that. Matt Ouimet is but one example of a Disney exec that doesn't fit that profile at all from what we've seen. I'm sure there are many, many others. Disney has always had its up and downs, and they are far from being irrelevant like they nearly became in the late 1970s/early 1980s. I think some huge mistakes have been made, from lack of innovation in the parks to some misguided feature animation stuff to direct to video sequel-itis. But I think the genuine concern exists within the company and there are plenty of good things to come.
Originally Posted By inlandemporer ">> That is not going with the flow, is it? << But I'm guessing your job also didn't have something to do with designing a new Disney theme park. What I mean is that people who are very skilled or competent in one area may be less than that, or outright second-rate, in some other occupation, and visa versa." Gimme a break. Obviously not everybody is good at everything (see: Michael Jordan's baseball career), but that's beside the point he was making. First, you do your amateur psychoanalysis on the guy, and are certain that he's one of a group who would be "more likely to go with the flow." Then he tells you that's not his personality at all, and in fact he's left jobs when he disagreed with how things are going. Which is not easy to do, and takes more guts than most people have. In other words, your amateur psychoanalysis of him was completely wrong. So you come back saying he probably didn't work on Disney theme parks (ya' think? I imagine that goes for everybody here), and that not everyone is good at everything. But that's irrelevant. A person who has the makeup to leave one job because he doesn't like the way things are going is actually fairly likely to do so at another job too. But of course in your mind he can't have that kind of integrity because he likes DCA. Which makes no sense whatsoever. I'm kind of the middle on the whole DCA thing, but your "Freud 101" stuff got old a long time ago.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA The notion here seems to suggest that every Disney employee has to 'tow the line' and 'go to bat in the name of Walt' or else he/she is just a working stiff doing it for the paycheck. You know, camp out in front of Eisner's office and bang your fists on the table until someone hears you say 'DCA is NOT RIGHT!!' It doesn't really work that way in real life.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> which means I'm making the same point endlessly. << Yes, you are. >> it is truly amazing how far out of touch with reality some people are << You mean those people who deny the simple reality that some individuals aren't going to be that competent or talented in a particular profession or job? >> Wait. Does it have to do with office politics << Uh-huh. I recall thinking if a person who wasn't even dependent on the DisCo for his salary and job -- in other words, a person who was NOT employed by the DisCo -- nonetheless could feel so indignant when DCA was criticized, then imagine what that person would have been like if he were personally involved in the new park's planning and development. Imagine what his reactions would have been like if his reputation, pride, ego and paycheck were *directly* on the line. >> inlandemporer: but your "Freud 101" stuff got old a long time ago. << Who the heck are you?
Originally Posted By Blacksheep Uncle >>You mean those people who deny the simple reality that some individuals aren't going to be that competent or talented in a particular profession or job? << nope, I mean the alternate reality that only you seem to live in; where ones feelings about a theme park have something to do with ANYTHING else at all, much less ones competence or talent... that clear enough for you?
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> I mean the alternate reality that only you seem to live in; << You must live in a reality where you put words into people's mouths. I never said, nor would I ever belive, that a person who was incompetent in one job or profession would automatically be incompetent in another job or profession. That's as ridiculous as claiming the opposite. Or that a skilled, talented accountant or doctor, for example, would naturally be a skilled, talented Imagineer or architect responsible for a new Disney park. Or visa versa.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "In my heart I beleive it comes down to those who give into complacency and those who don't." The problem with your rather bleak black and white argument OC is who gets to decide when one is being complacent or not? Have you and disneywatcher been sanctioned by some unseen force within the Magical World of Disney to pass judgment on those who disagree with your point of view? Do you consider me complacent because I enjoy visiting DCA? Do you realize how idiotic that sounds? Where is your common sense? Why not just state your opinion based on reasoning obtained from examining the facts? Playing armchair psychiatrist and attempted to conduct some sort of character analysis based on online opinions about a theme park is just plain stupid.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> Playing armchair psychiatrist << How about playing "Guess the Right Answer and Win $100 Million!!!" The contestant faces this test case: (a.) Someone who thinks the way you do is placed in charge of developing a second Disney theme park in Anaheim. (b.) Someone who doesn't think the way you do -- that is, he or she doesn't care for "Disney's California Adventure" at all -- is placed in charge of developing a second Disney theme park in Anaheim. The prize-winning question is this: Which of the two people, either (a.) or (b.), in the role of major decisionmaker would be more likely to create a park like (drum roll) DCA?! Again, the correct answer results in a prize of $100 million. A contestant would be a fool to select (b).
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "How about playing "Guess the Right Answer and Win $100 Million!!!" I hate games. Especially yours. How about just sticking to the facts and leaving your silly personal rationalizations and judgements about individual tastes out of discussion for a change?
Originally Posted By disneywatcher ^ You don't have to be so indignant. After all, it's not like you're applying for a job as Imagineer at the DisCo, and I'm extremely confident you're not applying for a job as head designer/creator for Disney's second new theme park in Anaheim. Or at least I hope you aren't or didn't.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss First you write: <<I never said, nor would I ever belive, that a person who was incompetent in one job or profession would automatically be incompetent in another job or profession.>> Then you write: <<(a.) Someone who thinks the way you do is placed in charge of developing a second Disney theme park in Anaheim. (b.) Someone who doesn't think the way you do -- that is, he or she doesn't care for "Disney's California Adventure" at all -- is placed in charge of developing a second Disney theme park in Anaheim. The prize-winning question is this: Which of the two people, either (a.) or (b.), in the role of major decisionmaker would be more likely to create a park like (drum roll) DCA?! Again, the correct answer results in a prize of $100 million. A contestant would be a fool to select (b).>> Seems to me you think some of us are too incompetent to be able to distinguish between what is good and what is not-so-good... in other words, you think we are all-around incompetent.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad trekkeruss , are you a Disney Executive of some sort? Not meant sarcastically , I'm seroiusly asking.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss If you think so, I am flattered... maybe. No, I am not a Disney suit, or any other kind of suit for that matter.
