Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>^Maybe, but I'm skeptical. They have DCA 2.0 and Carsland to tide them over.<<< And once that's over? And the attention dries up? And DL starts looking a little ragged, just like WDW? Yeah... it won't go well.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>EE, I think your theory about what will happen is very likely. I can very well imagine the comments about how Meg wasn't able to acchieve anything because she had Al Weiss holding her back. But now that she is in charge we see all these wonderful things that are going to happen!<<<< Thanks, Bolna. That's exactly the sort of phrases I expect to see. The old executives vilified, the new ones the harbingers of our new and wonderful attractions. ...Hey, if it gets us some new things at D23, I won't complain, but I will certainly complain if they blatantly lie to us about what's going to be built.
Originally Posted By Bolna <<Yes, that is indeed disturbing, however I still question how influential she will be on the long term operations at DLR and DLP in such a broad role.>> I don't think that so much will necessarily change for DLP. Talking about Al Weiss' departure on the Paris Resort board dagobert asked: <<Does this have any impact on Disneyland Paris? ED SCA is only partly owned by TWDC and so I'm wondering if he was involved there as well?>> leemac answered this: <<The answer is yes - Al had oversight for all theme park operations worldwide so he had some involvement. However day-to-day operations have always been and will continue to be the domain of the CEO (Gas) and his COO (Schott).>> So, I would guess that Meg here really just replaces Al, not much change to me. And I think most issues at DLP are already financially driven. There isn't a chance of milking as much profit as possible, but instead the issue seems to be trying to help the project to survive.
Originally Posted By sjhym333 I think I fall on the side of not much will change at DL. I firmly believe that the reason that WDW is the way it is because of its size and mgmt structure. I believe that the size (or lack thereof) at DL means that it is easier keep things up as long as there is a VP who cares. I also that post-Pressler Disney mgmt is more aware at how important it is to keep the locals happy unlike WDW mgmt who know that most of their guests are tourists who come every couple of years or so.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>I firmly believe that the reason that WDW is the way it is because of its size and mgmt structure<<< And now that the same lady is over at Disneyland responsible for WDW's messes, I can't see SOME things not changing. She was put in place to bring Staggs' policies to Disneyland. Depending on how he sees things, I think things could easily change.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >><<I would trust Lassetter or Jobs far more than any elected politician in Illinois- and based on the last 50 years here no one should question why.>> You obviously don't have friends who've worked at Pixar since Point Richmond days. If you did, you'd take this statement back in a heartbeat.<< I know I'm late to the game, but I can't agree with Skinner more on this one.
Originally Posted By sjhym333 Yeah, but in the scheme of things all Staggs really has to do to institute his policies is to dictate them to the appropriate VP. I dont know about anyone else but when my boss tells me to do something I tend to do it. I think that Al was cut loose because he was earning big bucks plus Staggs probably didnt like him much. I dont think it is as diabolical as some are making it out. My guess is that Meg is well thought of by upper mgmt and to their eyes is doing a good job. I have worked for several companies over the years and I am no longer surprised when someone I think is not doing a good job moves up. I know that mgmt doesnt see the things I see.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >> I soooo wanna see her try and mess w/ DL after the scars of '96-'03 are still in thier minds.<< She'll just fire anyone who doesn't toe her line. I saw this at HP when Mark Hurd became the CEO. There was a mass firing of executives (most who came from the "Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard" days.) and he replaced them with his cronies. The HP Way, the company's moral compass for decades, was decimated.
Originally Posted By leobloom >> And once that's over? And the attention dries up? And DL starts looking a little ragged, just like WDW? Yeah... it won't go well. << Well, it hasn't hurt WDW's numbers, has it? Who's to say it will affect DLR's?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 >><<I would trust Lassetter or Jobs far more than any elected politician in Illinois- and based on the last 50 years here no one should question why.>> You obviously don't have friends who've worked at Pixar since Point Richmond days. If you did, you'd take this statement back in a heartbeat.<< I know I'm late to the game, but I can't agree with Skinner more on this one. --- so you believe the biggest criminals in this state - Mr Madigan / Emil Jones and their minions in SPringfield. aren't some of the most conniving people ( not in jail) here..and have bankrupted this state ? There's a reason why we rank 49th financially- with the outrageous costs we already pay- and it isn't a goof like Blago
Originally Posted By fkurucz I find the idea of selling the parks to Chinese investors to be intriguing, analogous to when the Japanese went on their spending sprees in the 80's, buying up properties that depreciated and lost them money. The Chinese have trillions of dollars languishing in low interest US government bonds (and are losing money on them). They might be interested in purchasing income generating assets with some of that cash. And Walt Disney World would be a "prestige" purchase, like when the Japanese bought Pebble Beach and Rockerfeller Center. I could see the business model behind Disney collecting royalties from the new owners and charging them to develop new theme park attractions. The real quetion is: will the Chinese investors bite, especially after how the Japanese got burned in the past?
Originally Posted By Pentacat What would the implications of selling the parks be for DVC members? I've never seriously looked into a DVC contract and I'm sure there's no LEGAL obligation for Disney to retain direct ownership of the parks as part of the contracts with members. However it would seem to me that DVC members would feel very strongly about having the perceived value of their membership reduced by the parks being owned by a third party. At least to the point where some of them would consider taking legal action against the company. At the very least wouldn't this make selling future DVC memberships more difficult? I look forward to Third Party Vacation Club Kiosks around every corner.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Well, it hasn't hurt WDW's numbers, has it? Who's to say it will affect DLR's?<<<< The APers are a highly lucrative field. They come back, frequently, and they are vocal. We don't have anything like that here.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>--- so you believe the biggest criminals in this state - Mr Madigan / Emil Jones and their minions in SPringfield. aren't some of the most conniving people ( not in jail) here..and have bankrupted this state ? There's a reason why we rank 49th financially- with the outrageous costs we already pay- and it isn't a goof like Blago<< No. I'm not going into Illinois politics with you on here! I can't chuckle enough on this, we'll have to speak offline at some point for you to understand. The point is that those with contacts at Pixar, Burbank, CalARTS, know how awful and poisonous the dynamic has become in a much larger and compartmentalized Pixar campus. The original principals all seem to have taken their eyes off the ball to focus on their own pet projects and interests. Completely unrelated, even something as simple as sequels for the sake of sequels flies completely in the face of the original creed/guiding principle of the org. Let alone, Doctor then doesn't even direct Monsters. That alone tells you a lot about why there needs to be a sequel. So, VBDAD, Skinner is quite right that this isn't yesterday's Pixar. It just takes time to notice as a viewer of their output. There is a 2-3 year lag.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>--- so you believe the biggest criminals in this state - Mr Madigan / Emil Jones and their minions in SPringfield. aren't some of the most conniving people ( not in jail) here..and have bankrupted this state ? There's a reason why we rank 49th financially- with the outrageous costs we already pay- and it isn't a goof like Blago<< No. I'm not going into Illinois politics with you on here! I can't chuckle enough on this, we'll have to speak offline at some point for you to understand. The point is that those with contacts at Pixar, Burbank, CalARTS, know how awful and poisonous the dynamic has become in a much larger and compartmentalized Pixar campus. The original principals all seem to have taken their eyes off the ball to focus on their own pet projects and interests. Completely unrelated, even something as simple as sequels for the sake of sequels flies completely in the face of the original creed/guiding principle of the org. Let alone, Doctor then doesn't even direct Monsters. That alone tells you a lot about why there needs to be a sequel. So, VBDAD, Skinner is quite right that this isn't yesterday's Pixar. It just takes time to notice as a viewer of their output. There is a 2-3 year lag.
Originally Posted By ChiMike >>What would the implications of selling the parks be for DVC members? I've never seriously looked into a DVC contract and I'm sure there's no LEGAL obligation for Disney to retain direct ownership of the parks as part of the contracts with members. However it would seem to me that DVC members would feel very strongly about having the perceived value of their membership reduced by the parks being owned by a third party. At least to the point where some of them would consider taking legal action against the company.<< The short answer is: "Too Bad, have a Magical Day!" That is what happens when you prepay and put a deposit down on vacations for the next four decades. Wouldn't sweat it though. Still don't see this happening.
Originally Posted By Bolna One thing that makes me wonder: When I first heard about the Fantasyland project at WDW, I thought that people said that TDO had been against it and that it was forced upon WDW by Burbank. Am I wrong when I think that TDO is Meg Crofton - so she was told by Staggs to accept the Fantasyland redo? This sounds like potential conflict to me. How comes that she is now promoted to also overlook DL and DLP? Does not make sense to me...
Originally Posted By HMButler79 ""Am I wrong when I think that TDO is Meg Crofton - so she was told by Staggs to accept the Fantasyland redo? This sounds like potential conflict to me. How comes that she is now promoted to also overlook DL and DLP? Does not make sense to me..."" Yes, TDO/Queen Megara was, for all intents and purposes, holding Fantasyland and Star Tours hostage. When Burbank saw the magical Scottish castle that was gonna open down the road they freaked and, i ASSUME, must have forced her to open the wallet up or else. The reason she's being promoted is EXACTLY BECAUSE of her mismanagment. Because she's made spreadsheets look good.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 No. I'm not going into Illinois politics with you on here! I can't chuckle enough on this, we'll have to speak offline at some point for you to understand. --- fair enough-- by your comment you likely work for County or City --( btw I used to also 30+ years ago for a short time - and have many friends and associates who still do in Illinois politics-- I tell them the same things, including the ones I know in office)-
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Am I wrong when I think that TDO is Meg Crofton - so she was told by Staggs to accept the Fantasyland redo? This sounds like potential conflict to me. How comes that she is now promoted to also overlook DL and DLP? Does not make sense to me...<<<< All. Done. For. Effect. It reeks of it. Disney wants to set themselves and their execs for "success". Very disingenuous.
