Originally Posted By dshyates Just to tell you how crazy I am, I'll tell you how our last crazy trip went. Back in Oct, I wanted to take the kids to the aquarium in Atlanta. So I did. On Fri. I worked until midnight getting the 11 o'clock news on the air. My 2 daughters (7,11) and I got on the road at midnight. I drove 7 hours to Atlanta. We had an early check in at the Marriot Marquis. Which is a stunning hotel with a 50 story open atrium <a href="http://tinyurl.com/4jsemp" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/4jsemp</a> I slept while the kids watched TV. I was awake by 1pm. We then took the subway (the girls first subway ride) to Underground Atlanta. It was pretty disappointing. We then rode the subway back and ate dinner at the Trader Vic's across the street at the Hilton. Then did about 50 laps on the 50 story glas elevator in the hotel. I did hit the martini bar at the bottom once or twice. But I was exhausted and we were in bed by 11pm. We Sunday brunched at the rotating restaurant on top of the 70-story Westin Peachtree. Hit the Aquarium. then got on the road home about 5pm. Arrived home about midnight. We did all that with one night(2 sleeps) in a hotel. Check this out: <a href="http://tinyurl.com/2t5ntq" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/2t5ntq</a>
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Indeed you are Russ. If life were a highway, you would be a fork in the road. Back on original topic, overall Eisner was friend. He enabled the company to grow to an unprecedented size (ok, this is part of the problem too). Work on unique movies, tv projects, park/resort expansion, and saved Disney from dying as a key part of the team in the 80's. If he had retired in 1998, I do not think we would ever be having this conversation. Just as you could say if Frank Wells were still alive, we may have been in a better place too. I respect Eisner, and if I ever had the chance to have dinner with him, I would jump at it in a heartbeat!
Originally Posted By dshyates "I am so good at derailing topics. Hahahaha." What was the topic again? Sorry, Dave and I were chatting. Oh yeah, Eisner. Right. He approved DAK, which I feel is a little slight. There, thats about the point we went off on the major tangent. Now instead of going in the dak direction I will lead with some Eisner centric topic that is sure to keep it on track. OK And he approved DCA and WSP. And I think they are the greatest development in theme park development since Walt invented the theme park. HKDL would be in there had they not wasted all that money on needless themeing. *The above paragraph is a joke and in no way reflects the views of the poster or views the site its posted on.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Lol dshyates! I will actually defend WDSP. They had to build something or lose the land. They had no money. What opened at WDSP was actually more enjoyable attractions wise than MGM in the main. So, I am a supporter of that park. DCA - well, I like the premise, but agree it could have been better. I wish the recession in the early 90's had not had such a huge affect on EuroDisney's performance, because I think we would have seen even more creativity. It's opening were both the zenith and nadir for Disney.
Originally Posted By dshyates I do agree that had Eisner retired in the late nineties his legacy would be much different. But after that he did sell off $500 mil of stock options, and changed the Disney business model to a 180 degree switch from the Walt plan. Cheaper in quality offerings across the board (Walt: "Quality will out"). Teamed with supersaturation marketing (Walt: "Leave them wanting more"). And I believe him dumping his stock showed his confidence in his plan. And I can't tell you how pleased I am with it also. It leaves us with peeling screen print Ts, mad mice, and being Disneyed out just trying to shop at walmart. Not to mention the required Disney character every 17.4 feet in the parks including through IASW. The consultanteers have determined that that is the minimum distance for the average guest to get the full commercial impact. Now customers who visit more than average may find it to be a titch to much characterization.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Indeed dsyates, I am with you there. That is why I think 1993 really is the watershed (maybe a bit later as DAK is a cool park)
Originally Posted By trekkeruss As a whole, DCA is a disappointment, but it does have flashes of brilliance, even if sometimes they weren't fully developed. Despite a low-budget queue, Soarin' is easily one of Disney's most popular attractions. The shows at the Hyperion have been excellent (except for the first one; I can't comment on Steps In Time or whatever it was called; I never saw it.) The Animation building is well done. BUT... even though DCA is rather weak, the expansion of the resort as a whole was definitely a plus. DtD and the GCH are fantastic additions. Even all the infrastrastucture and landscaping in and around resort are plusses. So taken as a whole, it's been a plus, not a minus.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Agreed Russ. I would also add that Grizzly Peak is some of Disney's best work too.
Originally Posted By dshyates "the expansion of the resort as a whole was definitely a plus. DtD and the GCH are fantastic additions. Even all the infrastrastucture and landscaping in and around resort are plusses. So taken as a whole, it's been a plus, not a minus." And I will agree with this wholeheartedly. The resort expansion with the exception of DCA itself was really well done. And some of the upgrade plans will take care of a lot of my problems with DCA. I really think the entrance redo will really help the ambiance of the park as a whole. And I love Soarin'. But I like the WDW version as the theme while shallower than DCA is clear. It is a fantastic travelogue. It is muddled thematically in DCA. And I agree that there are moments of brilliance throughout DCA. But DCA also is a shining example in many places throughout the park of the direction that I feel is wrong for a Disney Destination Resort.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Like Dave we spend considerable time at WDW. We always go there at least 7 days a year, and most years it is somewhere between 15 and 20. I admit that we see the parks far differently than you do. We always buy annual passes because then we don't feel we need to "get our money's worth". Some days the only time we spend in the parks is a couple of hours at Epcot to have a glass of wine and watch Illuminations. But back to the AK. Yes, we can spend an hour looking at just one small portion of an animal attraction. Not every one all the time, but you never know what you are going to see. That is what I love about the AK. Every time you go there you see something completely different than what you've seen before. We spent at least an hour watching the Gorillas one time. There were five or six of them interacting on the grassy hill just past the glassed in portion of the gorilla exhibit. It was one of the funniest things I've ever seen at WDW. The 'child' gorillas would kind of sneak up on the adults, swat at them and then run away. The adults would put up with this for so long until they would finally swat back... not hard enough to hurt the young one, but hard enough to tell them to cut it out. Which they would. For about five minutes. Then the kids would start sneaking up on the oldsters and start the whole thing over again. It was also great fun watching the kids play with each other. They would chase each other around, take turns climbing up on a big rock, rolling around on the grass, and just generally interacting in such a 'human' way that it was amazing. Do the gorillas always give us such a great show? No they don't. But every visit if you take the time to watch at all of the various animal sites you will be rewarded with what I consider some of the most entertaining stuff at WDW. Have you ever taken the Discovery Island trails that head down towards the river and the base of the Tree of Life? It is an absolutely amazing area. Beautiful flowers, small waterfalls, and a fantastic view of the tree that you don't get anywhere else in the park. Have you ever been there? I kind of doubt it. We meet very few people when we are there, which is one of its joys. You are surrounded by this gorgeous, lush landscape and feel almost alone... as if you were far away from the crowds and general craziness of a Disney park. And of course there is the Capybara. Have you ever seen the Capybara? It is totally amazing. It is the world's largest rodent. It looks like a 100 pound rat. The first time I saw it I truly laughed out loud... for quite a while. I doubt many people have ever seen it when visiting the AK. <a href="http://montaraventures.com/pix/capybara.jpg" target="_blank">http://montaraventures.com/pix...bara.jpg</a> (Photo not from the AK... I just wanted to show the size.) So yes, we spend hours looking at certain portions of the animal exhibit. Heck, I've even spent almost an hour at dusk sitting on the circular bench in Harambe, looking across at the old Baobab tree. The streetlights come on with their gentle glow and at my back the Tree of Life is bathed in violet light. Very few people are in that portion of the park. It is close to closing and everyone is headed for the exit. But like Epcot, no one is going to give you grief if you are in the park up to an hour after closing. I enjoy the peacefulness and the "I'm not in Florida anymore" feeling that the AK provides better than any other Disney park. After a while it is time to head for the exit. I take the bridge across to Discovery Island and enjoy the colors and carvings on the building and the ladybug streetlights. It is truly the finest time of the day at the Animal Kingdom. By the way... they ARE keeping the AK open past dark occasionally now. They just close the animal areas but leave the other attractions running. Oh... I also loved the Tarzan show. I liked it much more than the new Nemo show.
Originally Posted By dshyates As far as the animals giving a great show, I think that has a great deal to do with what time of year you are there. We always go in August. Because I have to go when the kids are out of school because of visitation issues. And All the summer months are hot, so the deciding factor for us is August is the least crowded of the summer months. Unfortunately during August the animals as a whole are sleeping in the shade or an AC vent. Fortunately they put the vents where you can at least see the sleeping animal. And as far as just chillin'. Since DAK seems to have the most oppressive heat problem we don't tend to sit and swelter outside. I also wish they had some sort of transportation system. That is why I suggested a high tech ACed skyway that could circle the park. And it is good to hear that they are keeping the park open into the night sometimes. A never understood why they didn't do this before.
Originally Posted By dshyates "And as far as just chillin'. Since DAK seems to have the most oppressive heat problem we don't tend to sit and swelter outside." To go one step further, while sitting and waiting for the parade to start I was afraid I was going to burst into flames.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo dsyates, again I further understand some of your issues with the park. I have only been in Florida in Autumn and Winter, and that has been horrible enough weather wise, I do not think I would enjoy WDW in the summer at all.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Since DAK seems to have the most oppressive heat problem we don't tend to sit and swelter outside.>> I went to the AK once in July. I’ll never make that mistake again. I was even totally miserable there one warm Thanksgiving. That was the first year the park was open though, and many of the trees had not grown enough to shade the queue areas. It is considerably better now. But I have to tell you... nothing beats a January trip to WDW. Nothing.
Originally Posted By dshyates You should see the photo of us in front of the Castle from our last trip. It was about 4pm. We all had on our mouse ears. It was 106 degrees and not a cloud in the sky. In the photo you can literally SEE how hot it is. It was hilarious. I don't mind the heat, we just stick to the shade, pour water over our heads regularly, and just keep moving.
Originally Posted By 2001DLFan <<davewasbaloo: I do happily pay the fees for the parks and sit, because I do not know of any other lushly themed places you can go for one day. I also am ok with early closure because we just hop to my other fav park, Epcot.>> You might want try Cypress Gardens. It’s less than 40 miles south of WDW and is a beautiful serene, lush, botanical park. A lot cheaper than WDW for a nice sitting experience.
Originally Posted By 2001DLFan <<trekkeruss: Yeah, that DAK is so weak. TDS... so weak.>> Yes, DAK was actually weak, compared to what the initial concept was laid out to be. Budget cuts reduced the park’s scope and it hasn’t really recovered, in spite of the addition of Everest. As for TDS, Eisner had ABSOLUELY NO input as to how that park would turn out. OLC was responsible for it’s quality and integrity. They directed Imagineering as to what they wanted to have in the park and the level of quality they expected.
Originally Posted By 2001DLFan <<Dabob2: FWIW, I've read many places that Walt himself could be a right "illegitimate child" of a boss at times also, and not very nice to some of his employees. That Eisner may have been so also takes him down a notch in my personal estimation (I always feel there's no good excuse for nastiness, including in boss/employee situations) but not in my estimation of what he did for the company. Which is decidedly mixed.>> The major difference I see is that Walt was totally focused on quality and creativity up until his death, where Eisner pretty much lost those qualities (if he ever really had them) as soon as Wells died and the influence he held over Eisner was removed.
Originally Posted By dshyates "Yes, DAK was actually weak, compared to what the initial concept was laid out to be. Budget cuts reduced the park’s scope and it hasn’t really recovered, in spite of the addition of Everest." Be careful. people don't like that kinda talk 'round these parts. ;-)
Originally Posted By Dabob2 < The major difference I see is that Walt was totally focused on quality and creativity up until his death, where Eisner pretty much lost those qualities (if he ever really had them) as soon as Wells died and the influence he held over Eisner was removed.> Of course Walt was more creative than Eisner. My point was only that how one treats employees - and certainly both Walt and Eisner could have done better there from what I've read - does not necessarily translate to being "friend or foe" in terms of the company's output.
