Originally Posted By davewasbaloo "I do not make films primarily for children. I make them for the child in all of us, whether we be six or sixty. Call the child 'innocence'. The worst of us is not without innocence, although buried deeply it might be. In my work I try to reach and speak to that innocence, showing it the fun and joy of living; showing it that laughter is healthy; showing it that the human species, although happily ridiculous at times, is still reaching for the stars." -- Walt Disney Well looking at the line up of attractions around the globe, and especially of late in WDW, this has been forgotten.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo And specifically relating to WDW, the vision statement was: "Walt Disney World is a tribute to the philosophy and life of Walter Elias Disney, and to the talents, the dedication, and the loyalty of the entire Disney organization that made Walt Disney's dream come true. May Walt Disney World bring joy and inspiration and new knowledge to all who come to this happy place, a Magic Kingdom where the young at heart of all ages can laugh and play and learn - together." -- Roy O. Disney, 25 October 1971 What offerings in the MK since 1971 have given guests the opportunity to learn? Ok, maybe DAK, Epcot and to a lesser extent, DHS have taken some of this on, but to me, I think this is why I find the MK much weaker than DL - the learning aspect has eroded. To me, the edutainment facet of the Disney is a large part of who I am today. This is why I get so angry about the direction of travel.
Originally Posted By itsme Dave what learning experiences have been offered/created at DL that are heads and shoulders so much better then those at DW since 1971?
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo They are only small things, but I would offer the exhibits at the Opera House, Big Thunder Ranch, Innoventions. And ok, seperate gate, but DCA opened with some nice edutatainment touches. Sadly though, all of Disney has gone down hill in this regard. And this is why I am sooo angry with Disney as a whole. But the MK felt like 6 flags (only less thrilling), when compared with it's cousins on my last visit.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo The big difference is, DL still offers time period entertainment, the Silent Cinema, Sillouettes, NOS has an antique shop still, hand drawn watches, locality themed dining - these are the gems that have sadly been stripped away from the MK and could easily return. If it wasn't an easy fix, I would not waste my time harping on about it.
Originally Posted By itsme But if your gonna use DCA then you gotta also use Epcot, DAK and HS in the comparisons since they all have been opened after 71. Epcot especially, look at the criticism that it took cause there were to many educational/learning type attractions. You cant make everyone happy with everything, when building they need to try to balance things and that's tough. There are things at the parks that I don't personally care for but when I see my kids enjoy it it makes me think I'm glad that is there.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Well, take DCA out of the equation, DL still offers more educational opportunities than the MK. As we say, balance. Even as a kid, I was never that impressed with Fantasyland. Now the MK is one big, badly maintained fantasyland, it holds far less alure.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> Everyone does realize the US Constitution has been amended repeatedly throughout our history, right? << The amendments have even been amended. However amending the constitution is a very difficult thing to do, and not to be taken lightly.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> I know the world has changed, but the ability to keep it well kept, and to inspire humanity has not. But Disney has lost track of this vision (thankfully there are still a few at Disney that keep my faith going, but not as many). << All you have to do Dave is read what some people think about WDW on other forums. It doesn't give me much hope for change, when people are more than willing to accept less while paying more. It really is sad.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Dave, I really think there is a difference between a country's founding document and business continuation after the founder's death. I think you could also make a strong case that even past the amendments, the Constitution today is interpreted in a way that is vastly different from when it was first written. Depending on your point of view that may be very good or very bad. But it certainly has not stayed the same. I would love to know of any U.S. company that you feel has retained the founder's vision 40+ years after the founder's death. Is Ford Motor Company today anything like the company founded by Henry Ford? Is Hewlett Packard anything like the company founded by Bill and Dave? Did Apple sink to the depths of nothingness before Steve Jobs came back to take the helm? I just doesn't happen. A founder is nurturing his idea, his baby. To him pride in the company is at least as important as an income statement. For anyone else it just isn't like that. They are running a company. They are not nurturing an idea. If you DO know of a company that has successfully retained it's founder's vision, I sure would like to know about it!
Originally Posted By CarolinaDisneyDad That's because when the founder is alive the board and stockholder will defer to him or her but once the founder is out it becomes strictly a cash machine where everyone wants to cash in. No body buys a stock thinking this thing will be good in 10 years. They buy because they think it will increase this year and if it doesn't they call for action. I think going public is the worst thing that can happen for a companies long term prospects.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<Is Hewlett Packard anything like the company founded by Bill and Dave?>> I have little doubt that if Bill and Dave were to come back from the grave that they would fire Mark Hurd on the spot.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Good point, but sadly Disney to me used to be more important than politics or religion (sad I know). I would like to think that Rolls Royce is still a very similar company to when it was founded, Mercedes, BMW too. Also Ritz and Waldorf hotels. And what about the National Park Service?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip << And what about the National Park Service?>> What about it? It has declined terribly over the last 25 years, largely due to inadequate funding and excessive use.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> I think going public is the worst thing that can happen for a companies long term prospects. << I agree for the most part. It's just a fast way to infuse a large cash dflow into a business. Long term you end up selling your soul to the stock holders, rather than concentrating on your employees, and customers.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <It's just a fast way to infuse a large cash dflow into a business.>> If even that. More like a way for the original investors to sell and make a profit. Much easier to sell anonymously to countless people. Of course these days the IPO is out (hard to do in a bear market), so you try to sellout to a bigger fish.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<If you DO know of a company that has successfully retained it's founder's vision, I sure would like to know about it!>> Well ... this isn't quite the same ... but it seems like the OLC retain Walt'd vision in their 'Disney' parks. Of course, maybe they just haven't been poisoned by the consultants begging them to WalMart their parks to the degree that is regular in the US parks (and Paris to a degree as well).
Originally Posted By Disney and beyond Jeez, we all need to cheer up, get positive! "There's a great big beautiful tomorrow Shining at the end of everyday. There's a great big beautiful tomorrow And Tomorrow is just a dream away."
