Originally Posted By Park Hopper >>That is exactly what they should do, but they wont. It is all a numbers game now. Disney is run by accountants who spend their days figuring how to squeeze every single penny out of the consumer, while maintaining the lowest possible expenditure on the company's part. We know, and they know what things could bring that level of charm back to what it used to be. The days of old Walt saying "damn the expense, just do it",are gone, and they aint coming back.<< First of all I'm pretty sure Walt never actaully said this and second, what with the ballooning budget on the Sub ride and the major overhaul DCA is getting, it looks like money boys are taking one in the chin, courtesy of John Lassiter. There's a showman in the house again (We just have to hope that all the non-Pixar attraction rumors are true). We may be in for a little theme park renaissance at the DLR.
Originally Posted By pecos bill Your right, it is a generalization, and I probably shouldnt have put it in quotation marks. However, there are many instances of Walt going ahead with projects despite escalating costs, do you deny that? This whole DCA thing is just a case of damage control. Simply an effort to make the park more profitable by doing the things they should have done in the first place. Dont get me wrong, I eagerly anticipate the changes, but I dont think it constitutes any kind of renaissance.
Originally Posted By Park Hopper ^^Ah, but perhaps you haven't heard the World of Color story; how the accountants didn't want to pony up the cash for it becasue they couldn't justify the expense in a park with such low attendance. (accounatants are such inteligent fools) Lasseter over ruled them. Stories like this give me great hope.
Originally Posted By pecos bill Well, theres nothing wrong with hope, and you wont get any argument from me in your assesment of accountants!
Originally Posted By jonvn "People don't change?" No, they don't. Everything you mention is utterly superficial.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Disney is adapting to what is needed to flourish in today's theme park environment." No, it isn't. It's dumbing down because it's easier. Look at soarin. It's a good example of the sorts of things they typically would do. It's popular. This comment about them having to do stuff to be popular today is rubbish.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I can still remember the original shooting galleries -- both in Frontierland and in Adventureland." There was also one on Main Street.
Originally Posted By DLer Could the lack of educational, informational or static show/display types of attractions be an outcome of Disneyland's All-inclusive admission policy? Back in the days of the ticket books, there was greater demand for attractions, dining and shopping that made the park attractive to customers buying only the General Admission to the park - this was the "Tivoli" model that Disneyland followed when it opened. But now that there is an All-inclusive admission policy there is much more of a "Magic Mountain" approach to give the customer the most bang (meaning rides) for their buck.
Originally Posted By 2001DLFan <<wahooskipper: Whatever happend to that bouncing little...whatever it was...with the springy tail?>> << No Jim...I'm thinking his name was something like Marsupilami or something like that anyway. There was a lot of hype for him, maybe in the early to mid 90s but then he just sort of vanished. I'm thinking I remember him being "introduced" during either the Christmas parade or one of the World of Disney intros.>> Marsupialami??? Yeah, that was the name. Disney bought the company that produced it, put it into a couple of issues of the Disney Adventures magazine and a few shows on the Disney Channel, then let it die. Typical of the Disney strategy at the time (Infoseek) where they wanted to move into other’s territory, but didn’t have the talent to follow through.
Originally Posted By Socrates RE: #65 (I've been away for a few days) -- " "People don't change?" No, they don't. Everything you mention is utterly superficial." I will agree that in some respects people don't change. For example, people always want value for their money. But assuming these changes are in fact superficial, couldn't they still affect behavior? Socrates "The unexamined life is not worth living."
