Originally Posted By jonvn "You sound like a Disney consultant." Who are these consultants, because they are wrong. When we were just on Tom Sawyer Island in Disneyland, the things that my kid enjoyed the most were the treehouse, the bridges, the caves and running around. The look on his face when he went into the trunk of the tree and saw a ladder in it was priceless. The new pirate stuff? Eh. It was ok, but nowhere in the same league of being enjoyable. The stuff that was put in originally in the 50s was a much bigger hit. PEOPLE DON'T CHANGE. This is simply an excuse to be lazy. "I don't believe when he died that there was a single film-based attraction at DL (I believe America The Beautiful was about to open.)" It was called CirCarama. Sponsored by American Motors, and opened in 1955. It changed to CircleVision in 1967. I once was in the sound editing room for this film in the studio, and it looked like something out of NASA. Also, you could pretty much call Flight to the Moon a film based attraction. You sat in a theater, and saw a couple of movies, basically.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Not true. WED was owned by WDP. You're thinking of MAPO." WED was originally privately owned by Walt Disney, and was sold to the Walt Disney Company in February of 1965.
Originally Posted By barboy No, you were clear..... my response was not against what you were saying. I went off on a tangent. When I see EPCOT's Soarin'Over California talk I start to reflect on the sheer stupidity of its placement. There is a proper context for just about everything and Soarin'Over California fits nicely in DCA(where it belongs!) but it is beyond absurd in EPCOT; hence the sarcasm of Cali. screamin' in the showcase.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Eisner became gunshy based on a lot of things (likely his heart problems as well as business) but most of all the ABC takevover. ME always wanted to own a network and he got one. That took his attention away from the parks when they really needed him most." I once was chatting with the former VP of finance, and she said he just wasn't a very good COO. He was long ideas, and weak on seeing them followed through. He couldn't execute. "I recall John Lasseter was quoted as saying something to the effect of 'we're not going to build lousy attractions anymore' when he first greeted the troops at WDI ... yet almost two years after getting his leadership role, I don't see much to show that statement has any bite." Probably because he has almost no real input in the process. He's a figurehead, they gave him a nice title to make him happy, but he is not going to single handedly change a corporate culture, particularly when he isn't even in charge of it. People are so easily duped, it's shameful. "anyone see them tasering and pepper spraying the populice in New Orleans today" I missed that. How nice.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Also, you'd likely be shocked at how much money those end-of-ride image-capture pics earn so that helped ease the pain." They weren't originally in there.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << When we were just on Tom Sawyer Island in Disneyland, the things that my kid enjoyed the most were the treehouse, the bridges, the caves and running around. >> I think everyone realizes this, but it's probably also true that the pirates overlay has increased the number of guests that even choose to go over there. Once they're on the island, all the stuff that was fun 50 years ago is still fun. I think the pirates stuff really just serves as a way to better market the island to get guests on the rafts over there and not as the primary source of entertainment necessarily.
Originally Posted By danyoung >Soarin'Over California fits nicely in DCA(where it belongs!) but it is beyond absurd in EPCOT..< Why? It's in The Land, a pavilion dedicated to, well, the land. Soarin' is a trip over different landscapes of California. Seems like a perfect fit to me.
Originally Posted By TDLFAN >>Someone isn't up on his Bible stories...<< No I am not. I don't read fiction. I only ride it. >>Manna is also "something of value that comes unexpectantly"<< Oh...so by that rationale.. My many trip reports and photo albums from aorund Disney's wide World resorts are 'Manna'. Very nice..
Originally Posted By dshyates I heard they were eventually going to change Soarin' to a Soarin' over the Land theme with shots of things like Angel Falls, Everest, Bora Bora, the Saraha, and the high arctic. Sounds expensive to travel to these places so expect it to be turned into a delightful film about conservation hosted by Pixar's own Lightening McQueen.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 << As I stated in a previous post, Frank Wells was actually responsible for implementing a great deal of fiscal and organizational oversight at WDI after the Splash Mountain debacle.>> That's absolutely true. It's also true that Eisner became gunshy about investing in parks following Euro Disney's opening, Frank's death and the Disney's America fiasco. And what put the nail in the coffin of his 'interest' the parks was his health issues combined with the ABC takeover. That's not coming from some Disney Geek on an Internet board, but from someone with some degree of knowledge of the industry and what was going on at TWDC at the time. You can believe what you choose to. Doesn't change a thing. <<Some of these things were amplified in the mid-90s when Disney's animated films stopped minting money like there was no end to it. It's pretty easy for a company like Disney to dump hundreds of millions of dollars into theme park attractions when they're making billions of dollars in profit on a relatively cheap animated film and don't have to really worry about return on investment. The cash flow climate changed significantly after the Lion King cash cow wore out and they started to think a lot harder about how and where they were spending their money. There were some really good years there when people just spent money like crazy because it was falling into their lap like manna from heaven. Those days are over and really have nothing to do with either Michael Eisner or Frank Wells.>> Well, in the mid-90s period you're talking about, DFA was a treasure chest of riches when it came to hit after hit. Sure, the results dropped after Lion King (released in '94, BTW). But even films like Pocahontas and Hunchback (a personal fave of mine) and Hercules made loads of money and kept making it with video sales, and to lesser extent, merchandise. People like to say Disney's animation unit was basically a flop after Lion King and, frankly, they use Jim Hill like logic when discussing it. Films like Hercules (1997), Mulan (1998) and Tarzan (1999) were very big hits for the company. They just didn't 'measure up' to the Lion King. Until the Golden Age of Pixar and the Drek that is Overrated Shrek came out, no one else measured up to Lion King either. The money was still coming in -- and not in dribs and drabs -- but Disney/Eisner decided that investing it in the theme parks wasn't the direction to go in. Did that ultimately lead to the destruction of WDI as the dream factory it once was? I dunno ...
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Films like Hercules (1997), Mulan (1998) and Tarzan (1999) were very big hits for the company. >> Not big enough to make up for the big increase in costs that occurred when Dreamworks bid animation salaries into the stratosphere. Even if there had been another Lion King, it wouldn't have generated as much cash flow since the cost of animation essentially doubled during the same time frame.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<It was called CirCarama. Sponsored by American Motors, and opened in 1955. It changed to CircleVision in 1967. I once was in the sound editing room for this film in the studio, and it looked like something out of NASA.>> Yep. I remember hearing about that. Way before my time. <<Also, you could pretty much call Flight to the Moon a film based attraction. You sat in a theater, and saw a couple of movies, basically. >> Yeah, but didn't that open in '67 with the new T-land? I think the point still stands that DL didn't rely on film-based attractions. Not like Disney parks do today.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Films like Hercules (1997), Mulan (1998) and Tarzan (1999) were very big hits for the company. They just didn't 'measure up' to the Lion King." Trees can't grow up to the sky. Of all those post Lion King films, the only one I can tolerate is Mulan. Tarzan I can sit through, but it's painful. The rest, I've not managed to be able to make all the way through. So, who are these WDI consultants telling them this crap? How do you get a job like this? I want a job where I tell WDI stupid things and get paid a ton of money for it.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Yeah, but didn't that open in '67 with the new T-land?" No, actually that was one of the first things built. I believe it opened maybe a month after the park did. I'd have to look up the exact date, but it dates back to then. It was updated in 67 with the mission control section. Also, the Main Street Cinema was of course a film based attraction as well. You also had the Fantasyland Theatre, which showed movies. There was also the Art of Animation in Tomorrowland, which was not film based, but was about animated films.
Originally Posted By figment1986 << Frankly, with this technology, they should be able to swap out films every 3-4 years ... maybe even do a Holiday version (seriously). >> SeaWorld Orlando has the Polar Express as an holiday overlay for their Wild Arctic Simulator this season. After the season it will return to wild arctic. Disney not being able to do this seems strange now...
