Originally Posted By Goofyernmost Thank you for that response Dave. I didn't think I was going crazy. It is too bad that all those things went wrong. I'm sure it really hurts to be really into something only to have the fun slapped out of you. Sorry! As for the brand line of stuff. Really you can just look at it now and see how cheaply it is made. I think I have posted a couple of times that when I go to WDW I buy T's and other things at Walmart on 192. Things I have purchased at Disney were faded out and worn away within a year. Stuff I bought at Walmart has lasted years and years at less then half the price. There's a common ground for us in that area. I have had the good fortune to still have my rose color glasses in place. Yes, I have seen some problem but not serious enough to keep any lasting impression. When ever I have seen AA's not working, I have made a mental note and tried to check it out again sometime during that same trip and, to this point, they have always been in working order on my next look see. Course that may not account for those that I don't know are AA's and haven't worked in years. Thanks again for your reply.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost BTW...I get all your references except Mission Space. That doesn't seem to have any of the connections that you have grouped with the other examples. What am I missing?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <MGM at opening, I say, was barely worth the bus ride from EPCOT on a 5 day stay----I sure as hell would not have tapped that if it weren't for the hopper feature on the media-> While what's before the dash is a bit over the top for me (even as someone who wasn't crazy about MGM), but what's after the dash was precisely one of my points.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Yep. Can anyone picture Disney/MGM as a stand alone park on opening day? Even now it would hardly qualify as one.
Originally Posted By Mr X I suppose it depends on what you mean...a stand alone DISNEY park in a new location? Well, I can say from experience that they did that very thing in Hong Kong (QUITE inferior to the early years of MGM in many ways, and an altogether crappy park no matter how you slice it). But it seems they've had some limited success, and now they're expanding somewhat. fwiw.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo My point about Mission Space is the 5 of us in our family that went to Epcot, only 2 of us could ride (one of us if I did not take a personal risk and ignored the health warnings). I like thrill rides, but that Pavillion was a huge waste as it is not inclusive, the whole aspiration that Walt was shooting for. Every single attraction built in his lifetime, every member of the family could experience, including the Matterhorn.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo although, for what it is worth, even when Disney greatly pleased me, I have always found the MK to be weaker than DL and DLP (Fantasyland, Pirates of the Caribbean, Back end of tomorrowland, etc.) . I am pleased they are addressing Fantasyland finally though.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>I'm sure it really hurts to be really into something only to have the fun slapped out of you. Sorry!<<< Ya it does, thanks for the empathy. I don't mean to be a succubus. I sometimes contemplate just going away, but after 35+ years of fandom, where Disney parks really shaped a lot of who I am, and 10 years of friendships and postings on LP, I can't do it. I just am really hopeful of seeing some improvements again. There are some sparks of hope with Carsland at DCA (though I would prefer a non toon theme), the FLE at MK seems like a great change (except Snow White being turfed out for a meet, greet and grope), and the expansion at HKDL with Mystic Point and Grizzly Gulch is pretty exciting. Maybe it is because DLP is litterly rotting away, live music is virtually non existant now, and Toy Story Playland was a huge waste of money, then when I see people share experiences at WDW that match ours (two DVC families we know were terribly disappointed and let down on their trips), it is very disappointing. I want the Disney experience we came to love, new things are great, but I would like them to adhere to the vision (noticing the cuts is not great - yet we have seen non Disney vacation options improve over the years). I have been writing for years in the hopes that when people see something that disappoints them, they will raise it at City Hall, and maybe Disney will get the message. But I am now losing that hope as people fawn over meeting spotty teens in rubber heads, and love booking restaurants (and soon attractions) 6 months in advance.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***But I am now losing that hope as people fawn over meeting spotty teens in rubber heads, and love booking restaurants (and soon attractions) 6 months in advance*** I can understand the character thing. As far as the whole booking restaurants thing goes, I think it's bizarre to read so many on LP and other places totally getting into it and counting it as part of their "excitement" of vacation planning. Sucks the spontaneity right out (I don't even want to PLAN a vacation 6 months in advance, never mind try and book reservations for a restaurant I might or might not want to eat at 6 months later!). They're going to do this with attractions as well? If so, I won't be back there...that's for sure!
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost One of the reasons that I probably have been able to "not see" a lot is because I don't stay on site. I tried it once a couple of years ago and felt nothing but frustration. In fairness, I guess, I did stay at POP and believe me, it didn't! The rooms were so small that I had to go outside to change my mind. The food at the food court was awful. I made the mistake of getting a Philly Cheese Steak sandwich that literally was swimming in grease. Didn't even have to swallow it, it just slide down my throat. I stayed for week and then had a couple of days extra before I returned home so I got a room for $35.00 per night off site that was like moving into Cinderella's Castle by comparison. All types of food places within walking distance, refrigerator and microwave a standard part of the room and no 6 month old reservations required, thank you very much. I will never stay on site again. So therefore I restrict my exposure to just the parks and so far I have had good experiences there, but I will admit to being superficial. I guess I think of things a little differently. For example, it would never have occurred to me that it might become inclusive if my family were 5 instead of the ride designed 4. I don't think Disney had control of that and then you would have to ask, where do I stop...6...7...8? What's the break point. Some rides, even though designed for families do not always work out that way. Anyone with small kids know that sometimes the tamest of rides will be greatly resisted by a youngun when they see it as scary. Specifically, my thoughts on Mission Space is that it was designed for older children (tweens, teens and adults)because, let's face it, there are a number of rides that tweens, teens and adults would not be caught dead on. On the other hand, in my opinion, MS is as edutainment as it is possible to get without launching one out into space for real. And certainly not "toon" based. Snow White was a snooze designed for small children and their mostly less than enthusiastic parents. Does that mean that it excluded the aforementioned groups. Of course not, but societal designs prevented them from wanting to be any part of it. So the end result was the same...can't do it together. I'm not as convinced as some of you are the Walt would not have been on board with many of the things that a lot of people here on LP and other sites condemn. He was a man of vision and of change. I think that a lot of the things that we "oldtimers" think of as shrines would have been relegated to sawdust if Walt were still there controlling it. I think his intent was to have a place where everyone could go and find something that they enjoyed. Together not meaning necessarily joined at the hip every possible moment, but together in the sense that 5 year old Marcia would love seeing the Princesses, 7 year old Tom would be first in line for PoTC, 11 year old Jane would run people down to get to Splash Mountain, 14 year old Henry wouldn't stop talking about Mission Space. It is something for everyone, not everything for everyone. I don't even think that is possible.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Oh and Dug, please tell me that you're not concluding that the masses found MGM to be a superior product just because the park hosted sellouts and financial success at opening. You're not doing that, right?<< Uh, no. >>The fact is we do not know why the park rocketed on day 1. Was it a superior product(which I highly doubt)? Was it the 'hopper' factor on a 4-6 day trip(which I believe is very likely)? Or was it a combination of the two?<< You got me. But it is a fact that D-MGM was a first year hit from Day One. Which is all I have ever said about it.
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance What's with all the hate for the people inside the costumed characters? Is is possible to bring up teenagers without also saying that they probably have acne prone skin?
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Of course CC, but language was invented to arouse emotion, otherwise communication is pointless.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> Pressler is small beans. He didn't actually kill the company, he just mismanaged the crap out of it for a while. << I don't believe Paul Pressler attended the workshop in Aspen, when DCA was first dreamt up. If that's correct, most of the blame actually therefore rests with the boobs of Barry Braverman and his boss, Michael Eisner -- who fancied himself skilled enough in the creative field to fuss over no less than the type of credenzas (or what-not) installed in Disney hotels. As for Paul Pressler, he illustrates the "Peter Principle," which is the concept that a person is promoted to his (or her---hello, Cynthia Harriss) level of incompetence. And the rest is history.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> jonvn, along with many others, couldn't believe Al was right. << The one viewpoint that the aforementioned forumer expressed that I thought was spot-on was to believe it was a poor excuse and rationalization to state DCA couldn't have been better, or that it was the way it was, due to a tight budget. Or that it was a case of money, money, money!
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Has there been a Disneyland president that approach the level of enthusiasm for the park that Walt Disney had? I'm not asking if a Disneyland president aspired to be like Walt Disney, but whether or not any have been nearly as passionate as he appeared to be regardless of their viewpoint about how the park should be managed. Even if I disagree with what a Disneyland president is doing, I would expect them to have Disneyland running through their veins. They should, in a sense, be a "foamer." I get the sense that corporations do not want employees to be passionate about what the corporation does because it makes it more likely they will dissent if they don't like what's happening. In a way, diversity of viewpoints in a company can be damaging, but I believe good compromises can be hammered out through a free exchange of ideas. But that can't happen if an executive who happens to be a purist speaks up and is fired for being "difficult." It would make sense not to hire the purist in the first place.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones I'll posit a hypothetical. In about a year I will have hopefully earned my masters degree in economics. I land an entry level job at Disney and worked my way up through the ranks of Team Disney Anaheim (unlikely, but go with me here). So an executive says, "Look, let's throw this token Hispanic into the position of Disneyland President. He won't speak up and give us a difficult time." All agree. So I'm sitting there as Disneyland President and I have a few opinions about the way things should be. I'm not a dictator, but I am another voice (remember, it's a hypothetical). So if I do espouse purist Disneyland values, does the process to get rid of me begin right then and there? Which brings me to another point, who actually decides the direction of Disneyland? Does Bob Iger have free reign to pretty much steer the park into different directions or is it decided by some kind of committee or what? Who above anyone else, if they held the view that the park should start focusing on original attractions and not Pixar/princesses/pixies, has the most say in that? If Iger woke up tomorrow and said, "Alright, no more Pixar rides." Does that mean no more Pixar rides? Would he only have free reign until the board of directors gets rid of him? My least knowledgeable aspect about Disney is the corporate politics, to be quite honest.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Has there been a Disneyland president that approach the level of enthusiasm for the park that Walt Disney had?<< I would suggest Jack Lindquist and Matt Ouimet.
