Originally Posted By jpjobes ">That's what I think your readers need to understand. When it comes to Walt Disney World, we're not out to please the annual passholders. Our goal here is service the tens of millions of other guests for whom a Disney World vacation is a once-in-a-lifetime experience. < Not out to please the AP holders? Huh? Is there something I'm missing here? The thought process should be that if WDI pleases the AP holders, that the one time guest will automatically have a better experience." Why? The AP holders are a small fraction of the target audience, and they're not even close to the target audience profile. If AP holders made up more of the attendance numbers, they would have a larger voice. But if more than 80% of the people in the parks at any given time are once/year or once/lifetime visitors, then that's who they need to make the happiest. Regular visitors look at the attractions and their visits to WDW differently. Next time you go, try to remember your first visit - that's how 4 out 5 people around you are experiencing WDW at that moment. It just makes good business sense to appeal to the masses, and on the scale that Disney does things in this day and age, good business sense is the way they need to operate. And even while they're appealing to the masses, the extra 'Disney touch' helps to keep WDW as a target vacation destination.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Wow, the Imagineer who wrote to Jim Hill comes across like a whiny little baby. I picture him with his arms folded across his chest, threatening to hold his breath until we like his new attraction. Get over yourself dude!
Originally Posted By wahooskipper An attraction that was geared toward toddlers was built for toddlers and the toddlers enjoy it. And the problem is? I'm saying not every attraction needs to be a $100 million Everest. And, not every attraction Disney himself approved was as elaborate or detailed as Pirates. Every theme park in America has an Autopia. There isn't anything "special" about it but I don't hear people saying it should be removed. I agree that the Imagineer in question sounds bitter but I think he makes some valid points under his bitterness.
Originally Posted By DlandDug A bit of perspective seems to be in order. This was NOT an Imagineering response to fan criticism. It as AN Imagineer responding to a legitimate complaint (ie: bad acoustics) from a cast member who had experienced the new TSMM in Florida. It was then addressed in broader terms by Mr. Hill. As in: >>It was at this point that I learned that many of the Imagineers who worked on "Toy Story Mania" were deliberately going out of their way to avoid reading the negative comments that had been posted on the Web about their attraction. To whit: " ... we're tired of the constant b-fest. The foamers who post on MiceChat, WDWMagic and your site. They never seem to like anything that WDI does anymore..."<<< (Note to Jim Hill: It's "To wit," not "To whit.") So where does he get, "I learned that many of the Imagineers who worked on "Toy Story Mania" were deliberately going out of their way to avoid reading the negative comments that had been posted on the Web," from the statement, "we're tired of the constant b-fest... They never seem to like anything that WDI does anymore?" I think that Mr. Hill has done a disservice by presenting a personal rant by a "friend" in WDI as some sort of statement. Hopefully the Imagineer in question consented to having these comments presented in such a highly public forum, as opposed to what they actually are: a few words between friends. I know if some of the things I have said about the Disney fan community regarding specific incidents were presented as the definitive LP point of view, people would be up in arms. There's also a comment near the end that does bear repeating: >>I wish that more of your readers could experience the parks the way those once-in-a-lifetime guests do. They're just there to have fun with their friends and their family. They're not actively going out of their way to always find things to complain about.<< Truer words were never spoken. In our zeal (and I do include myself), we too often focus only on what is wrong, and lose sight of the actual intent of the Disney theme parks. I try, from time to time, to go to the parks with people who are experiencing them for the first time, and catch that sense of delight and joy that first captured my imagination. I don't think that means that there's no room for legitimate complaint when things are poorly done. But I think that we make ourselves irrelevant when we get so worked up over every single thing that comes along. And that's the understandable sense of frustration I catch from this Imagineer.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Wow, the Imagineer who wrote to Jim Hill comes across like a whiny little baby.>> Jim - you are assuming that said imagineer exists. I'd wager he is a figment of an overactive imagination that wants to spark some controversy his way. Maybe be felt aggrieved not to have either the Marty Sklar or Dave Smith letters about iasw.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 LOL, I love it whenever an Imagineer gives a statement it comes across as a whiny little baby but OC Dean says comments that sound even whinier and he is speaking the truth.... This is hilarious to watch....
Originally Posted By danyoung >Jim - you are assuming that said imagineer exists. I'd wager he is a figment of an overactive imagination that wants to spark some controversy his way.< My take exactly. Take a look at the article - at both the cm's comments and the Imagineer's letter. Both of them use classic Jim Hill style - partial sentence structure, starting sentences with "which", etc. It's my opinion that both comments were written by Mr. Hill himself. It's why I don't read his site at all any more, and completely discount any rumors coming out of there as very very suspect.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***An attraction that was geared toward toddlers was built for toddlers and the toddlers enjoy it. And the problem is?*** Whatever happened to the "fun for the whole family" stuff? Who the heck wants a ride that's only geared towards toddlers? Yuck!
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>And that's the understandable sense of frustration I catch from this Imagineer.<< No distinction was made in the comments posted on Jim Hill's site by this fellow that he understands the difference between griping vs. constructive criticism. In other words, I think there's a difference between judging an attraction based on the ideals the company trained all us fans to expect over the decades since 1955 vs. complaining for complaining's sake. Through weekly TV programming, we were told that the aim was to always be top notch. To not run a grungy place where the rides fall into disrepair or look shop-worn. Remember the "Evening Magazine" shows that revealed how every light bulb at Disneyland was on a roation that saw it replaced before it burned out? I do. And how many times have we read stories about how the original designers of DL were storytellers and movie people, and that's why the experiences are so different from standard amusement park fare? So, because of that history of success and attention to detail, they have created a "monster" -- the theme park geek who actually appreciates those high standards and likes to discuss them with fellow geeks. We geeks aren't better or superior to any other Disney theme park guest. The only difference is we might be more conscious of the little details that the casual observer might not see. I think people are aware of these things peripherally, as they add to making an attraction immersive, but they robably haven't spent much time worrying about how to articulate that to a survey taker. So when a guest says this attraction or that isn't "Disney" enough, WDI ought to understand that they mean it isn't "different" or "immersive". Sadly, they seem to interpret those comments to mean "WE LOVE THOSE CHARACTERS ON EVERYTHING!" Just because online geeks (and I include myself in that by the way) want to hold them to a higher standard, well, I'm sorry if that makes some of them weary and uncomfortable. Disney parks are supposed to be the best of the best. If Imagineers find themselves thinking stuff is ever good enough, they ought to explore their options at lesser parks.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper There are many, many rides that a toddler can't go on for one reason or another. Let me think of some scenarios. The older kids want to go into Philharmagic with dad but mom is worried that the sound or lighting effects might scare the 2-3 year old. Mom can let the little one burn off some energy on the Pooh Playground while the rest of the family is in the attraction. The only thing worse than walking up 138 steps of joy that is the Treehouse? Doing it with a toddler in your arms. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a little area dad can wait in with the rugrat while everyone else is ascending the stairway to heaven? I think some folks have an issue with the idea that Pooh Playground replaced 20K Leagues. Hey, I'm sorry they haven't done anything with 20K but as the dad of a a couple of young kids I can say I have made use of Pooh's Playground several times.
Originally Posted By demderedoseguys >Why? The AP holders are a small fraction of the target audience, and they're not even close to the target audience profile. If AP holders made up more of the attendance numbers, they would have a larger voice. But if more than 80% of the people in the parks at any given time are once/year or once/lifetime visitors, then that's who they need to make the happiest. Regular visitors look at the attractions and their visits to WDW differently. Next time you go, try to remember your first visit - that's how 4 out 5 people around you are experiencing WDW at that moment. It just makes good business sense to appeal to the masses, and on the scale that Disney does things in this day and age, good business sense is the way they need to operate. And even while they're appealing to the masses, the extra 'Disney touch' helps to keep WDW as a target vacation destination< Why? Because the APers know the most of what the "Disney touch" is and should be all about. Anything less makes it less Disney and more like just any other amusement park. If each generation strips away more and more of the "Disney touch", the brand will eventually cease to exist. Does it make good business sense to end up with just another amusement park?
Originally Posted By HMButler79 ""Wouldn't it be nice if there was a little area dad can wait in with the rugrat while everyone else is ascending the stairway to heaven?"" Cause TSI is not available. pleeeeeeaseeee.....
Originally Posted By Tiggirl <<you are assuming that said imagineer exists. I'd wager he is a figment of an overactive imagination that wants to spark some controversy his way>> I always suspected... ~Beth
Originally Posted By wahooskipper How are Disney's attendance numbers these days? Would anyone mistake the Magic Kingdom for a Six Flags park? Are they REALLY in jeopardy of being considered "just another amusement park" because they are adding some characters in IASW or they created a video game attraction in the likeness of Toy Story? My guess? Just as Space Ranger Spin has done the new Toy Story ride will be a hit and receive rave reviews. It will have a high re-rideability factor and the vast majority of people will love it...which is good for business. And, guess what? There will be complaints on Disney fan websites. Funnier still: within the Disney "nerds" themselves some will enjoy the attraction and others will not.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Butler...TSI is no picnic with a 2-3 year old. And, for the purposes of my example how long do you think it would take me to get over to the rafts, cross the river, run around a bit and retreat back to the Philharmagic theatre or the Treehouse? I don't think you need a Pooh Playground (or version thereof) at every attraction exit but the idea of a small area like that in a strategic place in each line sounds GREAT to someone who has had to pass the time with a nonriding little one.
Originally Posted By Mr X Yuck. Disneyland managed without something so banal for 50 years with no complaints, and now you want that in every land. Yuck. Just Yuck.
Originally Posted By Mr X Having said that, there ARE ways to accomplish what you are looking for Wahoo and still keep it magical and not cheapo. Ariel's playground is a wonderland, AMAZING and great not ONLY for little kids but everyone else too. Pooh's playground just sucks. El cheapo.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper You know...Disneyland didn't have baby comfort stations for 50 years either but those ADD to the guest experience...at least from a parent perspective.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I know a little something about building playgrounds and I would be willing to bet that Pooh's playground cost in excess of $1 million. Certainly not "el cheapo" for what its intent is. If Disney were to only build attractions for EVERYONE then there would be no Mountains at all in Florida and their waterparks would consist of a wading pool and a cabana.
