Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Greg - One point though. Canada is one of the largest nations on the planet, with a rich and varied cultural past. With the exception of O Canada, people might get offended by different choice. for example, I could see a load of Californians had Dixie or Camptown Races represent America. Or someone might want Stars and Strips instead of My country Tis of Thee. I understand the thrust of your arguement, however I think an original song can actually work better. As for the poacher scene in DAK, well it is actually to cover up the boaring security and infrastructural experience of getting back to base camp. Yes, back in the day, they would have created a huge waterfall with a bridge or something. But these days, people seem to find that boring. A real shame. Hans - Walt did not have the money for the DLH. That's why Rather was begged to invest. Again, Spain would have been a rediculous location for EDL. The deal was signed only a few years after Franco. The country was in a terrible state. Paris is the most visited city in the world. It is central - 2/3rds of Europe's population can be there in a few hours). It has great rail links across Europe. at the time the deal was struck, low cost air carriers were rare. Land was cheap comparitively. Spanish summers can be very oppressive. And the tax breaks were huge. Paris is the perfect geographical location in Europe. Just the weather and culture are a little iffy at times.
Originally Posted By gmaletic Kar2oonMan: >>>Careful what you wish for. The Canadians gave us Celine Dion and Bryan Adams. I'm just sayin'.<<< Okay. Forget everything I said. Yay,Disney song! ;-)
Originally Posted By Doobie <<< Careful what you wish for. The Canadians gave us Celine Dion and Bryan Adams. I'm just sayin'. >>> Don't forget Martin Short. Oh wait, they used him there. Doobie.
Originally Posted By dshyates I'm OK with fake. My ex once asked me why guys like fake...uh....implants. "They look so fake", she said. I replied Disney World is fake and its awesome.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Where it goes a bit over the top in my opinion is the whole "keep an eye out for poachers" storyline. To me, while I understand the intent of the message, it intrudes on what could be simply a pleasant and educational ride without all the invented drama. It's a classic example of where less could be more.>> Gotta vehemently disagree with you there 2oony. DAK is all about the subtext of conservation - everything in that park is telling the story of why we need to actively conserve our planet. The Safaris' subtext of the impact of poachers is wholly appropriate. It engages with the guest and remind them how fragile the balance is. I'll defend DAK to the hilt when it comes to story and texture. There is not a single other theme park in the world like it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Careful what you wish for. The Canadians gave us Celine Dion and Bryan Adams. I'm just sayin'.> And Neil Young, Joni Mitchell and kd lang. Choosing wisely is everything.
Originally Posted By Dave <<<Careful what you wish for. The Canadians gave us Celine Dion and Bryan Adams. I'm just sayin'.>>> And Barrage and the Nurmis!
Originally Posted By 5551555 May I jump in here with my own list? The blunders that truely irk me are the aesthetic ones like Toontown with all the little children and babies baking in the sun with nary a plastic tree to shade them, the delicate restaurant right next to the overwhelming entrance to Tomorrowland with a great view of the back of the snackstand parked nearby, the broken down pirates being replaced with not-as-good-as Blaine Gibson's designs and the projected changes to Small World inserting Disney characters into a World in which they do not belong. They are from another planet. Small World belongs to the children of the world. I always thought that Mickey Mouse should have his own ride rather like a 'wild mouse' ride based on the Clock Cleaners movie. Lucky Ducky
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt “Hans - Walt did not have the money for the DLH. That's why Rather was begged to invest.†Walt Disney didn’t have enough money to build DL either, so he sought out partners like ABC that helped finance the park's construction and operation. Oddly, Jack Wrather was given the exclusive rights to use the Disneyland name for a hotel adjacent to the parking lot. He was not an investor in the park, and yet he fully owned a hotel that carried the park's name. That was shortsighted on Disney’s part. “Again, Spain would have been a rediculous location for EDL. The deal was signed only a few years after Franco.†General Franco died in 1975. Euro Disney opened in 1992. That’s nearly two decades, hardly a few years. “Paris is the most visited city in the world. It is central - 2/3rds of Europe's population can be there in a few hours). It has great rail links across Europe. at the time the deal was struck, low cost air carriers were rare. Land was cheap comparitively. Spanish summers can be very oppressive. And the tax breaks were huge. Paris is the perfect geographical location in Europe. Just the weather and culture are a little iffy at times.†That all sounded great at the time, but in retrospect a Disney resort might have been better suited for the proposed site just outside sunny Barcelona instead of the lovely but gloomy and damp city of Paris. By the way, a lot of people said that WDW would be doomed because of Central Florida’s oppressive summers too, and it’s not like Hong Kong, Tokyo, or Anaheim aren’t blistering in the summer.
Originally Posted By jedited As to the Canadian song, I would suspect that Disney wrote their own song due to licensing issues and cost. If they licensed a song they would have to pay license fees for as long as the movie existed in EPCOT and fees for whenever they put it on a soundtrack album. If they wrote their own song, no licensing fees. As to the EuroDisney location argument, read "Once Upon An American Dream" by Andrew Lainsbury. He goes into the whole arguments for and against Spain. Davewasbaloo hit the nail on the head. It was mostly about Paris was in a central location and most of their projected attendance was coming from Great Britan (the chunnel was under construction), France and Germany. In addition there is (was?) something to do with that Spain used a completely different type of railroad gauge and you couldn't take a direct rail service from the rest of Europe.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt Funny thing is that today Spain has one of the world's most advanced high speed rail networks that operates on the same gauge as the rest of Europe. The interesting about all the financial estimates is that they never took into account that Europeans don't spend like Americans, and certainly not like the Japanese. And yet they built a mix of hotels and other features that ended up taking the Euro Disney into a financial hole. A more moderate build out plan in a climate more suitable for Disney style operations might have been a better choice.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Gotta vehemently disagree with you there 2oony. DAK is all about the subtext of conservation - everything in that park is telling the story of why we need to actively conserve our planet. The Safaris' subtext of the impact of poachers is wholly appropriate. It engages with the guest and remind them how fragile the balance is.*** Gotta vehemently disagree right back at ya. Your point about the focus being on environmentalism is well taken, but doesn't excuse the fact that the presentation is ham-fisted and distracting. What would be wrong with integrating into the speil what is being done to preserve the wilderness, and in particular the flora and fauna being exhibited there? Perhaps along with some helpful tips about what the customers can do when they get back home to save the elephants, or whatever? How significant an issue is animal poaching to the average Disney customer anyway? Is anyone likely to engage in it? Could they do anything to stop it even if they wanted to? Sorry, but I just see that one as a glaring example of "forced story" just for the sake of having one. The animals are story enough for me, thanks. And I particularly hate it when you're on the ride and some animals do something particularly interesting and the guide is talking about it and suddenly gets interrupted by Mr. recorded voice. That's pretty annoying. Overall I love the ride though. I think it could be made better if they revamp the poacher theme though, and not too difficult either.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Franco died in the 70's, but the regime was still powerful well into the 80's, plus ETA terrorist attacks were rife too. Add in that after North Americans, WDW's largest attendance comes from the UK, Germany and Holland. Well, you can drive from those countries much easier. If DLP were in Spain, I would have only been maybe 5 or 6 times over the last 16 year, instead I have been to DLP 49 times. Why? Well besides being nuts, I can drive there in a few hours, and get really cheap ferry or tunnel crossings. Many others are the same. Taking a car from the UK to DLP = $300 for my family of 4. To take the Eurostar is about $600 from London to DLP with no car rental required. To fly to DLP is about $600-1000 if you book early, plus $160 for the bus. As you can see, driving is our preference, plus we bring crates of wonderful French wine home on our way back. But if it were in Spain, it would be $800-$1500 for the flights, and car rental or bus would be required. DLP gets a number of visitors returning throughout the year, especially the dutch and belgians. Some families from those countries go monthly. Many in the UK go frequently too. If it were in Spain, it would be for longer destination breaks and more expensive. I would argue that financial performance would be worse. Also, think about recruitment and retention. All the cast members that work there can return home a lot more easily because it is central. The other issue with Spain is language. French is widely taught across Europe because it is one of the official key languages of the international community (even though it is officially a dying language). Although Spanish is the 2nd most commonly used language, that is because of the Phillipines, North and South America, but in Europe, it is not widely spoken at all. So yes, as much as I prefer the city of Barcelona (still a terrism zone at times), and the weather of Spain, as a strategic decision, Paris was the right place. And I am not even being selfish here, given East Anglia in the UK was considered, personally I would have loved being within a 90 minute drive. However, it would be an even bigger financial disaster if it had been built here.
Originally Posted By leemac <<What would be wrong with integrating into the speil what is being done to preserve the wilderness, and in particular the flora and fauna being exhibited there? Perhaps along with some helpful tips about what the customers can do when they get back home to save the elephants, or whatever?>> Because that isn't story - it is mindless spiel - think early Epcot. It isn't engaging or interactive. You need a way to get back to the camp after cutting the two week safari short. DAK is all about involvement in some way, shape or form. Some WWF commerical on the radio wouldn't be appropriate. And it isn't Disney - it would not any different from say, San Diego Wild Animal Park. You can disagree with the execution of the poaching conclusion but I find it hard to believe you could argue with the storyline. <<How significant an issue is animal poaching to the average Disney customer anyway? Is anyone likely to engage in it? Could they do anything to stop it even if they wanted to?>> How significant? Saving a species from extinction just isn't as media-friendly as the general The Inconvenient Truth messages but it is equally important. DAK's message is that we can all play a part in some way from recycling to backyard conservation. It is all about the message and the story. That permeates through the entire park. It is irrelevant that it might not be "significant" - it shouldn't stop them from trying. <<Sorry, but I just see that one as a glaring example of "forced story" just for the sake of having one. >> Sounds like an oxymoron to me - a forced story? Story is story. Plus this is Disney - the stuff that works has a narrative and sets them apart from the competition. Some are open and some are closed. Arguably the open narratives are the most popular (at least amongst the fan base) - think POTC and HM. But that doesn't mean that the closed narratives are superfluous.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Funny thing is that today Spain has one of the world's most advanced high speed rail networks that operates on the same gauge as the rest of Europe. >> Hans - it is a recent innovation in the country. They are playing catch-up and throwing an awful lot of money at it as some massive civil-works program. Most Spaniards I talk to think it is a complete waste of money - the Madrid to Barcelona route is the only one of interest and just opened this year. AVE (the Spanish network) isn't due to connect with TGV until late in '09. That would have been way too late for Disney! I'd argue that Eisner was right on his choice of Marne-la-Vallee - the central location trumps the weather. Northern Europeans are hardy people - 7m visitors in the off-season this year (and it was a bad winter in many places) shows that. They just struggled under the debt burden. The resort has been profitable before depreciation, amortization and interest for years.
Originally Posted By disney_villain DVC is one of "Disney's Biggest Theme Park Mistakes"? That is such a surprising comment . . . Not from any financial standpoint for the company - that's for sure. According to recent press, DVC is one of the things keeping the company stable in the threat of recession. And what do the DVC members think of it? Well, I am a DVC member who has travelled to WDW, DL, DCL, DLP and NYC for Disney on Broadway . . . and I have met many happy DVCers along the way in all of my travels. We know we aren't going to get "red carpet treatment" for our membership - and we never expected to. We live with the imperfections. Many of us are just happy to have the savings that DVC offers us - and the company of each other. After all, we all must really love the parks to buy into DVC! But this article isn't coming from a DVC member, it is coming from someone who never bought in. That sounds like sour grapes to me. If somone can't afford something, then it is time to throw stones and say how much they hate it. How can one possibly comment on DVC without actually having an ownership in it? This is like asking advice on real estate purchases from someone who always rents. Yes, I guess they can give such advice - but they wouldn't be the first people I would speak to if I were ever to buy another home! As for the DVC slogan of "best kept secret": Yes, the DVC booths are in all the parks. This is VERY helpful for those of us who DO NOT LIVE IN A DVC REGISTERED STATE IN THE USA. A lot of visitors to the parks are from outside the USA . . . where DVC is really a best-kept secret as we can only go to the parks to get any info - and to buy in from DVC directly! I can't recall DVC promo vids being forced on anyone - and I've stayed at Disney resorts (DVC on non-DVC) and on the DCL cruises. Actually, I do anything I can to get my hands on them as they are hard to come by (not living in a registered USA state). I invite any other DVCers who read this thread to add their comments. - A VERY HAPPY DVC MEMBER
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>I'd argue that Eisner was right on his choice of Marne-la-Vallee - the central location trumps the weather. Northern Europeans are hardy people - 7m visitors in the off-season this year <<< So true. I remember the funny story where Eisner insisted on having fireplaces everywhere (last count there are about 18 within the park). to make people feel warmer. The Europeans asked him why, because we are used to the wet and the cold! Lol. But the fireplace at the Sequoia Lodge sure is inviting of a winter's eve. Nope, I agree, although warmer weather would indeed be nice, the Ile de France is a perfect location for a European resort. It's also about knowing one's market. In Europe, we have a lot more annual leave - between 25 - 35 days a year for most EU countries). The thought of taking a long stay at a Disney resort is not in most European's mind set - they seperate out beach and parks. But for le Weekend, where the wait can be 30 mins to get in the treehouse and 2 hours for Peter Pan, well it shows the location works. And then the hotels - again this is my issue of timing. Occupancy has been at 88% this semester, when there has been a significant amount of caution in the european economy. That shows it works - and we also have a dozen or so alternative places to stay with shuttle services. So the model was fine. I stand by the fact that it was timing that did DLP in. Though a more cautious incremental model may have been more prudent, DLP would not have worked if they just had the DLH and HNY (too expensive) or with the Cheyenne and Santa Fe, it would have been too cheap. Ok, maybe the NBC was a stretch (it's still the largest hotel in europe), but the conferences there are very lucrative. It is also a draw hotel (even though the service is terrible) because it is pretty to look at. Before DLP, we had nothing like it. since, every park and their cousin are trying to rebadge as a resort with hotels and a water park. The only real rivals for quality hotels are Europa Park in Germany and Port Adventura (which Busch and Universal couldn't get rid of quickly enough).
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>I invite any other DVCers who read this thread to add their comments<<< I am not a DVCer, but nearly was. I opted for Marriott Vacation Club instead because DLP is our home park and our home resort is on the DLP golf courses. I also prefer the MVCI product quality and range of places to choose to stay in. With Hawaii, the GCH and other DVC properties coming on line, I am considering the potential to expand our portfolio, but i am worried by our last trip to WDW. It does seem like the quality of Disney has gone south. If Disney stopped relying on characters and brought the entertainment and cleanliness standards up to what they once were, then of course I would buy DVC in a heartbeat. But I think the jury is still out there. Once you have bought DVC, it is far more advantagious to stay at a Disney resort than other resorts. They have 1000's of members, that are stuck in. It could be a real disinsentive for Disney to keep things up because they are going to go anyway (Interval International can only support so many trades). On the flipside, because DVC is such a purpose, if enough owners speak up, they may be able to hold Disney to greater account. So I think this one could actually go either way. And for those that have not tried DVC, try staying in a 2 or 3 room villa. Once you do, it is hard to go back to a hotel room.
Originally Posted By leemac >>>I invite any other DVCers who read this thread to add their comments<<< I was until last month - we finally sold our remaining BoardWalk points through a reseller. The reason we sold was that we weren't getting the benefit out of it anymore. We can't plan vacations a year in advance and so when we came to book we never got our home resort and always ended up with either OKW or SS (neither of which I like). I've also become more accustomed to hotel service with work so the notion of only having trash done every three days was no longer appealing. Also we just don't spend as much time at WDW as we used to - just because DLR/DLRP/TDR/HKDLR are out there too. That said I'm bullish about the DVC. Tom Staggs said that 25% of profit in the last quarter for the P&R segment came from DVC alone - that is massive. I'm still worried about the ability of DVC to continue on this tear - but SS is almost sold out, DAKL is selling very fast and they haven't even announced the two other resorts. Staggs said that he expected the revenue/profit to be similar for the next two quarters.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo I see your point here Lee. I think for people like DVC Dad, with a large family, who like to return to WDW time and time again, and can plan vacations in advance, then it is a good deal (though I think MVCI offers even better value). If you want to travel around, and are less than 3 or 4 people, and want flexability, then it is not. DVC is a product that serves some well and not others. Same with all Vacation Clubs.
