Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<Not so fast. Isn't there a similar kids area at DisneySea themed to The Little Mermaid?>> Yes, there is. And while I have never been, I always thought that looked like the weakest area of DisneySea, and that they should have designed a Mermaid Dark ride there in addition to any carnival rides.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<perhaps Disney along with Imagineering are getting back on track with attraction design.>> I hope so. The newer designs for Fantasyland - which eliminated the two meet and greets in favor of a ride - give me some hope. But then they still have that "circus-tent" area which looks lame, and they're removing a dark ride and replacing it with a meet-and-greet. So, it feels like one step forward, two steps back.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>Isn't there a similar kids area at DisneySea themed to The Little Mermaid?<< Yep. The biggest difference, to me, is that Mermaid Lagoon was planned to be in the park for a very long time, while FFF was plopped in at the last minute. They saw that DCA needed kid-friendly attractions, and it opened about 18 months after the park did. I don't know how long it was before they started planning it, but that's really fast for a theme park addition, particularly for Disney. Mermaid Lagoon is indoors, but most of the theming is no better than the stuff at FFF. Here are a couple comparisons of how they took the same attractions with different themes: Blowfish Balloon Race <a href="http://i711.photobucket.com/albums/ww114/jefegordon/012-2.jpg" target="_blank">http://i711.photobucket.com/al...12-2.jpg</a> Flik's Flyers <a href="http://cdn.wn.com/pd/ef/6a/e04d09c2bdcf51b4be1f6320e2bb_grande.jpg" target="_blank">http://cdn.wn.com/pd/ef/6a/e04...ande.jpg</a> The Whirlpool <a href="http://www.tdrfan.com/tds/mermaid_lagoon/the_whirlpool/whirlpool.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.tdrfan.com/tds/merm...pool.jpg</a> Lady Bug Boogie <a href="http://www.thecaliforniasource.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/francis-ladybug-boogie.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.thecaliforniasource...ogie.jpg</a> Flounder's Flying Fish Coaster <a href="http://www.coasterfriends.de/Media/2009_Japan/DisneySea/IMG_2900.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.coasterfriends.de/M...2900.jpg</a> Heimlich's Chew Chew Train (not the same thing at all, but both are trains shaped like characters) <a href="http://disney-pal.com/California%20Adventure/images/heimlichs_chew_chew_train1.jpg" target="_blank">http://disney-pal.com/Californ...ain1.jpg</a> I do think that the one place where Mermaid Lagoon really beats the pants off of FFF is the main entrance. While it's not technically the entrance to Mermaid Lagoon (there are outdoor portions, including the coaster nearby and a meet and greet across the waterway), it's just too good to pass up: Mermaid Lagoon <a href="http://i711.photobucket.com/albums/ww114/jefegordon/047-1.jpg" target="_blank">http://i711.photobucket.com/al...47-1.jpg</a> At Night! <a href="http://land.allears.net/blogs/jackspence/Mermaid%20Lagoon%2021.jpg" target="_blank">http://land.allears.net/blogs/...2021.jpg</a> Flik's <a href="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4099/4938339566_625f1065c8_z.jpg" target="_blank">http://farm5.static.flickr.com...c8_z.jpg</a> For what it is, I think Flik's is very well done. No, it's not Fantasyland, but it wasn't meant to be. It filled a void in the park very quickly and effectively, and it was done on a relatively modest budget.
Originally Posted By TMICHAEL >>>And TMICHAEL, you can call the rides in Flick's Fun Fair anything you want. That doesn't change the fact that Disney still considers them attractions, theming or no. words.. . <<< Agree. But it was fun pulling a few chains
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt TDS's Mermaidland looks pretty (like Flick's) but there isn't one thing in it that I'm interesting in seeing or doing.
Originally Posted By tonyanton I think both lands are anchored in a sense by shows...at TDS its the Mermaid Lagoon Theatre, which I believe i still pretty popular. DCA has the 3D movie, which though it may lack repeatability for locals, is still a well-done and pretty-elaborate attraction. With the rest of the farm gone, Disney should try to incorporate it better with the rest of FFF, though I would guess it may not be worth the time and effort, as the whole area could be changed out at some point.
Originally Posted By phruby I always hoped Disney would give Heimlich's Chew Chew Train a dark ride element when you enter the animal crackers box. It would be great to see P.T. Flea's circus.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<Hey, Eisner was a lot of things, and not all of them good. But he was NOT an idiot!>> Actually he was. He had such a proclivity in becoming the next Walt Disney. Unfortunately for Eisner, he refused to learn what the contents of the box held, before going outside of it.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt My view on Eisner is that his success became his undoing. His white glove hands-on management style was perfect for a company like Disney was back when he took over which ultimately led to incredible growth during his tenure. By the time he left Disney was this huge international multi-media conglomerate that we see today and he was ill suited for the job. In that respect Iger seems like a much better fit for Disney today in that he seems a lot less interested in micromanaging every aspect of each division.
Originally Posted By danyoung I agree with Hans on this one. And crapshoot, you seem to have some axe to grind about Eisner. He was incredibly successful before Disney, and just about single handedly saved the company from ruin in the mid-80's. His reign only started to crumble when Frank Wells died and he no longer had an equal to keep his ego in check. Most of his later decisions were bad ones, and he stayed on longer than he should have. Eisner did a lot of good and some bad to the Disney company. But to say he was an idiot is simply absurd.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Eisner is a solid entertainment industry executive and he did a lot to propel Disney out of the doldrums that they were in when he came on board in 1984. Idiot? Yeah, hyperbole much?
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<Eisner did a lot of good and some bad to the Disney company. But to say he was an idiot is simply absurd.>> Love semantics, but in the context that I am using the word in, it fits Eisner perfectly. "Idiot: Person lacking professional skill." Eisner the business man, originally took the reins and gave the shareholders great ROI in the beginning of his career. However, Eisner the Imagineer, had no professional training what-so-ever. He had the power, but not the juice. Idiot is a term that fits him well in describing his attempts at themepark creativity.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Idiot is a term that fits him well in describing his attempts at themepark creativity." Odd that you say that because some of the finest projects ever produced by Imagineering were created under Eisner's tenure.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<Odd that you say that because some of the finest projects ever produced by Imagineering were created under Eisner's tenure.>> Yes, and when one looks closer to the details of how they came about, it becomes very evident when Einser stayed in the background versus or jumped into the forefront. The Eisner Effect: 2006 "Rasulo says the park wasn't built on a grand scale because the Chinese didn't grow up with Disney and don't know the characters as well as Americans and Europeans do, which acts as a constraint on its potential audience." 2007 "Euro Disney, as the Disneyland Paris Resort was originally called, opened with six Disney-branded hotels, all owned and operated by Euro Disney S.C.A. It took a while until the demand for rooms caught up with the supply, which was one of the factors in Euro Disney’s well-publicized financial woes." April 2009 - "Sadly, as with California Adventure and Hong Kong Disneyland, this expansion mostly deals with emergency additions to a woefully under-built park. In the case of Paris, rumors center around the Walt Disney Studios – the resort’s under-funded second gate that opened in 2002. Built in a rush and on a shoestring, the Paris Studios is, in fact, the worst of the parks in Disney’s roster." 1994 "Michael Eisner, the Chief Executive Officer of the Walt Disney Company, ordered several last-minute construction changes, known as budget-breakers, which further increased Euro Disneyland's debt (Gumbel & Turner, 1994)" 1998 Early on, company executives weren't sure what they wanted. ''Really all that existed was a germ of a notion from (Disney Chairman) Michael Eisner that the company should do something with animals,'' Rohde recalled, ''which is probably what made it easier for people to allow myself and my small group of designers ... to take on the problem 2004 "Opera has failed to attract a wider audience and so has Animal Kingdom. Since its first full year of operation in 1999 attendance fell every single year until a flat performance in 2003. According to Amusement Business: -- 1999 -- 8.6 million guests -- 2000 -- 8.3 million guests (down 4%) -- 2001 -- 7.7 million guests (down 7%) -- 2002 -- 7.3 million guests (down 6%) -- 2003 -- 7.3 million guests (flat) -- 2004 -- 7.8 million guests (up 7%) -- 2005 -- 8.2 million guests (up 5%) "Before you begin to blame the faltering economy and the global funk in tourism for the perpetual slide until 2004 consider two things. First, in 2000 every single Disney World park except Animal Kingdom grew its numbers. Two, in 2002 the area's other new park (Universal Orlando's Islands of Adventure) managed to grow its turnstile clicks. Losing 15% of your audience over the course of your first five years is pitiful in an industry where word of mouth travels fast." "Disney's California Adventure Park is also rather light on rides and attractions in general, and a number of the rides that have been created are limited in their capacity (chiefly Soarin' over California). Disney management insisted that the park be built to a budget 20% under what the firm would have previously considered adequate, and it is the view of detractors that the savings have come largely out of the 'non profit making' parts of the park -- the attractions, in other words. In their view, Disney spent much more time and effort on the shops and restaurants than they did on the attractions, though the latter is most peoples' main reason to visit." Without The Eisner Effect: 1998 "Like Walt Disney, who dreamed of uniting people from around the world at his California theme park - Disneyland, Masatomo Takahashi of the Oriental Land Company (OLC) had a dream. His dream, however, was not to bring the children of Japan to Disneyland, but to bring Disneyland to the children of Japan. This vision was the beginning of Tokyo Disneyland. Vice Chairman of The Walt Disney Company, Roy E. Disney, said, "Masatomo's vision and desire to bring the joys of a Disney park to Tokyo were instrumental to the establishment and continuing success of Tokyo Disneyland. Thanks to Masatomo, for years to come, families around the Asia-Pacific region will experience the delights of Disney and its magical theme parks." "Beginning in the late 1990s, as Chairman of OLC, Masatomo expanded his vision to include Tokyo DisneySea, a theme Park inspired by myths and legends of the ocean, which sits adjacent to Tokyo Disneyland and overlooks the waters of Tokyo Bay." 2001 "DisneySea is the brainchild of Japanese park designers and incorporates both cutting-edge technology and the wealth of experience and know-how cultivated over the years in the management of Disneyland, which opened outside of Tokyo nearly 20 years ago." My personal favorite anectotal story which signaled the end of Imagineering was when Einser credited the significant attendance increase in the summer of 1995 to the Lion King Parade. He categorically downplayed the effect that Indiana Jones Adventure had on the park's attendance. This was the Jump-The-Shark moment for Eisner.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt <<Odd that you say that because some of the finest projects ever produced by Imagineering were created under Eisner's tenure.>> "Yes, and when one looks closer to the details of how they came about, it becomes very evident when Einser stayed in the background versus or jumped into the forefront." Well I could not build or design my theme park but I would certainly impress upon the architects and producers at WDI my personal tastes and preferences if I were the CEO of Disney because I'm a fan of the parks. Does that make me an idiot? Maybe, but only in the narrowest definition of the word. Before he apparently became overwhelmed by his own management style Eisner had a reputation for doing just that - injecting his personal tastes in most resort projects. In some cases he even hand picked star architects for key projects because he was a fan of their work. I certainly don't get the impression that Iger is even remotely interested in the parks. From what I can tell, he is satisfied with any project as long as it has the appropriate brand synergy and meets established financial expectations.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Look, I'm not a big fan of Michael Eisner (he was... a dedicated executive), but the examples above are all over the map. So he micromanaged EDL/DLP, which went into the red because the hotels were overbuilt. And he was hands off on DAK, which suffers declining attendance. And he had nothin' to do with TDS. But TDS is the ONLY example offered to indicate his disinterest was a surer measure of success. Frankly, this isn't even a good anecdotal analysis.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt All one has to do is look at the company in 1984 and fast forward to the year of his exit to see the difference. The changes are so remarkably vast that no major analysis is needed.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>The changes are so remarkably vast that no major analysis is needed.<< For many ardent fans it's more a matter of psychoanalysis...!
Originally Posted By Manfried Interesting in Crapshoot's post with stuff relating to dates, he fails to include all the successes from prior to 1994. Eisner, other than EDL, from 1984 to 1994 did a lot of stuff that was not idiotic. He propelled the company forward. His key failure? Not cleaning the management house at WDI completely.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<Eisner, other than EDL, from 1984 to 1994 did a lot of stuff that was not idiotic.>> I suggest you go back and read what I wrote about Eisner, in areas of pure business, he performed just fine. It was other areas that he had zero training or experience in that got him in the most trouble.
