Originally Posted By DBitz2 >>Monorails turned out to not be the future. For whatever reason (probably too expensive), they haven't caught on. Looking cool isn't enough.<< >>Nothing better has been introduced eliminating the possibility that Monorails could at some point be a more efficient method of transportation. It still has a promise of future. They are not obsolete, they are currently impractical. Something that with time and desire can be overcome.<< There are some extremely advanced and sophisticated Monorail transit trains in several countries and cities around the world. I saw a documentary on the Travel Channel not long ago that profiled some of them. What other countries are doing for advanced transit rail systems is so far ahead of the US that it makes us look like we haven't gotten much past the Main Street Trolley. There are more monorail systems in use around the world than you might think. See this site - <a href="http://www.monorails.org/tmspages/Where.html" target="_blank">http://www.monorails.org/tmspa...ere.html</a>
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Yeah. A handcrafted miniature train running through your backyard that you and your friends can ride is really modest. "What? No Aspen MacCabin to go to?" What do you need that for when you have multiple apartments inside Disneyland and another planned inside Cinderella Castle at WDW? I assume that some kind of Disney family accommodations were also being planned for Mineral King.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<A handcrafted miniature train running through your backyard that you and your friends can ride is really modest.>> Sure, my very un-rich Uncles handcrafted their miniature steam locomotives and ran them around their backyards. It isn't necessarily a rich mans pursuit. That hobby is more about machining scrap metal into locomotive parts via the Tenacity Gene.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I don't think making money was Walt Disney's prime motivator, certainly not in building the original Disneyland. Time and again there are examples of him "betting the farm" on an idea, from sound cartoons to feature length animation to theme parks. The common thread of each of these was exceeding expectations, pushing the limits of a genre. And with the original design of EPCOT, he was venturing into rethinking the way cities are designed from the ground up. Of course, there's money to be made from those ventures, but I believe it's too simple to say he was into all of this to get rich. Is every animator who worked for Disney just there because it was a way to make a living? Is every movie star only performing for a pay check?
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>What other countries are doing for advanced transit rail systems is so far ahead of the US that it makes us look like we haven't gotten much past the Main Street Trolley.<< Sometimes it's just shocking how backward the USA is.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<The common thread of each of these was exceeding expectations, pushing the limits of a genre.>> I think that Walt's only business plan was to reinvest as much of the profits from his ventures as quickly as possible on "new-cutting-edge" "something-or-another's"
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <<The common thread of each of these was exceeding expectations, pushing the limits of a genre.>> <I think that Walt's only business plan was to reinvest as much of the profits from his ventures as quickly as possible on "new-cutting-edge" "something-or-another's"> I would agree, crapshoot. And that is a completely different point of view than 'making a bungload of money'
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<And that is a completely different point of view than 'making a bungload of money'>> That's my take as well.
Originally Posted By berol No-one here has the bungload point of view. That post wasn't meant to be taken literally. Post 219 clarified that.
Originally Posted By patrickegan Mass transportation is efficient in many ways, but not so much for the individual unless that system is highly developed. Even some of the worlds best examples smell like urine. (GWB's fault no doubt) My car affords me many luxuries I can’t get on the bus ride to the Laundromat. Same cliental on the off hours. Regulation and insurance are stifling innovation in technologies. The driverless car has many issues to overcome, let alone the flying car. Product liability in both cases is going to slow that down.
Originally Posted By nutmegpeach I don't believe that whether Disney's intentions were to make a bungload or even be mildly profitable or not is the issue. I thought the issue was the current quality of Disneyland attractions (very specifically Tomorrowland), no? Regardless of his intentions, Walt's creations were unique and exciting. I can't say so much of the most recent Disneyland additions.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance "Of course, there's money to be made from those ventures, but I believe it's too simple to say he was into all of this to get rich." Money isn't the only payoff for all the things he did. Notoriety, fame, being forever remembered as a genius in his field? Those are big payoffs for someone to receive for doing something well. Add to that the piles of money you can make and there are plenty of reasons why he could have done what he did. I'm not entirely sure of my point. I think it's something along the lines of, he could have been in it for the money, or the fame, or the immense satisfaction he recieved in lovingly creating something that every family will enjoy. Could have and most likely was a combination of many different factors that drove him to do what he did. Who knows what his reasons really were? And secondly, why does it really matter? Does it matter what his reasons were?
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt it matters to the legions of Disneyphiles who want to believe that Walt Disney was something akin to a creative genious/saint.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<it matters to the legions of Disneyphiles who want to believe that Walt Disney was something akin to a creative genious/saint.>> No, no, not a saint. Creative genius, most assuredly.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <There are more monorail systems in use around the world than you might think. See this site - <a href="http://www.monorails.org/tmspa...ere.html>" target="_blank">http://www.monorails.org/tmspa...html></a> Interesting site! Thanks.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <it matters to the legions of Disneyphiles who want to believe that Walt Disney was something akin to a creative genious/saint.> That's certainly not what I'm driving at, Hans. I've never thought that Walt Disney was a saint. I do feel that the creation of Disneyland was perhaps the key milestone in a career that was made up of quite a few amazing milestones.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance I'm sure Walt Disney did enjoy that fact that something he created brought happiness to so many people. I'm sure he enjoyed the creative process of creating the parks, movie, animation, etc. But do I believe he would have done it if he was guaranteed to make a piddly wage and get no recognition for doing so? Heck no. Does that mean he's evil or any less of a person for it? Not at all. 99.99% of people are the same and there is nothing wrong with that. I just don't have much interest in why he did what he did. I'm just glad that he did it.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance Jim, Grandma Constance has some honey sticks for you in her cupboard. Be a good lad, and run and fetch them for me, won't you Jimmy boy?
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <-- (freaked out by what a 'honey stick' might be, but afraid to upset Gramma) 'okay...heh...heh....'
Originally Posted By Manfried <<In the case of Walt Disney he took far greater risks than Lassiter could ever dream of and they paid off handsomely.>> Let's see, Lasseter was fired by Disney, had kids and had to survive, that's not taking a risk at all? Give me a break. And of course Disney wanted to hit it big. And he did, then had a huge house with lots of land with a miniature railroad running around it and more. The kids and grand kids did all right too. None of them have actually had to "work" to earn a living.
