Originally Posted By 2001DLFan <<Hans Reinhardt: "It's a constant struggle between Imagineers and accountanteers." Maybe, but I think that view is overly simplistic. I think management is the collective force behind these kinds of mandates, not the accountants.>> There are many elements working to prevent smooth and successful execution of projects. Of course, none of them feel that they are an issue and think they are just doing their job. Unfortunately, often their self-interest (marketing, estimating, management, etc.) is counterproductive. Unfortunately, the creative Imagineers (as opposed to the financial and management Imagineers) have little sway over the outcome unless the likes of Lasseter get actively involved. But, then even he has his agenda (Pixar).
Originally Posted By 2001DLFan <<Hans Reinhardt: "Either start them off right .. or don't do it at all!" *playing devil's advocate* But stockholders and management want growth, and how do you create long term financial growth if you don't look for new markets to build parks and exploit your character franchises? I can think of no better example than Disney's foray into Asia with Disneyland and the company's cavalcade of cartoon characters. HKDL may not be performing up to speed but that doesn't seem to be stopping Disney from eyeballing Shanghai for its next Asian theme park, which could open by 2014.>> You create growth by continuing what made you successful in the first place: creating the kind of product that your customers are more than willing to spend their money on. If you start trying to take short cuts and using bottom-line strategies in order to increase revenues, the product is eventually going to suffer. Once that happens, it’s just going to be a downward spiral as the company goes from one financial tactic after another in an attempt to stabilize the situation. Additional markets will be successful only if the product achieves the level of quality your customers are looking for. Just expanding for the sake of expansion could be an expensive mistake if the results fail to meet expectations.
Originally Posted By 2001DLFan <<SpokkerJones: DLP is probably the most obvious case I can argue for a situation where Imagineering overpowered the accounting/managerial side. Here was a situation where they opened a lavish park that did not perform, though much of that could be due to cultural differences. I wouldn't say Imagineering overpowered accountants at TDS, since they got a pretty good return on their investment. Here is a case where a ridiculously expensive, lavish theme park was great for business. In the end it all comes down to risk, and The Walt Disney Co. is simply a risk-adverse company. When there is a decision to be made about what to build next at a theme park, a new ride based on a hit movie or a PotC-type original attraction, the movie tie-in ride will win most of the time.>> DLP DID perform. Considering it was the first park Disney had ever opened WITHOUT a general admission ticket, had horrible marketing and negative French press, it was remarkable that it did as well as it did. You are right about Disney being adverse to risk though. Unfortunately, that attitude will often result in less than successful consequences.
Originally Posted By charming husband +Uh-oh! Pepsi probably wasn't very happy to see Coke in their ride! + To a kid back then-Pepsi/Coke same difference.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones I would like to see Disney aspire to be as principled an organization as Studio Ghibli. Here is a studio spearheaded by a guy who sticks to his principles. He won't make sequels. He's very humble. While they certainly have used computer animation in more recent films, they don't let it become the focal point of their films. Hand-drawn animation was never dead at Ghibli! Here is a studio, like Pixar, that puts story above all else, and continues to put out beautiful films. Now if only those principles could be applied to Disney theme parks. I was hopeful that would be the outcome when Lasseter came on board.
Originally Posted By monorailblue 2¢ re "it's a character world": I think it is a sad and unnecessary change, but I've had my mental tears and am done with them. I hope to find it enjoyable still, but if I don't, I'm sure my pangs of loss will not exceed those for Swiss Family Treehouse, Country Bear Jamboree, etc., etc., etc. Some days I miss Matt Ouimet so much--though, of course, I have no idea whether he would have authorized this change. I just like to assume he wouldn't have. ;o)
