Originally Posted By sjhym333 I knew it was going to be one of those days at work where I would be doing more physical/mindless work so I loaded up my iPod with Disney theme park music and zoned out for several hours. I was listening to the 40th Anniversary Disneyland set which I don't think I have ever listened to from end to end and while I was listening I was struck by some things that I realized I will probably never see again at WDW: 1) Submarines - Slow loading, slow moving, fairly old fashioned effects but a great attraction that immersed you into the idea that you were going 20,000 Leagues Under the Seas. If rumors hold true the subs in Disneyland may also soon be history. Sad. 2) Circlevision - We still have Canada and China but I expect that the format has seen its last days at a Disney theme parks. Disney did try to update the format with TimeKeeper (a show I really enjoyed) but it never really caught on even with the voice of Robin Williams. The old Circlevision films had a certain naivete about them that was endearing. My guess is we will never see them again. Long live Canada and China A Big AA Figure Attraction - Pirates, Haunted Mansion, World of Motion, Spaceship Earth, Small World, Hall of Presidents, etc. Disney has moved away from doing attractions that are AA figure heavy. Listening to the Enchanted Tiki Room and Great Moments with Mr Lincoln made me think back to how amazing the AA figures were when I was growing up. It is a shame that Disney has moved away from this ground breaking technology. Now would be a great time to revisit it and really push the technology farther. Innovative Transportation - At one time the idea of moving people seemed like a place of innovation for Disney. Peoplemovers and Monorails gave a glimpse into the future of transportation. An airport on property and even an abundance of watercraft to move people. Now is it more about buses. Diverse Merchandise - at one time you could browse through a magic shop, a silver shop and lots of other unique merchandise shops. Them Disney hired people from outside who ran the numbers and decided that per square feet shelf space blah, blah, blah. Now I can go to the World of Disney in DTD and get just about anything I can find in the park. One of the great things about the parks was the idea that you could stroll through the stores and be transported to the place the area you were in represented. Not today. For me it is one of the things that has robbed the parks of their charms. Vision - Turn a swamp into a resort. Take Walt's final dream and create EPCOT. Say what you want about Michael Eisner but despite the fact that he probably hung around too long, he continued the vision to build out WDW with 2 more parks, tons of hotels and stuff. Add theme parks around the world and a second gate in California and one thing you can say Disney at one time had vision and guts to build big. I don't think I will ever see that kind of vision again. We may be great attractions and even lands on occasion, but when a company budgeteers instead Imagineers, there is no one out there casting a big vision anymore. Shame. Did I miss any?
Originally Posted By sjhym333 I forgot one: The Diamond Horseshoe - Welcome to the Diamond Horseshoe, so glad you dropped in. An old time saloon show that was free and that you could some food at in a beautiful setting. Someone decided that it cost too much money to run and it sits dormant. You could say that is true to entertainment in general. JC and the Silverstars always delighted. Michael Iceberg in Tomorrowland, Disney World is Your World, Totally Minnie. The list goes on and on.
Originally Posted By fkurucz I'm beginning to wonder if I'll ever set foot again in a Disney theme park.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: If things keep going the way they have been, my sisters and I doubt we'll ever see sjhym333 again...
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Did I miss any?" Yes. Genuine, honest to god innovation. MyMagic+ and franchise based attractions notwithstanding, WDI has done very little at DL and WDW since Soarin' that demonstrates its ability to conjure up fresh characters, stories and themes utilizing cutting edge technology the way that they once did.
Originally Posted By oc_dean ^^^^ And all this .... While a CEO begins to wind his career down, as he steps down in 2 years. And after him .. what will it be? More of the same? With a CEO exactly like him?? With a continual gradual decline? I'm not a genius in the business world, with all the things a CEO must accomplish, and keep an eye on. But it doesn't take a person with a rocket scientist IQ to understand ... if you treat an entertainment company, like it's a business selling insurance policies .. Somewhere along the line, that lack of interest in what you are specifically doing .. is eventually going to show up in full physical form, and decline. Oh .. the co. apologists can defend it, and say - There's the new Fantasyland, Avatar just broke ground. Yeah .. well .. what about areas around the 4 parks, that are not being well maintained? And falling into disrepair!? What's there to excuse about that? How long is Wonders of Life pavilion going to sit in it's current state? What about World Showcase's stagnation? Last new attraction was the Maelstrom in 1989 .. and reports say, it's not exactly being well maintained. I could go on and on .. but I'll stop there for now.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "More of the same?" Probably. If ain't broke, don't fix it, and I would imagine that the BOD will look for someone with attributes as Iger. "With a CEO exactly like him??" Not exactly, but similar most likely. Iger may not have the creative passion of Eisner, but he's unquestionably been less of a risk taker and non-controversial. More importantly his management style has done well for the company financially. "With a continual gradual decline?" What does this mean?
Originally Posted By sjhym333 You could write a doctorate thesis on how Disney got to where it is today. From the lack of vision of the post Walt guys who were afraid to do anything that would shake up the company (What would Walt do was the mantra) with the exception of EPCOT Center. To Ron Miller who tried to make changes and was met with pushback (He greenlighted Splash) to Roy who after the Greenmail crisis pushed for the Eisner/Wells team. Each of these steps moved the company closer to the apathy we have today. Iger is a response to the Eisner years and Eisner's management style. Personally, I find the whole corporate journey thing fascinating. The irony being Roy Disney's fear of the direction the company was going, only to have it end up not being what he wanted in the end anyway. As for the future...Corporately, I think Disney is too tied to the corporate share holders to ever be able to do the things they have done in the past. I agree with oc-dean when he said "But it doesn't take a person with a rocket scientist IQ to understand ... if you treat an entertainment company, like it's a business selling insurance policies .. Somewhere along the line, that lack of interest in what you are specifically doing .. is eventually going to show up in full physical form, and decline." Meanwhile back to the original topic... I will probably never stay at a Disney hotel again. Love them, love the experience, but even the value resorts are out of my price point.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt ^^ I agree with this wholeheartedly, except I'm not sure I'm with you on the decline thing. I honestly don't understand what that means, even in the context you've presented.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt I guess what I'm asking is do you mean creatively or financially? Or both?
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>Iger may not have the creative passion of Eisner, but he's unquestionably been less of a risk taker and non-controversial<< Definitely less controversial (though it appears the tides are turning), but he has taken risks of his own, just in a different way. A few years ago, nobody would have suggest acquiring Marvel, yet that one has turned out very well for TWDC. Sure, acquisitions like the Muppets and Pixar were more-or-less obvious, but he's had the ability to see some of the out-there decisions that look so obvious in hindsight Additionally, he's adopted a company-wide policy that seems safe for the shortterm, but incredibly risky longterm. By focusing on acquiring existing brands and content, rather than developing them from within, it makes for safe synergy today, but leaves very little to squeeze in the future. His tentpole strategy for the studio has proven rather disastrous (Mars Needs Moms, John Carter, Prince of Persia, etc), and the franchise films seem increasing less exciting. It's clear that he's been planning his exit strategy for years, since there's hardly anything on the plans for after he's gone. To me, that's an incredible risk
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Compared to building a city of the future in a Central Florida swamp?
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>Compared to building a city of the future in a Central Florida swamp?<< Of course his strategy isn't as risky as actually having a vision and carrying it out. Iger's approach is to try and play it as safe as possible, aiming to meet expectations rather than exceed them. Things are fine and dandy for TWDC at the moment. But give it a few years to really sink in, and there will be a lot of unquantifiable damage to the brand. Considering how focused Iger and Eisner both were on "the brand" (Iger dropped the apostrophe-S to make the brand more clear), it's amazing how little he's actually created to strengthen it. But at the same time, he doesn't care. He's leaving in 2 years, and by the time anybody figures out what happened, he'll be out of dodge Building a prototype city in the swamp creates a lot of high-visiblity risks that easily show up on a spreadsheet. Letting an industry leader stagnate looks great on a spreadsheet, but not so good in the intangible categories
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "But give it a few years to really sink in, and there will be a lot of unquantifiable damage to the brand." Iger has been the head honcho at Disney now since what, 2004 or 2005? There's been plenty of time for his strategy to "sink in".
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt And Dean, since you brought up the Disney brand: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/Survey_names_Disney_the_worlds_most_beloved_brand_15396.aspx">http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Ar...396.aspx</a> Life-long fans like us may bemoan the evolution of Disney, however there is no question that the company's brand is not only intact but thriving under Bob Iger's direction.
Originally Posted By 20-000 under Well when it comes to management, especially the performance of a CEO, the bottom line is really the stock price, how much is the equity of the company valued by the market? What can you sell a share of stock for? Just after Eisner and Wells took over and before the stock split in 1986, the value of 100 shares of DIS stock was worth roughly $14,200 total. When Eisner resigned in 2005, those same original 100 1986 shares were worth $131,328.00 and the price was way down from its high in the 90's at that. At some point in time the same original 100 shares were worth well over half a million bucks during Eisner's hay day or the Disney "Golden Age." I would say that it is completely safe to state for the record that Eisner added a great deal of value to the company. The downturn from over $500,000 for those original 100 shares almost matches the downward trend in the economy and S&P during the same period from 1998-2005, which does not alleviate Eisner from being responsible, but it certainly shows that more was at work than a "bad CEO." Now, that being said, and to be fair to Bob, yesterday that same 100 shares from 1986 pre-split were worth around $348,000. It's not possible from a pure business view to claim anything other than "success" for Iger and if you look at holdings and asset growth under Eisner, the same word "success" easily applies.
Originally Posted By 20-000 under People like Michael Eisner, Steve Jobs, and of course Walt Disney, just don't come around very often. I love what Bob Iger has done for the company but he truly doesn't belong in the same sentence as those 3.
Originally Posted By Anacon Michael Eisner should not be grouped in with Steve Jobs or Walt Disney. They were visionaries who understood their audiences. However, Eisner should be credited with saving and expanding the company, invigorating and stimulating creativity and exploiting untapped assets (building hotels, raising prices, etc.) The safest difference in TWDC before Eisner was that the customer came first. Once Eisner came in and since then, the shareholder came first. And as the stock value increases so does the executives bonuses. Apple puts the customer first, shareholder second. A rare order of priorities in today's business.
Originally Posted By Anacon Correction: The BIGGEST difference in TWDC before Eisner was that the customer came first.
