Originally Posted By leemac <<Tim was always great with concept art. But his execution of some attractions wasn't always great. As a reminder he is partly responsible for the look of Disneyland's Tomorrowland.>> I'll vehemently disagree. Tim's true ability was to execute projects that worked - like DLP's Space Mountain. He is always looking for the cool new thing whether it be big (the first inclined LIM on Space Mountain and the tank at The Living Seas which doesn't distort the view) to the small (electric Autopia cars that self-charge and make unique sounds). I don't recall any of his projects failing to deliver what they intended. And he had nothing to do with DL's Tomorrowland. Baxter borrowed the color scheme - it had nothing to do with Tim at all. I don't believe Tim has worked on any executed projects for Disneyland since his Space Mountain/BTMRR days.
Originally Posted By leemac <<And I hate when EC gets blamed for Walt Disney Productions' problems in that era ... they had a moribund studio that no one took seriously ... they had a TV presence that was tiny and dying ... they were looked upon as a 'brand' past its time.>> Whether you like it or not - it is the truth. EC was a huge drain on the company both financially and creatively. It doesn't mean that it was worth the effort but it did almost single-handedly sink the company. WDP was failing too but it wasn't ploughing hundreds of millions of dollars into WDW. EC is an integral part of WDW's growth - but not solely. Vacation experiences were very different in the early '80s - it wasn't all about theme parks.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>EC is an integral part of WDW's growth - but not solely. Vacation experiences were very different in the early '80s - it wasn't all about theme parks.<<< And despite Disney's instance that there are other parts of The World to explore, do you think that it still only is about theme parks? A small part of me thinks so, for the most of the visitors to WDW. Perhaps it is the more affluent, and longer visiting guests that enjoy the "rest" of WDW.
Originally Posted By leemac ^^ I think so. The pace at which most central Florida guests "attack" the parks is very different to when I first started to visit in '81. Granted you have four parks to visit (and other ones off-property) and the average length of a US vacation hasn't changed in that time but it seems to be that guests want to hurtle through everything (which is why Fastpass has been such a hit). Attendance at the two water parks hasn't been growing at the same clip as the parks (or incidentally at the same pace as the water park segment as a whole which has been growing quickly) despite flexible ticketing under MYW making them cheap to attend. If Typhoon Lagoon and Blizzard Beach aren't growing at the same rate as attendance at the parks then that suggests that most guests are focused solely on the theme parks.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> ^^ I think so. The pace at which most central Florida guests "attack" the parks is very different to when I first started to visit in '81. Granted you have four parks to visit (and other ones off-property) and the average length of a US vacation hasn't changed in that time but it seems to be that guests want to hurtle through everything (which is why Fastpass has been such a hit). << We need working hours, and vacations like Europe. yes we are in much to big of a hurry here, but that is derived from our culture. We can't help it. It's ingrained in us. >> Attendance at the two water parks hasn't been growing at the same clip as the parks (or incidentally at the same pace as the water park segment as a whole which has been growing quickly) despite flexible ticketing under MYW making them cheap to attend. If Typhoon Lagoon and Blizzard Beach aren't growing at the same rate as attendance at the parks then that suggests that most guests are focused solely on the theme parks. << Most definetly. The water parks, and the downtown Disney area are just sideshows for most visitors. It's definetly about the theme parks. However, I still think you have to look at WDW as a whole. You can't start eliminating certain aspects of the experience without doing damage to the entire project. Thus the reason I think removing Pleasure Island was a huge mistake. The overall experience was lessened, in my opinion.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> Perhaps it is the more affluent, and longer visiting guests that enjoy the "rest" of WDW. << If you've got enough money you can afford to stay longer, and slow down. Most guest from the States do not have that luxury.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Attendance at the two water parks hasn't been growing at the same clip as the parks (or incidentally at the same pace as the water park segment as a whole which has been growing quickly) despite flexible ticketing under MYW making them cheap to attend. If Typhoon Lagoon and Blizzard Beach aren't growing at the same rate as attendance at the parks then that suggests that most guests are focused solely on the theme parks.<<< I agree. In full. rings true on our visits, too. We go for the parks. And Pierce...I wish!
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost That's all I ever go for, the rest is just extra's. WDW is, as defined, a grouping of theme parks. The rest was added to get people to stay longer and do other things but I doubt, for example, that anyone get's a group of guys together for a golf outing at Disney. At least not often. It is a side line to the parks. If dear old dad isn't into the parks like the rest of the family, well he can play golf while they see the parks. There's nothing wrong with that but that is pretty much reality.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 >> Oh what a tangled web we weave. << <<Not as long as you memorize the story you told, and stick to it even when everybody knows you're lying.>> Isn't that what most lawyers and judges do?
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<To me EPCOT Center had to be the next step in the Disney theme park process, if there was to ever be a true Walt Disney World Resort, and worldwide vacation destination. Risky yes, but in the end it's what really put Disney on the global map. Just my opinion of course.>> 100% true. Sadly, if TDO of 2010 were making the decisions (along with the current Burbank leadership) EC would never have been built. I know it. Lee knows it too, whether he'll agree or not. And that's what I find so amusing (in a sick sort of way). EC allowed WDW to be transformed into the resort it is today. As wonderful as it was from 1971-1982, WDW vacations were laregly ... well ... not. People came to FLA, and most who came to WDW stayed a day or two (and not on-site). Folks who stayed a week at the Poly or FW or Golf Resort (anyone know what that was/is?) and spent all or most of their time at WDW were the exception. But EC paved the way for the average WDW stay to jump up close to a week. Disney sold folks on the idea that MK was a two-day visit and EC was 2-3 days, add in a day at RC and DI and the Village ... bingo! And that allowed for the massive building program that began in the late 1980s. Say EC hadn't gotten built. You'd be looking at a MK park in a sea of greenery (which was beautiful) and not much else. Again, you wouldn't have gotten Disney-MGM and DAK and TL and BB and PI and the dozens of resorts without EC. WDW was a very different vacation destination in the 1970s and 80s. Without EC, it's pretty safe to say that most of the good (and bad) that has come since wouldn't have. You have to take great risks to ge great rewards. Walt and his company always did that. And, yes, it often could have proven to be a disaster. Now ... well, you won't ever have to see that because TWDC won't take risks ... now it might overpay billions to buy Marvel in an ego-trip by Iger that he thinks will bring all the boys his princessing of Disney has turned off ... but taking real chances? Nope. That's why you'll see OLC in Shanghai too!
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Tim was always great with concept art. But his execution of some attractions wasn't always great. As a reminder he is partly responsible for the look of Disneyland's Tomorrowland.>> <<I'll vehemently disagree. Tim's true ability was to execute projects that worked - like DLP's Space Mountain. He is always looking for the cool new thing whether it be big (the first inclined LIM on Space Mountain and the tank at The Living Seas which doesn't distort the view) to the small (electric Autopia cars that self-charge and make unique sounds). I don't recall any of his projects failing to deliver what they intended.>> So true. And Tim's conceptualizations that didn't get completed ... his original plans for Discovery Mountain with the vast showbuilding for instance ... or his take on a Space pavilion for EC were simply amazing. He always thought big and delivered. And unlike many in Glendale (and I think you'll agree here) he wasn't all about himself and ego. <<And he had nothing to do with DL's Tomorrowland. Baxter borrowed the color scheme - it had nothing to do with Tim at all. I don't believe Tim has worked on any executed projects for Disneyland since his Space Mountain/BTMRR days.>> I thought that was a Baxter call and largely based on saving money after T-land 2055 concept was axed. I wasn't a fan of the look, but I didn't find it awful either. The land just never got the funds it needed and Rocket Rods was just not well thought out at all.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Whether you like it or not - it is the truth. EC was a huge drain on the company both financially and creatively. It doesn't mean that it was worth the effort but it did almost single-handedly sink the company. WDP was failing too but it wasn't ploughing hundreds of millions of dollars into WDW.>> My point was the company in whole was a disaster in the late 70s-early 80s period. EC may have been a huge cost for the company, but what would the cost have been if it hadn't been built? People like to say EC almost caused the company to be broken up, yada, yada, yada. But I believe Disney might have been broken up IF EC hadn't been built because animation was dead ... live action was a corpse with a punchline ... consumer products was failing because people weren't buying Disney crap. At some point, without EC taking Disney to another level, perhaps DL and MK would have been run by one company, the few hotels by another, the animation library sold to someone else. There was value, but it was buried by over a decade of doing nothing much of substance while trying to guess what Walt would have done. EC was a bold statement as to what WDP could do. It's a shame that 21st century Disney doesn't have the balls to even be bold with its No. 1 theme park. MK gets a piddling, half-arsed $400 million (minus whatever will be cut) Fantasyland 'reimagining' and IOA opens WWoHP. <<EC is an integral part of WDW's growth - but not solely. Vacation experiences were very different in the early '80s - it wasn't all about theme parks.>> It sure was different. But WDW would have had NO growth at all without EC. Folks wouldn't have wanted/needed all those hotel rooms, new water parks, nighttime entertainment complexes, spas, new dining etc if WDW was simply one MK and some recreational opps. Where would WDW's growth have come from sans EC?
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 >> Perhaps it is the more affluent, and longer visiting guests that enjoy the "rest" of WDW. << <<If you've got enough money you can afford to stay longer, and slow down. Most guest from the States do not have that luxury.>> That's putting it mildly. Most Americans are thrilled if they get 2-3 weeks of paid vacation a year. They don't seem to realize or care that most nations 'like us' value their workers a bit more and reward them with often months of vacation and leave time annually. If you can only visit your DVC once a year for six nights, I might get why you've never visited the SS spa, why you've never biked thru FW or taken a boat out on Bay Lake or why in seven years you've spent a total of three hours at the pool at your lovely BW villa!
Originally Posted By leemac <<People like to say EC almost caused the company to be broken up, yada, yada, yada. But I believe Disney might have been broken up IF EC hadn't been built because animation was dead ... live action was a corpse with a punchline ... consumer products was failing because people weren't buying Disney crap.>> This reminds me of Philip Roth's The Plot Against America where an alternative universe is presented whereby FDR is defeated by Lindbergh and anti-Semitism and Nazism prevail. What if Disney had been broken up back then? The odds are that we would have a separate company for the media assets and another for the parks - the latter could do as it chooses. I wonder if WDP&R would be in a better position if that had happened? There is little doubt in my mind that if someone wanted to buy WDP&R at a small premium that the Board of Directors would bite their hands off - theme parks aren't a great business to be in as a public corporation in the US even if the name above the door is Disney.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Sadly, if TDO of 2010 were making the decisions (along with the current Burbank leadership) EC would never have been built.>> Likely very true - but the real question is why? There are a host of reasons: 1) Spiralling development costs due to WDI's cost structure; 2) Conservative management that want built-in brand recognition for virtually all projects; 3) Competing projects for every dollar required; 4) Changing guest dynamics; etc. It is a complicated picture. Past and present management are partly responsible for the current situation due to their stewardship - heavy discounting, O&M cost cutting, etc. As I said in another thread this Harry Potter Land thing at IoA is critical to the theme park industry as a whole. If it fails or doesn't meet NBC-U's lofty expectations then you won't see this type of investment again for a generation or more. If it is successful then WDW Co. will need to step up to the plate to defend their market share and value.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>Conservative management that want built-in brand recognition for virtually all projects;<<< that is a scary prospect, since Disney parks have always been at their very best when there has been 0 brand recognition to the attraction. >>>As I said in another thread this Harry Potter Land thing at IoA is critical to the theme park industry as a whole. If it fails or doesn't meet NBC-U's lofty expectations then you won't see this type of investment again for a generation or more. If it is successful then WDW Co. will need to step up to the plate to defend their market share and value. <<<< Makes me want to go to IOA just to get the others to step up.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Isn't that what most lawyers and judges do?<<< Thank you for saying MOST, and not ALL. ;-) You are learning!!!!! :-D
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >> Now ... well, you won't ever have to see that because TWDC won't take risks ... now it might overpay billions to buy Marvel in an ego-trip by Iger that he thinks will bring all the boys his princessing of Disney has turned off ... but taking real chances? Nope. That's why you'll see OLC in Shanghai too!<<< I really think running the American parks is a riskt venture, WDC. I really think you should hand operation over to the OLC, WDC... (How awesome would that be?)
Originally Posted By MPierce >> >> Oh what a tangled web we weave. << <<Not as long as you memorize the story you told, and stick to it even when everybody knows you're lying.>> Isn't that what most lawyers and judges do? << Ask EE, he's the devil....I mean lawyer in training.
