Originally Posted By MPierce >> So ... here's the question ... what moves, decisions, choices, additions, changes to WDW since the 21st century dawned (we'll use the Y2K year, even if folks are still arguing that DL really opened on July 18th not on July 17th .... but, oops, wrong date debate) would you (any of you, don't be shy) consider to be visionary ... and why? << I'll keep the original question in front of me so I won't loose focus. Originally I had to ponder this question really hard. As hard as I tried I couldn't come up with anything visionary. Absolutely nothing, nada, zilch, zero, the big goose egg, doodley squat, not one iota of real vision. DL that was vision. Epcot that was vision. IASW that was vision. Cop now that was vision. POTC that was vision. Lucky, and MML could have been vision if the were utilized. The last thing I could come up with was Animal Kingdom. Disney has come up with some entertaining rides that are truly amazing in scope, but not what I would call visionary. Everything they seem to be doing now is based on someone elses design or existing technology. They are just building on the shoulders of others. Give Joe Rohde his choice of a team. Give him an adequate budget. Keep the bean counters, and backstabbers out of the project. You will see what visionary truly is. Now back to my dreams of Lada!
Originally Posted By MPierce >> What did you say MPierce ... I'd rather sit here at 2:30 a.m. watching Burt Reynolds, Jerry Reed and Dom Deluise with a pregnant elephant than go read what you said originally. << One additional thought here that I left out of me earlier post. While the real humor seemed to decline in the sequels to Smokey and the Bandit. I loved watching the progression of body styles of those beautiful Black Trans Am's. Long live GM, buy American keep our country strong!
Originally Posted By A Happy Haunt Joe Rhode..I find him interesting but, I'm often mesmerized by his enormouse ear ring!! It frightens me!!
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Um, hello? There was a recession in the early 90s, but that didnt stop Eisners "vision" of blowing 3 BILLION on Paris. >> Have you been to DLP? I don't know how anyone who has could say that Eisner blew anything on the place. It may have opened in a miserable recession and had too many hotel rooms and ignored too much local culture ... but the resort was and is amazing. The MK should look half as good as DLP. And The Park Formerly Known as the Disney-MGM Studios should have as many quality attractions as DSP does.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<II wasn't nearly as great as the original Smokey and the Bandit!>> Agreed. <<Have you ever watched WW, and the Dixie Dancekings? That's a requirement!>> Nope. Have to add it to my lifetime 'To Do' List.
Originally Posted By dshyates I think Disney, as a company about the time they built Pleasure Island. Or at least that is whn I noticed it first. That is when they became an expert follower instead of an industry leader. It was built because adults were leaving the property to spend money. So Disney COPIED Church Street Station. Then word got out that Universal was bringing a studios park to town. So Disney builds one. And people were heading down to Tampa to Busch Gardens because of the Animals. So Disney builds one. Out in Anahiem Disney doesn't have the luxury to build a park for each competitor so they built Disney's one park with 3 distinct themes. Universal=Hollywood pictures Backlot. Magic Mountain = Paradise Pier. Knott's Berry Farm= Golden State. I hear DLR's 3rd gate is going to be a marine park built entirely of Duplo Blocks.
Originally Posted By dshyates That first sentence should read, "I think Disney, as a company, lost their vision about the time they built Pleasure Island".
Originally Posted By Mr X ***That is when they became an expert follower instead of an industry leader.*** In fairness, I think that was a shrewd move business-wise. Sure it would've been great for us Disney fans if they'd built a DisneySea or something else unique, BUT that wouldn't have stopped the folks who wanted to see a movie studio or a safari park from leaving for the day. Having it be a choice between TWO studios, or TWO safari parks, it's logical to assume people wouldn't bother with both and would instead go with the one that was the least hassle. Thus keeping hordes of walking dollar signs "on property" for those days.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <BUT that wouldn't have stopped the folks who wanted to see a movie studio or a safari park from leaving for the day.> And yet... Disneyland has co-existed with Universal Studios Hollywood and Knott's Berry Farm and Sea World San Diego for years and years. I wonder what the difference is. Closer proximity in Florida?
Originally Posted By Mr X Well, I don't think it made so much difference for Disney's bottom line if customers hopped over to Knotts or Universal...kept them in the hotel longer right?, And DisCo hardly expected them to go to Disneyland EVERY day of their vacation. Florida, on the other hand, is totally designed as a one stop destination. They lose every time a customer escapes over the fence to the outside world. Just sayin.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I believe that from the time WDW added Epcot, Disney saw WDW as a "destination resort" and made it a priority to keep people on property. That never happened in Anaheim until recently with DCA and DTD.
Originally Posted By Disney and beyond Well, I see a couple visionary things at WDW First off is the interaction initiative. With Turtle Talk, Laugh Floor, and Midway Mania (All of which I have enjoyed) interaction is on the rise. But second, and most importantly, the visionary developments at DCA are effecting the visions of WDW. The more time and effort that is spent on improving the sister to Walt's First Park, less that WDW can improve.
Originally Posted By NikkiLOVESMickey <<I believe that from the time WDW added Epcot, Disney saw WDW as a "destination resort" and made it a priority to keep people on property. That never happened in Anaheim until recently with DCA and DTD.>> Actually, Walt always planned WDW as a destination resort. The original plans included five resort hotels, golf and other amenities to keep guests on property (according to Since the World Began by Jef Kurtti). I just did a multigenre report on WDW for one of my classes .
Originally Posted By DAR I think all of Animal Planet(well maybe not Dinoland USA) is very visionary. Turtle Talk and Monsters Inc Laugh Floor(sorry I will not be using the abbreviation)are visionary.
Originally Posted By HMButler79 "" don't know how anyone who has could say that Eisner blew anything on the place."" no no, i meant blowing as in "spending all that 3 Billion" in a good way! As in, even though in a recession he spent all that money to build a $ 1 Billion MK, 6 Hotels, and Disney Village. Dare i say, that Eisner had more park vision that Iger or Rasulo.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <The more time and effort that is spent on improving the sister to Walt's First Park, less that WDW can improve.>> I doubt that Disney is having any cash flow issues, If new investment in WDW will meet ROI objectives, why not do it? Maybe they are afraid that the goose won't be laying golden eggs into the foreseeable future? Maybe they are afraid that new investment won't generate more business?
Originally Posted By MPierce >>> <<Have you ever watched WW, and the Dixie Dancekings? That's a requirement!>> Nope. Have to add it to my lifetime 'To Do' List. <<< It's not really that great of a movie (I do like the car in it though). It just a must watch for RedNecks.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo I do have some baseball and nascar shirts, I find Jeff Foxworthy very funny (tear up funny), and I do like a little country!
