Imagineering Right Now [Archive]

lockedoutlogic

03-18-2008, 05:10 AM

You say that assuming WDI, as it's currently configured, is a successful and positive influence on the company's direction. It's not.

Most people in WDI will tell you that their culture is riddled with negative politics, poisonous, and inefficient.

Iger's changes are intended to try and break that up. It's actually a good thing, not a bad thing.

To be honest....i haven't a clue what goes behind the closed doors at imagineering.....

But their track record has not been very good...at least on the surface....over the last 10 years....

I don't really know what the issue has been....but they haven't scored enough recently with the redesigns and new developments....in my opinion

I can think of the "redesigns" of EPCOT Pavilions, Stitch, Laugh Floor, Chester and Hester......

It just seems as though for every "good" attraction...there is still a 2 to 1 bad to good ratio....

...perhaps it's just me.....????

Ian

03-18-2008, 10:30 AM

Actually, the misses seem to be focused almost exclusively in WDW. DL's Imagineering has done some good things lately (subs redo, Pirates overlay, etc.), but yeah WDW's WDI team has been near pathetic.

In fact, just about their only "hit" has been Everest. The rest of their recent efforts have been anywhere between mediocre and terrible.

If read the big Imagineering blog that's out there, you'll get a sense of just how bad things are in portions of WDI right now.

Or talk to Mufasa ... he'll tell you ....

wilshade

03-18-2008, 12:43 PM

You would think that in a heavily competitive market, such as Central Florida, sooner or later enough pressure will be brought to bear on WDW Imagineering that changes will have to be made for the better.

mjstaceyuofm

03-18-2008, 01:52 PM

Aurora

03-18-2008, 08:04 PM

I would go so far as to even call EE good and not great. There's a lot to like about it, but I can see the naysayers opinion when they say it's just a thrill ride with some overlay added to it.

I agree with that. There's something about WDW imagineering that misses the mark.

One of the best rides I've ridden at either of the US Disney parks was the Indiana Jones ride at DL. It was a LOOOOONNNNNG time before that that I felt like a kid experiencing a new Disney attraction. DL got it on the nose with that one.

cgriff

03-18-2008, 09:36 PM

I would go so far as to even call EE good and not great.

Expedition Everest is the most exciting ride I have ever experienced at WDW, hands down... A true, modern e-Ticket attraction. Of course every attraction cannot appeal to every person, even EE I guess. One person's "failure" is another person's "favorite".

cgriff

StrangeCargo

03-19-2008, 02:21 AM

What exactly is the deal with WDI at the moment? I've heard that Iger might/will be downsizing it significantly, and that it is becoming entirely 'project-based' now... is this true?

I really, really don't want to be wishing for another boardroom coup... but Iger hasn't impressed me at all so far, and if he's going to be decimating WDI...

Well, if you feel that way about Iger, then you just haven't been paying attention. (sorry, I don't mean to be mean, but it's true) What he has done for the entire Walt Disney Company in the last two years has been beyond anyone's expectations. The company is thriving and more profitable and company morale is on an upward spiral. Is there room for improvement? Ofcourse! But Iger's track record the last 2 years gives us ample reason to believe that he is the right one to guide those improvements.

StrangeCargo

03-19-2008, 02:33 AM

To be more specific, take a look at some of the major decisions Iger made very early on, some before he even officially took over from Eisner.

Disbanding Strategic Operations Commitee: This entity was a creation of Eisner's. Many throughout the company, including those in imaginearing, felt that this was the place ideas went to die. Basically, this commitee would evaluate any upcoming projects and look for ways to "reduce costs" by replacing elements of a proposed project with cheaper alternatives. Imagine being in imaginearing or film making and having parts of your project scrapped by pencil-pushers who have no idea what people actually want to see. Much of the "bad" attractions being complained about in WDW in this very thread were a result of the Strategic Operations Commitee.

As any reasonable person can deduce, this is not a good system for productivity. Before Iger officially took over, he announced that this commitee would be disbanded. Control over the projects would be turned over to those who were actually invovled in it's creation, be that in film making or imaginearing.

StrangeCargo

03-19-2008, 02:43 AM

Here's another big one that everybody knows,

The acquisition of Pixar:

For awhile it looked like Disney wouldn't be able to secure a renewal to it's deal with Pixar. That would have been a disaster since all of Disney's biggest films were from the Pixar stable. And can you imagine Universal or some other studio taking over the deal with Pixar, instead of Disney!:mad: That would not bode well for the company's future. Again, this was a result of Eisner not being able to come to terms with Pixar's owner, Steve Jobs of Apple.

Shortly after Iger took over, not only was a new deal with Pixar negotiated, but Iger announced that Disney would be buying Pixar too! Now Disney had complete access to all of Pixar's future films, but it also now owned the wealth of creativity that came along with it, like John Lasseter.

StrangeCargo

03-19-2008, 02:50 AM

I don't mean to ramble, but I feel to do the story justice, I must go on:mickey:

Restructuring Animation and Film Divisions:

Iger also announced that Disney would be reducing the amount of films it releases each year by one third. This would be so that rather than the studio juggling more productions that it can handle, the film makers can concentrate their efforts on a smaller number of films and, hopefully improve quality. The same goes for animation. New talent from Pixar and elsewhere was brought in to re-energize this floundering division. We have yet to see the full results of this since making an animated film can take several years, but soon enough we will with a bold return to hand drawn animation in the upcoming Princess and the Frog and others.

StrangeCargo

03-19-2008, 03:08 AM

And here's just one more. Since this board is a themepark oriented one, this one is most applicable:

Major investments in Themeparks including California Adventure:

Honestly, how did you feel when you heard that DCA would be getting a one billion dollar(+) makeover? What a bold decision, no? The makeover cost more than it cost to build the park in the first place!:) But it doesn't end there.

Although it has yet to be announced, major investments not too much unlike the one in DCA are coming to Hong Kong Disneyland. Disneyland Paris' Studio park has also had some major improvements added, with more on the way. And lastly, although no announcements have been made, rumors run high that major development in WDW is on the way too. We'll just have to see.

My point in all of this is that even though we may hear of reports involving Imaginearing making major changes, or downsizing or what have you, we need not think of it as a negative action. All we have to do is take a good hard look at all the other major organizational changes the company has made under Iger the last 2 years and we see a pattern, do we not? A pattern involving change for the better. All this boils down to is, that even though Iger himself is not a storyteller like Walt was, he is however, for the first time in a long time, allowing the many story tellers throughout the company to have the freedom to tell their stories, and isn't that what Disney is all about?:mickey:

Iger has managed in his short time as leader to win over some of his most hardened skeptics, including Roy Disney. It's easy to see why.:party:

future_imagineer

03-19-2008, 07:35 AM

I would strongly beg to differ on Pixar. That was one of the very worst things that he could have done. I like Pixar. I am a big fan of their movie. But Lassater has taken over WDI, evidently, and Pixar is taking over the parks. A better agreement than the previous one should have been reached, or TWDC should have acquired Pixar without giving Jobs and Lassater whatever they wanted. Sorry, nothing is worth letting Walt DIsney World becoming Pixar World.

mcjaco

03-19-2008, 11:09 AM

^ You have to remember that the Pixar rides were well into development well before Iger and Lasseter came on board. So some of this falls back on the last years of Eisner too.

I'm not a fan of the over-Pixarization of the parks, but 1) they are the biggest films to come out of Disney for some time, so you have to expect it, 2) one look at kids faces when they see Nemo, and you get why Pixar is everywhere, 3) none of them are major E-tickets so, I'm not too worried. Besides, when Joe Rhode comes up with something like EE, it has to give you hope that there are still real creators within WDI.

Ian

03-19-2008, 03:54 PM

I see these comments about the "over-Pixarization" of the theme parks and I really just don't get them at all.

Okay look, I've been known to point out the fact that Disney has some under-exposed characters of their own from a theme park perspective and that they could probably do a better job in being a little more broad-based with what they use for projects.

But come on ... Pixar has, inarguably, produced some of the most beloved characters in all of animation history. Since Katzenberg left Disney, they've produced animated dud after animated dud. What characters would you have them exploit??? Chicken Little?? The cows from Home on the Range?? Seriously ... the one even moderately popular character they came up with was Stitch and you want to talk about overexposed?? He was plastered all over the place in WDW. And not in a good way!

Pixar, meanwhile, has produced the characters from Toy Story, Nemo, Lightning McQueen, the Incredibles ... franchise after franchise after franchise.

Iger was brilliant to acquire Pixar, brilliant to put Lasseter in charge, and brilliant to leave him alone to run WDI and WDFA. Without Pixar and Lasseter, Disney would be nothing right now. They'd be relegated to also-ran status in animation and storytelling and they wouldn't have a single, solitary current marketable character around which to base a theme park ride.

The last popular animated character they created is like 20 years old.

One other comment about Iger ... it takes a very long time to turn around a very big ship. You can't just come in on day one and tear everything apart. It doesn't work that way. I think Iger recognizes what needs to be done, has already done some of it, and is trying to do the rest. It just takes time. Rome wasn't built in a day.

lockedoutlogic

03-19-2008, 10:18 PM

I love everest...don't get me wrong....

but are we overestimating the smashing success of this thing?

It's good fun....but isn't it really a modernized version of big thunder mountain?

Has anyone ever been on it where the Yeti was actually working?

Can't you get just as big of thrill from rock-n-roller coaster for a fraction of the pricetag?

I'm just saying....they spent alot...it apparently gobbled up all the juice at AK for 4 years....four very critical years in the park's development......

but in the end it is a disney "mountain"....a nice ride that provides a thrill....but won't get tickets sold by itself?

lockedoutlogic

03-19-2008, 10:24 PM

mcjaco

03-20-2008, 01:24 PM

I love everest...don't get me wrong....

but are we overestimating the smashing success of this thing?

Not at all. AK's attendance has increased significantly since it's intorduction.

It's good fun....but isn't it really a modernized version of big thunder mountain?

If you consider a themed standard mine train vs. a modern Vekoma with track that allows changes in routes and direction, silent lift high technology, then yes. I, however, would beg to differ.

Has anyone ever been on it where the Yeti was actually working?

Multiple times. It is certainly more impressive when he works.

Can't you get just as big of thrill from rock-n-roller coaster for a fraction of the pricetag?

I wouldn't disagree with this statement. RnRC is an off the shelf Vekoma, that's in three or other parks, they just added theming.

I'm just saying....they spent alot...it apparently gobbled up all the juice at AK for 4 years....four very critical years in the park's development......

The addition of EE was part of the park's development. They knew they needed another major E Ticket. They produced, just that. With the additional attendance, it can now justify ramping up more additions.

but in the end it is a disney "mountain"....a nice ride that provides a thrill....but won't get tickets sold by itself?

Already stated earlier. It has increased attendance, which means it is selling more tickets.

Ian

03-20-2008, 01:56 PM

I'm going to have to disagree with the notion that adding Everest caused the recent boost in attendance at AK.

First off, remember that they opened Finding Nemo: The Musical at roughly the same time, so some credit would have to go there too.

Secondly, the entire resort has experienced a huge boost in attendance in the last 12 months due in no small part to the YoaMD celebration. It's only logical to assume that attendance at AK would benefit from that.

The bottom line is that Animal Kingdom is still one of the least popular Disney theme parks. It even ranks significantly behind Disneyland Paris, which is really amazing when you consider the fact that it has Magic Kingdom (the most popular theme park in the world) pulling in potential guests for it.

In fact, the only other Disney theme park (not including Hong Kong) that ranks below AK in terms of attendance is the other Eisner era bomb known as Disney's California Adventure. A park so bad that Disney has basically decided to rebuild it from the ground up.

mcjaco

03-20-2008, 04:58 PM

1 MAGIC KINGDOM at Walt Disney World, Lake Buena Vista, FL, USA 17,060,000
2 DISNEYLAND, Anaheim, CA, USA 14,870,000
3 TOKYO DISNEYLAND, Tokyo, Japan 13,906,000
4 TOKYO DISNEYSEA, Tokyo, Japan 12,413,000
5 DISNEYLAND PARIS, Marne-La-Vallee, France 12,000,000
6 EPCOT at Walt Disney World, Lake Buena Vista, FL, USA 10,930,000
7 DISNEY'S HOLLYWOOD STUDIOS at Walt Disney World, Lake Buena V 9,510,000
8 DISNEY'S ANIMAL KINGDOM at Walt Disney World, Lake Buena Vista, FL 9,490,000
9 UNIVERSAL STUDIOS JAPAN, Osaka, Japan 8,713,000
10 EVERLAND, Kyonggi-Do, South Korea 7,200,000
11 UNIVERSAL STUDIOS at Universal Orlando, Orlando, FL 6,200,000
12 SEAWORLD FLORIDA, Orlando, FL, USA 5,800,000
13 DISNEY'S CALIFORNIA ADVENTURE, Anaheim, CA, USA 5,680,000
14 PLEASURE BEACH, Blackpool, UK 5,500,000
15 ISLANDS OF ADVENTURE at Universal Orlando, Orlando, FL, USA 5,430,000
16 OCEAN PARK, Hong Kong, China 4,920,000
17 HAKKEIJIMA SEA PARADISE, Yokohama, Japan * 4,770,000
18 UNIVERSAL STUDIOS HOLLYWOOD, Universal City, CA, USA 4,700,000
19 BUSCH GARDENS TAMPA BAY, Tampa Bay, FL, USA 4,400,000
20 SEAWORLD CALIFORNIA, San Diego, CA, USA 4,260,000
21 HONG KONG DISNEYLAND, Hong Kong, SAR, China 4,150,000
22 TIVOLI GARDENS, Copenhagen, Denmark 4,110,000
23 EUROPA-PARK, Rust, Germany 4,000,000
24 NAGASHIMA SPA LAND, Kuwana, Japan 3,910,000
25 PORT AVENTURA, Salou, Spain 3,700,000

So DHS gets 20,000 more people while having three thrill rides, and AK has two, and you don't think EE has anything to do with it?

I find that hard to believe.

I also love how DCA gets more people through the gates than IOA, but it's considered a failure.

Ian

03-20-2008, 06:58 PM

So DHS gets 20,000 more people while having three thrill rides, and AK has two, and you don't think EE has anything to do with it?

I find that hard to believe.

I also love how DCA gets more people through the gates than IOA, but it's considered a failure.I'm not even sure what that first part means. What would DHS' attendance have to do with AK's attendance? Unless you're looking historically and tell me that DHS's attendance last year was 100,000 more than AK's and now it's only 20,000 more, it's basically irrelevant this conversation.

As far as DCA goes, the attenance numbers are, first and foremost, pathetic when you compare them to the other Disney parks. You can't compare a Disney park with a Universal park. It's like comparing a Benz to a Yugo. Disney has 8 of the top 10 parks and then there's DCA waaaaaaaaaaay down the list. You need to compare it with the other Disney parks, which is what guests are doing and why so many people consider it a flop. When Disney built it do you think they planned for it to have attendance that low?? I think not.

And secondly, it happens to be located directly across from the second most popular theme park on that list. What does it say for DCA that it's unable to leverage that relationship with Disneyland into better attendance than #13?

lockedoutlogic

03-20-2008, 07:43 PM

When a recession hits...probably after the current government leaves and stops plugging the holes in the dam for the "good of the party".... (at some point....the pity fest for mortgages has to end and the interest rate will have to be restored...they are trading one bad economic condition for others)

then AK's attendance will fall....i'm willing to bet by a significantly larger percentage than any of the other WDW parks....

All disney parks are inflated right now because they've reaped a good economy for travel over the last 4+ years......

I really think some of AK's numbers are also false because they are the results of people not wanting to fight larger crowds at Magic Kingdom and EPCOT...I really do...call me crazy

Everest is nice....a good ride....but the park needs more.....this can't really be disputed....1 major new addition in the park's first 10 years isn't cutting it.....

not when you shortcut the original park's blueprints

Ian

03-20-2008, 08:00 PM

I really think some of AK's numbers are also false because they are the results of people not wanting to fight larger crowds at Magic Kingdom and EPCOT...I really do...call me crazyOh, there's no doubt this is true. I totally agree 100%.

Here's a question for all you AK fans out there ... if AK stood alone, without MK, Epcot, and DHS to help draw guests, where do you think it would rank on the attendance list?

mcjaco

03-20-2008, 10:37 PM

I'm going to have to disagree with the notion that adding Everest caused the recent boost in attendance at AK.

Perhaps I poorly worded my first repsonse to this. What I was trying to say, was that with only one (maybe two) thrill rides, AK attendance has certainly jumped since EE was added. DHS has three, and it only pulled in 20,000 more guests. Most people look to which park has the newest thrill ride, EE is it.

I won't argue that it's attendance will falter as people stop travelling. And yes, although I go to AK once or twice a visit, I certainly wouldn't be upset if I missed it. Although at this rate, I rank it higher than DHS, of the four parks.

As for IOA, I'm just trying to show the comparisons for theme parks. IOA is, IMO, on par theming wise to anything Disney has put out, except Disney Sea. It's just doesn't have the mass appeal.

I like AK, as I think it's the most well designed park for pulling of the theming. I don't think any other areas in WDW can compare to the levels of detail that Africa and Asia have. It's too bad it just have a lot of substance to draw LOTS of people for return visits.

EE was a step in the right direction. Hopefully with that change, more changes will be made, and a faster pace. Unfortunately, I think many Disney fans (including me) want to see big changes rapidly.

Grizz16

03-20-2008, 11:46 PM

Instead of Cars or another Nemo attraction, I'd like a Pinocchio or Alice in Wonderland ride at WDW.

DisneyFanaticDargon

03-21-2008, 01:02 AM

Has anyone ever been on it where the Yeti was actually working?

Not quite sure what you're talking about. EVERY time I've been on it the yeti has been working (and by working I mean moving) and I rode it many times over a 9 month period.

lockedoutlogic

03-21-2008, 07:22 AM

Not quite sure what you're talking about. EVERY time I've been on it the yeti has been working (and by working I mean moving) and I rode it many times over a 9 month period.

For the first year....it was usually working....

the last four times I rode it....spread out from Jan 07-Nov 07....it was not.....

you'll know if it's working because there is no lights in the room and they have a "strobe light effect" thing going if he's not moving

The yeti has had massive technical problems....this is a widely known thing at this point....

Aurora

03-21-2008, 08:21 PM

To tell you the truth, I was way more awed by EE's queue atmosphere and theming than I was with the actual ride. Technically it's impressive, and it looks great from the outside, but nobody but engineers and coaster geeks get off a ride saying "wow, I loved that new Vekoma technology."

It's just missing something. Going backwards fast in the dark doesn't tell a Yeti/Himalayas story. It could be any thrill ride.

Also to tell you the truth, I can't remember whether the Yeti was working or not when I rode it. So maybe he wasn't, and that contributed to my :huh: attitude.

DonnaT103

03-21-2008, 10:03 PM

I can't believe people are actually comparing DL's Nemo Sub ride to AK's Everest. The Nemo Sub was the most disappointing ride I have ever been on. I couldn't belive that all those people wasted so much time lining up for that ride. It is nothing more than a glorified video. I was so disappointed in it. I had thought it would be a classic Disney automotromic ride simular to the old sub's but with Nemo charaters. Everest is so much better.
The coment that Nemo the Musical opened at the same time as Everest is not true. When we where there in the fall of 06 we went on Everest several times, but there where still construction walls up around the musical area. I don't know when it did open, but it was well after Everest.

Ian

03-21-2008, 10:58 PM

The coment that Nemo the Musical opened at the same time as Everest is not true. When we where there in the fall of 06 we went on Everest several times, but there where still construction walls up around the musical area. I don't know when it did open, but it was well after Everest.I wasn't trying to imply that the rides opened at the exact same time. The point, which you may have missed, is that 2007 attendance numbers (the numbers we're discussing here) were affected by both attractions.

The actual opening dates are irrelvant to the conversation, however, for the record, Expedition Everest officially opened on April 7th, 2006. Finding Nemo the Musical officially opened in January of 2007.

Marker

03-21-2008, 10:59 PM

Everyone is entitled to their opinions. And so I am entitled to mine as well.

My opinion is that I seriously wonder if there is ANYTHING they could do at WDW, or within Disney itself, that would be good enough.

For what it's worth:
I like Expedition Everest, and don't believe I have ever see the Yeti not working. And honestly, it really wouldn't have that much effect on my enjoyment of the ride if it weren't working.

I like the Monster's Inc Laugh Floor.

I really don't understand the reluctance to accept Pixar into the Disney fold.

I'm almost 50 years old, and yes I love Pinocchio, Alice In Wonderland, Jungle Book, etc. My kids are in their early to mid twenties, the Disney favorites from their childhood are Little Mermaid, Lion King, etc. And now for younger kids, the Movies and Characters that will be their childhood memories come from Monster's Inc, Cars, etc. If you're intent is to attract kids and families, then you are going to be theming on the more contempory subjects rather than stuff a quarter to a half a century old. When Disneyland was built they didn't them solely on the characters from Steamboat Willy, and the early Silly Symphonies...no, they themed off of the then more contemporary Alice In Wonderland, Davy Crocket, Peter Pan.

No matter what Disney does, we'll never be kids again, and we will never again experience anything at WDW with the wonder of a child. Nothing will never be as awesome as those things first experienced through childhood eyes.

In my simple opinion, I'd rather they bring joy to the eyes of a child, than to me. After all, shouldn't it be about kids and families, and not over critical adults.

Maybe they could create "ReminiscingLand" for all those attractions that no longer appeal to kids, but yet we raise a stick over when they remove them.

But again, just my opinion.

Aurora

03-21-2008, 11:58 PM

...My opinion is that I seriously wonder if there is ANYTHING they could do at WDW, or within Disney itself, that would be good enough. ...

No matter what Disney does, we'll never be kids again, and we will never again experience anything at WDW with the wonder of a child. Nothing will ever be as awesome as those things first experienced through childhood eyes.

Marker, I know what you mean. I'm a couple years younger than you and I would agree you, except...

When I told my kids to Disneyland three years ago, there were attractions there that I felt exactly that wonder and that sense of awe walking away from the experience. One of those was the Indiana Jones ride. Just one of the best rides at any Disney park. Another was "Soarin' Over California," which we know later showed up in WDW. And although it wasn't a ride, another was the theming of the activities in the Sorcerers area of the Animation building, which is much more imaginative, mysterious and immersive than the Animation building in WDW.

It isn't that I don't like the new offerings at WDW, or that I don't think they're entertaining. I do. It's that they haven't given me the same feeling -- exactly as you described, like being a kid again. But I did get that feeling, while I was in my 40s, at Disneyland.

Ian

03-22-2008, 08:03 AM

lockedoutlogic

03-22-2008, 08:50 AM

Marker, I just want to be clear ... I love Expedition Everest. I'm not criticizing the ride. I think it's terrific.

I'm just trying to point out that it's flawed logic to attribute all of AK's attendance boost to it's debut.

In fact, I've yet to see anyone even prove that AK has had an attendance boost.

I don't believe it has had an actual attendance boost as compared to the rest of WDW...which has been maxed out for several years.....

Nemo replaced Tarzan....which was probably a net gain of very little....as stage shows cater to the demographic who wants to go to stage shows in amusement parks.....it's not as though the thrillseeking types or young adult type demographics are more drawn in by nemo than tarzan....i'm sure many go because it's a pixar title and a newer/ more popular character....but i don't think repeat attendance is much higher...so a little bump is the reality

Everest would have brought people to the park....but after the initial interest in it....AK still has little in the way of attractions....

It will take at least 2 more "E-type" attractions...along with some more focus on wildlife exhibits/attractions....more restuarants and facilities...(an austrailia land could accomplish all of these...with perhaps some enhancements to Africa and Asia)...and a real, actual, children's land to make AK a full day park...IMHO

I just don't see anyway around this....

The same type of addition is probably needed in MGM/Hollywood....perhaps to a lesser extent

If a recession does fall....I believe it would be proactive for disney to throw up massive bucks and construction walls in both the studios and AK at that time.....strengthening the parks -as Iger has stated is his desire - quickly and with less regard to asthetics than they normally would show towards construction...even if it isn't a "stock wise" move

The result might be dipped profits....but when the economy does come back up...as it always will....WDW would be armed with 4 complete parks....a ton of guaranteed repeat business due to the ever expanding DVC....new outside operators/partners in lodging and retail....and then the ability to expand the vision (and income) anyway they want with the hoards of cash that will then decend on them like a florida afternoon thundershower....

piecemeal at EPCOT, MGM, and AK over the last 10 years has really only maintained status quo.....why not try to really take the bull by the horns? (wishfull thinking in some part...I realize:cloud9:)

Aurora

03-22-2008, 03:30 PM

For the record, here are the numbers from 2006, from the TEA/ERA Theme Park Attendance Report, same group that put out the 2007 numbers. You can google TEA/ERA for their web sites. Last year's report, for 2006, was the first year TEA/ERA reported attendance figures.

Rank 2006 Park & Location Attendance

1. Magic Kingdom At Walt Disney World, Lake Buena Vista, Florida, Usa 16,640,000
2. Disneyland, Anaheim, California, Usa 14,730,000
3. Tokyo Disneyland, Tokyo, Japan 12,900,000
4. Tokyo Disney Sea, Tokyo, Japan 12,100,000
5. Disneyland Paris, Marne-La-Vallee, France 10,600,000
6. Epcot At Walt Disney World, Lake Buena Vista, Florida, Usa 10,460,000
7. Disney-Mgm Studios Theme Park At Walt Disney World, Lake Buena Vista, Fl, Usa 9,100,000
8. Disney's Animal Kingdom At Walt Disney World, Lake Buena Vista, Florida, Usa 8,910,000
9. Universal Studios Japan, Osaka, Japan 8,500,000
10. Everland, Kyonggi-Do, South Korea 7,500,000
11. Universal Studios At Universal Orlando, Florida 6,000,000
12. Blackpool Pleasure Beach, England 6,000,000
13. Disney's California Adventure, Anaheim, California, Usa 5,950,000
14. Seaworld Florida, Orlando, Florida, Usa 5,740,000
15. Lotte World, Seoul, South Korea 5,500,000
16. Yokohama Hakkeijima Sea Paradise, Yokohama, Japan 5,400,000
17. Islands Of Adventure At Universal Orlando, Orlando, Florida, Usa 5,300,000
18. Hong Kong Disneyland, Hong Kong, Sar, China 5,200,000
19. Universal Studios Hollywood, Universal City, California, Usa 4,700,000
20. Tivoli Gardens, Copenhagen, Denmark 4,396,000
21. Ocean Park, Hong Kong, China 4,380,000
22. Busch Gardens Tampa Bay, Tampa Bay, Florida, Usa 4,360,000
23. Seaworld California, San Diego, California, Usa 4,260,000
24. Europa-Park, Rust, Germany 3,950,000
25. Nagashima Spa Land, Kuwana, Japan 3,910,000

TheRustyScupper

03-22-2008, 10:31 PM

. . . Although it has yet to be announced, major investments not too much unlike the one in DCA are coming to Hong Kong Disneyland. Disneyland Paris' Studio park has also had some major improvements added, with more on the way.

1) This is not an Ogre (I mean Iger) choice.
2) This is something he has been forced into.
3) The parks are poor and must be upgraded.
. . . rides are too few
. . . people are not trained
. . . morale among CM's is low
. . . guests stay away due to poor design
. . . newspapers criticize lack of attendance
. . . investors are unhappy with returns
4) For quite some time, Disney has been known for building under performing parks. They have re-defined how to "Mickey Mouse" parks. Under-built were, and still are,
. . . Disney Paris (will NEVER make a profit)
. . . Disney Studios Paris (quonset huts)
. . . California Adventure (pitiful, pitiful disaster)
. . . Hong Kong (too small, too few rides)
. . . MGM-Studios (opened with only 2-rides)
. . . Animal Kingdom (need I say more)

NOTE: With criticism of Rohde, a lot of acreage and a lot of money, but an idea not fulfilled. (No TS eateries in the park, silly themes for attractions that have been already changed, too few attractions, themes that are so esoteric that few understand/recognize them.) He did a good job on somethings, but could have done things better, even with restricted funds. It could have been such a great idea and park.

StrangeCargo

03-23-2008, 05:01 AM

TheRustyScupper;
1) This is not an Ogre (I mean Iger) choice.
2) This is something he has been forced into.

I'm just curious how you would know that making the investments into DCA and Paris and Hong Kong were not Iger's choice. It's pretty clear to me in reading interviews with the man that he is very much into the idea of fixing what is wrong with Disney's parks now before making a major commitment to building a new park. It seems to me that you are missing something.

If Iger were against the idea of investing into the parks, as you imply (he was "forced") would we have gotten the billion-dollar DCA makeover? And what about Disney's remarkable decison to forego it's royalties in Hong Kong for several years in order to turn around and invest that same money that it could have pocketed, so that it can build new major attractions in the park. Was this not Iger's decision too, or was he "forced" into this bold decision as well? A bold move like that is still a bold move, whether one is forced into or not, yes?

No matter what you imply, as the president of the company, Iger has just as much choice over where to lead the complany as Eisner did. He can choose to follow the same mistakes that Eisner made toward the end of his tenure, or he can choose to make a different path. All the evidence I have seen leads me to not share your bleak view of the company's future.:mickey:

StrangeCargo

03-23-2008, 05:24 AM

3) The parks are poor and must be upgraded.
. . . rides are too few
. . . people are not trained
. . . morale among CM's is low
. . . guests stay away due to poor design
. . . newspapers criticize lack of attendance
. . . investors are unhappy with returns

I don't believe that we can find a single person on this board who doesn't agree that improvements need to be made at all of the parks. But since last year was a record year in attendance for the parks (even as the posted numbers above show), I doubt the severity of your scathing assesments.

4
) For quite some time, Disney has been known for building under performing parks. They have re-defined how to "Mickey Mouse" parks. Under-built were, and still are,
. . . Disney Paris (will NEVER make a profit)
. . . Disney Studios Paris (quonset huts)
. . . California Adventure (pitiful, pitiful disaster)
. . . Hong Kong (too small, too few rides)
. . . MGM-Studios (opened with only 2-rides)
. . . Animal Kingdom (need I say more)

Again, most of us would agree with those assesment. We have been seeing more so-so parks and attractions since the late 90's than ever before. However, I fail to see Iger's connection to that fact since he has only just taken over in 2005/2006 and it is reasonable to assume that many of said attractions were already in development, if not already opened before he took over. (Yes I am very defensive of the man's leadership:thumbsup:)
The very same moving and shaking taking place throughout the company, I believe is changes for the better, generally speaking, to avoid these kinds of attractions being built in the future.:)

Take a look again at the DCA makeover. The Little Mermaid attraction is rumored to cost over 100 million alone! Imagine a fantasyland-style dark ride with that kind of price tag. :cool: And the Radiator Springs ride budget is over 300 million and growing!:party: Do not these things give Disney fans valid reasons to get excited and hopeful? :mickey:Well I guess only time will

tell.

lockedoutlogic

03-23-2008, 07:56 AM

I don't believe that we can find a single person on this board who doesn't agree that improvements need to be made at all of the parks. But since last year was a record year in attendance for the parks (even as the posted numbers above show), I doubt the severity of your scathing assesments.

4

Again, most of us would agree with those assesment. We have been seeing more so-so parks and attractions since the late 90's than ever before. However, I fail to see Iger's connection to that fact since he has only just taken over in 2005/2006 and it is reasonable to assume that many of said attractions were already in development, if not already opened before he took over. (Yes I am very defensive of the man's leadership:thumbsup:)
The very same moving and shaking taking place throughout the company, I believe is changes for the better, generally speaking, to avoid these kinds of attractions being built in the future.:)

Take a look again at the DCA makeover. The Little Mermaid attraction is rumored to cost over 100 million alone! Imagine a fantasyland-style dark ride with that kind of price tag. :cool: And the Radiator Springs ride budget is over 300 million and growing!:party: Do not these things give Disney fans valid reasons to get excited and hopeful? :mickey:Well I guess only time will

tell.

Don't confuse a big budget with major improvement....disney can throw 100 million dollars into almost anything at this point....everest cost close to 200 million

they have no problem sinking hundreds of millions of dollars into a ride....there problem is that they have opened parks with far too few attractions....then they through up a ride that cost alot and say..."there....see.....we fixed it"

not quite....it started with MGM...and continued with about 5 other parks....as the scupper indicated.....

they have just put up high cost parks without finishing the job and making the full experience at a park....

every park since euro-disney (DLP) has fallen into this category...with the exception of Tokyo Disneysea...

IF you want to look at the historical perspective....Euro opened in 92.....and was the last park that opened under Eisney/Wells....since the partnership was broken...and the exodus of talented underlings began....every park built was cost and corner-cut and have opened to lackluster reviews...except in Japan...where Disney shares the upfront costs....

This isn't rocket science.....it started with MGM...and it has continued ever since....i would argue with only Disneyland paris and disneysea breaking the mold

It's the "EPCOT" effect....they spent so much on Epcot Center in it's day that the disney management afterwards....even the new regime....attempted to cost-cut there way to new parks....and instead of going "overboard"...they've gone underboard....

you can see what has happened when "walt's men"...were replaced with "business men"

We can only hope that they correct this....

Ian

03-23-2008, 09:04 AM

I don't think Rusty means to imply that Iger was forced into it by someone else in the company today ... I think he's trying to say that Iger was forced to make these decisions because of the years of mis-management and disastrous lack of investment under Eisner.

His point is that Iger would rather be doing other things than spending billions to fix up parks that should have been done right in the first place by his predecessor.

Interesting 2006 attendance numbers there ... it does sort of prove that AK's attendance has gone up independent of the overall boost at WDW in general. Check out the percentage increases between 2006 and 2007 for each Disney park:

DISNEYLAND PARIS, Marne-La-Vallee, France 13% increase
TOKYO DISNEYLAND, Tokyo, Japan 8% increase
DISNEY'S ANIMAL KINGDOM at Walt Disney World, Lake Buena Vista, FL 7% increase
DISNEY'S HOLLYWOOD STUDIOS at Walt Disney World, Lake Buena V 5% increase
EPCOT at Walt Disney World, Lake Buena Vista, FL, USA 4% increase
MAGIC KINGDOM at Walt Disney World, Lake Buena Vista, FL, USA 3% increase
TOKYO DISNEYSEA, Tokyo, Japan 3% increase
DISNEYLAND, Anaheim, CA, USA 1% increase
DISNEY'S CALIFORNIA ADVENTURE, Anaheim, CA, USA 5% decrease
HONG KONG DISNEYLAND, Hong Kong, SAR, China 20% decreaseSo AK had the largest percentage attendance boost of any of the domestic theme parks and third overall.

Ian

03-23-2008, 09:11 AM

Don't confuse a big budget with major improvement....disney can throw 100 million dollars into almost anything at this point....everest cost close to 200 millionI agree with this. Disney spent $30 million on the Haunted Mansion overlay. The budgets actually have a lot more to do with how ineffeciently WDI runs these days than anything else. I read an article about it somewhere ... how Disney (read that as "Iger") was trying hard to break up WDI as it's configured today, because they're just not competitive with outside vendors. Their culture is so highly politicized and rife with bureaucracy that they just can't get anything done efficiently.

$100 million to WDI is like $50 million anywhere else.

every park since euro-disney (DLP) has fallen into this category...with the exception of Tokyo Disneysea...Yeah, but you've got to take TDL out of the equation since that's actually run by Oriental Land Company. Disney only has a minor ownership interest and just collects licensing fees from OLC. OLC makes all the capital investments and decisions.

lockedoutlogic

03-23-2008, 11:14 AM

I agree with this. Disney spent $30 million on the Haunted Mansion overlay. The budgets actually have a lot more to do with how ineffeciently WDI runs these days than anything else. I read an article about it somewhere ... how Disney (read that as "Iger") was trying hard to break up WDI as it's configured today, because they're just not competitive with outside vendors. Their culture is so highly politicized and rife with bureaucracy that they just can't get anything done efficiently.

$100 million to WDI is like $50 million anywhere else.

Yeah, but you've got to take TDL out of the equation since that's actually run by Oriental Land Company. Disney only has a minor ownership interest and just collects licensing fees from OLC. OLC makes all the capital investments and decisions.

Ian,

I've pointed out the partnership with OLC on the board numerous times.....just forgot to this time

Thanks....you re-illustrated the point brilliantly.....

that since EPCOT, the best constructed disney parks are not constructed by disney....because they aren't willing to pay the bills necessary to have it be a "true" Disney park....the legacy created by Walt and Roy O with Disneyand and The Magic Kingdom

StrangeCargo

03-24-2008, 09:52 AM

I don't think Rusty means to imply that Iger was forced into it by someone else in the company today ... I think he's trying to say that Iger was forced to make these decisions because of the years of mis-management and disastrous lack of investment under Eisner.

Thank you for that clarification, Ian. But anytime someone is forced into a decision, does it not imply that there was no other alternative to making it? Was there only one course of action that could be taken in this regard, with no other choice by the new man in charge?

As you pointed out, the reason the company today is having to figure out what to do with an under-developed park with a luke-warm (at-best) reception by the public, is because of the previous management's bad decision making, particularly in regards to slashing budgets. My point is, there was an obvious problem with California Adventure, and for a while it looked rather unclear as to what would be done with it. We now have an answer, don't we? And not just an answer, but an ANSWER. :mickey:

Take a look again at the concept artwork coming ahead for DCA (pondering that that covers only the first half of the development) and tell me that you do not see a change from the previous management's style to what we have to look forward to today?

StrangeCargo

03-24-2008, 10:11 AM

Don't confuse a big budget with major improvement....disney can throw 100 million dollars into almost anything at this point....everest cost close to 200 million

No, I'm not confusing a big budget with major improvement. What I am saying, is that a big budget IS a major improvement in view of what we were given by previous management and their ideas of what was acceptable business strategy. Let's come face-to-face with a truth that we all can agree on: under the previous management such a massive investment as the one we see going on in DCA, would have been impossible. (remember the Strategic Operating Comittee):thedolls:. The billion dollar investment in DCA and the several hundred million dollar investment coming for Hong Kong represents a commitment by the new management, spearheaded by Iger, to correct the mistakes of the past, the very mistakes you pointed out. Let's also hope that they learned not to make the same mistakes in the future, be that new attractions or new parks.

Now, what is done with that large sum of money will be up to the wizards in Imaginearing. For years they have labored under super-tight budgets, but it appears that will no longer be true for upcoming attractions.

StrangeCargo

03-24-2008, 10:27 AM

I think we all just need to put things into perspective here. Imaginearing, as other-worldly as it may seem to be, is basically, a company. Like any company it has it's own politics and red-tape, and so on and so on. And just as it isn't unusual to hear of a company restructuring to maximize revenue and/or to improve the output of it's product, we shouldn't be flabergasted by the notion that Imaginearing is doing the same.

Now, whether these changes are an improvement or a mistake can only be proven with the passing of time. This way, and only this way, will be how we are able to judge these reported changes.

StrangeCargo

03-24-2008, 10:54 AM

My advice is to be optimistic on the matter, because I believe that Imaginearing in concert with the new management has earned our confidence; after all isn't confidence what Iger wanted to inspire in us by that dramatic DCA announcement and brilliant concept artwork?

Confidence?:confused: Am I crazy, you wonder. Isn't Imaginearing responsible for some horrible abominations lately? Well, if you are a Disney fanatic, (aren't we all) then yes, "abominations" it is.

But that is lately, meaning that perhaps, just perhaps, the bureaucracy and interference from the old management could have been the major contributor to the production of these dissapointments. Even still, to be fair, for every dissapointing attraction or remake that we have gotten lately, imaginearing has produced countless other Disney delights. Look again at what they are capable of in the form of DisneySea and other bright spots that have popped up across the glode in the last few years. So, heres hoping that under the right management, Walt Disney Imaginearing will be set free to soar to new heights. Time will tell.

Ian

03-24-2008, 11:06 AM

Thank you for that clarification, Ian. But anytime someone is forced into a decision, does it not imply that there was no other alternative to making it? Was there only one course of action that could be taken in this regard, with no other choice by the new man in charge?Absolutely. I wasn't say I agreed with Rusty ... just trying to translate for you. ;)

I totally agree. I think Iger has the company headed in the right direction. At least all signs point that way, anyway. It just takes time. Rome wasn't built in a day.

StrangeCargo

03-24-2008, 11:15 AM

Absolutely. I wasn't say I agreed with Rusty ... just trying to translate for you. ;)

I totally agree. I think Iger has the company headed in the right direction. At least all signs point that way, anyway. It just takes time. Rome wasn't built in a day.

Yeah, you're right, Rome wasn't built in a day. What impresses me so much about Iger is how much he got done in so short a time. It's as if he made a list of all THE BIGGEST problems the company has, and fixed them, like that. This, will hopefully have a ripple effect, reaching all the way from the top brass, down to the animators and cast members.

Ian

03-24-2008, 02:58 PM

It's as if he made a list of all THE BIGGEST problems the company has, and fixed them, like that.Yeah, that's exactly how I feel, too.

I think he had to tackle what I think of as the "strategic" problems of the company first. A lot of what we worry about here is more tactical stuff.

Theoretically, if you get the strategic stuff squared away then the tactical will kinda take care of itself. That's the "ripple effect", I think.

lockedoutlogic

03-25-2008, 12:06 AM

Yeah, that's exactly how I feel, too.

I think he had to tackle what I think of as the "strategic" problems of the company first. A lot of what we worry about here is more tactical stuff.

Theoretically, if you get the strategic stuff squared away then the tactical will kinda take care of itself. That's the "ripple effect", I think.

agree again....the biggest problem was one of payroll....

as Eisner chased everyone off the payrolls who had drive, determination, and independent thought.....

this is a not too well kept "secret"....as the 90's saw the six flags, universal, and anheiser busch chains close the gap with Disney's domestic parks somewhat by pilfering employees and the formation of not one....but two major studios animation divisions from pirated disney animators.....

but i think iger has the right idea.....hopefully he can delegate and stay out of it.....especially the bills.....as evil mikey failed to do and has now created a 10 year log of missteps and corrections on the table...

just a few:

wide world as a gated attraction, the state of the disney store (the old water from a rock trick), Disney studios paris, hong kong, animal kingdom, disneyquest, cali non-adventure (or interest..for that matter), cheapquels, the feud with the only active disney family member....who just happened to look like walt disney, Go.com, pressler, ovitz, the katzenberg feud, atlantis, dinosaur, treasure planet, the emperors new groove, home on the range, chicken little, cinderella part XVIII (the one where cinderella fights the russian on christmas), overpaying for capital cities, a ton of sub-disney new rides and attractions, the gutting of employee morale...and benefits....and competitive pay....and general pride in the name.....

just to name a few....i could go on for weeks at this one

TheRustyScupper

03-25-2008, 12:15 PM

. . . anytime someone is forced into a decision, does it not imply that there was no other alternative to making it?

1) I think "forced" is a correct term.
2) Something had to be done - the status quo is not acceptable.
3) Guests, officials, investors, critics all decried the cheapened parks.
4) One can only throw money at parks to improve the parks.
5) Now, it is hoped the money will be well spent.
6) Will we end up with Epcot quality or California Adventure quality parks?

NOTE: I use the Epcot/CA comparison because I feel that each represent the best and the worst Disney has to offer in park design, theming, forethought, rides/attractions, atmosphere, and "Disney-Feel".

DisneyFanaticDargon

03-26-2008, 09:47 AM

agree again....the biggest problem was one of payroll....

as Eisner chased everyone off the payrolls who had drive, determination, and independent thought.....

this is a not too well kept "secret"....as the 90's saw the six flags, universal, and anheiser busch chains close the gap with Disney's domestic parks somewhat by pilfering employees and the formation of not one....but two major studios animation divisions from pirated disney animators.....

but i think iger has the right idea.....hopefully he can delegate and stay out of it.....especially the bills.....as evil mikey failed to do and has now created a 10 year log of missteps and corrections on the table...

just a few:

wide world as a gated attraction, the state of the disney store (the old water from a rock trick), Disney studios paris, hong kong, animal kingdom, disneyquest, cali non-adventure (or interest..for that matter), cheapquels, the feud with the only active disney family member....who just happened to look like walt disney, Go.com, pressler, ovitz, the katzenberg feud, atlantis, dinosaur, treasure planet, the emperors new groove, home on the range, chicken little, cinderella part XVIII (the one where cinderella fights the russian on christmas), overpaying for capital cities, a ton of sub-disney new rides and attractions, the gutting of employee morale...and benefits....and competitive pay....and general pride in the name.....

just to name a few....i could go on for weeks at this one

Hey now, let's be fair...Emperor's New Groove was actually pretty good. :blush: