Search results

True, but that was actually down the line. At the onset, salaries did indeed rise because many of the animators actually preferred to work for Katzenberg. I am in no way singing his praises, just making the case that Iger's turnaround of animation is hardly unique and could certainly be argued...

He certainly did cut some things in the works before her got there. The move to Glendale was at the direction of Eisner so that he could reuse the area. It was not Katzenberg's idea. That last bit is a great anecdote, but hardly germane. Do you not give him credit for the string of hits...

That was a long article... most of which was quick history lesson (although claiming that Bob became Michael's heir-apparent in 1996 is laughable). In any case, I don't argue that the deals couldn't have been done with Eisner. I'm merely stating that Bob isn't the only one who could have come in...

Do you think that he has done more with the department than Katzenberg?

That's actually a fairly reasoned analysis. However, there a few things to be noted: We don't actually know that much about how Bob runs things. We only get to see what the powers that be allow. We got all the dirt on Eisner thanks to lawsuits. Admittedly, he brought about those lawsuits...

This whole thing is just the Eisner fiasco all over again. Eisner had complete control of the Board and refused to groom a successor making it difficult to replace him. Despite part of the deal in dumping Eisner being splitting up Chariman and CEO, sure enough in 2012 Iger became both. Now he...

Not to be too cynical, but does it really matter? Do we expect the Board to go with someone not in the same vein as Iger, probably even someone suggested by Iger? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

He better not waste that much effort for anything less than 4k. :happy:

I don't have the numbers handy, but even if the ones you provided are correct (I have no reason to doubt them as the logical principle remains) it still doesn't suggest anything. Just as an example: attendance could be down in the "average" vacationer groups, while the "hard-core" fans keep...

This argument makes no logical sense. The number of park guests (even in a down year) are orders of magnitude above hotel guests. So unless there were more hotel guests on a given night than park guests, you cannot logically infer that there would be anyone staying on property without visiting...

The initial post said that under 30 minutes would be free, so under that plan the Uber/Lyft stuff should be a non-issue.

Shortening the offering by a couple hours, removing 2 other parks and removing a sit down lunch had better warrant a price reduction.

Not sure, but I agree that sifting through those threads is a level of archaeology that I just don't have time for, haha.

I think there were other threads, but here is one that specifically asked about a resort fee: http://forums.wdwmagic.com/threads/disney-survey-on-implementing-a-15-resort-fee.911211/ Edit: A non-forum article...

I hope that you're not planning on utilizing this value on the Saturday before Easter. The announcement clearly states that it is only available on Tuesdays, Fridays and Sundays. Although I suppose you could use some of your compelling logic that we've grown accustomed to here on Disney to sway...

I can't wait to hear how the definition of "Very Similar" is about to change. The original tour in question was the Ultimate Day for Families VIP Tour. For starting differences: It was 6 to 7 hours (not 4 hours like the current one) It included a sit down lunch (the current one does not) It...

Fortunately, I can shed a little light on the scientific process that leads to this knowledge. It's actually quite simple: Does the statement in question support or refute 21's current feeling? If it refutes, then it is to be denounced for being an overreaching generalization which is...

But if you're not here to define the word, how will I know how to find an argument? Oh, wait, maybe it's you that needs help finding a dictionary. Here, I'll help: ar·gu·ment ˈärɡyəmənt/ noun 1. an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one. "I've had an argument...

You can't possibly be as obtuse in real life as you are on these boards. You said you weren't arguing with me. I explained that if that was your goal, you probably shouldn't begin posts argumentatively. If it was your intention to express disagreement, then you were in fact arguing. Not that...

If your goal is not to argue with someone, then writing a post that quotes them and then beginning with "I understand... but..." is not the best method. Edit: typo