A Spirited 15 Rounds ...

nevol

Well-Known Member
Spirit puts the real number closer to 3.5 Billion. But the driver of MM+ was to spread the load so TDO would not have to build new attractions. Instead they spent enough to build a large fraction of a new park and the financial benefits never happened. Remember it was pitched as costing only $800 million
Meanwhile USO spends 250 mill or so on wizarding world and then installs more #screenz and they've basically doubled attendance, built out both parks, added a water park, and several new hotels for a fraction of the cost of Disney's "plan your vacation 190 days in advance or bust" bands.

People used to say that they'd already seen ROI from the whole thing, within a year or two of them rolling it out, through increased guest spending. I admit I'm more of DLR guy so some details about wdw operations "haven't come across my desk." Anybody care to speak to these claims? My biggest concern/criticism of the whole project is that it was money spent on infrastructure other than the parks in other more visible ways, 1. But beyond that, I think it is in how the process has changed the entire vacation/pre-arrival/planning sequence--rewarding those who plan months in advance, punishing those who don't, and taking spontaneity, a key ingredient in fun and intrinsic self-motivation, out of the vacation altogether. That is a fundamental flaw, but the problem isn't the infrastructure as much as the policies in place. I am sure there is market research going on at Disney constantly to optimize guest satisfaction with the system; I just think, with my west coast brain, that shrinking the time for reservations and fastpasses or leaving a certain percentage of them available for day trippers to book on a whim would be reasonable.
 
Last edited:

SoManyWasps

Well-Known Member
It seemed pretty fair to me, In the 80-00's era Disney portrayed male characters as characters you wanted to emulate (if male), In the Iger era they are portrayed as either wussified beta males or doormats which the women trample.

I found the article regardless of source very interesting and it's also interesting that the corporate culture which created those characters also finds it hard to connect with boys in the parks.
Having just left Disneyland, I can honestly say I think a shift in Disney Parks ability to appeal to boys and young men is coming. Controversy aside, GOTG:MB was a smash hit among boys 8-15. I never saw that many kids on Tower (which, granted, I only rode in flordia previously). And Star Wars flexing it's presence in the parks is helping too. I saw a little guy literally jumping with excitement when approached by some Stormtroopers. It might not always be pretty, but it does seem to be working.
 

ford91exploder

Resident Curmudgeon
Also, selection bias much? What about Big Hero 6 or Up or Zootopia or any of the three Cars movies which feature strong male protagonists?

The article's focus was on WDAS not Pixar and BH6/Zootopia was notable by omission.

That said there is a large difference between how WDAS currently portrays young males vs how PIXAR portrays young males.

As to sources well if you only get your information from sources which agree with you, well disinformation is a lot easier to accomplish in that case I read both the far left and the far right with the idea that the truth lies somewhere inbetween both viewpoints
 

SoManyWasps

Well-Known Member
The article's focus was on WDAS not Pixar and BH6/Zootopia was notable by omission.

That said there is a large difference between how WDAS currently portrays young males vs how PIXAR portrays young males.

As to sources well if you only get your information from sources which agree with you, well disinformation is a lot easier to accomplish in that case I read both the far left and the far right with the idea that the truth lies somewhere inbetween both viewpoints
If we're just looking at WDAS we are hamstringing the argument to a production subcompany that makes at best one film a year on average. It's a pseudo-intellectual argument that holds no water.
 
Last edited:

GiveMeTheMusic

Well-Known Member
Here's another article $DIS will be unhappy about, This one targets how Disney movies have nothing to offer boys in the Iger era. Especially as the males in the movies are portrayed as losers.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/05/disney-hate-boys-much-male-characters-losers/

Disney literally has a whole channel aimed at boys with empowering themes. It's called Disney XD.

The author of this article is an idiot with an agenda. I'm sure she's also written pieces about why there's no White History Month
 

matt9112

Well-Known Member
There is no way they spent $3.5 Billion on MDE... Disney is nuts, but not even they would do that.

lots of insiders have said that it went past the 2.5 mark....rest is horseshoes ..i don't care if it involved replacing every telecom wire in the resort at the end of the day you got the MDE and bands....the salt in the wound of TWDC is guest spending has not ticked up because of MDE. granted lately guest spending is up but so are prices :D
 

HauntedMansionFLA

Well-Known Member
lots of insiders have said that it went past the 2.5 mark....rest is horseshoes ..i don't care if it involved replacing every telecom wire in the resort at the end of the day you got the MDE and bands....the salt in the wound of TWDC is guest spending has not ticked up because of MDE. granted lately guest spending is up but so are prices :D
There is no way they spent $3.5 Billion on MDE... Disney is nuts, but not even they would do that.
Just ask Tom Staggs
 

AEfx

Well-Known Member
so something can't be conservative and fair? j just saying.

No, the article was unfair because it only focused on just one prong of the product that Disney offers. And only one end of that prong, because it basically focuses on the "classic" style Disney films, which yes, are where the Princesses reign in their musical extravaganzas.

It irritates me to have to "defend" them from this idea, because I *do* think there is a half of a good point buried in there - it's that he is picking the wrong subject to apply it to. It's a story in search of a subject, and he went with a daft choice because...Disney brings the clicks, of course.

This notion that I keep seeing pushed (even by some here) that Disney has nothing for "boys" is laughable as all hell. Especially the angle of "my boys have nothing to watch!" which, I have to say, makes their opinion just meaningless because they demonstrably have no idea what they are talking about and know nothing about the product Disney offers (and notice, I rarely hear fathers complain, it's grandfathers...).

Clearly, Pixar is the counterpart, who's films almost exclusively feature male lead characters with female characters in sparse supporting roles (Brave and Finding Dory being exceptions). That's why in a toy store, there is a section with mostly Pixar properties with action figures and toy cars and such, and the "girls" section has all the Princess stuff. (Gee, and to think a few years ago, I was starting to hope we were erasing that line between those toys, but both the right and the left seem hell bent on labeling things either "boy" or "girl" lately.)

And of course that is not to mention...Star Wars and Marvel. They offer both animated product for the younger kids, and live-action product for the older kids, and both are heavily "boy" based. With Marvel, it's just inarguable, and don't believe that nonsense about SW not still being "for boys" mostly - yes, they included two prominent female characters in two movies, but they still introduced far more male characters (and in Rogue One, which really seemed to get undies in a knot with those folks, they clearly didn't see it because it was largely a sausage fest). That's just it - these people are making opinions on trailers and what they see in fleeting glimpses, they have no idea what they are talking about.

This becoming a "conservative" viewpoint making the rounds is as silly as the "cultural appropriation" nonsense coming from the left. Everyone in the middle who doesn't live in either reality is starting to look at both sides like they are on crack, because both sides are using the same tricks to try to make a story or issue out of something just to further the narrative they want the world to believe.
 
Last edited:

AEfx

Well-Known Member
I dont like to be the one defending disney.. but I want to shime on this.

We do not know if these 2 billion were exclusively for MyMagic (app and FP+ systems)

I'm pretty sure the majority of the money went to upgrade the aging infrastructure.
We're talking computers, networks, servers, access points, installing the kiosks, developing the apps and unity the infrastructure and older tech to work on the newer one.

Making such massive investment isnt cheap. specially considering the number of hotels, and the cheer size of Disney.

Right, but that is what makes it the IT boondoggle of the century.

Yes, WDW is vast - but come on. That's enough money to build the technical infrastructure of a small nation.

And Disney isn't doing anything new or revolutionary. RF technology is all around us and cheap. And while it seems like some major feat to organize that many hotel and dining reservations, in terms of things like database load, etc. - the size of WDW should not be a problem, many companies process many more records per day (think of a credit card company that gets 100's of millions of transaction records per day).

That's not to say it was simple - quite the contrary, as an IT job, it was very difficult - any unfortunately typical. TDO did what so many companies do - they waited way too long to do something about an aging IT structure, with systems that were never designed to last this long, and that cannot interface with each other because they were never designed to. I wouldn't be surprised if their initial goal before this snowballed was simply to have guests not notice the change at all.

Based on the evidence and how long it took, and what happens almost every time, I'm pretty sure that this started as an idea to come up with some overall system to integrate them. It's a fool's errand. Even when it "works", it almost always doesn't. There are always compromises, and it just depends on how much you can accept. They also suck up IT resources like a banshee even when they are "live" and "completed" - because you need to keep full, experienced teams there because some unhandled exception is going to constantly come up because connecting these old systems and building a way for them to communicate to each other is a technical house of cards. Many companies can't handle those compromises and end up abandoning very costly work to start over from scratch.

Then it also seems, in classic Disney fashion (and again, most businesses of that size), "who's gonna pay for all this?" once they realize how big the job is. That's when the proverbial bean counters started finding places in the company to siphon it from, which means those departments need a piece of it to benefit them, and this thing spiraled out of control.

If Disney had just wanted to create an integrated package to manage all their reservations, etc., it could have been done for a tiny fraction of the cost and we wouldn't even have known about it. And as far as data/network stuff goes, again, Disney isn't really huge potatoes there - in the end, they are just sending textual data around, even ancient Ethernet far out paces their needs, and we all know how cheap and ubiquitous wireless is for the places it's applied. Even the added RF stuff, which I am sure bloated some of that cost, should not cost that much money.

So again, I'm sure it was a difficult job, but when we talk infrastructure/etc. - remember, we are just talking about frigging computer code. The physical changes that had to happen were only a fraction of the cost. I mean, if we wanted we could probably price it all out and come up with a good estimate, since how many stores, restaurants, attractions, etc. needed to be outfitted across the resort. I'm confident it could have been done without getting into the 10-figures. This reeks of an IT black hole where if they had just done what they ended up having to do in the first place, it would have cost a fraction of what it did. And I don't even blame IT - I blame management that didn't have the foresight to not have them running around trying to do things that could never be done.
 

ford91exploder

Resident Curmudgeon
Right, but that is what makes it the IT boondoggle of the century.

Yes, WDW is vast - but come on. That's enough money to build the technical infrastructure of a small nation.

And Disney isn't doing anything new or revolutionary. RF technology is all around us and cheap. And while it seems like some major feat to organize that many hotel and dining reservations, in terms of things like database load, etc. - the size of WDW should not be a problem, many companies process many more records per day (think of a credit card company that gets 100's of millions of transaction records per day).

That's not to say it was simple - quite the contrary, as an IT job, it was very difficult - any unfortunately typical. TDO did what so many companies do - they waited way too long to do something about an aging IT structure, with systems that were never designed to last this long, and that cannot interface with each other because they were never designed to. I wouldn't be surprised if their initial goal before this snowballed was simply to have guests not notice the change at all.

Based on the evidence and how long it took, and what happens almost every time, I'm pretty sure that this started as an idea to come up with some overall system to integrate them. It's a fool's errand. Even when it "works", it almost always doesn't. There are always compromises, and it just depends on how much you can accept. They also suck up IT resources like a banshee even when they are "live" and "completed" - because you need to keep full, experienced teams there because some unhandled exception is going to constantly come up because connecting these old systems and building a way for them to communicate to each other is a technical house of cards. Many companies can't handle those compromises and end up abandoning very costly work to start over from scratch.

Then it also seems, in classic Disney fashion (and again, most businesses of that size), "who's gonna pay for all this?" once they realize how big the job is. That's when the proverbial bean counters started finding places in the company to siphon it from, which means those departments need a piece of it to benefit them, and this thing spiraled out of control.

If Disney had just wanted to create an integrated package to manage all their reservations, etc., it could have been done for a tiny fraction of the cost and we wouldn't even have known about it. And as far as data/network stuff goes, again, Disney isn't really huge potatoes there - in the end, they are just sending textual data around, even ancient Ethernet far out paces their needs, and we all know how cheap and ubiquitous wireless is for the places it's applied. Even the added RF stuff, which I am sure bloated some of that cost, should not cost that much money.

So again, I'm sure it was a difficult job, but when we talk infrastructure/etc. - remember, we are just talking about frigging computer code. The physical changes that had to happen were only a fraction of the cost. I mean, if we wanted we could probably price it all out and come up with a good estimate, since how many stores, restaurants, attractions, etc. needed to be outfitted across the resort. I'm confident it could have been done without getting into the 10-figures. This reeks of an IT black hole where if they had just done what they ended up having to do in the first place, it would have cost a fraction of what it did. And I don't even blame IT - I blame management that didn't have the foresight to not have them running around trying to do things that could never be done.

This smacks of a 'boardroom' project where the suits came up with a fantasy list of what they wanted to do. But they did not want to do the hard work of creating a backend data store they created a crazy quilt of existing systems all loosely tied together.

IT projects only come in on budget when you start out with a clearly defined architecture because then its possible to make everything fit in a well defibed manner.
 

Kman101

Well-Known Member
MDE also allows for online booking of rooms and ADRs and FPs. It's a hand-held encyclopedia and map of almost everything you need to know while in the park. It now has online ordering for QS. It tells you wait times. It hooks up all your tickets to one band/card such that you don't need to actually have in your hand a hard ticket for a hard ticket event. The MagicBand or RFID Card allows you to open your hotel room, pay for stuff, and quickly hook-up photopass shots. And after closing some loopholes, it provides a great way for Disney to catch ticket-cheats and an extra layer of security in that Disney knows who's in the park.

Yes, it does have some frustrating shortcomings: for example, it ditched the standard material design interface for a confusing unique interface; and its ability to get ADRs for restaurants outside the parks (such as in Disney Springs) just doesn't work -- you have to use Open Table to find reservations.

And just like the new online ordering, there's still room to expand on it and deliver on all the other things it was supposed to do. Overpriced, likely. Not useful? Strongly disagree.

Shh. Logic. We're supposed to hate it because it cost them so much!
 

FigmentJedi

Well-Known Member
The Jungle Book wasn't good either.
Jungle Book was a really solid complimentary experience to the original film that had an admirable goal of trying to get some of that original Kipling feel back into the story structure that Disney created for the 60s film. Like the characters may still mostly be their animated selves, but there's a little more of the book in that film's plot.

Most of the other remakes are focused on just being a pure 1:1 of the original with ugly Uncanny Valley aesthetics (Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast) or actively tearing apart their source material and creating garbage with said Uncanny Valley aesthetics (Maleficent, the Burtonland movies, Pete's Dragon). Yeah, Jungle Book's just as guilty in that "We gotta make it all look photoreal" aesthetics department, but since the film called for recreating nature instead of taking us to that same ugly fantasy movie CG backlot they've been using since Alice, it's not as garish, plus we got the solid writing and acting.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom