A Spirited Perfect Ten

Phil12

Well-Known Member
Here is what is known:
An announcement of $800MM in additional attractions for SDL.
That was announced back in 2014.
An article questioning the $800MM was written inferring malfeasance related to the $800MM.
There was no questioning of the $800 million dollars in the article to which you refer. The questioning about that sum originated within this thread.
Efforts were made to scrub said article from existence.
How do you know this? The article in question can still easily be found. What I find strange about this situation is why hasn't Gary Snyder published any more articles on this subject? Mr. Snyder is a writer and has media connections yet he seems to have nothing more to say on the matter. After all the Huffington Post is not the only outlet for Op/Eds. Had I written an article and had it removed from the net, I think I would find another website and write another article explaining what happened. As of now we have no additional explanation from Mr. Snyder.

High ranking member of Chinese SDL related entity is now under scrutiny for graft related to SDL project.

That's a good sign. It shows that that the anti-graft campaign in China is producing results. Business graft in China is ubiquitous. President Xi Jinping has said that he intends to root out graft and corruption among the "tigers and flies" (at every level). As Martha Stewart (no stranger to graft and corruption) would say, "This is a good thing".


If the costs associated with the bullet points above add up to $800MM, then the hypothesis will be proven false.

Until the hypothesis is proven false, the appearance of impropriety will remain.
The problem here is that your original hypothesis doesn't work unless you can link all of your points together. There is no evidence to even suggest that the aforementioned points are related to each other. As I said in an earlier post, "What becomes a problem is when rumors are repeated to the point that some people then assume those rumors to be fact. Then those rumors are used to support other conclusions that have no evidence to provide support."

If indeed they are related then we have full-fledged conspiracy. Conspiracy theories are a fun pastime for fans.
 
Last edited:

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
See, Universal made one of these too.

dsc09430.jpg


You know what they didn't do?

Put it in front of Hogwarts Castle.
Yeah, they put it in front of another eye sore: Rip Ride Rock It.
 

Cesar R M

Well-Known Member
Indeed but there is no appearance of impropriety to impartial observers. For the partisan observers who desire to harm Iger, no rumor of misconduct is beyond the pale. If you wish to deal in rumor that's fine. After all this section of WDWMAGIC deals specifically with news and rumors. What becomes a problem is when rumors are repeated to the point that some people then assume those rumors to be fact. Then those rumors are used to support other conclusions that have no evidence to provide support.

I used an example before concerning quotations attributed to Walt Disney. I've seen some people state that Walt Disney said, "If you can dream it, you can do it!" Yet Walt Disney never said such a thing. But over the years some people have concluded that the phrase is a direct Walt Disney quote.

“News told, rumors heard, truth implied, facts buried.”
Toba Beta, My Ancestor Was an Ancient Astronaut

This image becomes relevant again lol

DHv5PF7.jpg
 

fillerup

Well-Known Member
Here is what is known:
  1. An announcement of $800MM in additional attractions for SDL.
  2. Evidence of additional attractions in plans or field preparations are not apparent.
  3. An article questioning the $800MM was written inferring malfeasance related to the $800MM.
  4. Said article was retracted.
  5. Ultimate authority to retract said article lies with the wife of the principle of said article.
  6. Efforts were made to scrub said article from existence.
  7. High ranking member of Chinese SDL related entity is now under scrutiny for graft related to SDL project.
Since the addition of point 7, the hypothesis of malfeasance gains additional validity. As I have said earlier, the pot is thickening but not to the point of solid. A simple forensic accounting of the $800MM would answer questions and undermine the validity of the hypothesis.

  • Are there plans for additional attraction?
  • Are there change orders to completed or planned construction?
If the costs associated with the bullet points above add up to $800MM, then the hypothesis will be proven false.

Until the hypothesis is proven false, the appearance of impropriety will remain.

Number 4 is true with the reason given that the author made unsupported claims as to his credentials.

Number 5 - The idea that Mrs. Iger had the article pulled is an unsourced unattributed allegation at this point. You are, I believe, the first person to claim she had "Ultimate authority".
 

Cesar R M

Well-Known Member
The only problem is the article never actually mentioned the $800M. There was only 1 sentence that even mentions the issues with graft in China:

Under Mr. Iger's stewarding, Disney has partnered with the Shanghai Shendi Group, an umbrella name placed on a panoply of government-owned companies created to facilitate Western investment as a massive anti-graft campaign is just now rattling Beijing and beyond, to introduce a Disney 'branded' park to those consumers.

The connection between bribes and the $800M was suggested by people here but it wasn't in the article. It may be a logical conclusion and all of the other points except #3 are factual.

Since it was quite a few pages back that this was posted, here is the full article again:

Disney CEO Fumbles Entry to China
Posted: 02/18/2015 4:45 pm EST

Sorry Mickey, they're just not that into you. Minnie, you either.

For that matter, you can take the whole stable -- the "Fab Five" of Walt Disney's animated creations -- and, despite a media machine that churns a very different story, China has largely been a land where the fabled wishes, dreams and magic of the Walt Disney Company and its brand have virtually no connection with the consumer. As valued as that consumer is in the economic theater of globalism, the iconic brand synonymous with America has little appeal and less traction among the newly seated audience in the Chinese mainland.

To its 'vanilla on toothpaste' helmsman, Robert A. "Bob" Iger, who has shown himself to be an able cobbler of assets but a less than visionary leader of the media colossus that is the Walt Disney Company, this troubling if known and growing headwind threatens to undermine the content-heavy but culturally aloof purveyor of demographically unshackled product. For in his zeal to expand its library of content, Bob Iger has drop-kicked the Disney moniker to enter new and expanding marketplaces only to position a product that runs well afar of the expectation of the Disney bounce.

In so doing, the once unrivaled status of the Disney brand has become a catch-all for entertainment and its associated byproducts that are increasingly a strange and sometimes conflicted ragbag of franchised acquisitions presented as some sort of media mélange for all ages and all palates. Or, as John Dreyer, the longtime and immediate past head of corporate communications for the Walt Disney Company, said upon the publication of the column Disney CEO Readies Magic Carpet for Exit, "Disney losing its Disney way."

With the company making its grandest play for a market that dwarfs all others, Disney has found itself adrift in a crisis of identity that breaches the foundation of the castle upon which an empire was built. For as turrets were raised, wings were added and a moat of meticulously positioned whimsy was filled in to expand the Disney footprint, something that looks decidedly more pedestrian than the fantastical inspiration for one of the world's most coveted brands has emerged.

Leverage has become the arch of entry into the Disney-verse, while the brand has been marginalized into a holding vehicle for assets that are worth more separately than that vested in the castle itself.

As Mr. Iger said at the 2013 Fortune Global Forum held in Chengdu:

I think the first thing you have to do is you have to obviously be aware of what your most significant brand attributes are. What makes your brand your brand? Why is it great? You have to focus on quality and on those attributes that, again, created the value in the first place. You can't look to cut corners. You can't look to make something with your brand on it that's any cheaper simply because it's going into a market that may not be able to afford it the way another market may have. You can't compromise in that regard. So it starts with what I'll call quality and a respect for an allegiance to the very brand attributes that created the value in the first place.
Now, considering Shanghai Disney is preparing to make its 2016 debut as Disney's first foray into the renminbi rich Chinese mainland after a less than stellar arrival in the former British colony of Hong Kong in 2005, there are lessons aplenty to learn from that delayed embrace and the long stalled entry into the single largest consumer market on offer to the world -- the whole of China.

Under Mr. Iger's stewarding, Disney has partnered with the Shanghai Shendi Group, an umbrella name placed on a panoply of government-owned companies created to facilitate Western investment as a massive anti-graft campaign is just now rattling Beijing and beyond, to introduce a Disney 'branded' park to those consumers. A flag in the ground for Disney. A flag that has been in the works since the prime of Michael Eisner's reign at Disney and one that nearly collapsed entirely by the summer of 2006.

Indeed, Mr. Iger had to leave the annual Herb Allen retreat for media moguls, tech tycoons and other scripters of society in Sun Valley for an unscheduled trip to Shanghai that day in 2006, scrambling to save face and leading to a denouement worthy of great scrutiny by any company -- especially those entities whose trade is in intellectual property -- wanting to enter China.

Or, as Dalian Wanda Group Chairman Wang Jianlin, whose real estate and entertainment empire is building its North American headquarters adjacent to the Beverly Hilton at 9900 Wilshire Boulevard in Beverly Hills, said on the same panel at the Fortune Global Forum:

[W]e have so many Western companies in China, but you cannot simply replicate the Western ideas and philosophies in China. They need to adapt to the Chinese realities... So for Fortune 500 companies in China it's very important, it's imperative for them to learn traditional culture in China and how is it interrelated with the modern business culture.

Curiously though, the world beyond the berm is told the 330 million or so Chinese within a three-hour trip to the site on the other side of Shanghai's Pudong International Airport cannot wait to queue up for a boat ride on "It's a small world" or whatever Disney is offering up for its reported $5.5 billion marker. As, no, there will apparently be no attraction of that name at Shanghai Disneyland.

Not in China. Not in a country where Mickey, Minne and the rest of the gang are barely known. In a country where Disney might as well be Smith or Jones or Johnson. Well, maybe not that last one as Johnson & Johnson is actually a reasonably well-known brand throughout China.

The Walt Disney Company has a history of stumbling if not outright tumbling in its efforts to export Disney's brand of Americana. For reference, look no further than Euro Disney -- now known as Disneyland Paris -- and Hong Kong Disneyland. Of the latter, it is worth note that Disney has been known to Hongkongers from the early days of the Disney Brothers Cartoon Studio. Yet, to this day, with a direct link by MTR line to points throughout Hong Kong, Disney is barely able to keep up with the brand devoid, geographically hemmed in and animal exhibit heavy Ocean Park in Aberdeen.

Over lunch earlier this month at Neptune's in the Grand Aquarium, Ocean Park Hong Kong CEO Tom Mehrmann, who began his career as a street sweeper at Knott's Berry Farm just up the road from Walt's original Disneyland, said, "Disney still has to explain to some of its guests exactly what a 'Disney Park' is. We don't have that problem."

To further illustrate this point, visit Disney's outpost on Lantau, a parcel of reclaimed land near Hong Kong International Airport, and you will notice a different Disney. Some call it 'Disney-lite'. Others refer to it as 'McKingdom'. Regardless, there is a definite feel of a diminished product -- of a diminished brand -- on stage for the public's consumption.

For, on a spit of land with an audience topping seven million attached by subway line having a familiarity and a kinship with the West, sits the real experiment of Disney's entry into the Chinese market. And there, on a recent day, at a performance of The Lion King in a theater designed for Disney's Animal Kingdom in Orlando dropped into the Walt Disney Company's first Disney branded park in China, the actors sought to lead the audience in a rendition of the hit tune from this classic of Disney's second golden age of animation: Hakuna Matata.

Hakuna Matata.
What a wonderful phrase.
Hakuna matata.
Ain't no passing craze.
It means no worries.
For the rest of your days.
It's a problem free philosophy.
Hakuna matata.


Arms raised high in the air, cast members -- on stage and off -- encouraged the capacity crowd to sing the infectious chorus. With lyrics blasting through the speakers and flashing on screens in the theater, they sought a simple singalong to the catchy and commercial hit written by Elton John and Tim Rice. Unmoved, the audience sat stone-faced. Child and adult alike.

Considering most individuals reading this are likely humming the tune or hearing it play as part of the soundtrack of their lives, that speaks poorly of Disney's penetration into the far less foreign landscape of Hong Kong. As for Shanghai, Mr. Iger continued on at the conference in Chengdu:

We're a brand that is viewed as good for me and good for my family. There are values to the Disney brand and what it stands for that have interested people all over the world. But, it's very, very important that while we bring Disney to a market we make sure that in that market it feels like, for instance, China's Disney.
In leaving the park on that recent evening, the dressed by and for Disney MTR cars filled with tired visitors exposed to, saturated in, that which is the Disney Parks experience offered up in Hong Kong. Looking to the left, to the right, all around, not one visitor had that uniquely American rite of passage positioned upon their head. Mickey ears. Not one.


And, in the second largest market for its product and the largest consumer market on the planet, Disney's Frozen, the highest grossing animated film ever having delivered over $1.27 billion in ticket sales and the fifth-highest grossing film of all time, earned little more than $48 million. Less than four percent of its global box office.

Welcome to China, Bob.

Gary Snyder is a member of the Redstone family, whose company, National Amusements, owns Viacom and CBS, among other media assets. He is an advisor on Western media and culture to China.
The relationship mentioned was in the new article... not the huff one.
Where the guy who is being investigated.. had managed the lands where Disneyland Shangai is.
 

Cesar R M

Well-Known Member
Number 4 is true with the reason given that the author made unsupported claims as to his credentials.

Number 5 - The idea that Mrs. Iger had the article pulled is an unsourced unattributed allegation at this point. You are, I believe, the first person to claim she had "Ultimate authority".
How do you know they were unsupported?
We only know that the thing disappeared, then the huff put a very silly excuse for it, then removed said excuse.
It was obvious the article was removed in a rush.
 

chiefs11

Well-Known Member
How do you know they were unsupported?
We only know that the thing disappeared, then the huff put a very silly excuse for it, then removed said excuse.
It was obvious the article was removed in a rush.
It was also cleansed from various internet caching sites, like google. It is still on the internet thanks to people who saved copies of it and reposted it in various places.
 

fillerup

Well-Known Member
How do you know they were unsupported?
We only know that the thing disappeared, then the huff put a very silly excuse for it, then removed said excuse.
It was obvious the article was removed in a rush.

I didn't say they were unsupported - that's what HuffPo said.

And their reason was silly according to you.
 

71jason

Well-Known Member
I realize we haven't seen the full plans for the water park. It just seems like a small landlocked areas. I wonder if they are going for a smaller boutique(high end) water park. Also how are they gonna get people to the park. If they are talking about parking people in the garage and bussing them over seems like an operational nightmare.

Roughly the same size as Aquatica and the smaller of the WDW water parks (Typhoon I think?)--within an acre or two. That 200-foot volcano should hold a number of slides, making ride count roughly equal. My only concern would be the apparent lack of beach space, but I think like Wet n Wild this will continue to go after the teens/20-somethings market who prefer sides to chill-laxin'.

If you look at the map, there's clearly a parking lot by the main entrance (upper left corner).
 

ford91exploder

Resident Curmudgeon
What's that in the upper right corner of the picture just above the words "Harry Potter" then?

Just be thankful that these people in the picture are going to be safe from any flying objects from Rip Ride Rockit as Universal is making sure everyone goes through the metal detectors at the ride's entrance. Thankfully, cavity searches haven't begun yet.

I could see Disney taking a look at what Universal has done with the amphitheater and getting ideas. Just think of what they could do at the MK by knocking down a few attractions and put big screen TVs in for guests to watch the fireworks/parades/and Castle shows on.

The rubes will NEVER know the difference...
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
True.
The original statement made by HuffPo for removing the article was incorrect and potentially libelous. Hence its quick removal.
Wait a minute, Lee. Are you saying that the article or the reason for removal was incorrect and potentially libelous? If it is the first, then this whole story is a large crock of c rap and should have been removed. If the second, then the article was correct, for what it said, and the writer told it as it was it would now leave HuffPo open for defamation of the writers character? I don't see a winner or an provable fact in any of this at all. Without that proof all these pages of discussion amounted to farting in the wind. It may be there, but it has very little significance.
 

LuvtheGoof

Grill Master
Premium Member
Wait a minute, Lee. Are you saying that the article or the reason for removal was incorrect and potentially libelous? If it is the first, then this whole story is a large crock of c rap and should have been removed. If the second, then the article was correct, for what it said, and the writer told it as it was it would now leave HuffPo open for defamation of the writers character? I don't see a winner or an provable fact in any of this at all. Without that proof all these pages of discussion amounted to farting in the wind. It may be there, but it has very little significance.
My other issue with all of this is the $800 million. Everyone keeps spouting off this number, but Disney is contributing only $344 million of that as per their 43% stake in the venture. The Shendi Group is contributing $456 million of the total. This has been reported ad nauseam in many articles so it is disingenuous for people to act like Disney is paying out the entire sum. Well, they wouldn't have as much to say if they reported it correctly. ;)
 

Lee

Adventurer
Wait a minute, Lee. Are you saying that the article or the reason for removal was incorrect and potentially libelous? If it is the first, then this whole story is a large crock of c rap and should have been removed. If the second, then the article was correct, for what it said, and the writer told it as it was it would now leave HuffPo open for defamation of the writers character? I don't see a winner or an provable fact in any of this at all. Without that proof all these pages of discussion amounted to farting in the wind. It may be there, but it has very little significance.
The second.
Nothing wrong with the article.

The problems lie with the article's removal and the hasty, incorrect statement that was posted.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom