I find all of the controversy surrounding Shanghai Disneyland's construction to be interesting, and while I have only skimmed the last couple-dozen pages, I did see the link to the New Yorker profile of Xi Jinping (a long, albeit rewarding read) posted by
@the.dreamfinder as well as the news stories posted by
@WDW1974 and read those articles in full, as well as other pertinent articles I found via Google. I thought I'd interject some random thoughts...
Your thoughts and opinions are always welcome here, Tom. I actually was thinking about you earlier ... as I chowed down on a Fudd's burger!
Much ado is being made about the lack of a Disney Channel in China, as if this is something outcome-determinative for how Disney's park will resonate. Have you guys seen the Disney Channel lately? Unless Dog with a Blog Land is being planned, I don't see a huge benefit in the channel. Moreover (and much more importantly), Disney has had its hits at the Chinese box office (albeit some misses, as well). Live action, including Cinderella, has been huge there--perhaps that market is a big motivation for the slew of remakes that have been announced? Introducing stories that are familiar to us to a new audience? I also see irony in posts from some members who are staunchly against synergy in the US parks--wanting non-IP attractions here because "quality will out"--assuming that quality attractions will not succeed despite their lack of familiar IP in another country.
Not having a Disney Channel in China is huge. It is what introduces and spreads the BRAND across this vast, populous nation. Bob Iger said it himself in that 2005 NYT story that I put out here earlier. Bob said he wouldn't enter China in terms of building SDL without it. Bob either failed or lied or both.
Also, you are viewing the Disney Channel here to be what would be seen there. It would be a VASTLY different product and one that most here would like better, if it wasn't in Mandarin. It would likely feature everything from classic shorts to animated features to old Disney TV shows to new local content and content designed to introduce IP that, again, isn't nearly as known as people here seem to think.
(Haven't you gotten some of those great HKDL stickers that are handed out to teach the audience who the characters are?)
The Disney Channel that is here in the USA and squarely aimed at tweens would not be the product on offer in China if it were allowed. The Disney Channel debuted in Germany when I was there a year ago January and the content ran the gamut of classic animation to reruns of the original Muppet Show to some programs that are more recent and aimed at the younger audience.
I don't know, at this point, what can or can't be read into Cinderella's success in China, but I do know that people didn't rush out to see it because they were in love with Walt's 1950s animated version. I'd bet most of the audiences were unaware that film even exists.
As for the New Yorker profile and it being "proof" of anything, remember that this deal was done before Xi Jinping rose to power. So his apprehensiveness of Western values is not really indicative of Iger getting a bad deal, as Iger would not have known any of this when the deal was done. Iger may have very well gotten a bad deal, but the reasons for that would be separate and distinct from changes Xi Jinping has made.
On the topic of Jinping, my reading of the profile is of a man who is deeply conflicted: he wants to shut Western influence out, but he also desperately wants to legitimize China in the eyes of the world. Where having a Disney theme park outpost in Shanghai fits into that is anyone's guess, since the guy seems fairly unpredictable, but he could either view it as threatening or legitimizing. I don't think you can leave that article with any sort of resolution on that.
Agreed. I'm not sure what he thinks of the project at all. I certainly don't think he believes it is needed, but does he believe it should be desired (and UNI's Beijing Resort as well)? That is a question worth following in the years ahead.
Tying in the Jinping profile with the Dai Haibo news, shouldn't we allow for the possibility that Dai Haibo is being targeted because of political affiliations? I'm not saying that's the case, but I haven't seen it mentioned (again, I haven't read every post) in this thread. It hardly seems far-fetched given the New Yorker profile's statements that some of this "crackdown" is being undertaken for political purposes.
Politics always plays a role. Always. The root doesn't change. They're all doing it, but who gets targeted absolutely comes down to politics. And just because ''everyone is doing it'' doesn't make it right (not saying you are saying that, but many do focus on that when talking business in China!)
There's also the possibility that the land deals at issue have nothing to do with Disney. Based on the news, this graft occurred before 2009. That removes the $800m from issue (at least from this issue). If he owned the land and sold it to a third party--and that's the transaction where graft or self-dealing occurred--and the third party then sold to Shendi/TWDC, it wouldn't involve Disney at all.
I'm not even remotely suggesting that this Shanghai deal is squeaky clean--just playing a bit of devil's advocate a bit, I suppose because these are some of the first questions that came to my mind while reading these articles and posts, and I haven't really seen this discussed. Something certainly feels amiss (certainly an understatement) with Shanghai Disneyland, and I think there are likely serious issues and concerns with it.
Nah. You just put your Tinfoil Mouse Ears on! Everything is fine. Again, that explains everything from Bob Iger never being seen photographed -- no Disney official or character being photographed -- on site at SDL to the HuffPo Op-Ed being censored to ... well, just about any little thing that you look at and say ''that's strange!''
But don't worry. Put your trust in the Weatherman, sit back and get ready to write a Grog Grotto Review because that's what interests most fans. They never see the big picture. Never. What Al Lutz accomplished in Anaheim is truly a miracle that will never be repeated.
Personally, my biggest concern is not with unethical corporate or political acts, but that this whole thing is a folly that will leave all of Parks & Resorts crippled for years as money is hemorrhaged fixing Shanghai. I certainly hope that's not the case, but the project does seem troubled...
I wouldn't say that's my biggest concern, but it's right up there ... and there are plenty others. I still look forward to it, but I can't help but think that I'm looking forward to it more than Iger at this point!
Thanks for that. Since Disney hasn't announced anything official at all for an attraction list, you cannot officially say that nothing is being added. Some nebulous list that someone may have given out over a year ago, and that list may have had NO basis in reality, is no reason to say that no new attractions are going in. That list may have been a laundry list of things they wanted to do, but no one knows what made the cut, or how plans have changed over the last year. Sorry, but until Disney officially announces something, it ain't necessarily happening. And you, Lee, know that better than most people here.
