Next Big Thing
Well-Known Member
I was done was this conversation last night and I certainly don't plan to pick it up again today.
Now, moving on to something a little less childish...
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
A Spirited Perfect Ten
- Thread starter WDW1974
- Start date
Now, moving on to something a little less childish...
PhotoDave219
Well-Known Member
The Trend Continues....
Okay, So yes... Looking at 2015 (So far). 150 Days in. A full 1/3rd Resort Wide has seen an Off-Peak Crowd (50 days) and hit peak 1/5th of the time (27). DHS is still drawing less of a crowd. 70 days so far this year (46%) were off peak at the studios. 20 days more than property as a whole. DHS also had the least number of Peak days (26) but that is in line with what Property Wide showed (27).
Peak Days across park are pretty much in line, all hovering around 20% which is in line with Resort Days peaking as a whole.
Other things
- Summer Crowds are here, looking at the last week. Either that or the Memorial Day crowd stayed the week.
- MK had the least Off Peak Days, 39 (26%), under the Property-Wide off-peak of 50 (33%)
- Epcot has the most Peak Days so far, 34 (22.6%), running 7 days more than Property Peak of 27 18%.
- Easter was huge at MK & Epcot, with 14 & 13 straight days of Peak Crowds respectively.
- Epcot hit a "10" 11 times this year while MK has 5. Strange as it sounds, DHS has 9.
- DAK hit a "1" 18 times, DHS 12, MK 9 and Epcot 7.
- The week after the Easter crowds left was unkind to DHS, 6 straight Off-Peak Days
- Tuesday-Thursday are still the slowest days overall.
Last year, DHS had 124 "Off-Peak" days. This year, 70. 194 out of the past 515 days. Thats 37.5% of the time Studios pulls an off-peak crowd. For comparison, Property-wide had 124 in the same timeframe, or 24%.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
If you are done then don't reply to me.
Have you looked up and read what the writer/director said about the origins of the film are yet?
AEfx
Well-Known Member
I don't think they are immune to anything, the film business is the film business. I do think that of all the "franchises" out there, Disney is doing things right with Marvel and Lucasfilm - they are hands-off and bring in talented people to do the work without creative interference. They definitely aren't "Disneifying" anything - the Marvel films certainly aren't G-rated fare.
These were absolutely brilliant financial acquisitions because they also are highly merchandisable (including Star Wars, who practically invented the industry of film merchandise). Disney essentially tripled the aisles at Toys R Us that have Disney product, yet they have yet to compromise the integrity of the films themselves. I don't know how that can be seen any way but smart.
Mike S
Well-Known Member
"Merchandising, merchandising!!! Where the real money from the movie is made" - Yogurt
doctornick
Well-Known Member
To be a little fair, at least the animated side seems to be in a mode of having original tales (so at least they are creating new stuff that can be adapted to live action films in the future
) -- Wreck It Ralph, Moana, Zootopia. Even Frozen and Big Hero 6 were heavily adapted by the source material as to be essentially new concepts.Please note that I agree with condemning the over-reliance on franchises, but at least there is some new ideals coming out in some divisions of the company.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
It seems Iger permeates all these discussions, and what I don't understand is how one can vilify Iger and in the same breath completely ignore that the last ten years of Eisner's rein which was disastrous.
Touchstone (which was started by Miller, not Eisner) was already well on it's way down by the early 00's when it was decided that POTC was a WDP film and not Touchstone, years before Iger took over as CEO. It was under Eisner's reign as CEO that it's fate was sealed.
Hollywood Pictures was born and run into the ground in one decade (the 1990's), again, under Eisner. When you look at the list of the few dozen films they released, it's a who's-who of failures - movies that ended major film careers (The Marrying Man, Angie, Eddie, GI Jane, Born Yesterday), knock-off/bandwagon films (Deep Rising, Guilty As Sin, Terminal Velocity), and just plain tripe (Super Mario Bros., Houseguest). It had less hits than can be counted on one hand - The Santa Clause, Sixth Sense (let's not forget that it was Hollywood pictures that introduced us to M. Night Sham-filmmaker).
Miramax was purchased to give Disney more edgy films, and then abandoned by it's creators because of Disney's later interference in what films they could or could not release because they were deemed too edgy (decisions made, again, under Eisner).
At least Tomorrowland took a few chances - even if they failed at it. Under the last decade of Eisner's reign, WDP itself was known for fluff movies - Operation Dumbo Drop, Air Bud 2: Golden Reciever, and similar tripe that was destined for Disney Channel and later ABC Family Channel fodder.
Eisner was terrible for the WDP live action film business.
And except for that bright spot in the middle, he was terrible for the animated business, as well. Emperor's New Groove, Bambi II (of all things!), Atlantis, epic fails like Treasure Planet, tripe like Home on the Range. The only real success of the last decade of his reign was the Pixar films, which Disney was only distributing - it was Iger who was able to purchase them so Disney could fully realize the profits being made. Pixar was so mishandled by Eisner that they were ready to totally cut ties with Disney until Iger was able to not only fix things but completely own the company.
Eisner was really lucky to be at the helm at a period in Disney's history ('85-'95, somewhere about) when they were lavishly spending before Wall Street stepped in, and still had the last few breaths of some of the original creative drive that the company was left with. When you look at it, it really was luck - I mean, even with the parks, he wasn't a creative genius, heck, he let his kid Brock (or Brett? or whatever) pick between attraction models of what to build. And the acquisitions he did make (The Muppets, for example) were wasted into irrelevance instead of properly exploited.
What Iger has done is pick up the pieces of a company that was in terrible financial straits, poised for buy-outs and things like spinning off the parks, and completely reversed those fortunes. It seems conveniently forgotten how bad things were, so bad that Eisner was ousted from the board and pretty much had no choice but to leave the company.
I'm not a "fan" of any CEO. Usually don't give it much thought. But when looking at just the facts and performance of the company, and the criticism that Iger gets about photo ops and such, it's really clear to me that Eisner pretty much ran the company into the ground and fancied himself some creative genius, while Iger is under no such delusions, and has brought great fortune to the company through savvy business acquisitions that Eisner could never have made (demonstrably, again, with Pixar, who was looking for another studio because of how difficult he was to work with).
Conclusion? While I personally wish Iger had taken a personal interest in the parks, and dropped his financial common sense at the door and just built awesome stuff, I can't really hold it against him because if it wasn't for him, I don't know if Disney would even own the parks anymore. And regardless of if the IP being used was created by people working for another corporation (pretty much as it always has, Jules Verne and P.L. Travers weren't Disney employees when they wrote their original works), Iger has brought Disney back into the film business as a major player.
The way folks talk, it's like Iger took over in 1995, not 2005 - the last half of Eisner's career seems erased when it comes to criticizing Iger and romancing Eisner's reign.
Touchstone (which was started by Miller, not Eisner) was already well on it's way down by the early 00's when it was decided that POTC was a WDP film and not Touchstone, years before Iger took over as CEO. It was under Eisner's reign as CEO that it's fate was sealed.
Hollywood Pictures was born and run into the ground in one decade (the 1990's), again, under Eisner. When you look at the list of the few dozen films they released, it's a who's-who of failures - movies that ended major film careers (The Marrying Man, Angie, Eddie, GI Jane, Born Yesterday), knock-off/bandwagon films (Deep Rising, Guilty As Sin, Terminal Velocity), and just plain tripe (Super Mario Bros., Houseguest). It had less hits than can be counted on one hand - The Santa Clause, Sixth Sense (let's not forget that it was Hollywood pictures that introduced us to M. Night Sham-filmmaker).
Miramax was purchased to give Disney more edgy films, and then abandoned by it's creators because of Disney's later interference in what films they could or could not release because they were deemed too edgy (decisions made, again, under Eisner).
At least Tomorrowland took a few chances - even if they failed at it. Under the last decade of Eisner's reign, WDP itself was known for fluff movies - Operation Dumbo Drop, Air Bud 2: Golden Reciever, and similar tripe that was destined for Disney Channel and later ABC Family Channel fodder.
Eisner was terrible for the WDP live action film business.
And except for that bright spot in the middle, he was terrible for the animated business, as well. Emperor's New Groove, Bambi II (of all things!), Atlantis, epic fails like Treasure Planet, tripe like Home on the Range. The only real success of the last decade of his reign was the Pixar films, which Disney was only distributing - it was Iger who was able to purchase them so Disney could fully realize the profits being made. Pixar was so mishandled by Eisner that they were ready to totally cut ties with Disney until Iger was able to not only fix things but completely own the company.
Eisner was really lucky to be at the helm at a period in Disney's history ('85-'95, somewhere about) when they were lavishly spending before Wall Street stepped in, and still had the last few breaths of some of the original creative drive that the company was left with. When you look at it, it really was luck - I mean, even with the parks, he wasn't a creative genius, heck, he let his kid Brock (or Brett? or whatever) pick between attraction models of what to build. And the acquisitions he did make (The Muppets, for example) were wasted into irrelevance instead of properly exploited.
What Iger has done is pick up the pieces of a company that was in terrible financial straits, poised for buy-outs and things like spinning off the parks, and completely reversed those fortunes. It seems conveniently forgotten how bad things were, so bad that Eisner was ousted from the board and pretty much had no choice but to leave the company.
I'm not a "fan" of any CEO. Usually don't give it much thought. But when looking at just the facts and performance of the company, and the criticism that Iger gets about photo ops and such, it's really clear to me that Eisner pretty much ran the company into the ground and fancied himself some creative genius, while Iger is under no such delusions, and has brought great fortune to the company through savvy business acquisitions that Eisner could never have made (demonstrably, again, with Pixar, who was looking for another studio because of how difficult he was to work with).
Conclusion? While I personally wish Iger had taken a personal interest in the parks, and dropped his financial common sense at the door and just built awesome stuff, I can't really hold it against him because if it wasn't for him, I don't know if Disney would even own the parks anymore. And regardless of if the IP being used was created by people working for another corporation (pretty much as it always has, Jules Verne and P.L. Travers weren't Disney employees when they wrote their original works), Iger has brought Disney back into the film business as a major player.
The way folks talk, it's like Iger took over in 1995, not 2005 - the last half of Eisner's career seems erased when it comes to criticizing Iger and romancing Eisner's reign.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
I'm not denying their strength now. My concern is down the road. I am not sure if Disney is cultivating a culture that can sustain itself nor am I certain that, once there are some faults or changes, that the hands-off approach will continue.
Iger has mostly continued Eisner's later years and promoted those who shaped those years.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
LOL, the new Blu-ray is spectacular with some awesome extras - and cheap (I think I paid $8 on release day?) - you should check it out if you haven't.
But that's why the marriage of Disney and Marvel/Lucasfilm has been so brilliant. No one can merchandise like Disney. And while of course Lucas made a fortune at merchandising, he really wasn't terribly good or smart at it aside from the initial contract in which he kept control of it. He just had folks lining up to license stuff because of the enormous popularity.
So when you have Disney's obvious industry-best expertise in merchandising, with two of the most highly merchandisable franchises ever, PLUS they are remaining hands-off creatively...it makes so much sense that it's a miracle that it actually happened.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
That's a bridge we'll cross when we get there - no one can predict the far future, but the rest of the decade really would take a monumental world shattering event to mess up.
That I just can't agree on - especially given how the company almost lost Pixar due to Eisner's mishandling, yet somehow Mr. No Personality Weather Man went from almost losing a distribution deal to owning the company. He has been able to successfully do what Eisner failed at, and he did so with a company that was in far worse shape when he took over than it is a decade into his leadership.
I really don't love Iger, but you guys are making me quite like him, the more you make me realize just how much good he has done. We will never know, but had Eisner not been ousted, I really can't see how the WDC would have survived until now intact, much less be on it's way to the #1 studio of the decade.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
But we can look at Disney's past and that is why there is not much hope.
Steve Jobs is well known as being an . Iger's bland personality is exactly the sort of personalities that Jobs was frequently attracted to as such people tended to let Jobs feel in control. Jobs, despite all of the quotes saying otherwise, really did like making a lot of money. Being the bluster he was, Jobs was not finding much success in putting a distribution deal with anyone else. Pixar probably could have done just fine self-distributing but Job's animosity was for Eisner, not Disney, and his top men were long time Disney lovers.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
Explain that to me - I honestly don't get it. Is it that you think Disney is going to start making Marvel films G-rated? They clearly have let the Marvel films push the envelope as far as any studio would allow. I'm just not sure what the fear is there.
I don't disagree with any of that. I think Jobs was one of the saddest individuals ever to live on the planet - all the money in the world means nothing when you are on your deathbed alone, and the nicest thing anyone can say about you in your obit is that you made a lot of money on the backs of people you treated horribly.
Just as you said, Eisner couldn't do it - Iger did. But it wasn't unique to Jobs - when you look at things that fell apart, they fell apart because of Eisner's ego and personality by and large. That's my point - Iger has brought results, while Eisner in the end was so disliked his own company didn't believe in him, let alone any partners. No way in heck Lucas would have sold to him, either.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Disney's history is one of red tape growth and meddling. It's not that there will necessarily be a mandate for G rated films, but more people wanting to be involved to have success attached to their names. More people will have to be involved in the decision making process. The biggest and most classic example is the way Feature Animation, which was pretty much in exile and left alone to operate as it desired, was torn apart. The issues of red tape, bloat and creative stalling are throughout the company. Its the reasons for why park projects cost so much and even when they are on an "accelerated" schedule will still take forever.
Last edited:
ParentsOf4
Well-Known Member
As a WDW fansite, we tend to judge Iger based on what's happening at WDW, particularly within the theme parks.
Yes, Eisner initiated the higher prices and quality cuts that many WDW fans loathe. However, until the post 9/11 economy, Eisner also continued to invest heavily in Disney's domestic Parks & Resorts (P&R).
From 1996 to 2000, Eisner's domestic P&R capex budgets averaged 26.7% of domestic P&R revenue, slightly higher than Universal's current level of spending. Contrast that to Iger's domestic P&R budgets, which have averaged 13.4% over his first 9 years. Take away 2 very large cruise ships and Iger's domestic P&R capex budgets are at 11.3% of domestic P&R revenue.
Post 9/11, WDW was temporarily shuttering entire hotels. Still, from 2001 to 2005, Eisner averaged 11.4%. Those who monitored these activities at the time understood why theme parks investments were down. WDW was facing the most difficult financial time of its existence.
Iger has no such excuse.
So, ...
Yes, Eisner initiated higher prices but these increases have continued under Iger.
Yes, Eisner initiated quality cuts but, at least at WDW, these have continued under Iger.
Meanwhile, even at the start of Eisner's so-called 'bad decade', Eisner invested in the domestic theme parks at more than double the rate of Iger. Conversely, Iger has kept domestic P&R investments at post 9/11 levels despite record profits from his operations.
I think most could stomach higher prices if we felt the money was being reinvested in the parks, as is happening right now at Universal.
Instead, Iger has 'invested' pretty much all company profits over the last 9 years in stock buybacks. During Iger's first 9 years as CEO, Disney's net income has been $43.9 billion while stock buybacks have been $39.7 billion.
Investing 5-10% of that stock buyback money could have a transformational effect at WDW.
In recent years, Universal has been increasing prices just as much as WDW yet comparatively few complain because so much is being done at Universal. I was just at Universal last week; the parks were buzzing with change, quality was up compared to years past, and Team Members were genuinely friendly.
Universal is headed in the right direction.
I wish I could write the same for WDW.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
I honestly understand your cynicism. I certainly share it in how the parks are run.
The thing is, so far, all indicators of the film acquisitions have shown the opposite. That could change, surely, anything can - but so far, they have done everything as "right" as one could hope.
I think that's what I see as the key difference between Eisner and Iger. I honestly believe that Eisner fancied himself as some combination of Roy and Walt Disney all at once - the business and creative and the "face" of the company all rolled up into one package. In retrospect, his reign really shows that he did neither very well. He may have been all "gosh golly gee" when hosting Disney specials, but he was a total nightmare to work with by many public accounts - and not even a nightmare like Steve Jobs who at least had it excused because he was so financially successful.
Iger, on the other hand, is understated, doesn't crave the limelight, and full well knows he is a businessman and not a creative force.
What you are saying very well could happen, just like anything - but so far, they have done a bang up job of fan service, letting the creatives do their jobs, and making them a success with the larger public.
I mean, they somehow made Iron Man the tentpole of the Marvel Universe (who was really not a household name before) and then look what they did with GoG, which I had never even heard of (and I'm decently well versed in comics). The way they are able to sell this stuff to the public without making it traditional Disney product has been astounding. I mean, I don't even like Marvel, aside from X-Men, and they have me into all these films and spending my money because it's been quality stuff.
I'm crossing my fingers - and in any case, I'm finally going to see the Star Wars films I've been waiting to see since 1983...unless everything we've seen so far has been a lie, they couldn't have done it more right if they tried. If they somehow muck it all up, and by some absolute insane event they fail, I'll get on that picket line like anyone else...but so far, I'm willing to drop my traditional cynicism, only because I don't have any evidence to the contrary.
PhotoDave219
Well-Known Member
More fun with Numbers, 2014 v 2015 for the overalls. (Thru 5/30)
2014 - 14p/113a/23op
2015 - 27p/73a/50op
It looks like Feast or Famine as compared to last year. Both the Off-Peak & Peak Days have doubled. The Average Days dropped in 2015 v 2014.
The Off Peak nearly doubled in Jan, Feb & April going from 8, 7, 2 in 2014 to 15, 13, 11 this year. Looks like in January you had a "4" days become a "3". Same with February and April.
That explains the off-peak difference. Peak? Resort was SLAMMED for Holidays vs last year, the main difference being Easter & last week.
I need a chart intern.....
2014 - 14p/113a/23op
2015 - 27p/73a/50op
It looks like Feast or Famine as compared to last year. Both the Off-Peak & Peak Days have doubled. The Average Days dropped in 2015 v 2014.
The Off Peak nearly doubled in Jan, Feb & April going from 8, 7, 2 in 2014 to 15, 13, 11 this year. Looks like in January you had a "4" days become a "3". Same with February and April.
That explains the off-peak difference. Peak? Resort was SLAMMED for Holidays vs last year, the main difference being Easter & last week.
I need a chart intern.....
AEfx
Well-Known Member
I absolutely agree and that's my point - because we are parks focused, folks want to think he's doing a terrible job in general when every indicator is otherwise (primarily the film business as we have been discussing).
That said, while the buck stops at the CEO, of course, do you really think that any other business person really would be doing things differently?
I hate admitting that. I really do. Like I said, I wish they threw all financial sense out the door and built the parks of our fantasies. It kills me that we don't. But after the failure of DAK, under Eisner's reign (and before 9/11 can be blamed), wouldn't any business person be doing Wall Street pleasing things like dumping money into stock buy-backs and not building more things when the belief at the time (which nearly every "expert" on this board agreed on until we had to admit otherwise watching Universal) was that the market was "saturated"?
Iger totally hasn't been great for the parks. But I just can't see any other business person doing otherwise. His attention was focused on the financial problems, of which the parks aren't part of. If we weren't fans of this specific aspect of the company, would we really argue that pulling back investment on something already wildly popular when previous investments have not increased that bottom line is a mistake?
flynnibus
Premium Member
So we have problems with people climbing over structures, tromping through beds, and generally having no respect for the boundary between what is supposed to be public space or not... and you think integrating the seating into the structures is a good thing? People couldn't respect it when it was just a BOUNDARY.. and now its a integrated thing? yeah, that's gonna encourage great behavior..
Last edited:
hpyhnt 1000
Well-Known Member
This times 1000.
It's one thing to raise prices but at least see tangible benefits from those increases.
But when ticket prices have gone up anywhere from 20%-40% in the last decade with no appreciable increase in offerings or quality (or subpar or half hearted changes in other things), that's when you have to start asking yourself what's going on here?
ETA: No doubt that, under Iger's tenure, many of the financial issues that had plagued the Walt Disney Company in the final years of Eisner have been largely eliminated or resolved. But that doesn't mean that it's ok to treat WDW and its DVCs as an ATM for the rest of the company (which seems to be what is happening).
Last edited:
flynnibus
Premium Member
A flaw in your conclusions from this data is... you're equating crowds with wait times. They are associated, but not equals. Touring Plans tracks wait times, not crowd levels. Wait times are also heavily influenced by Park Ops, schedules, and even factors like weather.
Your park comparisons exaggerate this because a park with a lot of attractions (and capacity) will dillute actual attendance better than a park with less (like DHS).
To connect all this to the 'surge' pricing discussion... one must agree upon what metrics the pricing is intended to track along.