A Spirited Perfect Ten

[Absimilliard]

According to this site:
https://crooksinwdw.wordpress.com/2013/12/14/theoreticaloperational-hourly-ride-capacity-at-wdw/

Splash under 1100

Test Track under 1100

They have Maelstrom at 900. I believe that they will work to get it up to near Splash and Test Track.

Those numbers are false. Big Thunder Mountain Railroad is around 1900 for example. Everest is over 2000.

 

[PhotoDave219]

I believe today's Disney, most especially in O-Town, has such disdain for its customers and employees that I'm not sure exactly what words are appropriate.

But I would implore people here and anywhere to NOT use the term 'SURGE pricing' because that is the language that Disney is actively utilizing to justify screwing us all more.

Yeah, the data supports that conclusion as well. All of July is considered "Peak" pricing but the crowds dont match that. Of course, the rest of the calendar is very, very close.

 

[WDW1974]

5 journalists contacted hin for this.... yet radio silence on Shanghais missing $800m

Yes. And the money isn't missing to be clear. Everyone was simply told that it was going someplace that it hasn't gone. But it isn't buried on some little island with Jack Sparrow's rum.

I also saw a story in the Orange County Register earlier today on the subject, so Disney is working OT to get this spread.

BTW, on this subject IF Disney really gave a damn about Guests and this wasn't simply a blatant money grab, but a way to reduce crowds by pricing them out (truly think how ludicrous that idea is), then Disney would simply say on these days we are CAPPING in park attendance at (let's say for MK at 25,000) and charging $175 person. They aren't doing that, are they?

They are simply adding surcharges to popular times to try and move Guests around to less busier times.
It is nothing but another FP+ shell game. 130 minutes for Splash Mountain? Why don't we create a 45-minute wait for Pirates?

And the rubes fall for it, all the while asking 'Does he think we're dumber than he is?''

 

[Funmeister]

Did anyone Tweet at Turkey Leg Jeff? I really, REALLY want to know what reporters contacted him about Disney's SURGE pricing that Burbank and CP are leaking?

What makes one a "Disney Twitter Celebrity?"

"Co-host of the (Hidden...why give a link for free links?) podcast. Disney Twitter Celebrity. Fat guy making poor eating choices on select dates in Disney World. I like warm hugs."

 

[Funmeister]

They are using new boats for the new ride (people have reported the old Maelstrom viking barges being taken away). If the new vehicles are a similar length as the old boats but they don't have the decorative elements at the front and back, they might be able to fit in another row which would help capacity because you could fit more people per boat.

If he switches are remaining (which they are) then the boats have to remain the same size. The amount of people you could add to each boat, to replace the "decorative" elements, would be minimal.

 

[WDW1974]

I think this is an interesting topic. There appears to be a strong movement among P&R/WDI to have "themed seating" as opposed to plain benches. We've seen this in a lot of new parks development -- in the FLE, the Hub renovation, at DAK, etc. You have commented on a potential drawback, if this seating doesn't have backs for support. But overall, I'm personally kinda happy about the shift -- it shows an appreciation for show while still finding a way to work in the practical. When I saw the new DAK wall seating you mentioned, I thought it was a great touch as opposed to benches which would stick out more. But YMMV.

Nah, it's not new. The original Hub had seating built into planters. Same in Fantasyland. But there were also plentiful benches too. The old Disney got that people needed to sit down in theme parks. And that was back when they had lots of shade trees and the average Guest wasn't pushing 300 pounds.

The new Hub built in seating is largely uncomfortable with lousy support. It is designed for you sit for 30 seconds, not 30 minutes.

 

[Lee]

They are using new boats for the new ride (people have reported the old Maelstrom viking barges being taken away). If the new vehicles are a similar length as the old boats but they don't have the decorative elements at the front and back, they might be able to fit in another row which would help capacity because you could fit more people per boat.

As for the boats...this is a grab from the plans.

 

[WDW1974]

Miramax? Miramax is no more Disney than Marvel and Lucasfilm. They were an acquisition that they later sold.

So could they make better or more successful films? Probably, but they aren't. And you and I both well know that a CEO isn't making creative decisions like that. That's not a CEO's job.

The point with Miramax is well taken, but that banner at least produced Oscar-worthy films. No one will ever accuse Marvel or Lucas of that.

More importantly, CEO's make huge decisions creatively all the time (From Walt to MDE to The Weatherman, the bigwigs come in and change things just 'because' ... the current, and prior, WoC at DCA would be a great example of Bob Iger thinking he knows what works in theme park entertainment spectaculars).

But if you are saying that Disney simply can't make quality films on its own, that it should just give it up, then I am absolutely telling you the wrong man is running the film studio AND the company.

It would be like a painter saying ''I can't paint for crap, so I'll just buy paintings from those who can and sell them.'' That's not what Disney is about.

Tomorrowland is another failed theme-park based film project, which is one of the only two types of films Disney seems to be able to make on their own (the other being live-action versions of animated properties). Even the outliers (Saving Mr. Banks) are exploiting existing IP. It's like a disease with them. And it has been since well before anyone knew Iger's name.

So no matter if it was Iger's fault (because he wrote, directed, and starred in it, right...) or not - the basic premise remains - Marvel has already, and soon Lucasfilm will join it, in proving to be brilliant masterstroke acquisitions.

It's Iger's fault because he runs the largest entertainment and media company in the world and the only one with WALT DISNEY in its name.

No one is going to argue about Marvel's financial successes. I won't even argue about Lucasfilm's, even though Disney hasn't put out one film yet.

That's all - you can say it's Iger's fault they need them anyway, you can blame him for world hunger, or we can follow him around and criticize him all day for what pictures he isn't taking, but Marvel and Lucasfilm - really getting harder to and harder to argue that they aren't simply the saviors of Disney's live action film business.

Yes, let's talk about pictures that Bob Iger isn't seen in to sorta move off the subject of Disney not being able to create compelling content of their own -- or simply not trying because it's tougher than releasing Infinity Stones 21: Who Dropped One on Ant-Man?

 

[Spark70]

I believe today's Disney, most especially in O-Town, has such disdain for its customers and employees that I'm not sure exactly what words are appropriate.

But I would implore people here and anywhere to NOT use the term 'SURGE pricing' because that is the language that Disney is actively utilizing to justify screwing us all more.

I'm not certain which terms would work best either, but believe that continued use of "guest" and "cast member" only perpetuates the myth Disney would like for us to continue to buy into - particularly regarding the parks but also relating to the company as a whole.

Apologies for invoking the *cough* pricing term. I used it because it illustrates so well Disney's contempt for its customers and, I believe, validates my point. I'm one of those old school guys who believes words still mean things (which most likely means I could never be hired by Disney to name any of their entertainment offerings!).

 

[RSoxNo1]

According to this site:
https://crooksinwdw.wordpress.com/2013/12/14/theoreticaloperational-hourly-ride-capacity-at-wdw/

Splash under 1100

Test Track under 1100

They have Maelstrom at 900. I believe that they will work to get it up to near Splash and Test Track.

I'm inclined to believe Maelstrom is in the 900-1000 range, I have Splash at 1800, and Test Track at 1350

 

[AEfx]

The point with Miramax is well taken, but that banner at least produced Oscar-worthy films. No one will ever accuse Marvel or Lucas of that.

Wanna bet now?

Episode VII will be an Oscar nominated film, at least in the FX categories. With all the practical effects, which is largely a lost art, shown in just the trailer it kicks the butt of any other film so far this year.

It would be like a painter saying ''I can't paint for crap, so I'll just buy paintings from those who can and sell them.'' That's not what Disney is about.

Well, you just perfectly described movie distribution deals.

Thing is, unlike Eisner, Iger doesn't settle for that - he buys the freaking company and makes it Disney's own.

Yes, let's talk about pictures that Bob Iger isn't seen in to sorta move off the subject of Disney not being able to create compelling content of their own -- or simply not trying because it's tougher than releasing Infinity Stones 21: Who Dropped One on Ant-Man?

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa...and one more WHOA - I couldn't care less about those lack of pictures, that's your cause, not mine.

If you want to move the discussion past the lack of pictures, or that conspiracy theory about his wife and some article, that's great - but don't pretend that over the past month these weren't blown up into practically war crimes in your posts about them.

 

[WDW1974]

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.

As near as I can tell, you brought Iger up. There were two topics going heavy (one more important than the other): one was Disney's new ticketing pricing plan/model and the other was about thoughts on Tomorrowland. I don't recall anyone talking about The Weatherman, let alone MDE.

And what are you basing your opinion that Eisner's second half was disastrous? Are you talking simply films? Because WDFA put out one commercially successful film after the other in the 90s (the entire decade). I guess you are writing off every film after Lion King, despite the billions they brought in. And while live action certainly wasn't as successful, they put out hits as well. They also created a homegrown franchise with PotC, much more difficult that buying one (Star Wars for instance).

Are you talking theme parks and resorts? Because it was one the times of largest growth in history and while there were parks like DCA and DSP that clearly weren't up to past standards, there also were parks like DAK and TDS that were amazing and inspiring. At existing parks, you had all sorts of new product from Indy at DL in 1995 to Everest at DAK in 2006 (an Eisner project, despite opening months after he left).

And overall organic growth? Disney created new businesses that it never had been in that have added billions to the bottom line that came from MDE's second decade, unless you consider DCL and Disney Theatrical to be insignificant business units.

I
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.

Yes. But you don't want to give him the credit for all the financial and creative successes that came before. I wish Touchstone still made films. But that's on the current CEO. The one who has been in charge for a decade.

I
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).

Yes, let's look over that Sixth Sense was huge and a truly excellent film because everything the man made after was average to unwatchable. Or that it put out films like Joy Luck Club, Quiz Show, Nixon and, even, Evita. It's very easy to go to Wikipedia and pull up some of the crap it put out if you're looking to push a viewpoint. And most of the films you brought up ... well, they weren't losing money like Iger misfires from that Nick Cage SA 'thing' to John Carter to, even a film that I quite enjoyed in Lone Ranger. Nope, there were no $250-million dollar writedowns from the Hollywood Pics banner.

It
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.

Really? See, that's not how history will recall things. It certainly isn't the view of people in the business that don't have personal animus for the guy (as you sure seem to ... which is fine ... that was the fanboi de facto opinion largely 10-15 years ago). You pick and choose.

Pocahontas, Toy Story, Hunchback of Notre Dame, Hercules, Mulan, A Bug's Life, Tarzan and Toy Story 2 were all released by Disney and Pixar ... by Eisner's Disney from 1995-1999. All were financial successes and largely critical successes. They also drove synergy in CP and in theme parks. If you want to say 2000-2005 wasn't as kind, especially on the WDFA side, then you'll get no disagreement from me. But there were still quality films, like Fantasia 2000 and Atlantis (which I didn't see for the first time until two years ago) and Emperor's New Groove (very, very underrated). That leaves out the continued mega-hits from Pixar. Hey, before you attack me for giving Eisner credit for those, you want to give Iger credit for Marvel films that Disney had zero input on and then films in which they basically stayed in the background.

Oh, and Bambi 2 (which never should have been made, to be fair) was a direct-to-video deal. Disney stopped the cheapquels under Iger, but still bastardized characters with things like the Fairy Franchise (no jokes, please).

What you also may not know is that Pixar always intended to become one with the Mothership. It was all about egos -- and Steve Jobs and John Lasseter can give Michael Eisner a run for his money, or could in Steve's case. The reality is that Pixar had NO serious suitors because everyone knew that as soon as MDE left that they'd become officially part of the Mouse.

I
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.

Breck. And Eisner (along with Wells and Roy Edward Disney and Jeff Katzenberg etc...) weren't lucky. They were good, great even. I don't know what narrative you are trying to write beyond the fact that you don't really like or care about Iger, but golly gee, he is the second coming of Jesus (and not my MIA lawn man ... seriously, Jesus has disappeared and the lawn hasn't been mowed in months. I wonder if he was deported!) and if not for him, Michael Eisner would have taken Disney to hell.

MDE had great creative instincts. Anyone who visited and loved WDW in the 80s and 90s could see that as he was a micro-manager. But, unlike the guy you say you don't like but felt compelled to defend all weekend from criticism that wasn't even present, Michael got the creative process and respected it.

There really is no comparing him and Iger in that category.

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.

Fact: Eisner never looked into selling off all or part of P&R.
Fact: Iger did.

Fact: Eisner didn't leave the company in terrible financial straits or because they weren't making money.
Fact: Eisner left because Wall Street didn't feel like he/Disney was making ENOUGH money.

And since you want to play the history game ...

Fact: Eisner saved Disney from being broken up and sold off in pieces.
Fact: Iger didn't have to worry about that because of the job his old boss did.

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).

The photo thing again? Look, you either get what that means or you don't. But it means a great deal as Disney attempts to enter China. I've explained it about 5,000 times here this year and I'm not doing it again just because you trolled for a response.

It sure seems like you love Iger ... but you are right, Iger doesn't have delusions he is a creative at all. He has other delusions of grandeur, except when he's in China and is seen as an impotent empty American suit.

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.

No, that's largely a crock of BS. I have known Michael and I like him personally. I loved the job he did at Disney for a good 15 years. But he made some huge mistakes later in his tenure ... he had health issues, he lost his No. 2, he made an awful decision to bring Mike Ovitz in, he got way too conservative in the parks being built ... but in no way does the bad outshine the good.

And as I, and others, continue to state (and you continue to miss the point) Iger has continued almost all of the bad of Eisner, without any of the good.

What is Iger. He's a good shopper. Iger the Acquirer. That's him. If you want a guy who will spend billions of your company's money on smart acquisitions, then you can take him. If you want a guy who is going to live up to the legacy of his company's founders and history, who's going to make bold choices and grow the company organically, then he absolutely isn't that guy.

But I don't intend to spend days and pages on a back and forth about the wonder that is The Weatherman. This is the kind of discussion that Disney Social Media loves because it means we aren't talking about new pricing models for theme park ticketing or Disney's problems in China. I get that those are the important issues of the day. Playing Eisner vs. Iger isn't productive. I just felt some things needed to be clarified or corrected.

 

[John]

I believe today's Disney, most especially in O-Town, has such disdain for its customers and employees that I'm not sure exactly what words are appropriate.

But I would implore people here and anywhere to NOT use the term 'SURGE pricing' because that is the language that Disney is actively utilizing to justify screwing us all more.

I prefer "scam pricing"

 

[WDW1974]

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa...and one more WHOA - I couldn't care less about those lack of pictures, that's your cause, not mine.

If you want to move the discussion past the lack of pictures, or that conspiracy theory about his wife and some article, that's great - but don't pretend that over the past month these weren't blown up into practically war crimes in your posts about them.

Yes, I DO care. I wasn't involved in your conversations and you decided that they had some relevance. And now you're going back to the conspiracy theory bullsh-- . Maybe, just maybe, I understand things that you (and others) don't. So, dial the rhetoric back.

If you aren't interested in how Disney operates and conducts itself in media and in China, then that is perfectly acceptable. But let's keep the shots to ourselves. I don't agree with things in many threads on this forum, but I don't pop in and take shots at the folks who post what they do.

 

[ChrisFL]

Nah, it's not new. The original Hub had seating built into planters. Same in Fantasyland. But there were also plentiful benches too. The old Disney got that people needed to sit down in theme parks. And that was back when they had lots of shade trees and the average Guest wasn't pushing 300 pounds.

The new Hub built in seating is largely uncomfortable with lousy support. It is designed for you sit for 30 seconds, not 30 minutes.

I hate the lack of benches and seating at Disney parks, it really bothers me as a person who isn't as young or skinny as I'd like to be (though not 300 pounds ).

The one place I REALLY hate this is at Epcot, right inside the only untouched part of Communicore right next to the Coke area...it is a nice big hallway with A/C and NO ****ing seating anywhere. It would be an awesome place to relax and cool off....then JUST maybe I could spend more time in the park later in the evening because I've had a chance to rest. There are benches just outside, too but they're out in the heat, no shade.

One of my favorite places in DisneySea is the Teddy Roosevelt Lounge, it's dark, cool, and has the most comfortable chairs and couches...that kind of place would work wonders at the other parks.

 

[WDW1974]

I prefer "scam pricing"

That IS what it really comes down to.

It's all about getting more people in its parks at higher price points. I want to punch people thru the screen when they suggest Disney gives a damn about too many people in a theme park. How insane is that?

 

[AEfx]

Eisner fancied himself a creative. Iger has dillusions. He doesn't understand creatives. He just views them as bought and paid for underlings. And he has no respect for their talents or the skills that they bring to the table. Why should he? He can buy more. He is not a visionary. He buys them.

So finding the best talent to work on the films is a bad thing?

You just described a very smart person. No CEO of a long standing studio is a creative genius. Iger is smart enough to know that and finds the best people who are the most talent and lets them have at it, and pays for it all. And you think that's wrong. I'm baffled.

I'm sorry, I honestly don't think folks know what they are arguing...or anything about the film business. All this hyperbole and rhetoric about Iger is not backed up by facts. You are criticizing him based on being a good businessman and for hiring talented people.

I'm waiting to hear that he has made Disney too financially successful and how that will be spun as a deficit.

 

[WDW1974]

I hate the lack of benches and seating at Disney parks, it really bothers me as a person who isn't as young or skinny as I'd like to be (though not 300 pounds ).

It bothers me as a person who isn't as young or skinny as I'd like to be (though not even 200 pounds, but worried I need to drop at least 25 pounds before meeting @TP2000 this summer!)

I like to people-watch. I like to take in the atmosphere. I also walk MANY miles when at WDW, so I do like to sit from time to time.

The one place I REALLY hate this is at Epcot, right inside the only untouched part of Communicore right next to the Coke area...it is a nice big hallway with A/C and NO ****ing seating anywhere. It would be an awesome place to relax and cool off....then JUST maybe I could spend more time in the park later in the evening because I've had a chance to rest. There are benches just outside, too but they're out in the heat, no shade.

There were benches there at some point ... maybe back in the Communicore days.

One of my favorite places in DisneySea is the Teddy Roosevelt Lounge, it's dark, cool, and has the most comfortable chairs and couches...that kind of place would work wonders at the other parks.

Well, that's just a classy adult location. I love it. I can't wait to visit again. But it wouldn't work at WDW ... not with the typical Honey Boo Boo crowd. Teddy's has class and ambiance and most WDW Guests would feel (rightfully) like they don't belong there.

 

[WDW1974]

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.

Do people NOT get that? Do they just lack the brain matter needed to understand?

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.

UNI is better than Disney in almost all of my key metrics: quality, value, freshness, show quality, TM quality, ease of dining at fair price points, etc. About the only way UNI is as bad or worse than Disney is in upper management. Tom Williams makes Tom Staggs look like a genius ... he just keeps getting carried along with every ownership change and since the numbers are high, people don't look at how truly out of touch he is (along with Bill and John in O-Town).

 

[TP2000]

It bothers me as a person who isn't as young or skinny as I'd like to be (though not even 200 pounds, but worried I need to drop at least 25 pounds before meeting @TP2000 this summer!).

Oh, God. Now I'm thinking I should go on a crash-diet for the summer.

And here I thought I could be smug enough by just meeting you and the Missus for dinner after you'd seen Paint The Night and a sparkling Disneyland Resort in the SoCal glow of the Diamond Celebration.

I'm putting down my second glass of Scotch for the night and am now trying desperately to remember my sign-in code at the gym.