A Spirited Perfect Ten

[lazyboy97o]

There is a difference between extravagance and basically nothing. A middle ground, if you will. That was what was seemingly planned and then ...well, I stand by my sources.

This was not supposed to be a show of power by Disney in China or to China. This was supposed to be a coming out joint celebration WITH the government and for Disney (and especially Bob Iger and Tom Staggs) to look strong to people back home with their BRAND building.

Putting their characters on a stage, be it in Shanghai or out at the SDL site, isn't an extravagance. That's their product. It would be like Apple opening a store without having iPhones or iPads on display (I hesitate to use the word 'spotlight' lest it be turned around and against me, but it is appropriate here) in the spotlight.

It is a middle ground of what is expected here. You still aren't answering why the CCP decided to be nice and send a similarly low level official to be join Disney's low level executive.

To be clear (for the umpteenth time), no one has publicly come out and accused Disney of being involved in graft (unless you consider some posters). It is another discussion, but one that seems to very much unsettle people at the highest levels of Disney and being told "no." That possibility has been brought up repeatedly and derisively dismissed until just now.

That fact, knowledge of the crackdown by the CCP, plus my own experiences in China lead me to believe that it would be extremely (almost incredibly so ... like being struck by lightning) unlikely that no graft has happened on this project. Indeed, one of the men involved in the early stages of land acquisition/development was recently detained and brought up on charges.

I placed that information out here ... months ... hundreds of pages ago? ...

It's just your pattern of coincidental discussions that get a life of their own.

This little bit is what really caught my attention from @WDW1974's post. The bolded portion I think is especially important.

That says to me the resort may be - while not directly closed to foreigners - artificially off limits to foreigners through pricing or other means of controlled entry. This, to me, has quite possibly the biggest implications of the whole thing both economically and culturally. Just a little something to chew on.

Or maybe there just are enough people locally to support the park's numbers. There are not many countries near Shanghai. It could also be a way of giving some deference to the Hong Kong SAR, which has always been worried about Shanghai Disneyland stealing away visitors.

Because there isn't a compelling reason not to.

Shendi needed three things from The Walt Disney Company; their capital, their expertise in designing the park's look and infrastructure, and the "Disneyland" name. At this point, when Shendi already has all three of these things, what useful purpose does it serve for Disney to still be in the picture? There would be no downside for Shendi and the Chinese government's unilaterally, and secretly, changing the nature of their agreement with Disney so that they no longer have to share any operational control decisions with Disney, and they can, if they like, begin gradually cutting back on Disney's ownership take on the profits of the venture. There is no downside to doing this from China's perspective, because Disney has no legal recourse to stop alterations of their agreement with a Chinese state-owned entity, and even if they wanted to Disney's management would appear tremendously weak and foolish for complaining about the position they have found themselves in. It wouldn't be a deterrent to future investment in China because Shendi wouldn't tell anyone, and for different reasons, neither would Disney.

The costs Disney is contributing are a pittance compared to the infrastructure, so there is no need for Disney's money. Plenty of ex-Imagineers like the Kirk Brothers, Eddie Sotto, Tim Delaney, Rick Rothschild, Bob Weis (at the time the decisions were made) and more plus companies like Thinkwell, BRC Imagination Arts, PGAV Destinations, Falcon's Treehouse, etc are available for hire, so there is no need for Disney's expertise.

The compelling reason not to is the desire to establish and control global structures and guide global stability as the undisputed superpower of the world. That is not accomplished by the sort of recklessness you think is done for laughs. This is what is lost you keep completely ignoring. Chinese history shows an obsession with stability, the CCP is obsessed with stability and global hegemony is about promoting stability. Taking the park is a massively destabilizing action regardless of Disney's position.

I think the Snyder article was indeed prescient.

In the paragraph you quoted he is warning against trying to barge into China without adapting to their way of doing business.

What did Disney do? They tried to go in there with a "cavalcade of characters" and multiple photo and PR opportunities.

The result? China shut them down. They put the kibosh on the characters and big events and kept the Bob and Tom Show contained to their hotel.

They tried to do exactly what Snyder warned them not to do, and it didn't work.

At least, that's how I see it.

Agreed, some people are missing the point, I think.

The point isn't that Iger wasn't allowed to do what he wanted. It's that he tried to do it his way in the first place, despite being warned against it, and got shut down.

That's called "fumbling your entry to China."

If that is what you've gotten out of his posts... You really just need to stop posting - you are digging yourself quite a hole....

He was trying to highlight what is MISSING trying to get you to think about WHY. Not arguing Disney needed to do more. Sorry that subtly is lost on you... But you should really try taking a break and reading in hindsight with a clear head. You really need a snickers break.

Now I've been one of the most critical of spirit's posts in the past given multiple factors... And even this latest stuff I'm not taking as gospel or as untwisted ... But at least follow the narrative correctly before going on for pages in some alternate reality

The Why he has been pushing is that the relationship completely soured and that these changes are a display of power by the Chinese. He has emphatically and repeatedly denied that a low key event is more fitting with local custom. The cavalcade of characters was, according to the above posted quote, an agreed upon "middle ground" that was pulled at the last minute. That is not the same as Disney trying to get their culturally insensitive way.

 

[PhotoDave219]

He means these folks:

www.peopleofwalmart.com

The Honey-Boo Boo/Jerry Springer crowd. I'm in the upmost agreement. These are the people that swear and are rude and say things like, "I don't like this place - it's kinds educational. I graduated high school so I'm done with learnin'. (no joke, I heard that as we exited Universe of Energy).

I also am for requiring people to wear deodorant. On hot days at EPCOT and the MK you get to visit many lands but unfortunately those lands are the lands of many bodily smells.

I get that.

Just why complicate life with another hoop for guests to jump through.

God, I guess I'm getting old in that when I expect to go somewhere, I buy a ticket and I expect one price.

But this tiered crapola? It's everywhere. I go to the movies? Matinee price, 3D up charge. Premium sound up charge. So many damn tiers.

Sporting events? Price depends on who you play as well as where your seats are.

I just want to pay my money, get my ticket, no hoops to jump through and no baloney.

 

[ItlngrlBella]

19 May, Shanghai Disney Resort

Agreed for Shanghai Disneyland site//

A "cavalcade of characters" will be transported to SHDLR with official logo "hardhats". The Walt Disney Company storyboard, as previously reviewed, will be filmed for Disney's archives and possible future promotional use. As presented and visualized, Disney Chairman and CEO Robert Iger and Disney COO Tom Staggs will join the cast, both the characters and preselected members of the design and construction team, for filming.
Before site exteriors are filmed, as approved, interior filming of executives and dignitaries "studiously reviewing" plans will occur. Castle finial will be hoisted for placement with assembled cast joined by workers, dragons and Shanghai dignitaries to be photographed for internal use and media distribution. With partners and the cavalcade of characters looking on from the temporary stage, the topping off ceremony will conclude with workers positioning peony on structure.

***Fireworks remain in notes and not indicated as artistic flourish in the storyboard.***

Approved for on-site "appearance" lists only Iger and Staggs. (Cheung, Kang and Candland not included.)
Emphasis on, "Authentically Disney, Distinctly Chinese."

Topping off ceremony will remain under the direction of local authorities.
20 May, Disney Store Shanghai Opening

Agreed for the Disney Store in Lujiazui (within the footprint in the shadow of the Pearl Tower)//

9,257 sq ft interior with a lease of approximately 54,000 sq ft.

Official "launch" of Shanghai Disney Resort with kickoff celebration led by Disney Chairman and CEO Robert A. Iger marking Disney's first location in the Chinese mainland utilizing the store as the brand's jumping off point to begin the buildup to the opening of Shanghai Disneyland. Executives in attendance and to be acknowledged include Thomas Staggs, COO of Disney, Luke Kang, MD TWDC Greater China and Stanley Cheung, Chairman of TWDC Greater China.

Onstage the celebration will include a "cavalcade of Disney characters." Included in the welcoming ceremony will be Disney, Pixar, Marvel and Star Wars. The characters will embrace Robert Iger and select Shanghai dignitaries who remain for the "turning of the key." Twin dragons will mark the celebration and be pictured in the landmark opening with Mr Iger and Shanghai's senior most official in attendance.

Media presence described as "significant" and consistent with a "momentous partnership" between the government and TWDC.

Disney Chairman and CEO to welcome "first family" of Shanghai's Disney Store and "invite all" to come inside and experience the magic of Disney. The Disney Store "will promote" unique products and being "culturally harmonious" in its offerings and location at the Pearl Tower.

Emphasis on, "Authentically Disney, Distinctly Chinese."

The Disney Store Shanghai opening will remain under the direction of local authorities.

-- Upon wheels down in Shanghai, TWDC was informed the CCP's designated media/apparatus would control all appearances and access would be "as indicated" by hosts/escorts.

-- In keeping with China's previous and consistent position, no pictures would be allowed for release nor could the Disney characters be brought on-site "for purposes of propaganda" with security and safety issues cited.

-- Iger and Staggs were told they lacked "proper certification" to be allowed to walk the construction site or be present for the topping off from the park.

-- On May 19, Disney Chairman and CEO Robert Iger was given a tour of the Disney Store Shanghai. His escorts were told no photographs would be allowed aside from the government assigned team memorializing the visit [to China and not only the store], and this was told to Mr Iger.

-- Shortly after the visit to the store, it was learned through the hosts/escorts that Mr Iger has taken pictures and posed for "propaganda purposes" in the store. The photograph of Mr Iger holding the stormtrooper was viewed and "ordered to be destroyed." Later, hours prior to the scheduled opening of the store, the picture was leaked.

-- Disney assured its hosts the picture was not intentionally released and would not be used.

-- Shanghai officials in charge of the store opening determined on the morning of May 20 that no representatives of TWDC from Burbank would be allowed and Iger and Staggs "were held" at their hotel for just then scheduled "essential meetings" concerning "grave matters."

-- It was negotiated that no Disney presence would be "potentially alarming" to the business community and bode poorly for the future of the relationship between TWDC (Western businesses operating in China) and Greater China, so officials agreed to abbreviated terms. Mickey Mouse and Minnie Mouse would be allowed, no other characters. Paul Candland, just in from Tokyo, would be the only "named" executive of TWDC at the opening.

-- Less than 25 "official guests" were in attendance with Mr Candland being the sole representative of Disney. Comments indicating this was Disney's "arrival in the Chinese mainland" would be tempered and were edited by the local authorities assigned to the propaganda team for the SHDLR project (several of whom came from the official news agency, Xinhua).

-- Candland had some difficulty with the script which had only been presented to him immediately prior to the appearance. The focus on children, girls and young families was "problematic" for Candland as it was not consistent with Disney marketing or comments Disney would make.

-- The photograph of the twin dragons with the Disney Store in the background was deemed to be "the appropriate" photograph for circulation in China and elsewhere.

-- No distinction was made between Shanghai Disney Resort, a partnership, and the Disney Store in Shanghai, an entity owned entirely by TWDC.

-- Disney's Iger and Staggs were not on the manifest for the premiere of Tomorrowland, but they were expected. This was not a concern for the officials as it was seen as appropriate and desired for a Western studio head to appear on the red carpet for such an event and reinforced the import of China and the Chinese market to the West.

-- China made it known Disney's introduction to the Chinese mainland would be within the context of the resort and its foundational material (IP?) belonging to "the people of China." TWDC would not be allowed marketing control of the resort or its opening ceremonies and would have "limited administrative" input.

-- As of this visit, a plaque consistent with what appears in each Magic Kingdom will not be part of Shanghai Disneyland. Such a marker would "not be consistent" and "confuse and conflict" visitors who do not know of Walt Disney and will be invited in the state-directed propaganda to "their" park. Shanghai Disney Resort is not intended to be marketed as a destination except for the people of China.

END OF INFO/ITINERARY
The below is commentary from my sources in Asia, pieced together and parsed by me, but not my words (well, except for the final sentence. That's all me!) -- 74.

Relationship is not one of mutual respect and tolerance for Disney's leadership is nonexistent. Bob Weis, the leader of the SHDLR project, has not been a visible presence at the site in quite some time. Around August/September of 2014 something happened that indicated "a change in leadership" had occurred and Weis was not a part of that.

Everything heard is consistent with a complete breakdown between the corporate culture of Iger and Staggs and Disney's government partners (Shendi/CCP). The 'stalling' and eventual refusal to allow Disney to open the store was a shocking move highlighting the increasingly incendiary nature of the arrangement between "the iconic American company" and its partners in government. It was a bold move that broke with how these matters are traditionally handled, so much so that it was believed another business interest may have applied pressure to cause Disney to 'lose face' among the elite class. Another American businessman with substantial interests in Asia and an adversarial relationship with Disney is said to have "placed additional bumps in the road."

The CCP does not have to show "ownership" of the project. Disney does.

"No news here...nothing to see... Everything is FINE."

 

[TalkingHead]

I dunno. They hinted at it at the last D23 Expo in 2013. And the last two D23 Expo's they didn't say much of anything for Parks & Resorts. And this time there's a new Chairman of Parks & Resorts who will want to say something of substance. I have no insider anything, but my gut tells me this D23 Expo will be like 2009 where they announced a bunch of stuff and showed a bunch of artwork and models. And Disney fans GASPED! and cooed with delight, which still makes me laugh when I watch the YouTube video years later.

Particularly funny, yet ladylike, gasps are found at the 0:40, 0:58 marks here, but the audience reaction to the entire presentation is hysterical. And Jay Rasulo didn't even like the theme parks, and was just invited to leave last week.


This August at D23, Walt Disney Archives up on the second floor will have the market cornered on Disneyland nostalgia with their big 60th Anniversary archival exhibit. Downstairs in the exhibit halls, the Anaheim Arena, and the Imagineering Pavilion, something tells me they will be talking about the future this time.

My gosh, that video was hysterical in 2009, and it's still hysterical years later.

Those 'bois gasping at the concept art, some of which was scrapped a few months later -- they're the ones who mainline pixie dust, collect "limited edition" Orange Bird garbage, and continue to visit DHS while complaining about the lack of a Star Wars expansion.

What makes it funnier is that concept art looks positively juvenile.

 

[flynnibus]

All true. But that assumes that the 1988 Maelstrom ride system was somehow starved for boats for no good reason

Correct - but this and @Lee 's post show how people can be talking past each other and both be 'right' because they are assuming or not addressing the key limiting factor. Parties only sharing half the story leads to passing each other

Lee's point about adding boats to ensure you don't introduce NEW delays between boats... hopemax's point about running UNDERutilized... your point about Dispatch vs concurrent riders.. All correct. But in isolation, many can argue that 'adding boats' is necessary

Maelstrom was set up with a 40 second dispatch interval for a reason. I can only assume it has to do with the track switches and drop in the ride, which requires a certain spacing between boats for safety.

Yup, more than likely the most constrained portion in terms of flexibility on intervals... and the rest of the ride would be designed to optimize to that capacity as much as possible.

It all boils down to... the ride is limited by the intersection of its minimum intervals (as defined by the ride elements) and the minimum load/unload times. Adding ride vehicles doesn't change those factors... but a ride may be operating lax under those optimium limits.. and we all know most attractions never hit those optimum targets due to human factors.

 

[ThemeParkJunkee]

Based on some of the discussion, I think it would be nice to get a clarification of the itinerary. Was this THE mutually agreed upon itinerary prior to the arrival of Iger and Staggs? Was this the itinerary set by TWDC and simply sent to the Shendi Group with no input from them? If it was the former, than DIS was Dissed. The latter and TWDC acted as an arrogant, muscle flexing lummox in a culture that would not appreciate it.

 

[WDWFigment]

The only thing I'm ignoring my laundry. Its taking a life of its own.

After spending the last 30 minutes wading through this thread, this post really made me laugh...probably way more than it should have. Thanks for lightening things up.

...

There's a lot to parse here, and I skipped probably numerous pages as it's tough to keep track of multiple conversations (albeit interesting ones) and I'm exhausted. Will revisit and try to post deeper thoughts after dinner. For now, two 'food for thought' items that are on my mind and that I don't see really mentioned in this thread:

1) Let's assume, arguendo, that the relationship between China and TWDC is strained. This negatively affects Iger and his regime from a "power" perspective, but is it necessarily bad for the park or Disney's future? Had France pushed Disney around a little more or had Eisner voluntarily taken a similar tact, perhaps there wouldn't have been so much intellectual-angst or claims of imperialism/Americanization in the early years of EuroDisney.

2) China has arguably as much to lose as TWDC. "Coming out party" were words commonly used to describe the Beijing Olympics, and since then, China has tried to keep that momentum going and establish itself as a modern superpower (a point I think @lazyboy97o has made repeatedly to refute the ridiculous notions that China would simply "take" the park). If SHDL fails or stumbles in its early years, it will be viewed just as much a failure of China integrating Western business as it is a failure of TWDC integrating in Chinese culture. This is especially true if they keep running with the "...Authentically Chinese" line and releasing propaganda with mostly Chinese faces.

As we can see elsewhere in Asia, outside parties calling the shots instead of TWDC calling the shots when it comes to the parks isn't always a bad thing.

I still see as a big deal and potentially a really bad thing for Disney, just so we're clear. I'm not at all trying to say "everything is great and wonderful because Iger is a magical leader who will make things great. Just wait and see, and believe in pixie dust!" Rather, just trying to present some open-ended thoughts as I also don't think the sky is (necessarily) falling quite yet.

Off to read more...

 

[lazyboy97o]

Based on some of the discussion, I think it would be nice to get a clarification of the itinerary. Was this THE mutually agreed upon itinerary prior to the arrival of Iger and Staggs? Was this the itinerary set by TWDC and simply sent to the Shendi Group with no input from them? If it was the former, than DIS was Dissed. The latter and TWDC acted as an arrogant, muscle flexing lummox in a culture that would not appreciate it.

Ever notice how Disney never seems to know what Disney is doing? How the plan today is completely different tomorrow? A lot of this is due to Disney being a bureaucracy. China is also a bureaucracy and similar issues are at play.

 

[Mike S]

I dunno. They hinted at it at the last D23 Expo in 2013. And the last two D23 Expo's they didn't say much of anything for Parks & Resorts. And this time there's a new Chairman of Parks & Resorts who will want to say something of substance. I have no insider anything, but my gut tells me this D23 Expo will be like 2009 where they announced a bunch of stuff and showed a bunch of artwork and models. And Disney fans GASPED! and cooed with delight, which still makes me laugh when I watch the YouTube video years later.

Particularly funny, yet ladylike, gasps are found at the 0:40, 0:58 marks here, but the audience reaction to the entire presentation is hysterical. And Jay Rasulo didn't even like the theme parks, and was just invited to leave last week.


This August at D23, Walt Disney Archives up on the second floor will have the market cornered on Disneyland nostalgia with their big 60th Anniversary archival exhibit. Downstairs in the exhibit halls, the Anaheim Arena, and the Imagineering Pavilion, something tells me they will be talking about the future this time.

"The new Little Mermaid attraction is a real E Ticket" - Jay Rasulo, D23 2009

Who was it that said Disney doesn't use this terminology anymore? Cause I've seen them use it on the DPB for the Pirates ride in Shanghai as well.

 

[Lee]

The Why he has been pushing is that the relationship completely soured and that these changes are a display of power by the Chinese. He has emphatically and repeatedly denied that a low key event is more fitting with local custom. The cavalcade of characters was, according to the above posted quote, an agreed upon "middle ground" that was pulled at the last minute. That is not the same as Disney trying to get their culturally insensitive way.

This is a point that will clearly require some clarification.

Was the itinerary agreed upon before hand, with the Chinese making some concessions and allowing Disney to do some things their way? If so, it would indicate that something (or someone) went wrong late in the game and it was shut down.

Or was this Disney's plan that the Chinese shot down?

I'm not clear on that, but both have larger implications.

 

[Goofyernmost]

All true. But that assumes that the 1988 Maelstrom ride system was somehow starved for boats for no good reason. That they could have run extra boats and shaved 10 or 15 seconds off the dispatching interval, and thus sped up the loading/unloading of riders. But for some unknown reason they never added the extra boats in 1988, and never got around to it, and for Frozen all they have to do is plop more boats in the flume and flip the dial on the operator console to make the loading station go faster.

Maelstrom was set up with a 40 second dispatch interval for a reason. I can only assume it has to do with the track switches and drop in the ride, which requires a certain spacing between boats for safety.

Unless they gut the entire ride system and rebuild it to cycle boats faster and lower that 40 second dispatch interval the ride has had since 1988, the hourly capacity of 900 per hour won't change much for Frozen. If at all.

There was a time, when Epcot was fairly young that it was always a walk-on. If I remember correctly it corresponded with the requirement that you sit through the movie after the boat ride. So people didn't ride it repeatedly. Also, it was kind of boring anyway. So it is possible that they never needed the entire contingent of boats on line all the time. Just a guess on my part, I have no solid information to that position, just makes sense to me.

 

[Goofyernmost]

"The new Little Mermaid attraction is a real E Ticket" - Jay Rasulo, D23 2009
View attachment 95485

Who was it that said Disney doesn't use this terminology anymore? Cause I've seen them use it on the DPB for the Pirates ride in Shanghai as well.

I said it many times. But, if it is going to be used it seems like it would be more relevant coming from a Disney executive then those of us that have multiple ways of labeling attractions. It certainly ranks up there with any of the "E" tickets of Walts day.

 

[lazyboy97o]

This is a point that will clearly require some clarification.

Was the itinerary agreed upon before hand, with the Chinese making some concessions and allowing Disney to do some things their way? If so, it would indicate that something (or someone) went wrong late in the game and it was shut down.

Or was this Disney's plan that the Chinese shot down?

I'm not clear on that, but both have larger implications.

Not necessarily. The CCP is not a hive mind where there is always one clear directive, even if thetas our view of authoritarian systems. Nobody seems willing to hypothesize why, if this was a long agreed upon plan pulled at the last minute as a power play, only a deputy governor of Pudong was sent to be the face of the Shanghai government. Disney's leaders were not allowed to show their faces, but for some reason it was decided that neither would Shanghai leaders. Would there not have been questions asked if the Manhattan Borough President was at the opening of the Times Square Disney Store instead of Mayor Bloomberg?

 

[Bairstow]

The costs Disney is contributing are a pittance compared to the infrastructure, so there is no need for Disney's money. Plenty of ex-Imagineers like the Kirk Brothers, Eddie Sotto, Tim Delaney, Rick Rothschild, Bob Weis (at the time the decisions were made) and more plus companies like Thinkwell, BRC Imagination Arts, PGAV Destinations, Falcon's Treehouse, etc are available for hire, so there is no need for Disney's expertise.

You can hire all the private-sector theme park specialists in the world, but they're not going to build you a Disneyland. Not because they can, but because they won't.
Having a mainland Disneyland is about the prestige, not the quality of the endeavor.
Plus, tricking a company into building you a park is cheaper than hiring a bunch of people to tell you how.

The compelling reason not to is the desire to establish and control global structures and guide global stability as the undisputed superpower of the world. That is not accomplished by the sort of recklessness you think is done for laughs. This is what is lost you keep completely ignoring. Chinese history shows an obsession with stability, the CCP is obsessed with stability and global hegemony is about promoting stability. Taking the park is a massively destabilizing action regardless of Disney's position.

After the news cycle last week, it should be clear by now that mainland China's definition of "stability" differs from America's.

 

[lazyboy97o]

You can hire all the private-sector theme park specialists in the world, but they're not going to build you a Disneyland. Not because they can, but because they won't.
Having a mainland Disneyland is about the prestige, not the quality of the endeavor.
Plus, tricking a company into building you a park is cheaper than hiring a bunch of people to tell you how.

In what alternate reality is Disney cheaper than the rest of the industry?

The prestige of having a Disneyland means having Disney.

 

[Lee]

Not necessarily. The CCP is not a hive mind where there is always one clear directive, even if thetas our view of authoritarian systems. Nobody seems willing to hypothesize why, if this was a long agreed upon plan pulled at the last minute as a power play, only a deputy governor of Pudong was sent to be the face of the Shanghai government. Disney's leaders were not allowed to show their faces, but for some reason it was decided that neither would Shanghai leaders. Would there not have been questions asked if the Manhattan Borough President was at the opening of the Times Square Disney Store instead of Mayor Bloomberg?

Ok, then...let's assume it was not a long agreed upon plan.
Then it was Disney's plan that the Chinese didn't like and didn't allow. Bob and Tom went over there and were told "No, none of your plans are acceptable. Go to your hotel until you are ready to leave."

That's an even more clear example of things being fumbled.

 

[hopemax]

Not necessarily. The CCP is not a hive mind where there is always one clear directive, even if thetas our view of authoritarian systems. Nobody seems willing to hypothesize why, if this was a long agreed upon plan pulled at the last minute as a power play, only a deputy governor of Pudong was sent to be the face of the Shanghai government. Disney's leaders were not allowed to show their faces, but for some reason it was decided that neither would Shanghai leaders. Would there not have been questions asked if the Manhattan Borough President was at the opening of the Times Square Disney Store instead of Mayor Bloomberg?

I'll hypothesize that it would just be more of the power play dis. In the US, the mayor of NYC would be expected at a high profile event like the Times Square Disney Store. But the mayor of NYC would not be expected at the opening of the hot dog cart on the corner. Hot dog cart isn't worth the mayor's valuable time. So by a lesser person appearing, in a place where Disney has no reputation would essentially be saying "Disney is the hot dog cart." Well, maybe not as bad as a hot dog cart, but still "this is a medium size deal, not the big deal it might have been otherwise." When you expect you are going to be meeting the boss, and you get in the room and it's just the assistant, that's not a good thing. I saw this recently in some tv show or movie, but I can't remember which one.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Ok, then...let's assume it was not a long agreed upon plan.
Then it was Disney's plan that the Chinese didn't like and didn't allow. Bob and Tom went over there and were told "No, none of your plans are acceptable. Go to your hotel until you are ready to leave."

That's an even more clear example of things being fumbled.

A narrative, one that I have raised as more plausible, that has been repeatedly dismissed.

I'll hypothesize that it would just be more of the power play dis. In the US, the mayor of NYC would be expected at a high profile event like the Times Square Disney Store. But the mayor of NYC would not be expected at the opening of the hot dog cart on the corner. Hot dog cart isn't worth the mayor's valuable time. So by a lesser person appearing, in a place where Disney has no reputation would essentially be saying "Disney is the hot dog cart." Well, maybe not as bad as a hot dog cart, but still "this is a medium size deal, not a big deal it might have been otherwise." When you expect you are going to be meeting the boss, and you get in the room and it's just the assistant, that's not a good thing. I saw this recently in some tv show or movie, but I can't remember which one.

Yes, that would make sense but it does not line up with the notion of Chinese officials pushing this as their project.

 

[Spark70]

Didja read the article before you labeled it "quite prescient"?

It's difficult to find on Google, but you can find it back in this thread.

"[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."

Golly gee, that doesn't sound like the thought Iger should run into China with his big thing hanging out and waving it in the Chinese faces, does it?

Now, the majority of the rest of the article is really a blog opinion piece that rails Iger previously, but what the many mentions of Gary Snyder do not mention is that he is a member of the Redstone family which owns Viacom - a direct competitor for Disney.

Gee, I wonder why his piece was removed? Nah, not conflict of interest - must have been that Shady Iger in between his puppy beating sessions!

The more you look into this all, the more it completely falls apart.

For the record - yes, I did read the article, in it's original (if brief) publication on the Huffington Post.

The title of the article, the paragraph you quoted, as well as the anecdotes Mr. Snyder cited from Hong Kong Disneyland paint a picture of a Disney that is tone-deaf to the culture and foreshadows the events that unfolded in the material @WDW1974 shared. That qualifies as prescient in my book.

Not sure how the conflict of interest discussion has any bearing on whether the content of the article was prescient (I get points every time I use the word) or not. It was an Op-Ed piece which expressed...an opinion.

In regards to "Shady Iger", his "big thing" and "puppy beating sessions" - well, I'll just leave that to @PhotoDave219 !

 

[hopemax]

Yes, that would make sense but it does not line up with the notion of Chinese officials pushing this as their project.

Why not? Disney is so big here, that it's hard to think of them as anything but. China may not need a Disney Store to be as big as we might assume. It can still be "theirs" with a more modest opening, and still meet their expectations and needs. Maybe, better, actually. China needs people to like Disney well enough to make some money. But they can't be liking them too much, otherwise you get too much "Western influence." The presence of a more important person, might be saying too loudly, "Disney is important."

Basically, while Disney would like the most prominent person on their side to be there, China might actually prefer the least they can get away on theirs.

But like I say, I know very little about how China views things.