Attention all Eisner haters...

[Lee]

Originally posted by Dizknee_Phreek
well, before i state my opinion, i first have a question for lee. now lee, lemme tell ya right off hand that this is all from what i've seen and read on the net, k? i just don't want to offend you or anyone else with this. but, what makes you say that DCA's ToT will be 'excellent'?

Well, without going into too much detail....

The story remains the same, no big deal there.
DCA gets a much larger, more elaborate boiler room.
They get a new effect between boiler room and elevator.
The replacement for the 5D room is extremely cool and effective, so much so that elements of it may well be incorporated into MGM's Tower.

When I said excellent, I meant that it will be equal to MGM's Tower. Yeah, it looks different, but that's no big deal. The one at TDS will look altogether different, too.

 

[General Grizz]

So this is basically like a Haunted Mansion from DL to WDW, basically the same, different structure, and more effects?

 

[General Grizz]

Double Post: I still don't like Screamin' :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[DisneyFan 2000]

Originally posted by grizzlyhall
Double Post: I still don't like Screamin' :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I like the music.

 

[WDWKat26]

Originally posted by Lee
Well, without going into too much detail....

The story remains the same, no big deal there.
DCA gets a much larger, more elaborate boiler room.
They get a new effect between boiler room and elevator.
The replacement for the 5D room is extremely cool and effective, so much so that elements of it may well be incorporated into MGM's Tower.

When I said excellent, I meant that it will be equal to MGM's Tower. Yeah, it looks different, but that's no big deal. The one at TDS will look altogether different, too.

My friend who is a bellhop was actually telling me about the whole 5D room being more elaborate in a way. He was saying that the hallway you go through in MGM's ToT, no one knows what it really means or that it's supposed to be the 5th dimension, so they're going to make it more (I guess you could say) obvious that you're supposed to be travelling through the 5th dimension.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

Originally posted by grizzlyhall
I remember a story about Walt being asked to build a park in Texas. When the proprieter of the land, I believe, said that alcohol had to be sold in the park, Walt walked up and left.

As for DCA, Screamin' makes me upset. Blah blah part of the theming blah blah still makes a story blah. Oy. If I ever go to DLR, it's only DL for me.

Seriously... I'm glad I found this place. I thought I was alone in my thoughts.

First time I heard about Pleasure Island, I thought to myself it had to be wrong. Then, I visited California Adventure and Downtown Disney and just knew the whole idea behind it was wrong.

In two weeks, I'll be visiting DW (that's the reason I found this forum), and I'll decide for myself whether the whole Downtown Disney & Pleasure Island thing was a good idea or not.

 

[niteobsrvr]

Originally posted by Dash_Riprock
Seriously... I'm glad I found this place. I thought I was alone in my thoughts.

First time I heard about Pleasure Island, I thought to myself it had to be wrong. Then, I visited California Adventure and Downtown Disney and just knew the whole idea behind it was wrong.

In two weeks, I'll be visiting DW (that's the reason I found this forum), and I'll decide for myself whether the whole Downtown Disney & Pleasure Island thing was a good idea or not.

To stay competitive in this town you have to compete. Back in the day when WDW was the only Game in town as far as Themeparks, not just here in Orlando, but nationwide, there was little in the way of competition. Today however you are trying to take as many consumer entertainment dollars as you can. This means offering as many forms of entertainment as possible or at least as many as your competitors are offering.

Guest satisfaction was another reason Pleasure Island/Downtown was created. Disney guests were complaining there was nothing to do after the parks closed and more importantly there were no adult activities. Its just another example of a shift in our society over the last 50 years.

Pleasure Island meets this need without taking away the family friendly atmosphere of the parks. Nor is the area the main entrance to all of the parks like Universal. You have a choice to go there or not with your children and Disney definitely does not try to disguise what it is to guests.

 

[Lee]

Originally posted by grizzlyhall
So this is basically like a Haunted Mansion from DL to WDW, basically the same, different structure, and more effects?

Kinda.
DCA's ToT has no horizontal movement (other than in load/unload), but the new effects look good enough to make you not miss the 5D room.



Oh......by the way.....

Screamin' Rules!

 

[mac388]

I have to agree with Pleasure Island and Downtown Disney. Many a nights I went there for entertainment. It really has helped keep Orlando competitive-it's a clean, fun atmosphere where adults can hang out.
Of course, I always saw the weirdo parents with their kids at 1AM....Anywho....
I heard that California Adventure is GREAT for those who aren't from Cali. Is this true? Our neighbor went there and loved it.

 

[Lee]

I don't love it, but I sincerely "like" it.
Tower will help, but DCA still needs a few more attractions to be a full park. It takes a lot to live up to it's neighbor across the esplanade.

Give it RnRC, a full length dark ride or two, a water show in the lagoon, and it'll be pretty sweet. It reminds me of MGM during it's first 2-3 years. Nice park, but not much there.

 

[WDWKat26]

Maybe adding ToT to DCA will give the park more of a Disney theme than it already has, I mean yes of course it has a "Disney Theme" but to me it just stands out as more of a carnivalish kind of place. I really like the idea though of putting ToT there. I would LOVE to go to DCA just to ride it.

 

[raven]

Michael Eisner had good ideas in the beginning no doubt. But his ideas have run out and now he just wants the company to make money. He has the final say on new projects. He's cut back budgets from attractions and such that they couldn't be built.

What gets me mad is that he kept Roy from being apart of things in the end. Roy is a creative person and had his differences with Michael. So, Michael just pushed him out.

As far as The Disney Stores go, I was a CM at one and left a few months ago because of certain things. But even the stores are out of ideas. They have narrowed the items into 4 sections: Princess, Toy Story, Winnie the Pooh and "What's New" (or as I like to call it "whatever movie they are currently pushing") You don't see a lot of the Fab Five items anymore (Mickey, Minnie, Pluto, Donald and Goofy) and the adult items have also be trimmed back. If you see a drink cup in a Princess pattern, you can bet it also comes in Toy Story and Winnie the Pooh as well (check it out if you don't believe me). They simply are out to make money and the guests aren't satisfied with the lack of variety in the stores. We had so many people coming in asking for certain items they carry at Kmart and other stores that we had to say "then get it there because we don't carry anything like that in the stores." It also didn't help that the Disney Catalogue is ran by a completely different part of the company. Most people think its the catalogue of the stores but it isn't. They get upset when they see something in the catalogue and then we don't carry it in the stores.

Things like this make guests upset. But it all falls under the canopy of the CEO ultimately.

Example of his spending: The Disney Stores changed carpeting 4 times in 2 years year because Mr. CEO didn't like it. He never cared enough to say anything when they first asked but when he would visit a store, he would tell then to change it. (This means ALL of the stores worldwide) Too much money being spent on something like that when he could have just chose something in the first place when they asked him.

 

[MouseRight]

Originally posted by raven

Example of his spending: The Disney Stores changed carpeting 4 times in 2 years year because Mr. CEO didn't like it. He never cared enough to say anything when they first asked but when he would visit a store, he would tell then to change it. (This means ALL of the stores worldwide) Too much money being spent on something like that when he could have just chose something in the first place when they asked him.

I agree with your ssesement of the Disney Stores. The product mix has been disappointing and directly relates to the poor performance. I miss the special watches, jewelry, clothes, collectibles, etc.

I'm a little curious. Your quote above is very specific - Claiming that he didn't care up front. Do you have evidence of that? Did he actually refuse to participate up front or was it actually something that had been decided by those he delegated running the stores and then when he saw it he disliked it?

Funny, a big complaint of Roy and his followers is Eisner's micromanaging. In this case it seems like he didn't micromange up front - which is the way it should be when you are running a multi-billion, multi-divisional operation, with people who are trusted with the responsibility. However, when he saw the result he felt he had to make a change? Is this true? Was this carpet change done in every Disney store or just yours? I'm a frequent visistor of the local Disney Stores and don't remember any massive changes in the carpet over teh years. More facts please.

Thanks.

 

[djmatthews]

I'll have my little say. I'm not going to say I hate Eisner, I'm not going to say I love him... simply because I don't know him, I don't think any of us actually know him, or know exactly what goes on. Remember the board have a huge say in what goes on. I do believe it is time for new blood. Michael has been at Disney for nearly 20 years, someone with fresh ideas, but somebody with a Disney spirit.

Disney needs to cut back. While it is argued Big is better. It's not always the case. I believe Disney needs to loose ABC and focus on Films and Parks etc - the true Disney operations. Companies are always buying and selling arms of companies.

Once Disney decides on what to focus on e.g. Parks, films, cruise they need to speculate to accumulate. Invest big bucks and big crowds will follow.

We need to introduce "Operation Walt", and start to turn back the clock to the magical days where there was never a burnt out light bulb. All attractions were built to a high standard with no cost spared. Parks were maintained. And no bloody sequels to classics.

I compare Michael to Tony Blair, they both started off well, then lost sight and vision, they both need to go, but will either of them admit it?

Michael is in a difficult situation, on one hand there are the shareholders, on the other, there is Walt’s dream and us, the guests/customers.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

Originally posted by niteobsrvr
To stay competitive in this town you have to compete. Back in the day when WDW was the only Game in town as far as Themeparks, not just here in Orlando, but nationwide, there was little in the way of competition. Today however you are trying to take as many consumer entertainment dollars as you can. This means offering as many forms of entertainment as possible or at least as many as your competitors are offering.

Guest satisfaction was another reason Pleasure Island/Downtown was created. Disney guests were complaining there was nothing to do after the parks closed and more importantly there were no adult activities. Its just another example of a shift in our society over the last 50 years.

Pleasure Island meets this need without taking away the family friendly atmosphere of the parks. Nor is the area the main entrance to all of the parks like Universal. You have a choice to go there or not with your children and Disney definitely does not try to disguise what it is to guests.

I agree with your post. But - I disliked Downtown Disney @ Disneyland because it is the gateway to CA and DL. I'd assume the whole idea behind Pleasure Island in Orlando is a lot better integrated. We'll see.

As for Paul Pressler, is he the one really responsible for DL cheap attractions??? I always thought it was Eisner's idea (I bet the shareholders were pleased to have a "resort" in California on the cheap).

 

[mac388]

I definitely think that Paul Pressler had a lot do to with the parks looking the way that they do. He fortunately left the company-but doesn't Michael Eisner have a lot to do with who gets hired?

 

[Wckd Queen]

What I would expect from Eisner stepping aside...

Well, at the very least, I would expect for a new CEO to go back, and read the original mission statement for the Walt Disney Company. I think somewhere along the lines, that statement has gotten somewhat blurred.

Im not an Eisner hater (isnt that right, Grizz? :lol: ) but Im not an Eisner lover either. I feel that, yes, Michael Eisner DID save the company when he came in, and yes, alot of what we have today at WDW and DLR are a direct result of Michael Eisner being brought in by Roy as the new CEO (expansion, good or bad, hotels, new attractions, etc). Now, I remember reading an article back in the day in, I believe it was Newsweek or maybe Business Week, not sure, but it focused on Eisner and what all he intended to do to bring Disney back up to the sparkling gem of the entertainment industry it had always been. Part of what Eisner had maintained was that as a movie company, their fortune rested in their animated featues, and thus, the Little Mermaid was released. Now, he also maintained that without animated features, there could be no new attractions, and the parks would go stale, as they had become. But...aside from stage shows and Buzz Lightyear, Ive yet to encounter any major new attractions based on the features released the last 20 years (PotC & HM notwithstanding, as the attractions predate the movies) (fair enough, Grizz? )

As for the addition of Pleasure Island, and the sale of alcohol in certain parks, I have to agree with what others have said. Is it Disney? No, but is it necessary for survival in todays market? Sadly, it is. If Disney doesnt offer this to their guests, undoubtably, the guests will go elsewhere for it, as we did in 86. Its just a sad inevitable fact that every company has to keep up with the times to stay competitive.

Even as a stockholder, I was against the acquisition of ABC and the sports franchises (as well as Disneys Wide World of Sports complex~wont go there though) I felt that those industries, while still falling under the scope of "entertainement", were far too stretching, both financially and business wise. Yes, Disney makes entertainment...but its a whole other ball of wax to run a major television network, which includes programming, advertising, production and a plethera of other areas unexplored by Disney. This, coupled with the Ducks and Angels (note here how the sports franchises mirrored Disney films?) were completely outside the realm that Disney operates within.

The Disney STores. Dont know what went wrong there, but I'd like to flogg whomever the marketing genius was that decided to take out the adult merchandise and collectables.

Disney has always stood for great family entertainment, both onscreen and off. Something magical that you could find no where else on earth. I think that, in the beginning, Eisner realized that, and tried to regain the magic. He even started to intro the Wonderful World of Disney himself, like Walt had done way back when, so that the consumer could have a face to put with the company. Somewhere between the praise as Disney Savior and the millions of dollars in stock options, the magic was forgotten.

 

[General Grizz]

That was a very balanced post, Lisa. Don't forget that Stitch is coming to the Alien Encounter. I still think, however, that (as far as attractions) the long-term rides should trend back to originality (ala Pirates, HM).

I remember when going to the mall was an exciting thing. . . just to go into the Disney Store. :lookaroun

My main grudges with Eisner rest in

(1) Park safety - Disney security is an oxymoron; accidents
(2) Continued layoffs and spurred Cast abandoment of "magic"
(3) Ownership of Dimension Films and Viewer's Choice
(4) ABC and its reality shows, (ala Are You Hot?)
(5) Intolerable actions to Vice Chairman Roy Disney
(6) Theme Park degration in maintence and quality standards (CHEAP)
(7) Finding Disney's sole focus in pleasing shareholders ($$$)
(8) Cutback on quality of animation and television quality (sequels, crap Disney TV)

All of the above is enough for me to say: time's up. Only chickens "chee(a)p."

Now, Lisa - - the question is. . . if I give you a skillet, will you use it properly?? :animwink:

 

[PeterAlt]

About Paul Pressler

Originally posted by Dash_Riprock
As for Paul Pressler, is he the one really responsible for DL cheap attractions??? I always thought it was Eisner's idea (I bet the shareholders were pleased to have a "resort" in California on the cheap).

My understanding is that Eisner lessened the impact of the cheapness that Paul Pressler tried to do. Fo example, Paul Pressler wanted Disney Development Company to design DCA, not Disney Imagineering. Eisner insisted that Imagineering get involved in some form (DDC and Imagineering ended up working on DCA together). Also, Pressler was against Mission: Space at EPCOT... Eisner overrode that decision and had Space built, over Pressler's objections.

It's true that Eisner promoted Pressler. So, Eisner is responsible. But I think Eisner thought he could "keep him in line" by overriding his decisions. But he really didn't override enough of his decisions. At the time Space was proposed, Imagineering proposed E-tickets for EACH of the parks. Pressler shot all of them down, in favor of cheaper rides (Magic Carpets and Dino Rama). Jim Hill wrote an article about this.

Pressler's "cheapness" would eventually wake Eisner up and have him tell Pressler to "hit the road". When Tokyo DisneySeas (a park that was built with a huge budget) had attendence figures that dwarfed Pressler's DCA (built at around the same time), that should have clued Eisner in that cheap attractions do not bring in the crowds. But when two of the cheapest attractions just do not work right (Rocket Rods) or get unbelievable guest complaints (Super Star Limo) that they must shut them down, then you really know something's wrong. When the idea of spending less money was to save money, but when that money buys you closed attractions, an angry CEO would know exactly who to blame and that person must now find a new job... at The Gap.

 

[General Grizz]

Very intriguing, Peter. However, wasn't it Eisner who decided to cut down on WDI? Apparently, I heard much of it is in danger right now as Imagineers are starting to come on a per-project basis.