Bob Iger at WDW now ... BoD to Follow?

[danlb_2000]

And Star Wars is "new"?

I understand perfectly why it's going in DHS, and I certainly understand (and applaud) the inclusion of Pixar (in fact, that Pixar area back there is pretty pathetic. There needs to be more). But it's Disney's magic that keeps people coming to WDW and Disneyland, and why they're still preferred to Universal, despite Uni's stellar offerings. That's what I mean by The Legacy. People still respond to Walt's philosophy and to the values he built into his films. Those will never grow old. A good example of that is the continuing popularity of Peter Pan's Flight. A primitive dark ride that ALWAYS has a packed queue. That's because, I believe, it has that spark of Disney magic that people remember and desire. That's what they're craving when they go to a Disney park, so, I think the way to draw even more people into the parks is the put more Disney in them. There should be a Pride Lands in AK, not Avatar. And a Disney Villains area in DHS would probably be more popular than any Star Wars feature.

But oh well, Iger bought the Star Wars IP, so into DHS it goes.

I don't think the average guest is very discerning (or even knows) who created a specific IP in the park. People will love or hate an attraction based on it's merits, not who created the IP.

 

[ford91exploder]

For a benchmark of what would be nice, look at how much was opened between 1990 and 2000 across the resort: a water park, a whole new park, new parades every year, several new hotels, a whole nighttime district, new major attractions in every park, new fireworks shows, two big expansions at DHS...

If 2010-2020 brings us just as much as that, then I'm sure no-one on this forum will have any problem eating their words.

IF that's the case I will happily eat my words. But my current attitude is expect nothing and one will not be disappointed.

 

[216bruce]

Newest observation and request of this thread..."Go home discussion thread- you're drunk"

 

[Wikkler]

Am I the only one who finds the lack of 's to be really distracting? Does Bob Iger despise punctuation that much?

Sadly, modern Disney likes to turn Mr. Disney's legacy from the story of a business entrepreneur and pioneer into a brand name sticker they put on products to make them "magical".

 

[Wikkler]

Exactly my point. Only a small percentage of people will even realize or care unless they are riding them in the same day. It also will help people give it a pass if the ride is really good, which Indy is.

Do you think most people notice or care that Haunted Mansion, Mermaid, and Buzz at MK are the same ride system?

 

[George]

You are right. And once it becomes undeniable that a plan was put in place by Iger et al to rehabilitate every division, the D&G posters will claim their complaining made the difference. Mark my words that is the intent of the negativity in the face of all that is going right.

IMO.

Actually, I think the weekend Mr. Iger spent as a "guest" in my basement entertaining the gimp is what I'm going to claim made all the difference.

 

[Mike S]

Very much wrong!

An innovative, different two story layout with 4 high speed elevators that are very well hidden.

Ride system is the same. And very good it is too. Disney could have surpassed it if they'd continued pushing the EMV development.

4? I thought there was only 2. Which scenes are they?

 

[marni1971]

4? I thought there was only 2. Which scenes are they?

Each elevator is doubled up. As one is moving with a RV, the other is travelling the opposite way empty. That way capacity is maintained.

 

[NearTheEars]

And Star Wars is "new"?

I understand perfectly why it's going in DHS, and I certainly understand (and applaud) the inclusion of Pixar (in fact, that Pixar area back there is pretty pathetic. There needs to be more). But it's Disney's magic that keeps people coming to WDW and Disneyland, and why they're still preferred to Universal, despite Uni's stellar offerings. That's what I mean by The Legacy. People still respond to Walt's philosophy and to the values he built into his films. Those will never grow old. A good example of that is the continuing popularity of Peter Pan's Flight. A primitive dark ride that ALWAYS has a packed queue. That's because, I believe, it has that spark of Disney magic that people remember and desire. That's what they're craving when they go to a Disney park, so, I think the way to draw even more people into the parks is the put more Disney in them. There should be a Pride Lands in AK, not Avatar. And a Disney Villains area in DHS would probably be more popular than any Star Wars feature.

But oh well, Iger bought the Star Wars IP, so into DHS it goes.

Thought you were spot on until the villains vs. Star Wars thing.

 

[ULPO46]

Thought you were spot on until the villains vs. Star Wars thing.

Exactly nothing can really top the Star Wars brand, not even i think adding a star trek land would do. TWDC pushed the brand far and wide so now everyone knows or already knew about star wars and are even bigger fans of the brand because thats all that star wars really is other than the six soon to be nine films. As for pixar place whwn i first heard this was going to be a project i thought it was going to be more than a midway mania. I mean i love toy story but that alone is really boring just to have one pixar item. I thought they would work on making pixar place more like the actual pixar campus with tons of rides and attractions from their massive array of films. But yet again no one thinks boldy at WDI, we can only work on budget and price tag not how big can we make it disregarding the cost.

 

[GoofGoof]

IF the 'books' are a fantasy then pretty much everything would be sold off, Remember that MOST of ENRON's businesses (most of which were profitable on their own) are still around under new owners, Its only the HQ operation which went away.

The physical assets of Enron are still around under new ownership. The trading shop and corporate management are long gone. It was really the trading shop, senior management and the accountants that committed fraud. The guys working on the ops side at power plants or gas pipelines that Enron owned were not doing anything wrong and likely kept their jobs under new ownership. Right after the collapse Dynegy put in a bid to buy Enron, but they backed out after getting a closer look at the books.

There's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that anything similar to Enron is happening at TWDC. Enron operated in a world with complex commodity trading and newly emerging electricity markets that were ripe for manipulation and fraud. They also manipulated newly created accounting guidance around derivatives. The markets that TWDC operate in are mature and somewhat regulated. It's not likely that the studios are manipulating their numbers since box office numbers are confirmed by 3rd party sources and the network TV division is highly regulated. That leaves ESPN and Parks and Resorts which are pretty straight forward businesses. It's always possible that some sort of fraud or collusion is going on at TWDC, but its a huge leap to assume that some layoffs or reorganization at the corporate office is a sign that the company is going under due to fraud.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

I only use the explanation concerning the creation of the ride to help excuse Disney for creating such a boring attraction. They were under a very short and strict timetable (9 months) so they deserve credit for producing anything under those constraints. But it also explains the poor quality of the attraction. Pepsi sponsored the ride at the 1964 World' Fair and Pepsi was a corporate sponsor at Disneyland from its opening day until about 1990 for the Golden Horseshoe Saloon.

When the four attractions were built by WED for the 1964 World's Fair, Walt Disney already had decided that the rides would be shipped back and operated in Disneyland at the end of the fair. As we've established, Pepsi was embarrassed by the ride. When IASW returned to Disneyland it would have been a simple matter for Pepsi to sponsor IASW but they refused. Why? Because they thought the attraction was terrible. I agree with Pepsi.

I sorta must commend you for your persistence, but I don't think you're going to win over this crowd.
IASW is a glorious ride, one of the best things Disney has ever created and I hope it stays forever. I even adore the song and can listen to it all day long.

I think appreciation of Small World is one of those markers that sets vintage fans apart from more recent fans, many of whom learned from that otherwise fine new movie The Lion King that the IASW song is torture and read on the 'Disney = Food & Frozen' part of the blogosphere that the ride is a no longer relevant embarrassment.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

And Star Wars is "new"?

I understand perfectly why it's going in DHS, and I certainly understand (and applaud) the inclusion of Pixar (in fact, that Pixar area back there is pretty pathetic. There needs to be more). But it's Disney's magic that keeps people coming to WDW and Disneyland, and why they're still preferred to Universal, despite Uni's stellar offerings. That's what I mean by The Legacy. People still respond to Walt's philosophy and to the values he built into his films. Those will never grow old. A good example of that is the continuing popularity of Peter Pan's Flight. A primitive dark ride that ALWAYS has a packed queue. That's because, I believe, it has that spark of Disney magic that people remember and desire. That's what they're craving when they go to a Disney park, so, I think the way to draw even more people into the parks is the put more Disney in them. There should be a Pride Lands in AK, not Avatar. And a Disney Villains area in DHS would probably be more popular than any Star Wars feature.

But oh well, Iger bought the Star Wars IP, so into DHS it goes.

Star Wars has been in DHS before Iger was born.

But otherwise you raise some good points. I too have never gotten used to Pixar. They feel like a different universe to me, I hate seeing Toy Story army men in the same parade as Cinderella.

I also don't care for UNI and its 'random collection of whatever big IP's we managed to acquire'. That is not a theme, or a dreamworld. I have no emotional connection with it.

 

[AEfx]

...I'm struggling to see what Disney could do that could generate the level of interest and excitement that I think Star Wars will when its official.

There is nothing. Nothing that even comes close. And that's not the fan in me talking, that's just the facts.

It is the single most successful IP of all time, and it's coming back as we speak as big as ever.

 

[Phil12]

I sorta must commend you for your persistence, but I don't think you're going to win over this crowd.
IASW is a glorious ride, one of the best things Disney has ever created and I hope it stays forever. I even adore the song and can listen to it all day long.

I think appreciation of Small World is one of those markers that sets vintage fans apart from more recent fans, many of whom learned from that otherwise fine new movie The Lion King that the IASW song is torture and read on the 'Disney = Food & Frozen' part of the blogosphere that the ride is a no longer relevant embarrassment.

I don't begrudge people that have doll fetishes but I don't share their obsessive devotion. Nor have I ever been a fan of either version of El Rio del Tiempo. Frankly, I don't really like most of the attractions at any of the Disney parks. However, IMO there are enough high quality attractions at WDW worth experiencing. If I were to rate each of the attractions at WDW in order of my desire to experience them, IASW would rate way below SGE, the lumberjacks at WS and Chester & Hester's Dino-Rama.

Frankly I like attractions such as IASW so that they can gobble up tourists and make my visit more pleasurable at the attractions that interest me. But it still doesn't change the facts that Pepsi disliked the ride back in 1964, that the ride was rushed in its design and completion due to a tight time schedule and that the ride was (and is) a product of low technological design in comparison to the other 1964 World's Fair attractions created by Disney. It looks like something my grandfather would slap together in his spare time. Obviously some people like that sort of thing and I'm not being critical of their tastes but I don't share their appreciation of the ride. I consider it to be a classic in the sense that it's classic kludge because it was a quick and dirty workaround by Walt Disney in his effort to please a long time sponsor. It failed in that regard.

 

[AEfx]

I also don't care for UNI and its 'random collection of whatever big IP's we managed to acquire'. That is not a theme, or a dreamworld. I have no emotional connection with it.

The reason they are doing so well, though, is because those IP's are strong enough to attract folks who do have emotional connections to them. I get the same feeling walking into the gates of Jurassic Park, for example, as I do walking into a Disney Park.

I think it really comes down to, if Disney only has Disney-animation based IP in their parks, it inherently limits the audience. That's why Disney was reaching out for things like Lucasfilm attractions even back in the 1980's.

 

[AEfx]

Frankly I like attractions such as IASW so that they can gobble up tourists and make my visit more pleasurable at the attractions that interest me. But it still doesn't change the facts that Pepsi disliked the ride back in 1964, that the ride was rushed in its design and completion due to a tight time schedule and that the ride was (and is) a product of low technological design in comparison to the other 1964 World's Fair attractions created by Disney.

But that's not why Pepsi didn't want to invest in IASW. The board was extremely financially conservative at the time (they were just starting to be a serious competitor to Coke and simply were not confident their fortunes would continue) and the only reason they did it was because Joan Crawford (who was also on the board) insisted that they do so in deference to Walt Disney (she apparently threw one of her "Don't F-With Me, Fellas" speeches out). They didn't sponsor it once it got to permanent installation because by that time Crawford was being pushed off the board and highly marginalized, and it was seen as a reminder of her success (short story - they didn't to spite her).

I also think you kind of miss the point of IASW - like, the entire concept. You have to remember, this idea that there was a "small world", i.e. an increasingly "global" community was a very new, if not revolutionary concept at the time. Like, cutting edge. The statement the ride made reverberated quite widely. It may seem quite obvious today, but in the era it was created it was quite a remarkable statement. Today, in addition to it's historical significance, it's also quite well known/respected for it's "pop art" cred.

IASW is quintessentially Disney.

 

[FrankLapidus]

I also think you kind of miss the point of IASW - like, the entire concept. You have to remember, this idea that there was a "small world", i.e. an increasingly "global" community was a very new, if not revolutionary concept at the time. Like, cutting edge. The statement the ride made reverberated quite widely. It may seem quite obvious today, but in the era it was created it was quite a remarkable statement. Today, in addition to it's historical significance, it's also quite well known/respected for it's "pop art" cred.

IASW is quintessentially Disney.

I agree completely but then I think those who reduce people who like the attraction to having "doll fetishes" don't really have that strong an argument to begin with.

 

[NoChesterHester]

Exactly nothing can really top the Star Wars brand, not even i think adding a star trek land would do.

Good post, but I must object to this line.

From a mass market popularity standpoint Star Trek isn't on the same planet as Star Wars.

Adjusted for inflation the 11 Star Trek films have grossed $1.5 billion. That is a lot of coin and it has longevity, but the six Star Wars films have grossed $4.3 billion. In merchandise sales it is even more lop sided.

There is something about the fantasy aspect of Star Wars that resonates with the general public that little else does.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

I think it really comes down to, if Disney only has Disney-animation based IP in their parks, it inherently limits the audience. That's why Disney was reaching out for things like Lucasfilm attractions even back in the 1980's.

Sure, but Disney has a world to work with. Disney's finest theme park environments and experiences are not based on the Disney animated canon, never mind other acquired IP. But rather on New Orleans, classic Americana, futurism, space age, pirates, haunted houses.

With the possible exception of DCA 2.0, every park's greatest environment and greatest ride is not based on movie IP. That is for the others, the parks who lacked the tradition, innate sentiment, and know-how to Disneyfy existing worlds of the public imagination, and therefore had to rely on movies (or books, or now video games) doing that work for them.