News Contemporary Refurbishment--April to Sept 2021

[zapple]

I assume that with Steakhouse in the name it’s going to be a signature restaurant. That’s disappointing because the Wave was our favorite restaurant on the monorail loop. The other one credit options just don’t do it for me, never had a good meal and Kona and the GF cafe is just ok. It was nice having a good restaurant near BLT (our favorite MK resort) that didn’t cost a fortune.

 

[peter11435]

I assume that with Steakhouse in the name it’s going to be a signature restaurant. That’s disappointing because the Wave was our favorite restaurant on the monorail loop. The other one credit options just don’t do it for me, never had a good meal and Kona and the GF cafe is just ok. It was nice having a good restaurant near BLT (our favorite MK resort) that didn’t cost a fortune.

Granted it was a long time ago but I don’t believe concourse steakhouse was ever signature

 

[WannaGoNow]

For all the issues of the Eisner era, at least they were for the most part creative. I think the original theme of DCA would have worked if given the proper budget and time. Instead of "why would you theme a park to California, located in California?", it could have been "this park is a love letter to California in a way that only Disney could pull off". Yeah, a lot of serious mistakes were made, but this bland and insulting corporatism of Iger and Chapek is far worse.

Nostalgia makes for rose-colored, opaque glasses!

Disney’s Dirt Cheap Attractions was Eisner through and through. To the point that he personally signed off on the Mickey and Friends parking structure with only ONE exit area to the parks aside from fire escape stairs (and that monstrosity is ENORMOUS) and he also, in all his shortsightedness, forgot that people would be traveling north from San Diego as well as south from Los Angeles and didn’t include easy freeway access for north bound traffic. He’s the one who insisted kids really wanted to see farms and factories while at a theme park, and he‘s the one who insisted that Disneyland’s mostly local clientele really, really wanted to pay Disney prices to be reminded they have fabulous vacation spots within easy travel distance so why not visit the real thing instead of DCA‘S faux appropriations? He put choke collars on Imagineering and insisted they buy off the rack attractions. And talk about not understanding Walt Disney’s vision: Eisner put carnival games in DCA! Sure, it could have been an amazing park from the start, but who decided NOT to give DCA the proper budget and time?

Eisner hired Paul Pressler, who oversaw one of the most dismal eras in Disneyland’s history ever. Bland and insulting corporatism doesn’t begin to describe how bad it was. Pressler and Cynthia Harris turned Main Street USA into a literal suburban mall, with tacky merchandise carts clogging the crowd flow. WDW had better management during this time period. But ask anyone for whom Disneyland is their home park if they have fond memories of the Eisner era and you’ll receive very loud laughter.

I’m not terribly exited about the Contemporary re-theming. I actually liked the previous rooms, square sinks and all, and we’re rethinking our upcoming January stay. But DCA was a ghost town for the first years of its existence not only because it was painfully full of Dirt Cheap Attractions, but because it lacked characters and anything Disney-IP related. Now, with the addition of Radiator Springs and a hefty injection of characters, it’s almost if not just as crowded as the original Disneyland - and that’s with visitors who are predominately local and visit frequently.

If Disney takes anything seriously, It’s number crunching, market research and business modeling. I’m positive they’ve done the analysis on the uplift in guest satisfaction (which translates into dollars spent) that would come from adding more character touches to their properties and this is the result. It’s not my style, but I can see kids really getting into immersive touches like the drawer and closet interiors.

 

[Poseidon Quest]

Nostalgia makes for rose-colored, opaque glasses!

Disney’s Dirt Cheap Attractions was Eisner through and through. To the point that he personally signed off on the Mickey and Friends parking structure with only ONE exit area to the parks aside from fire escape stairs (and that monstrosity is ENORMOUS) and he also, in all his shortsightedness, forgot that people would be traveling north from San Diego as well as south from Los Angeles and didn’t include easy freeway access for north bound traffic. He’s the one who insisted kids really wanted to see farms and factories while at a theme park, and he‘s the one who insisted that Disneyland’s mostly local clientele really, really wanted to pay Disney prices to be reminded they have fabulous vacation spots within easy travel distance so why not visit the real thing instead of DCA‘S faux appropriations? He put choke collars on Imagineering and insisted they buy off the rack attractions. And talk about not understanding Walt Disney’s vision: Eisner put carnival games in DCA! Sure, it could have been an amazing park from the start, but who decided NOT to give DCA the proper budget and time?

Eisner hired Paul Pressler, who oversaw one of the most dismal eras in Disneyland’s history ever. Bland and insulting corporatism doesn’t being to describe how bad it was. Pressler and Cynthia Harris turned Main Street USA into a literal suburban mall, with tacky merchandise carts clogging the crowd flow. WDW had better management during this time period. But ask anyone for whom Disneyland is their home park if they have fond memories of the Eisner era and you’ll receive very loud laughter.

I’m not terribly exited about the Contemporary re-theming. I actually liked the previous rooms, square sinks and all, and we’re rethinking our upcoming January stay. But DCA was a ghost town for the first years of its existence not only because it was painfully full of Dirt Cheap Attractions, but because it lacked characters and anything Disney-IP related. Now, with the addition of Radiator Springs and a hefty injection of characters, it’s almost if not just as crowded as the original Disneyland - and that’s with visitors who are predominately local and visit frequently.

If Disney takes anything seriously, It’s number crunching, market research and business modeling. I’m positive they’ve done the analysis on the uplift in guest satisfaction (which translates into dollars spent) that would come from adding more character touches to their properties and this is the result. It’s not my style, but I can see kids really getting into immersive touches like the drawer and closet interiors.

I've very clearly pointed out that DCA was a mistake, I know what it is. Why wouldn't kids want elements of edutainment though? Living with the Land is a testament that farming can constitute an interesting attraction, and I'm sure with the right budget and creativity, there could have been a classic attraction at DCA as well. I've also made my point that given the right budget, the California theme could have worked if the attractions and theming were great. I also understand the reservation against cheap, off-the-shelf attractions, and yet we're still getting that today. Ever been to a Toy Story Land or 4? Doesn't Cars Land have cheap flat rides? Was Paradise Pier made better by giving everything a cheap and tacky overlay? W.E.B. Slingers is quite literally a Legoland attraction.

For all the issues of the Eisner era, which I will readily acknowledge, there was at least a lot of creativity flowing around. In contrast, Iger/Chapek have very little redeeming about them. Shoving characters into people's faces doesn't assist with guest satisfaction when trash cans are overflowing and the company is consistently producing filler for attractions. Right now the company is riding off of a reputation that is slowly eroding.

 

[WannaGoNow]

I've very clearly pointed out that DCA was a mistake, I know what it is. Why wouldn't kids want elements of edutainment though? Living with the Land is a testament that farming can constitute an interesting attraction, and I'm sure with the right budget and creativity, there could have been a classic attraction at DCA as well. I've also made my point that given the right budget, the California theme could have worked if the attractions and theming were great. I also understand the reservation against cheap, off-the-shelf attractions, and yet we're still getting that today. Ever been to a Toy Story Land or 4? Doesn't Cars Land have cheap flat rides? Was Paradise Pier made better by giving everything a cheap and tacky overlay? W.E.B. Slingers is quite literally a Legoland attraction.

For all the issues of the Eisner era, which I will readily acknowledge, there was at least a lot of creativity flowing around. In contrast, Iger/Chapek have very little redeeming about them. Shoving characters into people's faces doesn't assist with guest satisfaction when trash cans are overflowing and the company is consistently producing filler for attractions. Right now the company is riding off of a reputation that is slowly eroding.

Californians don’t need a theme park to remind us we would be better off spending our time and our dollars at an actual mountain or river or beach or city. We can be much more immersed in California’s unique beauty and/or history by visiting a national or state park. We can’t be immersed in Disney IP at a national or state park. And Disneyland is 80% local visitors.

Let’s not forget Euro Disney was a financial failure under Eisner’s leadership as well. It’s a gorgeous park, but the strategic vision wasn’t there.

Living with the Land is far from Epcot‘s headliner. As for proof that kids (and their parents) aren’t really into staring at growing vegetables or walking through a tortilla factory while at a theme park instead of on a school field trip (although I do miss the free tortilla - that was value for money): do they still exist at DCA or have they long been torn down?

I’m not exactly sure what the argument is. Eisner was a visionary but DCA was a mistake? Eisner was more creative but rides during his era were overwhelmingly off the rack re-skinned attractions? Those are contradictory. My point is that Eisner was neither a creative genius nor an extraordinary visionary, certainly no more than Iger (IMO, it’s far too soon to write an epitaph for Chapek, who really hasn’t been on his own yet). And I remember how demoralized and dispirited corporate cast members were toward the end of the Eisner era, with Roy E. Disney and Stanley Gold actively agitating to throw him out, while there was genuine sadness when Iger announced his retirement.

I won’t quibble that local park management makes a huge difference in things like custodial services and overall maintenance. During the Pressler era, Disneyland locals were highly jealous of WDW’s sparkling appearance compared to paint peeling off the attractions at our parks. Now, people seem to think Disneyland is the better maintained resort. But that’s local management, not high up corporate.

And to bring it back onto topic: I would think people choose to stay at the Contemporary for, in order: easy access to the Magic Kingdom; easy-ish access to Epcot via monorail to the TTC; theme park and firework views; the cool factor of staying in one of the original hotels and the only one with its own internal monorail station. And people for whom easy access to the Magic Kingdom is a high priority probably tend to be parents instead of singles or childless groups. Which probably means they spend their money on a Walt Disney World vacation because they want their kids to have the most magical experience possible, which yes, includes characters being shoved in their faces (it’s well-documented within the Parks and Resorts division that guest satisfaction goes up in proportion to access to characters).

So again: the Contemporary refresh is not my style, and we might switch to another resort for our upcoming stay. But we don’t have children who would be delighted by opening a drawer or closet and finding hidden Incredibles theming.

 

[UNCgolf]

Californians don’t need a theme park to remind us we would be better off spending our time and our dollars at an actual mountain or river or beach or city. We can be much more immersed in California’s unique beauty and/or history by visiting a national or state park. We can’t be immersed in Disney IP at a national or state park. And Disneyland is 80% local visitors.

Let’s not forget Euro Disney was a financial failure under Eisner’s leadership as well. It’s a gorgeous park, but the strategic vision wasn’t there.

Living with the Land is far from Epcot‘s headliner. As for proof that kids (and their parents) aren’t really into staring at growing vegetables or walking through a tortilla factory while at a theme park instead of on a school field trip (although I do miss the free tortilla - that was value for money): do they still exist at DCA or have they long been torn down?

I’m not exactly sure what the argument is. Eisner was a visionary but DCA was a mistake? Eisner was more creative but rides during his era were overwhelmingly off the rack re-skinned attractions? Those are contradictory. My point is that Eisner was neither a creative genius nor an extraordinary visionary, certainly no more than Iger (IMO, it’s far too soon to write an epitaph for Chapek, who really hasn’t been on his own yet). And I remember how demoralized and dispirited corporate cast members were toward the end of the Eisner era, with Roy E. Disney and Stanley Gold actively agitating to throw him out, while there was genuine sadness when Iger announced his retirement.

I won’t quibble that local park management makes a huge difference in things like custodial services and overall maintenance. During the Pressler era, Disneyland locals were highly jealous of WDW’s sparkling appearance compared to paint peeling off the attractions at our parks. Now, people seem to think Disneyland is the better maintained resort. But that’s local management, not high up corporate.

And to bring it back onto topic: I would think people choose to stay at the Contemporary for, in order: easy access to the Magic Kingdom; easy-ish access to Epcot via monorail to the TTC; theme park and firework views; the cool factor of staying in one of the original hotels and the only one with its own internal monorail station. And people for whom easy access to the Magic Kingdom is a high priority probably tend to be parents instead of singles or childless groups. Which probably means they spend their money on a Walt Disney World vacation because they want their kids to have the most magical experience possible, which yes, includes characters being shoved in their faces (it’s well-documented within the Parks and Resorts division that guest satisfaction goes up in proportion to access to characters).

So again: the Contemporary refresh is not my style, and we might switch to another resort for our upcoming stay. But we don’t have children who would be delighted by opening a drawer or closet and finding hidden Incredibles theming.

Eisner was far from perfect, but you're fooling yourself if you think the creativity on display during his years as CEO didn't vastly outstrip anything on Iger's watch.

 

[WannaGoNow]

Eisner was far from perfect, but you're fooling yourself if you think the creativity on display during his years as CEO hasn't vastly outstripped anything Iger has done.

That depends on one's definition of creativity. You may think a vegetable garden in a space-crunched theme park such as Dirt Cheap Attractions is the height of creative genius, and who am I to quibble with your individual opinion?

I do notice there are no examples listed, however.

 

[FigmentFan82]

when can we expect the BatB rooms to show up at the Flo?

 

[UNCgolf]

That depends on one's definition of creativity. You may think a vegetable garden in a space-crunched theme park such as Dirt Cheap Attractions is the height of creative genius, and who am I to quibble with your individual opinion?

I do notice there are no examples listed, however.

Animal Kingdom, Disney-MGM Studios, and Disneyland Paris.

There's no chance Animal Kingdom would have ever been built if Iger was in charge, and it's one of the best parks in the world. They also built a huge number of hotels at WDW that were actually themed, unlike what's been done to them during Iger's tenure.

There's basically a line of demarcation for Eisner's tenure -- the early part was incredibly good and the later years were not. However, Iger's tenure was mostly just a continuation of Eisner's later years (Iger was part of that management team), so I'm not sure how anyone who disliked Eisner overall could really like Iger.

That's not to say Iger has been all bad or anything, but early-era Eisner had a much larger positive impact on the theme parks than Iger ever had.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Granted it was a long time ago but I don’t believe concourse steakhouse was ever signature

It was just a regular, 1 credit restaurant.

 

[Poseidon Quest]

Californians don’t need a theme park to remind us we would be better off spending our time and our dollars at an actual mountain or river or beach or city. We can be much more immersed in California’s unique beauty and/or history by visiting a national or state park. We can’t be immersed in Disney IP at a national or state park. And Disneyland is 80% local visitors.

Let’s not forget Euro Disney was a financial failure under Eisner’s leadership as well. It’s a gorgeous park, but the strategic vision wasn’t there.

Living with the Land is far from Epcot‘s headliner. As for proof that kids (and their parents) aren’t really into staring at growing vegetables or walking through a tortilla factory while at a theme park instead of on a school field trip (although I do miss the free tortilla - that was value for money): do they still exist at DCA or have they long been torn down?

I’m not exactly sure what the argument is. Eisner was a visionary but DCA was a mistake? Eisner was more creative but rides during his era were overwhelmingly off the rack re-skinned attractions? Those are contradictory. My point is that Eisner was neither a creative genius nor an extraordinary visionary, certainly no more than Iger (IMO, it’s far too soon to write an epitaph for Chapek, who really hasn’t been on his own yet). And I remember how demoralized and dispirited corporate cast members were toward the end of the Eisner era, with Roy E. Disney and Stanley Gold actively agitating to throw him out, while there was genuine sadness when Iger announced his retirement.

I won’t quibble that local park management makes a huge difference in things like custodial services and overall maintenance. During the Pressler era, Disneyland locals were highly jealous of WDW’s sparkling appearance compared to paint peeling off the attractions at our parks. Now, people seem to think Disneyland is the better maintained resort. But that’s local management, not high up corporate.

And to bring it back onto topic: I would think people choose to stay at the Contemporary for, in order: easy access to the Magic Kingdom; easy-ish access to Epcot via monorail to the TTC; theme park and firework views; the cool factor of staying in one of the original hotels and the only one with its own internal monorail station. And people for whom easy access to the Magic Kingdom is a high priority probably tend to be parents instead of singles or childless groups. Which probably means they spend their money on a Walt Disney World vacation because they want their kids to have the most magical experience possible, which yes, includes characters being shoved in their faces (it’s well-documented within the Parks and Resorts division that guest satisfaction goes up in proportion to access to characters).

So again: the Contemporary refresh is not my style, and we might switch to another resort for our upcoming stay. But we don’t have children who would be delighted by opening a drawer or closet and finding hidden Incredibles theming.

Living with the Land obviously isn't a headliner, but it's a proof of concept that any topic can be interesting if you choose to make it so. I don't see why Bountiful Farm is any different. There was potential for a great dark ride in that idea.

The argument is that under Eisner's tenure, we did receive a lot of exceptional and creative parks/attractions/hotels. Yes, the financial debacle of Euro Disneyland did result in severe budget cuts and the cheapness of newer parks, but that doesn't mean that they lost their creative potential. I still think that the California theme could have worked exceptionally well if given Euro Disneyland budgets. We also saw a number of really unique and interesting attractions under Eisner. MGM Studios obviously was a rip-off of Universal, but it was still an interesting park that evolved really well with the addition of Sunset Blvd. Animal Kingdom despite its early problems is fantastic even if you take away Pandora, and Blizzard Beach and Typhoon Lagoon were the top water parks of the industry until Volcano Bay opened. Even if we take a look a look at off-the-shelf attractions like Primeval Whirl, at the very least it fits into the theme of the land and story. Runaway Railway on the other hand, is poorly shoehorned into the Chinese Theater, eliminating the thesis statement of Hollywood Studios in the process. The hotels too, were well themed, aiming for a diversity of creative ideas. In contrast, we now have bland corporate hotels. I'm still searching for the so-called "Riviera theming" of the Riviera Resort. I would have the same criticism of the Gran Destino Tower if it wasn't incorporated into the previous theming of Coronado. The Eisner era had quite a few prominent mistakes, but for each one I can point to an equally impressive positive addition.

I won't doubt that park management is a large part of park maintenance, but I find there to be an overall decline from the Eisner era. Disney parks were once known for their exceptional guest service and maintenance, but that's clearly no longer the case anymore. Even pre-pandemic, the parks appeared to be understaffed and poorly maintained.

I also don't understand the claim that throwing characters at people leads to better guest satisfaction. Is that something that Disney releases publicly? As far as I can tell, the new Contemporary rooms have not been received well at all. Perhaps the occasional suburbanite might like it, but online reaction is quite negative even outside this forum. The parks are moving in a direction where they're alienating core audiences. Half-baked attractions mostly aimed at kids isn't the path to success. What made Disney parks so great in the past was their appeal to the family demographic, in that they had offerings for everyone. Now though, when their two main target demographics are 6 year olds and Instagram "influencers"? Nah, these parks will start to lose their audience pretty quickly with the damage being done. We're not seeing it yet, but I predict attendance will continue to erode over the next few years.

 

[GimpYancIent]

The Contemporary refurb design team still has an opportunity to redeem themselves, the start was dismal can the finish be strong?

 

[trainplane3]

The Contemporary refurb design team still has an opportunity to redeem themselves, the start was dismal can the finish be strong?

I am curious how the lobby will turn out. While I mostly don't care for the rooms, I won't be staying there but I will walk around the hotel occasionally so having a interesting lobby would be nice.

 

[Ponderer]

I won't doubt that park management is a large part of park maintenance, but I find there to be an overall decline from the Eisner era. Disney parks were once known for their exceptional guest service and maintenance, but that's clearly no longer the case anymore. Even pre-pandemic, the parks appeared to be understaffed and poorly maintained.

The park landscape is also vastly different with far more competition for human resources. But I don’t know where this perception of poor service comes from. Our last trip, we had multiple moments of EXTRAORDINARY service and attention, which has clearly been baked in at a corporate training level.

Example: two years ago, we had a problem with our shower at the Wilderness Lodge. Within minutes, they had someone up to look at it, and a few minutes later, the manager knocked on our door to check in. She conferred with the maintenance guys then said, “This will take some time to fix. May I move you to a different room? We’ll be happy to move everything to your room, including anything in your fridge.” We said that would be fine, we were heading out to dinner. She asked where, we said Flying Fish. She immediately said, “It’s on us.” And then as soon as we got to Flying Fish, the host looked us up and was, “Hello! I understand you’ll be dining with our compliments tonight,” and made us feel like royalty. And when we got back to out new room (with a tremendous view of fireworks and the Contemporary monorail), we found it full of balloons and chocolates and mugs and photo frames. That level of response to what was a minor inconvenience stunned my wife, who was kind of a Disney Park skeptic.

I’m sure there’s some erosion here and there, but you don’t get this kind of thing without a massive strategic commitment to a gold standard of customer service.

I also don't understand the claim that throwing characters at people leads to better guest satisfaction. Is that something that Disney releases publicly? As far as I can tell, the new Contemporary rooms have not been received well at all. Perhaps the occasional suburbanite might like it, but online reaction is quite negative even outside this forum. The parks are moving in a direction where they're alienating core audiences. Half-baked attractions mostly aimed at kids isn't the path to success. What made Disney parks so great in the past was their appeal to the family demographic, in that they had offerings for everyone. Now though, when their two main target demographics are 6 year olds and Instagram "influencers"? Nah, these parks will start to lose their audience pretty quickly with the damage being done. We're not seeing it yet, but I predict attendance will continue to erode over the next few years.

Yes, people demand characters and IP. Almost one of the first things Eisner asked when he took over is where the characters were in Epcot, and almost immediately Mickey showed up there. Suddenly, Star Wars and Indiana Jones were in Disneyland. You got massive Roger Rabbit tie-ins. You got the Twilight Zone brand slapped on a ride that, while great, has absolutely nothing to do with what the Twilight Zone actually was. Hell, I know people love The Great Movie Ride, but let’s be honest, it was an easy way to lure people into the park by offering them glimpses of beloved IP properties - I mean, I rode it specifically because I wanted to see the Alien scene. Iger didn’t gut the cherished Imagination pavilion with a hacky tie-in to the Honey I Shrunk the Kid movies, Eisner did. It is what it is.

 

[jmp85]

Wonder what IP theme will be used to trash the GF, which seems to have been left relatively free from this abominable trend as of late (bar area notwithstanding)?

I don't know, but I can guarantee there will be cheap looking floors and white bed sheets.

 

[jmp85]

 

[WannaGoNow]

Animal Kingdom, Disney-MGM Studios, and Disneyland Paris.

There's no chance Animal Kingdom would have ever been built if Iger was in charge, and it's one of the best parks in the world. They also built a huge number of hotels at WDW that were actually themed, unlike what's been done to them during Iger's tenure.

There's basically a line of demarcation for Eisner's tenure -- the early part was incredibly good and the later years were not. However, Iger's tenure was mostly just a continuation of Eisner's later years (Iger was part of that management team), so I'm not sure how anyone who disliked Eisner overall could really like Iger.

That's not to say Iger has been all bad or anything, but early-era Eisner had a much larger positive impact on the theme parks than Iger ever had.

My point is that nostalgia is a powerful drug, and the Eisner era only looks good through heavily tinted backwards looking glasses. This isn't a sports competition. There isn't one winner and one loser. If Eisner is "bad," Iger can be "bad," too. It's not binary.

CEOs are not my friends, so it's not a matter of liking. But I can objectively look at the Eisner era and note that while he dug The Walt Disney Co. out of obscurity and ushered in a highly prosperous, productive, and classic-making era (mostly due to Frank Wells being his COO at the time and the death of Wells was a tragedy on many levels), he followed up his laurels with stink weed.

Animal Kingdom was under investigation for 31 animal deaths at opening.

Euro Disney almost sank the company (Disneyland Paris today is pretty much a wholly different company than the original Euro Disney). I will grant you Eisner did not pinch pennies, overspending to insure the park is absolutely gorgeous - but what good is a beautiful park if no one goes to it and the entire company becomes financially unstable?

Disney-MGM Studios was supposed to be a film and animation hub, leading to the building of expensive production facilities that never truly panned out.

DCA was a disaster. And it was all Eisner.

Walt Disney Studios Park in Paris was also not something to brag about.

And Disneyland - until Matt Ouimet was hired - was shabby and badly maintained, with mall carts everywhere.

The Iger era brought Shanghai Disney and Hong Kong Disneyland. They both underwent - and still are undergoing - growing pains, but neither were as devoid as DCA and Walt Disney Studios Park, nor the financial mess of Euro Disney.

As for the Contemporary re-theme, time will tell. I'm betting families with kids who go to WDW for a blowout vacation and want to be immersed in all things Disney will think it's fun.

 

[WannaGoNow]

Living with the Land obviously isn't a headliner, but it's a proof of concept that any topic can be interesting if you choose to make it so. I don't see why Bountiful Farm is any different. There was potential for a great dark ride in that idea.

The argument is that under Eisner's tenure, we did receive a lot of exceptional and creative parks/attractions/hotels. Yes, the financial debacle of Euro Disneyland did result in severe budget cuts and the cheapness of newer parks, but that doesn't mean that they lost their creative potential. I still think that the California theme could have worked exceptionally well if given Euro Disneyland budgets

California produces 13% of the US's food. School field trips exist.

Californians don't need to pay to see California icons in a theme park any more than Europeans need to pay to see European icons, like castles, in a theme park. But if the less than successful initial responses to DCA and Euro Disney don't convince you, not sure what else would

Euro Disney almost sunk the company, so it's a good thing those budgets weren't given to a park with little zero local appeal (again, locals make up 80% of Disneyland's guests). I mean, Hollywood is an hour away, with traffic, from Disneyland. Why am I paying Disney prices to see celebrity animatronics when I can go on a working studio tour at Warner Bros. or go to Universal Studios for less money and have thrill rides as well?

I won't doubt that park management is a large part of park maintenance, but I find there to be an overall decline from the Eisner era. Disney parks were once known for their exceptional guest service and maintenance, but that's clearly no longer the case anymore. Even pre-pandemic, the parks appeared to be understaffed and poorly maintained.

I'm assuming you're talking about WDW, and I haven't been since 2018 (although I didn't notice a perceptible drop off in maintenance or staff presence from earlier trips). So perhaps you're right. I'll see in several months.

But it's the opposite at Disneyland. Night and day. I'm not sure what websites we're allowed to mention here, but there was a DLR blogger in the 90s and early aughts who well documented just how shabby Disneyland during the Paul Pressler era. Tacky, too. The park is so much better maintained now, even though crowds also increased.

I also don't understand the claim that throwing characters at people leads to better guest satisfaction. Is that something that Disney releases publicly? As far as I can tell, the new Contemporary rooms have not been received well at all. Perhaps the occasional suburbanite might like it, but online reaction is quite negative even outside this forum. The parks are moving in a direction where they're alienating core audiences. Half-baked attractions mostly aimed at kids isn't the path to success. What made Disney parks so great in the past was their appeal to the family demographic, in that they had offerings for everyone. Now though, when their two main target demographics are 6 year olds and Instagram "influencers"? Nah, these parks will start to lose their audience pretty quickly with the damage being done. We're not seeing it yet, but I predict attendance will continue to erode over the next few years.

I would suggest that people who are invested enough in Disney theme parks to be on message boards and discuss the intricacies of Disney theme park news may not be Disney's primary core consumer. They know we'll continue to come back and spend the money. They have our dollars.

I would also suggest that one hotel re-theming does not mean they are ignoring other segments. The Riviera is a vastly different hotel, as is the Gran Destino Tower. The Wilderness Lodge is more subtle in its application of characters. The Yacht Club definitely went in the adult rather than the kid direction.

And if people stop coming, then Disney will increase discounts and add perks again.

 

[UNCgolf]

My point is that nostalgia is a powerful drug, and the Eisner era only looks good through heavily tinted backwards looking glasses. This isn't a sports competition. There isn't one winner and one loser. If Eisner is "bad," Iger can be "bad," too. It's not binary.

CEOs are not my friends, so it's not a matter of liking. But I can objectively look at the Eisner era and note that while he dug The Walt Disney Co. out of obscurity and ushered in a highly prosperous, productive, and classic-making era (mostly due to Frank Wells being his COO at the time and the death of Wells was a tragedy on many levels), he followed up his laurels with stink weed.

Animal Kingdom was under investigation for 31 animal deaths at opening.

Euro Disney almost sank the company (Disneyland Paris today is pretty much a wholly different company than the original Euro Disney). I will grant you Eisner did not pinch pennies, overspending to insure the park is absolutely gorgeous - but what good is a beautiful park if no one goes to it and the entire company becomes financially unstable?

Disney-MGM Studios was supposed to be a film and animation hub, leading to the building of expensive production facilities that never truly panned out.

DCA was a disaster. And it was all Eisner.

Walt Disney Studios Park in Paris was also not something to brag about.

And Disneyland - until Matt Ouimet was hired - was shabby and badly maintained, with mall carts everywhere.

The Iger era brought Shanghai Disney and Hong Kong Disneyland. They both underwent - and still are undergoing - growing pains, but neither were as devoid as DCA and Walt Disney Studios Park, nor the financial mess of Euro Disney.

As for the Contemporary re-theme, time will tell. I'm betting families with kids who go to WDW for a blowout vacation and want to be immersed in all things Disney will think it's fun.

I'm not sure what you're arguing.

I never said or implied that Eisner was a perfect CEO (I specifically said otherwise, actually). But just looking at what happened to the parks while they were in charge, I would take Eisner over Iger every time. Eisner had plenty of bad, but he also had plenty of good. Iger had some good too, but the overall balance was much worse than it was for Eisner, and Iger's tenure moved the parks and especially resorts much further towards standardization and homogenization and away from intricate theming.

Which I think was the original point anyways; there was a lot more creativity happening during Eisner's reign, even if not all of it worked. That also ties in to what you said about Euro Disney -- who cares if it was a financial failure when it was a creative success? I'm not arguing from a standpoint of which CEO made more money for Disney; I'm only arguing which one was in charge for more interesting resorts, attractions, etc. overall.

It's all personal opinion, though. There's nothing wrong with someone thinking Iger's tenure as CEO was much better for the parks than Eisner's.

 

[Ponderer]

I never said or implied that Eisner was a perfect CEO (I specifically said otherwise, actually). But just looking at what happened to the parks while they were in charge, I would take Eisner over Iger every time. Eisner had plenty of bad, but he also had plenty of good. Iger had some good too, but the overall balance was much worse than it was for Eisner, and Iger's tenure moved the parks and especially resorts much further towards standardization and homogenization and away from intricate theming.

it would also be fair to separate Eisner’s reign into the Frank Wells and post-Wells era. Eisner had the same advantage with Wells that Walt had with Roy Disney - a money guy who could allow him to dream big. Once he lost that, the scope became small, the efforts became cut-rate, and maintenance and upkeep across the parks self-destructed.

Iger, for all his faults, was the first Disney guy who managed to balance the long-term financial interests of the company - and keep in mind, it wasn’t about how much money Disney was making off the parks but whether Disney was even *going to exist as we know it* - and some wonderful achievements in the parks. He oversaw a decade where he absolutely revitalized Disneyland and salvaged the DCA debacle, not to mention Pandora and Galaxy’s Edge and a whole slew of new technologies. (And we won’t even mention the quality of life stuff like the ridiculous strides in theme park food quality under his reign, even in the food courts.) It’s an extraordinary achievement. Not perfect by any means, but also unprecedented in company history.