Wait a minute
1. Disney-MGM Studios still only a half day park.
2. Animal Kingdom whole park can be done in about 3/4 of a day.
5. 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea Removal (Should never have been removed, this was a classic Disney movie and ride, thats all I have to say)
6. Downtown Disney (these items to me are not Disney, they don't need to be on property, thanks Eisner you idiot)
7. Epcot - World Showcase . . .Needs RIDES!!!!.
Well those are the areas that I see are Failures, those are just my opinions and you may not agree with them, so let me know what you think.
Have any of you ever picked up one of the old travel videos from the early 90's. We found one at our local library, and you might be amazed at how lame some of the featured attractions were, as well as the fact that they actually advertised half a dozen off-site hotels. Eisner is largely responsible for making the World an entire vacation destination for thousands more people by adding the resorts, 2 more parks, water parks and Downtown Disney. What have the rest of us done by comparison?
I must respond to the above points:
1. For us who stay at the EPCOT resorts and love Star Wars, Studios is a park that we come back to for parts of multiple days.
2. Were any of the parks in a "final" form when they first opened? The opening of Disneyland itself was an unworking fiasco on its first day. Parks open, and then additional attractions make it special. Animal Kingdom is still in its initial evolving stage, and Studios is in a period of transition. How many full day parks exist in this world anyway? Other than Disneyland, Magic Kingdom, and EPCOT, do entire 12 hour day parks exist anywhere else under your definitions?
5. As I understand it, 20,000 leagues was broken down more than it worked. I'd love to ride it, but they could not make it work, especially work safely. Having a broken down attraction is demoralizing; it had to be replaced. They could not make it work safely.
6. Downtown Disney was built, in part, to be a destination for locals and adults. It works at that level, and franchising had to be used to make it sizeable enough to attract visitors. It would have been cost prohibitive (and too risky) to make the entire place uniquely Disney. If it would have been required to be entirely unique, it never would have been built because it would have been cost prohibitive.
7. Yes, World Showcase could use more rides and more countries. Who will pay for it? Will the countries pay for it? Will Disney break with custom and pay for it? You see, the countries themselves pay for the infrastructure, including any potential rides. Should Disney order another country to pony up millions of dollars to pay for it, or will that country then simply pull out? Also, will just some countries be singled out to pay, while others sit back and reap the reward? Do you have a viable, intelligent answer to these questions, or do you simply close your eyes and say, "Make it better . . . for me?"
Overall, the blame game gets a person nowhere in life. It is fiscally naive to want more without having a clue about how to pay for it. Take a college class in finance and marketing, and you will see that Eisner accomplished incredible things, including: (1) Kept Disney from a hostile corporate takeover; (2) Expanded the on-site lodging in great and unique ways; (3) Added 2 theme parks at DWD; (4) Added numerous parks around the world; and (5) Made Disney the type of financial powerhouse that can spend millions every year on improvements when it would be far safer to sit back and watch the money role in.
Who would have done better? A dreamer would have lost the company in a buyout. A "cost is no object" imagineer would have bankrupted the company or made it unaffordable for the masses. A strict bean counter would not have refurbished old buildings, and would rarely have spent millions on new attractions when the old attractions kept bringing the money in. Eisner juggled all of this, and it has been amazingly successful. Few people have done nearly as much.
Yes, some ideas did not work out, but you can't always hit home runs or score a touchdown. Give it a try if it doesn't bankrupt you, and maybe it will be the best thing that ever happened. I am sure Disney history is full of modest ventures that cost little and didn't expect to be great, but ended up being extremely popular. The Dumbo and Peter Pan rides are 2 examples of low-tech attractions that have been mainstays for decades. For every Disney so-called "failure", you will probably find a low cost success.
Therefore, quit blaming unless you are smart enough to sweat the details, including the financial details, to make your wishes come true. Maybe you could, but I doubt it. Few people have the expertise to keep a company out of bankruptcy, and fewer still to make it grow while staying financially viable. Disney is great because it does this, and makes it magical to boot. No other company can do this; and Eisner, although certainly not perfect, did it. None of us would have done nearly as well. Certainly not "you idiot" as you refer to him.
