Disney ( World ) vs. Disney ( Land )? - Jim Hills Thoughts

[ParentsOf4]

I was not refering to you specifically. I just was warning you and others not to fall for the lies around here. And I am sorry, I don't remeber the 70's. I am told it was fun though.

Except for the gas prices & lines, the 70s were a lot of fun. I still might have my John Denver 8-track to prove it. And WDW was the most magical place in the world in the 1970s, and 1980s, and 1990s.

 

[jt04]

Except for the gas prices & lines, the 70s were a lot of fun. And WDW was the most magical place in the world in the 1970s, and 1980s, and 1990s.

John Lasseter has your back. Fear not.

 

[ParentsOf4]

John Lasseter has your back. Fear not.

I hope you're right but his attention has been on DLR lately. It still doesn't make up for WDW's "lost decade". Just hoping somebody, anybody in Disney management is willing to stand up and get WDW back on track. I'm growing tired of a stream of petty cuts so bonuses can be fattened.

 

[Hakunamatata]

I find it interesting that there are those that accuse Disney management of being inept to the point they cant run the parks, but also make calculated decisions that line their pockets with unearned inflated bonuses. Seems a bit odd.

 

[jt04]

I hope you're right but his attention has been on DLR lately. It still doesn't make up for WDW's "lost decade". Just hoping somebody, anybody in Disney management is willing to stand up and get WDW back on track. I'm growing tired of a stream of petty cuts so bonuses can be fattened.

If only the situation were this simplistic it would have been fixed long ago. Obviously TWDC has to deal with very complex issues, from government over-regulation to a stagnatting economy to increased global competition and on and on. That they have accomplished what they have is nearly epic.

And the last few chapters of Iger's reign have yet to be written. It will have a happy ending. If Walt were alive he might turn it into a new attraction. Heh.

 

[DisneyFan 2000]

I find it interesting that there are those that accuse Disney management of being inept to the point they cant run the parks, but also make calculated decisions that line their pockets with unearned inflated bonuses. Seems a bit odd.

Unfortunately, the two characteristics mentioned don't contradict (for short term gains). If they did we'd have much better value parks.

 

[ParentsOf4]

I find it interesting that there are those that accuse Disney management of being inept to the point they cant run the parks, but also make calculated decisions that line their pockets with unearned inflated bonuses. Seems a bit odd.

Are you familiar with the histories of many Fortune 500 companies? Being an executive at one, having friends who are executives at others, and having worked at them my entire life, I've seen first-hand how CEOs can run a company into the ground while lining their pockets with multi-million dollar bonuses. (There's a reason why the phrase "golden parachute" was created.) These companies have declined exactly because the only thing these CEOs (and their corporate cronies) cared about was the size of their annual bonuses. They manipulated the company's short-term performance for personal financial gain and then left a mess for someone else to clean-up.

 

[Hakunamatata]

Are you familiar with the histories of many Fortune 500 companies? Being an executive at one, having friends who are executives at others, and having worked at them my entire life, I've seen first-hand how CEOs can run a company into the ground while lining their pockets with multi-million dollar bonuses. (There's a reason why the phrase "golden parachute" was created.) These companies have declined exactly because the only thing these CEOs (and their corporate cronies) cared about was the size of their annual bonuses. They manipulated the company's short-term performance for personal financial gain and then left a mess for someone else to clean-up.

Ok. Thats different than being inept or being an idiot (by definition). So if people are going to accuse Disney management of being greedy to the extent they are making illegal or unethical decisions for monetary gain (i.e. Bernie Madoff) why in the world would people continue to contribute to that by going to the place?

 

[BrightImagine]

This makes me very sad. I was a dedicated reader of JHM long ago... I think around the time of the first demise of 2D, and Save Disney, and even before that. I used to love his animation columns. This article, though, is just insulting and offensive. To talk down to people by explaining that money goes farther at Disneyland because it is smaller... and to insinuate that anyone who is troubled by conditions at WDW is just a complainer who should be ignored... Guh.

I will tell you, I am DVC and D23 and what every bit of what one would dirisively call a pixie duster, and even I can see that something is wrong. The reduced monorail and EMH... the shuttered and unused areas of MK and DHS... and Future World. Oh boy, Future World. When I was young, I used to think that one could spend hours in each pavilion on its own, and I would almost despair that there was no way I could ever see it all. Now it's just a shadow and a wistful memory of its former self... but I digress. My point is that there is plenty of room for improvement at WDW. Plenty!

Maybe Walt's "blessing of size" is turning out to be a curse, in that it's hard to develop a timetable where every component of WDW will get the attention it deserves. It can never be polished to the brilliance of the little jewel that is Disneyland. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't try. Sure, if you pour buckets of money into DL and WDW, it will go farther at DL. But WDW is bringing in many more buckets to begin with.

Maybe some of what Jim said about 74 is right. He does get insulting. I felt like leaving this site because he was picking on my favorite blog, one of the best writers around. But I can also tell that he and that blogger have something in common... they love WDW, they look fondly upon its history, and they both want WDW to have the respectful treatment it deserves.

I'm usually one to read rather than post, and I think I've gone on longer than ever here... but Jim's article made me upset. And I used to hold him in very high respect.

 

[marni1971]

At that time they were not building massive and expensive cruise ships, billion dollar DVC resorts (Hawaii) and theme parks in far off locations (China) while spending literally billions on their domestic parks (DCA 2.0, AoA, FLE, Pandora, GFR and all the other stuff JHM mentioned).

~~

And charging through the nose for it.

Changes are coming to WDW. Full scale damage limitation and attempts at recovery is now in operation. With some surprising results.

And no, I don't mean AvLand.

 

[asianway]

There are two types of bloggers: those who get "stuff" from TWDC and those that don't. Stuff may range from a free dinner to lavish media events to all expenses paid vacations.

Those that get this "stuff" tend to be more positive - both hands wash the other as it were.

Those that don't tend to be more critical - sour grapes perhaps?

The bottom line is every one of us needs to compare their statements to our own personal experiences to cut through any spin.

 

[KevinYee]

As someone who gets no stuff from Disney, I can speak to my personal battle to stay even-keeled (or what I hope comes across as even-keeled).

Does envy creep into the equation when I see bloggers, podcasters, and others with far less experience than me reporting on Disney get press access, interview opportunities, ability to take photos on rides? Is there envy when I see them sail away on the newest Disney Cruise Line ship or stay for 3-4 nights in a Disney hotel, all expenses paid?

I'd be lying (and not human) if I said the thought didn't flit across my consciousness. I've been at this citizen-journalist thing since 1999 and have a substantial readership, but Disney doesn't invite me to such events. Is it because I'm honest? Or because I'm critical, sometimes bitingly so? I ask myself this sometimes. Often it provides reassurance. Maybe it's a GOOD thing that I don't get invited--it would probably muzzle my honesty, and I prefer to be honest.

Does not being invited make me more bitter, more cynical, more critical? It's hard to answer that with complete objectivity because, well, I'm me. And who can be fully objective about oneself? That said, I do recognize the danger of this occurring and so I fight as hard as I can against it. This is one reason I'm saying all of this in public via this very post. I want others to help "keep me honest." It's why I always try to be on the discussion boards or social media where I can get feedback.

And even internally, I fight to keep myself from turning bitter or critical. I try to point out positive things too as a result. Good old Spirit hammers on me sometimes that I'm artificially making WDW sound more balanced than it really is, and I could do more good by turning more negative. Well, maybe. But turning negative would make me look like a crusty outsider with no media access.

So yes, while the envy does flit across my consciousness, I do my best to flick it away as quickly as I can. That gets easier when I remember that most press events occur midweek during the day, and I have a day job that has nothing to do with the Disney universe. That's where my priority lays (after my family, friends, and other personal life).

Does it make me unnaturally critical? I suppose it might from time to time. But I hope you'll tell me whenever that happens, so I can right the ship again.

 

[wannab@dis]

But I hope you'll tell me whenever that happens, so I can right the ship again.

You'd probably be better off not listening to several in this thread. They wouldn't know an objective thought if it smacked them in the face. Their bias is obvious.

 

[LudwigVonDrake]

And charging through the nose for it.

Changes are coming to WDW. Full scale damage limitation and attempts at recovery is now in operation. With some surprising results.

And no, I don't mean AvLand.

Printed napkins are coming back?

How long, do YOU think, before we start seeing these changes or at least being aware of it?

Thank you.

 

[GrumpyFan]

There are two types of bloggers: those who get "stuff" from TWDC and those that don't. Stuff may range from a free dinner to lavish media events to all expenses paid vacations.

Those that get this "stuff" tend to be more positive - both hands wash the other as it were.

"Stuff" can also mean a friendly and open cooperation with regards to news an information. If you're a naysayer who is always critical of everything they do, then they might just blacklist you and not give you any news, information and interviews of goings on. So, it's kind of a fine line that one has to walk to not be overly critical, but also maintain your integrity and report the facts. Call it selling out if you want, but it's just how things work and if you want to be in the loop, you gotta play the game.

 

[GrumpyFan]

He is right though about the general "atmosphere" here. It's too bad really, because there are too many on here that can't have an adult discussion without it turning to personal insults and just plain ugliness.

 

[nor'easter]

You do know that Al is even more blacklisted than me, right? He gets his scoop from non-official sources.

Who cares where he gets it? It's generally accurate and well respected.

 

[muteki]

"Stuff" can also mean a friendly and open cooperation with regards to news an information. If you're a naysayer who is always critical of everything they do, then they might just blacklist you and not give you any news, information and interviews of goings on. So, it's kind of a fine line that one has to walk to not be overly critical, but also maintain your integrity and report the facts. Call it selling out if you want, but it's just how things work and if you want to be in the loop, you gotta play the game.

This is what separates a journalist from a PR rep, IMO. If you report on what you hear, good or bad, official or not, you are the former. If you only rely on official means, then you are the latter.

 

[spacemt354]

If you want to talk about it, please join our MAGICal community, there's room for one more.

Yup, there certainly is room for one more. In fact, he can take my place, because I've had enough of reading threads in these forums that just turn into bitter, angry, and insulting arguments rather than informative debates.

As a Disney fan, I truly appreciate the insight that you give. I've learned a lot since I joined a few months ago. While I'm not going to stoop to your level of condescension and tell you how to live your life (as you have done to me in the past for some of my posts), I don't understand why you have to resort to coarse language, name-calling, and incessant posts of arrogance that cloud the great information that you give. Debates that evolve into (or even begin as) arguments on your part calling posters out as trolls or other nonsensical terms like Pixie-dusters if they don't agree with your views is very childish.

Unfortunatley, you are not the only one on the forums that does this. But compared to others, you seem to be the most vocal, while offering the most credible inside information, which is why I'm confused as to why you waste your time insulting disney social media reps with condescening nicknames like "Blondie." Does it make you feel good to do things like that, or is it just an ego thing?

Again, although I'm grateful as a fan that you share your inside info, maybe I need to take a break from this site. I don't mean this to call you out or tell you what to do. And I don't know why this thread out of all of them was the tipping point for me, but it was. I love talking about WDW in debate form. The good and the bad. What I like and don't like. But there are too many threads that turn nasty and make it frustrating to shuffle through all the insults in order to find posts that are actually on topic and use mature rhetoric.

That's all I have to say.

 

[ChrisM]

This is a curious thread.

While I generally agree with 74 about many things, his attitude has always struck me as bizarre. Egomaniacal narcissism and a burning need to smite those he believes are in the compromising thrall of Disney's media control? It makes for an ugly scene.

The vast majority of us come here for tidbits of news and rumors and it doesn't take very long purusing these fora to puzzle out who generally has good information and who does not. Every so often an unknown, or previously dismissed, personality sweeps in with a choice morsel. In the end, it's all entertainment, especially the obviously fake or flat out wrong. And so it goes.

So what purpose, really, does it serve to be such a giant dong to someone else, as evidenced by 74's apoplectic rant against Jim Hill? In the faux currency of news and rumor-mongering, did his little article really do so much damage that it demanded the outright nastiness of 74's riposte?

Frankly, I'm not sure what was worse: 74's post or the dozens of "likes". The reactionary ugliness followed by attendant sycophancy does more harm to the board then anything Hill penned, regardless of whatever nefarious or self-serving motivations anyone believes him to have harbored.