-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Disney(World) vs. Disney(land)?
- Thread starter WDW1974
- Start date
the.dreamfinder
Well-Known Member
Like a Porta Corsa/Cars 2 spies E Ticket? That would be a GOOD idea, but who in TDO accepts those?
CJR
Well-Known Member
This is a great point. The reason why this is probably being considered at all is because Cars Land is profitable. TDO cares about the bottom line. They need a good family ride at DHS and RSR is new and well received. Plus the food and merchandise offerings are what really is making them look at it. They have dollar signs in their eyes, and this will come cheap.
Should they (artistically, not financially)? No. Will they (financially)? Probably. TDO still loves to do things cheap, raise prices, and make money. Even with the massive amount spent on the FLE, they will probably make their money back quickly through admission, Be Our Guest/Gaston's Tavern, and merchandise. Something new and original would cost more, and that's all they will notice.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
Tomorrowland 1998 at Disneyland was the first big project done by Paul Pressler, with Cynthia Harriss backing him up. And it was terrible. A promoted Pressler followed it up in 2001 with DCA, with a promoted Cynthia backing him up again, and it was also terrible.
But the moral to the story is that both of those execs were wash-outs and within a few years had left on their own because they saw the writing on the wall (Pressler in '02), or left suddenly to "spend more time with family" (Harriss, single and childless in '03). And Disneyland began a dramatic 180 degree turnaround within months of Harriss leaving, and in '04 and '05 it became an entirely differenty type of place.
The same can happen at TDO. The key executive faces could all be changed within 60 days, and changes could show up in the parks within 6 months. I think WDW would need more time to make a Disneyland-style turnaround because of the size of the property and the scope of the problems at WDW, but a turnaround could happen and be noticeably changing things within a 6 to 12 month period. Within two or three years, it could even be to the point where almost all of the damage had been erased or at least overshadowed by good change.
It can happen at TDO, and relatively quickly. The question is.... when?
alissafalco
Well-Known Member
That would be nice, I hope you're right.
SirLink
Well-Known Member
Problem is who is the 'Matt Ouimet'-type that still works for/or could be brought in? Also far does the mentality of 'Lets fix today's problems tomorrow' as opposed to 'Lets fix tomorrow's problems today' go through WDW management?
spaceghost
Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure WDW management contributed to Stephen Colbert's Super-PAC ("Building a better tomorrow, tomorrow").
No, and I never said it was simply an entertainment issue ... but I hate, HATE, HATE it ... and I'm trying to recall which Hawaiian island it was that I pulled up on my cruise ship and on the hilltop saw a huge Lowe's and Walmart next to each other. It made me want to puke.
Homogenization is the antithesis of choice and certainly creativity goes out the window when everything must be copied.
I am NOT convinced RSRs will happen here, I just know many want it to.
I wish Lighbulb hadn't enrolled in the Disney Leakage Protection Program, though.
T-land '98 wasn't simply a Pressler problem, though. ... WDW actually hurt it bigtime. GM pulled its sponsorship money when Rocket Rods was already under construction due to the TT fiasco in Florida, and no one at WDI explained that those funds had to be made up.
It was also a fundamentally flawed concept that kept getting cheaper. Turning Mission to Mars into a fast food joint, while hiding another (Space Place) behind fake walls. Putting Innoventions into the Carousel Theater instead of a new AA show. ... Hell, not going through with the much more extravagant concept of T-land '2055.
It was a hugely flawed project from Glendale all the way up to Eisner's office (with a side trip to Detroit). It was destined for the fate that befell it.
But your whole point on CHANGE and how fast it can happen is dead on true!
doctornick
Well-Known Member
I don't really agree. One of the good things IMHO about a standalone RSR (without the rest of Carsland) is that you still get to visit the town of Radiator Springs without having to build the whole thing. So, a direct clone would grant that aspect of "going to Radiator Springs" in addition to being a great ride. It's a nice surrogate to being able to fully walk down Rt 66 and see the specific buildings of the movie -- not nearly as immersive, but at least giving fans of the movie something.
There's significantly less (if any) sentimental attachment to visiting Porta Corsa or anywhere else from Cars 2. Certainly, you could make a nice ride out of it, but I don't think it would be as interesting at all.
Now, what I do think you could and should do with a RSR in DHS is to modify the ride somewhat. The same way you have differences between other "cloned" rides between DL and WDW. Small things would be to change the layout of the road for the race to make it somewhat different (this might be necessary anyway based on the footprint being used). But focusing more on the dark ride portions, you could add more or different AAs. Some of the town's citizens have pretty small roles -- maybe a difference could be expanding interaction with Sarge or Fillmore or Red? Maybe instead of getting painted with Ramone, you get gas at Flo's? I don't recall Lizzy even being on the ride, maybe she can be there with some crazy sayings.
I think some minor changes like that would be nice to keep the ride "fresh" and different without costing a significant amount of R&D dollars. Just IMHO.
janoimagine
Well-Known Member
Agreed ... but unfortunately, I see no end in sight, because people have already made these choices with their wallets.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
I'd forgotten about the GM pull-out; that was a big piece of the problem, to be sure. But Pressler wasn't about to make up that money any other way.
Plus, it's just fun for us old-timers to be able to blame Pressler for something. And Cynthia too. I almost miss those kids. Almost.
asianway
Well-Known Member
In ten years, will we be able to do the same for Meg, Phil, and the rest of the Good Ole' Boys n Girls?I'd forgotten about the GM pull-out; that was a big piece of the problem, to be sure. But Pressler wasn't about to make up that money any other way.
Plus, it's just fun for us old-timers to be able to blame Pressler for something. And Cynthia too. I almost miss those kids. Almost.
Alektronic
Well-Known Member
I'd forgotten about the GM pull-out; that was a big piece of the problem, to be sure. But Pressler wasn't about to make up that money any other way.
Plus, it's just fun for us old-timers to be able to blame Pressler for something. And Cynthia too. I almost miss those kids. Almost.
Don't forget Pressler was responsible for Dino-Rama at DAK.
COProgressFan
Well-Known Member
Plus, it's just fun for us old-timers to be able to blame Pressler for something. And Cynthia too. I almost miss those kids. Almost.
Oh god I hope so....
tomman710
Well-Known Member
Here's an example that sums up the problem with TDO and how they are choosing to do business;
This is a personal story but really isn't meant to be about me but more about how they run things ... (I'll try and be as succinct as possible) ...
During college and for about five years after I tried to get a job in the marketing department at WDW. I sent at least a couple resumes every month for any job posting that I either met or exceeded the education AND experience requirements. In those roughly 7 years and (using rough math) somewhere between 160-200 job applications not once did I get a follow up question or call. Please do not misunderstand this to mean I think they should have hired me (this isn't a boo hoo me story) BUT I think that in all that time (and they have records of how much you apply) someone that displays an obvious passion for the product in addition to meeting or exceeding all the requirements deserves at least ONE conversation.
So what did I do? Well, about 6 years ago I crafted an email that basically said (in very short) that "I think it's extremely short sighted and dismissive to not even have one conversation with someone who has applied as much, has the passion, drive, determination in conjunction with the education and experience to boot. Furthermore, if this message had been sent to Walt he would have appreciated the straight talk and probably would have said, 'Hire him!'" Again I should state I do not think they should have hired me, that is not my complaint, my point is they never even talked to me. A conversation should have happened. Especially in the position I am now I see the value of hiring people who have obvious passion for the product. (Granted I know the majority of people who apply there have the passion despite the fact that TDO management seems to lack the passion but I digress). So I went on Hoovers and got all the email addresses of all the people I think should read this email ... Meg, Phillipe, etc ... and I sent it, again not to get hired but in an effort to enact positive change. Basically, "hey, your criteria is flawed and you are potentially missing out on great employees."
A week later I got a call from an executive recruiter who basically said and again paraphrasing, "Yes your passion is evident, yes you have more than enough education, and while we appreciate that you have worked for Fortune 100 and 500 companies you haven't worked for like Coke or Pepsi so we won't ever talk to you."
I, of course said that that doesn't make sense. I know you need to have some criteria to manage the probably 1,000s of applications but come on, Fortunate 100 and 500 companies should be part of the criteria. Especially, considering it takes very little to market Coke or Pepsi because they are already ingrained into our culture ... the recruiter said and again paraphrasing, "We aren't looking for people to be imaginative."
I believe my personal experience is a perfect example of TDO's problem as a whole, they aren't looking for imagination ... they aren't looking for creativity ... they aren't even looking in the right places ...
It's all about what's the easiest, cheapest, and quickest fix ... and the people running the show at TDO don't care.
Compare that with how John is at TDA ... very different.
This is a personal story but really isn't meant to be about me but more about how they run things ... (I'll try and be as succinct as possible) ...
During college and for about five years after I tried to get a job in the marketing department at WDW. I sent at least a couple resumes every month for any job posting that I either met or exceeded the education AND experience requirements. In those roughly 7 years and (using rough math) somewhere between 160-200 job applications not once did I get a follow up question or call. Please do not misunderstand this to mean I think they should have hired me (this isn't a boo hoo me story) BUT I think that in all that time (and they have records of how much you apply) someone that displays an obvious passion for the product in addition to meeting or exceeding all the requirements deserves at least ONE conversation.
So what did I do? Well, about 6 years ago I crafted an email that basically said (in very short) that "I think it's extremely short sighted and dismissive to not even have one conversation with someone who has applied as much, has the passion, drive, determination in conjunction with the education and experience to boot. Furthermore, if this message had been sent to Walt he would have appreciated the straight talk and probably would have said, 'Hire him!'" Again I should state I do not think they should have hired me, that is not my complaint, my point is they never even talked to me. A conversation should have happened. Especially in the position I am now I see the value of hiring people who have obvious passion for the product. (Granted I know the majority of people who apply there have the passion despite the fact that TDO management seems to lack the passion but I digress). So I went on Hoovers and got all the email addresses of all the people I think should read this email ... Meg, Phillipe, etc ... and I sent it, again not to get hired but in an effort to enact positive change. Basically, "hey, your criteria is flawed and you are potentially missing out on great employees."
A week later I got a call from an executive recruiter who basically said and again paraphrasing, "Yes your passion is evident, yes you have more than enough education, and while we appreciate that you have worked for Fortune 100 and 500 companies you haven't worked for like Coke or Pepsi so we won't ever talk to you."
I, of course said that that doesn't make sense. I know you need to have some criteria to manage the probably 1,000s of applications but come on, Fortunate 100 and 500 companies should be part of the criteria. Especially, considering it takes very little to market Coke or Pepsi because they are already ingrained into our culture ... the recruiter said and again paraphrasing, "We aren't looking for people to be imaginative."
I believe my personal experience is a perfect example of TDO's problem as a whole, they aren't looking for imagination ... they aren't looking for creativity ... they aren't even looking in the right places ...
It's all about what's the easiest, cheapest, and quickest fix ... and the people running the show at TDO don't care.
Compare that with how John is at TDA ... very different.
c-one
Well-Known Member
Well which is worse: Botching new projects in epic fashion, or just avoiding new projects altogether?
spacemt354
Chili's
Although you said that this wasn't a boo hoo story, from reading your post I did sense some sour grapes, with all due respect. I'm sure your application was strong and I'm sure you had the abilities to succeed in the disney marketing department, but to claim that this is the perfect example of TDO's problem as a whole is a bit overblown.
From experiencing the college application process, I realized that the admissions departments deny quality applicants that exceed requirements all the time. If MIT denies me and Harvard accepts me, that doesn't mean MIT's admissions department is flawed and Harvard's admissions department is (to quote your opinion of how John is at TDA) "very different." Great talent always gets lost in translation, and the companies (or admissions departments) always give you terrible excuses as to why you were not accepted, and it seems like that has happened to you.
But if this isn't a boo hoo story then I don't know what it is. I'm not sure what this proves to be honest aside from the fact that disney overlookied one potentially great talent. I certainly don't think this is the perfect example of what is wrong with TDO. If you ask me, it's a lot more complicated.
Sometimes the easiest method is the smartest business method. If you have a successful product such as Carsland, it makes business sense to bring the great addition to your flagship resort and to a park that has been hurting in attendance. Sure, can Imagineers at TDO have a little more imagination than Dinorama? I would hope so. But FLE and the potential Avatar addition seem to be moving in the right direction. Also I can't call a company that spends $100+ million on a dark ride (TLM) "cheap." What I can call them though is "overspenders" (The entire WWoHP cost less than that one dark ride). There are plenty of more cost effective methods of spending that would see more investment in attractions and less in DVCs or overspending on single attractions. And I'm not sure what you mean by the "quickest fix", because I would accuse TDO of being the slowest when it comes to fixes and construction. The Yeti is still broken and it is taking 2 years to build a kiddie coaster.