mickEblu
Well-Known Member
I was assuming they were testing lighting options. LED blue lighting in Adventureland? Who thought that was a good idea?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Disneyland to give Tarzan’s Treehouse a new theme
- Thread starter DCBaker
- Start date
I was assuming they were testing lighting options. LED blue lighting in Adventureland? Who thought that was a good idea?
TP2000
Well-Known Member
Agreed. Surely they will dial that blue tone down into something else, a different hue and temperature.
On the bright side, these new LED lightbulbs will not need replacing for 15 years or so.
That's at least 7 or 8 more TDA President Du Jour's from now! Maybe even 10 more President's, depending on how many need to spend more time with family immediately.
Or just start a new chapter; many TDA senior execs seem to need to start new chapters a lot.
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
Lol. “TDA President Du Jour.” love it
I guess the question is why test that color at all?
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
A possible reason - the lamps are color mixing. Perhaps the blue will eventually mix with the led white to create the desired shade white light - they currently just want to see that all the lights are installed and working - and lighting designers will come in and dial in the correct temperature.
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
Speaking of Presidents Du Jour what do you think TP? I’d say D’amaro was kind of a French Onion soup. Liked by most but eventually will lead to indigestion and nothing good. Potrock is more of a Potato Cheddar. He’s comes across as the blue collar guy. A man of the people. Rebecca Campbell (who’s that you ask? The President from 2019-2020) well I’m not sure what flavor she was. They ran out of soup that day.
Not DL Presidents but Iger is like a fishy Lobster Bisque. Classy yet something’s off. Chapek? Gazpacho. Ice cold.
Last edited:
Disney Irish
Premium Member
I think you're thinking of Rebecca Campbell, not Rebecca Grier.
TP, who always likes to equate people to their fashion choices, would remark her as the one who wore black leather styled pants.
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
I think you're thinking of Rebecca Campbell, not Rebecca Grier.
TP, who always likes to equate people to their fashion choices, would remark her as the one who wore black leather styled pants.
Lol well there you go. Very forgettable.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
I just happen to have a pretty good memory for these things....
What's funny is in its entire history I think DLR has only had like 12 "presidents" (or head of the park). So that's an average of a 5 year tenure, with some being shorter and some being longer. It only seems like they turn over a new one every other year because it happened for the last couple as they quickly advanced to other parts of the company. But prior to 2018, they pretty much stuck around for 5ish years. And Potrock appears to be heading to at least be around for 5 years.
CaptinEO
Well-Known Member
D'amaro actually can speak publicly and not look like a buffoon but he has now gone on stage twice in a row to present potential undecided ideas. He clearly can't get decisions made and things moving. It's embarassing.
The international parks are getting quality lands and rides and the US parks are getting red paint in a small land and finishing never ending epcot construction that seems drawn out and pointless.
He can't make decisions and can't get in control of the US parks.
_caleb
Well-Known Member
Or maybe he’s pretty good at getting zero-cost publicity while also gauging public sentiment before committing a billion dollars to building things that fans don’t like.
CaptinEO
Well-Known Member
So what is his plan? He is going to once a year spitball ideas? If he doesn't get the reaction he wants he waits another year?
I highly doubt it. That is the most inefficient way to decide on a product, especially to a company with tons of surveys at their disposal.
He is either budget constrained, or can't make up his mind, or both. Meanwhile the asian parks are getting amazing new lands based on actual classic Disney fairytale stories.
Universal Studios is getting a whole new park while Disney publicly goes on stage to say they have ideas they cant commit to.
_caleb
Well-Known Member
I'm saying there are options besides "D'Amaro is powerless to build anything" and "D'Amaro can't make up his mind." These bluesky announcements alone (completely independent of any actual plans to build any actual attractions) generate a ton of discussion about Disney parks. When fans are talking about these "what if?" ideas, they're NOT talking about negative stuff (pricing, service, etc.). It's a way to influence the narrative.
It also does provide some feedback about an idea while also helping to prepare the public for potential changes. I'm certain D'Amaro knows what they're working on and what's coming–decisions have been made. This is a new approach to rolling out those changes: talk about "what we might do" or "what we're thinking about" as though it were much earlier in the design process than it is, and then refine the conversation to focus around what you've decided while feeling out public reaction and adjusting the message accordingly.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
I agree its real-time market testing....
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
It’s not a new approach and there are reasons parks moved away from it.
_caleb
Well-Known Member
They moved away from it since D'Amaro's presentation at Destination D on Sept 9th?
What are some not-new examples of strategic bluesky what-iffing on the part of Disney execs?
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
The Hong Kong Disneyland announcement that talked about all sorts of stuff like Frontierland and ToonTown? The Disney Decade announcement? Disney-MGM Studios Europe? Even what became Islands of Adventure was announced in like 1992. All sorts of crazy maybe announcements used to be made but it was realized that they cause more trouble than they’re worth because they don’t set the right expectations.
_caleb
Well-Known Member
Hmm. I guess I see a difference between those teaser announcements in the past and what they seem to be doing now (Beyond BTM, etc), which feels a lot more like "geeking out with fans," but I understand how they might essentially be the same thing.
If it causes more trouble than it's worth, then what's your take on why they are doing it now?
el_super
Well-Known Member
Two things...
First they are always under pressure from shareholders/investors to make sure they are leveraging their IP correctly. So when something hits, like Encanto or Moana, they need to make sure it's taking up center stage in the parks. Investors LIKE to hear that hit properties are coming to the parks because it is usually a win-win for shareholders and consumers.
Second, to generate interest in specific projects in order to obtain funding/sign off. Word on the street has been that D'Amaro has been working with the board directly in trying to get approval on new parks projects (which if true, means that Iger might be taking a real hands-off approach to the parks now). So in part, trying to generate and gauge interest in order to get approval.
Maybe two and a half: he literally didn't have anything else to present so basically just recycled his current board presentations for content.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
That must be why Elemental pre-show went on for so long at DCA. Lol.
PiratesMansion
Well-Known Member
What he means is that they would announce things in the past in a more definitive way, then people would get their expectations all in a tizzy, which was a bit problematic when things were deleted or changed. And now, because of the internet, people are much more aware of what is announced, in detail, than they were previously.
As a result, there's so much hedging *precisely* so that if something doesn't work out, they can say "well, technically we never said we were going to do that DEFINITIVELY; the problem wasn't that we promised you something and didn't build it. No, the problem is you, the consumer, reading into it too much."