Disney's Project Execution

[Chef Mickey]

How would you grade Disney execution over the last 10 years, purely from a project implementation perspective?

I think Disney has been average to below average in getting their ideas from paper to reality. It just seems we've gotten a "dumbed down" version of everything.

• Attractions we actually got (7DMT, Soarin' Around the World, Voyage of the Little Mermaid, etc)
• Attractions in the pipeline (Toy Story Land, Avatar, Star Wars) - Toy Story in particular seems like a give up.
• Attractions that just never come to fruition at all.
• Attractions that don't get fixed (Everest Yeti, many others needing TLC)
• Attractions that are long in the tooth (Everything at EPCOT WS, Great Movie Ride, etc)

All of them seem to either be "good enough" or were once much greater on paper, only to be cut down when actually built. I've also heard chatter over the years of fixing, updating, or plussing this or that, but many projects seem to fall by the wayside.

I give them a D.

 

[raven]

I agree to the "fix the old before building new" theory but when it comes to theme park companies, their focus seems to be on building something new just about every season. It's a terrible rut to get stuck in but I blame us as consumers who expect it.

 

[Communicore]

I though this was a thread about the people who head these projects and that they should be executed.

 

[Chef Mickey]

Maybe my threads just aren't popular, but is this board losing some traffic? I've seen a lot of new(ish) members and fewer old members posting over here anymore. Am I imagining it?

 

[kap91]

Every ride that has ever been built has been the "dumbed down" version as the original concept always is more ambitious and crazy than the budget can allow. That being said, mine train really should have been the longer version.

 

[wm49rs]

Maybe my threads just aren't popular, but is this board losing some traffic? I've seen a lot of new(ish) members and fewer old members posting over here anymore. Am I imagining it?

This form has almost 94,000 members. It's doing ok....

 

[Goofyernmost]

How would you grade Disney execution over the last 10 years, purely from a project implementation perspective?

I think Disney has been average to below average in getting their ideas from paper to reality. It just seems we've gotten a "dumbed down" version of everything.

• Attractions we actually got (7DMT, Soarin' Around the World, Voyage of the Little Mermaid, etc)
• Attractions in the pipeline (Toy Story Land, Avatar, Star Wars) - Toy Story in particular seems like a give up.
• Attractions that just never come to fruition at all.
• Attractions that don't get fixed (Everest Yeti, many others needing TLC)
• Attractions that are long in the tooth (Everything at EPCOT WS, Great Movie Ride, etc)

All of them seem to either be "good enough" or were once much greater on paper, only to be cut down when actually built. I've also heard chatter over the years of fixing, updating, or plussing this or that, but many projects seem to fall by the wayside.

I give them a D.

Maybe my threads just aren't popular, but is this board losing some traffic? I've seen a lot of new(ish) members and fewer old members posting over here anymore. Am I imagining it?

Personally, I don't think that there are very many of us, if any, on the board that has a single clue as to what goes into the process of a project in a theme park. We can decide that because it only took three months to build our standard house, that Disney should be held to those same timelines. We don't know what is required, especially in Florida, for land preparation, pilings and footings, we don't know how long it takes to manufacture the specialized items needed to build an attraction in a theme park, we don't know how much effort it takes to pull together a crew of people with enough skill to pull off theme park construction, (I think it requires more then picking up a crew from in front of Home Depot). We don't know how many committee's that the structure of a company the size of Disney needs to go through to get anything even started. We don't know what or how many modifications are required during construction due to things that look good on paper that do not necessarily just cooperate when in the field. In short there are so many things that go into this procedure that it really would be difficult for any of us to know if the amount of time it took is reasonable or not. I know that is how I feel about it. I do know for sure that these things do not materialize out of Pixie Dust. Just common sense tells me that whatever time is required to make a safe, reliable attraction, is what I want to happen.

 

[Hakunamatata]

Maybe my threads just aren't popular, but is this board losing some traffic? I've seen a lot of new(ish) members and fewer old members posting over here anymore. Am I imagining it?

Maybe the majority of people are satisfied with the experience they get for the value and dont want to participate in the continual critical analysis of everything TDC does?

 

[Chef Mickey]

Maybe the majority of people are satisfied with the experience they get for the value and dont want to participate in the continual critical analysis of everything TDC does?

Well, at least you're still posting. I'm generally satisfied, even with a D in project execution. My complaints are generally limited to the new attractions not being up to the old standard.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Well, at least you're still posting. I'm generally satisfied, even with a D in project execution. My complaints are generally limited to the new attractions not being up to the old standard.

Not saying this is true for everyone of them, but, we tend to forget just how low tech the "good old attractions" were. The current degree of technology, and creativity to achieve a sense of reality, is mind boggling. The early AA's were fun, but, you didn't mistake them for real people. The AA of Captain Jack alone is almost scary it is so lifelike. I have been going for years, and frankly I'm at a loss to see what has declined. The only one with many flaws, but, also with some spectacular things is Mermaid. Everything else to me might be a shorter experience but it is as spectacular as any of the early stuff. How many complaints have we heard about Peter Pan or CoP or even the Tiki Room. That is the epitome of the old attractions. Not quite up to what would be expected today, don't you think? Or the grandfather of them all... The Jungle Cruise. Yes, it is timeless in that classic things will be entertaining. But, what if it were built today, from scratch, without any past exposure, how do you think it would be received. The degree of greatness of the old stuff is based on our memories and nostalgia, not on fact. Other then short, which isn't all by itself in WDW, I think the Mine train is a very good ride. State of the art AA's and a true to Snow White story line. It seems to me that so many equate change with diminished quality. Nothing could be further from the truth... we, like all humans do not take well to change. We want old, comfortable and nothing that upsets our image of anything. That's how I see it anyway. Yes, they took shortcuts in many areas, but, for all we know even the old stuff was shortcut to what it ended up to be.

Back then we didn't have message boards where we consider every minor detail of construction is our business. We want to know if a worker spits on the ground and we want pictures of it before it happens. We take away our own ability to see something for the first time and experience the excitement without massive preconceived notion about what it is, what it will be and what it might have been.

 

[cheezbat]

In the last decade? Hmmmm....

Everest was an A- ride with a working Yeti...since its been in B mode roughly nine years that tells me the ride execution was a failure. So as the ride currently stands I'd give it a C.

Toy Story Mania is cheap, yet popular. Also a C grade.

Finding Nemo: D-. Cheap, short, uninspiring, and really lacks some kind of narrative to make it interesting.

Monsters Inc Laugh Floor: entertaining show, in the wrong park and land. B.

Star Tours II was a solid refurb. Ill give them a B+ for that effort, and the fact they add to it.

Fantasyland Expansion: tough one. It fills a huge space that had day unused for years, so that's a plus...but what they filled it with gives the area a C grade. Mermaid has a decent capacity, but a par for the course ride. C. Be Our Guest is pretty as is Tales with Belle, but the demand for the restaurant and an over glorified meet and greet get a C- in my book. Make it accessible to more people, and take up less space with MNGs. 7 Dwarfs...could've been great. Too short, bad capacity. B-.
Storybook Circus: Dueling Dumbos...smart idea to increase capacity, not the greatest execution. C+. The tents and circus replacing Toontown...D. Major cheap move here. While the area is themed, it's prime real estate that didn't add any capacity to the park. They basically kept this as is because the store was such a moneymaker.
My overall Fantasyland Expansion grade is a C.

Frozen Ever After...decent redo of an existing ride, but poor placement and terrible capacity. D.

The past decade has really been a bust at WDW. Looking forward to the next projects, Toy Story Land is cheap, but at least we aren't getting an exact clone of the previous incarnations. Star Wars Land COULD be amazing, though I'd hope for at least three rides in a land that big, if not more. Avatarland same as Star Wars. Though it looks pretty detailed.

Honestly I'm more interested in what's coming down the pipeline at Epcot.

 

[Chef Mickey]

Not saying this is true for everyone of them, but, we tend to forget just how low tech the "good old attractions" were. The current degree of technology, and creativity to achieve a sense of reality, is mind boggling. The early AA's were fun, but, you didn't mistake them for real people. The AA of Captain Jack alone is almost scary it is so lifelike. I have been going for years, and frankly I'm at a loss to see what has declined. The only one with many flaws, but, also with some spectacular things is Mermaid. Everything else to me might be a shorter experience but it is as spectacular as any of the early stuff. How many complaints have we heard about Peter Pan or CoP or even the Tiki Room. That is the epitome of the old attractions. Not quite up to what would be expected today, don't you think? Or the grandfather of them all... The Jungle Cruise. Yes, it is timeless in that classic things will be entertaining. But, what if it were built today, from scratch, without any past exposure, how do you think it would be received. The degree of greatness of the old stuff is based on our memories and nostalgia, not on fact. Other then short, which isn't all by itself in WDW, I think the Mine train is a very good ride. State of the art AA's and a true to Snow White story line. It seems to me that so many equate change with diminished quality. Nothing could be further from the truth... we, like all humans do not take well to change. We want old, comfortable and nothing that upsets our image of anything. That's how I see it anyway. Yes, they took shortcuts in many areas, but, for all we know even the old stuff was shortcut to what it ended up to be.

Back then we didn't have message boards where we consider every minor detail of construction is our business. We want to know if a worker spits on the ground and we want pictures of it before it happens. We take away our own ability to see something for the first time and experience the excitement without massive preconceived notion about what it is, what it will be and what it might have been.

I actually completely agree on the nostalgia aspect because I think that largely drives my love for old and criticism of new. However, Disney is so much richer, more powerful and smarter than back in the day. Competition is greater. I've seen the original plan for 7DMT and can't help to think what it could have been.

Yes, the newer rides can be compared to Tiki Room, Jungle Cruise, and Peter Pan and be considered better, but I still think we should expect more today. Those comparisons aren't fair in my mind. The new rides won't have nostalgia going for them and that's another reason they need to be even greater.

 

[Goofyernmost]

In the last decade? Hmmmm....

Everest was an A- ride with a working Yeti...since its been in B mode roughly nine years that tells me the ride execution was a failure. So as the ride currently stands I'd give it a C.

Toy Story Mania is cheap, yet popular. Also a C grade.

Finding Nemo: D-. Cheap, short, uninspiring, and really lacks some kind of narrative to make it interesting.

Monsters Inc Laugh Floor: entertaining show, in the wrong park and land. B.

Star Tours II was a solid refurb. Ill give them a B+ for that effort, and the fact they add to it.

Fantasyland Expansion: tough one. It fills a huge space that had day unused for years, so that's a plus...but what they filled it with gives the area a C grade. Mermaid has a decent capacity, but a par for the course ride. C. Be Our Guest is pretty as is Tales with Belle, but the demand for the restaurant and an over glorified meet and greet get a C- in my book. Make it accessible to more people, and take up less space with MNGs. 7 Dwarfs...could've been great. Too short, bad capacity. B-.
Storybook Circus: Dueling Dumbos...smart idea to increase capacity, not the greatest execution. C+. The tents and circus replacing Toontown...D. Major cheap move here. While the area is themed, it's prime real estate that didn't add any capacity to the park. They basically kept this as is because the store was such a moneymaker.
My overall Fantasyland Expansion grade is a C.

Frozen Ever After...decent redo of an existing ride, but poor placement and terrible capacity. D.

The past decade has really been a bust at WDW. Looking forward to the next projects, Toy Story Land is cheap, but at least we aren't getting an exact clone of the previous incarnations. Star Wars Land COULD be amazing, though I'd hope for at least three rides in a land that big, if not more. Avatarland same as Star Wars. Though it looks pretty detailed.

Honestly I'm more interested in what's coming down the pipeline at Epcot.

I'm not going to comment on any of your list except the first one. The rest are really opinion and not based on anything other then what you like or don't like. That's fine, that's your business, but, it doesn't mean that others see it the same way. That part that I disagree with is the very first example. It was not a ride execution fail until after it was a ride engineering fail. It was something that worked on paper, but, that someone, that probably should have known better, missed completely. The reason why it has stayed in B mode is simply this. It doesn't take a genius to quickly see the the ride itself is good, people love it and the amount of exposure that the Yeti had was so insignificant that only those that know what it was supposed to be even notice. There is no sense in throwing more money at something that will be noticed by so few. That is a ride planning fail, they didn't give it enough exposure in the attraction to make a damn difference. Joe, doesn't get everything right. Looked good on paper... had no real need. If they had just started with the Disco Yeti, everyone would be wetting their pants with joy.

I actually completely agree on the nostalgia aspect because I think that largely drives my love for old and criticism of new. However, Disney is so much richer, more powerful and smarter than back in the day. Competition is greater. I've seen the original plan for 7DMT and can't help to think what it could have been.

Yes, the newer rides can be compared to Tiki Room, Jungle Cruise, and Peter Pan and be considered better, but I still think we should expect more today. Those comparisons aren't fair in my mind. The new rides won't have nostalgia going for them and that's another reason they need to be even greater.

I've never been convinced about the "original" plans for 7DMT. What we have consistently seen are different conception drawings. What we got was the one they decided to go with. Everyone seems to think that it came for a cut in expenditure. I don't buy that only in the sense that you buy what works. It as been universally assumed by the more elite members on the board that it was because Disney is cheap. That is possible, of course, but there are other reasons like space and crowd control that are just as important. They didn't have wide expanses of land to work with. It was more or less land locked. And you really don't have to be an engineer to see where that would have been a problem of room and balance within the space they had to build it. I liken it to when we... Joe and Jane Public go out to buy a new car. They have the world to chose from. They can get a Ford (or Chevy, if it makes one feel better) or they can buy a Rolls Royce or anything in between. First they look at the price tag and narrow down based on what they can afford. We all seem to agree that Disney has money to burn so they, being Joe and Jane, could go for the RR. Then they start to think about the other things, like what area do they live in, would the RR be a bit over the top for the environment? And upon measuring the garage, find out the the RR won't even fit in it. Joe and Jane end up with a Buick RV. Something in the middle that works for them and fits in the garage. With the money that they saved they bought each other some really nice Christmas gifts!

 

[marni1971]

I've never been convinced about the "original" plans for 7DMT. What we have consistently seen are different conception drawings. What we got was the one they decided to go with. Everyone seems to think that it came for a cut in expenditure. I don't buy that only in the sense that you buy what works. It as been universally assumed by the more elite members on the board that it was because Disney is cheap. That is possible, of course, but there are other reasons like space and crowd control that are just as important. They didn't have wide expanses of land to work with.

The prior versions sat in the same footprint as the built one. That's all I'll say.

 

[Goofyernmost]

The prior versions sat in the same footprint as the built one. That's all I'll say.

You'll have to say more because the other often shown photos show it being much longer, thus the uproar about it being shortened. If it isn't then I would guess the stuff that is missing isn't anymore necessary then the moving Yeti is. Just more track. It doesn't matter we have what we have and that is all we are ever going to get. I'd like to spend the day being upset because my parents weren't in a position for me to be born rich. Why bother? It's a nice little ride in an area called Fantasyland that, is indeed, mostly for kids accompanied by adults*, it fits, the theme is good, the popularity is high... what are we missing here? How much of the really nice theming would be lost amongst the steel rails of a coaster?

*As opposed to most of the other rides that are for basically adults accompanied by their kids. All together but, not the same focus.

Besides, it is all semantics anyway. When you say prior plans, what you actually are saying is other plans presented for consideration. Not plans approved and then altered. There is a big difference although I seem to be the only one that sees that. It may have been presented along with perhaps dozens of other ideas, but, we got the one that was chosen. Whatever the motivation, be it they didn't want to spend more money on it, or it didn't fit or they just didn't like the artist. It got the same process that almost all of the attractions there have received. Show and tell followed by chose and build. The way of every building process in the world. We make way to much of the process and not enough of the product. We are not owed anything and when you consider what was going to be there originally, this is a massive improvement over just another meet and greet. Like I said before, I could be rich if my parents had enough sense to be wealthy, they weren't, I'm not.. life goes on.

 

[marni1971]

You'll have to say more because the other often shown photos show it being much longer, thus the uproar about it being shortened..

Longer ride, same footprint.

But we've been here before, hence my reluctance to be drawn in again.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Longer ride, same footprint.

But we've been here before, hence my reluctance to be drawn in again.

I understand... and like I said... what does it matter really. All the whining about it isn't going to change anything. We just make an effort to enjoy what we have. I know I did. I loved the mine section and the HI-HO ride up the hill. It was all it needed to be for me. As I have also stated more then once, it gets so tedious that we cannot appreciate what is there instead of getting all concerned and whining about what we didn't get. Cause when you come right down to it what we didn't get is about the size of the world, there really is no limit about what more could have been added to everything. We have a nice ride with Pirates, until we see that it was done "bigger" in Disneyland, now it is less then great. Good maybe but not great. We always want what we do not have.

 

[marni1971]

I am of course glad you enjoyed it.