Eisner to become Chairman of Parks?!

[dave2822]

In the spirit of debating many times people get a bit caught up, feel like their ideas and themselves are being attacked, their toes stepped on. We aren't all going to agree, that's why we have a discussion board. I apologize for at any time now or in the future anyone feels like I am going at anybody personally, it really isn't what is intended.

With that being said .. I have already listed all resorts and attractions under Eisner's reign, but continuing

E-ticket attractions are never skimped on, budget wise.
Test Track was the most expensive ride Disney had ever created.
No one has touched KS at AK, for good reason, the attraction itself fits the other three theme parks in it combined.
$250 million was spent for the design of Coronado Springs, a moderate resort.
WDW spends $50,000 a night for their firework shows, about $500,000 around the holidays.

Now, have they created rides like the Dumbo-clones, perhaps a Pooh Meet and Greet? Yes, and they will continue to do so. It's an all encompassing family resort, that aims to please everyone. And though that is impossible, Disney does its best, and its best is damn good.

Eisner has had his flubs, but he won't be making decisions on ABC Family or movies anymore, IF this actually happens, which is all speculation.

I still believe Eisner has done enough for the company to give him a shot at chairman of the Resort, as long as it doesn't turn into another dictatorship.

 

[tomm4004]

Point is, most of WDW Expansion has come in the last 20years, and even the most hardened Eisner foe has to give the man some due.

I'm not sure how Eisner can be given credit for simply the quantity of the expansion. All CEOs try to expand their company - that's their job. Eisner had a huge patch of bare space at WDW and he set about to fill it.

Let's look at what he did do:

Hotels: There were plans to build 20,000 hotel rooms to be owned and operated by Marriott. Eisner realized that Disney could do just as good a job running their own hotels (and make more money) and scrapped the deal. Good move. Unfortunately, he approved the grotesque, skyline-chewing Dolphin and Swans and didn't build the Persian, Asian, or Venetian hotels, sticking instead to mostly American themes - from his youth I guess.

Remember - previous management (Card Walker) didn't want to build more hotels because he didn't want to upset the motels on I-Drive and 192! Hard to belive in this modern business climate. Eisner didn't care about that. As a result, more people can enjoy staying on Disney property.

Water parks: Reports are that Disney was planning to build a plastic, store-bought park. Eisner said NO. He insisted it be themed. Good move.

Theme parks: Eisner needed to get people to stay longer to fill his high-profit-margin hotel rooms. He also wanted to beat Universal to the movie-studio-tour punch. The result was D-MGM. A good but not great park. As some have said, poorly laid out and not planned very well. Head Imagineers were mad at decisions made about the park. Then he needed to extend this further so he built AK - beautiful yet a bit sparse, even nixing ideas and forcing hastily constructed last-minute areas (Camp MM).

MK - the one major addition in Eisner's tenure has been Splash Mtn, which according to reports he said, "we can't afford to build this," to which Frank Wells said, "we can't afford not to." Other than that, we've had trades - Pooh for Toade, Stitch for Mission to Mars (the purpose of which is to sell more toys)- and subtractions like 20,000 and Skyway. Yes, we got the Aladdin spinner and the kiddieland (good idea). The capacity of the park is no greater.

EPCOT - I believe Norway was in the works (maybe not), but since then Eisner has added no countries at WS, even though there were some planned. Why didn't it happen? Did Eisner scare them all away by driving such a hard bargain? He's built new attractions in Future World because the sponsorship deals ran out with the old ones. To get new sponsors they wanted new rides - and they paid for them. Lose a sponsor - lose the ride, ie Wonders of Life and the Living Seas. He'd probably close UofE and Spaceship Earth too, but then capacity would be much too low. So he hasn't increased capacity there either.

MGM - We were supposed to get a new Star Tours but Eisner and Lucas couldn't agree. Who's to blame? The addition of TZTOT and RnRC really just brought the park up to what it should have been at opening.

AK - We got a minor land in Dino world, but only eight years later will we get the first major expansion - yet another thrill ride, the target audience Eisner seems to go for. How many family rides have been built lately?

So yes Eisner has built lots of stuff at WDW all for the sake of growing the company and expanding the bottom line, which is what any CEO should do. The question is would someone else have done a better job? We'll never know. I think the position of a lot of people is that he's only lost his way in the past few years and that additions have come begrudingly. He's certainly acted, I suppose, like a modern CEO, building WDW for the sake of the shareholders and hoping to please guests at the same time.

 

[ToTBellHop]

not up to Disney standard? What exactly is up to Disney standard then? The tents at Fort Wilderness or the 30 rides at the Magic Kingdom that have not been greatly changed by Eisner? Are you claiming that 90% of WDW is not up to the lofty standards set by the Swiss Family Treehouse and Dumbo the Flying Elephant? I don't know what fantasyland you are living in, but 90% of what people associate with Disney was built under Eisner. Kids don't say "Let's go ride the Swiss Family Treehouse" or "please, mom, can we ride Snow White's Scary Adventures?!" nearly as much as they say "I wanna ride Buzz!" or "Let's go on the Tower of Terror!" This is not so much "bash the anti-Eisner crowd" as "if you think it is so terrible, why are you spending $60/day to see it?" Would you rather they bulldoze everything I listed and still charge $60/day?

 

[HauntedPirate]

I'm not sure how Eisner can be given credit for simply the quantity of the expansion. All CEOs try to expand their company - that's their job. Eisner had a huge patch of bare space at WDW and he set about to fill it.

Let's look at what he did do:

Hotels: There were plans to build 20,000 hotel rooms to be owned and operated by Marriott. Eisner realized that Disney could do just as good a job running their own hotels (and make more money) and scrapped the deal. Good move. Unfortunately, he approved the grotesque, skyline-chewing Dolphin and Swans and didn't build the Persian, Asian, or Venetian hotels, sticking instead to mostly American themes - from his youth I guess.

Remember - previous management (Card Walker) didn't want to build more hotels because he didn't want to upset the motels on I-Drive and 192! Hard to belive in this modern business climate. Eisner didn't care about that. As a result, more people can enjoy staying on Disney property.

Water parks: Reports are that Disney was planning to build a plastic, store-bought park. Eisner said NO. He insisted it be themed. Good move.

Theme parks: Eisner needed to get people to stay longer to fill his high-profit-margin hotel rooms. He also wanted to beat Universal to the movie-studio-tour punch. The result was D-MGM. A good but not great park. As some have said, poorly laid out and not planned very well. Head Imagineers were mad at decisions made about the park. Then he needed to extend this further so he built AK - beautiful yet a bit sparse, even nixing ideas and forcing hastily constructed last-minute areas (Camp MM).

MK - the one major addition in Eisner's tenure has been Splash Mtn, which according to reports he said, "we can't afford to build this," to which Frank Wells said, "we can't afford not to." Other than that, we've had trades - Pooh for Toade, Stitch for Mission to Mars (the purpose of which is to sell more toys)- and subtractions like 20,000 and Skyway. Yes, we got the Aladdin spinner and the kiddieland (good idea). The capacity of the park is no greater.

EPCOT - I believe Norway was in the works (maybe not), but since then Eisner has added no countries at WS, even though there were some planned. Why didn't it happen? Did Eisner scare them all away by driving such a hard bargain? He's built new attractions in Future World because the sponsorship deals ran out with the old ones. To get new sponsors they wanted new rides - and they paid for them. Lose a sponsor - lose the ride, ie Wonders of Life and the Living Seas. He'd probably close UofE and Spaceship Earth too, but then capacity would be much too low. So he hasn't increased capacity there either.

MGM - We were supposed to get a new Star Tours but Eisner and Lucas couldn't agree. Who's to blame? The addition of TZTOT and RnRC really just brought the park up to what it should have been at opening.

AK - We got a minor land in Dino world, but only eight years later will we get the first major expansion - yet another thrill ride, the target audience Eisner seems to go for. How many family rides have been built lately?

So yes Eisner has built lots of stuff at WDW all for the sake of growing the company and expanding the bottom line, which is what any CEO should do. The question is would someone else have done a better job? We'll never know. I think the position of a lot of people is that he's only lost his way in the past few years and that additions have come begrudingly. He's certainly acted, I suppose, like a modern CEO, building WDW for the sake of the shareholders and hoping to please guests at the same time.

Hey, watch out with that well-thought out and logical post. You could ruin the mud-slingin' contest! :wave:

 

[HauntedPirate]

not up to Disney standard? What exactly is up to Disney standard then? The tents at Fort Wilderness or the 30 rides at the Magic Kingdom that have not been greatly changed by Eisner? Are you claiming that 90% of WDW is not up to the lofty standards set by the Swiss Family Treehouse and Dumbo the Flying Elephant? I don't know what fantasyland you are living in, but 90% of what people associate with Disney was built under Eisner. Kids don't say "Let's go ride the Swiss Family Treehouse" or "please, mom, can we ride Snow White's Scary Adventures?!" nearly as much as they say "I wanna ride Buzz!" or "Let's go on the Tower of Terror!" This is not so much "bash the anti-Eisner crowd" as "if you think it is so terrible, why are you spending $60/day to see it?" Would you rather they bulldoze everything I listed and still charge $60/day?

I think the argument is that the "Disney standard" is met (Splash, ToT, RnRC, etc.), but not all the time (SGE, clones, DINOLAND *coughcheapcarnivalgarbagecough*). It's almost like they hit a homerun, then follow it up with a walk, or a strikeout. I also realize that they aren't going to hit a homerun every time.

 

[Captain Chaos]

Tomm, you laid it out very well... Eisner, like any CEO, had his run... He is done.. And no matter what, i still think he would be a horrible choice as chairman of the parks.. No one can change my mind.. Actually, there is only one way my mind will change.. if this does happen and he actually succeeds. Eisner will have to answer to Iger, but, since Iger was Eisner's hand picked successor, do you really think Eisner would be held accountable for any bad decisions?? Yes, he will, on these Disney boards...

 

[ToTBellHop]

To defend Eisner and company on building thrill rides, the queue lines for these attractions seem to suggest that they are what people want. Further, Disney builds the most family-friendly thrill rides in the business, as opposed to Six Flags "must be 54" tall to ride" attractions, I believe EVEREST will have a height requirement of, what, 40"? My nephew was 40" tall by age 4. Thrill rides like these do not alienate a large proportion of guests, certainly not of PAYING guests. Disney is not out for charity work, so there are not going to be many attractions specifically geared toward the 2 year old market that gets into the park for free. I believe building rides that the 3 year olds can't ride is worth it if everyone over age 4 can. I am pretty sure the purpose in having cheaper admission rates for kids is because they can't do everything that the adults can (and, of course, to attract big money spending families). Even so, they don't just build thrill rides, though that is a big proportion of the money spending.

 

[dave2822]

So yes Eisner has built lots of stuff at WDW all for the sake of growing the company and expanding the bottom line, which is what any CEO should do. The question is would someone else have done a better job? We'll never know. I think the position of a lot of people is that he's only lost his way in the past few years and that additions have come begrudingly. He's certainly acted, I suppose, like a modern CEO, building WDW for the sake of the shareholders and hoping to please guests at the same time.

Definetly agreed, very well put Tom.

MK - The capacity of the park is no greater.

Though this is also true, with MK pulling over 15 million a year, there hasn't been a need to increase capacity. The goal now is to increase attendance elsewhere, bring EPCOT over 10, increase the gap between MGM and AK and Universal, w/o losing MK crowds. A risk simply hasn't been necessary in this park, which could be why Eisner was (though in hindsight wrongly) worried about adding a major E-ticket.

AK - We got a minor land in Dino world, but only eight years later will we get the first major expansion - yet another thrill ride, the target audience Eisner seems to go for. How many family rides have been built lately?

Also, agreed, AK is the least family oriented, with a tough layout, and not many kid friendly attractions, barring camp MM.

 

[tomm4004]

not up to Disney standard? What exactly is up to Disney standard then? The tents at Fort Wilderness or the 30 rides at the Magic Kingdom that have not been greatly changed by Eisner? Are you claiming that 90% of WDW is not up to the lofty standards set by the Swiss Family Treehouse and Dumbo the Flying Elephant?

Interesting comment. Let's look at Hong Kong Disneyland. What attractions are they building in Fantasyland? Dumbo. Teacups. Carousel. reportedly Peter Pan. Adventureland? Jungle Cruise. Treehouse. Tomorrowland? Space Mountain. Orbitron. Autopia. . (yes there are a couple Eisner-era attractions). Aren't all these pre-Eisner attractions? Wasn't Disneyland Paris built mostly with attractions that were pre-Eisner in origin? And wasn't the park a critical success? And wasn't it well-attended? Didn't its problems extend from poor management, over-spending on hotels, and an arrogance and ignorance toward European culture?

I don't know what fantasyland you are living in, but 90% of what people associate with Disney was built under Eisner.

Sorry, but that really is a Fantasyland/Twilight Zone! comment. When people think Disney they think Magic Kingdom - that is the theme park that has stood the test of time and is most loved. Then they think EPCOT. As far as attractions, Space Mtn, Jungle Cruise, Pirates, Big Thunder, Peter Pan (I could go on and on) are enduring and endearing attractions. Yes, Disney has built some amazing attractions under Eisner thanks in part to new technologies and excellent Imagineers (a group that is pre-Eisner). To dismiss what Eisner has done is baffling. To dismiss what came before him is even more baffling.

 

[CTXRover]

I've long realized that people will blame Eisner for every little thing that is wrong with the parks, but then wouldn't dare credit him with what is the majority of what WDW is today. If he's responsible for the bad, he's responsible for the all the good. And despite the imperfections that everyone can nitpick at, I don't think I'll ever be persuaded into believing the WDW of today is not a better experience than the WDW before he arrived. Period.

Eisner's had has time with the company and its time for him to move on. I wouldn't keep him at Disney in any shape or form any more. But I'm thankful for what Eisner has done during his tenure. Not everything may be perfect, but Disney is certainly a much better and more powerful worldwide entertainment company than the nearly falling apart movie studio and struggling theme park company it was when he took over. If it wasn't for him and Wells, we might not even have a Disney company to argue over

 

[ToTBellHop]

Also, agreed, AK is the least family oriented, with a tough layout, and not many kid friendly attractions, barring camp MM.

I dunno about that...most of the rides are kid friendly. Camp Minnie-Mickey is. It's Tough to Be a Bug is (unless you are afraid of spiders, and there are 40 year olds that scream during that scene), Dinosaur appeals to most kids over age 4, as does Kali, and Kilimanjaro is open to all families, as are Flights of Wonder and Tarzan Rocks! Truth be told, EVEREST will be an option for children over age 4, too. As for the set up, while I admit it's kind of confusing due to the narrow walkways and the way everything in the park looks the same (like a rainforest), the addition of signs has helped, and the park actually has a smart set up--the hub with spokes set up that the MK uses, though the hub is gigantic at AK. But, like I said, the signs have greatly helped this.

 

[ToTBellHop]

Interesting comment. Let's look at Hong Kong Disneyland. What attractions are they building in Fantasyland? Dumbo. Teacups. Carousel. reportedly Peter Pan. Adventureland? Jungle Cruise. Treehouse. Tomorrowland? Space Mountain. Orbitron. Autopia. . (yes there are a couple Eisner-era attractions). Aren't all these pre-Eisner attractions? Wasn't Disneyland Paris built mostly with attractions that were pre-Eisner in origin? And wasn't the park a critical success? And wasn't it well-attended? Didn't its problems extend from poor management, over-spending on hotels, and an arrogance and ignorance toward European culture?

Are you suggesting that Hong Kong Disneyland is a good park? I suppose you can have whatever opinion you like, but I strongly disagree. Most of the rides they are using, however, take a classic Disney story but upgrade the technology used, greatly, making a vastly different ride, such as the Jungle River Cruise. Note that the park will also have newer attractions, like Festival of the Lion King, PhilharMagic, and Buzz.

I think what makes Disneyland Paris so amazing is that it took classic Disney rides at made them infinitely better. For example, there are few similarities between Phantom Manor and the classic Haunted Mansion (it is a haunted house and has a few scenes carried over), and all of the additions to PM made it incredible. The same can be said for Space Mountain, which has very little in common with WDW's lame version--it's a roller coaster in the dark, and that is pretty much the extent of the similarity. I am not saying I don't love the classic attractions, and I, indeed, cannot imagine a Magic Kingdom like Hong Kong is getting, with no Haunted Mansion, no Frontierland, no Pirates, no it's a small world, but I also love the newer ones, and it would seem the Tower of Terror is viewed as just as much of a classic as the other originals, since it will soon be at 4 of the 5 Disney resorts.

 

[PamelaNiebergal]

I honestly don't have any overly strong opinions of Eisner but I don't think people should turn their hatred of him into an all out bashing of WDW. How can you call yourselves Disney lovers and then proceed to bash every little thing in WDW. AK and MGM may not be perfect in your opinions but there are some of us who love these parks. I personally like AK and MGM more than EPCOT and almost as much as MK. The reason I prefer to go to WDW over Disneyland is because I think Disney is not Disney without MGM. It just frustrates me that people will criticize these parks as not up to Disney standards just because they are associated with Eisner.

 

[dave2822]

I dunno about that...most of the rides are kid friendly. Camp Minnie-Mickey is. It's Tough to Be a Bug is (unless you are afraid of spiders, and there are 40 year olds that scream during that scene), Dinosaur appeals to most kids over age 4, as does Kali, and Kilimanjaro is open to all families, as are Flights of Wonder and Tarzan Rocks! Truth be told, EVEREST will be an option for children over age 4, too. As for the set up, while I admit it's kind of confusing due to the narrow walkways and the way everything in the park looks the same (like a rainforest), the addition of signs has helped, and the park actually has a smart set up--the hub with spokes set up that the MK uses, though the hub is gigantic at AK. But, like I said, the signs have greatly helped this.

Well, yes I'll admit my comment was very opinionative.
Main reasons IMHO that it isnt kid friendly, or family friendly:
- very daunting layout with large gaps between attractions
- least amount of shade or indoor attractions
- least amount of attractions. :lol:

now, this wasnt a bash AK, I happen to think it is a great park. but though you mentioned some possible family friendly elements, i still beileve it is the LEAST family friendly out of the 4.

 

[Captain Chaos]

I honestly don't have any overly strong opinions of Eisner but I don't think people should turn their hatred of him into an all out bashing of WDW. How can you call yourselves Disney lovers and then proceed to bash every little thing in WDW. AK and MGM may not be perfect in your opinions but there are some of us who love these parks. I personally like AK and MGM more than EPCOT and almost as much as MK. The reason I prefer to go to WDW over Disneyland is because I think Disney is not Disney without MGM. It just frustrates me that people will criticize these parks as not up to Disney standards just because they are associated with Eisner.

I am not criticizing MGM because Eisner had it built. I am criticizing it because of the way it was built. And I am not criticizing WDW at all... The park, IMHO, was built with too much of a rush on it. Instead of doing the park the right way, Eisner had to beat Universal Studios. And even though MGM is enjoyable, the park is a nightmare to navigate. Eisner should have let Imagineering lay out the park in Disney fashion, which is hub and spoke, like AK is, like MK is... and sorta like Epcot. Were all Eisner's decisions bad, NO... But he has had his time, and he must move on...

People on this thread think Eisner as chairman of the parks would be a good thing... Others are saying it is not a good thing, me included... People are giving reasons why it would be good.. I am giving reasons why it wouldn't be good...

 

[tomm4004]

People on this thread think Eisner as chairman of the parks would be a good thing... Others are saying it is not a good thing, me included... People are giving reasons why it would be good.. I am giving reasons why it wouldn't be good...

I don't see it happening. I don't see Eisner taking a lesser position, one where he would have to go to Iger and beg for funds. How would that work?

Who knows, if it happened (theoretically) it could be great. It would be all Eisner had to care about. He loves his pet projects. If he decides that AK is great but needs to be twice as big, maybe he just snaps his fingers and Beastly Kingdom, Amazon, the Americas, Australia, and whatever else start to appear. Again, what access would he have to funds though? I have no doubt that Eisner loves big, well-themed attractions and probably doesn't care for some of the more anemically-themed attractions himself. But he makes business decisions.

 

[Captain Chaos]

He cut the budget for Beastly Kingdom. Why would he suddenly open a budget up? If he wanted to do these things, he would have done them as CEO. I don't think he will take a lesser role either. I think he will either walk away into retirement or join the board as chairman, which people voted him out of before. We'll see I guess.

 

[tomm4004]

He cut the budget for Beastly Kingdom. Why would he suddenly open a budget up? If he wanted to do these things, he would have done them as CEO.

My point was that people "underneath" always ask people "at the top" for more money than they are willing to give. So Eisner would probably do the same thing. The question is how much pull would he have, how good would he be at convincing Iger that this attraction needs to be built and here's the outrageous budget? Again, it's all theoretical.

 

[Montu]

What a ludacris comment. So you can't have a negative opinion about something in the Disney parks unless you built and designed one yourself?

He had zero positive! He was doing nothing but looking for something to complain about.

 

[Captain Chaos]

He had zero positive! He was doing nothing but looking for something to complain about.

I hope you weren't talking about me looking for something to complain about.... Listen, I do not have to answer to anyone here... I have my opinions like you all do.. Can you sit there with a straight face and say MGM was designed flawlessly????