GRizz & Jim Hill Round 2

[rad_rat]

you guys don't get it

You guys don't get it. It's not that suddenly the "sharp pencil boys" are paying attention to some posts on a website. It's not that some "comments on a message board" are causing "multi-million dollar changes to a project." No. The accountants already have their minds made up: these guys want to cut the $$$ and are looking for anything that might help them make the argument with higher management that the $$$ should be cut.

So they are more than willing to take a few posts from some fan website to help bolster their argument. It's not that the posts are really influencing them; as I said, they already have their minds made up. But they will use the website as an excuse, to provide (additional) cover. And I suspect higher management would be more than willing to use the cover provided. In my experience in the business world, management never has to be convinced to cut $$$; they usually have to be convinced to spend $$$. So any excuse to cut is welcomed, and any decision to spend must be supported by overwhelming evidence.

It would be a shame if some posts on a fan web site provided even a breath of an excuse to cut. Not worth it.

 

[ClemsonTigger]

Over the Top

LewZealand

Geeezz...if you want to call the guy a liar, why don't you just say it instead of being so smug.

LewZ, I would suggest that you don't try putting words in someones mouth. I don't think anyone has suggested that Jim Hill is lying. Quite the contrary he has a lot to offer.

I'll only speak for myself in saying that I don't think his style of writing is conducive to objectivity. In this particular case, I find his contention that this happy little band of Disneyana zealots (and by using the term Disneyana to label this behavior brings a whole lot of others into the mix) are influencing an already executed multi million dollar project is just ludicrous. If anything, it is bravado and dillusions of grandeur on the part of Jim (not the first time).

You don't use his name. You refer to his site as "that site" even though we all know what site we are talking about. you put the word "interesting" in quotes as if to say that you mean to use a different word but are being polite. It all comes across as very smug and superior.

I also think it appropriate for you to get to know people here a bit better before reading so much into a [simple] statement.

I would say welcome to the boards, but wouldn't want you to come back labelling it as sarcasm. :zipit:

 

[DisneyFan 2000]

I have to say all this is becoming a bit too much. I think Jim stepped way over the line the first time around. This time it's simply pathetic. All these theorys of management using this as a reason for cutbacks is a load of bs imo. As stated earlier, management have decided to cut back anyway, this is just the excuse of doing so...

 

[LewZealand]

statement.

I stand by my analysis of Steve's statement in regard to Jim's site.

 

[Computer Magic]

I have to say all this is becoming a bit too much. I think Jim stepped way over the line the first time around. This time it's simply pathetic. All these theorys of management using this as a reason for cutbacks is a load of bs imo. As stated earlier, management have decided to cut back anyway, this is just the excuse of doing so...

What a great excuse for Disney Management. I can see the press release now "After careful research, we have decided to cut back because the Disney fans don't want the changes planned. "

What a spin Disney Management can put on this.

 

[DisneyFan 2000]

Yeah... Anyone ever heard of the marketing research that showed French guests would most like to see entertainment in the parks? Or the one that claims the Chinese prefer scenery over rides?


Plans will be cut without message boards... It's about time Jim realises that.

 

[StevenT]

LewZ, I would suggest that you don't try putting words in someones mouth. I don't think anyone has suggested that Jim Hill is lying. Quite the contrary he has a lot to offer.

Some of what Jim Hill says in the article is probably true, and he does have a lot to offer in his opinion, therefore I doubt anybody would call him a lier. I do beleive he is equivocating in that one thread from a forum is changing a multi-million dollar project. Seems to me more of a hyperbole than anything. I do think that it is possible, and likley that somebody has seen the threads in question, WDI or the "sharp pencil boys" however I do not personally beleive that they are having or could have the impact which he implies.

I beleive Mr. Hill's diction does not express a polite explanation of his opinion. It is entirely possible to successfully convey your opinion without degrading your opponent. I do not think he means to critisize people like he does, but it is just more his style of argument and writing.

For instance:

really feel like a jerk for saying something like this: But I'm not going to answer your e-mail, Travis. NOT because I don't think that you bring up some valid points (Because you do). But -- rather -- because I have grown tired of Disneyana fans who invoke Walt's name as part of their defense of Epcot.

I do not beleive that "I have grown tired of..." is a valid argument or correctly worded. A more appropriate staement that would have preserved the intent would be pehaps "You bring up some valid points however I beleive that the invocation of Walt's name is an overly used argument that usually has little validity because although you can speculate, you do not know for sure what Walt would have liked or disliked" This explains the comment better, and is certainly more polite. Certainly if his articles were written in a manner of trying to prove his point instead of trying to force his point then less offense would have been taken in the first article, and there would have never been another.

 

[LewZealand]

For instance:
I do not beleive that "I have grown tired of..." is a valid argument or correctly worded.

Agreed. Probably a poor choice of words when trying to make a serious argument. However, semantics aside, I agree with Jim. I have grown tired of this argument.

 

[KevinPage]

I agree with Rad Rat, in the sense that a message board isn't going to convince management to spend additional $$$, but people COULD attempt to use it to bolster their cause to spend LESS. If may seem far fetched, but what do they have to lose (the sharp pencil boys).

Whether this is going on over in Glendale, is a debatable point. But never rule out management using ANYTHING they can to 'save a buck', no matter what corporation you are dealing with.


And for the record, Walt himself coined that phrase years ago, when the accountants told him he could save money by not doing as much maintenance and clean up around the parks.

 

[Yen_Sid1]

I have to say all this is becoming a bit too much. I think Jim stepped way over the line the first time around. This time it's simply pathetic. All these theorys of management using this as a reason for cutbacks is a load of bs imo. As stated earlier, management have decided to cut back anyway, this is just the excuse of doing so...

It is just like management at any big company. You get a budget to work with and if you keep it under budget and deliver it on time.

You get a bigger bonus!! So if it is late or over budget... No bunus!! .. and maybe no job. So the project management is worrying about their bonus ..or their job not what people are saying on some newsgroup.

 

[Wckd Queen]

Generally speaking, budgets are both created and cut based on guidelines that have been set forth and/or modified by upper management. It is quite possible to create a budget only to have modifications be made to it several months later, or even to have those monies allocated diverted to an entirely different project. I have experienced this on several occasions. As accounants generally operate under "the modifying convention of conservatism", budgets are generally neither created or cut without careful consideration of all aspects. As such, I highly doubt any message boards were involved in such a decision. Rather, there could have been shortages in other areas. Perhaps, for exampe, say something like the demolition of 20K cost more than origionally projected. There would be a need for additional funds to finish the project rather than have it sit as a giant hole in the ground surrounded by a construction wall, so funds would be diverted there. It's not really something we are privvy to at this point, unfortunately.

 

[LewZealand]

Well put Wckd Queen.

I think what we have seen in Jim's past 2 columns is more a venting of frustration towards obsessive Disney fans rather than an analysis of the effects of message boards on Imagineering budgets.

 

[AMartin777]

Ohh, the humanity!

It seems that there is a clear division between the "Jim supporters" and the "Jim bashers" here. As to this particular instance of Travis Y., I find it laughable that Mr. Hill has taken the time to post his response to an e-mail, beginning with a declaration that he will not post a response, because Walt Disney's name was raised in defense of an argument. I agree that Walt Disney's name is sometimes used loosely and somewhat irresponsibly by some when arguing a point. However, I believe that Mr. Hill is failing to appreciate and acknowledge the intention behind such a case.

Walt Disney's name is often used because it serves as a reminder to the reader that often the point being argued can be traced back to the personal character of Walt Disney as a person not literally "What Walt would do". It is clear that Walt Disney had fixed and unwavering opinions about the operation of the Disney company. There are multiple quotes attributable to Walt himself that support this. Mr. Hill described his understanding of Walt Disney as a man who was anything but predictable. While there may be examples that demonstrate this, it is short-sited to make the supposition that Walt Disney's basic ideals were grounded in frivolity and therefore groundless in argument.

While I feel Travis Y's particular e-mail contained an evocation of Walt Disney's name in less than clear terms, I understood his intention clearly. If one believes Mr. Hill's statements as to the impact of Grizz's writing on influencing "The Sharp Pencil Boys" to be true, then is it not possible that Mr. Hill's comments about Walt Disney could be used to justify limiting the budget for "Those unpredictable guys” in WDI because they try to “Think like Walt”?

I believe Mr. Hill responded to Travis's e-mail by arguing semantics not addressing his points. I respect Mr. Hill and his writings about Disney but I feel, in this instance, he was unprepared to respond to Travis Y's e-mail point-for-point and used an idiosyncrasy in Travis's writing to avoid the discussion.

The following paragraph is from Mr. Hill himself:

Change is healthy, folks. Walt Disney certainly thought so. That's why he said that "Disneyland will never be completed. It will always continue to grow as long as there is imagination left in the world." Walt knew that -- in order to keep the people coming to Anaheim & Orlando -- he'd have to continually make changes to the place.

So Mr. Hill, you apparently are "privvy to information that the rest of us don't have?". Also, since we are arguing semantics, I interperet "Disneyland will never be completed. It will always continue to grow as long as there is imagination left in the world." to mean "changes through growth ". "Grow" is the word in the quote not "Change" so that you don't have the interpretation of change for change's sake.

 

[LewZealand]

Hopefully Travis will write Jim back withhout the "Walt" reasoning and we will get to hear Jim's answer.

 

[PhotoDave219]

That article is hysterical. I have seen some "interesting" things on that particular site before, but to suggest that a thread on a forum has caused budgets to be removed is just rediculous. Anyone who thinks that a couple of people's comments on a message board (either positive or negative) can make multi-million dollar changes to a project are living in Fantasyland. Subject matter must be running low over at some websites this week, as there seems to be some barrel scraping going on.

Thats hysterical. Im just hoping for increased site traffic :d

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Travis: I have undeniable proof that the Saudis are secretly funding Fantasyland so Al Qaeda can operate out of PhilharMagic, the Carousel of Progess will be demolished to make way for an Atlantis meet and greet/souvenir stand, and Michael Eisner is only stepping down so he can make way for Oscar the Grouch. Oh, and I love peanut butter.

Jim's response: I hate peanut butter. Try again, Trav.

 

[LewZealand]

Travis: I have undeniable proof that the Saudis are secretly funding Fantasyland so Al Qaeda can operate out of PhilharMagic, the Carousel of Progess will be demolished to make way for an Atlantis meet and greet/souvenir stand, and Michael Eisner is only stepping down so he can make way for Oscar the Grouch. Oh, and I love peanut butter.

Jim's response: I hate peanut butter. Try again, Trav.

Not an acurate satire of why Jim refused to answer the question. But damn funny none the less.

 

[SirNim]

Smart reply, AMartin777. :sohappy:

Jim's pointing fingers again. Putting a culpable twist on his comments from last week.

The whole situation vaguely evokes hypocrisy. Don't know how, don't know why; just does. My opinion. :lookaroun

 

[Scruffy]

Jim Hill is so funny. It like reading the funnies.

P.S.

A word to the wise, don't believe a word that Jim Hill says. He makes stuff up quicking than a tall tale.

 

[General Grizz]

Wow. . . *two* Jim Hill stories dealing with Grizz. I've talked to Mr. Hill about this, and if you click on the link of my signature, you'll know exactly where I stand on the Land.

It's a shame the "pencil boys" are using my Call to Arms in this manner. You think they'd look at my WoL/CoP posts, too, right?

(If anything, through his efforts, we may now have *more* attention on the Call to Arms thread that was linked in his first article. That could be against the purpose? *shrug*)