Tim G
Well-Known Member
Get one... :lookaroundandaman said:But I don't have a webcam connection... Oh. :lookaroun
Get one... :lookaroundandaman said:But I don't have a webcam connection... Oh. :lookaroun
Errr... Planet isn't owed by Disney...Since1976 said:I remember sitting eating lunch in a Planet Hollywood, ca. 1997, and watching a promotional video on one of the video screens they had set up. It showed the plans for seeminglly dozens of new restaurants around the world.
1disneydood said:We can use my shares in that arrangement. :animwink:
Then I'll finally get value. :lookaroun
I never ever said M. Eisner was bad...Trufan said:And Eisner was so bad, why? Even if they didn't have anything on the drawing boards for expanding parks, Eisner would never, ever say something like this.
Anyone want to place bets on when the "kick Iger out" bandwagon will start?
One thing is for sure: George Bodenheimer needs to be promoted.
Corrus said:Errr... Planet isn't owed by Disney...
Corrus said:I never ever said M. Eisner was bad...
Ousting a CEO is always a bad thing and serves no one... and I won't jump on that bandwagon, as you stated...
I see... sorry...Trufan said:I wasn't referring to you when I said that, but the many, many people that thought Eisner was terrible.
Great idea! Lets open more parks that i cant afford to fly to!
Epcot82Guy said:I'm not going to jump on this statement. It's not a good statement; it's not a bad statement. It could be interpreted as anything from small interactive restaurant-like ventures to Disneyquest examples (bad ones, at that, but in a different form perhaps) to watered down parks. It also means no new parks in the US (at least in any foreseeable future) is likely true, but that doesn't mean new attractions or even new "lands" perhaps. It's all about definitions (and the intentional lack thereof). It was a fairly guarded press statement, so I'll wait to see the truth it was candycoating.
DisneyDellsDude said:No!!
Don't expand more parks! It will take away the magic from the parks we have right now! (in my opinion)
Lynx04 said:"There are three or four entities in the world, locations with money, that are looking for site-based entertainment, I'll call them theme parks but they won't necessarily be along the same lines as parks we've built before"
It doesn't mean that they will build DLs all over the world, they could be building different type of theme parks in different locations, which is good idea if you ask me. It allows for richer in quality and novalty of the theme parks.
The parks are ment to appeal to local markets and regional markets. Not so much Western Markets.
Trufan said:Actually he did say no to new lands. Attractions, no. But saying that they aren't looking at expanding exisiting parks is the same as saying "no new lands".
Hear hear, well put. :lol:mkt said:so... more half-assed Disneylands for rapidly developing economies?
CTXRover said:It all depends on how one reads into it or even how Iger interpreted the question being asked him. Personally, I wouldn't try to gleam out the hidden message in his brief candid answer to a simple question. However, given the way he answered the question, I imagine his thought line was along what he/Disney intends to do with expanding the theme park BUSINESS, not specific individual parks. He made no specific mention of expanding the Hong Kong Park or any specific park for that matter. In stark contrast, the answer he gave seemed to simply indicate his intentions of expanding the theme park business, NOT the individual theme parks.
bhg469 said:I have to disagree. I always wanted to see disneyland paris, and i would kill to see disney sea and i guarantee that alot of people here would agree with me.
wdwishes2005 said:Exactly, Disney does NOT need to become an international six flags.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.