Is Disney starting to lose that genuine quality for you?

[bUU]

at least in some tiny part to feed our Disney-love.

Ahhhh The picture becomes clear. You’re buying a home based on its proximity to an amusement park complex.

I suppose you thought it was smart reading "some tiny part" and then replying to it as if I said it was the only reason or main reason. Rather, what it showed is how willing you are to stoop to childish behavior online to make yourself feel better about yourself.

For the third time, we're moving five miles from Maingate, "at least in some tiny part to feed our Disney-love." We wouldn't mention that "tiny part" if Disney had not proven for longer than you've (apparently) been alive that they will continually provide an incredible product. As you and others who agree with you desperately grasp at straws and posture to try to rationalize the incredibly puerile attempts to place your own personal preferences over the professional expertise of people who could run rings around you at gauging what will satisfy the general public best, you will accomplish little more than back yourself into deeper and deeper corners.

 

[starri42]

The reality, of course, is what I wrote, that you were responding to. People like starri42 better reflect the typical Disney guest than people like you and those who agree with you do. And I fit somewhere in between... a bit closer to the irrational obsessiveness that you exhibit, but only a bit closer.

In fairness, I might go more frequently if finances allowed. As it stands, I have $X to spend on travel and Y number of days in which to do it. I think I fit into the "every three years" sweet spot that the company seems to go after.

But like I said, I find both the Imagineering (I have more than a few books about the history of the Disney parks) and the corporate decision-making kind of fascinating, so I read a lot about it.

 

[bUU]

In fairness, I might go more frequently if finances allowed. As it stands, I have $X to spend on travel and Y number of days in which to do it. I think I fit into the "every three years" sweet spot that the company seems to go after.

Fair enough. It is uncomfortable to talk about, but we have to acknowledge that the purchasing behaviors Disney targets also includes a certain level of affluence.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Wow. So, in your mind, it both matters and doesn't matter, depending on how each supports different parts of your inane prattle. How conveeeeeeeenient!

The reality, of course, is what I wrote, that you were responding to. People like starri42 better reflect the typical Disney guest than people like you and those who agree with you do. And I fit somewhere in between... a bit closer to the irrational obsessiveness that you exhibit, but only a bit closer.

my opinion - you’re not gonna agree - but buying a house in four corners (did you lose a bet?) is NOT spending money on Disney.
Many have to tried to “live in Disney world”...they all have failed.

I hope you enjoy your time in Florida and your park access...but that doesn’t mean your opinion now carries more cred. Many people have or do live in central Florida. I hope you haven’t convinced yourself that it is the same. Ask around.

Translation: "You have different preferences than I have, but to stroke my ego I have to believe that my preferences are 'right' and yours are 'wrong'."

Everyone has an opinion. I can appreciate those that are informed and well thought out.

But when you never present one - as TF Never does - it’s hard to take the source seriously.

Pages after pages of actual details/discussions on a variety of topics...and you get a variation on “I think it’s great/never better” without anything but the superficial.

It’s great? Why?!? Use big words like “experience” and “achievement” and “success”....leave drivel like “magic” on the front stoop.

He didn't say that. The reality is that the general public does have something to say about Disney's price increases over the last ten years: They ratify those increases, even though you hate that reality.

Park attendance hasn’t really “grown” in a “drunken economy” for the last 5-8 years. A possible cause is the pricing. Likely - actually. This is a matter of “perspective”. We won’t really know until the economic cycles reset.

I’ll wait to be proven right or wrong. It’s not up to the town fool, however, who’s setting new records for personal attacks in “scorched earth fashion”. (See the lion king thread)

Oh my, that's the pot calling the kettle black.

Here's a test for you: Post a link to a comment within which you state that something Disney did that you didn't like was actually the correct decision.

I bet you can't.

It actually happens all the time. And I’ll admit when I am proven wrong.

I’ll give an easy example: I though avatar was a bad choice. I thought the IP mattered, it was reactive, and the theme didn’t fit in DAK at all.
They built a great land with Cameron and it is a vindication for Disney.

On another front: stay tuned for my response to @Ravenclaw78 about Abrams land. He did a brilliant, well reasoned counterpoint that I laud. I read it yesterday and loved it because it’s counterpoints. Got sidetracked and haven’t responded yet.

I change my mind/stand corrected all the time. But not to snit; patronization, unnecessary mommying, or “because it’s Disney”. None of those are valid arguments.

“Because it’s Disney” is exactly why the consumers need to ask for things, question decisions and expect more. That’s the consumer dynamic.

 

[Ravenclaw78]

On another front: stay tuned for my response to @Ravenclaw78 about Abrams land. He did a brilliant, well reasoned counterpoint that I laud. I read it yesterday and loved it because it’s counterpoints. Got sidetracked and haven’t responded yet.

Aww, thanks!

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Aww, thanks!

Stay tuned...I was planning before the bopsy twins got all lippy

 

[Ravenclaw78]

Stay tuned...I was planning before the bopsy twins got all lippy

Yeah... I really should get back to doing my real job instead of being an Internet troll now that lunch is over, but I'll check it out this evening. I respect your rationality even if I don't always agree with your conclusions, and you're nowhere near as negative as Ford Exploder was.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Yeah... I really should get back to doing my real job instead of being an Internet troll now that lunch is over, but I'll check it out this evening. I respect your rationality even if I don't always agree with your conclusions, and you're nowhere near as negative as Ford Exploder was.

I’ve said this for years...I have never once been “negative”...but I admit freely to being “critical”

They are not the same.

We pay money for their consumer goods. It’s a relationship. If we questioned our paint that we got from Home Depot, nobody would flinch. But because it comes from Disney, many predetermine that they are “offended” by any questioning.

This outfit makes ALOT of mistakes. They have and will continue to do so.

You can love something and question its deficiencies...in fact, that’s what the majority of humans do with each other. And that can lead to positive change. A net gain.

This shouldn’t be different.

 

[bUU]

my opinion - you’re not gonna agree - but buying a house in four corners (did you lose a bet?) is NOT spending money on Disney.

I never said it was, so yet again you've demonstrated a lack of reading comprehension or an intention to argue against things no one said because you don't have a legitimate response to what was said. (I'll bet on the latter.)

If you remember what we were talking about (I'm sure, actually, that you don't), the point I was making is that there is a spectrum of guests. Some guests, like yourself, are ridiculously "obsessive" (and remember: that's the word FettFan used, and you decided to continue to use), fixating on and inanely lashing out at any changes they don't like. Other guests, like how csmat99 appears to be, aren't "obsessive" in that way at all. So what I was saying is that I'm just little bit more "obsessive" than csmat99 (because my spouse and I allowed our Disney love to have some small bit of influence on our decision where to move). You don't seem to be able to handle that being said and seem willing to twist yourself into a pretzel to try to deflect attention away from what is being said onto your vapid, nonsensical prattle.

Many have to tried to “live in Disney world”...they all have failed.

No one was talking about that.

I hope you enjoy your time in Florida and your park access...but that doesn’t mean your opinion now carries more cred.

I never said it did. I didn't really say very much about my "opinion" about what's good or bad for me, and your replies weren't in response to any of the spots where I did - you're just replying to my statements. Those statements carry more credibility because they are based on a comprehensive understanding of the realities of the business rather than, like yours, fatally afflicted by a belief that your own personal opinion should prevail over all other considerations.

I'll post the challenge to you again: Post a link to a comment within which you state that something Disney did that you didn't like was actually the correct decision.

I bet you can't.

Everyone has an opinion. I can appreciate those that are informed and well thought out.

There is no evidence of that. All evidence indicates that the only opinions you can appreciate are those that are consistent with your own.

Pages after pages of actual details/discussions on a variety of topics...and you get a variation on “I think it’s great/never better” without anything but the superficial.

The fact that you make up a lot of nonsense to fill your posts with words "doesn’t mean your opinion now carries more cred" than his. Even though you seem incapable of admitting it, his "it's good" or "it's bad" is as important and as valid and as worthwhile as your rants and tirades - and again for the same reason: You aren't looking past your personal preferences to comment about the broader reality.

Park attendance hasn’t really “grown” in a “drunken economy” for the last 5-8 years.

Because you hate? That's the only explanation I can come up with for why you refuse to admit that the Magic Kingdom and Epcot attendance grew by 2% in 2018; that Animal Kingdom's attendance increased 10%; that even under construction Hollywood Studios attendance grew 5%. You just cannot seem to break free of the bonds you place yourself in by only considering your own personal preferences.

A possible cause is the pricing.

The first marginally worthwhile words in your reply, and it isn't for the reason you typed them. Pricing is important, just like attendance, but that's because what's really important to Disney isn't the total number of guests but rather how much those guests are willing to spend. Guests who are truly motivated by what you offer will spend more money, and that's what they're supposed to be aiming for.

We won’t really know until the economic cycles reset.

You're basically saying here that the only time you're willing to look at any of these metrics that objectively show Disney's success is when there is an economic downturn that rationalizes your insistence on spewing what I seems to be petty hatred for those who run the show, again seemingly grounded in a fixation on your own personal preferences to the exclusion of the reality of the environment that the parks operate within.

I’ll wait to be proven right or wrong.

Translation: You'll refuse to acknowledge objective measures until they briefly support your vitriol.

It actually happens all the time.

Yet you didn't post a link to a comment within which you state that something Disney did that you didn't like was actually the correct decision. So basically I think you're lying, perhaps to yourself.

And I’ll admit when I am proven wrong.

That wasn't what we were talking about. Admitting it shows you're not a psychopath; that's good but I would think that would be a given. What I challenged you to do is show that you could see, in the moment, past your own personal preferences and acknowledge that something Disney did that you didn't like was actually the correct decision.

If you don't see the difference, or don't understand why the difference is important, then I'm not sure there's much I can say to explain it to you.

 

[Goofyque']

62 years of Disney Parks! Went to DL with my dad an mom 2 years after it opened. Multiple trips to both coasts with any number of different family members and friends. Each trip is different, special and wonderful. Disney is the magic, it's up to the individual how to use it!

 

[Janir]

If anything I wish they'd stop with this "live action" remake of its movies. they suck and are never as good as the animated version.

Right on board with ya on those! I wanted to really really like them all.
OTOH, I can see why Iger and co want to do all these remakes, it a way to "keep those IP alive", aka "useful" to the Parks and general merchandising.
"See Cinderella is relevant, we just had a Live Action movie! See Aladdin is still relevant, we just had a movie!"
Someone must have convinced the Bobs that the older animated IP isn't as relevant these days and they needed a refresh to keep them relevant for newer generations. But the movie industry isn't as much about taking risks with new stories as they once were. Maybe that's the HBO/Netflix/ Home streaming taking effect now.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

You and I are part of that "majority of the small minority" I referred to, above. To be honest, you're even more firmly in that "majority of the small minority" and I'm closer to the irrational small minority of the small minority that FettFan, csmat99, etc., represent, since my spouse and I are spending a few hundred thousand dollars this year at least in some tiny part to feed our Disney-love.

I think it is really important to keep in perspective, as you suggest, where we all are in this spectrum of guests.

I never said it was, so yet again you've demonstrated a lack of reading comprehension or an intention to argue against things no one said because you don't have a legitimate response to what was said. (I'll bet on the latter.)

If you remember what we were talking about (I'm sure, actually, that you don't), the point I was making is that there is a spectrum of guests. Some guests, like yourself, are ridiculously "obsessive" (and remember: that's the word FettFan used, and you decided to continue to use), fixating on and inanely lashing out at any changes they don't like. Other guests, like how csmat99 appears to be, aren't "obsessive" in that way at all. So what I was saying is that I'm just little bit more "obsessive" than csmat99 (because my spouse and I allowed our Disney love to have some small bit of influence on our decision where to move). You don't seem to be able to handle that being said and seem willing to twist yourself into a pretzel to try to deflect attention away from what is being said onto your vapid, nonsensical prattle.

No one was talking about that.

I never said it did. I didn't really say very much about my "opinion" about what's good or bad for me, and your replies weren't in response to any of the spots where I did - you're just replying to my statements. Those statements carry more credibility because they are based on a comprehensive understanding of the realities of the business rather than, like yours, fatally afflicted by a belief that your own personal opinion should prevail over all other considerations.

I'll post the challenge to you again: Post a link to a comment within which you state that something Disney did that you didn't like was actually the correct decision.

I bet you can't.

There is no evidence of that. All evidence indicates that the only opinions you can appreciate are those that are consistent with your own.

The fact that you make up a lot of nonsense to fill your posts with words "doesn’t mean your opinion now carries more cred" than his. Even though you seem incapable of admitting it, his "it's good" or "it's bad" is as important and as valid and as worthwhile as your rants and tirades - and again for the same reason: You aren't looking past your personal preferences to comment about the broader reality.

Because you hate? That's the only explanation I can come up with for why you refuse to admit that the Magic Kingdom and Epcot attendance grew by 2% in 2018; that Animal Kingdom's attendance increased 10%; that even under construction Hollywood Studios attendance grew 5%. You just cannot seem to break free of the bonds you place yourself in by only considering your own personal preferences.

The first marginally worthwhile words in your reply, and it isn't for the reason you typed them. Pricing is important, just like attendance, but that's because what's really important to Disney isn't the total number of guests but rather how much those guests are willing to spend. Guests who are truly motivated by what you offer will spend more money, and that's what they're supposed to be aiming for.

You're basically saying here that the only time you're willing to look at any of these metrics that objectively show Disney's success is when there is an economic downturn that rationalizes your insistence on spewing what I seems to be petty hatred for those who run the show, again seemingly grounded in a fixation on your own personal preferences to the exclusion of the reality of the environment that the parks operate within.

Translation: You'll refuse to acknowledge objective measures until they briefly support your vitriol.

Yet you didn't post a link to a comment within which you state that something Disney did that you didn't like was actually the correct decision. So basically I think you're lying, perhaps to yourself.

That wasn't what we were talking about. Admitting it shows you're not a psychopath; that's good but I would think that would be a given. What I challenged you to do is show that you could see, in the moment, past your own personal preferences and acknowledge that something Disney did that you didn't like was actually the correct decision.

If you don't see the difference, or don't understand why the difference is important, then I'm not sure there's much I can say to explain it to you.

You are parsing what you wrote above...attempting to gain credibility as “more dedicated” of a fan in the spectrum you were talking about - but deviated from your point of a spectrum - with that line drop.

That’s how that plays...which I think you know.
That’s why you were called on it (not by me) and got the responses you did.

If you want to infer something, then switch to straight literal connotation, it’s the equivalent of chasing your brainstem like a tail. You may not have meant it...but it’s a problem with no “inflection” in a medium without emotion.

As for all your other “counterpoints”... they are just combative. I gave you examples, you don’t like them. That’s ok. We both should move on. I would suggest you drop the economist routine - which is so tired and ends up being what Disney apologist use when they want to sound “more intelligent” than the standard Disney apologist - but that likely won’t happen. (The highlights are in the paragraph above...which is a compete tangent. If you can’t understand that Disney park pricing/reception is dictated in the longterm by the economic travel/leisure cycle...I can’t help. Nor will it be possible to explain that attendance in wdw that is up maybe 2,000,000 over an Economic boom of 7 years is not really “up” at all based on historic patterns. More of the standard uptick they have consistently seen. Why? It’s the price. If many of the “normal” customers aren’t priced out...wdw would be closer to 60 mil in clicks and Orlando would be bursting from the swamps. Just a “theory” confirmed by last precedent)

How is saying I criticized avatar and acknowledging they made the right decision not “acknowledging they made the right decision”?

If I shout it in Klingon does it resonate?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Right on board with ya on those! I wanted to really really like them all.
OTOH, I can see why Iger and co want to do all these remakes, it a way to "keep those IP alive", aka "useful" to the Parks and general merchandising.
"See Cinderella is relevant, we just had a Live Action movie! See Aladdin is still relevant, we just had a movie!"
Someone must have convinced the Bobs that the older animated IP isn't as relevant these days and they needed a refresh to keep them relevant for newer generations. But the movie industry isn't as much about taking risks with new stories as they once were. Maybe that's the HBO/Netflix/ Home streaming taking effect now.

Live action remakes are incredibly safe bets. They cover their budgets and generate some buzz/sales automatically. Dumbo and Alice through tbe looking glass prove that.

I think it’s ironic that this isn’t iger’s idea...as it is the brainchild of katzenberg - I believe - with 101 Dalmatians in the mid 90’s.

But computers couldn’t do what was needed to continue at that time.

 

[Ravenclaw78]

I’ve said this for years...I have never once been “negative”...but I admit freely to being “critical”

They are not the same.

We pay money for their consumer goods. It’s a relationship. If we questioned our paint that we got from Home Depot, nobody would flinch. But because it comes from Disney, many predetermine that they are “offended” by any questioning.

This outfit makes ALOT of mistakes. They have and will continue to do so.

You can love something and question its deficiencies...in fact, that’s what the majority of humans do with each other. And that can lead to positive change. A net gain.

This shouldn’t be different.

I misspoke. You have a *reputation* for being negative. It is, for the most part, undeserved. Cynicism does not automatically equate to negativity.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I misspoke. You have a *reputation* for being negative. It is, for the most part, undeserved. Cynicism does not automatically equate to negativity.

You didn’t miss speak. That’s the tag.

But I always state...to those that can go to Disney parks and still carry on a reasonable conversation outside of them...that cynicism will protect the parks longterm. Make them earn it. If we don’t, some clown on the street will have them run it into the ground.

That’s how it works.

 

[xdan0920]

I suppose you thought it was smart reading "some tiny part" and then replying to it as if I said it was the only reason or main reason. Rather, what it showed is how willing you are to stoop to childish behavior online to make yourself feel better about yourself.

For the third time, we're moving five miles from Maingate, "at least in some tiny part to feed our Disney-love." We wouldn't mention that "tiny part" if Disney had not proven for longer than you've (apparently) been alive that they will continually provide an incredible product. As you and others who agree with you desperately grasp at straws and posture to try to rationalize the incredibly puerile attempts to place your own personal preferences over the professional expertise of people who could run rings around you at gauging what will satisfy the general public best, you will accomplish little more than back yourself into deeper and deeper corners.

You, at least partially, bought a home based on its proximity to Disney World. You clearly have an incentive to defend Disney World based on this. What’s childish about pointing that out?

 

[Ravenclaw78]

You didn’t miss speak. That’s the tag.

But I always state...to those that can go to Disney parks and still carry on a reasonable conversation outside of them...that cynicism will protect the parks longterm. Make them earn it. If we don’t, some clown on the street will have them run it into the ground.

That’s how it works.

100% agreed. Drives me nuts when people are argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, but the parks are hardly all sunshine and pixie dust either. As with everything, the truth lies in the spaces in between.

 

[Prototype82]

The tragedy of what became of our Rivers of Light is a sad foreshadowing of what sort of cheap and generic decisions are going to be made in the years to come.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

The tragedy of what became of our Rivers of Light is a sad foreshadowing of what sort of cheap and generic decisions are going to be made in the years to come.

I think that was just a horrible idea...pooched in the way only the “DAK team” can do it.

But it’s not entirely their fault. They have really not stressed writing stories for new original attractions - it’s all IP for years - and someplaces just aren’t designed for parades and shows.

Dak maybe the best example.

 

[HoldenC]

I am definitely downgrading my Disney World AP in one month when it renews simply because I do not feel valued and loved as a Platnium Pluss Passmember. I love the parks dearly but truly what's the point?? As a SeaWorld passholder, I'm treated like a God even thought I'm only Silver (one of the lowest tiers). I get NOTHING from WDW. Why the hell can't they give me discounts on everything like SWO? I find it downright offensive Disney believes they can charge me full price for booze and quick service food when just up the street I get all of that for a 20% off. Add in the weekday happy hour at SWO, the greatest summer event in Orlando, and a great ride lineup and I'm sold. Disney is becoming down right idiotic with their FL passholder rates and I refuse to fall victim. Why would I pay nearly $80 a month for WDW when the top tier at SW is almost half that? Step it up Disney!! Give me a night parade at MK, non IP fireworks, actual new additions to ALL THE PARKS, and maybe I'll be Platinum Plus again. Until then, bye!