Good for Staggs. He proved to be the mature adult so deserving of his position, and shoved a much-needed pacifier in the pie-holes of the WDW cry-babies.
Waaah! Boo-hoo! Why didn't we get a $1.5 billion overhaul of Epcot announcement?
Waaah! Boo-hoo! Bring back my beloved Adventurer's Club!
:hammer:Waaah! Boo-hoo! Why won't they spend $50 million on the Imagination Pavilion and usher back the golden age of Figment for the 651 people who actually like him?
Whether or not the complaints are as irrational as you paint them to be, consumers are exercising their right, no, their duty, to push producers for higher quality.
I respect Staggs for responding to the complaints. He was very professional and did something that I don't think many executives would do. Now let's see if he can be even more mature and take steps to correct them.
Once again, allow me to educate everyone. Disney is currently spending a collective $5 billion+ on parks all around the world. Just because they're not spending it in one location, your preferred location, doesn't mean they've failed or that they're doing anything wrong. It just means you have tunnel vision, and on behalf of all the adults in the world, thankfully, none of you militant armchair Imagineers are in charge of anything important. That business would surely fail inside of a week. Disney knows what they're doing, and when they're ready to tell you they'll wake you up from your nap. Now, hush little babies... :snore:
Just because they're spending billions of the Chinese government's money in Shanghai doesn't mean that WDW gets limited to a measly $300 million. Not when you have 2 out of 4 parks that are widely considered half day parks.
I might be too much of a "Spend, spend, spend!" guy in that I long for unrealistically large expansions, but it doesn't take much to realize that Disney is doing less work with more money. Wizarding World of Harry Potter is estimated to have cost Universal $200 million or so. By comparison, what appears to be, at best, an equal expansion (in reality, I can't see it matching WWoHP, but we'll give it the benefit of the doubt for now), clocking in at $300 million.
You see the same issue in the studio division. Pirates At World's End may have grossed a billion dollars, but it cost $300 million. Meanwhile, The Dark Knight, a superior movie in terms of quality which edged out Pirates at the box office, was made for a mere $180 million.
Disney's problems appear to be that they are over-cautious with investments (I mean, is it really that unclear that even a couple C-Tickets at Animal Kingdom would make a world of a difference?) and reckless spending. Fix the accounting problem, and they will be able to get a lot more bang for their buck.
The issues are a whole lot more complicated to address than I make it sound like, but if the Disney executives are really that great, they should be able to do something.