-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Mission:Space update (confirmed)
- Thread starter BEARSHOUSE4
- Start date
sedati
Well-Known Member
It seems to me that during Iger's time we have had far more refurbs that didn't simply repaint, but in some cases practically rebuilt rides, shops, hotels, etc. This is the problem with 25-50+ year old resorts. There also seems more money spent on traffic flow issues, security, safety, etc. Not every dollar spent gets you a new ride, but it doesn't mean it isn't worth spending.
Did he not also just buy out Paris? And a higher stake at Hong Kong? A lot of money spent for the right to spend a lot of money bringing those parks up to par.
Did he not also just buy out Paris? And a higher stake at Hong Kong? A lot of money spent for the right to spend a lot of money bringing those parks up to par.
Next Big Thing
Well-Known Member
Yes, I won't disagree with that.
However I think it's sort of contradictory to his preachy "Epcot is being killed by Iger and his IPs" speech when Eisner did the most damage to the park.
I understand people loved EPCOT Center, but that park is dead and there's no signs of it coming back. Hell, even the current UoE sort of uses "IPs" in a way as Ellen and Bill Nye are their own brands. Losing Energy doesn't mean we're losing more of original Epcot as it's been dead for close to 20 years.
I'd disagree. As bad as Ellen is in use of the pavilion, it'll be the end of the epic scale attraction that was a hallmark of the original park.
HMF
Well-Known Member
DCA was fixed more IN SPITE of Iger than because of him. There is a reason you don't hear much from John Lasseter these days.
HMF
Well-Known Member
Yes, but in Epcot's case, The IP integration is rarely thoughtful and appropriate. Again, I was literally excited when I saw Inside Out because I saw how to resurrect Wonders of Life so I am not 100% anti-IP it is when the IP is more important than the subject and overriding theme (Seas with Nemo) that I have a problem.
ChrisFL
Premium Member
that makes more sense!
Haymarket2008
Well-Known Member
FigmentForver96
Well-Known Member
I couldn't agree more. The ride still had a core theme of energy and worked for the park.
Eisner def crippled EPCOT Center and brought it to its knees, Iger will be the one to kill it.
One has to wonder if the old concept of Epcot Center would work today. Do Energy, Motion, land, water, body, communication and "the future" still in and of themselves get people excited enough to bring them into the park? Would Horizons and the original Imagination Pavilion with Figment still satisfy the crowds? And, more importantly, would they attract people in to see them?
Too many IPs give me Mickey burnout, like a steady diet of bubble gum and cotton candy. But given the smartphone attention spans of today's guests, does a park have to rely on a character with big back story to both keep the guest engaged and to bring the guest through the gate in the first place?
I hope not. I also hope that IPs are not a shortcut way to bring people in, and are not an easy and safe way to get a new attraction idea going within the company. After all, Mission Space might be considered by some in the company to have been a disappointment because there was no IP. How does Mission Space with WallE sound? To me, it's more bubble gum and cotton candy. But to some bean-counters in the Board Room, adding WallE would help assure the ride's popularity. I've got to tell you that the Seas pavilion was very quiet before Nemo, Bruce and Crush showed up. Now, it's popular, despite the diabetic coma that it puts me in.
Yeah, dumbing down for the guests. I think most of us on these boards would prefer great IP-less Epcot attractions, but let's take into account today's realities before condemning the Bobs. It's The Fountainhead's Howard Roark versus Gail Wynand. Elevate the public, or kowtow to them. I wish Disney would go back to being more of the former. Thankfully, Illuminations still elevates them in a nice bright and loud way.
Daveeeeed
Well-Known Member
True it does suck. EPCOT Center was beautiful, and unfortunately, we'll never get it back. What I disagree with some is who is the main cause.
It's just my opinion of a compromise between Iger and Eisner, but I knew I would receive heat for it as neither of them are perfect. I do think one will LEAVE the company as a whole and the parks in a far better state than the other CEO, but that's just my opinion.
But like you, it sucks losing the original vision for what could be (and once was) the best theme park on the planet.
Last edited:
Daveeeeed
Well-Known Member
Eisner crippled Epcot's quality. Iger will be the one to kill it with quality attraction based IPs. It sucks losing such an epic mission statement etc., but that ship sailed in the late 90's. On the bright side while not perfect, thankfully Epcot will not be left without quality.
Daveeeeed
Well-Known Member
Very true, and well said. And like I said, had he left in the late 90's I would be calling him an epic CEO.To be completely fair, Eisner suffered some health issues during that period of the 90s that affects your personality and decision making, as heart issues typically do, especially after a heart attack. The timeline with his bad decisions and health issues do coincide with each other. I have a pretty good insight about Eisner as my dad and he had a pretty volatile business situation back in the 90s, so I'm not a revisionist Pixie Duster
But I do firmly believe he loved the parks, though. And was far more ambitious than Iger. Euro Disney was a big disaster and really changed the way he conducted business in his latter Disney career. Had it not been for that park we'd be looking at Eisner completely differently as the parks would have grown greatly in the Disney Decade, IMO.
If you have issues that affect decision making, a very wise person would have stepped down, but he is human and was passionate for the company. He, being so passionate, thought Disney was indestructible which it was not. From what I've researched and seen him do he seemed like he was the modern Walt Disney. That brought good and bad but ended him taking him down. It brought him down hard.
I don't think he was a bad person, but business wise, the peak of the company while he was in office was the center. Best to leave on a high note and be known for that.
It's purely my opinion that Iger has been better as a whole, but Eisner took on a different company. One that at first needed to be more conservative with movie budgets etc. Eventually, through him being a very good CEO he gained the ability to make very bold moves and I applaud him for that. But he also came close to crumbling earlier too which I think cannot be ignored. But like you've said, Disneyland Paris is the single reason why the parks were left the way they were, and why we get terrible parks like DCA, WDS, and HK. I don't blame him for trying to go cheaper, but it was obvious that that strategy could not sustain itself truly beginning with DCA's failure especially when compared to Disney SEA's spectacular success that opened the same year.
If he would have corrected his misguided correction of Disneyland Paris I would say he is such a great CEO, but he approved two other parks like it. Not to mention he destroyed 3 classic attractions in EPCOT Center alone, and also added Nemo in a cheap way.
Again, his first half as CEO was excellent.
Iger, through making excellent acquisitions (how did he get Lucasfilms for only 4B?) has gained him a status that is in my opinion superior.
I believe Eisner was VERY GOOD for that time he spent, but some things disabled the company in theme parks. And to the contrary, they enabled Bob Iger to go full cylinders with expanding the company to new heights especially in the movie division. Comparing them, it's my opinion that Bob Iger is superior, but again Michael Eisner did many good things too, but it was of course time to replace him. He, unfortunately, fizzled out, and I cannot explain why besides speculation, and some idea of his medical problems. My main thing is the way he left the company compared to the way Iger is expected to leave it. I think there hopefully will be no comparison.
FigmentForver96
Well-Known Member
Quality is fantastic when thematically appropriate. A crippled EPCOT Center is easier to fix then a dead one. I don't need Magic Kingdom 2.0 which Epcot is about to be.
HMF
Well-Known Member
Many people miss that at the tail end of his tenure Michael DID attempt to fix the ship by putting Matt Ouimet in charge of Disneyland and Ouimet did right the ship by doing a masterful job with Disneyland's 50th. Then Iger came in and Ouimet left soon afterward.
HMF
Well-Known Member
Iger did not fix the majority of the problems Eisner left, He just bought a few "Toys" to distract from them. It will be left to the next CEO to fix the messes created by his two predecessors.
tl77
Well-Known Member
Well, General Electric did pay half the cost of building Horizons, and the ride featured GE IPs... The ride was filled with prototype technologies from General Electric, the same way the Carousel of Progress was full of GE appliances at the end, or like the original "speed ramp" exit to Space Mountain, called RCA's "Home of Future Living", which was basically just an advertisement for RCA's Select-A-Vision video disc players. Part of that deal for RCA's sponsoring of Space Mountain, was the exclusive rights to Walt Disney Films in their Select-A-Vision format, which is why Disney films were not available in VHS until somewhere around 1985, which is when the Select-A-Vision format was discontinued... but we probably would not gotten something as massive as MK's version of Space Mountain with out the RCA IP deal. Today Disney is such a huge corporation they just sell they're own products at the end of their rides, like the Nemo gift shop at the exit of the Living Seas, helps finance the upkeep of the gigantic aquarium, but there has always been some type of product being sold at the Disney parks