Mystery Project at Epcot

PeterAlt

PeterAlt

Well-Known Member
BoarderPhreak said:
Yep, the horrible Eisner Era. Funny how they're undoing a bunch of what he did.


Cutting edge? I wouldn't say that. Cutting edge was Communicore and the likes of SGI's virtual reality (at the time). Granted, there's some of that with Sum of All Thrills - but that's about it.
Click to expand...
That's true too. I'm talking the likes if the IBM exhibit and that other new one...
 
MerlinTheGoat

MerlinTheGoat

Well-Known Member
Innoventions could be much better if they bothered to actually show a lot of constantly changing exhibits of truly cutting edge tech. Kind of like a year-round CES I suppose wouldn't be a bad start. The problem is that they don't change things around much and don't bother to show really major new ideas or products. The idea is there, the execution and lack of commitment to continually update things there is what sucks about it.

Either way, I don't think plopping in a roller coaster in future world to replace something else there would really help EPCOT regain any cohesive theme. I think it would just be replacing crap with even more crap. For Innoventions to be better, they either need to go all the way with an exhibit that shows cutting edge tech or create a new area that does. Putting a roller coaster there to me just provides even more proof on top of the already mountainous pile of evidence that Disney either doesn't know or doesn't care (or doesn't want to care) about what EPCOT's purpose is.
 
PeterAlt

PeterAlt

Well-Known Member
Tahu said:
What and have to suffer more crummy direct to video sequels and more animated movies like Chicken Little?
Click to expand...
One thing I give Iger immense credit for is sealing the deal with Pixar. Chicken Little was a failed attempted by Eisner to show Pixar "See, we can make our own 3D animated movies. We don't really need you, but we would like to continue our partnership, so don't be stingy demanding an increase in fees. Come back to the negotiating table and renew under the original terms."

Steve Jobs wanted to renew the agreement but wanted to change the terms of it. Eisner liked the original terms and didn't want to change it. So, he used Chicken Little and the new 3D animation division as leverage. Eisner calculated that Jobs would cave in and renew under the original terms. He calculated wrong. Jobs stayed stubborn. Eisner stayed stubborn. The two stopped talking. In the meanwhile, the original contract had like a couple more movies in it until it expired and Pixar would have to find another distributor. Nothing was signed and the two refused to talk to each the until the very end. Once Iger was installed, talks on the partnership renewal restarted and were eventually replaced by negotiations for an all out-merger. We all know how those talks ended. Disney got Pixar in exchange for $7 billion worth of Disney stock. Jobs was Pixar's only shareholder. So, he ended up with $7 billion worth of Disney shares, making him Disney's biggest shareholder. Curiously, as part of the deal, Jobs insisted that John Lassetter become an executive of the merged company with the newly created titled "Chief Creative Officer" to oversee all of the company's studio divisions, as well as WDI. To me, that's the best part of the deal. Jobs became a board member as well. I've always viewed the deal as Pixar taking over Disney, not the other way around.
 
RSoxNo1

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
BoarderPhreak said:
Yep, the horrible Eisner Era. Funny how they're undoing a bunch of what he did.


Cutting edge? I wouldn't say that. Cutting edge was Communicore and the likes of SGI's virtual reality (at the time). Granted, there's some of that with Sum of All Thrills - but that's about it.
Click to expand...
Talk to me when the current CEO green lights an actual E-Ticket for Florida and then we can continue the Eisner bashing.
 
FigmentJedi

FigmentJedi

Well-Known Member
PeterAlt said:
One thing I give Iger immense credit for is sealing the deal with Pixar. Chicken Little was a failed attempted by Eisner to show Pixar "See, we can make our own 3D animated movies. We don't really need you, but we would like to continue our partnership, so don't be stingy demanding an increase in fees. Come back to the negotiating table and renew under the original terms."
Click to expand...
Eisner was perfectly content with letting Pixar walk away. He had a feeling that there was no way Pixar could keep their streak up and that they were bound to fail eventually. As long as they had the IPs from the original distribution deal, Eisner thought Disney could manage fine without Pixar.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Tahu said:
Eisner was perfectly content with letting Pixar walk away. He had a feeling that there was no way Pixar could keep their streak up and that they were bound to fail eventually. As long as they had the IPs from the original distribution deal, Eisner thought Disney could manage fine without Pixar.
Click to expand...
Circle 7 is one studio I was definitely glad to see get shut down (although Pixar has now clearly taken up their mantle).
 
D

doctornick

Well-Known Member
RSoxNo1 said:
Talk to me when the current CEO green lights an actual E-Ticket for Florida and then we can continue the Eisner bashing.
Click to expand...

Exactly. There's certainly stuff to complain about with Eisner, but it seems odd to do so on a board devoted to the parks. Eisner certainly cared about and promoted the parks in ways that Iger does not. For Iger they seem more like a nuisance.
 
FigmentJedi

FigmentJedi

Well-Known Member
doctornick said:
Exactly. There's certainly stuff to complain about with Eisner, but it seems odd to do so on a board devoted to the parks. Eisner certainly cared about and promoted the parks in ways that Iger does not. For Iger they seem more like a nuisance.
Click to expand...
At least Iger's park treatment isn't as bad as how much he's screwed over Disney Interactive
 
A

ASilmser

Active Member
doctornick said:
Exactly. There's certainly stuff to complain about with Eisner, but it seems odd to do so on a board devoted to the parks. Eisner certainly cared about and promoted the parks in ways that Iger does not. For Iger they seem more like a nuisance.
Click to expand...

This whole Eisner vs. Iger is much more complicated than just "one cared, the other doesn't." Although, because Iger is a lot less outspoken than Eisner, it is easier to speculate about his motives and make him out to be aloof and indifferent when it comes to the parks.

Eisner and parks--a mixed record. Some of the BEST attractions and theme park designs can be attributed to him, but he also seemed to have a limit to how much he was willing to invest in each project, even if it meant compromising on the design. EuroDisney seemed doomed from the start because of Eisner's fixation with France as the location (a tough sell as a year-round resort destination). But It's beautiful, that's for sure. Most of the original attractions at MGM, Tower of Terror afterwards, plus the theming and design of Animal Kingdom are/were definitely not mistakes. On the flip side,there's Animal Kingdom's (and MGM's), The Disney Studios in Paris', Hong Kong Disneylands' lack of opening day attractions. There's ALL of California Adventure, and the slow deflation of Epcot and the Studios, like a bad souffle--Eisner created a situation where Disney has to invest an UNREASONABLE amount of cash all at once in order to restore things to what they should be.

Now comes Iger. . . and an economy that is in the TANKS compared to what Eisner had to deal with. Also, Iger has to oversee a complete transformation of how movies and television are delivered to the public. I think he's only willing to invest about 1-2 billion dollars at a time on theme park projects. First it was California Adventure, Now it's Shanghai. I wish they'd forget Shanghai for now and turn their attention to WDW, but all indications are that's not going to happen. The population of China (even those that could afford a Disney resort vacation) dwarfs that of the U.S. I think that Iger is hoping that revenue from the Chinese market will actually help to fund some of the changes needed at its parks in the U.S.

One thing I will say about Iger--he's not afraid to hire people to run the parks who seem to care about the parks.

As long as attendance at WDW remains reasonable enough for it to stay on life support, my guess that we are going to have to be dealing with a slow trickle of projects for a year or two, and those that don't require a whole lot of development (i.e. clones of projects already in development for other places). It might help things if the economy would grow to the point where IT'S not on live support. Compared to the Eisner era, there is a large portion of adults in the US still out of work (or not even trying to find a job). A trip to WDW is not going to happen for them, or it's going to be scaled back from what it used to be.

In short, don't look for a HUGE, EXCITING overhaul of anything for the next few years. New Fantasyland, Disney Springs, Avatar (oh god), Something interesting but underwhelming at EPCOT, and maybe StarWars/Carsland, are as good as you're gonna get. If the parks were up to par, we'd all be rejoicing at this slate of stuff on the horizon. But with the current state of things, it seems underwhelming.

The other investment that may be keeping Iger from releasing more cash for WDW at the moment is all of the beloved "next Gen" improvements.

I hope I'm wrong.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom