Spirited News and Observations and Opinions ...

TP2000

Well-Known Member
In addition to the reasons already posted by lazyboy97o and MarkTwain, the Marvel acquisition does nothing for WDW. Do to Marvel's contractual limitations with Universal, TWDC essentially spent a lot of management focus and company money on something that can't help WDW. It, along with other moves, implies TWDC senior management considers WDW to be low priority. When it comes to these threads, I believe most people's #1 Disney passion is WDW. Sure, we like other Disney properties as well but, ultimately, this is a WDW fansite.

You've offered a very good reminder that there is a giant world beyond Orlando, and The Walt Disney Company and its Parks & Resorts division often makes moves and investments that will have absolutely no impact on Walt Disney World. On purpose.
 

Darth Sidious

Authentically Disney Distinctly Chinese
In addition to the reasons already posted by lazyboy97o and MarkTwain, the Marvel acquisition does nothing for WDW. Do to Marvel's contractual limitations with Universal, TWDC essentially spent a lot of management focus and company money on something that can't help WDW. It, along with other moves, implies TWDC senior management considers WDW to be low priority. When it comes to these threads, I believe most people's #1 Disney passion is WDW. Sure, we like other Disney properties as well but, ultimately, this is a WDW fansite.

Since the Lucas Film acquisition could be used to eventually improve WDW, I get the impression that people on this site generally are supportive of that move.

I am supportive of the Marvel acquisition because Marvel is still Marvel... now they have the financials to do what they wanted rather than license crap to get those funds. Lucasfilm was also a good move IMO.
 

SirLink

Well-Known Member
I'm also concerned about executives within Disney, mostly at the Studio, wanting to be involved in Marvel's huge films. So we get some guy with no business making story decisions who has never read a Marvel comic book insisting on this and that being done to a Marvel film because he thinks it is cool or will help sell action figures at the Disney Store.

Ike would literally punch whoever tries to do that - so don't need to worry.
 

Darth Sidious

Authentically Disney Distinctly Chinese
Take Friday off, everyone deserves 3 day. As far as Oz goes execs are upset that the end twist of who the wicked witch is played by was outed by their own marketing team. Also the film tested ok along the lines of Alice. The only problem with that is no Depp to help them this time.

I also want to add... Alice made over a billion. Coming even relatively close to that is going to be a success.
 

ThemeParks4Life

Well-Known Member
Take Friday off, everyone deserves 3 day. As far as Oz goes execs are upset that the end twist of who the wicked witch is played by was outed by their own marketing team. Also the film tested ok along the lines of Alice. The only problem with that is no Depp to help them this time.

We've always known the Wicked Witch of the West was Mila Kunis so this doesn't surprise me. I fear this would be just like Alice in Wonderland.
 

Ignohippo

Well-Known Member
I also want to add... Alice made over a billion. Coming even relatively close to that is going to be a success.


Oz looks good but Alice was successful because of Tim Burton (and obviously Johnny Depp). It seems like people have forgotten that little detail.

Without the star power that those two possess, and that Oz looks a bit scary for young ones, Disney might have a tougher sell with Oz than they're ready for (unless it gets phenomenal reviews right out of the gate).
 

ThemeParks4Life

Well-Known Member
Oz looks good but Alice was successful because of Tim Burton (and obviously Johnny Depp). It seems like people have forgotten that little detail.

Without the star power that those two possess, and that Oz looks a bit scary for young ones, Disney might have a tougher sell with Oz than they're ready for unless it gets phenomenal reviews right out of the gate.

Then again, it's a family brand like Oz so parents will be stupid and bring the toddlers to the movie.
 

Ignohippo

Well-Known Member
But they are. Look closely and you'll see Jack Sparrow, the little girl from Wreck-it Ralph (on the far right), and two of the characters from Frankenweenie. It's just given the choice of using any of the characters from their vast history of characters, in the end they'll always go with the Pixar characters. My concern is that eventually, Disney will do the same with Marvel. To Pixar's credit, at least most of the Pixar characters were created while they had a working relationship with Disney, so there's at least a connection to Disney's history. The same can't be said of Marvel.


So what? They're all DISNEY. Pixar was always distributed by Disney and overseen by Disney every step of the way. This stuff that Pixar isn't Disney is ludicrous.

As for Marvel, they had nothing to do with Disney for more than 50 years. They were successful without Disney nd will continue to do so even after this acquisition.

And as far as Infinity is concerned, think about it. Would Disney rather add the Marvel figures to Infinity, or create a whole new game for people to buy just for Marvel? From a business perspective, they'd be much better off creating another game for people to have to purchase and letting Marvel stand on its own.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
So far it has been and judging by how the company seemingly is structured... it may stay that way. Same with Lucasilm.
Ike would literally punch whoever tries to do that - so don't need to worry.
The second quote sets up my response to the first. Marvel has an entrenched and invested (both emotionally and financially) leadership and executive team. We can see how Disney has pressured Pixar with the stretching of John Lassetter and further leveraging the existing films into franchises through new content. Marvel would have less of an issue making a public stink about Disney interfering and many have the clout in shares to get away with such a move. Pixar or Lassetter would not make such a move. I don't know of anybody at Lucasfilm who could leverage such clout. Lucas is the sole beneficiary of the financial transaction.
 

MarkTwain

Well-Known Member
So what? They're all DISNEY. Pixar was always distributed by Disney and overseen by Disney every step of the way. This stuff that Pixar isn't Disney is ludicrous.

As for Marvel, they had nothing to do with Disney for more than 50 years. They were successful without Disney nd will continue to do so even after this acquisition.

And as far as Infinity is concerned, think about it. Would Disney rather add the Marvel figures to Infinity, or create a whole new game for people to buy just for Marvel? From a business perspective, they'd be much better off creating another game for people to have to purchase and letting Marvel stand on its own.


And that's good. As long as Disney continues to acknowledge that the two are separate entities as well as you do, than I will be a happy camper. My point was that if Disney tries to merge their brand together with Marvel the way they have with Pixar (even though the two studios have vastly different relationships/histories with the Disney company - which upper level management may or may not not care about), with Mickey and Thor sharing parade floats and the Incredible Hulk being the header of the Disney webpage, then that's when I could see both brands being compromised.
 

WDW1974

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Some more Spirited information as MyMagic+ moves (limps?) forward using information I've been provided and extrapolating a bit, but just a bit.

MyMagic+, or the guest side of NEXT GEN, is clearly intended to create a tiered system of product access and delivery many here have already raised. From everything I have heard it will be sweeping and, as @ParentsOf4 has posted on, it will introduce a layered WDW experience with a base price from which TWDC is determined to build.

(The base, of course, being your admission.)

For Burbank, it has to work as proposed because all of the revenue raising elements rest in converting and integrating something far more akin to a pay-as-you-go system closely tethered to a 'because our metrics tell us you can' model. This is what TWDC was sold on.

Repeatedly, I have heard the word 'pairing' used to align a credit card to MyMagic+. As I reported here (and Nick Franklin's team later confirmed), Disney will be phasing in this technology for all visitors. Annuals will have it, resort guests will have it, and day guests will have it. Whether by room keys, chiptix or bracelets.

This is in your future ... this IS your future, if you are planning a visit to WDW.

Why is pairing an issue? I've been told it has to do with the difference between simple linking or attaching a method of payment to the technology and this model, or perhaps more accurately described as a scheme, Disney has invested in. After all, we are used to giving a credit card to be 'on account' when we check in at WDW and all over when staying at hotels/resorts where it is likely you will be signing for items at various POS locations on the property of the hotel or resort. Pairing, however, I've been schooled, in the context of NEXT GEN, is different.

Disney wants to create distinct financial profiles of each guest to go along with that guest's specific behavior in the parks/on Disney property. Simply put, they want to know what your daughter is spending your money on and where and when (and why?), and they want to know the what, when and how of her grandmother's spending too. Now, TWDC can separate grandma's spending habits with great certainty from granddaughter's.

You will be 'asked' to 'pair' a credit card with that admission media of yours, no matter the type. No card offered, you can align that pass with a MyMagic+ account -- AKA a Disney gift card designed much like a preloaded credit card. Say no ... just go ahead ... and MyMagic+ is closed to you and your party. Along with it, well ... so much of the theme park experience you were used to that NEXT GEN has reengineered in a poorly thought out incredibly pricey plan of reinventing the whole experience of visiting WDW (wouldn't cutting edge immersive well-maintained attractions and amazing shows, parades and pyro have done the trick?)


The bottom line here, your access and experience will be tied directly to money spent or projected to be spent AFTER you have already bought-in to the park/resort/WDW vacation. Many folks have speculated that if you pay to stay at the Grand Floridian, you will likely get more FastPasses or better ones. Except, it won't stop there. And, for each guest staying with you at the Grand Floridian, the product experienced will be different based on data points and profiling.


To those who have made the argument that if a guest pays for such an accommodation, he/she should receive the best Disney has to offer ... well, maybe the Grand Floridian should simply do what other properties of its caliber or at its price points do -- deliver that product for everyone. As for extending this stay to mean that guest should be treated better or have an enhanced experience in the parks, that is what will happen should MyMagic+ be fully integrated.


It's not what should happen, and no one here should argue that it is. This allows Disney to provide a diminished product at all levels while charging even more for less.

Think about it this way, when you go to a restaurant or movie, you expect (rightfully) the same experience every other guest of that restaurant or movie theater is paying for. Disney as envisioned by NEXT GEN will provide each guest with a different one, some will get a decidedly 'less than' experience. Regardless of the amount that person has spent for a MAGICal WDW vacation.


This dynamic element is what to watch. It is key to whether Disney can successfully implement the all-important revenue raising elements of NEXT GEN. The ones a certain Spirit told you about last year.


Once more, I simply can't see how this is going to be anything but a nightmare for guests and CMs and lead to some very ugly incidents ... Pay to play, right? Oh, what, you thought you already were? No, what has always been (yes, even with FP) a largely level playing field will tilt dramatically now in favor of the biggest spenders ...

(And, no, that doesn't necessarily mean those who have spent lots in the past because Disney wasn't able to track that spending as it can now ... what if you visit 42 days a year, but stay with Aunt Martha in Clermont? What if you have been visiting since 1977, but paying/staying under a different name since a divorce? The what-ifs are endless, almost like the privacy issues, and Disney can't take the chance of giving you top tier service. Someone who never visited until 2006 and stays, plays, dines and shops all with Disney at deluxe resorts? That's someone who's gonna be lavished with top tier status ... but more to come on that front ...)
 

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
Here's the thing...
It isn't what they're spending...it's what they're spending it on that most folks take issue with.
Lots better ways to spend that kind if money right now.
I have joked in the past that Disney now sees a swatch of pavement that isn't earning money as a poorly performing profit center. It seems now that they mentality may have shifted that instead of looking at the individual swatches of pavement (or more specifically merchandise, dining, or attractions that move the needle), they are actually looking at guests as profit centers. What's more impressive is that under Next Gen they aren't just satisfied with the amount of money in each guest's wallet. They don't seem satisfied with simply pushing each guest to their personal budget. We have stated for a while that Disney should treat it's guests like assets because it's harder to get a new guest than it is to keep an existing one. However, they're taking the "guests are assets" approach to a new level with Next Gen. Not only does our money have value to Disney, but any information they can get on us about how we spend that money also has value. Our budget for this specific trip may be limited, but these are not the last dollars we will ever spend. So the new approach is to make it easier for guests to spend their money and then tell as many people (corporations are people) about how they spent their money because that information generates more money for them.

They are trying to find new sources of revenue, I get that - it's what businesses do. But they are looking to make money on infrastructure improvements, and not only are they the wrong infrastructure improvements, but they're taking away from the real wishes of the guests (innovative attractions).
 

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
Somehow I missed this last night.
Wonderful post.
It's like grabbing a thread and pulling it, following the logical progression of ideas.

Doesn't matter so much to me if the tech can do exactly what we envision as the worst case scenario, but more so what the underlying goal is.

The guest-friendly parts of NextGen are purely the by-product. No guest ever asked for NextGen. Guests want newer/ better attractions and better maintenance.
Disney wants more money from guests (understandable for a business) and rather than plus the parks to get it, they want to use mined data to get it. That's my main complaint. Nothing about NextGen appeals to me. Nothing. I want the newer/better/improved attractions, not a pre-booked Fastpass. No thanks.

As for the privacy concerns, we'll have to wait and see how it plays out. Too much is unknown for most people to really take a hardcore stand on either side right now.

I will say this, though...there are enough worrisome aspects to warrant taking a very close and skeptical look at the whole program.

Anyone working too hard to defend it at this point...well, there's an old quote about "The lady doth protest too much." And it doesn't have to be a lady.
The one devil's advocate thing I will say to this is that guests shouldn't know what they want, Disney should tell them. Historically this has meant that Disney guests weren't banging down the doors for a flume ride based on Song of the South or a tower drop ride based on the Twilight Zone, but that seemed to work out well.

In this case, there is still a bit of unknown that could change our respective pessimistic opinions, but I have my doubts.
 

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
Absolutely. While Iron Man 3 and Monsters U are money in the bank for the Studios, one has to wonder about Oz: The Great and Powerful and The Lone Ranger. Those four films alone cost billions to make/market. They've got to pull in billions or Disney is in trouble (BTW, I absolutely HATE Disney's current and future plans for the Studios. You simply can't have tentpoles and sequels, all with huge budgets, and nothing in between)
The good thing is that while Oz and Lone Ranger have substantial budgets they have a bit more star power than some of their other recent gambles (Tron, John Carter). I'm not expecting Avengers money for either of them but I think they could both hit $200 mil domestic. I don't think anyone thought that was possible of John Carter 6 months out from the release date.
 

SirOinksALot

Active Member
So basically, keeping in mind that I'm much more educated than you about how this works, you're saying that Deluxe resort guests could get a few more FP and talking Mickey will talk to them. Or are you suggesting that Space Mountain will stop at the brake run and boot off the lowly value resort folks. And you butchered the credit card linking bit, as if the details of what gets charged to a room is somehow a new concept. Not sure I agree with any of that, but meh.

Less inflammatory language though, so I'll rate that post a 4 out of 10.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom