The Spirit Takes the Fifth ...

Status
Not open for further replies.

TP2000

Well-Known Member
Yes, it has. All because of some dumb thing said by a very young child.

Wonder what Disney would do to Jimmy if Beijing said fire him or we are stopping work on SDL.

I had thought exactly the same thing. The Communist Politburo in Beijing is now the de facto editor for script writers from Malibu to Silverlake. I wonder what happens if and when an upper Communist Party member gets a call through to Burbank?
 

asianway

Well-Known Member
We weren't discussing it, but I don't normally post to you directly.

I only wanted to reach out and let you know you are hurting people when you you throw around the term "mental illness" in the way that you do that's all. I thought maybe you didn't know, but I guess you do and don't care. That's fine, I usually tune out when you start making fun of people anyways. I just know I would like to be told if I was offending people and I wasn't aware I was.

I would say to forget this, but I have a feeling you already have.
You must not be on Twitter
 

ford91exploder

Resident Curmudgeon
I'll note, there is no gambling on the DCL line, and to many consumers that is a turn off (I personally know many people who say they won't do DCL because there is no gambling,for example).

Disney has decided that they won't include it as a perk since it's still seen as a marketing advantage publicly at this point in time, and rather they focus on service and experience. People who don't care for gambling, or cast aspersions upon what gambling means (rowdy people, drunks, low lifes), will spend through the nose to go on a DCL cruise. And those who wish to gamble, well, are not part of the business model (at this point).

However, talking numbers, at some point I suspect DCL will cave. I hope they don't, but I suspect eventually they will once the next generation of Harvard (or other schools) educated asshats takes control.

At some point, as DCL grows, they will look at their competition, and say...well, we can do just this one thing to allow some gambling...to attract part of their business. And then eventually they'll go full out and allow it.

Spirit knows what he is talking about when he says red vs blue seas. Right now, DCL is sitting in a Blue Sea market, so they do what they wish. That will change, as investors will still demand higher returns, etc.

Eventually, they'll join the Red Sea that is the cruise market as they become less of a footnote, and more of a competitor...and, I suspect management will react predictably.

They let booze into Magic Kingdom (not something that was a big deal to me personally, but it was a major change of a decades old policy). I don't expect the current management gives two flips anymore...sorry...

As we used to say at CEC...Profit is King.

Agree - it's only a matter of time before gaming is integral to TWDC operations, Personally I don't agree I think gambling is a self inflicted tax on the ignorant - that being said some of my school friends are on the professional poker tour and make a 6 figure income but they are the outliers vast majority of gamblers only lose money.
 

alphac2005

Well-Known Member
I'll start with the last suggestion. No. Joe Camel wasn't used to get kids interested in smoking. That is just a ludicrous concept.

I'm sorry, that's not true. Not even close. Research was done for years and documents from R.J. Reynolds were leaked from the company that showed that Joe Camel was created to appeal to young kids to brand and appeal to them and they were laser focused on then capturing them when they were "legal" to smoke with the target demo of 18-20 years old. The concept was to introduce this "cool" character to kids and make them want the product as soon as they could obtain them. (That includes at any age, "legal" or not, as they wanted to hook the consumer.) The sales of underaged Camel sales went up 4x once the Joe Camel character was introduced. I did a research paper on this in college a decade and a half ago and remember the subject matter quite well. It's incredibly well documented and the basis of the lawsuits in the early 90s, WHO health findings, you name it. Facts matter.
 

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
Just had a chance to read the entire Miceage update and I noticed when talking about the new upgrades coming to Soarin at DCA they mentioned Shanghai's opening in early 2016.

I wasn't aware that Disney had moved off its late 2015 date, so not sure whether it is a mistake or not.

I do find it interesting that Disney can't even target an opening this close in. Some of us who are going might like to book mileage reward business class seats at some point, right @Lee? :D
Is it presumptuous to assume that Epcot's Soarin' will receive upgrades in a similar time frame? Will that go digital before the Soarin' Over the World upgrade, or no?
 

doctornick

Well-Known Member
I guess I am trying to see if people think there is a difference between say a Tangled slot, a Toy Story slot and a Marvel slot. Tangle is a princess movie aimed at children with character created by Disney. Toy Story is a movie aimed at families with characters created by Pixar. Avengers is a movie that is targeted to teens which contains wall to wall violence and characters created by Marvel.
Isn't there a difference between the subject matter and doesn't that difference make one movie more appropriate than another to turn into a slot?

This is my feeling. "Disney" is a family brand and it would be wrong for them to slap Mickey Mouse or Snow White onto slot machines. But Marvel, given its target demo, should be fair game for gambling. In fact, I would argue that having diverse properties that would be appropriate for more "adult" things is a prime reason why Disney acquired Marvel -- to diversify their interests. It's sill IMHO to have properties that can be used in different ways and then not use them because everything has to comform to the ideals of one branch of the company.

Is it wrong that ESPN puts betting lines up during broadcasts? I don't see how it is at all, but some on here might argue that it is a problem since that is a division of Disney and apparently all divisions much conform to the family friendly rep of the main Disney division. (furthermore, wasn't there an ESPN bar in New York, New York in Vegas right next to a sports book?)
 

TP2000

Well-Known Member
Is it presumptuous to assume that Epcot's Soarin' will receive upgrades in a similar time frame? Will that go digital before the Soarin' Over the World upgrade, or no?

Good questions. Soarin' closes for lengthy refurb in California Adventure this February to switch to HD, according to Miceage (who is the only source reporting on this).

Will Epcot's close at the same time? Or later in 2014?
 

BrianLo

Well-Known Member
Brian, I'll try to answer as I see things. But you may just not get it. No knock on you. Somethings you either get or you don't, sorta like when friends or co-workers will ask me why I am going to WDW and call it a ''children's park' or an 'amusement park' and I can spend two hours trying to get them to see what I see, when it just will not work.

So ..taking your above points:

A.) that is quite accurate ;
B.) Disney was 'caught' as you put it, but the BoD had nothing to do with making Marvel gaming deals and it IS a very good thing that Disney says it plans on getting out of the business. Now, we just have to wait years to see if they are telling the truth;
C.) Some people might. I'd suggest those people don't have a clue as to why gambling isn't compatible with Disney's family friendly BRAND;
D.) I think that is true to some extent. Marvel fits the Universal brand much better than it fits Disney's. But, yes, that boat has sailed.

I don't think anyone would call this a scandal (that might be a celebrity Imagineer caught with an underage friend doing meth while looking at Star Wars models). That word, much like conspiracy, get thrown into posts to discredit information. My OP was just that, news from inside Marvel that you won't get anywhere else (unless people start talking). I have opinions based on what I was told, but the info is apart from that.

Now, if you want to question my information and try and discredit it or me, that's your call. But Ike isn't happy with Bob now. And my guess, and it's just that, is that Marvel makes a blank load of $$$ on its gaming enterprises or else they wouldn't care about getting out of it and they wouldn't have continued to make deals well after being bought by the anti-gaming WDC.

Thank you! Not trying to discredit the information, the cross-talk really tends to confuse the issue and I really wanted to clarify if there was any sort of underlying agenda with sharing the information in the manner you did. I see that there wasn't and I am glad that you shared it. :happy:

Of course I am personally more concerned with the decline of WDW, but that's extraneous and perhaps why I came off a bit snide, which I wasn't intending to do. Thanks again!
 

BrianLo

Well-Known Member
I wasn't aware that Disney had moved off its late 2015 date, so not sure whether it is a mistake or not.

I do find it interesting that Disney can't even target an opening this close in. Some of us who are going might like to book mileage reward business class seats at some point, right @Lee? :D

Noticed this as well. I've earmarked May/June 2016 so a sliding opening date makes me slightly nervous. I will say that Iger is still quoting end of 2015 in that recent interview he did mentioning Star Wars.

What's your preferred program reward program? If it's part of the One-World alliance I'd take Cathay in - absolutely fantastic lie-flat product (with a stopover in HK) and JAL out (with a stopover in Narita). Route through LAX to really make people jealous. ;)
 

fosse76

Well-Known Member
I'll start with the last suggestion. No. Joe Camel wasn't used to get kids interested in smoking. That is just a ludicrous concept. He certainly wasn't the first cartoon character (or mascot) to smoke, but he was one of the last. And, his ads didn't run rampant in comic books or Mad Magazine or the like, nor were they to be found during Saturday Morning cartoons. Were the allegation true, that he was a targeting mechanism instead of a marketing one...they'd be found in something aside from adult fare.

Had they been targeted to kids, you'd think they would have targeted advertising slots for kids. However, if I, as a kid, happened to be watching Moonlighting with my parents (getting to stay up past my bedtime, so cool!) and see a Joe Camel commercial, what more likely popped in my mind was "he's a funny Camel", not "Wow, I really want a cig right now, I'm niccing!"

It's one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard. But, it succeeded, with even less validity than the "Taco Bell dog is a racist representation" accusation.

Same stupid people, creating an issue for their own self-relevance, where no issue exists.

So, yes, I do assert he was not created, nor was he ever used, to encourage youthful smoking. The Tobacco industry didn't need a cartoon character to do that. Other media and general society had that covered already.

He was a patsy. RIP Joe Camel.

WRONG. As someone who actually worked in tobacco litigation, I assure you that children were targeted. I saw memo after memo about it. There was absolutely a concerted effort to target children at schools. This isn't something people just made up over time. These are facts that have been disclosed over the course of years of tobacco litigation.
 

Hot Lava

Well-Known Member
Much like the honey badger, Disney don't care!

Of Perlmutter and the Marvel acquisition, Iger said, "The integration has gone well, and the potential has exceeded my expectations.


Perhaps before selling, Perlmutter should have taken a look at what happened with the Disney acquisition of Miramax. The same sort of statements were made during the honeymoon period of that purchase. But no amount of screaming on the part of Harvey Weinstein (and if you know anything about HW, he loves to yell and "stomp around") dissuaded Disney from taking Miramax in a complete different (and destructive) direction. If Harvey was met with complete indifference, I cannot imagine that Perlmutter's outrage will matter one iota.

Even Michael Eisner required that all his resorts were built with large convention and mixed use areas around or near lobbies that could be easily converted to a casino floor if need be.

Yet fighting gambling around WDW for selfish business (i.e., not moral)reasons, influencing legistators, the possibility of gambling in Miami Beach, etc.... this is all straight from a plotline in "Magic City". LOL! Is there a Ben Diamond in all this?

IMO, Iger/Disney has had his/its hand slapped at the cookie jar. Disney is perfectly happy to take the gambling profits garnered with Marvel IP. Disney only really objects to any gambling activity that may directly impact its bottom line. Iger is paying lip service and hopes this blows over, so Disney can go back to buisness as usual.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

Back
Top Bottom