floridabill
New Member
I'm in!! Some sort of change needs to happen here!
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
WDW being forgotten by execs?
- Thread starter DisneyParksFan1
- Start date
I'm in!! Some sort of change needs to happen here!
David S.
Member
But those are, as you say, just your opinion! Personally, I LOVE the Seas and Gran Fiesta even better than the originals, which I also loved. And I LOVE Philharmagic, which you only gave an "OK" to. Stitch isn't my favorite, but I don't dislike it and do prefer it over AE.
Really, the only new attraction that I really strongly dislike is Laugh Floor, and I'm not crazy about American Idol either. But for me, I've generally been happy with the new attractions, refurbs, and "re-imagined" attractions. So from a different point of view, there could easily be more "greats" than uh, dislikes. It's all subjective and comes down to each person's opinion!
misterID
Well-Known Member
They're SUPPOSED to update the attractions! You shouldn't congratulate them for doing something they're supposed to do. And outside HM, they really didn't do all they could have to really update them. Almost all of them were short changed. And if DL wasn't getting refurbs, I doubt WDW would have.
The only real significant additions were E:E, M:S and TT. And no, DL clones are not significant additions.
And the fact that AK is "only" over a decade old, with the limited amount of attractions it has, is not a legit excuse for its problems that could have been solved a few years ago.
powlessfamily4
Well-Known Member
TP2000
Well-Known Member
It's a series of pictures, and it's not pretty. I've noticed this type of stuff increasingly at WDW in all the parks, and it reminds me of Disneyland's Dark Age of Paul Pressler from 1997-2003.
http://micechat.com/forums/walt-disney-world-resort/141498-why-small-world-no-small-problem.html
Pumbas Nakasak
Heading for the great escape.
The fact that a list of the positives is largely relaint on makeovers of existing attractions is a little sad.
SOLISIMO
Member
Imagine what that does to someone visiting for the first time, do you think that they will want to comeback:veryconfu
powlessfamily4
Well-Known Member
Wow... honestly I never noticed and June 2010 was my first time. I think I was just so thrilled to be on it I didn't look that closley for things like that. Having said that, it saddened me to see those pictures so I can only imagine how it makes those of you who have loved this ride for many many years feel. I hope they bring it up to par with this refurb.
HMF
Well-Known Member
This is the WDW Pressler-Harris era.
CaptainJackNO
Well-Known Member
One of the biggest problems, in my opinion, is that there is no longer a link to Walt and Roy Disney on the Board of Directors. Our last hope was Roy E. Disney, and he was basically forced out in the 90's (if I am remembering right.) And now that the original imagineers have left the company for various reasons, we are left with people in decision making positions with no tie to the original company design, purpose, and mission.
I know some of you get tired of some of us who always tout what Walt would do or the way Walt would want things; however, that is what this company has always been about. Now, you have 40 and 50 somethings corporate talking heads who went to college to get their business and law degrees, then set about looking to make a splash in business, any business, to make a name for themselves. SO, in essence, we are stuck with management in the highest levels of the Disney Corporation who are trained monkeys whose only purpose is to drive up stock prices and profits in order to deeply pad their own pockets.
Well, for those of you who get tired of hearing about Walt, let me ask you this. Since you seem to support the all out mission of profit, profit, profit of the current management, let me ask you: Was the Walt Disney Company successful before these new guys? Yes. Especially under Walt, because Walt knew that if you offered whimsy and fantasy, offered them quality for their money, treated them the best, kept the parks as clean as you could, and focused on story telling and quality of show, the success and profits would follow.
These execs should read a thing about Walt and Roy Disney and how they went about the Business of making dreams come true. It always centered on the show, on the experience. And since they did that so well, the profits always followed.
I know some of you get tired of some of us who always tout what Walt would do or the way Walt would want things; however, that is what this company has always been about. Now, you have 40 and 50 somethings corporate talking heads who went to college to get their business and law degrees, then set about looking to make a splash in business, any business, to make a name for themselves. SO, in essence, we are stuck with management in the highest levels of the Disney Corporation who are trained monkeys whose only purpose is to drive up stock prices and profits in order to deeply pad their own pockets.
Well, for those of you who get tired of hearing about Walt, let me ask you this. Since you seem to support the all out mission of profit, profit, profit of the current management, let me ask you: Was the Walt Disney Company successful before these new guys? Yes. Especially under Walt, because Walt knew that if you offered whimsy and fantasy, offered them quality for their money, treated them the best, kept the parks as clean as you could, and focused on story telling and quality of show, the success and profits would follow.
These execs should read a thing about Walt and Roy Disney and how they went about the Business of making dreams come true. It always centered on the show, on the experience. And since they did that so well, the profits always followed.
I'm in! Should there be a new thread?
Precisely. That's why people are trying to act and push Disney to act upon them.
DisneyNut2007
Active Member
Sorry, but I cannot agree with that completely.
WDW DOES care about quality overall, just as much as DL seems to.
Please no more TDO-bashing. Please...
DisneyNut2007
Active Member
One of the biggest problems, in my opinion, is that there is no longer a link to Walt and Roy Disney on the Board of Directors. Our last hope was Roy E. Disney, and he was basically forced out in the 90's (if I am remembering right.) And now that the original imagineers have left the company for various reasons, we are left with people in decision making positions with no tie to the original company design, purpose, and mission.
I know some of you get tired of some of us who always tout what Walt would do or the way Walt would want things; however, that is what this company has always been about. Now, you have 40 and 50 somethings corporate talking heads who went to college to get their business and law degrees, then set about looking to make a splash in business, any business, to make a name for themselves. SO, in essence, we are stuck with management in the highest levels of the Disney Corporation who are trained monkeys whose only purpose is to drive up stock prices and profits in order to deeply pad their own pockets.
Well, for those of you who get tired of hearing about Walt, let me ask you this. Since you seem to support the all out mission of profit, profit, profit of the current management, let me ask you: Was the Walt Disney Company successful before these new guys? Yes. Especially under Walt, because Walt knew that if you offered whimsy and fantasy, offered them quality for their money, treated them the best, kept the parks as clean as you could, and focused on story telling and quality of show, the success and profits would follow.
These execs should read a thing about Walt and Roy Disney and how they went about the Business of making dreams come true. It always centered on the show, on the experience. And since they did that so well, the profits always followed.
Again, I disagree.
And you are clearly forgetting about people like John Lassetter, who are working to steer the company and its quality back in the right direction.
unkadug
Follower of "Saget"The Cult
My comments in color....doesn't really leave a lot of new stuff ...does it?
What ever happened to Walt's quote of "the blessing of size" when referring to the Florida property. They really haven't added a lot to add to the capacity of the parks recently up until the FLE.
I've never been to Disneyland so it is not my place to comment but I know that many people mentioned Disneyland in this thread. I have been to DisneyWorld almost every year of my life so I know WDW much better. I also finally found the time to sit and read a lot of interviews from Disney execs and former Imagineers just trying to see where their heads were at and glean from this, the types of visions they have or had and what their views were in regard to what WDW is all about and where it should be.
And then I thought if I was a Disney Exec right this minute with absolute free reign (fairytale mode) how would I prioritize?
Magic Kingdom: In general, I see more people get aggrivated, including myself, when things get removed so I think the objective is to stop removing attractions tried and true like Leagues, Mr. Toad, and more, so they need to build and expand and stop removal.
And how could I forget Liberty Square?
I would leave Main Street alone for now. I go there for the turn-of-the century feel. The food, the shops, architecture, scenery, flowers, etc. and it is not the land with the most dire need. Again, add, but nothing, in my humble opinion, needs to be removed in this land.
Now for the tricky ones. What to do with Adventureland and Tomorrowland because these two need something. They need different approaches. Adventureland was never developed to full potential and Tomorrowland constantly goes through midlife crisis, identity dilemnas, and then constant changes with split opinions about the results.
I say play to strenghts and then develop for Adventureland. And seriously, what they need should not cost a bundle with proper planning and vision. Disney seems to throw money around at short term solutions and then they seem to either regret it later or add something without taking into consideration the cohesiveness with an attraction to the land it was installed in as a whole. And all in all, new ideas suffer because money was spent on something else that was a bad, usually temporary move and then they decide to close the purse strings on new developments. Not everything though. TOT was a brilliant lasting concept and for every bad move there are others that were genius like Tower of Terror. Don't get me wrong. I love Disney and this post is not bashing. More good natured ribbing.
Adventureland's strenghts, to me, is... you are leaving (if you start left from Main Street as I do) the polar opposite land that you were in mere minutes ago. And hey, that is also the path that the WDW railroad takes, which for me has always been the ride that is the taste of all the lands. You see a snippet of each as you circle and return back to Main Street station. It was the first thing I rode as a child in the early 80's when my parents said we should circle and take a good look at the place before we attempt to roam on foot.
Anyway, you have just left Main Street. To me, turn-of-the-century, sweet, old-fashioned, Judy Garland is singing the Trolley song from Meet Me in St. Louis, Victorian society. A structured, formal, safe time where father's slippers toasted near the fire and people left their front doors unlocked and now you see a wood bridge and tall green jungle-like landscaping and riotous flowers. Unbridled, wild, unstructured, Adventureland. Clark Gable is surviving in the wild a la Mogambo. People are vacationing in the wild and returning home with an animal head to hang over the fireplace in their library as they did back in the day.
The flowers, water, scenery is lush, tropical, and should not be tampered with if one adds to Adventureland. It is the most scenic and picturesque land, to me, in all of MK. It needs a water ride and a possible thrill ride, but very old Disney-movieish. Leave POTC, Jungle Cruise, and Tiki Birds because they are favorites and perfect. Though I prefer the old Tiki bird experience and would bring it back. They have value in the vault, yet do not see what they have. Jungle Book, heck, even Tarzan and probably many more classics that could fit in with the Adventureland theme. The Adventureland Veranda needs to be reopened and rejuventated as a table service. And really...if they have no intention of bringing back the Adventurer's Club, what wasn't it installed here? The people have spoken. You don't close something when there is an outcry and a loyal following. Still boggles me from even just a business perspective if I take a step back from a place I have always loved. And there is more that can be done with creativity that I would really have to sit down and think about because, yeah, I wanted to post but I don't have all the answers.
Tomorrowland is NOT Epcot. I would say not to refurb the architecture much. It is escapism. This is Magic Kindom, a fairytale world. I think more people were upset when the old rides were taken out because they had loved them for years. Whether young or adult. To me, I say it should always be a look back, a throw back, retro, and what people mid-century believed the future should be. Tomorrowland to me is 'Aw, shucks. Isn't that cute? My parents and grandparents thought a rocket or a planet or aliens would look like this." And now I compare it to the computer, i-pod, all technology etc. that we have today and what we will see in the future. I say keep Tomorrowland retro, futuristic-Art Deco, what people in the 1940's-1960's thought the future and space would be and add some cool attractions that fit that theme. Honestly, I would have even kept the outdated Mission to Mars because once something is old it is an event in itself. People compare it to the modern and it holds charm for them. And Magic Kingdom should be as charming. The Sci-Fi restaurant in HS is what Tomorrowland is for me. But, and this is the problem that I'm sure the designers have faced, what constitures a Tomorrowland attraction? I think once the atmosphere and theme for Tomorrowland is finally conclusively decided than the attraction ideas will come. It's a struggle between the future and history of the future and I personally hope that history of the future wins out here. I believe Future and technology belongs in Epcot. Not here. MK is fantasy. And nobody should be afraid to make Tomorrowland a throw back. Look at Star Wars and how even people 9 years of age to 99 still sometimes prefer the movies in their original state as opposed to the remastered version. Outdated science-fiction themes are still popular today and are not going anywhere. And the original Star Wars is not the only example.
I think I wrote enough for now. I have to think about what I would want for Fantasyland, Frontierland, and the land for kids (what is it called now after several name changes?) Epcot, AK, HS, and then I'll post again.
And then I thought if I was a Disney Exec right this minute with absolute free reign (fairytale mode) how would I prioritize?
Magic Kingdom: In general, I see more people get aggrivated, including myself, when things get removed so I think the objective is to stop removing attractions tried and true like Leagues, Mr. Toad, and more, so they need to build and expand and stop removal.
And how could I forget Liberty Square?
I would leave Main Street alone for now. I go there for the turn-of-the century feel. The food, the shops, architecture, scenery, flowers, etc. and it is not the land with the most dire need. Again, add, but nothing, in my humble opinion, needs to be removed in this land.
Now for the tricky ones. What to do with Adventureland and Tomorrowland because these two need something. They need different approaches. Adventureland was never developed to full potential and Tomorrowland constantly goes through midlife crisis, identity dilemnas, and then constant changes with split opinions about the results.
I say play to strenghts and then develop for Adventureland. And seriously, what they need should not cost a bundle with proper planning and vision. Disney seems to throw money around at short term solutions and then they seem to either regret it later or add something without taking into consideration the cohesiveness with an attraction to the land it was installed in as a whole. And all in all, new ideas suffer because money was spent on something else that was a bad, usually temporary move and then they decide to close the purse strings on new developments. Not everything though. TOT was a brilliant lasting concept and for every bad move there are others that were genius like Tower of Terror. Don't get me wrong. I love Disney and this post is not bashing. More good natured ribbing.
Adventureland's strenghts, to me, is... you are leaving (if you start left from Main Street as I do) the polar opposite land that you were in mere minutes ago. And hey, that is also the path that the WDW railroad takes, which for me has always been the ride that is the taste of all the lands. You see a snippet of each as you circle and return back to Main Street station. It was the first thing I rode as a child in the early 80's when my parents said we should circle and take a good look at the place before we attempt to roam on foot.
Anyway, you have just left Main Street. To me, turn-of-the-century, sweet, old-fashioned, Judy Garland is singing the Trolley song from Meet Me in St. Louis, Victorian society. A structured, formal, safe time where father's slippers toasted near the fire and people left their front doors unlocked and now you see a wood bridge and tall green jungle-like landscaping and riotous flowers. Unbridled, wild, unstructured, Adventureland. Clark Gable is surviving in the wild a la Mogambo. People are vacationing in the wild and returning home with an animal head to hang over the fireplace in their library as they did back in the day.
The flowers, water, scenery is lush, tropical, and should not be tampered with if one adds to Adventureland. It is the most scenic and picturesque land, to me, in all of MK. It needs a water ride and a possible thrill ride, but very old Disney-movieish. Leave POTC, Jungle Cruise, and Tiki Birds because they are favorites and perfect. Though I prefer the old Tiki bird experience and would bring it back. They have value in the vault, yet do not see what they have. Jungle Book, heck, even Tarzan and probably many more classics that could fit in with the Adventureland theme. The Adventureland Veranda needs to be reopened and rejuventated as a table service. And really...if they have no intention of bringing back the Adventurer's Club, what wasn't it installed here? The people have spoken. You don't close something when there is an outcry and a loyal following. Still boggles me from even just a business perspective if I take a step back from a place I have always loved. And there is more that can be done with creativity that I would really have to sit down and think about because, yeah, I wanted to post but I don't have all the answers.
Tomorrowland is NOT Epcot. I would say not to refurb the architecture much. It is escapism. This is Magic Kindom, a fairytale world. I think more people were upset when the old rides were taken out because they had loved them for years. Whether young or adult. To me, I say it should always be a look back, a throw back, retro, and what people mid-century believed the future should be. Tomorrowland to me is 'Aw, shucks. Isn't that cute? My parents and grandparents thought a rocket or a planet or aliens would look like this." And now I compare it to the computer, i-pod, all technology etc. that we have today and what we will see in the future. I say keep Tomorrowland retro, futuristic-Art Deco, what people in the 1940's-1960's thought the future and space would be and add some cool attractions that fit that theme. Honestly, I would have even kept the outdated Mission to Mars because once something is old it is an event in itself. People compare it to the modern and it holds charm for them. And Magic Kingdom should be as charming. The Sci-Fi restaurant in HS is what Tomorrowland is for me. But, and this is the problem that I'm sure the designers have faced, what constitures a Tomorrowland attraction? I think once the atmosphere and theme for Tomorrowland is finally conclusively decided than the attraction ideas will come. It's a struggle between the future and history of the future and I personally hope that history of the future wins out here. I believe Future and technology belongs in Epcot. Not here. MK is fantasy. And nobody should be afraid to make Tomorrowland a throw back. Look at Star Wars and how even people 9 years of age to 99 still sometimes prefer the movies in their original state as opposed to the remastered version. Outdated science-fiction themes are still popular today and are not going anywhere. And the original Star Wars is not the only example.
I think I wrote enough for now. I have to think about what I would want for Fantasyland, Frontierland, and the land for kids (what is it called now after several name changes?) Epcot, AK, HS, and then I'll post again.
That's a very nice read! Can't wait to read more
I think the land for kids you are referring to is Mickey's Toontown Fair.