-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Will new rides open and old ones get upgraded if Eisner is out?
- Thread starter PeterAlt
- Start date
MKCustodial
Well-Known Member
Here's my opinion on the subject: Eisner did some good? Yes. But he lost his touch (its name was Frank Wells, by the way), so he needs to leave.
Now, am I looking for new "rides" and new upgrades? NO. What I'd like to happen is the same thing that happened 20 years ago. I want the Magic to return to the Kingdom. I want CMs to be better appreciated for what they are, Magic Hosts. I want the whole property, parks, attractions and resorts to get that old-times attention, that level of care and tidyness that used to awe each and every Guest every single day. If it could be done before, it can be done again. I don't wanna hear about costs.
So to me, bottom line is: I don't want new "rides", new resorts or a new gate. First, the Disney company needs to get someone on top who understands they need to take care of what they have before they start thinking about expanding.
Now, am I looking for new "rides" and new upgrades? NO. What I'd like to happen is the same thing that happened 20 years ago. I want the Magic to return to the Kingdom. I want CMs to be better appreciated for what they are, Magic Hosts. I want the whole property, parks, attractions and resorts to get that old-times attention, that level of care and tidyness that used to awe each and every Guest every single day. If it could be done before, it can be done again. I don't wanna hear about costs.
So to me, bottom line is: I don't want new "rides", new resorts or a new gate. First, the Disney company needs to get someone on top who understands they need to take care of what they have before they start thinking about expanding.
Agreed!
Eventually, yes there will need to be new rides and attractions, but I think what they really, really need to do now is focus on making what they have better. That means maintenance, cleaning, restoring closed attractions (I am talking the seasonal things here), and major, MAJOR improvements in merchandise and food.
Then I would support new rides and especially some new shows like tapestries. But if what they have now is too much for them to handle, putting all their effots into a new ride is only going to make things worse.
Don't just change for change, change for the better!
Eventually, yes there will need to be new rides and attractions, but I think what they really, really need to do now is focus on making what they have better. That means maintenance, cleaning, restoring closed attractions (I am talking the seasonal things here), and major, MAJOR improvements in merchandise and food.
Then I would support new rides and especially some new shows like tapestries. But if what they have now is too much for them to handle, putting all their effots into a new ride is only going to make things worse.
Don't just change for change, change for the better!
Defend10
Member
WDW is in a great upswing right now with new attractions. It's commonly known that the four under constructions right now are the most ever at one time outside of building a new park. With this focus on attractions at WDW, certainly nobody can use that as one of the many reasons to oust Eisner.
I'm incredibly happy with the progress made on new attractions on property, with Soarin, the Stunt Show, Everest, and Stitch, we're in great shape easily through 2006. For anyone to come in and just start building more and more wouldn't keep up the marginal benefits, things need to be spread out over time. Someone coming in just throwing money into more new projects than we already have could hurt, rather than help, WDW down the line, as the return on the investment probably wouldn't be all that great compared to what they'll already be getting.
I'm incredibly happy with the progress made on new attractions on property, with Soarin, the Stunt Show, Everest, and Stitch, we're in great shape easily through 2006. For anyone to come in and just start building more and more wouldn't keep up the marginal benefits, things need to be spread out over time. Someone coming in just throwing money into more new projects than we already have could hurt, rather than help, WDW down the line, as the return on the investment probably wouldn't be all that great compared to what they'll already be getting.
BuckyAcorn
New Member
Almost everything Disney needs to be redone, no matter what the cost. When Eisner first came into the position he holds now, he completely renovated Disney in an amazing way. And now his time has simply past. It's the new millenium, things arent the way they were when he first got the job. Things have changed that he just cant keep up with, and maybe some one new can do the same thing he once did for the entire company.
*IF* Eisner is replaced, I pray that a new CEO will not stop the creation of new rides and attractions because he (or she) has found a new priority for the money, or simply feels that the parks don't need them.
I hope the new CEO has the creative ability to recognize greatness in whatever great ideas Imagineers could dream up and champions these great ideas to their opening.
I hope the new CEO has the skill to distingish between a good idea and a bad idea that Imagineering comes up. Anyone could approve anything, but if it's not popular with WDW visitors, the company would basically waste money.
I understand that Imagineers work on idea concepts all day long, and only a hand full ever get off the drawing boards. Every Disney CEO tours Imagineering in Glendale, CA on a regular basis to see if they have any concepts worth funding. The CEO makes the decision of what he thinks could be crowd pleasers.
For example, Roy O. Disney (after Walt died) approved Western River Expedition for WDW. After Roy died, Card Walker shelved the project in favor of a scalled-down Pirates copy.
Card Walker and Don Tantum each turned down Splash Mountain, but the model sat on a shelf in Glendale until Michael Eisner was hired as CEO.
Card Walker also approved Big Thunder Mountain, Country Bear Jamboree, Tom Sawyer's Island, Mission to the Moon (and later it became Mission to Mars, which Alien Encounter replaced). These attractions are so-so and not what you'd expect if Walt Disney was still running the company.
Card Walker and Don Tantum also approved all of EPCOT's original opening-day attractions and gave them a healthy budget, but teenagers mostly complained that they weren't exciting enough.
My point is you can approve attractions that use tons of AA's, omni-movers, and dazzling technology, but that doesn't gaurantee that they will be popular.
Eisner has turned downed A LOT of EXCELLENT projects that I believe he should have approved. For example, Disneyland's old Caroussel of Progress theater, who's last show was America Sings, was to get an Intergalactic Revue, a musical with out of this world aliens and cool special effects. Eisner turned it down because he thought it was "just another" AA stage show. Imagineers actually reworked the concept dozens of times, and Eisner shot all of them down, approving Innoventions instead!
Mission: Space almost didn't get built either. The story is that Eisner toured Imagineering and was not excited about ANYTHING they were proposing. Before leaving, an Imagineer asked Eisner to step into a booth he had built. The booth was replica of the cockpit for Mission: Space. After playing with all the buttons, the joystick, and seeing the hi-def screen, the Imagineer informed Eisner that this would be placed on a centrifuge, and Eisner was overcome with excitement and told Imaginering "build it!"
Splash Mountian only happened becaused Eisner's son was touring the model shop with his dad and stumbled around the Splash Mountain model. Realizing that it was a water flume ride, he told his dad... 'this is what Disneyland needs... a water flume!"
Walt Disney was an Imagineer himself. He was always directly involved in the creation of new rides. He himself took personal interest in each of the projects, from conception to completion. We need a CEO with that kind of active imagination!
When Eisner was first made CEO, people doubted that he could run a theme park company because of his background in movies. As head of a studio, you have to pick the winners from the losers, and bet the studio's money on the winners, and pray that they don't bomb. At Paramount, Eisner had a good track record of picking movies that were successful at the box office. When he came to Disney, he used that same philosophy on new attractions at the parks, picking out the ones he thought were going to be popular with guests. The attractions he approved have been mostly successful.
I'm just hoping a new CEO would have the same, if not better judgement. Just throwing money at it doesn't mean park visitors would like it. On the other hand, Eisner has turned down some great concepts that could have been really successful because he judged that it would be too expensive to build. I hope the new CEO would build these higher-priced attractions, but only if they are really worth the money to build!
I also see a trend of older attractions staying the same or falling apart. I hope a new CEO changes this and updates all the AA's EVERYWHERE, add new effects to old rides, renew the Disney experience so that the old rides are like new, and a younger generation could enjoy them the same as they would say Twilight Zone Tower of Tower, or for the Disney vets to get a new experience out it.
I hope a new CEO sees the importance of having a state of the art transportation system, like the monorail was at its time, and sees the need to replace those darn busses and connect all of the World with a new system.....
I hope the new CEO has the creative ability to recognize greatness in whatever great ideas Imagineers could dream up and champions these great ideas to their opening.
I hope the new CEO has the skill to distingish between a good idea and a bad idea that Imagineering comes up. Anyone could approve anything, but if it's not popular with WDW visitors, the company would basically waste money.
I understand that Imagineers work on idea concepts all day long, and only a hand full ever get off the drawing boards. Every Disney CEO tours Imagineering in Glendale, CA on a regular basis to see if they have any concepts worth funding. The CEO makes the decision of what he thinks could be crowd pleasers.
For example, Roy O. Disney (after Walt died) approved Western River Expedition for WDW. After Roy died, Card Walker shelved the project in favor of a scalled-down Pirates copy.
Card Walker and Don Tantum each turned down Splash Mountain, but the model sat on a shelf in Glendale until Michael Eisner was hired as CEO.
Card Walker also approved Big Thunder Mountain, Country Bear Jamboree, Tom Sawyer's Island, Mission to the Moon (and later it became Mission to Mars, which Alien Encounter replaced). These attractions are so-so and not what you'd expect if Walt Disney was still running the company.
Card Walker and Don Tantum also approved all of EPCOT's original opening-day attractions and gave them a healthy budget, but teenagers mostly complained that they weren't exciting enough.
My point is you can approve attractions that use tons of AA's, omni-movers, and dazzling technology, but that doesn't gaurantee that they will be popular.
Eisner has turned downed A LOT of EXCELLENT projects that I believe he should have approved. For example, Disneyland's old Caroussel of Progress theater, who's last show was America Sings, was to get an Intergalactic Revue, a musical with out of this world aliens and cool special effects. Eisner turned it down because he thought it was "just another" AA stage show. Imagineers actually reworked the concept dozens of times, and Eisner shot all of them down, approving Innoventions instead!
Mission: Space almost didn't get built either. The story is that Eisner toured Imagineering and was not excited about ANYTHING they were proposing. Before leaving, an Imagineer asked Eisner to step into a booth he had built. The booth was replica of the cockpit for Mission: Space. After playing with all the buttons, the joystick, and seeing the hi-def screen, the Imagineer informed Eisner that this would be placed on a centrifuge, and Eisner was overcome with excitement and told Imaginering "build it!"
Splash Mountian only happened becaused Eisner's son was touring the model shop with his dad and stumbled around the Splash Mountain model. Realizing that it was a water flume ride, he told his dad... 'this is what Disneyland needs... a water flume!"
Walt Disney was an Imagineer himself. He was always directly involved in the creation of new rides. He himself took personal interest in each of the projects, from conception to completion. We need a CEO with that kind of active imagination!
When Eisner was first made CEO, people doubted that he could run a theme park company because of his background in movies. As head of a studio, you have to pick the winners from the losers, and bet the studio's money on the winners, and pray that they don't bomb. At Paramount, Eisner had a good track record of picking movies that were successful at the box office. When he came to Disney, he used that same philosophy on new attractions at the parks, picking out the ones he thought were going to be popular with guests. The attractions he approved have been mostly successful.
I'm just hoping a new CEO would have the same, if not better judgement. Just throwing money at it doesn't mean park visitors would like it. On the other hand, Eisner has turned down some great concepts that could have been really successful because he judged that it would be too expensive to build. I hope the new CEO would build these higher-priced attractions, but only if they are really worth the money to build!
I also see a trend of older attractions staying the same or falling apart. I hope a new CEO changes this and updates all the AA's EVERYWHERE, add new effects to old rides, renew the Disney experience so that the old rides are like new, and a younger generation could enjoy them the same as they would say Twilight Zone Tower of Tower, or for the Disney vets to get a new experience out it.
I hope a new CEO sees the importance of having a state of the art transportation system, like the monorail was at its time, and sees the need to replace those darn busses and connect all of the World with a new system.....
cherrynegra
Well-Known Member
Reading all the accounts from the different news media about the upcoming vote, and just all the things that have happened in the past two months in regards to Disney, one thing kept getting repeated. And that one thing is the idea that shareholders do not want Disney brass to spend too much money on the parks. I think that's probably true. Most people want a short term investment bump rather than long term. Which is really depressing.
I don't understand how people could rag on Disney trying to improve or even maintain the quality of the parks. Those parks, next to the film library, is what drives Disney. That's where people get to experience the magic in the flesh. Especially children who grow up to one day bring their children. Really makes you almost wish shareholders weren't involved. They're like a double edged sword.
I don't understand how people could rag on Disney trying to improve or even maintain the quality of the parks. Those parks, next to the film library, is what drives Disney. That's where people get to experience the magic in the flesh. Especially children who grow up to one day bring their children. Really makes you almost wish shareholders weren't involved. They're like a double edged sword.
Disney2002
New Member
:sohappy: :sohappy: FINALLY :sohappy: :sohappy:
I'm so glad someone else realizes that Eisner is not a demon tyrant. He has to serve shareholder interests. They want to make money. What you posted is so true.
i'm not a shareholder. i can't vote in this. but i think eisner's time is up.
am i saying it because of unclean parks? no.
am i saying it because of mean cm's? no.
too many new rides? no.
What i'm seeing is decisions made that seem very poor in timing and mainly most people's interest. the first being Pixar. there was no word of what Eisner was willing to give up. no word of what he was willing to deal. just what Pixar wanted. so he gets rid fo them. ok. fine they wanted more, but what was he doing just letting them talk? now, i could see it if he let Pixar go and then the next day say "We've got so and so company now instead of Pixar." no, he just says they're gonna keep making CGI movies. with whom? don't put your cart before the hourse, you can't make CGI movies without a CGI company.
the second is about rides. not thrills rides. as a teen, MANY of my peers didn't care for disney world or disneyland because of the lack of thrill rides. so that limits your target audience, the most "impressionable". they may have loved it as a kid but as a teen they want something a bit more and spinning tea cups or pop up ghosts are going to do it. and don't give me what Walt wanted. the 50's are a whole other world compared to the 90's and 2000's.
actually this DOES have to do with AE. how he could let an attraction that he put the warning for. that he said make it scarrier and get rid of it just blows my mind. it didn't even last 10 years and was one of the more popular rides. Tower of Terror scared the crap outta me but i'm not going to Disney and demanding they make it slower and less scary. My sister hated AE. as a teen she wasn't going on it. sure that's target audience. but for her 1, three (me, my dad and my brother) were going on it.
i'm sure there's more behind Michael and more thigns he did but at the moment i just woke up :lol: so brain function isn't at an all time high. i think it's time he moved.
am i saying it because of unclean parks? no.
am i saying it because of mean cm's? no.
too many new rides? no.
What i'm seeing is decisions made that seem very poor in timing and mainly most people's interest. the first being Pixar. there was no word of what Eisner was willing to give up. no word of what he was willing to deal. just what Pixar wanted. so he gets rid fo them. ok. fine they wanted more, but what was he doing just letting them talk? now, i could see it if he let Pixar go and then the next day say "We've got so and so company now instead of Pixar." no, he just says they're gonna keep making CGI movies. with whom? don't put your cart before the hourse, you can't make CGI movies without a CGI company.
the second is about rides. not thrills rides. as a teen, MANY of my peers didn't care for disney world or disneyland because of the lack of thrill rides. so that limits your target audience, the most "impressionable". they may have loved it as a kid but as a teen they want something a bit more and spinning tea cups or pop up ghosts are going to do it. and don't give me what Walt wanted. the 50's are a whole other world compared to the 90's and 2000's.
actually this DOES have to do with AE. how he could let an attraction that he put the warning for. that he said make it scarrier and get rid of it just blows my mind. it didn't even last 10 years and was one of the more popular rides. Tower of Terror scared the crap outta me but i'm not going to Disney and demanding they make it slower and less scary. My sister hated AE. as a teen she wasn't going on it. sure that's target audience. but for her 1, three (me, my dad and my brother) were going on it.
i'm sure there's more behind Michael and more thigns he did but at the moment i just woke up :lol: so brain function isn't at an all time high. i think it's time he moved.
MKCustodial
Well-Known Member
These are basically parts of your post that I felt compelled to discuss.
1) As far as I know, Walt Disney was directly involved in the concept of Country Bear Jamboree, and none of the attractions you list as so-so have ever had bad attendance numbers. In fact, Mission to the Moon was only replaced because reality got up to it.
2) Teenagers aren't a very reliable poll group. If what they say was gold, IoA or Busch Gardens would be the most successfull parks in Florida, and we all know that's not the case.
Also, if an outside party, non-biased, were to conduct a thorough research, I can bet anything the results would show dark, AA, omnimover-type attractions are still considered the best out there, even though some consider it outdated.
3) Wasn't there some kind of power sharing between Walt and Roy? I always thought Roy was the "actual" CEO, since he dealt with the business side of the company.
4) As I said on my original post, I don't think any Disney fan can deny how great Michael Eisner once was. But the vast majority of what he did good had Frank Wells's touch behind it. After his passing, Eisner just lost it. I suppose they worked kinda like Walt and Roy (no comparison, obviously).
What we need is management that look at the whole company, and not just scpecific areas like Animation or Parks and Resorts, with respect, and not just another profit-making brand. I know the concept itself (suits not thinking about money) is difficult to grasp, but with all the attention lately about why Eisner needs to leave, it's really hard to think that whoever they bring in next hasn't at least learned with his mistakes.
cherrynegra
Well-Known Member
Oooops.:lookaroun Sorry if my post gave you the impression that I supported Eisner. My rant was mostly against Wall Street and greedy shareholders. Is Eisner a demon? Not really. Nice man I'm sure. Should Eisner step down? Yes. Time for new blood and new ideas and new leadership. Twenty years is more than enough time.
Shaman
Well-Known Member
If Eisner is replaced soon (which seems very likely)...I think the changes (atleast the big ones) will be slow...and of coarse depending on who is the new CEO, will determine what changes will occur....
I want the magic back, and then a larger focus on the parks and animation sectors of the company...those two will determine Disney's future customers and fans...and will dictate what loyalty the consumer will have to the Disney product...if both the animation/themeparks don't hold up the test of time, the company will fail in my opinion...
I just hope that when things change...its for the better.
I want the magic back, and then a larger focus on the parks and animation sectors of the company...those two will determine Disney's future customers and fans...and will dictate what loyalty the consumer will have to the Disney product...if both the animation/themeparks don't hold up the test of time, the company will fail in my opinion...
I just hope that when things change...its for the better.
To me, there is a lot at stake when it comes to this weeks Shareholders vote. Do I want Michael out? Yes.....why? It's time to bring the magic back. If you read all of the previous posts, everyone has commented that the one key element that is missing is the magic. Granted, we all make our own magic when we get to "the Happy Place", but there is that feeling like no other when I, personally, get there. As of recent I felt that feeling is fading like the Blue Fairy's Star.
I think WDW has fallen into the school mentality (let's not mend something until we ultimately have to - BUT let's make new things to cover up what needs attention). If we could get a little bit of repair, mantainance, a personal love and care back into a few things, I believe that we wouldn't be distracted for the need of something bigger, better, faster and slicker. Then maybe after we return things to it's splendor (and not just outward appearance, but the personal respect and love) then can we go for some of the projects placed on the back burner.
As for other portions of the company - I think it was a HUGH mistake to remove the core portion of the company - Feature animation. I understand that there is the push of completely computer animated films, but is that necessary? The thought that "Home on the Range" is possibly the last hand drawn animated film by the Mouse House honestly bothers me (granted, I feel that way because of being a traditional cartoonist). Keep the art in animation....and always add new innovations as needed.
Bottom line - Let's clean up and mend what we have. Restore to the glory that the company is. Build upon that.
I think WDW has fallen into the school mentality (let's not mend something until we ultimately have to - BUT let's make new things to cover up what needs attention). If we could get a little bit of repair, mantainance, a personal love and care back into a few things, I believe that we wouldn't be distracted for the need of something bigger, better, faster and slicker. Then maybe after we return things to it's splendor (and not just outward appearance, but the personal respect and love) then can we go for some of the projects placed on the back burner.
As for other portions of the company - I think it was a HUGH mistake to remove the core portion of the company - Feature animation. I understand that there is the push of completely computer animated films, but is that necessary? The thought that "Home on the Range" is possibly the last hand drawn animated film by the Mouse House honestly bothers me (granted, I feel that way because of being a traditional cartoonist). Keep the art in animation....and always add new innovations as needed.
Bottom line - Let's clean up and mend what we have. Restore to the glory that the company is. Build upon that.
RogueHabit
Well-Known Member
Bottom Line: New Rides will not replace the Magic.
Sure, the R& D and introduction of new attractions must continue as it has, but the primary focus (within the Resorts and Parks) right now needs to be restoring the highly battered sense of self worth to Disney that a lot of Crew Members have lost.
Without it they can never provide us with the Magic we seek when we visit a Disney Theme park or Resort.
The parks and resorts are nothing without great, highly motivated and appreciated Crew Members to operate them.
That, in my humble opinion, is what has been lost in recent years. Sure there are still loads of great CM's out there but, as has been noted by many on this site, just one bad CM can really put a dent in that magical feeling that you work all year (or more) just to get a few days of.
Sure, the R& D and introduction of new attractions must continue as it has, but the primary focus (within the Resorts and Parks) right now needs to be restoring the highly battered sense of self worth to Disney that a lot of Crew Members have lost.
Without it they can never provide us with the Magic we seek when we visit a Disney Theme park or Resort.
The parks and resorts are nothing without great, highly motivated and appreciated Crew Members to operate them.
That, in my humble opinion, is what has been lost in recent years. Sure there are still loads of great CM's out there but, as has been noted by many on this site, just one bad CM can really put a dent in that magical feeling that you work all year (or more) just to get a few days of.
Snapper Bean
Active Member
It's hard to say but I could see a new CEO wanting to make his mark with a significant project in the very near future if only as a signal that something really HAS changed. I don't know whether that would be a programming or attraction change, but it wouldn't surprise me to hear of a quick meeting with the imagineers for the purpose of greenlighting a project.