Disney's Current Approach to Theme Parks

[GadgetGuru]

I disassociate from reality every time I read this thread.

 

[belloq87]

Um, I love this guy

He's not a robot, without emotions!

Assuming that was actually him, I think that's more personality and a sense of humor than he's shown in the entire last 13 years. Maybe he's loosening up as he starts to head for the door.

I disassociate from reality every time I read this thread.

You're welcome!

 

[Nick]

Notice the hashtag he used, too “#CapitaMarvel”

 

[shiekra38]

Notice the hashtag he used, too “#CapitaMarvel”

The fact that he's unintentionally/intentionally stirring up the hardcore fanbase is quite hilarious to watch

 

[belloq87]

See, I read that more as self-deprecating, like an "Oh, boy, what did I say now?!" sort of thing. Acknowledging his earlier, in-artful (I would say stupid) comment by coming up with an utterly ridiculous one.

I can't fathom him intentionally trying to tick off anybody. I think he's just trying to have a little fun with the mini-controversy.

 

[shiekra38]

See, I read that more as self-deprecating, like an "Oh, boy, what did I say now?!" sort of thing. Acknowledging his earlier, in-artful (I would say stupid) comment by coming up with an utterly ridiculous one.

I can't fathom him intentionally trying to tick off anybody. I think he's just trying to have a little fun with the mini-controversy.

It's certainly going over as an intentional jab by some

 

[belloq87]

I'm sure it is. Some people look for any reason to consider him the boogeyman.

And I say that being FAR from his biggest fan in terms of how he's handled the Florida parks in his tenure. I think his entire creative mindset needs (and has needed) tweaking in that area.

The original quote that caused me to start this thread deserved strong scrutiny, if not outright condemnation. This new one is just the guy showing he's actually got a sense of humor.

 

[shiekra38]

I'm sure it is. Some people look for any reason to consider him the boogeyman.

And I say that being FAR from his biggest fan in terms of how he's handled the Florida parks in his tenure. I think his entire creative mindset needs (and has needed) tweaking in that area.

The original quote that caused me to start this thread deserved strong scrutiny, if not outright condemnation. This new one is just the guy showing he's actually got a sense of humor.

The original comment was equally as hilarious to me as I knew how it would tick of the core base....and Joe Rhode

Also, it was out of nowhere and inappropriate

 

[UNIrd]

Can someone explain the Capita Marvel thing to me?

 

[Nick]

Can someone explain the Capita Marvel thing to me?

I believe he was jokingly referencing how much money could be made per capita buy building all of those things, so he used the play on words.

 

[leavesonthelawn]

Can someone explain the Capita Marvel thing to me?

I believe he was jokingly referencing how much money could be made per capita buy building all of those things, so he used the play on words.

Very slim chance but he might have been trying to reference the Brazilian spelling of the hashtag or just a mis-type?

 

[Ultranel]

As much this might hurt me to say, I think Eisner was better than this guy. Lord! it hurts to say that but at least he acted his interest in the parks well... within the greed of course, but this guy just know how to buy already famous IP and then claim them as his. So he can shop! woop dee doo! He just a biz man, I would be surprised if he even took the time to read Walt's story.

 

[belloq87]

Eisner was FAR from perfect, but I believe he enjoyed the theme parks beyond just their value to the bottom line, and that means something to me. I also think he had a concept of what made Disney "special" that current leadership lacks.

His first decade with the company (in tandem with Wells) was one of the greatest periods in its entire history, both for movies and theme parks, and he deserves enormous credit for that.

 

[Nick]

As much this might hurt me to say, I think Eisner was better than this guy. Lord! it hurts to say that but at least he acted his interest in the parks well... within the greed of course, but this guy just know how to buy already famous IP and then claim them as his. So he can shop! woop dee doo! He just a biz man, I would be surprised if he even took the time to read Walt's story.

I think there's a case to be made both ways. Eisner certainly had more of a passion for the parks, but he's also responsible for opening two under-developed parks and will always be known for ruining Epcot in the 90's. Many people held onto some crazy belief that Epcot would return to what it was, which was never going to happen. Iger is just finishing what Eisner started in terms of Epcot, but at least the park will be a lot more fun than it was before.

Eisner added virtually nothing to the parks from 2000-2005, with Everest, Soarin' and Mission: Space being the only notables at WDW (and Soarin' was a clone from DCA with M:S being a project that took 4 years from demo to open) and nothing I can think of at DL Park. He also opened TWO MORE under-developed theme parks during these 5 years (DCA and HKDL) making it FOUR in total.

The beginning of Iger's tenure, from 2005-2009, was pretty weak. Besides Toy Story Mania (another DCA clone), I actually can't think of anything added to WDW outside of Seas with Nemo and Finding Nemo: The Musical. So all in all, the 2000's were an INCREDIBLY weak decade for both CEOs when it came to the parks. This decade has been much more active for Iger with DCA Expansion (to fix Eisner's wrongs), Star Tours 2.0, Test Track 2.0, Cars Land, New Fantasyland, Disneyland refurbs for 60th, Paint the Night (DL, HKDL), Soarin Around the World, Pandora, Toy Story Land, Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge, Runaway Railway, Beginning DCAs Marvel Land, Pixar Pier (I know...), Disney Springs redevelopment, Shanghai Disneyland, Hong Kong Disneyland expansions, Disneyland Paris expansions, etc. That's not even mentioning hotel development, new nighttime shows, etc.

Whether you like the stuff that's been added or replaced, you can't deny this has been a much more active decade, much in part to the pressure put on by Universal and Comcast's willingness to spend money, which has affected both WDW and DL in a positive way. I would say that it actually seems that Iger is finally seeing the value of investing in the theme parks, ironically just before he's leaving his position.

 

[belloq87]

I think there's a case to be made both ways. Eisner certainly had more of a passion for the parks, but he's also responsible for opening two under-developed parks and will always be known for ruining Epcot in the 90's. Many people held onto some crazy belief that Epcot would return to what it was, which was never going to happen. Iger is just finishing what Eisner started in terms of Epcot, but at least the park will be a lot more fun than it was before.

We part ways here. To me, nothing Eisner did to Epcot “broke” the theme of the park or its original mission statement in the way Iger's decisions have. Would I rather have Horizons than Mission: Space, or the original Imagination than what’s currently there? Absolutely, but those replacement attractions still fit what the park was meant to be about.

Right now, I don't even know what Disney wants Epcot to be about, thematically, and that's the problem. They sure don't want it to be about the words on its dedication plaque, apparently.

Whether you like the stuff that's been added or replaced, you can't deny this has been a much more active decade, much in part to the pressure put on by Universal and Comcast's willingness to spend money, which has affected both WDW and DL in a positive way. I would say that it actually seems that Iger is finally seeing the value of investing in the theme parks, ironically just before he's leaving his position.

Spending is good, and I think we're all (more or less) glad they've opened the spending floodgates (or the overspending floodgates, since the company has an inability to rein in expenses on its projects)... but the only reason we're seeing such massive spending now is because we had nearly a decade of relative dereliction, resulting from Iger's initial - incredibly stupid - belief that the WDW parks were somehow "mature" and didn't need investment.

 

[Nick]

We part ways here. To me, nothing Eisner did to Epcot “broke” the theme of the park or its original mission statement in the way Iger's decisions have. Would I rather have Horizons than Mission: Space, or the original Imagination than what’s currently there? Absolutely, but those replacement attractions still fit what the park was meant to be about.

Right now, I don't even know what Disney wants Epcot to be about, thematically, and that's the problem. They sure don't want it to be about the words on its dedication plaque, apparently.

I agree that Eisner didn't "fully" break Epcot. But he realized the issue that the GP seemed to generally be bored with the edutainment aspect (or at least kids were). So he tried to add "thrill" rides to make up for it. My point is, Eisner realized Epcot's mission statement wasn't working anymore. Iger is the one who just decided to take the step to put the IPs in.

Spending is good, and I think we're all (more or less) glad they've opened the spending floodgates (or the overspending floodgates, since the company has an inability to rein in expenses on its projects)... but the only reason we're seeing such massive spending now is because we had nearly a decade of relative dereliction, resulting from Iger's initial - incredibly stupid - belief that the WDW parks were somehow "mature" and didn't need investment.

As I addressed though, Iger was only half of that empty decade. Eisner didn't give much, either in the 2000's. You seem to only be focusing on WDW, too. As I said, Eisner built and opened FOUR under-developed parks that Iger has had to and is still working on fixing. Opening parks the way he did was, frankly, irresponsible and not up to par with what we should expect from Disney Parks.

 

[belloq87]

I agree that Eisner didn't "fully" break Epcot. But he realized the issue that the GP seemed to generally be bored with the edutainment aspect (or at least kids were). So he tried to add "thrill" rides to make up for it. My point is, Eisner realized Epcot's mission statement wasn't working anymore. Iger is the one who just decided to take the step to put the IPs in.

But again, Eisner tried to make those thrilling attractions work in the park.

There is a way to make thrilling and IP-based attractions work in Epcot; Iger's not trying, based on everything we've seen and know so far (it's possible Guardians is somehow going to end up being an ode to human achievement and the enterprising spirit, but I'm doubtful).

As I addressed though, Iger was only half of that empty decade. Eisner didn't give much, either in the 2000's. You seem to only be focusing on WDW, too. As I said, Eisner built and opened FOUR under-developed parks that Iger has had to and is still working on fixing. Opening parks the way he did was, frankly, irresponsible and not up to par with what we should expect from Disney Parks.

I don't necessarily dispute any of that (though the empty decade I'm really more upset about is 2005 - 2015, during which we can only say Iger was really responsible for bringing New Fantasyland and a couple overlays and refurbs to Florida, unless I'm missing something), and as I said earlier, Eisner was far from perfect. But I'll take his best achievements over Iger's best achievements any day.

As for focusing on WDW... I mean, I am an avowed WDW partisan, so of course I'm going to care a bit more about spending at my "home" resort!

 

[Nick]

I don't necessarily dispute any of that (though the empty decade I'm really more upset about is 2005 - 2015, during which we can only say Iger was really responsible for bringing New Fantasyland and a couple overlays and refurbs to Florida, unless I'm missing something), and as I said earlier, Eisner was far from perfect. But I'll take his best achievements over Iger's best achievements any day.

We really didn't get much in the 2000-2005 period and what we did get was mostly in Eisner's last year, 2005, for the DL 50th anniversary. Eisner is also the one who closed 20K in 1995 and from 95-2004 it was Ariel's Grotto before becoming Pooh's Playful Spot for five years after that.

As for focusing on WDW... I mean, I am an avowed WDW partisan, so of course I'm going to care a bit more about spending at my "home" resort!

I mean, WDW is my "home" Disney resort too, but still, if Iger was off screwing up every international park, we'd be on him about it. The only park he's opened is SHDL and he certainly opened it with more attractions and expanded it almost immediately and then again this past year with TSL. Eisner opened up HKDL incredibly under-developed to the point where we're on our second large expansion in the Iger-era in a short period of time.

DAK is the best of the park's that Eisner opened (i'm not counting TDS because it's not Disney-owned) based on layout, theme, etc. It's just missing capacity. But DCA and MGM were messes all round right from the start. And in some ways, a park like DHS has never fully recovered from the layout it was given on opening day.

EDIT: OH! It's actually FIVE Half-baked parks that Eisner oversaw. I wasn't counting WDSP, which is finally getting the love it's needed since opening day.

 

[belloq87]

Again, I can't argue with any of that, though I might characterize some of those events differently (for example, opening an underdeveloped MGM is still better than not opening anything at all, in my book).

 

[Nick]

Again, I can't argue with any of that, though I might characterize some of those events differently (for example, opening an underdeveloped MGM is still better than not opening anything at all, in my book).

I disagree. I said it the other day in the UO Expansion thread and I think three dry parks is a magic number, if fully fleshed out. Had Eisner not been so dead-set on beating Universal to having a Studio Park in Orlando, maybe we could’ve had a better planned out park. If they had focused on fleshing out their three parks from there too, they could be in a much better position as far as capacity is concerned for each park and then still be positioning themselves for a potential Forth Park once all were healthy.