Post about 10 things we wish Disney would do

[subsonic]

There's an insightful post about 10 things we wish Disney would do over at ProgressCityUSA.

I have to say, this guy covers everything that I've been thinking. Especially the vision part.

http://bit.ly/fyAuE2

[Wizzard419]

The biggest issue with what he wants is the money. Using his focal point of WS, it looks like most of the pavillion sponsors have pulled out. With no sponsorship Disney isn't able to build new stuff as fast. They have updated some of the attractions, which is probably the most they are willing and able to put out for right now with tourisim being in the toilet.

I still don't get the arbitrary complaint/comparison that there are 18 year olds that are younger than malstrom. I have a feeling he is one of the fans that is still unhappy with the removal of Horizons and World of Motion. So he wants to keep all the older stuff, but wants new stuff, but we have finite space. Unless they hire a hoarder to pack in attractions he's probably never going to be happy.

As for the Four Seasons, I'm not sure why he is getting his panties in a bunch over an outside hotel coming in to operate a hotel, Disney already has that with the Swan and Dolphin, Shades of Green, and 8 other resorts. Unless the four seasons can offer something better than the resorts, such as a better/faster/less crowded trasport to and from the parks, then there would be little benefit to stay there. Kind of like the Ritz in Vegas, if you're going to stay there then you probably had no real reason to come to Vegas in the first place.

[mindflipper]

I agree with the cleaning up the mess of themes at EPCOT, and they could scale back that Disney Characters have to be everywhere ("de-toon-ifcation"). To me, the overload of this is most apparent when at DLR's IASW they mixed in Disney characters. Why? They're not essential to the theme at all.

In the areas where they do have park/ride specific merchandising, then then to make limited edition items with a very small production runs. Or pins. Or now VMs with a hefty price tag. Disney does do this kind of merchandising, but it isn't made for the mass public.

I think it's funny that people want rides updated, and when they did that to ETR, EPCOT's Mexico, POTC and the HM, people bitterly complained about tampering with the classics. How fickle! You asked for it, you got it, and then didn't want it.

[Amy]

I agree with the cleaning up the mess of themes at EPCOT, and they could scale back that Disney Characters have to be everywhere ("de-toon-ifcation"). To me, the overload of this is most apparent when at DLR's IASW they mixed in Disney characters. Why? They're not essential to the theme at all.

I think they did this so when the kids are ooh-ing and aah-ing over the Disney characters their parents just might forget that they are having to endure IASW!

In the areas where they do have park/ride specific merchandising, then then to make limited edition items with a very small production runs. Or pins. Or now VMs with a hefty price tag. Disney does do this kind of merchandising, but it isn't made for the mass public.

I wish they would have a bigger variety of souvenirs. I realize most people probably feel there are already enough different things available, but if you are looking for something out of the ordinary, you just can't find it. And most things are stamped Disneyland/WDW now...sad And all made in China

I think it's funny that people want rides updated, and when they did that to ETR, EPCOT's Mexico, POTC and the HM, people bitterly complained about tampering with the classics. How fickle! You asked for it, you got it, and then didn't want it.

This is a very astute observation. Unfortunately I don't think there is a good solution for this problem. Some people are going to complain even if you hand them exactly what they ask for

[Wizzard419]

I agree with the cleaning up the mess of themes at EPCOT, and they could scale back that Disney Characters have to be everywhere ("de-toon-ifcation"). To me, the overload of this is most apparent when at DLR's IASW they mixed in Disney characters. Why? They're not essential to the theme at all.

In the areas where they do have park/ride specific merchandising, then then to make limited edition items with a very small production runs. Or pins. Or now VMs with a hefty price tag. Disney does do this kind of merchandising, but it isn't made for the mass public.

I think it's funny that people want rides updated, and when they did that to ETR, EPCOT's Mexico, POTC and the HM, people bitterly complained about tampering with the classics. How fickle! You asked for it, you got it, and then didn't want it.

I know you want them to detoon Epcot but the whole reason they brought the toons in was that when they opened it wasn't as popular with the families so they brought in the caracters to get mass appeal.

I forgot to bring the merch up, in regards to the harry potter stuff, it sounds like the only unique, as in made for the parks only, merch that is sold are the wands and some of the candies (which can be purchased all across the country I imagine). So what is gripe is more about is that the stores are not as themed for a single item as he would like.

[mindflipper]

The merchandise has gotten too generic (i.e., "Disney Parks" instead of listing Disneyland or Walt Disney World). They're even used to be resort-specific merchandise (mostly clothing) which now reads instead like "Disney World Resorts" instead. I had once bought a "Haunted Mansion Holiday" shirt only to find it at Disney World re-done to be just "Nightmare Before Christmas". And now, it seems it's just "Nightmare Before Christmas" instead, and they try to use that as "Halloween" merchandise for the parks worldwide instead of having actual "Halloween" merchandise specific to each park. Then they wonder why it doesn't sell and they have to mark it down to 50% just to get it to move?

[Wizzard419]

To be fair, with the halloween stuff, it costs a lot of money to make it (deisgn, production, shipping, floorspace, and figuring out what to do with the stuff that doesn't sell), so they opt for more generic stuff.

Honestly, until you pointed it out I had never noticed (I don't buy much from Disney Parks). I am guessing the reason they don't make as many products branded for a specific park is because it doesn't cost them as much to make 1 shirt for 2 parks than to make 2.

[subsonic]

The biggest issue with what he wants is the money. Using his focal point of WS, it looks like most of the pavillion sponsors have pulled out. With no sponsorship Disney isn't able to build new stuff as fast. They have updated some of the attractions, which is probably the most they are willing and able to put out for right now with tourisim being in the toilet.

I really don't think Disney needs sponsorship money to put in great attractions nor the need to update. Walt needed sponsors back then because he simply didn't have the money to make his vision a reality. Disney has the money now. I think it's a poor excuse to blame lack of updates on a lack of sponsorship.

I still don't get the arbitrary complaint/comparison that there are 18 year olds that are younger than malstrom. I have a feeling he is one of the fans that is still unhappy with the removal of Horizons and World of Motion. So he wants to keep all the older stuff, but wants new stuff, but we have finite space. Unless they hire a hoarder to pack in attractions he's probably never going to be happy.

I think you're right, you don't get it. Us nostalgic nit-pickers aren't saying that we want to keep the old stuff as it was. We simply want Disney to keep with it's quality and theme that set that parks apart from everybody else back in the days. There is some amazing technology in our world today. I want to see that used to update attractions not replace them with gimmicks, product placement, and short-sighted thrills. Haunted Mansion and POTC is a great example of that. While, I'm not happy that POTC needed to tie-in with Jack Sparrow at least they did it tactfully. Not to mention those animatronics look fantastic. HM is probably the best example of well needed upgrades. At DLR, I think the new attic looks great. I could only imagine if we had an updated Horizons.

When we asked for updates, we didn't ask for a retooling or loss of theme. Adding Nemo into Seas and adding Donald into Mexico were very poor choices.

I have to admit, EPCOT wasn't for everybody. It was truly unique. Perhaps America has gotten stupider and less inspired so Disney has to dumb down it's attractions. But, I was probably around 12 years old when I first went to EPCOT as a kid. EPCOT inspired me beyond belief. I wanted to explore the seas. I learned about the progress of communication. I saw the advancement of transportation. And, I wanted to go to the desert, seas, and Space. I'd ride Horizons over and over again to choose which route I wanted to take. I'm now in the computer field designing and building websites. I am creative, intelligent, and tech savvy. I have EPCOT and Disney to thank for that.

Disney used to have vision, it used to see the grand scheme of things. I hate how DLR's tomorrowland has no theme, barely anything is futuristic. WDW's tomorrowland looks nice but there are now 3 cartoon attractions there. Geeze, what do standing comedic monsters have to do with the future? It really wouldn't take much to make DLR's Tomorrowland look better. Take a walk into elecTRONica. That looks so futuristic. Sigh... I want the vision back.

Rdeacon sums it up well. Disney is now reactive instead of proactive. Disney used to be the "Apple" of theme parks. Universal is close on their heels in regards of not just technologically awesome attractions but also Theme. Watch out Disney.

[Wizzard419]

The biggest issue with what he wants is the money. Using his focal point of WS, it looks like most of the pavillion sponsors have pulled out. With no sponsorship Disney isn't able to build new stuff as fast. They have updated some of the attractions, which is probably the most they are willing and able to put out for right now with tourisim being in the toilet.

I really don't think Disney needs sponsorship money to put in great attractions nor the need to update. Walt needed sponsors back then because he simply didn't have the money to make his vision a reality. Disney has the money now. I think it's a poor excuse to blame lack of updates on a lack of sponsorship.

I still don't get the arbitrary complaint/comparison that there are 18 year olds that are younger than malstrom. I have a feeling he is one of the fans that is still unhappy with the removal of Horizons and World of Motion. So he wants to keep all the older stuff, but wants new stuff, but we have finite space. Unless they hire a hoarder to pack in attractions he's probably never going to be happy.

I think you're right, you don't get it. Us nostalgic nit-pickers aren't saying that we want to keep the old stuff as it was. We simply want Disney to keep with it's quality and theme that set that parks apart from everybody else back in the days. There is some amazing technology in our world today. I want to see that used to update attractions not replace them with gimmicks, product placement, and short-sighted thrills. Haunted Mansion and POTC is a great example of that. While, I'm not happy that POTC needed to tie-in with Jack Sparrow at least they did it tactfully. Not to mention those animatronics look fantastic. HM is probably the best example of well needed upgrades. At DLR, I think the new attic looks great. I could only imagine if we had an updated Horizons.

When we asked for updates, we didn't ask for a retooling or loss of theme. Adding Nemo into Seas and adding Donald into Mexico were very poor choices.

I have to admit, EPCOT wasn't for everybody. It was truly unique. Perhaps America has gotten stupider and less inspired so Disney has to dumb down it's attractions. But, I was probably around 12 years old when I first went to EPCOT as a kid. EPCOT inspired me beyond belief. I wanted to explore the seas. I learned about the progress of communication. I saw the advancement of transportation. And, I wanted to go to the desert, seas, and Space. I'd ride Horizons over and over again to choose which route I wanted to take. I'm now in the computer field designing and building websites. I am creative, intelligent, and tech savvy. I have EPCOT and Disney to thank for that.

Disney used to have vision, it used to see the grand scheme of things. I hate how DLR's tomorrowland has no theme, barely anything is futuristic. WDW's tomorrowland looks nice but there are now 3 cartoon attractions there. Geeze, what do standing comedic monsters have to do with the future? It really wouldn't take much to make DLR's Tomorrowland look better. Take a walk into elecTRONica. That looks so futuristic. Sigh... I want the vision back.

Rdeacon sums it up well. Disney is now reactive instead of proactive. Disney used to be the "Apple" of theme parks. Universal is close on their heels in regards of not just technologically awesome attractions but also Theme. Watch out Disney.

I'm not saying Disney doesn't have the money, but they're far more hesitant to leverage their own money from theme park budgets to expand when they can get someone else to help foot the bill.

Moving on to old vs. new, that is kind of my point, Disney is trying to improve the ride for everyone rather than just fan service. While the more conservative fans may hate the updates with a vengance, if the updates do their job (make the wait feel shorter, make more people happy, bring a new generation into the attraction) then they aren't going to stop.

DLR's tomorrowland did (still does) have a theme; "Imagination and Beyond". Albeit, it's a catch all for pretty much any attraction they put in there. The reason Universal is so close is simple, Disney only contracts the bulk of their imagineers, so at the end of a project they are free to go work for the competition. That's one of the reasons that the Harry Potter stuff is so well done, they used people with theme park experience.

[mindflipper]

Universal is still a far distant second to Disney. They too have been suffering on the theme. It seems like the movie theme is slowly being watered down to a TV show theme. At US-Orlando, Back to the Future was poorly replaced by The Simpsons, and Hanna-Barbera (which was about Universal making the cartoons into animated movies) got an equally poor replacement with Jimmy Neutron. At US-Orlando, The Mummy and Twister share the same area in NY street theme?

Also, Universal has a very poor track record for maintenance and upkeep. When I finally went to IoA, I was amazed how badly faded the entire Suess Landing area was. They must have used real cheap paint because after a few years it looked like it hadn't been painted in decades!

IMHO Universal isn't close on the heels, they got to put some more effort into it if they don't want to lag behind...

[Future Guy]

I wholeheartedly agree with everything he said about Disney's lack of vision. But it's to be expected, really. Disney is simply operating the way that virtually every other large corporation in America operates. Like Dave Barry once said, corporations are run my men in suits who sit around a conference table and make bad decisions. It'd be nice if the company had a visionary CEO with enough political capital within the company to make things happen.

[mindflipper]

I wholeheartedly agree with everything he said about Disney's lack of vision. But it's to be expected, really. Disney is simply operating the way that virtually every other large corporation in America operates. Like Dave Barry once said, corporations are run my men in suits who sit around a conference table and make bad decisions. It'd be nice if the company had a visionary CEO with enough political capital within the company to make things happen.

Well, Disney did have a "visionary CEO" called Michael Eisner and we see how popular he was in the end! It's not just enough to have a visionary CEO, but a CEO with the RIGHT vision for the future. How many big companies have been brought to ruin by a "visionary CEO"?

[Future Guy]

It's a double-edged sword, obviously. But Eisner did use his power mostly for good there in the beginning. It wasn't until after Frank Wells died and Paul Pressler came along that the vicious cost-cutting at the parks started. Sure, towards the end he was a kind of a megalomaniac. But I think he deserves credit for the good stuff he did.

[mindflipper]

It's a double-edged sword, obviously. But Eisner did use his power mostly for good there in the beginning. It wasn't until after Frank Wells died and Paul Pressler came along that the vicious cost-cutting at the parks started. Sure, towards the end he was a kind of a megalomaniac. But I think he deserves credit for the good stuff he did.

True, I agree he did good at first, but he did a lot of damage when he "went to the dark side".

[Wizzard419]

It's a double-edged sword, obviously. But Eisner did use his power mostly for good there in the beginning. It wasn't until after Frank Wells died and Paul Pressler came along that the vicious cost-cutting at the parks started. Sure, towards the end he was a kind of a megalomaniac. But I think he deserves credit for the good stuff he did.

I know a lot of people were not happy with various leadership choices, but it begs the question: "If they did not choose someone like Pressler (for example) and his cost cutting ways, would the parks suffer in the long run by hemorrhaging cash?" I know the knee-jerk reaction would be to say that they would not, but considering no one knew there would be such a sharp drop in tourisim and an economic collapse of this level, it very well may have prevented far worse things from happening.