Is it Eisner's Fault?

[JeffJewell]

"overwhelming evidence suggests that DinoRama actually represents the SOP of Eisner's Disney"

Why?

DinoRama is an example of cost ratios being more important to a Disney project than the story and show. DinoRama is an example of doing the least they think they can get away with and still have people spend money.

This is Disney's SOP. Animal Kingdom, Disney's California Adventure, the Magic Carpets, Journey Into Your Imagination, Pop Century--all examples of doing the least they could possibly get away with under the circumstances.

Based on ME's last eighteen years at Disney the facts overwhelmingly point in the entirely opposite direction

I respectfully request that you produce any of these alledged "facts" that point to Disney routinely going the extra mile to ensure a high quality story and show; any shred of evidence that DinoRama is unique in its bargain-basement approach to creation.

...there's no point in listing all the parks, attractions, resorts, ride redos, etc that have occurred on his watch.

Go ahead, list them: I dare you. In particular, I dare you to list those that have occured since Frank Wells died. Tower of Terror is the final clear example of Disney valuing the quality of the show over the projections in a spreadsheet.

Jeff

 

[Peter Pirate]

Go ahead list them

Well, I'm not big on lists, but Jeff, we just had dinner at a restaurant together that is in a location that was built well above and beyond the necessary (the least they can get away with). Of course I'm referring to The Animal Kingdom Lodge. Disney certainly didn't need to surround their newest deluxe with a zoo, nor build and furnish it to the quality and with the accuracy that they did. They could have just as easily given us 'Pop Africa', but they didn't...

 

[JeffJewell]

because he respectfully requested...I figured I'd at least help with the specifics:

Help me out a little more, Chad. Which of the projects on your shopping list "point to Disney routinely going the extra mile to ensure a high quality story and show," or serve as "evidence that DinoRama is unique in its bargain-basement approach to creation?"

Overall, it's still clear that the Captain's Magical AKL is far more anomalous in its approach to quality than is DinoRama.

Jeff

PS: Captain:

They could have just as easily given us 'Pop Africa', but they didn't

Ah, but I did say "under the circumstances." "Pop Africa" would be far less than the least possible needed to charge Deluxe money, which was the primary circumstance under which AKL was built.

 

[Bstanley]

Sorry Mr Jewell dude, ME was in charge before Frank Wells left us. ME signed the checks for everything from '84 on, and that's a bunch 'o goodness IMHO.

I certainly can't dispute though that FW + ME were better for Disney lovers than ME + [who's the COO this year...].

I choose AK and AKL as my proof. I personally think AK is an excellent park and well suited to WDW - it complements the other parks perfectly and is marvelously detailed and themed. AKL is simply fantastic. And other 'hits' with my family are The Rockin' Roller Coaster and Test Track and - oh never mind just look at the list that Scoop URLed.

DCA and Pop Century are blights on the land, no question. And if DinoRama was passed down the food chain by ME I guess I'll have to eat my words, but I believe there are more obvious 'suspects' for it.

 

[JeffJewell]

I choose AK and AKL as my proof.

...your proof of "Disney routinely going the extra mile to ensure a high quality story and show" includes Animal Kingdom. Asia and Beastly Kingdom were cut from the opening plans to make it cheaper. DinoRama was erected as an emergency stop-gap because of customer complaints that there wasn't enough to do in the park. The E-rides include a rehash of Indy that is "themed" mostly with total darkness and a water ride ordered from a catalog.

The results of all that "going the extra mile?" The park's attendance numbers have declined each year it has been open.

Animal Kingdom is a monument to doing the least possible. The fact that you and I happen to like it means absolutely nothing in this context.

Sorry Mr Jewell dude, ME was in charge before Frank Wells left us

I never said he wasn't.

I certainly can't dispute though that FW + ME were better for Disney lovers than ME + [who's the COO this year...]

Now that's more like what I said. If I discard your responses to comments I never made, it looks like you actually kinda agree with me, Mr Bruce dude.

Jeff

 

[mrtoadslastride]

In the past five years the only "who cares what it costs, we want it to be right" additions that I can think of are the cruise ships, WL, and AKL (I would also include the DVC properties, but I am not sure if Eisner has any direct managment of them). I am holding out hope that Space will fall in this category, but with the rumors of slashed budget and the fact that Compaq/HP picked up a large portion of this I am not sure if it would count anyway.

It seems that all Disney now cares about is squeezing the most money it can out of past investments with no concern what this might be doing to future visits (this includes movies and especially animation). For years Disney built a name with families that said if the Disney name is on it is going to be a magical experience. The leadership seems to be content now to milk that reputation as it assumes that people will continue to pony up the cash if it says Disney no matter how poor it is. No consideration is given to the damage they are doing to the Disney brand.

I wonder some times when I look 20,000, and Timekeeper if Eisner and the Board actually sit around the table and joke "Let's see how many things we can take out before those fools quit spending money in our parks." Alternatively, when I look at Dinorama, Pop Century, Alladin, and all the II direct to video movies I wonder if they say "I wonder how bad we have to make products before consumers quit purchasing them." How else can you explain their decisions?

 

[Peter Pirate]

I agree with Scoop on Aladdin, it is nicely themed in an area that heretofore needed traffic. TS isn't nearly as well done (in keeping with the DR theme).

Also, as I stated who's to say that GAH can't be great? Voice, are you saying that it wouldn't be possible to sneak under the radar with this one? It seems to me to be the best scenerio for an "upset"...

 

[mrtoadslastride]

I have a few problems with it beyond the fact that it is a spinner. First, Alladin was a great movie and very deserving to be included in the parks. However, I think using it as a spinner is very short sited. Why couldn't they have built a new dark ride using the technology from Disnyland Tokyo's Winnie the Pooh Ride (I haven't seen it, but the reviews are great). Even better, why not use the technology from Spiderman at Universal! Either one could have produced an Eride that could have fully told the Alladin story.

I also have a problem with the placement of Alladin and retheming of Adventureland. Adventureland definately needed to be updated, but I think the new theme does not fit with PoTC and JC or the rest of Adventureland for that matter.

To me Alladin is a sympton with what is wrong with Disney today. Instead of going the extra mile to produce a great attraction they rolled out an off the shelf ride, themed it up, and shoe horned it into a place it didn't fit.

 

[d-r]

Man, if they would have just spent the money to build some actual <strong> flying carpets </strong> then not only would it have been a pretty cool ride, they could have flown them over the river from the jungle cruise, and killed two birds in one stone since they wouldn't have to worry about guests getting splashed by the poison water in the boats.

And while they're at it, how about replacing those little cars in tomorrowland with some flying hover cars - they could use the same technology as the flying carpets and save some $ in r&d.



DR

 

[eeyore0062]

No, it is not Eisner's fault. When Eisner first came to Disney, it was suffering... he turned things around and made it profitable again... so now that the economy has turned, and Disney isn't as profitable, of course, that is Eisner's fault? No, he is listening to all of those crying for new attractions, but is the overhead is not there to put in a new land, a new, really innovative ride, or a new park, then what else is there to do? They just opened a new park 4 years ago, and they are working on expanding, however, it takes money... so to appease those who are crying for new attractions, they put in something that is new, however, not as innovative or expensive as other choices they may have made, had the economy not taken a nosedive, and 9/11 hadn't happened. Sit back, relax, let the economy recover, let people get more comfortable taking vacations, and then see what Disney and Eisner has to offer.

 

[mrtoadslastride]

They had 5.3 billion to spend on the Fox Family Channel...

 

[JeffJewell]

the overhead is not there to put in a new land, a new, really innovative ride, or a new park

At the same time there was "no overhead" to build Beastly Kingdom, Disney had $5 billion laying around with which to buy the Power Rangers and a network to show them on.

That's pretty much the whole point: there is plenty of money to do it right. It was Eisner's _choice_ to do it cheap, it is Eisner's business plan to do it cheap.

he turned things around and made it profitable again... so now that the economy has turned, and Disney isn't as profitable, of course, that is Eisner's fault?

So if numbers go _up_ Eisner is responsible, if they go _down_, the economy is responsible. I think Eisner actually used that line in his self-assessment...

let people get more comfortable taking vacations, and then see what Disney and Eisner has to offer

We've seen it: it's called Disney's California Adventure, it was planned and built _before_ planes starting wedging themselves into buildings, and it was built (wait for it) cheap.

Jeff

 

[mrtoadslastride]

Is the distinction important? The end result is the same, no money for innovative attractions at the Parks (or movies for that matter). In fact I would prefer to have a CEO that was cheap versus one that stupidly squandered company resources (maybe the distinction is important after all!). At least Disney would have reserve funds to build/expand/create once he is replaced.

 

[airlarry!]

Let's see if I can beat M. AV to the punch...

Eisner spent $5 billion on Fox Family instead of building California's Disney Seas because he sees himself as the Head of a Media Empire, not some small family-started Studio that had 'synergy' with its Amusement Park division with a selling niche--as a higher-priced, higher value, higher themed and higher imagineered family park.

He sees himself as Rupert Murdoch not John Lassiter. He fancies himself as Ted Turner not Walter O'Malley. When he looks in the mirror, he sees as a Al Checchi or Gary Wilson not a Herb Kelleher.

 

[mrtoadslastride]

Originally posted by thedscoop

Eisner's problem is not spending money. It's where he spends it. A much better problem to have because, at its very base, it means there is money to spend.

Did Disney have the money on hand to purchase Fox Family. I thought I read that Disney borrowed to pay for it. At any rate Disney <b>had</b> the money to spend, but it has now been squandered. It is my understanding that Disney's debt load is pretty high, so unless Eisner returns the company to profitablility he no longer has the money to spend...

 

[space42]

Originally posted by mrtoadslastride


Did Disney have the money on hand to purchase Fox Family. I thought I read that Disney borrowed to pay for it. At any rate Disney <b>had</b> the money to spend, but it has now been squandered. It is my understanding that Disney's debt load is pretty high, so unless Eisner returns the company to profitablility he no longer has the money to spend...

See thats the problem. The parks are profitable! Always have been always will be. Its the rest of the company that is having major cash problems. And the parks are suffering while they cover the not so profitable parts of the company.

I don't know what the solution would be other than sell off all of the non-profitable parts of the company.

 

[mrtoadslastride]

Unfortunately, it is all the unprofitable parts of the company that keeps Disney from being a takeover target. Besides ESPN, are any other divisions profitable? I assume the Studios are, but don't have any numbers to back it up. The real question is can the unprofitable parts of the company ever be revenue producers? Are they bad businesses, or are they just being mis-managed?

 

[Peter Pirate]

Very well put & very accurate. I sure would like some answers...

 

[Bob O]

Jeff Jewell is of course right on, but the disney/eisner apologists will still worship them.
Disney puts in another spinner so we are supposed to praise tme, while Universal give us Spiderman/MIB. Einser only want to siphon money away from the parks to waste money on his dumb ideas, so he gives us the go.com debacle, fox family,firing of katzenberg,hiring of ovitz among his ideas that have cost the company billions while the parks get a cheaply made wild mousde coaster that can be found ANYWHERE.
Disney hasnt created anything innovative at the parks since TOT! And it seems like they are trying to reduce mission space into insignifance!!

 

[Another Voice]

If memory serves me…

Disney borrowed $6 Billion on the open market. To purchase Fox Family, they coughed up $2 Billion in cash and then took over some $3 Billion in debt that Saban, Fox and that Christian broadcaster had incurred. Some of the debt was probably paid off with Disney money, some was refinanced and some probably went right onto Disney’s book. The rest of the cash went to buy all that stock from the Bass Brothers and other disgruntled shareholders.

So you could say that Disney spent all its cash for the ability to host the ‘S Club 7’ marathons and to save Eisner’s rear from a stockholder revolt. Neither of those two activities will earn The Mouse a nickel in profits within our lifetimes.

The problems with the “other” businesses isn’t that they are bad companies per se, but that the demands placed on them to fund the huge holes in the corporation are killing the businesses. Hollywood Records might make a good, small independent label but not when it has to compensate for all the write-offs the Disney Stores has to take. And the cruise line is never going to make up for the losses on the Internet.

Even the big segments are feeling the pinch. Out of every dollar spent at a Disney theme park, roughly twenty-five cents is given to corporate as profit. That is a staggering profit margin for any business. Think about what the parks would be like if that money could be re-invested instead of circling the drain called ABC?

Big problem in a simple statement – the parts of Disney are worth more broken up than they are worth together.

And I’m not the only one to have noticed.