Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1

    • MiceChat Round-Up Crew
    • Godwin Glacier, Alaska
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Woodland Hills, CA
    Posts
    7,773

    Hindsight is 20/20

    Looking back at the recent history of Disney: A lot of money has gone to building parks across the globe and creating a "resort" in Anaheim.

    There is no doubt that that the "original" Disneyland has a finite capacity for guests and it makes a certain amount of sense to create a "second gate" to accomodate more paying customers. It could also be argued that building additional parks around the world allows citizens of other countries to enjoy the experience and spend their money without costly travel to Anaheim or Florida while taking a little capacity pressure off these two parks.

    At the same time, however, many classic Disneyland and WDW attractions have vanished or have been diminished. Some because of lack of maintenence... some as a cost cutting measure... some were replaced by "better" attractions. For awhile, Disneyland itself was allowed to deteriorate badly. I hear reports that WDW is still suffering in this regard.

    Here's the question: In hindsight, how do you think Disney should have spent all the money: 1. As they did, building more parks. 2. Funneled it all to Disneyland and WDW maintaining the originals and forgetting about world domination. 3. A combination of both. 4. ?
    "Yesterday, a man walked up to me and said, 'Isn't it a shame that Walt Disney couldn't be here to see this?' and I said, "He did see this, that's why it's here."
    -Art Linkletter July 17, 2005-


    When you wish upon a star your dreams come true.


  2. #2

    • 'Taint sure it's puddin!
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    near Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    1,326

    Re: Hindsight is 20/20

    Good question! I definitely think expansion is good as long as it doesn't take away from upkeep on the current parks. Not sure that expansion is why the US parks have/had fallen into disrepair, but it could be a factor for sure.

    It is important to keep folks at the top who understand how important it is to protect the Disney image, its reputation for quality. I'd suspect if this had happened, quality AND imagination wouldn't have suffered so much over the years.

    Also, Disney needs to decide if its theme parks are intended for the younger thrill seeking crowds, or to more tradtional dark rides. Not sure you can do both successfully - one or the other may suffer. But whatever they choose, doing things on the cheap will always hurt in the end.

    Finally, I would rather have quality than expansion, but I don't think one has to come at the expense of the other.
    "Search the boat...."
    First works spoken by Captain Nemo (James Mason) in the Disney classic - 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea

    PROUD Member Of................


    Do you MiceChat?
    There are several ways for you to help support the site you love:
    - visit the MiceChat store
    - Make a donation with one of the boxes at the bottom of the page
    - Sign up for MiceChat Gold!
    Whatever you do, your help is much appreciated!

  3. #3

    • Incognito
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    6,469
    Blog Entries
    49

    Re: Hindsight is 20/20

    I understand wanting to spread the magic but there is something called "too much of a good thing". Remember Planet Hollywood? The first few were really cool to go to, then there was one in every frickin' city! It lost it's uniqueness.

    If Disney doesn't stop building theme parks/resorts all over the globe then I fear this might happen to them. I'd like them to focus the next say, decade, into the current parks and forego any possible new parks. Fix DCA and DSP and even to some extent DAK, and spruce up the remaining parks.

    Now, Calcutta Disneyland anyone?

  4. #4

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,123

    Re: Hindsight is 20/20

    I wish the focus of the company was more directed in "maintaining and building upon" that unique and original Imagineering ideal, that made Disney the standout in family entertainment. I think we heading for too many Disneylands. And these new Disneylands with the exception being Tokyo, are all going to be inferior, and if indeed Iger's intention is to out source everything, Imagineering will be gone, and Disney will be generic. I wish WDW was given the attention Disneyland is finally getting, making the two of Walt's parks the places for the world to visit. Imagine how spectacular they could really be. I do understand expansion, but Eisner just spread into everything, TV was more important. He basically took a company that stood for something that the entire world admired, and used it to his own design, and when he leaves to his mansion, his clone will take over. I find it utterly sad, and really view these two parks as national treasures. He could have taken them to such heights like the world had never seen, with the artistic talents he originally had at his disposal. The share holders would have still made their money. His focus was just pure greed.

  5. #5

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Palm Springs, CA
    Posts
    1,123

    Re: Hindsight is 20/20

    I have always been a firm believer in "Less Is More" and think that this applies very well to the Disney Theme Parks.

    Designing and building new parks around the world (TDL being the exception) certainly made the broth too thin. Seeing WDW and DL deteriorate while new construction is underway just seems wrong to me.

    It also detracts from the uniqueness that made the two originals so special. While I would love to experience Disney Seas, I have no intention of ever seeing TDL or the others.

    Seeing DL's castle copied and placed in front of the green hills in Hong Kong just reminds me of an assembly line product along with diminishing the special qualities of what came before it.

  6. #6

    • =)
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,290

    Re: Hindsight is 20/20

    I'm in agreement with desertdweller. I'm going to have to go with option #4.

    Expansion is okay, since it brings the entertainment to more people. However, trying to put the same park all over the world while leaving the older versions to rot isn't exactly good business. IMO, each Disney park should be a very unique entity with only a little overlap with the other parks. This is somewhat true at the moment, especially with WDW's lesser parks. But the four--sorry, five--Magic Kingdom parks around the world are quite similar. Yes, they have unique elements and different feels. But they are essentially the same park with different dressings and a few different rides.

    Yeah, I get a little disappointed that Disney is spreading the butter so thin. But then again, aren't we priveleged to have Disneyland at all?


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •