Disney California Adventure Project Tracker 12

[jaybee]

I understand they're trying to save some money here, but the exposed steel work on the back side and in the center of the Cadillac Range seems really tacky. Can you see the the steel supports for the Matterhorn? No! Walt wouldn't have allowed it. I think the Disney execs spend too much time looking at their work from the ground instead of seeing it how the guests will see it... from Mickey's Fun Wheel, California Screamin, driving into the park, etc... I wonder if Iger and Lasseter took a look at their work from high atop Mickey's Fun Wheel. They could at least hit it with some tan colored paint in an attempt to have it blend in with the rock work. Reminiscent of the shortcuts used in DCA 1.0

Actually when the Matterhorn first opened it had a lot less rock work in the interior than it does today and you could see support work on the ride. I get your point, but Walt had budgets too and did what he had to do on projects.

The fun wheel sightlines are a problem to see things not meant to be seen. But for anyone old enough to ride the old Skyway, well that exposed a bunch of ugly rooftop less than magic views.

[themur]

Excellent point, for the first 20 years of the Matterhorn the entire interior was just structural components.

[Seawolf]

I get your point, but Walt had budgets too and did what he had to do on projects.

The difference being that Walt Disney had very little money in comparison to the multi-billion dollar corporation it is today. I'm pretty sure Walt would have completed the Matterhorn interior if he had the funds available.

[simba]

The difference being that Walt Disney had very little money in comparison to the multi-billion dollar corporation it is today. I'm pretty sure Walt would have completed the Matterhorn interior if he had the funds available.

I'd like proof of this claim. Walt ran a highly lucrative movie animation outfit. Films like Fantasia and Snow White were mega box office successes (Snow White made $66M in its first run release in 1937, and Fantasia $42M in 1941 - neither of those numbers are adjusted for inflation. That was a whole lot a cash back in the day. Adjusted for inflation, those totals are $991M and $614M respectively.)

The Matterhorn wouldn't have even been built if they didn't have funding for such a thing. I see no evidence that in the years after DL's opening that Walt had any less money to work with than the company does today, when things like inflation is considered.

[Seawolf]

I'd like proof of this claim. Walt ran a highly lucrative movie animation outfit. Films like Fantasia and Snow White were mega box office successes (Snow White made $66M in its first run release in 1937, and Fantasia $42M in 1941 - neither of those numbers are adjusted for inflation. That was a whole lot a cash back in the day. Adjusted for inflation, those totals are $991M and $614M respectively.)

The Matterhorn wouldn't have even been built if they didn't have funding for such a thing. I see no evidence that in the years after DL's opening that Walt had any less money to work with than the company does today, when things like inflation is considered.

Matterhorn was completely constructed 4 years after the park was built. Walt didn't even have the money to create Disneyland in the first place, he got the majority of his funds from ABC, mortgaged his house to complete the project, and had tons of sponsors everywhere to supplement. The guy was practically bankrupting himself for every new project he undertook, with Roy in the background screaming bloody murder. Where do you get this idea that Walt had unlimited amount of funding shortly after Disneyland opened? It really wasn't until the late 60's when Walt had a decent amount of resources on hand and was planning Epcot and created Pirates. The notion that WED had just as much money available as the company we see today is not accurate in any sense of the word, even when adjusting for inflation.


Pasted right out of Wikipedia:

Difficulties in obtaining funding prompted Disney to investigate new methods of fundraising. He decided to use television, and created a show named Disneyland which was broadcast on the then-fledgling ABC television network. In return, the network agreed to help finance the new park. For the first five years of its operation, Disneyland was owned by Disneyland, Inc., which was jointly owned by Walt Disney Productions, Walt Disney, Western Publishing and ABC.^[7] In addition, Disney rented out many of the shops on Main Street, U.S.A. to outside companies. By 1960 Walt Disney Productions completely bought out ABC's, Western Publishing and Walt Disney's shares.

Does this sound like a man who had a mountain of cash lying around in 1958?

[simba]

Walt might not have personally had the money, but I was always under the impression that Walt Disney Productions was a huge profit machine. I was unaware that they ran such tight coffers when it came to applying that money to the Disneyland project.

[Mr Wiggins]

I'd like proof of this claim. Walt ran a highly lucrative movie animation outfit. Films like Fantasia and Snow White were mega box office successes (Snow White made $66M in its first run release in 1937, and Fantasia $42M in 1941 - neither of those numbers are adjusted for inflation. That was a whole lot a cash back in the day.

The first release of Fantasia was in no way a box office success, "mega" or otherwise. By the time of Fantasia's release, the profits of Snow White had been plowed back into building the Burbank Studio and funding new productions. Fantasia's release saw the Studio in precarious financial times following the financial losses of Pinocchio -- a situation which worsened with the financial failure of Fantasia and the loss of Disney's overseas market due to WWII.

The Studio struggled to survive during and after the War. It wasn't until the success of Cinderella in 1950 that Disney could step back -- slightly -- from the financial brink. Fantasia didn't begin to turn a profit until almost 30 years later, with its re-release in December 1969.

The development and construction of Disneyland was a major financial risk, both for the Studio and for Walt personally -- a magnitude of risk that has zero comparison with the risks taken by the Disney Corporation and its CEO today.

All of this is documented in the many published histories of the Studio.

I see no evidence that in the years after DL's opening that Walt had any less money to work with than the company does today, when things like inflation is considered.

Meaning no disrespect, that's not even remotely accurate. Rather than pull two dozen books from my shelf and cite the many passages that prove it incorrect, I'd respectfully suggest that anyone who is interested in understanding the difference in financial resources between Disney now and Disney in the decade before and after DL's opening, should invest in reading some of the published histories of the Studio that are available.

[simba]

The first release of Fantasia was in no way a box office success, "mega" or otherwise.

The information I got was according to Fantasia (1941) - Release Summary - Box Office Mojo which apparently tells nothing close to the full story.

Meaning no disrespect, that's not even remotely accurate.

Yeah, I stand significantly corrected on this. I don't know how my initial "thoughts" on this were so askew, but I definitely mixed/muddled things I've heard in the past into a giant bag of wrong.

[flynnibus]

While Disney did gamble to build DL - it was almost an immediate blowout success. That's why it didn't take too long for him to buy out his partners, and greatly expand the park TWICE in the first 10+ years.

The period leading up to the park was quite full of turmoil.. but 2 years into the park basically all their worries were behind them. The matterhorn was built in a period of 'the future holds no bounds...'

There difference really is the matterhorn was breaking new ground... the park today has to compete with Disney's own success of the last 50+ years. Expectations are different.

[insider67]

I'm talking about the opening to the steel up near the arch, to the left of the parade building as seen from MFW. Is that really a shortcut all the way back to the RSR maintenance bay? Wouldn't maintenance and facilities guys go around the back (right) side of the parade building to get to the maintenance bay?

Yup, we are talking about the same area. There is a lot of room underneath the rockwork. All the way underneath the arch to the left and all the way to the RSR maintenance area to the right. They even poured concrete pathways in there around the steel beams all over the place. Now are those pathways for everyone or just maintenance, that I can not answer yet. It really is not much of a hazard in there all the beams are way over head high so I can see it being a possible backstage route. you actually have a great view of the underside of the RSR cars going thru that high banked area of the track. Currently they have some pretty stout fencing similar to the chips used on the rockwork that will keep people from being able to get into the ride path area under the track in that location.

[jaybee]

The difference being that Walt Disney had very little money in comparison to the multi-billion dollar corporation it is today. I'm pretty sure Walt would have completed the Matterhorn interior if he had the funds available.

Mainly my point was that playing the "Walt would never..." card in arguments is a tired and misleading tactic employed by those who are trying to justify their own opinions. This often flies into the face of things that Walt actually did.

[DL714]

The difference being that Walt Disney had very little money in comparison to the multi-billion dollar corporation it is today. I'm pretty sure Walt would have completed the Matterhorn interior if he had the funds available.

Using your brilliant logic from a previous post, then, perhaps, Walt shouldn't have built the Matterhorn if after already spending so much on the rock work he still couldn't finish it in the right way.

[Seawolf]

Mainly my point was that playing the "Walt would never..." card in arguments is a tired and misleading tactic employed by those who are trying to justify their own opinions. This often flies into the face of things that Walt actually did.

I don't see how this relates to my statement; The fact of the matter is Walt did not have anywhere near the funding that the company of today has. His record of creating attractions like Pirates of the Caribbean which spared no expense on details suggest that Matterhorn would have been given more budget for the interior if he had them at the time.

Using your brilliant logic from a previous post, then, perhaps, Walt shouldn't have built the Matterhorn if after already spending so much on the rock work he still couldn't finish it in the right way.

Again, the company of today cannot be compared financially or technically to the one of Walt Disney's. Today's company has the funds to create a fully sculpted mountain front and backside if they wish, Walt was forced to limit funding on projects. He needed something on a grand scale which put Disneyland on the map, this was the purpose of the Matterhorn. You must remember, this kind of work had never been done before in the 50's so there were no prior expectations.

For me, it's not just that they didn't complete the rock work, it's the fact that they spent 60-70% of the budget on them when DCA could have used the funds on something breathtaking and original. Instead they could have used this money to create amazing show scenes and ride systems we have never seen before. All we are getting for 300 million is a tame version of Test Track with nothing new or groundbreaking. What happened to the days when they created things like Indy which left our minds blown away after getting off? Even though the rock work will no doubt be beautiful, it will not be able to accomplish the same feeling I got after the first visit on Indy.

[flynnibus]

I don't see how this relates to my statement; The fact of the matter is Walt did not have anywhere near the funding that the company of today has.

Quite to the contrary...

While the company was not bigger than it is today, Walt had far more leighway to spend far more of their resources. The 1950s were not the 40s in the studios. Walt was strapped for cash to build the original DL due to the unproven nature of his project and people's unwillingness to invest in what was perceived as such a risk. That wasn't the case in 59 and later. The park was already profitable in it's second year. By that time it was seeing over 5 million customers a year. Walt could do no wrong at this stage in the eyes of others and everyone would scramble to be associate with him. This is the golden age of Disney in both the social eye and their liberation of financial ties.

His record of creating attractions like Pirates of the Caribbean which spared no expense on details suggest that Matterhorn would have been given more budget for the interior if he had them at the time.

Not really - your conclusion assumes they knew exactly what your ideal endgoal was back then. They didn't.. they were still learning. That's why the later attractions were that much more elaborate then the firsts. By the time the Matterhorn came along.. money wasn't as much of an issue. At this point they are adding significant attractions almost every year. There aren't any materials I know of to indicate the Matterhorn's design was a compromised thing.

For me, it's not just that they didn't complete the rock work, it's the fact that they spent 60-70% of the budget on them when DCA could have used the funds on something breathtaking and original. Instead they could have used this money to create amazing show scenes and ride systems we have never seen before..

And we get back to where you are really trying to take this discussion again..

[Mojave]

Yup, we are talking about the same area. There is a lot of room underneath the rockwork. All the way underneath the arch to the left and all the way to the RSR maintenance area to the right. They even poured concrete pathways in there around the steel beams all over the place. Now are those pathways for everyone or just maintenance, that I can not answer yet. It really is not much of a hazard in there all the beams are way over head high so I can see it being a possible backstage route. you actually have a great view of the underside of the RSR cars going thru that high banked area of the track. Currently they have some pretty stout fencing similar to the chips used on the rockwork that will keep people from being able to get into the ride path area under the track in that location.

Wow, that's cool. That would be an amazing place to walk around. Hopefully one of these days, someone posts some video of the cars going by from under the track.