I agree in general, Jim.  But the Disneyana fans are also right on a number of times.  DCA, anyone?

I think the last ten years of Eisner, Pressler and Braverman have soured the fans as to what to expect.  I know a lot of people don't like the "Pirate Island" makeover of TSI, but I think it is ripe with great possiblities.

Sometimes peoples nostalgia can blind them to the real world.  Even the "real" world of Disney, but the company needs to understand that the global world we live in doesn't let them hide the shortcuts they wind up giving their American fans.  Afterall, you don't have to go to Japan to see the contrast of Tokyo Disneysea.  You don't even have to go on the internet.

You just have to go to California Adventure...

First thing The online community hides behind thier Screenname. The Walt Disney Company cant get face to face to you or pull you aside to speak to you online. Therefore people say what they want, how they want because all they are is a screenname.

Most of the online comunity are "purists" that would be perfectly happy with Disney in the past. Notice I said MOST not all. I welcome change. I dont always agree with it, but I am not in charge so really theres nothing I can do about it.  

Lets use the Living Seas at Epcot for an example. When the WDC announced that nemo was coming to The Living Seas. I said NO not nemo, why the hell are they doing to that. I liked Sea Base Alpha. But then came to the realization that I guess it is a good match. I mean If they can possibly bring the dead Seas Pavillion back then Why not nemo. Nemo lives in the sea, So I can see where they could possibly go with this.  I quicky found out I was in the minority with my thinking in most of the Disney forums. They were slamming the new ride before it was done. hell some of the folks that were trashing the ride before it opened actully apologised for trashing it and said they liked it when they rode it. When the ride opened I was there to ride and thought it was a cute ride. It is bringing people to the pavillion so thats a good thing.

I still think most people hide behind thier screen name so people dont know who they are in real life.

Im Tired of hiding im Robert Bish. Who are all of you?

Another question might be - Why do you suppose the executive boardroom's perception of how the Walt Disney Company is doing so rarely matches up with what the on-line Disneyana community and the general public thinks? An obvious answer is the company is no longer being run by a showman - it is run by accountants. You can get the same financial results, but not the same artistic results. Bonuses are far more important than entertainment - I guess that's what happens when it's somebody else's name on the door.

When I hear members of the general public talk - the park isn't "as much fun", the company "is always selling", and the movies "aren't as good as they used to be." Members of the general public don't give the detailed answers that the dweebs can, but the sentiment is the same.

Anyone who has ever run a business that depends on the general public, knows that the business has a small percentage of high-volume purchasers of the product or service. As a business owner, you ignore the feedback from this segment of your business at your own peril. They will give you the most information on your product, and how it appears to purchasers. It is the difference between aiming for excellence or just good enough. Accountants aim for just good enough. When you start blaming custmers for your problems, well that's a whole other story.

After several years of drought, a highly-placed executive has an impressive showman background. The dweebs are happy. The accountants need to open the purse strings and shoot for excellence, while the webmasters really need to lighten up.

It doesn't matter which way the online community goes.  Disney is a company; they are still selling things and experiences to customers, some of whom make up this online community.  Customers have a right to voice their dissent, Disney should get used to it.  It's not going to change just because it upsets them.

 imagineerwarrior said:

I agree in general, Jim.  But the Disneyana fans are also right on a number of times.  DCA, anyone?

I know im in the minority here but I talked crap about DCA when it was being built. I saw it as the worst thing the WDC ever did. Ya wanna know something I was WRONG. I fell in love with DCA. I actully stopped going to Disneyland and found myself going to DCA all the time.

The best thing DCA has going for itself is IT IS NOT DISNEYLAND. Gone were the cramped feeling one gets in Disneyland. The Feeling that hey look if we take out this planter we could put up a new merch cart. After walking around DCA for an afternoon one cant help but feel closterphobic/sp? in Disneyland. I actully enjoyed the open area of DCA. was this because i had an annual pass to disneyland for 15 straight years before DCA opened? I dont know but i found DCA a refreshing change. Again I am in the minority here and I know that. But someone has to stick up for the Disney/MGM studios of the west.

"Why do you suppose the public's perception of how the Walt Disney Company is doing so rarely matches up with what the on-line Disneyana community thinks?"

First off, I don't think there's a difference in public perception -- only in the amount of time that perception takes hold with the public in general.  When it comes to the Disney Company, there's a good cross section of the public that simply enjoys the Disney brand -- and there's another cross section of the public for whom the Disney brand means more than just, well, a brand.

What you have with Disney is something special.  Something unique.  Just how many movie studios/companies have such a dedicated, loyal fan base?  Does MGM?  Warner?  Microsoft?  DuPont? . . .  And under the efforts of which Disney executive was the largest percentage of that fan base earned?  Walt?  Ron?  Michael?  Bob?...  

Guest surveying someone who's at the moment enjoying their stay at the "Happiest Place on Earth" is somewhat, well, useless.  Chances are, they're tickled pink to be there and they have a trust the company knows what it's doing.  After all, Disneyland's still the "Happiest Place on Earth".  The on-line community (peopled with folks who take the time to register, post, and keep themselves up to date on the Company) -- well, they know the Company isn't so infallible.  I mean, can the Company really argue against the fact it's made some real lackluster decisions the past ten years?  They lost the benefit of the doubt some time ago.

"Actually paying employees to go on-line . . .  So that the company can then put a much more positive spin out there . . ."

Wow.  Awkward.  The bad PR surrounding Mission:Space would've probably gone away were it not for real-life situations painting it black.  Or safety issues occuring at Big Thunder the year before.  Seriously though, what can web-based opinions do if 1) they're pretty much being shared in the forums amongst fellow 'dweebs'   2) they got enough 'one-day' ticket buyers -- who needs the season holders?  They're die-hard loonies!

"This is why so many people in management now keep close tabs on what's being said about the company on the Web.  Not because they actually enjoy seeing what Disneyana fans are saying."

Well, that's just the trouble isn't it?  Shouldn't the suits 'enjoy' what their loyal base has to say?  If they listened to this loyal base, perhaps they wouldn't of abandoned traditional animation so quickly.  Perhaps they wouldn't of started work on California Adventure until the plans reached a higher level of quality.  Perhaps they wouldn't have wasted time, money, and talent releasing "quick money", poor quality sequels.  Perhaps they wouldn't of started mimicking the "hip" tone of Dreamworks or rely so strongly on Pixar to bail them out.  Perhaps they wouldn't seek "one-day" ticket guests to Disneyland so much as look for ways to earn more "season pass" holders.

There's a reason Disney has such a huge web-based community.  They love Disney!And much of this community, while not so savvy on economics or business, know exactly what they feel in their minds and hearts.  They give their criticism, sometimes constructive, sometimes over-impassioned -- but they give it because they love the Company and (gasp) -- they care!  To consider them dweebs or bitchers trying to give Disney a bad name is ridiculous.  What would the execs have us do?  Pat them on the back and say 'You're wonderful! . . .   Company's losing money?  Low ticket sales? -- Damn Disney dweebs.  It isn't your fault! -- I mean, you haven't unveiled a big-box-office hit, or successful ride, or themepark lately, but . . ."

Mr. Iger says, "The fans really need to lighten up."  Perhaps.  But with all due respect, "The Company really needs to listen."  

Hmm... tough one to answer. I'll grant you that there are a lot of folks in the Disneyana online community who get off having a royal fit over nothing (I think my personal favorite was the guy on another site having a hissy fit because the manhole covers at DLP weren't properly aligned), others who aren't going to be happy unless the parks remain in the exact state they were in circa 1971, and that there are more than a few are willing to jump all over Disney before they really have a chance to see what was done.   But sometimes the community's spot on about their complaints - they just notice the problems sooner than the average theme park visitor does because they spend more time there.

Since DCA's already been mentioned, I'll throw another example out - Hong Kong Disneyland. In the months before it opened, we Disney geeeks saw the plans for the park and were pretty much underwhelmed by them, and we said as much.  Disney's response was essentially, "Piffle. You guys don't know what you're talking about  - the Chinese will love the place the way we designed it. Wait and see."  So HKD opens, and guess what? First-year attendance targets didn't meet even the modest expectations set for the park, and folks who've gone there mention that they're dissatisfied because the park's too small and there's not enough to do - conincidentally, some of the key complaints brought up online prior to HKD's opening. Disney can't even pull out the old "everyone's attendance is down" chestnut they tried when DCA first opened, because Ocean Park, a competitor in HK, appears to be having banner attendance.  

Are the folks in the online community picky? You betcha. But they're picky because they know what Disney's capable of when they've got the inclination and the money to do it right as opposed to deciding to put forth just enough money and effort to get by and hoping the Disney name and reputation will carry the project the rest of the way toward success. The fans recognize inferior product when they see it, and they're not afraid to call Disney on it.

Iger could get away with telling the fans to lighten up about the POTC rehab because he knew WDI had put together a good effort that would impress the fans and the regular visitors.  You think Iger's going to be telling the fans to lighten up about DCA and HKD anytime soon based on the attendance figures?

I could'nt agree with Gallopin' Gaucho more! the past 10 years or so in the disney theme parks planning has been sad to say the least. the last ride that has made a lasting impression has been splash mountain. there are a few more that are good, but not great. it has less to do with "disneyana dweebs" as it does with the bottom line. lately it has been how little do we have to spend to have maximum profit. instead of how can we blow everyone away. remember disney, "if you build it they will come" please for mouses sake build something that can stand the test of time and not be part of the latest craze or character from a movie. i am a dweeb and a disney fan. competing with universal or any other theme park will lead to your downfall.

First of all, put it in historical context:  We're Paul Pressler Survivors.

In our 90's day, youngster, attractions weren't rehabbed because there was a new Imagineering concept, or a new technology, or outstanding audience demand...They got rehabbed because Paul Got Bored Again, and had a movie tie-in or a gift shop pasted over them.  Can you blame us for being -juuuuust- a little shellshocked/paranoid, even in peacetime?...Well, can you?

And before we get our designation switched over from "Dweebs" to "Weenies" again, keep in mind the scars WE'VE had to heal, even since Good King Iger came in--You can talk about "The Imagineers have the parks' best interests at heart", but our grumpy old middle-generation still has Tiki Room: Under New Management there as a big black monument to stare us in the face every day.  We want closure, or nobody's going to relax.  -_-

And as to Monsters Inc., the issue really seems to be more about "Okay, WHO'S the idiot with the Pixar fetish?  We want names!"--As even those who don't mind losing Timekeeper are starting to worry about management going to the Pixar and "interactive" wells too often to even start to worry John Lasseter...And if he's worried about the saturation too, that's a good reason to worry, but for the moment I'll still give one isolated TL show the benefit of the doubt until I see different.

(And FWIW...the Muppets -do- work better at DCA:  It's Hollywood Backlot.  They make SENSE there.  Even if you didn't like "Sounds Lincoln", which I did.

I flatter myself that I have enough sense of theming that I don't -want- Kermit the Frog on Main Street, next to the horse trolley and the Dapper Dans.)

(Oh, and:)

"I'm also told that -- over the past year or so -- Mickey has taken a much more pro-active approach when it comes to the Net. As in: Actually paying employees to go on-line and post at various Disney-related websites. So that the company can then put a much more positive spin out there on certain stories, get ahead of various PR crisises and even do some real-time damage control.

I believe there are at least two of these individuals who currently post at prominent Disney-related websites."

---

<glances suspiciously askance in AskMike's direction...>   9_9

Seriously, guys, if you're out there...We can spot you ten miles on a cloudy day.  If you don't think so, show us what you got.  :)

Just ask anyone on the movie groups whether they can spot an "under-the-radar" studio shill--Their job is to deliver results, not subtlety; it's a great source of giggles, and once outed, gives us all a realistic peek at in-company jitters.

(Ie., gosh, think there MIGHT have been any pro-Theatrical "spinners" on that Mary Poppins thread a week ago?)

I agree with most of the article - I haven't been to a Disney park in about 4 years and yet in that time I read how standards slipped, how guest services were on the down, how the rides were all boring.

Well, I've just come back from Disney and can say that the predictions of it's demise have been greatly exaggerated. All seems just as memorable as it always was - sure, there are things that have changed for worse (Norway losing it's lovely food to now host Princesses-to-be comes to mind) but other changes are good ones (like the Nemo overlay on the Living Seas). So I generally try to experience it for myself before making a decision, but of course reading poor reviews of Mission Space did, for a moment, make me wonder if I should get on this ride at all: I might get sick!

Not all change is bad and while I do dearly miss Horizons (mainly for it's music, btw) I can see that attendance was dwindling and needed a refresh so it the long run I guess it was a good idea. I do feel sorry for Wonders of Life and hope that someone can come to its rescue OR that something can replace it, which will be just as good. I do wish the wand would come off Spaceship Earth but I don't obsess about it.

BTW, I am also a Disney shareholder so of course I want the company to do well. I just know that they are running a business and not a charity and, inevitably, a lot of decisons seem to be business ones, and not ones that come from the heart. I know that sometimes you gotta spend money to make money and I'll be the first to say that money needs spending on the parks. But I'm not going to whinge and whine everytime the company decides to do just that - I am all for progress!

Just so I'm not hiding behind my screen name, I'm Claudia and live in the UK. I would also love to get that job where I get paid by Disney to write good things about them in online forums!!!

IT IS ME!!!!!

You'll never take me alive all you Jim Hill readers... NEVER!!!

Bwahahaha!!! (turns into a goblin and rides off on a magic carpet)

That's one of the main reasons that I believe that 'Mission: SPACE' has such a lousy reputation now.[/i]

MS has a bad rep because people died after riding it.  That's it plain and simple.  It wasn't some rumor on a fan site that circulated this info.  It was main stream media reporting on multiple deaths from a single ride at the park.  That's newsworthy.  And because its Fortune 500 and a giant in the theme parks & entertainment business and because it carries the name of "Walt Disney World", it is nationally newsworthy.  Connecting the resulting PR crisis to online disney dweebs is a complete cop out.  To me, this attitude is indicative of a much bigger problem.  This executive is in denial of what problems Disney really and truly faces.  I sincerely hope that is not the pervasive culture of Disney's management team.

Sure, online Disney dweebs are a vocal lot.  Any internet group can be given the easy access of expressing one's self through the medium and ability to remain anonymous while doing so.  The appeal of saying exactly what you mean without sugar coating it, having an opportunity to stir a debate with little in the way of reprisal or real consequences makes it an ideal forum.  But in all actuality, its a small group, a subculture.  Its not reflective of the general public anymore than Star Wars or anime dweebs are.   So we might as well argue about Han shooting first or complain how removing the blood for the Americanized version of Naruto ruins it -- but unless you're a dweeb from that particular group of fans, no one else is going to know what the heck you're talking about, let alone care.

"without really giving the public a chance to decide how it feels about a new ride or show for the parks -- the Web-based fans are already out there passing judgment."

What are we- chopped liver?  We're the public, too!

"the Web-based fans"

I'm sure that the vast majority of us were Disney fans way before we got Internet access...we're fans in "real life", too.

"Disneyana fans were already on-line talking about how rough this new Future World ride was, how it was making people sick. Then the mainstream media picked up on that story. And -- as a direct result -- what was supposed to have been Disney's next franchise attraction then became this huge PR nightmare for the company."

Were people gettiing sick?  If so, we have a right to talk about it.  It's not like a fan called up their local newspaper to talk about it.  However a journalist found out, it's the public's right to know- some lives may have been saved...look how popular the "less turbulant" version is.  I don't know what executive said all of these things, but, to blame your most loyal fans for something that they didn't create, is not a way to keep the loyal fans.  Luckily, we're not fans of the suits, just of the company...

"Orange County residents raised such a ruckus"

Doesn't sound like the on-line community to me in this case.

"that they actually did some guest survey work"

I feel that the parks (and, heck, maybe even other parts of the company) should be doing surveys of what guests/moviegoers/etc. think.  The only surveys I've come across at WDW are the ones asking how long I was staying, how many times I've been to the park in a year, etc.

"in some cases, what the on-line Disneyana community is saying sometimes does serve as the canary in the coal mine"

See, we're not all bad!  They go and blame us for things we didn't have any control over, and then they appreciate what we say.  Silly suits.

************************************************************

"Why do you suppose the public's perception of how the Walt Disney Company is doing so rarely matches up with what the on-line Disneyana community thinks?"

The first thing that comes to mind is that we care sooo much about the company and "want what's best for it".  That may not always be the case, though.  Many of us love the company, especially including its rich history.  We think that Walt Disney was the greatest man ever to walk the face of the earth.  If he built POTC/Tom Sawyer Island, etc., we don't want the company to wreck "Walt's vision".  We like to whine a lot.  

BUT- in saying that, let's think about the "Cars" 'thing' that happened this summer.  We "web-based" fans weren't the ones saying that it would bomb- that was the Wall Street/financial people.  I didn't think that a Pixar movie could bomb...and it didn't.  Disneyana websites (*cough* JHM *cough*) fueled the fire, and made overly-heated debates about "Cars", but, in the end, it was a success.  Due, in part, to the "web-based" fans.  

************************************************************

imagineerwarrior said: "I think the last ten years of Eisner, Pressler and Braverman have soured the fans as to what to expect."

That's true.  I recently read "Prince of the Magic Kingdom" by Joe Flower (1991), and that even mentioned how Eisner had crazy ideas sometimes, but that usually they wouldn't make it anywhere (more recently: "What would happen if we remade our animated classics in CGI, frame by frame?!?").  Going from what imagineerwarrior said, we have been so used to some not-as-Disney quality ideas, some that have gone places (DCA- which I haven't been to, but I haven't heard many positives about it...but I'd still like to go...), and many that haven't.  

Going with the theme of the article, before Bob Iger officially started his new position, people in the on-line community were saying that he was just a yes-man to Eisner, and that he wouldn't make any changes.  The Pixar-acquisition showed those people.  We do tend to over-think and sometimes we see the cup as half empty.  And sometimes we need to be put in our place (see above example).  But everyone has their faults.

Epcotrob said: "Im Tired of hiding im Robert Bish. Who are all of you?"

If Disney people go onto sites like this one and read people's posts, if, given the opportunity, would they write people's names down?  For example, my goal is to, after I graduate college in about a year and a half, work for Disney.  I've worked for WDW before, and they have my  name in their records, but I have gotten a "come back to work for us" postcard, so I'm sure there's no ill will between us.  But, it seems that these online scouts for Disney may not be happy with all that we post...would they made a "blacklist" of Disney fans?  I know it's extreme, but you never know.

curmudgeon said: "When you start blaming custmers for your problems, well that's a whole other story."

If Disney "blames customers", then I'm sure a lot of companies do.  How can a company even blame a customer for anything (unless they stole something, for instance)?  One could argue that all the negative "Cars" talk, even before it came out, could have put a message in someone's head that the movie would stink, so they shouldn't bother seeing it.  But, the "web-based" fans didn't even start that talk (right?  The Wall Street people did...?).  And, even if we did start that talk, who are we to say anything?  Why would the "public" take heart to what we say?

Gudrun said: "Customers have a right to voice their dissent, Disney should get used to it."

That's a very true statement.  The majority of hospitality businesses, for example, have comment cards you can fill out about your experience.  I'm assuming that the Disney hotels do, as well.  At a premiere movie screening, aren't there comment cards?  I guess that these online communities serve as a kind of comment card, how we think the company is doing.  

Gallopin' Gaucho said: "they got enough 'one-day' ticket buyers -- who needs the season holders?"

Sure, we don't pay $60+ dollars to get in every day, but we spend our money there just like everyone else.  If they don't need us, why do they offer the annual passes?  Or the season passes?  Since we go often, we spend more money in a year (minus ticket and hotel fees) than the 'one-day' ticket buyers, right?  

Gallopin' Gaucho said: "If they listened to this loyal base, perhaps they wouldn't of abandoned traditional animation so quickly."

Well, there is "Enchanted" and "The Frog Princess"...

(I'm not trying to pick on anyone in particular, but certain people have certain points that I feel strongly about...)

Gallopin' Gaucho said: "Perhaps they wouldn't have wasted time, money, and talent releasing "quick money", poor quality sequels."

"Return of Jafar" was, in 1994, the best selling direct-to-video film.  Long story short, the sequels sell.  (I know I have all of them.)   Many of the customers are parents looking for a "babysitter" for their kids.  Some are Disney completists who must have every title ever released (I'm working on it).  Remember, the story is the main thing.  Some of the stories could have been better.  Some of the sequels have decent animation.  I don't think the sequels are as good as the animated features, but I think they're entertaining, nonetheless.

I agree with Gallopin' Gaucho's last two paragraphs completely.  

pschnebs said: "First-year attendance targets didn't meet even the modest expectations set for the park"

I'm sure that all companies have to set goals, but sometimes those goals can get you in trouble, which can make people angry at others (the suits weren't happy with how "Cars" performed?  Blame the crazy fans.  HKDL's attendance wasn't what we hoped for?  Blame the dweebs.).  Besides the "crazy fans", there are others to blame, if one wants to play the blame game.  Pretty much any financial worker at Disney can be blamed for any underperfomance, right?  

Maybe sometimes we should just accept, learn from our mistakes, and move on, making the next project that much better so it's less likely to be a flop.  

Derek J said: ""Okay, WHO'S the idiot with the Pixar fetish?""

I don't have a problem with "another" Pixar attraction.  I'm sure that I'll enjoy the new Laugh Floor.  I understand that the technology used in Turtle Talk with Crush is new, and neat to boot.  A concern of mine is that it won't be too different from Turtle Talk.  Sure, Mike Wazowski and friends are from a different movie, and, instead of telling us what being a turtle is like, they'll tell us jokes, but the premise is the same.  We have Dumbo and Aladdin's Flying Carpets- we can handle two similar attractions (oh, and the Triceritops Spin...three).  The Toy Story attraction (MGM), to my knowledge, is a ride, so at least we'll have an honest-to-goodness Pixar RIDE, and not just shows.  

I was saying Saturday while at WDW that Bambi is misrepresented.  Pinocchio at least has a Village Haus.  There are so many Disney films, including Pixar films, that would make great attractions, if only there was enough time/money.  I understand that not every idea that the Imagineers have can make it off the drawing board.  But, have they thought of making some attractions for some movies that are underrepresented at the parks?  For all of those who have seen the ride that never was on the "The Little Mermaid" DVD, didn't that look like a great ride?  Somewhat different than your ordinary dark ride.  The Imagineers are capable of a lot, but they're not always given the opportunity to do all that they want.

Rosani said: "but of course reading poor reviews of Mission Space did, for a moment, make me wonder if I should get on this ride at all: I might get sick!"

Living in Orlando, the stories of people getting sick on M:S was front-page news...in other parts of the country, did you find out from Disneyana message boards like this, or from "real" news sources (newspapers, TV news, online news sites, like Yahoo!)?  I'm just curious.  Because people really did get sick, whether or not the 'dweebs' talked about it.  And it really made the news.  I'm assuming that a Disney 'dweeb" may not have written the articles...good journalists did.

The public has a right to know.

I love the classic Disney attractions, but I'm certainly not opposed to change, to say the least. Jim, when the Disney executive that you quote talks about the disconnect between the general public and the Internet when it comes to guest satisfaction, I have to say that is wildly subjective. When we took our last vacation to WDW in September, the resort that we stayed at had us participate in an online survey. We had a exciting and excellent trip, but the way their surveys are crafted, it is nearly impossible to register a negative point on their survey. They know this and it is a long running trick of many corporations when it comes to so-called market research. So, that's a wildly subjective comment by the exec and should be taken with a grain of salt.

Secondly, that same executive certainly misses the boat on Mission: Space. Horizons was clearly my favorite WDW attraction, ever,  period. However, since it was gone, I had an extremely open mind about Mission: Space. Why there is a disliking of the ride has to do with many things including that it's the same old tired story line that their other simulators have, the one trick pony deal.

As for the quality of the attractions, it's hard to argue that when detailed oriented attractions with multiple show elements keep getting replaced by 3D movies, that's not web dweebs being suspect of cost-cutting and lowering of the quality of attractions, it's just common sense.

I assume Disney focuses their energy on what I consider to be nutjob Disney fans who see fault in any and everything online, and misses the point of a large sum of us, who like change and just want to see a quality product. It sounds sort of like the November election, people are tired of things being catered to the interest of people of the fringes.

I guess I may be one of those "purists."  It's not that I want nostalgia of the park, that is not a good thing.  Nor do I not want change.  No changes are bad things.

In fact, the most fun thing of all about Disney parks has always been the changes.  The upgrades, the new things to see and do.

So what is wrong?  What do I not like?  

I don't like the change in basic philosophy.  I don't like how they are turning the entire park into one large Fantasyland.  I don't like how drama is being removed so that nearly everything being added these days appeals only to the under 5 set.

Look at the Winnie The Pooh ride.  The ride is OK.  It's a typical C coupon dark ride.  But where did they put it?  In the middle of the American frontier.  What is a foppish stuffed toy bear from England doing across the water from an island dedicated to the American West?  This land was originally about American Indians, and was well integrated with its surroundings.  Now what is it?  Another Fantasyland outpost that simply is in the wrong place.

Or the Nemo subs?  I think it is great they are putting in a new sub ride.  But what's going to be in it?  A cartoon.  Yet again.  The original sub ride had a giant squid and a killer whale fighting to the death in the depths of the ocean.  What is this ride going to have?  Singing clown fish?  The technology may be great, but the storyline is something that is neither futuristic nor dramatic.  

This stuff happens over and over and over again.  It's not that the pirate island idea is bad, but that it further destroys the whole meaning behind the western side of the park.  And in doing that, difuses the meaning of the whole park itself.  The park is dedicated to America, and is about American ideas.  Fantasy is but one aspect of it.  Other areas, such as nostalgia, history, adventure, and so on at one time were all represented as parts of this.  

The western side of the park represents Americana.  Western US history.  Southern US history, albeit in a theme park motif.  It is not a history lesson, but it is about US, as Americans.  Presentations about things that happened in America, or were made famous by American literature, or literature popular in America.

What do we get now?  It's not about America anymore.  It's about the Disney company.  They don't put things in unless it is about Disney.  Thus, a ride about America's nuclear submarines gets changed to a ride about Finding Nemo.  An area once dedicated to Native Americans which then gets changd to the Pacific Northwest of the 1870s is now about foreign toy animals.  An island that is about a great piece of American literature is being considered to have a makeover as a faddish pirate island.  

They are slowly turning the place from a very well crafted story about America into just another theme park.  Of course, it is a very fancy one, with an abundance of landscaping and extremely high end rides, but the cohesiveness is falling apart.

It is the complete dissolution of the parks history and ideals.  The place once spoke to us about us.  Now it is speaking to us about them.  It is not the same.

Iger saying we should lighten up is right in many ways.  A lot of the comments you see online are soaking in pointless minutae.  Scratched paint, manhole covers, a loose bolt on a park bench, all these things are of such low import, yet they are raised to levels of hysteria by some small minded individuals who seem to have an axe to grind.  These sorts of things make everyone online look like nitpicking malcontents.  

But there are certainly some things that are important that people online do say.   I want changes, I enjoy changes, but I want them in the context that which made the park what it was in the first place.  You don't need to make it for the public of 1955, however, you also don't need to toss out the ideaology of what the park was about.  It does not need to be dumbed down.

We still make movies and other entertainments today that are of a similar nature to those of the 1950s and 1960s.  They have been updated to modern tastes.  They have changed.  But the basic type of content is still the same.  That Disney has failed to keep up with the vision that was what made the park the unique entity it once was is not the fault of the online community, it is the fault of the management and staff of a corporation who has lost touch with what made it great in the first place.

I've been a regular this site for almost three years. For the most part, Jim, I have to say that I have really enjoyed the articles that you have written. Yet I haven't really been motivated to join the boards and leave a comment until now.

Why? Well, I'm going to keep it real, here. This article hit a nerve.

I'm a Disney dweeb. I "spend hours studying the history of the corporation, who obsess over even the smallest pieces of Mouse-related minutiae." Of course I do. How else do you think I discovered this site?

I could easily turn this comment into a novel-length rant, defending myself at length for my old concerns about PotC (I loved it before, I got worried, saw it, still love it) and my new concerns about Tom Sawyer Island (I have a soft spot for great literature. Don't chalk it up to Disneyana blindness). But I'll spare you the excess arguments and stick to two main points.

First off, I've noticed there are all kinds of people in the Disneyana online community. Some are wishing for the return of the Monsanto's House of the Future, some want to destroy any and all things Pixar, and some are like me and think that if an attraction ain't broke, don't fix it. I'm open to new ideas for the most part, but I'm decidedly less so when it feels like changes are being made purely for profit. PotC was a great attraction on its own. I didn't like that changes were being made to pack more people into the parks so they could see Captain Jack Sparrow up close  (honestly, I'd settle for the face characters in that department). Mind you, the new elements are great. But I thought the old version was great, too. I never thought this ride was in need of a spruce. And trust me, I have thought that in the past. I was GLAD to see the Country Bears go and I LIKE the Winnie the Pooh ride. See? I can have an open mind. Now, back to my point. It seems like Tom Sawyer Island is next in line for the pirates profit bandwagon. I have NEVER seen Tom Sawyer Island empty. I have been to Disneyland 20+ times and it's always crawling with people, kids and parents alike. Why alter something that is working just fine? Its current popularity would indicate that it is neither outdated nor irrelevant. These new pirate changes seems to be in the wrong spirit of things. It really bothers me that the West Side of the park is becoming Pirate Central in order to cash in on the movie craze. And no, I'm not bashing the movies. I waited for six hours in line to see the second one at midnight and I saw it a grand total of five times in the theatre. I'm a fan.

My second point (I'll keep it short, I swear) has to do with this article itself. I understand that this is your site, Jim, and you can say whatever you want to, but this particular piece seems a little contradictory. You've been skeptical of change in the past. I know, I've read about it. And this site really does cater to Mouse-related topics, which means the readership is going to consist of a lot of those Disneyana dweebs you were bashing. You can bash us all you want. There are some that I think are crazy, too. But if I may, I suggest that perhaps you avoid harsh, sweeping generalizations when it comes to the touchy subjects. This would be one of them. We Disney freaks tend to get a little on the defensive side and not all of us are as bad as you claim. Honestly, blaming us for MISSION: SPACE's bad reputation? That's making quite a leap.

But yeah, good site, Jim. I'm really enjoying the Christmas Carol articles right now. :)

Wait, Jim Hill is posting a story about fans needing to lighten up?  Isn't this the guy that went on and on about how badly Cars performed?  Not to mention how many other things he needs to lighten up on himself?

I hate to point this out to Disney, but there's an old saying that goes "You reap what you sow"  ...

Maybe the fact that they've been cramming lesser attractions down our throats for the last ten years (and then telling us why we should love them) has something to do with the "knee-jerk" reaction of all those "Disney dweebs" (also known as loyal, paying customers).

Seriously ... when was the last attraction Disney built that was worthy of their own name? Everest and that's it.

No wonder people's reactions are instantly negative. We're like Pavlov's dog.

I think that the Eisner era pretty much did away with any Disney fan's sense of complacency and trust regarding anything the Disney company does anymore. Eisner started buying up dated, worn properties (Power Rangers, The Muppets) instead of creating new ones in-house, he started up those cheapquels which tarnished the glory of the originals they were based on, he chased away a powerful ally (Katzenberg) who then became a powerful rival (dumb move, Michael), and then he did arrogant things based only on profit, not innovation (replacing Country Bears with that Bear with very little brain but with way too much exposure). And he did let the parks go to seed. The only reason I have hope anymore is because Eisner is gone and Iger's done some things I applaud him for (firing the Muppet people, buying Pixar and putting Lasseter in charge of many of the Mouse House's creative projects, and thank god; the Mouse has been without a creative visionary long enough). I'm willing to give Iger the benefit of the doubt, and it's been a long time since I've been willing to do any such thing regarding the Mouse House. But I do hope we'll get some rides based on ideas and not just movie tie-ins. We'll just have to wait and see...

I agree with jon above.  

I welcome change at the Disney parks when the change is good and when it makes sense.  Walt always expressed the hope that Disneyland would continue to evolve and not get stuck in a rut.  I'd expect he'd feel the same about all of the Disney parks.

The problem I have is the theming.  For instance, my problem with The Laugh Floor is not that it is being created.  My issue is this: how does this fit with the Tomorrowland theme?  Why is Disney so insistent on putting their characters EVERYWHERE (and that's really rhetorical - I know why)?

I'm disappointed in what Future World at Epcot has become because I believe that the pavilions should all address three things - where we've been, where we are, and where we're going - and do it all without destroying the atmosphere too much by adding tons of Disney characters.

I really hate it when the theming becomes compromised in a THEME park.  I love that Disney is trying to come up with new attractions but I want them to seriously look at the themes of the areas they are expanding into.  It just seems to me that they are primarily taking new attraction ideas and dumping them wherever there is space.  That's my problem.

I know the company has internet shills out there. I was one of them for a time.  They're not all paid in cash, and the ones who aren't (like me) should get their compensation arrangements in writing up front. I didn't, I got burned badly by them, and now I know better.

I'm not going to go into the whole "how it happened" story, nor will I say what specific part of the company I was working with, but I was promised a lot of things that (in hindsight) it's obvious the company never had any intention of providing. They wanted someone out there doing their PR for them, which I did—but when the bill came due, they didn't want to pay it. "Take advantage of the fans and let them do your work for you" seems to be their mentality, "treat people badly" their policy, and when presented with e-mails full of big promises they don't intend to honor, "deny, deny, deny" is their mantra when it comes to the web.

Maybe if everyone at the company, from Iger on down, treated the web community better, the web community might return the favor.

well, I would say that online Disneyana fans are not ALWAYS against all items of change.

for example - the TSI change proposition was met with a 50-50 mix of response. many liked it, many hated it, and then there were fence sitters. So, again, to lump all web-based disneyana fans into the "HATED IT" category is not correct...

I think this article is more or less right on. I think what it really comes down to is the fact that people are scared that they'll never be able to experience a certain "experience" ever again. I think Disney has done a pretty poor job of destroying old attractions, leaving hidden homages to them, and then forgetting about them. I think it would be neat if Disney cooked up a DVD and/or book package for every attraction they destroyed that had history, a couple ride through videos, maybe a 3d recreation viewable on the computer, a look at the creation of the ride, and (if applicable) the actual footage used during the attraction.

I was one who was a bit on the fence about TSI. Personally, I'm all for it, and think it has amazing potential, but it would also be a shame to miss out on TSI for the rest of eternity. BUT, that doesn't mean we should allow Disneyland/World to grow stale!

All in all, I just wish Disney did a better job of documenting the rides of yesteryear...besides, putting together a nice little nostalgia package only means more $ for Disney...and we know how much they love those :)

"That's one of the main reasons that I believe that 'Mission: SPACE' has such a lousy reputation now. "

Really?  I thought it was because it was neat technology, with a crappy story line laid on top.  Oh, and a crappy queue.  The only reason we go there is because my 8 year old likes to play the Space Race in the exit.

"About how cheap the Walt Disney Company has become over the past few years"

- Disney's Califonria (Mis)Adventure

"Dweebs/weenies" Now, you are just being a dick.

The truth is many of us Disney fans don't moan on blogs, you just notice them b/c for every  bad blog there are numerous ones that praise the company for it's great stories and attractions. However, it's easy to look past those, b/c they all bleed together.

There are reasons we discuss the movements of the Disney Company, because it's what we do. It's who we are (humans, not weenies)and it's a passion that we all share. The internet is a great medium for us to discuss what's going on and debate what we would do if we were in charge.. If you notice other hobbies, it's sometimes worse. Look how many Sports Talk radio shows there are, second guessing coaches, owners, players. Hell, they even have fantasy drafts.

The fact is your average John Q. ticketholder could care less if El Rio del Tiempo is getting removed, but then it's also those people that don't care that Main Street is a forced perspective, or actors in Spaceship Earth are actually reenacting Homer's literary works. But isn't that what Disney is special for, telling great stories, and staying true to details? They're lucky that us Disney fans notice these things and embrace them, b/c if we didn't, Disney would be no different than Knottsberry Farm or Cyprus Gardens, and amusement park.

Most of us who discuss these topics in great detail have a memory of the parks when we were younger, perhaps when we were happier. To see an attraction retired is like losing a part of our younger years, meaning we are getting older, and we may never be able to revisit that tangible memory. So when Disney changes something, we have to potential to take it personally. I admit when Horizons closed I felt very bummed.

To address the types of changes that are occurring, I think that we feel Pixar is being way overdone, and it may cloud the originality of the parks. Disney is turning all of the parks into the Magic Kingdom. If I want to go to the M.K., I'll go, but then I would like some diversity, so I'll visit an entirely different themed park only to find more damned Pixar. How can you possibly try to tell me a story that's already been told on the big screen?

Disney has lost its imagination, and I hope that John Lasseter can bring it back. But, I would like new innovations, new ideas, and new stories so that I can build new memories.

I like your website, but please don't make your self sound like a "holier than thou" pompous ass when addressing us. It's just bad taste for a Disney-fan website.

Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.

Disney's recent history is hardly encouraging.  DCA is the most glaring example (and Walt Disney Studios Paris), but with Monsters Inc. rides going in at TWO parks, and DCA basically being "Pixar-ville," is there any reason to BE encouraged? To be trustful of a company that has fooled its biggest admirers over and over again?

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the people doing the "complaining" really are the fans -- you know, the people who spend thousands (sometimes tens of thousands or more) of dollars on building rooms in their homes for Disney memorabilia, visiting the theme parks, buying up Disney consumer products and DVDs, attending the high-priced merchandise events at the parks, etc.

In essence, let's assume they are the DIE-HARD Disney fans.

Then, the bigger question is not why they complain, but why anyone at Disney would mock them or question their observations?

In most cases, these people have been "in love" with Disney much more passionately and for a much longer time than most of the executives who "run" the company.  And yet these executives are the ones making the decisions about the future of the company -- callously (and, I've seen it first hand, mockingly) disregarding the fans as "Disney freaks."  Ummmm ... and it's a BAD thing to have someone love your company and its products so much?

Some entertainment companies actually court the fans and their opinions, actively care what they say and -- if they don't change their business decisions -- at least make an effort to reach out to fans when they are unhappy. Disney does the opposite.  

By and large, I've seen fans ONLY take Disney to task for not being creative, not being exciting, not being daring, not being rooted in storytelling -- and for not being true to its own roots.  Yet Disney actively thumbs their noses at them and calls them complainers, saying that, in the end, if "the public" likes it, that's all that counts.

Here's a thought for Disney: Instead of disdaining your most ardent fans, why not engage them?  Why not listen to them?  What would happen if Tom Fitzgerald and Jay Rasulo and Brad Rex and John Lasseter and Meg Crofton got together with 50 passionate fans to spend the day finding out what they think about the parks?  Nothing but good could come of it on either side -- but since these people are clearly up in their ivory towers, letting their measly pawns "interact" with fans, it's unlikely to happen.

But these "complaining," whining fans only have the best interest of the company's creative soul at heart.  They are not trying to please their superiors, create a better return on investment, cut costs, operate without unions, etc.  They (and I include myself in "they") believe that Disney should try harder, should settle less often, should be excelling and astounding with every move rather than merely pleasing.

Some of you may remember this experience from childhood: You brought home a report card with Bs and Cs.  Your parents expressed great disappointment.  "But," you argued, 'B means I did better than everyone else, and C is average -- that means I'm just as good as everyone else!'" Then, your parents reminded you, "You aren't everyone else. You're you, and you should be doing better."

Yeah, so should Disney.  That's all we want. It's like that old commercial: "Good enough ... isn't."  We'll continue to make noise until Disney is better than "good enough."

(And if Disney doesn't want us to be unhappy, maybe they can try engaging us just a little bit -- if they had shown off "Pirates" to fans well in advance, maybe the fans wouldn't have been so cynical.  But after "Winnie the Pooh," "Superstar Limo" and the previous "rehab" of "Pirates" ... can you blame them?)

As a stockholder, I do have some concern about sequels having the potential to tarnish the brand name in the long run because the quality is not there. I've seen great stories and/or animation come out of tv budgets (most of the DC shows, Gargoyles, He-Man's 2002 show, Avatar, WITCH), but nothing approaching that in any of the DTV sequels.

There's no pleasing everyone, but I do understand the problem in internet complaints. It's anomyous(sp?) and accessible by everyone- executives and casual fans on a google search. And there's only so much you can do before turning off consumers or being overwhelmed by the sheer volume of online material. Warner Brothers went from "cease and desist" letters to Harry Potter websites to inviting fan podcasters to the film sets. It's really a matter of picking your battles and accepting that fan discourse is better than none at all.

I was going to agree with alphac2005's comment, and then as I signed in a new comment caught my eye...

Really?  I thought it was because it was neat technology, with a crappy story line laid on top.  Oh, and a crappy queue.

orljustin is right on with this one, as was aplhac2005.  Why must every single simulator ride experience be "oh look, things are going great, oh no we're out of control, we're not going to make it, oh we did."  It especially pissed me off in Mission Space because the whole rest was such an amazing experience.  Did they really have to make me feel like I was going to be sick, just to throw in the out of control crap?  I thought the blast off and the space part was just amazing, but I was hesitant to ever ride again because even after taking motion sickness medicine I felt terrible the rest of the day. It was because of the effects of a story part that is old and tired and could have been left out to the benefit of many.  It was actually reduced in magnitude this last spring when I rode it, so hopefully someone got the memo on that, but I definetly agree that it was not the bad press that ruined Mission Space.  It was the stupidity of the "we're out of control!" moment.

I'm sure there's more that I wanted to say, but I forget now.  I was engulfed by annoyance.  Anywho, I'm still glad for the article...the stuff about Christmas Carol is interesting, but I'm glad to see Disney-related stuff.

I think PART of the problem is Disney is so tight lipped about things that the only info we get is from my mother's , brother's, cousin, knows a guy who plays golf with a Disney employee (a street sweeper or the janitor who acts like he's a VP). So in the case of POTC, we were all horrified until we saw the actual results.

IF Disney had an official/unofficial website that had REAL info on it (and not press releases or rumors from people with axes to grind) that had concepts, imagineering insight, etc then we might be more receptive. It could even have a blog for people to leave feedback that is moderated by the company.

The site could even be a registered site that you have to give real names and email addresses to. This could be a sounding board and provide free PR for the company (hey, I'm a Disney insider and guess what I know, etc).

blackcauldron85 said:

I understand that not every idea that the Imagineers have can make it off the drawing board.  But, have they thought of making some attractions for some movies that are underrepresented at the parks?  For all of those who have seen the ride that never was on the "The Little Mermaid" DVD, didn't that look like a great ride?  Somewhat different than your ordinary dark ride.  The Imagineers are capable of a lot, but they're not always given the opportunity to do all that they want....The public has a right to know.

-----

FWIW, the Mermaid ride didn't look like great shakes--More sort of "Yeah, seen it, Peter Pan did it better!" for me, and underscores our main point here:  Whether it's art, invention or Imagineering, Your First Idea Is Not Necessarily Your Best One.  That's why authors have first drafts; that's why we have expressions like "Back to the drawing board".  And as we've seen on the site, many an attraction has begun life very differently on paper, only to end up as the attraction we've enjoyed.

But Disney doesn't like that as much now--The Toad-ites got a little too vocal about the Pooh ride.  (I've never particularly saw what the thrill was either, except that the supporters were visibly -overplaying- their loyalty to the lil' hopping devils to the extreme, just because they A) thought they were united and B) were accusing Pressler of the larger issue of pumping the Pooh well.)  Now because of that, Disney now tries to delay the press releases, spring all their ideas on us without our input, and wait for our applause....And as for the (now -changed-) POTC Island, one can almost hear Eisner's quote the day Disney America was kicked out of Virginia:  "We thought we would be welcomed with open arms."

Well, guys...That's the kind of fact you might want to double-check with the fanbase first, on neutral ground--Believe it was ol' Davy Crockett himself who said "Make sure you're right, then go ahead."  :)

I absolutely and wholeheartedly agree with you Jim

I'm just glad someone came out and finally said these things!!

I have to admit that I have been on both sides of the fence with this artical. I have done my share of whining and complaining to The Mouse because I thought change was "wrong" or "not needed". Then on the complete opposite side, I have praised The Mouse for changes that I personally thought were long overdue. It seems that us "Disney Dweebs" tend to focus on a very specific attraction or character and when Disney touches "our holey grails", we get bent out of shape. I have a very strong tie to Figment and Journey Into Imagination. When Disney uprooted my world by making changes to the attraction, I made my voice heard and brought along as many fans as I could. Meanwhile, the poor fans of Mr. Toad are actually picketing in front of the ride hoping Disney will rethink their decision. I feel bad for the fans, yet I don't care if Mr. Toad stays or goes as long as it's not my attraction being removed!

It seems selfish but almost every Disney fan has a weak point or a sweet spot that they hold close to them. This is mostly due to very fond childhood memories or expereinces....yet I have noticed that returning over and over while getting older and older, attractions I onced loved, even though they have been unchaged over the years, do not have the same emotional affect that they once did. It is because of this that I decided that "change is good". Disney does listen....JII w/Figment is proof of that. We missed Figment...we complained a lot...and Disney responded. I know it doesn't even come close to replacing the original attraction, but I feel this was an instance where the suits heard the cries and did something about it.

I know the average Joe ticket holder visiting Epcot for the first time wont miss Figment because they never met him. Do I miss Horizons!? YOU BET I DO! Do I hold Mission:Space responsible for Horizon's demise?? No way!

Being a shareholder as well, I want to the see the company continue to create new and innovative ideas that bring in the "dweebs" and the "public". But you can't knock down an attraction and not hurt "someone" along the way. I'm proud to be a "Disney Dweeb" and I will continue to gripe when I need to and shower praise when I feel it is deserved. We are all individuals and we choose our own battles. We are NOT a collective melting pot of moans and complaints. We simply defend what we hold near and dear to our hearts.

//Of course, what also troubles Mouse House officials about the on-line Disneyana community is the massive disconnect between what the corporation's web-based fans are saying and how the general public actually feels about the Walt Disney Company.//

See: Snakes on a Plane.

Remember that thing?  How it was hyped beyond belief on the Internet, to the point where the mainstream media picked up on the hype, and everyone believed it was going to be huge...and then it was a massive flop?

The folks on the Internet can be HIGHLY vocal, but one must keep in mind that they are a subset of the general public.  It's fairly easy to start an online petition about some random issue and get hundreds of thousands of signatures (which is why such petitions rarely have any effect), and then have the remainder of the general public not care about the petition at all.

So basically...just because people on the Internet care doesn't mean everyone in the world will care.  Just ask all those booksellers with their spare copies of Snakes on a Sudoku, or Snakes on a Plane: The Quote Book.

Anonymouse> Snakes on a Plane wasn't a flop, but the media picked up on the 'net buzz and raised expectations far beyond its actual BO. Might've helped if it had been released earlier as well.

In terms of net or podcast chatter in general, though... it can be seen/heard by every last person with net access or just the hardcores or somewhere in between... But how can you really quantify that? I mean, Sci-Fi's upcoming OZ "reimagining" is being picked apart at AICN but how can you really tell if the talkback could diminish the ratings or the fact that it just sounds bad will?

I wonder how many of the folks responding <i>here</i> are actually Disney plants?

To the point made by Anonymouse, for every rule there is an exception, and "Snakes on a Plane" was it.  What about "Star Wars," "Lord of the Rings," "Narnia" and the Prius?  Each one of those has established a strong foothold on the Internet, and the key difference -- the reason each has remained successful and popular for varying lengths of time -- is because their makers UNDERSTAND one simple rule:

Please the public, you please most people. Please the fans, you please everyone.

When it comes to brands with strong consumer loyalty, it really is that simple.  Did no one learn a thing from New Coke?  In taste tests, people said they loved it.  They said they would LOVE to buy it.  They thought it was better than Pepsi.  Consumer research showed that Coke had a massive hit on its hands ... and look what happened.

Disney's "New Coke" isn't an event ... I think it's going to prove, in the long run, to have been a series of small tactical errors that took the company so far off course that it ended up in dire straits.  I'm not so sure we're not there now, but it may get worse before it gets better.  It's not always readily apparent when things go wrong, but you can bet that a good sign a company has lost its way is when it starts trusting consumer research more than the people it has working for them or the die-hard aficionados who give them something more valuable than any focus group: Free feedback from a group whose only bias is they think the company can do better.

Long time lurker, first time poster weighing in:

You get the impression that the concept of the Disney suits asking tourists in Orlando whether they'd like to see Jack Sparrow in "Pirates" is kind of like open-endedly asking a two year old if he would like a puppy. The people who bother to post on the internet are familiar enough with where the company has been to hold them to a higher standard.

I live inland, and have only been to Disney parks a couple of handfuls of times in my 30 years. However, each time I've attended, I have observed a slow downward spiral. Take out the 20,000 leagues ride and stick in a cheesy playground with the outline of a Nuatilus in the ceiling. Take out the Tiki Room in Fla. which appealed to a certain demographic and put in a different show with a couple of abrasively-voiced parrots who nobody can stand. Sometimes the suits in Burbank need to be told that they're quixotically pursuing what amounts to a really stupid idea.

The worst things, however, are the tilt toward consumerism and the demographic that the company is bending over backwards trying to appeal to.

I'm thrilled at the Nemo Submarine Voyage ride. If the Nemo effects are great, I'm happy. To be honest, I wouldn't care if I were looking at Bob Iger in a speedo or Mike Eisner with an anchor tied to his feet, I just want to experience the subs again. But why do I need to feel like every re-themed attraction is selling me something larger (ie. Tarzan's treehouse, Pirates Refurb, Disney Freaking Princesses everywhere you look, etc.) I want to experience a storybook when I ride a Disney attraction not another commercial.

Finally, it troubles me that the rationale for  the Tom Sawyer's Island proposed overlay is that kids today don't know about Mark Twain and are bored by him. Walt Disney was an individual who could tell decades-old stories to younger people in such a way that they became interesting. If the ritalin-popping, Blues-Clues-addicted mopkins of today didn't know who Tom Sawyer (or the Swiss Family Robinson, or Abraham Lincoln, etc) were, HE'D TELL THEM!

Disney has  gone about it all backwards, dumbing down or "retheming" their classics in an attempt to make them "relevant". The problem isn't that the stories are boring, it's that the audience (they type who the suits apparently survey in the parks) need desperately to be groomed to recieve them.

For ten years now, due to the meddling of internet geeks, children at DLR experienced "boring stories" delivered by Abraham Lincoln rather than witnessing Gonzo, Rizzo the Rat and the Swedish Chef having a 4-dimensional pie fight.

Somehow, as a society, I think we are all better off for that fact.

Jim, regarding Mission Space, I think the so called Disney purists were right on.

The reason being the people who have died on the thing from undiagnosed

pre-existing conditions that were exascerberated by the G forces on that ride.

That is the reason why it has such a bad reputation.

As far as the Johnny Depp figures on POTC I have an interesting theory.

Walt was into the latest technology. If he had been blessed with a longer life,

I suspect that most of POTC's original AA figures would have been long gone

by now. (That's just my opinion though)

Epcot82 said: >>"When it comes to brands with strong consumer loyalty, it really is that simple.  Did no one learn a thing from New Coke?  In taste tests, people said they loved it.  They said they would LOVE to buy it.  They thought it was better than Pepsi.  Consumer research showed that Coke had a massive hit on its hands ... and look what happened."<<

Or, more specifically to the Disney-related point:

"What do you customers think of New Coke?" "It's hip, it's new, we love it!" "Good--What do you think of our plan to PERMANENTLY REPLACE the Coke you've loved for one hundred years with this hip new taste?" "Uh....excuse me?? 0_o? "

Point being:  Fans constantly worry that Disney's -stopped- asking the second question, just because of all the Toad hoo-hah.  Shame, really, as it's the more important one, the one that attaches a sense of scale and customer perspective to the boardroom's occasional Delusions of Marketing Grandeur--Yes, we liked POTC: the Movie, and we got to like POTC: the Rehab, but be careful you're not nearing the point where we say "We just didn't like it that -much-, okay?"

And the way that you find out where that point is...you ask.  We just don't like NOT being asked.

Haha, so there are now Mouse Moles? I love it!

What really chaps my hide about all of this is that Disney has such a smug, supercilious attitude about its fans that is really unparalleled in the entertainment industry.  Actually, make that about its GUESTS in general.  I just read that Disney is farming out more of its guest-related services to outside companies -- apparently figuring that if the average guest doesn't notice, it just doesn't matter.

Disney's pride and arrogance are rather jaw-dropping.  I spent my childhood, youth, young adulthood and much of my 20s and early 30s absolutely enamored of Disney.  From Adventure Thru Inner Space to Read-Along Books to "The Wonderful World of Disney" to EPCOT Center, Disney could do very little wrong in my book (with the exception of the occasional unnecessary Dick Van Dyke movie).  I remember going to shareholder's meetings when executives would actually LISTEN to the people in the audience; in the late 1970s, it wasn't unusual for the Q&A portion of a shareholder's meeting to last an hour or more.  One year, a Disney executive even TELEPHONED my father because he had written a letter to say that we had been disappointed by a recent trip to Disneyland.  This wasn't an Anaheim exec, mind you, but one of the top execs at the entire company!

See, the thing is, Disney USED to do so many things SO MUCH BETTER than anyone else.  It was on top of the world.  Now it's just another fairly average player in an ever-expanding family-entertainment industry ("Happy Feet," anyone?).

Do I believe that it got to this sad place because it didn't value the input and thoughts of the consumers who valued it the most and probably had the best insights?  Absolutely.  Do I think every complaint and whine on the Internet should be taken seriously?  No.  But I think some navel gazing would do Disney a huge amount of good, and I think all of those "fingers" on the Internet have been pointing to one very large, very overlooked navel.

I'm not sure where all of you grew up, but in earlier decades here in the U.S. (though it seems to be changing), criticism, editorializing and complaining were exactly the things made our society -- our government, our communities and our public companies -- great: a sense of partcipation in the institutions we held most dear.  By suggesting that anyone with a complaint -- valid or not -- should "lighten up," Iger and his pals have shown how little they value anyone's opinion but their own.  I gave Iger a chance, gave him the benefit of the doubt, but the thoughts of Disney management that I'm reading here suggest to me we traded one egotist for another.

Lastly, I can only echo Legalbeagle when I say thank GOD that there was such an outcry over trying to replace Mr. Lincoln with the quickly outdated Muppets 3-D movie.  Thank GOD people spoke up and told The Walt Disney Company itself that Mr. Lincoln -- whether five people a day see him or 5,000 -- is such an important link to their company's founder, such a bellweather of the company's foundation of innovation and creativity, that it would be sacrilege to get rid of him.  It's sad to think The Walt Disney Company needed to be TOLD this ... even sadder still to think that, as of yet, there's no sign that Mr. Lincoln is coming back.

I think Leagalbeagle and Jim Douglas just posted two of the most intelligent, insightful, and spot-on posts I've ever seen on this site.

Maybe we should switch ownership of this joint and call it "Jim Douglas Media", because he really seems to get it.

I couldn't agree more with everything you've said, Jim (and Mr. Beagle, I might add). Disney exemplifies the current corporate trend towards inside out focus ... it's not, "Let's give the customers what they want." it's let's give them what we want to give them (i.e. cheap crap with a huge mark-up) and them tell them to "lighten up" when they don't like it.

That's why Disney leans so heavily on these stupid marketing campaigns ... Millennium this, the 100 Years of Magic that, Year of a Million disappointments ... it's to gloss over the fact that their new attractions are dull and uninspiried, they haven't created an interesting character on their own since Katzenberg left, and their guest service has sunk to levels more appropriate for Wal-Mart than Disney.

I totally agree that they're now nothing more than an average player. They have pretty much adopted the idea that we'll give people just enough and nothing more. Very sad from a company that used to demand perfection.

DerekJ said:

"FWIW, the Mermaid ride didn't look like great shakes--More sort of "Yeah, seen it, Peter Pan did it better!" for me"

I bet that there are a lot of rides and attractions that never got built that were "better" than the TLM ride...My favorite attractions are the ones based on Disney movies.  I especially liked going under the sea/above the sea...I thought it looked neat!

Epcot82 said:

"I wonder how many of the folks responding <i>here</i> are actually Disney plants?"

I'm not...that sounds like a cool job, though.  I would keep my screenname, though, and use a new one for my Disney work..I was thinking that when I first read the article.

I used to work at WDW, and I'm planning to again when I graduate college.  The vast majority of my managers didn't care about the individual workers; I had one that was sympathetic when I was sick.  A couple months ago, I was at Animal Kingdom with some family.  I was wearing a Thumper shirt.  The woman in the store I was at started telling us how her family hunts Bambis.  For a long time.  I was shocked.  It took me a day or two, but I went online to disneyworld.com, sent an email, and received a couple emails and a phone call.  Whoever the people that contacted me were, they cared that my experience wasn't all that it should have been, and they promised to talk to the cast member.  Some people who work for Disney don't care about the rich heritage or that Disney means so much to so many people.  Some do, however, and they should be the ones in charge.  It's a pity that it's just another job for them.  I'd give my right foot (and left) to be in Iger's position.  I'm hoping to move up through the company, but I won't be able to without the support of fellow co-workers and managers who actually care about me and the company.

I hate to double post, but I just thought of this:

Did Walt himself hire the people working at Disneyland?  Regardless, was every applicant hired?  Or were they picky?  I know that WDW needs thousands of employees, but they need to be more "picky"...I know I wrote about this before, but they do...I wish they hired more people that loved the company...maybe more people just need to move to Orlando (and Anaheim) that love Disney and wouldn't mind working for them.  It's hard when people who are just working for Disney because it's a "job" and not a "love of Disney" are in charge.  Those people should get shipped over to Universal or Sea World- the Disney parks don't need people like that...the Guest service is often "bad" because the people providing it don't have a sense of pride about their company, and think of it as any normal company.  Which it isn't.

1)  Nostalgia

2)  Some fans are bigger than otherrs

3)  Negative energy in today's society (quick to point out complaints and rarely give good comments)

4)  Eisner & the gang tainting the Disney name within the past 10 years or so, so some fans are more conerned over Disney than others

5)  Some fans don't have the ability to have a double concious (understanding the Disney fanbase opinions & general public opinions)

6)  Some fans trying to keep with Walt Disney's times and beliefs.  But time has changed, some ideas need to change for the better.

7)  In recent years, Disney has been creating E-tickets for thrills, I think many fans want a POTC & HM style E-ticket (ala Western River Expedition).

8)  In all respects some complaints are valid (Monsters Laugh Floor & TSI makeover) and some are not as much.

9)  Perhaps the Disney company could use a double concious between their original company beliefs/guidelines, Disney fanbase, AND general public opinions...

For me, I strongly dislike MuppetVision in Lincoln, just doesnt fit themeticly anyways.  Highly dislike TSI makeover.  Was/Is mixed about Midway Mania & POTC change.

Well, on one hand this is to be expected. The changes are to things people know and love, and through nostalgia think are perfect as is, even when not. And sometimes they're drastic, like the loss of Mr. Toad's Wild Ride, which crushed me some.

On the other hand, this is why these people are not executives in charge of making these hard decisions, and also why internet petitions are completely and utterly ignored. People are using emotion to ignore all but one side.

However, I do feel there is often something in the argument that not enough money is being spent to make rides as they should be, as opposed to what often happens in Tokyo. Eisner started this, so maybe it will end. The company is better off with fewer new rides, but great rides, than more new rides that aren't much different than what you find at a local six flags.

Like Disney Co, WalMart is another mega-company that employs hundreds of thousands of people. I guess if Iger was in charge of WalMart, he would just tell these groups to "lighten up."

http://money.aol.com/news/articles/_a/will-hope-for-the-holidays-rattle-wal/20061128073709990001?cid=403

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/12/11/8395445/index.htm

Things could be so much more challenging for Iger.

Employee and customer complaints can always be overlooked when there's money to be made. I can't count how many stories I've heard from people who talked directly to Walt telling him how if he cut this or eliminated that - he would make more money. And each time, Walt's reply was it's not about the money - it's about the quality - if you produce quality, the money will follow. One person's story = an anecdote; several people's stories = hey, there might be some truth there.

Many dweebs learned these stories, since it was the Disney Co that fed them to us for 40 some years.  It's frustrating when the boardroom executives would prefer to hit their bonus targets rather than try to excel. If anyone dares mention that - "Hey, lighten up!"

"I wish they hired more people that loved the company...maybe more people just need to move to Orlando (and Anaheim) that love Disney and wouldn't mind working for them.   It's hard when people who are just working for Disney because it's a "job" and not a "love of Disney" are in charge.  Those people should get shipped over to Universal or Sea World- the Disney parks don't need people like that...the Guest service is often "bad" because the people providing it don't have a sense of pride about their company, and think of it as any normal company.  Which it isn't."

Maybe the company needs to love its own employees a little more for that to happen.   Be selective, treat your employees with respect through wages, benefits and workplace policy -- and they will bend over backwards to do their jobs well and provide quality service everytime.  Make it an exclusive, sought after place to work -- and the quality of service issues would essentially disappear.

Ok...lurker here and first time poster.

This topic seems to be changing into a discussion about the overall health of the company.  I worked at Disneyland for about 6 years on the graveyard shift (working through college - before DCA broke ground) and saw some things I think need to be elaborated on.

Eisner, not trying to defend him...but I will give him credit where its due.  Disney survivied thanks to him and he helped take it far (Beauty and the Beast movie and Broadway production, Indiana Jones Ride, Touchstone and enforcing a difference between that and Disney "Touchstone is not Disney", etc).  Problem is...he stayed too long...way too long.  He was losing focus, vision and got down right greedy.  A co-worker of mine is major disney fan, when the Big Thunder accident happened she was pretty intense about it.  I responded by saying that I wasn't a bit surprised it happend. BUT surprised it didn't happen sooner.  When I left, the Mechanics really were complaining how they could not keep up with maintenance of the rides and the company kept cutting back too much.  In Custodial, same story, more work...less people...more corners cut....EVEN management telling the cast members to do a "mickey mouse job" in order to meet thier targeted budget so they could get thier bonus.

DCA...what a joke.  What I saw on the plans (WESTCOT) looked great.  Then Eisner said it was too costly...choped it up...they went back to the drawing board to re-make the park to fit Eisner's budget....submitted it...he droped the budget lower...Huh?  Is it a wonder why we have DCA?  The boss basically said to throw some mud at the wall and see what sticks.

Animation.  What can I say, after Katzenburg left...so did the ideas, AND didn't replace him with another person with big ideas.  Its one thing if you have someone waiting in the wings who is just as good or better vision...but its darn right stupid if you don't.  Disney Animation was the production studio and inspiration for many attactions...so, there went that to.  Just to pay one exec less money.

Talent...you know..many companies go out of thier way to attract good creative talent.  Disney under the latter years of Eisner went out of thier way to chase them away.  Its pretty pathetic when Human Resources tells you its easier to QUIT Disney and then come back after a year to get into some sort of position in the company.  Sadly, they were right.  I met a number of individuals who did just that, for me, it was a frustrating process trying not to do it that way once I graduated from college.  But in the end I gave up and left and I wasn't going to come back in a year.  I ended up working for the nations third largest insurer and it payed better at entry level than anything at disney did.  Now....I'm a Sr. Analyst and have been promoted a number of times and not once did I EVER ask for a promotion, it was just given to me.  Is it any wonder why good talent left Disney and less creative and talented people stayed.

All in all, it was a giant domino effect, cut costs anyway possible to meet their unsustainable 20% revenue growth target, year after year, forced them to cut quality in everthing and thus, everything eventually suffered.

As for lightening up....well, ok.  Walt Disney himself said Disneyland would never be finished (and he did change plans in mid-stream) and with that, I think NOTHING is sacred at Disneyland...just like Las Vegas, but perhaps not as extreme.  But at the same time, I think people are tired of seeing something of good quality being taken out and replaced with cardboard cuts outs, recycled props and splattered with cheap paint.  This was the way of the old Amusement Park...the very thing Disney himself wanted to avoid, and here we are.  Ok...I'll get off my soap box.  I'm all for lightening up, but the onus is on Iger for that.  If things improve, he'll give a reason to lighten up.  Untill then, he needs to realize that Eisner gave a lot of people a reason to be critical.

"First off, I don't think there's a difference in public perception -- only in the amount of time that perception takes hold with the public in general."

I think that comment is very close to the truth.  Yes, Jim, you are right that there is a negative knee jerk reaction when changes are rumored.  But I'm disappointed that you didn't take the next step to explore why that is.  You know better than anybody the genuine disappointments Disney has produced.  

-Parks opened with barely enough attractions to fill a morning, let alone a day.

-Botched attraction makeovers like Stitch and Journey into Your Imagination (twice!).

-Shortened hours.  

-Cutting Early Entry and having the stones to say WE wanted it that way.

-Cheap additions like Dinorama and the vast majority of DCA.

-Unfulfilled (until very recently) promises of replacements for the Subs in both DL and MK.

-Abandoned PeopleMover track in DL.

-Light Magic

Do I really need to go on?  And now you question the fans who have taken a "show me" attitude?  I mean, really, you can only hit me with a hammer so many times before I start getting worried when you reach into the tool box!

You talk about the PotC changes.  Sure, ask the average person if they like the idea and they'll say "Sure!  Cool!".  But again, you should know that isn't exactly the standard that Disney was built upon.  Most people have never figured out why Disneyland means so much to them.  They have no idea what standards and philosophies were used in building that park.  Yet its those standards and philosophies that are the very things that kept them coming back.

Its only those that do have at least some understanding of the whys and hows that are going to see the folly in some of these things before they are placed in front of the public.

Like I sad, you're right that the reaction are knee-jerk in nature, but that's due to the destructoin of the goodwill that once was in place with the public.  It used to be that if Disney opened a park, the public is excited.  Now, they wait and see because they've been burned too many times.  Sure, only the hardcore fans say something in advance, but the public figures it out eventually.  If you doubt that, just pull out those old DCA attendance projections.

So a Disney (?) exec says this:

"That's one of the main reasons that I believe that 'Mission: SPACE' has such a lousy reputation now. Even before that Epcot attraction was officially open to the public, Disneyana fans were already on-line talking about how rough this new Future World ride was, how it was making people sick. Then the mainstream media picked up on that story. And -- as a direct result -- what was supposed to have been Disney's next franchise attraction then became this huge PR nightmare for the company."

Jim, do you really buy this explanation?  That M:S's lack of popularity is due to rumor and innuendo, and that if the hardcore fans just gave it a chance the ride would have been the tentpole attraction it was designed to be?

See, this is exactly why we continue to be skeptical when Disney announces changes/additions.  They refuse to accept responsibility for their failures, and instead look for scapegoats, in this case their own fans.  That has to border on insane.  M:S isn't doing what its supposed to be doing because the company failed to make it an attraction that spoke to the hearts of its customers.

So, instead of working to fix the issues within the company, we get Stitch's Great Escape and some undercover internet posters.  (By the way, most of us have known about the "paid posters" for quite awhile...)

Its pretty simple, really.  The negative knee jerk reactions will stop when the company starts CONSISTENTLY putting forth products that ring true of the real Disney.  

As anyone who has tried online dating knows, the internet is filled with losers, kooks, stalkers and general weirdos.

No offense to my fellow JimHill fans.. ;)

Its also filled with lots of stay at home mom types who have nothing to do but sit on the internet and dig up dirt on members of the communities theyre in. If you happen to be a member of the DISboards, you might know which community Im talking about.

There are also endless trolls, that range from the derranged Disney fan who is obbsessed with a couple of mice, to the arrogant world traveler who embellishes lies to make you think theyve stayed in the best of the best hotels at Disney, and get caught making up yahts and things along the way.

You have 14 year old know it alls making up rumors, 50 year old pervs making up rumors and showing you the insides of their houses so you can see their collections.

I understand the PR nightmare Disney faces with these idiots running amuck on the net.

YOur always gonna have crazy people who you cant please.

I think if Disney focuses on making quality attractions, and creating an environment for a family to enjoy they wont have problems. Deal with the bad press as it comes and take it in stride.

Im sure there are just as many more laid back Disney consumers like me, as the obbsessed/crazed fan Disney consumers.

PS Dear Disney company internet stalkers:

The reason you have an internet backlash is a simple lack of trust. Stop closing down attractions without warning (20k Leagues) Dont replace bad attractions with worse ones (seriously WHO thought stitch had a good plot) Keep up the que themeing (everest and nemo) and the general beauty that is the disney parks. The complainers will still spend money to go see it all. So your bottom line will be just fine.

I understand that this was posted days ago and the conversation has long since been abandoned, and that I probably don't have the energy to conjure up anything that hasn't already been said, but I at least wanted to throw in my two cents.

I know that in the past I have "bitched" and moaned with the rest of 'em, that we "Disney dweebs" and "weenies" have certainly blown things out of proportion or have been very close-minded, but I honestly don't think we would feel so pessimistic if the last Disney decade hadn't been so rough on those of us who were up to speed on all the pandomonium happening behind the scenes.

When a television show, book, movie, or what have you defaces Disney, parodies Disney in a distasteful and unfair way, or straight-up disses Disney, who defends Disney first? The Disney Dweebs. When the cynics of "the public" (because obviously we're too in love with Disney too be considered 'normal') bash Disney just for the sake of slander and hateful humor, for the sake of feeling like a 'nonconformist' individual, who defends the Walt Disney Company in spite of all its faults? The Disney Dweebs.

We  buy your platinum editions, we buy your Walt Disney Treasures DVDs, we buy your biographies, your encylopedias, your memorabilia, your art books, your $300 sculptures, your $7 a piece trading pins, your soundtracks, your annual passes, your pricey collectibles, and several copies of each Disney movie no matter how many times it is released and remastered. If we truely hated everything the Disney company did, we wouldn't be on the internet worshipping it in the first place. However, Disney Dweebs are not fools, they're people who have been disappointed again and again and again and want to stop anymore disappointment from happening. Half the time we do leave outrageous comments and we do jump to conclusions, but we also have well-installed motivation. I agree that we need to be open to change but first we need to be shown that the suits at Disney are open to listening, determined to excel and not just meet expectations, and reinstate the courtesy and love for its fans AND public that we've come to lose.

Walt didn't always agree with the public opinion, nor did he always make the right decision, but he knew what the world expected of his company and he did his best to expand it without uprooting what it stood (and still should stand) for. It's the best of us Disney Dweebs who see Walt Disney and understand that he was a human being with many flaws like the rest of us, but it's also our faith, love, and dedication for him that still gives him that saintly aura we've come to admire so much. I think it's also the best Disney Dweebs who see the Company as a corporation that has had a wonderfully magical and rich history, does have the right and necessity to earn money, but still should be held accountable for its actions, and yes, like Walt did, has many flaws. You can't change a person, but you can certainly change how a Company operates.

blackcauldron85 said: "I bet that there are a lot of rides and attractions that never got built that were "better" than the TLM ride...My favorite attractions are the ones based on Disney movies.  I especially liked going under the sea/above the sea...I thought it looked neat!"

I'm in agreeance with you, blackcauldron85! I loved the TLM ride and I think it would've been wonderful to experience in real life. I thought it captured the best moments of the movie beautifully and that more rides that take you into the heart of the animated films are perfectly welcome in my book. Obviously they need to keep making rides with original stories (not that they've been doing much of that either), but I certainly think that well-executed rides like TLM would be smash hits for both the die-hard fans and the general public.

DerekJ said: "What do you customers think of New Coke?" "It's hip, it's new, we love it!" "Good--What do you think of our plan to PERMANENTLY REPLACE the Coke you've loved for one hundred years with this hip new taste?" "Uh....excuse me?? 0_o? "

Terribly true. It's not that the company has completely drained itself of good ideas, it's just that it feels the need to boot other great things out of the way to make room, and that's our biggest reason to be horrified.

Raidermatt, I found your comment to be dead on. If the hardcore fan understands WHY an attraction or product is liked vs. loved, hated vs. disliked, liked vs. disliked, then should the opinion of the die-hard fan be valued more? You're not going to be able to please all the die-hard fans, but at least you're going to get insightful feedback that will be of actual assistance to you, as opposed to your average teenager who digs Johnny Depp, the average stay-at-home mom who thinks that maybe all the dark rides are too scary and that Disneyland should be Fantasyland all the way through, the kids who just want to see a familiar face on every ride, etc.

As for the article itself...it sounds like too many execs and a certain JH is taking all our negative comments a little too personally...I don't think the big picture is being seen at all...