PDA

View Full Version : Interesting article dealing with the VIP Pirates Premiere



Darkbeer
06-16-2003, 11:32 PM
Tuesday's Jim Hill Media article, written by C.W. Oberleitner discusses what is going on with the June 28th event.

http://www.jimhillmedia.com/main/index.htm




While covering week two of Super Soap Weekends I had an opportunity to talk about many things with cast members from all around the Disneyland Resort. From early morning until early evening the topic that came up time and again was the closing of Disneyland for the Pirates movie premiere. Cast member after cast member from guest relations to operations would tell me that it would be a "soft closing." And, just as many CMs from security to TDA management regrettably confirmed that Disneyland would in fact hard close and ask all of its guests to leave at 6 pm that evening.

Apparently the idea that Walt Disney Pictures does not want to risk Johnny Depp's or any other invited VIPs security on DLR Security personnel was right on the money. For the first time that day this very resolute DLR Security guard sprang to life and joined our conversation without a moment's hesitation. Those of us assembled there were told in no uncertain terms that the idea that DLR Security's services were not deemed good enough for Walt Disney Pictures was not going over well at all among the members of DLR Security.



This day is becoming more and more interesting.....

Also, the article states the reason that there will be no daytime parade....

Lost Boy
06-17-2003, 08:46 AM
What was not stated in the article in so many words, and what a lot of people tend to forget, or just don't know, is that unlike WDW which is a wholy seperate company, and Paris DL and Tokyo Disneyland which are owned and operated by different companies, is that Disneyland is owned by the Studio. Walt used Studio money and resources to build Disneyland, therefore ownership of Disneyland always has been The Studio in Burbank. That's why so many bad decisions about this Park are made and carried out, whereas the other Parks can say no if the Studio wants something from them. It's just like approaching any other company, you have to ask first, and if they say no, there really isn't too much you can do about it. But at Disneyland, the Studio has the final say on everything.

JeffG
06-17-2003, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by Lost Boy
What was not stated in the article in so many words, and what a lot of people tend to forget, or just don't know, is that unlike WDW which is a wholy seperate company, and Paris DL and Tokyo Disneyland which are owned and operated by different companies, is that Disneyland is owned by the Studio.

Uh, that just isn't correct. Disneyland and Walt Disney World are both fully owned by the Walt Disney Company and are operated under the Walt Disney Parks and Resorts division. WDW is not in any way a "separate company" or even a separate operating division from Disneyland. The two resorts are run somewhat independently, but they do report through the same division.

-Jeff

Lost Boy
06-17-2003, 02:02 PM
Sorry, WDW is wholly owned by a company that Walt Disney set up as "The Reedy Creek Development Project". Funding for certain aspects come from the Studio, but they do not have as much control over WDW as they do over Disneyland. I have been studying this aspect since WDW opened. WDW does not answer to Burbank to the degree that Disneyland does.

Lost Boy
06-17-2003, 02:51 PM
In re-reading the last two posts I think there is a mis-understanding in symatics. I never said that WDW wasn't owned by the Walt Disney Company. Reedy Creek is owned and operated by the Company, but not the Studio, which is another division of The Walt Disney Company. The Studio owns and runs Disneyland. That's the way Walt set it up. WDW is a division of the Walt Disney Company, but not owned and operated by the Studio. That's why certain things happen at Disneyland and not a WDW and vice versa.

JeffG
06-17-2003, 04:16 PM
Again, that is all highly inaccurate. "The Reedy Creek Improvement District" is a real-estate management company owned by Disney that manages the land that WDW sits on. Essentially, it is a business entity that was set up to give the WDW property a certain amount of autonomy with regards to roads, utilities, etc. It is largely a legal construct.

As I posted before, both of the domestic resorts are operated by the company's "Walt Disney Parks & Resorts" division. That is the division that is headed up by Jay Russolo and it also controls WDI, the Cruise Line, the sports teams, and Disney's interests in the Paris, Tokyo, and Hong Kong properties.

I'm not really sure where you are getting this whole "the studio owns Disneyland" concept. The only concept of "ownership" here is that the Walt Disney Company owns all of these properties, divisions, and business entities. "The studio" isn't really even an entity in itself, unless you are referring to "Studio Operations" which actually manages the physical property in Burbank.

There certainly isn't any significant difference in ownership between WDW and DL.

-Jeff

Lost Boy
06-17-2003, 07:57 PM
I don't know how else to explain it. When Walt built Disneyland there was no other entity around except The Movie Studio. The way thing evolved later on created a "Company" and "Divisions". Since Walt never "returned" or "Sold" or "Gave" ownership of Disneyland to the "Company", the "Movie Studio" owns and controls Disneyland. They can walk into Disneyland anytime they want and shut it down to host a movie premiere. They cannot do that at WDW without going thru all kinds of requests, paperwork etc. If WDW Management says no, then the Studio cannot do it. It's as simple as that.

9oldmen
06-17-2003, 11:07 PM
A lot of those A-list celebrities who will be attending probably live in Los Angeles, and chauffering them to Disneyland would be a lot cheaper than flying them to Florida for one evening. Then again, their was that Pocohontas premiere in Central Park, the Pearl Harbor premiere on the aircraft carrier, and the Rock premiere on Alcatraz.

goofey
06-18-2003, 02:07 AM
Originally posted by Lost Boy
I don't know how else to explain it. When Walt built Disneyland there was no other entity around except The Movie Studio. The way thing evolved later on created a "Company" and "Divisions". Since Walt never "returned" or "Sold" or "Gave" ownership of Disneyland to the "Company", the "Movie Studio" owns and controls Disneyland. They can walk into Disneyland anytime they want and shut it down to host a movie premiere. They cannot do that at WDW without going thru all kinds of requests, paperwork etc. If WDW Management says no, then the Studio cannot do it. It's as simple as that.
Um....the company may have evolved that way, but there is such a thing as corporate restructuring. If my memory serves me, Disney did a huge one around the time Michael Eisner took over in the 80s. They also like to do some small ones at the lower levels every 16.7 minutes. You may or may not be right on the issue of using the resort at the studio's whim, but the fact is that JeffG is correct as to the hierarchy and organization of the Parks & Resorts division of the company.

Lost Boy
06-18-2003, 08:13 AM
That may be, and I don't want to get into a big argument here, but when Michael Eisner took over, the Studio retained control of Disneyland so he could do with it what he wanted. It has not changed. The budgets and cost invoices and stuff for Disneyland all come from The Studio, not the Company. Consider this division to be "Studio/Disneyland Resort" for budgeting purposes. The money all comes from the same place, The Studio's budget. That's also why WDW gets the bigger attractions, they have a bigger budget because they are a division unto themselves. I have double checked this with sourced at the Studio, and they have confirmed that anything to do with Disneyland is budgeted out of the Studio Division.

JeffG
06-18-2003, 10:24 AM
The problem is that there is no such thing as a "studio division" of the Walt Disney Company.

What are you talking about when you say "the studio"? Are you talking about "Studio Operations" which manages the Burbank lot or are you talking about the Filmed Entertainment or Buena Vista Distribution units? None of those units have any kind of direct control over the Disneyland Resort, which reports to the Parks & Resorts division.

I have no idea where you are getting your information, but all of these organizational details are readily available via the company's annual reports and other public records.

-Jeff

RandomCM
06-18-2003, 08:51 PM
Maybe this is because I am a CM, but I don't see what the big deal is about the park closing. DL is trying to make up for it by having the park open REAL early on the days around the event. I never heared anyone complain that they never got to go to the Pearl Harbor Premiere that was in Hawaii on the big naval ship. It is an unspoken rule. The stars get to see the movie first, we see it the day it comes out. Think of this as jsut any regular premire that you see on Access Hollywood or ET!, you never see any BUT stars there. it just happens that for ONE, count it, ONE day, it is held at Disneyland!! It is ONE night!! It's not like this is a WEEK long thing where we are closing at 6pm all week!! So peple get to go home early for one night!! PLEASE!! Stop whining about it, and if you are going to continue to whine about this Hollywood Premiere, then complain that you aren;t invited to all the other ones that happen weekley in Hollywood and NY!! GEZZ!!!

9oldmen
06-18-2003, 10:35 PM
" It's not like this is a WEEK long thing where we are closing at 6pm all week!! "

Actually, according to Jim Hill, it will affect that end of the park for well over a week, between setting up, and striking afterwards.
He says that according to official sources, Fantasmic will be dark from June 23rd through July 2nd. Also, the bleachers and everything else will make for more congested walkways, so,in a way, this will sort of be a "WEEK long thing".

Polar33
06-18-2003, 10:35 PM
Personally I think it would be a good idea on Disney's part if they gave out a voucher to each guest that is in the park that day with a multi-day passport, that would allow them to view the Pirates movie for free when it made it's debut in July.

Not only would it deflect some of the negative response from the inconvenience it is causing guests that planned vacations months in advance for that weekend. It would create more word-of-mouth about the film from those guests when they return to wherever they live to view the movie.

Of course, if Disney really wanted to be cool they would just set up the AMC theatre in DTD to show the movie that night for free (to those with valid admission media for that day of course). But doing so may take away from the coolness and defeat the purpose of the actual premiere.

Tigertail777
06-19-2003, 12:55 AM
correct if I am wrong here, but didn't Walt have quite a few big star studded premiere things in the park? I dunno if they showed the actual movies, but I am pretty sure they had lots of props and stars from the current movies, at Disneyland to promote those movies, and most of them were FREE.
The reason why this is a big deal? How fair do you think shutting down a fair percentage of the park for privelaged other people to use is, when the regular joes are still paying normal admission with no discount for said inconveniance? Especially when you consider there are still a lot of poorer family's out there that scrimp and save for YEARS to go to Disneyland, and can consequently only go one or two days sometimes. You really think an event like this makes for good word of mouth, and customer service? It doesnt take a rocket scientist to know that a businesses real money is not in first time customers, but in REPEAT customers, and good word of mouth. Given that scenario, do you think farmer joe schmoe and his family really feel like coming back, or telling anyone what a great time they had?

I for one am pretty close to that scenario we go to Disney parks something like every 5-10 years because we cannot afford to do otherwise. I can tell you when we went in July, Tomorrowland itself was so utterly depressing I couldn't bring myself to walk through it not even for a ride on space mountain. I am a big Disney freak, but patience with the company's greed is reaching its limits. Now if I feel this way, how do you think non-Disney fans feel when they go? (muggles) And before you pull out that "Disney posts what rides etc. will be rehabbed, you should plan your trips accordingly" corporate nonsense.... have you seen what a mess and how far behind the official Disney site is? Plus some people by necessity must plan their trips years in advance, long before that rehab schedule that gets posted, and woe be to the one going to Disney park with no internet access to find these things out. And Disney has rarely stuck to actual rehab schedules lately (oh whats a few days/weeks behind schedule? who cares?) Small World was supposed to be open according to Disney themselves when we went.. it wasnt... why is that a big deal? Its one of my moms favorite rides, and she is getting up in years and not in the best of health this could have very well been her last Disneyland trip, so we planned with that in mind, we went according to Disney's schedule, but found out its impossible to plan anything according to their schedule. And they dont care they just spout that "subject to change without notice" crap, I don't think they even try with any conviction to reach their deadlines anymore.
It's all of these things: excluding people from areas of the park, being purposefully ambivalent about closures, and certaintinly not putting customers, ALL customers first, that leave many of us with a bad taste in our mouse. It's as if Disney is saying "Yadda Yadda we dont care about you we just want your wallet, now shut up and take what we give you." An extremely far cry from Walt's philosophy's that the company was founded upon: "treat every customer as a guest, a real VIP!"