PDA

View Full Version : LA Times Calendar Section



Darkbeer
08-25-2001, 09:38 AM
Full Page Ad on page F28 from Friday, August 24th.

"Walt's people invented the idea of an amusement park... They perfected it. They still do it best." Richard Corliss - TIME Magazine.


What a surprise I had, I was expecting to find them talking about Tokyo Disney Seas... but, NOOOO....

They were trying to plug DCA.

Wonder what quote they will use from the Downtown LA article???

And check out the wording at the bottom of the ad...

"All attractions and entertainment, prices, types and features of tickets, special offers and events, and age ranges may be seasonal and are subject to change without notice."

Age ranges.... what a great idea, come to the park, and we will lower (or increase) your age. No wonder, Elizabeth Taylor loves Disneyland :D

MMFan
08-25-2001, 12:19 PM
"Walt's people invented the idea of an amusement park... They perfected it. They still do it best." Richard Corliss - TIME Magazine.

The next DCA ad should contain the following quote:

"We're clueless in California." --- The Disney Company

9oldmen
08-25-2001, 05:45 PM
:confused:
I saw the ad too. It's funny, didn't amusement parks exist long before Walt, and didn't he resent the term "amusement park"? The money spent on that ad could have been put into a fund to pay for a new DCA E-ticket attraction.

merlinjones
08-25-2001, 09:46 PM
>>"Walt's people invented the idea of an amusement park... They perfected it. They still do it best." Richard Corliss - TIME Magazine. <<

I agree. Too bad none of them have any power at the Walt Disney Company.

merlinjones
08-25-2001, 09:51 PM
>>"Walt's people invented the idea of an amusement park... They perfected it. They still do it best." Richard Corliss - TIME Magazine. <<

Header for a full page ad in the Times?

Amusing how execs at the WDC can talk trash about Walt in meetings, yet still hide behind his name to market a park specifically not designed to his standards.

I guess Walt is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

JeffG
08-27-2001, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by merlinjones


Amusing how execs at the WDC can talk trash about Walt in meetings, yet still hide behind his name to market a park specifically not designed to his standards.


I take it you have been to a lot of meetings with WDC executives?

I'm constantly amazed by the amount of effort some people go to around here to try and make the company's executives look like some kind of snarling monsters with nothing better to do than to somehow destroy everything Walt Disney created.

If folks really have problems with the way Disney is currently run and would genuinely like to see changes made, a good first start would be to at least treat the company's management with some dignity and respect. Right now, I can't imagine the company's management looking at much of this as anything other than the rantings of fanatics.

-Jeff

Doodle Duck
08-27-2001, 09:17 AM
JeffG: "I'm constantly amazed by the amount of effort some people go to around here to try and make the company's executives look like some kind of snarling monsters with nothing better to do than to somehow destroy everything Walt Disney created."

1. This is why you only occasionally 'drop in' to comment about HOW we express our selves...rather predictable as I'm sure my posts are to you. I guess that's why 'we' are mostly 'here' (MP) and you are mostly 'there'. (LP)

JeffG: "If folks really have problems with the way Disney is currently run and would genuinely like to see changes made, a good first start would be to at least treat the company's management with some dignity and respect."

2. Feeling like I/we are not being treated with much respect other than for 'our' wallets does not really nurture the respect you ask for except that given to pickpockets. You dissagree. So what.

JeffG: "Right now, I can't imagine the company's management looking at much of this as anything other than the rantings of fanatics."

Please re-read response #1.

I'll bet I can guess who also will post a defensive response to this.


As to respect for the pin heads on a money grab, not a chance. They don't deserve it just because you say so.
Not these days.

Andrew
08-27-2001, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by DoodleDuck(A.E)
JeffG: "I'm constantly amazed by the amount of effort some people go to around here to try and make the company's executives look like some kind of snarling monsters with nothing better to do than to somehow destroy everything Walt Disney created."

1. This is why you only occasionally 'drop in' to comment about HOW we express our selves...rather predictable as I'm sure my posts are to you. I guess that's why 'we' are mostly 'here' (MP) and you are mostly 'there'. (LP)


BEEP! Moderator radar activated...

Folks, let's try to keep an even temper here. While we're happy to have you share your opinions, it's important to do so without personal statements.

Also, we try to discourage comparisons/discussions of other sites. They have their discussion boards, we have ours.

Thanks.

Corith
08-27-2001, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by JeffG
I'm constantly amazed by the amount of effort some people go to around here to try and make the company's executives look like some kind of snarling monsters with nothing better to do than to somehow destroy everything Walt Disney created.

Because the actions of Disney executives give us so much material to work with.

Snarling? No, more like wringing their hands at the thought of dollars pouring into anti-walt's money bin. I wonder if they swim around in it like Unca Scrooge?

merlinjones
08-27-2001, 10:31 AM
>>I take it you have been to a lot of meetings with WDC executives? <<

Yes. Countless. Over the course of the last fifteen years.

>>I'm constantly amazed by the amount of effort some people go to around here to try and make the company's executives look like some kind of snarling monsters with nothing better to do than to somehow destroy everything Walt Disney created.<<

It's no effort really.

They have plenty better to do, but political survival and upward mobility is more important in the current Disney corporate culture.

The personality types who survive in this very competitive and ruthless climate (to the point of power they could make a difference) generally lack the artistic sensitivites and populist empathy to understand what makes a good Disney product (or have abandoned their sensitivites to compete within the system). Artists are generally weak and non-confrontational and way too trusting to make it to these positions - - they are generally exploited by these personality types, then tossed aside (see the current doings at Feature Animation and Imagineering).

Many of these competitive executives are well-intentioned, but lack the ability (or power) to pull off superior product within the restrictions of finance and politics. Others have been fooled by the "common wisdom" of corporate culture into believeing that marketing/brand is the product itself and the bottom-line is all that counts - - a cynical mistake (or just a stupid one). Others sense what little personal insight they have into the Disney "thing" and become paranoid of being exposed, and so feel compelled eliminate anyone in their arena who might know better (particularly strong willed creatives). Some are just left brain business people who imagine themeselves to be right brained creatives (easy to do in a subjective arena, but rarely a successful ploy). Some are just awful greedy lying narcissicts who just want to consume all they can in life without giving an inch to anyone else (try to create a "win-win" compromise scenario with one of them - - not possible). Some are weak and swept away by the system - just apparatchiks ("go along, get along"), others are far more aggressive in their ignorance. There are even a few good ones.

Most seem to have the pulse of the business community, but not the general public. The reason many of them hate Walt so much (and make no mistake - from the top there is real anti-Walt, anti-Walt-product talk) is that there is not an understanding of what he acheived or stood for beyond the obvious - - Many didn't grow up in a "Disney" household and have little sense of functioning inner child (beyond the demanding narcissist, feed me now or I'll throw a fit type of inner child). Those with this view seem to actively dislike those who do have these qualities (or appreciate Walt and his product) as they impede the march to the bottom-line with their crazy rantings (much like the fans here).

Regardless of the varied personal motivations, clueless managemnt IS destroying what Walt created (degrading the "brand" in current shop-talk), intentionally or not.

>>If folks really have problems with the way Disney is currently run and would genuinely like to see changes made, a good first start would be to at least treat the company's management with some dignity and respect. <<

Respect is earned, not given-on-demand, a mistake made by the Disney corporate culture on a continual basis. Wonder why they never get it?

No changes will be made if you treat them with repect. They'll take that as approval.

>>Right now, I can't imagine the company's management looking at much of this as anything other than the rantings of fanatics.<<

Doesn't matter. From experience, their egos are so large they will continue to make the same mistakes until they self-destruct regardless of what anyone says.

It's easy to label dissenters "crazy" (and SO Machiavelli 1-A...), but ultimately when those opinions are echoed by the paying public (as with DCA and Atlantis) it would only behoove them to absorb the content of the criticism rather than veign offense. The fans and staff "purists" (as they have been derisively labelled) are usually just an exaggerated mirror of the response from the broad consumer - - and an early warning sign (as everyone has seen repeatedly online for the last several years). Those who have studied Walt Disney's work often most understand what "Disney" means to the masses. The only benefit of silencing the rantings (through placating, lying, or threatening) is getting away with more "policy" during the silence (a mangement technique used often with staff, and told to me by a former Disney exec).

The level of rhetoric used by the ranting fanatics is still kinder than common management techniques employed by the current Disney corporate culture. You reap what you sew.

Like George Banks inability to understand Mary Poppins, marketing and finance experts cannot make the business of Disney work without understanding that key spirit of youth and creativity and vision. This is the very essence (and salability) of Disney's traditional product. They can't do it without artists, storytellers, visionaries and quality product.

Unfortunately, unlike the movies, there is usually no way to enlighten those personality types with a spoonful of sugar or by playing the glad game.

Corith
08-27-2001, 10:35 AM
Thank you merlinjones, thank you very much for that excellent post.

Doodle Duck
08-27-2001, 10:39 AM
"BEEP! Moderator radar activated..."


What just one beep? I'm offended.
I'll do better next time.
Actually I used a very measured tone (for me)...
a 'house blend' so to speak.




And Merlin Jones...as usual...you did good kid...


Now doing my best Daffy Duck impression (which is GREAT btw!) I bounce off head first into the vast cuckoos nest of Raverania.

Like I said a few times...Klingons and Vulcans. Live long and prosper.

EandCDad
08-27-2001, 10:54 AM
No desire to get in the middle of this discussion. But if you want to read the article that this quote came from, you can find it here (http://www.canoe.ca/TimeCanada0102/19_time11.html)

Doodle Duck
08-27-2001, 11:00 AM
A fluffy poofy...'gee if I write really good stuff I'll get free tickets' kinda nice article. I used to make a living and get lots of free rides doing this kind of writing. More power to him/her who can pull it off.
However reader beware if it sounds like a brochure, it just might be.

Doodle Duck
08-27-2001, 11:32 AM
By the by:
Andrew say's to Doodle: "Also, we try to discourage comparisons/discussions of other sites."

And goes on to say: " They have their discussion boards, we have ours."

Doodle had said, to bring the above response...:

"I guess that's why 'we' are mostly 'here' (MP) and you are mostly 'there'. (LP)"


Uh...isn't that two birds that look like the same stone that was 6 of one and a 1/2 doz. of the other?

Where's the transgresion in that line? Just a statement of fact that you echoed. :D

Andrew
08-27-2001, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by DoodleDuck(A.E)
By the by:
Andrew say's to Doodle: "Also, we try to discourage comparisons/discussions of other sites."

And goes on to say: " They have their discussion boards, we have ours."

Doodle had said, to bring the above response...:

"I guess that's why 'we' are mostly 'here' (MP) and you are mostly 'there'. (LP)"


Uh...isn't that two birds that look like the same stone that was 6 of one and a 1/2 doz. of the other?

Where's the transgresion in that line? Just a statement of fact that you echoed. :D

Exactly. That's about how far we feel comfortable going. We don't want to turn into something that lives to bash other sites (or praise them as the case may be).

Alex S.
08-27-2001, 11:46 AM
Doodle, I think it is more the tone of exclusivity. That we over here post in one way on such topics and they over there post in another way on other topics.

It may not be what you meant but the way it comes off is "people who think X should go post elsewhere."

We moderators are the only ones who get to decide when it is time for someone else to go post elsewhere.

Doodle Duck
08-27-2001, 12:12 PM
I like Andrews better! :D


Alex...in NO WAY would I infer that or want to infer that!...it is a fact that there are differences on ALL boards as to demeanor and attitude and where people are coming from and going etc. VERY healthy when someone does post the occasional differing opinion...fun too. It is also healthy that people of similar opinion tend to group in the same puddle....(each keeping an eye open for 'tremor rings' of the T-Rex?)

And as we all know by now...'Doodles' just want to have Fuh-un..." etc.


Hopefully by now I do know the line and how thick/thin it is...but I think the advice is well intended and understood.

I'll wimp out. Jeeze. (but remain vigilant none the less)

merlinjones
08-29-2001, 08:10 AM
My "theory" is that someone sold management on the idea that the Disney "brand" would have to be redefined for the next century and that this shortsighted plan is not working.

What follows is an "imaginary tale" of what might have happened:

One can easily imagine a George Banks-like synergy executive - - immersed in a practical marketing-driven rationality, armed with speadsheets, polls, marketing surveys and social statistics (and really wanting to make an impact on his career) - - presenting management with the "proof" that their "old" characters and movies are out-of-step with the current generation's trends (as if this has not always been the case - - Disney's niche has always existed beyong time and trend, speaking to the inner, current and former child) and projecting their bias on the future of Disney-branded content. He might say that the brand is doomed unless it changes and becomes less childish, less driven by nostalgia, less driven by specific characters whose popularity tends to ebb and wane with consumers.

So the Disney brand should be redefined, he'd pitch: cease to mean Mickey Mouse to the consumer of the future, certainly break its ties with "the founder"

The top execs, always uncomfortable with the Walt Disney "thing" and unable to really understand the appeal of his work and having mined the traditional assets of the company beyond their limits, find this thinking meshes with their own concerns. On the corporate level, Disney must not just mean cartoons and theme parks, but network television, sports, independant films, real estate, family vacation destinations, all under the strong "brand" that is Disney with its strange magnetism in "fly over country".

The brand will be redefined to consumers to stand for family products and lifestyle (sort of a family Martha Stewart label or a cuddly Proctor and Gamble) rather than fun and fantasy and art and escapism. Reality would come to the Disney brand and change along with the culture (who are growing up earlier every year of course). Diversification is the word and losing the old baggage is the goal.

All the executives from all divisions would be summoned to a grand retreat where this new Disney would be born in their creative minds. They would be shown numbers that consumers buy the Disney name with an unparrallelled allegience and take little notice of the product (after all, they would condescend "these are people who shop at KMart and Target"). Maximizing profit would now be the key to this new Disney product, and the cranky, expensive, irrational, "magical thinking" old baggage of the leftovers of the Disney Studio (Animation and Imagineering) would have to be put aside to bring the true marketing reality of the Disney name to life!

The Executives would excitedly return to their business units and start the change: Deals would be made with Kmart, Penny's, et al to create generic Disney branded merchandise that is not character driven - - the Disney Stores would become more dependant on generic household items. Corporate tie-in housepaints and toothbrushes with Disney logos (rather than characters) would be typical of the new Disney Home product (which would be pushed by a new opening for the TV show in which the tyipical "home" is turned into a "castle" - - message? You dan't have to GO to Disney's Wonderful World, when you can live IN it).

Walt would be deemphasised as a filmaker and human being that once existed and turned more into a legendary Betty Crocker icon, his ideas on entertianment consigned to history, his name removed from films he worked on (Anchor Bay) or shortened from "Walt Disney's" to just "Disney's" (the latest 101 Dalmatians issue). Maybe even some tell-all books could be backed that helped to diminish this powerful old founder's image, so that the old Studio ideas would be minimized and stop holding us back (what would Walt do? will not be heard again around here! and current executives should not have to compete with his mythological image. It's unfair... after all he was not a nice man said the book!).

With the exception of the animated feature cash cows, the old Walt movies would be shown only after midnight where they would play to old folks and not infect the next generation with the old founder's ideas that have been so hard to get rid of (old corny stuff anyway). The Disney Channel and Radio would become "tween" market (they have a lot of disposable income) current lifesyle channels where Mickey and friends would never be seen and consumers could be reeducated on the new Disney. Formula video product (rather than creator driven "films") would be pumped out to milk the old feature characters and sold like soap at Target, heavily ladelled with a calculated, cloying emotionalism that should appeal to consumer nostalgia and milk existing product lines. Video and theatrical product would also be created that redefined the Disney name in the new market (Recess) and let go of its old (expensive and risky) artistic pretensions. New animated features would be made on a faster schedule, without the impractical attention to detail, art and character previously demanded by crazed, infantile purists ("no one who shops at Target will know anyway") and certainly without the stale old cartoonist sensibilities (Atlantis will be the new Disney!).

Theme parks (DCA) would be designed that threw out the impractical (and expensive) old environmental entertainment theories of the clueless purists to focus on merchandising (the "real" reason we are in business of couse!) and design a character free, brand driven park for the upscale, for the next generation. At existing parks stale old Walt rides would be ingnored, fall apart and quietly closed one by one, too expensive to maintain and too corny and old to appeal to the next generation (this is NOT a museum! It will never be completed....). These relics would be replaced by more profitable lifestyle shops.

The old stuff across the company, always sucessfully sold to the next generation (for the last seventy years) would not be marketedly heavily in the future, no new demand would be created. The profits would stay with the current, the new, the titles management has royalties on...

Better yet, let's just constructively fire or phase out all of the old pain-in-the-rear purists at the company. Imagineering can be done out of house, so can animation (much cheaper in China, look at Recess!). Those KMart shoppers will never know what hit them. If you build it, they will come.

The new Disney would be all about the brand (not the content or meaning)... and the consumer, unable to tell what's good anyway, would follow the Pied Piper of the Disney name into a sea of profits. With expanded profits, there will be more bonuses for all executives... if growth is not possible, cannibalization will be necessary to create growth on paper (and to preserve your bonus - - and perhaps your job). Don't worry about all the old rules of Disney - - they are a thing of the past. The brand will only be stronger when those that flog old theories leave the company.

All the building blocks of Mr, Banks plan have been put into effect, but what happened? The new Disney brand was on disconnect.

Could it be KMArt shoppers know something Mr. Banks does not? Could it be that Walt knew what he was doing after all? Could it be that there is no Disney brand without the things it stands for?

Mr. Banks could not see past the end of his nose to answer these illogical questions, and so just became very angry (and fired a few of his underlings).

Corith
08-29-2001, 09:25 AM
My goodness, merlinjones, if I didn't know better I swear you were there and that this "imaginary tale" is not so imaginary.

merlinjones
08-29-2001, 09:40 AM
>>My goodness, merlinjones, if I didn't know better I swear you were there and that this "imaginary tale" is not so imaginary.<<

Like all fables, there were likely many Mr. Banks and many schemes but the proof is in the product.

"A brand without meaning is simply a meaningless brand," said the Mad Hatter.

Doodle Duck
08-29-2001, 09:53 AM
George Banks is also alive and well at WB...
Merlin Jones you may be interested in the Superman Thread at General; Movies etc.


"A brand without meaning is simply a meaningless brand," said the Mad Hatter.
Quoting MJ

merlinjones
08-29-2001, 10:25 AM
>>George Banks is also alive and well at WB... Merlin Jones you may be interested in the Superman Thread at General; Movies etc. <<

Thanks, I'll check it out! - - I've had more than a few past-life experiences with Banks' collegues in the WB executive Legion of Doom. The lack of interest in costumes and in true heroes (reported by LA Times) is in the executive ranks and their spin, not the general public. The costumes have ALWAYS been corny, but the mythology is not. You have to beleive the fantasy in order to sell it (see Batman and Robin).

The anti-hero is their baby through sheer cynicism. Certain execs actually think Lobo is more relevant than Superman or Wonder Woman (...really!).

Richard Donner fought the same battles twenty years ago and won the point, but, just like Disney, there has been no learning curve there. Out with the old and in with the nihilistic.

The last laugh will be on the frog when Raimi's fully costumed Spider-Man proves the point yet again.

Up, up and away...