PDA

View Full Version : What would Walt do?



Pages : [1] 2

efoxx
11-01-2003, 11:15 AM
Ok here are the rules.

Walt just returned from a trip through the universe. He left in late 1966, and now he returns wanting a tour of his theme parks.

what does he, in your opinion, like or dislike?
what would he demand be changed?
what would he congradulate eisner on? (no really)

no comments about things that Walt wouldn't know about. what I mean by that is a direct comparison of the 1966 DL to the CURRENT DLR. so things like "bring back rocket rods" don't count as Walt wouldn't have seen them.

try to base your thoughts on what you know about Walt, not what you necc. like or dislike.

Main Street Magic
11-01-2003, 12:45 PM
OK....I'm going to try to stay away from what some people would expect to say here........and try to suggest a few ideas.

First, I believe that Walt would instigate more "plussing". By that I mean things such as bringing back the DL marching band (which also spun off into several smaller musical groups during the day) and more live entertainment interspersed among the attractions.

I think that he would appreciate how the florida parks has turned out, meaning that there are on-property resorts for people to stay in and that there is room for development. I remember hearing when I was a CM, that he was frustrated that the property around DL had been acquired by others and built on so that DL was hemmed in with nowhere to grow.

I believe that he would have thanked Eisner for pulling the company out when he did, and for going out into live theater.

sleepyjeff
11-01-2003, 07:57 PM
Walt Disney quotes in italics .

I think what I want Disneyland to be most of all is a happy place where adults and children can experience together some of the wonders of life...

Walt wanted his attractions to be things the whole family could experience together. Height checkers were NOT employed at Disneyland back in Walts time. Now we have rides that I don't think Walt would have built(or at least not built the way they were) such as Indiana Jones and the Temple of the Forbidden Eye; Splash Mt.; Big Thunder Mt.; Goofys Bounce House; Acorn Crawl; Space Mt.; Star Tours; etc. He got the idea for building Disneyland whilst watching his daughters ride a ride he could not ride with them on.

Disneyland is a work of love. We didn't go into Disneyland just with the idea of making money...

I think this statement speaks for itself. Walt only cared that Disneyland made enough money that he could continue to build. He was not consumed with amassing enormous wealth for the sake of wealth.

People sort of live in the dark about things. A lot of young people think the future is closed.........that is not so. There are still plenty of avenues to be explored.

Don't think Walt would be to happy about the current state of Tomorrowland.

In his final days Walt mentioned How he was most proud of how he kept the company private all these years. I don't have the exact quote. He would be most distressed to learn that it is now controlled by the whims of Wall St.

Even though he died a few months before I was born...I miss him:crying:

Lori
11-01-2003, 11:22 PM
He would smack Eisner on all of those awful sequals. Never mess with the classics.

And he would smack Eisner for cancelling Clerks: The Adimated Series. That was a great show!

Germboy
11-02-2003, 02:22 AM
I believe he would dislike what has happened with the Florida development. There was a video produced shortly before Walt's death that is circulating online. I would invite anyone to view it to get an idea of what Walt envisioned for Florida. It is not even a SHADOW of what he wanted. His idea for Epcot is just what the name means: An experimental prototype community of tomorrow. That is, a planned city where residents benefit from advances in technology. Vast, well-planned transportation systems were incorporated to get citizens from their homes to work. American industry was invited to locate their R&D headquarters there (like General Motors, General Electric, Monsanto, etc) so that there would be an interaction between industry and the public. This was meant to be the ultimate city where mayors and heads of state from around the world could come to witness the best of American urban planning.

Needless to say, the company dropped the ball. Yes, there is a small community there (that is so expensive, the average person could not afford to live). The emphasis on large innovative transportation systems is gone. The emphasis on attracting American industry to the area has been overlooked. And on and on. Do you see a single skyscraper in Epcot? The company lost the will. The Magic Kingdom is pretty much all that has survived the way Walt wanted it. The entire development has degenerated into amusement parks, golf courses, retail outlets, strip malls, and restaurants. Walt didn't want that.

Furthermore, I don't think he would have proceeded with the international properties in their present state. Take DL Paris. He would have chosen a location (England, Germany, Sweden, Spain, Italy, etc) that would not have been so vehemently opposed to "Americanism". There is no way he would have risked what the company did by establishing itself in France. Additionally, I don't believe he would have "sold out" to the Oriental Land Company in Japan--accepting "royalties" in exchange for little control over his own name. He also would not have expanded into China so rapidly that he could not afford to bring them a legitimate experience. Overall, I think that Walt, by the time of his death, had moved beyond amusement parks. He wanted to affect a change in communities themselves.

Don't even get me started on these movie "sequels"...what a joke. That is an outright admission by the company that they don't have what it takes to create something new.

He would have objected to "partnerships" with other competing companies (like "The Muppets", Warner Brothers etc.) Roger Rabbit (the movie and the ride) would never have been conceived.

Regressing to DL in Anaheim, he would have objected to DCA (except to maybe Soaring Over CA). He would have objected to the parking structure and the strip mall known as Downtown Disney. And he would have objected to almost all of the new rides added to the park after 1969. As was noted in earlier posts, he wanted rides in the park that could be experienced by EVERYONE regardless of age. Look at POC, HM, ATIS, subs, monorail, the train, the horseless carriage, Alice, IASW, Jungle Cruise, Tiki Room, CBJ, motorboats, Mission To The Moon, COP, etc . There is no doubt in my mind that he would have objected to the trend (beginning in the 70's) to build thrill rides and to the trend (beginning in the 90's) to build kiddy rides that only certain segments of the family could enjoy.

He would have objected strongly to the loss of patriotism in his parks, and the loss of quality control and creativity (overall) within the company. He would have detested the sense of hierarchy that pervades the company from the top down.

I have been trying to come up with something done by the company that Walt would have commended and I can think of very little. Many things that he would have approved of (MSEP comes to mind) have been altered or disbanded altogether. He would have been ecstatic over the new Disney concert hall in Downtown LA. He would have been proud about the high regard that the City of Anaheim has for his company. He would also have been proud that so many people "grew up" with him and still feel a warmth whenever his name is mentioned.

I want to end this with a disclaimer, however. When Walt came along, he was an original. There were no theme parks. He built his park as a mutually-exclusive alternative to whatever else was out there. Now, the company has been degraded to where it is COMPETING with whatever else is out there. It is no longer the trend-setter. You can't blame them though. They have lost what gave them their soul. Without that commanding presence, the company grapples around blindly, wondering exactly how it is that they might stay on top. Walt knew that. That's why he continued planning while he was on his deathbed. I don't think he saw a successor who had what it took to do what he did.

merlinjones
11-02-2003, 05:11 PM
Fire all those damn communists and bankers and get somethin' goin'.

wendybeth
11-02-2003, 07:00 PM
I doubt he would agree with the 50th anniversary plans for Disneyland- minimizing the emphasis on the original park and trying to turn it into a sort of universal Disney celebration. It is Disneyland's anniversary, not the other parks, or really even the company's....They owe a debt to Disneyland and it seems that by diluting the celebration, and the reason for the celebration, they are being disrespectful to Walt, his dreams, and his legacy. I think they would like nothing better than to remove the 'Walt' from Walt Disney; it must be exhausting trying to run a company founded on imagination and innovation when you've got rid of anyone with even a modicum of those qualities. That, and what Merlinjones said...:cool:

Germboy
11-02-2003, 11:48 PM
Aye, there's the rub, merlinjones! (says Hamlet...) You and I could be best friends...I just know it!

I didn't want to even START on the other thread about SM turning white because such explosive topics fill up my email box...but I must say...that part about the cat poo was hysterical! ha ha ha ha I've tried to think of descriptive adjectives for the SM paint color (like moldy, rusty gutter gratings for example), but I could never have thought up cat poo. You should be working for Hallmark!

I'm glad there are other likeminded people on this site. I'm thoroughly convinced that it is turning the company around. Little by little-- but BIG TIME. ;)

merlinjones
11-03-2003, 06:34 AM
>>I'm thoroughly convinced that it is turning the
company around. Little by little-- but BIG TIME.<<

From your mouth to Mickey's ears...

LegolandMC
11-03-2003, 06:40 AM
I just want to add my two cents in reponse to those who think that Walt wouldn't have built these "thrill" rides as it's a park to be enjoyed together....

I disagree! I believe he would have built them. Yes, the park is for everyone to enjoy together, and most attractions are in this classification, but I'm sure he would've wanted a few things for older guests to enjoy, because couples who don't have/don't bring their children are there to enjoy themselves together, too.

But aside from that, the main reason I think Walt would build these thrill rides.....he built the Matterhorn, didn't he??!! :rolleyes:

Germboy
11-03-2003, 09:34 AM
Announcing the new thrill ride!!! The Matterhorn!! No loops! Few hairpin turns! Top speed of an incredible 35 MPH!!!

Even ol' granny will want to sit THIS one out yuck yuck...might make her dang ol' teeth pop right outta her head.

Now, make sure your lap, shoulder, neck and head restraints are securely fastened. Keep your head against the back of the seat cause we don't want any whiplash lawsuits...

Couples without children enjoying themselves? I thought that's what ATIS, POC, and the HM were for?!? Stop the train!! I can't kiss her when you're going THAT fast :crying:

LegolandMC
11-03-2003, 12:11 PM
Not quite the enjoyment I was talking about, but hey, power to ya! ;)

sleepyjeff
11-03-2003, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by LegolandMC
I just want to add my two cents in reponse to those who think that Walt wouldn't have built these "thrill" rides as it's a park to be enjoyed together....

I disagree! I believe he would have built them.

But aside from that, the main reason I think Walt would build these thrill rides.....he built the Matterhorn, didn't he??!! :rolleyes:


The Matterhorn did NOT have a height requirement. Everyone from age 3 to 133 could ride. It was not quite as fast when Walt built it (only one car ie less weight). It was a borderline thrill ride. Still is, in my opinion. And this cannot be said enough....................Walt built Disneyland for F A M I L I E S. He was not against "couples without children"(although he probably was against people who had children and didn't bring them), but he wasn't catering to them either.

Take a look at what he did with Tom Sawyers Island.......children and adults can play together(try to do that in toon town).

Look what he did with Pirates of the Caribean...........a little thrill for teenagers(the water drop) but nothing that will scare the slippers off grandma.



"I think what I want Disneyland to be most of all is a happy place; a place where adults and children can experience together some of the wonders of life, of adventure, and feel better because of it." ----Walter E. Disney

LegolandMC
11-03-2003, 06:29 PM
The Matterhorn did not have a height requirement because they were not required when it was manufactured.

As for thrills, I'm sorry, but I think it's equal in thrills to Big Thunder or Space Mountain. All the coasters in DL are "borderline" thrills....that's why teens and the like would much rather go to Magic Mountain than DL for a good thrill.

CoasterMatt
11-03-2003, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by LegolandMC
The Matterhorn did not have a height requirement because they were not required when it was manufactured.

Actually, the no height requirement for Matterhorn was a matter of design. There were already plenty of coasters at non Disney parks by that time that DID have height requirements. Matterhorn was meant as a family attraction, and it still is today (albeit, now with a height restriction)

hazlnut
11-03-2003, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by merlinjones
Fire all those damn communists and bankers and get somethin' goin'.

by 'bankers' you mean?

sleepyjeff
11-03-2003, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by LegolandMC
The Matterhorn did not have a height requirement because they were not required when it was manufactured.

As for thrills, I'm sorry, but I think it's equal in thrills to Big Thunder or Space Mountain. All the coasters in DL are "borderline" thrills....that's why teens and the like would much rather go to Magic Mountain than DL for a good thrill.

Unless I am mistaken, the Matterhorn still has no height requirement. And though I will agree with you that the Matterhorn is every bit as thrilling as Space Mt. and Big Thunder( much more so right now) it does not have the whipping effect(side to side) as Big Thunder or the dropping effect that Space Mt. has.

The fact remains that Walt was not building rides that were age specific. Since the age of Walt, over half of all new attractions have been VERY age specific.

merlinjones
11-03-2003, 07:54 PM
>>by 'bankers' you mean?<<

Accountants. The sharp pencil boys. The gold-diggers. The bottom-liners, the left-brainers, the non-creatives. Those who see the value only in money and numbers - not in the ephemeral. Those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Those who horde it and won't spend it. The Uncle Scrooge McDucks. The guys who won't feed the birds. The guys who are ruining the company. The MBA's. The Mr. Banks, Mr. Darling, Aunt Polly Harrington, Mr. Dawes Sr, types. Those who can't see their past the end of their own noses. The 20% return on investment boys. You know, the 'bankers', as Walt may have called them.

hazlnut
11-03-2003, 08:20 PM
there are those (not me) who might say that Walt meant something else by the term 'bankers'

wendybeth
11-03-2003, 09:13 PM
Merlinjones-
Your definition of 'Bankers' would have made Sam Johnson proud.... I don't know you, but I really think you are great. You have livened up these boards with your concise and witty posts, and I for one appreciate them greatly!:) You ought to develope a dictionary for us Disneyphiles, I think it would be hilarious.....:cool:

merlinjones
11-03-2003, 09:19 PM
>>there are those (not me) who might say that Walt meant something else by the term 'bankers'<<

Then they would be missing the whole point, wouldn't they?

Maybe they could watch Mary Poppins.

(and thanks, Wendybeth)

Mr. Wiggins
11-03-2003, 10:41 PM
"As we head into the new fiscal year, the gradual improvement we saw in visitation during Q4 appears to be continuing in the first week of Q1. In Q4 of FY 03, attendance and rooms on the books at both of our domestic theme parks tracked ahead of prior year but as we reminded you in late July, we expect continued pressure on per cap admissions revenue due to such factors as stronger resident attendance, more annual passport attendance and various promotions we have discussed before. "

"Feed the birds and what've you got? Fat birds."

Pop quiz. The above statements were made by which people?

a. the fictitious head of the Bank of England
b. the actual head of Disneyland
c. any difference is irrelevant

Germboy
11-03-2003, 11:45 PM
What kills me is the phrase "Disney brand".

For example: "This will assure that our brand is well-placed to compete for market share." or "We will continue to leverage the Disney brand blah blah blah..." BRAND? Heinz is a brand of ketchup, Toshiba is a brand of television, Levelor is a brand of venetian blinds, Neptune is a brand of water meters. Disney brand of what? What on earth IS that?

And everyone in the company refers to it that way. From the top down. Greedy grubbies cowtowing to Wall St.. What a bunch of baloney.

What brand of Disney would you care for today? The Magic Mountain rip-off or the Warner Brothers sell-out brand? Both are charming in mouse ears!! (Just ignore that "Made In China" sticker on the bottom.)

Walt turns over again...poor man is never going to rest in peace.

LegolandMC
11-04-2003, 06:18 AM
Originally posted by CoasterMatt
Actually, the no height requirement for Matterhorn was a matter of design. There were already plenty of coasters at non Disney parks by that time that DID have height requirements. Matterhorn was meant as a family attraction, and it still is today (albeit, now with a height restriction)

If you notice what I said, I didn't say that height requirements didn't exist....I said that they weren't required....and they weren't. Now, it is California state law for the manufacturer to set a height requirement....but Matterhorn isn't affected because it's already been long built.

I'm not going to argue this. I just wanted to put in my two cents as to what I thought Walt would have wanted. None of us know for sure. :)

hazlnut
11-04-2003, 06:33 AM
Originally posted by merlinjones
Maybe they could watch Mary Poppins.

The first movie I ever saw in a theater and my favorite disney movie of all time.