PDA

View Full Version : EISNERland instead of DISNEYland?



Pages : [1] 2

80S ERA
06-01-2001, 08:43 AM
Everyone knows about the legacy of Walt Disney - the idealist, the risk taker, the unconventionalist, the genius...

But what if Michael Eisner started his own park in 1955?

Here's some possibilities:

1. No "attractions" - just carnival rides and movies
2. Parks would be 40% resturants, 55% shops, 4% shows, and 1% rides.
3. Tickets would be $43 (In 1955!)
4. Attendance would be low, and Eisner could blame the "bad weather."
5. The definition of "theming" would be - "Any excuse to bring in an off-the-shelf carnival ride."
6. Nothing would be painted, so maintenance costs could be kept to a minimum


Can't wait to see what others have to add.....;)

Corith
06-01-2001, 08:52 AM
Didn't Eisner built an amusment center (we can't use theme, because he doesn't understand that concept) in the past. Oh, yeah, he called them Carnivials. Or, was it Coney Island.

Eisner would waste a cent building anything even remoting like Disneyland. Disney's concepts are so alien to him that is feeble attempts to manage them only creates a slow disintegration pattern. Kinda like mold on cheese.

Nfatuated
06-01-2001, 09:40 AM
The sad thing is it has been almost 6 years since their has been a major attraction ( That Lasted) added. With really nothing set in stone for the future attendance will drop eventually. One of disneys key ingredients in years past was the ability to add excitement with new shows, attrctions, and parades, or the diassembly of parades(MSEP). Eisner needs to fork over some cash, bring back the subs, put in pooh and buzz and add another parade. By doing this Disneyland and the resort as a whole will have increased attendance. Disney now needs to realize DCA was a failure and it will take it at least 5 years to recover. During that Time D-land could recieve some positive PR while DCA slowly recovers

Napsto
06-01-2001, 09:41 AM
he as alost done a lot of great things as well. there are many rides that you can credit him for!!

Corith
06-01-2001, 09:42 AM
But that would mean addmitting failure. That he can't design a theme park better than some guy who been dead for over 30 years.

Al called right. DCA is going to be the herion monkey on DL back.

Corith
06-01-2001, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by Napsto
he as alost done a lot of great things as well. there are many rides that you can credit him for!!

Yeah. Light Magic, Stupid Star Limo, Inoventions, Zepher, Steps in Time, Honey I bored the Audience. Rocket Rods.

Did I miss anything?

80S ERA
06-01-2001, 10:33 AM
Done things right? I'll have to admit he "might" know a thing or two about running a BUSINESS...but not theme parks consistent with Walt's vision.

I cannot credit him for any of the rides, since they are designed by WDI. You CAN credit him / Pressler for slashing the budgets and limiting the Imagineers' great ideas. This is evident in failures like the RocketRods and Superstar Limo, where the rides turned out nothing like the way WDI designed them to be.

Corith
06-01-2001, 10:56 AM
I don't even think he knows a thing or two about running a business.

AgentLaRue
06-01-2001, 12:11 PM
I'm no Eisner fan and take issue with his prioritization of theme parks in the new Mega-Disney. But no matter my feelings towards those issues, you can't say he knows nothing about runninng a business.

When Eisner took over the company, it was positioned for a take-over given the de-valuation of its stock. That would have been disastrous, by anyone's standards. Since that time, the company has become more than fiscally sound.

You can criticize the man for his lack of understanding as to how theme parks (particularly Disney) should be operated, but saying he isn't a good businessman is quite the stretch. Most of the problems with the theme parks that people point out are a result of Eisner & Co. being TOO GOOD a businessman, keeping the bottom line too tight to properly invest in things most Disney fans feel should occur at the parks.

You can hate the man. Just do it for all the reasons that he deserves.

JeffG
06-01-2001, 12:18 PM
But what if Michael Eisner started his own park in 1955?

My guess is that there would be a lot of bathroom humor, gunfights and stuff blowing up, and all the other things that a typical 13-year-old would put into a theme park...

-Jeff

gppnj
06-01-2001, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by 80S ERA
This is evident in failures like the RocketRods and Superstar Limo, where the rides turned out nothing like the way WDI designed them to be.

What did WDI intend for these to be? I'd never heard.

80S ERA
06-01-2001, 12:47 PM
The Rods were supposed to be a faster ride with banked turns, similar to the popular (and also undependable) Test Track in Epcot Center. My source came from an article (don't remember which Mouseplanet writer posted it) right here on mouseplanet not too long ago. I'd have to check, but I remember it was an article on the Rods closing permanently...

Also, one doesn't have to look farther than the concept drawings of both rides in order to see some of the original intent of the designers.

TecTalker2K
06-01-2001, 01:08 PM
What we would have is an amusement park. One thing that Walt could do is create a show. He whole life revolved around producing. Unfortunately, he was a crappy bussiness man. If it was not for his brother, the place would not have been built. Heck, the only reason Disneyland got built was because Walt went to bed with ABC. Michael is the Bussiness man that knows a good show when he sees one. That is why he plans to buy the Muppets. Michael requires the right people to advise him and he does not have that anymore. He has a lot of love for the park but he has the rose colored glasses of the father of a son that is going bad. One of these days he will come around.. but... not until some major incident occurs.

Corith
06-01-2001, 01:24 PM
I disagree. Anti-Walt does only cares about money. He also is not making good business plans.

He continues to cut the funds for preventive maintenance. Preventing major damage is more cost effective than repairing.

He also is really unaware of his competition. Major amusement centers are developing interesting attractions that draw the public like moths to a flame. Anti-Walt is buying off the self junk that is available to every traveling carnival.

In his efforts to wring every penny out Disneyland, he's raised prices, flooded the park with roving vending carts, cut back on custodial, reduced the number and type of attractions. This creates a overpriced, unkempt, park that is not competitive. Poor business practice.

Now he's got DCA. Rather than admit he's misjudged or was unsuccessful in changing the demographics of California visitors (as opposed the Florida model), he pumping money in the DCA advertisements. Tryingn to force the public to accept his new park. He's too short sighted to see that getting people to park is not the problem, it is the entertainment to dollar ratio. One of the things I learned when taking my buisness classes is that you got to spend money to make money. Eisner cuts the costs on someting and it ends up costing him more than the orginal plan. He's dropping dollars to pick up nickels.

Eisner is no businessman.

AgentLaRue
06-01-2001, 01:40 PM
Corith, many of the factual matters contained in your response are good examples of why not to like the man, but they don't, at least yet, support the conclusion that he is a bad businessman.

1) Disneyland maintenance and investment: how you conclude Disneyland "is not competitive" today is completely unclear. Your criticisms of these elements is fair, but unless, and until, Disneyland's attendance or profit suffers as a result (which it hasn't), it's hard to ciriticize, from a purely business perspective, the level of funding for these things. You can dislike these things as a fan of the park (a point I fully agree with you on), but there is no connection to the conclusion that Eisner is a bad businessman. If attendance fails because of these things, fine. Until then, the conclusion is not supported.

2) DCA is a failure: this, too, has not come to bear. Only time will tell on this one. Five years from now, if DCA is going strong, you will simply be wrong that it was a bad business decision to phase in the park as is being done.

Again, don't get me wrong. Don't really like the man, particularly after he accepted his most recent bonus with no reduction or accounting for the lay-offs during the same period. But like him or not, he is one of the top CEO's in the country in terms of making profitable business decisions. It's just that you, like me and many others, resent the manner in which profit and penny-pinching has affected the things we love about Disney. If and when the majority of people feel the same and revenues are affected as a result, then it will be time to criticize the business end of things.

Corith
06-01-2001, 01:52 PM
I'll agree then that he just doesn't know how to run a theme park.

I still think that his lack of maintence is going to hit the company hard at some point in the future.

I also think that other parks develop cutting edge attractions that catching up is going to be very costly.

AgentLaRue
06-01-2001, 02:03 PM
Agreed! :D

80S ERA
06-01-2001, 02:04 PM
I'd have to agree with Corith about the other parks becoming the "standard." It was not too long ago that all the parks were coping Disney parks with their themes and detail oriented attractions. Now, it seems like the other way around!

Case in point: DCA. The theme is based on celebrating California's rich culture with a raft ride, seaside carnival and other lands. Want to hear a travel book's scoop on Knotts?

"Knotts is a theme park themed around the gold rush era of California and has a boardwalk reminicent of a seaside carnival...."

Sound familiar?

Disney should stick to building "Disney" parks instead of trying to be a Knott's or Magic Mountain. They shouldn't try to target the teen market - they aren't the ones willing to visit a winery or pay $43!

Just a reminder....I posted this thread hoping to get some good laughs! Let's try to lighten up, shall we?

TecTalker2K
06-01-2001, 03:15 PM
But has Disneyland ever been about cutting edge attractions? No... they have had normal everyday attractions that have been dressed and themed.

DisLee
06-01-2001, 03:56 PM
DCA should be renamed "Eisnerland" so people everywhere will know who brought us this anti-Disney monstrosity, oh I mean… brought us this 21st century visionary park of true creative genius…

Where do I get my stickers?

Corith
06-01-2001, 04:22 PM
Presslerland

He sold it to Eisner while they sat around drinking martinis as a corporate retreat.

Gemini Cricket
06-01-2001, 04:47 PM
I can see it now, the characters walking around in EisnerLand would be these suited business men with huge heads and near-sighted eyes who consistently tell park patrons, "We don't have the money to do anything with a grand scale and creative theme! But do visit one of our 500 gift shops!"

rmjo
06-01-2001, 08:25 PM
You have all made valid points. First, Eisner's initial success was due to several reasons.

1. He had Frank Wells running the parks, not Paul Pressler.
2. VHS video was just becoming incredibly popular at the time, allowing for a cash cow from the film vaults.
3. He did have contacts in the film industry, who contributed greatly to the renovation of the film productions.
4. In short, Disney was loaded with misapplied and underused or unused assets, which Eisner took advantage of.

He has, however, lost site of the goal of any well run company, that is that every asset is an investment, and the strength of a company lies in it's long term growth, it's people, it's good will, and it's product. I.e. Eisner is a short term thinker.
For example:
1. Rocket Rods was a failure, not because it was a poor concept, but because budget slashes during construction robbed it of key features, banked turns, inadequate track length, special effects, etc.
2. Maintenance in the parks has been cut to improve the bottom line (a short term profit), but leaves the infrastructure of the parks crippled. Other examples include things like bathroom repairs taking a week, repair of a video game taking 3-4 weeks, Monorails (especially at Disneyland) being cannibilized for parts or needing Overnight shipment of parts. The list is endless.
3. DCA, while not my first choice for a theme park concept, it can be workable if long term investment is applied. Added (non-film of Whoopi Goldberg) attractions that are THEMED, for example perhaps a "Listen to the Land boat ride equivilant for the Bountiful Valley Farm, or an autopia like farm tractor ride would improve the status of the park, rather than spending millions for a short term ad campaign that will only bring in limited numbers of guests who will still be disappointed.
4. Eisner ignores the goodwill aspect of the company. Not every ride is a "profitable" ride. For example in Florida, the Monorails are questionable due to high replacement and operating costs, but they are part of the atmosphere, that is unique to Disney and part of the vacation mentality and experience.

My central point is Eisner is a poor businessman, not because he seeks profit, but because he is so short sighted he is detroying the infrastructure of the company, through personnel cutbacks, the producing of poor product, both film and theme park wise, and he ultimately hurts the goodwill that this company needs. He is the ultimate example of "penny wise and pound foolish".

SimpTwister
06-01-2001, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by 80S ERA
I'd have to agree with Corith about the other parks becoming the "standard." It was not too long ago that all the parks were coping Disney parks with their themes and detail oriented attractions. Now, it seems like the other way around!




Disney-MGM Studios = Universal Studios Florida
Animal Kingdom = Busch Gardens Tampa
DCA = Knott's & Universal (with a touch of Santa Monica Pier)
Third Park will likely = Soak City & Hurricane Harbor

It's true, they are following rather than leading. Each of their last several US parks were obviously created specifically to steal visitors from existing competitors.

dghosthost
06-02-2001, 01:55 AM
Originally posted by TecTalker2K
. He has a lot of love for the park but he has the rose colored glasses of the father of a son that is going bad. One of these days he will come around.. but... not until some major incident occurs.

OMG! You have never seen Eisner at the park, have you? I did once and I tell you he didn't care one bit about the ground he was walking on. It was so 'business like' it made me ill.

A man was trying to sell him and Pressler on keeping the subs up and running and his mind was no where near the park. He looked like he couldn't wait to get out of there and go chat with the boys over drinks.

For a good laugh go here:

Dizney Unveils New Mascothttp://www.digitalmediafx.com/Animated/AprilFooldz01.gif (http://www.digitalmediafx.com/News2001/April/040101.html#2)