tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post7298251518775854677..comments2024-02-08T07:33:49.907-08:00Comments on Re-Imagineering: Thinking Inside the BoxMr Bankshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12952506736745891323noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-27036629287416035342007-09-26T11:22:00.000-07:002007-09-26T11:22:00.000-07:00Having worked in and with Imagineering for a coupl...Having worked in and with Imagineering for a couple of decades, I would add that Disney/MGM was originally supposed to be a half day park as envisioned by Eisner. He did recognize that the spreadsheeters did him in on it as well, but he did take the blame. I remember one system at Catastrophe Canyon went through seven redesigns to cut cost from $1.4 million down to less than $100,000. It was then retrofitted right before it opened to the tune of over a million it was so bad.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-31678041444489722282007-05-13T10:44:00.000-07:002007-05-13T10:44:00.000-07:00Firstly can I just point out that the United Kingd...Firstly can I just point out that the United Kingdom has the highest Movie going attendence in Europe and not France.<BR/><BR/>Now back onto the subject...<BR/>I personally think adding an attraction like Soarin to DSP(which is a major rumour) would be yet another disasterous mistake. Any attempt to make this attraction fit into the Studios theme would just not work IMO. (although I totally agree with the whole picking the 10 worst spots and re-imagining them bit)<BR/><BR/>What DSP needs is some seriously imersive themed areas and massive expansion. Even if what was there was fantastic there simply isn't enough room in this park for the amount of guests they want to visit.<BR/><BR/>I actually think they should close the park for a year or so (as someone suggested) and make Massive changes and improvements. How about moving Star tours to it's proper home at the studios? adding an Indiana Jones ride and whole lost river delta area? and would it really hurt them to build a damn lake?!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-86112897746643472322007-05-03T22:53:00.000-07:002007-05-03T22:53:00.000-07:00It's sweet and all that you are a fan of the parks...It's sweet and all that you are a fan of the parks of Disneyland Resort Paris. Without fans NONE of the parks would work. However you do not fully understand the scope of the situation or the mistakes that have been made.<BR/><BR/>It is OK to be critical of something you like very much. I would guess that most everyone who posts here (and I certainly fall into this category) LOVE the Disney parks. We are fans and because we are fans we want to see Disney do the very best they can.<BR/><BR/>Disney needs to be held to a high standard, they created the standard and it is up to them to uphold it. If we all close our eyes and just say "everything is great" then we will continue to get less and less.<BR/><BR/>Disney Studios Paris is a very, very poolry designed and executed park, and as a fan you more than anyone should be upset about that.Teevteehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18009538411830575506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-39954787270248476192007-05-03T04:47:00.000-07:002007-05-03T04:47:00.000-07:00Well I have the feeling that people are misunderst...Well I have the feeling that people are misunderstanding the great feeling of Disneyland Resort Paris here.<BR/><BR/>First of all, I guess Paris is the best location, Disney could have ever chosen. Maybe the weather is better now in Spain, but that's all. Paris is the center of Europe, and one of the most popular cities in the world. It has a great infrastructure, cheap ground and so on. <BR/>But there were many more reasons for France, I guess many of you didn't thought of. France's residents are the biggest movie-goers in europe, and so on for Disney a big bulge of income. <BR/>And the Disney family originally comes from France. It was first D'isigny. What means 'from Isigny', a little place at france. <BR/>But when the family was going to america the name slowly transformed into Disney. And next to that, Walt Disney himself has been in the Marne la Vallée region of France during his years in the First World War. It's now the place of Dlrp. <BR/><BR/>I'm living in the Netherlands (Holland). And I guess people in Europe are so different from Americans. Between France and Holland is only the little country Belgium. So we have to travel only 5 a 6 hours by car to Dlrp. For many people is it too far. So if Dlrp would have been in Spain, nobody here would go there. While the Netherlands are very positive to Disney, in difference with the French itself.<BR/><BR/>I guess Dlrp didn't have made many mistakes before opening. Allright it had some financial trouble in the beginning, but in 1996 they were making huge profits. It was expensive, but they got it all back with profit, so that's not the problem I guess. Next to the rules on food and wine, Dlrp was totally changed for the european people which made it a beautifful masterpiece. And the Hotels are doing well too. <BR/><BR/>But the price, that's the biggest problem of all. European people do like themeparks, but do not see it like a vacation or something and don't want to pay a lot for it. <BR/><BR/><BR/>People who come from far are using the hotels. But the prices are to expansive. And with that huge prices, high ticket-costs, the expensive food-drink and merchandising + the costs to travel, it's for many people a no-go. For the money of a 4-day trip to Disneyland Resort Paris, you can go 3 weeks on vacation to a very hot and far country. And that's what many people think.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I'm a big fan of Disneyland Resort paris. But I know Walt Disney Studio's Parc (WDS) isn't doing very well. Despite of many others I like the parc very well. When you're doing all attractions, and see the parades you can stay there for a full day. With much fun. It has some great attractions (although there are not many) but I love it. <BR/><BR/>The thing most of the people do not like is the theme. 'A real working studio'. That's the problem of the park. The visitors want magic, and no real looking studio-areas. In the original context it's very well designed.<BR/>I'm feeling a future when I walk there. It's small but you can feel it's going to be a very succesful and beautifull theme-park. <BR/><BR/>and because there isn't standing so much, the mistakes can be easily set right. And that's what they are doing. The Toon Studio's area is going to be wonderfull, very well designed. And has 2 new, and great attractions, which are going to be very succesfull. And with the adding the Tower of Terror and a hollywood-boulevard street, the hub will sparkle as never before. The tower of Terror will be beautifful. It is almost the same as Dca's TOT. <BR/>But he's original designed for WDS, it had to be build years ago, but because of financial troubles it had to wait. So DCA went a away with it.<BR/><BR/>I know for sure WDS will going to do it much better after these additions. Let's hope TOT is going to be the Space Mountain of WDS. <BR/>In the future I see many other parts of WDS improve and new attractions to come. <BR/><BR/>I believe that not WDS is the cause of the financial troubles, but the 9/11 attacks and the royalties they had to pay for Disney Copyrights. <BR/><BR/>But I guess Dlrp is going to shine again very soon. Better then ever beforeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-17939066730091440122007-04-29T07:57:00.000-07:002007-04-29T07:57:00.000-07:00I think the previous poster meant to be saying DSP...I think the previous poster meant to be saying DSP (Disney Studios Paris) and NOT DLP (Disneyland Paris). For DLP is every bit as detailed and themed as the poster wished it was. Budget was certainly NOT a problem when building DLP (though to some extent where that money was spent certainly was an issue).<BR/><BR/>Conversely DSP (the studios) was poorly budgeted at features NONE of the halmark Disney design elements.<BR/><BR/>The poster makes a valid point that it is too late to go back and that they are not going to tear the place down, so it is all water under the bridge and you need to move forward now. However I wonder if he or she has ever been to the DSP park because it is such a mess that turning it around sure seems a near impossible feat.Teevteehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18009538411830575506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-88387915046759129252007-04-29T04:21:00.000-07:002007-04-29T04:21:00.000-07:00One stockholder weighing in:Spain is water over th...One stockholder weighing in:<BR/><BR/>Spain is water over the damn; gutting DLP and starting over is unrealistic. Positive thinking is called for now. Incremental infusions of excellence could, over time, turn the tide.<BR/><BR/>A friend of mine who designed for Disney over a period of some 30 years described a Disney process which involved imaginatively standing at various points in a planned indoor or outdoor environment and visualizing exactly what would be seen in <I>every</I> direction. The object was to give serious design thought to every view and detail seen from every point in the project.<BR/><BR/>The resulting intricacy and excellence of detail became a Disney hallmark.<BR/><BR/>Some ride models can, of course, be constructed at shoulder height, so that the "track" or passage area can accommodate a human head, and thus an individual can walk under and through the model getting some sense of what the ultimate visual experience will be.<BR/><BR/>What isn't excellent at DLP can be improved, and this kind of thinking can help.<BR/><BR/>Clearly, careful, creative, quality design costs money. Disney's original theme park successes resulted from substantial up-front funding for detailed artistry and superb craftsmanship. Everything was "plussed." No cheap short-cuts. It DOES take money to make money, and DLP was clearly built w/o sufficient funding.<BR/><BR/>But the "excessive" up-front funds spent on the great original E-Ticket experiences - Pirates, Small World, Haunted Mansion - have been paying dividends for decades!<BR/><BR/>DLP needs quality:<BR/><BR/>No cut-outs when three-dimensional detail would add substantial value. No more buildings which are not architecturally exceptional, "over the top," highly detailed (perhaps designed with Main Street forced perspective) and beautifully lighted after dark. No period drapery without lots of fullness, fringe and tassels. No lighting fixtures which are not expressly suited or designed for their specific location and setting. No wall coverings or woodwork less than extravagant; no exterior areas without fountains, waterfalls, or other exotic water features.<BR/><BR/>Yes, a "studio" should reflect some of the gritty "behind-the-scenes" technology. But the grit only works if it is interestingly contrasted with the glamour and glitz which is essential to the "silver screen."<BR/><BR/>Incremental additions of excellence could, over time, turn the tide, but you have to start somewhere.<BR/><BR/>My approach would be to select the ten ugliest, most poorly conceived and cheaply executed areas or single failed features in the park and allot sufficient budget and Imagineering magic to turn each into an outstanding asset. <BR/><BR/>(Park guests -- or readers of these pages! -- could be queried for lists of the "TEN MOST DISMAL FEATURES OF DLP." I suspect the citations would be numerous.)<BR/><BR/>Imagineering teams might be organized to compete with suggestions for changes, within a (generous) proposed budget for each problem area or project.<BR/><BR/>Turn a few ugly carbuncles into gems and soon the whole character and atmosphere of the park can begin to improve.<BR/><BR/>The addition of two recent high-quality E-Ticket attractions would be a major move: "Mickey's (3-D) Philharmagic" film and the excellent "Soarin'" ride - although it would be nice to have "Soarin' Over France" or Europe or "Over the World" rather than just California. However, until the alternate films are added to the repertory, CA might be acceptable as the locus of Hollywood and the Disney Studio Enterprise.<BR/><BR/>Both of these attractions can be enjoyed more than once, and they would add considerable "plussing" to the park - provided they can be housed in buildings which are, in themselves, designed and detailed as works of wonderment, not just mundane make-shift industrial sheds.<BR/><BR/>DLP wasn't built in a day, and it won't be turned around in a day, but smart moves can get the process underway. Disney doesn't need to ignore the "bottom line," it needs to TAKE A SERIOUS LOOK at the bottom line and at quality investments which will pay off handsomely by increasing park attendance.<BR/><BR/>Anyone listening? Bob Iger?theatremanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04803823338652745012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-60243973583261792452007-04-28T21:49:00.000-07:002007-04-28T21:49:00.000-07:00One stockholder weighing in:Spain is water over th...One stockholder weighing in:<BR/><BR/>Spain is water over the damn; gutting DLP and starting over is unrealistic. Positive thinking is called for now. Incremental infusions of excellence could, over time, turn the tide.<BR/><BR/>A friend of mine who designed for Disney over a period of some 30 years described a Disney process which involved imaginatively standing at various points in a planned indoor or outdoor environment and visualizing exactly what would be seen in <I>every</I> direction. The object was to give serious design thought to every view and detail seen from every point in the project.<BR/><BR/>The resulting intricacy and excellence of detail became a Disney hallmark.<BR/><BR/>Some ride models can, of course, be constructed at shoulder height, so that the “track” or passage area can accommodate a human head, and thus an individual can walk under and through the model getting some sense of what the ultimate visual experience will be.<BR/><BR/>What isn’t excellent at DLP can be improved, and this kind of thinking can help.<BR/><BR/>Clearly, careful, creative, quality design costs money. Disney’s original theme park successes resulted from substantial up-front funding for detailed artistry and superb craftsmanship. Everything was “plussed.” No cheap short-cuts. It DOES take money to make money, and DLP was clearly built w/o sufficient funding.<BR/><BR/>But the “excessive” up-front funds spent on the great original E-Ticket experiences – Pirates, Small World, Haunted Mansion - have been paying dividends for decades!<BR/><BR/>DLP needs quality:<BR/><BR/>No cut-outs when three-dimensional detail would add substantial value. No more buildings which are not architecturally exceptional, “over the top,” highly detailed (perhaps designed with Main Street forced perspective) and beautifully lighted after dark. No period drapery without lots of fullness, fringe and tassels. No lighting fixtures which are not expressly suited or designed for their specific location and setting. No wall coverings or woodwork less than extravagant; no exterior areas without fountains, waterfalls, or other exotic water features.<BR/><BR/>Yes, a “studio” should reflect some of the gritty “behind-the-scenes” technology. But the grit only works if it is interestingly contrasted with the glamour and glitz which is essential to the “silver screen.”<BR/><BR/>Incremental additions of excellence could, over time, turn the tide, but you have to start somewhere.<BR/><BR/>My approach would be to select the ten ugliest, most poorly conceived and cheaply executed areas or single failed features in the park and allot sufficient budget and Imagineering magic to turn each into an outstanding asset. <BR/><BR/>(Park guests -- or readers of these pages! -- could be queried for lists of the "TEN MOST DISMAL FEATURES OF DLP." I suspect the citations would be numerous.)<BR/><BR/>Imagineering teams might be organized to compete with suggestions for changes, within a (generous) proposed budget for each problem area or project.<BR/><BR/>Turn a few ugly carbuncles into gems and soon the whole character and atmosphere of the park can begin to improve.<BR/><BR/>The addition of two recent high-quality E-Ticket attractions would be a major move: "Mickey’s (3-D) Philharmagic" film and the excellent "Soarin’" ride – although it would be nice to have “Soarin’ Over France" or Europe or “Over the World” rather than just California. However, until the alternate films are added to the repertory, CA might be acceptable as the locus of Hollywood and the Disney Studio Enterprise.<BR/><BR/>Both of these attractions can be enjoyed more than once, and they would add considerable “plussing” to the park – provided they can be housed in buildings which are, in themselves, designed and detailed as works of wonderment, not just mundane make-shift industrial sheds.<BR/><BR/>DLP wasn’t built in a day, and it won’t be turned around in a day, but smart moves can get the process underway. Disney doesn’t need to ignore the “bottom line,” it needs to TAKE A SERIOUS LOOK at the bottom line and at quality investments which will pay off handsomely by increasing park attendance.<BR/><BR/>Anyone listening? Bob Iger?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-59233022495632475282007-04-28T21:48:00.000-07:002007-04-28T21:48:00.000-07:00One stockholder weighing in:Spain is water over th...One stockholder weighing in:<BR/><BR/>Spain is water over the damn; gutting DLP and starting over is unrealistic. Positive thinking is called for now. Incremental infusions of excellence could, over time, turn the tide.<BR/><BR/>A friend of mine who designed for Disney over a period of some 30 years described a Disney process which involved imaginatively standing at various points in a planned indoor or outdoor environment and visualizing exactly what would be seen in <I>every</I> direction. The object was to give serious design thought to every view and detail seen from every point in the project.<BR/><BR/>The resulting intricacy and excellence of detail became a Disney hallmark.<BR/><BR/>Some ride models can, of course, be constructed at shoulder height, so that the “track” or passage area can accommodate a human head, and thus an individual can walk under and through the model getting some sense of what the ultimate visual experience will be.<BR/><BR/>What isn’t excellent at DLP can be improved, and this kind of thinking can help.<BR/><BR/>Clearly, careful, creative, quality design costs money. Disney’s original theme park successes resulted from substantial up-front funding for detailed artistry and superb craftsmanship. Everything was “plussed.” No cheap short-cuts. It DOES take money to make money, and DLP was clearly built w/o sufficient funding.<BR/><BR/>But the “excessive” up-front funds spent on the great original E-Ticket experiences – Pirates, Small World, Haunted Mansion - have been paying dividends for decades!<BR/><BR/>DLP needs quality:<BR/><BR/>No cut-outs when three-dimensional detail would add substantial value. No more buildings which are not architecturally exceptional, “over the top,” highly detailed (perhaps designed with Main Street forced perspective) and beautifully lighted after dark. No period drapery without lots of fullness, fringe and tassels. No lighting fixtures which are not expressly suited or designed for their specific location and setting. No wall coverings or woodwork less than extravagant; no exterior areas without fountains, waterfalls, or other exotic water features.<BR/><BR/>Yes, a “studio” should reflect some of the gritty “behind-the-scenes” technology. But the grit only works if it is interestingly contrasted with the glamour and glitz which is essential to the “silver screen.”<BR/><BR/>Incremental additions of excellence could, over time, turn the tide, but you have to start somewhere.<BR/><BR/>My approach would be to select the ten ugliest, most poorly conceived and cheaply executed areas or single failed features in the park and allot sufficient budget and Imagineering magic to turn each into an outstanding asset. <BR/><BR/>(Park guests -- or readers of these pages! -- could be queried for lists of the "TEN MOST DISMAL FEATURES OF DLP." I suspect the citations would be numerous.)<BR/><BR/>Imagineering teams might be organized to compete with suggestions for changes, within a (generous) proposed budget for each problem area or project.<BR/><BR/>Turn a few ugly carbuncles into gems and soon the whole character and atmosphere of the park can begin to improve.<BR/><BR/>The addition of two recent high-quality E-Ticket attractions would be a major move: "Mickey’s (3-D) Philharmagic" film and the excellent "Soarin’" ride – although it would be nice to have “Soarin’ Over France" or Europe or “Over the World” rather than just California. However, until the alternate films are added to the repertory, CA might be acceptable as the locus of Hollywood and the Disney Studio Enterprise.<BR/><BR/>Both of these attractions can be enjoyed more than once, and they would add considerable “plussing” to the park – provided they can be housed in buildings which are, in themselves, designed and detailed as works of wonderment, not just mundane make-shift industrial sheds.<BR/><BR/>DLP wasn’t built in a day, and it won’t be turned around in a day, but smart moves can get the process underway. Disney doesn’t need to ignore the “bottom line,” it needs to TAKE A SERIOUS LOOK at the bottom line and at quality investments which will pay off handsomely by increasing park attendance.<BR/><BR/>Anyone listening? Bob Iger?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-21084784445170641032007-04-28T08:06:00.000-07:002007-04-28T08:06:00.000-07:00"Is this place still designed by Imagineers or did...<I>"Is this place still designed by Imagineers or did Wal-Mart buy the joint?"</I><BR/><BR/>*snort*hack*cough*<BR/><BR/>Consuming hot beverages while enjoying McNair's punditry should be cautioned against. But in a good way!<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>As for thinking inside /outside the box. I lost track of my box years ago and now assist all sorts of corporate groups imagine and invent remarkable futures.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm guessing that certain "corporate groups" in Burbank and Glendale aren't included. Sucks.<BR/><BR/>How sad to realize, McNair, that your past experience with the "imagination/engineering" process is now of value to corporations <I>except</I> the one which essentially invented it. <BR/><BR/><I>WED-WAS</I> indeed.judihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15415067631504911897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-74914361035920666522007-04-27T15:41:00.000-07:002007-04-27T15:41:00.000-07:00Oh, the hat even more so than the wand (but just b...Oh, the hat even more so than the wand (but just barely) is the single worst addition to the parks the company has ever done. It is a CLEAR sign of losing tough but once again (and this is important) was a marketig driven move, not a creative one. No one at WDI said "I have a great idea. Lets destory the park with a big cheap hat!". <BR/><BR/>Lastly, before you give up totally on the creative power at WDI take a visit to Tokyo Disney Sea, it puts things back into perspective.Teevteehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18009538411830575506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-52963446169436163372007-04-27T12:12:00.000-07:002007-04-27T12:12:00.000-07:00McNair! It's nice to see I wasn't alone in my proa...McNair! It's nice to see I wasn't alone in my proactive disdain for the Sorcerer's Hat. The moment I saw it at the end of the boulevard, blocking the intricate Chinese Theater, I went ballistic, spending much of the day asking cast members who was responsible and how long that hideous hat was to remain there. The answers were only more infuriating; three years at least with no end in sight. I came close to registering an official complaint, but gave up. Infact, that was the day I believe I gave up on the whole Disney Theme Park enterprise. <BR/><BR/>That was years ago. And today- the hat, the wand, the out of touch executives are still there.<BR/><BR/>Thank you, anyway, McNair, for your vocal disapproval at the time. Every little bit helps...I hope.Mr Bankshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12952506736745891323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-22147105562576279302007-04-27T11:57:00.000-07:002007-04-27T11:57:00.000-07:00Visited Disneyland Paris (for the first time) just...Visited Disneyland Paris (for the first time) just last year and loved the Magic Kingdom, was STUNNED by the Studio "Park." As a former Disney Imagineer (1985 - 91) the only hope was the big hole in France that was going to be Tower of Terror. I was lead on the project team that created what became the first "TOT". It began life as the "Mel Brooks Hollywood Horror Hotel" (full sroy on TowerOfTerro.org) It was to be the 1990s version of the Haunted Mansion with lots of fear-making using all the new technologies. We didn't get any of the scary floors full of weird and fun gags and effects, but I did get the right answer to "Can we drop an elevator filled with guests off the 13th floor." They're not doing that kind of dreaming any more at WDI--of as I like to call it "WED-WAS." Better stated, WED-AIN'T. <BR/><BR/>When they plopped the big Sorceror's Apprentice hat in front of the Chinese theatre in Florida, I started not caring. (Well, right after I went to Guest Services and complained in a very loud, so-the-whole-room-could-hear-me, voice. "Is this place still designed by Imagineers or did Wal-Mart buy the joint?" was my opening salvo. I talked to two managers and the "Officer of the Day" for Park operations. "What's the name of the Vice President of Not-Giving-a-Damn?" I asked. They gave me a woman's name. I wrote and said she got it half right. The Horrible Hat should have been in front (just outside) of the Main gate as a grand entrance and the last stop-and-shop when exiting. It would be a good way to direct guest to the night time disaster, "Fantasmic" ("The wet dream for the whole family." Where else do we find the suffix "asmic"?)<BR/><BR/>Appreciate what you folks are trying to do. If you go to Forest Lawn cemetery in LA you can see that they have had to re-position Walt's grave marker several times as he rolls father and farther down the hill. <BR/><BR/>As for thinking inside /outside the box. I lost track of my box years ago and now assist all sorts of corporate groups imagine and invent remarkable futures.<BR/><BR/>Onward & upward!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-87950442516366402432007-04-26T14:23:00.000-07:002007-04-26T14:23:00.000-07:00Jeff:I could see the people running DSP saying of ...Jeff:<BR/><BR/>I could see the people running DSP saying of your post "With friends like that who needs enemies!"<BR/><BR/>In your defense of the park you called it "ugly", said you were "unimpressed", mentioned that the exteriors were "horrible" and wondered where the themed elements such as buildings or water features were. This is not exactly a ringing edorsement. With proponetnts of the park saying stuff like that imagine what a critic might have to say!<BR/><BR/>You also need to understand that there is a big difference between discussing the park in an honest and realistic manner and "whinning". I don't think anyone is whinning here, rather we are being brutally honest. WDS is such a mess that even the most brain washed DIsney fan would have to aknowledge that there is MUCH more wrong with it than there is right... a LOT more.<BR/><BR/>I can appreciate your points though. For example DCA gets all sorts of negative press (most of it deserved) but it does have some truly nice spots, well themed areas and fun attractions. There is a ton wrong with the place but you see glimmers of hope. Those glimmers simply do not exist at DSP, a park so devoid of charm, wit or style that The Rain Forest Cafe puts it to shame (and that is a truly damning thought).<BR/><BR/>One point of your that I agree with 100% is that people who have not been there have no right to complain about it. Perhpas general comments can be made but unless someone has set foot in the park they have no right to really comment on wether it works or not. Alas I also noticed that you called the glass canopy over Main Street in TDL (a structure most people find quite striking) "ugly". Now I am assuming you have been to Tokyo Disneyland correct? Otherwise you are being hypocritical and are guilty of exactly what you are complaining about.<BR/><BR/>For the record I have been to every Disney park, in fact I have been to each of them on multiple occasions (except for Hong Kong which I have only made one visit to). I have spent multiple days in every park (including HK). I have seen every attractions currently running at each park (save for the autopia at HK which was not yet running while I visited). I have been in the stateside parks more than I can count and I have spent an accumulated several weeks each in most of the others. I also used to be a cast member a long time ago (80's) when I was younger. So at least you know that the opinions I state are based on my honest and personal experiences.<BR/><BR/>DSP has pretty much nothing of merit in my mind, the few things it does OK are destroyed by other mitigating factors. Cinemagique is a great example. The axtual filmed movie is done well enough, it is mildly entertaining, but the venue it is presented in is such a total mess, an uncomfortable, ugly mess in fact, that is destroys any positive experience one may have had. The parks offerings range from truly aweful to barely passable... with the high points being merely OK. You must realize (and prior to this park Disney always has known) that a good park experience is made up of a LOT more than the attractions themselves. It is about creating compelling settings and environments for each attraction to live in. They support each other. If you take away one you destroy the other. DSP has no environment to speak of other than gray concrete and beige paint and so any attraction held within it will suffer.<BR/><BR/>Since you missed them let me help you out. The tram tour is a simplified, shortened version of that found at Disney/MGM. It has one addition (that of a ridiculous bombed out London "set" tied in to the failed Dianey movie "Dragonfire") whch calls attention to istelf by it's absolute and complete awefulness. Armeggedon would feel much more at hom at Universal Studios than at Disney. It has no charm or warmth and even lacks any true bombastic thrill as well. It is in essence a dull and simplified version of the Universal attraction "BackDraft" only set on a space station set... not horrible but far from good.<BR/><BR/>I appreciate the idea of defending something from unfair attacks, but this park does not deserve being defended, it is just not good and has taken a struggling park and sunk it into an even deeper finacial hole.<BR/><BR/>Liek you I hope that the placemaking efforts help, but it is a real shame they put themselves in this position to begin with.Teevteehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18009538411830575506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-19910127826074720042007-04-26T09:24:00.000-07:002007-04-26T09:24:00.000-07:00Everyone whines and whines about how it's hands-do...Everyone whines and whines about how it's hands-down he worst Disney theme park ever built... and they may be right, but what makes hearing that so frustrating for me is that NOT everything is horrible! Much like what happened with DCA's opening, there are some amazing things at WDS that are being unfairly dragged into the gutter with everything else.<BR/><BR/>As such, I'm glad some of you who commented are Europeans or are at least Americans who have been to Paris yourselves... so hopefully you'll agree with me in some way or another.<BR/><BR/>Being a Disneyland Cast Member myself for over five years, I was SO excited to go to Paris a couple years ago. And I had a LOT of great things to say about my trip.<BR/><BR/>We walked into WDS rather unimpressed by the cement entry courtyard, but I thought Studio 1 was a GREAT way to reinvent a 'sheltered Main Street' without building another ugly rooftop like Tokyo Disneyland has.<BR/><BR/>It was once we walked through and found our way into WDS' central plaza... which isn't really a plaza, is it?<BR/><BR/>Most of the place simply looks ugly, and that was what was most disconcerting for me.<BR/><BR/>I absolutely LOVED the Animagique show, the Cinemagique film, and the Moteurs Action show... but the buildings themselves were atrocious and did no justice to the excellent things that were unfortunate enough to be housed inside such ugly walls. Where were the themed buildings?<BR/><BR/>Obviously studio soundstages aren't "pretty," but we don't have to know that! Aside from the tiny film-strip parade route, where was all the pretty pavement? Where was the random lagoon... or ANY water feature?<BR/><BR/>This is why I was SO glad to read about the Placemaking projects that are more or less taking over that park now -- because I really liked most of the WDS attractions (we didn't make it to Armageddon or the Tram Tour though) and entertainment...<BR/><BR/>...but everything OUTSIDE was horrible to look at and managed to shatter the great feelings I had just gotten from watching Animagique or Cinemagique or Moteurs, you know?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-6537692387321882302007-04-26T09:11:00.000-07:002007-04-26T09:11:00.000-07:00Well Tongaroa just summed it up very well.People o...Well Tongaroa just summed it up very well.<BR/><BR/>People on blogs and fan sites often lack any sense of perspective. They either have not been around long enough to understand the big picture or they use anictdotal evidence to support inaccurate points. The hotel situation at DLP is a perfect example. It does not matter that a visitor was turned away because the hotels were full, that is missing the large picture. In reality prices have been SLASHED to make the rooms cheap enough to actually attract guests and the hotels have dragged the resort into such long term debt that it is far too little too late. In fact arguing that the hotels were not one of the major reasons of the parks failure is just turning a blind eye to the facts, or simply not understanding the history of the resort to begin with.<BR/><BR/>Same goes with the Paris vs. Spain argument. I thnk compelling arguments can be made for both areas and I am not so sure that there is an absolute black and white correct answer to this question. However it is clear that Spain would have been superior on atleast some levels and saying that "Paris was best" is again not quite understanding all the factors at work here.<BR/><BR/>One thing that I think can be agreed on is that the resorts ongoing failure can be blamed on gross misunderstanding of what was needed time and time again. At almost every major turning poiunt the wrong decisions were made, and in spectacular fashion.Teevteehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18009538411830575506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-64335075266421118842007-04-25T21:26:00.000-07:002007-04-25T21:26:00.000-07:00In response to the statements about the number of ...In response to the statements about the number of hotel rooms being suitable, I’d like to point out that when Euro Disney opened in 1992, entire hotels were closed down (and wings of others) due to lack of demand. The debt from creating these hotels has not been paid off after 15 years. It’s hard to argue that they were a good investment. Full rooms are not indicative that the hotels are successful if the original pricepoint is not being met. After all, over 5 million people a year visit DCA, but how many pay full price? Attendance means very little as a solitary figure. <BR/><BR/>With regard to France v. Spain. I’m still voting for the Mediterranean climate as the best place to create an outdoor entertainment experience. The argument that Paris draws more people than the Mediterranean and has better public transportation doesn't fly with me. I also think WDW is more successful in Orlando than it would have been in New York. Walt Disney World is a destination resort because it does not compete with a large city close by. I’m siding with the 80+ years of Disney experience brought to the table by Dick Nunis and Jim Cora over Eisner's superficial reasons for picking Paris. I just don’t think anyone can argue that Euro Disney was a financial success in 1992. Plus the fact that 60% of the guests at DLP are French is a sign of failure. Remember Disney was trying to create a destination resort that attracted people from all over Europe. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Arguing that people in Europe wont travel a significant distance to visit a Disney park or that Europeans don’t have enough disposable income does not support France over Span. It does suggest the park should not have been built at all...but that is another point all together. <BR/><BR/>One more thing. We do know that people within WDI and Corp Disney read the blog. No, we have not seen any direct results, but we are hopeful.Tongaroahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01456743904698992536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-89248166458142350442007-04-25T21:17:00.000-07:002007-04-25T21:17:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Tongaroahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01456743904698992536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-53727962456108039752007-04-25T04:20:00.000-07:002007-04-25T04:20:00.000-07:00I really want to clear things up because I believe...I really want to clear things up because I believe that people are really missing the point.<BR/><BR/>First, Paris was the best location. No matter what people say about the weather, Spain was NOT a good alternative. It is too far from most European countries. To believe that the French (for example) would have gone to Spain to visit a theme Park is downright silly (the French represent 60 % of the customers, btw). Europe is not the US. People are not going to take a plane to go to a Park even if it is Disney. And you should add that Paris is also the number one tourist attraction in the World and that the road/rail system is one of the best in Europe.<BR/><BR/>Second, the price was way too much from the start. Europeans have more than 5 weeks of vacation over there and they make less than Americans. They are not going to spend all their money for three or four days spent in the magical world of Disney ! It is ridiculous. What about the other 4 weeks and a half ? So, when you add something you better make sure it is worth the money. A 3 hours park so overwhelmingly bad is NOT going to make people stay longer.<BR/><BR/>Third, when you invest money, you put some of yours into the project... Disney borrowed almost everything ! Of course, the financial charges are going to be HUGE for such a project ! And this is why Disney has problem there and this also why they made this horrible little toad. When you buy a house, you should put a bit of your own money into it. And plus, they are asking the Disney Resort Paris to pay the royalties for the usage of their characters... Funny, funny.<BR/><BR/>Fourth, the hotels are full. They are extremely popular no matter what. During the summer, you are forced to go somewhere else because they have no more space available in the hotel of your choice (I speak from experience). In fact, I would advise them to build another one.<BR/><BR/>Fifth and final point, when you build a studio, you need to have a REAL studio at hands and not a fake one ! A long time ago, they were planning to have a cartoon production unit there (Tarzan was partially done in France). The only thing left is the costume unit for the parks and a bunch of planes from the not-so-good Pearl Harbor. I remember to be blown away when I went to Disney-MGM Studio: you could see the artists working, you could see actual sets, you could see tons of props (of course, now all of this is almost all gone).<BR/><BR/>Of course, I could add so much more (like when Bourguignon realized that they did not build enough rides in the first Park to accommodate the 14 millions visitors they were projecting). It is so frustrating to see something managed so badly and even more so that lots of the problems could have been anticipated and resolved easily. Sadly, it is not even the fact that the “suits” only thought with balance sheets in their minds, it is the lack of competence that has put the resort in trouble.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-56474748989901224962007-04-22T14:50:00.000-07:002007-04-22T14:50:00.000-07:00yoovesmI am not so sure that Paris was the ONLY ch...yoovesmI am not so sure that Paris was the ONLY choice for the park. Teh fact is that a warm weather location in Spain may have been a better choice for many, many reasons. However I concede that the location is NOT the reason the park has had a long financial struggle.<BR/><BR/>It started out poorly by having far too much spent on largely (at the time) unneeded hotel rooms. It continued (and still does to this day ) with a lack of major attractions at Disneyland Paris and the latest near death blow of the ridiculous Disney Studios Paris puts a HUGE drag on it. So it is true, that even in a different location these issues would be the same assuming the same approach was taken.<BR/><BR/>But even Disneyland Paris is FAR from being without fault. It simply does not have enough major attractions as compared to other parks of it's age. This is of course because it was left in the cold after the slow start but it illustrates whatr a shame it is that DSP was built instead of having that money put into the existing park.<BR/><BR/>Several MAJOR E-Ticket rides could of been added with money to spare. The vast empty tracks of land in Fronterland could of become home to a Splash Mountain, a fully realized Toon Town could have been added (this time with Pixar influence), the lame Indy coaster could of had a rue Indiana Jones Andventure added next to it creating a mini Indy land and so forth. I would have loved to see Tower or Terror, re-themed of course, worked into the park as well, that would of been unique and exciting. Hell, even the addition of something like Pooh's Hunny Hunt (from Tokyo Disneyland) the single most impressive ride system I have ever seen on ANY attraction, would have created dramatic attendance increases. the list goes on and on. All of these are great attractions which the park needs. Disneyland Paris has not had a truely major attraction added since Space Mountain for God's sake... come on.<BR/><BR/>Instead they build a aprk so bad, so lacking of quality, theme, execution and scope that it will drag down the financial performance of the park for years to come and possibly be a mare on the face of the resort forever. At the very least they have added a HUGE problem to the already long list. It boggles the mind that this has been so mishandled, I only hope that they learn the lesson from this and do not repeat it again elsewhere.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14437917310902521066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-49316403501711134552007-04-21T19:58:00.000-07:002007-04-21T19:58:00.000-07:00Disneyland Paris is a commercial success. 13 milli...Disneyland Paris is a commercial success. 13 millions of people come each year on the resort. Disney Hotels are full (the average is higher than Paris's hotels). And everyone who visits the french Magic Kingdom is seduced. So France is not the problem. No other site could have been chosen. France is the number one tourist destination in the world, with 77 million of tourists. Paris is at the center of Europe, and have great infrastructures (highways, trains, airports...). And the climate is better than in Tokyo! So what?<BR/><BR/>The resorts made profits before the opening of Walt Disney Studios. The Disney Studios are just the worst park ever built, that's all. Everyone who comes to see the studios is disappointed. French, Europeans, americans...<BR/><BR/>And you know what? french Rock'n roller coaster cost more than the floridian one! But the floridian one is much more funny! It's a shame! Armageddon was conceived by the one who conceived Spiderman at Universal...<BR/><BR/>The Studios are the only problem of the resort. And we hope Tower of Terror, Toon Studios with Crush's Coaster, maybe Soarin' one day, Hollywood Blvd and place making all over the park will help to attract more people and fix the financial problem.<BR/><BR/>But you have to know than without royalties taken by The Walt Disney Company, the park would be in good health! Eventually, profits will come back around 2010 with the management actual strategy. Karl Holz did a great job... it was not the case of Jay Rasulo!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-71455262582626355202007-04-20T21:51:00.000-07:002007-04-20T21:51:00.000-07:00I completly agree. But how can they fix this? Imag...I completly agree. But how can they fix this? Imagineer would practically have to start over!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-17379842589696699682007-04-20T02:48:00.000-07:002007-04-20T02:48:00.000-07:00Everybody forgets the fact that Disney is renting/...Everybody forgets the fact that Disney is renting/owning a lot of space around the parc where they build/have built offices, shops and other buildings. I think this property development will give Disney big big big money at the longterm.....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-68211699259191426812007-04-19T22:30:00.000-07:002007-04-19T22:30:00.000-07:00I've been reading this blog for quite some time no...I've been reading this blog for quite some time now, and there's a question I've been itching to ask. Have the writers of this blog noticed that they are having an effect on WDI? And if so, have they noticed the effect to be positive (taking your advice) or negative (WDI management furious at the blog).Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05775812570822580384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-17682190113595684912007-04-19T21:47:00.000-07:002007-04-19T21:47:00.000-07:00Wow, I never saw pictures of the park. Wow. I'm gl...Wow, I never saw pictures of the park. Wow. I'm glad I read this before going to Europe. Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22576594.post-300461495030368002007-04-19T09:38:00.000-07:002007-04-19T09:38:00.000-07:00I worked for Disney back in 1991. I was an assista...I worked for Disney back in 1991. I was an assistant to an executive who was overseeing the production of Disney branded TV shows in Latin America. I found Disney executives in Burbank to be quite ignorant and uninterested about the culture of each country. A lot of the problems we had developed from trying to make the execs in Burbank understand the customs of the countries that we were dealing with. Most of these executives were used to being able to get what they wanted just because they were Disney and they were used to getting their way.<BR/><BR/>Disney likes to maintain control of their products, even to the extent where they will dictate to the customer how they are to be used. Disney demanded that their cartoon shows be introduced by a couple of local actors. Disney wanted control over every single aspect of production of these end caps, from casting to set design and lighting. That would be fine if Disney had been footing the bill, but they were selling their cartoons to the TV stations and the Latin American executives did not appreciate being pushed around by Disney. While that worked on most South American countries, the TV station in Brazil was not so easily pushed around. That kind of arrogance is at the root of many of Disney's problems.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15346622622270074890noreply@blogger.com