The Miss Piggy Superstar Limo redo is no more. It will be a Monsters Inc ride after all. Oh wait, it won't be a Monsters Inc. It's been a busy weekend for a company that takes two years to build attractions that it needs YESTERDAY, huh?
Anyhow, the Muppet decision was made because it still wasn't certain whether the Muppets would actually ever become Disney property. Even if that deal miraculously happened, the Muppets are seen as yesterday's news. One senior Disney exec seems to think the Muppets have "some name recognition with baby boomers. But not with their kids. And that's the demographic that Disney's really lusting after these days."
This is ludicrous in so many ways. I am the child of baby boomers and, like MANY others my age, I adore the Muppets. And it is people MY AGE who have that market Disney is "lusting" after. Not to mention MuppetVision is one of the highest-rated attractions in both the US parks it exists in - both rate an 8 on TPI. But then this site is just TEEMING with baby boomers, right? Furthermore, if Disney isn't lusting after that demographic, then what was with all those stoopid "M-I-C-K-E-Y M-O-U-S-E" ads they were showing a while back?
So some higher-ups within the company don't want anything to do with the Muppets, believing it will cost millions and millions to make them popular enough to eventually make money off them. Dumbasses. ABC, which needs desperate help RIGHT NOW, could get a new "Muppet Show" up by midseason. Considering the "Very Merry Muppet Christmas" movie last year was viewed by more than 11 million people and won the night for NBC, there is obviously a market out there for them. Not to mention the spectacular Muppet film script out there that its creator has used to score all kinds of writing jobs. Hopefully these types of executives will be shown the same door Michael Eisner will be shown in the far-too-distant future.
Anyhow, Hill makes a good case for Disney staying away from the Muppets. He mentions a telling story from the original Muppet talks, which proves that the Disney attitude all along has focused on what the Muppets could do for them and not what they could do for the Muppets. He suggests a smaller company should acquire the Muppets and take proper care of them. Who can disagree with that?
So on with the Monsters Inc Limo redo! For all of two days. Imagineers received an email this weekend telling them they couldn't see spending $14M on the overhaul right now. Why not, since $14M is chump change in the Disney world? Some believe it is due to a less-than-positive review of Disneyland's Pooh ride in the LA Times, written by some dude named Robert Niles.
Not that I ever listen to that Niles person, but apparently many Disney execs have been. Allegedly they have also realized that $14M is chump change, and if they want locals to actually bother with DCA, then they will need better reviews for their new attractions in the Times. Add to that the still-circulating rumors of a Pixar-themed land over near the Bug's Life stuff, and no one should be expecting a Limo undo anytime soon.
THE NEXT EXCUSE IS READY
LA Times - Apr 12
Since the Iraq thing seems to be losing steam as an excuse for low attendance, Disney is now publicly fearing that SARS will hurt attendance in their parks. Considering Disneyland has already been hurt by a horrible Asian economy, Disney claims WDW will be hurt worse by this new crisis. Yeah, 'cuz that place is always bursting with Asian tourists!
Even analysts seem to be ignoring this warning, claiming Disney will do badly this year, in large part, due to lack of consumer confidence and not because of a disease that has only affected 3000 or so people so far. Eisner better work on his next excuse. How's this? "Widespread schizophrenia has Disney guests confusing reality with some freakish fantasy that their new theme park attractions are all cheap."
AND LIBERTY FOR ALL... OR LITTLE BITS OF ALL
NY Times - Apr 14
Maybe some people noticed that News Corporation (owner of Fox) recently completed a deal to buy DirecTV. I mentioned here somewhere that Liberty Media, half-owner of Universal Orlando and interested party in some Universal Entertainment assets, was once interested in DirecTV also. Apparently Rupert Murdoch was a bit peeved that his company's biggest shareholder was now in a bidding war with him. So Liberty's interest disappeared overnight.
This is both good and bad for Liberty, who could make money as a shareholder, but the company will now end up with less power in negotiating with DirecTV for its meager cable offerings. Which could dampen Liberty's desire to snag Universal's Sci-Fi Channel and USA Network.
So why does this matter to theme park fans? It seems Liberty owns portions of so many companies, they may end up facing higher taxes if they don't start actually operating some businesses. So the Universal theme parks must be looking pretty interesting now, wouldn't you think? Even more than the gargantuan film division, which the company has shown a little interest in. Maybe they are the perfect little company to buy the Muppets!
Theme parks are a creative business, like movies, theaters and books. Great artists don't create things to appease critics. They create to satisfy themselves. And great managers of creative businesses hire those artists and give them the resources and support they need.
If Disney returns to doing that, it won't have to worry about poor reviews.
Walt had a vision of what pleased him. Why? He was the visionnary, the owner, the leader, the locomotive.
To let creators create, you need influencial visionnaries.
Unfortunately it is not the case with Disney. Their visionnary is the numerous "focus group" they have. When you do that, you lose your creative essence trying to please market segment. It is like losing your sole for money. It works temporarily but then you start becoming like everyone else and lose identity, difference. You become slowly a commodity. In the next few generation you may discover great changes in the consummer behavior..... Too bad
Conclusion : Unless the imagineer group gets a new leader, they will have a hard time coming back to the old creative days of Disney.
Observation : Since i'm presently working on a new kind of attraction here in Montreal, i'm amazed to see the lack of ability of the Disney executives to build upon their own magical recipe. Haunted mansion and pirates are certainly not billion dollar rides but are very effective. Why aren't they analysing the sucess recipe and copying it?
MA Routhier
from a warmer (at last) climate
Montréal Canada
And YES they do need a good review from the Times. Something like 70% of DCA's visitors are locals, so how can they get those locals into that park if they don't get a good review? They already know well enough that there are no reasons to go to DCA, so if something with the cachet of the Times says something is worth visiting, then people might change their minds and come to the park.
It isn't like the creativity isn't there. The creativity is being hampered by the lack of money. If that creativity is given a proper budget, which may be the only thing happening here, then it will create a great ride. The focus isn't on getting a good review but creating a good ride, which will undoubtedly get that review AND get people into the gates.
It is ironic that you have posted on this thread, Marc-Andre, since you have long carped on us for saying our constant harping won't work. Well, Robert's apparently DID work. And if we get a Monsters Inc ride of high quality, we should all thank Robert for pushing to do those ride reviews.
Anyway, if it helps Monsters INC be a better ride, I'll tip my hat to Robert when I ride on it.
The Muppets are definitely Generation X, for lack of a better term, and Generation X is the one currently with all the kids, so his comments only show how deep the cluelessness is in the Disney corporation.
I find very ironic that you find me ironic.
It is the first time i'm back on this thread and the only reception I get is this simple comment : You see how good I am? You were wrong i was right. Criticism does provide change.
I thought i would get a warm welcome back. As usual your sarcasm pisses me off...again
Just to clarify my position for the readers :
I didn't say criticism was wrong and not working. All I said was it needs to be constructive.
Have you really read Robert's article? It is clear and based on facts. I see no whining, no bitching. I simply see an article where someone is expressing is disatisfaction about something in a nice constructive way.
You see Kevin, what you never understood from me is the fact i'm not against freedom of expression. What I preach is a communication that contains facts and recommandations. Like the ride has not inspired me, did not amused my children,... and for that reason i'm not taking it anymore. That's all.
As far as why Robert's article got such an impact i wonder the following:
"Why is it that the most popular paper in the region that publishes a professionnal article by a professionnal journalist is getting so much attention.... "
Finally what I really find ironic is the fact that you are now concerned about readers "non loving" Six Flags? Are you looking for contructive criticism?
Have a good day
MA Routhier
Montreal Canada
The challenge for a writer is to present his criticism in such a way that few others will regard it as carping. And that's a challenge that anyone posting to this site, or any other online, faces.
Some choose to accept this challenge. Others don't care. But those who accept the challenge, and meet it, are the ones who have the most influence with, and respect from, others.
My bit of general advice today to everyone posting. Back to the topic....
And that has been my case all along. Just because you may not like the tone, doesn't mean it is simply whining. I'm not writing for the Times, so I don't feel the need to write as objectively. Compare a lot of what Robert writes for this site compared to what he writes for the Times. Is he always objective on this site? Of course not. This isn't a newspaper.
In a conversation, you can get a little wilder, because you've got the chance to clarify what you meant in a follow-up. In a speech, or a newspaper article, you've got one shot, so you need to ensure that you say exactly what you mean -- and only what you mean -- in a way that even the most sensitive reader won't misinterpret.
But if anyone would like to, feel free. Pro or con.
