Home

[byron-james]

Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere. According to Le Parisien, the president of the supervisory board, Antoine Jeancourt-Galignani, has resigned. Despite having been with Euro Disney for 23 years and expressing his intent to leave 2 years ago, it also states that he is in disagreement with the direction that WDC wants Disneyland Paris to take.

If it's true at least it means that WDC is taking an active role but clearly this chap isn't convinced of where that'll lead.

//http://www.leparisien.fr/economie/euro-disney-le-president-du-conseil-de-surveillance-demissionne-08-11-2012-2304329.php

[Josh]

Before I read the article, I had a feeling I knew exactly why he left. It says: 'The Walt Disney Company has "substantially" changed its strategy [with] Disneyland Paris. The goal is no longer "the development and profitability of the joint venture in 1989," but "to serve the Group's overall strategy Walt Disney by promoting the widest of its brands and its creations." '

So in other words, Bob Iger wants to use our parks to promote his (and even other companies) brands and franchises; just like he does with the American parks. I know Iger is stepping down in a couple of years, but sometimes I just wish he could leave now.

Sorry for sounding like a sourpuss, but I'm starting to think he's become a worse CEO than Eisner in the way he's treated the theme park side of the business. It's like he sees them as promotions and not for what they are: another medium for storytelling.

[ed-uk]

I think Bob Iger has turned out to be a good CEO for Disney, he's  responsible for Cars Land and Buena Vista Street at DCA, also Avatar Land and the new Fantasyland at  the MK.  He bought Pixar and Lucas films/ Stars Wars, both highly successful. He refinanced the debts at Euro Disney, which was a great move and should give DLP more freedom to build more rides and improve maintenance.
So I think he has done a good job, and he should  promote highly successful Disney  owned brands and franchises in the theme parks, he would be a fall not to.

[Josh]

I think he's done a good job everywhere except the theme parks (or at least the ones that aren't in his local Disneyland).

Personally, I don't think Avatar really fits with the Animal Kingdom at all. And you can guarantee he's going to spam Star Wars all over the international theme parks. The That said, the Star Wars mini-land that we're rumoured to get seems quite good, so hopefully Star Wars' presence in other parks won't be more extreme. There's even been talk of an entire Marvel theme park for Disneyland in California's third gate. As for Shanghai Disneyland, Pirates of the Caribbean will be based on the film franchise and Tomorrowland's E-ticket will be based on Tron. As for the resort hotels, the only new ones we've had since he became CEO have all been based on animated films.

Everything he does is just franchises franchises franchises. He buys franchises and saturates the parks with them. There's nothing wrong with having some attractions based on films, but when new original stories in the parks become a rarity, it prevents Imagineers from telling their own stories. Do you think we'll ever get attractions like Journey Into Imagination or Blizzard Beach with Iger?

Then again, maybe I've just been listening to American Disney park fans too much. xD

[ed-uk]

What's wrong with a successful franchise and how does he saturate the parks with them? If Disney just want to stick to the original stories, how could they update the parks and keep them fresh for a new audience. The WDC is a movie Studios and a theme park operator, so we shouldn't  be too surprised to find new rides and attractions built on popular Disney films.
I'm not sure what you mean by original stories in the theme parks, because most ideas have to come from somewhere, a book or a film for example. And in the case of TOT an American TV series.
As for the hotels, Walt Disney had as much to do with animation as he had to do with theme parks, in fact he built his reputation on animated films, so should we be surprised to find references to Disney films in their resort hotels, I think not.
 Just to add Disney is one of the most famous brands in the world, and if they opened a Disney store in your local shopping centre would you complain about their brands and franchises saturating your town?

[Josh]

If Disney just want to stick to the original stories, how could they update the parks and keep them fresh for a new audience.

Sorry, when I say original stories, I don't mean classic films. I mean their own stories written just for the rides, like Big Thunder Mesa Town or Grizzly Gulch. As I say, there's nothing wrong with having some of their rides based off films; that's how it's always been. But they need new stories as well. When Disneyland first opened, there was about a 50-50 ratio of attractions based on franchises to attractions with their own custom stories.

As for the hotels, Walt Disney had as much to do with animation as he had to do with theme parks, in fact he built his reputation on animated films, so should we be surprised to find references to Disney films in their resort hotels, I think not.

I don't mind references (like with our Disneyland Hotel or the Sequoia Lodge after the recent refurb), but they still offer an "immersive experience". On the other hand, these pure character hotels just have statues of characters plastered all over the place and walls with patterns on them. They don't make you feel like you've been transported to another place. If a character hotel just tried to take you to a location in one of the films that's appropriate to a hotel (like maybe a hotel in New Orleans from The Princess and the Frog), that would probably be quite nice, and would offer an experience akin to the Sequoia.

Just to add Disney is one of the most famous brands in the world, and if they opened a Disney store in your local shopping centre would you complain about their brands and franchises saturating your town?

We already have one right in the middle of our city. My only complaint is that their merchandise is purely for children's toys. But a Disney Store can't be compared to this. It's not trying to do storytelling. Theme parks and external Disney Stores have completely different scopes.

[ed-uk]

I agree with you about the children's toys in the Disney Store these days, there's not enough merchandise for adults.
I don't mind where the idea for a theme park ride/ attraction comes from book, film or original idea as long as the ride is well themed and enjoyable. Ratatouille was an original idea once, OK it started out as a film but it doesn't bother me if they want to turn it into a theme park ride. The same goes for Star Tours, Peter Pans Flight, Snow white, the Tree House, Space Mountain and 20,000 leagues under the sea based on Jules Verne books in Discoveryland.

[byron-james]

like maybe a hotel in New Orleans from The Princess and the Frog

If that was built in Paris I would die happy. Would also be so cool if the Sequoia refurb included references to Pocahontas - unless thats what they already doing?

[peep]

Sequoia refurb is referencing Bambi isn't it? Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Josh, I totally agree with absolutely everything you're saying. The parks need more attractions based off original ideas, we need a new Big Thunder Mountain or Tower of Terror. I'm not saying it has to be an E-ticket but everything over how many years has been completely based off a TV show, film or franchise that Disney own. It's getting a little boring.

I'm getting really tired of the company's use of Toy Story everywhere too. Can we focus on something else now? I love Toy Story as much as the next peep but they've just plastered it everywhere. They seem to be relying on it too much and it's kinda depressing.

I'd love to see a new hotel which isn't based off film/franchise, unless it was done in a subtle way like these current refurbs. I just think the new styles look a bit cheap and tacky which for the price they're asking for just isn't worth my money.

[DedicatedToDLP(Steve)]

I agree with wanting original rides, but the world is a very different place these days and the Disney parks face very stiff competition, especially from the likes of Harry Potter land, or whatever it's called. Brands get people's very short attentions and if they are targeting families then it's those obvious franchises like Pixar that they will use. If you have a 30 second advert or a print advert, you will get far more reaction if you use a recognised brand than trying to explain that you have a ride that is immersive and wonderful and features characters you haven't heard of but will love once you've seen it. DL and WDW used to be able to sell themselves just on being who they were and what they were, not any more.

My little boy loves Cars and was very excited to see Lightning McQueen and friends in DLP, but it's iasw, POTC and PM that he talks about now he's back. That's great, but they never got his attention before he went, it was the new character brands that did. When deciding on new rides and attractions the ability to market will be a huge factor, and rightly so for any business. It's unfortunate for those of us that love the old classic rides, but I think those days are gone. I think the most we can hope for is that they remain untouched, which for the most part seems to be the case, except POTC.

[RockNRoller]

My little boy loves Cars and was very excited to see Lightning McQueen and friends in DLP, but it's iasw, POTC and PM that he talks about now he's back. That's great, but they never got his attention before he went, it was the new character brands that did. When deciding on new rides and attractions the ability to market will be a huge factor, and rightly so for any business. It's unfortunate for those of us that love the old classic rides, but I think those days are gone. I think the most we can hope for is that they remain untouched, which for the most part seems to be the case, except POTC.

Having spent time in marketing I couldnt agree more with your comment above, its the big brands that get peoples attentions and drags them through the door so Cars and Toy Story will do just that. Thats probably what will get a lot of people to go for the first time, Its POTC and TOT that will keep them coming back, something they can only experience in DLRP

[Milan1]

i totally agree with Josh! I couldn't say it better! Back to original stories!

[Josh]

If you have a 30 second advert or a print advert, you will get far more reaction if you use a recognised brand than trying to explain that you have a ride that is immersive and wonderful and features characters you haven't heard of but will love once you've seen it.

I'm not so sure.
[youtube:zpy0janq]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiDXxOs5clc[/youtube:zpy0janq]

But I see your point. Big E-tickets like Big Grizzly Mountain are the easy ones to market. Remember the original Space Mountain adverts? It didn't even show the coaster itself; it just shows the enormous structure and implied the story that you're going to get shot at the moon. But that's how new lands are always built: a few minor rides and one big E-ticket.

[DedicatedToDLP(Steve)]

I have to say that that advert did noting for me, but then I don't like Coasters. It looked like an Alton Towers advert, which would be fine for Alton Towers, but I don't think if you showed that on UK television with Big Thunder Mountain branding that it would get many people rushing to book holidays to Disneyland Paris. These kind of adverts are fine for domestic campaigns to draw day visitors, but I don't believe in today's world they are strong enough for international campaigns to entice people to book holidays.

I've not seen the Space Mountain advert, I'll have a look on YouTube.

UPDATE: Just seen the SM advert, very good. Be interesting to see what kind of response that would get these days. Interesting to see so many people comment that the advert was on the old Lion King video.

[ed-uk]

All Disney theme park fans know about Space Mountain. Anyone who had been to WDW or Disneyland would already know of it, It was hardly a new, original ride that they were marketing  in 1995, that's why they called it Space Mountain and not Discovery Mountain, which I think they had originally intended to do. The DLP version of Space Mountain is a new take on an old 1970s roller coaster ride with a Jules Verne theme. and many Disney fans would of expected to find Space Mountain at DLP  when it first opened, but it wasn't.
The Same goes for Big Grizzly Mountain at HKD, it's just a fresh take on BTM  with a new back story, and Grizzly Gulch a new take on Frontierland. And it's great that Disney do that.
I'm not a fan of Space Mountain, but I love Frontierland and  BTM is one of the few roller coaster rides I do like,  no Disney theme park experience would be complete without  a Land or Gulch with Western theme. But Cars Land at DCA is an original Land, different from anything Disney have done before in their parks, rather than just churning out another version of Space Mountain or  a land with a Western  theme.  And just because Cars Land  is based on one of Disney's own films, it makes it no less successful than the Wizarding World of Harry Potter at IOA.