| # | Author | Message |
91
| davewasbaloo
Thu 5/1/2008 9:51a | dsyates, again I further understand some of your issues with the park. I have only been in Florida in Autumn and Winter, and that has been horrible enough weather wise, I do not think I would enjoy WDW in the summer at all. |
92
| RoadTrip
Thu 5/1/2008 9:58a | <<Since DAK seems to have the most oppressive heat problem we don't tend to sit and swelter outside.>>
I went to the AK once in July. I'll never make that mistake again. I was even totally miserable there one warm Thanksgiving. That was the first year the park was open though, and many of the trees had not grown enough to shade the queue areas. It is considerably better now.
But I have to tell you... nothing beats a January trip to WDW. Nothing.
|
93
| dshyates
Thu 5/1/2008 10:06a | You should see the photo of us in front of the Castle from our last trip. It was about 4pm. We all had on our mouse ears. It was 106 degrees and not a cloud in the sky. In the photo you can literally SEE how hot it is. It was hilarious. I don't mind the heat, we just stick to the shade, pour water over our heads regularly, and just keep moving. |
94
| 2001DLFan
Thu 5/1/2008 10:11p | <<davewasbaloo: I do happily pay the fees for the parks and sit, because I do not know of any other lushly themed places you can go for one day. I also am ok with early closure because we just hop to my other fav park, Epcot.>>
You might want try Cypress Gardens. It's less than 40 miles south of WDW and is a beautiful serene, lush, botanical park. A lot cheaper than WDW for a nice sitting experience.
|
95
| 2001DLFan
Thu 5/1/2008 10:13p | <<trekkeruss: Yeah, that DAK is so weak. TDS... so weak.>>
Yes, DAK was actually weak, compared to what the initial concept was laid out to be. Budget cuts reduced the park's scope and it hasn't really recovered, in spite of the addition of Everest.
As for TDS, Eisner had ABSOLUELY NO input as to how that park would turn out. OLC was responsible for it's quality and integrity. They directed Imagineering as to what they wanted to have in the park and the level of quality they expected.
|
96
| 2001DLFan
Thu 5/1/2008 10:19p | <<Dabob2: FWIW, I've read many places that Walt himself could be a right "illegitimate child" of a boss at times also, and not very nice to some of his employees. That Eisner may have been so also takes him down a notch in my personal estimation (I always feel there's no good excuse for nastiness, including in boss/employee situations) but not in my estimation of what he did for the company. Which is decidedly mixed.>>
The major difference I see is that Walt was totally focused on quality and creativity up until his death, where Eisner pretty much lost those qualities (if he ever really had them) as soon as Wells died and the influence he held over Eisner was removed.
|
97
| dshyates
Fri 5/2/2008 4:13a | "Yes, DAK was actually weak, compared to what the initial concept was laid out to be. Budget cuts reduced the park's scope and it hasn't really recovered, in spite of the addition of Everest."
Be careful. people don't like that kinda talk 'round these parts. ;-) |
98
| Dabob2
Fri 5/2/2008 12:19p | < The major difference I see is that Walt was totally focused on quality and creativity up until his death, where Eisner pretty much lost those qualities (if he ever really had them) as soon as Wells died and the influence he held over Eisner was removed.>
Of course Walt was more creative than Eisner. My point was only that how one treats employees - and certainly both Walt and Eisner could have done better there from what I've read - does not necessarily translate to being "friend or foe" in terms of the company's output. |
