Originally Posted By Mr X Am I the only one noticing this? Anyone check out the PATHETIC tomorrowland vid, featuring all of TWO rides, albeit several times during the commercial. Tron coaster...spinner...lights...tron coaster...spinner...daytime...spinner...coaster. Yeah...wow. Yawn. Looks like the worst park yet, and that's impressive given how crappy Hong Kong was at the outset (and still is lacking in major areas).
Originally Posted By FerretAfros As I mentioned in the other thread, this park will be big. That's about all it has going for it at this point. At least there should be plenty of space to add stuff in the future...
Originally Posted By RoadTrip OK. This is probably racist and culturally insensitive and all kinds of crap. But do you think Disney (or whatever investment is behind it) is cheaping out because they know Chinese people don't expect much in theme parks because they have so little to compare it with? I know that Hong Kong and Shanghai are both very "westernized". But aren't many Disney Park visitors from mainland China?
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt It's a huge risk to build this resort and like HKDL they're playing it safe and focusing on a handful of tent pole signature attractions to wow guests. Modest beginnings is basically the new standard for new Disney theme parks now. On another note I couldn't help but notice that the overall programming for SDL is designed to not compete directly with HKDL. It's almost as if they took DL's and MK's attraction roster and split them into two parks.
Originally Posted By utahjosh I think the Tron ride looks pretty cool. I like the swooping canopy and changing lights. The spinner is blah. The land is pretty.
Originally Posted By Mr X Isn't that pretty much the only 3 elements though Josh (coaster, spinner, lights)? (and yes I agree with you on all three, but that's *it!?*)
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>...cheaping out because they know Chinese people don't expect much in theme parks because they have so little to compare it with?<< I think that part of it is wanting to be cheap and not build anything they don't have to (whatever happened to the extra $800M for "capacity improvements" *cough*bribery*cough* that Iger announced about a year ago?), much like WDSP, DCA, and HKDL. But I also think that they're trying to create an experience that resonates with the Chinese guests. Chinese people like walking around landscaped areas and taking in the sights, and relax in garden pavilions; it seems that they're trying to incorporate that mindset into the park, and sprinkle it with Disney touches. Rather than being a Disney theme park as we know it, it's more like a Chinese garden park with some attractions mixed in. I don't know if it will be successful, but it at least seems logical when looked at through that mindset. Given how foreign the Disney theme park experience is to most mainlanders, I think it might just be a good move to start with something a little more familiar. If worst comes to worst, then it's pretty easy to tear out some gardens and add in more attractions as we think of them (assuming Disney's willing to invest...but given the arrangement with the Chinese government, they may not have an option in the matter) >>...playing it safe and focusing on a handful of tent pole signature attractions to wow guests.<< Sounds like their gameplan for the movie studio. Given that they've struggled to hit a homerun with any of their new hopefully-a-franchise tentpole films so far, that doesn't give me much confidence in the strategy for the park...
Originally Posted By Mr X ***It's a huge risk to build this resort*** Meh. It's a huge risk to build ANY Disneyland. Including the first one. ESPECIALLY the second one. And they turned out pretty okay. The third one was also risky, but they went for it and it was okay. After that, they start to cheap out, and it shows. And yet when they had the balls to go for it again (Epcot, DisneySea...) it seemed to have paid off. Maybe the bean counters don't see it that way, but I sure do. Now some bean counter will surely come in and tell us what little we know about internal politics and other stuff nobody cares about.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>Isn't that pretty much the only 3 elements though Josh (coaster, spinner, lights)?<< They weren't shown in the video, but there will also be a Buzz Lightyear ride (which may differ from the other versions, but keeps the basic shooting premise) and a Stitch experience similar to what's in HKDL and WDSP (or Turtle Talk in DCA, TDS, and Epcot)
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Chinese people like walking around landscaped areas and taking in the sights, and relax in garden pavilions*** American people liked walking around the boardwalk and sending the kids off to ride a roller coaster...until Walt Disney showed them something better.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>The third one was also risky, but they went for it and it was okay.<< For Disney, the third one was the least risky of all. They were licensing their brand to an outside vendor in a country where they had very little physical presence and wasn't (and still isn't) widely known to their primary audience in the US. If it was a failure, Disney still got their money, and their brand wouldn't have had much damage due to the isolation from its main business areas
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Sounds like their gameplan for the movie studio. Given that they've struggled to hit a homerun with any of their new hopefully-a-franchise tentpole films so far, that doesn't give me much confidence in the strategy for the park..." It's a start. In 10 to 15 years the park will look completely different as it grows and expands. This isn't the first time we've been down this road. At this point it's routine.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>American people liked walking around the boardwalk and sending the kids off to ride a roller coaster...until Walt Disney showed them something better.<< No arguments from me on that one! I'm just trying to see how this park could potentially make sense to a market that doesn't really know amusement parks or carnivals as well as the US of the 1950's did
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "It's a huge risk to build ANY Disneyland." Of course it is. If you acknowledge that building a Disney theme park is risky then you understand why Disney is starting off with a modest roster of attractions in Shanghai.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt >>The third one was also risky, but they went for it and it was okay.<< "For Disney, the third one was the least risky of all. They were licensing their brand to an outside vendor in a country where they had very little physical presence and wasn't (and still isn't) widely known to their primary audience in the US." Yup. That park was built on the cheap with most of the facades and attraction layouts lifted directly from DL and WDW. I have mixed feelings about SDL, but one thing I appreciate is that they seem to be taking some risks by reinventing some traditional aspects of the cookie-cutter Magic Kingdom format. On the positive side I'm seeing some interesting original and unique experiences.
Originally Posted By Ifzorro68 it doesnt seem like the video shows the full line-up of attractions tomorrowland in this case will feature. first of all it does not show the Buz lightyear attraction that will also be built in this area as well as the two interactive locations that will be themed to Star Wars and Marvel which will eventually make way for additional attractions. Also one thing that has been pointed out including in articles from bloomberg and Fortune is that Disney had to work extremely carefully with the Chinese government to make sure that the park did not have the issues that Paris and Hong Kong did when it came to cultural problems. The biggest concern is the high rate of elderly people in mainland china because of the one child law. The park was created with lots of open space with plenty of gardens and locations for this large age group to just sit, relax and enjoy the sites. This park will also get one of the largest and longest parade in a Disney park for the same reason according to other articles. I'm sure that all this was taken into account as well as budgetary reasons. The park has lots of room to grow and infrastructure is being consider for rapid growth within years. makes sense to not open everything at the same time when you could build something soon after and keep people interested for repeat visits
Originally Posted By Mr X ***For Disney, the third one was the least risky of all*** Okay, fair enough. It was a huge risk to OLC, so I suppose that was what was on my mind when I wrote it (and speaking to Japanese friends familiar with the early times, everyone thought "it's gonna crash and burn" in those risky, early years...reminiscent of Disneyland and "the Florida project" in that respect (post opening, mind you) ).
Originally Posted By Mr X ***If you acknowledge that building a Disney theme park is risky then you understand why Disney is starting off with a modest roster of attractions in Shanghai*** Nope. I contend that to justify the risk, you have to shoot for the moon, because that's what a real Disney park IS. Anything less is, well...crappy. Perhaps it'll sail along okay and it won't matter, but one of these days the coward approach is going to bite them (Oh, wait...it already did...it's called DCA lol). I like the grandiose Disneyland (the original)/Epcot/DisneySea approach myself. I think it sets them up for even higher heights rather than "just so so" which so many people think is just fine.
Originally Posted By dagobert I'm thinking that DLP will still be the most beautiful Disneyland park after SDL opens. I wouldn't say that the park looks like crap, in fact, I really like some concepts, like the new POTC ride or the Dinosaur raft. And I'm still looking forward to the Tron ride. I also think that the park hasn't enough attractions. It looks very big with little in it. On WDWMagic.com people are talking that there are some frictions between Disney, especially Iger, and the government. That's also interesting: >>>Three employees of companies working on site said extra time was also necessary to remedy construction problems caused by Chinese contractors who cut corners and didn't meet Disney's standards.<<< Source: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-disney-shanghai-20150715-story.html#page=1">http://www.latimes.com/enterta...l#page=1</a> Maybe that's the reason why they needed 800 mio Dollars more.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>That park was built on the cheap with most of the facades and attraction layouts lifted directly from DL and WDW.<< Although Disney often says that cloning attractions saves them money, I'm still not convinced that's true. In the real world, design fees are typically 10-20% of construction costs. Not negligible, but not significant either. Considering that the actual fabrication and construction is such a major component of the costs (not to mention the site design, which by its very definition is unique for each copy of a building), I don't think that cloning attractions (like TSMM) would save much more than modifying existing plans for a new concept (like Indy/Dinosaur). And that's ignoring "cloned" attractions with a similar concept but different layouts, like the various Pirates or Big Thunders, which would also need to be uniquely designed But I know how much they like to use that logic. If it truly is noticeably cheaper, then WDI's design fees are even more bloated than I could have imagined
