Originally Posted By FerretAfros Dalmatians!!! While I don't think that they should have done the DCA redo on the cheap, I also don't think they're spending their money wisely. Originally budgeting $200million for RSR seemed like a lot at the time, and even more ridiculous now. For that same price, they could have added several smaller attractions to really flesh out the DCA visit (since the park has always been short on the A-D tickets). I'm sure that these additions will be lovely, but I just can't see how they'll justify the pricetag (Mermaid is a nice example of this). Yes, things change that can cause the price to increase, but prices for building materials and construction workers are extremely low right now due to the economy (which was something they didn't know when they started the project many years ago). Even though I think it's budget is also over-the-top, I think that the WDW Fantasyland expansion is a much better example of how to get more bang for the buck. As far as I know, that entire project is budget at less than RSR, but manages to give a couple attractions, a couple eating locations, and several new acres of themed guest space. And for a point of reference, how fast does JTTCOTE at TDS go? I would be surprised if it's much over 35mph, yet it feels much faster with all the scenery around. I suspect that RSR can nearly as fast as TestTrack, without actually reaching the same speed.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Not to sound condescending, but do you mean that DCA 2.0 should have been done on the cheap?>> Because there are only two options - cheap and expensive, right? <<And why should it make you or anyone "so angry" when a project goes over budget? Talk to Boeing Aircraft if you want to understand "over budget" issues? In other words, it is simply the nature of the beast.>> Budgets should be sacrosanct - or individuals held to be accountable for overruns. The problem is that the total pool of capital expenditure is fixed - if one large project overruns then it impacts others. The overruns on Aulani and DCA is impacting the ability of WDP&R to invest elsewhere.
Originally Posted By leemac <<I'm sure that these additions will be lovely, but I just can't see how they'll justify the pricetag (Mermaid is a nice example of this). >> Mermaid cost over four times as much as DL's Pooh. Four times as much. I'm amazed at the positive reviews for Mermaid - I really hated it considering how much money was flung at it.
Originally Posted By leemac <<And for a point of reference, how fast does JTTCOTE at TDS go?>> Journey can hit about 47 mph (it is rated to 75 kph) - it is a rapid acceleration on a steep banked incline with a rapid reveal out of the mountain. The thrill is derived from a different source than TT/RSR.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>...manages to give a couple attractions, a couple eating locations, and several new acres of themed guest space.<< ...which is a pretty good description of Carsland. Is the entirety of the Cadillac Range included in that $400 million+ price tag? Just the portions that mask the show building? Or none at all? I also wonder if there isn't some creative accounting going on in all this. It has been my observation, having looked at these things from both the inside and outside, that when there is a large project with multiple elements, one will start getting saddled with any and all cost overruns. Don't know exactly why this may happen, but it does.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Missed it by that much. Oh well. 'Mermaid' came in at $125 million?! Yikes - there's yer problem right there - they're overpaying for the end product. I can see that happening on RSR because it's like inventing the wheel - nobody's ever built one before. But they've built the components of it before - the ride system, the vehicles, the track, even the rockwork. And when they're done, it will standout signature attraction for the rest of the park's lifetime. But Mermaid? I grant that I haven't even been on it yet, but I've seen the vids and I've got the gist of it. It's not "bad" but it's not an e-ticket either. So I'm kind of shocked at that pricetag of $125 mil. We all watched the building being built - it had some excavation required and that can be pricey, but the showbuilding itself - while lovely exteriors - didn't seem to be anything especially deluxe. If anything, it's a bit on the small side. There should be some cost savings in the design and construction of the interior attraction since they're building (at least) two of them and putting the other one in MK. As disney attractions go, Mermaid looks to be an easy one to duplicate all over the place. They could easily roll this out to Paris, Tokyo, Hong Kong and even Shanghai. So where's the budget disappearing into? Certainly not on a standard omnimover ride system - they've been doing that for fifty years. The sets and figures seem to be modestly built and easily replicated. Ferret mentioned above that material, labor and interest rates are at relatives lows in current pricing. This does sound like an issue with project management. And maybe some of those folks should be called to the carpet. And I still wonder if you're including the red car budget as part of the $200 million for BVS. That would explain a lot of it. It's a big hoop-dee-doo to construct a rail line through what's essentially an urban environment. And they're building one with lots of flair and panache - beautifully outlined in masonry and brickwork. Still, it's a lot of dough for a lot of sizzle - but no steak.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "I think that the WDW Fantasyland expansion is a much better example of how to get more bang for the buck" I disagree. As nice as WDW's Fantasyland will be, I think it will pale in comparison to Cars Land. The mountain range alone is epic. There's nothing being built in Fantasyland that is as spectacular as that.
Originally Posted By leemac <<There's nothing being built in Fantasyland that is as spectacular as that.>> Because it wouldn't be appropriate or necessary. Not everything needs to be on the scale of Cadillac Range. Fantasyland will add some nice environments, some much-needed capacity and fits thematic with the land and the park. And at a fraction of the cost of CarsLand.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>'Mermaid' came in at $125 million?! Yikes...<< Does seem awfully high at that. Again, I wonder what all that figure includes. The demolition of the site? Development of "both" (DCA and MK) attractions? How did they divide the expense of creating the figures for both versions, as they were literally created in tandem? Also wonder what the MK version will end up costing, just for comparison. One big variable that is not considered by many when looking at the DLR budgets is the State of California. The Building Codes here are brutal. Impact statements cost money. Materials cannot be chosen until all have passed muster. Inspections can hold up schedules. Even the nationally regulated accessibility issues are different in California. Disney is also subject to a high level of scrutiny. And again, Mermaid was built in the middle of a working theme park. That adds to the timeline (time really is MONEY for a project like this) and logistics. >>...but the showbuilding itself... it's a bit on the small side.<< That's a bit of an illusion, an intentional one, so that the building wouldn't overpower that end of Paradise Pier. Look at the "massive" show building in the MK. It's the same one, just built all above ground. (And building below ground is inherently more expensive.) To get a better idea of the true size, Google Earth Disneyland, and look at the various show buildings. Mermaid is just a bit smaller than Haunted Mansion, and is larger than Pooh. (Considerably larger than any "classic" dark rides in FL.) >>As disney attractions go, Mermaid looks to be an easy one to duplicate all over the place.<< Oh yes. The development costs have been eaten, the molds exist for all the figures, and the installation headaches have been pretty much figured out. It's just a matter of dealing with the vagaries of local codes. (And, of course, our fluid global economy...) >>And I still wonder if you're including the red car budget as part of the $200 million for BVS... Still, it's a lot of dough for a lot of sizzle - but no steak.<< And that is the crux of the issue, isn't it? Steak, or sizzle? DCA 1.0 was more steak than sizzle-- at least for what was there. But for Disney's audience, sizzle is really, really important. (Or would that be pixie dust?) Case in point: -- Golden Dreams, a really well told story about the California Experience, in a modestly scaled theater with a minimum (bare minimum) of effects. --Adventure of the Little Mermaid, a really well done dark ride, with a lot of cuteness and flash. And the overwhelmingly positive reaction goes to... (well, you know).
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Because it wouldn't be appropriate or necessary. Not everything needs to be on the scale of Cadillac Range.<< Exactly so. The MK has a very well done existing environment. The idea of this addition being "beyond" the castle walls is a great design solution to creating new attractions in a logically scaled setting without breaking the bank. DCA didn't have that luxury, as anyplace you build in the DLR you are dealing with visual intrusions and existing infrastructure. The Cadillac Range is terribly expensive-- but will be worth it in the end. (Assuming the "steak" is as tasty as the "sizzle!")
Originally Posted By leemac <<Does seem awfully high at that. Again, I wonder what all that figure includes. The demolition of the site? Development of "both" (DCA and MK) attractions? How did they divide the expense of creating the figures for both versions, as they were literally created in tandem? Also wonder what the MK version will end up costing, just for comparison.>> Attractions developed in tandem have split development costs (one reason why OLC won't chip in for simultaneously developed projects any more - if they wait a year after opening they don't have to shoulder any R&D costs) so DCA's version is split 50:50 with MK's version. That amount covers everything from demolition to Test & Adjust.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<Mermaid cost over four times as much as DL's Pooh. Four times as much.>> Am I wrong here or was Pooh stuffed into an existing show building versus Mermaid required a newly constructed showbuilding of significant greater size? Don't forget to include demolition costs of the Golden Dreams theater building. Then take into account the continuous belt omni-mover ride system and compare that to the eight or so ride vehicles on Pooh. Also, Pooh is on a flat trackway versus Mermaid's multi level ride system. The differences in character animation between the two attractions is sigificantly different in scope. Pooh is 4 minutes in duration versus 6-1/4 minutes for Mermaid. And of course eight years of inflation needs to be figured in as well. These are such significant differences in the scope of the two attractions that I hardly see how a realistic comparison can be made between the two.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Case in point: -- Golden Dreams, a really well told story about the California Experience, in a modestly scaled theater with a minimum (bare minimum) of effects. --Adventure of the Little Mermaid, a really well done dark ride, with a lot of cuteness and flash. And the overwhelmingly positive reaction goes to... (well, you know).>> That isn't comparing apples with apples. Theatrical shows are there to complement the attractions. You could have built more than 6 Golden Dreams for the amount of money dumped on Mermaid.
Originally Posted By gadzuux You'd have to include the demolition costs of 'Pooh' then also. I seem to remember Pooh having a budget of nearly $40 million, which we were choking on at that the time. They story then was that they had to fill in the sub-basement from the country bears to create a platform for the new attraction. That sounded suspicious to me at the time, but either way, the conversion of the country bears showbuilding was too pricey at the time. Not to mention that they surrendered perfectly usable space by turning a two-storey attraction pad into a flat ride.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>That isn't comparing apples with apples. Theatrical shows are there to complement the attractions. You could have built more than 6 Golden Dreams for the amount of money dumped on Mermaid.<< I wish we were comparing apples to apples on this one. Specifically, the "Golden Dreams" that was planned, as more than just a movie; the "Golden Dreams" that was to be THE signature attraction of DCA, rather than a complement. If the original extravaganza had been budgeted, would we be having this conversation today? (I do acknowledge that there's no answer for that one.) (And the original comparison wasn't intended as a cost analysis, but rather an example of "steak" vs. "sizzle.")
Originally Posted By leemac ^^ Amen to that. Sadly I think even the all-singing all -dancing version that Tom Fitzgerald designed wouldn't have lasted - it seems audiences just aren't interested in these type of theatrical shows. All conjecture of course. That said even if it had happened that way I'm sure TDA would have found a way to inject Disney characters into the presentation.
Originally Posted By Mickeymouseclub They have made such a mess of construction walls at DCA,it has almost destroyed my desire to enter the funpark. I have been on Little Mermaid twice and it must be cute for the younger girl age group. I felt like it was a nice version of a department store window (like they used to do for the Holidays maybe)... It just seems like the local fanboys that criticized DCA to death in the beginning are now so desperate to accept any attention from Corp Disney that any criticism is not wanted.I guess we all want to believe. After spending a day at Universal I realized there is nothing wrong with allowing a show to endure. For example:WaterWorld. I remembered seeing it many years ago...How could this still be entertaining audiences. Well the castmembers are professional stuntpeople. They knew exactly how to entertain pre-show and afterwards. The same with the stage performance of the Blues Bros and the CanCan girls in the street of Paris. Unless we want to have a 1000dollar yearly Pass we all need to accept a whole thought concept about fun and entertainment cause these prices seem insanely stupid.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<That sounded suspicious to me at the time, but either way, the conversion of the country bears showbuilding was too pricey at the time.>> There is sometimes a fine line between deciding to completely tear down a building and versus modifying an existing building. Case in point was Space Mountain track replacement. After the job was completed, it was figured that it would have been much cheaper to have taken down the original structure and completely rebuilt it. Just the act of jockying around the cranes inside the building took so much extra time, it negatively impacted the schedule significantly.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>...there is nothing wrong with allowing a show to endure.<< Not entirely sure what this is supposed to mean. If a show is a bad show, there's no point in keeping it around. If people keep going to Waterworld, then it will keep running. Disneyland had shows and attractions that have been running for years and years. DCA... not so much. Universal? A few, I guess.
