Originally Posted By fkurucz >>The notion that attractions are 'easy to update' must be a great selling point when Imagineering presents to the 'sharp pencil boys' -- but in reality...<< Of course, the sharp pencil boys will ask "why update it if it still draws a crowd?". Why replace the movie in Soarin' if it still has 60 minute standby lines?
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <Of course, the sharp pencil boys will ask "why update it if it still draws a crowd?". Why replace the movie in Soarin' if it still has 60 minute standby lines?> Then, why make it a selling point?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Plus, that isn't going to help the west coast. Any Star Wars attractions going in there would most likely be placed in DCA.<< I'd think Tomorrowland. In fact, I can see Tomorrowland at Disneyland becoming mostly Star Wars and Marvel stuff.
Originally Posted By Manfried <<Of course, the sharp pencil boys will ask "why update it if it still draws a crowd?". Why replace the movie in Soarin' if it still has 60 minute standby lines?>> Yep, why spend money if people are in a long line to ride it?
Originally Posted By WDWdreamin I think that the Harry Potter books are well written. I've read A LOT of fantasy and other genres (heck, I have a BA in literature), and I think that they are good: very good young adult fantasy. In quality, they are well above Hunger Games and leaps and bounds above Twilight. I haven't read any Star Wars "literature". And I do not think that they are a dumbed down version of LOTR at all. The movies aren't art, but I don't think the Star Wars ones are either. I think they are all popular for reaching certain audiences. At this time, I think Harry Potter is more popular around the world than Star Wars. I don't know if it will maintain that crazy level like Star Wars continues to do. I also agree that it is wonderful to get kids to read anything. Just yesterday I had to admit that reading about SpongeBob is better than not reading at all, and that was hard for me. Taking it from there is not Harry Potter's job/fault.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<I'd think Tomorrowland. In fact, I can see Tomorrowland at Disneyland becoming mostly Star Wars and Marvel stuff.>> You know your home park better than I do. I'm certainly not the expert on DL. And, your probably right that the future of Tomorrowland will be Star Wars and Marvel attractions.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>There are people that are expecting the Marvel launch to happen inside a DL-type park and at the moment that is looking likely.<< Shanghai?
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "I could see an Ewok encampment in Animal Kingdom taking the place of Avatar." No offense, but this sounds worse than Avatar to me. The Ewoks are fun, but not in a good way.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo Of all the things they could do, an Ewok encampment might be the worst.
Originally Posted By leemac <<<Of course, the sharp pencil boys will ask "why update it if it still draws a crowd?". Why replace the movie in Soarin' if it still has 60 minute standby lines?> Then, why make it a selling point?>> I'll probably botch the explanation but here goes. When you cost up an attraction there are two distinct elements namely the capital expenditure required to design & build and the on-going operating costs (i.e. to run the attraction - so staffing, maintenance, utilities etc.). There is no box to factor in future upgrades. However it does become a soft factor in pitching a project - and can be an important element to securing funding. Ultimately it should only be a selling point internally but it does get commented on by the media - particularly fan sites - and they run with it.
Originally Posted By leemac <<There are people that are expecting the Marvel launch to happen inside a DL-type park and at the moment that is looking likely.<< Shanghai?>> There are 3 Marvel proposals being worked on at the moment for three different Disneylands. I think that narrows down the guesswork. ))
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<Ultimately it should only be a selling point internally but it does get commented on by the media - particularly fan sites - and they run with it.>> I agree leemac. However, when your attractions is nothing more than a glorified movie theater, like Soarin, I would think it would be a no brainer that Disney has the ability to swap out movies when one gets old and stale; ie Captain EO, just like ever other movie theater on the planet. The other arguement for swapping out movies is that, in your anology there is a presumptively no funding for upgrades. However, this doesn't account for the "plusing" several Disney attraction to have interactive queues. In my opinion money should be spent on updating, retrofitting and holiday decorating pre existing attractions over and above building interactive queues. There is no one I can think of that is saying they are going on vacation to the Magic Kingdom, so they can enjoy the interactive queue at Haunted Mansion and Winnie the Pooh. There are plenty of people that say they are going on vacation to the Magic Kingdom so they can ride the Haunted Mansion and Winnie the Pooh. The priority should be on the attractions not the queues. Do what you have to do to keep the rides safe, fresh, updated, relevant and festive. I don't think the interactive queues "add" to the Haunted Mansion or Winnie the Pooh. If anything they probably take away from the experience, not add to it. Those attractions do just fine without the interactive queue.
Originally Posted By leemac <<The other arguement for swapping out movies is that, in your anology there is a presumptively no funding for upgrades.>> There is no funding in the original business model - therefore any funding would need to be found from the general capex pool or from maintenance. Even if it was included in the original business model there isn't an effective way to ringfence that money anyhow. <<The priority should be on the attractions not the queues.>> The issue is that the funding for the interactive queues comes from an entirely different budget from the capex budget. <<I don't think the interactive queues "add" to the Haunted Mansion or Winnie the Pooh. If anything they probably take away from the experience, not add to it. Those attractions do just fine without the interactive queue.>> I think there are attractions that need better queue spaces - I agree with HM or WTP shouldn't have been a high priority. Continuous load attractions don't need them. Attractions like Soarin' do as they have sporadic load systems.
Originally Posted By leemac <<I agree leemac. However, when your attractions is nothing more than a glorified movie theater, like Soarin, I would think it would be a no brainer that Disney has the ability to swap out movies when one gets old and stale; ie Captain EO, just like ever other movie theater on the planet.>> I totally agree - and the whole of TPP (the movie making group within WDI) agree too. The problem is getting the budget to execute those changes. Management have no interest in switching out filmic attractions as they don't increase capacity and aren't perceived to be incremental attendance drivers. Hence why we still have a raft of old movies playing at the parks - Circle of Life at the Land Pavilion will be 18 years old in January, EO is from '96, HISTA from '94 etc. There is a nervousness about 3D movies these days with it being a technology that is now in theaters and even in many homes - some theaters even have the motionbase these days (like the horrible D-BOX or X4D systems). Therefore I can understand (to a degree) the decision not replace the 3D movies. However there are still some very old 2D movies in the parks that could be with upgrading.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>No offense, but this sounds worse than Avatar to me. The Ewoks are fun, but not in a good way.<< Maybe Disney could rent out "blasters" and let guests shoot the Ewoks?
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<The issue is that the funding for the interactive queues comes from an entirely different budget from the capex budget.>> I think we are getting to the crux of the problem. As a WDW fan and visitor, I interpret what you are saying is that the lack of maintenance, staleness of attractions, lack of holiday overlays are a mere accounting scheme. Since, where the Disney Company is involved, there always seems to be a pot of money to either buy Lucas Film, retrofit a hotel in Hawaii, build a new cruise ship, build more DVCs, put forth RFID chip refillable mugs in resorts, bulldoze and morph Mickey's Toontown Faire into something else. Meanwhile, again from a fan and visitors perspective, sitdown restaurant meals are cut back dinner only at POR, the sitdown restaurant at French Quarter remains closed, etc. leemac, I'm not trying to insinuate that you are responcible for any of this, but from a fan and visitors perscpective it makes little sense that the most menial of things are being taken away or neglected but yet quests can play interactive games while in queue for the Haunted Mansion and Pooh. Menial, gosh, how about the 2nd floor of Imagination empty! Anyway, I'm sure you get my point. I'm not sure letting the accountants run the parks using accounting schemes is a great idea. I'm also sure you can understand how illogical that seems to fans and quests.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Also, from what your saying, as far as WDW is concerned, we are more likely to get a new sitdown restaurant rather than seeing a preexisting restaurant renovated. As a fan and quest it makes little sense to me that valuable real estate in the form of sitdown restaurants in Adventureland, Tomorrowland, and Liberty Square remain idle, empty, or are only open seasonally. And instead we get another sitdown restaurant in the New Fantasyland reclaimation project. I quess I'm not saying anything we haven't been talking about for the past few years. WDW's business plan just seems so odd to me at times.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>No offense, but this sounds worse than Avatar to me.<< Please. We have photographic evidence of you with Duffy, your favorite Disney character. Don't try pretending to be all anti-Ewok, Hans. It's not fooling anyone. ; )
Originally Posted By leemac <<Since, where the Disney Company is involved, there always seems to be a pot of money to either buy Lucas Film, retrofit a hotel in Hawaii, build a new cruise ship, build more DVCs, put forth RFID chip refillable mugs in resorts, bulldoze and morph Mickey's Toontown Faire into something else. >> Those are all revenue- and profit-generating new products. They are all non-organic growth except for the latter example. The latter is an example of organic growth and would have been justified in the business plan by generating incremental attendance increases.
Originally Posted By leemac <<As a WDW fan and visitor, I interpret what you are saying is that the lack of maintenance, staleness of attractions, lack of holiday overlays are a mere accounting scheme.>> TWDC is a public company - its responsibility is to its shareholders. WDW Co. is run as enterprise-for-profit and therefore everything is does has an accounting implication as it all leads back to the financial statements (income statement, balance sheet and cashflow statement). There will always be a conflict between guest and corporation and there will be a tipping point whether prices increase and/or service decreases below an acceptable threshold. MK hasn't had any substantial investment for years because guests continue to turn up and spend money - that's consumerism for you. Guests can only get the attention of management to these issues if they vote with their pocketbook (or if there is a PR storm). I do understand your frustrations but ultimately everything comes down to shareholder value and that can only be achieved by increasing revenue and/or lower costs.
