Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>I really can't fathom how anyone would like it - it is a real head-scratcher for me. The projection technology is great but the "story-telling" here is awful - truly awful. I guess folks are easily pleased. I expected a whole lot more - particularly with the music which I found to be instantly forgettable.<<< I can't fathom why anyone would like Test Track and Nemo in Future World.. What "story" is being told in the first place? Isn't it just imagery set to their PR music?
Originally Posted By Mr X Seriously dude? You "can't fathom" why anyone would like Test Track? Seriously? To say that without hyperbole or, well, stupidity means that you have no idea why anyone would ever like a roller coaster. Do you wonder why anyone ever likes a roller coaster?
Originally Posted By Mr X And another one is obsessed with "story", again. Taking lessons from LeeMac are you, EpcotExplorer? What huge and incredible "story" do we get from the Matterhorn? Or is it just a ride.
Originally Posted By Mr X Or Dumbo...how much of a "story" do you learn from going around in circles for a minute on Dumbo?
Originally Posted By Mr X Or the Teacups, and for that matter the flying saucers. How much of a story did you find with those attractions?
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Seriously dude? You "can't fathom" why anyone would like Test Track? Seriously?<<< Oh, no, I can. I like it. I just can't fathom why anyone would like it in the sense of thematics... It doesn't fit Future World. Nothing futuristic about it.
Originally Posted By sjhym333 Will Universal ever take over as the #1 theme park place from Disney? Probably not for several reasons including Universals size, brand and company ownership shake-ups. But it has been exciting to see a theme park company step up to the plate and hit a home run recently. I do however believe that Disney will be the master of its own undoing as the number one resort in terms of quality. Disney has for some reason lost sight of one of its core values which is give your guests the best and they will reward you with their loyalty and money. Unfortunately the current Disney model is more about cost effectiveness rather than if it is good enough to be Disney. The question should never be "What is Universal doing?" but "What is the best experience we can offer our guests?". The fact that the Fantasyland expansion has become a source of constant discussion in which some extol its virtues while others talk about it with such distain is because, I believe, Disney has left the MK untouched for so long. Had Disney not adopted this idea that one new attraction in one park every couple of years is enough to keep people coming back and be ok with that then these discussions would be different. If this expansion had come on the heels of several new attractions over the past decade, then it would be really exciting to me instead of a shrug. As a life long Disney fan I am very disappointed in the path that the Disney theme parks are on. I get into Disney for free but I would not but a ticket to get into Disney. There just isn't enough new things going on to bring me back over and over. And it isnt just the attractions. Its the decrease in entertainment, the lack of creativity in the merchandise (killing of Main Street shops is unforgivable), care for the facilities and the general feeling that at every turn Disney is trying to get every last cent from me that makes the experience less enjoyable then it used to be. This year we have been enjoying AP's for both Universal and Sea World. They are by no means perfect, but they have been very enjoyable. Harry Potter has been a wonderful addition to IOA. Looking at my credit card statements I can see that I am spending my discretionary money in many other places but not Disney. That should concern Disney. We used to spend a lot of money there including at least twice yearly stays. We don't anymore. Its very sad.
Originally Posted By Christi22222 Excellent post, sjhym333! I think you really summed it all up well. I'm glad that other folks feel the same, but sad that it's playing out this way.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>There's just no pleasing some people...<<< No, there is... It would take a ton, but I could be totally pleased with EPCOT. I'm currently totally pleased with WWoHP and most of IoA...
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 "It's all about Walmarting ... doing as little as possible." <<And isn't that precisely what Universal has been doing for decades with a few notable exceptions?>> No, I don't see that at all. When UNI opened its parks in FLA they weren't half-day deals. They haven't relied on tired marketing. And they have steadily pushed the bar higher ... Disney does Buzz, UNI does MiB ... Disney does Dinosaur, UNI does Spidey ... Disney does RnRC, UNI does Mummy ... Disney does marketing, UNI does Potter. One company is trying. One company is trying to live off its past, pixie dust and social media bloggers who will say planters are MAGICal. <<I still don't see why people are making such a huge distinction between the two enterprises, when in fact at the moment neither seems to be raising the bar overall.>> That's simply not true. Visit IOA and then try and honestly say UNI isn't raising the bar. <<Great expense was spent on Potterland because the franchise warranted it, not because Uni was in generous mood and felt like making its fans happy.>> Who cares why quality happens, so long as it does? I can't stand Disney's arrogance in thinking it's the only game around. UNI has been outdoing it for years now, but since pixie dust isn't included fanbois like to dismiss it.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<I really can't fathom how anyone would like it - it is a real head-scratcher for me.>> Seconded. <<The projection technology is great but the "story-telling" here is awful - truly awful. I guess folks are easily pleased.>> To be fair, it sure seems like many WDW guests are. Although the crowd I watched the show with Saturday night didn't seem overly impressed. <<I expected a whole lot more - particularly with the music which I found to be instantly forgettable.>> I can't recall it right now!
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<I'm not an engineer - I'm interested in the show - and I was surprised at how good the show looked at all four parks recently.>> My trip was largely business, so I didn't spend a huge amount of time in any park (besides a full day at IOA). But the show elements I did see were definitely a mixed bag. They close Splash Mountain for a month, add new logs and still can't fix effects that haven't worked in years. That's just pathetic. SWSA actually looked better than I have seen it in years, but that's likely because it's being closed (naturally). And while things like Mansion and HoP are in top shape, other attractions like PoC are not. And on an infrastructure level, parts of the park are falling apart. Hence all the scrims on Main Street. If they did regular maintainance, they might have one building under tarps at a time, instead of walking into Town Square and 75% of what you see is covered. <<Central Florida is a hideous climate to work in - the humidity, heat and intense sunrays cause major problems - particularly for wood (and I thought most of MSUSA used the vinyl composite these days like HKDL but I'm no construction expert). The AdvL bridge is planned replacement - it isn't emergency replacement.>> Climate is a poor excuse. WDW has been in central FLA since 1971, the climate hasn't been altered since then (global warming and all). Paris has a very harsh climate (much worse in some ways). Tokyo ... HK ... very bad climates too. Only Anaheim has close to an ideal climate. The fact is my home is located in FLA and I have to maintain it taking into consideration the weather. Disney needs to do the same, instead of cutting corners for years. This is the company that will eschew a $3,000 repair in 2000 and wind up spending $500,000 a decade later to clean up the mess ... <<Perhaps I give WDW a (slight) pass on these matters as I'm still amazed at how they keep the place operating to any level at all. Walt may have thought that size was a virtue but it isn't when you've developed so much.>> Bigger isn't better. WDW was maintained to a near pristine level when you go back to 1971 or 1981 ... even in 1991, the general level was very high. But now? Everywhere you look, you can see something that's needing work and/or being ignored. Size was a blessing when Walt bought the land for WDW. But he never envisioned a four park monster with 30,000 hotel rooms and timeshares and roads clogged with traffic. That wasn't the plan. And the greedy men and women who followed are only interested in quarter to quarter results and not the resort as a whole.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Will Universal ever take over as the #1 theme park place from Disney?*** I never thought Apple would pass Microsoft, but last year they did. I'd say the ball is in Universal's court right now, as Disney allowing their quality to slip and their ideas to become lackadaisical (just like Microsoft did) opens the door for someone to come in and surpass them. Doesn't seem likely in the near future, but down the road you never know...
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< The point is that IoA's attendance was in the toilet - so any movement up from the base is going to look very good. Sure they added 2m additional clicks for 2010 (when Potter was only open for little more than half the calendar year) but combined both of those Uni parks are probably getting as many guests as Epcot which runs to c.12m if the estimates are correct (I can't comment). So in short WDW is still the king of the swamps - that isn't going to change any time soon. >>> Well, there's bragging rights as being "King of the swamps" and then there's revenue and earnings. Let's take a closer look at those 2 million extra turnstile clicks for 2010. As you point out, that's for just over half a year, so the 2011 results will likely be equally if not more impressive. Looking closer, what do you think the average revenue for each of those extra 2 million clicks is? I suspect it's far larger than what an Epcot click is worth. Obviously, folks with inside knowledge at either company will have more specific information than I do about their company's clicks, but let's do some armchair accountanteering. What is the average click at Epcot worth in terms of revenue? I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of revenue guests are there on a multi-day ticket of some sort, or an AP. For me, I visit WDW infrequently enough in terms of days per year that the cheapest ticket for me is a 10-day non-expiring park hopper, which was $42/day the last time I purchased it. Compare this to the 2m extra IOA clicks last year due to HP: I suspect the average value of those clicks is a lot more than $42. For me, I recently had one day in Orlando to go to a park. But for HP, I would have used one of my $42 Disney clicks. Instead, I forked over $82 for a click into IOA. Although my exact situation is atypical, I think it points to a larger trend: I suspect there are a great many families that have visited Orlando in the past 6 months, and will continue to do so going forward, that typically have spent their entire visit at WDW parks (whether or not they stay on property). With HP coming online, I suspect that in many cases, they peel away 1 or 2 days from their WDW vacations in order to visit USO/IOA, rather than extend their vacations. Looking that the pricing models of the two resorts, the extra 2m clicks at IOA are probably worth MUCH more in terms of revenue than what 2m average WDW clicks are worth to Disney.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< So Disney cannot be overtaken, is that the just of what I'm reading? >>> I don't think it has anything to do with being "overtaken." Although it would be *serious* doo-doo for TWDC if WDW were no longer considered to be the premiere destination in Orlando, that's not really the point. The quarterly and annual earnings reports do not measure who's on top in Orlando, but instead measure the growth in earnings at WDW. WDW, when you include the 4 parks, all of the DVC sales, and all of the on-site resorts, must bring in many times the revenue of the Universal Studios Florida resort. If things that Universal does serve to impact earnings growth at WDW, then it becomes a big problem for Disney far before any notion of Universal "overtaking" Disney comes into the picture.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< I'd just point out that while one billion may sound like a significant amount (and it is), it also is spent among five (soon to be six) resort complexes world-wide, a cruise line in the midst of its largest expansion ever and off-property resorts such as Aulani in Hawaii. >>> Uh, not quite my dear spirit. I assume you just had a brain-fart, because I'm sure that you know that TWDC has 0% ownership in anything at TDR, and contributes 0% to any capex that goes on there. Any costs related to anything at TDR are entirely OLC's responsibility. All TWDC does is provide WDI and management oversight services to TDR at profitable rates, and collect royalties off of gate, hotel, F&B, and merchandise revenue without respect to earnings and with no capital invested.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< I didn't and don't see rotting infrastructure - that is pure hyperbole. I see a gigantic operation that is shifting more and more to becoming a value commodity. It is virtually impossible to offer a truly premium experience across the entire resort - and only WDW Co. PR would suggest otherwise. >>> That's a great point. On my recent Orlando visit, I only had two nights and one park day in town, and because of HP, I chose to stay at Universal, and more specifically, and the Royal Pacific. I have to say, that once I wiped the pixie dust out of my eyes from previous stays at Disney Deluxe resorts, the Royal Pacific blew anything Disney has on offer right out of the water. And, I've stayed at the Portofino before, and that resort makes my point even more so. Getting to my room at the Royal Pacific, I could not help but notice how it was far superior than anything that Disney has on offer, even in its "deluxe" resorts. You say "gigantic operation that is shifting more and more to becoming a value commodity." That's the essence of what's going on at WDW. To wit: consider the quality of the linens and towels at the Disney resorts. My understanding is that they switched to a central laundry a few years ago in order to reduce costs, and when they did so, they got rid of any resort tier differentiation in this area. I remember that the last time I stayed in a WDW deluxe resort, the towels in particular seemed something more appropriate to a Motel 6. They were perfectly adequate for what I'd expect at All Stars or other value resorts on site, but not at a deluxe resort for the price they charge. But at the Royal Pacific, I had a true deluxe resort experience from top to bottom, operated by a real hotelier that understands what that means.
