Originally Posted By arstogas Sorry, Jon, but your numbers are still off, and your numbers for EPCOT Center's construction are key to proving your sources are flawed. As others (Woody and Disneywatcher) have noted here, EPCOT Center's opening day cost was just under $900 million, not $750 million. Within a year, it's overall investment had climbed to $1.2 BILLION, and if you adjust that for inflation, AND the cost of doing business (namely - construction - all costs are higher than here) you are indeed approximating the cost of TDS, at around $3 billion, and a good chunk of that went to infrastructure, drainage, and the Mira Costa. NONE of EPCOT's money went to hotels, as in TDS or DLP. And as of NOW, adjusted for AMERICAN inflation, current investment hovers slightly over the $3 billion mark (in Epcot alone). As to "ornateness" - I'll give you that the elaborate layout and "smushing" elements together (a palace fortress at the base of a volcano, and a secret hideaway inside the volcano) does make the place more evocative. That's a design issue, and it's subjective. I think you'll find, if luck is with us, that ANIMAL KINGDOM will, in a decade, probably seem more "ornate" than even TDS.
Originally Posted By arstogas >>>I'm curious: why do people feel that he's responsible for the bad stuff, but not the good stuff?<<< I'd say it's a simplistic to view people's opinions as that cut and dried, as it is to say that Eisner IS responsible for everything bad, of late. Again, most folks like to harp on the bad, it makes for interesting conversation. Willy Wonka's dark side is much more interesting than his candy.
Originally Posted By jonvn "EPCOT Center's opening day cost was just under $900 million, not $750 million." As I said, I wasn't exactly sure of the precise number. It's still in the same ball park. "Within a year, it's overall investment had climbed to $1.2 BILLION" That's not the initial investment, which is what was being discussed. "NONE of EPCOT's money went to hotels, as in TDS or DLP." Much of Epcot's costs were obviously infrastructure. It was a swamp prior to its creation. Everything there had to be moved in. And, even though they did not build hotels on opening, that is not too surprising, as the park was a far smaller expenditure than TDS or EDL was. "That's a design issue, and it's subjective. I think you'll find, if luck is with us, that ANIMAL KINGDOM will, in a decade, probably seem more "ornate" than even TDS." Maybe it will. However, at its opening, it does not, and did not.
Originally Posted By woody >>I think you'll find, if luck is with us, that ANIMAL KINGDOM will, in a decade, probably seem more "ornate" than even TDS.<< I agree with the other parts of arstogas' post except for this line. AK is getting Dino-Rama. It's hideous. AK is getting less ornate as we speak!!! AK needs a lot of work. I hope Beastly Kingdom will be started, but it might not be enough. Both AK and DCA NEED HELP. In fact, all their US parks need major infrastructure and ride improvements. With all the new park additions, their existing parks seem neglected. It seems like everything needs to be upgraded, but with a smaller WDI organization, I don't think Disney is capable of it. On Eisner, I think his decisions in the past 6 to 7 years were a real setback against the company. Before 1995, he was doing fine.
Originally Posted By driftwood714 IMO, I think what DCA and DAK both seem to need are rides. Not just any rides but rides that give a story and help re-inforce each park and their themes. DCA in particular needs some fantasy-based attractions. Things the whole family can do together... Let's hope that after the Bugs and Tower expansions, the next project will focus on good family rides, not just thrill or kiddie rides only.
Originally Posted By arstogas >>>It seems like everything needs to be upgraded, but with a smaller WDI organization, I don't think Disney is capable of it.<<< Oh, sure they are! And they ramp up periodically as needed... they have the coolest Rolodex in the world. I DEFINITELY agree with you that Dinorama is hideous and sucks supremely... but it also SCREAMS temporary. Like some businesses put in a "stop gap" measure, and Disney seems to be falling out of a prolonged "stopgap" phase. Now by temporary I'm still talking eight to ten years, but I have strong hope for its replacement because 1) it's kind of tucked away and you can't really see much of it unless you're really IN Dinoland. 2) The REST of AK you kind of "see coming" and all of that really is beautiful, some of it sensational... (though lacking attractions, I'll grant that) ...and the fact that BEASTLY KINGDOM will be done right (it's one of those things they know they can't flub, and I am pretty confident the follow through will be there)... I did say in ten years. Ten years from now, with a Beastly Kingdom, an Australia or Polar section, demolition equipment for Dinorama...(PRIMEVAL WHIRL should be nice and rusted by then!) and the other areas grown in some, I think DAK really has the potential to be OUR DisneySeas... the land is there, plenty of it, and the potential is SO there. We'll meet for a glass of wine in ten years at Epcot's food and wine festival, and if I'm wrong, I'll treat to a good chardonnay. I don't like cheap, but I also think these things tend to be cyclical, and I think the money will be there over time. And it's also good to remember that with only a few hundred people at WED, they managed to pull off many, many improvements at both WDW and Disneyland in the early seventies.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<And it's also good to remember that with only a few hundred people at WED, they managed to pull off many, many improvements at both WDW and Disneyland in the early seventies.>> But back in those days, budgets were a bit looser and everybody got sauced on the corporate jet between California and Florida. It will take a much different mind set and management style to bring about the kind of WED of old.
Originally Posted By jonvn Disney has not pulled off a lot of universally liked stuff since the mid 90s, when EDL pretty much sucked the bottom out of them. Since that time, they've been fairly loathe to spend the levels of cash they used to. It just hasn't paid off for them. Even the sainted Epcot had cost overruns, and lower than expected attendance. It made the company profits drop by about 20%, and contributed to the company nearly being taken over. The next time they tried that, in EDL, it was independent of the main corporation, but that went bust as well. Not to mention the debacle that IOA was... To expect them to just cough up the cash on a venture that won't pay the investment back is simply ridiculous. They are not going to do it, and there is no reason to expect them to do that. If EDL was a raving financial success, and if IOA was financial success, and on, then you'd see more investment in this area. But these places just don't generate the kind of money relative to the costs as opposed to other types of investments that the company can put their money in. When the corporation is flush with cash, then it's a nice extravagance. But when they are hurting a bit, then they have to allocate the funds to where they will do the most good.
