Originally Posted By HokieSkipper The audio probably has the "preshow" audio and the boarding audio, as well as the unload audio. The ride itself is only about 10 minutes.
Originally Posted By WDWFigment <<<This is the most bizarre statement I've read in a while and shows a complete lack of understanding on how the Walt Disney Company expenses things. I suggest you read the finanical section of Disney's annual reports and also educate yourself on how Disney accounts for capital expenditures and free cash flow.>>> Those are all consolidated statements in the reports. In any case, they're going to try to (legally) manipulate the books the best they can to categorize the short term losses as ordinary and the long term gains as capital (and to show all of these gains/losses when most advantageous for tax purposes). In short, I wouldn't put too much stock in how things are categorized in the the reports, since it's all heavily consolidated and manipulated for how decision-makers actually view things.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer Nope, I have those tracks separate. Odd. Maybe someone modded it.
Originally Posted By WDWFigment <<<HM is 10? I have an audio track that's 12...Hm.>>> I think some of those audio tracks are longer than a ride through of the attraction because there are some segments of the ride you wouldn't hear on a single ride-through. I know there's a version of Splash Mountain that's like 20 minutes long, and the ride certainly isn't that long! This TLM development...I find really disappointing I have to say. Previously, I didn't mind so much money going towards meet and greets and other layers of theming because I thought a "killer E ticket" and impressive restaurant were coming. If that attraction is really just a basic WDW FL dark ride, I might revise my preliminary opinion.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << In any case, they're going to try to (legally) manipulate the books the best they can to categorize the short term losses as ordinary and the long term gains as capital (and to show all of these gains/losses when most advantageous for tax purposes). >> This statement is complete gibberish and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how to read a balance sheet.
Originally Posted By WDWFigment <<<This statement is complete gibberish and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how to read a balance sheet.>>> Enlighten me, oh wise one, what is gibberish about it?
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<This TLM development...I find really disappointing I have to say. Previously, I didn't mind so much money going towards meet and greets and other layers of theming because I thought a "killer E ticket" and impressive restaurant were coming. If that attraction is really just a basic WDW FL dark ride, I might revise my preliminary opinion. >> While I'm obviously not a fan of the FLE at all, even if Mermaid is only a D, it's still gonna be a great ride.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Enlighten me, oh wise one, what is gibberish about it? >> The use of terms "ordinary" and "capital" to describe transactions that you will never find described that way in an earnings or cash flow statement.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>While I'm obviously not a fan of the FLE at all, even if Mermaid is only a D, it's still gonna be a great ride.<<< Ariel will have AA hair. That's BA. LOL
Originally Posted By WDWFigment <<<The use of terms "ordinary" and "capital" to describe transactions that you will never find described that way in an earnings or cash flow statement.>>> No, those are tax terms that influence how different expenses are treated. In any case, going back to your initial point that Merf is wrong, how are you possibly going to know how Disney treats spending on the parks (i.e. further subdivision than what's enumerated) in a consolidated report?
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << In any case, going back to your initial point that Merf is wrong, how are you possibly going to know how Disney treats spending on the parks (i.e. further subdivision than what's enumerated) in a consolidated report? >> Because that same consolidated report also has a discussion attached to it that describes the company's goals for capital expenditures in the context of how they affect overall free cash flow. The very nature of this discussion describes limits on the amount of cash flow that can be dedicated towards capex in order to meet these goals -- therefore any capital expenditure in one segment of the company can detract from another segment if there is a limit set on the total capex in a given business cycle.
Originally Posted By mousermerf Which is exactly what I said when I said an overall loss would cut spending across the board. Yes, there's a finite amount of money - but it's a very big pool of money. They have plans for each park and each park get's XZY% of the big pool. If the big pool is too shallow, plans get delayed, that's why Pop Century got delayed in the first place. Where they are right now though, it's not a big deal. The pool is plenty big enough. We're at the same spot we were at pre-9/11 if not better. Each park is chugging along "back on track" and none is being denied expenditure. DCA and MK are spending, there are other minor projects dabbled around, while AK/Epcot/DL/DHS are funding research on their next projects. This resort is cheap - dirt cheap. Pop was designed to not only share facilities with its two halves but also Caribbean Beach. It's more conglomerated then the 3 All Stars. All they're really building is a new wing as most all the other functions are supported by the existing Pop and Caribbean. Minor dip in the pool.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>We hope.<< At this point, they don't want to cut, it's the other way around. I just hope their hopes are realized.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Yes, there's a finite amount of money - but it's a very big pool of money. They have plans for each park and each park get's XZY% of the big pool. >> 1. The pool isn't as big as it used to be considering the number of parks/resorts that now exist in comparison to the size of capital expenditure. The company hasn't significan't increased capex even though it's doubled the number of parks that are running in the past 20 years. 2. There aren't set percentages. There is a CapEx goal and there are projects at all of the worldwide resorts that compete to be a part of the CapEx. On a year-to-year basis, some parks/resorts get left out entirely while others get enormouns CapEx programs. Then, there are new ventures altogether -- like building cruise ships or resorts in Hawaii.
Originally Posted By mousermerf When has a park not had any CapEx budget? You're just looking at major openings and ignoring all the construction and development periods.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << When has a park not had any CapEx budget? You're just looking at major openings and ignoring all the construction and development periods. >> That's not what I described at all.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer Hahah. Watching the local evening news (ABC, of course) with my Mom and they mention the new hotel... Without a word from me, she quips "Another one? Can't they build something in Epcot's countries?!?". It runs in the family.
