Originally Posted By TP2000 jonvn, >>"Basically, a lot of people online simply kiss up to a certain webmaster, and have no independent thought, and as shown here, almost no understanding of the industry they profess to be interested in."<< Don't know where you are going with that really. Myself, I have been to exactly ONE (1) "Noon Meet" at the Hub. It was in 1998, during the old alt.disney.disneyland days. I met some pleasant folks, but I had no real desire to return to that social group. I have since not met in person with anyone from online, nor have I communicated via email. There is two boards I post on that have PM capabilities, but I don't even use that. It's just not my scene. As for knowledge of the theme park industry, is there something you'd like to share with us regarding why Disney would need to create a 1.2 Billion Dollar budget for a theme park that is only six years old and has already had several hundred million dollars spent on its expansion and plussing in the last five years? If I'm on the wrong track, can you explain to us why Disney would need to spend 1.2 Billion on DCA on top of the hundreds of millions already spent since opening day?
Originally Posted By TDR_Fan <<DisneySea opened in 2001 and is one of the most stunning parks I've ever visited.>> Sigh. I still can't believe how two parks, built by the same company, can have such an enormous gap in quality. Tokyo DisneySea is easily the most gorgeous and elaborate theme park ever built. I understand that the Oriental Land Company was responsible for that, giving Imagineers (from what I've read) over $4 billion and all to design an unique Disney park. Now DCA cost what; around $650 million? And what do we get? Several cheaply themed, off the shelf attractions and just simply an unattractive mess of a Disney park (except Grizzly Peak of course). Like others have mentioned, I don't think the budget was to blame. Animal Kingdom was a very lovely and well themed park, and it only cost $800 million. And Animal Kingdom was over 500 acres compared to 55 acres for DCA. I think $650 million (given the small size of DCA) could have produced a very well themed park on the scale of Epcot or Animal Kingdom, design-wise that is. The concept was simply flawed and executed poorly.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "They need to dramatically rebuild and retheme almost the entire park." How do you know this? The Internet rumors certainly don't suggest anything quite that ambitious.
Originally Posted By TP2000 TDR_Fan, do you have any idea of the rough financial figures they've spent on DisneySea since opening day for expansion? I can think of just two rides built at DisneySea; Tower of Terror and that Mayan roller coaster D Ticket back by Indy. They reworked Sinbad to make it "cuter", but kept the ride and the original sets and figures and format. What do you think that cost? Here's what I'm getting at: Some folks like jonvn feel DCA is just going through normal expansion after six years of operation. And yet DCA has already undergone some major expansion and major modifications to existing facilities, some of which were turned on literally within months of opening to a silent thud in the marketplace in February, 2001. I wonder what the difference in dollar figures is between the money already spent on tweaking and expanding DCA versus the money spent tweaking and expanding DisneySea. Some of that will be hard to quantify because Tokyo Disney Resort does everything with such incredibly high quality. Just the difference in materials and detailing used on their Tower of Terror compared to DCA's similar version is proof of that. There's an argument out there that the expansion and rethemeing about to take place in DCA is par for the course for a six year old theme park. But the more I think about it, the more I realize that an awful lot of capital has already been spent on DCA in the last five years. And even though the end results have been mixed, they may have already spent more on DCA additions since 2001 than they have on DisneySea additions. That would certainly not help the argument of those who say that the activity in DCA is par for the course. A lot has been spent on DCA, and yet it still needs a great deal of help to the tune of 1.2 Billion dollars. Any idea what the rough estimates are for DisneySea's Tower of Terror, Mayan roller coaster and Sinbad tweaking?
Originally Posted By TP2000 Hans >>"How do you know this? The Internet rumors certainly don't suggest anything quite that ambitious."<< The internet rumors are saying 1.2 Billion has been set aside for DCA alone. That is in addition to the several hundred million already spent on DCA additions and fixes since 2001. That's more than double than what they spent to build the place to begin with. If you don't call that ambitious, I don't know what is.
Originally Posted By TDR_Fan <<Any idea what the rough estimates are for DisneySea's Tower of Terror, Mayan roller coaster and Sinbad tweaking? >> Tower of Terror: about $200 million Raging Spirits: about $80 million I'm not sure about the Sindbad refurb, but I'm guessing it must have cost at least $30 million. So they've spent roughly around $300 million on (give or take a few million dollars) Tokyo DisneySea since its opening in 2001. And that figure only covers the attractions too.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "TDR_Fan, do you have any idea of the rough financial figures they've spent on DisneySea since opening day for expansion? I can think of just two rides built at DisneySea; Tower of Terror and that Mayan roller coaster D Ticket back by Indy." Again, two different parks with two different objectives. "The internet rumors are saying 1.2 Billion has been set aside for DCA alone." While 1.2 billion dollars is indeed a tremdous sum of money (assuming that number is even true), you do realize that it's being spent over a 10 year period, right? It's not like it's all going to happen next year.
Originally Posted By TP2000 Fascinating. They've swapped out a lot of entertainment during that time, but that's very normal for Tokyo. There they introduce a major parade that runs for just one season before being replaced, where in Anaheim a major parade easily will run unchanged for four or five years at a stretch. Same with stage shows; constantly swapped out for new stuff in Tokyo, versus playing for years at a time in Anaheim. How old is Aladdin now? Three years? Four years? It seems to me that the 300 Million spent on DisneySea for two new rides and a reworked existing ride would pan out to the same or slightly less than has been spent on DCA in the same time frame. Here's what I would consider as the similar list for DCA expansion and major modification from opening day; Electrical Parade Millionaire - Play It! Steps In Time 2 Luminaria Power of Blast Playhouse Disney Bugs Land Tower of Terror Monsters Inc. Toy Story Midway Mania I won't bother trying to quantify the failed events like Rockin' The Bay, XGames, Fiesta Latina, etc. Those were cheap and painful additions that just have to be chalked up to panicky marketing instead of thoughtful capital investment. They were probably only about 5 Million apiece to pull off each year. But as for the solid list above, I imagine a person more familiar with financial estimates would be able to add all of that up. In my quick guesstimate I bet it's about 300 Million, or even more than that, combined. Nothing to sneeze at, and more than most other American Disney Parks receive in their first five years of operation.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Nothing to sneeze at, and more than most other American Disney Parks receive in their first five years of operation >> Well, maybe you should consider inflation adjusted expenditures at DL for its first five years between 1955 and 1960.
Originally Posted By TP2000 For those keeping score at home, Aladdin opened at DCA on January 16, 2003. It has been playing for almost FIVE YEARS, with no hint at a replacement anytime soon. Which is exactly why I would consider Steps In Time 2 and Blast as part of the capital investment in DCA. For the last 10 years the mindset from TDA has been to let parades and major stage shows play for years at a time without needing replacement.
Originally Posted By TP2000 >>"Well, maybe you should consider inflation adjusted expenditures at DL for its first five years between 1955 and 1960."<< According to the inflation calculator, what costs 300 Million in 2006 dollars would have cost 42 Million in 1957 dollars. Considering that the massive 1959 expansion only cost 7 Million in 1950's dollars and saw the addition of three major attractions - the Monorail, the Matterhorn and the Submarines - I'm betting the capital expenditures for Disneyland from 1955 to 1960 were less than 15 Million dollars. 15 Million dollars in 1957 would be 107 Million in 2006 dollars. But then that's a very hard thing to try and equate, as much has changed with the way you spend money on construction since 1957. You really can't compare the costs of building custom construction projects in the 1950's to the cost of doing such a thing in the 21st century. But if you were to try such a comparison, it appears Walt spent dramatically less money expanding Disneyland in the 1950's than they have spent on expanding DCA in the 2000's.
Originally Posted By jaybee I'm more interested in seeing Nemo88's question get answered than another thread derailed to the DCA debate. Nobody has come up with a new argument in years anyway.
Originally Posted By Britain Here here! I too was wondering about Triton's Carousel. Should it possibly be moved closer to the forth coming Little Mermaid ride? (Gasp! In all these debates we've had about the appropriateness/inappropriateness of having a Little Mermaid ride in the Pier, we've forgotten that there ALREADY was a one!)
Originally Posted By jonvn "Don't know where you are going with that really." When someone mentions a certain webmaster in nearly every post, it gets to be quite noticeable. "is there something you'd like to share with us regarding why Disney would need to create a 1.2 Billion Dollar budget " This has already been discussed, repeatedly. I'm sorry Al himself didn't repeat it for you so you can assimilate the information. "Some folks like jonvn feel DCA is just going through normal expansion after six years of operation." It's going through expansion. It's a large expansion, and they are doing it because they think THEY CAN GET THEIR MONEY BACK ON THE INVESTMENT. And they think this because the expansion in 2001 turned out to be a very big success. This is how they base financial decisions on, not whether or not you think the cotton candy is just the right shade of blue. "Again, two different parks with two different objectives. " This does not penetrate, you know. "Aladdin opened at DCA on January 16, 2003. It has been playing for almost FIVE YEARS, with no hint at a replacement anytime soon. " Is it still popular?
Originally Posted By rocket jet Yes, the carousel should be moved to where the Little Mermaid ride will be. In fact, I would prefer if they integrated the carousel into the exit to the ride, instead of having Palace of Fine Arts be the exit.
Originally Posted By jonvn "we've forgotten that there ALREADY was a one!" Well, like I said in another post, King Triton is not just a Little Mermaid character. He's a mythological character, the son of Poseidon. There is little tying the movie to the ride. It's like Slue Foot Sue's Golden Horseshoe. She was a person of legend before Disney used the character in a cartoon. <a href="http://www.theoi.com/Pontios/Triton.html" target="_blank">http://www.theoi.com/Pontios/T riton.html</a> The carousel has nothing to do with the movie, near as I remember. It does have Disney's version of King Triton appearing on the sign. What else is on this ride that has to do with the film? I always thought that they should have put the carousel where the orange stinger is, and made it a double or triple decker, too.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Which is exactly why I would consider Steps In Time 2 and Blast as part of the capital investment in DCA." That's nice, but what is the viewpoint of Disney management? After all, that's what is really important, not what you or I think. Of course this only serves to highlight exactly why these kinds of speculative discussions are just plain silly.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "I always thought that they should have put the carousel where the orange stinger is, and made it a double or triple decker, too." Ooooh, that's a good idea!
