PDA

View Full Version : Boat Ride in Germany


MJMcBride
04-05-2007, 08:08 PM
Here's a rumor from Mice Age via Mouseextra. What do you guys think?

http://www.mouseextra.com/category/mouse-whispers/

aepecoraro
04-05-2007, 09:17 PM
Sounds like it will be just like the boat ride in mexico [before they changed it]...

raidermatt
04-06-2007, 03:23 AM
Sounds like Kevin stole dbm's girlfriend or something.

As for the rumor, since it's been almost 20 years since ANYTHING was added to WS, a boat ride in Germany would be a big deal.

But this is about as thin as a rumor can get, so I think I'll just wait and see for now.

MJMcBride
04-06-2007, 08:02 AM
Sounds like Kevin stole dbm's girlfriend or something.

As for the rumor, since it's been almost 20 years since ANYTHING was added to WS, a boat ride in Germany would be a big deal.

But this is about as thin as a rumor can get, so I think I'll just wait and see for now.

Agreed. But at least they were honest about the source

dbm20th
04-06-2007, 09:07 AM
Sounds like Kevin stole dbm's girlfriend or something.

That's hilarious:thumbsup2

As for the rumor, since it's been almost 20 years since ANYTHING was added to WS, a boat ride in Germany would be a big deal.

But this is about as thin as a rumor can get, so I think I'll just wait and see for now

I agree, but any chance to talk about those lost plans for WS is worth it.

raidermatt
04-06-2007, 11:49 AM
I figured that would draw you out.

And no problem with it being reported for what it is. Eventually, someday, SOMETHING has to be added to WS, right?

Right?

MJMcBride
04-06-2007, 01:41 PM
I figured that would draw you out.

And no problem with it being reported for what it is. Eventually, someday, SOMETHING has to be added to WS, right?

Right?

Aslong as its not an olive garbage....I mean, garden

But you're right. WS needs something substanial thats new. A new attraction and/or country is really needed.

DC7800
04-06-2007, 05:32 PM
Hmm...I wonder if Disney might be talking with any pontential German corpoprate sponsors at the moment? If someone else is willing to foot the bill for such an attraction, it probably has a far, far better chance at getting built.

dunnhorn
04-06-2007, 09:50 PM
No doubt the Rhine River Cruise will go right through Belle's home town. You think we'll see Gaston?

HarambeGuy
04-07-2007, 06:55 AM
No doubt the Rhine River Cruise will go right through Belle's home town. You think we'll see Gaston?

That would actually be France. Snow White (Schneewittchen) would be more appropriate for Germany. That's if there HAS to be a character tie-in, which I hope there isn't...if the durn thing ever comes to fruition in the first place.

MJMcBride
04-07-2007, 07:47 AM
No doubt the Rhine River Cruise will go right through Belle's home town. You think we'll see Gaston?

Maybe if we sing that song

"No one's slick as Gaston, no one's quick as Gaston, no one's neck is incredibly thick as Gaston......."

dunnhorn
04-07-2007, 09:03 AM
That would actually be France. Snow White (Schneewittchen) would be more appropriate for Germany. That's if there HAS to be a character tie-in, which I hope there isn't...if the durn thing ever comes to fruition in the first place.


You know, I was having the biggest debate in my mind about the Germany vs. France thing for Gaston. His name is definitely French but good lord - that song would make a perfect tie in with the Biergarten. Plus, he's got Antlers to SPARE - what do we need more than that?

(btw, this is all tongue in cheek, made in the spirit of the recent commercialization of the Mexico boat ride)

mitros
04-07-2007, 01:15 PM
I have an Epcot souvenir book from 1982, when the place was not yet finished, and when they speak of the WS, they mention the future River Ride which "promises to be as enjoyable as it is informative"
"An early concept has visitors boarding a cruise boat for a simulated ride down the Rhine and other rivers affording a visual impression in miniature of the cultural heritage of Germany's past and highlights of it's present"
Apparently that was one of the concepts that was dropped when the costs began to grow well above what Disney intended to spend on Epcot originally.
They dropped the boat ride idea, but later took the miniature village and used it just outside the pavilion. {we all know where that is}
The show building is still there behind the mural-painted wall in back of the seating area for the fast food section of the pavilion. It has been used at various times for storage and a practice area for shows and parades at Epcot.
With any luck, they may finally bring the ride to life. But the one thing that will bother me personally is if they change the concept into some sort of thrill ride. Kind of along the lines of the also rumored Mt. Fuji ride in Japan, and the log flume ride in Canada.
As usual, time will tell, we will just have to stand by............:confused3

Horace Horsecollar
04-07-2007, 01:49 PM
Friday morning, April 6, Kevin Yee (in post #19 of this MiceChat thread (http://www.micechat.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59762&page=2)) posted:

"I thought of something this morning as I climbed onto the treadmill: what if this guy was merely talking about the transportation-across-the-lagoon Friendship boats that dock at Morocco and Germany in Epcot and he will be replacing in 2010??? I need to get that possibility into the article."

Kevin Yee is the MiceAge author who originally wrote up the rumor about adding a boat ride to Epcot's Germany. And he's now updated his article to include that possibility.

bearzabout
04-07-2007, 03:38 PM
I had heard that the boat ride was built when the pavillion was built, but they chose not to open it for some reason.

Horace Horsecollar
04-07-2007, 07:18 PM
I had heard that the boat ride was built when the pavillion was built, but they chose not to open it for some reason.
They only built the structure, not the actual attraction. There isn't an attraction that's been gathering dust for 25 years behind locked doors.

allisonswonderland
04-10-2007, 02:54 PM
Interesting - I wish EPCOT had more rides and I know that USA has the show but I wish there was a big roller coaster 0 too bad 6 Flags already has the screaming eagle

Horace Horsecollar
04-10-2007, 06:14 PM
Interesting - I wish EPCOT had more rides and I know that USA has the show but I wish there was a big roller coaster 0 too bad 6 Flags already has the screaming eagle
I would be absolutely appalled if Disney installed roller coasters and other amusement park rides in World Showcase. That would utterly ruin Epcot.

World Showcase should be about the architecture, foods, beverages, traditional culture, popular culture, history, and how people in those countries have fun. World Showcase should be be fun, enlightening, and delicious. It should immerse you in other lands.

World Showcase should not be an excuse to have the Mexican Revolution Looping Coaster or the MorocCoaster. Fortunately, I don't think there are any executives in the Disney Parks & Resorts business segment who would do something that stupid.

MJMcBride
04-10-2007, 07:29 PM
I would be absolutely appalled if Disney installed roller coasters and other amusement park rides in World Showcase. That would utterly ruin Epcot.


I get what your saying, but perhaps something enclosed or even the oft-rumored Canadian flume ride would be OK

YoHo
04-10-2007, 07:46 PM
I would be absolutely appalled if Disney installed roller coasters and other amusement park rides in World Showcase. That would utterly ruin Epcot.

World Showcase should be about the architecture, foods, beverages, traditional culture, popular culture, history, and how people in those countries have fun. World Showcase should be be fun, enlightening, and delicious. It should immerse you in other lands.

World Showcase should not be an excuse to have the Mexican Revolution Looping Coaster or the MorocCoaster. Fortunately, I don't think there are any executives in the Disney Parks & Resorts business segment who would do something that stupid.

I don't see how this doesn't apply to all of WDW.

Personally, I would have no problems with a rollercoaster of the Matterhorn/Big Thunder variety. Exposed to a certain extent, but well themed.
Of course, since Disney has proven themselves incapable of getting much Imagineering right these days, I wouldn't hope for much in this, but in theory, I wouldn't be opposed.

YoHo
04-10-2007, 07:48 PM
I get what your saying, but perhaps something enclosed or even the oft-rumored Canadian flume ride would be OK


You mean the rebranding of Grizzly run from Sierra Nevada mountain watershed to Canadian Cascade watershed while covering it in a Brother Bear theme which is set in Alaska?

Yeah, they could never screw that up.....Oh Wait.

MJMcBride
04-10-2007, 07:50 PM
You mean the rebranding of Grizzly run from Sierra Nevada mountain watershed to Canadian Cascade watershed while covering it in a Brother Bear theme which is set in Alaska?

Yeah, they could never screw that up.....Oh Wait.

Yeah thats what I mean. Alaska, Canada same diff

HarambeGuy
04-10-2007, 08:03 PM
You know, I was having the biggest debate in my mind about the Germany vs. France thing for Gaston. His name is definitely French but good lord - that song would make a perfect tie in with the Biergarten. Plus, he's got Antlers to SPARE - what do we need more than that?

(btw, this is all tongue in cheek, made in the spirit of the recent commercialization of the Mexico boat ride)

Yeah, I was following the Mexico discussion as well. However, the Rhine does pass alongside Strasbourg which on the French side of the river (for a while it forms part of the border between the two countries) so really they could go either way. And on your original theme they could have Gaston spit on the guests (I'm especially good at expectorating) like the camels at Aladdin's Magic Carpet ride in MK.

Horace Horsecollar
04-10-2007, 08:30 PM
I don't see how this doesn't apply to all of WDW.

Personally, I would have no problems with a rollercoaster of the Matterhorn/Big Thunder variety. Exposed to a certain extent, but well themed.
Of course, since Disney has proven themselves incapable of getting much Imagineering right these days, I wouldn't hope for much in this, but in theory, I wouldn't be opposed.
World Showcase is carefully designed. The World Showcase site for each country has the same width, and the buildings are designed so that each country's buildings have a similar height. Even the towers are designed so that one country doesn't "outdo" another country. The Imagineers who refined the design around 30 years ago were really quite brilliant.

That's one reason why the views across World Showcase Lagoon, regardless of where one is standing, are so lovely (ignoring the Swan & Dolphin for a moment).

If Disney ever builds additional countries (to the same standards) on the 8 (or so) remaining World Showcase sites, it would be even better.

I too would like to see more attractions in World Showcase. But those attractions should celebrate some aspect of a country. The is so much folk art, culture, storytelling tradition, scenery, music, and ethnic entertainment to use as the basis for an attraction -- regardless of the country.

I don't want to see a roller coaster that's painted green to represent Ireland. And I don't want to see a massive structure that houses a thrill ride track looming over any of the countries.

There are enough other places at Walt Disney World for roller coasters.

MJMcBride
04-10-2007, 09:40 PM
If Disney ever builds additional countries (to the same standards) on the 8 (or so) remaining World Showcase sites, it would be even better.



I don't know. It doesn't seem like they could fit 8 more without seriously crowding the place. 3 maybe

allisonswonderland
04-10-2007, 10:33 PM
Horace Horsecollar - while you may be appalled - If you recall when EPCOT first opened the problem that guests had was - no rides and then it was where are the characters. I never said anything about a big honking green roller coaster looming over Ireland- Of course I would expect it too be well themed. I think that EPCOT could use some more thrill type rides that would keep the kids there and interested. I enjoy EPCOT for what it is NOW but several years ago tromping through there with my parents I hated it!

With that said, I too think that an open coaster would be wrong. To each his own , obviously the Imagineers felt the show was going to be the best attraction - otherwise they would not selected that for the "host pavilion" It was just a thought...this is a rumor board....sorry if I upset ya:hippie: Peace

Horace Horsecollar
04-11-2007, 09:15 AM
I don't know. It doesn't seem like they could fit 8 more without seriously crowding the place. 3 maybe
World Showcase was designed with 20 or 21 "slots" for countries. Each slot is essentially the same width. There are currently 11 countries, plus the International Gateway, plus World Showplace (the former Millennium Village).

Many current World Showcase countries have a slot between them. There are exceptions. China and Norway are immediately adjacent to each other. The slot between the UK and France is filled with the International Gateway. The slot between Canada and the UK is filled with World Showplace (a tent-like, temporary building which could easily be removed). And I'm not counting the Outpost, which is little more than a small gift shop.

Today, some of the slots have filler attractions, such as train layout adjacent to Germany or the boat adjacent to Norway.

I think that the American Adventure might look crowded in if the slots on either side of that structure were used for additional countries, but the original plan said the the American Adventure should not be any wider than the other countries.

The fact remains that there are around eight slots left.

Of course, nobody -- not Disney and not corporate or governmental sponsors -- seems to be in any hurry to provide funds to add more countries to World Showcase, so this discussion is only academic.

It was just a thought...this is a rumor board....sorry if I upset ya:hippie: Peace
You didn't upset me. And I'm sorry if my choice of words came across as insulting you, rather than just stating a strong opinion.

I think there's a fundamental difference between a thrill ride that is "themed" (decorated) and a story-telling attracton that happens to include a physical thrill element of some sort. Rock-N-Roller Coaster and most roller coasters at Six Flags parks are examples of the former. Maelstrom is an example of the latter.

Every World Showcase attraction should celebrate the country in which it is located. Simply "theming" a roller coaster does not accomplish that.

perdidochas
04-11-2007, 12:20 PM
I don't see how this doesn't apply to all of WDW.

Personally, I would have no problems with a rollercoaster of the Matterhorn/Big Thunder variety. Exposed to a certain extent, but well themed.
Of course, since Disney has proven themselves incapable of getting much Imagineering right these days, I wouldn't hope for much in this, but in theory, I wouldn't be opposed.

Well, I think they did a pretty good job with Expedition Everest......

I think the Canadian flume ride would be a great idea.

raidermatt
04-11-2007, 12:38 PM
Horace Horsecollar - while you may be appalled - If you recall when EPCOT first opened the problem that guests had was - no rides and then it was where are the characters.

Everybody has a complaint. The people still showed up though, so apparently there were other positives that compensated for these supposed shortcomings.

Mr. Horsecollar is right, there's plenty of space. The problem is nobody is willing to invest to make it happen. That's why there hasn't been a new country or attraction in WS in nearly 20 years.

Well, I think they did a pretty good job with Expedition Everest......

I think the Canadian flume ride would be a great idea.


Everest is ok, but that doesn't make it right for World Showcase. Grizzly River Run is also ok, but that doesn't make it right for WS either.


That's one reason why the views across World Showcase Lagoon, regardless of where one is standing, are so lovely (ignoring the Swan & Dolphin for a moment).

I try to ignore it, but....

And also don't forget the Soarin' hangar. Not AS obtrusive as the S/D, but it still screws up some views.

MJMcBride
04-11-2007, 06:46 PM
Mr. Horsecollar is right, there's plenty of space. The problem is nobody is willing to invest to make it happen. That's why there hasn't been a new country or attraction in WS in nearly 20 years.
.

I'm sure he is correct. But if they did fill all 8 slots it would be awfully crowded there

Horace Horsecollar
04-11-2007, 07:16 PM
I'm sure he is correct. But if they did fill all 8 slots it would be awfully crowded there
It would mean that there would not be gaps between countries -- just as their is no gap between China and Norway today, except for a service road.

I would be thrilled if 8 new countries were added to World Showcase -- with new table service restaurants, new counter service facilities, new shops, new entertainment, and new attractions. Heck, I'd be thrilled if any new countries were added.

(I just have to add that I would only be upset if Disney added a new country just to be a venue for a "themed" roller roaster.)

I'm actually surprised that a new country wouldn't generate enough new income from restaurant and merchandise sales to pay its own way over time.

Unfortunately, World Showcase seems to be frozen until Disney talks someone else into paying for a new country -- and we know how successful that strategy has been over the past 20 years.

DC7800
04-11-2007, 07:35 PM
I'm sure he is correct. But if they did fill all 8 slots it would be awfully crowded there

After a quarter-century of having a World Showcase with pavilions more spaced out around the lagoon, it might seem crowded, but no worse than the Magic Kingdom I suspect.

MJMcBride
04-11-2007, 08:27 PM
After a quarter-century of having a World Showcase with pavilions more spaced out around the lagoon, it might seem crowded, but no worse than the Magic Kingdom I suspect.

True. I would think 2 or 3 new countries would be great, but 8 would seem a tad crowded. Of course, I doube two new countries would come any time soon so this means little

allisonswonderland
04-12-2007, 08:02 AM
Ok well appraently my opinion does not matter - this is not directed to Mr. Horsecollar - who I now better understand. As mine is just an opinion as well that I just threw out there. To me and my husband who are both well educated(beyond a bachelors) we feel that having a ride somewhat like the Mummy at Universal where it could tell a story (of the Revlountionary War) and then end with a Roller Coaster would be awesome. I only mentioned the Screaming Eagle as a Name and maybe I did not express myself as I should have but I did not think it would create such a contraversey.

DancingBear
04-12-2007, 09:35 AM
allisonswonderland, you did not create any controversy--we're having a discussion here. Not really sure why you appear to be offended by the discussion, or feel that you somehow created or are a focal point of that discussion.

raidermatt
04-12-2007, 12:42 PM
Ok well appraently my opinion does not matter -
Nobody said it doesn't matter. Some, including myself, just disagree with your opinion on this particular point. Conversely, you disagree with my opinion, but does that mean you're saying my opinion doesn't matter?

We like to have in depth discussions about Disney and Disney related issues around here, so there's always going to be some disagreement. Wouldn't be much to talk about if we did all agree.

True. I would think 2 or 3 new countries would be great, but 8 would seem a tad crowded. Of course, I doube two new countries would come any time soon so this means little

Exactly. If a country or two ever does get added, we should have more than enough time to evaluate how crowded it is before the next potential one comes along.

MJMcBride
04-12-2007, 05:26 PM
but does that mean you're saying my opinion doesn't matter?



I thought everybody said that

raidermatt
04-12-2007, 06:18 PM
Nicely done.

diznyfanatic
04-13-2007, 10:09 AM
World Showcase was designed with 20 or 21 "slots" for countries. Each slot is essentially the same width. There are currently 11 countries, plus the International Gateway, plus World Showplace (the former Millennium Village).

Many current World Showcase countries have a slot between them. There are exceptions. China and Norway are immediately adjacent to each other. The slot between the UK and France is filled with the International Gateway. The slot between Canada and the UK is filled with World Showplace (a tent-like, temporary building which could easily be removed). And I'm not counting the Outpost, which is little more than a small gift shop.

Today, some of the slots have filler attractions, such as train layout adjacent to Germany or the boat adjacent to Norway.

I think that the American Adventure might look crowded in if the slots on either side of that structure were used for additional countries, but the original plan said the the American Adventure should not be any wider than the other countries.

The fact remains that there are around eight slots left.

Of course, nobody -- not Disney and not corporate or governmental sponsors -- seems to be in any hurry to provide funds to add more countries to World Showcase, so this discussion is only academic.


You didn't upset me. And I'm sorry if my choice of words came across as insulting you, rather than just stating a strong opinion.

I think there's a fundamental difference between a thrill ride that is "themed" (decorated) and a story-telling attracton that happens to include a physical thrill element of some sort. Rock-N-Roller Coaster and most roller coasters at Six Flags parks are examples of the former. Maelstrom is an example of the latter.

Every World Showcase attraction should celebrate the country in which it is located. Simply "theming" a roller coaster does not accomplish that.

Bolding in above quote mine. I totally agree with this. Epcot is our favorite park and WS is where we spend a good chunk of our Epcot time. We're now firm believers that the best time to visit WDW is during F&W, with so much to enjoy at WS, as well as wonderful weather and fewer crowds, although there were days during F&W last October that felt like a Peak Season day.

I'm curious as to the how and why of the bolded segment of the above quote occurred? Hasn't the increased popularity of F&W & F&G helped at all to generate more interest in sponsoring a Pavillion?

What is the underlying problem in obtaining Pavillion sponsorships and at what point, if any, would Disney decide to spend the $$ on their own to make improvements?

We also would love to see a handful of new countries added to WS. We'd also enjoy some rehabs to the current ones (a Rhine cruise in Germany would be wonderful). There are so many wonderful possibilities that to have WS virtually untouched in 20 years is a real shame.

raidermatt
04-13-2007, 04:03 PM
What is the underlying problem in obtaining Pavillion sponsorships and at what point, if any, would Disney decide to spend the $$ on their own to make improvements?


Good questions. On the first, it's a simple matter of cost/benefit. It costs a lot of money to build and maintain a pavilion, and any potential sponsor has to believe that they will get enough of a bump in tourism (or to their specific business) to make it worth the investment.

Most governments and tourism bureaus have other pressing priorities, and probably feel other promotion opportunities are more cost effective.

Same idea with private companies. Its not easy to get them to sponser such large attractions in the first place, and since it would be themed to another country, it would most likely need to be a company based in that country, or at least with a significant presence there.

There have been rumors over the years about specific sponsorships and why they fell apart, but in the end, it comes down to somebody believing their investment was worth it, given that Disney is the one collecting ticket revenue.

Which brings us to the next question, which is when would Disney reach a point where they were willing to spend the money themselves?

Your guess is as good as mine. Obviously nearly 20 years is not enough time to go by to get them to take significant action. A possibility is that when they feel they've done what they can with Future World, they may turn to WS regardless of sponsorhip. But that's pure speculation on my part, and certainly Disney has said or done nothing to support that idea.

MJMcBride
04-13-2007, 07:39 PM
Nicely done.

Thanks. pirate:

mitros
04-13-2007, 08:07 PM
Ok well appraently my opinion does not matter - this is not directed to Mr. Horsecollar - who I now better understand. As mine is just an opinion as well that I just threw out there. To me and my husband who are both well educated(beyond a bachelors) we feel that having a ride somewhat like the Mummy at Universal where it could tell a story (of the Revlountionary War) and then end with a Roller Coaster would be awesome. I only mentioned the Screaming Eagle as a Name and maybe I did not express myself as I should have but I did not think it would create such a contraversey.

Oh gosh, enough with the roller coasters already. Every ride does NOT have to have a stomach churning roller coaster or log flume or upside down ride vehicles as part of it. :guilty: . Let us weak stomached folks have our slow rides.........I believe Universal studios has a glut of barf bag rides if one is interested in that type of entertainment.

diznyfanatic
04-13-2007, 09:33 PM
Good questions. On the first, it's a simple matter of cost/benefit. It costs a lot of money to build and maintain a pavilion, and any potential sponsor has to believe that they will get enough of a bump in tourism (or to their specific business) to make it worth the investment.

Most governments and tourism bureaus have other pressing priorities, and probably feel other promotion opportunities are more cost effective.

Same idea with private companies. Its not easy to get them to sponser such large attractions in the first place, and since it would be themed to another country, it would most likely need to be a company based in that country, or at least with a significant presence there.

There have been rumors over the years about specific sponsorships and why they fell apart, but in the end, it comes down to somebody believing their investment was worth it, given that Disney is the one collecting ticket revenue.

Which brings us to the next question, which is when would Disney reach a point where they were willing to spend the money themselves?

Your guess is as good as mine. Obviously nearly 20 years is not enough time to go by to get them to take significant action. A possibility is that when they feel they've done what they can with Future World, they may turn to WS regardless of sponsorhip. But that's pure speculation on my part, and certainly Disney has said or done nothing to support that idea.

Thank you for the detailed response and information. :)

As I wondered above, apparently the increasingly popular F&W and F&G hasn't helped with additional exposure yet, at least in terms of translating that exposure into tourist dollars.

Maybe eBay should approach Disney and offer to sponsor a Pavillion for each of the countries that eBay already has established a presence in. :rotfl:

That would take care of Pavillions for Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Hong Kong, India, Ireland, Korea, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Philippines, Poland, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Taiwan AND they could co-sponsor the existing Pavillions in Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, and the United Kingdom. ;) :lmao:

I'm totally kidding...honest!!!!

CanadianGuy
04-13-2007, 10:30 PM
True. I would think 2 or 3 new countries would be great, but 8 would seem a tad crowded. Of course, I doube two new countries would come any time soon so this means little

I took a look via Google satellite imagery and Microsoft LIVE and i see one really obvious plot of land over by the Germany area.. it's huge. Perhaps big enough for two countries if it were to be creatively used.. another smaller one beside France.. the area beside Morocco has some stuff built up behind the treeline but it doesn't look major permanent..

I don't see how you could put ANYTHING on either side of the American Adventure from these aerial shots.. The space on either side just appears too small to me. Unless you were doing someplace REALLY small, like Monoco or the United States of Micronesia.. it'd be too cramped. :)

The space between Mexico and Norway looks like it has a bunch of temporary structures back there behind the trees. Those could easily come down I suppose.

One thing cool about the MSN LIVE pages with the aerial shots, it is fairly easy from the service roads to figure out where the 'extra spaces' are.

Knox

MJMcBride
04-14-2007, 10:25 AM
Oh gosh, enough with the roller coasters already. Every ride does NOT have to have a stomach churning roller coaster or log flume or upside down ride vehicles as part of it. :guilty: . Let us weak stomached folks have our slow rides.........I believe Universal studios has a glut of barf bag rides if one is interested in that type of entertainment.

I agree. I would like to see a few more rides w/o thrills or even just minor ones like at Maelstrom

Horace Horsecollar
04-15-2007, 03:24 PM
I took a look via Google satellite imagery and Microsoft LIVE and i see one really obvious plot of land over by the Germany area.. it's huge. Perhaps big enough for two countries if it were to be creatively used.. another smaller one beside France.. the area beside Morocco has some stuff built up behind the treeline but it doesn't look major permanent..
The five best undeveloped sites for new World Showcase countries are the sites on either side of Morocco and the sites on either side of Germany, with the fifth good site being between Mexico and Norway. Yes, there are sheds of one sort or another behind the tree line on each of these sites, but such support functions can be relocated easily.

Each of the five sites that I just wrote about have as much frontage as each of the existing World Showcase countries (not counting "filler" like the German train adjacent to Germany).

The sites on either side of the American Adventure could also be developed with as much frontage as as existing World Showcase countries -- but it would visually squeeze the American Adventure.

There's a second site between Germany and China where the Outpost is now.

World Showplace (the old Millennium Village "tent") is currently blocking the sites on either side of the United Kingdom, but it could be removed, opening two more sites.

So there are actually a total of ten potential sites for additional World Showcase countries.

Of course, any new World Showcase country won't happen unless there is a business case that achieves a desired level of profit for Disney. On the cost side, there are initial capital costs and ongoing operating costs. On the revenue side, there are sponsorship fees from corporations or countries, revenue from restaurants and retail merchandise, revenue from additional Epcot attendance, as well as indirect revenue such more people buying into DVC if they see WDW is a place that is constantly being enhanced.

If I had to nominate five additions to World Showcase, I'd nominate Russia, India, Brazil, Greece, and Thailand; I could see five terrific new restaurants, wildly different architecture, good shows/rides that celebrate these five countries, and interesting shops. I could also be easily convinced that there are other countries that would make great additions.

Unfortunately, major sponsorship revenue for new World Showcase countries seems particularly unlikely. I just don't see what consortium of companies would want to invest serious advertising budget dollars to sponsor a country such as Russia, India, Brazil, Greece, or Thailand. That means that the revenue would have come from our dining and shopping dollars and from increased ticket sales. Obviously, nobody at Disney has been able to build a business case on this basis alone so far.

ASilmser
04-16-2007, 09:43 AM
Obviously, nobody at Disney has been able to build a business case on this basis alone so far.

HH: I know you are just calling it like you see it, so I am not upset with you. I I am upset with the fact that this is now the Disney philosophy.

Hopefully someone at Corporate will adopt this old, antiquated, obtuse business philosophy:

"It's no secret that we were sticking just about every nickel we had on the chance that people would really be interested in something totally new and unique in the field of entertainment."

"We did it (Disneyland), in the knowledge that most of the people I talked to thought it would be a financial disaster - closed and forgotten within the first year."

"I dream, I test my dreams against my beliefs, I dare to take risks, and I execute my vision to make those dreams come true."

"You’re dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."

"Get a good idea and stay with it. Dog it, and work at it until it's done right."

"Disneyland is not just another amusement park. It's unique, and I want it kept that way. Besides, you don't work for a dollar - you work to create and have fun."

"People look at me in many ways. They've said, 'The guy has no regard for money.' That is not true. I have had regard for money. It depends on who's saying that. Some people worship money as something you've got to have piled up in a big pile somewhere. I've only thought about money in one way, and that is to do something with it. I don't think there's a thing I own that I will ever get the benefit of except through doing things with it. I don't even want the dividends from the stock in the studio, because the government's going to take it away. I'd rather have that in (the company) working..."


Wow, whoever said those things must be clueless [sarcasm, of course]

Horace Horsecollar
04-16-2007, 12:55 PM
HH: I know you are just calling it like you see it, so I am not upset with you. I I am upset with the fact that this is now the Disney philosophy.
Thank you for recognizing that I'm not saying that Disney shouldn't invest in World Showcase unless someone else foots the bill.

Of course, I recognize that Disney is a business. But I'm surprised that Disney can't build a reasonable business case for a new country based on keeping World Showcase fresh and inviting, increasing attendance at Epcot, and generating very real, direct revenue from dining and shopping.

For example, have you seen how much money people spend at churrascarias such as Texas de Brazil and Fogo de Chão? I would think that Disney could add Brazil to World Showcase, anchored by a churrascaria -- and that the successful churrascaria alone would make Brazil self-sustaining, including funding the operation of a ride or show.

YoHo
04-16-2007, 01:25 PM
"You’re dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."


Every time some parent on this board tells me that I shouldn't complain about X attraction, because the Larve like it, I'll spam the thread with this quote.

Hear that people?

"My Kid likes it so it must be good" Is NOT an valid excuse for Disney attractions.

mitros
04-16-2007, 03:03 PM
HH: I know you are just calling it like you see it, so I am not upset with you. I I am upset with the fact that this is now the Disney philosophy.

Hopefully someone at Corporate will adopt this old, antiquated, obtuse business philosophy:

"It's no secret that we were sticking just about every nickel we had on the chance that people would really be interested in something totally new and unique in the field of entertainment."

"We did it (Disneyland), in the knowledge that most of the people I talked to thought it would be a financial disaster - closed and forgotten within the first year."

"I dream, I test my dreams against my beliefs, I dare to take risks, and I execute my vision to make those dreams come true."

"You’re dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."

"Get a good idea and stay with it. Dog it, and work at it until it's done right."

"Disneyland is not just another amusement park. It's unique, and I want it kept that way. Besides, you don't work for a dollar - you work to create and have fun."

"People look at me in many ways. They've said, 'The guy has no regard for money.' That is not true. I have had regard for money. It depends on who's saying that. Some people worship money as something you've got to have piled up in a big pile somewhere. I've only thought about money in one way, and that is to do something with it. I don't think there's a thing I own that I will ever get the benefit of except through doing things with it. I don't even want the dividends from the stock in the studio, because the government's going to take it away. I'd rather have that in (the company) working..."


Wow, whoever said those things must be clueless [sarcasm, of course]

Amen to that..........

MJMcBride
04-16-2007, 07:05 PM
"My Kid likes it so it must be good" Is NOT an valid excuse for Disney attractions.

Maybe not for you

YoHo
04-16-2007, 07:16 PM
"You’re dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."
"You’re dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."
"You’re dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."
"You’re dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."
"You’re dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."
"You’re dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."
"You’re dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."
"You’re dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."

DisOrBust
04-17-2007, 09:24 AM
You forget that kids bring with them Mommy's checkbook. Kids are/can be a persistant PIA's and are the reason we ride Dumbo every time we are in WDW and haven't seen the Hall of Presidents more then once.
The quote should be moreso "My kid likes it so its fun for US to go!".

Horace Horsecollar
04-17-2007, 09:53 AM
You forget that kids bring with them Mommy's checkbook. Kids are/can be a persistant PIA's and are the reason we ride Dumbo every time we are in WDW and haven't seen the Hall of Presidents more then once.
The quote should be moreso "My kid likes it so its fun for US to go!".
It's much better business to aim for all ages than for children only.

"Barney's Great Adventure" (1998), a movie that was aimed only at children, had a domestic box office gross of $12 million.

"Toy Story 2" (1999), a true family movie (which was also enjoyed by people without children), had a domestic box office gross of $245 million and a worldwide gross $485 million.

(Disclaimer: Box office numbers vary depending where you look.)

Yes, you can argue that "Toy Story 2" was also a better movie -- but that's actually the point. People vote with their wallets. People want excellent entertainment and they want vacations with excellent experiences.

This applies to Disney theme parks. People don't visit Disney theme parks just to appease their PIA kids. In fact, people without children visit Disney theme parks. Over the course of our lives, we only have young children in our households for a fairly limited number of years (and some people never do). People who are 18 to 90 plan Disney vacations -- not just people who are 35 with 2 grade-school children.

DisOrBust
04-17-2007, 02:36 PM
I agree Hoarce but if you market more to adults you end up with IOA. By creating an attraction for the grade school set you end up with attractions everyone can enjoy say Turtle Talk vs. M:S. In a sense by considering the younger set you end up killing more birds with one stone. Which was Walt's orginal idea wasn't it to create a park everyone could enjoy? Every demographic visits WDW but I am guessing "people who are 35 with 2 grade-school children" are in the majority . Which, BTW, isn't my demographic...anymore,lol!


Unfortunately I was a victim of the Barney Movie. I wouldn't say that was directed at children as much as it was preschoolers.

cristen
04-17-2007, 02:42 PM
I agree Hoarce but if you market more to adults you end up with IOA.

I disagree. Marketing to adults does not automatically equal thrill rides.

DancingBear
04-17-2007, 03:04 PM
I agree Hoarce but if you market more to adults you end up with IOA.We're not talking about marketing to adults, we're talking about the quote "You're dead if you aim ONLY for the kids."

See, e.g., Pirates of the Caribbean, Splash Mountain, Cranium Command, Peter Pan, Muppet Vision, the Hunchback show, It's Tough to be a Bug, etc.

Horace Horsecollar
04-17-2007, 03:14 PM
I agree Hoarce but if you market more to adults you end up with IOA.
Actually thrill rides are similar to kids' rides in that they appeal to one group of people (thrill ride fans) and have no appeal to another group of people (those who can't go on thrill rides and those who don't like physical thrills). The people who do like thrill rides will gladly ride the same ride over and over, so thrill rides draw good numbers and don't lose much popularity over time.

It's okay to have some thrill rides, especially rides like Big Thunder Mountain which appeal to more than just die-hard thrill-seekers. But, in the end, putting in too many thrill rides is prescription gaining teen and young adult market share but losing families with young children, guests with physical limitations, many older guests, and anybody who doesn't like thrills.

By creating an attraction for the grade school set you end up with attractions everyone can enjoy say Turtle Talk vs. M:S. In a sense by considering the younger set you end up killing more birds with one stone. Which was Walt's orginal idea wasn't it to create a park everyone could enjoy?
We're saying the same thing. The best attractions are those for all ages, just as Toy Story was a "kids' movie" for all ages.

That's not the same as saying to put in rides and shows that are designed to appeal only to children.

Unfortunately I was a victim of the Barney Movie. I wouldn't say that was directed at children as much as it was preschoolers.
I'm so sorry for you. I managed to avoid "Barney's Great Adventure" somehow.

All Aboard
04-17-2007, 03:34 PM
Further, even the "kiddiest" of all the early attractions - Dumbo, still is of large enough scope and scale that adults are not generally embarrassed to ride it. Unlike Heimlich's Chew Chew Train.

MJMcBride
04-17-2007, 07:07 PM
"You’re dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."
"You’re dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."
"You’re dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."
"You’re dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."
"You’re dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."
"You’re dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."
"You’re dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."
"You’re dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."


so you should aim for kids. If adults are only grown up kids, then by that theory things designed for kids would please both groups. I agree YoHo

KINGBOBOFTHENORTH
04-21-2007, 01:41 PM
I consider the Circlevision-360 shows at Canada and China to be "rides" in a broad sense. At least there is something to do there besides eat and shop. Mexico and Norway have their rides. But what is there to do at Germany besides eat and shop? Nothing. Ditto France, ditto Italy, ditto Morocco, ditto Japan, ditto UK. There is no "attraction", just eating and shopping. The only reason people even go to EPCOT anymore, besides to use up a day on their multi-day ticket, is because of the improvements being made at Future World. Meanwhile WS suffers, and it's a shame. No new pavilions in 20 years....shameful. I do hope the rumor about a Rhine ride in Germany turns out to be true. Put that in and add even just one more new country and a whole lot of people will be returning to EPCOT.

BobK/Orlando

EUROPACL
04-21-2007, 03:02 PM
I consider the Circlevision-360 shows at Canada and China to be "rides" in a broad sense. At least there is something to do there besides eat and shop. Mexico and Norway have their rides. But what is there to do at Germany besides eat and shop? Nothing. Ditto France, ditto Italy, ditto Morocco, ditto Japan, ditto UK. There is no "attraction", just eating and shopping. The only reason people even go to EPCOT anymore, besides to use up a day on their multi-day ticket, is because of the improvements being made at Future World. Meanwhile WS suffers, and it's a shame. No new pavilions in 20 years....shameful. I do hope the rumor about a Rhine ride in Germany turns out to be true. Put that in and add even just one more new country and a whole lot of people will be returning to EPCOT.

BobK/Orlando

So what you're saying is that if Diney updates their parks....people will come.....ummmm. Now if we can just get someone at Disney to understand this.

DC7800
04-21-2007, 08:10 PM
Ditto France

Uh, Impressions de France. Ok, it's just a movie and not a full 360 degrees (at least it has a seat, unlike the 360 films), and I wholeheartedly agree France needs a proper attraction (translation: ride), but if China and Canada qualify, so should France.

The only reason people even go to EPCOT anymore, besides to use up a day on their multi-day ticket, is because of the improvements being made at Future World.

Not...exactly. I go for what's left (precious little...) of the Epcot Center we once knew, and I'm sure people have other reasons (and I hardly think it's Mission Space). While I've yet to see the enhancements to The Living Seas, few additions to Future World hold much interest for those of us with an aversion to thrill rides.

Again, I agree with what you're saying, World Showcase is indeed suffering and in serious need of new attractions and countries. But arguably we may have been better off without some of the changes to Future World (Journey into Your Imagination), and those changes alone certainly do not account for Epcot's attendance numbers.