What would Disney's answer be to The Wizarding World of Harry Potter?

[Disney Padawan]

I've heard that in retaliation Disney might finally start working on the "Beastly Kingdom" project. I've also heard that they may re-theme some or all of Adventure Land into a Pirate's Land. Yet another rumor says that they will remake Test Track into a Cars theme & will put in a new ride at the Disney Studios. (Not sure what kind of ride?) I wonder if Disney will do one or all of these or take the "wait & see" approach. Anyone have any predictions about this?

[adabob]

THey already turned the AL at Hong Kong DL into PL and the new ride are you talking about the Toy Story ride

If they put the new are in at AK i have been waiting for that

I am kinda mad that Universal got the Harry Potter deal instead of Disney

[crazy4wdw]

It's also rumored that Disney is considering an update/overall of Star Tours at Disney/MGM to counter the new Harry Potter attractions at Universal.

[EUROPACL]

It's also rumored that Disney is considering an update/overall of Star Tours at Disney/MGM to counter the new Harry Potter attractions at Universal.

Edit....nevermind. Wrong thread.

[Disney Padawan]

THey already turned the AL at Hong Kong DL into PL and the new ride are you talking about the Toy Story ride

If they put the new are in at AK i have been waiting for that

I am kinda mad that Universal got the Harry Potter deal instead of Disney

Anyone Know what attractions "Beastly Kingdom" will have?
As for the Pirates Land, I've heard that they'll move "The magic carpets of Aladdin" somewhere else & re-theme "The enchanted Tiki Room" to go with the whole land. They're not sure what to do with "Jungle cruise." Could be possible that they'll gut it but I don't see that happening anytime soon, they just may close it off for a while.
Does anybody know anything about this "Toy Story ride?"

Oh, and I know many people are mad that Disney didn't want Harry Potter, We'll have to wait & see what universal does with this. Maybe a little friendly competition is what Disney needs right now, don't ya think? :)

[vonpluto]

Anyone Know what attractions "Beastly Kingdom" will have?


Don't know about any possible future BK, but some of the original Beastly Kingdommie concepts included:


•Dragons Tower
Roller Coaster inside a castle ruled by a dragon
•teacup type ride
•Quest for the Unicorn - an adventure through a maze of medieval mythological creations to
seek the hidden grotto where the unicorn lives.
•Fantasia Gardens - musical boat ride featuring the animals from Fantasia
Shops and eateries
•Loch Ness Landing Restaurant
•Mother Goose Shop

:thumbsup2

[Disney Padawan]

It's also rumored that Disney is considering an update/overall of Star Tours at Disney/MGM to counter the new Harry Potter attractions at Universal.

I've also heard this for quite a while & know it will make any Star Wars fan happy. (Including me. :thumbsup2 ) I wonder if it'll be an upgraded film or a totally new ride! seeing how they're taking their sweet time to do this, I'm not holding my breath. :confused:

Don't know about any possible future BK, but some of the original Beastly Kingdommie concepts included:


•Dragons Tower
Roller Coaster inside a castle ruled by a dragon
•teacup type ride
•Quest for the Unicorn - an adventure through a maze of medieval mythological creations to
seek the hidden grotto where the unicorn lives.
•Fantasia Gardens - musical boat ride featuring the animals from Fantasia
Shops and eateries
•Loch Ness Landing Restaurant
•Mother Goose Shop

:thumbsup2

WOW!!! This sounds great I wonder if they'll go through with it?

Harry Potter VS. Beastly Kingdom? Who do you guys think will have the better rides/theme?

[adabob]

I've also heard this for quite a while & know it will make any Star Wars fan happy. (Including me. :thumbsup2 ) I wonder if it'll be an upgraded film or a totally new ride! seeing how they're taking their sweet time to do this, I'm not holding my breath. :confused:



WOW!!! This sounds great I wonder if they'll go through with it?

Harry Potter VS. Beastly Kingdom? Who do you guys think will have the better rides/theme?

Definetly Disney One because of Detail I would love the Harry Potter at Disney but i do not think universal will do as good of a job as disney would do

[MJMcBride]

I've also heard this for quite a while & know it will make any Star Wars fan happy. (Including me. :thumbsup2 ) I wonder if it'll be an upgraded film or a totally new ride! seeing how they're taking their sweet time to do this, I'm not holding my breath. :confused:

Here's my thoughts on Star Wars expansion, many of which Kevin Yee recently expanded on....
http://www.mouseextra.com/2007/04/28/ideas-for-making-the-most-of-star-tours/#comments


Harry Potter VS. Beastly Kingdom? Who do you guys think will have the better rides/theme?

....and here's some of my thoughts on how to update the Beastly Kingdomme idea by converting it into a Narnia land at DAK
http://www.mouseextra.com/2007/06/01/building-upon-the-animal-kingdom-part-three-beastly-kingdomme/#respond

[ChrisFL]

I've also heard this for quite a while & know it will make any Star Wars fan happy. (Including me. :thumbsup2 ) I wonder if it'll be an upgraded film or a totally new ride! seeing how they're taking their sweet time to do this, I'm not holding my breath. :confused:



WOW!!! This sounds great I wonder if they'll go through with it?

Harry Potter VS. Beastly Kingdom? Who do you guys think will have the better rides/theme?

Since Universal already stole the thunder from Beastly Kingdom to begin with (because of the former Imagineers making parts of it for IOA instead), I dont think Disney can do it the same way as they had planned.

Of course Universal can do just as good a job on Harry Potter as Disney could and they're probably willing to spend a lot more money on it than Disney would as well.

Also, one person pointed out how Disney has never really made a whole "land" based on one franchise (book, movie or otherwise) but Universal has.

I dont see how this could be a bad thing, competiton IS GOOD, it means Disney has to deliver something and big...because just being on here I've seen a ton of people who are already planning a trip to IOA in 2009

[Bella the Ball 360]

The minute I heard that Universal was going to get Potter I was a little disappointed. It has been said by others that Universal does not give the attention to detail that Disney does and I totally agree. This would have totally sparked whatever Disney park they chose to put it in (MGM). I have to say that on the whole the Disney parks are dated and it looks to me like a case of put in as little money as you can and pull out as much profit as you can. I just said to my DH yesterday that now the Beastly Kingdom would be built to counter Potter land.

Here is my question why would Disney turn down such an obviously lucrative expansion( or did they have the opportuntiy to even acquire this )? I do not get it. The HP books and movies require little imagination as to what could be used in a theme park. It is like JKR and the movies laid it all out for them. All they had to do is use current technology on rides that already exist and put new "skins" on them.
Sure Everest is okay but all it is is a rollercoaster and a couple of shops. What else have they done that would knock your socks off in the past 10 years? I mean if you do not ride on roller coasters what is left of the improvements that has been wonderful. Not too much that I can think of. Even the Great Movie Ride needs to be updated in a big way! They dump a couple of Johnny Depps into Pirates and then make a big deal over it.

[GraLaur07]

ah glad i stumble apron this thread very intrestiing

[Disney Padawan]

Here's my thoughts on Star Wars expansion, many of which Kevin Yee recently expanded on....
http://www.mouseextra.com/2007/04/28/ideas-for-making-the-most-of-star-tours/#comments

....and here's some of my thoughts on how to update the Beastly Kingdomme idea by converting it into a Narnia land at DAK
http://www.mouseextra.com/2007/06/01/building-upon-the-animal-kingdom-part-three-beastly-kingdomme/#respond

Hey, those Star Wars ideas are great!!! As much as I would love to see this happen I know disney would never spend that kind of money on something not theirs. George Lucas is filthy rich, maybe he can contribute to the cause. :rotfl2:

Disney would probably make a Narnia based attraction (ride) if this next movie doesn't flop. We'll just have to wait & see.

Since Universal already stole the thunder from Beastly Kingdom to begin with (because of the former Imagineers making parts of it for IOA instead), I dont think Disney can do it the same way as they had planned.

Of course Universal can do just as good a job on Harry Potter as Disney could and they're probably willing to spend a lot more money on it than Disney would as well.

Also, one person pointed out how Disney has never really made a whole "land" based on one franchise (book, movie or otherwise) but Universal has.

I dont see how this could be a bad thing, competiton IS GOOD, it means Disney has to deliver something and big...because just being on here I've seen a ton of people who are already planning a trip to IOA in 2009

I couldn't agree with you more, Universal is going to spend a lot more money and competition is always GOOD because we all win! Though, there may be a possibility that they'll change AL to a Pirates Land. :thumbsup2


The minute I heard that Universal was going to get Potter I was a little disappointed. It has been said by others that Universal does not give the attention to detail that Disney does and I totally agree. This would have totally sparked whatever Disney park they chose to put it in (MGM). I have to say that on the whole the Disney parks are dated and it looks to me like a case of put in as little money as you can and pull out as much profit as you can. I just said to my DH yesterday that now the Beastly Kingdom would be built to counter Potter land.

Here is my question why would Disney turn down such an obviously lucrative expansion( or did they have the opportuntiy to even acquire this )? I do not get it. The HP books and movies require little imagination as to what could be used in a theme park. It is like JKR and the movies laid it all out for them. All they had to do is use current technology on rides that already exist and put new "skins" on them.
Sure Everest is okay but all it is is a rollercoaster and a couple of shops. What else have they done that would knock your socks off in the past 10 years? I mean if you do not ride on roller coasters what is left of the improvements that has been wonderful. Not too much that I can think of. Even the Great Movie Ride needs to be updated in a big way! They dump a couple of Johnny Depps into Pirates and then make a big deal over it.

Have you ever been to IOA? They've got some really nice "attention to detail" over there! (A lot of it from former Imagineers.) To answer your question, JKR is a control freak & who could blame her, these are her babies. Disney probably wanted too much control of the project & merchandise & it caused her to back out. I bet if Disney did this project it would be at most, 1 ride, a couple of shops\restuarants & Harry Potter with Mickey ears dolls! I know this would appeal to some but I know JKR won't like it, it may be why she decided to go somewhere she would have more control. Now, I'm not here to bash on Disney but does anyone else here agree with Bella the Ball 360?

[mitros]

ah glad i stumble apron this thread very intrestiing

Uhhh, what?

[Disney Padawan]

Uhhh, what?

:)

[lovemickeyshouse]

its clear disney higher ups won't make major changes to any of the parks in 05 epcot was updated but seen then nothing comes to mind i been there twice in 06 and once this year and i love the waterparks the most till they make major changes in one of the parks there is classic fun rides to enjoy like the race cars but there on a track need to make them like go carts where you decide what direction you wanna go

[Disney Padawan]

its clear disney higher ups won't make major changes to any of the parks in 05 epcot was updated but seen then nothing comes to mind i been there twice in 06 and once this year and i love the waterparks the most till they make major changes in one of the parks there is classic fun rides to enjoy like the race cars but there on a track need to make them like go carts where you decide what direction you wanna go

First of all, about the "Tomorrow Land Indy Speedway", that probably will not change for many more years. I think that complaint is older than me. Second, I can relate to the way you feel. Sometimes I think they take too long to make any major changes to their parks too. I'd like to think that Disney will do something BIG to counter Harry Potter but I'm always skeptical. I often feel like they're hanging by a thin thread that's bound to break. It may not be this year or next year or even in the next 10 but if they keep things running the way they have been, it will break. Now that Eisner is gone I like to hope that things will change for the better. I remember in an old interview Roy Disney (remember him) said that "the higher ups" were toying with the idea that they didn't need movies anymore, that they had enough material to last them for years. Roy & I agree that this is absurd, but sure enough, it seemed like that's what happened. Some of the poor quality of sequels & poor park management left many like me questioning their desicions, obviously, even to today. Sometimes I wonder what Disney would've done without the geniuses at Pixar. Would we have seen movies like Aladdin 4 or The lion King 6! Disney needs great lovable characters (like Captain Jack Sparrow) to thrive in the theme park industry, that is the main ingredient for their sucess. I, for one, hope that things go back to the days when we knew we had at least one great Disney Animated feature to look foward to. If things change for the better, that thin thread they appear to be on, will become unbreakable.

[Aquayne]

I just went to see the 3rd Pirates. It was VERY dissapointing. It was as if they were trying to ruin the Captain Jack charactor. When a movies starts with the hanging of a child, it is NOT A DISNEY movie.

[DisneyFanGuy]

According to my son, a CM, the "buzz" among his friends is that Disney is going to soon announce a response. He says that they are going to carve out an enormous chunk of Disney/MGM and add an entirely new section. He mentioned the old Villian Mountain idea idea (I told him he was nuts, but he kept going back to it). I mentioned that I had read on Jimhillmeida about "Pixarland". He said that was NOT their impression.

Now of course the CMs often do not have any better information then we do, but I though it was interesting. He said that they were all convinced that Disney was preparing to announce something that will blow our minds.

It should be fun to see what happens.

[TXTurtle]

Not going to hold my breath... at the same point I certainly wouldn't complain if Disney did decide they wanted to blow my mind. Do like that the current buzz is about adding stuff, not replacing the old. Some of us LIKE the old. Hey, I even love that old treehouse, archaic as it is! Just not sure how they'll add anything to MJM and make it findable ... how is it that the smallest park is the only one I ever get hopelessly lost in? Hey, if they do add to MJM then maybe, to continue the mind-blowing theme, they'll do something to make the place comprehensible to get around. THAT'S my dream!

[Disney Padawan]

Not going to hold my breath... at the same point I certainly wouldn't complain if Disney did decide they wanted to blow my mind. Do like that the current buzz is about adding stuff, not replacing the old. Some of us LIKE the old. Hey, I even love that old treehouse, archaic as it is! Just not sure how they'll add anything to MJM and make it findable ... how is it that the smallest park is the only one I ever get hopelessly lost in? Hey, if they do add to MJM then maybe, to continue the mind-blowing theme, they'll do something to make the place comprehensible to get around. THAT'S my dream!

I agree with the adding new & keeping the old, it's nice sometimes to have a mix. I'm so anxious to hear their announcement I wonder what it'll be? If anyone has any info, PLEASE POST! :thumbsup2

[ChrisFL]

screamscape is reporting about some MGM changes, but none of them seem groundbreaking

[freakylick]

screamscape is reporting about some MGM changes, but none of them seem groundbreaking

I agree that it's nothing groundbreaking, but I have a feeling that this:

He says that they are going to carve out an enormous chunk of Disney/MGM and add an entirely new section.

was really in reference to this:


from Screamscape
Over at the Toy Story Mania area of the park, that entire back area will be renamed Pixar Place.

And apparently there is already talk of an attraction to go into the area where the old Mickey Meet 'N Greet was...and that was certainly not enough for an entire land.

In regards to Disney and their efforts to build HP World...they did have a chance to get the rights, but JKR is very demanding and wanted quite a bit out of this. And considering the initial investment that Disney would have to put in, they would not get enough return out of it. Universal could offer considerably more because they wouldn't have to put in as much capital up front since they already had a "land" that they could just convert to HP Land....Disney has no such thing.

Disney also has a couple of big franchises that it can try to capitalize on right now (Pixar, Narnia, POTC)...granted none of those are quite as large as HP, but it's not like their cupboard is bare. Thus they probably didn't see a need to "overpay" for HP. Also (and this is pure speculation on my part) they are already facing questions of overpaying for Pixar...I don't think they wanted to add HP to that list.

[EUROPACL]

I

Disney also has a couple of big franchises that it can try to capitalize on right now (Pixar, Narnia, POTC)...granted none of those are quite as large as HP, but it's not like their cupboard is bare. Thus they probably didn't see a need to "overpay" for HP. Also (and this is pure speculation on my part) they are already facing questions of overpaying for Pixar...I don't think they wanted to add HP to that list.

I'm not sure how much more Pixar can be jammed down our throats at this point. As for POTC that ship has sailed...so to speak. This last money dump of a film killed off any big plans for that in the parks. Heck for what they spent on the last movie they could have added another park.

Now for Narnia...maybe. The other books are not as well known as The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe so this next film may just be another money dump and if that is the case I don't think you will be seeing much of Narnia after that. Anyway building anything close to what it would take to do Narnia jusice would require a land and they just turned that down for a better know series by todays kids. (HP) Disney has now cheaped out and lost Harry Potter twice and by two different managment teams.

[Disney Padawan]

I agree that it's nothing groundbreaking, but I have a feeling that this:



was really in reference to this:



And apparently there is already talk of an attraction to go into the area where the old Mickey Meet 'N Greet was...and that was certainly not enough for an entire land.

In regards to Disney and their efforts to build HP World...they did have a chance to get the rights, but JKR is very demanding and wanted quite a bit out of this. And considering the initial investment that Disney would have to put in, they would not get enough return out of it. Universal could offer considerably more because they wouldn't have to put in as much capital up front since they already had a "land" that they could just convert to HP Land....Disney has no such thing.

Disney also has a couple of big franchises that it can try to capitalize on right now (Pixar, Narnia, POTC)...granted none of those are quite as large as HP, but it's not like their cupboard is bare. Thus they probably didn't see a need to "overpay" for HP. Also (and this is pure speculation on my part) they are already facing questions of overpaying for Pixar...I don't think they wanted to add HP to that list.

I agree, except for the last part. Then again, who knows, I wish I had 7.2 Billion! :thumbsup2

I'm not sure how much more Pixar can be jammed down our throats at this point. As for POTC that ship has sailed...so to speak. This last money dump of a film killed off any big plans for that in the parks. Heck for what they spent on the last movie they could have added another park.

Now for Narnia...maybe. The other books are not as well known as The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe so this next film may just be another money dump and if that is the case I don't think you will be seeing much of Narnia after that. Anyway building anything close to what it would take to do Narnia jusice would require a land and they just turned that down for a better know series by todays kids. (HP) Disney has now cheaped out and lost Harry Potter twice and by two different managment teams.

Narnia2 and it's sequel have to do spectacular for Disney to make something big out of it. And yeah, I hate when they get cheap. :confused:

[minijeanie]

THey already turned the AL at Hong Kong DL into PL and the new ride are you talking about the Toy Story ride

If they put the new are in at AK i have been waiting for that

I am kinda mad that Universal got the Harry Potter deal instead of Disney

Quite the contrary , I am very happy that US got the HP deal. They needed it!. our family loves US & IOA. US is not anything like WDW nor does it try to be. That is why we love going to both places.

Plus US won't cave and pull a show/ride after a few months because parents complain it is too scary for their kids even though there are huge warnings not to bring their young children into the show...(ie...Alien)

In my perspective:
WDW has the magic that US will never have

but US has Spiderman....Disney has nothing close to that.
US has Halloween Horror Nights which is spectacular (but clearly for teens and older) Plus they have great resorts. I for one can't wait to go back

[Disney Padawan]

O.K. now word around the Disney campfire is that the next big announcement is a 5th gate for WDW! :dance3: I know this rumor has been floating around for years now but I can't help but wish that it would be true. It is stated to be opening sometime in 2009/2010. Of course, this info has been provided by the Disney Bus drivers, so nobody get out the champagne and noise makers just yet. Then again, they have been known to be right, from time to time. Here's hoping. :banana:

[EUROPACL]

O.K. now word around the Disney campfire is that the next big announcement is a 5th gate for WDW! :dance3: I know this rumor has been floating around for years now but I can't help but wish that it would be true. It is stated to be opening sometime in 2009/2010. Of course, this info has been provided by the Disney Bus drivers, so nobody get out the champagne and noise makers just yet. Then again, they have been known to be right, from time to time. Here's hoping. :banana:

...so Disney won't spend the money for HP but they are going to build a whole new park..is that what you're saying? And they are going to break ground and open it in the next two years?

[Disney Padawan]

...so Disney won't spend the money for HP but they are going to build a whole new park..is that what you're saying? And they are going to break ground and open it in the next two years?

Yes, I heard it's going to be a huge Park, with 5 continents each based on a Pixar movie! J/K. :lmao:

Disney won't spend the money on HP probably because of JKR. Who really knows, I wasn't there.

I'm simply pointing out what someone else had said, this is not coming directly from me.

It does sound pretty illogical that a new park will be built in two years, maybe three? Well, I'm just hoping, that's what I'm saying. :thumbsup2

[EUROPACL]

Disney won't spend the money on HP probably because of JKR.

Why? They will spend over a billion on Jerry Bruckheimer but not JKR?


I'm simply pointing out what someone else had said, this is not coming directly from me.

It does sound pretty illogical that a new park will be built in two years, maybe three? Well, I'm just hoping, that's what I'm saying. :thumbsup2

Well let me point out what the CEO has said...


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18789791/from/RS.4/

Iger said Disney has no plans for another theme park in Orlando, Florida. "We have no plans at this point to open a (fifth) gate or (fifth) park there. We have four already. While we continue to invest in those, those four are doing just fine."

[Disney Padawan]

EUROPACL, I wish I knew the real answer to your first question. All I keep reading about is Disney wanted things their way, she wanted things her way, so in the end, she went somewhere else, to have more control.

As for the second part, the link didn't work, but I'm curious how long ago Iger said this. It's true in a way that the 4 parks need some work but I've always hoped for a fifth gate by 2010. Maybe the bus drivers are always told to tell fibs to keep us on our toes. Maybe they're doing it themselves without being told to. All I know is sometimes when many repeat the same things over a good period of time, it's usually true. Does that mean I'm a true believer, no, but that doesn't keep me from hoping.

Which brings up the main reason for this thread, if not a new theme park, then what? :confused:

[EUROPACL]

EUROPACL, I wish I knew the real answer to your first question. All I keep reading about is Disney wanted things their way, she wanted things her way, so in the end, she went somewhere else, to have more control.

As for the second part, the link didn't work, but I'm curious how long ago Iger said this. It's true in a way that the 4 parks need some work but I've always hoped for a fifth gate by 2010. Maybe the bus drivers are always told to tell fibs to keep us on our toes. Maybe they're doing it themselves without being told to. All I know is sometimes when many repeat the same things over a good period of time, it's usually true. Does that mean I'm a true believer, no, but that doesn't keep me from hoping.

Which brings up the main reason for this thread, if not a new theme park, then what? :confused:

Sorry I just noticed how long you've been here and may not be up on the current Disney. I was trying to lead you down the path on your own but....Disney sees the parks as a money funnel for their other units. They aren't going to be putting any big money into parks any time soon...unless you count DVC and that is more of a money making scheme then an investment in the parks.


If you look down the page here in "News and Rumors" you will see a post Will there every be a 5th theme park? that post and 25 others just like it covers all of rumors of a 5th park. In short It's not going to happen.

It has nothing to do with JKR and her control issues....Disney simply won't spend that kind of money on the parks anymore.

Yes Bus Drivers and Cast Members in General at Disney love to tell tails of new parks, rides or monorail plans...you would have better luck using a "Magic 8-Ball" and it would be right more often.

[mello]

DH and I have long wondered why they haven't done more with the whole Star Wars theme. I would think that franchise would be a gold mine because Star Wars, much like Disney, is absolutely a cultural icon that appeals to several generations, and it's popularity will likely endure much longer than HP or any other movie currently in vogue.

What they've done with SW at the Studios looks neat, but it could SO be expanded! When we first saw the Ewok village, we thought it would be cool if you could go in it! The store was insanely crowded when we were there in September on a weekday - I can only imagine what it must be like on a SWW. Wouldn't it be awesome to have a whole Star Wars "land" at the studios? We've read some great ideas (some of them may be on this thread - haven't read it yet), including a Cantina restaurant complete with the band, blue drinks, weird chess games and alien creatures - LOVE that idea! Somebody somewhere has mentioned a land speeder ride. There could be an Ewok village/tree house play area - something way better than Pooh playground at MK - maybe more like the Redwood trail one in California Adventure - it's more interactive for a much wider age range. They could improve on the virtual lightsabre thing at Disney Quest and move it over there when/if they close DQ. Somebody mentioned something along the lines of Space Ranger Spin. There could be Stormtroopers on patrol. R2D2 and C3PO could do pictures/autographs. They could surely come up with a thrill ride along the lines of Mission Space, only with some new idea that only George Lucas & the Imagineers could dream up. My kids said they'd love to do some pod racing, or participate in a space battle as an x-wing pilot, or ride speeder bikes through the forest!

It sounds like they're on the right track with making Jedi Training Academy permanent, and there's been talk for so long of Star Tours II. Dh read that George Lucas had originally conceived an idea of a reprogrammable ride, where the scenario would change (randomly?) so you would go to different places besides just the Death Star every time. That would be way cool.

Wow, we're getting excited just talking about it over here!!!

[mello]

Not going to hold my breath... at the same point I certainly wouldn't complain if Disney did decide they wanted to blow my mind. Do like that the current buzz is about adding stuff, not replacing the old. Some of us LIKE the old. Hey, I even love that old treehouse, archaic as it is!

ITA: I love the old tree house, I love Adventureland just the way it is, I love Carousel of Progress, and I sure as heck loved the submarines more than the Pooh playground! I hate to see them taking out classic attractions, especially to be replaced with inferior things.

Bring on the Mind Blowing, and make it something NEW!!!

[Disney Padawan]

Sorry I just noticed how long you've been here and may not be up on the current Disney. I was trying to lead you down the path on your own but....Disney sees the parks as a money funnel for their other units. They aren't going to be putting any big money into parks any time soon...unless you count DVC and that is more of a money making scheme then an investment in the parks.


If you look down the page here in "News and Rumors" you will see a post Will there every be a 5th theme park? that post and 25 others just like it covers all of rumors of a 5th park. In short It's not going to happen.

It has nothing to do with JKR and her control issues....Disney simply won't spend that kind of money on the parks anymore.

Yes Bus Drivers and Cast Members in General at Disney love to tell tails of new parks, rides or monorail plans...you would have better luck using a "Magic 8-Ball" and it would be right more often.


WOW, I didn't realize you knew so much!!! I appreciate you trying to lead me down the path....

It's true that I haven't been here that long but I did spend a long time reading, so I can stay current. I realize Disney views their guests as cash flow, and understand they probably don't want to spend too much money on their parks.

Yes, I have read most of the "News & Rumors" page. Being a realist, it's hard for me to fully believe what some post, but I remain hopeful.

I know that what you or I think is probably insignificant to Disney but I hope those who say that a 5th park won't happen are wrong. I know many don't want to see another gate at WDW but I'm not one of them, I'm still hoping to see one many, many, years from now.

[Disney Padawan]

:surfweb:

[Disney Padawan]

DH and I have long wondered why they haven't done more with the whole Star Wars theme. I would think that franchise would be a gold mine because Star Wars, much like Disney, is absolutely a cultural icon that appeals to several generations, and it's popularity will likely endure much longer than HP or any other movie currently in vogue.

What they've done with SW at the Studios looks neat, but it could SO be expanded! When we first saw the Ewok village, we thought it would be cool if you could go in it! The store was insanely crowded when we were there in September on a weekday - I can only imagine what it must be like on a SWW. Wouldn't it be awesome to have a whole Star Wars "land" at the studios? We've read some great ideas (some of them may be on this thread - haven't read it yet), including a Cantina restaurant complete with the band, blue drinks, weird chess games and alien creatures - LOVE that idea! Somebody somewhere has mentioned a land speeder ride. There could be an Ewok village/tree house play area - something way better than Pooh playground at MK - maybe more like the Redwood trail one in California Adventure - it's more interactive for a much wider age range. They could improve on the virtual lightsabre thing at Disney Quest and move it over there when/if they close DQ. Somebody mentioned something along the lines of Space Ranger Spin. There could be Stormtroopers on patrol. R2D2 and C3PO could do pictures/autographs. They could surely come up with a thrill ride along the lines of Mission Space, only with some new idea that only George Lucas & the Imagineers could dream up. My kids said they'd love to do some pod racing, or participate in a space battle as an x-wing pilot, or ride speeder bikes through the forest!

It sounds like they're on the right track with making Jedi Training Academy permanent, and there's been talk for so long of Star Tours II. Dh read that George Lucas had originally conceived an idea of a reprogrammable ride, where the scenario would change (randomly?) so you would go to different places besides just the Death Star every time. That would be way cool.

Wow, we're getting excited just talking about it over here!!!

Sorry about the double post earlier.

Those are cool Ideas!! They could probably make an entire park out of the Star Wars Universe, I know I'd go. :thumbsup2

[EUROPACL]

WOW, I didn't realize you knew so much!!! I appreciate you trying to lead me down the path....


Ummm..


I know that what you or I think is probably insignificant to Disney but I hope those who say that a 5th park won't happen are wrong. I know many don't want to see another gate at WDW but I'm not one of them, I'm still hoping to see one many, many, years from now.

You're kind of missing the point Disney dosen't want a 5th park AK was a disaster on a huge scale as far as attendance goes and DCA and Paris Studios really put nails in the coffin....on the other hand who knows 20 years from now so keep your fingers crossed.




"Star Wars idea"..... If you guys think that JKR was/is hard to deal with Lucas makes her look like a puppy dog with pink ribbions in her hair. Thats why there hasn't been even a new film for Star Tours. Disney is never going to pay Lucas what it would take to make a Star Wars Land....or even a new film.

[Rence]

Disney likes to cross promote - Disneyland in one sense was simply a huge advertisement for the companies movies. The movies, TV shows, parks etc. all cross promote.

Disney doesn't get as big of a bang for its buck when it builds attractions themed around someone else's movies. Sure there is some advantage in terms of attendance at the theme parks, but Star Tours promotes non-Disney films, Indiana Jones promotes non-Disney films.

It is worth it to a point to have these attractions, but it doesn't give Disney the value that an attraction based on a Disney film would.

JK Rowlings was very particular and any attractions based on her movies was going to be costly. If Disney had done the movies, they probably would have spent the money to put the attractions in the parks, as the attractions would promote the films and the merchandise and Disney would have had a piece of every pie.

But spending a lot of money on a Harry Potter attraction which promotes a Warner Brothers film doesn't make as much sense.

[Disney Padawan]

Ummm..



You're kind of missing the point Disney dosen't want a 5th park AK was a disaster on a huge scale as far as attendance goes and DCA and Paris Studios really put nails in the coffin....on the other hand who knows 20 years from now so keep your fingers crossed.




"Star Wars idea"..... If you guys think that JKR was/is hard to deal with Lucas makes her look like a puppy dog with pink ribbions in her hair. Thats why there hasn't been even a new film for Star Tours. Disney is never going to pay Lucas what it would take to make a Star Wars Land....or even a new film.


1- Opps, I realize now how that sounded a little sarcastic. :goodvibes I've been reading some of your other posts/threads & I meant what I said.

2- How Am I missing the point? I know about AK & some of their other parks aren't doing as well as they should. Spending that much money on a project and then having attendance issues is a real blow for Disney. I know it put a stop to many of their future plans. Until they can get things better off, in all their parks, we won't see a fifth gate. This, however, doesn't stop me from wanting to see another Disney park in Orlando. Understanding & hoping are two entirely different things.

3- I'm a huge Star Wars, dare I say, geek. (I've got the curio to prove it.) But, much to my regret, I've almost lost all hope with Lucas. I like hearing ideas from people but know that they'll never happen. Lucas & Scrooge McDuck have a lot in common, I don't hold my breath when it comes to waiting for him. I know many feel the same way about Disney too.

[Disney Padawan]

Disney likes to cross promote - Disneyland in one sense was simply a huge advertisement for the companies movies. The movies, TV shows, parks etc. all cross promote.

Disney doesn't get as big of a bang for its buck when it builds attractions themed around someone else's movies. Sure there is some advantage in terms of attendance at the theme parks, but Star Tours promotes non-Disney films, Indiana Jones promotes non-Disney films.

It is worth it to a point to have these attractions, but it doesn't give Disney the value that an attraction based on a Disney film would.

JK Rowlings was very particular and any attractions based on her movies was going to be costly. If Disney had done the movies, they probably would have spent the money to put the attractions in the parks, as the attractions would promote the films and the merchandise and Disney would have had a piece of every pie.

But spending a lot of money on a Harry Potter attraction which promotes a Warner Brothers film doesn't make as much sense.

Some of your points make a lot of sense. :thumbsup2

[EUROPACL]

Disney likes to cross promote - Disneyland in one sense was simply a huge advertisement for the companies movies. The movies, TV shows, parks etc. all cross promote.


I really missed those old movies Walt did of Haunted Mansion, Main Street, POTC, Its a Small World....no in fact Disneyland when built had very few movie tie-inns.


But spending a lot of money on a Harry Potter attraction which promotes a Warner Brothers film doesn't make as much sense.

Hello Welcome to MGM Studios.

[Disney Padawan]

pixiedust: HAPPY 4TH OF JULY EVERYONE! pixiedust:

[BlindTyldak]

*raises an eyebrow* Euro, you're presenting a lot of things as "fact" that I simply do not believe are true.

First off, I know that there was discussion of upgrading the ST film a while back to be podracing (one of the reasons that Endor Vendors was changed to Tattoine Traders, even though the movie trip is to Endor). Word from the LucasArts division - this came from Haden Blackman if I remember right - was that the changeover was in discussion when Ep 1 but when Disney saw how generally negatively people reacted to Ep 1, they opted to keep the original film, even though Lucas wanted to change it. I fully believe that Uncle Pappypants would be happy to change the SW area of MGM and that money isn't an issue, it's just a matter of the two of them agreeing on marketing, not money.

Second, a fifth park is definitely not out. It's not on the horizon, but it's definitely not out of the question EVER. When touring "One Man's Dream" in November I was chatting with a cast member in the model room who had been with the Florida parks pretty much from the start and he said that of course it would happen someday, but in his words, "a lot of lessons need to be relearned and I wouldn't be surprised if some more changes have to take place before we see it". From the rest of the conversation I got the very distinct impression that it's just a matter of waiting for the pendulum to finish swinging back toward the magic (can anyone say Lasseter and Rohde?) and not the money. I wouldn't expect to see one for another 15 years or so, but that's not saying it's not going to happen.

[mitros]

pixiedust: HAPPY 4TH OF JULY EVERYONE! pixiedust:

Thanks, same to you!

[EUROPACL]

Nevermind....I keep forgetting that it does not matter.

[Disney Padawan]

Nevermind....I keep forgetting that it does not matter.

To whom, yourself?

[Disney Padawan]

*raises an eyebrow* Euro, you're presenting a lot of things as "fact" that I simply do not believe are true.

First off, I know that there was discussion of upgrading the ST film a while back to be podracing (one of the reasons that Endor Vendors was changed to Tattoine Traders, even though the movie trip is to Endor). Word from the LucasArts division - this came from Haden Blackman if I remember right - was that the changeover was in discussion when Ep 1 but when Disney saw how generally negatively people reacted to Ep 1, they opted to keep the original film, even though Lucas wanted to change it. I fully believe that Uncle Pappypants would be happy to change the SW area of MGM and that money isn't an issue, it's just a matter of the two of them agreeing on marketing, not money.

Second, a fifth park is definitely not out. It's not on the horizon, but it's definitely not out of the question EVER. When touring "One Man's Dream" in November I was chatting with a cast member in the model room who had been with the Florida parks pretty much from the start and he said that of course it would happen someday, but in his words, "a lot of lessons need to be relearned and I wouldn't be surprised if some more changes have to take place before we see it". From the rest of the conversation I got the very distinct impression that it's just a matter of waiting for the pendulum to finish swinging back toward the magic (can anyone say Lasseter and Rohde?) and not the money. I wouldn't expect to see one for another 15 years or so, but that's not saying it's not going to happen.

Very interesting information, good of you to share it. :thumbsup2

[EUROPACL]

To whom, yourself?

I was just in the process of writting out a long response saying its not Lucas that wants the money but the control and Disney that won't spend the money...and about how yes one day (like I've said before) there could be a 5th theme park(Not really climbing out on a limb there ) but not to hold your breath....and that its really not a huge prediction to say there will be a new park in 15..20..25 years.....but then again it really does not matter. Its like beating a dead horse at this point....Disney still is not spending money on the parks, They are still throwing money at bad TV and even worse movies....so it really does not matter.

Heck in 20 years the parks might be owned by someone else anyway (Eisner tried several times to dump them)...does anyone really think the current Disney is going to spend the money needed to update the parks and DVC units in the upcoming years?

[Another Voice]

Mr Euro - you're task is hopless. The forest has too many trees...

[Disney Padawan]

I was just in the process of writting out a long response saying its not Lucas that wants the money but the control and Disney that won't spend the money...and about how yes one day (like I've said before) there could be a 5th theme park(Not really climbing out on a limb there ) but not to hold your breath....and that its really not a huge prediction to say there will be a new park in 15..20..25 years.....but then again it really does not matter. Its like beating a dead horse at this point....Disney still is not spending money on the parks, They are still throwing money at bad TV and even worse movies....so it really does not matter.

Heck in 20 years the parks might be owned by someone else anyway (Eisner tried several times to dump them)...does anyone really think the current Disney is going to spend the money needed to update the parks and DVC units in the upcoming years?

I agree with what you're saying, though I thought Lucas didn't care too much who he sold his licensing to. (Darth Vader Mickey Mouse & Mr. Potatoe Head.)

I'm hoping Iger & crew are changing their ways of bad t.v. & movies. They say Little Mermaid 3 will be the last straight to DVD sequel. (Some of those sequels are awful.)

Even if Disney is owned by someone else in years time I sincerely hope they get their act together. I'd like to see major improvements & a new Florida park by at least 2015!:rotfl:

EUROPACL, I was just interested in what you had to say that's all. Since your strongly opinionated, and we all know by now a 5th gate is a long way off, what do you think Disney will do to answer HP?

[EUROPACL]

EUROPACL, I was just interested in what you had to say that's all. Since your strongly opinionated, and we all know by now a 5th gate is a long way off, what do you think Disney will do to answer HP?

In short...Nothing. If Harry Potter does well and draws away a big chuck of Disney's crowd then they might do something. They will wait and see and continue to drain the parks of cash. When IOA went on the drawing boards...Disney had plans to build a 5th park (Villians or Thrill) to combat the pull...but IOA opened and the attendance diddn't change much. Add to that the flops of AK,DCA and Paris Studios and the fact that Eisner hated the parks there was no way they were going to put money into a 5th park....I mean come on the rights to Underdog were up for sale.(at the same time losing the rights to LOTR and the HP movies) If three of the best resorts in Orlando and a great park like IOA can't get Disney to build something other then Dinoland and Primevil Hurl at AK then I don't see them worring about HP until they need to. They need that money to throw at Jerry Bruckheimer and a Lone Ranger movie, or the next great TV show like is Caveman Hot or Not.

[Disney Padawan]

In short...Nothing. If Harry Potter does well and draws away a big chuck of Disney's crowd then they might do something. They will wait and see and continue to drain the parks of cash. When IOA went on the drawing boards...Disney had plans to build a 5th park (Villians or Thrill) to combat the pull...but IOA opened and the attendance diddn't change much.

Somewhere in the deep, dark, crevices of my mind, where no dream dares to tread, lies buried the truth of what you've said. I've feared this but have never ignored it, hence why my first question stated, the "wait & see" approach. The way Disney has been running things as of late, it seems that this is what they'll do. MK holds the #1 spot in theme park attendance with Epcot 3rd & MGM & AK following. So Technically, there's no reason for them to panic. There is plenty of reason for them to improve, as many will agree. I hope with Iger on board that things will change for the better. He's got a lot of cleaning up to do & obviously not just with the parks. Regardless of the way things may seem, there's always hope for a better tomorrow. So, if any of you had Iger's job, what would you do differently? What would you change? What would you improve?

[raidermatt]

I'd find people to run the parks that believed in getting that pendulum back to the other side and also had the talent to make it happen.

Remember, the big praise for Iger was that he gave more control back to the divisions. All well and good, except that that the parks division is run by people who were put there by Eisner. Is that who you would give the reigns to?

I agree, Iger needs to clean house, but that's not what he's doing. The only place any significant change seems to be brewing is in Animation, and even that is shaky due to the internal power struggles. If Iger went in there and said, "Look, I don't care how Ratatouille does at the box office, Lasseter and Catmul are running this show until they no longer want to and anybody who doesn't like it can clean our their office.", then maybe I'd have some real hope.

Iger doesn't seem to be initiating many things are that are making the situation worse, but when it comes to the company's content creation, he also isn't doing much to change things either. And so inertia being what it is, most things are going along as they have for years.

[cxcelica]

I am willing to give Iger some more time. It's not an easy job to have to answer to Wall Street and to the dedicated fans of you company all at the same time, especially when the fans are as educated and enthusiastic as the Disney Fans are, and especially when you consider the circumstances in which he inherited control.

We have seen some things that are encouraging, most recently the decision to end direct to dvd sequels. A little something that I think alot of Disney fans can appreciate.

It's always easy to over romanticize the past and paint a doom and gloom picture of the future. Let's give Iger some more time.

[raidermatt]

Its not up to me to give him time or not. I'm a shareholder, but too small of one to matter.

I'm merely calling it like I see it. He is not making the changes many had hoped for.

It's nice that the dtv sequels are dead (for now), but really, if they were doing great business with them, do you really think the plug would have been pulled? The public has grown weary of them and the poor quality that went with most of them. That poor quality also damaged Disney's reputation with the public.

Still, as I said, animation is the only area showing any potential for change, but that situation is tenuous.

This isn't about romanticization and doom and gloom, it's about strategic vision. And from a creative standpoint, precious little has changed, especially with regard to the parks.

[mello]

I haven't followed the business aspect of Disney things til recently, so I don't know much about it at all. But I do have a couple questions, and a little bit of input.

First a question:

How did Eisner go about trying to "dump" the parks, as someone posted earlier?

and 2nd:

What happened when he tried?

Now for input. We have a friend who works for Disney Internet Group, and we were told by this friend that one of the first things Iger did was set them to work changing the website because he hated the old one. That was quite a creative endeavor. So, while it isn't huge by any means, it is indicative I think, of his desire to make some changes, and to allow the different departments to have some creative freedom too. I think that's a good direction. Also, DH said he read somewhere that Iger had said he wanted to put some money into the parks. Anyone know if that's true? I'll have to ask if he can remember where he read that. If correct, that's a good sign indeeed. At any rate, I think we've seen a few small signs that the company is moving in a better direction overall.

[EUROPACL]

So, if any of you had Iger's job, what would you do differently? What would you change? What would you improve?

I don't see Iger firing himself...so that is out of the question. (but the best thing for Disney) There is no simple fix for Disney. ABC his a huge burden and should have never been bought. They can't dump it at this point due to the billions put into it....and would never happen as Iger is the TV guy in the company anyway(and we see how well that is doing...gives you real hope for his skills outside of TV...Right?) The short answer is what Matt said...they need creative people in control and they need to put the parks and quality movies back on the front burner and dump the other units.

[ChrisFL]

I see some positives, Lasseter in charge of WDI and massive restructuring taking place that, from what I've heard, is much closer to the way it was back when it was called WED.

I've also noticed that DL has seen a lot of improvements over the past few years and WDW is hopefully starting to catch up with HM, SSE and other upgrades that might be coming soon (like Space Mountain)

[Another Voice]

How did Eisner go about trying to "dump" the parks, as someone posted earlier?
It’s said that when Eisner agreed to become CEO of Disney that he had never set foot inside a Disney park.

When Eisner was given the Disney gig, he had been second in command at Paramount Pictures and was in the process of being fired for his failure in the Paramount’s “Fourth TV Network” project (this was before Fox created their network). All he knew was movies and television series. So when he moved onto the Disney lot, his only interest was in making more movies and making more TV series.

He needed money to do this. Disney’s funds were low; they had just spent a billion dollars to create EPCOT Center in Florida. Eisner hated theme parks (they’re for low class people) and he especially hated EPCOT. Eisner didn’t like any of the future-y stuff, was confused by the rides and thought it was a horrible business decision. Because for all the money Disney would make from EPCOT Center over the next twenty-five years, Eisner could make a dozens movies and recoup the money in a couple summers (Eisner got his big break in Hollywood by being the “genius” who pushed Flashdance into production – he never let quality get in the way of a buck).

One of the takeover plans that caused the crisis which brought Eisner to the company in the first place involved a plan to break up Disney. Led by oil man Marvin Davis, a group would have bought The Company then sold off the bits and pieces. Eisner thought this idea was swell as far as the parks went.

The focus was the hated EPCOT Center. Eisner would sell the entire park to a capital firm and receive a huge chunk of cash up front. Disney would then “lease back” the park and operate it, paying rents and royalties to the capital firm. The outside company would also be free to lease out or sell more restaurant and retail space, build hotels and otherwise use the land to make money beyond Disney’s rent payment. Over time, the capital firm would receive back more in rent, lease payments and additional revenue than they would have paid Disney up front. And Eisner would have several million dollars immediately to throw at Robin Williams, Bette Midler, Warren Beatty and other people much more important than theme park goers.

By all accounts Frank Wells was appalled at the plans. While the margins at EPCOT Center weren’t as good as from the Magic Kingdom, the new park was radically changing the nature of Walt Disney World. Instead of just being a day stop for the family, WDW was finally becoming the vacation destination that Walt had envisioned. Adults without children soon outnumbered families. Conventions and meetings were clamoring for space. The average length of stay was growing longer and per guest spending was soaring as people enjoyed the fine dining of World Showcase instead of the quick hamburgers of the Magic Kingdom. For the first time in a decade, WDW was a “must see” attraction for the average vacationer.

Selling EPCOT Center would endanger all this new found money.

But Eisner wanted his “movie funds” now! So an alternative form of movie financing had to be developed. This turned out to be the Silver Screen Partnerships. Instead of having investors put up money for just one movie at a time, Disney would go after large capital firms to give them lots of money, which would be pooled and used to make several movies. The risk normally associated with movies would be minimized (if you make ten movies at least one should be a hit) which would interest mainstream financial types. And with the potential huge windfalls coming in from a hit film, the up side was much greater than any traditional type of corporate investment. While Disney would loose profit on the back end, they would get the cash up front and also be insulated against the flops that were bound to happen.

Eisner agreed, if only because the partnership was going to be faster to arrange than a billion dollar real estate transaction. Then EPCOT Center really got lucky. Disney hit upon a string of low budget hits that generated huge windfalls for Silver Screen – Down and Out in Beverly Hills, Three Men and a Baby, Ruthless People and all the other “Betty Ford Clinic Comedies[/i] of that period. Investors were demanding to be allowed to invest in Disney’s hit machine and the company was flooded with more money than it knew what to do with. There was no need to sell anything.

Then a second stroke of luck hit. Eisner had always been a big architecture fan. When the dust settled from a lawsuit over hotel development near EPCOT Center, Eisner found himself in a position to indulge his whims. He hired an architect he long admired, Michael Graves and let him loose. The Swan and Dolphin Hotels, whatever you think of them, were major buildings in the world of high fashion architecture. Suddenly Eisner found himself being hailed as a hero, as a Patron of the Arts, and as Benefactor of Merit, and all the other accolades an industry throws on someone who gives them lots of undeserved money.

All of this went to Eisner’s head. Along with all the press he was getting about the rebounding Disney Studios and the booming parks – he saw himself as a Master of the Universe and the parks as one of his precious realms. The thought of losing any of them was unthinkable. And Eisner discovered that the parks were his playthings too. He could force “hip and happening” into EPCOT Center by using ‘Saturday Night Live’ characters in “The Wonders of Life”, he could fill an entire park with the right kind of people with the Disney/MGM Studios…his business genius would fill every corner of Disney theme parks just as his brilliant mind filled every movie that Disney made!

…and then Euro Disney opened. But that’s another thread.

By the time Eisner got around to wanting to sell the parks again, the merger with Capital Cities was well underway. While Euro Disney had destroyed all the expansion plans Disney had, the purchase of ABC destroyed the company’s financial position even through today. The network required boatloads of cash. The studio was no longer churning out hit after hit. The stores were marginal businesses to begin with and without new plush characters they were on a slope they would never recover from. The only bright spot in the company remained the parks. Year in, year out, they pumped cash out of the ground like oil.

Disney could no longer afford to part with the parks.


P.S. Bob "The Poddle" Iger was an executive at ABC long before Disney bought CapCities. He ran the network for over a decade. If the executive ran a single business unit so poorly that it directly lead to a decade's long crash in the stock price, calls for his removal, and year after year of disasterous ratings and earning...what makes you think he's going to run the parent company well?

[MJMcBride]

http://www.mouseextra.com/2007/07/05/what-disney-can-do-to-stem-the-potter-tide/#comment-1611

here's something of mine on the topic.

[EUROPACL]

WOW AV is my guilty pleasure...I love reading his stuff. Its horrible Disney wise but great reading.

[mello]

Thank you for the education. You did a great job on the readers digest condensed version lol. Very interesting stuff.

The Swan and Dolphin Hotels, whatever you think of them, were major buildings in the world of high fashion architecture. Suddenly Eisner found himself being hailed as a hero, as a Patron of the Arts, and as Benefactor of Merit, and all the other accolades an industry throws on someone who gives them lots of undeserved money.


I like that - whatever you think of them. I think they might be kinda pretty in the right setting, but where they are is definitely NOT the right setting. Here you've got a turn-of-the-century boardwalk/beachy theme going on, and then you look off to the side and BAM! The 20th century hits you over the head like a rock! Jarring and audacious. Just mho.


P.S. Bob "The Poddle" Iger was an executive at ABC long before Disney bought CapCities. He ran the network for over a decade. If the executive ran a single business unit so poorly that it directly lead to a decade's long crash in the stock price, calls for his removal, and year after year of disasterous ratings and earning...what makes you think he's going to run the parent company well?

Well... nothing really makes me think that. Wonder what makes the powers-that-be at Disney think that??? Are they all of that mindset now?

I knew that Eisner cared only about profits, so I figured any change would almost have to be for the better, and we have seen a few small changes creatively, so one would hope that might be a good sign. But what you tell of Iger's past doesn't sound too terribly hopeful either.

Now I have more questions:

Where was/is the family during all this turmoil? Is there nobody left of the family except Roy? It seems there should be somebody left somewhere who actually cares what happens to the company, the parks, and Walt's ideals. Is that not the case?

Anyway.... I know this may be a naive attitude, but maybe, just maybe, those strokes of good fortune for the parks were part of a greater design, or a manifestation of the real Disney magic, or something that goes beyond what we humans understand, as a way to keep some good in the world somewhere. Again I know that sounds silly, especially in print, and I know lots of folks would take exception to that for a number of reasons, but i don't know.... I may be terribly misguided, but I just think we just have to have hope that "Good" will prevail, kwim?

[Disney Padawan]

WOW AV is my guilty pleasure...I love reading his stuff. Its horrible Disney wise but great reading.

I second that. :thumbsup2

Where was/is the family during all this turmoil? Is there nobody left of the family except Roy? It seems there should be somebody left somewhere who actually cares what happens to the company, the parks, and Walt's ideals. Is that not the case?

Anyway.... I know this may be a naive attitude, but maybe, just maybe, those strokes of good fortune for the parks were part of a greater design, or a manifestation of the real Disney magic, or something that goes beyond what we humans understand, as a way to keep some good in the world somewhere. Again I know that sounds silly, especially in print, and I know lots of folks would take exception to that for a number of reasons, but i don't know.... I may be terribly misguided, but I just think we just have to have hope that "Good" will prevail, kwim?


Mello, you took the questions right out of my keyboard! :)
Also, It may sound a little silly on print like you said but I believe in what you're saying. Though I'm not liking what I'm reading about Iger, I always feel that there's hope for the future. To put it more logically, Iger & the higher ups should know that the parks are their bread & butter so it's in their best interest not to fudge with them! :mad:
Unless they plan on making improvements, that is. :thumbsup2

[DancingBear]

Here you've got a turn-of-the-century boardwalk/beachy theme going on, and then you look off to the side and BAM! The 20th century hits you over the head like a rock!Just a note that the S&D opened several months before the Yacht and Beach Clubs, and several years before the Boardwalk. Is it equally jarring for you to be looking at the Polynesian and then turn your head and see the Contemporary?

[Another Voice]

Thanks to everyone for compliments. There’s a lot of Disney history that never made it into the corporate reports or the glowing business books. I’m just doing my little bit so that people can understand what is really happening. Disney is a large part of people’s lives, and the country’s culture. It’s important to keep who they are and what they do in perspective.

Where was/is the family during all this turmoil? Is there nobody left of the family except Roy?

There is one constant throughout the entire history of the Disney organization – the struggle between brothers Roy and Walt. This struggle continued even after their deaths and continued on with the children. I don’t have time to go into the period that followed Walt’s death, but the end result was the Roy side of the family was soon frozen out of the Disney organization.

Roy went off to make his fortune. By the mid-1980’s he had some hits, and too many misses (Polaroid, LA Gear). His largest remaining asset was his stock in Walt Disney Productions. But years of indifferent management had let the stock wither in price. Roy wanted money, and so he needed a strong Disney.

Worse than that, his arch-nemesis – Ron Miller, husband of Diane Disney and Walt’s “favorite” in Roy’s eyes – had finally knocked over the Old Guard at the company. Ron understood too that Disney needed help and began a massive campaign to move the company forward. It was Ron Miller that start most of the big projects the Michael Eisner would latter assume credit for: expansion at WDW, the move into cable, a return to television, launching mainstream movies through Touchstone Pictures, the beginnings of The Disney Story, the acquisition of outside properties (movies, books, etc.), Tokyo Disneyland and planning for Europe, and on and on.

Naturally, Roy thought he could do it better. He began discussions with outside firms to buy Disney and install a new management team. Word soon leaked out. If Disney’s troubles and potential were obvious to Ron and Roy – they were now also obvious to rich financiers. These people had the money to pull off a take-over and they sure didn’t need the baggage that Walt’s “idiot nephew” brought along.

The various greenmail and takeover attempts are richly documented in Storming the Magic Kingdom. I don’t have the reference right now, but if you have the chance you should read this book. It remains one of the best books about the workings of Disney ever written and makes a great companion piece to Disney Wars.

In the end, the Bass Brothers of Texas won the battle to buy Disney. They handed over control to Roy Disney and his team. Roy’s first task was revenge. Any trace of Ron Miller and the “Walt” side of the family was quite literally crushed. There are tales at Disneyland of a tearful Lillian Disney picking through Walt’s apartment on Main Street to collect Walt’s belongings (which had been left there so that Walt would always have a home at Disneyland) and over loud arguments in ‘The Walt Disney Story’ about what was “Walt’s property” and what was “Disney’s property”. Every where there was a picture of Walt, a picture of the same size of Roy O. suddenly appeared. Ron Miller, Diane and Lillian retired from the company and officially become unwelcomed at any Disney function. It wasn’t until decades later, when Roy needed Diane’s stock to help unseat Michael Eisner, that it’s said Roy and Diane even spoke to each other.

And with that – Roy was gone. During the time he spent in exile, Roy had developed a taste for the good life. He had a castle in Ireland. He raced massive sailboats. He traveled the world. And he really couldn’t give a flip about the company his father helped build. Now that it looked like the money would flow, he went back to his old ways. Months playing feudal lord in Ireland, sailing yachts to Hawai’i and Mexico. He’d show up for a board meeting, but he was also well paid for that.

So selling EPCOT Center, closing Animation or whatever – Roy only really cared that his boat floated on a sea of cash.

[mello]

I actually wondered about that when typing out my thoughts on the S&D. So the Boardwalk and Beachclub are actually the offending anachronisms! Ah well, I still like their architecture better, though I know that's simply a matter of opinion, and it likely shows me for an unsophisticated tasteless provincial, lol.

Just a note that the S&D opened several months before the Yacht and Beach Clubs, and several years before the Boardwalk. Is it equally jarring for you to be looking at the Polynesian and then turn your head and see the Contemporary?

Yes, actually it is! In fact, I like the looks of the Swan & Dolphin better than the looks of the giant toaster! However, the toaster is farther away from the Poly, and somehow the monorail going through it redeems the whole thing. :thumbsup2

[mello]

How very, very sad.

So let's see if I have this right: as things stand at the present, Roy and Diane are barely on speaking terms, each still hold large amounts of stock, but neither one is really involved? And Iger, (who is apparently from the same cloth as Eisner?) was chosen by whom? The board? The shareholders in general? Someone else? Why would Roy and/or Diane care about unseating Eisner only to have him replaced by someone very similar?

Sorry for all the questions. But this is a fascinating (if rather depressing) subject. I will definitely have to get the books you mentioned.

[Another Voice]

Bob Iger was groomed to be CEO by Michael Eisner. That's were the "poodle" part comes from. Everyone around the company suspected this was Eisner's survival plan. After his heart attack, there was a lot of pressure from Wall Street and the Board to start planning for other people to take over, just in case. Eisner saw this is a coup and fought it for years. Then he selected Bob Iger, the leader of Disney's disasterous ABC unit. The ploy was clear - as much as you might hate Micheal Eisner, he was still better in the job than Iger would be. That trick probably added three to five years to Eisner's rule.

For a lot of information, please read Disney War. The book came out before everything was settled, but gives you a very good idea as to what was going on all during this time. The board was handpicked by Eisner and there was a ruthless extermination campaign against any opposition - this was when Eisner kicked Roy E. Disney off the board.

What appears to have finally happened in the was a back-room deal between Eisner and Roy. Eisner would leave with a huge mountain of cash, Roy would return to the board in a "special status" with a huge mountian of cash...and Diane was sent back to the winery (it's rumored she's so disgusted with THe Company that all her efforts are directed at keeping her father's reputation from being ruined). Roy never really cared about that side of the family, they were a tool for his second take-over attempt.

Right now the feeling is that no one is really running the company. Each of the business units is moving off in different and wild directions: Attracitons planning hotels in Detriot, Products launching 'Faries' and giving away the Stores, the Studio seems to be back to the horrid days of the 1970's live action flicks - Underdog is not the product of a successful movie studio.

[mitros]

Bob Iger was groomed to be CEO by Michael Eisner. That's were the "poodle" part comes from. Everyone around the company suspected this was Eisner's survival plan. After his heart attack, there was a lot of pressure from Wall Street and the Board to start planning for other people to take over, just in case. Eisner saw this is a coup and fought it for years. Then he selected Bob Iger, the leader of Disney's disasterous ABC unit. The ploy was clear - as much as you might hate Micheal Eisner, he was still better in the job than Iger would be. That trick probably added three to five years to Eisner's rule.

For a lot of information, please read Disney War. The book came out before everything was settled, but gives you a very good idea as to what was going on all during this time. The board was handpicked by Eisner and there was a ruthless extermination campaign against any opposition - this was when Eisner kicked Roy E. Disney off the board.

What appears to have finally happened in the was a back-room deal between Eisner and Roy. Eisner would leave with a huge mountain of cash, Roy would return to the board in a "special status" with a huge mountian of cash...and Diane was sent back to the winery (it's rumored she's so disgusted with THe Company that all her efforts are directed at keeping her father's reputation from being ruined). Roy never really cared about that side of the family, they were a tool for his second take-over attempt.

Right now the feeling is that no one is really running the company. Each of the business units is moving off in different and wild directions: Attracitons planning hotels in Detriot, Products launching 'Faries' and giving away the Stores, the Studio seems to be back to the horrid days of the 1970's live action flicks - Underdog is not the product of a successful movie studio.

AV, thanks again for an outstanding look into what is {or isn't} going on at Disney. Appreciate the insights..........

[mello]

You've been most informative. I'm definitely going to order that book.

[Disney Padawan]

It was Ron Miller that start most of the big projects the Michael Eisner would latter assume credit for: expansion at WDW, the move into cable, a return to television, launching mainstream movies through Touchstone Pictures, the beginnings of The Disney Story, the acquisition of outside properties (movies, books, etc.), Tokyo Disneyland and planning for Europe, and on and on.


Another Voice, thank you for all your insight & knowledge, it's so sad to read in a way, but thanks for enlightening us.
So Miller is the one who came up with all those ideas? If he started all these big projects then what the heck did Eisner do!?!

Bob Iger was groomed to be CEO by Michael Eisner. That's were the "poodle" part comes from. Everyone around the company suspected this was Eisner's survival plan. After his heart attack, there was a lot of pressure from Wall Street and the Board to start planning for other people to take over, just in case. Eisner saw this is a coup and fought it for years. Then he selected Bob Iger, the leader of Disney's disasterous ABC unit. The ploy was clear - as much as you might hate Micheal Eisner, he was still better in the job than Iger would be. That trick probably added three to five years to Eisner's rule.

For a lot of information, please read Disney War. The book came out before everything was settled, but gives you a very good idea as to what was going on all during this time. The board was handpicked by Eisner and there was a ruthless extermination campaign against any opposition - this was when Eisner kicked Roy E. Disney off the board.

What appears to have finally happened in the was a back-room deal between Eisner and Roy. Eisner would leave with a huge mountain of cash, Roy would return to the board in a "special status" with a huge mountian of cash...and Diane was sent back to the winery (it's rumored she's so disgusted with THe Company that all her efforts are directed at keeping her father's reputation from being ruined). Roy never really cared about that side of the family, they were a tool for his second take-over attempt.

Right now the feeling is that no one is really running the company. Each of the business units is moving off in different and wild directions: Attracitons planning hotels in Detriot, Products launching 'Faries' and giving away the Stores, the Studio seems to be back to the horrid days of the 1970's live action flicks - Underdog is not the product of a successful movie studio.

This should scare the daylights of any hardcore Disney fan, I guess ignorance is bliss. I have a few questions for Another Voice or anyone else who might know.
Do you know how many board of directors that Eisner picked still have their jobs?
You mentioned it is rummored that all of Lillians efforts are to keep her father's name from being ruined. Would you know what she's been doing to prevent this?
Lastly, since Ron, Diane, & Lillian retired from the company, do they have any chance now at taking it back? What would they have to do to accomplish this?
Once again thanks for all the info. :thumbsup2

[EUROPACL]

!
Lastly, since Ron, Diane, & Lillian retired from the company, do they have any chance now at taking it back? What would they have to do to accomplish this?


Disney is a publicly traded company that has grown huge and would require billions of dollars in order to buy it back....but if you mean like a controling intrest in stock or something along those lines....then Eisner still ownes a lot of stock and Jobs is the largest single share holder now thanks to the Pixar deal.

[mello]

Disney is a publicly traded company that has grown huge and would require billions of dollars in order to buy it back....but if you mean like a controling intrest in stock or something along those lines....then Eisner still ownes a lot of stock and Jobs is the largest single share holder now thanks to the Pixar deal.

What is known about Jobs???

[mello]

This should scare the daylights of any hardcore Disney fan, I guess ignorance is bliss.

You're right there :scared1:

[ChrisFL]

What is known about Jobs???

he's the Apple guy

[mello]

he's the Apple guy

I've been reading up on him. Interesting guy. I found the following words/concepts describing him: entrepreneurial zeal, driven, aesthetic, passion, quality over quantity, benevolent benefactor, terrorising, innovation, control, attention to detail, aggressive, etc.

Sounds like he'll be good for the media side of things, but in all the articles there was no mention of the parks at all.

[YoHo]

Jobs is probably the only person on the Disney board capable of understanding the direction that the company needs to go in. The question is how much does he care?

As for What Eisner did. He went to power lunches and acted like a big shot. It can be said that he turned around WDW's Resturants, but that wasn't so much intentional as a function of his upperclass east coast snootiness. Still, us plebes should be happy we got that much.

When Michael Eisner had Wells controlling him and enough old school Imagineers to keep things reasonable, AND, before Euro Disney scared him, his ego could be used to the benefit of Disney fans, but that kind of thing was bound to fall apart. And it did spectacularly. So now we're left with an ineffectual CEO and a bunch of squabbling mini-eisners fighting over the scraps as the film division turns out junk, WDW is hacked to pieces and ABC sucks all available money up like one of the giant post parade vacuums of doom.
We all cling to Emeryville praying that Lasseter and Catmull will save us, but they just don't have the influence. Too many people need to clean out their desks.

[EUROPACL]

What is known about Jobs???.

Jobs...if there is anyone with a bigger Ego than Eisner its Jobs (Good and Bad).

Jobs has made two of the biggest Tech Blunders ever the Apple Lisa and the fact he wanted to control the hardware end of the PC market. (Thats why there is an IBM PC Clone on 90% of the desk insted of an Apple).Even though the Apple PC has always been reguarded as a better machine and for years had a better Chip.

On the other hand he has hit home runs with iPod, Pixar and now the iPhone. Jobs is a very creative guy...maybe not the best biz sense sometimes...but Walt had the same label.

...but as AV pointed out Disney is in free fall mode right now with all the units going in different directions.

[Another Voice]

Sorry, but the real world calls. This is rather rushed, but it gets my general point across.

Walt left Disney with one giant problem. That was the idea that one guy ran the entire show.

Walt knew better, and he expressed it many times himself. But the power of marketing and promotion is so strong in Hollywood and in entertainment, and Walt had gone along with it for so long, that it’s hard to avoid.

Walt wasn’t a good animator. He was a good storyteller, but he couldn’t design a ride from scratch. He knew little about merchandise, he knew a lot about what made people tick, what they wanted and what they dreamed about. He always thought of himself as an average person, but yearned to be part of the Hollywood Elite that never would accept him.

But Walt knew talent. He surrounded himself with the best people he could find. He also knew how to motivate them. He was unrelenting about demanding more, about demanding sacrifices from his staff. This would drive some people insane; it would drive others to greatness.

In short, Walt didn’t make a lot decisions around the company. Instead he was the one that set the bat that everyone else had to live up to. He was the one who pointed the direction to go; everyone else had to get the company moving that way. Walt brought both common sense and ambition to the company. He was a leader – he inspired more than he directed.

All too often today, the people running businesses don’t see themselves as leaders, but as despots. Michael Eisner would do everything from editing jokes in scripts to picking out draperies and carpeting for hotels at WDW. He commanded what was to be done.

The central attraction at the Disney/MGM Studios had been named ‘Great Moments at the Movies’ – after his son asked if it was a ride or a show, Eisner ordered the name changed to ‘The Great Movie Ride’. If his son was confused, then certainly the less well educated people going to the theme parks were going to be hopeless baffled. People at WDI were shocked, no had problems with ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ or ‘Haunted Mansion’…they never needed to name it ‘Space Mountain Roller Coaster in the Dark’. The guests understand names and titles. But Eisner refused to change his mind. Despite having no experience with theme parks, or with being a normal tourist or what life was like outside his upper-upper class cocoon – his ordered had to be followed.

Walt knew how to listen to people. Sure, he hated to be contradicted and his stink eye had a well deserved deadly reputation, but he knew that the end product – the movie, the show, the ride – mattered more than his personal opinion about something. Underneath all the bluster and the promotion there was enough self-doubt to allow Walt to change his mind. That doesn’t exist in people like Michael Eisner. Filled with the certainty of their own talent (usually achieved be being separated from the real world). Other people exist simply carry out directives.

Most people don’t really care about Walt’s management style. They just assumed one person ran the show. Show when Michael Eisner told the world he was a one-man band, most people thought that was exactly what Disney needed. For a while it worked – Disney was filled with thousands of amazing hard working and talented people. They were the ones that created Beauty and the Beast and ‘Cranium Command’ and all the other highlights of the second great Disney period.

But soon Eisner’s real nature shown through and the company suffered. People were content just to get rid of him, but people are still under the delusion about The Great Businessman. Everyone is looking to Bob Iger as the one person show. Sadly Iger can neither inspire nor can he command. So now people have once again asked for a central figure to step forward…people like Steve Jobs.

But what Disney really needs is some one who can inspire. Some one top point the way and guide other people in that direction. I don’t know if that person can be found, I know for a fact the current Disney organization crushes people with those traits. The business units are all now run like Eisner ran the corporation – directives from one top.



I don’t write these things to be depressing. I don’t write these things because I wear rose colored glasses about the past. There is a reason why things happen at Disney – a reason why California Adventure is a ghost town, why there are three hour lines at Disneyland. There is a reason why we won’t see a fifth park at WDW, and reasons why that is a good thing. To find those reasons, all we have to do is learn from history.

Walt made mistakes; Eisner/Iger did good things. But on the balance there is one philosophy that built tremendous successes, the other one created massive problems. The causal fan doesn’t see what’s going on deep behind the scenes, they know little of what is truly possible. They proclaim something like ‘Expedition: Everest’ a major wonder. In reality, it’s a major mistake.

The more people understand, the higher our expectations for Disney will be. They have no “Walt” anymore to set their standards – but we the guests can. If they want our money, they must meet those expectations, better yet they must exceed them.

[schmitty]

Jobs...if there is anyone with a bigger Ego than Eisner its Jobs (Good and Bad).

Jobs has made two of the biggest Tech Blunders ever the Apple Lisa and the fact he wanted to control the hardware end of the PC market. (Thats why there is an IBM PC Clone on 90% of the desk insted of an Apple).Even though the Apple PC has always been reguarded as a better machine and for years had a better Chip.

On the other hand he has hit home runs with iPod, Pixar and now the iPhone. Jobs is a very creative guy...maybe not the best biz sense sometimes...but Walt had the same label.

...but as AV pointed out Disney is in free fall mode right now with all the units going in different directions.

Jobs was kicked out of the Lisa project and he still pretty much controls the hardware that goes with Mac OS's.
Id say Jobs is a very good business man just a horribly unethical business man. All the man cares about is money. He charges double what products cost to make and he uses very cheap components in his products. With the ipod and iphone you can see this. ipods break all the time and now the iphone having to have its battery replaced after 400 charges. And does he replace those for free? No he charges $100 to fix things that are broken because he uses crappy components. He is a scum bag and his only goal in life is to amass a huge fortune and unfortunatly he is accomplishing that. But hey maybe some good will come out of that and he will retire once he feels like he made enough money.

[EUROPACL]

Jobs was kicked out of the Lisa project and he still pretty much controls the hardware that goes with Mac OS's.


Yeah but he started it and gets the blame for it. Yes Apple still controls thier own hardware (for the most part) and that is why they have a less than 4% market share in the PC world.

I don't own a iPod, Mac or iPhone...and I can't comment on how well they are built.

As far as charging double for what a product cost to build...heck that is a bargain for some prodcuts these days. Have you been to Disney latley? Have you bought a pizza from a major chain?

[schmitty]

As far as charging double for what a product cost to build...heck that is a bargain for some prodcuts these days. Have you been to Disney latley? Have you bought a pizza from a major chain?
Compared to other companies that have similar products apple charging double is really bad. Most companies have it between 10%-30%. Disney charges the same or less for its products compared to other theme parks. While I agree it is alot of markup compared to the other theme parks its normal pricing. Little Ceasears $5 pizzas are some extremely cheap pizzas. Most pizza places in my area that are local usually cost more than the chain places.

[EUROPACL]

Compared to other companies that have similar products apple charging double is really bad. Most companies have it between 10%-30%. Disney charges the same or less for its products compared to other theme parks. While I agree it is alot of markup compared to the other theme parks its normal pricing. Little Ceasears $5 pizzas are some extremely cheap pizzas. Most pizza places in my area that are local usually cost more than the chain places.

I had no idea that "most companies" have a 10-30% markup..got any examples?



Disney charges the same or less for its products compared to other theme parks. While I agree it is alot of markup compared to the other theme parks its normal pricing.

This makes no sense.


You'll be sad to find out that a large Pizza with everything on it cost just over a dollar for the major chain companies to make which includes overhead.

...btw you'll be really upset if you saw the profit margin on softdrinks and french fries.

[MyGoofy26]

Compared to other companies that have similar products apple charging double is really bad. Most companies have it between 10%-30%. Disney charges the same or less for its products compared to other theme parks. While I agree it is alot of markup compared to the other theme parks its normal pricing. Little Ceasears $5 pizzas are some extremely cheap pizzas. Most pizza places in my area that are local usually cost more than the chain places.


Sorry - gonna have to disagree about Disney's markup. Unless things have changed since I worked there, we were told that a box of popcorn costs Disney 2 cents. That's a lot more than 10-30% markup. Those ponchos were 5 cents I think they told us? Same with bottles of Coke products - 5 cents each. There was a list of examples like this when they were explaining why CMs have the freedom to do things for guests with a manager's approval such as replacing a spilled box of popcorn or a toppled ice cream cone, because it costs the company next to nothing and the guest is likely to recount the tale many many times . . .free advertising.


And while I don't have details on the companies actually producing, I know when I worked at Hallmark in college when we got in shipments of products - when we put them in the system we'd take whatever price was on the invoice and double it.

[schmitty]

I had no idea that "most companies" have a 10-30% markup..got any examples?




This makes no sense.


You'll be sad to find out that a large Pizza with everything on it cost just over a dollar for the major chain companies to make which includes overhead.

...btw you'll be really upset if you saw the profit margin on softdrinks and french fries.
Disney charges the same or less for its products compared to other theme parks. While I agree it is alot of markup compared to the other places but for theme parks its normal pricing. Thats what I meant to say.
Sorry - gonna have to disagree about Disney's markup. Unless things have changed since I worked there, we were told that a box of popcorn costs Disney 2 cents. That's a lot more than 10-30% markup. Those ponchos were 5 cents I think they told us? Same with bottles of Coke products - 5 cents each. There was a list of examples like this when they were explaining why CMs have the freedom to do things for guests with a manager's approval such as replacing a spilled box of popcorn or a toppled ice cream cone, because it costs the company next to nothing and the guest is likely to recount the tale many many times . . .free advertising.


And while I don't have details on the companies actually producing, I know when I worked at Hallmark in college when we got in shipments of products - when we put them in the system we'd take whatever price was on the invoice and double it.
Compared to other consumer electronics Apple charges far for than most companies out there.

[Disney Padawan]

Many research & development companies charge more than their competitors for their products.(Apple, Sony...etc) They go for many years giving you great products to build up their name, then once they've got your trust, they slowly decline their quality, right under your nose. If you think about it, the same could be said about Disney.

It's sad to read how the Disney corporation was run and is still running. It's true that we seem to be screaming for someone to save us/them. But by what I'm reading, choosing between Iger or Jobs, is like choosing between an anal probe or root canal. It's 100% true that Disney needs an inspiring leader but if such a person is never given a chance, then I weep for the future.

AV, If every hardcore Disney fan (the kind that think everything bearing the Disney name is Heaven sent) thought like you, then imagine how the parks would be? Heck, if all of us expected more from them, then they would have to constantly improve, right? But they know that they could just sit there and collect our money because they're still on top. They have no major competition, and that's another problem. The power of the mouse is extraordinary but it's not infinite & I wonder how long it will last?

AV, I had a question for you. You mentioned that "Expedition Everest" was a major mistake, I wondered if you can give us the long version of why you think this, just curious?

[kylewayne]

Disney's answer to Harry Potter= obtain theme park, and/or marketing rights to "The Transformers" from Hasbro. :thumbsup2

Imagine a Transformers ride at MGM or actual Transformers on the Streets of America transforming to robots from vehicles. I think that would be a big draw for the little kids and big kids alike.

[Budshark]

...He charges double what products cost to make and he uses very cheap components in his products. With the ipod and iphone you can see this. ipods break all the time and now the iphone having to have its battery replaced after 400 charges. And does he replace those for free? No he charges $100 to fix things that are broken because he uses crappy components. He is a scum bag and his only goal in life is to amass a huge fortune and unfortunatly he is accomplishing that. But hey maybe some good will come out of that and he will retire once he feels like he made enough money.

Wow - thats a lot of personal feelings wrapped into something passed as factual statements. Sorry you feel that way about this person you've likely never met or had the privelege of talking to in order to KNOW what he really thinks and what his goals are.

In terms of Disney - Jobs would do them a service to get involved with the Parks. He is a master at brand differentiation and image. That is what Disney needs. Not the hottest brand on the table today - but rather carefully constructed, established, enhanced images and products. Harry Potter likely will not outlast Mickey, Peter Pan, Cinderella and the like.

Anyhow - I think Disney's answer to Harry Potter will be controlled. Update attractions, add some small new ones. You don't want to go chasing every rabbit down a hole. And it remains to be seen whether Harry Potter is a staying force (I know thats not a popular thought - but will Harry and his world last 5, or even 10 years past the constant stream of books and movies).

Chris

[Disney Padawan]

Anyhow - I think Disney's answer to Harry Potter will be controlled. Update attractions, add some small new ones. You don't want to go chasing every rabbit down a hole. And it remains to be seen whether Harry Potter is a staying force (I know thats not a popular thought - but will Harry and his world last 5, or even 10 years past the constant stream of books and movies).

Chris

Agreed, this is probably all Disney will do, however I believe the HP books have enough staying power for generations to come.

[DisOrBust]

IMHO Disney is just a symptom of a bigger disease. The culture of corporate America. The stories of Iger and Eisner are no more different then I hear from my DH or witness at my own place of employment. Its just at a grander, in your face, scale. Disney won't change until they all are forced to change and that will ony happen when the money dries up.

Universal will probably screw up HP enough on its own being cheap that Disney will not have anything to worry about. I already see the Harry character meal in the great hall coming.

[Stevegriswold]

IMHO Disney is just a symptom of a bigger disease. The culture of corporate America. The stories of Iger and Eisner are no more different then I hear from my DH or witness at my own place of employment. Its just at a grander, in your face, scale. Disney won't change until they all are forced to change and that will ony happen when the money dries up.

Universal will probably screw up HP enough on its own being cheap that Disney will not have anything to worry about. I already see the Harry character meal in the great hall coming.

I have to agree I have been to Universal Studios and IOA many times as I use to work for a 3rd party that does business with many theme parks.

Universal's themeing, que lines, pre-show etc are lacking. I remember waiting for Twister for an hour then standing on some ramp watching a fake smoke cloud for a few minutes then going out the exit. Campare that with the que for Splash Mountain which has all kinds of cool stuff around every corner then a 15 min ride.

We heard rumor when Universal open IOA and I was working at Disney World, that Disney was going to open a Villian Thrill Ride park. So that Rumor has been around for at least 7 years and maybe someday that park will happen.

I worked at Disney for about 7 years and my wife did also. We LOVE Disney, but I must say that I was disappointed with many things Disney did as well.

Some of the Disney Rides/Shows seem to miss the mark: Alien Encounter, Laugh Floor. I remember going to a cast preview of Alien Encounter to test the ride. It was aweful. They went back to the drawing board and added a few things then opened it to the public, it was still bad, they closed it again and added a few things, now it has been redone with Stitch. That entire ride seems to have been based on 3D Stereo Technology that use to be a hair cut audio track you could listen to at MGM studio at the sound stage interactive area. It was like Disney wanted to make a ride to use that 3D sound technology. Laugh Floor I have not seen but have heard the reviews and it sounds like that is based on buying Pixar and trying to find a use for this new interactive character video screen like Crush at the living seas.

Also now Disney seems to do a ride rehab, and add a few new characters to it and then promotes it as a New ride. Like Pirates and also the boat ride at Mexico.

Some rides Disney really goes the extra mile on, some are just park fillers, but I guess it's all really about making a dollar in the end like any business.

I also remember when there was just the Magic Kingdom. Everyone was super friendly, park was spotless etc. Then when I started working there the property had grown. They had opened MGM Studios around when I started and AK was open for a year or so right around when I left. It was very difficult to get a job at Disney when I started there. When I left they would basically hire anyone. They had added so many resorts, parks, water parks, etc that they could not get enough people to work for $7.50 an hour. I remember cast members being sent home if their hair was not cut, if they had not shaved that day, if girls ear rings were larger than a dime they had to take them off, only one color of nail polish was allowed, etc. When I left there were people that could barely speak English working there walking out to their cars still in costume with their tie hanging off and shirt half done.

Outsourcing - Disney really did a large amount of outsourcing while I was there and it sounds like this still is the trend.

When I was there you had to get dressed at Disney in a locker room and then change before you left. So you would not see a castmember out at a bar after work in costume, or getting gas, etc. But Disney did away with the laundry service and castmembers that worked in each area making sure you had your costume clean and ready to go. They outsourced the castmember behind the scenes dining areas, they outsourced the laundry facility behind Magic Kingdom, they sold Disney's gas stations to a 3rd party, etc.

It was sad to see a business that use to own and operate everything to a certain level, sell off or outsource everything little by little.

I still have friends that work there after 10+ years making $7.90 an hour with a college degree. I just could not live off of $14k a year anymore when I left and it was nice to not have three roommates to afford an apartment.

But all in all I learned a great deal at Disney, had tons of fun right out of College, and it helped me get a nice job later in life.

[Stevegriswold]

IMHO Disney is just a symptom of a bigger disease. The culture of corporate America. The stories of Iger and Eisner are no more different then I hear from my DH or witness at my own place of employment. Its just at a grander, in your face, scale. Disney won't change until they all are forced to change and that will ony happen when the money dries up.

Universal will probably screw up HP enough on its own being cheap that Disney will not have anything to worry about. I already see the Harry character meal in the great hall coming.

I have to agree I have been to Universal Studios and IOA many times as I use to work for a 3rd party that does business with many theme parks.

Universal's themeing, que lines, pre-show etc are lacking. I remember waiting for Twister for an hour then standing on some ramp watching a fake smoke cloud for a few minutes then going out the exit. Campare that with the que for Splash Mountain which has all kinds of cool stuff around every corner then a 15 min ride.

We heard rumor when Universal open IOA and I was working at Disney World, that Disney was going to open a Villian Thrill Ride park. So that Rumor has been around for at least 7 years and maybe someday that park will happen.

I worked at Disney for about 7 years and my wife did also. We LOVE Disney, but I must say that I was disappointed with many things Disney did as well.

Some of the Disney Rides/Shows seem to miss the mark: Alien Encounter, Laugh Floor. I remember going to a cast preview of Alien Encounter to test the ride. It was aweful. They went back to the drawing board and added a few things then opened it to the public, it was still bad, they closed it again and added a few things, now it has been redone with Stitch. That entire ride seems to have been based on 3D Stereo Technology that use to be a hair cut audio track you could listen to at MGM studio at the sound stage interactive area. It was like Disney wanted to make a ride to use that 3D sound technology. Laugh Floor I have not seen but have heard the reviews and it sounds like that is based on buying Pixar and trying to find a use for this new interactive character video screen like Crush at the living seas.

Also now Disney seems to do a ride rehab, and add a few new characters to it and then promotes it as a New ride. Like Pirates and also the boat ride at Mexico.

Some rides Disney really goes the extra mile on, some are just park fillers, but I guess it's all really about making a dollar in the end like any business.

I also remember when there was just the Magic Kingdom. Everyone was super friendly, park was spotless etc. Then when I started working there the property had grown. They had opened MGM Studios around when I started and AK was open for a year or so right around when I left. It was very difficult to get a job at Disney when I started there. When I left they would basically hire anyone. They had added so many resorts, parks, water parks, etc that they could not get enough people to work for $7.50 an hour. I remember cast members being sent home if their hair was not cut, if they had not shaved that day, if girls ear rings were larger than a dime they had to take them off, only one color of nail polish was allowed, etc. When I left there were people that could barely speak English working there walking out to their cars still in costume with their tie hanging off and shirt half done.

Outsourcing - Disney really did a large amount of outsourcing while I was there and it sounds like this still is the trend.

When I was there you had to get dressed at Disney in a locker room and then change before you left. So you would not see a castmember out at a bar after work in costume, or getting gas, etc. But Disney did away with the laundry service and castmembers that worked in each area making sure you had your costume clean and ready to go. They outsourced the castmember behind the scenes dining areas, they outsourced the laundry facility behind Magic Kingdom, they sold Disney's gas stations to a 3rd party, etc.

It was sad to see a business that use to own and operate everything to a certain level, sell off or outsource everything little by little.

I still have friends that work there after 10+ years making $7.90 an hour with a college degree. I just could not live off of $14k a year anymore when I left and it was nice to not have three roommates to afford an apartment.

But all in all I learned a great deal at Disney, had tons of fun right out of College, and it helped me get a nice job later in life.

[ChrisFL]

I have to agree I have been to Universal Studios and IOA many times as I use to work for a 3rd party that does business with many theme parks.

Universal's themeing, que lines, pre-show etc are lacking. I remember waiting for Twister for an hour then standing on some ramp watching a fake smoke cloud for a few minutes then going out the exit. Campare that with the que for Splash Mountain which has all kinds of cool stuff around every corner then a 15 min ride.

I disagree with this. You mentioned Twister which came before the big theming spending and push for Universal to be on-par with Disney. Then you talk about a ride that was built before Disney's massive downturn in theming and budgets for attractions.

Compare Universal attractions with Disney attractions that opened in that same time frame until now.

[QueenGoblin]

Wow! This has been an interesting thread!

I just have to jump in on Harry Potter. You can never know for sure, but unless something happens in the final book that is a total dealbreaker for a large percentage of HP fans I think HP will take his place among our cultural icons (since he already has, really, who doesn't know the name Harry Potter at this point?) It cracks me up when people refer to HP as a trend or fad. The first book is nearly 10 years old already. And HP is a story that will not become dated, works for girls and boys, kids, teens and adults. I like HP but I am not a fanatic. I do think Disney was a little nuts to let HP slip through their fingers, but I actually think, if it is done right, HP might be a better fit with the Island theme at IOA, since nothing else about HP was Disney branded.

I HOPE IOA and HP make Disney sweat a bit because I think that will mean some improvements to WDW.

I had been so encouraged by what I was hearing our of Lasseter etc about their vision for the animation feature side of things, but I didn't realize the rest of the company was on such rocky ground :eek:

[ChrisFL]

Wow! This has been an interesting thread!

I just have to jump in on Harry Potter. You can never know for sure, but unless something happens in the final book that is a total dealbreaker for a large percentage of HP fans I think HP will take his place among our cultural icons (since he already has, really, who doesn't know the name Harry Potter at this point?) It cracks me up when people refer to HP as a trend or fad. The first book is nearly 10 years old already. And HP is a story that will not become dated, works for girls and boys, kids, teens and adults. I like HP but I am not a fanatic. I do think Disney was a little nuts to let HP slip through their fingers, but I actually think, if it is done right, HP might be a better fit with the Island theme at IOA, since nothing else about HP was Disney branded.

I HOPE IOA and HP make Disney sweat a bit because I think that will mean some improvements to WDW.

I had been so encouraged by what I was hearing our of Lasseter etc about their vision for the animation feature side of things, but I didn't realize the rest of the company was on such rocky ground :eek:

That's basically my view as well, I think Universal is in the stage where it NEEDS a smash hit new section of IOA to continue competing and Disney hopefully will invest a lot more to make sure it stays ahead.

I think Lasseter can do great things for Disney and hopefully get it back to pre-1995 type of imagineering

[Metro West]

Universal will probably screw up HP enough on its own being cheap that Disney will not have anything to worry about. Hmm...why do you think Universal will be cheap about this new area? :confused3

[mello]

Amazing story. So much information to digest. Thanks you for recommending it AV.

And Stevegriswold, what you said really got me thinking.

[QUOTE=Stevegriswold;19710002

I still have friends that work there after 10+ years making $7.90 an hour with a college degree. I just could not live off of $14k a year anymore when I left and it was nice to not have three roommates to afford an apartment.

[/QUOTE]

I've been thinking about the millions that so many of the top executives have made over the last twenty or so years (including bonuses, stock options, etc.; even though their salaries may be listed at, say $500,000 a year), and I was struck by the fact that part of the reason for buying ABC was that the company was looking for something to spend all it's excess money on. I thought; why not pass some of that along to the shareholders? Or better yet, pay your employees enough to actually live on? Or perhaps even lower the cost of hotel rooms just a bit? But the previous poster who said that it's not just Disney, it's a symptom of corporate operation in general, is right. How sad that these few men who control everything (not just Disney, but many large corporations) are so far removed from the world the rest of us live in that they have no idea how hard it is for their employees (and many of their customers for that matter) just to live, let alone keep buying their overpriced goods and services.

Quick example: DH is on salary but hourly it would equate to about $25-$30 per hour. He applied awhile back for a similar professional job with the Disney company. They wanted to pay him $15 per hour to do virtually the same job. Thanks - it would have been fun, but no thanks - can't live on that.

Anyway, I highly recommend reading the book. I haven't been able to put it down.

[Metro West]

Amazing story. So much information to digest. Thanks you for recommending it AV.

And Stevegriswold, what you said really got me thinking.



I've been thinking about the millions that so many of the top executives have made over the last twenty or so years (including bonuses, stock options, etc.; even though their salaries may be listed at, say $500,000 a year), and I was struck by the fact that part of the reason for buying ABC was that the company was looking for something to spend all it's excess money on. I thought; why not pass some of that along to the shareholders? Or better yet, pay your employees enough to actually live on? Or perhaps even lower the cost of hotel rooms just a bit? But the previous poster who said that it's not just Disney, it's a symptom of corporate operation in general, is right. How sad that these few men who control everything (not just Disney, but many large corporations) are so far removed from the world the rest of us live in that they have no idea how hard it is for their employees (and many of their customers for that matter) just to live, let alone keep buying their overpriced goods and services.

Quick example: DH is on salary but hourly it would equate to about $25-$30 per hour. He applied awhile back for a similar professional job with the Disney company. They wanted to pay him $15 per hour to do virtually the same job. Thanks - it would have been fun, but no thanks - can't live on that.

Anyway, I highly recommend reading the book. I haven't been able to put it down.I agree with you...trouble is...everytime this subject has been brought up in the media down here (i.e. contract negotiations, unions etc.), a Disney spokesperson always says "they are competitive in the market" about pay. I suppose Disney feels their product is far and away superior to anything else out there which is probably why whenever there's an accident or someone gets hurt at the parks, it's a big deal. Like every big corporation, Disney can't see the forest for the trees. Pay the employees who do the front line jobs more so they can be happy. Working for Disney means you must really change the way you live. I wouldn't want to live with three or four other people just to make ends meet...but that's a choice thousands make so I can't feel too sorry for them.

[Budshark]

Wow! This has been an interesting thread!

I just have to jump in on Harry Potter. You can never know for sure, but unless something happens in the final book that is a total dealbreaker for a large percentage of HP fans I think HP will take his place among our cultural icons (since he already has, really, who doesn't know the name Harry Potter at this point?) It cracks me up when people refer to HP as a trend or fad. The first book is nearly 10 years old already. And HP is a story that will not become dated, works for girls and boys, kids, teens and adults. I like HP but I am not a fanatic. I do think Disney was a little nuts to let HP slip through their fingers, but I actually think, if it is done right, HP might be a better fit with the Island theme at IOA, since nothing else about HP was Disney branded.

I HOPE IOA and HP make Disney sweat a bit because I think that will mean some improvements to WDW.

I had been so encouraged by what I was hearing our of Lasseter etc about their vision for the animation feature side of things, but I didn't realize the rest of the company was on such rocky ground :eek:

I'm one of those people that crack you up apparently... ;)

So - let me pose the question in a different way:

After Rowling stops writing new books, and there are no further movies coming out - what happens to Potter mania?

There is no doubt about 2 things. 1) Harry Potter is well known. 2) Pottermania reaches its peak when a new book or movie, or book&movie come out.

In current pop culture most institutions 'fade' after years. What would you think if Disney announced a brand new dedicated "Star Wars World" today? Crazy? Everyone knows Star Wars and it probably has even more themings and options than Potter-land. But now that it lacks the continual support of movies, dedicating a whole land to it would be questionable. My point is that there are a larger number of "pop-sensations" that seemed like the next best thing - but none of them approach the longevity or multi-generational staying power as the classics (Cinderella, Snow White, Peter Pan) or the Mouse. Thats all I'm saying. Harry Potter and its movies are going to seem "real old" in 15-20 years. Its the opposite of the risk Disney is taking with Pirates. The ride stood alone for years - but now with a movie success behind it - will the ride "age" as well - because the movie won't.

Chris

[ChrisFL]

I'm one of those people that crack you up apparently... ;)

So - let me pose the question in a different way:

After Rowling stops writing new books, and there are no further movies coming out - what happens to Potter mania?

There is no doubt about 2 things. 1) Harry Potter is well known. 2) Pottermania reaches its peak when a new book or movie, or book&movie come out.

In current pop culture most institutions 'fade' after years. What would you think if Disney announced a brand new dedicated "Star Wars World" today? Crazy? Everyone knows Star Wars and it probably has even more themings and options than Potter-land. But now that it lacks the continual support of movies, dedicating a whole land to it would be questionable. My point is that there are a larger number of "pop-sensations" that seemed like the next best thing - but none of them approach the longevity or multi-generational staying power as the classics (Cinderella, Snow White, Peter Pan) or the Mouse. Thats all I'm saying. Harry Potter and its movies are going to seem "real old" in 15-20 years. Its the opposite of the risk Disney is taking with Pirates. The ride stood alone for years - but now with a movie success behind it - will the ride "age" as well - because the movie won't.

Chris

Well, lets take another Universal "land" then, Jurassic Park...most of its area is derived from the first movie which was successful 7 years Before IOA opened. Yes, there were sequels, but they really weren't much like the original movie. Still, I think its very popular and people like to see it.

Similar things could be said for Jaws, Earthquake or King Kong at the Studios, HOWEVER these were IMO more simple concepts that anyone who hasnt even seen the movie could enjoy

[Budshark]

Well, lets take another Universal "land" then, Jurassic Park...most of its area is derived from the first movie which was successful 7 years Before IOA opened. Yes, there were sequels, but they really weren't much like the original movie. Still, I think its very popular and people like to see it.

Similar things could be said for Jaws, Earthquake or King Kong at the Studios, HOWEVER these were IMO more simple concepts that anyone who hasnt even seen the movie could enjoy

But in a sense those prove my point except for Jaws.

Its Dinosaurs that make Jurassic Park - the movie already looks dated. While the concepts of "wizards" may make a good "land" (see Beastly Kingdom which should have but never was) - Harry Potter himself I don't think has anywhere near the staying power of Cinderella/Snow White/Peter Pan - and none of them even have a world named after them.

I liken Harry Potter to a Frodo or Aslan. Someone entire generations will forget about until the day someone decides to redo the movies. And then he might last a generation and then be forgotten about again. I hate to say it but my nephews and friends could care less about Star Wars - it meant nothing to them and the movies were too "old" to watch. Disney actually did good with Star Wars in a sense - they themed it "Star Wars" but the ride isn't. If Universal does that (which would be smart) the buildings and lines might be "themed" Harry but the rides won't be Harry. Now if they go and make rides like Fantasy Land where you need to understand the movie to appreciate the rides - well someone needs to help them.

Wizards, Warlocks, Dragons, Magic = Good Land.
Harry Potter = Good Land for 5+ years. Worthless at 10+ years.

Chris

[EUROPACL]

Harry Potter himself I don't think has anywhere near the staying power of Cinderella/Snow White/Peter Pan - and none of them even have a world named after them.

Chris

Maybe I'm a little out of it...but are kids today just going nuts for Cinderella/Snow White and Peter Pan? Outside of the adults that grew up with them forcing their little girls to go eat over priced meals dressed up as them? A quick run down of Saturday morning cartoons says no. So lets fastfoward 15 years and now those kids that did grow up with Harry Potter have kids...are they going to pine away for a 35 year old snow white ride at MK or something else?

I think the deal for the HP land is for 10 years right now anyway and that sounds about right as far as updating lands and rides.

[YoHo]

And Star Wars had plenty of support after Jedi when there was no expectation of new movies And then books started coming out. And don't even get me started on Lord of the Rings or Star Trek.

I think you're painting this stuff into a corner that doesn't exist. The books will still be printed. New children will read them. The movies will be purchased.

Don't sell Harry Potter short.

This land is particularly interesting, because in the World of Harry Potter, inanimate objects have as much personality as the people. Hogwarts is almost a character. That will make this land have significant appeal.

[Budshark]

Well then call me different - I don't see HP as that instrumental of a force long term. I think you can take it or leave it - but again we'll see. And it'll be interesting to see what a HP world looks like after 10 years. Perhaps it'll be completely rethemed or HP will stand out from the crowd - which I don't personally believe.

So back to what Disney will do - I'm guessing not a whole bunch. I'm actually glad they didn't get this deal. It would have restricted them a little too much and Rowling probably desired a lot more control than Disney was willing to give.

Chris

[Keyser]

Actually, I expect Harry Potter to have much longer staying power than most movies, from the fact that it's based on books, rather than on the movies. Movies tend to become "dated" much faster than books do (and live-action movies seem to become dated faster than animated ones). Yes, the Harry Potter mania will certainly fall off (especially from right now, when it's probably at its peak). But I expect it will remain as a continuing area of interest for many, many years, if only because the books will continue to be read for many years.

Plus, as you point out, the theme of Harry Potter land will probably center on more "universal" ideas (wizards and magic) than on the specific HP characters themselves. Universal has an incredible opportunity, and if they handle it right, this should be a land of long-term interest. Now, if you want an example of a really bad idea to theme a land around, King's Dominion (and maybe some other Paramount parks) used to have a section themed to Wayne's World...

[YoHo]

You're telling me a Basement in Aurora Illinois isn't an awesome theme?
It would be like reliving my High School and College years.

[ChrisFL]

I also get the impression looking at Universal's history with the Studios in Florida that they're not looking for an attraction to last over 15-20 years like Disney does.

I mean, since 1990, it seems like 1/2 of the attractions have been replaced with something else:

Hanna-Barbera-> Jimmy Neutron
Alfred Hitchcock-> Shrek 4D
Ghostbusters->Twister
Kongfrontation->The Mummy
BTTF->The Simpsons
Murder She Wrote->Herc & Xena->empty building used for HHN

[Lewisc]

Rides based on popular movies probably get dated quicker. Universal doesn't have as much land as Disney so recylcing old attractions works better then building new.

That said Disney has done it's share of "recycling":

If you had Wings---Dreamflight--Buzz Lightyear
Flight to the Moon--Mission to Mars--AE--Stich's Great Escape
Captain EO--HISTA
Mr. Toad's Wild Ride--Winnie the Pooh
Magic Journeys--Lion King Show--Mickey's PhilarMagic
Circlevision--TimeKeeper--Laugh Floor
Tarzan Show---Nemo
part of backlot tour---Millionare---Toy Story Mania
backlot houses tram tour---Lights Motors Action
Millenium Village--convention space
Wonders of Life--convention--meeting
World of Motion--Test Track
Living Seas--Nemo got rid of hydrolators and pre-show.

I won't count Horizons--Mission Space because the entire building was torn down


I think I'm missing some of the intermediate attractions but you get the picture.




I also get the impression looking at Universal's history with the Studios in Florida that they're not looking for an attraction to last over 15-20 years like Disney does.

I mean, since 1990, it seems like 1/2 of the attractions have been replaced with something else:

Hanna-Barbera-> Jimmy Neutron
Alfred Hitchcock-> Shrek 4D
Ghostbusters->Twister
Kongfrontation->The Mummy
BTTF->The Simpsons
Murder She Wrote->Herc & Xena->empty building used for HHN

[YoHo]

Disney has more then their share of rides based on popular movies. The difference is that Disney Animated films have maintained their popularity, or even increased it over time.

[EUROPACL]

Universal doesn't have as much land as Disney so recylcing old attractions works better then building new.



That is not exactly true either....Universal has enough land for an entire new theme park...also they have built in space in IOA for new attractions and the studios has space not being used for TV/Movie use anymore.

[Lewisc]

It's a fact that Disney has a lot more unused land then Universal. Universal already "recycled" their parking lots and built large parking garages. Universal may have enough land left for a waterpark or one last hotel. I don't think they have enough for an entire new theme park.

Weren't the old Nick Studios converted into a theater for Blue Man Group? Both Disney and Universal have "recycled" some of the "dark rides". I'm sure Universal has room for a few new attractions but changing the movies and theming of some of the older attractions is a great way to freshen up the park. Just like Disney replacing Mr. Toad's Wild Ride with Pooh (ducking for cover).





That is not exactly true either....Universal has enough land for an entire new theme park...also they have built in space in IOA for new attractions and the studios has space not being used for TV/Movie use anymore.

[Lewisc]

duplicate post

[EUROPACL]

It's a fact that Disney has a lot more unused land then Universal. Universal already "recycled" their parking lots and built large parking garages. Universal may have enough land left for a waterpark or one last hotel. I don't think they have enough for an entire new theme park.

Weren't the old Nick Studios converted into a theater for Blue Man Group? Both Disney and Universal have "recycled" some of the "dark rides". I'm sure Universal has room for a few new attractions but changing the movies and theming of some of the older attractions is a great way to freshen up the park. Just like Disney replacing Mr. Toad's Wild Ride with Pooh (ducking for cover).

Where did anyone question if Disney had more land than Universal?? Anyone that follows these issues knows that Universal has a fraction of the land compared to Disney...but that is not what we were talking about. I may be wrong here but I thought that I remember Universal buying a huge track of land across from Universal Blvd and between S.Kirkman rd. I don't really understand your point either about "recycled" parking lots vs attractions...why on one hand is it bad on the other good? Universal "recycled" a parking lot to make better use of the land they do own = Bad and running out of land. Disney "recycles" attractions and the Disney Insitue = Good and all the land in the world??

[ChrisFL]

Where did anyone question if Disney had more land than Universal?? Anyone that follows these issues knows that Universal has a fraction of the land compared to Disney...but that is not what we were talking about. I may be wrong here but I thought that I remember Universal buying a huge track of land across from Universal Blvd and between S.Kirkman rd. I don't really understand your point either about "recycled" parking lots vs attractions...why on one hand is it bad on the other good? Universal "recycled" a parking lot to make better use of the land they do own = Bad and running out of land. Disney "recycles" attractions and the Disney Insitue = Good and all the land in the world??

Universal had an extra 2,000 acres from Lockheed Martin, but they sold it about 2 years ago.

Still they do have a large area of land next to IOA which could be another theme park if they removed one road...however its pretty certain they are going to use it for hotels

[EUROPACL]

Universal had an extra 2,000 acres from Lockheed Martin, but they sold it about 2 years ago.

Still they do have a large area of land next to IOA which could be another theme park if they removed one road...however its pretty certain they are going to use it for hotels

I knew that I remembered something about another huge piece of land...wans't that they land they had to spend big bucks to clean up? I missed where and who they sold it to. I knew about the land next to IOA just not extacly where. Isn't there land behind the Lost Continent and Jurassic Park. (Or is that the same ?)

Also in Universal Studios there seem to be many unused spaces...the old Wild West Stunt Show,(or is that Fear Factor now) The Ghostbusters/NY end of the park as well as the buildings and area behind Jimmy Netron and between IOA??

[ChrisFL]

I knew that I remembered something about another huge piece of land...wans't that they land they had to spend big bucks to clean up? I missed where and who they sold it to. I knew about the land next to IOA just not extacly where. Isn't there land behind the Lost Continent and Jurassic Park. (Or is that the same ?)

Also in Universal Studios there seem to be many unused spaces...the old Wild West Stunt Show,(or is that Fear Factor now) The Ghostbusters/NY end of the park as well as the buildings and area behind Jimmy Netron and between IOA??

Here's a google satellite link:

http://www.google.com/maps?q=Orlando,+FL,+USA&ie=UTF8&ll=28.466465,-81.465597&spn=0.019731,0.034418&t=k&z=15&om=1

the area is just west of IOA (or below it on the map), as you can see the land is already started to be used for their next hotel/residence project.

Yes, Fear Factor is where the stunt show was. The studio buildings are used for HHN, not sure what else. There is some land beside MIB and behind the Simspons/BTTF building...but not much other than that. I've heard the old Herc/Xena building was damaged badly by the hurricanes a couple of years ago and may not be used again.

At IOA there's not much besides some land between JP and Toon Lagoon. The land between JP and Lost Continent is where part of HP is going

[G8r4evr]

According to my son, a CM, the "buzz" among his friends is that Disney is going to soon announce a response. He says that they are going to carve out an enormous chunk of Disney/MGM and add an entirely new section. He mentioned the old Villian Mountain idea idea (I told him he was nuts, but he kept going back to it). I mentioned that I had read on Jimhillmeida about "Pixarland". He said that was NOT their impression.

Now of course the CMs often do not have any better information then we do, but I though it was interesting. He said that they were all convinced that Disney was preparing to announce something that will blow our minds.

It should be fun to see what happens.

Ill believe it when I see it, but Villain Mountain would be a great addition to the Studios~!

Also love the idea of transforming Test Track into the "Cars" theme.

[DC7800]

Also love the idea of transforming Test Track into the "Cars" theme.

Please...NO. What is it about "Cars" that fits into the theme of Future World? Such an attraction would be completely out of place in Epcot. We already have to put up with the abomination known as Mission: Space and other attractions "dumbed down" with cheap makeovers which lack imagination and creativity.

Not everything has to (or should) have a character-connection, Pixar or otherwise. That doesn't mean The Seas with Nemo or Mexico's revamped boat ride aren't interesting, and they might be right at home in the Studios or even Fantasyland - but certainly not Epcot.

The original Epcot Future World attractions were awe-inspiring in their day; Imagine what it would be like to have a park which maintained such a lofty standard. In 1982 Disney was able to create a park of attractions which created a sense of wonder; sedate rides like Journey into Imagination or Horizons were far more "thrilling" than any "thrill ride". Today we mostly get attractions which depend on physical thrills (M:S) or movie characters (Mexico, Seas) to provide amusement. Epcot should be something different - and it used to be.

[Another Voice]

There are two ways that fictional characters work.

The first is where the character is so appealing, so interesting that people become interested in the creation as if they were a real person. King Arthur and Sherlock Holmes are the classic examples. Coming up with characters like that is extremely difficult – most tend to loose their appeal very shortly. I’d put Captain Jack Sparrow is one of these. The appeal of the character was strong enough to carry through two and a half movies, but now the character is fading from popular culture with the rest of the series.

The other kind of character is one that let’s an audience explore a new and interesting world. The characters and the plot serve just to structure the exploration of the world. No one really cares about any of the characters in Jurassic Park, no one cares about the backstory of the park, no one cares about DNA engineering – but everyone wants to be chased by dinosaurs.

A lot (if not most) of the appeal of ‘Harry Potter’ was that the books and films have created a wonderful world that people would like to visit. I’m not much interested in the coming-of-age story of a boy wizard, but I would sure like to wander through a world where magic works, wizards teach school and my mail is delivered by an owl.

That kind of world will remain interesting long after interest in the ‘Harry Potter’ books fade, just as ‘Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride’ remains hugely popular even though almost no one watched Wind in the Willows these days; or that ‘The Matterhorn’ was derived from Third Man on the Mountain.

There are some whispers floating about concerning Universal’s plan. There is nothing supported enough to really write about here – but if they are true, Disney is in serious trouble.

[Disney Padawan]

AV, I had a question for you. You mentioned that "Expedition Everest" was a major mistake, I wondered if you can give us the long version of why you think this, just curious?


(I noticed that you were online, just thought I'd ask again, no big deal.)

[Disney Padawan]

Please...NO. What is it about "Cars" that fits into the theme of Future World? Such an attraction would be completely out of place in Epcot. We already have to put up with the abomination known as Mission: Space and other attractions "dumbed down" with cheap makeovers which lack imagination and creativity.

Not everything has to (or should) have a character-connection, Pixar or otherwise. That doesn't mean The Seas with Nemo or Mexico's revamped boat ride aren't interesting, and they might be right at home in the Studios or even Fantasyland - but certainly not Epcot.

The original Epcot Future World attractions were awe-inspiring in their day; Imagine what it would be like to have a park which maintained such a lofty standard. In 1982 Disney was able to create a park of attractions which created a sense of wonder; sedate rides like Journey into Imagination or Horizons were far more "thrilling" than any "thrill ride". Today we mostly get attractions which depend on physical thrills (M:S) or movie characters (Mexico, Seas) to provide amusement. Epcot should be something different - and it used to be.


This thread has had many topics while I've been away but that's good, divesity is often a good thing, which brings me to this post.

It seems that one of the primary reasons rides get "dumbed down" as you say, is because that's what the people want. Technology and society have changed over the past twenty years, in many ways for good and bad. Sadly, people no longer crave education or pursue knowledge the way they used to. (specially while on vacation.) Surveys taken year after year always state the same thing: the majority are looking for thrills, cheap or not. Disney knows this and has abandoned the idea for "edutainment" a long time ago. Sure some of it still remain but their existence is in vain. Rides like WOM or Horizons (a great ride btw) don't seem to appeal to the masses anymore. Plus Disney knows, by adding their characters to their rides, they've helped cement them even more into the public's eye, thus increasing their value. Some may argue that Epcot now has a good balance of rides, while others obviously miss the good ol' days. I think in years time, Disney may totally abandon the "future world" theme and the park will be more character and thrill based, with a small mix of mild rides, all character themed of course. How many years? That really depends on us, not just the individual, but the majority.

[ChrisFL]

This thread has had many topics while I've been away but that's good, divesity is often a good thing, which brings me to this post.

It seems that one of the primary reasons rides get "dumbed down" as you say, is because that's what the people want. Technology and society have changed over the past twenty years, in many ways for good and bad. Sadly, people no longer crave education or pursue knowledge the way they used to. (specially while on vacation.) Surveys taken year after year always state the same thing: the majority are looking for thrills, cheap or not. Disney knows this and has abandoned the idea for "edutainment" a long time ago. Sure some of it still remain but their existence is in vain. Rides like WOM or Horizons (a great ride btw) don't seem to appeal to the masses anymore. Plus Disney knows, by adding their characters to their rides, they've helped cement them even more into the public's eye, thus increasing their value. Some may argue that Epcot now has a good balance of rides, while others obviously miss the good ol' days. I think in years time, Disney may totally abandon the "future world" theme and the park will be more character and thrill based, with a small mix of mild rides, all character themed of course. How many years? That really depends on us, not just the individual, but the majority.

In-Park surveys are not always a good thing, as I posted in another thread.

In that thread I made an educated guess that if you asked people in MK a question like "would you like to see a new 60mph thrill ride go beside Main St." I would guess that AT LEAST 30-40% of them would hear half the question and go "Yeah!"

People are on vacation, they often arent thinking 100% about what they want during an in-park survey. IMO what made places like the original Epcot special is that the idea is that people dont always know what they want until you give it to them. Thats the beauty of imagineering...being able to do something that most people cant explain but can appreciate it nonetheless. Thats what i consider Disney's "magic"

In-park surveys cant give you that

[Disney Padawan]

In-Park surveys are not always a good thing, as I posted in another thread.

In that thread I made an educated guess that if you asked people in MK a question like "would you like to see a new 60mph thrill ride go beside Main St." I would guess that AT LEAST 30-40% of them would hear half the question and go "Yeah!"

People are on vacation, they often arent thinking 100% about what they want during an in-park survey. IMO what made places like the original Epcot special is that the idea is that people dont always know what they want until you give it to them. Thats the beauty of imagineering...being able to do something that most people cant explain but can appreciate it nonetheless. Thats what i consider Disney's "magic"

In-park surveys cant give you that

I was reffering to online surveys as opposed to in-park ones, but I have to agree with you. Heck, I think people on vacation don't think at all. (OK maybe just a little, sometimes.)

[DancingBear]

Sadly, people no longer crave education or pursue knowledge the way they used to. (specially while on vacation.)What's your basis for this, and how do you square it with trends like the rise in ecotourism, or "voluntourism"?

[Another Voice]

Sadly, people no longer crave education or pursue knowledge the way they used to. (specially while on vacation.)
Utterly wrong.

This is a prime example of “blame the audience”. On hears it all the time in Hollywood – no one went to see Movie X because the timing was wrong, or the weather in the east was bad, or that people were turned off by jumping on Oprah’s couch – it’s all just a bunch of dren.

The real reason is Movie X was bad.

Leave ‘Rio de Tiempo’ in for a quarter century, it’s going to get stale. Make people watch boring movies about oil drilling for twenty minutes, people aren’ going to rush to Universe of Energy.

Just admit that the shows failed, not that suddenly people are stupid and want to remain so (even though this does probably describe a lot of rabid Disney fans).

There is no magic formula to make something popular. Stupid and lazy excuses like “people don’t want education’ are used only by people without the talent to make something good (which is why you’ll hear all the designers of California Adventure use the line so often).

But hey, slapping a store bought roller coaster in a big concrete box is a lot less work than making an attraction that can really amaze and astonish people. And that’s why Disney creates ‘Expedition: Everest’ these days – cheap and easy.

It’s not that people aren’t interested in animals, it’s just that chasing after ‘Little Red’, a short and cheap raft ride, and a jeep ride through a dark warehouse filled with dinosaurs sounds are all bad attractions. Each of these shows failed to make their subjects interesting, exciting and enjoyable for the guests. And that is not the fault of the guests, but the fault of Disney.

[Disney Padawan]

Utterly wrong.

This is a prime example of “blame the audience”. On hears it all the time in Hollywood – no one went to see Movie X because the timing was wrong, or the weather in the east was bad, or that people were turned off by jumping on Oprah’s couch – it’s all just a bunch of dren.

The real reason is Movie X was bad.

Leave ‘Rio de Tiempo’ in for a quarter century, it’s going to get stale. Make people watch boring movies about oil drilling for twenty minutes, people aren’ going to rush to Universe of Energy.

Just admit that the shows failed, not that suddenly people are stupid and want to remain so (even though this does probably describe a lot of rabid Disney fans).

There is no magic formula to make something popular. Stupid and lazy excuses like “people don’t want education’ are used only by people without the talent to make something good (which is why you’ll hear all the designers of California Adventure use the line so often).

But hey, slapping a store bought roller coaster in a big concrete box is a lot less work than making an attraction that can really amaze and astonish people. And that’s why Disney creates ‘Expedition: Everest’ these days – cheap and easy.

It’s not that people aren’t interested in animals, it’s just that chasing after ‘Little Red’, a short and cheap raft ride, and a jeep ride through a dark warehouse filled with dinosaurs sounds are all bad attractions. Each of these shows failed to make their subjects interesting, exciting and enjoyable for the guests. And that is not the fault of the guests, but the fault of Disney.

I agree with some of the points you're making but quite frankly I blame both, people and Disney.

Yes, many things after a quarter century will become stale but comparing movies and rides are two different things. If a movie is bad, many won't see it, and it probably will not make enough money to cover production costs, although there are exceptions. (Pirates 3?) If a ride is bad, some may complain, but it will generate so much volume for so many years, that the blind suits at Disney, will see it as a sucess. (MS, Everest?) We are the ones making them a "Sucess." Sure it's "a lot less work" to put a roller coaster in a concrete box or the many other examples you made but no one is stopping Disney from making them. In other words, once a bad attraction is made, hundreds line up to see it, on an everyday basis. Even after years of it's initial release, people still flood to experience it again. Why? Is it because they've paid good money and they might as well see everything? True sometimes, but what about repeat visitors? Is the world really filled with that many "rabid Disney fans?"

I didn't mean to sound like the majority is "suddenly stupid" I never even stated that! But since people always flood these attractions, and never boycott the "bad ones," then I think they deserve half of the blame. I know there's no way to tell how many repeated visitors a certain attraction is getting, but these patterns repeat year after year. This is what I meant by "that's what the people want" because it seems that way. True, many don't know any better.

Anyway, I guess I needed to be clearer on my previous post. It's not just People that are at fault but mainly Disney's mindset. I know you've stated that Disney is to blame and not the guests, but I think they deserve blame too. You've even mentioned, on a previous post how, "They proclaim something like Expedition Everest a major wonder. In reality, it's a major mistake." People have to "understand" why this is, why Disney has changed, but many choose not to. Reasons for this vary but If they did, then their expectations will be higher and Disney would have to meet them, better yet, exceed them, right? If "the casual fan" as you've put it, stopped going to "bad attractions" then maybe Disney will have to create something wonderful. Of course, they just seem to lack the talent and will to do so right now. Things may change, one never knows for sure.

In conclusion I just have a question for you AV. You seem very knowledgeable and opinionated about these topics, I'm wondering, what are your favorite rides and why? Just curious, in case you wanted to share.

[Another Voice]

but comparing movies and rides are two different things.
A theme park is a theater. Like your local multiplex, it presents lots of different shows. The economic “success” is making sure there are enough shows, enough good shows, and a wide enough variety to draw a paying crowd. And has Disney has painfully learned through bitter experience at California Adventure and Animal Kingdom, it’s a lot tougher to do than it looks.

Even on the individual ride level (in the post-ticket world) some rides are budgeted as “blockbusters”, some as B features. Disney keeps hourly attendance figures to figure out exactly how popular each of these rides are. Disney views each attraction as a major capital investment and they calculate the expect return from increased park attendance and associated merchandise/food/ancillary sales. It doesn’t take a ride to be completely deserted for it to be seen as a flop, it just has to fail its expectations.

That’s how Disney knows that ‘Mission: Space’ has been a huge failure and that ‘Soaring’ has been a rousing success. ‘M:S’ was supposed to be a huge magnet to bring people into Epcot, it failed at that. Lucky for us stockholders, the vastly less expensive ‘Soaring’ is doing the job that ‘Space’ couldn’t achieve.

Now the question is – why are people flocking to ‘Soaring’ and ignoring ‘Space’. For the people involved, it’s a lot easier on the ego to scream that “people were scared by the media hype over the deaths on ‘Space’ than it is to admit the show itself is very, very bad. Never forgot how important ego and inertia are in a corporation. Hollywood – and Disney is nothing now but an extension of the biz – is based on the concept that ever movie could have been a hit if only….

And look how long Disney has let California Adventure rot in the sun rather than say “we built it wrong, let’s fix it”. And here the chief designer for the entire park said that DCA was simply too cool and too hip for Disney guests to understand.


The best attraction in any park all follow the same simple rule. It comes from saying that went around WED Enterprises for years and finally made it into ‘Start Tours’ – “I’ve always want to do this”.

Much like a story can tell us about other people’s lives, thoughts and emotions, much like movies can show us places new or made-up, a theme park attraction is a way we can experience all the things we’ve always wanted to do, but can’t in the real world.

We can wander the corridors of a haunted house, ride a rocketship into space, we can sail with a pirate crew or watch to a heroic president deliver a speech. A good attraction takes an adventure that we think we can only experience in our imagination and makes it feel real.

[QueenGoblin]

I think Another Voice has made a really good point here. A Harry Potter world will appeal to people who have not even read the books or seen the movies just because it is so whimsical.

I think Harry Potter has already proven more enduring than Captain Jack. I enjoy Pirates, but I think the franchise is getting a bit thin and it only has 3 movies under its belt. HP has 7 books and 4 movies over 10 years and is still breaking records. It seems to ebb and flow because it gets such huge media attention when the movies come out or a new book is realeased, but I work in a public library and I see a new generation of kids picking the books up every year. I think the demographics are even more key. The hard core Harry Potter generation, the kids who grew up with the books, are entering their late teens and early twenties. They will have kids in the next 5-10 years. So even when Potter-mania eventually levels out, there will be a whole generation of young parents who want to take their kids to Harry Potter's world.

Plus JK Rowling has not ruled out the possibility of revisiting her world with a new series or companion titles. I cannot imagine it would be as successful as the Potter series, but who knows?

So if done right, I still think it will be a huge hit for Universal and could prove to be a very popular attraction for at least 20 years, probably more. And at that point, maybe someone will want to remake the movies. ;) (And Disney is not above trying to make everything old seem new again...hence the "vault," the sequels, and a new mickey mouse show for each generation. That is largely just their marketing, which is genius.) But I still don't think HP would have been a good fit for Disney, just some healthy competition.

There are two ways that fictional characters work.

The first is where the character is so appealing, so interesting that people become interested in the creation as if they were a real person. King Arthur and Sherlock Holmes are the classic examples. Coming up with characters like that is extremely difficult – most tend to loose their appeal very shortly. I’d put Captain Jack Sparrow is one of these. The appeal of the character was strong enough to carry through two and a half movies, but now the character is fading from popular culture with the rest of the series.

The other kind of character is one that let’s an audience explore a new and interesting world. The characters and the plot serve just to structure the exploration of the world. No one really cares about any of the characters in Jurassic Park, no one cares about the backstory of the park, no one cares about DNA engineering – but everyone wants to be chased by dinosaurs.

A lot (if not most) of the appeal of ‘Harry Potter’ was that the books and films have created a wonderful world that people would like to visit. I’m not much interested in the coming-of-age story of a boy wizard, but I would sure like to wander through a world where magic works, wizards teach school and my mail is delivered by an owl.

[Disney Padawan]

Now the question is – why are people flocking to ‘Soaring’ and ignoring ‘Space’. For the people involved, it’s a lot easier on the ego to scream that “people were scared by the media hype over the deaths on ‘Space’ than it is to admit the show itself is very, very bad. Never forgot how important ego and inertia are in a corporation. Hollywood – and Disney is nothing now but an extension of the biz – is based on the concept that ever movie could have been a hit if only….

And look how long Disney has let California Adventure rot in the sun rather than say “we built it wrong, let’s fix it”. And here the chief designer for the entire park said that DCA was simply too cool and too hip for Disney guests to understand.

I knew that "Soarin" was the most popular ride at Epcot but I thought MS was always packed too, just like TT. I had no idea their attendance was so poor? This is why I used it as an example in my earlier post.

As for your second paragraph here, I agree. In fact, I hate that kind of attitude, I see it in my place of work on a daily basis. I wonder if AK's attendance would equal DCA if it was located in another part of orlando. I believe it holds its attendance spot mainly because of their location. Most people do see all 4 major parks, many start with AK because it's their least favorite. As for DCA, they should just swallow their pride and fix it, if it's that bad. I really can't judge it because I've never been there but I have heard the complaints, plus their attendance speaks for itself.

By the way, thanks for sharing what I believe, were some of your favorite rides, the classics never die.

[G8RFAN]

IMHO, I think MS is far superior to Soarin in execution. It's just that its reputation of making people queasy for half the day is by far it's biggest detriment. The storyline is plausible and the details that you see in the queue are truely amazing if you take the time to study it. The building facade itself is incredibly complex. The lines are starting to grow, and once the word gets out that the Green (non-spinning side) is still a remarkable show with little wait, they are going to have to turn off the centrifuge on another bank of ride modules. Personally, I'm a thrill junkie, so I can ride MS all day.

I am going to throw out there my hypothesis on "educational rides". We are not dumb down as a population. Where once we had just PBS's Nova, we now have the various channels of Discovery, TLC, and History Channel. We see a shift in how some of these shows are presented, as the traditional documentaries are giving way to high tech CG or reality based format. I think Disney has to compete with that and has chosen the path of least resistance. The question begs, would you rather produce a move that is this summer's biggest blockbuster or the golden palm at Cannes? I know thay are not mutually exclusive, but more often than not they are.

[YoHo]

Mission: Space is a farce. The original show was totally dropped, the post ride pavilion was dropped It's terrible. It's a mark of how horrible Disney's cost cutting has gotten. The fact that it has killed people just adds injury to insult.

[kpk89]

This thread has been a very interesting read. It caught my eye because we're in the middle of Potter Mania at our house, and because I have never considered going to Universal or IOA until news of the Wizarding World came out.

I agree that this will be nice competition for Disney, and regret that Disney passed on the opportunity (or was financially unable to grab it). I thought surely that since the HP movies run often on Disney Channel, that there was a deeper connection.

I disagree with those who believe HP will not be a lasting icon. The universal (no pun intended) theme of the saga is the conflict between good and evil. This theme is eternal, and when packaged in such an appealing skin as the magical world, it will be timeless. Whether that translates to an enduring and loved-through-the-generations theme park attraction, I suppose is up to Universal.

And the extra information about Walt, Iger, Eisner, and Jobs et al, was fascinating.

[G8RFAN]

Mission: Space is a farce. The original show was totally dropped, the post ride pavilion was dropped It's terrible. It's a mark of how horrible Disney's cost cutting has gotten. The fact that it has killed people just adds injury to insult.

Boy. I never got to ride the original show or see the post ride pavilion like you did. I guess I didn't know what I was missing. I shouldn't be subjected to such inferior product. You are right. It is a farce.

Just like the death on the Body Wars ride, this whole congenital heart defect thing is a cover up (insert "farce" if you want) and the Disney goons are just on some murderous crusade to cut costs at the price of human lives.

[YoHo]

Of course I didn't ride some "Original" show, but I can read can't I? I can know the original plans and how they hacked and slashed them from a great attraction about going into space into a simulation of Astronaut training. A simulation of a simulation. It's dumb. I can complain about the post show being a travesty. We can get back into the debate on the causes of death for Mission: Space, but In case you missed it, I downplayed that. That just re-enforces everything.

[G8RFAN]

Every concept car, every showpiece architectural plan, every screenplay eventually gets chopped and cut to fit a budget/plan. Artisans are always doomed by the bean counters. It's a fact of life. It could have originally been a real rocket trip to Mars, but it's not and if I had that expectation then of course the "what you see" version is going to suck. The basic concept of a centrifuge driven simulator has not changed and unless you are privy to data or have the scientific knowledge that does indicate that changes made from the original design produces physiological danger that was not present in the original design, it's really just sour grapes. I do agree with the popular opinion that the ride is probably too intense for a good many people including my wife, but then she will not ride space mountain either. In any event, the simulator of a simulator is unique as I have always had issues with every simulator that drops you off to your destination and you litterally walk back into reality with no attempt to transition you back.

[YoHo]

Every concept car, every showpiece architectural plan, every screenplay eventually gets chopped and cut to fit a budget/plan.
Oh really? Care to point out where PotC (the attraction) budget was cut? Or HM? Or Spaceship Earth?

Artisans are always doomed by the bean counters. It's a fact of life.

O Really, tell me, how has Pixar been hurt by bean counters Do you have any indication that they've ever had a run in with them?

It could have originally been a real rocket trip to Mars, but it's not and if I had that expectation then of course the "what you see" version is going to suck. The basic concept of a centrifuge driven simulator has not changed
I'm sure everyone gets super excited about a ride mechanism before they get excited about the theme huh? The theme is the only thing that matters. Nobody cares about the mechanism. Disney hacked and slashed the Theme, because they're cheap.


and unless you are privy to data or have the scientific knowledge that does indicate that changes made from the original design produces physiological danger that was not present in the original design, it's really just sour grapes.
Which is why I went out of my way to point out that that was not my point just an additional issue.


I do agree with the popular opinion that the ride is probably too intense for a good many people including my wife, but then she will not ride space mountain either. In any event, the simulator of a simulator is unique as I have always had issues with every simulator that drops you off to your destination and you litterally walk back into reality with no attempt to transition you back.
Nobody day dreams about riding a simulation of astronaut training. Nobody daydreams about Astronaut training. They daydream about going into space. Great attractions are about fulfilling your wildest dreams, not something that anyone with a decently strong hear can do.

If you dislike the transition, that's hardly the fault of the theme is it? It's the fault of the designer. Don't blame them for giving you not enough and then settle for even less, because at least they didn't try and fail.

I mean, like what you like, THAT's subjective, but it doesn't excuse poor imagineering.

[G8RFAN]

Oh really? Care to point out where PotC (the attraction) budget was cut? Or HM? Or Spaceship Earth?
PotC or HM? No disrespect, as they are great "classics" but that was then and not now. Those concepts today would not cut it in today's environment. Your whole beef is with the evolution of Disney. At what point did anyone outside of Disney have to scrutinize an attraction's budget back then? Walt had to answer to investors and definitely made choices handcuffed by a budget. As beautiful as Spaceship Earth is, the whole EPCOT concept was impacted by budgets and subjected to slashes and cuts. Nobody had a blank check. Give me a break.

O Really, tell me, how has Pixar been hurt by bean counters Do you have any indication that they've ever had a run in with them?
So you know for a fact that Lasseter and Catmull had a blank check for each production. Why on earth would they have layoffs before the gravy started to roll in? Plus, it is apples and oranges, as PIXAR is small enough and single purpose enough to be run by the creative think tank (or at least they used to be). But don't kid yourself, they still had to make budget decisions.

I'm sure everyone gets super excited about a ride mechanism before they get excited about the theme huh? The theme is the only thing that matters. Nobody cares about the mechanism. Disney hacked and slashed the Theme, because they're cheap.

99% of the people that walk through the gates at WDW don't know and don't care what was on the drawing board. All they see is the attraction as completed and judge from there. You set your own expections based on information that in the practical sense of an attraction is meaningless and no longer applicable. If you want to read a book before the movie comes out, you will be disappointed. As popular as the Harry Potter movies are, you will find the hard core book fans disapproving. You my friend are a hard core book fan.

Which is why I went out of my way to point out that that was not my point just an additional issue.
You brought it up.

Nobody day dreams about riding a simulation of astronaut training. Nobody daydreams about Astronaut training. They daydream about going into space. Great attractions are about fulfilling your wildest dreams, not something that anyone with a decently strong hear can do.
It's space camp for everyone without having to travel to AL! It's neat! Once again you are just being that hard core book fan. If you want to nitpick, where is my pirate ship? DQ's attraction gives me that AND cannons!

If you dislike the transition, that's hardly the fault of the theme is it? It's the fault of the designer. Don't blame them for giving you not enough and then settle for even less, because at least they didn't try and fail.
I read this a couple of times. Maybe I don't understand the role of the designer when it comes to the theme..... You take me to X, I visit the base station and we leave. It's done on 99% of the time and you don't get to ride the ride again to get back home (unless I'm at Rafiki's Planet Watch). I mean come on! We took hydrolators to get here.....

I mean, like what you like, THAT's subjective, but it doesn't excuse poor imagineering.
I understand your contention and sometimes that critical eye is what Disney needs to hear. But to call MS a farce is a bit extreme IMHO. It would have had its issues even if it had built it exactly to it's full blown originaly designed glory.

[DancingBear]

So you know for a fact that Lasseter and Catmull had a blank check for each production. Why on earth would they have layoffs before the gravy started to roll in? Plus, it is apples and oranges, as PIXAR is small enough and single purpose enough to be run by the creative think tank (or at least they used to be). But don't kid yourself, they still had to make budget decisions.He didn't say they didn't have any budget limitations; the point was that their guiding principle was making a great creative product. Isn't it a Lasseter quote that "Quality is a business plan"?

[DancingBear]

IMHO, I think MS is far superior to Soarin in execution. It's just that its reputation of making people queasy for half the day is by far it's biggest detriment. The storyline is plausible and the details that you see in the queue are truely amazing if you take the time to study it. The building facade itself is incredibly complex. The lines are starting to grow, and once the word gets out that the Green (non-spinning side) is still a remarkable show with little wait, they are going to have to turn off the centrifuge on another bank of ride modules. Personally, I'm a thrill junkie, so I can ride MS all day.You may like it, but overall Mission:Space is a failure. It cost a fortune, meant the loss of Horizons (which could have been updated for much less cost), and did not bring folks into the park. The whole ride was conceived around the idea of using centrifuge technology, and now you're saying that it will be a sign of success when they have to turn off another centrifuge? Leaving aside the fatalities, how come Disney didn't realize so many would get sick on this ride?

[G8RFAN]

He didn't say they didn't have any budget limitations; the point was that their guiding principle was making a great creative product. Isn't it a Lasseter quote that "Quality is a business plan"?
There were critics that hated Cars. PIXAR's latest drew the ire of many critics some of which when I read them seemed to take personal offense that they made a critic into a villian. But you know who really counts? You and I, the people that buy the movie tickets, DVD's, and marketing offshoots. If you ask them if they could have made any of their films any better, you know what the answer would be. They released what they did because of budget constraints. The storyboards on all of their movies have changed from the initial concepts (artisans call it an evolution) but still, nonetheless, they had evolved. The parallel to MS (taking it back to the off topic subject on hand) is that the end result is still a masterfully crafted attraction albeit wrought with real and perception problems. As I said, once the green side catches on, the lines will come.

[G8RFAN]

You may like it, but overall Mission:Space is a failure. It cost a fortune, meant the loss of Horizons (which could have been updated for much less cost), and did not bring folks into the park. The whole ride was conceived around the idea of using centrifuge technology, and now you're saying that it will be a sign of success when they have to turn off another centrifuge? Leaving aside the fatalities, how come Disney didn't realize so many would get sick on this ride?

New paths bring unexpected problems. Part of the problem is that they had to demo an existing classic. You risk bringing instant critics from those who liked Horizons. The whole problem which you touched on is bringing people into the park. MS hasn't done it. Nor did any of the original attractions. If you want to judge their creativity, that's fine. But on one end you say they spent gobs of money on a failure and then complain that the bean counters stiffle creativity. It just seems many times that the complaints come at both ends and sometimes from the same people just to ultimately complain about Disney. I judged the attaction on its own merit and as YoHo said, I am entitled to my subjective view. I don't let corporate history, concept to build history, etc. affect my view on it.

[ChrisFL]

I think there's a point that could be made in this M:S discussion and creative people vs. bean counters...

Why DOES the most creative attraction have to also be the most expensive? Can it be done for less money using a different way of going about it?

I would say thats whats missing in potential ways of thinking now vs. 25 years ago. If I were to guess, I'd say that the creative people would say "we want a fully immersive ride experience and capped off with a trip to the planet of Mars" then the bean counters say "you cant have that, its too expensive" and the second half gets chopped off and left with interactive video games instead...

Now when I consider what I've seen of the past projects like when Epcot opened, I think the creative types came up with their blue sky ideas, then the budget didnt allow for it, so they went back and redesigned it to continue to have the same principles, keeping the feeling of the idea intact, but making less impact on story and the overall experience.

So the way it SEEMS to be working now is that they come up with an idea, bean counters say no, it has to be slashed, and they can't work out a happy medium, or won't spend the time/effort to do so.

[DC7800]

The whole problem which you touched on is bringing people into the park. MS hasn't done it. Nor did any of the original attractions.

Not true. If those original attractions didn't bring in the crowds, then please explain what did. What made Epcot such a success (revisionist history aside) for Walt Disney World years before the first "thrill ride" made its appearance?

The fact that those originals, after a couple decades of complete neglect, began to grow a bit stale in no way detracts from the original concept. Mission:Space is not likely to endure quite so long, or age nearly so gracefully, as the pavilions Future World opened with back in 1982.

PotC or HM? No disrespect, as they are great "classics" but that was then and not now. Those concepts today would not cut it in today's environment

Again, for rides which can't "cut it" anymore these attractions remain awfully popular. Out west, Disneyland visitors continue to line up for these attractions (and other park classics) while DCA - with its newer thrills - is almost ignored. Indeed, a new, modern attraction on the same level as Pirates is exactly what WDW needs.

[DancingBear]

PIXAR's latest drew the ire of many critics some of which when I read them seemed to take personal offense that they made a critic into a villian.Not too many of those, given that this movie has the highest Tomatometer reading for 2007.

[DancingBear]

New paths bring unexpected problems. Part of the problem is that they had to demo an existing classic. You risk bringing instant critics from those who liked Horizons. The whole problem which you touched on is bringing people into the park. MS hasn't done it. Nor did any of the original attractions. If you want to judge their creativity, that's fine. But on one end you say they spent gobs of money on a failure and then complain that the bean counters stiffle creativity. It just seems many times that the complaints come at both ends and sometimes from the same people just to ultimately complain about Disney. I judged the attaction on its own merit and as YoHo said, I am entitled to my subjective view. I don't let corporate history, concept to build history, etc. affect my view on it.You like it, fine. But if you want to call it a "masterfully-crafted attraction" you should expect some pushback.

There is no contradiction in saying they spent gobs of money on a failure and that bean counters stifle creativity (which I didn't say anyway). If the bean counters kill the truly immersive creative part of the experience, then the rest of the money spent is wasted. They could have done much better spending much less money on a creative update of Horizons.

I'm not following your arguments. You say in the immediately preceding votes that what counts is not the critics but the public's reaction. Then you defend a ride that is not attracting guests, and act like the public's reaction to getting rid of Horizons is an irrelevant factor. And again, you're saying that the ride's success will come from shutting down the centrifuge technology around which the entire concept was developed. And that's 'cause Disney couldn't possibly have anticipated that folks were gonna puke?

I don't want to go to space camp, I want to go to space. Even Mission to Mars reflected an understanding of that concept.

[YoHo]

Not true. If those original attractions didn't bring in the crowds, then please explain what did. What made Epcot such a success (revisionist history aside) for Walt Disney World years before the first "thrill ride" made its appearance?


Exactly, those ORIGNAL Epcot attractions brought in Millions upon millions of people. Epcot was ridiculously popular.

[G8RFAN]

Not true. If those original attractions didn't bring in the crowds, then please explain what did. What made Epcot such a success (revisionist history aside) for Walt Disney World years before the first "thrill ride" made its appearance?

The fact that those originals, after a couple decades of complete neglect, began to grow a bit stale in no way detracts from the original concept. Mission:Space is not likely to endure quite so long, or age nearly so gracefully, as the pavilions Future World opened with back in 1982.
Sorry, the context I meant was those attractions in terms of today. Now that I read it, it could be read as original draw. Could they have taken the original concepts and modernize them? Sure. Would that have created criticism that they were not imaginative? Maybe. The early sucess of EPCOT is all relative to the scale of the resort area at the time. The lodging infrastructure has grown tremendously. They have like so many other companies during high growth painted themselves into a problematic corner. I don't have the crystal ball to say they shouldn't have done it as who knows what would ahve happened to the parks division if they had not. All I know is that they now have to keep the resorts and parks utilized at levels never pressured before. But back MS, hindsight is 20/20 and you can shake a finger at them and say "see I told you so, this MS project was a complete farce". Hard to disagree looking at the lines, the bad press, and their legal issues; however, I've riden the ride many times now looking for defects in concept and delivery, and I just can't find any other than the spinning aftereffects for some. If it fails, too bad, as it is a beautiful building and the attention details excellent.

Again, for rides which can't "cut it" anymore these attractions remain awfully popular. Out west, Disneyland visitors continue to line up for these attractions (and other park classics) while DCA - with its newer thrills - is almost ignored. Indeed, a new, modern attraction on the same level as Pirates is exactly what WDW needs.
The remaining classics endure because they have become the theme parks' signature. We are less critical of them out of respect for what they once stood for. Look at all the backlash when they "improved" on PotC. The lines at Small World still are incredibly long, yet many people jokingly find the ride's theme song annoying. Guess what ride DS wanted to ride the most at DL? Casey Jr. One of the enduring originals. Nothing really special about it except the Dumbo connection and it's a train. I think something like that would be perfect in the now Pooh play area. So I do see the "magic" of the attractions from the past, but the impression I get from some was that it was perfect before and it wasn't. Are there really no lines at California Screamin'? I didn't get that sense when I was there 1 1/2 years ago.

[G8RFAN]

Not too many of those, given that this movie has the highest Tomatometer reading for 2007.
We loved it. Saw it at the AMC at DTD during opening week. Movie critics for the rags in South Florida and Orlando (Sentinel) gave it a bad review. Cars as I recall had similar reviews from the same papers. DS has all the cars. We have his playroom decorated and themed with it. His bathroom looks like a Nemo fish tank. As I said, sometimes the critics can have it all wrong from the general population. I may be in the the minority regarding MS, but I truly believe that making a non spinning side is going to eventually draw bunches of people. Many will then try the orange side once they experience the green. Curious how many of its critics have riden it.

[Disney Padawan]

Anything that fails can be made succesful, that being said, no matter how you slice that pie, MS is a failure.

Disney needs to swallow its pride, spend some money and fix their issues.

[Barbers2005]

I didn't mean to sound like the majority is "suddenly stupid" I never even stated that! But since people always flood these attractions, and never boycott the "bad ones," then I think they deserve half of the blame. I know there's no way to tell how many repeated visitors a certain attraction is getting, but these patterns repeat year after year. This is what I meant by "that's what the people want" because it seems that way. True, many don't know any better.

If "the casual fan" as you've put it, stopped going to "bad attractions" then maybe Disney will have to create something wonderful.

You have to keep in mind that "bad" is relative. The average visitor to WDW isn't a superfan who goes time and time again and can compare the parks to what they were 15-20 years ago, lamenting the paradigm shift in WDW management. The average visitor lives nowhere near a Disney park and spends their summers going to Six Flags or Cedar Point- compared to those even the worst ride at WDW looks pretty good. Sure, I know that M:S isn't as well themed and immersive as HM and that Kali is just a gussied up raft ride, but that won't stop me from riding them b/c they're still light years ahead of Hershey Park and Darien Lake. Realistically speaking, people aren't going to stop riding anything disney puts out when all they've got at home is tilt-a-whirls and mega coasters.

[trstno1]

Wow - I came to check ideas about Disney's response to the Harry Potter park, and instead I read 2 pages of debate about the success, or lack thereof, of Mission Space.

Is it worth reading the first 8 pages of this thread?

[DancingBear]

You have to keep in mind that "bad" is relative. The average visitor to WDW isn't a superfan who goes time and time again and can compare the parks to what they were 15-20 years ago, lamenting the paradigm shift in WDW management. The average visitor lives nowhere near a Disney park and spends their summers going to Six Flags or Cedar Point- compared to those even the worst ride at WDW looks pretty good. Sure, I know that M:S isn't as well themed and immersive as HM and that Kali is just a gussied up raft ride, but that won't stop me from riding them b/c they're still light years ahead of Hershey Park and Darien Lake. Realistically speaking, people aren't going to stop riding anything disney puts out when all they've got at home is tilt-a-whirls and mega coasters.But the fact is that a lot of people have, in fact, stopped riding M:S (or have chosen not to ride it in the first place).

[Disney Padawan]

You have to keep in mind that "bad" is relative.

I agree, "Bad" is relative, that is why I had it in quotations.


Realistically speaking, people aren't going to stop riding anything disney puts out when all they've got at home is tilt-a-whirls and mega coasters.

This is one of the reasons why Disney is the way it is now.


But the fact is that a lot of people have, in fact, stopped riding M:S (or have chosen not to ride it in the first place).
This and what I've heard from DCA gives me some hope. If we as fans keep it up, Disney may take a step for a better future.

[bulah1]

....and here's some of my thoughts on how to update the Beastly Kingdomme idea by converting it into a Narnia land at DAK
http://www.mouseextra.com/2007/06/01/building-upon-the-animal-kingdom-part-three-beastly-kingdomme/#respond[/QUOTE]

NARNIA! Now that is a cool idea! I think that has a lot of potential, and could definitely compete with the feel of the Harry Potter at Universal!

I know Star Wars could definitely work too... both very good ideas! Star Wars would make a lot of people happy!

[Disney Padawan]

I know Star Wars could definitely work too... both very good ideas! Star Wars would make a lot of people happy!

Narnia doesn't have enough fans yet for it to compete with HP. Star Wars, on the other hand, WILL make a lot of people happy.

[bulah1]

Narnia doesn't have enough fans yet for it to compete with HP. Star Wars, on the other hand, WILL make a lot of people happy.

Yeah, I don't really care either way... either one would make me happy! ;)
However, doubt either one would happen anytime soon... and I have a feeling a lot of people hit it on the head about Star Wars being a non-possibility with the Lucas aspect! LOL

But you're probably right about the fan base though as far as ticket sales would go. When are the rest of the Narnia movies coming out? I hope they're working on the next... :thumbsup2

[EUROPACL]

. When are the rest of the Narnia movies coming out? I hope they're working on the next... :thumbsup2

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian is coming out in May 2008 and is in production now. I have a strong gut feeling this will be the last of the Narnia movies from Disney ...unless they really knock this one out of the park. The other Narnia books just don't have the following that the The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe do. The first made some pretty decent money Worldwide, unless that trend continues Disney will be looking to throw that money down another hole like The live action Smurfs, Strawberry Shortcake or Carebear Movies.

THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE VOYAGE OF THE DAWN TREADER has a release date of just a year later May 2009 (on imdb.com)....as of right now.

[Disney Padawan]

The first made some pretty decent money Worldwide, unless that trend continues Disney will be looking to throw that money down another hole like The live action Smurfs, Strawberry Shortcake or Carebear Movies.



Don't forget Jem, The Snorks, and Rainbow Brite are also available. :rotfl:

[Another Voice]

But on one end you say they spent gobs of money on a failure and then complain that the bean counters stiffle creativity.
It's not a simple issue that "more money = better; less money=worse".

The most important factor in the success or failure of any project is the skill, talent and passion of the people involved.

'Mission: Space' is a failure becasue the people who made it had no imgination, no respect for the audience, and were attempting nothing beyond "thrill ride". The people who created 'Soarin' had a fraction of the resourses to work with but spent them wisely and used their talent to overcome the limitations put upon them. Guests really don't care how much an attraction costs, they want to have a good time. 'Soaring' delivers that, 'M:S' doesn't and it's reflected in the attendance figures.

A successful production is a matter of getting the proper level of resources to right people.

That's how Disney lost the rights to Harry Potter - they refused to fund their proposal to a sufficent level to build something actually worth seeing. It was 'Mission: Space' all over again, an excerise on seeing how little you can spend and still con people into riding the attraction.

Universal took a different approach. In the end they will probably spend less money than Disney would have, but by a clever combintion of using what they already had and a unique and imaginative approach they have created (at least on paper and if all the rumors are true) a truely stunning experience that will draw millions of people.

Realistically speaking, people aren't going to stop riding anything disney puts out when all they've got at home is tilt-a-whirls and mega coasters.
That thought was the whole design philosohy behind California Adventure and why that entire park is empty and devoid of paying customers.

[Wick]

'Mission: Space' is a failure becasue the people who made it had no imgination, no respect for the audience, and were attempting nothing beyond "thrill ride".

I think that more weight should be invested in the idea that M:S is simply too extreme for most Disney goers:

IMO, what is boils down to is not a lack of creativity or what have you, but rather, quite simply, the notion that most families aren't enthusiastic about jumping into a flight simulator, complete with low-level G-forces and the claustrophobic elements. It lost its huge popularity after the initial opening because it appeals to only a very small portion of guests who like that sort of thing.

[MickeyMaz]

Did you hear that Disney is going to be making a remake of Escape to Witch Mountain?

Fight Witches with Witches I say.

Maz:3dglasses

[Coopsmum77]

Wow - I came to check ideas about Disney's response to the Harry Potter park, and instead I read 2 pages of debate about the success, or lack thereof, of Mission Space.

Is it worth reading the first 8 pages of this thread?

Wow. I agree! :offtopic:

I don't care what Disney opts to counter Harry Potter with, it isn't going to compare. Just look at the sales numbers from the last book. It is a phenomenon that cannot be rivaled. We are talking cult status of a massive scale. I know I am planning on heading down for when IOA opens the land up. Nothing quite as magical as Hogwarts at Christmastime.:goodvibes

Whatever they decide on, it will need to be HUGE. Just updating Star Tours, or redoing a Pirate land isn't going to cut it.


If we are going to talk about Mission Space, why don't we open a Mission Space thread, and leave this one for the original topic?

[Another Voice]

The link is simple - Disney's inability and unwillingness to create a great ride is the reason why they lost the Potter franchise - and why it's a good thing they did.

[Coopsmum77]

The link is simple - Disney's inability and unwillingness to create a great ride is the reason why they lost the Potter franchise - and why it's a good thing they did.

I agree. After seeing what Universal did with the entire IoA, I am happy that they ended up with Potter. I think they will more than do it justice. I am especially intrigued to see how they incorporate the wizarding world into their Halloween events.

[k5thbeatle]

What would Disney's answer be to The Wizarding World of Harry Potter?

Probably another merry-go-round ride like Dumbo or Aladdins flying carpets!;)

[schmitty]

Probably another merry-go-round ride like Dumbo or Aladdins flying carpets!;)

BURN:furious:
Heres another one, Not letting a company thats about to go out of business build your ride then have the half complete ride sit around for 6 years doing nothing but rotting.

[Brian_WDW74]

Here's an updated from Screamscape:

Late 2009 - The Wizarding World of Harry Potter - Confirmed - (8/15/07) New filings submitted by Universal Orlando now project a new timeline for the Wizarding World of Harry Potter to be compete. The Grand opening “is targeted to occur in or about December 15th, 2009 but may occur as late as June 30th, 2010.” However this is when the area is deemed to be “fully operational”, which means that they could open some sections in phases early I suppose.

[Coopsmum77]

Probably another merry-go-round ride like Dumbo or Aladdins flying carpets!;)

And seven stores to go along with the one new ride....