Am I reading this correctly? HK Disneyland to open with 12 attractions

[YoHo]

Now now, it's not that much better.

How bout a compromise, Akli's theme with Grizzley ride mech.

 

[SoCalKDG]

Not the "proof" I was looking for, but since Roy and Stanely were in the boardroom and YOU were not, I'm going to assume they may know a bit more about this then any of you do.

Also, I'll reiterate, Move Soarin over to Disneyland and bring back the parkinglot, because Soarin is the only worthwhile thing in that offense to a Walt Disney Themepark.

Thats funny... Your using as your proof two gentleman and a website that have everything to gain by being negative about any Disney decision made in the last 10 years. In all these discussions I haven't once used anything Eisner or Disney public relations has said. Each side sees things through colored glasses. No thanks.



DCA highlites:

Soaring
TOT
Muppets
ITTBAB(yes the last three are clones, but then so are 1/3 of the rides at M.K. Very few people are fortunate to be able to visit both DLR and WDW on a consistant basis)

Grizzly(great ride, easily surpasses Kali)
Animation building
Alladin(second best show behind Lion King)
Screamin(one of the few roller coasters my FIL and MIL can ride while still entertaining teenagers).

For my daughter(3 years old) Bugs Land beats ToonTown hands down.
Playhouse Disney & Redwood Creek Challenge Trail are also her favorites. Monster Inc. will join her list as well.


Throw in the Winery for eating, eating icecream while watching the Electric Light Parade, and a couple off the shelf rides that are still enjoyable, makes for a great day.

While I'm there, I'm sure you can find some parking lot to stand in all day since thats more enjoyable for you.

 

[crusader]

If you wish to believe that TDS is a failure as others are trying to convince themselves, fine - who cares really unless you have stock in the company. I'm not sure what "commingle" means, but I haven't seen anybody who knows for sure how admissions are counted in Tokyo or the U.S. parks.

No, I don't see TDS as a failure. I see it as a themepark built in Japan which looks pretty darned attractive from the U.S. (glad you're here to clue us in) As for the commingle issue - it has to do with the way OLC consolidates its' subsidiaries. They have different reporting standards in Japan vs U.S. which makes it very difficult to assess an accurate financial picture.

I guess because it's not really relevant. It's typical for parks to take a hit the year after a big anniversary. It's happened in Florida. You could easily point to the "increase" at Tokyo from 2002 to 2003 rather than the drop from 2003 to 2004. We've been talking about general and long-term patterns and Tokyo appears to be doing very well. Also, it's smart to launch an aggressive marketing plan the following year so people don't forget about you. That's what OLC did. Despite the success of TDS, they are building TZTOT and Raging Spirits because they realize, like Cedar Point does, that you have to keep moving forward to keep guests happy. I haven't been aware of campaigns by OLC to give away free tickets, or coupons to boost attendance. My understanding was that (for a while anyway) they didn't have APs or allow TDL APs holders into TDS because the park was crowded enough. Perhaps this has changed. Does anyone know?

I disagree about the relevance issue, but I pretty much agree with everything else you're stating. DCA has been highly critized for the buy one park get the second park free campaign DL promotes to So Cal residents. (Matt mentioned it again on this thread) The argument being that the park is so bad the company has to give the local residents a free ticket to get them to attend. I view it as simply a promo - no better or worse than the FL resident discounts being offered at various themeparks throughout the year - or in this case the OLC campaigns to generate patrons.

OLC did mention in their financials that they had launched a campaign which encompassed the parks and the resorts. I don't know the details but I'm guessing there were some lucrative deals.

The guest count remains an issue I'm very curious about.

 

[wtg2000]

I see it as a themepark built in Japan which looks pretty darned attractive from the U.S. (glad you're here to clue us in)

Clue you in on what? But you're welcome anyway.

What I'm most curious about is why this and other similar discussions rage on. Why are some people so seemingly desperate to delve into the minutiae to, I guess, justify DCA's exsistence? I've never been, but I take with a grain of salt everything I read about it because the lines were drawn before the place even opened. Is it possible to get an impartial view? I loved TDS but didn't care at all for WDSP. Since I hold stock in neither company or have any interest at all I feel my judgements were based solely on my experiences. Some people, not you, in their efforts to justify DCA turn to denigrating Tokyo by questioning everything about it and saying that the Japanese don't like it and that it's empty - statements right of the Twilight Zone.

Personally, I hope for the parks all to be successful and for everyone who visits to have an enjoyable experience. But trying to cling to some numbers, or mention that Tokyo's attendance dropped after an anniversary year as somehow justification for Disney's decision to build DCA (which is exactly what it is) is just strange to me.

Not to mention that the original topic of this thread is a distant memory! Will the Chinese be blown away given the opening day roster of HKDL? I have a hard time convincing myself that they will, but I hope it is received positively. (I wonder if the Jungle Cruise will be given in Cantonese or Mandarin?)

 

[All Aboard]

(I wonder if the Jungle Cruise will be given in Cantonese or Mandarin?)

There are several HK CMs working WDW's Jungle Cruise right now. In speaking with a friend who is a skipper there, she told me that they have to master a solid English, Mandarin and Cantonese spiel. Though, she had no idea if the spiels would rotate or just how they'd be used in HK.

 

[SoCalKDG]

What I'm most curious about is why this and other similar discussions rage on. Why are some people so seemingly desperate to delve into the minutiae to, I guess, justify DCA's exsistence? I've never been, but I take with a grain of salt everything I read about it because the lines were drawn before the place even opened. Is it possible to get an impartial view? I loved TDS but didn't care at all for WDSP. Since I hold stock in neither company or have any interest at all I feel my judgements were based solely on my experiences. Some people, not you, in their efforts to justify DCA turn to denigrating Tokyo by questioning everything about it and saying that the Japanese don't like it and that it's empty - statements right of the Twilight Zone.

I enjoy DCA alot. Would I prefer to have DSea there instead, you betcha. I havn't noticed it from you, but for some people to say it tanked or to say its worse than a parking lot, thats as extreme as blasting DSea, wouldn't you agree.

For most people DCA is a second park that is walking distance from DL and is about equal to AK or MGM, IMHP. Unfortunately experiences are sometimes tainted by expectations. If I go to AK right after the MK and expect a similar experience, of course you will be disappointed. By the way, WDSP? Disney Studios Paris? How does it compare to Disney Studios at WDW?

The same thing will occur at Hong Kong. Like Japan it will a have a captive audience with very little competition and a large population to draw from. Our expectations if we visit that park will be different than the local population, very possibly leading to our disappointment while at the same time making them feel its a great park.

 

[All Aboard]

By the way, WDSP? Disney Studios Paris? How does it compare to Disney Studios at WDW?

Start with Disney-MGM Studios, then...

Subtract:
The Great Movie Ride
Tower of Terror
Beauty and the Beast
Muppetvision 3D
Star Tours
Who Wants to be a Millionaire
Fantasmic

Replace:
Voyage of the Little Mermaid with Animagique
Indiana Jones Spectacular with Armegeddon
Sounds Dangerous with Cinemagique (ok, that's a stretch - but Martin Short did once appear in that theater at MGM )

Add:
The Magic Carpets of Aladdin

That's pretty much describes it.

 

[wtg2000]

I wonder how common it is for people to speak both Cantonese and Mandarin? I know the reading is the same. I thought they were spoken in different parts of the country. Imagine, you have to be trilingual just to get a job as a Jungle Cruise skipper! JC in Tokyo was fun because even though I couldn't understand the skipper, the guests laughed in all the same places as in Florida so I knew what jokes were being told. I understood that the reason there is on JC in Paris is because of all the various European languages. Perhaps HK will have different language lineups. I wonder how Albert Schweitzer translates.

 

[wtg2000]

I havn't noticed it from you, but for some people to say it tanked or to say its worse than a parking lot, thats as extreme as blasting DSea, wouldn't you agree.

Yes, these opinions are pretty extreme as well. I guess they are born partially from the frustration that WESTCOT or DisneySea was not built. Like I said, I haven't been but it doesn't seem that bad from pictures and descriptions. But remember, people with moderate views generally don't bother to post.

By the way, WDSP? Disney Studios Paris? How does it compare to Disney Studios at WDW?

Unfortunately, it doesn't. The attraction lineup was very sparse (8 in total), but more importantly there is no "park." It's really just a few soundstage buildings strewn about. Some posters want the parking lot back instead of DCA. The trouble with WDSP is that it still looks like a parking lot! There are no backstreets, no mainstreets, no nooks or crannies, no places to sit or hang out. The show times are staggered but while you're waiting, there's nothing to do, nowhere to go, no place to walk around. The soundstages look like outlet malls - I'm not kidding.

A couple of the attractions are quite nice. I enjoyed Cinemagique, the car stunt show and the animation. Animagique and the Backlot Tour not so much - the latter because there is no backlot.

I understand that they had to build a second park within ten years or lose the land and that they were financially strapped. Also, they let us visit DLP on the same day, which made it bearable. It's not as though it was a monumental effort that failed. It was a modest effort that produces modest results - at best. I mean, they obviously weren't trying to make something great - so how do you measure it? Do you say, it's okay for what they were trying to do, or do you compare it with TDS, EPCOT, and the MKs and say that it fails? I don't see myself going back. I guess that's the final answer.

 

[YoHo]

You compare it to what thier predecessors DID do.

I'm not down on DCA because I wanted Westcot or Disney Seas, I'm down on DCA, because it is beneath substandard for a Disney Park as Walt envisioned them and just because some people think it's "OK" doesn't make it a Disney Quality product.

Disney used to stand for something Darnit And powerpoint presentations illustrating how a park that's just good enough to keep a few million isn't it.

If Knox had opened DCA, I wouldn't be complaining.....I wouldn't be going either, but I wouldn't be complaining.

DCA represents sluming it and that offends me and is contradictory to everything I've ever read about the hows and whys of Disney themeparks.

 

[SoCalKDG]

I don't see myself going back. I guess that's the final answer.

Thats as good an answer as there can be. Someday I'd like to go to DP, but most likely not in the next 5-7 years. Hopefully DSP will be improved by then. Thanks for the info.

 

[SoCalKDG]

You compare it to what thier predecessors DID do.

I'm not down on DCA because I wanted Westcot or Disney Seas, I'm down on DCA, because it is beneath substandard for a Disney Park as Walt envisioned them and just because some people think it's "OK" doesn't make it a Disney Quality product.

Disney used to stand for something Darnit And powerpoint presentations illustrating how a park that's just good enough to keep a few million isn't it.

If Knox had opened DCA, I wouldn't be complaining.....I wouldn't be going either, but I wouldn't be complaining.

DCA represents sluming it and that offends me and is contradictory to everything I've ever read about the hows and whys of Disney themeparks.

For reference what is your opinion on AK and DMGM? Are they substandard? I don't think they are, and I view DCA as falling in between those two parks.

Based off my experiences, this is the order of preference of the 6 parks I've been to.

DL
MK
Epcot
AK
DCA
DMGM

This is based off of 1 visit to WDW, and monthly visits to DLR. This may change after my trip next week to WDW. 1 week to go.

 

[YoHo]

Based on multiple visits to each of those parks, I'd say yes it very much does include both Animal Kingdom and Disney/MGM studios.

I've had this discussion many a time here, but since some of you are new I'll sum up.

When Walt built Disneyland, he had to scrounge for money, sell his soul, whatever it took. Disneyland is the fruit of his devotion Likewise, MK and Epcot represent the devotion to every ideal Walt had in building Disneyland. Everything he despised about other amusment parks.


Enter Disney Studios. Mike's first Themepark. Now don't get me wrong, when it first opened, I loved the theme, the styling, the idea.

Disney Studios may have been envisioned as a Universal Killer, but it had soul.

What it didn't have was a reason for you to stay very long.
One of the first things invented after it opened was park hoppers, because people were feeling cheated by what they paid to get into the Studios.

And following on those heals, the ToT.

And then, everything was still...okay. Even if the place feels like a maze. (ie laid out stupidly.)

Even after that, it was okay, but then, they dumped everything I loved about it, the how the movies work aspect and decided to make it Synergyland. Drew Carey replaced talent comedians, Who wants to be a millionaire, Disney Channel kids shows. Synergy synergy synergy and not an once of imagination as far as the eye can see.




As for AK.

Animal Kingdom had promise. I love parts of animal kingdom, but I'll be honest with you, a quick trip to the Sandiego Zoo and Wild animal park is worth a thousand trips to Animal Kingdom.

I love the feel of this place, but they screwed it over by putting in to little to do and expecting too much of the guest without cluing them in. They couldn't decide if it was a zoo or a themepark and so it's neither. And DARNIT, I WANTED BEASTLY KINGDOM.

And lets not even discuss Dinoland, because that's just offensive. Dinoland, much like Paradise pier is 100% exactly what Walt HATED about Amusment parks. Carnival rides and Carnival sham games. great, just great, yeah wooee that's magic for you.


So, I'd say,

DL
MK
Epcot
AK
MGM
DCA.

 

[wtg2000]

Even after that, it was okay, but then, they dumped everything I loved about it, the how the movies work aspect and decided to make it Synergyland. Drew Carey replaced talent comedians, Who wants to be a millionaire, Disney Channel kids shows. Synergy synergy synergy and not an once of imagination as far as the eye can see.

I agree. It was the purchase of ABC that led to that. For example, Monster Sound Show was replaced by ABC1 then Drew. The park was always laid out poorly. Imagineer Randy Bright was mad at Eisner at the time for charging full admission, admitting that it was intended as a half-day park. I remember how upset my brother was when he visited just after it had opened saying that it was a ripoff at $30!

I can only rate the non-MK parks because the MKs are the heart and soul of what Disney parks are so they sort of get an honorary first place. My order:

TDS
EPCOT
AK
MGM
WDSP

As for the MKs themselves, I can't really rate them because I like unique aspects of each.

 

[raidermatt]

The other amusement parks set a bar, Disney excedes that bar. Of course they use other parks. Of course the look at their competition. This has always been the case.

Oh my.

Of course they "look" at the competition, and need to be aware of what is going on. But suggesting that other parks set the bar for Disney's parks is just not correct. The public doesn't go to a new Disney park with "Knott's" type expectations, they go to it with Disney-type expectations.

And yes, its a double-edged sword. On the one hand, Disney IS held to a different standard. A higher one. People know what they are capapble of, and they want Disneyland, they want the Magic Kingdom, and they want Epcot. Disney has to work harder if they want to meet that standard.

But on the other hand, it is (or was) a tremendous advantage as well. Disney has a huge fan base who at one time was willing to flock to a new Disney park simply because of Disney's reputation. The whole "what will they come up with next" thing. Whenever you hear the company talk about "leveraging the brand name", this is the type of thing they are talking about.

As YoHo pointed out, the "open small and enlarge" strategy with DL came from necessity. It opened with everything the company (and Walt personally) could muster. The Magic Kingdom opened with a much larger array of attractions at its opening than DL.

The company also strained its resources to open Epcot as well.

Now, with the company's increased capital at its disposal, nobody is suggesting they should build new parks that risk the entire company's survival. But at the same time, they do have ample resources to meet THEIR OWN standard at OPENING, without even needing to take the risks they once did.

Problem is, the public no longer flocks to a Disney park opening. YoHo again does a good job of summing up MGM's history, but regardless, even at opening it was a disappointment to Disney's guests because of its lack of scope.

Then there was AK. Again, some love the detail and depth of what's there, but again, it lacked, and still lacks, scope. Meaning numbers of attractions, meat, whatever you want to call it.

Then DCA. Same problem, only complaints have not only been about scope, but also about the content of what is (or was) there.

By using this "open small" strategy, Disney no longer has much of the advantage they had built up over the years. Its impossible to measure that cost, because you can't run down a number that doesn't exist. But is there a company out there that wouldn't jump at the chance to have the kind of brand loyalty Disney had? Of course not, and Disney had it. They still have a powerful brand, but they are slowly squandering it through strategies like "open small", especially when its priced the same as the real deal's sitting on the same properties.

The strategy has always been start small(yes, even DL), add additional things later. I believe when they didn't do this(DLP) they had problems.

The park itself was never the problem. It was the overbuilding of hotels that caused the initial problems. Then, when the resort was back on something resembling reasonable financial footing, they opened DSP, which is a textbook example of opening small, and the resort has been plunged back into financial difficulty.


As for the newer parks on an individual basis:

MGM- Yes, opened too small. Expansions have helped, but its still doesn't provide the value for most that the older parks provide. And yes, I'm in full agreement that it has been "over synergized" with ABC. ToT is a great attraction.

AK- Unlike some others, I do see some significant plusses in this park. I can see the effort in many places, but again, its a problem of scope. It opened without Asia, and has since had Beastly Kingdom scrapped. Dinorama is embarassing. But the somewhat bizarre poaching storyline aside, the Safari attraction is strong and Festival of the Lion King is a great show. The streetmosphere is fun to watch and even take part in. The walking trails are nice as well, but the park really does need more. EE could help, but that still isn't going to "finish" the job.

DCA- You'll never hear (or read) me seriously say the place was better as a parking lot. I'm a firm believer that if they weren't going to do it right, they shouldn't have done it, but to me that's not the same thing. DCA was worse at opening than MGM or AK because not only did it suffer from the same scope issues, but it also had serious problems with what was there. Superstar Limo has to go in the synergy bust hall of fame. The upscale restaurants were out of place. Paradise Pier was an easy out to fit a loose "theme". It has decent copies of ITTBAB and Muppets, and Soarin' is a great ride. But even Soarin' lacks the themeing and story aspects that a ride of that quality deserves.

It just wasn't anywhere close to what the public wanted, and hence the scrambling with regard to pricing, theme, etc.

Look beyond the "parking lot" hyperbole and its clear Disney squandered a tremendous opportunity.

 

[ShadowWind]

To me, it's not the amount of rides a park started with, it's the quality of those rides. Look at the list...

1) HK Disneyland Railroad - Probably one of the most expensive in this lot...
2) Space Mountain - Off the shelf Roller Coaster under a dome
3) Buzz Lightyear's Astro Blasters - Moving and static cutouts
4) Orbitron (Astro Orbiter) - Dumbo
5) Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh - Moving and static cutouts (at least a bit better than some)
6) Mickey's Philharmagic - 3D film
7) Dumbo the Flying Elephant - Dumbo again
8) Mad Tea Party - Off the shelf cup ride
9) Carousel - Off the shelf ride
10) Jungle Cruise - AT least some audio-animatronics in this
11) Tarzan's Treehouse - Of the shelf climbing ride with cutouts or statues
12) Festival of the Lion King - Live show (very little set design)

Where is the Haunted Mansion, Pirates of the Caribbean, Splash Mountain, Small World even? Any ride that is not a cheap off the shelf solution. They could probably do this whole thing for $40 million. It's like Disney Sampler. Especially considering they are probably all copies of the other park's rides.

I have to wonder, considering how Hong Kong is not really a big tourist spot and since kids are limited to one per family (right?), that the audience would be quite limited. Perhaps that is the reason for this shortened version.