Attractions list for Hong Kong Disneyland.

[bretsyboo]

thank god I don't judge disney by those other parks.

Disney is at the top, so I judge it against itself.

Even if it is better than those other parks they are consistantly making products worse than the ones before.

That's a problem.

If Disney's purpose was only to be better than the six flags' of the world no one would be posting on this board.

 

[raidermatt]

Yes, socal, I agree with boo's appreciation for your willingness to look at this from new angles.

For what its worth, I was much like you a few years ago. I thought these guys were nuts. Just a bunch of grumpy old codgers out to kill my joy.

Turns out, however, they (including the many who don't post much anymore) were spot on with most of what they said, and they have the knowledge of the history to back it up.

I've learned that you can appreciate Disney for what it is, while still understanding that it was once much more, and, if we get lucky, could be once again.

Its a company that can make money. No question about that. Obviously, however, many have questions about whether they are making as much money as they should. The company's performance has not been what investors have been looking for over the last 10 years or so.

Why?

Certainly the company has moved in the direction of trying to do what the Street considers "fiscally responsible".

Yet as they've moved in that direction, focusing on the "media conglomerate model", and mitigating investment in the "capital intensive parks", finacial performance has grown more and more spotty.

Why?

Because in order to succeed, you have to take some risks. Especially in a field like entertainment. As Boo said, that doesn't mean you sink everything you've got into a mega park in Thailand. But certainly Disney has the resources to look for ways to raise their creative bar without risking the viability of the entire company.

Remember also, that its not ONLY about the money. Yeah, if you want to build a better park, its not going to be cheap, but its also about attitude, culture, and all of those things. If a creative company's primary focus is on things like "fiscal responsibility" and "risk mitigation", then they aren't focusing on creativity.

Hence, the product suffers. Might still make money. But aren't the most successful creative endeavors those that focused first on the endeavor itself, as opposed to first asking the question "how do I make more money"?

 

[wtg2000]

Even these half parks are better than the other theme parks. I will continue to go to DLP even though it is not a patch on WDW because it is near to me and I don't need to take so much time off work. Everytime I go it is freezing and yet I still go. Again it is supposed to be the most visited attraction in Europe so something must be right about it. It needs to grow bigger so it would be worth staying longer and people would spend more money.

I think DLP is a fine park. I was a little disappointed in 2002 that it didn't have anything new over my 1997 visit. (except the WDSP expansion) I'm pretty sure something more was originally planned for Frontierland because it's huge!

DLP, to me, has the best Pirates, a better Big Thunder than the American parks, the most beautiful Adventureland, and perhaps Frontierland. Maybe the best Space Mountain as well. The dragon under the castle, the lovely arcades flanking Main Street - it doesn't have Jungle or Splash but it makes up for it (to a degree) in other respects. It is too bad it has not been a financial success.

As for the WDSP, my understanding is that Disney had to build a new park (even a crummy small one) within 10 years or lose the rights to the land.

 

[SoCalKDG]

Ah Hem:


"That's why I love Walt Disney. It costs $100,000 to build a spire you didn't need. The secret of Disney is doing things you don't need and doing them well and then you realize you needed them all along." - Ray Bradbury

Ray Bradbury was at DL yesterday as well for the 50th celebrations. Some photos of him as well. Two guys listed in two different posters signatures, both at the 50th. Hmm, maybe Disney is listening to you guys.

Yes, socal, I agree with boo's appreciation for your willingness to look at this from new angles.

Now you guys are going to think I'm soft.

Finding that balance between being creative and being profitable isn't always easy. Its also easy to second guess decisions that are made that at the time might have made sense. Other times its pretty easy to see what a major screwup occured(changing of Tomorrowland in late 90's at DL).

Since I've invested for my next 40 vacations for WDW, as well as AP's for DLR for the next 40 years, I have a very strong interest in the success of Disney. I will say DL is looking better than ever. Too bad we can't have an anniversery every 5 years to guarentee the parks stay in great shape.

 

[YoHo]

It is however very easy to second guess the decisions of someone who is universally considered a grade A jerk. (Eisner)

He was booed off the stage yesterday you know.

 

[crusader]

How was Iger received?

If he got a round of applause, then the joke is on us.

 

[wtg2000]

For those of you who are optimistic about the potential success of HKDL, here's some support from Jim Hill:

QUOTE: Then -- when you factor in that HKDL's version of "Autopia" has supposedly been greenlit, that the expansion pads for "Peter Pan Flight" & "it's a small world" are reportedly already in place and development work on Hong Kong's "Pirates of the Caribbean" & "Haunted Mansion" is allegedly well underway-- it's kind of hard for me to buy into the whole Hong-Kong-Disneyland-was-built-on-the-cheap-and-it's-far-too-small scenario.
END QUOTE

Supposedly? Reportedly? Even if true, how long before these rides would be in place? I would say several years at least. Besides, I don't think you can count future expansion against the it's-too-small-at-opening argument.

Disappointlingly, Hill also compares HKDL with Walt's DL at opening, something I thought he had better sense than to do. He also fails to mention that at DL you paid for each ride so if you didn't ride you didn't pay (after the small entrance fee). HKDL will be a full price park.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Those children who enter HKDL won't have near the magical feeling of those that entered DL in 1955. Disney won't be special. Disney won't be magical.

Boo, I agree with everything from this post of yours, except this. You see, this really isn't a true statement, and therein lies the problem. Those kids that enter this park won't know that this is a smaller park full of clones. They will actually have a very magical feeling, perhaps as magical as DL, when entering the park. It will be special, and what is presented will be magical. Kids will love the place and won't be thinking of what it could have been as compared to 1955 DL. Disney knows this will be the case, and they will rely on the past successes to try and make this park a success.

That is where they set themselves up for failure by thinking small. For a while they will be successful, perpetuating the problem of the "success" they have achieved. Of course in time people will find that the park doesn't occupy them for the amount of time one would expect for the price of admission, and popularity will fade. One can only hope that the 'additions' that Jim Hill speaks of come on line before this allows the park to get a bad rep.

That is the whole problem with Disney today. They do things differently now, and they have achieved enough success and positive financial results overall that they can claim good growth numbers over the recent past. These successes are enough to make the wall street types forget about what happened 3, 5, 7 years ago. These successes are enough to prevent the majority from comparing those successes to what they could have been had Disney not changed the way they did things. The "successes" Disney has had over the past 10 years may have been bad for the company in a variety of ways as they allowed Disney to continue down a path that more and more diverges from the Disney ways of old. Not that companies shouldn't change, but lessons learned from the past should always factor into those changes, and I'm not convinced that is the case with the Disney of today.

 

[Plus4206]

Supposedly? Reportedly? Even if true, how long before these rides would be in place? I would say several years at least. Besides, I don't think you can count future expansion against the it's-too-small-at-opening argument.

Well, let's assume for a second these items are fact. Then lets look at the money being spent. $3.5 billion is a huge chunk-o-change and I don't care what business you're in. Plus, this isn't the same as a mega billion dollar takeover or buyout where cash money isn't spent. Building a park like HKDL required real money to be spent. Money that interest is being paid on before one dollar is made. It may suck that HKDL isn't opening with more attractions, but the people with the bucks don't realllllly care about magic regardless of what their lips say. They need to get the store open, get some money coming in an add attractions later.

The people who walk into HKDL will be wow'ed by what they see because in most cases it will be their first exposure to a Disney park. The fact that new attractions will soon follow will only keep it fresher for a return visit later.

 

[wtg2000]

Well, let's assume for a second these items are fact. Then lets look at the money being spent. $3.5 billion is a huge chunk-o-change and I don't care what business you're in. Plus, this isn't the same as a mega billion dollar takeover or buyout where cash money isn't spent. Building a park like HKDL required real money to be spent. Money that interest is being paid on before one dollar is made. It may suck that HKDL isn't opening with more attractions, but the people with the bucks don't realllllly care about magic regardless of what their lips say. They need to get the store open, get some money coming in an add attractions later.

The people who walk into HKDL will be wow'ed by what they see because in most cases it will be their first exposure to a Disney park. The fact that new attractions will soon follow will only keep it fresher for a return visit later.

The Hong Kong government put up most of the money. If the park tanks, will they put up more money to make it successful? I assume they already have a plan for this contingency.

We can't accurately anticipate guest reaction. I hope they like it - I hope they get the concept of a Victorian main street and a European-influenced Fantasyland. I can't see why not I suppose. I hope they don't run out of things to do.

 

[DisneyKidds]

It may suck that HKDL isn't opening with more attractions, but the people with the bucks don't realllllly care about magic regardless of what their lips say.

There may be many who do think like this, but it is very dangerous thinking........and it is very short sighted. That is how many feel about today's Disney in general.

When it comes to investment in Disney, I assume most 'people with the bucks' expect success like Disney has typically had throughout their history, not (especially not) the levels of success that Disney has had in, say, just the past 10 years. These people are investing in something that will (hopefully) be as successful as DL and WDW, but without caring about magic this just ain't gonna happen. So those investors who don't demand that a park like HKDL be as complete and as magical as parks like DL and the MK at WDW are setting themselves up for disappointment. If all they want is DSP and DCA-like returns they will be fine, but is that what they are investing in?

 

[DancingBear]

Boo, I agree with everything from this post of yours, except this. You see, this really isn't a true statement, and therein lies the problem. Those kids that enter this park won't know that this is a smaller park full of clones. They will actually have a very magical feeling, perhaps as magical as DL, when entering the park. It will be special, and what is presented will be magical. Kids will love the place and won't be thinking of what it could have been as compared to 1955 DL. Disney knows this will be the case, and they will rely on the past successes to try and make this park a success.

That is where they set themselves up for failure by thinking small. For a while they will be successful, perpetuating the problem of the "success" they have achieved. Of course in time people will find that the park doesn't occupy them for the amount of time one would expect for the price of admission, and popularity will fade. One can only hope that the 'additions' that Jim Hill speaks of come on line before this allows the park to get a bad rep.

Well, if your first paragraph is correct, the only thing necessary is for additions to be brought online at the correct pace so that these guests don't fade away. That actually argues in favor of the half-park opening strategy, as long as the additions are well-timed.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Well, if your first paragraph is correct, the only thing necessary is for additions to be brought online at the correct pace so that these guests don't fade away. That actually argues in favor of the half-park opening strategy, as long as the additions are well-timed.

An once again we must defer to Disney's recent history in going this route. Disney Studios Paris is a glaring example of how the strategy and failure to add in a timely manner doomed not only a single park, but contributated to the overall, near fatal, poor performance of the entire Paris resort. The overall Paris resort may recover onthe strength of the best MK park in the portfolio, but the Studios continue to be a drag and a failure..........and it may be extremely difficult (if not impossible) to overcome that.

So do we want to see the same at HKDL? IMHO, I don't think Disney is capable of having the additions be well timed. Oh, sure, their surveys and power-point presentations (geez, I sound like AV now ) may say they are, but Disney hasn't shown they really know how to work this strategy. Rather than giving another try at this failed strategy, they should employ a strategy that has been shown to work several times over............

 

[Plus4206]

DK, with the high opinion you hold DLPMK, is it possible that any additions to the Studios will draw people over from MK ? IMO, when people think Disney, they think DL/MK, (in the US Epcot is also probably included with that association ). Anything else will alway be an also-ran. Look at WDW for example; MK is always #1 with Epcot not really even a close 2nd. Does that make Epcot a failure ?

 

[DisneyKidds]

I really don't think that is a fair, valid comparison. No, Epcot is not a failure because it is "second" to the MK. Furthermore, despite being "second", Epcot is a great park. While the MK may get top billing most often, most people (myself included) wouldn't consider a trip to WDW without a visit to Epcot.

Such was not the case with our Paris trip. Heck, we love Disney and were excited to see how Disney was done across the pond. If ever there were guests who you would think would be drawn to the Studios, even if it played second fiddle, you would think it would have been us. However, even we required that it play a good second fiddle, and the Studios just doesn't do that. If word on the street was that the Studios was a great park we definitely would have made the effort to see it. Such was not the case.

I think if you build a great park the people will come. Disney is just banking on people coming, great park or not. For a while they might, but in the long run you need to give the guest more. That is what the old ways were all about. Nowadays it seems to be about spending as little as you can and still making a buck. That may work, but how many more bucks could be made if a little more was spent. As they say, you have to spend money to make money...................

 

[wtg2000]

I really don't think that is a fair, valid comparison. No, Epcot is not a failure because it is "second" to the MK. Furthermore, despite being "second", Epcot is a great park. While the MK may get top billing most often, most people (myself included) wouldn't consider a trip to WDW without a visit to Epcot.

Agreed. I think too that the financial model for EPCOT may be "somewhat unique." For example, the restaurants and shops in World Showcase are run by other companies and Disney collects royalties and/or rent. How much captial outlay has Disney put into World Showcase? None that I can see. It's pretty much remained the same since it opened. The restaurants are always full and the stores seem to do fine, so I suspect Disney's fees are substantial.

Let's look at Future World. Test Track and Mission: Space were both funded (I'm assuming) by their sponsors. And from what I've read, the sponsors pay expenses for a certain number of years.

At the Magic Kingdom, attractions like Splash Mountain, Buzz, and Alien Encounter were paid for by Disney. Same for TZTOT - I don't believe it has a sponsor.

So perhaps Disney makes a good chunk of change from EPCOT because of these factors. It will be interesting to see if Expedition: Everest has a sponsor like CTX/Dinosaur does.

 

[Plus4206]

Kidds, I wasn't saying that Epcot IS a failure. It's just that the Castle park will always be the premium park. People doing a resort stay will visit all parks. Day travelers will go to the Castle. I personally don't think any amount of improvement to Studios,DCA or DAK will allow them to make a serious run at Castle park numbers.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Make a serious run at the 'Castle Park' numbers? No, I agree. But that doesn't mean certain parks can't do better.....shouldn't do better. Back to DLP for example. If the Studios was a great park we would have spent a night in a DLP resort and gone to both parks. How much more money would that have made Disney? Multiply that by tens of thousands and you can see the impact it could have. As it was, we just took the train over from Paris as the MK was the only park worthy of a day of our European vacation. So decisions about how to build and implement a park, and how that park is received and viewed by the public, have a very real effect on attendance and revenue - even when talking about a secondary park. A secondary park should never be "less" just because it will never live up to the 'main' attraction.

But that hsa little to do with the HKDL discussion. In this case it seems the 'main attraction' is being built in a manner consistent with what Disney has done recently with secondary parks like the Studios at DLP. That is a further step in the wrong direction.

 

[Plus4206]

Double post