Attractions list for Hong Kong Disneyland.

[SoCalKDG]

How to go about this quickly and answer all the comments: (just finished, wasn't quick as I had to review my previous posts to figure out where you guys were coming up with some of this stuff)

I stated I liked 3 days to fully enjoy MK & DL. $150 total for 3 days. You even quoted my statement of "$150 for 3 days". How did you get $150 for 1 day. MK or DL have enough things to draw me in for 3 days. I would pay $50 per day, thus $150. HKDL has enough to draw me in for 1 day, thus $50.

The original discussion here was that HK didn't have enough "rides". That gardens and other items that might be included didn't make up for not enough "rides". Thus I asked about Epcot and DL rides when they first opened. Don't see anywhere where I said Epcot was a 1/2 day park. I do see where I wish I could have seen some of the old attractions before they were replaced by the new crop of "E" tickets. So to have someone touting over 60 minutes of film in a discussion on rides and ride times, yes, I didn't think it belonged.

I don't remember saying DCA was a great park. I do remember saying I think its a good park and I'm glad its next to DL. I do remember stating it was as good as DMGM for my family(better in some aspects), and in many aspects as good or better than AK. Can't remember saying it was a good as MK, Epcot or DL. I also said I'd take Disney Sea over it. Not sure how you got "great" out of that.

It seems problems occur when statements are made based on something that isn't even said. Is this pretty standard by members in these discussions? I'd hope you properly quote me when you are discussing these issues. Unless people don't even read whats being typed.

I notice that some aren't trying to think about something from another perspective, and I'm not talking about either extreme, but from the perspective of a family who goes to these places. Its obvious that having a 3rd park at DLR that matched Disney Sea, with 3-4 additional rides at DCA is something I'd love. Or have Beastly Kingdom added to AK. Or another mountain at MK. Or any number of things. From a personal point of view we'd all like these things. There is no need to even discuss this.

You guys want a complete park themed to the max. I'll take that too. The key question is can the extreme groups look at these new parks from a realistic point of view of a family going to HKDL. Will a family travelling to HKDL for the first time have an enjoyable full day at the park. Will all this be new and innovative for them. That is the question that should be discussed. Based on the examples I've given and seen, I'd say yes.(edit-not trying to tell people what to discuss in general, by the way)

Oh, this statement "Holy Judging Excellent Parks Back Then By Today's Standards Batman!" is pretty funny.

 

[YoHo]

Hyperbole isn't just a word in a trignometry textbook dude. If I'm not allowed to misrepresent you for the sake of humor, then what good are your posts?


Anyway, Let's get down to specifics. We're talking ATTRACTIONS here are we not?

We are not talking rides as in you sit down and some vehicle moves you. We're talking attractions.

Movies are attractions. Items in the park that people lined up for and took time out of their day to see. They are part and parcel of the discussion.

What I don't understand is why you want to exclude them?

As for the family point of view. I think we are thinking in that way.
I think most of us disagree with you that DCA offers enough for a family to do in a day same with DSP. That's why we are concerned. You appear to be the anomaly here.


There is also a concern about How Disney became the leader they are in the field.


There's a concern that Disney remain the great company it is. The company that we all here came to love.

This is what I can't understand. How so many can be so willing to dump the very values that essentially drew them in in the first place.

The effort put in to DL, MK and Epcot are WHY Disney is in the position it is in. Logically then, to maintain such a position they would want to continue down that path. Give the people what they don't expect.


People expect to be provided a day's worth of entertainment. If you can't give them that, then you suck. hense why DCA is so bad. Why not give them more, you know, the way Disney used ot, the way Walt always strived to do.

I know, it's a radical concept, let's follow the philosophy of the guy that created the company and made it the preminent family entertainment company in the world. Why would we want to do that?

 

[SoCalKDG]

Hyperbole isn't just a word in a trignometry textbook dude. If I'm not allowed to misrepresent you for the sake of humor, then what good are your posts?

I can live with that.

Anyway, Let's get down to specifics. We're talking ATTRACTIONS here are we not?
We are not talking rides as in you sit down and some vehicle moves you. We're talking attractions.
Movies are attractions. Items in the park that people lined up for and took time out of their day to see. They are part and parcel of the discussion.
What I don't understand is why you want to exclude them?

We were talking rides due to two factors. Some people asked where all the good rides were(Splash, BTMRR, POTC, etc.). Others were commenting that gardens were playing too big a role. Thus I asked about the number of rides. We currently don't know what type of other entertainment, films, exhibits, etc. that they might have. By the way, I've never had to line up for any of Epcots films.

As for the family point of view. I think we are thinking in that way.
I think most of us disagree with you that DCA offers enough for a family to do in a day same with DSP. That's why we are concerned. You appear to be the anomaly here. There is also a concern about How Disney became the leader they are in the field.

There's a concern that Disney remain the great company it is. The company that we all here came to love. This is what I can't understand. How so many can be so willing to dump the very values that essentially drew them in in the first place. The effort put in to DL, MK and Epcot are WHY Disney is in the position it is in. Logically then, to maintain such a position they would want to continue down that path. Give the people what they don't expect. People expect to be provided a day's worth of entertainment. If you can't give them that, then you suck. hense why DCA is so bad. Why not give them more, you know, the way Disney used ot, the way Walt always strived to do. I know, it's a radical concept, let's follow the philosophy of the guy that created the company and made it the preminent family entertainment company in the world. Why would we want to do that?

First concerning DCA. It has more to do at that park for the whole family(ages 2-80) then does DMGM or AK. I liked DCA. I liked it better when they added ELP, TOT and Bugsland. I heard some express disappointment with it. So going to WDW the first time last year I expected DMGM and AK to knock me over. DMGM didn't. I was very disappointed. I realized that DCA was better than DMGM. AK I liked. Saw potential. Just got done looking at new pictures of the que of EE, wow. This will be the flagship ride of that park and elevate it to new standards.

Second on Disney's current state. Did you know that Disney is only making approx. 15-18% profit on their amusement parks(recent article in Florida paper). Or that MK, DL, and Epcot attendance is stagnating(the three crown jewels, which I'll agree on). So what do you do if shareholders are on your backs. Lets say Disney spent the money all at once to get AK, DMGM, & DCA to the same level as the big three(huge bucks, yes?). How high would ticket prices go? How many more people would they draw? Would they actually draw more people since tickets are now much more expensive? Since you have expanded a park to its capacity, how do you keep drawing them in? Can't use the smaller parks to add in a big ticket high excitement ride since you already expanded, can you?

I look at DLR now and it provides much more entertainment for me than it did 25 years ago. I've been going every year or every other year for the past 40 years(and about 20 times a year for the past 7 years). Haven't found one form of family entertainment that is better. Can't compare WDW because I'm a recent visitor, but I found it to be the perfect vacation this past April. It was better than any previous vacation I've taken in the last 25 years(well, spring break in college was fun ) If the opening of Soaring at the Land, Mission Space, Expedition Everest, etc. are examples of the direction Disney is going, then I'll be with Disney for another 25 years.

 

[wtg2000]

Wow, over 60 min. of movies at Epcot it would seem watching the Discovery channel might have been a better choice for the day, and much cheaper. Oh, and what great technology they had to create those boat rides.......

I think this is where you got in trouble with people, when you started denigrating EPCOT in order to build up HKDL. Not to mention that you're trying to compare HKDL with parks that were opened 50 and 23 years ago. Why not compare HKDL with TDS or DLP or MK, etc.?

You're comparing watching Discovery Channel with a 360 movie in a beautiful Chinese temple? Or watching a French movie with wonderful music in 200 degrees of arc?

Then you denigrate the technology of EPCOT? Cars that ride on solar power. Horizons where we first smelled oranges, flew over an IMAX screen (before Soarin') and had a choice of endings. The American Adventure where entire scenes are lowered from the ceiling (or is it up from the floor?). Spaceship Earth where you ride through a Geodesic Dome (I think) through amazingly detailed scenes from history. The Land where you ride right through greenhouses, etc. Nine (at opening) incredibly detailed representations of countries staffed by its citizens. You denigrate all this and wonder why people got wrankled?

E-Tickets are not just thrill rides. All these EPCOT attractions were E-Tickets due to their elaborate nature.

And those "E" tickets they had.......Hmm, wonder why they have added TT, MS, Soaring, oh year, people don't want movies and slow boat rides, they want "E" tickets and top shows(I'm not including myself, I wish I had seen Horizons, as well as some of the other extinct rides).

It's possible that peoples' tastes have changed, that their attention spans have shortened. But what does this have to do with EPCOT in 1982? Corporations sponsored those attractions and when the contract ran out for them to pay for maintenance, Disney had to find new or re-up sponsors. This involved putting in new attractions. Eisner decided thrill rides were the way to go. It's possible that slow moving E-Tickets would have been just as popular. It's also possible that people may tire of these new rides. Who knows?

I'm not sure why you felt the need to denigrate EPCOT to build up HKDL, or why you would even compare them in the first place. This somehow justifies HKDL's attraction line up? Then you compare it with the opening of Walt's Disneyland and say he didn't really have any E-Tickets? So you're criticizing Walt, saying that he didn't put all he could into the park? Yes, I'm sure Walt had all that technology and unlimited cash at his disposal. Then you go on about people wanting E-Tickets. How many E-Tickets does HKDL have? Or are their guests' expectations lower? Perhaps. But I doubt it. Maybe at first. Your arguments just don't make any sense (at least to me), which is why you are getting the responses you are getting.

 

[SoCalKDG]

I think this is where you got in trouble with people, when you started denigrating EPCOT in order to build up HKDL. Not to mention that you're trying to compare HKDL with parks that were opened 50 and 23 years ago. Why not compare HKDL with TDS or DLP or MK, etc.?

You're comparing watching Discovery Channel with a 360 movie in a beautiful Chinese temple? Or watching a French movie with wonderful music in 200 degrees of arc?

Then you denigrate the technology of EPCOT? Cars that ride on solar power. Horizons where we first smelled oranges, flew over an IMAX screen (before Soarin') and had a choice of endings. The American Adventure where entire scenes are lowered from the ceiling (or is it up from the floor?). Spaceship Earth where you ride through a Geodesic Dome (I think) through amazingly detailed scenes from history. The Land where you ride right through greenhouses, etc. Nine (at opening) incredibly detailed representations of countries staffed by its citizens. You denigrate all this and wonder why people got wrankled?

E-Tickets are not just thrill rides. All these EPCOT attractions were E-Tickets due to their elaborate nature.

It's possible that peoples' tastes have changed, that their attention spans have shortened. But what does this have to do with EPCOT in 1982? Corporations sponsored those attractions and when the contract ran out for them to pay for maintenance, Disney had to find new or re-up sponsors. This involved putting in new attractions. Eisner decided thrill rides were the way to go. It's possible that slow moving E-Tickets would have been just as popular. It's also possible that people may tire of these new rides. Who knows?

I'm not sure why you felt the need to denigrate EPCOT to build up HKDL, or why you would even compare them in the first place. This somehow justifies HKDL's attraction line up? Then you compare it with the opening of Walt's Disneyland and say he didn't really have any E-Tickets? So you're criticizing Walt, saying that he didn't put all he could into the park? Yes, I'm sure Walt had all that technology and unlimited cash at his disposal. Then you go on about people wanting E-Tickets. How many E-Tickets does HKDL have? Or are their guests' expectations lower? Perhaps. But I doubt it. Maybe at first. Your arguments just don't make any sense (at least to me), which is why you are getting the responses you are getting.

It was being commented that HKDL was an incomplete park due to rides. Who cares about any secondary items HKDL might have.

So I asked the following question:

"Since this is a discussion on rides, and you believe HKDL is a incomplete park when it comes to rides, name the rides when Epcot and Disneyland first opened. Then compare them to HKDL. Good luck coming up with 10 for Epcot."

We were dealing with rides. Not movies, not gardens, parades, fireworks, not a country to visit, etc. The parameters had been set by others.

Just as I'll point out why DCA is better than DMGM by giving a list of everything to do there, if a person feels the need to defend Epcot then do the same with thoughts on attractions, etc, just as you have done in your previous post(makes me miss Horizons even more, I'll never get to experience this). Its much better than some of the comments and gives you a real feeling on why a person likes Epcot.

I love Epcot. Its the reason I chose BWV's as my home resort for DVC. That great boat ride, entering into England, exploring the countries or taking some quick spins on rides is what vacations are made for. I wish they had kept some of the old rides and just added TT & MS. I hope they never remove Spaceship Earth. My daughter loves Figment(??) and we walked into the park, rode it twice, grabbed a bite to eat, then watched Illuminations. I'd like to see some sort of daytime parade brought back.

Both Epcot and DL(along with others) have had numerous rides/areas modified, taken out, expanded, etc. The one constant has been change. I'd expect the same with HKDL. There is a phase 2 for the park. It will be expanded just as all previous parks have been expanded.

 

[YoHo]

wtg2000 is right. Your filtering things through a 2005 lense. You have to Compare Epcot in 1982 to DCA when it opened to HKDL now. to do otherwise is to make a foolish argument. Just because you didn't wait in line for those movies doesn't mean that in 1982,83, heck for 10+ years people didn't wait either.

If you want to discuss the issues with Epcot, then that's a different topic.


And then you compare to parks that even you admit are subpar. Well, if they don't even meet your standards for a good Disney park, then how can you use them as a valid comparison? It's disengenuous.

As for the investor comment. It is the ever present convient excuse. Fact is that Wall street doesn't care a whit unless you do something spectacularly bad. And, even then it may not matter. Sid Bass for instance was at one time the only Disney investor that mattered to the company. If he was happy, the rest of wallstreet could screw off, so it isn't a good excuse for anything.

Guess what, back prior to the seventies Disneyland NEVER made money ever. It was lucky to break even. It existed as the pure and good form of synergy that Walt preached. It Helped make Disney a houshold name which made more people go to Disney films which made Walt more money so he could persue his hobbies like E.P.C.O.T.


And then you have to ask how that accounting was done.
And then you need to wonder what kind of profits they'd be making if Say MGM and AK were actually full Disney Parks. What would the profits be for parks that pulled their own weight as it were?

You're making all these assumptions about ticket price increases, but the fact is that Disney managed to build Epcot while keeping ticket prices below market value. Significantly below market value. At a time when the country was in an economic slump and the production house hadn't had a legitimate hit in years.

As for parks that are completely built out, well, maybe we should take a page from Walt's playbook and "REPLACE OLD RIDES?"

Epcot was designed knowing the attractions would have to be replaced. It's kind of the problem with Future based attractions. a problem they knew only too well form Tomorrowland. The future becomes the present all too fast.

Sometimes rides get replaced with new ones as their life expectency plays out. This is what HAS TO HAPPEN.

Of course, it requires the replacment to be as good as the old and of course there's that pesky greediness of upper managment, but that's not really the fault of the park is it?

 

[YoHo]

Oh and one more thing.
I've said this before, but I'll say it again.

In my opinion, if you had been to MGM first and DCA second, you'd have a different opinion.

 

[SoCalKDG]

And then you compare to parks that even you admit are subpar. Well, if they don't even meet your standards for a good Disney park, then how can you use them as a valid comparison? It's disengenuous.

Guess what, back prior to the seventies Disneyland NEVER made money ever. It was lucky to break even. It existed as the pure and good form of synergy that Walt preached. It Helped make Disney a houshold name which made more people go to Disney films which made Walt more money so he could persue his hobbies like E.P.C.O.T.

I said I was disappointed with DMGM on my first visit(actually I was a bit disappointed with MK also compared to DL), not that it was subpar. I had made certain assumptions on the park(s) and those assumptions weren't met. This recent second trip no assumptions had been made and comparisons between DLR and WDW weren't at the top of thoughts. Thus I had a great time. The last subpar visit to an amusement park that I had was in 2002 at Universal Studios right after the Angels WS victory.

Just as you say I can't compare Epcot circa 1980's with today, I guess the same should be said of DL and the running of Disney prior to the 70's and today. I wonder what happens to the stock price(& mgmt) if the amusement park division posts losses on a consistant basis that you mentioned was happening above.

 

[wtg2000]

We were dealing with rides. Not movies, not gardens, parades, fireworks, not a country to visit, etc. The parameters had been set by others.

The initial post dealt with the attraction list. That's what we've been dealing with all along. Even you said there were 15 attractions not rides (I don't see where you get 15 - and please don't count the castle and both train stops!) You also wrote, "So 10 attractions I'd visit on a 1 day visit," and "I don't see how anyone could call this a 1/2 day park(5 hours approx.)" Again, the standard is for a full day park. That's what I think people would consider DL or MK or EPCOT. So by comparsion, with 10 rides (which could be easily done in 5 hours on a medium day), HKDL is what people would label a 1/2 day park.

I personally don't like this label because it misses a lot of key factors - crowd size, and the intent of the guest (adult, thrillseeker, child, toddler, etc.) The point the original poster made was that "the list was very small." Even you agreed to that by saying that this was Disney's strategy - to start small and expand later and that if it worked it would be a pattern. So I'm not even sure what you are arguing.

To give examples - two weeks ago we rode Splash, BTMRR, Haunted Mansion, Jungle Cruise, Aladdin, Liberty boat, Hall of Presidents, rafts to Tom Sawyer and the train all by just past noon. That's nine attractions in three hours and change. So it can be done.

Also, this is why it's hard to judge parks simply by hours. I went to IOA at 9 and left by 3. In that time I did everything (except the kiddie rides) including Spidey 7 times, Hulk 4 times and Dueling 7 times. And I had lunch! So is IOA a half day park?

I'm glad you love EPCOT. It's a good thing you didn't go years ago with its antiquated technology and rides that had to be replaced with today's real E-Tickets. I'm curious if you sit/stand through the movies or just watch the Discovery Channel?

 

[SoCalKDG]

I personally don't like this label because it misses a lot of key factors - crowd size, and the intent of the guest (adult, thrillseeker, child, toddler, etc.) The point the original poster made was that "the list was very small." Even you agreed to that by saying that this was Disney's strategy - to start small and expand later and that if it worked it would be a pattern. So I'm not even sure what you are arguing.

I'm glad you love EPCOT. It's a good thing you didn't go years ago with its antiquated technology and rides that had to be replaced with today's real E-Tickets. I'm curious if you sit/stand through the movies or just watch the Discovery Channel?

Glad you don't like labels. My question was, regarding this, how the opening of HKDL compared, rides wise, to Epcot and DL. I was advised that there were 25 rides for DL, while Epcot was some rides plus movies. Go back and you will see I've posted a couple times I wish I could have went on some of the older Epcot rides. Most sound very family friendly. Haven't seen a movie at Epcot. Walked right through Norway, daughter changed her mind on another. So still can't decide if the films are better or worse than discovery channel.

 

[bretsyboo]

attractions. Movies are attractions. If there were movies at HKDL then they would be listed.

Not like standing in line matters at all.

Haven't seen a movie at Epcot. Walked right through Norway, daughter changed her mind on another. So still can't decide if the films are better or worse than discovery channel.

This speaks volumes as to what you think Disney is. As does yourneed for Epcot to be just another theme park loaded with E tickets.

And while you can try to argue the merits of half day theme parks and how there is plenty to do, the people know. The attendance numbers prove it.

Space Buzz Pooh Cruise Lion King Philharmagic

These are the only attractions that should be of interest to large numbers.

It's apalling.

Of course their goal is 5,000,000 visitors in the first year, in other words half of what they get at every other MK so they built half a park (and that's being generous)

 

[SoCalKDG]

This speaks volumes as to what you think Disney is. As does yourneed for Epcot to be just another theme park loaded with E tickets.

As it speaks volumes of your reading skills as well. Had you bothered to actually read what I had typed, you would have read that I wish I could have experienced many of the discontinued rides and attractions at Epcot. Instead you jump to a conclusion based on not seeing one film in Norway and another because my 3 year old daughter didn't want to see it at that time. If you are a parent you might understand. You would have read how Epcot was one of my favorite parks, and the reason I purchased DVC at BWV. Somehow you managed to miss all that. Instead you have jumped to the conclusion that I view Epcot as a 1/2 day park when in fact I spent 2 evenings and one full day there as recently as last month. Instead you comment that this discussion is over, but then you are back again. Hopefully you will read this paragraph, where I state I like Epcot, miss the chance to try some of the old rides and attractions, believe its a 3 day park, and look forward to visiting it next Jan.

 

[raidermatt]

I'm going to try this one more time.

SoCal, the biggest problem with you trying to compare DL/Epcot to HKDL is the effort that the company was putting in at the time.

Even if DL had opened with 15 attractions, the point is the company put everything they could into it. With Epcot, it was pretty much the same thing. And they quickly added things. Things were already under construction. The Epcot offerings may not have been your cup of tea, but that wasn't through a lack of effort on the part of the company, and further, the offerings did largely succeed with guests.

So the numbers, even though they favor the older parks, don't tell the story anyway.

Even if they showed what you were trying to get at, it wouldn't prove any kind of point.

Disney didn't WANT to open those parks with the amount of attractions they did, but they had no realisitic option. Still, they opened with more than HKDL and DSP. Further, additions were well on their way. Now, the company opens with even less intentionally.

The simple fact is, if Disney had this mindset 40-50 years ago, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Disney as we have both come to love it would not exist.

My point is that I see that change as a mistake. I simply can't fathom how somebody who has such a great love for the company, such as yourself, could applaud such a change. Its a change that has brought us lesser creations from both a fan's point of view, as well as financially for the company.

 

[SoCalKDG]

SoCal, the biggest problem with you trying to compare DL/Epcot to HKDL is the effort that the company was putting in at the time.

Even if DL had opened with 15 attractions, the point is the company put everything they could into it. With Epcot, it was pretty much the same thing. And they quickly added things. Things were already under construction. The Epcot offerings may not have been your cup of tea, but that wasn't through a lack of effort on the part of the company, and further, the offerings did largely succeed with guests.

My point is that I see that change as a mistake. I simply can't fathom how somebody who has such a great love for the company, such as yourself, could applaud such a change. Its a change that has brought us lesser creations from both a fan's point of view, as well as financially for the company.

OK, that makes sense. DL and Epcot were the max Disney could produce at the time, while HKDL is a small pct. of the total effort and money that they could do now. Thanks raidermatt. I won't discuss this part anymore.


Your second point about the change being a mistake. I.E. The opening of smaller parks. I do have a love for Disney, as I'd assume everyone here does. Keeping Disney financially healthy and not being bought out are a couple big keys to me to keep the magic going. The way to financial stability would be the big key in how Disney should be run. Everyone might have different ideas on how to do this, including people in Disney.

I'd assume Disney does tons of research before opening the park of the demographic that will be attending. Looking at risk and reward.

Lets say they come to the following conclusions. Customer spends $50 for ticket and 50$ for food and souvineers.

1) Spend 2 billion for a park, get 5 million customers. This will stay consistant for 5 years, then lessen. Phase 2 then required. Phase 2 bumps attendance to 7 million. for another 5 years. Income of $2.5 Billion over 5 years. Then $3.5 billion next 5 years.

2) Spend 4 billion for a park, get 7 million customers. This will stay consitant for 5 years, then drop. Add new ride(s) to keep attendance up for next 5 years. Income of $3.5 Billion over 5 years. Then $3.5 billion next 5 years.

3) Spend 4 billion for a park, get 9 million customers. This will stay consitant for 5 years, then drop. Add new ride(s) to keep attendance up for next 5 years. Income of $4.5 Billion over 5 years. Then $4.5 billion next 5 years.


Which is the best choice. 1 seems better than 2. 3 looks better than 1. Whats the risk with each option? These are just 3 examples, and of course there are many more variables as well as 100's of combinations of investments and estimated returns. This changes for each new demographic that they go into comes into play as well. Additionally each option above has a pct. chance of occuring, as well as a min and max.

I'm trying to figure out why Disney is continueing the same trend that they have been doing for the previous 15 years with AK, DMGM, and DCA if its not profitable and not working correctly.

If DMGM and DCA were the failures that all the detractors claim, the bottom line should be showing this? This should then tell them to change their philosophy.

Is Soaring, Mission Space, Expedition Everest, AK in general, really lessor creations than 25 years ago? How about some of the technological upgrades occuring at DL(Buzz with online, Jungle Cruise, Mansion) plus new innovative things like Turtle Talk. Now this isn't a loaded question. I don't want to be adversarial. I'm really asking the historians on this board.

If large parks at opening that will bring the financial stability that is required for Disney, I'm all for it. If its smaller parks, thats fine to.

 

[YoHo]

You could assume that Disney does good research,k but recent results would suggest you'd be a fool to do so.

Clearly the research done for DCA was crappy.

 

[airlarry!]

Ken, I think the answer to your question is "Insanity."

Isn't that defined as doing the same stupid thing over and over knowing the outcome before you do it?

These guys really do convince themselves with their powerpoint projections that building smaller cheaper parks is the best way to make money.

It is that simple. Creativity does not seem to drive the company any more.

 

[SoCalKDG]

OT, but airlarry's signature about John Lassiter makes the following pretty interesting. I read and saw photos of John Lassiter at DL today, and photos of him riding the new & improved Jungle Cruise four straight times while holding a copy & reading the new Jungle Cruise script.

See the following:

http://www.mouseplanet.com/more/mm050504asa.htm

 

[bretsyboo]

well done matt for presenting the arguement well, and might I saw well done socal for accepting that clearly making this thread different from most arguements on here.

As to the newest issue what Disney did with DL, WDW, and Epcot would have never been approved by todays Disney management because let's face iot, putting every penny you have and plenty you don't have is a bit of a risk.

But that's what made Disney great.

The company always poured in every last cent to "wow" it's guests as much as they possibly can. What resulted? Not financial ruin. Just lots of magic.

Now Disney has more capital to spend then Walt could have ever dreamed of--and no one is suggesting that every last cent needs to be poured into some 54billion dollar mega theme park...

But instead you've seen the numbers Disney is spending a fraction of the cost (less than 20%) to build a small park with nothing original inside of it surrounded by Hotels that are just that-large Hotels. Once again they are clones at that.

So Disney saved money on the fact that
a)China is paying for most of it
b)The park is smaller
c)everything is a copy

Disney, one of the richest companies in the world is building a park inferior to the one Walt built back in 1955 when he had to mortgage everything but his mustache.

Will they make a profit? Oh yes I'm sure of it. Even if the park is a disaster Disney is going to make cash.

And I want Disney to make money, I want Disney to make money in all of their ventures. Why? Because I want the magic to keep coming in the future.

Right now HKDL is their future. Do you see any magic in that theme park? Is there any reason you might dream of visiting China's Disney? Me niether. So Disney built up profits to make something with no magic to build up more profits. It doesn't appear they care about making magic. It appears that they care about making money.

When Disney had built Disneyland, The Magic Kingdom, Epcot, and Tokyo Disneyland their reputation was at it's highest. Since then the only parks that were opened as a complete park was EuroDisneyland. And as has been stated the park is fine, it was hotel research that was anemic and the France placing in general. The park itself continues to be very popular. Tokyo Disneysea is the other and no one needs to speak of the all out praise and popularity of Japan's second park that was funded by the OLC.

Other than that Disney has built small and smaller.

MGM, DSP, DAK, DCA
Each one of these opened very small and only MGM 16 years on is now cited by some as a full day park. Each one of these put a damper on the companys reputation. Each one assured that the next generation of fans won't know the magic and value of the Disney fans before.

HKDL is the next one and the worst one. Each one of the Magic Kingdoms has something about them that means they can claim to be the best Magic Kingdom. HKDL has nothing. It's a small clone that exists only to make money. And the parks size and value only seems to be getting worse doesn't it?

When DL was being built and Walt was putting everything into it he had captured the attention of the entire country every week as people tuned in dreaming of what wonders the new park would hold. Amusement parks existed of course, but never one that really tried to take the guests to another time, another place. Never one that really used story and theme to create magic. Never one that held guest satisfaction in such high esteem to make sure that it's park was clean it's guests were polite, and there was no indication around you of an outside world. That's doing something new and magical. That's caring about your guests and giving them more than they want.

Disney profited off that approach and consistently created more magic.

Now, when the money is at its highest, and the risk at its lowest we get a half sized park in front of bland hotels. 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. But Disney will be profitable.

It's not the Disney that I fell in love with. It's not the Disney I am proud to work for and be associated with. It doesn't hold the esteemed reputation that used to be so important to everything that held Walt's name. Instead it's a branded mini copy. I fear one of many to come. For a company that represented so many great things to fall this low just for more money to stack on more money makes me mad.

It should make you mad too.

 

[YoHo]

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

"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

"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

"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

"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

"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

 

[mark&sue]

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 have used 165 DVC points just to stay 3 nights at DLP this November and I know one of the parks is not so good but I know it will get better and is a lot better than other parks in Europe which just does not have the magic. I look forward to it growing. I find the worse thing about DLP is the language barrier!!

I hope the people of China will fall in love with Disney just as we have. I am really pleased for them.

Good luck to Disney Hong Kong.


Susan