Auto Stunt Show Being Built This Year?

[Planogirl]

I thought that I read that this project was delayed until next year and that the Osborne Lights would still happen this Christmas. This thread disputes that: http://disboards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=396805

Good question in that thread I thought. What will it mean to the Indy Stunt Show?

 

[Peter Pirate]

So is the auto stunt show a go then?

It isn't something I'd particularily be thrilled with but anything new is really ok wth me. What I'm supremely worried about (like everyone) is the fate of the Osbourne Lighs. This has become a Christmas Tradition with us (and we have few traditions)...

 

[KNWVIKING]

***"Confirming an earlier report, the Osborne Light Spectacle will not be shown this year. Due to impending construction on New York and Residential Streets on the new stunt show to be built in the area, having the lights would be nearly impossible. Although the celebration would not occur this year, it would resume in 2004." ***


This is at www.mgmstudios.org. I don't know how relieable it is.

 

[Planogirl]

I guess that when the bulldozers show up next Monday, we can be certain that the Backlot is closing at any rate.

Thanks scoop. I appreciate the good news about Indy.

 

[Maridw]

We watched Travel Channel Secrets on Tuesday night and it showed the Auto Stunt Show at Disneyland Paris. If the one here is going to be anything like that, it shouldnt be too bad.

 

[DisneyKidds]

but for, Mr. Kidds persistent posting and PM inquiries

Hey Scoop, if your friend is mad at you he is dead wrong. In any event, don't blame me. I cutivated rumors, bits, and pieces from a number of places and 1+2+3 equalled something was indeed happening. You didn't leak that. From there I was given the old "there are lots of rumors" speech by a certain poster, but I was steadfast in my belief that something was happening. Then, via PM, I turned to you, and all you did was shake your virtual head yea or nay to a statement or two that I made. You passed on no specific info, and your head shakings were in no way passed on to the public, certainly not by me. Again, you leaked nothing on this one as far as I know and the info was out there via other sources. I suggest you tell your friend that.

As for the stunt show, most rumors I have seen place it as a 2004 addition. However, some rumors have the demolition of Residential Street beginning this week or next.

There have been many rumors regarding the Osborne Lights. One rumor suggested that the demolition of Residential Street was delayed and the lights would show this year. That appears to have been unfounded. Other rumors place the lights on NY Street this holiday season, but I don't know about that - it seems unlikely.

 

[EUROPA]

Just a quick question does the Stunt Show in Paris run everyday or is one of those attractions that has on and off days?

 

[RweTHEREyet]

If the stunt show is the same one that is shown in Paris, then it looks really good. I saw something about it on the Travel Channel this week and it looked amazaing to me.

 

[SoonerKate]

If the stunt show is "Moteurs....Action!" that would be wonderful. I couldn't care less about cars, and I'm usually not one for shows, but that stunt show is amazing.

 

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by EUROPA
Just a quick question does the Stunt Show in Paris run everyday or is one of those attractions that has on and off days?

Nevermid I found out...seem the stunt show in Paris only shows a set number of days a week. That is why they were on strike latley. Lets hope they can bump that up when it comes here. We have so many people that don't plan around here that they might not get to see the show otherwise.

 

[d-r]

scoop have you heard anything about what they'll do to disneyland's tomorrowland - it is in such bare shape - will they have an announcement of anything July 17?

 

[DisneyKidds]

So, there DK.

Thanks Scoop. In all my time here so far that is the most complete list of what's in the pipeline that I have seen. Of course everything is subject to change, but it will be interesting to see who shows up to say that you are completely for believing that Disney would ever do those things, or that what you listed is nowehere near enough (although they could use more major news for 2004).

 

[wdwguide]

Originally posted by thedscoop

2005--Spring--New World Showcase Pavilion, most likely Spain,

They'll have to get going very soon then, considering how long it's been taking them to construct new rides recently, and here we're talking about a whole pavilion. What type of a ride are we talking about here? I am a bit worried, considering that Epcot doesn't yet have a Dumbo-clone...

 

[DC7800]

Originally posted by wdwguide
They'll have to get going very soon then, considering how long it's been taking them to construct new rides recently, and here we're talking about a whole pavilion. What type of a ride are we talking about here? I am a bit worried, considering that Epcot doesn't yet have a Dumbo-clone...

I was thinking exactly the same thing. Even if the date slips a little (certainly possible), at most they have two years. If this is to be a major addition, they had better get going.

I'm even more curious about the proposed 2006 Epcot Future World E-ticket. Is this totally new constructon, or is this the rumored (and dreaded) changes to Spaceship Earth (or perhaps The Living Seas?) we've heard about previously? Any details?

And yes, 2004 is certainly lacking (WDW won't solve its attendance problems next year - not with new attractions, at least). I suppose if much were coming for next year the evidence (construction) would already be obvious.

I really hate to say that no, this list really isn't enough, because - depending on the specific attraction mix - it is a beginning (it is just wholly inadequate to really "fix" the parks' problems. Consider that this still gives AK just one more major attraction). My real fear is that when all is said and done, the budget for some for these attractions just won't be there, or will have been drastically reduced (remember Dinorama).

 

[d-r]

I see what you are saying about not wanting people to decide to wait two years when there will be more stuff.

 

[MelissathePooh]

I can't help it, but that list seems like a lot to me considering all the years WDW was building up and you may have gotten one something new once every few years! But I've been going since 1973!

Melissa

 

[Lewisc]

Originally posted by thedscoop

However, while we might love a new E ticket every year, the reality is that neither Disney or Universal is going to be able to offer a new feature attraction every single year, year after year.
.....
Sure, you can't simply create one awesome feature attraction every 10 years and say "But, hey it's full of quality!" That would kill your lucrative repeat business revenue.
..........
But, I'd much rather have Disney or Universal add a new feature attraction every three or four years (as opposed to a new coaster every year) as long as the quality of that attraction is worth the wait.

What about "recyling" old attractions. Buzz Lightyear for example. Doesn't that get us a "new" attraction at a discount?

New movie in Star Tours might work.

 

[raidermatt]

Sorry, but one every 3 or 4 years isn't going to do it. Yeah, WDW has higher infrastructure costs, but they also have higher margins and many more revenue streams than the locals.

With four parks, one major attraction a year is a far lower rate of investment than the locals, yet its probably the minimum needed to sustain WDW over the long term.

This isn't the one park WDW of the 70's. Something new every few years might have been enough then, but not now. Even at one every three years, that gets each park a new major attraction every 12 years. If it works out to one every 4 years, then each park is looking at 16 years between majors.

Further, that 3-4 year schedule is coming into what is expected to be an upturn in the economic cycle and we all know what happens when the downturns come.

While I don't quite share the enthusiasm over the list, Scoop, I do want to thank you for posting it.

On a side note, after watching a couple of fireworks displays over the weekend, I am looking forward to Disney's next effort. The current FitS show is years behind what is available, so there's a lot of room for the new show to improve.

 

[KNWVIKING]

***On a side note, after watching a couple of fireworks displays over the weekend, I am looking forward to Disney's next effort. The current FitS show is years behind what is available, so there's a lot of room for the new show to improve.***

Matt, were you watching WDW fireworks over the 4th or were you refering to other displays ? We were in Epcot for the 4th. At 9:00 pm MGM & MK set off their displays. We were standing in a spot in WS that allowed us to watch both displays simply by turning our head from left to right. Both parks had awesome displays. At 10:00 Epcot had Illuminations as normal but as soon as it was over they went into a traditional 4th display that was the best display I have ever seen.

 

[raidermatt]

Matt, were you watching WDW fireworks over the 4th or were you refering to other displays ?

Other displays. One was a city-sponsored display in Livermore on the 4th, the other after the A's/Angels game on the 5th.

Scoop, first, I'm not demanding anything. I'm a single guest. I'm merely laying out the big picture economic reality. Maybe its not one a year, but I can say its more than one every 3-4 years, especially when thats the rate in what are expected to be good times.

but the economic reality is that no park--no matter how quality driven--could ever return its investment on spending the typical 50 to 150 million a year that it would take to create a feature attraction every year.

You're right, but we're not talking about a single park. A new attraction at WDW draws people to the resort, which boosts attendance at all 4 parks, water parks, boosts hotel/restaurant/merchandise revenue, etc.

Further, a lack of continuing investment will kill the current revenue that is coming out of the parks.

The trap you're falling into is assuming that there is a baseline of "zero future investment equals current revenues/cash flow."

That's simply not the case. A new attraction does not have to generate 50-150 million in NEW revenue a year to pay for itself, because without that new attraction, current revenue would have fallen. Also, the payoff for the new attraction continues for years, and for the better attractions, can continue for decades.

The much more realistic approach taken since the day Walt first opened a park is to allow an attraction to recoup its investment.

Walt wasn't operating a four theme park / two water park mega-resort complex. When you expect people to invest a week or two of their time/money instead of a day or two, you're going to have to offer them more frequent new stuff. Not necessarily more per capita, but you can't say DL had a new attraction every 5 years, so WDW only needs one every 4.