Boat Ride in Germany

Ok well appraently my opinion does not matter - this is not directed to Mr. Horsecollar - who I now better understand. As mine is just an opinion as well that I just threw out there. To me and my husband who are both well educated(beyond a bachelors) we feel that having a ride somewhat like the Mummy at Universal where it could tell a story (of the Revlountionary War) and then end with a Roller Coaster would be awesome. I only mentioned the Screaming Eagle as a Name and maybe I did not express myself as I should have but I did not think it would create such a contraversey.

Oh gosh, enough with the roller coasters already. Every ride does NOT have to have a stomach churning roller coaster or log flume or upside down ride vehicles as part of it. :guilty: . Let us weak stomached folks have our slow rides.........I believe Universal studios has a glut of barf bag rides if one is interested in that type of entertainment.
 
Good questions. On the first, it's a simple matter of cost/benefit. It costs a lot of money to build and maintain a pavilion, and any potential sponsor has to believe that they will get enough of a bump in tourism (or to their specific business) to make it worth the investment.

Most governments and tourism bureaus have other pressing priorities, and probably feel other promotion opportunities are more cost effective.

Same idea with private companies. Its not easy to get them to sponser such large attractions in the first place, and since it would be themed to another country, it would most likely need to be a company based in that country, or at least with a significant presence there.

There have been rumors over the years about specific sponsorships and why they fell apart, but in the end, it comes down to somebody believing their investment was worth it, given that Disney is the one collecting ticket revenue.

Which brings us to the next question, which is when would Disney reach a point where they were willing to spend the money themselves?

Your guess is as good as mine. Obviously nearly 20 years is not enough time to go by to get them to take significant action. A possibility is that when they feel they've done what they can with Future World, they may turn to WS regardless of sponsorhip. But that's pure speculation on my part, and certainly Disney has said or done nothing to support that idea.

Thank you for the detailed response and information. :)

As I wondered above, apparently the increasingly popular F&W and F&G hasn't helped with additional exposure yet, at least in terms of translating that exposure into tourist dollars.

Maybe eBay should approach Disney and offer to sponsor a Pavillion for each of the countries that eBay already has established a presence in. :rotfl:

That would take care of Pavillions for Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Hong Kong, India, Ireland, Korea, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Philippines, Poland, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Taiwan AND they could co-sponsor the existing Pavillions in Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, and the United Kingdom. ;) :lmao:

I'm totally kidding...honest!!!!
 
True. I would think 2 or 3 new countries would be great, but 8 would seem a tad crowded. Of course, I doube two new countries would come any time soon so this means little

I took a look via Google satellite imagery and Microsoft LIVE and i see one really obvious plot of land over by the Germany area.. it's huge. Perhaps big enough for two countries if it were to be creatively used.. another smaller one beside France.. the area beside Morocco has some stuff built up behind the treeline but it doesn't look major permanent..

I don't see how you could put ANYTHING on either side of the American Adventure from these aerial shots.. The space on either side just appears too small to me. Unless you were doing someplace REALLY small, like Monoco or the United States of Micronesia.. it'd be too cramped. :)

The space between Mexico and Norway looks like it has a bunch of temporary structures back there behind the trees. Those could easily come down I suppose.

One thing cool about the MSN LIVE pages with the aerial shots, it is fairly easy from the service roads to figure out where the 'extra spaces' are.

Knox
 


Oh gosh, enough with the roller coasters already. Every ride does NOT have to have a stomach churning roller coaster or log flume or upside down ride vehicles as part of it. :guilty: . Let us weak stomached folks have our slow rides.........I believe Universal studios has a glut of barf bag rides if one is interested in that type of entertainment.

I agree. I would like to see a few more rides w/o thrills or even just minor ones like at Maelstrom
 
I took a look via Google satellite imagery and Microsoft LIVE and i see one really obvious plot of land over by the Germany area.. it's huge. Perhaps big enough for two countries if it were to be creatively used.. another smaller one beside France.. the area beside Morocco has some stuff built up behind the treeline but it doesn't look major permanent..
The five best undeveloped sites for new World Showcase countries are the sites on either side of Morocco and the sites on either side of Germany, with the fifth good site being between Mexico and Norway. Yes, there are sheds of one sort or another behind the tree line on each of these sites, but such support functions can be relocated easily.

Each of the five sites that I just wrote about have as much frontage as each of the existing World Showcase countries (not counting "filler" like the German train adjacent to Germany).

The sites on either side of the American Adventure could also be developed with as much frontage as as existing World Showcase countries -- but it would visually squeeze the American Adventure.

There's a second site between Germany and China where the Outpost is now.

World Showplace (the old Millennium Village "tent") is currently blocking the sites on either side of the United Kingdom, but it could be removed, opening two more sites.

So there are actually a total of ten potential sites for additional World Showcase countries.

Of course, any new World Showcase country won't happen unless there is a business case that achieves a desired level of profit for Disney. On the cost side, there are initial capital costs and ongoing operating costs. On the revenue side, there are sponsorship fees from corporations or countries, revenue from restaurants and retail merchandise, revenue from additional Epcot attendance, as well as indirect revenue such more people buying into DVC if they see WDW is a place that is constantly being enhanced.

If I had to nominate five additions to World Showcase, I'd nominate Russia, India, Brazil, Greece, and Thailand; I could see five terrific new restaurants, wildly different architecture, good shows/rides that celebrate these five countries, and interesting shops. I could also be easily convinced that there are other countries that would make great additions.

Unfortunately, major sponsorship revenue for new World Showcase countries seems particularly unlikely. I just don't see what consortium of companies would want to invest serious advertising budget dollars to sponsor a country such as Russia, India, Brazil, Greece, or Thailand. That means that the revenue would have come from our dining and shopping dollars and from increased ticket sales. Obviously, nobody at Disney has been able to build a business case on this basis alone so far.
 
Obviously, nobody at Disney has been able to build a business case on this basis alone so far.

HH: I know you are just calling it like you see it, so I am not upset with you. I I am upset with the fact that this is now the Disney philosophy.

Hopefully someone at Corporate will adopt this old, antiquated, obtuse business philosophy:

"It's no secret that we were sticking just about every nickel we had on the chance that people would really be interested in something totally new and unique in the field of entertainment."

"We did it (Disneyland), in the knowledge that most of the people I talked to thought it would be a financial disaster - closed and forgotten within the first year."

"I dream, I test my dreams against my beliefs, I dare to take risks, and I execute my vision to make those dreams come true."

"You’re dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."

"Get a good idea and stay with it. Dog it, and work at it until it's done right."

"Disneyland is not just another amusement park. It's unique, and I want it kept that way. Besides, you don't work for a dollar - you work to create and have fun."

"People look at me in many ways. They've said, 'The guy has no regard for money.' That is not true. I have had regard for money. It depends on who's saying that. Some people worship money as something you've got to have piled up in a big pile somewhere. I've only thought about money in one way, and that is to do something with it. I don't think there's a thing I own that I will ever get the benefit of except through doing things with it. I don't even want the dividends from the stock in the studio, because the government's going to take it away. I'd rather have that in (the company) working..."


Wow, whoever said those things must be clueless [sarcasm, of course]
 


HH: I know you are just calling it like you see it, so I am not upset with you. I I am upset with the fact that this is now the Disney philosophy.
Thank you for recognizing that I'm not saying that Disney shouldn't invest in World Showcase unless someone else foots the bill.

Of course, I recognize that Disney is a business. But I'm surprised that Disney can't build a reasonable business case for a new country based on keeping World Showcase fresh and inviting, increasing attendance at Epcot, and generating very real, direct revenue from dining and shopping.

For example, have you seen how much money people spend at churrascarias such as Texas de Brazil and Fogo de Chão? I would think that Disney could add Brazil to World Showcase, anchored by a churrascaria -- and that the successful churrascaria alone would make Brazil self-sustaining, including funding the operation of a ride or show.
 
"You’re dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."

Every time some parent on this board tells me that I shouldn't complain about X attraction, because the Larve like it, I'll spam the thread with this quote.

Hear that people?

"My Kid likes it so it must be good" Is NOT an valid excuse for Disney attractions.
 
HH: I know you are just calling it like you see it, so I am not upset with you. I I am upset with the fact that this is now the Disney philosophy.

Hopefully someone at Corporate will adopt this old, antiquated, obtuse business philosophy:

"It's no secret that we were sticking just about every nickel we had on the chance that people would really be interested in something totally new and unique in the field of entertainment."

"We did it (Disneyland), in the knowledge that most of the people I talked to thought it would be a financial disaster - closed and forgotten within the first year."

"I dream, I test my dreams against my beliefs, I dare to take risks, and I execute my vision to make those dreams come true."

"You’re dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."

"Get a good idea and stay with it. Dog it, and work at it until it's done right."

"Disneyland is not just another amusement park. It's unique, and I want it kept that way. Besides, you don't work for a dollar - you work to create and have fun."

"People look at me in many ways. They've said, 'The guy has no regard for money.' That is not true. I have had regard for money. It depends on who's saying that. Some people worship money as something you've got to have piled up in a big pile somewhere. I've only thought about money in one way, and that is to do something with it. I don't think there's a thing I own that I will ever get the benefit of except through doing things with it. I don't even want the dividends from the stock in the studio, because the government's going to take it away. I'd rather have that in (the company) working..."


Wow, whoever said those things must be clueless [sarcasm, of course]

Amen to that..........
 
"You’re dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."
"You’re dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."
"You’re dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."
"You’re dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."
"You’re dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."
"You’re dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."
"You’re dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."
"You’re dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."
 
You forget that kids bring with them Mommy's checkbook. Kids are/can be a persistant PIA's and are the reason we ride Dumbo every time we are in WDW and haven't seen the Hall of Presidents more then once.
The quote should be moreso "My kid likes it so its fun for US to go!".
 
You forget that kids bring with them Mommy's checkbook. Kids are/can be a persistant PIA's and are the reason we ride Dumbo every time we are in WDW and haven't seen the Hall of Presidents more then once.
The quote should be moreso "My kid likes it so its fun for US to go!".
It's much better business to aim for all ages than for children only.

"Barney's Great Adventure" (1998), a movie that was aimed only at children, had a domestic box office gross of $12 million.

"Toy Story 2" (1999), a true family movie (which was also enjoyed by people without children), had a domestic box office gross of $245 million and a worldwide gross $485 million.

(Disclaimer: Box office numbers vary depending where you look.)

Yes, you can argue that "Toy Story 2" was also a better movie -- but that's actually the point. People vote with their wallets. People want excellent entertainment and they want vacations with excellent experiences.

This applies to Disney theme parks. People don't visit Disney theme parks just to appease their PIA kids. In fact, people without children visit Disney theme parks. Over the course of our lives, we only have young children in our households for a fairly limited number of years (and some people never do). People who are 18 to 90 plan Disney vacations -- not just people who are 35 with 2 grade-school children.
 
I agree Hoarce but if you market more to adults you end up with IOA. By creating an attraction for the grade school set you end up with attractions everyone can enjoy say Turtle Talk vs. M:S. In a sense by considering the younger set you end up killing more birds with one stone. Which was Walt's orginal idea wasn't it to create a park everyone could enjoy? Every demographic visits WDW but I am guessing "people who are 35 with 2 grade-school children" are in the majority . Which, BTW, isn't my demographic...anymore,lol!


Unfortunately I was a victim of the Barney Movie. I wouldn't say that was directed at children as much as it was preschoolers.
 
I agree Hoarce but if you market more to adults you end up with IOA.

I disagree. Marketing to adults does not automatically equal thrill rides.
 
I agree Hoarce but if you market more to adults you end up with IOA.
We're not talking about marketing to adults, we're talking about the quote "You're dead if you aim ONLY for the kids."

See, e.g., Pirates of the Caribbean, Splash Mountain, Cranium Command, Peter Pan, Muppet Vision, the Hunchback show, It's Tough to be a Bug, etc.
 
I agree Hoarce but if you market more to adults you end up with IOA.
Actually thrill rides are similar to kids' rides in that they appeal to one group of people (thrill ride fans) and have no appeal to another group of people (those who can't go on thrill rides and those who don't like physical thrills). The people who do like thrill rides will gladly ride the same ride over and over, so thrill rides draw good numbers and don't lose much popularity over time.

It's okay to have some thrill rides, especially rides like Big Thunder Mountain which appeal to more than just die-hard thrill-seekers. But, in the end, putting in too many thrill rides is prescription gaining teen and young adult market share but losing families with young children, guests with physical limitations, many older guests, and anybody who doesn't like thrills.

By creating an attraction for the grade school set you end up with attractions everyone can enjoy say Turtle Talk vs. M:S. In a sense by considering the younger set you end up killing more birds with one stone. Which was Walt's orginal idea wasn't it to create a park everyone could enjoy?
We're saying the same thing. The best attractions are those for all ages, just as Toy Story was a "kids' movie" for all ages.

That's not the same as saying to put in rides and shows that are designed to appeal only to children.

Unfortunately I was a victim of the Barney Movie. I wouldn't say that was directed at children as much as it was preschoolers.
I'm so sorry for you. I managed to avoid "Barney's Great Adventure" somehow.
 
Further, even the "kiddiest" of all the early attractions - Dumbo, still is of large enough scope and scale that adults are not generally embarrassed to ride it. Unlike Heimlich's Chew Chew Train.
 
"You’re dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."
"You’re dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."
"You’re dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."
"You’re dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."
"You’re dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."
"You’re dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."
"You’re dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."
"You’re dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."


so you should aim for kids. If adults are only grown up kids, then by that theory things designed for kids would please both groups. I agree YoHo
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!





Latest posts

Top