MJMcBride
Barely lost is barely found
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2006
Nicely done.
Thanks.
Nicely done.
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.
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.
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
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. . 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.
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.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..
Obviously, nobody at Disney has been able to build a business case on this basis alone so far.
Thank you for recognizing that I'm not saying that Disney shouldn't invest in World Showcase unless someone else foots the bill.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.
"Youre dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."
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."
"Youre 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]
"My Kid likes it so it must be good" Is NOT an valid excuse for Disney attractions.
It's much better business to aim for all ages than for children only.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!".
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."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.I agree Hoarce but if you market more to adults you end up with IOA.
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.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?
I'm so sorry for you. I managed to avoid "Barney's Great Adventure" somehow.Unfortunately I was a victim of the Barney Movie. I wouldn't say that was directed at children as much as it was preschoolers.
"Youre dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."
"Youre dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."
"Youre dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."
"Youre dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."
"Youre dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."
"Youre dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."
"Youre dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."
"Youre dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."