Disney Announces New Star Wars Lands for DL and DHS

[DDLand]

Welp, bases on this thread I'm just gonna go ahead and advocate that WDW just craters DHS and plants a garden over it. According to the majority of posts, there is NO WAY that this will EVER be awesome, it will take 15 years to build, and the "only" two new rides will probably be a carny level Tunnel of Love and a Tilt-a-whirl painted like an X-Wing.

Sheesh, people. Some of us (and most of you) have been waiting for something like this for almost 40 years.

Enjoy the moment.


EDIT: Oh, and by the way - I'm not saying "don't talk about it." Have fun, speculate away! I'm just saying that the "Disney will blow this, too" attitude is a little over the top.

Here's my take - Harry Potter freaked the crap out of Disney, and they know it. They know they need a game changer, and this is it. They're gonna go all out. I'll bet there's a three year timeline, and I'll bet the plans are to make it every bit as immersive as Diagon Alley. WDW might never admit it, but they've learned a lot about how to do this from the Harry Potter success.

I am really looking forward to Star Wars Land! Some people are worried about the subject content, but I think most are expecting cutting edge stuff and an incredibly immersive park land. There are questions though, I think we're all feeling a bit burned after Avatarland, which will have taken 6 years from announcement to complete. Disney just dropped a bomb, the concept art and theme have got us excited, but we do have to temper expectations slightly...

It could be a good 5 years. That's not great, so realizing that this is in our more distant future is important.

I'm not sure. I don't know if you've been out to Cars Land, but it followed the same mold. Take a place from the actual movie and drop it into the real world. We know Cars Land was in development in like 2006, so creating those immersive themed environments has precedent from within the WDC. No one could deny that DA took it to the next level, but this does seem like the natural progression from Cars Land. With that said, I do think they're scared of Universal, especially in California where the local base is huge. So I definitely agree that it's partially being built due to market pressures.

 

[DDLand]

Last attendance numbers we got DCA was almost half of DL in terms of guest, you don't think Star Wars would help even that out. I also think that Star Wars as a land doesn't quite fit in Disneyland. The only thing tying Star Wars to DL was Star Tours and I think we might have to consider Tours going away (or moving) once Star Wars Land is built. Also if they want Seasons of the Force to be a long term thing, placing it in DCA would of made it a two park event, which would be interesting.

I wouldn't get hung up SW Land being tied to the park, how does New Orleans Square tie into the park? Disneyland is a Magic Kingdom where you can explore yesterday, tomorrow, and fantasy while creating Joy. Star Wars fits into that mold. Now fitting into the park? Yeah, I'd agree with you there. Disneyland is a relatively flat park, having several hundred feet tall rock towers jutting over It's a Small World and Big Thunder Mountain Rail Road would ruin the feel.

Also, I'd say more than any Disney park, Disneyland just feels smaller or more intimate. You can tell the contrasting ways things were built 60 or 30 years ago compared to today. Smaller paths, and more ornate work. It feels special.

Call me crazy, but nothing recently created by Walt Disney Imagineering (with the exception of DAK, that is a great place) can really give you that feeling of charm and immersion. For all the praise heaped on Cars Land, I'd much rather spend a few minutes sitting in New Orleans Square or Frontierland than Cars Land. So we'll see if they can pull Star Wars Land off without losing that charm, and of course coming off as cold.

Oh, and DCA will soon be getting its own E Ticket in Marvel Land! It'll bring the best RnRC with exciting new features. DCA's just getting started.

 

[Eoghann]

That may be bleaker than the reality, but the reality is already bleak enough. Or maybe "vague enough" is the right expression.

Just between you and me, I think that they have no idea what they're going to build, or whether it's going in between Echo Lake and Indiana Jones, or on top of the Muppet Show, or just to the left of Pizza Planet.

The artwork is so vague, it looks like something that was painted for set designers and storyboard artists to use for the upcoming movie. No ride building, cantina, retail or anything else is apparent. I see tree stumps and little buildings on top of them. I see M. Falcon parked in front of the tree stumps. Where is the theme park? Where are the entrances to the rides, the restaurants and the retail. With a sign or something. Like in every theme park. To get pumped for a theme park, you need to visualize yourself walking into the scene and doing stuff. The ride descriptions are so vague as to not be ride descriptions at all ... not even story descriptions. Something battle. Drive the Falcon. Whaaa ? In how many years will you tell me what you're actually building, and also tell me when I might think of booking a holiday so I can experience it?

Well... they've got five years to figure it out.

Seriously they aren't going to break ground for 2 more years so I'm sure a lot of the details are very vague at this point. I think they know they want the Millenium Falcon to be right there for people to see, and they want the Cantina and they want two rides (I think it will be 2 additional, not just 2). The rest may well still be up for debate. I can entirely believe that there are a few different groups lobbying for particular things from the existing park to be saved.

I'm fairly relaxed on that point because I never expected it to be less than 5 years anyway.

 

[rteetz]

Last attendance numbers we got DCA was almost half of DL in terms of guest, you don't think Star Wars would help even that out. I also think that Star Wars as a land doesn't quite fit in Disneyland. The only thing tying Star Wars to DL was Star Tours and I think we might have to consider Tours going away (or moving) once Star Wars Land is built. Also if they want Seasons of the Force to be a long term thing, placing it in DCA would of made it a two park event, which would be interesting.

It would help DCA but I think Star Wars fits better in Disneyland than DCA.

 

[DDLand]

You're comparing parks that have to expand in order to gain market share with a park that merely has to maintain market share. The rules are different. I guarantee you that Universal will eventually hit a balance point too where their corporate overlords no longer see the ROI in building ride after ride.

The only way you'll get a massive growth from WDW is if their attendance/revenue dips.

Does that suck if you're a Disney fan who wants to see that sort of expansion? Yeah, but life's not fair.

I agree with your premise, but I disagree with the idea that WDW is fully built out. You're suggesting that any attendance growth moving forward will be natural growth related to population/economy. That if Disney were to fully build it's three incoherent/weak theme parks that their attendance wouldn't increase at all. That Disney should just sit back and enjoy the ride.

I don't buy it.

Right now Magic Kingdom, currently has attendance that shatters the other three parks. Nearly double. It has 23 rides in its borders. Compare that to Epcot, which has only 9. Even more pitiful is DHS, which has a mere 5 rides. (the numbers are even more stark when you count all attractions, MK and Epcot are more comparable with 41 and 34 attractions respectively. DHS has only 10 attractions. It's currently rumored it may loose an additional one, leaving it at a pathetic 9)

Do you think that there's a correlation between a park that has more than twice as many rides as its neighbor, (or in DHS's case 4 times) and that same park having attendance that's twice as large? Disney needs to build not only to preserve the fan base, but because it's good business. They don't need to win marketshare because they can grow the entire pie/market. Disney has an incredibly misbalanced attendance levels that heavily favor MK, that needs to change. They need to bring the other parks up to MK's level.

So if building for the sake of gaining market share doesn't matter, building to bring the other parks up should.

 

[LittleDreamer]

In response to DDLand, I think this brings up the concept of attractions as crowd sponges. Each ride and attraction absorbs an amount of people the more attractions the more you can have in the park without it feeling full. I've noticed during my last few trips to Disney this summer that the park crowds seemed pretty light, but looking at the wait times you get the impression everyone is in a line.

 

[Eoghann]

I agree with your premise, but I disagree with the idea that WDW is fully built out. You're suggesting that any attendance growth moving forward will be natural growth related to population/economy. That if Disney were to fully build it's three incoherent/weak theme parks that their attendance wouldn't increase at all. That Disney should just sit back and enjoy the ride.

I didn't say there would be no increase. I said the ROI isn't there. I'm also not arguing for them to do this, I'm simply pointing out the harsh reality of what they are doing and the logic behind it.

Do you think that there's a correlation between a park that has more than twice as many rides as its neighbor, (or in DHS's case 4 times) and that same park having attendance that's twice as large? Disney needs to build not only to preserve the fan base, but because it's good business. They don't need to win marketshare because they can grow the entire pie/market. Disney has an incredibly misbalanced attendance levels that heavily favor MK, that needs to change. They need to bring the other parks up to MK's level.

An overly simplistic view I think. Magic Kingdom is also the park people identify as "Disney World" and it's the one that's been there the longest. Additional rides would presumably help but let's not pretend it's the only reason that more people go to that park. And I imagine they see what they are proposing as achieving that re-balancing while simultaneously keeping costs down. Keep in mind that last time they opened a park they didn't see massive growth they saw cannibalization. Similar numbers of people but increased costs. That doesn't go over well in the quarterly earnings calls.

What you as a visitor think is a priority and what Disney the corporate entity thinks is a priority are very different things. I've noticed that fans spend a lot of time trying to invent business cases to favor what they want to happen. But in truth, particularly when dealing with a publicly traded company, the ROI has to be substantial to persuade them to spend money. Disney can't get the ROI that Universal gets so they won't build like Universal does.

 

[DDLand]

In response to DDLand, I think this brings up the concept of attractions as crowd sponges. Each ride and attraction absorbs an amount of people the more attractions the more you can have in the park without it feeling full. I've noticed during my last few trips to Disney this summer that the park crowds seemed pretty light, but looking at the wait times you get the impression everyone is in a line.

Absolutely. Right now DHS honestly cannot hold 20 million a year attendance. That cannot be a reality for this Park, it's just impossible. So building to boost capacity is important at this juncture. That's another matter. However, it's not like there are people being turned away on a consistent basis. 20 million people don't want to go into that park. There's no demand. Once Frozen Fun and Little Mermaid close, it's possible that they could see 100s of thousands or even Millions of people stop visiting. The increased Star Wars presence may offset the decline, but the trajectory is clear. That park is tanking. DAK is getting help, but it needs so much more. It's like a band-aid for a bullet wound. It really kind of makes me upset, if given a chance DAK could be perhaps one of the best parks in the world. Maybe better than TDS. It's like a bird with clipped wings. Then there's Epcot...

They all need big money to be spent in order to realize their full potential.

 

[DDLand]

I didn't say there would be no increase. I said the ROI isn't there. I'm also not arguing for them to do this, I'm simply pointing out the harsh reality of what they are doing and the logic behind it.

Tell that to Universal which has been seeing a dramatic rise in attendance as they've built. Tell that DCA which has seen a dramatic increase in attendance as it's been expanded. Tell that to HKDL which has seen strong growth as they've enhanced their infrastructure. Of course you could argue that those parks are different, and don't reflect the market that WDW is in, to which I say:

Tell that to MK which has seen a dramatic rise in attendance after New Fantasyland.

Disney has built one major expansion at WDW in the last 9 years, and following that move it saw attendance increase by millions. Some call that expansion mediocre, and still it had an enormous impact. That expansion was also done to a well established park too. The biggest in the world.

If MK can benefit from a strong expansion, so can the other three parks that frankly in their current state vary from hidden potential to an embarrassment to the WDC.

An overly simplistic view I think. Magic Kingdom is also the park people identify as "Disney World" and it's the one that's been there the longest. Additional rides would presumably help but let's not pretend it's the only reason that more people go to that park. And I imagine they see what they are proposing as achieving that re-balancing while simultaneously keeping costs down. Keep in mind that last time they opened a park they didn't see massive growth they saw cannibalization. Similar numbers of people but increased costs. That doesn't go over well in the quarterly earnings calls.

What you as a visitor think is a priority and what Disney the corporate entity thinks is a priority are very different things. I've noticed that fans spend a lot of time trying to invent business cases to favor what they want to happen. But in truth, particularly when dealing with a publicly traded company, the ROI has to be substantial to persuade them to spend money. Disney can't get the ROI that Universal gets so they won't build like Universal does.

You're going to tell me that you think it's an oversimplification to correlate the fact that MK has nearly twice as many patrons as DHS, and DHS having a quarter of the rides? Really? Do you think it's also an oversimplification to correlate MK becoming the fastest growing park in Orlando after a major expansion?

I do agree with your premise on MKs being associated with Disney World. I'm not saying that they should try to build up a park that will beat it in attendance. I don't think that's possible either. MKs are the flagship of each Resort, that's a fact. Even Tokyo Disney Sea hasn't achieved the distinction of beating out its Magic Kingdom. The difference is Tokyo Disney Sea and Tokyo Disneyland only have a 3 million attendance difference. DHS and MK have a 9 million guest difference. That's why I think a companion park can get into the big leagues. Because they already have. No one is advocating for a new park, but I think most here see potential growth being huge in the existing parks. Though I'd remind you the market may have changed in the last 17 years, do you think that WDW may be able to handle expansion better then it did in the 90s? I'd say NF proves the point.

You'll actually find I'm one of the more moderate people here. I don't complain about ticket prices, or some of the quality of attractions, etc. I may be one of the few is really really looking forward to Slinky! I'm not predicting doomsday. It just hasn't happened, nor will it likely ever. I just can't see how you're ignoring the potential for millions of new turnstile clicks and the added capacity that comes with those expansions.

 

[minnie-apple-mouse]

In response to DDLand, I think this brings up the concept of attractions as crowd sponges. Each ride and attraction absorbs an amount of people the more attractions the more you can have in the park without it feeling full. I've noticed during my last few trips to Disney this summer that the park crowds seemed pretty light, but looking at the wait times you get the impression everyone is in a line.

IMO FP+ has reduced the touring time for a segment of the population. Not how many days (actually may have increased how many days), but how long in each park.

I know locals that can now pop in and out pretty quick with 3 FP+ scheduled and a few others things on their list.

Same with some seasoned visitors as well. Why rush in to obtain certain FP+ when you already have them ahead of time. Likewise-why not go in for a while since you have 3 FP+ anyway, esp with AP or multi day tickets. The $100 commando group is still there all day, but I'm not sure what % that is anymore.

A 12 hour (or more) period is a long day for folks. Now they may be seeing 3 4 hour periods of guests for example. Yet the turnstiles showed the same attendance.

 

[Eoghann]

Tell that to Universal which has been seeing a dramatic rise in attendance as they've built. Tell that DCA which has seen a dramatic increase in attendance as it's been expanded. Tell that to HKDL which has seen strong growth as they've enhanced their infrastructure. Of course you could argue that those parks are different, and don't reflect the market that WDW is in, to which I say:

As I already pointed out Universal is in a different position. They are starting much lower down in attendance and market share, that's why building crazy fast actually can pay off in ROI for them. It's also why I originally said that comparing WDW to Universal was apples to oranges. They are in fundamentally different stages of maturity.

Tell that to MK which has seen a dramatic rise in attendance after New Fantasyland

My understanding is that the rise in attendance had more to do with MK now being able to accommodate the people than an actual change in demand. MK doesn't close for capacity nearly as often as it used to.

Disney has built one major expansion at WDW in the last 9 years, and following that move it saw attendance increase by millions. Some call that expansion mediocre, and still it had an enormous impact. That expansion was also done to a well established park too. The biggest in the world. If MK can benefit from a strong expansion, so can the other three parks that frankly in their current state vary from hidden potential to an embarrassment to the WDC

And Disney agrees with you on that which is why they have major expansions either happening or announced in two other parks. And those expansions are significantly more expensive that NFL was. But they have to sell this to shareholders who care about quarterly profits. I cannot emphasize this enough. With a publicly traded company it is all about the quarterly earnings call. Capital expenditure up and the corresponding profits 18 months away? Share price plummet. You achieve net of $600 million but had forecast $700 million? Share price plummet.

Answering to shareholders distorts business goals. You hit those numbers every quarter or they kick you out.

There is an exception to that rule. It's the Steve Jobs exception. If you are the charismatic founder of the company (Disney himself, Jobs, Bezos) then you can ignore the shareholders. But there's no Disney at Disney anymore.

You're going to tell me that you think it's an oversimplification to correlate the fact that MK has nearly twice as many patrons as DHS, and DHS having a quarter of the rides? Really? Do you think it's also an oversimplification to correlate MK becoming the fastest growing park in Orlando after a major expansion?

Yes, and I've already said why. The demand was already there for MK, it just couldn't meet it.

 

[DDLand]

As I already pointed out Universal is in a different position. They are starting much lower down in attendance and market share, that's why building crazy fast actually can pay off in ROI for them. It's also why I originally said that comparing WDW to Universal was apples to oranges. They are in fundamentally different stages of maturity.

I used MK as my ultimate example, however it does seem like you're ignoring a simple fact with the Universal growth. They're not just winning market share, they're also bringing new guests to Orlando and getting people to stay longer. Additionally they're getting more of the local population involved.

Why couldn't Disney do all three of those things?

Back to our regularly scheduled programming...

My understanding is that the rise in attendance had more to do with MK now being able to accommodate the people than an actual change in demand. MK doesn't close for capacity nearly as often as it used to.

Alright, I'm sure that's a factor. Looking at a list of phased closings at MK in 2012 for pre expansion, (New Fantasyland really kicked off operation in December of 2012) MK closed 6 times Phase 2 and above in 2012. Assuming it turned away 10,000 people in those days, that means it could potentially welcome in 60,000 more people the next year. Being super generous, let's assume they turned away 20,000 potential guests per day so it's 120,000 more guests in 2013 directly related to increased capacity.

MK saw 1 million+ new patrons in 2013.

The math does't begin to support your assumption. NF was supposed to make the rest of the MK more comfortable and spread out the crowds in a more sustainable way. Instead it obviously increased attendance in a way that Universal's expansions did. New guests were brought into the fold.

And Disney agrees with you on that which is why they have major expansions either happening or announced in two other parks. And those expansions are significantly more expensive that NFL was.

Precisely. Disney spent 1 billion+ on DCA and got huge results. You can bet Disney wants similar results from this DHS work.

But they have to sell this to shareholders who care about quarterly profits. I cannot emphasize this enough. With a publicly traded company it is all about the quarterly earnings call. Capital expenditure up and the corresponding profits 18 months away? Share price plummet. You achieve net of $600 million but had forecast $700 million? Share price plummet.

That sounds a lot like this one project I once heard about... What was it called?

Shanghai Disneyland.

Shanghai Disneyland spending has bloated CapEX to the biggest levels in years, and most analysts are expecting a 100 million dollar loss first year of operation. What I see happening, is Disney winding down Shanghai expenditures while switching focus over to their American Ventures. They can easily spend considerably less then in previous years while still spending much more on WDW and Disneyland. Shanghai is (hopefully) a one time cost that will leave WDP&R with more flexibility moving forward.

Answering to shareholders distorts business goals. You hit those numbers every quarter or they kick you out.

There is an exception to that rule. It's the Steve Jobs exception. If you are the charismatic founder of the company (Disney himself, Jobs, Bezos) then you can ignore the shareholders. But there's no Disney at Disney anymore.

Search Bob Iger CEO of the year, he's considered pretty darn close to Steve Jobs. Not that it really matters. Steve Jobs or not, ignoring billions in potential revenue is silly.

Yes, and I've already said why. The demand was already there for MK, it just couldn't meet it.

Like I've said, in the 6 days it closed in 2012, it couldn't have made a substantial impact. A 1 million guest increase doesn't just happen.

 

[Josh Hendy]

...
Enjoy the moment.

... I'm just saying that the "Disney will blow this, too" attitude is a little over the top.

Here's my take - Harry Potter freaked the crap out of Disney, and they know it. They know they need a game changer, and this is it. They're gonna go all out. I'll bet there's a three year timeline, and I'll bet the plans are to make it every bit as immersive as Diagon Alley. WDW might never admit it, but they've learned a lot about how to do this from the Harry Potter success.

OK if they build the complete land with 2 rides in 3 years, it's not a disaster. It's still pretty slow, but not outrageously slow.

But if the timeframe is 6 years as rumored, then they definitely blew it. Big time.

Star Wars is financially bigger than Harry Potter, has more fans, the fans are more dedicated and loyal, the stories have more history and depth and have more legs for the future, and the Disney parks have a lot more guests than Universal, and the guests are a lot more dedicated and loyal.

Financially I suppose you COULD take advantage of your fans' loyalty by taking as long as possible to satisfy the huge, let me repeat, humongous, demand for a big, high-quality theme park presence. But if (I said if) Disney takes 6 years (plus the years already elapsed since they bought Lucasfilm) ... yeah they are really, really blowing it.

 

[Darkwing981]

Wow... you step outside of the Disney universe for a few months, and there they go announcing new rides and experiences. This is exciting news for DHS which has really needed some significant investments in the last decade. BTW, with the announcement of Star Wars Land (and Toy Story Land)- I can' help but think that Disney is finally moving away from the 'working studios' theme of DHS and instead using it to showcase their acquired properties. Hopefully lands based off The Muppets and Marvel aren't too far off.

It's amazing how much WDW has changed since our first trip just two years ago. Guess we need a WDW trip sequel. LOL

 

[atricks]

Wow... you step outside of the Disney universe for a few months, and there they go announcing new rides and experiences. This is exciting news for DHS which has really needed some significant investments in the last decade. BTW, with the announcement of Star Wars Land (and Toy Story Land)- I can' help but think that Disney is finally moving away from the 'working studios' theme of DHS and instead using it to showcase their acquired properties. Hopefully lands based off The Muppets and Marvel aren't too far off.

It's amazing how much WDW has changed since our first trip just two years ago. Guess we need a WDW trip sequel. LOL

I don't think a full Muppet land will happen. And Marvel is about to get a big upgrade over at Universal Islands of Adventure (Starting with the Hulk next month and possibly a new Avengers ride in two years) , so that isn't coming for Hollywood Studios or any other Disney World theme park either.

 

[Lee Matthews]

I like Marvel but i cant see that IP fitting into any of the existing parks. To me Marvel would be part of a 5th gate at WDW if it was ever to happen. Possibly at DHS but they would really need to expand out big time of the current acres the park consumes

 

[seascapemvy]

I was looking at the map of the Studio and started to wonder about another possible expansion option for start wars land. What if rather than going the way most people think, Disney uses the land from Start tours and goes behind Indy and into the parking lot. That would let them expand the full 14 acreas and not interfere with anything. If Disney did that and Toy Story Land as most people think they could easily do this in less than 3 years. Phase 2 could then be Cars land where the BLT was and LMA, a Muppets expansion, and finally Indy ride with maybe a couple of Marvel rides in the Echo Lake area.

 

[Hunterr]

This would be awesome

 

[rteetz]

I was looking at the map of the Studio and started to wonder about another possible expansion option for start wars land. What if rather than going the way most people think, Disney uses the land from Start tours and goes behind Indy and into the parking lot. That would let them expand the full 14 acreas and not interfere with anything. If Disney did that and Toy Story Land as most people think they could easily do this in less than 3 years. Phase 2 could then be Cars land where the BLT was and LMA, a Muppets expansion, and finally Indy ride with maybe a couple of Marvel rides in the Echo Lake area.

No marvel...

 

[seascapemvy]

No marvel...

Marvel has lots of characters that Disney can use without the Marvel name. There is no debate over that. Universal has the rights to the Marvel name in Orlando theme parks but don't be surprised if some Marvel characters are used in WDW theme parks and in character dining in Disney Springs.