DW is the step sister?

[asmit4]

Anyone else feel like DW has become the 'stepsister' of all the parks? I keep hearing about all of these truly wonderful groundbreaking family attractions at other Disney parks and what do we get? ...head to the rumors board and the word is -----a revamp of TSM to be longer to accommodate more people, a 3rd screen for Soarin to accommodate more people and a revamp of Maelstrom to become 'Frozen'....REALLY?! As soon as my son hits thrill seeker mode around 9 or so- I doubt we will be back.

Where is our crush coaster? Where is our italian food rat ride (can't spell it LOL)....or our totally awesome tracked Winnie the Pooh?!

 

[Disfan1968]

Well I don't know 'bout all that but I am going to guess all those step sisters out there are re-evaluating their positions within their families.

 

[asmit4]

Well I don't know 'bout all that but I am going to guess all those step sisters out there are re-evaluating their positions within their families.

Oh goodness! I AM a stepsister! LOL! We have just always used that phrase- 'the ugly stepsister' LOL!

 

[Jennasis]

Anyone else feel like DW has become the 'stepsister' of all the parks? I keep hearing about all of these truly wonderful groundbreaking family attractions at other Disney parks and what do we get? ...head to the rumors board and the word is -----a revamp of TSM to be longer to accommodate more people, a 3rd screen for Soarin to accommodate more people and a revamp of Maelstrom to become 'Frozen'....REALLY?! As soon as my son hits thrill seeker mode around 9 or so- I doubt we will be back.

Where is our crush coaster? Where is our italian food rat ride (can't spell it LOL)....or our totally awesome tracked Winnie the Pooh?!

Italian food rat ride?? It's French

 

[Alice Royal]

Anyone else feel like DW has become the 'stepsister' of all the parks? I keep hearing about all of these truly wonderful groundbreaking family attractions at other Disney parks and what do we get? ...head to the rumors board and the word is -----a revamp of TSM to be longer to accommodate more people, a 3rd screen for Soarin to accommodate more people and a revamp of Maelstrom to become 'Frozen'....REALLY?! As soon as my son hits thrill seeker mode around 9 or so- I doubt we will be back.

Where is our crush coaster? Where is our italian food rat ride (can't spell it LOL)....or our totally awesome tracked Winnie the Pooh?!

All three of the things you mentioned are still no more than rumors. Just saying.

 

[wilkeliza]

The rides you mentioned are at parks that aren't actually funded by Disney. If Disney started pumping unlimited money back into the parks we would get that cool stuff but budget prevails here.

Most of the time the foreign parks investors give Disney a blank check and say do it make it happen. Here the bean counters go oh what an awesome idea now do it for only x amount of money and then things get sacrificed for budget.

 

[asmit4]

The rides you mentioned are at parks that aren't actually funded by Disney. If Disney started pumping unlimited money back into the parks we would get that cool stuff but budget prevails here.

Most of the time the foreign parks investors give Disney a blank check and say do it make it happen. Here the bean counters go oh what an awesome idea now do it for only x amount of money and then things get sacrificed for budget.

Ahhh...yes...the american way! Thanks- this really does explain a lot.

and yes- my bad. Haven't seen the italian....errr....French rat movie since it was in the theater. Forgot it was French.

 

[whiporee]

I think you're missing the point of WDW. It's not for people here, who come back and back and back. WDW focuses on one-time or once-every-few-years experiences. It doesn't need to update its rides or attractions because it's got a constant and perpetually renewing base -- families with young children. That's the focus of WDW, it's why everything from the few new rides that have popped up to the emphasis on characters and even princesses has been abut keeping the little kids entertained, and giving parents of those young kids a place to go where they can feel safe and feel as though the kids will have big-eyed fun for a week.

I'm not saying they don't want the older kid or the kid free couples or even the Spring Breakers. They want them all. But, if WDW has the choice between tailoring experiences toward 4-10 year olds and tailoring toward anything else, they are going to choose the young kids because they are the Disney's version of a renewable resource. Every year more of them come along.

That's why I find this whole conversant about WDW vs. USF or that there ought to be better coasters or more rides or whatever fascinating, because people get frustrated at WDW for not focusing on different demographics and not understanding that WDW clearly has no intention of it. There are just enough thrill rides to keep older brothers and sisters from getting bored, but those kids are not the demographic they need, any more than those folks who come kid-free. Why else would Disney spend whatever they spent and four years making a ride based on an 80-year-old movie -- because they know that parents will plot Snow White into the DVD player in the car with the understanding it is a safe film for their kids to see. No one shows Harry Potter to four year olds to get them indoctrinated, but people do it with almost the entire Disney animated library.

So WDW isn't being a evil stepsister in any of this -- they are remaining very true to their mission, which is to make money while giving families with young children a place to go where their kids will be wide-eyed most of the time their are there. If they pick up others along the way, that's great. But every year, a new crop of kids turns four, and WDW figures they've got a shot at them for the next six years. Anything in addition to that is gravy.

 

[asmit4]

My comment wasn't about Universal- it was directed mainly at comparing what Disney in FL gets vs. what Disney in other parts of the world get. 2 of the 3 rides I mentioned are flat rides that have no height req (ratatouille) and Winnie the pooh. I am betting that the crush coaster is a very low height req. too.

I'm not asking for Universal type coasters---but it seems to me that Disney in FL hasn't really gotten that much in the past 5 years while other Disney properties around the world are booming.

It seems they spent all their money on magicbands- and while that may pan out for them--DIsney florida won't continue to get my $$ if they don't innovate like they have in other Disney parks around the world.

As another poster stated- it seems Disney Florida has major budget constraints while Disney in other locations has a blank check. That is unfortunate.

 

[wilkeliza]

I think you're missing the point of WDW. It's not for people here, who come back and back and back. WDW focuses on one-time or once-every-few-years experiences. It doesn't need to update its rides or attractions because it's got a constant and perpetually renewing base -- families with young children. That's the focus of WDW, it's why everything from the few new rides that have popped up to the emphasis on characters and even princesses has been abut keeping the little kids entertained, and giving parents of those young kids a place to go where they can feel safe and feel as though the kids will have big-eyed fun for a week.

I'm not saying they don't want the older kid or the kid free couples or even the Spring Breakers. They want them all. But, if WDW has the choice between tailoring experiences toward 4-10 year olds and tailoring toward anything else, they are going to choose the young kids because they are the Disney's version of a renewable resource. Every year more of them come along.

That's why I find this whole conversant about WDW vs. USF or that there ought to be better coasters or more rides or whatever fascinating, because people get frustrated at WDW for not focusing on different demographics and not understanding that WDW clearly has no intention of it. There are just enough thrill rides to keep older brothers and sisters from getting bored, but those kids are not the demographic they need, any more than those folks who come kid-free. Why else would Disney spend whatever they spent and four years making a ride based on an 80-year-old movie -- because they know that parents will plot Snow White into the DVD player in the car with the understanding it is a safe film for their kids to see. No one shows Harry Potter to four year olds to get them indoctrinated, but people do it with almost the entire Disney animated library.

So WDW isn't being a evil stepsister in any of this -- they are remaining very true to their mission, which is to make money while giving families with young children a place to go where their kids will be wide-eyed most of the time their are there. If they pick up others along the way, that's great. But every year, a new crop of kids turns four, and WDW figures they've got a shot at them for the next six years. Anything in addition to that is gravy.

I would agree with that statement if every commercial had 4 year olds in it. However, you more and more see Disney World commercials have families of all generations and more than not a child who is roughly 10 who is old enough to experience everything.

Last year they even had commercials of couples with no children, parents of older kids and the entire family from grandma on down to the kids. I don't actually remember seeing a single commercial of a the 4-6 crowd in the picture.

Disney wants everyone. Really only Fantasyland at MK is slated for the babies to 10 year old crowd the rest of the parks is meant for all ages. If that wasn't the case how do you explain Food and Wine or Flower and Garden?

 

[dae3dae3]

I just think is is funny when people are shocked Frozen is being incorporated into the parks. It is the most successful animated film of all time Why is this so surprising?

 

[BudgieMama]

I would agree with that statement if every commercial had 4 year olds in it. However, you more and more see Disney World commercials have families of all generations and more than not a child who is roughly 10 who is old enough to experience everything.

Interestingly, the one of the major adverts for WDW shown in the UK last year focused on "you and your teenage daughter..." (I found a link, so you can have a look if you want)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7URd2T8dlA

Definitely aiming at more than just the littlies, or at least when they're asking people to hop the pond to visit!

 

[surferdave]

In business jargon, Disney is treating the Walt Disney World theme parks as a Cash Cow. All the money for growth at WDW is going into glorified timeshares and strip malls.

Some people acknowledge the distinction and some don't which is why we get endless arguments of "Disney won't give us cool new major attractions at WDW like they're getting everywhere else!" and "yes they are, just look at what they're doing at the new DVCs and Downtown Disney!"

 

[Disfan1968]

Just curious, how big is is Avatar Land expected be at this point? I think I read they scaled it back some from its original design, but that it's still supposed to be pretty "cool." We don't have much detail on it yet, correct? Such as new rides, shows, etc?

This is the biggest thing Disney World has in the pipeline, and I am guessing they'll announce some concrete Star Wars stuff over the next year as the movies start to take shape.

 

[Mickey28]

Think about the money that has been spent at WDW lately. Two new DVC resorts and a third being built now on the monorail resorts. We go to WDW at least once a year, but the DVC is just not a good investment. However, with the rate they are building them it is obvious they are selling or they wouldn't build them. $1 Billion and counting on MB and FP+ and then there is the new FL expansion. Add in the the Downtown Disney overhaul and it's not that they are not spending money in WDW it's just not what we would want them to spend it on. So you can probably bet it will be a while before any major attractions will be built at any of the other parks other than the Pandora project at AK. Which I have heard they have already started cutting that back in scope and scale due to budget concerns.

 

[wilkeliza]

Just curious, how big is is Avatar Land expected be at this point? I think I read they scaled it back some from its original design, but that it's still supposed to be pretty "cool." We don't have much detail on it yet, correct? Such as new rides, shows, etc?

This is the biggest thing Disney World has in the pipeline, and I am guessing they'll announce some concrete Star Wars stuff over the next year as the movies start to take shape.

Avatar is taking all of camp mickey and minnie and that surrounding area. Some people assume it was cut for budgeting sake because it was rummored to be taking over Rafiki's Planet Watch. It was determined that area could not be changed due to the capacity of the trains and the very hospital so it was taken odd the table very very early on.

I expect big announcements to be made next August at D23.

 

[tjevans]

The rides you mentioned are at parks that aren't actually funded by Disney. If Disney started pumping unlimited money back into the parks we would get that cool stuff but budget prevails here.

Most of the time the foreign parks investors give Disney a blank check and say do it make it happen. Here the bean counters go oh what an awesome idea now do it for only x amount of money and then things get sacrificed for budget.

Additionally, it is my understanding that the contracts that those other Disney-branded parks have with imagineering is that those parks would have an exclusive on the new rides for x number of years.

Even then, part of the problem is, as in any huge corporation, business units have their own budgets and bill each other for work done for another business unit. So, while a new attraction at WDW may increase the entire Disney corporation's profits (slightly), what matters is the WDW business unit has to pay the imagineering business unit for the development of it. So, even if the ride isn't exclusive to another park, a bean counter has to be convinced that it will pay for itself within so many months for it to be justified. Until then, the costs of it are a liability to the WDW business unit.

 

[MrInfinity]

I think you're missing the point of WDW. It's not for people here, who come back and back and back. WDW focuses on one-time or once-every-few-years experiences. It doesn't need to update its rides or attractions because it's got a constant and perpetually renewing base -- families with young children. That's the focus of WDW, it's why everything from the few new rides that have popped up to the emphasis on characters and even princesses has been abut keeping the little kids entertained, and giving parents of those young kids a place to go where they can feel safe and feel as though the kids will have big-eyed fun for a week.

I'm not saying they don't want the older kid or the kid free couples or even the Spring Breakers. They want them all. But, if WDW has the choice between tailoring experiences toward 4-10 year olds and tailoring toward anything else, they are going to choose the young kids because they are the Disney's version of a renewable resource. Every year more of them come along.

That's why I find this whole conversant about WDW vs. USF or that there ought to be better coasters or more rides or whatever fascinating, because people get frustrated at WDW for not focusing on different demographics and not understanding that WDW clearly has no intention of it. There are just enough thrill rides to keep older brothers and sisters from getting bored, but those kids are not the demographic they need, any more than those folks who come kid-free. Why else would Disney spend whatever they spent and four years making a ride based on an 80-year-old movie -- because they know that parents will plot Snow White into the DVD player in the car with the understanding it is a safe film for their kids to see. No one shows Harry Potter to four year olds to get them indoctrinated, but people do it with almost the entire Disney animated library.

So WDW isn't being a evil stepsister in any of this -- they are remaining very true to their mission, which is to make money while giving families with young children a place to go where their kids will be wide-eyed most of the time their are there. If they pick up others along the way, that's great. But every year, a new crop of kids turns four, and WDW figures they've got a shot at them for the next six years. Anything in addition to that is gravy.

Yep, agreed. Disney Paris is a 1-day park. Tokyo is a 2-day park. Great places to visit ~on a trip to Paris or Tokyo~ but Disney World is different, it is *the* place that ppl go to. It is the #1 tourist destination in the world, and ppl come from the world over just to experience it -- while staying for 1-2 weeks, not 1-2 days. It doesn't have to change often, because it is already great. Even everything Uni or Six Flags does to add this or that ride does not even tap that "families going on extended vacations with their children ages 3-9" crowd which is the prime money-maker crowd.

Disney is doing it right with Disney World. It's different from DL, DP, or TDL, but not the stepsister. It is the flagship.

Why would anyone expect a resort that is packed to the walls to be adding attractions to covet some other less profitable demographic? That would be a waste of money. To further increase revenue, they need to find ways to move ppl faster thru the parks, onto the rides, and out of the parks, which FP+ does wonderfully. And then the rides they do add complement the crowds they're going after... that's why no mega-coaster has ever gone there.

 

[snowweisz]

Where is our italian food rat ride (can't spell it LOL)....

His name is Remy and he's French.
Don't know why anyone complains about missing something they don't even care about.

 

[DizDaD7]

Ahhh...yes...the american way! Thanks- this really does explain a lot.

and yes- my bad. Haven't seen the italian....errr....French rat movie since it was in the theater. Forgot it was French.

Uhm. Ratatouille? ?