DW is the step sister?

[dawgsgirl]

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.

Seems like they are only spending money on what will make them money right now. Except for the FL expansion, which is sorta underwhelming, the parks are being ignored.

 

[asmit4]

Seems like they are only spending money on what will make them money right now. Except for the FL expansion, which is sorta underwhelming, the parks are being ignored.

YES, EXACTLY! and as a business- they are entitled to do whatever they want if they believe it will bring them more $$$. Since the parks are being largely ignored right now- it feels like the 'ugly stepsister syndrome' to me.

 

[disnut8]

My husband, age 54, and I, age 52, go to Disney World every three day weekend. This year, we will have been five times (we went for a week long trip in March because we had had enough of life and wanted a break). We take our time, don't usually visit Magic Kingdom, have ridden nearly every attraction, have stayed in most of the resorts but now usually are offsite. We have annual passes so do Magic Bands and like them.

I don't care if Disney builds any more attractions or changes anything. Why? As I said, we went for a week in March because life handed us some slaps in the face. Disney World is our escape from life. As many times as we have been (over 60), we find something different to do or see. Do the buildings change? Not usually, but the people and the experiences do. That is what we love about Disney World. Not riding the same thing over and over again, but experiencing things together without a care in the world.

Step sister? Hardly. Grand Poobah in our life.

 

[MakiraMarlena]

WDW is not where they are concentrating at this time, because they can afford to concentrate elsewhere right now.

It's not because Disney doesn't like WDW or wants to punish anyone who considers it their preferred vacation destination.

WDW is also not hurting for attendance right now.

 

[MakiraMarlena]

Uhm. Ratatouille? ?

French, but he does hang out with a guy named Alfredo Linguini.

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?

Not only that, but they have been besieged by guests demanding Frozen in the parks, to the extent that one little meet and greet with two princesses regularly saw guests willingly standing in 7 hour lines every single day until WDW made some adjustments to provide more space and access to that meet.

 

[wcurry66]

I was wondering why OP consider their wife to be their step sister..

 

[LynJ]

Someone commented that the parks have had nearly nothing new in 5 years.

I think people have a short memory. 7DMT opened 2 months ago. BOG and new fantasyland opened less than 2 years ago. They're redoing the hub to accommodate more people. Those are major changes in just one park. Star Wars weekends are a big draw, as is Food and Wine. And magic bands and FP+ are designed to help the crowds flow better.

It may not be the changes people are thinking of, but I don't think WDW is sitting on its laurels and not adapting. Yes, Harry Potter is big news at Universal. But even that has been 4 years in the planning. Nothing happens overnight. They have to plan and figure out how things fit in, both theme-wise and physically. Some of their changes (like Frozen) they need to react to on the fly, and overall, I think they are doing a pretty good job. (At least my 5 year old thinks so!)

 

[hakepb]

Someone commented that the parks have had nearly nothing new in 5 years.

I think people have a short memory. 7DMT opened 2 months ago. BOG and new fantasyland opened less than 2 years ago. They're redoing the hub to accommodate more people. Those are major changes in just one park. Star Wars weekends are a big draw, as is Food and Wine. And magic bands and FP+ are designed to help the crowds flow better.

It may not be the changes people are thinking of, but I don't think WDW is sitting on its laurels and not adapting. Yes, Harry Potter is big news at Universal. But even that has been 4 years in the planning. Nothing happens overnight. They have to plan and figure out how things fit in, both theme-wise and physically. Some of their changes (like Frozen) they need to react to on the fly, and overall, I think they are doing a pretty good job. (At least my 5 year old thinks so!)

Wasn't 7DMT thrown in at the last minute after someone finally had enough sense to realize the imagineers orginal Fantasyland plan was kinda....lame?

 

[L&Lfan]

Wasn't 7DMT thrown in at the last minute after someone finally had enough sense to realize the imagineers orginal Fantasyland plan was kinda....lame?

BINGO! The Seven Dwarfs Mine Train occupies the space planned originally for a Tremaine Chateau Cinderella Meet and Greet and a Woodcutter's Cottage Aurora Meet and Greet.

 

[MakiraMarlena]

Yes the New Fantasyland was originally supposed to be a large meet and greet area for princesses and fairies, and only Ariel got a ride (which was copied from California Adventure). Everyone else got a little show, a coloring session or dance lessons where they'd cycle in a bunch of kids, have them do something with the princess, then get some quick pics before bringing a new bunch in. Like ETWB is run right now.

 

[wilkeliza]

Yes the New Fantasyland was originally supposed to be a large meet and greet area for princesses and fairies, and only Ariel got a ride (which was copied from California Adventure). Everyone else got a little show, a coloring session or dance lessons where they'd cycle in a bunch of kids, have them do something with the princess, then get some quick pics before bringing a new bunch in. Like ETWB is run right now.

I got to see the plans for the Cinderella meet and greet in my Entertainment class on my CP. Man the plans were great and they had it ask worked out until they realized it would never work on a regular operating day. I think they found out they needed no less than 8 Cindys and upwords if 16 just for one operating day and they all had to look closer enough that kids wouldn't realize the quick change.

As cool as it was to hear about it nothing was as depressing as Tony Baxter telling use there are filling cabinets full of ride plans that will probably never make it past the plotting stage. He said some of them could be pulled out and built tomorrow.

 

[Mkrop]

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.

Then why do they build timeshares that encourage just that

 

[whiporee]

Then why do they build timeshares that encourage just that

Like I said, they are more than happy to take as many people who want to come. But those are a small part of the overall attendance of the park. What they need is the parents who think WDW will give their young kids wonderful and perpetual memories. They get those folks from all over the world.

I probably misspoke. Disney targets everyone, from newlyweds to the childless. But if they have to make a choice, they are going to focus on the kids. So if they have to decide between a mega coaster (or a "thrilling" ride of any sort) and the kind of thing that anyone over five could potentially ride, they are going to focus on the young kids.

That's why a ride like Gringots wouldn't appear at WDW, and why folks will be disappointed in Avatarland, or whatever the Mouse comes up with next. WDW isn't about flash or thrills -- it's about the developing and re-enforcing the comfort they've been building on for 80 years.

 

[wilkeliza]

Like I said, they are more than happy to take as many people who want to come. But those are a small part of the overall attendance of the park. What they need is the parents who think WDW will give their young kids wonderful and perpetual memories. They get those folks from all over the world.

I probably misspoke. Disney targets everyone, from newlyweds to the childless. But if they have to make a choice, they are going to focus on the kids. So if they have to decide between a mega coaster (or a "thrilling" ride of any sort) and the kind of thing that anyone over five could potentially ride, they are going to focus on the young kids.

That's why a ride like Gringots wouldn't appear at WDW, and why folks will be disappointed in Avatarland, or whatever the Mouse comes up with next. WDW isn't about flash or thrills -- it's about the developing and re-enforcing the comfort they've been building on for 80 years.

How then do you explain Rockin Roller Coaster which most 5 year olds can't ride? There is also Everest, BTMRrR, Space Mountain, and Test Track which the average 5 year old can't ride or is too scared to. It may not be nearly as many ad Universal but it still has coasters and thrill rides.

 

[Disfan1968]

Yeah, um, to say Disney is not concerned about serial repeat customers would not be true. I now have two little kids, a year apart, and at 3 and 4 they are entering the Disney zone. We will be heading to Florida at minimum every other year, with maybe an extra trip or two in there from ages 5-9.

So will Disney do its level best to make sure I come down on schedule and spend, spend, spend? Sure.

Will Disney still gladly and enthusiastically take money from the "super repeaters," those that come multiple times a year? Absolutely. Do super repeaters expect brand new things to see and do on a regular basis? I hope not. That's not practical.

Disney World is huuuuuuge. It does not really need to expand in a major way. What it needs is to constantly look at how they are using the space they are already using, figure out if they can use it better, and do just that. Close down old, dated attractions that people have lost interest in and re-purpose that space. Make small additions here and there when it makes sense (Fantasy Land and Avatar), but at all costs, keep the existing World of Disney fresh through reworking and re-imagining.