For $2 Billion Disney could have built 16 major attractions instead of fast pass+

[Davey Jones II]

Ok, I'll be honest... seeing that fact made me a little sick.

BUT... think about the one new ride that we did get this year: Seven Dwarfs. I consider it an instant classic. People have been yelling nonstop about how it's too short, how it's not thrilling enough, how the themeing sucks. So as much as I'd love new attractions, I have nightmares of hearing the complaining about SDMT multiplied 16 times over.

And where would all these rides go? Animal Kingdom is already getting a new area, so probably not there. Magic Kingdom is pretty much full as of now. Yeah, Future World could use a couple big rides, and maybe one new one in World Showcase (I guess we got this but at such a sad cost).

Could Hollywood Studios use like three or four big addictions? Yes. Definitely.

So 16 new attractions, as awesome as it sounds, could never happen. Unless they open a 5th gate which won't be happening for another couple centuries.

But I love that people sit around thinking up little facts like this about WDW. Full on fanatics!

A few of them could have gone into Disneyland Resort. And a few could have replaced Stitch, Monsters Inc. Laugh Floor (which is a cute show but expendable) and a few other attractions that don't really attract.

Actually, I would prefer, say, six or seven bona fide E Tickets instead of 16 new attractions. You can't really build a true E Ticket for $100 million anymore. Radiator Springs Racers reportedly cost between $200-300 million, and it was worth every penny for DLR. It's unbelievable what that one ride, as the lynchpin of Cars Land and the DCA expansion, has done for Disneyland's sister park. I talked to families who flew halfway around the world, from Australia and New Zealand, just because their sons are huge Cars fans.

Instead of building a slew of new attractions, I think they could focus on creating very few superstar E Tickets. And, quite frankly, it doesn't matter what they cost to build. Whatever it takes to make another RSR, just spend it and you'll get it all back, plus a lot more.

As for DHS, at least there were some hopeful signs this week: http://www.slashfilm.com/star-wars-theme-park-rides/

P.S.: We loved Mine Train and NFL.

 

[Robo]

And where would all these rides go?

If you mean where would the new rides physically sit?

Speaking as someone who knows a lot about the park properties from satellite angles,
I can tell you that there is plenty of physical room to add attractions to any of the current parks.

Yes, MK is "full" but so was Disneyland before they added Haunted Mansion, Splash Mtn. and more.
The creative use of space is a hallmark of WDW Imagineering.

 

[Suvadoo]

A few of them could have gone into Disneyland Resort. And a few could have replaced Stitch, Monsters Inc. Laugh Floor (which is a cute show but expendable) and a few other attractions that don't really attract.

Actually, I would prefer, say, six or seven bona fide E Tickets instead of 16 new attractions. You can't really build a true E Ticket for $100 million anymore. Radiator Springs Racers reportedly cost between $200-300 million, and it was worth every penny for DLR. It's unbelievable what that one ride, as the lynchpin of Cars Land and the DCA expansion, has done for Disneyland's sister park. I talked to families who flew halfway around the world, from Australia and New Zealand, just because their sons are huge Cars fans.

Instead of building a slew of new attractions, I think they could focus on creating very few superstar E Tickets. And, quite frankly, it doesn't matter what they cost to build. Whatever it takes to make another RSR, just spend it and you'll get it all back, plus a lot more.

As for DHS, at least there were some hopeful signs this week: http://www.slashfilm.com/star-wars-theme-park-rides/

P.S.: We loved Mine Train and NFL.

I agree with you on Radiator Springs, but I don't think it's the ride itself that's so impressive, it's Ornament Valley. Those mountains are spectacular, and they provide a backdrop for the whole Carsland area. I am amazed by the way the artists painted the mountains using a soft focus higher up to give the impression of distance. I especially love the walk from Paradise Pier over to Carsland. WOW.

 

[Davey Jones II]

I agree with you on Radiator Springs, but I don't think it's the ride itself that's so impressive, it's Ornament Valley. Those mountains are spectacular, and they provide a backdrop for the whole Carsland area. I am amazed by the way the artists painted the mountains using a soft focus higher up to give the impression of distance. I especially love the walk from Paradise Pier over to Carsland. WOW.

I believe that the $200-300 million figure also includes that impressive rock work. Ornament Valley certainly is an integral part of both Cars Land and RSR.

 

[fbb]

If you mean where would the new rides physically sit?

Speaking as someone who knows a lot about the park properties from satellite angles,
I can tell you that there is plenty of physical room to add attractions to any of the current parks.

Yes, MK is "full" but so was Disneyland before they added Haunted Mansion, Splash Mtn. and more.
The creative use of space is a hallmark of WDW Imagineering.

They would also replace old rides.

 

[Callie]

That "discrete system" is already running at the current MK M&Gs.

The question is, why don't they add even MORE to that behind the scenes "system" to allow more guests to meet per hour/per day?

Again...

WHY don't they work on improving CAPACITY when they already KNOW how to make that work?

How are they doing this? Do they have an extra spare room in the back and rotate the line between both?

 

[mom2rtk]

How are they doing this? Do they have an extra spare room in the back and rotate the line between both?

Pretty much. They have been doing that since the old Toontown days.

 

[Robo]

How are they doing this? Do they have an extra spare room in the back and rotate the line between both?

It's far from being an "extra spare room."

The system for multiple virtually simultaneous "presentations" is designed into
and is part of the attractions from the very beginning of their design (in this case, a Meet & Greet.)

Disney could (if they wanted to) have 4, 6, even 10 or more "presentations" going on at the same time with slightly staggered guest entrance times. This could (and does) slice into bits the long tedious lines for popular attractions.
But, they have not built-in enough of the "multi-presenations"
to handle the unprecedented demand on certain attractions (as with the Frozen gals.)

Mosts guests (nearly all) would not know in the slightest that their personal experience was
only one of two (or more) that were going on virtually at the same time.

 

[mickeyluv'r]

I have to agree with this. We'd use one FP and in the interim until we could use the next one, the alternative was to stand around and wait or do something else. So we'd try to find something with the shortest SB wait time but even then while standing in line we found ourselves constantly checking the time and making sure we wouldn't miss our next FP.

In the end it seemed simply ridiculous to have to place so much emphasis on a reservation for a 90 second event.

AGREED!

The one tiny thing we found to help was that we PLANNED on using our first FP at the END of the one hour window, that made our wait to use our 2nd FP minimal. We just had to kill an hour before we could use our third FP.
It still makes sense to use the third FP at the start of your time slot- because then you can get your 4th FP sooner. Then , the middle FP should be something slow like TT, Soarin' or Space Mtn. (reverse that, if you are going to do any of the slow rides via FP, it should be #1 or #2) Where your third FP should be something quick- and maybe near a kiosk.

Or maybe I'm thinking too much!

 

[MrInfinity]

But the market for those types of thrill rides is apparently large enough to support upwards of a dozen parks across the country, each of them bigger than MK.

It's not that so many exist because the demand is so high that they keep building more... but rather, demand for such rides only extends about 100 miles. So near Chicago, you'll have one. People in Chicago and Milwaukee will go. But it does not attract people from Europe, or even vacationers from South Carolina. Thus, you get these theme type parks showing up all over the country because their pull of customers is limited by how far ppl are willing to go for a thrill park, and for most ppl, that's not very far..

It's also a factor of the audience. Their primary audience is teens, and teens are poor, will only drive so far, and will only spend so much. So you put the parks in close enough to where the teens will go, to where the parents will drop them off and pick them up, or you put in just enough little kid rides to get parents to bother going w the fam once in a while.

So what if Disney had taken that money and DID open a 5th gate, a thrill-ride park, a "Thrill Kingdom" to satisfy that segment of the market?

Would be wonderful. But won't happen. See above 2 paragraphs. This segment of the market is a bottom-feeder strategy, that is, its target audience is the least profitable customer of all -- the teen. The teen who does not have $5000 to spend on a vacation, who does not want to buy souvenirs, who would be happy eating only the cheapest of food, and who just wants to ride rides.

Before you tell me what a horrible idea that is and "But that's not Disney!" - okay, but people probably thought they'd never see a Richard Petty race track with race cars or Downtown Disney

The race track and downtown Disney both fit the Disney model. The race track provides an off-park thing for adults to do. Bring the kids for the rides, have adult stuff for the parents, and you nail that most profitable market of "Kids 6-9 and the parents thereof" which are willing and able to drop $5k on a vacation. Downtown Disney is the same thing. Bring the families, get them places to shop and eat, because these families will happily drop $100 on a meal at T-Rex. Whereas a group of four 15-year-olds would not. They would sooner grab the bare minimum counter food.

It could have possibly satisfied a hunger in a considerable portion of the market for "more to do" while preserving the nostalgic factor of existing parks.

The "hunger" doesn't matter, if people want something that just would not make sense to build. If you already have the most profitable customers, you focus on those and the value you bring to the families, not try to get the bottom-feeder low-profit teen crowd. This is why SDMT is a kid-friendly roller coaster, why the new show targets young children and their parents who will watch their kids being adorable, and Mermaid hits the 6-9 demographic perfectly. Even tho it's more of what they already did awesomely, that is their bread and butter.

Yes some adults like coasters... I'm one. But they go to Disney World to vacation w their kids, not to fill their own coaster-fix. I'm happy that Disney focuses on coasters that I can ride w my kids, not things just for me. I can go to Six Flags any time for a tiny fraction of the cost when I want thrill rides.

 

[Laketravis]

Pretty much any attraction at WDW that could be considered "thrill" (by Disney standards) enjoys a high demand:

Rock n' Roller Coaster
Tower of Terror
Test Track
Space Mountain
Big Thunder Mountain
Expedition Everest

If your reasoning were correct, there wouldn't be chronically long standby lines at WDW for any of these.

It's not that so many exist because the demand is so high that they keep building more... but rather, demand for such rides only extends about 100 miles. So near Chicago, you'll have one. People in Chicago and Milwaukee will go. But it does not attract people from Europe, or even vacationers from South Carolina. Thus, you get these theme type parks showing up all over the country because their pull of customers is limited by how far ppl are willing to go for a thrill park, and for most ppl, that's not very far..

It's also a factor of the audience. Their primary audience is teens, and teens are poor, will only drive so far, and will only spend so much. So you put the parks in close enough to where the teens will go, to where the parents will drop them off and pick them up, or you put in just enough little kid rides to get parents to bother going w the fam once in a while.

Would be wonderful. But won't happen. See above 2 paragraphs. This segment of the market is a bottom-feeder strategy, that is, its target audience is the least profitable customer of all -- the teen. The teen who does not have $5000 to spend on a vacation, who does not want to buy souvenirs, who would be happy eating only the cheapest of food, and who just wants to ride rides.

The race track and downtown Disney both fit the Disney model. The race track provides an off-park thing for adults to do. Bring the kids for the rides, have adult stuff for the parents, and you nail that most profitable market of "Kids 6-9 and the parents thereof" which are willing and able to drop $5k on a vacation. Downtown Disney is the same thing. Bring the families, get them places to shop and eat, because these families will happily drop $100 on a meal at T-Rex. Whereas a group of four 15-year-olds would not. They would sooner grab the bare minimum counter food.

The "hunger" doesn't matter, if people want something that just would not make sense to build. If you already have the most profitable customers, you focus on those and the value you bring to the families, not try to get the bottom-feeder low-profit teen crowd. This is why SDMT is a kid-friendly roller coaster, why the new show targets young children and their parents who will watch their kids being adorable, and Mermaid hits the 6-9 demographic perfectly. Even tho it's more of what they already did awesomely, that is their bread and butter.

Yes some adults like coasters... I'm one. But they go to Disney World to vacation w their kids, not to fill their own coaster-fix. I'm happy that Disney focuses on coasters that I can ride w my kids, not things just for me. I can go to Six Flags any time for a tiny fraction of the cost when I want thrill rides.

 

[MrInfinity]

Pretty much any attraction at WDW that could be considered "thrill" (by Disney standards) enjoys a high demand:

Rock n' Roller Coaster
Tower of Terror
Test Track
Space Mountain
Big Thunder Mountain
Expedition Everest

If your reasoning were correct, there wouldn't be chronically long standby lines at WDW for any of these.

These are certainly all "moderate thrill" and kid-appropriate. My DD5 rode all of them save for RR for which she didn't make the 48". The demand is high because they are a hybrid! They are a thrill ride, but also one that can be done with one's kids.

 

[Hokie2000]

These are certainly all "moderate thrill" and kid-appropriate. My DD5 rode all of them save for RR for which she didn't make the 48". The demand is high because they are a hybrid! They are a thrill ride, but also one that can be done with one's kids.

This! All three of my kids (9,7,5) can ride all of these except for RnRC. 40" is a very short height restriction, allowing small children to ride w/ the family instead of being sidelined. And, if kids aren't tall enough, they can still experience the majority of rides.

 

[Davey Jones II]

These are certainly all "moderate thrill" and kid-appropriate. My DD5 rode all of them save for RR for which she didn't make the 48". The demand is high because they are a hybrid! They are a thrill ride, but also one that can be done with one's kids.

Disney will never build a Six Flags style coaster park.

I don't like to make predictions, but I feel pretty confident about this one. It's just not their market.

 

[Laketravis]

Then I suppose something like this would never fly at WDW.

Call this something Disney instead of "Batman"

Even though it has a small footprint, similar height allowance as RnRC, only cost $12M to build, and could be completely housed within a themed pavilion with 360 degree screens for added effect (not a dark ride, think Soarin on steroids) for perhaps another $20M. Still a fraction of the cost of the 7DMT kiddie coaster, but you don't think there would be any demand for it at WDW?

 

[MrInfinity]

Then I suppose something like this would never fly at WDW.

Call this something Disney instead of "Batman"

Even though it has a small footprint, similar height allowance as RnRC, only cost $12M to build, and could be completely housed within a themed pavilion with 360 degree screens for added effect (not a dark ride) for perhaps another $20M. Still a fraction of the cost of the 7DMT kiddie coaster, but you don't think there would be any demand for it at WDW?

Pretty cool.

Let's see what Star Wars brings to DHS. I think that is... our only hope.

I think we'll see something really cool and innovative there.

 

[cmwade77]

Just for shiggles, where would you have put these 16 major attractions?

Oh, the possibilities are endless....the old Wonders of Life Pavillion could house a few. World Show Case could actually house many more attractions. There is a ton of empty land in Magic Kingdom. Hollywood Studios needs a lot more attractions and you could quite easily fit them in the land they have. They could even build a parking structure there and use part of the parking lot, if necessary. Animal Kingdom has a lot of room for expansion as well.

And yes, I would probably give each of the parks some new attractions.

 

[Suvadoo]

Pretty cool.

Let's see what Star Wars brings to DHS. I think that is... our only hope.

I think we'll see something really cool and innovative there.

I thought Star Wars was just a rumor. Has something been announced or is this just wishful thinking?

 

[Reddog1134]

I thought Star Wars was just a rumor. Has something been announced or is this just wishful thinking?

It's halfway between a rumor and an announcement.

It's been said is that Star Wars will have a strong presence in the parks but no official announcement as to what's actually coming has been made.

 

[eliza61]

But the goal was never an enhanced guest experience.

LOL haven't read all these pages but Gumbo, you pretty much summed it up nicely.