Interesting read on 20 new things coming to WDW by 2017

[mvk]

I agree that there really isn't a WDW parallel for DCA but many would say DHS because it has the lowest of the four parks attendance and it's just not as good as it used to be. I think DHS could really benefit from a DCA style make over but I don't necessarily think it needs it. What it does need tho is something large and new like Star Wars land or something.

DHS is missing a couple of things. First and foremost, they need an e-ticket style on the east side of the park. Hopefully this will be addressed with a Star Wars expansion, and it will be a bit of a thrill ride. A lot of the traffic is concentrated on Sunset and in Pixar Place, have to get the crowds over to the other side more.

Secondly, they need more attractions for the entire family. Tower of Terror, Rock n Roller Coaster, and Star Tours are all height restricted to at least 40" or more. They would do well to add some sort of spinner type to a Star Wars expansion.

Third, they need to figure out what they want the backlot (south side of the park) to be. I think they could do better than the Backlot Tour and LMA, but that is a pretty big area that would cost a ton of money to reconfigure and retheme.

Finally, another dark ride would do well there I think, maybe something with Pixar back in Pixar Place or the Muppets near MuppetVision.

The biggest thing would be the Star Wars expansion. Get that in, and then you can address the backlot afterwards (or kill two birds with one stone if you use that area as the expansion plot).

 

[ChipnDale79]

DHS is missing a couple of things. First and foremost, they need an e-ticket style on the east side of the park. Hopefully this will be addressed with a Star Wars expansion, and it will be a bit of a thrill ride. A lot of the traffic is concentrated on Sunset and in Pixar Place, have to get the crowds over to the other side more.

Secondly, they need more attractions for the entire family. Tower of Terror, Rock n Roller Coaster, and Star Tours are all height restricted to at least 40" or more. They would do well to add some sort of spinner type to a Star Wars expansion.

Third, they need to figure out what they want the backlot (south side of the park) to be. I think they could do better than the Backlot Tour and LMA, but that is a pretty big area that would cost a ton of money to reconfigure and retheme.

Finally, another dark ride would do well there I think, maybe something with Pixar back in Pixar Place or the Muppets near MuppetVision.

The biggest thing would be the Star Wars expansion. Get that in, and then you can address the backlot afterwards (or kill two birds with one stone if you use that area as the expansion plot).

I agree with everything you've said here, I've got an idea for the Streets of America area.

I've always wanted to spend more time in DHS at night for some reason, and to be honest with you we always leave for dinner somewhere else. Id love to see Streets of America turned into a "shopping/dinning area", something very similar to World Showcase in Epcot, something that people could relax, have some dinner, and a few drinks.

Of course the rides need to come first IMO, the addition of Star Wars to DHS would really help this park a lot.

 

[mvk]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, NextGen doesnt get me in the car and drive to Disney, in fact its come close to keeping me away. Don't get me wrong, I really really like a lot of the aspects of it, but when I've had to deal with issues after issues, it really made us consider staying home. In fact it took a call from Guest Relations to keep our reservations.

New attractions get me in the car and on the road to Disney.

I have a different opinion than you do on Iger and the future of WDW, that could very well change if he green lights Star Wars at DHS.

That doesn't mean they aren't spending money, though. And it certainly doesn't mean they aren't looking at the long term. This is the quintessential long-term project. It's a drag on the financials in the short-term, which is the opposite of the point you tried to make earlier, which was that they weren't doing anything so the financials look better.

If all he cared about was the short term impact on the balance sheet, he would've done a quick expansion to get an attendance bump like at IOA. The stuff he has green lit lately (past 3-5 years) will be to the benefit of his successor.

 

[rteetz]

DHS is missing a couple of things. First and foremost, they need an e-ticket style on the east side of the park. Hopefully this will be addressed with a Star Wars expansion, and it will be a bit of a thrill ride. A lot of the traffic is concentrated on Sunset and in Pixar Place, have to get the crowds over to the other side more. Secondly, they need more attractions for the entire family. Tower of Terror, Rock n Roller Coaster, and Star Tours are all height restricted to at least 40" or more. They would do well to add some sort of spinner type to a Star Wars expansion. Third, they need to figure out what they want the backlot (south side of the park) to be. I think they could do better than the Backlot Tour and LMA, but that is a pretty big area that would cost a ton of money to reconfigure and retheme. Finally, another dark ride would do well there I think, maybe something with Pixar back in Pixar Place or the Muppets near MuppetVision. The biggest thing would be the Star Wars expansion. Get that in, and then you can address the backlot afterwards (or kill two birds with one stone if you use that area as the expansion plot).

I agree the backlot is a dead zone they should just demolish it all and do something new with it. And yes DHS needs more for the entire family. Pixar place is just toy story mania they should expand on that and add more Pixar it's such a successful brand. Muppets would also be a good thing to expand on.

 

[mvk]

I agree with everything you've said here, I've got an idea for the Streets of America area.

I've always wanted to spend more time in DHS at night for some reason, and to be honest with you we always leave for dinner somewhere else. Id love to see Streets of America turned into a "shopping/dinning area", something very similar to World Showcase in Epcot, something that people could relax, have some dinner, and a few drinks.

Of course the rides need to come first IMO, the addition of Star Wars to DHS would really help this park a lot.

That is an interesting idea, somewhat of an "American Showcase" or something.

NY style Deli
New Orleans Jazz Lounge
Memphis Blues & BBQ
Maryland Crabhouse
Pizzeria with the different styles
Texas Steakhouse
Southwest Tex-Mex Style
Asian Fusion

I'm sure there are other ideas that would work too.

Keep it in a street grid style and looking like a movie backdrop if possible.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

It's about to bite them back.

I have two groups of relatives who have trekked to WDW in the last few months.

The first group was large, a couple of dozen people. They had a horrendously difficult experience at ASM and a number of bad times in restaurants and the parks. None of them plan to ever return - the consensus was "well, we saw it, it's one of those things you want to see, but never again".

The second group was a family with 4 and 5 year olds - PRIME disney target for repeat guests for the next 4-6 years, as long as they were pleased. And they weren't, they felt that the resort room was extremely overpriced for what it was. They tried the DDP and also felt their money was largely wasted. And so on. Their little kids want to go back sometime but the parents do not ever want to go back to Disney again. This family has a history of vacationing in many other places so I doubt they will return to WDW ever.

We have been hard-core repeat visitors (coming from out of state no less, it's not a little or inexpensive trip for us) and we just made our final visit last week. Our APs expire in May. Disney has crossed the "price is too high for the diminishing value" Rubicon for us.

I don't doubt your story...

But you have to admit that it's anecdotal and far from the majority

 

[tfc3rid]

I'd rather have Disney create quality attractions with new technology that are not necessarily linked to a Disney movie property... Take, for example, Mystic Manor in HKDL... It actually harkens back to that time when Disney attractions did not have to have Jack Sparrow or Stitch or Mike Wazowski...

A creatively done attraction with fun technology and excellent themeing are what draws people in... Park expansion and new offerings draw as well... See the standby lines as a result of FP+... If new attractions existed, those lines would not be as long and folks would not be as negative about things as they are.

If Comcast/Universal decide to up the ante, I am all for it... Universal Creative has been doing a phenomenal job lately of creating themed environments that appeal to many and they have been doing to rather quickly. If I am TDO, I like the challenge and I'll gladly accept.

 

[rteetz]

I'd rather have Disney create quality attractions with new technology that are not necessarily linked to a Disney movie property... Take, for example, Mystic Manor in HKDL... It actually harkens back to that time when Disney attractions did not have to have Jack Sparrow or Stitch or Mike Wazowski... A creatively done attraction with fun technology and excellent themeing are what draws people in... Park expansion and new offerings draw as well... See the standby lines as a result of FP+... If new attractions existed, those lines would not be as long and folks would not be as negative about things as they are. If Comcast/Universal decide to up the ante, I am all for it... Universal Creative has been doing a phenomenal job lately of creating themed environments that appeal to many and they have been doing to rather quickly. If I am TDO, I like the challenge and I'll gladly accept.

I agree Disney should go back to the days of HM, JC, etc. mystic manor is a perfect example that Disney can still be creative. You mention universal they are doing great things but everything they do revolves around a movie tie in nothing is unique. The only terrible movie tie in I think Disney has is stitch I just don't get the point of that "attraction" it's just bad.

 

[LaidBackDad]

I have to admit the “Well, Disney is still making record profits, they must know what they are doing” philosophy annoys me. Profits are not the sole indicator of solid business. The real question is what is the proper ratio between capital expenditures versus profits? If for some unfathomable reason, Disney decided to get out of the theme park business and sold all of its parks and assets it would post astronomic profits for that period. The business would just cease to exist then. One only needs to travel to WDW by car and pay attention to our nations crumbling interstate system to see what the effects are of failing to maintain capital expenditures levels. I believe it is obvious that there are more than a few areas of WDW that need to be updated and guests are not receiving the same value for their money than they once received. One cannot argue that Disney is not making capital investments in WDW. The real question is; Are they enough? If you ask me, my opinion is Disney is leaning too far towards the profits spectrum. I personally, like my experience with MDE. With even that said, I may not be giving Disney enough credit for the valuable data they will receive for years to come. It may be that after MDE is fully implemented, Disney will again shift its focus to more tangible and visible expenditures like new attractions and updating the parks. That seems to be the case as evidenced by Avatarland and stronger rumors like Star Wars Land. I can only hope this list of 20 will expand in the next few years.

 

[wallrock]

I have to admit the “Well, Disney is still making record profits, they must know what they are doing” philosophy annoys me. Profits are not the sole indicator of solid business. The real question is what is the proper ratio between capital expenditures versus profits? If for some unfathomable reason, Disney decided to get out of the theme park business and sold all of its parks and assets it would post astronomic profits for that period. The business would just cease to exist then. One only needs to travel to WDW by car and pay attention to our nations crumbling interstate system to see what the effects are of failing to maintain capital expenditures levels. I believe it is obvious that there are more than a few areas of WDW that need to be updated and guests are not receiving the same value for their money than they once received. One cannot argue that Disney is not making capital investments in WDW. The real question is; Are they enough? If you ask me, my opinion is Disney is leaning too far towards the profits spectrum. I personally, like my experience with MDE. With even that said, I may not be giving Disney enough credit for the valuable data they will receive for years to come. It may be that after MDE is fully implemented, Disney will again shift its focus to more tangible and visible expenditures like new attractions and updating the parks. That seems to be the case as evidenced by Avatarland and stronger rumors like Star Wars Land. I can only hope this list of 20 will expand in the next few years.

Avoiding cosmetic maintenance, having a large portion of your cast members in the college program and avoiding high cost/maintenance attractions (meet and greets are cheap and people apparently love them, plus taking three years to build said attractions) are ways of reducing your capital expenditures. Conversely profits are going up due to allowing more people into the parks, increasing their prices every six months and finding ways to bring new charges to existing services (the after hours wind down in Epcot is absurd in my opinion – that used to be called ‘extra magic hours’. Thirty-five dollars for a drink and some food that would have been thrown out at the end of the day. Seriously?). Looks to me that Disney has a pretty solid business.

I personally think they are getting out of the theme park business (not immediately, but in the foreseeable future) but they won’t sell off their intellectual property. Sell the park and charge a nice fee to have access to their vast library of assets and they will see profit with minimal exposure and expenditure – the ultimate goal of any corporation. We're already seeing the seeds of this with their ownership Marvel and association with Universal. Of course it may not happen, but it will be interesting to see what happens in the coming years and if they decide to acquire another large property (Looney Tunes, DC Comics, Star Trek franchise, etc.). If they do, count on the ‘for sale’ sign to eventually go up in Orlando.

 

[mvk]

Avoiding cosmetic maintenance, having a large portion of your cast members in the college program and avoiding high cost/maintenance attractions (meet and greets are cheap and people apparently love them, plus taking three years to build said attractions) are ways of reducing your capital expenditures. Conversely profits are going up due to allowing more people into the parks, increasing their prices every six months and finding ways to bring new charges to existing services (the after hours wind down in Epcot is absurd in my opinion – that used to be called ‘extra magic hours’. Thirty-five dollars for a drink and some food that would have been thrown out at the end of the day. Seriously?). Looks to me that Disney has a pretty solid business.

I personally think they are getting out of the theme park business (not immediately, but in the foreseeable future) but they won’t sell off their intellectual property. Sell the park and charge a nice fee to have access to their vast library of assets and they will see profit with minimal exposure and expenditure – the ultimate goal of any corporation. We're already seeing the seeds of this with their ownership Marvel and association with Universal. Of course it may not happen, but it will be interesting to see what happens in the coming years and if they decide to acquire another large property (Looney Tunes, DC Comics, Star Trek franchise, etc.). If they do, count on the ‘for sale’ sign to eventually go up in Orlando.

They're not going to sell off one of their primary sources of revenue and growth so they could collect royalties. The Marvel situation is one they inherited in the sale, its not a future model. If their plan was to sell off the parks, they wouldn't have invested billions in NextGen and the infrastructure and data that comes with it. Its pretty silly to think that way.

 

[Figmentforever24]

Avoiding cosmetic maintenance, having a large portion of your cast members in the college program and avoiding high cost/maintenance attractions (meet and greets are cheap and people apparently love them, plus taking three years to build said attractions) are ways of reducing your capital expenditures. Conversely profits are going up due to allowing more people into the parks, increasing their prices every six months and finding ways to bring new charges to existing services (the after hours wind down in Epcot is absurd in my opinion – that used to be called ‘extra magic hours’. Thirty-five dollars for a drink and some food that would have been thrown out at the end of the day. Seriously?). Looks to me that Disney has a pretty solid business.

I personally think they are getting out of the theme park business (not immediately, but in the foreseeable future) but they won’t sell off their intellectual property. Sell the park and charge a nice fee to have access to their vast library of assets and they will see profit with minimal exposure and expenditure – the ultimate goal of any corporation. We're already seeing the seeds of this with their ownership Marvel and association with Universal. Of course it may not happen, but it will be interesting to see what happens in the coming years and if they decide to acquire another large property (Looney Tunes, DC Comics, Star Trek franchise, etc.). If they do, count on the ‘for sale’ sign to eventually go up in Orlando.

OMG you actually BELIEVE everything you are typing! Sometimes I have to wonder about people on these boards. I have explained this once and I will do so again. Disney isn't going to sell any theme park since they are their prime source of income. Even if they did WDW and DL would never be on the chopping block. One is for nostalgia while the other makes more money then any of them. So to believe a for sale sell is going to go anywhere on that property in Orlando is total craziness. But if you are content with thinking that way then go on ahead. Also the Epcot thing is genius and Extra Magic Hours take place every wed at Epcot still. Just because you don't agree or don't like something means you are right about it. Those are actually smart ways to make money. And to say they are cutting back on cosmetics to rides is also pretty dumb. Yes it declined but is picking up. Jungle Cruise, Pirates of the Caribbean, Splash Mountain, Spaceship Earth, Peter Pan and more to come have received major cleaning to them lately. Also park upkeep has gone up around the parks, but you would probably have to be there to see that.

 

[rteetz]

They're not going to sell off one of their primary sources of revenue and growth so they could collect royalties. The Marvel situation is one they inherited in the sale, its not a future model. If their plan was to sell off the parks, they wouldn't have invested billions in NextGen and the infrastructure and data that comes with it. Its pretty silly to think that way.

I agree disney is not going to invest billions in infrastructure work to sell the parks I don't know how or where this is coming from but I think people would be outraged if disney sold their parks. The theme parks and resorts are disneys 2nd highest stream of revenue, films being first. Disney would just not hand it over and get royalties. Disney has next gen, disney springs, avatar, DVC and thats only at WDW. Disney is building a third hotel in Hong Kong and shanghai is set to open in 2015 with some amazing new things. They couldn't do much with the marvel situation thats just how it ended up.

 

[wallrock]

I can understand the response, but it's hard to argue with the numbers.

To answer the common comment above, the parks are not the primary source of revenue for Disney - media networks is. Based on their Q1 2014 earnings, Disney has the following:

Media networks - 5.3 Billion
Parks - 3.6 Billion
Studios - 1.9 Billion
Merchandising - 1.1 Billion
Interactive - 403 Million

In short, approximately thirty percent of the revenues posted come from theme parks. Keep in mind that nostalgia doesn't provide a rate of return. As far as NextGen is concerned, I see that as an piece of intellectual property as well. I'm sure they have patented a good slice of what NextGen can do. There's no reason to believe that they couldn't sell that as a service to other companies that wish to track large volumes of customers and their spending habits. I'm not saying that will happen, but a lot of companies come up with services to benefit them directly only to find out that it can be sold as a product elsewhere.

People may very well consider it insane that Disney may sell off their parks in Orlando (notice that I never said Disneyland), but if the revenue generated outweighs the risk they have with maintaining the campus then I'm sure it's something they'll consider.

Edit to add: Also keep in mind that selling the park doesn't mean it goes away. It would just be run by another organization. There are mergers, acquisitions and sales that occur all the time for services and the customer hardly notices the difference, and they may even notice a benefit. I think everyone sees what happened with Universal when Comcast came into the picture.

 

[rteetz]

I can understand the response, but it's hard to argue with the numbers. To answer the common comment above, the parks are not the primary source of revenue for Disney - media networks is. Based on their Q1 2014 earnings, Disney has the following: Media networks - 5.3 Billion Parks - 3.6 Billion Studios - 1.9 Billion Merchandising - 1.1 Billion Interactive - 403 Million In short, approximately thirty percent of the revenues posted come from theme parks. Keep in mind that nostalgia doesn't provide a rate of return. As far as NextGen is concerned, I see that as an piece of intellectual property as well. I'm sure they have patented a good slice of what NextGen can do. There's no reason to believe that they couldn't sell that as a service to other companies that wish to track large volumes of customers and their spending habits. I'm not saying that will happen, but a lot of companies come up with services to benefit them directly only to find out that it can be sold as a product elsewhere. People may very well consider it insane that Disney may sell off their parks in Orlando (notice that I never said Disneyland), but if the revenue generated outweighs the risk they have with maintaining the campus then I'm sure it's something they'll consider. Edit to add: Also keep in mind that selling the park doesn't mean it goes away. It would just be run by another organization. There are mergers, acquisitions and sales that occur all the time for services and the customer hardly notices the difference, and they may even notice a benefit. I think everyone sees what happened with Universal when Comcast came into the picture.

My question is if and major if disney sells WDW parks who buys them? Comcast already has universal. They did try to buy disney once but I don't see them buying disney and I still don't see disney selling WDW parks because they bring in the most of all the parks for disney. Sure disney could sell next gen stuff but why sell the parks I just don't get it.

 

[wallrock]

My question is if and major if disney sells WDW parks who buys them? Comcast already has universal. They did try to buy disney once but I don't see them buying disney and I still don't see disney selling WDW parks because they bring in the most of all the parks for disney. Sure disney could sell next gen stuff but why sell the parks I just don't get it.

Just thinking offhand it doesn't have to be another existing media company. I agree that Comcast wouldn't be in the picture, but companies like Facebook and Google - pioneers in the future of media delivery and interaction - could come into the picture. I'm sure that would be unbelievable to many, but it's always a possibility. Facebook did after all spend 19 billion recently on WhatsApp. Google is buying up companies left and right at the moment.

Again it may sound illogical from an emotional standpoint, but if the revenue generated through a sale - and subsequent leasing of intellectual property - is greater than what they can generate today I'm sure it's something their executive leadership would consider. My curiosity around the acquisition of Lucasfilm has also lead me down this path of thought. Why would they buy the product and not immediately invest it into their park structure? The parks make more money than their studios, yet the first thing Disney announces is a new series of movies. To me that didn't make a lot of sense.

 

[Kpskyman]

There is no reason to think that the parks will go up for sale. The all the apex of the industry and anyone that knows the amusement park business knows that ... A- Everyone tries to copy, not beat Disney Parks, B- the Amusement Park industry is not growing, it is shrinking, with more parks closing their doors rather then new parks opening, C- The Disney parks are too tied into their states economic system to believe that the state govt would even allow a buyout without the said company has a proven reputation in running parks, D- the companies that have that reputation do not have enough money to buy those parks as the price would easily top 75 billion per park. On top of all that, if any of you own shares in Disney, you know that a vote of shareholders would have to be taken, with a 75% needed to sell, and that would never happen.

 

[wallrock]

There is no reason to think that the parks will go up for sale. The all the apex of the industry and anyone that knows the amusement park business knows that ... A- Everyone tries to copy, not beat Disney Parks, B- the Amusement Park industry is not growing, it is shrinking, with more parks closing their doors rather then new parks opening, C- The Disney parks are too tied into their states economic system to believe that the state govt would even allow a buyout without the said company has a proven reputation in running parks, D- the companies that have that reputation do not have enough money to buy those parks as the price would easily top 75 billion per park. On top of all that, if any of you own shares in Disney, you know that a vote of shareholders would have to be taken, with a 75% needed to sell, and that would never happen.

Are you implying that the sale of the four Orlando parks would have a 300 billion price tag? Comcast's offer for the whole company was 54 billion. And how would Orlando have that level of a say in what Disney does with their property? From a shareholder perspective, if the presentation showed me that I would see a significant increase in my share value with a sale I would most likely accept it. Again keep in mind that the sale of the park doesn't include the sale of the intellectual property.

 

[Figmentforever24]

I can understand the response, but it's hard to argue with the numbers.

To answer the common comment above, the parks are not the primary source of revenue for Disney - media networks is. Based on their Q1 2014 earnings, Disney has the following:

Media networks - 5.3 Billion
Parks - 3.6 Billion
Studios - 1.9 Billion
Merchandising - 1.1 Billion
Interactive - 403 Million

In short, approximately thirty percent of the revenues posted come from theme parks. Keep in mind that nostalgia doesn't provide a rate of return. As far as NextGen is concerned, I see that as an piece of intellectual property as well. I'm sure they have patented a good slice of what NextGen can do. There's no reason to believe that they couldn't sell that as a service to other companies that wish to track large volumes of customers and their spending habits. I'm not saying that will happen, but a lot of companies come up with services to benefit them directly only to find out that it can be sold as a product elsewhere.

People may very well consider it insane that Disney may sell off their parks in Orlando (notice that I never said Disneyland), but if the revenue generated outweighs the risk they have with maintaining the campus then I'm sure it's something they'll consider.

Edit to add: Also keep in mind that selling the park doesn't mean it goes away. It would just be run by another organization. There are mergers, acquisitions and sales that occur all the time for services and the customer hardly notices the difference, and they may even notice a benefit. I think everyone sees what happened with Universal when Comcast came into the picture.

Well the difference is Universal is a company that sucked at the theme park thing. They didn't really need to be in it. Comcast is now coming along and playing clean up and fixing the mess and hole they dug themselves into. Disney has a huge hand in the theme park industry. You think they would sell off something that is even the second biggest source of revenue. Sorry wont happen. Something major financially would have to happen where Disney couldn't afford it. And at that point Disney would first cut things before they give up WDW. So wont happen.

Edit: Also Disney World makes more money then Disneyland and that is fact. If they wanted to sell properties they would sell off the remaining ownership of Disney Paris, Hong Kong and Shanghai before even thinking about Walt Disney World.

 

[Figmentforever24]

Are you implying that the sale of the four Orlando parks would have a 300 billion price tag? Comcast's offer for the whole company was 54 billion. And how would Orlando have that level of a say in what Disney does with their property? From a shareholder perspective, if the presentation showed me that I would see a significant increase in my share value with a sale I would most likely accept it. Again keep in mind that the sale of the park doesn't include the sale of the intellectual property.

75% of the shareholders wont ever agree so it doesn't matter. That's the point.