Is Disney World becoming a shell of its former self?

[Golden Rose]

Disney has done one thing that is very, very smart for them long term, that's been built up quite a bit in the last decade. DVC. There is a reason they keep adding more and more. People keep buying. I'm among those people, and sometimes I don't know if I belong in the "there's a sucker born every minute" category, or if I was brilliant to buy in when we did.

We're locked in to Disney vacations for the rest of our adult lives. We did this on purpose, because we realized we were already taking trips about every 9 months, staying in multiple rooms or suites at deluxes when we traveled with family, and DVC would save us quite a bit of money. And we have saved a lot of money. We've saved so much money we've added on twice, so we could have enough points to REALLY save us money!

So while Disney hasn't been spending lots of funds keeping the WDW parks updated, they have been creating more rooms for their captive audience. I'm not saying this is exactly a good thing, but it certainly is a point against Disney being "screwed." They have all of those (all of us, I should say) DVC members who are going to keep coming year after year, and they can make times of the year more desirable just by shifting point costs for given weeks around. It doesn't matter what the economic climate is like. DVC members will come to the resorts, or rent out points so that someone else comes to the resorts. They will keep a steady percentage of the resorts occupied, and keep people coming to the parks. This was not a foolish allocation of funds for Disney.

Being DVC members doesn't keep us away from Universal, but it does keep us from spending more than a day or two there, because I'll only go to the Universal parks if we're staying at one of the deluxe Universal hotels. And I hate to pay for the deluxe Universal hotels when staying at a Disney resort is cheap, since our DVC points are already a sunk cost. This isn't mindless loyalty to Disney, this is a financial consideration. If I stay at WDW, my hotel is covered and I can add a 5th and 6th day to my trip for a few bucks a family member. If I head over to Universal, I'm going to be spending almost $1000 a day by the time we pay for deluxe resort and 4 Universal parkhoppers. We do plan to keep doing a couple of days at Universal, but Disney has clearly provided inducement other than interesting rides to keep us on property.

 

[codimouse]

Disney will always have an allure for visitors all the time.
I am actually here at POFQ.
We spent 3 days at Universal.
After 60 plus Disney trips since I had my own family plus trips to Disney before with my parents, Disney seems to need so much planning. It takes the Magic away. Not as appealing to me anymore.
Universal was much more relaxed. Loved it.
But Disney is not screwed. Not by a long shot.

 

[Tarheel girl 1975]

Disney has done one thing that is very, very smart for them long term, that's been built up quite a bit in the last decade. DVC. There is a reason they keep adding more and more. People keep buying. I'm among those people, and sometimes I don't know if I belong in the "there's a sucker born every minute" category, or if I was brilliant to buy in when we did.

We're locked in to Disney vacations for the rest of our adult lives. We did this on purpose, because we realized we were already taking trips about every 9 months, staying in multiple rooms or suites at deluxes when we traveled with family, and DVC would save us quite a bit of money. And we have saved a lot of money. We've saved so much money we've added on twice, so we could have enough points to REALLY save us money!

So while Disney hasn't been spending lots of funds keeping the WDW parks updated, they have been creating more rooms for their captive audience. I'm not saying this is exactly a good thing, but it certainly is a point against Disney being "screwed." They have all of those (all of us, I should say) DVC members who are going to keep coming year after year, and they can make times of the year more desirable just by shifting point costs for given weeks around. It doesn't matter what the economic climate is like. DVC members will come to the resorts, or rent out points so that someone else comes to the resorts. They will keep a steady percentage of the resorts occupied, and keep people coming to the parks. This was not a foolish allocation of funds for Disney.

Being DVC members doesn't keep us away from Universal, but it does keep us from spending more than a day or two there, because I'll only go to the Universal parks if we're staying at one of the deluxe Universal hotels. And I hate to pay for the deluxe Universal hotels when staying at a Disney resort is cheap, since our DVC points are already a sunk cost. This isn't mindless loyalty to Disney, this is a financial consideration. If I stay at WDW, my hotel is covered and I can add a 5th and 6th day to my trip for a few bucks a family member. If I head over to Universal, I'm going to be spending almost $1000 a day by the time we pay for deluxe resort and 4 Universal parkhoppers. We do plan to keep doing a couple of days at Universal, but Disney has clearly provided inducement other than interesting rides to keep us on property.

But DVC has also painted Disney into a corner. For years, it's been one the key income drivers for Parks and Rec. To keep that going they have to keep building.

 

[Dfan79]

Did I say that I don't like Philharmagic? Nope
Do you like the Jungle Cruise better because the animals are more realistic? LOL
The rides work at Disney? Seriously, TT, SPM, TSM, MS, to name a few, breakdown a lot.
Sounds like you're just pulling things to make a point only it's not working with those of us who visit both WDW and Uni often. As I said, both parks are good in their own ways.

Jungle Cruise is better than Jurassic, because it is a more fun experience and yes the animatronics are much better. At least some of the animals look like they could be real, Jurassic's flabbing dino's are an embarrassment.

I'd like for you to name 1 good ride animatronic in all of Universal Orlando. You can't, because they all suck. I'd love for them to try to make animatronics like Disney. Because they'd be laughed out of the park. They couldn't make human animatronics like Disney has in Hall, Pirates and Haunted Mansion. All they make is shake around rides and crappy shows.

 

[eXo]

Apparently you have never been into Gringott's and seen the goblins.

It blows away any of the stiff 1980's / projector faced bull that Disney has.

If you think anything in Pirates of the Caribbean is a great example of animatronics, then your rose tinted glasses are on too tight or someone slipped you a Mickey.

 

[Dfan79]

Apparently you have never been into Gringott's and seen the goblins.

It blows away any of the stiff 1980's / projector faced bull that Disney has.

If you think anything in Pirates of the Caribbean is a great example of animatronics, then your rose tinted glasses are on too tight or someone slipped you a Mickey.

Those are pretty good I'll give you that one, but I'm talking about on ride animatronics. I have seen the house elves. They are very nice, but they are just sitting in the queue area of the attraction.

You must be a Uni fan. Because Pirates is way better than anything Universal has ever done. Disney can actually make animatronics that look like humans. Uni can't even make a guy in a Shrek costume look like Shrek.

 

[Kimosabe]

CoP maybe but I think Small World should stay it fits well in fantasyland and is in fantasyland in every other Disney park.

Small world will never go anywhere and nor should it. It arguably the most nostalgic disney ride in the world. People who have never been even know of it.

Oh, I fully agree that the world will come to an end before they move Small World to Epcot, but I just think it could be a good fit over there (not that it isn't a good fit where it has always been, too). Certainly not advocating that it go away altogether, so the nostalgia would still be there...just in a different park a monorail ride away. Trying to come up with anything and everything I can that would give Epcot a reason to live - ha!

 

[North of Mouse]

Coworkers ask me if anything new is at Disney since the last time they went and I tell them the truth and literally all are them are still going to Orlando but to do other things outside of Disney like Universal, Orlando Eye and Busch Gardens and Aquatica .........

Personally, we don't go to see things 'new' every time - we enjoy experiencing Disney as is, as well as any new things added - it's more the 'experience' for us. And no, we are not newcomers, we have been going to Disney since the MK 'only' was opened!

It's true, we are going much less often now, but it's because of some really stupid changes they have made that are not 'for the guests', but their bottom line only! Our interests are waning because of this, and we are going other destinations more often now, but it's not to FL.

 

[Kobey]

Oh, I fully agree that the world will come to an end before they move Small World to Epcot, but I just think it could be a good fit over there (not that it isn't a good fit where it has always been, too). Certainly not advocating that it go away altogether, so the nostalgia would still be there...just in a different park a monorail ride away. Trying to come up with anything and everything I can that would give Epcot a reason to live - ha!

Yes! They could put it at the entrance to World Showcase and you have to ride it once per trip before you're admitted into WS. They could track it with MB's. No green light, no admittance.

 

[Kimosabe]

Yes! They could put it at the entrance to World Showcase and you have to ride it once per trip before you're admitted into WS. They could track it with MB's. No green light, no admittance.

Once on the way in...and another time on the way out for anyone who opted to "drink around the world."

 

[Andrew015]

Maybe we can have Small World and Frozen trade places...

 

[smiths02]

I haven't read everything, but I'll add my two cents. A friend of ours did both, and her children far preferred Disney.
I considered Universal, but the fact is, I don't see it being a "destination" until all of our kids are 8 or older.
Universal has cool stuff, but I just see it as less of a family destination.

And we went in June with a 9 year old and twin 2 year olds for 8 nights. It was hot and crowded, but we didn't wait in line, we had a blast. We did so much, but we didn't even scratch the surface.
In other words, Disney still offered a satisfactory product for their target audience.
They are also genius at adding things that disperse crowds but don't cost a lot for Disney (Agent P missions, Sorcerers of MK) AND genius at selling add one (dining, pirate cruise, BBB) that give you a special experience, but still cheaper than adding on a few days at Universal.

 

[mort1331]

I often plan a Universal trip for us and other places become side attractions but I do realize that we are oddballs. It works for us.

Quite a few actually. None who are first time Orlando visitors though which Disney will always be able to get. I offered my significant other a trip to Disney World and was asked if we could go to Universal and Discovery Cove instead and this person goes to Disneyland at least 3 times a month. Coworkers ask me if anything new is at Disney since the last time they went and I tell them the truth and literally all are them are still going to Orlando but to do other things outside of Disney like Universal, Orlando Eye and Busch Gardens and Aquatica and also shocked how much cheaper it all adds up to in the end in comparison to their Disney trips.

Yea people still book vacations to Disney but its no longer I HAVE to go to Disney. Its more so oh maybe we will go...nah we can do other stuff for cheap. Or I can do stuff thats new rather than stuff we already done over and over.

My family did exactly that, a week at Universal, SeaWorld and Busch Gardens.

But I take your point, I don't have any personal friends or relatives who've done it.

.

You all have reinforced my point. No one does a week at Universal, there is always side attractions, SeaWorld, Busch Gardens etc.
There are many going just to Disney multiple times. You have the variety and the size to try lots of different things. Golfing, wine and food festival, DD, Boardwalk and the list could go on.
I personally IMHO do not think Disney will be in trouble for a very very long time

 

[Josh Hendy]

You all have reinforced my point. No one does a week at Universal, there is always side attractions, SeaWorld, Busch Gardens etc.
There are many going just to Disney multiple times. You have the variety and the size to try lots of different things. Golfing, wine and food festival, DD, Boardwalk and the list could go on.
I personally IMHO do not think Disney will be in trouble for a very very long time

But for all intents and purposes (read: time and money) they are one ticketed experience. The Orlando Flexticket covers USF, IOA, SW, BGT, Aquatica and Wet'n'Wild. From the point of view of the tourist it isn't WDW vs. Universal vs. the other parks ... it's to D or not to D. Depending on age, tastes and interests.

You may be correct that WDW has very little to worry about. But I think they are taking a big chance by sitting back and letting the other parks build ground-breaking new rides and lands very quickly while they take a relatively slow approach ... or "extremely deliberate" as Disney phrased it.

"They zig we zag". OK, but watch that you don't get clotheslined.

 

[eXo]

You must be a Uni fan. Because Pirates is way better than anything Universal has ever done. Disney can actually make animatronics that look like humans. Uni can't even make a guy in a Shrek costume look like Shrek.

I'm objective about both places. I'm not got to try and compare two different theme parks and pretend one is better when they cater to two totally different audiences, use two totally different methods of building attractions, and ultimately add up to two totally different experiences. Disney is firmly aimed at a younger crowd while servicing the nostalgia of an older generation. Universal obviously focuses on thrill ride,s movie IPs, and skews towards an older demographic.

You seem to think jungle Cruise is better than Jurassic simply because of the "animatronics", but you are also comparing two rides that are nothing like each other save for the fact you sit ion a boat. Jungle Cruise is DEFINED by it's animatronics and the boat captains jokes. JP uses them to create atmosphere. And sorry, I disagree, there is no animatronic on the jungle cruise any where near as impressive as the t-rex head. When I road jungle cruise last fall, I didn't think any of the animals looked very realistic.

That said, I happen to enjoy the animatronic dinosaurs and thought they looked a lot better than a plastic mannequin version of a man repeatedly humping a pole in an attempt to escape a rhino horn. Ultimately, as the person you were replying too said, both parks offer something different for guests.

If what you enjoy about themeparks is watching mannequins stiffly twirl around, then disney is for you. I like Disney for totally different reasons, and found the animatronics to be a joke. I appreciated them as a throwback to where Disney came from. I can't imagine trying to cite them as world class examples of anything. Even their newer animatronics, over on rides like Little Mermaid, have the same dead eye look and fabric looking skin. The only time I found myself impressed by that technology at disney was when they were using projectors to animate the faces. But at that point, they aren't very animatronic now, are they?

And you are splitting hairs by saying the goblins aren't part of the ride so they don't count. Especially considering Disney is all about using the queue to tell a story. You said "all of them suck" in regards to their animatronics, and I give you an example of one that is better than anything at Disney and you blow it off because it's not on the actual ride. So you are basically making up rules to suit your criteria at this point.

Since you only want to focus on rides though, when Kongfrontation opens up, I'll be able to single handedly point to a single animatronic that blows everything Disney has to offer right out of the water.

If you like Disney's mannequins on sticks, then more power to you. But pretending they are cutting edge and then comparing them to Universal (when Universal seems to primarily rely on screens and motion sims these days) is just ridiculous.

That said, I don't know what I am bothering discussing this with a person who sums up Universal as "All they make is shake around rides and crappy shows.". You accuse me of being a Uni fan just because I have an objective opinion. You on the other hand are obviously a member of the cult of mouse. So 'objective opinions' are lost.

I'll be happy knowing that I can enjoy both parks.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Disney is in no way "screwed"

They're charging more for the same or less in many cases.

Disney customers are being screwed...

By their fellow Disney customers.

As nancy Reagan once told me: just say no.

Can't expect more when you pay whatever the fee without any hesitation/question.

Effective 7/14...my 4 will NOT be wdw annual passholders for the first time since we were wdw employees... or birth, respectively.

Do we still have a good time there? Yes...is it because of the parks or where they've steered the ship? Absolutely not. All the enjoyment comes from the roy, card, don, Michael era...bob has done little for me. Simply maintaining the status quo...blocking the ball back over the net...is not exciting, not fun, not relaxing...
It's not vacation.
My opinion.

And so we say farewell...and hope we meet again.

Not an easy decision by any means...but one that has become almost inevitable.

I agree with many though...the proof will be in the pudding when an economic disaster hits...not if, when...inevitable.

I almost want to see it...even though life is gonna suck.

 

[Planogirl]

Apparently you have never been into Gringott's and seen the goblins.

It blows away any of the stiff 1980's / projector faced bull that Disney has.

If you think anything in Pirates of the Caribbean is a great example of animatronics, then your rose tinted glasses are on too tight or someone slipped you a Mickey.

Ooh, those bank tellers in Gringott's are amazing! Whoever made them deserves to be recognized IMO.

In fairness, Pirates isn't too bad for its time. Sparrow looks pretty good too.

 

[Planogirl]

You all have reinforced my point. No one does a week at Universal, there is always side attractions, SeaWorld, Busch Gardens etc.
There are many going just to Disney multiple times. You have the variety and the size to try lots of different things. Golfing, wine and food festival, DD, Boardwalk and the list could go on.
I personally IMHO do not think Disney will be in trouble for a very very long time

We do side attractions when we stay at WDW too.

I've never denied that Universal isn't a full week visit for us. I know of some people who do stay there for a week but they love to hang out at the pools which I'm not a fan of. I'm just not a pool person.

 

[smiths02]

I don't think the question is: Is Jungle Cruise better than Jurassic Park, but rather does Disney still offer an enjoyable experience for a family vacation? For families that go once or every few years, / there is certainly enough for multiple generations. I mean Harry Potter and Jurassic Park may be cool, but my two-year olds and my in-laws won't get it...they get Cinderella and Mickey Mouse. I don't think they need to add as fast as Universal...they just need to do enough so the experience is still enjoyable.

 

[Juliet25]

Disney has done one thing that is very, very smart for them long term, that's been built up quite a bit in the last decade. DVC. There is a reason they keep adding more and more. People keep buying. I'm among those people, and sometimes I don't know if I belong in the "there's a sucker born every minute" category, or if I was brilliant to buy in when we did.

Have you seen the prices recently? I don't know when you bought in, but it's beyond even considering at this point. It's $150 a point to buy from Disney. When my family bought in back in 2006, it was $95 a point. Not cheap, but we could handle it. We had to sell our contract but I'm ready to buy again. There's no way I will consider anything but a resale contract. BLT was probably the last resort that was feasible for us. Aulani, GF, Poly, and (I'm assuming) WL aren't even possibilities due to the cost. I don't know where they think the money for a $25K buy in is going to come from (not to mention plane tickets for a family of four to Hawaii every year or two! ). There's only so many people making six figure incomes who want to vacation in Disney for the next 40 years. At least SSR--for all its faults--was aimed at the middle middle class. The current crop of DVC resorts is strictly for the upper class.

I wish they'd add a more affordable resort. I'm itching to be an owner again and buy direct from Disney.