Is 'The Magic' Expensive?

[Bstanley]

Several of the other threads have compared TDS and DCA and blamed the results on the amount of money that was invested. And the AK discussion has folks who claim that the reason it is 1/2 of a park is because of money limits. And the comparison of the TDS Pooh ride and the WDW Pooh ride seems to boil down to money.

So I repeat.

Is 'The Magic' expensive?

(and why of course...

 

[kiddisney]

of course "the magic" is more expensive - but only a little more - and that's because you get "THE MAGIC" - which is what we all go for - i've been to so many other parks/resorts/etc - and we always come back to disney because of "THE MAGIC" - even my cynical family find that they like to go because even though you pay for it - "THE MAGIC" is what makes a vacation special -

 

[HB2K]

Is it more profitable in the long run to invest the money and build a quality, magical experince?

Take a look at the success story of TDS vs the failures of the DAK/DCA business model.

It costs money to make money. The sooner Disney realizes that, the sooner things will turn around

 

[daannzzz]

I think the magic is expensive but there are other problems. I have been to bothe AK and DCA and both cost approximately the same. I love the AK but I conced that it needs more rides, not just attractions which could be shows or nature walks. But its themeing is beautiful to me...though I haven't personally experianced Dinorama yet. I enjoy most of the attractions and love the foliage, walkways and architecture. I like the theme they chose and most of the ways it was integrated into the park.
DCA on the other hand was a great dissapointment yet it cost nearly the same. First off is the choice of theme. I live in California and find the theme to be weak. I prefer more fantasy oriented environments but can enjoy other exotic places. Epcot is a winner for me. But the California theme is pretty much what I experience daily or yearly as I have traveled through this state quite a bit. The exicution of the themes is mostly well done but leaves me unexcited. The choice of attractions is where they really blew it. Having seen ITTBAB and Muppets at WDW I still enjoy them but it is not a big deal to have them here. I can spend a day here and it is better than a Six Flags but it is just so disappointing, There is someone on one of the other message boards I frequent who brings upa good point often though not many seem to take up his ides. DCA was designed to the tastes and entertainment styles of the executives and imagineers at WDW company. People who may not like the MK and Disneyland. People who are more "sophisticated" who like chataquas and fine wines and museums. I don't think it was so much the lack of money as the lack of connection with their customers.

 

[hopemax]

DCA was designed to the tastes and entertainment styles of the executives and imagineers at WDW company. People who may not like the MK and Disneyland. People who are more "sophisticated" who like chataquas and fine wines and museums.

Yes, I saw this on that "other" board. However I'm not sure how much I believe this either. I really can't picture these sophisticates enjoying any of the rides that make up the Paradise Pier area, getting wet on Grizzly River Rapids, enjoying the antics of the characters represented in Muppet Vision or Tough to Be a Bug.

DCA feels "focus group-designed" IMO. Like they tried to give a little something for everyone problem is they didn't provide enough to satisfy anyone. PP feels it was designed for people who like Six Flags over Disney because it's more thrilling, and they don't care for the characters. GRR, Animation & Soarin seem designed for the "Disney" crowd, but they had problems with the lack of characters, the PP area. I've already talked about the sophisticated stuff. And the park separates families. Teen stuff here, adult stuff there, and once Flik's Fair opens the "kiddie" stuff will be over there.

However, back to the main point. I agree that "magic" is more expensive, but I don't believe it is A LOT more expensive. I was also going to bring up that DCA and AK cost about the same, and I think DCA was even more expensive. But look at AK, that area was a SWAMP! Money went to convert that not only to a theme park, but land suitable for the habitation of exotic animals from all over the world! And they still found ways to get very nice things to do. AK's biggest problem is the perception that there isn't enough to do. But that's a pretty minor problem to overcome; they have tons of expansion space. DCA on the otherhand feels "complete" and I look around and wonder, "where did all that money go?"

Gotta run though...off to Father's Day breakfast. Don't forget to call your Dads!

 

[Bob O]

Is disney expensive, yes. But i think as far as the theme parks go it is a great deal. Name one other place on earth you can go and get as much entertainment, be it rides or shows in a day with such a great/clean atmosphere. I dont know of any others myself and think the admission price while not cheap is well worth it and i have never spent a day at disney where i didnt think i got more than what i paid for.
I think they have priced the resorts too high and i dont feel the bang for the buck is their anymore but feel the theme parks are a great deal in terms of what you pay and what you get in return!!
As in regards to the other question i do think you have to spend money to make money and disney in the US has forgotten that message and perfer to get by with the bare minimum as compared to what i have read about at DCA as compared to TDS.

 

[HauntedMansionFan]

I had an interesting chat with KaterBell last night and she was telling me how she was chatting with someone that Disney operates all their parks just based on admission tickets. Everything else, food, drinks, souveniers, etc. are just pure gravy.

 

[HB2K]

I enjoy most of the attractions and love the foliage, walkways and architecture. I like the theme they chose and most of the ways it was integrated into the park.

It seems when anyone defends DAK it's because us folks who don't like the park don't "take the time to find the little things".

I don't know about you, but I don't count the walkways & architecture as attractions to a park. They definitly are accessories to the atmosphere, but they shouldn't be considered attractions at a theme park.

Look mommy!!! That trash can looks pretty! Let's sit here and take pictures in front of it!

 

[Chuck S]

Everyone is knocking DCA - while I'm not going to say it doesn't need MORE, I like the PP area - it reminds me of Pierpoint Landing, a now defunct area that used to be a fishing pier and tourist attraction in Long Beach. I think that PP is supposed to give guests a glimpse of what the California seaside amusement areas used to be like. Golden Dreams (is that the name of the Whoopi movie?) was a wonderful (but short) presentaion of the history of California for out of state visitors. Soarin' is just awesome. How many folks won't get to Florida? I can understand putting in duplicates of popular WDW attractions like ITTBAB, Muppet 3-D and WWTBAM. Superstar Limo I could live without . This park just needs to grow and have more added to it. I am disappointed in DL's Tomorrowland. I can't believe an imagineer couldn't come up with something better to do with the carousel theater than Innoventions! And the Circlevision theater is just sitting there empty, along with the peoplemover/rocket rod tracks - it's just sad.

 

[Bstanley]

Well I should have defined the scope of the question better. For the time being let's skip trying to scope out an entire park. Let's go with a single show/ride/attraction (whatever word is correct .

Also I think we need to define quality: Quality = meets customer requirements. Doesn't mean that it is 'Magical', doesn't even mean that it is reliable - unless reliability is a part of the customer requirements, concievable you could replace the entire thing every evening and the customer wouldn't know it.

And lastly - it doesn't really matter whether it makes money or not.

OK end of preliminaries.

So far it looks like the consensus is that it costs more to do a 'Magical' show than it does to do a 'Normal' show.

But why? What 'Magical' aspect of your favorite attraction do you think cost 'extra'?

 

[daannzzz]

""I don't know about you, but I don't count the walkways & architecture as attractions to a park. They definitly are accessories to the atmosphere, but they shouldn't be considered attractions at a theme park. """
Gee I always thought that was the main part of the magic. Sure the rides are wonderful but if they were lined up in wearhouses it surley wouldn't be the same. I guess if all you want to do is rides than the walkways, gardens and architecture are just a side note.

 

[mikek]

Originally posted by HB2K
Is it more profitable in the long run to invest the money and build a quality, magical experince?

Take a look at the success story of TDS vs the failures of the DAK/DCA business model.

It costs money to make money. The sooner Disney realizes that, the sooner things will turn around

EXACTLY.

To make a ton of money you need to spend a ton AND run it correctly. look at Baseball- another major entertainment venue. Take the Yankees- spend a ton and run their business right- make cash hand over fist. Brewers cant make any money 'cause they dont spend money. Dodgers spend a ton- spend it wrong and dont make anything.

Sure occasionally someone real smart can spend a little consistantly and run your stuff right (like maybe the A's) but thats REAL hard to do.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Here we go again, AK this, DCA that, not enough to do here, don't like that there............

I love it though because I had a thought that didn't seem to fit elsewhere but i can throw out in the context of this thread.

A little business first, and I know these weren't part of the original question.

I bet most on this board will agree that experiencing the Magic is expensive, but well worth it. If someone like my sister in law came here she would say, that WDW is just way too expensive and compare admission prices to lesser parks. However, she just doesn't 'get it'.

HB2K, here we go again ....

I don't know about you, but I don't count the walkways & architecture as attractions to a park. They definitly are accessories to the atmosphere, but they shouldn't be considered attractions at a theme park.

Please!! What is Main St. USA all about. No rides or attractions there, unless you consider the walkways (called sidewalks) and architecture (called buildings) an attraction - which everybody does!!! THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST LOVED SPOTS IN ALL OF WDW!!! Why? Because of theming, attention to detail, the little details that take you to another place.

So to the point of this thread (I think). Does it cost more to produce the 'Magic'. Yes, it does. I wonder how much Main St. USA cost, and you can't ride it. Back to the AK. How many millions did they spend on plantings indiginous to Asia and Africa. It helps to transport you to another place, and that is a big part of the Magic, IMO. I always count the impeccable appearance of WDW as part of the Magic. Elaborate plantings everywhere (ok except the CR), cleanliness, use of space for places to just relax. All these things cost money. Other destination resorts may spend more on rides or roller coasters, but this is where they put all their money, and they don't have 'the Magic'. While I've never been, didn't Universal get that to some extent and then put in IOA. I get the impression that this has more of the attention to detail required to create 'Magic'. Then you have customer service. A quick example - the light in my DD's light up Magical Moments pin died and we would have gladly paid for replacement batteries, but they just gave her a whole new one. I'm sure everyone has such an example, and it all adds to the Magic, and it all costs money. I know if you aren't in Car #1 you think it is slipping, but I say it is alive and well and Disney is spending money to keep it alive.

Now for that thought I had. Seing as the Magic is expensive, should the decision to add or not to add to the theme park offerings be an all or nothing proposition? Walt said 'Give the people everything you can'. Some people believe in Walt's philosophy that if you can't do that, then don't do it at all. That, because this philosophy is not being followed, that the Magic is slipping away. I say no. Lets say I agree that AK is 'incomplete' and the additions are cheap carny junk. Would WDW have been better off had AK not been built because they didn't give 'everything'? Fact of the matter, for me at least, the AK is full of Magic, expensive Magic at that.

 

[Another Voice]

[Sigh]

Main Street is not “magical” because of the gingerbread on the awnings, the stately gas light lamps lining the street, the themeing, the details, the plants…..

Main Street is “magical” because it evokes emotions in people. When first conceived fifty years ago it was meant to evoke the emotion of nostalgia from an entire generation that still remembered the world of their childhood. Today, the place is “magical” because it has become the symbol of another world, filled with many childhood memories and dreams on its own. No one gets excited about Main Street the architecture; they get excited about Main Street represents.

Details and themeing are only tools – they are not the end product. Spend as many millions planting indigenous Asia and Africa greenery as you want – without context all you have created is a nice garden. Disney parks work because their physical aspects are part of a larger product – the story. The story gives the place context and gives a place meaning. And that gives the place “magic”.

How does one go about melding structure and sound and sights and smells and expense into something “magical”? That’s the art of storytelling and no one has figured it out yet. If anyone knew with certainty they could make many fortunes selling the secret.

Each individual is different, and so the “magic” is different. I’ve seen people that get “magical” just by showing up at the place. It doesn’t matter what they see, what they do, or what they experience. It’s Disney – it’s “magical”. And I’ve seen just as many people on the other end. No matter what happens, Disney doesn’t produce any kind of emotions. Most people simply fall in between. Most people are willing to “let the magic happen”, but it still takes a spark to get it going.

It is far easier to create that spark with imagination, talent and skill rather than relaying on money. “Magic” is only expensive if you don’t know how to spend the money well. California Adventure lacks the magic more because it lacked imagination much more than it lacked funding (or even replacement batteries).

 

[kenjean]

Magic is in the eyes of the beholder. What makes Disneyworld/Disneyland magical for me may not be what does it for you.

For some, it is the major attractions. For others, the theming. I imagine that the depth of the magic is relevant to how often you go. On your first trip, you might be aware of your surroundings, and how well they are themed, but you are so busy trying to find your way around, and running from attraction to attraction that the majority doesn't sink in.

At the end of the day, and you have experienced 75% of the attractions at the Magic Kingdom, and you trip does not allow any more time there, you say to yourself, I HAVE TO GO BACK. I want to see the rest.

On your second trip, you hit your favorites from last time, and then the discovery happens. You experience things you passed over on your first trip. You didn't have time for the enchanted Tiki Room, but go now. And you are amazed that every flower and face on the totem poles sings along. All of a sudden you notice the music on Main Street matches the timing of the area. And that it changes when you cross over into Adventureland. Wait, what's this? There is a drum and fife corps playing in Liberty Square. And they get some of the kids in the crowd to march along. Then you go into Hall of President's and smile to yourself when you see the President's casually chatting among themselves while roll call is made.

On the next of your now annual trips, you stop in Town Square and sit on one of the vintage benches, soaking up the atmosphere. You are so happy just to "be there". It's amazing, you think to yourself, the place looks like it was built yesterday.

Walt said 'Give the people everything you can'.

It's a package deal. It takes great depth in the experience to create magic. This is what current management fails to understand. They peel away layers of this depth to save money, destroying the very thing that created them.

The story gives the place context and gives a place meaning. And that gives the place “magic”.

A well told story has many levels, much as a well made park does. Everytime you read a good story you get something new from it. Everytime, yes, everytime I visit a "good" park I get something new from it.

attention to detail

Does all this cost more money. Yes. It also costs time, energy, caring, talent, passion, and desire.

 

[DisneyKidds]

{Sigh, Sigh}

Main Street is “magical” because it evokes emotions in people.

Details and themeing are only tools – they are not the end product.

Disney parks work because their physical aspects are part of a larger product – the story.

I couldn't agree more. The theming, attention to detail, all the little things (even the batteries) aren't the only thing, even the largest thing, that create 'Magic'. However, without them the 'Magic' might be unattainable.

Main St. evokes emotions, yes. But how does it do that? By the story line AND the setting it puts you in. You're so right. It is nostalgia, it harkens back to another time and place, represents another world. Again, how does it do all that? Yes, with a story, and Walt was great at giving that story. But a story told with wonderful props is much more effective than just putting the story out there with nothing - even Walt knew that. Would the same emotions be evoked on Main St. without the gingerbread and gas lit lamps?

Stroytelling is an art. Two different people can relate the same story. One is boring as anything. One tells it wonderfully. But as wonderfully as a story is told, it is still just words or an idea. Now, add the visual cues and markers that actually put you there, Magic. It is a package deal. You can't have one without the other.

Even Picasso couldn't have done much if he didn't have paint. The ideas for his paintings were in his head, the talent in his hands, but he physically needed paint to express them.

And to keep this thread on topic, it is the tools that can be expensive. Other theme parks don't have the same stories so they aren't Disney, but does this mean they can't create Magic? Most others don't employ the same tools, and they miss the mark that Disney has set.

kenjean - you make a wonderful point. As many time as you go to WDW there is always something more you can find and discover. You can go a hundred times and always find something new. Why is that? The saturation of the story line in the very fabric of WDW AND the layers upon layers of detail that keep that story line going. That is part of the Magic of WDW, and no one else has it. I'll go to Busch Gardens, Hershey Park, Great Adventure (insert any park) once every few years, and yeah, they may have a new coaster. However, it is the same park I saw a couple of years ago. While the rides are exciting, it isn't new to me. Disney seems to have a unique and Magical ability to do that.

 

[airlarry!]

After reading AV's post on magic, I can understand why I love AK but The Oasis is a downer for me.

Unlike Main Street which has the story and the architecture and the feeling-evoking memories laced within and without, the Oasis just seems like a stall until the main event. I have always wondered why they built the Oasis the way they did...the recipe for the Magic Kingdom was to get people into the park, with the weenie at the end dragging you forward, and then hitting you with shops as you left

If the question is "Is the magic expensive to make?" The answer to me, looking at the Oasis and the Main Street as an example, is yes. But spending money is no guarantee of success. It is obvious they spent a lot of money landscaping The Oasis, but it just doesn't work for me.

I have seen pictures of the Lost River Delta at Tokyo Disney Seas...I can't wait to see that, because I think that is what should have happened at AK. Try to get a story worked into The Oasis, instead of replicating your friendly neighborhood animal exhibits from your local zoo.

 

[Captain Crook]

AV and others, you've received no argument from most Car #1'ers about the magic that Walt created. As Disneykidds so brilliantly has pointed out we agree with what makes Main St. magical, but as he pointed out it is the sum of the whole that works. The attention to detail and accuracy of Walt's fairytale Marcelene is what works. OK so we agree, right? Well, I guess not. You won't let AK be judged with the same criteria. Animal Kingdom directs us to Africa, Asia and a tacky road side amusement park very well.

As Scoop has pointed out in the past, the attention to detail in Harambe is exquisite. The Tree of Life and walking gardens & hidden surprises are so special and Disney like I am stunned by the continual criticisim. I may never visit Africa & this may not be a true represnetation of what Africa is truely like (note: neither is Main Street USA really much like Marcelene, MO.) but the magic in the presentation transports guests from Orlando to Africa instantaneously. These are the dreams of the future my friends and they shouldn't be trivialized because they were not designed by Walt or because the defining characteristics are simply different than Main Street was.

As weak as most people feel Dino-Rama is, is still hits the mark with what they were going for. I know many here feel it's a complete 'miss' and has no place in WDW, but that is a different argument and that doesn't change the fact that they did it well.

AK is getting legs. WDW didn't open AK to Seasonal P*******rs this year & crowds have been heavy on every trip we've taken this year.

I know the speculation around here is that AK failed because it didn't casue longer stays but I say "so what?" Was this truely AK's fault or has Disney saturated & locked the market? US/IOA & SeaWorld still are making no headway against Disney in total numbers so I see this considered flaw of AK as misreprsentative.

AK is a passive park with easily enough to do if you go for this kind of experience. It is a complete and wonderful park unlike ay other and far superior to any Zoo...But then I would go to a zoo for a different experince altogether. Every park doesn't have to be the same or reach the same demo, but AK will make its niche and become Disney Classic whether thrill riders are happy or not.

 

[DisneyKidds]

airlarry...

Portrait # 1 of the Oasis.

A 'stall' until the main event. A stetch of underutilized space containing a few animals, exhibited no better than a small zoo. A uncharacteristically weak entrance for WDW park. A disappointment that is not up to the Disney standard. An underwhelming start to a pretty good park.

Portrait #2 of the Oasis

A somewhat dark and apparently desolate path leads into the woods....the mist in the air, the sound of birds beconing, wait....what animal is that over there? and another, and another. A cave ahead, where are we going......???? Ahhh, a clearing in the trees. What do I see, a magnificent tree, etched with elaborate carvings that are a precursor to the adventure that lays before me. Wow, this is cool.

Two different view points. Two entirely different experiences. Each person sees it his or her own way. I'm in Car #1, and I am looking at portrait #2 .

Look beyond the obvious. Even though AK wasn't developed by Walt, experience it the way he would. Immerse yourself in it - What would Walt do? I think that is what Walt would do. You already like the park, give it another look and you may like it even more .

 

[EUROPA]

Here are some numbers for attendance of the parks over the last couple of years.

1999

Magic Kingdom - 15.2 million

Epcot - 10.1 million

Disney-MGM Studios - 8.7 million

Animal Kingdom - 8.6 million.



2000

Magic Kingdom - 15.4 million

Epcot - 10.6 million

Disney-MGM Studios - 8.9 million

Animal Kingdom - 8.3 million

Universal Studios Florida - 8.1 million

Islands of Adventure - 6 million

SeaWorld Florida - 5.2 million



2001

Magic Kingdom - 14.7 million

Epcot - 9 million

Disney-MGM Studios - 8.3 million

Animal Kingdom - 7.7 million

Universal Studios Florida - 7.2 million

Islands of Adventure - 5.5 million

SeaWorld Florida - 5.1 million



Disney is not gaining guest either. Both had a down year last year. Looks Like IOA is stealing guest away from Disney weather it be new guest or guest who would have spent more time on Disney property. Anytime they spend their money at another park and not a Disney I would consider that lossing guest.