150-200 million $$$$ for one ride. That's an incredible sum. No wonder a place like Cedar Point opts to spend ONLY 25 mil for their new dragster coaster,which is supposed to be the highest & fastest in the world.
It is the highest and the fastest in the world. Also remember Cedar doesn't the revenue streams that WDW has. Resorts, shops, restaurants, etc.
Compare to scale (although the two company's niche's are different) and the attraction investments are probably pretty similar.
I don't want to be Cedar's cheer leader here....I've never been there. They are just an example of a company which is in the amuesment business who is investing heavily in their park.
You don't see a slight difference between a single attraction in a park and an entire water park with its own daily admission fee?
It's the parks, made up of attractions, which bring the guests to WDW. Water parks, while very nice, are supplements to the theme parks. The water parks aren't shown on the TV ads. The theme parks are.
I find it incredible that a single ride can cost as much as an entire water park, and then have people imply that Disney or HP cheaped out on it so the ride isn't going to be what it should have been.
I think it was retarded for Compaq (and later HP) to sponsor a Multimillion dollar attraction in a theme park. Period. Has the fact that AT&T sponsored Spaship Earth made you change your long distance providor? Has the fact that Fed Ex sponsored Space Mountain made you forgo the postal service? Has the fact that GM sponsored Test Track made you purchase a chevy?
No. It's a stupid waste of money for publicly traded companies to upgrade Disney's theme parks for them.
That said...
I think it was cheap of Disney to
only use the money given to them in a sponsorship deal to make a ride which enhances THEIR park...the one I pay money for....the one Disney profits from. Why not match it? Imagine what they could have built with HP & Disney money.
Offering two ride, one a watered down attraction of the same nature would be a major waste of money and money well spent on other attractions. They should build the ride like they want it with the proper warnings and those who dont want to ride dont have too!!! But that is no reason to dumbdown an attraction!!! if we are going to use that type of thinking lets build two of every ride, one lame and one thrilling!!
Bob,
Maybe not two of the same ride, but one thrill ride, and then a smaller, tamer ride inside the pavilion. Two different experinces, but something for everyone under one roof. Less split up time for families.
Jim implies from his telling of the tale that WDI didn't scrap its plans to use the old Horizons building until after the attraction was gutted. I hate to say this, but WDI does not just go into a massive project like this without knowing for sure how they are going to anchor it. Long before Horizons closed for its final time, it was known that the building was not structurally sound enough to make it viable for preserving for a new attraction expected to last at least another twenty years. The Mission: Space project was approved on the basis of a new building, and no work was done on either Horizons or Mission prior to a budget approval. Unfortunately, this time Jim and his wishful dreaming have many of the facts wrong.
He's Nahtaengineer
FYI...let's not get too carried away about this article. It was written MONTHS, if not years ago. I believe it originally was on Mouseplanet during Jim's stint there...so it's hardly new material. It's a look back at some of Jim's work. So don't take him to task now that some of the facts have changed since this article was originally published.
