New Park Rumor

[Peter Pirate 2]

We were at AKL last weekend and our mousekeeper told me Disney had absolutely no plans for a new park. She said she has inside information and I believe her!

 

[travel man]

I really hope they're all keeping secrets from us. you never know, they could have something planned, and they need it! Universal is totally crushing the competition. It is profiting very well from harry potter, attendance is way up, and its been in the press for months. this new fantasyland expansion is boring and too weak in my opinion. disney should build more attractions instead of hotels and resorts. if they keep on doing this, the parks will get even more crowded earlier in the day. My advice to Disney: You guys really need to get this together, us guests have been waiting a long time for something big and new and with all due respect, the fantasyland expansion is just not good enough.

 

[latshama11]

I have worked for the Disney Company in the college program and when I was there I also heard a rumor about a new theme park and I was even told of the location and the Villains theme and that Fantasmic was going to move to the new park. This was a long time ago, 3 years ago and it still hasn't happened. I think most things are kept a secret and rumors are spread often. Who knows though maybe Disney will be utilizing Marvel in the future with a new thrill park which would be awesome.

 

[ASteelersMidget]

I have worked for the Disney Company in the college program and when I was there I also heard a rumor about a new theme park and I was even told of the location and the Villains theme and that Fantasmic was going to move to the new park. This was a long time ago, 3 years ago and it still hasn't happened. I think most things are kept a secret and rumors are spread often. Who knows though maybe Disney will be utilizing Marvel in the future with a new thrill park which would be awesome.

1st, Why must we have 3 new park rumor threads going at once.


Back on topic,

Villians park has been rumored for at least 10 years. We will not get a new park for at least 10 more years, if ever. We just have to live with that.

 

[fannatic]

I believe there is a Villain park in design and development, probably more developed than anything for Avatar, but it probably won't open until around the 50th anniversary of WDW. Fantasyland expansion, Avatar, and then maybe a fifth park.

 

[Figment632]

Nope!

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I believe there is a Villain park in design and development, probably more developed than anything for Avatar, but it probably won't open until around the 50th anniversary of WDW. Fantasyland expansion, Avatar, and then maybe a fifth park.

I think you are wrong at least 5 times in one sentence...

 

[nytimez]

I believe there is a Villain park in design and development, probably more developed than anything for Avatar, but it probably won't open until around the 50th anniversary of WDW. Fantasyland expansion, Avatar, and then maybe a fifth park.

Shanghai will have a fifth gate before WDW does.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Shanghai will have a fifth gate before WDW does.

well sure...there you don't even have to use gas to get the crappy merchandise to the giftshops...

you can rickshaw it right up the street

 

[nytimez]

well sure...there you don't even have to use gas to get the crappy merchandise to the giftshops...

you can rickshaw it right up the street

You're not thinking big enough here. Why rickshaw it up the street when it could be made right in the park? it's a small world could be filled with actual children, singing as they assemble Mickey plush toys and Lightning McQueen race cars.

With next-gen tech, you could push a button in your smartphone right from your seat and the toy you see being assembled will be waiting for you in your hotel room.

Now THAT'S some Disney Magic!

 

[nytimez]

double post

 

[lockedoutlogic]

you know...i was thinking (i know...go to Defcon 2)

I finally got the chance to watch "Waking Sleeping Beauty" last week...highly recommended by the way...and it made me pick up "Disney War" and practically read it cover to cover (again) in 3 days...

One of the things that Roy E put in his indictment of Eisner during the shareholders coup of 2003 was "Timidity in the Parks" - along with a string of other standard (but completely true) listings of mismanagement and lack of direction.

You certainly can't say that they have shown a "lack" of reinvestment or expansion in their parks as it currently stands....four new parks in the decade that just closed and another under construction...

But can you say "timidity" is accurate?
Absolutely...since three ongoing expansion/rehab projects are directly a result of cheapskate, stock timid, shortsighted moves....DCA, HKDL, and DSP.

And i can't stress how much of a missed opportunity they had in Florida...four years of dirt cheap construction that could have been exploited to put longterm additions in the parks...

they are winning the battle...losing the war. Granted their magic kingdom addtions will serve them well...but stagnant at Epcot and Animal Kingdom and just the one addition to Studios since 2005?

Shortsighted...and timid.

 

[Dznefreek]

You are aware that Disney experienced its' greatest period of growth under ME . . . right
I would suggest you review this:http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/meghan/299/Case_analysis_Disney4.pdf

Michael Eisner
Following the deaths of Walt (1966) and Roy Disney (1971), the company strayed
somewhat from its roots and performance began to suffer. In October 1984, Michael Eisner
was named Disney’s chairman and CEO. He took several actions to rejuvenate the company.
First, Eisner recruited new management, changed the corporate structure, and changed the
company name. He then outlined the company’s overall corporate objectives, intended to reignite
a creative spark in the core businesses of theme parks, filmed entertainment, and
consumer products. He controlled movie budgets by imposing a “financial box” within which
the creative talent had to operate. He struck the right balance. As a result of improved cost
control and brilliant scripting, casting, and production3, Disney won at the box office. From
1984 to 1987, market share leapt from 4% to 14% and revenues increased from $245 million to
$876 million.
In addition, Katzenberg, under Eisner, took the bold step to increase film production to
15 to 18 new films per year, up from only 2 new releases in 1984. Eisner also expanded the
animation staff to support the release of a new animated feature every 12 to 18 months.
Furthermore, the cycle of reissuing animated classics to theaters was shortened from every
seven years to every five years. Film and TV income over the period improved from $2
million to $131 million.
Eisner also introduced an innovative and effective “sell-through” approach to Home
Video pricing, whereby classic animated titles would be released for sale for two years, then
withdrawn for five years. The strategy yielded retailer margins of 30-40 percent, much better
than the industry average of 20-30 percent. Accompanied by aggressive marketing campaigns,
2 Walt was right. It really did all start with a mouse.
3 Credited to Jeffrey Katzenberg, who was hired by Eisner from Paramount in 1984.
5
Disney nearly doubled its share of the videocassette market from 5.5% to 10% on revenue
growth of $42 million to $213 million from 1984 to 1987. In addition to video sales, Disney
strengthened its place in the home market by establishing a major presence in television. The
Disney Channel was launched in 1983 and profitably grew to be the fourth largest pay-channel,
with nearly four million subscribers, by 1987. In 1985, Disney successfully launched animated
children’s television cartoons and also had success with first-run cartoon syndications.
To rejuvenate Consumer Products, Eisner carefully managed licensing products ranging
from children’s records to educational materials and emphasized “strategic alliance”
promotions with major names like Sears and McDonalds. In 1987, Disney launched Disney
Stores. Despite twice the average construction costs, the stores generated profits on sales
volumes that were three to five times the U.S. average. In addition, Disney entered mail order
retailing with its 1985 catalog launch, which reached over eight million people. From 1984 to
1987, Consumer Products’ revenue grew from $110 million to $167 million, netting income
growth from $57 million to $97 million.
Finally, under Eisner, Disney aggressively grew its theme park business. Despite
spending $50 million in 1984 to refurbish Fantasyland and spending tens of millions to add
new attractions, theme park income grew from $186 million (revenue $1,097 million) to $549
million (revenue $1,834 million) during the period from 1984 to 1987. Disney achieved these
results by advertising nationally on television for the first time in 1985 and opening Disneyland
on Mondays, on which it was previously closed for maintenance. Disney also kept pace with
increasing demand by steadily pushing park ticket prices up to about twice the industry
average. And, despite removing restrictions on the number of visitors, the parks continued to
provide an exceptional visitor experience.
Overall, the period from 1984 to 1987 saw tremendous growth. Sales climbed from
$1.6 billion to $2.9 billion and income grew from $100 million to $450 million over the period.
Return on equity more than doubled, going from 9.3% to 21.3%.
Eisner’s most important contribution between 1984 and 1987 was to restore the
‘Magic’ to Disney. More concretely, by priming the pump with a disciplined emphasis on
creativity and innovation, Eisner was able to exploit the synergies generated by Disney’s
highly complementary businesses units. Exploiting these synergies was the mechanism by
which Eisner maximized shareholder wealth, while simultaneously reinforcing the other
corporate objectives that emphasized sustainability, image and brand.

 

[nytimez]

You are aware that Disney experienced its' greatest period of growth under ME

And one of Disney's greatest declines was also under Eisner... Disney stock fell so far Comcast made a hostile bid for the company. And at one point, I believe Disney's stock was in the teens.

 

[Dznefreek]

As was the greatest rise. I believe there was a 3 for 2 split at 169.00 a share under his reign . . . .

 

[nytimez]

As was the greatest rise. I believe there was a 3 for 2 split at 169.00 a share under his reign . . . .

The stock split several times under Eisner. And he's one of the major reasons Disney was brought back from the brink.

But you can't ignore the last part of his reign, either. No hit movies for years. Plummeting stock. Comcast's attempted hostile takeover. The (thankfully temporary, no thanks to him) loss of Pixar. Go.com.

These things are every bit a part of his legacy as what he did in the 80s.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

You are aware that Disney experienced its' greatest period of growth under ME . . . right

You are aware...that Roy Disney's indictment of Eisner was not pertaining to his takeover in 1984 until the death of Frank Wells, the Lion King, and the departure of Katzenberg to form rival Dreamworks in 1994...
but rather the time from that point...
where they started a string of bad park openings starting with Animal Kingdom and culminating with Hong Kong Disneyland, the hiring and firing of Michael Ovitz to the tune of 130 million for 16 months (not a bad penny), a string of bad animated movies, the powerstruggle with their only bankable partner (pixar), the country bears, the haunted mansion, the purchase of Go.com, the acquiring of 2 billion in debt as a throw in for Fox Family, ride clones, park clones, cheapquels, and mcdonalds fry stands all over the park...

just some perspective.

Eisner was a great executive when he did not act alone...when he lost his foils and the board allowed him to take over almost complete control and bring in whatever suit that would be the most submissive to him...paul pressler comes to mind - a moron that has since gone on to run the Gap into the ground and was unceremoniously banished to an ACTUAL banana republic...then the old "idiot nephew" revolted...and thankfully for the longterm, suceeded on most fronts.

Unfortunately, he did not suceed in getting Iger out of there...a cheap hollywood suit who will string everything along and hang on until the security guards drag him kicking and screaming away from the dwarves as well...

i'm pretty sure you called me clueless...i would respectfully ask that you not do that.

 

[fannatic]

I'm glad there are so many "experts" on the Disney boards, lol. Time will tell the truth about the 5th park.

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

You are aware...that Roy Disney's indictment of Eisner was not pertaining to his takeover in 1984 until the death of Frank Wells, the Lion King, and the departure of Katzenberg to form rival Dreamworks in 1994...
but rather the time from that point...
where they started a string of bad park openings starting with Animal Kingdom and culminating with Hong Kong Disneyland, the hiring and firing of Michael Ovitz to the tune of 130 million for 16 months (not a bad penny), a string of bad animated movies, the powerstruggle with their only bankable partner (pixar), the country bears, the haunted mansion, the purchase of Go.com, the acquiring of 2 billion in debt as a throw in for Fox Family, ride clones, park clones, cheapquels, and mcdonalds fry stands all over the park...

just some perspective.

Eisner was a great executive when he did not act alone...when he lost his foils and the board allowed him to take over almost complete control and bring in whatever suit that would be the most submissive to him...paul pressler comes to mind - a moron that has since gone on to run the Gap into the ground and was unceremoniously banished to an ACTUAL banana republic...then the old "idiot nephew" revolted...and thankfully for the longterm, suceeded on most fronts.

Unfortunately, he did not suceed in getting Iger out of there...a cheap hollywood suit who will string everything along and hang on until the security guards drag him kicking and screaming away from the dwarves as well...

i'm pretty sure you called me clueless...i would respectfully ask that you not do that.

As u usually are very accurate in your posts, I think u need to take a second lok at the idiot nephews real reasoners for revolt. He and Mikey had a positive history in general, as I remember it, but Roy thought the Comcast negotiations, prior to the hostile bid, was simply WAY to low. Had the price been right Roy would have gladly sold. I know Disney fans hate to hear this but I'm quite sure of my recollection.

 

[nytimez]

As u usually are very accurate in your posts, I think u need to take a second lok at the idiot nephews real reasoners for revolt. He and Mikey had a positive history in general, as I remember it, but Roy thought the Comcast negotiations, prior to the hostile bid, was simply WAY to low. Had the price been right Roy would have gladly sold. I know Disney fans hate to hear this but I'm quite sure of my recollection.

I seem to recall Roy and Mike were on the outs before the bid -- Comcast was a means, extreme as it was, for Roy to achieve his ultimate ends at that point: The removal of Mike Eisner.