New pavilion coming to Epcot and it's not a real country

[lockedoutlogic]

I agree completely. The park would require constant care with routine updates to stick to its original vision. Disney has failed to make even a half-hearted attempt.

When I say that Epcot is seen as failing, I have the Disney management in mind more than those of us out here who actually care. This constant desire to make money while spending as little as possible has overtaken Disney which puts a park like Epcot in a precarious place. I don't think that the old vision of Epcot has any place now and the perceived failure likely goes well beyond earnings.

Well...EPCOT would never have been built if it hasn't been at exactly that point in time.

It was built to fulfill the concept and HOPE that profit followed.

That never would have been done since... Even under the park friendly Eisner/wells team.

It would have cost euro x2 and more than ak

 

[Planogirl]

Well...EPCOT would never have been built if it hasn't been at exactly that point in time.

It was built to fulfill the concept and HOPE that profit followed.

That never would have been done since... Even under the park friendly Eisner/wells team.

It would have cost euro x2 and more than ak

True but Epcot did show us that a great vision can be profitable. It didn't require princesses in silly places and dumbing down of attractions in the constant worry that kids somehow can't appreciate anything that involves learning something. I have way more faith in kids than Disney nowadays.

 

[TexasErin]

To be fair... Seth macrarland and NDT did cosmos specifically to try and paddle
Up stream against the stupefying of America.

The ends justify the means there. We need way more people to do that sort of thing...
And to shut down walmart, destroy the medical system, reinvest in the space program and consider it a civic duty/public interest, and have the FCC ban programming targeted to anyone with under a 130 iq that is NOT a still developing child.

But I digress

This!!

And Heaven forbid that we try to have our children learn and grow instead of just dumbing things down for them. While I admit that I love Test Track, it's a shame that things like Horizon don't still exist that can capture the imagination of the children (and adults) of today.

 

[DanBoris]

I'm curious how they'll repurpose a massive M&G building when the Frozen lines fade. That's a huge facility for new characters.

I have heard that this is going to work like Princess Fairytale Hall where Elsa an Anna are featured and then there will also be other rotating princesses. If this is the case then they will easily be able to put other characters in there if Frozen starts to loose popularity.

 

[Planogirl]

I have heard that this is going to work like Princess Fairytale Hall where Elsa an Anna are featured and then there will also be other rotating princesses. If this is the case then they will easily be able to put other characters in there if Frozen starts to loose popularity.

Which will only make the (lack of) theming more bizarre. Unless the rest of WS is changed to match the new Fairytale Hall.

 

[dwbrewster]

I have heard that this is going to work like Princess Fairytale Hall where Elsa an Anna are featured and then there will also be other rotating princesses. If this is the case then they will easily be able to put other characters in there if Frozen starts to loose popularity.

I hope they add in a queue for Olaf, watch the snowman outdraw those princesses!

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I have heard that this is going to work like Princess Fairytale Hall where Elsa an Anna are featured and then there will also be other rotating princesses. If this is the case then they will easily be able to put other characters in there if Frozen starts to loose popularity.

Worst thematic move in the history of Disney parks...
Just not right on any level.

The frozen overlay of the ride I could tolerate if they left the original architecture in place and some of the country references/elements

Not a generic plug and play princess queue building

It just doesn't make sense there.
Dudnt

 

[101disneyfan]

Worst thematic move in the history of Disney parks...
Just not right on any level...
It just doesn't make sense there.

Don't worry. It'll be gone in fourteen years. (Oh, wait. The hat is a temporary structure.)

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Don't worry. It'll be gone in fourteen years. (Oh, wait. The hat is a temporary structure.)

Millenium village?

 

[KYMickey]

I agree completely. The park would require constant care with routine updates to stick to its original vision. Disney has failed to make even a half-hearted attempt.

When I say that Epcot is seen as failing, I have the Disney management in mind more than those of us out here who actually care. This constant desire to make money while spending as little as possible has overtaken Disney which puts a park like Epcot in a precarious place. I don't think that the old vision of Epcot has any place now and the perceived failure likely goes well beyond earnings.

Only FW would require constant updating to maintain its vision and any hope of having that portion of the park focus on the Future is free much long gone. WS on the other hand really doesn't need much updating to stay current considering the countries that are they are are pretty established in the world order. If WS remained focused on what it was supposed to be and showed the value to businesses it wouldn't of lost the corporate sponsorship that most of the pavilions originally had.

 

[Lindaland]

I have no doubt that this new "enhancement" will be educational for children. Just think of all the education they will get during F&W festival weekends when their parents can explain intoxication to their little princesses, or even just the usual "drinking around the world" summer fun!!

Yes, this seems like a very appropriate place for little kids to wait in line and observe........

 

[clsteve]

Only FW would require constant updating to maintain its vision and any hope of having that portion of the park focus on the Future is free much long gone. WS on the other hand really doesn't need much updating to stay current considering the countries that are they are are pretty established in the world order. If WS remained focused on what it was supposed to be and showed the value to businesses it wouldn't of lost the corporate sponsorship that most of the pavilions originally had.

I've never understood why the demise of WS goes back to the perceived lack of outside sponsorship.

At the same time Disney continues to siphon off billions from the Park, while continuing to drop true capital investment in it YTY compared to it's historical investment, while also using billions in cash for stock buybacks.

Don't get me wrong, more power to them if they can get someone to "buy in" as a corporate sponsor, but 7DMT seemed to get built just fine without ALCOA sponsoring it.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I've never understood why the demise of WS goes back to the perceived lack of outside sponsorship.

At the same time Disney continues to siphon off billions from the Park, while continuing to drop true capital investment in it YTY compared to it's historical investment, while also using billions in cash for stock buybacks.

Don't get me wrong, more power to them if they can get someone to "buy in" as a corporate sponsor, but 7DMT seemed to get built just fine without ALCOA sponsoring it.

That's another red herring...

Disney was leveraged to the hilt when they built EPCOT...indeed that is a big reason why Eisner was brought in under threat of breakup...

But since the mid 90's... They have grown into an international media conglomerate with the ability to practically print money...while alot of their "corporate sponsors" have struggled or all but disappeared ...like Kodak.

They have the money to build and maintain anything they want in an amusement park - and would still make profit. But not "maximum" profit. And that is in direct contradiction to the "quality will win out" philosophy that worked just fine for decades.

But they have chosen to choose status quo, minimalist, or even closure/decline in most cases...not all but most. That's in consort with heavy price increases and "repositioning" in operations and philosophy.

The idea that they "can't afford" anything is laughable...
But...to serve profit...that is a good front.

What's the reality? We keep going and paying more for mostly the same goods into the pot...and alot is going back to corporate profits or to finance other things.

It's all out there for us to figure out...you just have to WANT to learn if and accept it.

 

[OKW Lover]

[soapbox mode = on]

I'm amazed/amused at the number of people on this thread that seem to decry Disney making money. Folks, Disney is in the business of making money as is true of any corporation. Their primary obligation is to the shareholders.

Disney makes their business decisions based on their short- and long-term financial goals. If additional infrastructure is needed they will build it. If external financing is called for, that's what they will do.

Its not up to the guest to decide if Disney is making enough money, its up to the investors.

[soapbox mode = off]

 

[clsteve]

[soapbox mode = on]

I'm amazed/amused at the number of people on this thread that seem to decry Disney making money. Folks, Disney is in the business of making money as is true of any corporation. Their primary obligation is to the shareholders.

Disney makes their business decisions based on their short- and long-term financial goals. If additional infrastructure is needed they will build it. If external financing is called for, that's what they will do.

Its not up to the guest to decide if Disney is making enough money, its up to the investors.

[soapbox mode = off]

Hmmm...

I'm as equally amused at the number of people that interpret these discussions as decrying Disney making money. Quite the opposite.

It's decrying the decline in capital reinvestment YTY, while also reallocating Park profits to other LOB's or to such things as stock repurchases.

The decline in capital reinvestment as a percentage of rev and profit for Parks is right there for all to see, if you want to. Compared to historical, the decline is rather depressing and shows pretty specifically where WDW fits on the corporate priority list......

 

[Whatsthegoodword]

I don't understand how someone can think that Disney is not spending on its resorts. Maybe they're not building exactly the sort of things that I would like, but they ARE building (and building and building...). Avatarland, Expanded Africa, New Fantasyland, Disney Springs going on or just completed now - and all at WDW. Then there's California Adventure and SHANGHAI.

They're investing! Building out the whazoo! Sure, I wish they were building an Adventurer's Club, Greece Pavilion, and Headless Horseman attraction at WDW, but I don't expect them to cater to me. Instead, they are catering to what they perceive the most people want. From their perspective, that only makes sense.

Do we want Disney to me leveraged to the hilt again? NO. This would make them vulnerable. You want the Hall of Presidents, Shootin' Gallery, and France Pavilion to disappear? Let another corporation take control and split up Disney Corporation to the highest bidder.

 

[Andrew015]

[soapbox mode = on]

I'm amazed/amused at the number of people on this thread that seem to decry Disney making money. Folks, Disney is in the business of making money as is true of any corporation. Their primary obligation is to the shareholders.

Agreed, no argument here.

Disney makes their business decisions based on their short- and long-term financial goals. If additional infrastructure is needed they will build it. If external financing is called for, that's what they will do.

Agreed, no argument here.

Its not up to the guest to decide if Disney is making enough money, its up to the investors.

[soapbox mode = off]

Disagree here. It is absolutely up to the consumer to decide this, and if and when I get to the point where I'm "tapped out" and sick of making the shareholders incredibly wealthy by offering the same (or in many instances, declining) product year in and year out at prices that are rising well above the inflationary rate, I'll begin to explore other vacation destinations. The only way that Disney will ever change course is if the masses get fed up and vote with their pocketbooks - that's all that we are saying. This is a very basic economic principle, but unfortunately, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Disney World really is a special place with no equal anywhere else in the world. For that reason, free market principles don't always apply, because they have a monopoly on... well, Disney. At some point though... whether that's in my lifetime or not... if they continue to cheapen the product and raise prices to obscene levels, the golden goose will be killed. Contrary to what you might think, all of us "haters" actually love WDW and want to see it succeed for years to come. If that's not evident by the amount of time and passion that we put into these posts, then I'm not sure what to tell you.

I don't begrudge corporations that seek to maximize revenues, but I prefer to do business with corporations that truly want to put the best product out into the marketplace. There are many examples where this can still be done in harmony with making incredible profits, and usually, these are the companies that thrive for decades to come. Look how well "cheapening the product" worked out for Saab under GM ownership. The company all but folded after a messy separation from GM followed by bankruptcy. This happened because they moved away from the very things that made Saab successful in the first place. Again, I'm not inferring that this will happen anytime soon with Disney. Actually, quite the opposite. I just wish, along with many others, that Disney would focus on putting the best product out into the marketplace. I'm quite confident that this path would reap similar, if not better financial results.

 

[OKW Lover]

Disagree here. It is absolutely up to the consumer to decide this, and if and when I get to the point where I'm "tapped out" and sick of making the shareholders incredibly wealthy by offering the same (or in many instances, declining) product year in and year out at prices that are rising well above the inflationary rate, I'll begin to explore other vacation destinations. The only way that Disney will ever change course is if the masses get fed up and vote with their pocketbooks - that's all that we are saying. This is a very basic economic principle, but unfortunately, I don't see that happening anytime soon. <snipped a lot of good stuff here>

So, should the consumer look at a company's profitability before deciding to buy their product?

I think you're actually meaning the same thing that I said though. The consumer decides what is important to them and what they are willing to pay for that product. Management must weigh that in their investing and pricing decisions.

 

[Andrew015]

I think you're actually meaning the same thing that I said though. The consumer decides what is important to them and what they are willing to pay for that product. Management must weigh that in their investing and pricing decisions.

That may be what you meant to say, but that's not exactly how you articulated it the first time around.

 

[ThurlFan]

[soapbox mode = on]

Their primary obligation is to the shareholders.

[soapbox mode = off]

And in order to continue making it rain for the shareholders, eventually they're going to have to pay attention to the customers.

Epcot and DHS both currently have fewer attractions today than they did on our family's first visit in 2001. Yes, we expect new attractions at DHS - but additional current attractions (LMA?) will likely be removed in the process so the net gain won't be much.

The Animal Kingdom has gained one attraction since then - and it doesn't work as designed. Fortunately they are investing in this park's future.

Magic Kingdom is the only place where we've seen ANY significant investment in the past 15 years. And for all the hoopla, it really amounts to three attractions and a restaurant.

So, for a net gain of ONE attractions in the past 15 years, what does that mean to consumers?

On the other hand, a base 1 day ticket in 2001 was $48; it is now $99 for MK, $94 for the other three parks. That's literally double the price...for a NET GAIN OF ONE ATTRACTION across the four parks.

So please tell this non-businessman how long a company can continue raising prices at this rate before their customer base simply stops showing up?