Walt Disney World Parking Fee now $9 dollars

[Aintdisablast]

But as was said before, Malls manage to cram those costs into lease fees which translate into a chunk of items you buy in the mall and those items are still cheaper then the average Disney World Item and Disney World rings up their cash registers just as often as the average mall. In short, that $9 is pure profit. They don't need to charge it. They do to keep their profit margins up.......To pay for stupid purchases like ABCFamily or even ABC itself.

I'd be more then willing to pay the fee if I saw some new construction to justify it. And no, one ride (E:E) doesn't cut it.

While I fully realize you'll never be satisfied with the ammount of capital investment into the parks, I do wish you'd give recognition to what has been built recently and not try and pass E:E off as a once and done project.

What have we gotten in the last couple years ? Soarin' , M:S, Motor Stunt show, major refurb of IASM, Wishes, Nut Crushers at TL, Pooh's play area, Philharmagic.LS is under rehab now. I'm sure I'm leaving a few things out (Stitches Crappy Escape was intentional ).

Is there still more work to be done ? Sure. But Disney has been investing some major money into the parks.

 

[Aintdisablast]

..................... a fact already discussed in this thread if you'd been paying attention.

Oh, BTW, comments like this are unappriciated and unneeded. You resort to them a lot, which is puzzling because you normal post lucid thoughts.

 

[YoHo]

First off, I post Lucidly? The heck you say!!!
Sorry to be so...Cras, I'm used to having to repeat myself or at least make sure everyone's read every post which isn't typical around here for some reason. Sometimes myself included. It's a hazard when you have threads as long as these.

While I fully realize you'll never be satisfied with the ammount of capital investment into the parks, I do wish you'd give recognition to what has been built recently and not try and pass E:E off as a once and done project.

What have we gotten in the last couple years ? Soarin' , M:S, Motor Stunt show, major refurb of IASM, Wishes, Nut Crushers at TL, Pooh's play area, Philharmagic.LS is under rehab now. I'm sure I'm leaving a few things out (Stitches Crappy Escape was intentional ).

Is there still more work to be done ? Sure. But Disney has been investing some major money into the parks.

Actually, I could be satisfied with capital expenditure. I'm not so pie in the sky that I expect no profits to be made.

Having said that, do you really want me to break down those expenditures? Seriously?
Because from what I see, Wishes and Philharmagic are the only two that you would get 0 disagreement on. Soarin (mouths: over California) is an awesome ride, too bad it's just a clone. The play area is junk. The Living seas needed a rehab 10 years ago, IASW shouldn't even be included, it should be expected to be rehabed, not something to rejoice about.

And none of this besides E:E and Mission Space are "Major" bucks and mission space had it's budget slashed and makes people spill their protien an excessive amount.

 

[Aintdisablast]

Soarin' maybe a clone, but it still is a great attraction. It's also an additional E ride, not just a replacement for one. Also, there is already talk of a new film coming.

M:S was rumored to have had its budget slashed, but last I heard it still came in around $150-200 mill. Hardly chunp change. Wether or not it was theright choice of ride is another debate, but we're only talking about money here, not tradition.

IASM got a how lot more then a simple,scheduled rehab. It was overhauled.

Pooh's area, I agree it's nothing to get excited about - although, for what it is, it was very well done - but, it was money spent on a dead area.

LS has needed rehab for 10 years. And now they are spending money, which is what matters. It's also encouraging that they are spending money on a still unsponsored attraction.

Lights,Motors,Action was a major expenditure. It's also a high cost attraction to operate. It's also a major additional attraction that only replace a block of aging prop houses. L,M,A also had a very positive affect on the Back Lot Tour. Try and hit he Tour during one of the LMA shows, you'll see what I mean.

The monies may not have all been spent on attractions that meet or definition of Disney, but it's still encouraging that they are being spent.

 

[peter11435]

First off, I post Lucidly? The heck you say!!!
Sorry to be so...Cras, I'm used to having to repeat myself or at least make sure everyone's read every post which isn't typical around here for some reason. Sometimes myself included. It's a hazard when you have threads as long as these.





Actually, I could be satisfied with capital expenditure. I'm not so pie in the sky that I expect no profits to be made.

Having said that, do you really want me to break down those expenditures? Seriously?
Because from what I see, Wishes and Philharmagic are the only two that you would get 0 disagreement on. Soarin (mouths: over California) is an awesome ride, too bad it's just a clone. The play area is junk. The Living seas needed a rehab 10 years ago, IASW shouldn't even be included, it should be expected to be rehabed, not something to rejoice about.

And none of this besides E:E and Mission Space are "Major" bucks and mission space had it's budget slashed and makes people spill their protien an excessive amount.

Just because you don't like a new attraction does not mean it did not cost money. Even after having its budget slashed M:S was still the most expensive attraction ever built. Just because Soarin was a clone doesn't mean it didn't cost money either. Regardless of what you claim it seems as though you can't be satisfied.

 

[YoHo]

I would be satisfied if Disney spent it's money in a way and with a purpose similar in intent and practice to that which made them great. I would even be satisfied (in terms of money spent) if it was the smallest least expensive attraction in the park. if they did it the Disney way, I would be extatic.

 

[Another Voice]

M:S was rumored to have had its budget slashed, but last I heard it still came in around $150-200 mill.

To put that in perspective, that’s about what Disney spent on last summer’s box office flop King Arthur.

While it’s fun to boast about all the money being spent, you have to remember that the four cloned attractions cost far less than the studios and ABC spend on “new” stuff in a month. The entire Winnie the Pooh play area cost millions less than they spent on the premiere party for Pearl Harbor.

So be careful when you talk about the “huge” amounts of money being gifted to you at the parks. Step back and look at Disney overall. You’ll see they’re tossing pennies.

 

[peter11435]

To put that in perspective, that’s about what Disney spent on last summer’s box office flop King Arthur.

While it’s fun to boast about all the money being spent, you have to remember that the four cloned attractions cost far less than the studios and ABC spend on “new” stuff in a month. The entire Winnie the Pooh play area cost millions less than they spent on the premiere party for Pearl Harbor.

So be careful when you talk about the “huge” amounts of money being gifted to you at the parks. Step back and look at Disney overall. You’ll see they’re tossing pennies.

The difference is that there is far more return on investment with a successful film than a successful attraction.

 

[Aintdisablast]

To put that in perspective, that?s about what Disney spent on last summer?s box office flop King Arthur.

While it?s fun to boast about all the money being spent, you have to remember that the four cloned attractions cost far less than the studios and ABC spend on ?new? stuff in a month. The entire Winnie the Pooh play area cost millions less than they spent on the premiere party for Pearl Harbor.

So be careful when you talk about the ?huge? amounts of money being gifted to you at the parks. Step back and look at Disney overall. You?ll see they?re tossing pennies.

Fair enough. But todays pennies are better the yesterdays empty promises and may lead to tomorrows dimes.

 

[Another Voice]

The difference is that there is far more return on investment with a successful film than a successful attraction.

Not really, the 'Haunted Mansion' at Disneyland has been attracting long lines for over thirty-five years now. The Haunted Mansion movie couldn't build a line its opening weekend. And King Arthur lost millions of dollars.

But done well, a good movie will earn revenue for just as long as a good theme park ride - Disney used to do that with animation. But judging from Disney's upcoming slate of movies, is dropping $100 million to make and promote a Tim Allen remake of The Shaggy DA really a wiser investment than Beastly Kingdom?

It all comes down to where Disney will spend the money. Right now they're more interested in fashionable high stakes gamble like 'I Am Hot, Competition 2' than fixing California Adventure (despite the huge losses they're taking there).

Parkgoers are a source of capital to be used by other areas of the company, but don't expect to get a lot. They figure you'll continue to go to WDW no matter what.

 

[peter11435]

Not really, the 'Haunted Mansion' at Disneyland has been attracting long lines for over thirty-five years now. The Haunted Mansion movie couldn't build a line its opening weekend. And King Arthur lost millions of dollars.

I specifically said "successful" movie. Why would you then use the Haunted Mansion and King Arthur as examples.

 

[YoHo]

I specifically said "successful" movie. Why would you then use the Haunted Mansion and King Arthur as examples.

but then he did answer your question directly here

But done well, a good movie will earn revenue for just as long as a good theme park ride - Disney used to do that with animation.

IE, theme park rides are less speculative IE, your assertion is wrong.

 

[peter11435]

your assertion is wrong.

I disagree. Pirates of the Caribbean made over $650 million world wide. Thats not even including DVD and video sales. Granted not all of that money went to Disney, but a very large amount did. Show me where any single big budget attraction has generated revenue anywhere near that. Lets also not forget that Disney is currently spending a ton of money to build E:E. A ride that would probably generate just as much revenue for Disney if it were simply a $15 million bare bones coaster like the Hulk at IOA.

 

[Aintdisablast]

I disagree. Pirates of the Caribbean made over $650 million world wide. Thats not even including DVD and video sales. Granted not all of that money went to Disney, but a very large amount did. Show me where any single big budget attraction has generated revenue anywhere near that. Lets also not forget that Disney is currently spending a ton of money to build E:E. A ride that would probably generate just as much revenue for Disney if it were simply a $15 million bare bones coaster like the Hulk at IOA.

Your request is nearly impossible to prove, but if we could revisit this thread in a year or so you may have your answer. E:E is a ToT type attraction. It will be what AK is known for. If a year or two after it opens the turnstiles have spun a couple million extra time, then it will prove what a truely Disney type ride can produce.

A 15 mill bare bones Hulk ride will NEVER have the same affect as E:E. NEVER !!

 

[raidermatt]

Regardless of what you claim it seems as though you can't be satisfied.

Well, if we are going to be honest, its seems as though you cannot be dissatisfied.

I disagree. Pirates of the Caribbean made over $650 million world wide. Thats not even including DVD and video sales. Granted not all of that money went to Disney, but a very large amount did.

Its interesting that you pick that movie, which was based on an attraction that has been bringing people, and their wallets, into theme parks for 30-40 years.

Nobody is knocking the potential profitability of a successful movie. But its absurd to make the assertion that a successful theme park attraction cannot do the same.

Do you REALLY think that attractions like Pirates, Mansion, Spaceship Earth, Small World, Space Mountain, The Matterhorn, etc, have not contributed those same kinds of funds to Disney's coffers over the years? Through theme park admission and merhandise?

The problem is that its much more difficult to figure that benefit because you can't do standalone accounting for each attraction like you can a film. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The very fact that parks like DL and MK can draw the kinds of people they do without adding new attractions proves the value that park investment can have.

Lets also not forget that Disney is currently spending a ton of money to build E:E. A ride that would probably generate just as much revenue for Disney if it were simply a $15 million bare bones coaster like the Hulk at IOA.

Now come on. Even the company doesn't believe that. If they did, they wouldn't be building it.

Really, look at Space Mountain. Are you suggesting it would have generated the same amount of revenue over the years if it were built as a bare bones outdoor coaster? Same with the Matterhorn, Big Thunder? Even Splash Mountain?

 

[Maistre Gracey]

My New Year's prediction:
By the time this thread falls to page 2, the fee will be raised to $10.

MG

 

[peter11435]

Now come on. Even the company doesn't believe that. If they did, they wouldn't be building it.

Really, look at Space Mountain. Are you suggesting it would have generated the same amount of revenue over the years if it were built as a bare bones outdoor coaster? Same with the Matterhorn, Big Thunder? Even Splash Mountain?

No. But if the company really only cared about making a pofit they wouldn't invest the amount of money they do in new attractions.

 

[YoHo]

I disagree. Pirates of the Caribbean made over $650 million world wide. Thats not even including DVD and video sales. Granted not all of that money went to Disney, but a very large amount did. Show me where any single big budget attraction has generated revenue anywhere near that. Lets also not forget that Disney is currently spending a ton of money to build E:E. A ride that would probably generate just as much revenue for Disney if it were simply a $15 million bare bones coaster like the Hulk at IOA.

Pirates of the Caribbean is almost 40 years old.

When WDW:MK opened it's gates, the biggest question was: "Where's the pirate ride." It was so bad that Disney scrapped plans for the western river expidition and put in a pirates clone to keep people happy. Do you really honestly think that Pirates hasn't contributed to the BILLIONS! let me say that again, BILLIONS that the theme parks have made in the past 50 years?

 

[raidermatt]

My New Year's prediction:
By the time this thread falls to page 2, the fee will be raised to $10.

That's the equivalent of predicting the Earth will be round and YoHo and All Aboard will drink rum.

 

[raidermatt]

No. But if the company really only cared about making a pofit they wouldn't invest the amount of money they do in new attractions.

Oh my.

What is the reason you believe they invest what they do in new attractions?